WI Quick Saxon-Danish-Russian victory in Great Northern War

So Sweden gives up Ingria, with Narva and Noteborg. This might cause some revanchist thoughts later, but that's a given whenever a country loses.

Of course, Narva was not a completely worthless piece of property: since the time of Ivan the Terrible there were multiple Russian attempts to get it because it was an important outlet through which Russia was trading with the West. Of course, the trade continued when Narva was in the Swedish hands: the existing agreements regulated the custom dues keeping them on a mutually acceptable level. Then, "Russian trade" did not mean that the imports/exports had been carried by the Russian ships because this was not the case even by the end of the reign of Catherine II (see Memoirs of Count de Segur, French ambassador at St-Petersburg). Basically, the Swedes would lose some income but it most probably would be peanuts comparing with the revenues from Riga (and Revel). Ingria was more or less "Russian revanchism" (;)) issue because it was lost by the Romanovs but as of 1700 the area seems to be pretty much worthless: even its administrative center was moved to Narva. The whole idea of St-Petersburg looks much more like Peter's obsession (having a port on the Baltic Sea meant to be "Westernized") rather than a some objective need. The site was in the swampy area which had been flooded regularly (with losses of lives and substantial property damage). Having a major naval base in a mouth of a big river was not a bright idea either: the ships had been rotting in a low salt water. Building the new capital up to at least some semblance of a city (by the end of Peter's reign it was quite pathetic) cost huge amounts of money (in a country which did not have them) and unknown numbers of people who died during the construction. Strategic position was lousy all the way until Russia got Finland and became lousy again during the WWII. Of course, it became a major port but mostly because Peter artificially made it so by limiting commercial traffic through Riga, Revel and other Baltic ports he got. But he wanted to get his "paradise" and that was it.



However as this is a challenge for a quick Saxon-Danish-Russian Victory does it fit the challenge if Augustus loses?

Good question. How about him not being thoroughly beaten as in OTL? :winkytongue:
After all, not every victory results in the territorial acquisitions.

The real damage to Sweden would be if it does lose its northern German territories. The Swedish military was dependent on tolls from Bremen-Verden, Wismar, the Oder, etc, to finance it.

But Riga was the biggest Baltic city and, IIRC, an outlet for the grain exports from Lithuania which should be bringing noticeable revenues.


While assuming a Swedish victory over the Poles
A little bit of the nitpicking: Saxons - the PLC was at that time neutral and August was acting strictly as Elector of Saxony with the Saxon troops.

the tolls there won't be affected, Denmark taking the former two (even without Swedish Pomerania) would have actual effects on the Swedish ability to finance the army it had in its empire stage. Keeping Livonia, or even expanding it with Courland, might allow it to keep its breadbasket regions but Sweden was never going to stay relevant through population numbers. Assuming this alt-GNW ends while the WoSS is still ongoing, I could absolutely see Sweden either joining or even leasing out its troops Prussian style once the leaders realize they can't keep their current military going without foreign subsidies or looting someone.

AFAIK, the idea of making a fast peace and selling army to the highest bidder was advocated in OTL by Count Carl Piper. Not that Charles was listening. Later in the war the allies tried to woo Charles: the Duke of Marlborough visited him but they distinctively disliked each other.


Alexmilman, assuming a quick victory for Russia regardless of whether the first campaign for Narva succeeds or not, how will Peter's politics likely change? You've made it a point to say Peter didn't do much to prepare his military between the Azov Campaign and Narva. Would he continue this behavior until the next war comes by where he has to put together a better army, or did he appear to learn and promote military reform during peacetime?

IMHO, if there is a fast victory against Sweden, the things would be allowed to deteriorate until the next occasion. Of course, the appearances would be maintained but the I'd not bet on the further improvements because everybody would be too busy celebrating (as after Azov). In OTL after Poltava and all these victories he still managed to screw up royally against the Ottomans mostly because his preparations for the Prut campaign had been inadequate, army was not prepared to act against a different type of an opponent, was noticeably short of a cavalry, etc. Actually, his military reforms did not prepare Russian army to fight even against the European opponents, except for the Swedes with their "specifics": few decades later fieldmarshal Münnich conducted serious reforms, including creation of a heavy cavalry (cuirassiers). They made Russia victorious against the Ottomans but in the 7YW Russian army was still somewhat archaic in its tactics and had to learn by the experience.

