Sweden: WI Charles XII had made peace after Narva?

Just thought I'd pose the question here: After the Battle of Narva, Charles XII had beaten the Russians so badly that Peter the Great made overtures of peace, which Charles declined. Ultimately, his continuing the war against Russia led to Sweden's long-term defeat and ended the Swedish Empire as a major power.

Question is: what if he'd accepted Peter the Great's overtures, and agreed to a peace deal? Could this have allowed the Swedish Empire to last longer as a major power, or would there just have been another war (or wars) a few years down the line?
 
My understanding of Peter the Great indicates he would have just used any peace to rearm and find some other reason to go to war with Sweden. Bottom line is he wanted a port that wasn't frozen for months out of the year, so either he had to get it from Sweden or the Ottoman Empire. His Ottoman campaign couldn't really succeed due to Ottoman control of the Dardanelles, so Sweden/the Baltic was the only realistic option.

The only way Charles could have had lasting peace with Russia would have been if Peter was KIA at Narva, or he was captured and conservative elements in Moscow placed his son on the throne. Given how chaotic Narva was, both of those options were distinct possibilities.
 
In OTL Charles thought about getting involved in the War of Spanish Succession if Russia isn't any issue I could see him entering the conflict. Sweden would ally with France and attack Austria. Any opinions on how that would go? Could Sweden tip the war in France's favor?
 
I don't know enough about it, but my guess is Sweden would not be able to field sufficient forces to make a decisive difference. It would need a remarkable leader like Gustavus Adolphus to have a big impact. Charles XII was a reasonably good military commander, but wasn't on the same level.
 
I don't know enough about it, but my guess is Sweden would not be able to field sufficient forces to make a decisive difference. It would need a remarkable leader like Gustavus Adolphus to have a big impact. Charles XII was a reasonably good military commander, but wasn't on the same level.

In 1700 Narva Sweden fields around 12,000 men total but by 1707 Charles is commanding a force of over 40,000 in Saxony. If Sweden entered too soon I could see him getting into trouble. So I think Sweden will need a few years but if given the time could recruit a pretty big army. In OTL war of Spanish Succession ends in 1714 so perhaps he could wait a bit before plunging in?

After reading Voltaire's epic on him, I actually think Charles XII is a much better commander then Gustavus Adolphus. Charles battles of Holowczyn, Kliszow and particularly Grodno were masterful. Then again the Swedish army was a really effective force whoever was in command, look at Battle of Fraustadt for evidence of this.
 
In 1700 Narva Sweden fields around 12,000 men total but by 1707 Charles is commanding a force of over 40,000 in Saxony. If Sweden entered too soon I could see him getting into trouble. So I think Sweden will need a few years but if given the time could recruit a pretty big army. In OTL war of Spanish Succession ends in 1714 so perhaps he could wait a bit before plunging in?

After reading Voltaire's epic on him, I actually think Charles XII is a much better commander then Gustavus Adolphus. Charles battles of Holowczyn, Kliszow and particularly Grodno were masterful. Then again the Swedish army was a really effective force whoever was in command, look at Battle of Fraustadt for evidence of this.
You're probably right. It's been too long since I read anything about it. My main source of info is, somewhat ironically, Robert Massie's biography of Peter the Great.

I got the impression that Charles was something of an impetuous hothead (at least regarding Russia). He very easily could have had a Poltava at Narva, if the Russian army had been more capable.

Charles' problem was he couldn't really win as long as Russia was continually supporting his enemies. He won victory after victory in Saxony and Poland, but never won strategic victory because he never really dug out the root of the conflict, which was Peter's desire for a warm (relatively) water port to allow more efficient trade with the West.
 
You're probably right. It's been too long since I read anything about it. My main source of info is, somewhat ironically, Robert Massie's biography of Peter the Great.

I got the impression that Charles was something of an impetuous hothead (at least regarding Russia). He very easily could have had a Poltava at Narva, if the Russian army had been more capable.

