You are Charles XII. How would you win it? what would you do afterwards? would you survive? what would happen?
Campidoctor
Comes Domesticorum
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
Surrender immediately.
Originally Posted by Markas
Praeses
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
Stay the hell away from Norway.
Semisalis
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
stay at home untill the summer then attack, and it would go swell
Dux Limitis
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
Do my absolute best to keep poland-lithuania and keep ottomans in the war as long as possible as an ally and keep prussia out of the war how that would be done i don't know lol. I'm sure some diplomacy could be accomplished to reach these goals.
Or simply don't be an idiot and take advantages when they are presented.
Last edited by Kanaric; August 01, 2009 at 12:51 AM.
Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.
Praefectus
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
I'd probably try NOT marching deep into Ukraine...
Miles
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
get every man that can hold a weapon wait until the summer and simply over run the enemy
Le Paysan Soleil
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
Even though Russia was more ineffective in mobilizing it's forces, they still outmatched the Swedish army. Had Sweden mobilized ait's entire population, Russia could have done the same, albeit slower and less effectively, but i doubt it would have benefitted Sweden in the long run.
Remember the Swedish population of the territories that emcompass Swden today was some 1.481.000 in 1700 and Finland had under a population of under 421.000 in 1700.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...den#Statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Demographics
Last edited by Tiberios; August 01, 2009 at 03:52 AM.
Campidoctor
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
Good idea, saving the empire when it was in dire need instead of invading... Norway, I mean why would he invade Norway? it's so useless.
Another good idea, especially considering that Lewenhaupt was a very short while away when Charles decided to march into Ukraine. Had he waited just some time more, Lewenhaupt would've arrived, supplied and reinforced the Swedish army, as when Charles broke camp he was only 128 kilometres/80 miles away. Alas, another one of Charles's foolish decisions.
1. The problem was that you can't defeat Saxony without entering PLC. I think it was a complicated situation, PLC didn't want war but as far as I know, szlachta didn't really lift a finger to get August out of the war. How do you think it could've been solved, as I don't see a possible solution without entering PLC which PLC probably wouldn't allow?
2. But would he agree? and would he not stab Sweden in the back at the first opportunity, like Denmark-Norway did after Poltava (and they thought Sweden was done for yet... not until Charles decided to waste his own and his troops lives and time in Norway was Sweden done). Perhaps if the Saxon forces showed up to surrender to Charles's forces, handing over their weapons etc. and paying a large war indemnity. Sort of like a repeated aftermath of Narva but with a payment added onto the humiliation.
I don't think so myself, I think the coalition would just try again when they were ready. It would only be a matter of time. In my opinion, Sweden needed the support of Britain as well as closer cooperation with the internal and external enemies of Russia. I once heard a saying which goes: give a mouse the cookie he begs for and he will demand a glass of milk too.
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
But Sweden already defeated Saxon army at Riga in 1701. In that time August the Strong was prone to finish the war. But Karl XII wanted to punish August so much, that he didn't want to finish the war without dethronisation of August. And it was the reason of entering Poland by Sweden in 1702. It certainly wasn't Polish or Lithuanian support for August's war (because there was no support for that war).
Polish szlachta didn't want a war vs Sweden, therefore it forbided Polish king to begin the war (in the name of Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and with PLC armies). Poland was neutral - not only in theory, but also in practice. Polish army (reduced after the peace signed with Ottoman Empire in 1699) stayed in Ukraine. Lithuanian army stayed in Lithuania. August attacked Swedish Livonia having only Saxon troops and was supported (at Riga) by Russian troops.
Definitely he would. After the battle of Riga, August couldn't relly on enemy ally (Denmark was already out of the war; Russia was defeated at Narva; PLC still didn't want to support August), while his own army was defeated. The only one obstacle in that time was Karl XII, who wanted to punish (to dethronise) August too much.
Maybe. But there was no war which led to really solid peace.
Look at this. Karl XII was able to dethronise August and to sign a profitable peace with Saxony in 1706. But after Poltava this peace was broken by August. As you can see there was no better option for Sweden than finish the war when Sweden was on the top of its successes. After the battle of Riga, Sweden already defeated Denmark, Russia and Saxony. These successes would prevent a new war for a long of time. Who would want to attack this Sweden which was so powerful that it alone defeated such strong coalition?
Last edited by Radosław Sikora; August 02, 2009 at 12:19 AM.
