What if the Swedish Empire accepted Peter's first peace negotiation in which St. Petersburg is ceded to Russia but all other Swedish holdings remain?

[Sarthak]

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. One of those overtures of peace made by Peter demanded the annexation of Fort Neva or St. Petersburg to the Tsardom of Russia with no other territorial changes and monetary compensation for the loss of Neva to the Swedish. Charles XII declined the offer.
What if in other timeline Charles XII set aside his warlust and thought rationally about the offer. It would preserve Sweden as a Great Power and stop future Russian attempts down in the line to gain a Baltic Port. With Monetary compensation he could easily recompense for the loss of Neva. So he accepts. Russia officially leaves the Great Northern War. Poland-Lithuania and Denmark-Norway, now alone, surrender without the help of the mighty Russian bear.
So what will happen in the future like this one in this alternate timeline???

 

[alexmilman]

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. One of those overtures of peace made by Peter demanded the annexation of Fort Neva or St. Petersburg to the Tsardom of Russia with no other territorial changes and monetary compensation for the loss of Neva to the Swedish. Charles XII declined the offer.
What if in other timeline Charles XII set aside his warlust and thought rationally about the offer. It would preserve Sweden as a Great Power and stop future Russian attempts down in the line to gain a Baltic Port. With Monetary compensation he could easily recompense for the loss of Neva. So he accepts. Russia officially leaves the Great Northern War. Poland-Lithuania and Denmark-Norway, now alone, surrender without the help of the mighty Russian bear.
So what will happen in the future like this one in this alternate timeline???

The conditions you mentioned had been proposed by Peter before Poltava and rejected. Ceding the territory without being defeated would be out of a character for Charles. I assume that you are talking not about directly post-Narva situation but couple years later when the Russians occupied the area in question and the key points on the route to the sea (like Noteburg) while Charles was still entertaining himself chasing August.

To be fair, Charles’ position regarding the coast was not as bizarre as it seems. The system was established by GA and it was working: Sweden was getting the custom dues from the Russian exports and imports and existence of the Russian port on the Baltic coast would eliminate this source of income. Of course, it can be argued that to maintain this system Charles had to pay more attention to the region which he left practically undefended for years to come.

So, in a very unlikely case that he agrees to the peace in 1702 giving Peter Ingria and receiving a monetary compensation (in OTL Sweden got 2,000,000 silver thalers by the Peace of Nystad) than he has only Saxony left to fight with (the PLC is still formally at peace, IIRC and Denmark was kicked out of war).

For how long would Sweden maintain its status of the Great Power is a question to which the answer is not clear: it was stepping on too many toes, it’s resources were limited and superior quality of its troops would not last forever.

 

[Sarthak]

The conditions you mentioned had been proposed by Peter before Poltava and rejected. Ceding the territory without being defeated would be out of a character for Charles. I assume that you are talking not about directly post-Narva situation but couple years later when the Russians occupied the area in question and the key points on the route to the sea (like Noteburg) while Charles was still entertaining himself chasing August.

To be fair, Charles’ position regarding the coast was not as bizarre as it seems. The system was established by GA and it was working: Sweden was getting the custom dues from the Russian exports and imports and existence of the Russian port on the Baltic coast would eliminate this source of income. Of course, it can be argued that to maintain this system Charles had to pay more attention to the region which he left practically undefended for years to come.

So, in a very unlikely case that he agrees to the peace in 1702 giving Peter Ingria and receiving a monetary compensation (in OTL Sweden got 2,000,000 silver thalers by the Peace of Nystad) than he has only Saxony left to fight with (the PLC is still formally at peace, IIRC and Denmark was kicked out of war).

For how long would Sweden maintain its status of the Great Power is a question to which the answer is not clear: it was stepping on too many toes, it’s resources were limited and superior quality of its troops would not last forever.