Charles' problem was he couldn't really win as long as Russia was continually supporting his enemies. He won victory after victory in Saxony and Poland, but never won strategic victory because he never really dug out the root of the conflict, which was Peter's desire for a warm (relatively) water port to allow more efficient trade with the West.

I agree he was a bit of a hothead. During his early campaigns, particularly in Denmark and also at Narva, he was crazy and inexperienced at war. This is probably due to the fact that he was only a teenager. I think he is at his best and brillant during the middle period 1706-8 later he seems overconfident and sloppy.

I've also heard the argument made that Charles worst strategic error was the campaigns in Poland and Saxony. Peter the Great's army in the early 1700s was unmodern and inexperienced. If Charles had of invaded Russia in the years following Narva he might have achieve victory before Peter got his act together. Though I do think even as late as Poltava the war is still winnable. Had Charles won that battle Peter and most of his army would have likely been killed or captured due to the unfavorable terrain behind is army.
 
The Swedish war plan was to force a decisive victory against them Saxons at Düna forcing them out of the war like Denmark and then move back against Russia. Accordingly to Henrik Lunde Charles wanted to change thing in the Baltics making a more lasting peace, in Swedens favor.

Personally I think the more interesting pod if the temporary at Düna broke, forcing a battle between the swedes and Saxon before the saxons retreated into Polish territory.

--

One of the reasons for the long polish campaign was that the English/Dutch wasn't going to be happy with a Swedish army running around in Germany. If Charles had been able to enter Saxony earlier, let's say 1703-1705, forcing Augustus off the polish throne, Russia wouldn't have been able to stop him.

--

The Caroleans were a force meant to defend Sweden not going around Europe, A.K.A. Poltava. A defensive force that used offensive tactics.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reactions, guys!

@hasdrubal barca Regarding post-Narva and the possibility of Swedish victory if they'd gone into Russia right away, I read that too. Then again, the question becomes: could such a victory be sustained? If History teaches us anything, it seems to be Do Not Invade Russia. OTOH, if as @The Machine suggests, post a major defeat conservative elements turn against Peter owing to him being captured, or he gets KIA... permanent occupation wouldn't be needed, a more lasting treaty could be agreed. Maybe.

@TheHandsomeBrute That's an interesting POD. And food for thought :)
 
The Swedish war plan was to force a decisive victory against them Saxons at Düna forcing them out of the war like Denmark and then move back against Russia. Accordingly to Henrik Lunde Charles wanted to change thing in the Baltics making a more lasting peace, in Swedens favor.

Personally I think the more interesting pod if the temporary at Düna broke, forcing a battle between the swedes and Saxon before the saxons retreated into Polish territory.

--

One of the reasons for the long polish campaign was that the English/Dutch wasn't going to be happy with a Swedish army running around in Germany. If Charles had been able to enter Saxony earlier, let's say 1703-1705, forcing Augustus off the polish throne, Russia wouldn't have been able to stop him.

--

The Caroleans were a force meant to defend Sweden not going around Europe, A.K.A. Poltava. A defensive force that used offensive tactics.
That's interesting. I only knew the very broad strokes of the Great Northern War, not the details.

I have a biography of Charles XII laying around here somewhere. Note to self, read that instead of watching more cat videos on youtube. Or maybe while watching more cat videos on youtube. Yes, yes, excellent.
 
Thanks for the reactions, guys!

@hasdrubal barca Regarding post-Narva and the possibility of Swedish victory if they'd gone into Russia right away, I read that too. Then again, the question becomes: could such a victory be sustained? If History teaches us anything, it seems to be Do Not Invade Russia. OTOH, if as @The Machine suggests, post a major defeat conservative elements turn against Peter owing to him being captured, or he gets KIA... permanent occupation wouldn't be needed, a more lasting treaty could be agreed. Maybe.

Peter had to drag the Russian nobility, Orthodox Church, and people kicking and screaming into the 17th/18th century. His son, before he was disinherited, tended to be like his mother, which is conservative (in the traditional sense, not the present political one). Remove Peter before his great victories later in the war, and I think there is at least an even chance his reforms to date go away and Russian military fortunes wane as a result.
 