One more problem with Peter's military reforms is that he seemingly tended to pick the worst things available. As later was commented by Potemkin, he thought that "regularity" (aka, western warfare) is based upon the western-style uniforms. As a result, the Russian soldiers had been dressed in the clothes which had nothing to do with a national costume (this lasted all the way to the reign of Alexander III) and as such both inconvenient and ill-suited for the climate (the capes instead of the warm winter overcoats, stockings and boots in a cold and dirt, etc.). Ditto for the tactics: the stress was exclusively upon the firing by salvos and holding the line, which was not working well against the Swedish bayonet charges. Regular cavalry was explicitly forbidden to act other than on a slow trot (again, hold the line) which was an idiocy against the Swedish cavalry attacking on a full gallop sword in hand. Maneuver on a battlefield was almost completely absent (this was carried all the way to the 7YW), the infantry regiments had been weak (initially 1,000 on paper), etc. Even advantage in artillery was not properly used at Poltava.


We can assume St. Petersburg still happens with Ingria under their control, but I don't think the Russian Baltic fleet was much valued for a while. Would the Russian army be able to fight back evenly with the Swedes if the Swedes attacked in a decade, or even knock them out entirely? If the Russian-Swedish conflict ended ~1702, what quality of troops/defenses would be around St. Petersburg around 1712-1715?

Russian fleet, except for the galleys, did not amount for too much even during the GNW and after that it was happily rotting in the Gulf of Finland all the way to the reign of Catherine II when it 1st time ventured out of the Baltic Sea (losing few ships before it got out) and had to do serious repairs in Britain on its way to the Mediterranean. After this, things started improving.

Peter built a considerable number of warships both on Baltics and on the Azov but, as with everything he did, the quality was lousy and time of the service short: while the high quality oak wood was collected and left forgotten somewhere in the Central Russia, the wharves had been using low quality materials and then the ships were left in the low slat waters of Kronstadt.

As for the Swedish attacks, they had been happening in OTL on rather regular basis but, without Charles, these wars usually were ending with minimal results on both sides (until Sweden finally lost Finland): Finland as a theater had certain limitations and the numbers engaged on both sides usually were relatively small. I don't think that the earlier end of the war would change too much except that there always would be a "Livonian front" for both sides to consider. As the OTL events demonstrated, this would be an area of Swedish vulnerability easily accessible to the Russian irregular troops for a massive countryside looting.
 
I don't remmeber the book right now, but from memory around 50% of the Swedish state budget 1660-1700 came from Livonia (and Estonia I think, but primarily Livonia[1]), while 10% came from Bremen-Verden, Scania gave another 10%, the rest of Sweden (and Finland 25%) and the rest of the North German possessions 5%.
My mistake then. I thought the North German possessions were something like 25% of the state budget.

I also for whatever reason got Estonia and Livonia switched around in regards to Swedish control. I thought Estonia had been more subdued and incorporated, while the grip on Livonia was more tenuous.
A little bit of the nitpicking: Saxons - the PLC was at that time neutral and August was acting strictly as Elector of Saxony with the Saxon troops.
True, but Charles didn't exactly let that stop him from using military force against the Sejm. Although with Charles dead in this scenario (I think we've decided on that), the Sejm's offer to mediate will probably be taken as I think it had originally been supported by the Swedish parliament.
Wow. That's...a rather dismal portrayal of a guy with the moniker 'the Great'. Guess his achievements were more from ambition and a full willingness to put the strategic reserves of Russia to use no matter the cost than real talent and skill in making reforms.

So a victory will allow Peter to build his new capital, but it will leave the military forces there not even suited to countering the Swedes. However starting 1730~, assuming butterflies haven't started flapping, more skillful reforms will eventually come that will leave Russia just in a different league to Sweden.
As for the Swedish attacks, they had been happening in OTL on rather regular basis but, without Charles, these wars usually were ending with minimal results on both sides (until Sweden finally lost Finland): Finland as a theater had certain limitations and the numbers engaged on both sides usually were relatively small. I don't think that the earlier end of the war would change too much except that there always would be a "Livonian front" for both sides to consider. As the OTL events demonstrated, this would be an area of Swedish vulnerability easily accessible to the Russian irregular troops for a massive countryside looting.
This caught my attention though. With St. Petersburg being vulnerable from both north and south by Sweden, fighting will probably inevitably happen again in the future. However I imagine said Livonian Front would probably be different from Finland in being better campaign land and being just more valuable. With the value of Riga and Livonia, I could see Swedish foreign policy very much orienting to protect it.