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
Don't look for more enemies than you already have. It means:
1. Don't attack Polish-Lithuanian Commomwealth, which wasn't a part of anty-Swedish coalition of Denmark-Saxony-Russia.
2. Make a profitable for you agreement with August the Strong (and Saxony) after the battle of Riga 1701. Don't try to dethronise him.
And now you have only 1 enemy - defeated at Narva Russia. You can make a peace which preserves profitable for Sweden status quo.
The GNW could finish in 1701 with victorious Sweden (victory in this case mean defending of all Swedish territories).
Last edited by Radosław Sikora; August 01, 2009 at 02:47 AM.
Praefectus
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
Charles had a lot in common with Hannibal. Both were brilliant tacticians and leaders; both were eventually defeated by men who were superior strategists.
Campidoctor
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
I was going to post this in a thread about battles one thought should get more attention, but that thread seems to have been deleted. So I'll post it here instead.
_______________________________________________
Finally, I was waiting for this to show up. Poltava signals a lot of things both in the short and long term:
- The end for Ukraine's independant ambitions under Ivan Mazepa.
- The decline of Sweden and Poland-Lithuania, which let Russia grow pretty much unhindered.
- Swedish forces lose, in Russian eyes, their last vestiges of being considered invincible (most of it had already been lost at Lesnaya).
- Sweden was now wide-open to an attack from just about anyone, its best generals Rehnskiöld and Lewenhaupt were prisoners in Russia while Charles XII was in Turkey. The Swedish main army which used to be an experienced force of 60 000 men no longer existed, the Baltic provinces had been overrun and Finland was about to be invaded while Denmark-Norway and Saxony rejoined the war.
- The beginning of the Russian Empire, which would later transform into the Soviet Union. Both of these states could've been heavily affected by a decisive Swedish victory at Poltava.
The loss at Poltava is linked to the Russian campaign as a whole. There was very little gunpowder left and the cannons were practically out of condition. This caused by the horrible weather conditions endured previously. There was little food, the army was severely depleted by starvation, disease, cold and cossack raids (cossack muskets had a higher accuracy at longer range due to groove musket barrels while Swedish ones were smooth, which led to all sorts of problems in fighting back). The vast majority of casualties died to these four factors rather than in battle. The army's morale was understandably low as a result of all this.
Charles XII saw Poltava as the only escape route from the current situation. If a decisive victory could be won there, then Sweden's effort would be saved. But the battle ended up being an utter disaster, the huge amount of prepared Russian soldiers in their fortified positions eventually grinded down the Swedish army after initial success. At one point the Swedes were on the verge of victory and needed the support of the cavalry to complete it, but the cavalry was stuck in a marsh and could not advance in time.
A bottomline for Charles's invasion of Russia, to save me time and effort is that if something could go wrong, it likely did. The army was rather decisively hindered by bad communications, at Poltava there were two generals in command since Charles could not participate, he had been short in the foot earlier. This alone was bad, but the communication with the lower officers was really crappy, for example once when the Swedish infantry was pulling back, Roos and his force of 2600 men were not informed of the overall plan and were thus isolated and forced to surrender after their capability to resist ceased. At another point, Lewenhaupt was only 128 kilometres away from Charles with crucial reinforcements and supplies. But they did not communicate, and so Charles was unaware of this. Polish-Lithuanian troops and a Swedish corps there were unable to aid Charles's invasion, since they were stuck in Poland fighting Agustus II's supporters, only a small Polish force was sent to the disposal of Sweden.
I feel that the Great Northern War as a whole receives too little attention. People tend to assume that Russia's army was a collection of armed peasants before Peter was done improving the army, and that this was what defeated Sweden's army. This wasn't really the case, both Peter's reforms and the state of the Russian army prior to them were exaggerated on purpose. Narva for example later played into Peter's hands as he could exaggerate the bad state of Russia's troops at that point, blame it on them and thus make it seem like his reforms were greater than they were. But in truth, Charles XII really defeated himself thanks to some of his strategic decisions.
It was also a consequence of Charles XI's (yes, XI) political policy, namely complete neutrality. Thus, Sweden was not looked favorably upon by anyone as an ally, which led to not having any in the war (the British-Dutch intervention in 1700 was by earlier treaty, not as an alliance). The Turks also wasted their best opportunity ever to deal with Russia, by not only settling for mild peace terms but ending the so far very successful Russo-Turkish war of 1710 in 1711.
Campidoctor
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
So it was Charles's character that did it, again. No big surprise there.