Regarding post-Narva and the possibility of Swedish victory if they'd gone into Russia right away, I read that too. Then again, the question becomes
Could such a victory be sustained? If History teaches us anything, it seems to be Do Not Invade Russia.

@TheHandsomeBrute That's an interesting POD. And food for thought :)

Swedens number one goal, 1700-1702, was keeping to war outside of the Swedish Baltic provinces, which where still recovering from the massive famine ~1698ish (don't remember the exact date right off my head). The post Narva goal was, as I tried to communicate before, a similar victory against the Saxons and only then invade Russia. This was not achieved because the inablilty to get the cavalry over the Düna quickly, if they had been Augustus would have been force to face the Charles and most would have most likely lost.

I have seen a lot of threads and comments saying that Charles didn't understand that the Polish and Lithuanian nobles were neutral but as I understand it he did. It was just that he thought the diplomac root took too much time and believed he could either scare them into dethroning Augustus or dealing Augustus a quick decisive defeat forcing the noble too dethrone him.

--

If Sweden had finished the Saxon army in 1701 by the Düna river, Augustus would have been forced to sue for peace. He had no real army in the field at that point (I could be worng on that, he could have left some troops in Saxony). And once Saxony was out of the war there is only one enemy left, the Russians. The Russians who at that point would have nothing to through at you, they might be able to conduct scorched earth but Charles is closer to friendly terrioty and can much easier he resupied and reinforced.

If I where him, and had just forced Augustus out of the war, I would march on Novgorod, if it is burnt and destroyed rebuild it, crown a local noble "Prince of Novgorod" making a new smaller, easier controllable Russian state. I would march on Moscow, either the same year or next spring depending on the time of year, and burn/loot/destroy everything inside it.

If Charles is able to finish the Great Northern War before the conclusion of the Spanish War of Succesions he has to enter. One of the reasons for the British and Dutch help with landing on Sjaelland was the promise to enter on there side the upcoming war when his was finished with his.

--

If you want to read about Swedish Military Campaigns during the Great Northern War check out Warrior Dynasty. Half of the book is about Gustav II adolf campaign in Poland and Germany, the second half is about Karl XII campaign in the Great Northern War.
 
My understanding of Peter the Great indicates he would have just used any peace to rearm and find some other reason to go to war with Sweden.
You see, by that time the Russians treated their international agreements, peaces quite seriously. The history of their peaces with Poland proves that - sometimes the Russians waited and started another war exactly on the date when their previous peace ended. So for them the peace was not a worthless piece of paper to cheat your opponent. Probably the Russians thought that as they swore by God to keep the peace, so breaking the peace was like cheating the God, which was never a good idea. Whatever the reasons were, you could rely on the peace with Russia as you rely on peace with any other European power, no less. And no more, of course.

So yes, for Charles XII it was a lost opportunity. He might have moved his army closer to Moscow, scare the shit out of Peter I (even more than he did in OTL) and get the most favorable peace terms out of him.
But that's power of hindsight of course...
 
Thanks for the reactions, guys!

@hasdrubal barca If History teaches us anything, it seems to be Do Not Invade Russia. OTOH, if as @The Machine suggests, post a major defeat conservative elements turn against Peter owing to him being captured, or he gets KIA... permanent occupation wouldn't be needed, a more lasting treaty could be agreed. Maybe.

So yes, for Charles XII it was a lost opportunity. He might have moved his army closer to Moscow, scare the shit out of Peter I (even more than he did in OTL) and get the most favorable peace terms out of him.
But that's power of hindsight of course...

I was trying to think of comparisons Napoleon and Hitler seem too far off. How about the Polish example? Maybe something similar to the below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Muscovite_War_(1605–18)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Klushino
 
You see, by that time the Russians treated their international agreements, peaces quite seriously. The history of their peaces with Poland proves that - sometimes the Russians waited and started another war exactly on the date when their previous peace ended. So for them the peace was not a worthless piece of paper to cheat your opponent. Probably the Russians thought that as they swore by God to keep the peace, so breaking the peace was like cheating the God, which was never a good idea. Whatever the reasons were, you could rely on the peace with Russia as you rely on peace with any other European power, no less. And no more, of course.