So I think we three have worked out a general outline so far. The POD is either 1) Charles XII is killed in a failed Landing at Humlbaek or 2) a breakdown occurs in Sweden's relations with the English and Dutch, meaning no warships to help them, and thus Sweden can't attack Zeeland directly. Charles XII then dies...from something. Charles is succeeded by either his elder sister, Sophia Hedvig or her infant son, Charles Frederick. Without Denmark's quick defeat, it takes Holstein-Gottorp and probably an invasion of Bohuslan occurs. They might invade Skaneland if they have enough success, but the invasion is unlikely to succeed. the Russians are besieging Narva, but the siege is going badly. Peter either raids the countryside or retreats entirely to plan a second campaign to take Narva. Augustus' Saxon troops besiege Riga, but fail.

Eventually parliament use this opportunity of general weakness to end Carolinian Absolutionism. They probably aim to break the coalition by fighting till they can make a respectable peace where Sweden loses as little as possible. Russia gets Ingria. Denmark's gains probably depend on their overall success, but Holstein-Gottorp is probably a must for a victorious Denmark to make peace. Bohuslan is possible, but Skaneland and Gotland are unlikely without a longer war. Augustus is probably left out to dry after Riga is relieved by Sweden, being too valuable for Sweden not to do everything possible to relieve it. Depending on success there, Sweden might try to gain territorial concessions. More likely they accept mediation by the Sejm, the Sejm forcing Sugustus to make peace while probably also by necessity giving Sweden concessions like not allowing Saxon troops to march through Polish territory.

The 'Great' Northern War ends as a conflict that probably only lasted two years.

Not a whole lot changes for Denmark. It might still only receive Holsteion-Gottorp it did OTL, although this time it was done earlier and more due to Danish effort. Maybe Bohuslan.

Russia actually might have actually lost in this scenario. While a quicker conflict, Russia doesn't get Estonia or Livonia. St. Petersburg will now be threatened by the Swedes from both north and south. While Estonia/Livonia are more vulnerable, it still doesn't change the fact that Russia will likely face future wars with a stronger Sweden than than after the OTL GNW. Poland also isn't as placed to fall under Russian influence. Its overall strategic position in the Baltic appears weaker, despite not needing to spend as many lives and resources compared to the OTL GNW.

Poland is a bit better off here, not being attacked and partially occupied by Sweden. Augustus too can be considered to have 'won' by not being chased for five years by the Swedes across Poland, but the Sejm will only have more influence after his failed attempt at foreign conquest and due to having brokered peace with Sweden. Sweden will probably retain influence over Poland.

Sweden stays a regional power, if one a bit hurting. Swedish Pomeania is untouched, it probably still has Skaneland, maybe exemption from the Sound Dues, Livonia, Estonia, and Bremen-Verden.

Prussia won't have taken part of Swedish Pomerania. Hanover won't gain Bremen-Verden.
 
Last edited:
As for the longer term aftermath.

This Sweden came out retaining most of its lands. As the War of Spanish Succession is going on, Sweden probably loans out troops like Brandenburg-Prussia and Denmark were doing. If we go with the first POD, the troops are probably loaned out to the English and Dutch. For the second POD, Sweden maybe attacks Denmark or Prussia, both of which were loaning out troops to the allies (thus probably earning French subsidies) and both have lands Sweden would want. Any effects this might have on the WoSS is an entirely different beast.

After the WoSS, I could see Sweden focusing on countering Russia if small scale conflicts are already occurring in Estonia/Livonia. In that aim, I could actually see Sweden aiming to court the PLC. Assuming that the Swedes didn't invade Poland wholesale and an equitable agreement was made with the Sejm, a still relevant Sweden would be in a position to do exactly what Tsar Peter did concerning Poland. We know Augustus is going to attempt centralizing measures using his Saxon troops, and the szlachta will look for outside aid. The Swedes are traditional enemies, but Russia has been eating away at the PLC's eastern lands and Peter hasn't had his OTL success here. Augustus has already made an enemy of the Swedes as well, unlike his brief alliance with Peter. For the Swedes, the PLC is an ally against Russia. I could also see this Swedish-Polish alliance being used against Prussia. Poland to take East Prussia, and the Swedes for Pomerania. This might mean the Baltic starts developing into a theater of Sweden-PLC vs Russia and Prussia.

That...probably leads to something of a similar result as OTL. The PLC won't be competing with Russia unless it reforms, and since Sweden would be supporting the szlachta in this scenario that would be unlikely. While Sweden might still be able to take on Prussia at this time, it in all likelihood won't be able to if Russia takes Livonia or Estonia. Maybe if Sweden had attacked Prussia during the WoSS and defeated them, weakening that state, a Swedish-Polish could finish off Prussia quickly and allow the two to focus entirely on Russia. Denmark is still on Sweden's west flank though. So probably it ends with a gradually weakening Polish-Swedish alliance falling increasingly under their neighbors.
 