Then I will change my view of Poland-Lithuania in the GNW. Again thanks to Charles's character, what could've been made into a Swedish ally was made into an enemy. I assume that Poland-Lithuania wasn't too happy about having Augustus II on its throne, but invading the country was a bad way of going about the issue. Charles could have done so much more with the opportunity.
You're right. And Sweden could prepare for a showdown with Russia by the peace provided by such a treaty. What a wasted opportunity. And it would probably help with Sweden's political situation as well,
- who wouldn't want to be a friend and ally of this Sweden? - similar to earlier situations when many nations were currying for Sweden's favor. But they gave up shortly before the GNW due to Charles XI's strictly neutral policy.
So not only was this invasion of Poland-Lithuania a great mistake, it also sealed Sweden's fate because this was very valuable time to truly eliminate Russia with. I imagine that if Augustus had been dethroned before Charles invaded, history would take a very different route. Was there a movement to do this? in fact, I'd like to know the overall situation of PLC during the Great Northern War and the years before and after it, could you please enlighten me?
Tro og Håb
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
He needed Norway, IIRC, as a bargaining chip/appeasement for all the lost territory taken by the Russians in the Baltic and Finland and by the Prussians/Danes/Saxons/Russians in Northern Germany. Although I have also heard that he intended to use the country as a base to invade Britain and place the Stuarts back on the Throne... but somehow I find that quite unlikely ^^Good idea, saving the empire when it was in dire need instead of invading... Norway, I mean why would he invade Norway? it's so useless.
Granted Lettre de Marque by King Henry V - Spurs given by imb39
Сканија је Данска
عیسی پسر مریم گفت :' جهان است پل ، عبور بیش از آن است ، اما هیچ ساخت خانه بر آن او امیدوار است که برای یک روز ، ممکن است برای ابدیت امیدواریم ، اما ماندگار جهان اما ساعت آن را صرف در دعا و نماز برای استراحت است نهان
All of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.
Otto von Bismarck
Campidoctor
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
But instead of taking Norway which would need to be garrisoned, controlled and conquered, why couldn't he retake lost Swedish territory? makes no sense. Why would Russia care whether Charles had Norway or not, and who cares about Denmark? they couldn't even beat the hastily collected force with peasants among them that beat them, so why attack them? Norway wasn't exactly rich or easy to invade. A pointless move, imo he should've abandoned northern Germany for now and focused on retaking Swedish territory in the east. When that was done, he should've systematically focused on crippling Russia without going so deep into it, and occupy the former Novgorodian areas. Then peace with Russia unless he can manage to persuade the Turks to invade, then he would simply annihilate Russia.
Great Britain was starting to shift its formerly bitter view of Sweden back to favorable again, now that Sweden was getting badly spanked. The combined British-Swedish fleet could've done a lot of bad things to Denmark whilst keeping the Baltic safe.
Le Paysan Soleil
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
you underestime the danish forces. No we were not as good as the Swedes at the time but we did present a potent treat to Sweden. Especially because we had naval supremecay. We could land an army in Skåne. Anyway we did take the Swedish possesions in Northern Germany with the Prussians.
So I'm not saying we could beat Swden , just that we were a large threat because of our superior navy and an army that was better than the ones facing Sweden in the last wars.
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
Yes, there was. But August's opposition was too weak to do it. And in 1699 the official agreement between opposition and the king was signed.
So I should start from the death of Jan III Sobieski. After his death in 1696, the Poles had to elect a new king. The election wasn't unanimous. One faction elected Frenchman (Prince of Conti), the other one elected August. August was closer and faster. He came to Poland with Saxon army and become a king. The opposition (supporters of the Frenchman) wasn't determined enough to support Prince de Conti and fight for him. In theory opposition and August reconciled in 1699. But in fact August's old enemies only waited for better circumstances.
When August arrived to Poland, his Saxon army stayed in Poland "to help" in the war vs Ottoman Empire. It was only an official excuse. In fact August wanted to use Poland to feed his Saxon army. There was a plan of anty-Ottoman campaign in 1698. In fact Saxon army marched so slow to the place of concentration that the campaign failed. P-L and Saxon army finally joined, but it was too late for any serious fights vs Ottomans.
In 1699 PLC and Ottoman Empire signed a peace. Poland regained all territory lost in 1672. After that Poland reduced its army. Poland needed a peace.
August needed a new excuse to leave his Saxon army in Poland. And he found it. It marched North to fortify Połąga. In fact August already planed to attack Sweden.