True it would eliminate a source of income, however a single port on the Baltic would be a purely symbolic and military gesture as this allow Russia to have a semblance of presence in the Baltic Sea. Maintaining trade from a single port where you have a military naval port as well would have been too high a cost for most russian merchants making them seek out other baltic ports. Baltic ports which lie in the Swedish Empire, key ones being Talinn, Riga etc. Russia trying to invade Sweden to get more Baltic ports would be an extremely flimsy excuse which would anger the nearby regional and great powers into Sweden's arms to prevent Russian expansionism and aggression which is a risk russia could not afford in the eighteenth century. Therefore the loss of income would be minimal at worst, negligible at best.
As to the future of the Swedish Empire, that is the main topic I want to talk about. Any ideas? Possible Future events? Altering wars that happened in our timeline?

 

[alexmilman]

True it would eliminate a source of income, however a single port on the Baltic would be a purely symbolic and military gesture as this allow Russia to have a semblance of presence in the Baltic Sea. Maintaining trade from a single port where you have a military naval port as well would have been too high a cost for most russian merchants making them seek out other baltic ports. Baltic ports which lie in the Swedish Empire, key ones being Talinn, Riga etc. Russia trying to invade Sweden to get more Baltic ports would be an extremely flimsy excuse which would anger the nearby regional and great powers into Sweden's arms to prevent Russian expansionism and aggression which is a risk russia could not afford in the eighteenth century. Therefore the loss of income would be minimal at worst, negligible at best.
As to the future of the Swedish Empire, that is the main topic I want to talk about. Any ideas? Possible Future events? Altering wars that happened in our timeline?

Well, it seems reasonable but reality is not always logical. In OTL Peter simply ordered that most of the Russian Baltic and White Sea trade must go through St. Petersburg and it easily eclipsed Riga and Revel. With these ports not being a part of the Russian Empire cutting them off would be even easier.

Of course, with the conquest limited to Ingria St. Petersburg is a much less viable as the Russian capital so it either remains in Moscow or the new wars are being fought to secure it.

Of course, this would be more difficult to accomplish if Peter gets Narva and does not think about founded St. Petersburg: Narva’s harbor (Narva is few miles up the river) is widely open and can’t be protected against the naval attack and Narva itself is off the most convenient route from the Cenral Russia via Novgorod and the to the coast: it is better oriented toward rather peripheral Pskov. However, starting from the time of Ivan IV and all the way to Peter Russian rulers had been looking for Narva as the Baltic outlet even when they had a direct access to the coast. Can’t tell why. By the time of the GNW there was a small Swedish town, Nien, approximately on St. Peterburg’s site (Russians had been trying to take it in 1652) but in 1702 Sweden evacuated its population and burned down the city. Still, Peter’s started goal for entry into the alliance was Swedish Ingria of which Narva (which was outside it) was an administrative center.

As far as the future in your scenario is involved, it is hard to predict for how long the Swedish military superiority was going to be a factor. In OTL personality of Charles XII was a “tactical factor” of its own: starting from 1701 the Russians had been regularly beating the Swedish troops in the region (or at least had been managing to thwart their plans as was the case with attack on St. Petersburg). Charles was not going to live forever and Russian army would keep improving even without experience of the GNW: in the war of 1741 - 42 (meaning, the GNW was a history) Sweden was thoroughly beaten and Russians occupied a big part of Finland. In the war of 1788 - 90 Sweden was more successful, especially on the sea but the war ended up with antebellum peace and it must be remembered that most of the Russian forces had been engaged against the Ottomans. War of 1808-09 was pretty much a rout. So, it is an open question if Russia would be satisfied in a long run with having only Ingria but general trend was not in Swedish favor. Why would Russia not to be able to “allow risk” of fighting Sweden in the XVIII is anybody’s guess: it fought Sweden twice during that century (without losing a square inch of its territory), participated in the War of the Polish Succession, War of the Austrian Succession (actually, just sent the troops which arrived to the Rhine too late for the fight), 7YW, and 3 wars against the Ottomans (4 of one counts Pruth Campaign), 3 wars in the PLC (counting one against the Bar Confederation) and anti-French campaign as a part of the 2nd Coalition. I’m not counting campaigns against Persia.

