What If: Sweden

**Salem1** · May 05, 2009, 08:45 AM

A bunch of what-ifs that I decided to compile. What do you think would've happened if...

- Gustav Adolf the great had survived the 30 years war instead of dying at Lützen at the age of 37?

- Charles X hadn't suddenly died at the age of 37?

- Kronan, and thus the navy as a whole, had a more competent admiral?

- The Polish War of 1626 - 1629 had ended in a Swedish victory with the results that Gustav had set out for?

- Charles XI had not died of cancer at the age of 41?

- The battles of Lesnaya and Poltava had both been decisive victories for Sweden?

**dogukan** · May 05, 2009, 09:18 AM

About some succesfull leaders not dying....no one can guarantee they'd be succesfull if they didn't die...right?

**il padrino** · May 05, 2009, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Salem1

A bunch of what-ifs that I decided to compile. What do you think would've happened if...

- Gustav Adolf the great had survived the 30 years war instead of dying at Lützen at the age of 37?

- Charles X hadn't suddenly died at the age of 37?

- Kronan, and thus the navy as a whole, had a more competent admiral?

- The Polish War of 1626 - 1629 had ended in a Swedish victory with the results that Gustav had set out for?

- Charles XI had not died of cancer at the age of 41?

- The battles of Lesnaya and Poltava had both been decisive victories for Sweden?

eeeeh,if you try to live only with "what if" then you're not going nowhere.

instead,try to make that those "errors" don't repeat in the future.

**Salem1** · May 05, 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by dogukan

About some succesfull leaders not dying....no one can guarantee they'd be succesfull if they didn't die...right?

Nah, that's why I'm asking about it, what do people think would've happened? it's a harmless bunch of questions.

Originally Posted by il padrino

eeeeh,if you try to live only with "what if" then you're not going nowhere.

instead,try to make that those "errors" don't repeat in the future.

Huh? I never wanted to start a discussion on the stuff I wrote, I just wanted to know what people thought would happen and then people could discuss that.

**il padrino** · May 05, 2009, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Salem1

Nah, that's why I'm asking about it, what do people think would've happened? it's a harmless bunch of questions.

Huh? I never wanted to start a discussion on the stuff I wrote, I just wanted to know what people thought would happen and then people could discuss that.

and i was not starting a discussion

i just stated my opinion.

jeah,sweeden would be a powerful country.but it didn't happen.

**Salem1** · May 05, 2009, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ahlerich

then sweden would probably be a powerful, important country worth noticing and not the insignificant little country at the edge of the map.

muahahaha sorry couldnt resist

Enjoy your pot-shots while we're still in our peaceful world. According to one of our comedians, we were planning to invade USA while their soldiers were away in Iraq, but now they're laying the war down and coming home. Damn them for discovering our plot...

Originally Posted by Their Law

Personally i think the end result will be the same in the long run. Perhaps Sweden and Finland might be one country but in the long run Sweden was not going to win against Russia, it could effectively defend itself (that's understating it) but weight of numbers would of worn them down eventually. Personally i think Sweden lacked the manpower to be a truly dominant power for a full length of time, especially with the advent of a more industrial economy. I admire the country but at the time it just didn't have the muscle to project it power to the same extent as nations such as Russia and France. I'm not saying Sweden was weak but it was a regional power rather than a international power.

That's pretty much the view I had expected, which I would agree with as well.

Originally Posted by Valus

I agree with Their Law.. Sweden couldnt compete with the other major powers for especially long, atleast not during/after a long war no matter if it was succesful or not. It is as so often in war numbers (ie population/manpower) and industrial capacity (for lack of a better word) rather than sheer quantity that matter and Sweden rather lacked both to remain on top for especially long..
I think it would have been more interesting to see what would have happened if Charles XII retreated from the Ukraine before the battle of Poltava and would have tried to hold his baltic "domains"..The result would most likely have been the same (the defeat would probably only have been postponed) but it makes for interesting debate, it is after all what some of Charles advisor advised him to do.

You mean quality not quantity, right? anyway, I also think it would've been interesting if he did that. Or perhaps if he hadn't gone into Russia in the first place, instead cementing Sweden's borders and preparing Sweden for future aggressions from such a coalition, so that future commanders would be forewarned of such an event. Much like Portugal constructed a lot of fortresses near the border with Castille, pre-empting aggression. As for defeat, I don't think it was that inevitable if Charles stuck to a policy of counter-attacking and relieving sieges while never marching further into Russia other than to pursue beaten armies a bit past the border, or something like that.

Sweden most likely would not be able to actually defeat Russia without a simultaneous invasion by for example the Ottomans, when both allies were at full strength and so on. But as you said, I preservation and defense would most likely be the most effective route to take.

