WI: Sweden wins the Great Northern War?

[ThatOneGuy]

So the Great Northern War is usually seen as not a great idea for Sweden. The Swedish Army's defeat at Poltava and soon after King Charles's fleeing to the Ottoman Empire is usually seen as more or less the end of the Empire even if they fought for a few more years. However lets say that Sweden was able to win the War with favorable, lasting peace agreements with Sweden's numerous enemies. What would Sweden take? Could it last or was the Empire already on the path to collapse? How would world history view Sweden and its Empire?

 

[Wolttaire]

Well I could see them take some small chunks out Poland Lithuania and maybe some small parts in karlie or other parts in northern Russia. If they reengage with Norway Denmark I could see them taking land there too and some random colonies as well

 

[alexmilman]

So the Great Northern War is usually seen as not a great idea for Sweden. The Swedish Army's defeat at Poltava and soon after King Charles's fleeing to the Ottoman Empire is usually seen as more or less the end of the Empire even if they fought for a few more years. However lets say that Sweden was able to win the War with favorable, lasting peace agreements with Sweden's numerous enemies. What would Sweden take? Could it last or was the Empire already on the path to collapse? How would world history view Sweden and its Empire?

It was not a great idea but it was not a Swedish idea. So in the best case scenario it can retain its pre-war territory, perhaps with the minor additions. In a realistic scenario it could retain pretty much everything except for Ingria: Russian obsession with getting a foothold on the Baltic coast can be traced back to Ivan III. How sustainable any of these arrangements could be is anybody’s guess. Russian state had been growing stronger so a lot would depend upon its chosen direction of expansion. The options were: (a) Baltic coast, (b) Black Sea direction (with getting rid of the Crimean threat being the 1st priority), (c) Asia (Caucasus, CA and/or Far East)

 

[Vanity 6]

Yes they keep their possessions cramping the styles of Russia, Denmark and Poland

Who’s in who’s out in Poland? I say Augustus is in thanks to the Emperor.

What of Russia? Repulsed in the North, Central and South, do they have to reorient themselves toward the East? I think the answer is yes.

What is the policy of Sweden in the first half of the 18th century? It will be mostly smooth sailing until the War of Polish Succession which I believe still happens Do they support Stanislaw or stay out of it?

 

[Hopeless Situation]

The best chance for a Swedish victory is probably the Battle of Narva, which was already a terrible defeat for the Russians. Peter the Great had been with the army, but, for reasons that still aren't totally clear, decided to leave the day before the battle; have him stay, and it's certainly possible he would be captured or killed, thus likely snuffing out the Russian threat for a generation. From there, Russia is probably in deep trouble, especially if Peter is killed. A ten-year-old heir to the throne plus a nobility eager to reassert their power after Peter's efforts at centralization equals a big mess on the horizon, perhaps even a second Time of Troubles. I can only assume Charles XII lights up Poland-Lithuania from there, and probably at very least forces Courland to swap its allegiance to Sweden. In terms of gains from the Russians, meanwhile, Karelia is probably first on the menu, maybe Kola as well (for the sake of more aesthetic borders if nothing else). And as for Denmark, well, the Swedish campaign in Norway was brutally difficult OTL (Charles XII died there), but being in a much stronger position with Poltava butterflied and without the Russian threat in the Swedish rear, Charles might well be able to wrest Norway from the Danes.

Long-term, however, Sweden's got a big problem. It just isn't populous enough to punch with the big boys forever. Russia's going to be out of commission for a while, but barring total collapse, they will eventually be back for vengeance, and, backward as they may be, they have enormous demographic advantages that will eventually begin to tell, unless Sweden can find more manpower. Conquering and eventually integrating the rest of Scandinavia is probably the best possibility (the dukes of Holstein being within the Swedish sphere of influence up until they were forced to break their alliance at the end of the OTL Great Northern War definitely helps with encircling Denmark). In the medium term, Sweden would probably eventually be on a collision course with Prussia (assuming its growth as a military power isn't butterflied), given Sweden's influence in the Baltic. Meanwhile, Sweden might eventually be able to snag West Prussia in an alt-partition of Poland.

If the Prussians can be put down, so long as northern Germany remains divided, Sweden has no existential external threats except for Russia, which will inevitably rise again and turn its attention back to the Baltic someday, unless it can somehow be splintered. The Swedish Empire's eventual downfall will probably have something to do with the Russians, as well as with internal discontent in Sweden's diverse Baltic empire. But it might be at least vaguely plausible for a Swedish-led Scandinavia to remain united and endure to the present day.