In a short run, if there is an early peace with Russia then the next potential challenge would be from growing Prussia: there were earlier conflicts at least some of which Sweden lost and if Prussia keeps developing along the OTL lines, then one can expect a conflict in the Swedish
Pomerania (in OTL part of it had been ceded to Prussia in 1720 by the Treaty of Stockholm).

Appetites of the post-Petrian Russian rulers are anybody’s guess and hardly can be projected with any certainty as being heavily dependent upon point of view of a specific historian. 😂

 

[AltoRegnant]

Sweden would still have the wealth of almost all the Baltic, so one port shouldn't screw them too bad, but they're gonna need to focus on the west, and too the seas beyond Norway. If I remember right most of North America were still clear for European empires, and canada should be good for the type of agriculture Sweden needs (I assume)

I'd expect a minor war for iceland and more of western Norway later on

 

[Swedish luck]

well, we would see Karl set up friendly kings in both Poland and Saxony. we would also probably see an anti-Russian alliance consisting of Sweden, Turkey and from time to time Poland because they are the ones who would lose the most out of Russian expansion. After the war with Saxony and Poland Karl hade the intent to go to war with Denmark which would probably drag both countries into the Spanish war of succession. Sweden would most likely secure Norway without their army being destroyed at Poltava and perhaps a french victory in the Spanish war of succession. But this all depends on Karl the XII and his decisions.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

well, we would see Karl set up friendly kings in both Poland and Saxony.

That'd be rather difficult since a) Saxony WASN'T a kingdom and b) Saxony didn't have an elective succession like Poland did. Not to mention c) not quite sure that the Holy Roman Emperor (particularly Joseph I) would take so well to Carl messing around in the Empire. Particularly since Sweden and the Empire AREN'T at war

 

[Swedish luck]

That'd be rather difficult since a) Saxony WASN'T a kingdom and b) Saxony didn't have an elective succession like Poland did. Not to mention c) not quite sure that the Holy Roman Emperor (particularly Joseph I) would take so well to Carl messing around in the Empire. Particularly since Sweden and the Empire AREN'T at war

sorry for the detail that Saxony was not a kingdom and what do think Austria should do about a puppet duke in Saxony leave Vienna open to the french if you read my post intervention in the Spanish war of succession is very likely. Secondly, Saxony was protestant their king hade converted catholicism Agustus still had relatives who were protestant and elective succession don't hinder you to change a king of a country.

EDIT: changed king to duke

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

sorry for the detail that Saxony was not a kingdom and what do think Austria should do about a puppet duke in Saxony leave Vienna open to the french if you read my post intervention in the Spanish war of succession is very likely. Secondly, Saxony was protestant their king hade converted catholicism Agustus still had relatives who were protestant and elective succession don't hinder you to change a king of a country.

EDIT: changed king to duke

Simplest solution would be to just kill August before 1712 (when his son converted IIRC). OTL August III's too young (only a teenager at that point) to be a threat to Leszczynski in Poland, hasn't converted yet, and the rest of Europe's still busy wrapping up the WotSS so, no one (outside Russia)'s likely to intervene to much until Leszczynski's been on the throne a few years

@Jan Olbracht @krieger

 

[Jürgen]

sorry for the detail that Saxony was not a kingdom and what do think Austria should do about a puppet duke in Saxony leave Vienna open to the french if you read my post intervention in the Spanish war of succession is very likely. Secondly, Saxony was protestant their king hade converted catholicism Agustus still had relatives who were protestant and elective succession don't hinder you to change a king of a country.

EDIT: changed king to duke

Sweden wouldn’t attempt to replace the elector of Saxony, they wouldn’t even be able to do so, but what’s more important it would be a direct declaration of war against the emperor and every prince of the HRE.

