WI and AHC: Sweden wins the Great Northern War

Nöteborg was taken 17 October 1702, and the Swedes had suffered several local defeats before that, against numerically larger Russian forces that already dominated the countryside in some provinces.

The Swedes may have been tactically superior, but if they face an enemy who can take several major defeats and still come back stronger, and who has the flexibility to adapt according to circumstances, while the Swedes do not, the outcome is not a given.

The Swedish war in the Baltic and Finnish provinces 1701-1721 already give the feel of the coming century, where Swedish forces never really achieved anything in their wars. :(
 
Yes, it was a typo by me. I edited it.

Still, the Russians were not ready to face the full might of the Swedish army under competent leadership even 1706, as Grodno cleary shows.
 
The russians avoided the Swedish army for a long time 1708-09, rebuilding, and it was not until 1709 that the Russians felt strong enough to take on the Swedish army at Poltava. And the Swedes neary won that one, too.

And the Russians had help from general winter that sapped the strengh of the Karoliner army.
 
what if our PoD is that Charles XI lives a few more years? Does anyone think that might have affected things? If XII watched dad for a few more years and took the throne at 17 or 18 instead 15?
 
what if our PoD is that Charles XI lives a few more years? Does anyone think that might have affected things? If XII watched dad for a few more years and took the throne at 17 or 18 instead 15?
He did follow his father's policies of non-alliance and neglect of the Russian threat, so that need not change anything.

He might have been married, but I already mentioned that above, and whether it would change anything is uncertain, but he might have had a new heir in that case, and perhaps a foreign alliance.

His personality might be more known before his accession to the throne, but even this is hard to tell, since he changed from doing pranks in Stockholm to leading an army in war.

Would the Reduction of the nobles' holdings have gone any further in the Baltics in these two years? It might change something, but what?
 
He did follow his father's policies of non-alliance and neglect of the Russian threat, so that need not change anything.

He might have been married, but I already mentioned that above, and whether it would change anything is uncertain, but he might have had a new heir in that case, and perhaps a foreign alliance.

His personality might be more known before his accession to the throne, but even this is hard to tell, since he changed from doing pranks in Stockholm to leading an army in war.

Would the Reduction of the nobles' holdings have gone any further in the Baltics in these two years? It might change something, but what?
The marriage is what I was thinking about. although, if he ended the war in 1708, he might have taken the next couple years hunting for a wife and making an heir. I imagine that coalition would've convinced him that he needed to make allies. As he did by bringing the Ottomans against the Russians.
 
It is also interesting to consider events after OTL Poltava 1709. Could the Swedes have turned the tide then?

The surrender at Perevolochna 1709 could have been avoided, if the Swedish army had taken another route, and the king had stayed with the army, or if the entire army had fled on horseback from Poltava, as Lewenhaupt suggested.

The Danish invasion 1709 could have been another grave disaster, but they hesitated and lost in 1710.

The siege of Riga 1710 might have been lifted if there had been an active Swedish force landed outside, threatening the besiegers.

Prut 1711 is of course the most dramatic possible reversal that did not come about. Say that the Czar dies here, what happens next?

If Stenbock had not initially lost half his army in 1712, he might have started a new active Swedish phase of the war, instead of surrendering in 1713.

Saxon proposals of alliance against Russia could have been acted on.

An alliance with Austria was also in the air at the time.

Or, losing the Russian war in a peace with Russia, to be able to win the war on the other fronts, which was considered in 1718.
 
Last edited:
what if our PoD is that Charles XI lives a few more years? Does anyone think that might have affected things? If XII watched dad for a few more years and took the throne at 17 or 18 instead 15?

It could very well change things. The fact that the King was young and inexperienced was one of the reasons the coalition got started. If Karl XI lives a bit longer, they will probably not attack. And then the War of the Spanish Succession will be in full swing, and the Danes might rent out their army to the naval powers (as they did OTL after being forced out of the war) and August with his Saxony might get involved (as he wanted to), and they will not be available for an alliance and an attack on Sweden.

I doubt Peter will go at it alone. He might go after the Ottomans or the Krimean Khanate instead, or try to take on the central asian Khanates instead.
 
I guess the question is whether we want an outcome that has the farthest reaching implications or the one that is most favorable to the Swedes.

I can see a smashing victory in Russia having negative consequences for Sweden as well. If Charles wins a tremendous victory virtually without foreign assistance, he may not see the value of allies. In OTL, he found new allies when fortune turned against him. Sweden absolutely will not thrive moving forward if it doesn't find allies against Russia.

