Lesnaya & Poltava

**Salem1** · May 03, 2010, 10:34 AM

They were both catastrophic defeats for Sweden. But what would have happened if both of the battles had been won, both in the short and long term?

...

Let's say that at Lesnaya, the Swedes successfully repel the Russians, suffering few losses of their own but badly mauling the Russians who attempt to attack the Swedish army again and again. The Russians retreat having done little damage while the Swedish cavalry pursues the remnants and eventually comes back to the supply train.

Later at Poltava, the Swedish army succeeds in taking the Russians by surprise. The battle plan to reach the Russian camp goes as planned and chaos soars in the ranks of the Russians. A mass rout occurs, this time Charles XII gives the order not to spare any Russians unlike at Narva in realisation that they would simply join the army again. The Russian cavalry is entirely obliterated as Rehnskiöld decides to keep pursuing them until they fall to their deaths or die by Swedish pursuers instead of returning. The Russian army is wiped out; everything is taken as loot. Peter has managed to escape to Moscow.

What would happen?

**Border Patrol** · May 03, 2010, 12:45 PM

I would imagine than Russia would stay an irrelevant

without access to any warm water ports. And a massively offensive oriented military meant to keep the Motherland safe in the same manner as Ancient Sparta.
Hmmm. No Cold War for sure. Napoleon may very well have seen his defeat at the hands of the Swedish in a pitched battle rather than the famed Russian scorched earth. Or maybe he was never defeated at all and controlled the course of Europe until his death, doing what the Romans could not.
The possibilities really are endless.
Peter was a very capable leader, it may very well have just delayed Russia's rise to power instead of curtailing it completely. Maybe communism remains the pipe-dream of academics worldwide, without having a yardstick to measure its results in the real world. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, with only two strong enemies instead of 3, could very well have survived unmolested and continued to be a world power today.
Basically anything Russia had a hand in after their victory in the war could be subject to massive change.

**A Demented Goldfish** · May 03, 2010, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Border Patrol

I would imagine than Russia would stay an irrelevant

without access to any warm water ports. And a massively offensive oriented military meant to keep the Motherland safe in the same manner as Ancient Sparta.
Hmmm. No Cold War for sure. Napoleon may very well have seen his defeat at the hands of the Swedish in a pitched battle rather than the famed Russian scorched earth. Or maybe he was never defeated at all and controlled the course of Europe until his death, doing what the Romans could not.
The possibilities really are endless.
Peter was a very capable leader, it may very well have just delayed Russia's rise to power instead of curtailing it completely. Maybe communism remains the pipe-dream of academics worldwide, without having a yardstick to measure its results in the real world. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, with only two strong enemies instead of 3, could very well have survived unmolested and continued to be a world power today.
Basically anything Russia had a hand in after their victory in the war could be subject to massive change.

russia hasn't been irelevent since 756 AD you cousin f

in dunt

**Jaketh** · May 03, 2010, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by pharaoh01275

russia hasn't been irelevent since 756 AD you cousin f

in dunt

Russia was a nonentity until the 18th Century

**A Demented Goldfish** · May 03, 2010, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jaketh

Russia was a nonentity until the 18th Century

the idea of "russia" yes but its founder states had a major role in the shaping of eastern eourope

**Jaketh** · May 03, 2010, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by pharaoh01275

the idea of "russia" yes but its founder states had a major role in the shaping of eastern eourope

if you mean Novgorod and Muscovy then yes they where influential but only in their immediate area

**Border Patrol** · May 03, 2010, 05:27 PM

Influential in the same way Genoa or Bulgaria was.
Like I said, irrelevant.

**SorelusImperion** · May 04, 2010, 11:14 AM

Influential in the same way Genoa or Bulgaria was.

Ironically the former was a major ally in Spain's naval campaigns against the Ottomans and the chief rival of Venice and the later one a dominant player in the balkans for much of it's existance.
Conclusion: Neither were irrelevant and you made not only one but three horrible mistakes whih are most likely based on a warped perception of history, economics and politics.

Have a nice day.

**Jaketh** · May 04, 2010, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by SorelusImperion

Ironically the former was a major ally in Spain's naval campaigns against the Ottomans and the chief rival of Venice and the later one a dominant player in the balkans for much of it's existance.
Conclusion: Neither were irrelevant and you made not only one but three horrible mistakes whih are most likely based on a warped perception of history, economics and politics.

Have a nice day.

yes but the discussion was about Novgorod and Muscovy, which did not have influence out of their immediate regions

**SorelusImperion** · May 05, 2010, 02:50 PM

yes but the discussion was about Novgorod and Muscovy, which did not have influence out of their immediate regions

The early Russian Empire was an important factor in determining the fate of eastern and central Europe and had contacts reaching up to the Holy Roman Empire and England.

Novgorod specifically was an important trading center in the baltics and had great importance for the hansa.

Furthermore the real topic were the events following a hypothetical victory of Sweden during the battle of Poltava at which point Muscovy had long since transformed into the Russian Empire.

**A Demented Goldfish** · May 05, 2010, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by SorelusImperion

Ironically the former was a major ally in Spain's naval campaigns against the Ottomans and the chief rival of Venice and the later one a dominant player in the balkans for much of it's existance.
Conclusion: Neither were irrelevant and you made not only one but three horrible mistakes whih are most likely based on a warped perception of history, economics and politics.

Have a nice day.

dude you just owned him

**~~Heavy Weapons Guy~~** · May 09, 2010, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by SorelusImperion

The early Russian Empire was an important factor in determining the fate of eastern and central Europe and had contacts reaching up to the Holy Roman Empire and England.

Novgorod specifically was an important trading center in the baltics and had great importance for the hansa.

Furthermore the real topic were the events following a hypothetical victory of Sweden during the battle of Poltava at which point Muscovy had long since transformed into the Russian Empire.

Russia became empire after Great Northern War, so it wasn't empire yet.

**SorelusImperion** · May 10, 2010, 01:34 PM

Russia became empire after Great Northern War, so it wasn't empire yet.

By the time the "Great Northern War" broke out Russia had long since been united by the Rurikid princes of Muscovy and had already reached as far as the Pacific coast in it's colonization of Siberia. Since Ivan III the rulers of Russia used the title "Czar" which translates into "Emperor" originating from "Caesar" however it was only under Ivan IV's reign that this title was widely recognized.
Pyotr I. in his attempt to import European customs and know-how preferred the title Imperator which he adopted as you correctly mentioned in the wake of his victory.