Sweden retains Livonia and Ingria - would it participate in the Partitions of Poland?

Sweden choosing to remove a counterbalance to Russia is flat out stupid. Sweden never did this in OTL, nor would it in ATL. In OTL Russia defeated and neutered Sweden first, took Sweden's Baltic possessions and then turned on the PLC.

If Sweden retains Livonia in ATL it is not handing Baltic hegemony to another state. It is using the PLC to help keep Russia and Prussia at bay. That makes strategic sense. It was the whole point behind Poland's Swedish dynasty, and is what brought the PLC to its greatest extent, in the 1620s. It only failed due to very stupid Vasa family rivalry, using religious differences as a pretext.
You miss read what I said any Polish state that allows someone else to have Baltic hegemony is stupid.
From a polish perspective It would be basically the same effect as handing someone else control of the mouth of the vistula.
 
You miss read what I said any Polish state that allows someone else to have Baltic hegemony is stupid.
From a polish perspective It would be basically the same effect as handing someone else control of the mouth of the vistula.

Right, I misread it, and I still don't understand it:

"The Swedish empire seeks to control the Baltic any polish state with any kind of strength is flat out stupid if it hands Baltic hegemony to another state, a strong Poland is a Swedish rival not ally, they have conflicting key Intrests in the Baltic."

I don't understand the point you're making here.

To recap OTL, the PLC's "freedoms" meant that its richest never paid any tax and kept private armies. The system had worked perfectly well and even saw the PLC installing its Tsar in Moscow, the only country in history ever to do so. Then in 1648 the PLC's Swedish king threw it all away and the country got looted by the Swedes and Russians. The loss of wealth left the PLC exposed to foreign money. So by the start of the GNW the PLC was not a fully sovereign state, it was a Saxon/Russian condominium, with its senate stuffed with paid up agents of both countries who faced a few political competitors paid up by France and Austria. This changed when the Swedes came in during the GNW and they put their own people back in. Simply put, in the 18th century the PLC simply doesn't have the autonomy to take steps of its own, whether stupid or wise.
 
Last edited:
Right, I misread it, and I still don't understand it:

"The Swedish empire seeks to control the Baltic any polish state with any kind of strength is flat out stupid if it hands Baltic hegemony to another state, a strong Poland is a Swedish rival not ally, they have conflicting key Intrests in the Baltic."

I don't understand the point you're making here.

To recap OTL, the PLC's "freedoms" meant that its richest never paid any tax and kept private armies. The system had worked perfectly well and even saw the PLC installing its Tsar in Moscow, the only country in history ever to do so. Then in 1648 the PLC's Swedish king threw it all away and the country got looted by the Swedes and Russians. The loss of wealth left the PLC exposed to foreign money. So by the start of the GNW the PLC was not a fully sovereign state, it was a Saxon/Russian condominium, with its senate stuffed with paid up agents of both countries who faced a few political competitors paid up by France and Austria. This changed when the Swedes came in during the GNW and they put their own people back in. Simply put, in the 18th century the PLC simply doesn't have the autonomy to take steps of its own, whether stupid or wise.
You are saying that Sweden would help the Polish bring in reforms, doing this would lead to the PLC becoming strong enough to function on it own, it would then immediately have conflicting Intrests with Sweden in the Baltic.
Sweden can either have a stronger PLC or it can have a puppet, it can't have both.
That is my point.
 
You are saying that Sweden would help the Polish bring in reforms, doing this would lead to the PLC becoming strong enough to function on it own, it would then immediately have conflicting Intrests with Sweden in the Baltic.
Sweden can either have a stronger PLC or it can have a puppet, it can't have both.
That is my point.

Thank you for the clarification. To my mind you can have both. The last 72 years of U.S. foreign policy was all about doing both, starting with West Germany. Some will dispute that it was quite a 'puppet', but it was certainly under heavy American influence if not control. Better to have a strong puppet than a weak puppet. Especially when facing down a despotic regime with a whole lotta troops.

So In this ATL I'm seeing Sweden win the GNW, a PLC under heavy Swedish influence increasing the size of its standing army from 7,000 to 100,000 and campaigning against Russia, Prussia and possibly Austria in alliance with Sweden.
 