So yes, for Charles XII it was a lost opportunity. He might have moved his army closer to Moscow, scare the shit out of Peter I (even more than he did in OTL) and get the most favorable peace terms out of him.
But that's power of hindsight of course...
I figured because his casus belli was some bs about not being treated properly when visiting Riga at the beginning of his grand tour, that he would not respect peace treaties either. I stand corrected. Either way, though, the best outcome for Charles and Sweden is Peter dies at Narva.
 
This is an excellent thread and GNW and Narva (1700), and Poltava, deserve a timeline and exploration.

When you think about the long term effects to the role Russia and Sweden had on the international stage based on Poltava, it really is one of those decisive battles that pivots history that a lot of people do not know about outside Ukraine, Russia and Sweden and military historians.

But taking a step back, Narva offers intriguing possibilities. Even if Peter the Great was not killed, captured or personally in command of the forces at the time of the disaster, the humiliation of Narva followed up by a peace or another cutting action from Charles would have changed the game.

The problem was that Charles by the sheer scale of his victory completely underestimated the Russians, and given the performance of the Russian troops at Narva, it is totally understandable. He felt Saxony and Poland were much more vital and time-sensitive topics in the wake of Narva than the thrashed Russians.

Oh and to echo others, Holowczyn is a masterpiece. Charles was a brilliant military leader. But he spent nine years teaching Russians how to fight him by fighting them and they were able to evolve (or devolve, depending on your view) their tactics to fight the Swedes. Peter the Great learned from his mistakes. There were still opportunities in the Poltava campaign (Lesnaya could have been avoided if not for Charles decided to get restless), Narva clearly showed the best chance for Charles to tame the Russians.
 
Then again, the question becomes: could such a victory be sustained? If History teaches us anything, it seems to be Do Not Invade Russia. OTOH, if as @The Machine suggests, post a major defeat conservative elements turn against Peter owing to him being captured, or he gets KIA... permanent occupation wouldn't be needed, a more lasting treaty could be agreed. Maybe.

Actually, Charles pretty much started that trend of it not being advisable - Napoleon and Hitler followed suit. I think he might well have gotten a good peace treaty after Narva, had he persisted with the attack - or even better if Peter had been killed in the battle. But in the longer term it's hard to see that Sweden could remain pre-eminent in the Estern Baltic against Russia. Sweden was a very efficient military state but with very limited resources and small population - I would think that Russia was bound to rise into great power status and eclipse Sweden.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Charles pretty much started that trend of it not being advisable - Napoleon and Hitler followed suit. I think he might well have gotten a good peace treaty after Narva, had he persisted with the attack - or even better if Peter had been killed in the battle. But in the longer term it's hard to see that Sweden could remain pre-eminent in the Estern Baltic against Russia. Sweden was a very efficient military state but with very limited resources and small population - I would think that Russia was bound to rise into great power status and eclipse Sweden.
Yeah, Charles was the trope namer when it came to Invading Russia from the West is a Bad Idea. More high-larious is Napoleon studying his campaign so as to not repeat his mistakes, only to make worse ones.

But, I think, Sweden could have hung on as a Baltic power for a while without exhausting itself. And it wasn't always in the cards for the Russians to get their act together. We tend to take Russia's resources and overall potential as being guarantees it will amount to something. But that's the geopolitical equivalent to assuming a 7'5" athletic fella must be great at basketball. Russian leadership, historically, is fill to the brim of guys who can't dunk, are terrible at shooting threes, miss free throws 90% of the time, get fouled early in the game and argue with the refs.

Even in 1707 Peter wanted peace with Charles, if only St Petersburg was allowed to live as Russian
Yeah, but I think at that point it would have just been a delaying action - a temporary peace to allow Peter to draw even more resources or to settle things in the South. And given the personalities of the men involved (Charles and Peter), I doubt one would trust the other to keep peace.
 
Top