WI: Sweden and Russia divided Poland during the Deluge?

During the Second Northern War. Russia and Sweden (for a time) had occupied the majority of the Poland-Lithuanian commonwealth. Sweden occupied the Western third (the wealthiest and area least affected by war) while Russia occupied the eastern two-thirds. The occupation lasted for only a few years, Polish-allied armies managed to push both the Swedes and Russians out from most of the territory, and Poland was kept a sovereign nation for a time.

But what would be the affect of having the occupied land stay occupied? and Poland is divided between Sweden and Russia?
Would affect would this have on the European landscape?
Could Sweden stay a major power for longer with the Polish land?
How long could they be expected to keep this land?
 
I believe that a deciding factor is how the HRE would respond to this occupation. From my understanding, Sweden wanted to have control over the Baltic so I don't think that they would stray too far from the coast. Of course, if there is a possibility of screwing Denmark then that might change things.
 
Sweden had control of the Baltic coast yes, but their control also stretched to Krakow further south. Russia had territory stretching from Wilno to Lwow.
The HRE had sided with Poland in OTL, Leopold the first even expanded the alliance to include Austrian troops.
 
Two things that I have noted through some reading:

1. Even though Sweden received compensation because of the Thirty Years War, they were still running low on funds.
2. Some of the Polish nobility supported Charles Gustav moreso than John Casimir due to John's sympathies for Austria. They also urged him to pursue the crown to the PLC.

If Charles Gustav could capitalize on that support from the nobility and claim the crown I believe that it would make it easier to hold onto Poland. However, the issue of money still remains. What would be the POD?
 
What would be the POD?
For this scenario to happen I envisioned a failing of the truce of Vilna, that (temporarily) created an anti-Swedish league between Poland and Russia. Meaning that Poland doesn't have that year long grace period to regroup, which really made the difference.

In regards to the funds to Sweden. I remember reading that both France and the Turks sent money rather frequently to Sweden, alot of it wasn't used for the war, instead used for more domestic purposes. Again, that's just what I remember reading and I sadly cannot find it anymore. Could Sweden have gotten the funds required from either the Ottoman Empire or Brandenburg?
 
Charles X Gustav became to greedy. Instead of keeping with the original plan to secure the coast and then ask for peace he decided to go as south as Krakow and lost most of the army in the process.

The reason he is not called a bloody fool in Sweden is that Denmarks DOW and then the march over Beldt
 
For this scenario to happen I envisioned a failing of the truce of Vilna, that (temporarily) created an anti-Swedish league between Poland and Russia. Meaning that Poland doesn't have that year long grace period to regroup, which really made the difference.

In regards to the funds to Sweden. I remember reading that both France and the Turks sent money rather frequently to Sweden, alot of it wasn't used for the war, instead used for more domestic purposes. Again, that's just what I remember reading and I sadly cannot find it anymore. Could Sweden have gotten the funds required from either the Ottoman Empire or Brandenburg?

Brandenburg, possibly. Not too sure about the Ottoman Empire. As far as I can recall, France provided funds during the Thirty Years War and I am not sure of transactions beyond that. Christina and Charles X Gustav were known to spend a ridiculous amount of money on themselves which caused financial problems for Sweden. And to answer tag along with what mattep74 pointed out, that march was more for personal glory than for Sweden.

With the failing of the truce the promise of the succession of Alexis of Russia to the throne of Poland is void. So, with Russia preoccupied with their gains, then all Sweden would have to worry about is Denmark-Norway and the Habsburgs. Brandenburg-Prussia was in alliance with Sweden as of June of 1656 and reinforced the Swedish army in Poland.

If say John II Casimir was kept out of Poland as originally planned or, somehow, died as a result of a battlefield injury/fall from horse/etc., then Charles X Gustav could possibly make a claim to the throne through his connection to the House of Vasa.

How long can the Swedish hold onto their gains? I don't think I could answer that question without a definite answer about the Habsburgs. I can be sure that both the HRE and Denmark-Norway will feel threatened by this large acquisition of land though.
 
