WI Charles IX of Sweden died at the Battle of Kirkholm?

http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/cmh/cmh405.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]In 1605, therefore, after the unsuccessful general Stâlarm had been condemned for treason, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Charles himself resumed the command which he had laid down after his first successes. He lacked, however, the coolness of a successful strategist. At Eirkholm (sic), a day's march south-east of Riga, he fell upon Chodkievicz with a greatly superior force ; but his rash generalship brought upon his army a terrible defeat (September, 1605). The Poles could boast that the Swedes left upon the field thrice as many dead as Chodkievicz had men. Barely escaping with his life from a field where some 8000 of his troops perished, Charles returned to Sweden as hastily as he had come.[/FONT]

WI he had not survived the battle?
 
Gustav was only 8 (almost 9) years old at the time. He has a very solid education. I am guessing that his cousing, Duke Johan of Östergötland and Axel Oxenstierna would be regents until Gustav became at least 15, I think.

With Axel Oxenstierna at the helm. I don't think there will be any great upheaval, een if the king does die.
 
Why should they? Even if Kirkholm was a disaster, losing the King there will not make much of a difference, he kept away from field command after that and 1611 Gustav II Adolf became king, reformed the army and took Riga 1621.

Sweden had since Gustav I a good state beraucracy that could ahndle running the state and wars even through dynastic crisises, losing Karl IX 6 years early will not change the basics of the war.
 
Top