My mistake then. I thought the North German possessions were something like 25% of the state budget.

Riga was the biggest city on the Baltic coast and it was controlling most of the grain exports from Lithuania so, understandably, it would amount for a big share of the state incomes.

True, but Charles didn't exactly let that stop him from using military force against the Sejm.

Well, he generally felt himself free to do whatever pleased him without paying attention to the trifles like country's neutrality. Theoretically, his excuse could be that the Saxon troops had been operating from the PLC's territory.

Wow. That's...a rather dismal portrayal of a guy with the moniker 'the Great'. Guess his achievements were more from ambition and a full willingness to put the strategic reserves of Russia to use no matter the cost than real talent and skill in making reforms.

These "achievements" cost something between 20 and 25% of the population, caused serious fiscal crisis (which, of course, did not impact life style of Peter's "inner circle") and had disastrous long-term impact upon the Russian economy. One of the greatest "achievements" (besides enforcing smoking and wearing the wigs) was conversion of the traditional Russian serfdom (which was more or less along the general European lines) into the de-facto slavery. He, indeed, managed to convert Russia into a perfect absolute monarchy where the subjects of all ranks had been completely dependent upon ruler's will and that will was not restrained by any laws.

So a victory will allow Peter to build his new capital, but it will leave the military forces there not even suited to countering the Swedes.

IMO, you are somewhat exaggerating: even Narva was not exactly an easy rout of the Russian troops. They were put into the worst possible position but the Swedes could not broke resistance on the flanks: regiments of the (future) Guards negotiated an honorable passage with the arms and colors and Weide division (after repeated order of the top Russian commander available) agreed to the capitulation (free passage without arms) only on December 2nd, 2 days after the Swedish attack. Sheremetev's cavalry simply crossed the river and escaped without any negotiations (as a result, he was promoted to the full general). His campaign of 1701/2 in Livonia was quite successful.

This caught my attention though. With St. Petersburg being vulnerable from both north and south by Sweden, fighting will probably inevitably happen again in the future. However I imagine said Livonian Front would probably be different from Finland in being better campaign land and being just more valuable. With the value of Riga and Livonia, I could see Swedish foreign policy very much orienting to protect it.

The Livonian Front would also be more vulnerable on the Swedish side as was demonstrated by the OTL campaigns and it seems that, while there were numerous Livonian officers serving in the Swedish army (some of them, like Schlippenbach ended on the Russian service), the local troops, unlike the Finns, were not quite impressive. So, possession of Livonia could prove to be a deterrent for the Swedes if they had a reasonable government (which they seemingly did not for a big part of the XVIII century).

... the Russians are besieging Narva, but the siege is going badly. Peter either raids the countryside or retreats entirely to plan a second campaign to take Narva.

No matter what, raiding of Livonia is going to happen and don't forget that only a fraction of the available Russian troops had been engaged at Narva. So we are basically speculating on how much of a territory the Russian troops are going to destroy and/or capture before the peace is signed (specifically, will they end up with Riga and Revel or not).


Russia actually might have actually lost in this scenario. While a quicker conflict, Russia doesn't get Estonia or Livonia. St. Petersburg will now be threatened by the Swedes from both north and south. While Estonia/Livonia are more vulnerable, it still doesn't change the fact that Russia will likely face future wars with a stronger Sweden than than after the OTL GNW.

Well, strategic situation of St-Petersburg would be more precarious but I don't see the Swedish attacks as inevitable in that situation because spirit of a revanchism would be greatly diminished due to insignificance of the losses. There is a chance that St-Petersburg is not going to end as a capital (which it officially became only in 1713 with the flanks being reasonably secure). OTOH, who said that it is Sweden who is going to be a future aggressor? After all, Russia did have much greater resources and if a nightmare of the GNW is cut short the Peter's reign may be not as exhausting economically as in OTL (of course, I would not bet on this) and an idea of the further expansion on the Baltic coast may be on an agenda. With Charles out and even the natural course of the affairs by the 1730's Russia is going to have a big and reasonably strong army as did happen in OTL, especially if we assume that Münnich is serving in Russia and his military reforms of 1730 - 32 are happening.

As for the PLC, we still have to consider competition between the French and Austrian/Russian candidates with a resulting Russian interference into the War of the Polish succession and following PLC's dependency on Russia. Just an absence of the GNW would not cure the fundamental PLC problems.
 
Top