Last edited:
In long run Sweden lack resources and manpower to keep PLC under their boot, like Russians did. Over time PLC and Sweden would become just allies-they have common interest in stopping Russian western expansion (and dynastic conflict is over without Vasas). If PLC falls, Sweden has no chance standing alone against Russian bear forever.
 
Thank you for the clarification. To my mind you can have both. The last 72 years of U.S. foreign policy was all about doing both, starting with West Germany. Some will dispute that it was quite a 'puppet', but it was certainly under heavy American influence if not control. Better to have a strong puppet than a weak puppet. Especially when facing down a despotic regime with a whole lotta troops.

So In this ATL I'm seeing Sweden win the GNW, a PLC under heavy Swedish influence increasing the size of its standing army from 7,000 to 100,000 and campaigning against Russia, Prussia and possibly Austria in alliance with Sweden.
You can not remotely compare the level of power and influence that sweden could project to post ww2 America, that's just illogical, america is literally the most powerful nation to have ever existed ever.
Sweden could be allied with a reformed plc but it will be a alliance of equals at best.
If Sweden wishes to maintain its dominance it must keep the PLC weak.
 
You can not remotely compare the level of power and influence that sweden could project to post ww2 America, that's just illogical, america is literally the most powerful nation to have ever existed ever.
Sweden could be allied with a reformed plc but it will be a alliance of equals at best.
If Sweden wishes to maintain its dominance it must keep the PLC weak.

I didn't compare like for like. I illustrated the principle of why helping a weaker nation become stronger can work in the stronger country's favor, especially when there is a shared, mortally dangerous enemy.

It's worth considering why in the GNW Sweden chose to put Stanisław I Leszczyński on the PLC throne instead of annexing PLC territory.

As to the tangent "america is literally the most powerful nation to have ever existed ever" there are people who'll disagree with that. It depends on how you measure power. China has a bigger army. Russia has more nukes. Many historical empires had more territory and more trade. But I'm going for Belgium, because it produced 2 Unlimited.
 
Last edited:
I didn't compare like for like. I illustrated the principle of why helping a weaker nation become stronger can work in the stronger country's favor, especially when there is a shared, mortally dangerous enemy.

It's worth considering why in the GNW Sweden chose to put Stanisław I Leszczyński on the PLC throne instead of annexing PLC territory.
It's not a valid comparison because west Germany did not have even the potential to rival the Americans while the PLC has the potential to eclipse Sweden.
 
I agree with JackLumber.
PLC is fundamentally more stronger than Sweden. PLC has far greater population and more arable land and tax base. Sweden wanting strong PLC is same as Germany wants strong Russia or France wants strong united Germany against Austria.

What will do PLC do next, when they stabilizes and builds its strength with weak Russia? Do you think PLC would be happy to see Livonia in Sweden's hand? Why they don't want to have it? What PLC would do after they cripple Russia with Sweden? Wouldn't they turn on Sweden next? After all crippled Russia is not threat to PLC. If Russia is strong enough to threaten PLC then Sweden is already screwed by Russia.
Sweden shouldn't choose between stable PLC and stable Russia. They need weak PLC and crippled Russia.
 
Last edited:
I agree with JackLumber.
PLC is fundamentally more stronger than Sweden. PLC has far greater population and more arable land and tax base. Sweden wanting strong PLC is same as Germany wants strong Russia or France wants strong united Germany against Austria.

What is next of PLC will be after they stabilizes and builds its strength with weak Russia? Do you think PLC would be happy to see Livonia in Sweden's hand? Why they don't want to have it? What PLC would do after they cripple Russia with Sweden? Wouldn't they turn to Sweden next? After all crippled Russia is not threat to PLC's. If Russia is strong enough to threaten PLC then Sweden is already screwed by Russia.
Sweden shouldn't choose between stable PLC and stable Russia. They need weak PLC and crippled Russia.
Or, better, just split PLC up to Poland and Lithuania. Second shot at Union of Kėdainiai anyone?
 