 

[General Tirpitz]

As noted above, the main problem Sweden has that it will stay as dominant player in the Baltic region only as long Russia stays weak. Of course you can weaken Russia somehow and cause it all sorts of internal troubles but it is likely it will come back at some point, as already noted above. (I also feel that just weakening other nations in WIs like this is sort of like cheating.)

This is more a meta-discussion but I feel there is a tendency to look at these great power Sweden questions through battles and wars. However, winning a battle or a war doesn't solve fundamental problems a country has. If the aim is to keep Sweden a great power, the discussions about potential economic, political and other reforms might be quite fruitful. For example, the mercantilist system Sweden adopted during the 17th century really seems to have screwed the country's economy and at least lessening its effects somehow would probably strengthen the country. Allowing more cities to conduct foreign trade would be probably beneficial. The Swedish agriculture was also extremely backwards when compared to Western Europe at the time and somehow speeding up its development would help to increase the kingdom's population. The Crown didn't really seem to understand that it could benefit from increasing agricultural output in any way. Instead, usually the solution to its money woes was to increase taxation or make it more efficient. Although one result of this was that the state bureucracy had to become relatively efficient for the 17th century nation, it probably also led to slower population growth.

 

[b0ned0me]

The other big challenge for Sweden is that a very large part of the country is very sparsely populated and not much use for anything other than foraging, logging and mining. It’s similar to Canada in that it looks impressive on a map but all the economy and population is in a small bit down south.
Absent modern technology getting any kind of productivity out of the northern territories is difficult.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

To keep Sweden as a great power, you need to remove Pyortr's time machine or have France win a clean cut victory in their wars. Both of these were out of Karl's control. His situation was probably a case of doing the best with what he had to work with.

 

[General Tirpitz]

Absent modern technology getting any kind of productivity out of the northern territories is difficult.

This was also complicated by the fact that at the time the relationship between climate and agricultural productivity was poorly understood in Sweden. There existed a genuine belief that northern areas would be just as productive as those in Western Europe if peasants weren't so lazy or spend their time hunting, cutting trees or with some other side jobs. (Which they had to do because they couldn't live off only on what their farms produced but this wasn't fully grasped in the capital.)

 

[mattep74]

Well I could see them take some small chunks out Poland Lithuania and maybe some small parts in karlie or other parts in northern Russia. If they reengage with Norway Denmark I could see them taking land there too and some random colonies as well

the plans Before Poltava was to have Russia give up Novgorod and have them be a Swedish puppet apearntly. They did not want anything from Poland IOTL when they made Peace.

And if Sweden win the great Nordic war there will be Another war within a generation against Denmark, Poland and/or Russia.

 

[General Tirpitz]

the plans Before Poltava was to have Russia give up Novgorod and have them be a Swedish puppet apearntly. They did not want anything from Poland IOTL when they made Peace.

That sounds quite ambitious even in the best case scenario, though that's probably just who Charles XII was. Something like taking Pskov seems more achiavable, assuming Sweden is actually able to gain more territories and the war doesn't just end in status quo ante bellum.

 

[alexmilman]

That sounds quite ambitious even in the best case scenario, though that's probably just who Charles XII was. Something like taking Pskov seems more achiavable, assuming Sweden is actually able to gain more territories and the war doesn't just end in status quo ante bellum.

I’m not sure if before Poltava battle Charles had any coherent plans and even P9ltava campaign was seemingly driven more by the supply situation and optimistic hopes than by some definite plans. Anyway, for conquest of Pskov, not to mention Novgorod, he was marching in a wrong direction.

Putting aside obvious speculations regarding his sanity at each specific time, it is probably safe to say that at the peak of his capacities Charles was a brilliant tactician with an advantage of having the better troops than his opponents. However, he was not very impressive strategist and as far as “Grand strategy” (overall planning of a war with the diplomatic component) is involved he was not very good, to put it mildly, because ability of an objective assessment of his and his opponents strength was absolutely lacking.

As far as Novgorod is involved, I’d guess that the whole “plan” was based upon the historic precedent (which would appeal to Charles with his understanding of “justice”): during the ToT Sweden was for a while Tsardom’s ally against the PLC. However, eventually the alliance fall apart (and Tsar who arranged it lost his throne) and Swedes occupied and held Novgorod for few years until its return was negotiated with a new regime: the main goal of GA was to held the coastal area, which would allow to tax Russian imports/exports conducted through Swedish ports. On its own, Novgorod at that time had a limited value besides being something of the Russian “base” for trade via Narva and Riga. So the historical precedent was there even if the practical sense was lacking.