WI: Swedish King Charles XII isn't killed in 1718

That fortress would probably have fallen, but the rest of the campaign might have failed, at least in the Trondheim area. Perhaps Norway sunnanfjells is occupied.

There was a peace deal with Russia in the making, but the Swedes seem to have regarded this as a temporary measure while taking out the western enemies, so there might not be an immediate peace for Sweden on all fronts.

Baron Görtz would not be executed.

Right-side traffic would stay as the rule in Sweden, instead of being abolished, and not reintroduced until 1967.
 
I'm always interested in Swedish history, and I find Carl XII fascinating. I know the king in Sweden at the time held absolute power, so parliament is unlikely to have a voice, but surely at some point someone must've said "enough is enough" due to the ruinous cost of the war?

Would Carl really have gone on fighting until he kicks the bucket? Or as he himself said "I have resolved never to end a war except by defeating my enemies". Could Sweden's economy have held?
 
There is a version that Peter I and Carl prepared on a joint war against Denmark. The goal - to control the foreign trade in the Baltic Sea, having seized on shares straits.
 
I'm not aware about this either... there's however another conspiracy theory that the Charles-killing bullet was shot from Swedish side of the camp - in short wars (and losing them) made the king so unpopular that his own subjects gladly killed him.
 
That's the first I've ever heard of it. What's your source, Aley?

Unfortunately, not a document. Heard about it from a friend of the historian (Doctor of Historical Sciences). He was going to write a book about it, but has not had time.:(
 
I read something along those lines when I tried to find something of Görtz' peace negociations, but then they were not really long-term serious from the Swedish side. Instead, they talked about leaking such information to discredit the Russians and create dissention among the enemies (as if there was not enough of that as it were).
 
He was probably too warlike to keep Sweden going much longer. He'd keep going for decisive victory instead of forcing minor concessions, and when you're at war with as many nations as he was Sweden simply can't win in the end. Remember that at the time of his death Sweden has been gutted both economically and with manpower
 
He was probably too warlike to keep Sweden going much longer. He'd keep going for decisive victory instead of forcing minor concessions, and when you're at war with as many nations as he was Sweden simply can't win in the end. Remember that at the time of his death Sweden has been gutted both economically and with manpower

Agreed. In many ways Charles XII was similar to Alexander the Great. Both were brilliant generals and won many victories but had to have all or nothing. The problem was both their nations couldn't keep going. After Charles' death Sweden's status as a great power was permanently lost. Sure Gustav III managed a brief revival but for the most part Sweden's power was done. Macedon had a massive empire by Alexander's death, but had been depleted of almost all of its manpower thanks to Alexander's demands for more and more troops. The empire soon fell and Macedon never again became a dominant player. So if Charles didn't die the war would keep going on until Peter the Great eventually invaded Sweden itself and forced the issue. Charles would either have to make peace or risk being deposed or killed.
 
Maybe there'd be a coup, and whoever is in power negotiates with Russia and salvages something. Swedes keep Norway and Some other Baltic lands, but nothing more than that
 
Maybe there'd be a coup, and whoever is in power negotiates with Russia and salvages something. Swedes keep Norway and Some other Baltic lands, but nothing more than that

Sweden didn't get Norway until the 19th century. At this point it was controlled by Denmark. As to Baltic lands, at this point I can't see the Tsar as wanting to compromise, he'll want all the Baltic cost.
 
I read something along those lines when I tried to find something of Görtz' peace negociations, but then they were not really long-term serious from the Swedish side. Instead, they talked about leaking such information to discredit the Russians and create dissention among the enemies (as if there was not enough of that as it were).

What you have to take into account is the fact that Görtz was subject to massive propaganda after the death of Charles and there isnt much neutral writing about him.
 
Sweden didn't get Norway until the 19th century. At this point it was controlled by Denmark. As to Baltic lands, at this point I can't see the Tsar as wanting to compromise, he'll want all the Baltic cost.

Russia has paid a large sum of money Sweden, in compensation for the Baltic States.
 
Agreed. In many ways Charles XII was similar to Alexander the Great. Both were brilliant generals and won many victories but had to have all or nothing. The problem was both their nations couldn't keep going. After Charles' death Sweden's status as a great power was permanently lost. Sure Gustav III managed a brief revival but for the most part Sweden's power was done. Macedon had a massive empire by Alexander's death, but had been depleted of almost all of its manpower thanks to Alexander's demands for more and more troops. The empire soon fell and Macedon never again became a dominant player. So if Charles didn't die the war would keep going on until Peter the Great eventually invaded Sweden itself and forced the issue. Charles would either have to make peace or risk being deposed or killed.

Huh? Alexander's empire was split up among his generals. It didn't collapse. And the Macedonian portion, once restored to stability under the Antigonids in the 3rd century, was virtually as powerful as it had been at the time Alexander came to power. Even in the eastern portions of Alexander's empire, the Seleucids managed to hold on for longer than one might expect.
 
Russia has paid a large sum of money Sweden, in compensation for the Baltic States.

Yeah he did but it was pretty much adding insult to injury. Sweden's economy was in shambles by this point so it would need a lot more then financial compensation. They lost their great power status and nearly all their dominions besides Finland and Swedish Pomerania.
 
As to Baltic lands, at this point I can't see the Tsar as wanting to compromise, he'll want all the Baltic cost.
He did offer to return Estonia and Livonia to Sweden after Charles' death, but I suppose that he might have kept the major fortresses Viborg and Narva, to secure Petersburg.

Remember that at the time of his death Sweden has been gutted both economically and with manpower
Around 1750, when Swedish statistics started, the country still had several hundred thousand men that had been born in the 1600s, and could have served in the armies of 1718, so the manpower was not generally lacking.


The problem was both their nations couldn't keep going. After Charles' death Sweden's status as a great power was permanently lost. Sure Gustav III managed a brief revival but for the most part Sweden's power was done.
Sweden was still one of the European powers 1721-1768, although this was not really used to any extent, and if it happened, general incompetence and inefficiency hindered all actions. If the country had set out on another course than OTL, it might have reversed the fortunes yet again.
 
He did offer to return Estonia and Livonia to Sweden after Charles' death, but I suppose that he might have kept the major fortresses Viborg and Narva, to secure Petersburg./QUOTE]

Peter offered to give away Swedes all but the Petersburg. He was ready to give even Pskov.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Peter offered to give away Swedes all but the Petersburg. He was ready to give even Pskov.

That was in 1708 before the Russian campaign of Charles XII. In 1718 the peace offer was for Sweden to loose Ingria, Karelia and Estonia, but return Livonia and Finland.
 
Top