 

[Sarthak]

Like I mean in future scenarios what could happen to Sweden? Would they be dragged into the Spanish War of Succession? Involvement in Colonialization? The 7 Years War? And presuming the empire survives in the 1800s, how would they change the course of the Napoleonic Wars and the Era of Revolutions? How would global scenario change? What possible outcomes could have befallen Europe and by extension, the world? I want to know what people think about that in a more wider field of view.

 

[von Adler]

The conditions you mentioned had been proposed by Peter before Poltava and rejected. Ceding the territory without being defeated would be out of a character for Charles. I assume that you are talking not about directly post-Narva situation but couple years later when the Russians occupied the area in question and the key points on the route to the sea (like Noteburg) while Charles was still entertaining himself chasing August.

To be fair, Charles’ position regarding the coast was not as bizarre as it seems. The system was established by GA and it was working: Sweden was getting the custom dues from the Russian exports and imports and existence of the Russian port on the Baltic coast would eliminate this source of income. Of course, it can be argued that to maintain this system Charles had to pay more attention to the region which he left practically undefended for years to come.

So, in a very unlikely case that he agrees to the peace in 1702 giving Peter Ingria and receiving a monetary compensation (in OTL Sweden got 2,000,000 silver thalers by the Peace of Nystad) than he has only Saxony left to fight with (the PLC is still formally at peace, IIRC and Denmark was kicked out of war).

For how long would Sweden maintain its status of the Great Power is a question to which the answer is not clear: it was stepping on too many toes, it’s resources were limited and superior quality of its troops would not last forever.

Yes, exactly. Due to the tolls extracted on Russian trade over the Neva to the Baltic, Ingria as a province provided Sweden with the same level of income as Estonia and Livonia together - all of them together was about 20% of the Swedish state income, but one needs to consider that a majority of that income was land rents paid by Swedish peasants in "natura", ie grain, pelts, butter and labour. The real coin handed over directly and continiously for the tolls on the Neva, Weser, Oder and Düna/Daguva rivers were the lifeblood of the Swedish crown and what it needed to pay for mercenaries, troops, supplies, ships, weapons and so on it could not produce itself.

The 2 million thalers given at Nystad was a pittance. The Swedish total state income varied between 5 and 7 million from 1690-1697 and the income from Ingermanland would be at least 0,5 million of that - 4 years income.

I agree that it is very out of character for Karl to cede territory without actually being defeated, especially one that provides 10% of the state revenue. One also needs to consider that Sweden considered itself a grand power that had and should have the ability to project power into its neighbours territory should they end up at war. Livonia was needed to fight in Poland-Lithuania and Ingria and Estonia to fight in Russia and Pommerania to fight in Germany.

Considering the Swedish recent experience - they had managed to fight off Denmark and Brandenburg 1676-79 and then experienced more than 20 years peace, Karl considering Sweden able to deal with its enemies until the defeat at Poltava seems decently realistic.

Sweden could deal with two of her neighbours, but not four.

In the long run, Russia is ascending and becoming a European grand power, and Sweden and Russia are sooner or later bound to fight over the Baltic coast - Russia is not going to accept Sweden taking all those tolls for itself indefinetely. The only way I see Sweden maintaining grand power status in the long run is for Russia to suffer some kind of relative decline along the lines of Poland-Lithuania - which becomes very unlikely after Peter, since he built institutions that would keep Russia from capsizing even with really bad rulers and massive corruption.

 

[Sarthak]

In the long run, Russia is ascending and becoming a European grand power, and Sweden and Russia are sooner or later bound to fight over the Baltic coast - Russia is not going to accept Sweden taking all those tolls for itself indefinetely. The only way I see Sweden maintaining grand power status in the long run is for Russia to suffer some kind of relative decline along the lines of Poland-Lithuania - which becomes very unlikely after Peter, since he built institutions that would keep Russia from capsizing even with really bad rulers and massive corruption.