  1. Charles XI lives until early 1700 - Charles XII gets a bit more experience in statescraft watching his father, but he is still seen as untested leading to
  2. Charles XI lives past 1700 - This potentially undoes the whole war. If Charles XII takes the throne in his twenties, the members of the coalition will have less reason to underestimate him. There will still be wars naturally, but a big general conflict in the North might be butterflied away leaving the belligerents fighting other conflicts such as the War of the Spanish Succession.
  3. Peter the Great dies at Narva - This might have the potential for the greatest immediate consequences internationally. If Peter dies at Narva, and Charles crushes Russia's enemies, it is unlikely that Peter's son will want to continue with his father's ambitions. In 1707, France will court Charles to declare war on Austria. In OTL, Charles declines the offer because he has his hands full with Russia. With his war resolved, he might be more tempted to take the French up on their request. However, Charles considered himself a just man opposed to unnecessary wars, and he may have felt that attacking Austria purely for the sake of ambition would be unjust. But the thought of Sweden's entry into the War of the Spanish Succession swims with possibilities. More likely than not, Britain will declare war on Sweden potentially reforming the coalition Charles has just defeated effectively merging the Great Northern War and the War of the Spanish Succession into a single conflict. This is probably the most extreme possibility.
  4. Charles XII avoids Poltava and marches on Moscow - Assuming he doesn't meet with crushing defeat, he forces Russia to sue for peace. This is potentially the most damaging to Sweden long-term because it creates that sense of invincibility I mentioned above. Sweden doesn't entangle itself in Europe's wars, but it doesn't receive help in its own either. In the long term, this isn't sustainable... However, who knows what a well-arranged marriage might bring.
  5. Charles XII is defeated at Poltava but avoids a surrender at Perevolochna - Without the complete defeat in Russia, Charles manages to keep the coalition from reforming. The defeat chastising him though, and he realizes that he needs to find allies. We won't get a complete repeat of the Ottoman war because that war started because Charles fled into Ottoman territory after the surrender.
  6. Peter the Great dies in the Pruth campaign - Sort of a merger of the above scenario and the Narva scenario. Peter's weak-willed son takes over, but Sweden's continental force is also destroyed. There's a greater chance that the coalition reforms, but without Peter as a major player, Charles has some hope of fighting his enemies off.

The big question to me is what happens with Poland? If Sweden emerges triumphant, Stanisław Leszczyński will sit on the throne of Poland. Stanislaw's power was due almost exclusively to Swedish arms. But the Russians, Austrians and Augustus II of Saxony are unlikely to let this stand. This butterflies away the OTL War of the Polish Succession but introduces all sorts of opportunities for other crises and wars to begin over this issue. In those cases, France and Sweden are likely to be allies because Louis XV wanted Stanislaw (his father-in-law) to remain in power.

It's hard to gauge the long-term consequences of these wars though because a lot of times, the "reasons" why these wars started were just pretexts, but simply reviewing the sides of all the wars of the 18th century reveals that there were virtually no long-lasting relationships. Pushing the date for the start of a war backwards or forwards by just a couple of years could completely change the composition of the belligerents even if the goals and ambitions of each country involved remained largely unchanged over decades.
 
Hey guys!

Okay, let's assume Sweden has won the war, has taken the Russian territory mentioned before and has annexed the Danish colonies partly (the other part having become British).

Then, how will this affect the colonisation of the Americas?

Britain has gained the island of Saint Thomas, previously part of the Danish West Indies. Will this provide Britain a base for colonial expansion in the Caribbean? I mean, Spain wasn't focused on the Caribbean around 1700, so could Britain for instance gain Puerto Rico?

Also, Sweden has taken the Danish claim to Greenland. Will Sweden be able to colonise Greenland?

And what effects will a Swedish victory of the Great Northern War have on the War of the Spanish Succession?

Lastly, there are a few ideas I have that I'd like to get into this timeline (if I ever get around writing it), if possible. How could I make them possible?
- The Habsburg Empire splits, Austria and Hungary become separate states.
- The Habsburgs lose control of the Netherlands. The Southern Netherlands unite with the United Provinces.
- More Dutch colonisation in South America.
- Portugal colonises Patagonia and less of the Brazilian inlands.
- Aragon and Naples split off Spain and form the United Kingdom of Aragon and Naples.
- Morocco, except for the very north, remains uncolonised and grows southwards.
- The English colonies in America become the Dominion of America and never fight for independence. France does better at colonising Canada and North America. Acadia and Newfoundland remain French, and France colonises big parts of Canada and the northern *United States.
- Except for New England, which will become a separate Dominion, the English colonies are mainly in the south: Virginia, Chesapeake, the Carolinas, Delaware, New York, Florida, later (bought from Spain/Mexico) Texas, California, Sonora etc.
- The Republic of Venice grows and survives.
- The Ottomans lose control of northern Africa: Egypt becomes independent, the Barbary Coast gets colonised by Savoy/Sardinia and Aragon/Naples.
- India is never colonised.
- The Dutch colonise parts of Australia.
- Portugal's colonisation focus is Southern Africa.
- Korea expands and Manchuria splits off China.
- Japan colonises the *Russian Far East.
- Russia expands into Central Asia.
- More surving independent African states.

...
 