Prussia conquered Swedish Stettin, if there is no Great Northern War or Charles XII is victorious Sweden keeps the city.

Sweden lost the Great Northern war largely by being at war with basically everyone around them and deciding to march across the vast plains of Russia. They had low numbers but still fielded one of the most modern and well-drilled armies out there at the time. If they could concentrate on one enemy at the time, they could have had a chance to win. Perhaps in this timeline for whatever reason there's a diplomatic agreement between Sweden and Prussia which involves ceding at least parts of Swedish Pomerania (would everything south of Peene except Anklam suffice?) in exchange for an alliance against Denmark and a less audacious campaign against the russians?
 
Last edited:

Bytor

Monthly Donor
What if, at the first Battle of Narva in 1700, Charles XII's army either kills Peter the Great because he never left to go back to Moscow, or C12 heeds his generals' and instead of waltzing through Poland-Lithuania and taking out Augustus II after breaking the Anti-Sweden Coalition at Düna, he instead goes to thrash Russia? Essentially the mirror of how C12 did things OTL. Take out PtG, because like C12 he likes to be near the action, PtG's reforms never get implemented and before he starts up Saint Petersburg or marries Marta Skowrońska. Then and only then does C12 turns and goes through Poland to neuter Augustus II, just 2-4 years later.

Russia collapses, the reactionary boyars and priests in charge of the Tsarevitch's regency reverse all of PtG's reforms he did get done and Alexei Petrovich grows up to be an anti-modernization Tsar. Ivan Mazepa, the Cossack Hetman, deserts the Regency because they made the same decisions as PtG did WRT the defense of Russia, just a few years earlier than OTL, but here the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav is repudiated along with a reversion of Andrusovo and the Hetmanate is sovereign but under Polish & Swedish influence. especially if C12 & S2 promise help against the Crimean Khanate, of if C12 gives S2 Smolensk, Tver and other places beyond what the Truce of Andrusovo took in the north in return for not getting all of the old Kiev Voivodeship back in the south.

Also, with respect to the debate between JackLumber and Bobble0000000000, it seems to me that there's a bit of 202/20 happening here. I agree with JackLumber in that Stanislaw II getting to implement his reforms would eventually mean that Poland-Lithuania would no longer be Sweden's puppet and perhaps even surpass Sweden; but I also agree with Bobble0000000000 in that a strong PLC is Sweden's best bet against a returned Russia. C12 did put S2 on the throne and there's no way that C12 is have our knowledge so he's going to make that same decision again and almost certainly he will help S2 make the necessary reforms like removing or neutering the liberum veto. C12 is simply not going to imaging that future conflict which is at least a generation away, probably two maybe even three because the two nations complement each other well and the longer they have good relations the more extreme what ever causes the break would need to be.

So Sweden, Poland, Ruthenian State are an axis across west-central Europe. Saxony is neutered. We know Prussia will be canny as the were OTL but it has no path to cause partition in 1772.

The two big questions are Russia and Austria.

How long does Russia stay neutered and a backwater weak state that is only going to get trounced by any half-way foe like Sweden didn 9 times out of 10 in the GNW in spite of larger Russian armies? We know how Russia historically reacts to a threat by lashing out, but we also know that Russia was never very good at internal rule producing internal cohesion without some sort of autocratic strongman at the helm. Those reactionary boyars leading Alexei Petrovich's regency aren't going to be that, but the question is how long will they squabble, how much power will they devolve to themselves making the "Tsardom of Russia" a country in name only but in reality a set of independent principalities? I think there's a good chance of Russia not reforming for another century.

Austria, well, that depends on who gets the Sweden-Poland-Ruthenia Axis to enter on their side of the War of Spanish Succession. At this point Austria has no Polish territories to worry about getting the wrong ideas like they were worried might come from Congress Poland in the 19th century, but the Habsburgs were expansionists. However, if S2 reorganises the PLC armies along Swedish lines, something he can do fairly quickly compared to his other desired reforms, the Habsburgs would regret any attempts at expansion.
 