So this is the extent of my proposed alternate timeline after the end of the war:-
1. Charles XII enters Sweden into the early Industrial Revolution.
2. Charles's government also begins a massive assimilation program in Finland trying to incorporate Finnish culture into the Swedish one and lets say as time goes, he succeeds.
3. He introduces new military reforms and structuring to bolster the military of sweden
4. Sweden also pushes forward propaganda encouraging reproduction to try and increase the population
5. Beginning of the construction of the strongest baltic fleet
6. Construct a small amount, but strong forts in key strategic locations on the border with Russia.
7. Keep its small island colonies.
8. Possibly invest into exploration to try their luck at colonizing again.
9. Try to foster good relations with Russia to prevent future wars.
Basically in this ATL i have made Charles XII a more rational and outward thinking monarch who would have probably gained the moniker 'The Great' which he almost did get in our timeline.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Basically in this ATL i have made Charles XII a more rational and outward thinking monarch who would have probably gained the moniker 'The Great' which he almost did get in our timeline.

But the Great is so...mundane. Pedestrian even. Who'd wanna be called "Charles the Great" (when there is one of those already), if you can have the FAR more KICKASS name "the Last Viking"!

 

[von Adler]

So this is the extent of my proposed alternate timeline after the end of the war:-
1. Charles XII enters Sweden into the early Industrial Revolution.
2. Charles's government also begins a massive assimilation program in Finland trying to incorporate Finnish culture into the Swedish one and lets say as time goes, he succeeds.
3. He introduces new military reforms and structuring to bolster the military of sweden
4. Sweden also pushes forward propaganda encouraging reproduction to try and increase the population
5. Beginning of the construction of the strongest baltic fleet
6. Construct a small amount, but strong forts in key strategic locations on the border with Russia.
7. Keep its small island colonies.
8. Possibly invest into exploration to try their luck at colonizing again.
9. Try to foster good relations with Russia to prevent future wars.
Basically in this ATL i have made Charles XII a more rational and outward thinking monarch who would have probably gained the moniker 'The Great' which he almost did get in our timeline.

1. How? Sweden has no coal. Until Britain (or maybe Belgium or France, or whomever controls Silesia or Ruhr) starts extracting coal at an industrial scale, there's not going to be enough coal to feed an industrial revolution. And before the agricultural revolution and land closure (OTL happened in Sweden in the 19th century), there's not going to be enough labour either.

2. While the language situation could certainly improve for the Finns, they have no real complaints about being part of Sweden at this time. Having the same rights to representation at the estates parliament, the same taxes, duties and legal rights (and less noble and state owned land as a percentage, and thus in essence less dues) as Swedish peasants, they are neither wishing for independence nor Russian domination at this time. OTL the Finns got very lucky about the Czar letting them keep their laws and govern themselves. It was not until the various wars and conflicts between royal and noble power in Sweden later in the 18th century that the Finns got fed up with Sweden's inability and unwillingness to defend them from Russian incursions and tendence to blunder into war with Russia with inadequate preparations, for which the Finns paid a heavy price.

3. Sweden is already one of the most militarised countries on the planet at this time, with one of the best quality armies, Sweden lacks the economic resources to do more, especially if you are giving away 10% of the state revenue (roughly 400-600 000 thaler) with Ingria and Nyen/Saint Petersburg. If the war has been going on, Sweden is also deeply in debt - Sweden ran a surplus of a 500-550 000 thaler in peace. Despite extensive looting in Poland-Lituania, by 1710, the war had costed more than 25 000 000 thaler, and the yearly deficit was 800 000-1 000 000 thaler yearly. It will take a LONG time to pay off that debt, which will reduce any investments in industry or infrastructure - especially since you just gave away basically the entire state surplus.

4. Reproduction was not a problem. Death to disease, child mortality and agricultural production along with the lack of infrastructure to move food to regions affected by bad harvests was the problem. About 1/3 of Finland's population starved to death 1695-97. The state imported 500 000 barrels of grain from Livonia, but it sat rotting in the ports since there was no way to bring them out into the countryside due to the lack of infrastructure.