Originally Posted by Visna

Quick question.
Does your "what if" scenario involve more Danish victories? Otherwise I'm not interested.

More Danish victories, at land or at sea? I can grant you the latter but the former is impossible, I'm afraid

Originally Posted by il padrino

and i was not starting a discussion

i just stated my opinion.

jeah,sweeden would be a powerful country.but it didn't happen.

All right then, I see.

**2CV** · May 05, 2009, 11:35 AM

We would all have to eat breakfast at Ikea's and have Swedish meatballs for diner

.

**Ahlerich** · May 05, 2009, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Salem1

A bunch of what-ifs that I decided to compile. What do you think would've happened if...

- Gustav Adolf the great had survived the 30 years war instead of dying at Lützen at the age of 37?

- Charles X hadn't suddenly died at the age of 37?

- Kronan, and thus the navy as a whole, had a more competent admiral?

- The Polish War of 1626 - 1629 had ended in a Swedish victory with the results that Gustav had set out for?

- Charles XI had not died of cancer at the age of 41?

- The battles of Lesnaya and Poltava had both been decisive victories for Sweden?

then sweden would probably be a powerful, important country worth noticing and not the insignificant little country at the edge of the map.

muahahaha sorry couldnt resist

**Tiberios** · May 05, 2009, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ahlerich

then sweden would probably be a powerful, important country worth noticing and not the insignificant little country at the edge of the map.

muahahaha sorry couldnt resist

**Their Law** · May 05, 2009, 10:14 AM

Personally i think the end result will be the same in the long run. Perhaps Sweden and Finland might be one country but in the long run Sweden was not going to win against Russia, it could effectively defend itself (that's understating it) but weight of numbers would of worn them down eventually. Personally i think Sweden lacked the manpower to be a truly dominant power for a full length of time, especially with the advent of a more industrial economy. I admire the country but at the time it just didn't have the muscle to project it power to the same extent as nations such as Russia and France. I'm not saying Sweden was weak but it was a regional power rather than a international power.

**Valus** · May 05, 2009, 10:21 AM

I agree with Their Law.. Sweden couldnt compete with the other major powers for especially long, atleast not during/after a long war no matter if it was succesful or not. It is as so often in war numbers (ie population/manpower) and industrial capacity (for lack of a better word) rather than sheer quantity that matter and Sweden rather lacked both to remain on top for especially long..
I think it would have been more interesting to see what would have happened if Charles XII retreated from the Ukraine before the battle of Poltava and would have tried to hold his baltic "domains"..The result would most likely have been the same (the defeat would probably only have been postponed) but it makes for interesting debate, it is after all what some of Charles advisor advised him to do.

**Visna** · May 05, 2009, 10:31 AM

Quick question.
Does your "what if" scenario involve more Danish victories? Otherwise I'm not interested.

**Hookah Smoking Caterpiller** · May 05, 2009, 12:14 PM

All I know is that Norway is better than any other scandinvian countries.

**gaius valerius** · May 05, 2009, 12:34 PM

Let's keep it real: a country can only have so much resources demographically and geographically. Hence a head of state - talented as he may be - can only use that much resources. So even if all those victories turned out for the better, this still doesn't change the fact that a sleeping giant like Russia had a lot more means at her disposal. Sweden thrived upon the succes of her sovereigns, nothing however implies that this would last forever. What if Gustaph did not die? Would it in any way mean that he could never lose?

These what it's are always speculating on the 'what if that superawesome genius bloke didn't take a bullet/swordstrike/blablabla in da face/torso/limbs/blablabla, what would he have done with his superawesomeness', however this always ignores the very fact that men are... men. And nobody was ever perfect, hence failure is always an option.

**Nikitn** · May 05, 2009, 01:01 PM

Haha, Danes + Norwegians gang up against the Swedes.

On topic: I doubt the outcome would be different in the long run, but Sweden would have allot more glory, I guess.

**Tiberios** · May 05, 2009, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Nikitn

Haha, Danes + Norwegians gang up against the Swedes.

and that is hopefully never going to change.

**Salem1** · May 05, 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Kralle18

and that is hopefully never going to change.

In all seriousness I agree, I don't like these new movements of ''scandinavism'', uniting Europe and so on. Sweden + Finland, Denmark + Norway. That's where it's at. So please do continue ganging up on me

**Tiberios** · May 05, 2009, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Salem1

In all seriousness I agree, I don't like these new movements of ''scandinavism'', uniting Europe and so on. Sweden + Finland, Denmark + Norway. That's where it's at. So please do continue gang up on me

As you wish