Poland has a lot more potential enemies they might have to deal with than Sweden. If there were good relations between the two, Poland does not need to worry about its northern flank when fighting Ottomans or various forms of German. Conflict between strong Poland and strong Sweden is not inevitable.
 
What if, at the first Battle of Narva in 1700, Charles XII's army either kills Peter the Great because he never left to go back to Moscow, or C12 heeds his generals' and instead of waltzing through Poland-Lithuania and taking out Augustus II after breaking the Anti-Sweden Coalition at Düna, he instead goes to thrash Russia? Essentially the mirror of how C12 did things OTL. Take out PtG, because like C12 he likes to be near the action, PtG's reforms never get implemented and before he starts up Saint Petersburg or marries Marta Skowrońska. Then and only then does C12 turns and goes through Poland to neuter Augustus II, just 2-4 years later.

Russia collapses, the reactionary boyars and priests in charge of the Tsarevitch's regency reverse all of PtG's reforms he did get done and Alexei Petrovich grows up to be an anti-modernization Tsar. Ivan Mazepa, the Cossack Hetman, deserts the Regency because they made the same decisions as PtG did WRT the defense of Russia, just a few years earlier than OTL, but here the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav is repudiated along with a reversion of Andrusovo and the Hetmanate is sovereign but under Polish & Swedish influence. especially if C12 & S2 promise help against the Crimean Khanate, of if C12 gives S2 Smolensk, Tver and other places beyond what the Truce of Andrusovo took in the north in return for not getting all of the old Kiev Voivodeship back in the south.

Also, with respect to the debate between JackLumber and Bobble0000000000, it seems to me that there's a bit of 202/20 happening here. I agree with JackLumber in that Stanislaw II getting to implement his reforms would eventually mean that Poland-Lithuania would no longer be Sweden's puppet and perhaps even surpass Sweden; but I also agree with Bobble0000000000 in that a strong PLC is Sweden's best bet against a returned Russia. C12 did put S2 on the throne and there's no way that C12 is have our knowledge so he's going to make that same decision again and almost certainly he will help S2 make the necessary reforms like removing or neutering the liberum veto. C12 is simply not going to imaging that future conflict which is at least a generation away, probably two maybe even three because the two nations complement each other well and the longer they have good relations the more extreme what ever causes the break would need to be.

So Sweden, Poland, Ruthenian State are an axis across west-central Europe. Saxony is neutered. We know Prussia will be canny as the were OTL but it has no path to cause partition in 1772.

The two big questions are Russia and Austria.

How long does Russia stay neutered and a backwater weak state that is only going to get trounced by any half-way foe like Sweden didn 9 times out of 10 in the GNW in spite of larger Russian armies? We know how Russia historically reacts to a threat by lashing out, but we also know that Russia was never very good at internal rule producing internal cohesion without some sort of autocratic strongman at the helm. Those reactionary boyars leading Alexei Petrovich's regency aren't going to be that, but the question is how long will they squabble, how much power will they devolve to themselves making the "Tsardom of Russia" a country in name only but in reality a set of independent principalities? I think there's a good chance of Russia not reforming for another century.

Austria, well, that depends on who gets the Sweden-Poland-Ruthenia Axis to enter on their side of the War of Spanish Succession. At this point Austria has no Polish territories to worry about getting the wrong ideas like they were worried might come from Congress Poland in the 19th century, but the Habsburgs were expansionists. However, if S2 reorganises the PLC armies along Swedish lines, something he can do fairly quickly compared to his other desired reforms, the Habsburgs would regret any attempts at expansion.
Poland Is a good ally for Sweden I agree, I disagree with the idea of Sweden being capable of keeping a reformed plc as a puppet, even just to keep the plc as an ally Sweden is going to have to relinquish its goal of total Baltic hegemony.
That maybe a relatively small price to pay but ultimately Sweden would become the junior partner in such an alliance, not a puppet master.
 
Well, yes. Sweden retaining their status as a regional power would still be a pretty big win for them.