5. Sweden has the strongest Baltic Fleet already. 38 ship of the line and 38 frigates 1700. Brandenburg-Prussia does not have a navy, neither does Poland-Lithuania. Thier vassal Courland had a decent-sized navy, but Sweden captured it when they overran Courland 1702. Denmark is the only challenger to Swedish naval power at this time - but while the Danish navy was larger, stronger and of better quality than the Swedish in the 17th century, it rarely ventured far north of the southern Baltic, aware that it needed to protect Denmark from any landing attempts. 1700, the Swedish navy had parity, and the Danish navy declined battle when the Swedish navy, supported by an Anglo-Dutch squadron landed parts of the Swedish army at Humlebaek. And now the Russians will build a navy and you have a potential two-front war.

6. Yes, this is a good idea. But you have just given away the only modern (although small) fort in the area - Nyen. Along with the entire yearly surplus of Sweden. From where do you get money for these fortifications?

7. What small island colonies? Sweden lost its last non-European posession, the trade fort at Cabo Corso in West Africa 1663.

8. The profitable colonies - trade forts in West Africa and the Caribbean sugar islands are all long since gobbled up and are being jelously guarded by their owners. The rest are, frankly, disease-ridden hellholes. Compare the attempt at the Scottish Panama colony, which ruined the country, killed 3/4 of the 1 200 settlers and was abandoned only 8 months into the attempts.

9. A good idea, actually. However, there's no guarantee that the Estonian and Livonian nobility will not see Russia as a potentially better overlord over the constant Swedish attempts to end serfdom and with the splendor of the Russian court at Saint Petersburg closer to them than the more austere court in Stockholm. Russian power projection ability into the Baltic and into Estonia and Livonia has after all improved siginificantly with the Russofication of Ingria and construction of Saint Petersburg, creating of the guard regiments there and fortifications.

 

[Sarthak]

1. How? Sweden has no coal. Until Britain (or maybe Belgium or France, or whomever controls Silesia or Ruhr) starts extracting coal at an industrial scale, there's not going to be enough coal to feed an industrial revolution. And before the agricultural revolution and land closure (OTL happened in Sweden in the 19th century), there's not going to be enough labour either.

2. While the language situation could certainly improve for the Finns, they have no real complaints about being part of Sweden at this time. Having the same rights to representation at the estates parliament, the same taxes, duties and legal rights (and less noble and state owned land as a percentage, and thus in essence less dues) as Swedish peasants, they are neither wishing for independence nor Russian domination at this time. OTL the Finns got very lucky about the Czar letting them keep their laws and govern themselves. It was not until the various wars and conflicts between royal and noble power in Sweden later in the 18th century that the Finns got fed up with Sweden's inability and unwillingness to defend them from Russian incursions and tendence to blunder into war with Russia with inadequate preparations, for which the Finns paid a heavy price.

3. Sweden is already one of the most militarised countries on the planet at this time, with one of the best quality armies, Sweden lacks the economic resources to do more, especially if you are giving away 10% of the state revenue (roughly 400-600 000 thaler) with Ingria and Nyen/Saint Petersburg. If the war has been going on, Sweden is also deeply in debt - Sweden ran a surplus of a 500-550 000 thaler in peace. Despite extensive looting in Poland-Lituania, by 1710, the war had costed more than 25 000 000 thaler, and the yearly deficit was 800 000-1 000 000 thaler yearly. It will take a LONG time to pay off that debt, which will reduce any investments in industry or infrastructure - especially since you just gave away basically the entire state surplus.

4. Reproduction was not a problem. Death to disease, child mortality and agricultural production along with the lack of infrastructure to move food to regions affected by bad harvests was the problem. About 1/3 of Finland's population starved to death 1695-97. The state imported 500 000 barrels of grain from Livonia, but it sat rotting in the ports since there was no way to bring them out into the countryside due to the lack of infrastructure.

