Sweden defeats Russia in Great Northern War

It depends really on what 'defeats' means. Sweden probably could not win a long, extended war with Russia; that's a feat that's literally been done only by one people in all of history; that said, I think Sweden could force Russia to conclude a favorable peace. Some of the biggest winners might not be Sweden, whose object was really survival as a Great Power, but her allies, Poland-Lithunia and the Ottoman Empire, who sought to gain from Russia. I think Sweden would simply want to weaken Russia, in order to improve her own position; it is worth remembering that Sweden has an inherently weak position, owing to her simple relative lack of natural resources and people relative to other powers.

I am thinking, however, now, that Sweden could seize favorable concessions against Denmark-Norway, probably in the Skagerrak and Kattegat region.
 
Other than needing to move this to the right Forum..


How much of a gain could Sweden get out of Russia and how long do you think they might have held onto those gains?:confused:
 
It depends really on what 'defeats' means. Sweden probably could not win a long, extended war with Russia; that's a feat that's literally been done only by one people in all of history; that said, I think Sweden could force Russia to conclude a favorable peace. Some of the biggest winners might not be Sweden, whose object was really survival as a Great Power, but her allies, Poland-Lithunia and the Ottoman Empire, who sought to gain from Russia. I think Sweden would simply want to weaken Russia, in order to improve her own position; it is worth remembering that Sweden has an inherently weak position, owing to her simple relative lack of natural resources and people relative to other powers.

I am thinking, however, now, that Sweden could seize favorable concessions against Denmark-Norway, probably in the Skagerrak and Kattegat region.

They keep the area of what would be st Petersburg and a little land. They also beat up Denmark.
 
They keep the area of what would be st Petersburg and a little land. They also beat up Denmark.

That's Ingria. For that, they just need to not lose; which I don't think is impossible. If they defeated Denmark, I doubt annexation would be in the cards, but territorial concessions in Norway, and perhaps Denmark proper may occur.
 
Have Peter the Great killed or captured at Narva (he left the siege only shortly before Charles XII showed up with his army and utterly destroyed the Russian army) in 1700. With Peter out of the picture and the Swedish army victorious you can probably get Russia to conclude a peace deal that let's Sweden keep all its eastern possessions, including what eventually became St. Petersburg. Then Sweden just has to deal with Poland and Saxony, and we know the Swedish army can handle that.

A plausible victory is that Charles XII gets his candidate on the Polish throne and gets some large indemnities. Russia becomes too preoccupied with internal matters after Peter's death to go after Sweden again soon, and without Russia, Denmark and Saxony won't attack again. Sweden loses no territory, gets an ally in Stanislaw I of Poland-Lithuania and comes out of the war as the preeminent power in Northern Europe.
 
Have Peter the Great killed or captured at Narva (he left the siege only shortly before Charles XII showed up with his army and utterly destroyed the Russian army) in 1700. With Peter out of the picture and the Swedish army victorious you can probably get Russia to conclude a peace deal that let's Sweden keep all its eastern possessions, including what eventually became St. Petersburg. Then Sweden just has to deal with Poland and Saxony, and we know the Swedish army can handle that.

A plausible victory is that Charles XII gets his candidate on the Polish throne and gets some large indemnities. Russia becomes too preoccupied with internal matters after Peter's death to go after Sweden again soon, and without Russia, Denmark and Saxony won't attack again. Sweden loses no territory, gets an ally in Stanislaw I of Poland-Lithuania and comes out of the war as the preeminent power in Northern Europe.

I like this. What would the Europe look like in the long run?
 
IMHO a victory for Sweden is to force Russia to accept a peace that leaves Swedens eastern territories intact, so perhaps if Peter is killed the succesor accepts a status qou antebellum
 
IMHO a victory for Sweden is to force Russia to accept a peace that leaves Swedens eastern territories intact, so perhaps if Peter is killed the succesor accepts a status qou antebellum

Sounds plausible to me. Who do you think would be Peter's sucesssor be if he dies in battle? Do you think a civil war might come of it?
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Peter's successor, assuming he dies in Narva, would be his 10-year old son Alexei (as Alexei II) of course this means regency council. So Civil War...depends on the attitudes of the matter.
 
Here without the death of Peter can not do. After the defeat at Narva he was willing to give the Swedes anything, even Pskov, but not St. Petersburg. Then he was ready to fight to the death.
 
If Peter is killed in 1700, then Alexei II will become Tsar. No doubt Peter's divorce from Eudoxia Lopukhina will be overturned, as will many of his reforms. With Peter's sister Sophia still alive, the Regency could end up in her hands, or a Council of the Tsars mother, a few powerful Boyars, a new Patriarch and Sophia. I think that the majority of the reforms would be scaled back or stopped entirely, with Russia remaining a backwords power for at least a few more decades.
 
Sweden invaded Russia in 1708, but fails. what would happen if Sweden defeated Russia.
The POD seems to be in 1708, so if the Swedes had handled things better, and defeated the Russians in a decisive battle at Lesnaja or nearby, let us say by having a hidden corps from the main army around that was able to take advantage of the Russian attack on the Swedish Livonian army, then things would look better, but unless the Czar is killed here, he will return with a new and better army next year, and the Swedes seem not to have a clear goal or a strategy other than defeating their enemies. King Charles XII is very irritating in this regard.

With someone else as a ruler, one could expect a reasonable peace after a period of fighting, but not with him, and we do not know what result he wanted to get, except perhaps for deposing the current Czar. He was not interested in acquiring more territories, but he could depose rulers, although there might have been some limit for him to deposing them from their inherited lands. He did install new rulers in some places, so the Ukraine might have become an independent Swedish puppet state, for example, and maybe Novgorod is recreated as well.

In 1708 and later, the Russian army had modernised and learned to fight against the Swedes, so victory is not that easy anymore. The battle of Holowczyn was won due to the Swedes tactically tricking the Russians who had some communication problems, while Poltava was the other way around.
 
In principle, Carl could finish Peter after the battle of Narva, but he is too contemptuous attitude to Russia and decided to do at the beginning of the Polish-Saxon enemy.
 
Top