Brandenburg, possibly.

I don' think so.
After the 30YW Brandenburg was devastated and depopulated and impoverished. Whatever moiney they could scrape together they needed for themselves, especially for the standing army that was a huge drain, but seen as needed if they wanted to remain politically relevant (inside the HRE, not yet in an European context.)

Some funds might have come from the Netherlands, since their Baltic Sea trade profited from a slightly stronger Sweden that would break the Danish toll monopoly. But obviously a too strong Sweden that thoroughly controls all the Baltic ports is not good for the Dutch, either.
 
I don' think so.
After the 30YW Brandenburg was devastated and depopulated and impoverished. Whatever moiney they could scrape together they needed for themselves, especially for the standing army that was a huge drain, but seen as needed if they wanted to remain politically relevant (inside the HRE, not yet in an European context.)

Some funds might have come from the Netherlands, since their Baltic Sea trade profited from a slightly stronger Sweden that would break the Danish toll monopoly. But obviously a too strong Sweden that thoroughly controls all the Baltic ports is not good for the Dutch, either.
In the case of Brandenburg, possible not probable, but I see your point.

I could see the Netherlands providing funds to the Swedish now that I look at the situation and it would also keep the Danish on their toes considering the close proximity of the Dutch.
 
I could see the Netherlands providing funds to the Swedish now that I look at the situation and it would also keep the Danish on their toes considering the close proximity of the Dutch.

The Dutch sided with Denmark over Sweden, seeing her as the lesser of her two foes. They feared that a strong Sweden might ally with England. Dutch units took part in the siege of Danzig (acting as a strong relive force) and were sent to protect Copenhagen. They intervened in Danzig since they had extremely important grain imports from the Baltic.
 
From my understanding the Dutch also feared the French expansion into their territory. War of Devolution and the Triple Alliance of 1668 comes to mind. England, the United Provinces, and Sweden in alliance to halt the expansion of Louis XIV. While the War of Devolution was a few years after the Second Northern War, I still think that Sweden could play on Dutch fear of French expansion. Of course, further incentive might be needed. Any ideas?
 
The English and French were allied at this time actually. Which is the main reason that Dutch support was less then a full out declaration of war, they were afraid of having the English and French attack them.
I don't see the Dutch siding on an alliance that would have the two main powers of Europe against it.
If you could somehow get French or English guaranteed neutrality then it wouldn't be hard to find reasons for the Dutch to get involved. The Swedes in the New World (I think) attacked Dutch holdings, and they lost a fair amount of men and ships during the Danzig siege.
 
To put it plainly, Peter Minuit was a bit butthurt due to how the Dutch treated him prior to him leading the Swedish expedition into North America. The Swedes did occupy lands that were claimed by the Dutch but what I find interesting is that there were Dutch stockholders involved in this expedition.

You mention that France and England were allied at that time. After further reading I found that France did send funds to England and promised to send military assistance in case of another civil war breaks out in between King and parliament. That relationship changed in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution.

So, the alliances in this time period makes things interesting. I am not sure how you could get either England or France to remain neutral in this case.
 
So, the alliances in this time period makes things interesting. I am not sure how you could get either England or France to remain neutral in this case.

Would it be possible to have the French/English prevent Polish allies from intervening in the first place? I'm not sure that the Hapsburg's would be wanting to engage in another war with France at this point. I just can't find a major reason why they'd want a powerful Sweden/Russia and a destroyed Poland. The only reason that I can think is for an ally to combat Austria or the Ottomans.
 
Last edited:
It would be feasible for France to make the allies of the PLC think twice. France, at that time, was not too keen on being surrounded by the Hapsburgs. If we are still talking about the Deluge, then I believe that England would be staying out of it. Charles II wouldn't be restored until 1660, the year that the Deluge ended.

If there is a prospect of Spain getting involved and they are actively seeking to get some territory (the Netherlands) back, then the Dutch may get involved.
 
Top