And what effects will a Swedish victory of the Great Northern War have on the War of the Spanish Succession?
Depends on whether the belligerents from the Great Northern War enter the War of the Spanish Succession and when. As I said, OTL Sweden was courted in 1707 to attack Austria. He declined this in part because he didn't like the French Bourbon kings and because he had his hands full with Russia. But Charles also at least claimed to be someone who would only fight just wars, so it becomes a little more difficult to see how he ends up invading Austria simply for territorial gains and glory (though certainly not impossible).

Lastly, there are a few ideas I have that I'd like to get into this timeline (if I ever get around writing it), if possible. How could I make them possible?
- The Habsburg Empire splits, Austria and Hungary become separate states.
- The Habsburgs lose control of the Netherlands. The Southern Netherlands unite with the United Provinces.
This is possible if Charles delivers a crushing defeat, but causing a dramatic reshuffling of Europe like this might prompt surrounding countries to think Charles has gotten too big for his britches leading to yet another anti-Swedish dogpile.

- More Dutch colonisation in South America.
Even integrating the Southern Netherlands into the United Provinces probably is not going to usher in renewed colonial activities by the Dutch and certainly not in South America. The best time for a Dutch South America would've been in the 1600's when they control Northeast Brazil.

However, a bigger, wealthier Dutch Republic that doesn't get embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars or the American Revolution maybe becomes a bigger player in East Asia.

- Portugal colonises Patagonia and less of the Brazilian inlands.
- Aragon and Naples split off Spain and form the United Kingdom of Aragon and Naples.
- Morocco, except for the very north, remains uncolonised and grows southwards.
Don't see any way for these to happen from this POD.

- The English colonies in America become the Dominion of America and never fight for independence. France does better at colonising Canada and North America. Acadia and Newfoundland remain French, and France colonises big parts of Canada and the northern *United States.
Not outside the realm of possibility if events in Europe butterfly away the Seven Years' War. British restrictions on westward expansion into the territories taken from the French was part of the motivation for the Revolution. However, we would need to have some motivation for France aggressively colonizing North America because otherwise they'll eventually lose the territory to Britain.

- Except for New England, which will become a separate Dominion, the English colonies are mainly in the south: Virginia, Chesapeake, the Carolinas, Delaware, New York, Florida, later (bought from Spain/Mexico) Texas, California, Sonora etc.
If a longstanding enmity between Britain and Spain develops in subsequent European wars, you could see more territorial gains by the British against Spain in the Americas.

- The Republic of Venice grows and survives.
I don't know about grows, but it will probably survive longer since butterflying away the Ottomans victory in the Russo-Turkish War of 1710 and having Russia not preoccupied with fighting Sweden in the following decade could mean no Ottoman-Venetian War in 1714. This will be further reinforced if Austria falls apart following a defeat at the hands of Sweden.

- The Ottomans lose control of northern Africa: Egypt becomes independent, the Barbary Coast gets colonised by Savoy/Sardinia and Aragon/Naples.
It's possible the sequence of events could lead to North Africa being colonized by another European power. Maybe Egypt becomes a French protectorate.

- India is never colonised.
I can't see India not being colonized, but I can see the Indians playing the European powers more effectively against each other if power is a bit more evenly balanced between Britain, France and to a lesser extent the Dutch. This might give local Indian rulers more autonomy, but they'll still be little more than protectorates of European powers.

- Portugal's colonisation focus is Southern Africa.
I have a really hard time seeing that happen. For Portugal to work on expanding Angola and Mozambique, it would have to lose Brazil. But without Brazil, it wouldn't be able to afford to focus on Africa.


- The Dutch colonise parts of Australia.
- Korea expands and Manchuria splits off China.
- Japan colonises the *Russian Far East.
- Russia expands into Central Asia.
Surprisingly, I think you could maybe get somewhere with all of these in spite of being so far removed from Sweden...

If the Dutch are better off in this timeline, we could see them potentially opening up Japan earlier since they had a closer relationship with Japan at the time than other European powers. If Japan becomes a major player in East Asia say thirty years ahead of schedule, that could be quite significant. It's not hard to see China being dismantled by the ensuing free-for-all. Korea, a likely battleground for ambitious imperial powers, might have its door kicked down earlier than expected leading to it rapidly industrializing in a Meiji-like fashion in the mid-1800's.

The Dutch might even take the Philippines away from Spain if war breaks out between the two of them at some point.

Also, Russia, having lost the Great Northern War and potentially saddled with an anti-reformist tsar if we put Peter's son in charge, might not make the changes it needs to assert itself in the Far East. The Japanese might fill that vacuum. If Russia also abandons its ambitions in the Baltic, it might instead concentrate on the Ottomans and Persia. I don't know how much of a difference this would make particularly if they don't make the important reforms they need early on.



EDIT:
However, almost everything on this list is dependent on the consequences of the Great Northern War have huge implications for later wars fought in Europe between say 1710 and 1800. We will really have to dig into the nitty, gritty details of lines of succession, royal families, political intrigues and minor players to try to figure out how the major wars of the 18th century would be affected by this POD.
 
Top