WI: Peter the Great Captured at Narva (1700)

One POD that I have been contemplating is if Peter the Great would have been captured by Swedish forces in the battle of Narva.

First off we would need him to actually be present in the battle which I don't believe is too difficult. From what I have heard he left the army just a couple of days before due to false reports that greatly exaggerated the size of of the Swedish forces. It would probably be enough for him to have accurate intelligence to stay since he would look rather weak "running" from an army of 12000 with his own army numbering closer to 40 000.

Secondly the question remains if the battle would have panned out like it did OTL with Peter there. It is not unlikely that the Russian would have performed better with the improved morale of Peter staying but looking at the battles in the following years OTL I believe it is plausible to assume that the battle would have been similar to OTL, possibly with the Russians holding the line for a bit longer and therefor inflicting slightly more casualties on the Swedish army.

For the sake of this WI scenario we will because of that assume that the battle went a head very similar to our timeline but with the only difference being a couple of hundred more Swedish causalities and Peter being a captive in Swedish custody.

So on to my question!

What do you think would have been the consequences of having Peter captured by Charles XII in the first battle of Narva?
 
The Swedes dont slip into insignificance

Perhaps not as quickly.
I would assume that a peace advantageous to Sweden would result in the short term. A lot really depends on how Charles makes use of it.
The Russians will eventually be back -- they're just becoming too increasingly powerful and their need for Baltic access too pressing.
 
Perhaps not as quickly.
I would assume that a peace advantageous to Sweden would result in the short term. A lot really depends on how Charles makes use of it.
The Russians will eventually be back -- they're just becoming too increasingly powerful and their need for Baltic access too pressing.

That is pretty much the consensus but one of the reasons I brought this POD up is that I believe it is not necessarily so. In many regards I believe Charles reputation as a strategic idiot is a bit undeserved. Sure he was a religious fanatic with a world view where God would always give him the victory which eventually turned out to be disastrous. However, in my opinion he clearly recognized that Russia was a power on the rise and that its rising power had to be stopped - thus explaining his long stay in Poland trying to tie the country to him as an allied.

With a still strong Sweden allied with a slightly stronger Poland I don't see why a long term coalition between Sweden, Poland and the Ottomans would be impossible. Obviously aimed at stopping any Russian expansion in any direction.
 
Charles would still have to deal with revanchist Danes and Western powers who didn't want the Baltics remaining a Swedish lake. Not to mention that OTL he never thoroughly pacified Poland to the point that it would be a docile ally. The Ottomans didn't really enter into Charles thinking until after Poltava.
 
Top