A 'Sweden as global great power up to the modern day' timeline would probably require a POD further back. For example, with Gustavus Adolphus surviving the 30 years war and an alternate treaty of Westphalia splitting the HRE between the northern protestant states and the southern catholic ones, with Gustavus Adolphus getting the emperorship and Sweden gaining a similar control over the northern league as Austria had over the HRE until Prussia became a major power. Even then, it would require Sweden being able to use the German states to bash the rest of Scandinavia into submission and the rest of Scandinavia to put down German rivals, while still retaining enough cohesion to stand against France and the UK as an equal and ensure that Russia remains a landlocked backwards wasteland.
 
Well, yes. Sweden retaining their status as a regional power would still be a pretty big win for them.

A 'Sweden as global great power up to the modern day' timeline would probably require a POD further back. For example, with Gustavus Adolphus surviving the 30 years war and an alternate treaty of Westphalia splitting the HRE between the northern protestant states and the southern catholic ones, with Gustavus Adolphus getting the emperorship and Sweden gaining a similar control over the northern league as Austria had over the HRE until Prussia became a major power. Even then, it would require Sweden being able to use the German states to bash the rest of Scandinavia into submission and the rest of Scandinavia to put down German rivals, while still retaining enough cohesion to stand against France and the UK as an equal and ensure that Russia remains a landlocked backwards wasteland.
Said Sweden will either become german or loose the German states
 
This is quite interesting. Mind if I pick your brains? Or at least borrow from this thread?

I'm doing something called 'Land of Ice and Mice', aka 'Ultimate Thule.'

It's a timeline where as a result of small cultural changes around 717, the proto-inuit of Alaska, known as Thule, end up incorporating certain Dene-Ina cultural practices, which have the effect of preserving and proliferating certain edible plants, notably Sweetvetch, Bistort and a local plant called Claytonia Tuberosa not found generally in the north. The result is a slightly higher population, an earlier 'wave of expansion' across the Arctic, and an Inuit culture which evolves a series of pre-agricultural practices, which tip over into agriculture. The Inuit emerge as an Agricultural society, making extensive use of microclimate engineering, lithic mulch/stone cover agriculture, and evolving a suite of arctic/subarctic root crops which grow in marginal soils, but have a perennial cycle, taking two or three years to mature. Along the way, they domesticate caribou and musk ox.

Maybe not your cup of tea, and perhaps it seems implausible to you. But that's an argument for another time. There's nothing ASB to it. The plants are all real edible plant species, and the extrapolation is that they can be selectively bred into more productive domesticated varieties within three hundred years. I'm fairly conservative actually.

Anyway, about 1500 the Thule culture, or its crops end up in Iceland, and from there make it to the provinces around Trondheim about 1530. Around 1565 the crop package, is introduced into Sweden and Finland. And it starts coming into use in the Kola peninsula. It's a slow growing crop package, as noted, and it's based on a three field rotation system, it obviously takes up more land than southern crop packages, but it tolerates much poorer soils. It's not competitive in the south. But in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic, it's viable.

The result being an accumulating demographic shift in the upper regions of Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Kola peninsula, among other places. It's not an overnight thing. Basically, its an accumulating thing where its introduced. First generation, mild population divergence, mostly due to reduced infant mortality, and more stable food supply. Second generation spreads, and you have a population increase. Third generation you've got significant divergence. Spread is a mixture of accretion and policy. In Norway and Sweden, it ends up being pushed, in different ways, for different motives. Other areas, like Kola, its not pushed, but it spreads on its own. Bottom line, it changes the demographics of the center and north significantly, with larger populations and more value attributed to lands. By fourth generation, significant populations. Also changes to the dynamics of Thule immigrants, Norse, Swedes, Pomors, Sammi, Nenets.

Anyway, so that's where I'm going with this, and I've been poking around the history around the Barents and White sea, the Pomors, Sweden, Russia, Poland-Lithuania, etc. trying to work out butterflies. There's a few things I've settled on. Norway breaks free of Denmark in 1613. The great famine of 1696 in Sweden and Finland is, if not completely butterflied, then substantially blunted. But I note that there's all kinds of wacky crazy hijinx going on in this part of the world between 1530 and say 1750.

Anyway, you guys seem on top of the history in this part of the world.

Can I pick your brains?
 
Top