Now I have to say something about Lithuania. Lithuania before GNW was involved in a civil war. The Sapieha's family who ruled Lithuania for a long time, was so cruel for their opponents that Lithuanian nobility revolted. Lithuanian noble leavy smashed regular Sapieha's army at Olkienniki in 1700. Sapieha's family lost its domination in Lithuania. Lithuanian nobility took a revenge for years of oppresions. Sapiehas didn't receive any help from the king (BTW, Sapieha's family supported Prince of Conti in 1697), so they joined to the Swedes.
More later
Last edited by Radosław Sikora; August 03, 2009 at 02:22 PM.
Campidoctor
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
The Scanian War gave lessons to both Denmark and Sweden. So I think I'll agree with you.
Oh, I didn't know of that, how interesting. I think that he should accept Russian aid in conquering Norway, but only if Russia sent large armies. That would mean they could first be used as bulwarks and then be betrayed and obliterated when they least expected it, doubtful that Peter would send large armies though, but if he did...
Speaking of Northern Germany, I don't understand why Stenbock surrendered. He had just won a great victory at Gadebusch and his forces were intact in defensive territory, not like Perevolochna when the army didn't have anything left. What exactly compelled him to surrender again?
The idea that he needed to go into Norway because of the troops stationed there, sounds rather optimistic. What's to stop them from going into Sweden while Charles is in Norway? there, they could link up with the Russians while Charles was busy in Norway.
Most certainly so. But one must also remember that the Scanian War highlighted the deficiencies of the Swedish military, which Charles XI got to work on immediately after the war. You could say that it was a boon for both countries.
Thanks a lot RadoslawMore later
Tro og Håb
Re: How would you win the Great Northern War as Sweden?
However honest Peter's intentions were during the Åland conference, I sincerely doubt that he'd go as far as sending virtual field armies against a former ally. It would probably wreck his international reputation, something that wouldn't fit the Czar who "opened Russia's window to the world."Oh, I didn't know of that, how interesting. I think that he should accept Russian aid in conquering Norway, but only if Russia sent large armies. That would mean they could first be used as bulwarks and then be betrayed and obliterated when they least expected it, doubtful that Peter would send large armies though, but if he did...
Another thing is, well... I think you put too much trust on Charles to outsmart Peter in this regard.
One has to remember that Stenbock, as you said, had just won a great victory and as a result the Danish army was in disarray and fleeing into Holstein. The Swedish field marshal then made a disastrous tactical mistake in that he deemed it possible for him to pursue and utterly destroy his fleeing enemies and that the remaining allies (Russians/Prussians) would just sit tight in Pomerania and await his return.Speaking of Northern Germany, I don't understand why Stenbock surrendered. He had just won a great victory at Gadebusch and his forces were intact in defensive territory, not like Perevolochna when the army didn't have anything left. What exactly compelled him to surrender again?
However, Frederick IV of Denmark managed to pressure his allies into a pursuit of Stenbock which in turn meant that he no longer had the possibility of beating his opponents one on one - thus eliminating his hopes for routing the allies.
As a result he was drawn into Holstein (which in the end completely compromised and destroyed the dukes of Gottorp, who had been Swedish allies) where he had no backing and no possibility of escape. Following a siege of three months Stenbock capitulated and delivered the allies a victory comparable to the one won at Poltava in its disastrous nature for the Swedish Empire.
Whilst Charles knew that the Russians were rather shaky in their commitment to the alliance (Åland) and that they as a result would be more unwilling to launch an invasion (besides, they had already gained what they wanted in terms of occupied territory) into Northern Sweden his more valuable cities and territories were at risk to fall to the Danes (Gothenburg, Lund etc.).The idea that he needed to go into Norway because of the troops stationed there, sounds rather optimistic. What's to stop them from going into Sweden while Charles is in Norway? there, they could link up with the Russians while Charles was busy in Norway.
Well certainly, but it also showed the Swedish dependence on France to come and save the day when things weren't going as planned.Most certainly so. But one must also remember that the Scanian War highlighted the deficiencies of the Swedish military, which Charles XI got to work on immediately after the war. You could say that it was a boon for both countries.
Last edited by Atterdag; August 08, 2009 at 06:48 AM.
Granted Lettre de Marque by King Henry V - Spurs given by imb39
Сканија је Данска
عیسی پسر مریم گفت :' جهان است پل ، عبور بیش از آن است ، اما هیچ ساخت خانه بر آن او امیدوار است که برای یک روز ، ممکن است برای ابدیت امیدواریم ، اما ماندگار جهان اما ساعت آن را صرف در دعا و نماز برای استراحت است نهان
All of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.
Otto von Bismarck
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