5. Sweden has the strongest Baltic Fleet already. 38 ship of the line and 38 frigates 1700. Brandenburg-Prussia does not have a navy, neither does Poland-Lithuania. Thier vassal Courland had a decent-sized navy, but Sweden captured it when they overran Courland 1702. Denmark is the only challenger to Swedish naval power at this time - but while the Danish navy was larger, stronger and of better quality than the Swedish in the 17th century, it rarely ventured far north of the southern Baltic, aware that it needed to protect Denmark from any landing attempts. 1700, the Swedish navy had parity, and the Danish navy declined battle when the Swedish navy, supported by an Anglo-Dutch squadron landed parts of the Swedish army at Humlebaek. And now the Russians will build a navy and you have a potential two-front war.

6. Yes, this is a good idea. But you have just given away the only modern (although small) fort in the area - Nyen. Along with the entire yearly surplus of Sweden. From where do you get money for these fortifications?

7. What small island colonies? Sweden lost its last non-European posession, the trade fort at Cabo Corso in West Africa 1663.

8. The profitable colonies - trade forts in West Africa and the Caribbean sugar islands are all long since gobbled up and are being jelously guarded by their owners. The rest are, frankly, disease-ridden hellholes. Compare the attempt at the Scottish Panama colony, which ruined the country, killed 3/4 of the 1 200 settlers and was abandoned only 8 months into the attempts.

9. A good idea, actually. However, there's no guarantee that the Estonian and Livonian nobility will not see Russia as a potentially better overlord over the constant Swedish attempts to end serfdom and with the splendor of the Russian court at Saint Petersburg closer to them than the more austere court in Stockholm. Russian power projection ability into the Baltic and into Estonia and Livonia has after all improved siginificantly with the Russofication of Ingria and construction of Saint Petersburg, creating of the guard regiments there and fortifications.

I will admit that I completely forgot about the proper Swedish Colonial Situation so i apologize for that.
With the exploration part I was referring to Oceania which at this point of time was very mildly explored with very few territories colonized by European Powers.
Regarding the lack of infrastructural resources within the Empire, you bring up a good point. Couple that with the external debt crisis Sweden was facing, even if she was victorious like we presume in this ATL, would have become an economic crisis within a short period of time.
Say, after winning the war, Charles XII is given (mentally anyway) a timeframe until the Austrian War of Succession to uplift the economical and financial crisis as well as the infrastructural problems, along with maintaining his professional army and navy, what could he have done in the timeframe?

 

[von Adler]

I will admit that I completely forgot about the proper Swedish Colonial Situation so i apologize for that.
With the exploration part I was referring to Oceania which at this point of time was very mildly explored with very few territories colonized by European Powers.
Regarding the lack of infrastructural resources within the Empire, you bring up a good point. Couple that with the external debt crisis Sweden was facing, even if she was victorious like we presume in this ATL, would have become an economic crisis within a short period of time.
Say, after winning the war, Charles XII is given (mentally anyway) a timeframe until the Austrian War of Succession to uplift the economical and financial crisis as well as the infrastructural problems, along with maintaining his professional army and navy, what could he have done in the timeframe?

The Swedish state was decent at squeezing out a surplus in peace-time, so the debts could be paid off, but something else would have to give. OTL after the Great Northern War, Sweden ceased fortifications constructions, ceased doing large scale exercises every 2-4 years, ceased building new ships for the navy, cut down on the German garrisons, limited pay for officers, reduced the guard and the artillery (the only professional regiments beyond the German garrisons) and so on. Of course, the army became much weaker, and corruption set in heavily.

Patkul sent out feelers to be pardoned in 1697, and doing that could prevent the war. Once the War of Spanish Succession is on, Saxony and Denmark are bound to hire their armies out, probably to Austria and be a non-factor. @alexmilman could probably tell us more what kind of adventure Peter would go on in such a situation.

Karl XII had a lot of very modern ideas for the state that he tried to implement, but were unable to due to the war. General income tax, unified currency, unified weight and measurements, moving to right-hand driving, an updated Gregorian calendar and constructing the Göta canal 100 years early.

