WI in end of 1700 Charles XII marched towards Moscow?

The 20th November of 1700, in the early phases of the Great Northern War, the Swedish army defeated the Russians at Narva, forcing Peter the Great to escape and its forces to melt. WI Charles XII, instead after the victory to move towards Denmark and Poland, decided as next objective to march towards Moscow? It could be sufficient to force Russia to surrender? And Sweden to win the conflict?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
The 20th November of 1700, in the early phases of the Great Northern War, the Swedish army defeated the Russians at Narva, forcing Peter the Great to escape and its forces to melt. WI Charles XII, instead after the victory to move towards Denmark and Poland, decided as next move to march towards Moscow? It could be sufficient to force Russia to surrender?

No what Charles really need are a bit of luck, and capture Peter, in that case he can force a peace deal on the Russians*, this give him room to deal with the Wettins and Poles. Best case deal there, are a non-Wettin on the Polish throne, Swedish Courland and maybe Danzig (may only be pawned for a few decades). As such the the Wettin-Danish-Russian alliance has been broken, leaving the Swedes a few decades of breathing room, before a new anti-Swedish coalition can be created.

*If he's smart he gives them a similar deals as the Danes, status quo and 7 year of peace
 
No what Charles really need are a bit of luck, and capture Peter, in that case he can force a peace deal on the Russians*, this give him room to deal with the Wettins and Poles. Best case deal there, are a non-Wettin on the Polish throne, Swedish Courland and maybe Danzig (may only be pawned for a few decades). As such the the Wettin-Danish-Russian alliance has been broken, leaving the Swedes a few decades of breathing room, before a new anti-Swedish coalition can be created.

*If he's smart he gives them a similar deals as the Danes, status quo and 7 year of peace

Indeed, i also think even if already in 1700 Russia was already forced to sign a peace, later Peter will try another attack on Sweden; however St. Petersburg will not be founded yet and Sweden however will have more time to finish the war.

Yes, probably the best chance was to capture immediately Peter, probably forcing the opposition in Moscow to proclaim Alexius as new Tzar...
 
The Saxonians had an army in the field, laying siege to Riga at the time, to leave it while going after Russia, which did not have an army in the field (since it had been disintegrated at Narva) makes little strategic sense.

After Düna and the occupation of Courland 1701 is another matter though.
 

Arrix85

Donor
The Saxonians had an army in the field, laying siege to Riga at the time, to leave it while going after Russia, which did not have an army in the field (since it had been disintegrated at Narva) makes little strategic sense.

After Düna and the occupation of Courland 1701 is another matter though.

I totally agree, in fact I'm working a possible TL out of the battle of the Duna, but it's months away and I'll have to retrieve a lot of info, especially on the military aspect. ;).
 
The Saxonians had an army in the field, laying siege to Riga at the time, to leave it while going after Russia, which did not have an army in the field (since it had been disintegrated at Narva) makes little strategic sense.

After Düna and the occupation of Courland 1701 is another matter though.

However Denmark was already defeated, and after Narva Charles XII also managed to defeat Poland and forced August II to abdicate (until the turnabout events, since Poltava, which forced Sweden to surrender). It was the Russian recover which comported the defeat of the Swedish.
 

Arrix85

Donor
yes, Charles defeated Augustus and the polish, but in 1706, while giving six years to the russians to recover.
 
yes, Charles defeated Augustus and the polish, but in 1706, while giving six years to the russians to recover.

Yes, but the question will be: if already in the end 1700 Russia signed a peace treaty with Sweden (cession of Karelia, maybe?), how it will develop the war? Peter I will tried later to attack again Sweden?
 
No, it was being bogged down in Poland trying to force August off the Polish throne for six years that laid the foundation of the Swedish defeat. Peter spent those seven years rebuilding his army and slowly and surely training it by going after the Swedish fortifications in Ingria, Estonia and Livonia. Despite this, his forces were crushed at Holowczyn 1708.

While Karl XII's basic idea of forcing August off the Polish throne and getting someone that could aid him elected made grand strategical sense, it was a failure as a whole. The Swedes spent too much time and too many men fighting in Poland, while the Russians were re-building a western style army, and in the end, no help from the new Polish King ever materialised.

Karl XII should have marched east 1702, after the occupation of Courland. Peter also had problems with the Crimean Tatars and the Ottomans and had little of an army to throw in the way of Sweden. Being defeated inside Russia (perhaps at Pskov?) could perhaps put him at the mercy of the Strzelsky and others that did not really like his reforms.
 
However, even if however Peter reorganized , a first treaty in favor of Sweden will be always no St. Petersburg, and so no Russian fleet in the Baltic.

And if in 1706, after Altranstad and with a Russia still neutral after the defeat (so not involved in the Gulf of Finland), Charles XII joined France in the War of Spanish Succession?
 
Sweden has no reason whatsoever to join the War of Spanish succession, especially if Denmark has only been forced out of the war, not crushed. They'll be looking for another oppurtunity. Karl XI was very weary of being a French client after the Scanian war, and that was passed on to his son. Unless any of the parties directly threaten Swedish possessions, I do not see Sweden joining the war.
 
Sweden has no reason whatsoever to join the War of Spanish succession, especially if Denmark has only been forced out of the war, not crushed. They'll be looking for another oppurtunity. Karl XI was very weary of being a French client after the Scanian war, and that was passed on to his son. Unless any of the parties directly threaten Swedish possessions, I do not see Sweden joining the war.

However, in the past Sweden was a reliable ally of France, receiving also rich subsides... a victory in the War of Spanish Succession could mean for Sweden an enlargment of its German domains...
 
Marching towards Moscow while leaving the flanks unguarded against Polish attacks on Livonia you mean?

In Poland he had the lines of communication with Sweden unthreatened.

And one thing more. After Narva Charles had around 12000 men in the field. Half the number the army counted AFTER the battle at Poltava.

Gustav II Adolf had an army try to go from Narva to Novogorod, it didnt last half way before sickness forced it to retreat.

Also, when launching the attack on Russia Charles headed an army of 35000 soldiers. Better weather, better judgement etc and Sweden COULD have defeated Russia in 1707-08 before the bitter winter of 08/09.

The results of that win? A war in the 1720ths between Sweden on one side and Denmark and Russia on the other side plus maybe some German dutchys.
 
Top