WI: Charles XII heads for St. Petersburg

WI: Charles XII heads for St. Petersburg

In 1708 Charles heads out for his invasion of Russia but instead of heading for Moscow he heads toward St. Petersburg. Would this lead to more success? less?

your thoughts
 

Rubicon

Banned
The baltic area had been devastaded by seven years of warfare, it was scraped bare of supplies. Charles didn't want to lead his army into such scarcity of supplies.

But for the topic: The Russian army needed a fullblown Russian winter with temperatures to below -40 degrees celcius to wittle down the Swedish army before it could be defeated on the field. An field battle in 1708 or in 1709 without those losses and the Swedish army will very likely defeat the Russian army.
 
Last edited:
But for the topic: The Russian army needed a fullblown Russian winter with temperatures to below -40 degrees celcius to wittle down the Swedish army before it could be defeated on the field.

The Swedish army and the Swedish cause was defeated at Lesnaya. Everything else just logically followed.
 

Rubicon

Banned
The Swedish army and the Swedish cause was defeated at Lesnaya. Everything else just logically followed.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here, the battle of Lesnaya was a tactical draw, but a strategic defeat for the Swedish army.

And I'm not really sure what relevance the battle of Lesnaya would have on a timeline in which the Swedish main army (which was not present at Lesnaya) marches towards Saint Petersburg instead of Moscow.
 
Not really sure what you are trying to say here, the battle of Lesnaya was a tactical draw, but a strategic defeat for the Swedish army.

It's only a tactical draw on English Wiki because English wiki is ridiculous. Lewenhaupt's army was beaten, dropped all its cannon and supplies, and over the course of the pursuit lost over half its actives to deaths, captures, wounds and desertions. They didn't hold the field, they didn't even hold the initial marching course. It was a profound disaster strategically, and tactically it was a serious defeat.

It's relevant because you are the one that brought up -40 degree winters. There are no -40 winters in September. Lack of supplies following Lesnaya and Charles' de-facto retreat into Ukraine (if he was feeling confident of victory he would have marched the Smolensk road instead of looking for Mazepa) is how the war was really lost.

Now it's entirely possible that on the shorter march from Riga to Petersburg Charles keeps the army united and there's no Lesnaya equivalent and he goes into battle full strength and maybe even wins.

Peter always has Smolensk and Moscow to retreat to, but Peter's alliance will definitely be compromised, yes.
 

Rubicon

Banned
It's only a tactical draw on English Wiki because English wiki is ridiculous. Lewenhaupt's army was beaten, dropped all its cannon and supplies, and over the course of the pursuit lost over half its actives to deaths, captures, wounds and desertions. They didn't hold the field, they didn't even hold the initial marching course. It was a profound disaster strategically, and tactically it was a serious defeat.

I'm not using the English wiki. I'm using first of all 'Poltavskoye srazhenie K 300 letiyu Poltavskoy pobedy' by Valeriy Moltusov and second 'The Battle that Shook Europe: Poltava and the Birth of the Russian Empire' by Peter Englund. Where are you getting your information from?

The Swedish army was not driven of the field in Lesnaya, that sounds like Russian nationalistic propaganda.

No pursuit was ever made of Lewenhaubts army. The Russian army failed at that. The troops that reached the main Swedish army was about half of those that set out (roughly 7000), but about 2/3's (nearly three thousand men) made their way back to the Swedish possessions in the Baltics. So in the battle and it's aftermath the Russians inflicted about 2000 casulties out of 12000. Something that is supported by Swedish sources, modern Swedish sources.

Tactical draw, strategic defeat.

It's relevant because you are the one that brought up -40 degree winters. There are no -40 winters in September. Lack of supplies following Lesnaya and Charles' de-facto retreat into Ukraine (if he was feeling confident of victory he would have marched the Smolensk road instead of looking for Mazepa) is how the war was really lost.

What the flying f*ck are you on about? The minus -40 degrees was in February of 1709, when the Swedish army was encamped near the 'fortress' of Veprik.

That was what whittled the Swedish army down with about 5-6000 casulties. Add Holowzcyn with about 1500 casulties. From an original 35.000 you are then down to about 28.000, with the other 4.000 lost is due to normal attrition during a two-year long campaign.

Now it's entirely possible that on the shorter march from Riga to Petersburg Charles keeps the army united and there's no Lesnaya equivalent and he goes into battle full strength and maybe even wins.

Russian army never won a battle during the Great Northern War without outnumbering the Swedish with at least 2:1 nummerical advantage. Which he wouldn't have.
 
good call;)

Yes, the army that was not driven off the field lost thousands of supply carts and all its guns as well as half their men.

Those supply carts are pretty darn fast, one blink of the eye while you're holding the field and they're just gone, you know.
 

Rubicon

Banned
good call;)

They weren't, so cut the sarcasm.

Yes, the army that was not driven off the field lost thousands of supply carts and all its guns as well as half their men.

Those supply carts are pretty darn fast, one blink of the eye while you're holding the field and they're just gone, you know.

Cut the sarcasm mate. It's pretty obvious that you have no sources to speak of and no idea about the battle of Lesnaya (when what happened and where).

The English wikipedia page is actually pretty decent with a fair amount of various sources (both Russian and Swedish).
 

Rubicon

Banned
Could the Swedish navy be used to lend a hand?

Oh the Swedish navy dominated the Baltic during the war, so there would be no problems shipping over supply, it just might have been to expensive. Sweden was a resource scarce nation, to feed it's own army in it's own land? Could be done, but likely be quite expensive.

The Swedish generals in the baltic provinces begged Charles XII to aid them and thought it possible to supply the army, with the added expenses, but Charles XII was always headstrong.
 
Top