Oceania is far away and out of reach for anyone that does not already have colonies in the area, or stepping stones on the way. There's also nothing of value there really. The British colonised it to have somewhere to ship prisoners after American Revolution. The Dutch were close but saw no reason - they had South Africa and Java and thus easy access. Colonial wealth during this era was in spices, silk, porcelain and sugar. All of this is out of reach for Sweden, and risks angering the English/British and the Dutch, who both are in the way of any Swedish ships sailing into the Atlantic and both have more powerful fleets than Sweden.

 

[Sarthak]

Oceania is far away and out of reach for anyone that does not already have colonies in the area, or stepping stones on the way. There's also nothing of value there really. The British colonised it to have somewhere to ship prisoners after American Revolution. The Dutch were close but saw no reason - they had South Africa and Java and thus easy access. Colonial wealth during this era was in spices, silk, porcelain and sugar. All of this is out of reach for Sweden, and risks angering the English/British and the Dutch, who both are in the way of any Swedish ships sailing into the Atlantic and both have more powerful fleets than Sweden.

Probably true, considering while the Swedish Navy was the strongest in the baltic and being capable of keeping the Baltic in Swedish Naval hegemony, it did not have the projection capability of the British or Dutch Navy to even seriously consider colonizing Oceania.
Talking about those modern reforms which Charles wished to implement, let us say after the war, he does implement them, and by 1740, at the offset of the Austrian War of Succession, has managed to reform the empire, retain its strong army and navy, and has alleviated the economic situation.
What would this Swedish Empire do in the Austrian War of Succession that now rages across Europe?
Who would an older, wiser and more experienced Charles support or would he stay neutral throughout the war to keep the new economic revival?

 

[von Adler]

Probably true, considering while the Swedish Navy was the strongest in the baltic and being capable of keeping the Baltic in Swedish Naval hegemony, it did not have the projection capability of the British or Dutch Navy to even seriously consider colonizing Oceania.
Talking about those modern reforms which Charles wished to implement, let us say after the war, he does implement them, and by 1740, at the offset of the Austrian War of Succession, has managed to reform the empire, retain its strong army and navy, and has alleviated the economic situation.
What would this Swedish Empire do in the Austrian War of Succession that now rages across Europe?
Who would an older, wiser and more experienced Charles support or would he stay neutral throughout the war to keep the new economic revival?

His father Karl XI wanted to keep free of foreign entanglements and alliances requiring him to go to war on the behalf of other nations. He did maintain very good relations with the naval powers (England and the Netherlands) and it did pay off as Denmark was unable to start war with Sweden both 1683 and 1689 due to English and Dutch interference and aided in knocking Denmark out of the war 1700.

Karl XII seems to have been happy following the same foreign policy and told Marlborough when they met at Altranstädt in April 1707 that he was not interested in intervening in the War of Spanish Succession and that he wished Marlborough good fortune in beating the French.

Sweden might rent out its German garrisons like they did in the War of the League of Augsburg/Nine Years War 1688-1697, but unless attacked herself, will probably not intervene.

Sweden had bit off more than it could chew really during the 17th century, and was surrounded by powers that wanted what they lost back. Keeping it was a full-time job and only with great luck and skill would it be possible. Karl XI and Karl XII realised this and would not look to gain more territory, perhaps barring taking Courland and Polish Livonia or the great prize itself - Danizg - if Poland-Lithuania attacked first as compensation for the costs of the war.

 

[Sarthak]

Karl XII seems to have been happy following the same foreign policy and told Marlborough when they met at Altranstädt in April 1707 that he was not interested in intervening in the War of Spanish Succession and that he wished Marlborough good fortune in beating the French.

What im trying to say is that Karl implements an era of economic renewal while keeping the strong military base of his country strong enough. I wish to know what a Swedish victory in the GNW could affect the Austrian War of Succession, not the Spanish, and the Seven Years War.