Charles XII - ''The Greatest The Great'' discussion continued

[Salem1]

I decided to start a new thread instead.

Really? Did anybody compare losses of Swedish soldiers in Gustav II Adolf's, Karl X Gustav's, and Karl XII's wars? I did not. But I have an impression that both Gustav II Adolf and Karl X Gustav lost much more people in Poland than Karl XII.

Of course. That's because the war in Poland was very different by the time Karl XII was king, it was no longer the main battleground. It's comparing apples to oranges. Besides, Gustav was facing a very competent Polish commander in its golden age and had a worse army than Karl XII. Karl X fought an all-out war against Poland, including its population, which Karl XII didn't. Naturally he will take more losses.

I disagree. I don't think he cared in the way that he had actual moral qualms about sacrificing them, no, but what ruler does? He cared in the only way a king of that era COULD care; he asked no more of them than he asked of himself. To say that this is not caring takes it out of context considering how alone he was using this practise as a monarc. Who are the Royals that cared more? The ones that would also readily sacrifice men, but chose to do so from the comfort of their palaces? As for placing him alongside Peter the Great, well, Peter the Great did, so why shouldn't we? Peter openly called Karl his mentor on more than one occation.

At any rate, it's all a matter of taste I suppose, but to be clear; I admire Karl XII more than any other Swedish leader, but I still see what I consider to be his flaws. Like you, I consider him greater than Gustav Adolf II, but they were colossals in two very different ways...

edit: If the OP or anyone else feels that I'm hijacking the thread here, just let me know.

Just because others don't care doesn't justify not caring. It was Charles who always stubbornly refused to turn back despite the ragged state of his soldiers and the meager state of the supply stores. After Poltava he sent a letter to Peter congratulating him on the victory and saying that he would simply raise a new army of greater size. If ''I just lost 60 000 of our best men but oh well, I'll just get me some new ones'' doesn't say ''I don't care'' to you then I don't know what will.

Asking the same from others that you ask from yourself is not caring, that's treating them as equals. And he did treat the common soldiers as equals, which goes a long way, but he still didn't care. That he was better than other monarchs of his time doesn't mean that you can give him more credit than he deserves. Anyway I don't really want to discuss whether he cared or not, it's not of much interest to me so let's just drop it.

Out of memory I'm pretty sure he called Sweden his mentor, not Karl XII. If he did then he would give too much credit to Karl, just like too much credit is given to Gustav. If anyone is to be given credit it's Charles XI for holding the empire together as long as he did and fighting a successful defensive war with a terrible army. Karl XII on the other hand won battles but lost the war and what use is that? imo he acted more like he was king of France than a poor backwater.

I don't know who was worse for Sweden, Gustav II or Karl XII, they were both careless and left the country in tatters. I used to think Gustav was a very good king but then I started thinking about what his choices actually meant. Imo joining the 30 Years War at all was a big mistake, Sweden was not in a position to keep much of what it gained which showed when the war ended. He was just lucky that his adventurous waste of resources wasn't brought to a very fast end by a Polish invasion thanks to the sejm, probably followed by a Russian invasion, which would most likely mean that Torstensson's war & crossing of the Belts would never happen.

I don't really know why the sejm decided not to invade but they didn't, probably something about stopping the king's ambitions. Similarily I don't know why Russia didn't invade. But he left Sweden to rot in the hands of his daughter anyway so they didn't need to.

I don't admire any Swedish monarch but imo there were too many Gustav IIs & Karl XII's and too few Karl XI's.

I have to correct one logical mistake. Though Augustus II The Strong was indeed King of Poland-Lithuania, he was Prince Elector of Saxony as well. And only as such he did wage his war. Poland didn't declare war on Sweden because of parliament's opposition, Saxony did.

This again, well, like I've said before PLC housed the Saxon army. If PLC didn't do that then Saxony would never be able to wage war against Sweden. In conclusion, PLC was a partner in crime. Karl XII only invaded when he found it impossible to remove Augustus by diplomacy and even then he didn't destroy PLC like Karl X did, neither did he destroy Saxony. If you ask me I say he should've sacked both and killed as many nobles as he could, including the sejm, and crowned himself as king of PLC.

[JohnnyDestroy]

You make a good point. The fact that no one else cared doesn't mean he did, but I guess what I wanted to say was that as long as no one ever cares about about the individuals of the army serving under them, unless it's a very small, very intimate army, it doesn't matter anyhoot.

I think we agree in a way, I'm just unable to convey it properly. Also dropping the subject from now on.

And you are dead on regarding Augustus. I made the same point in the old thread, just not as well I think. Karl always asked for a right of passage before attacking any citys in Poland, and attacked only when refused passage.

As for admiring royals, it's just a matter of taste I suppose. In my opinion, even though he inhereted his power, he proved his right to keep it for as long as he did during a very difficult situation.

[Radosław Sikora]

Just because others don't care doesn't justify not caring. It was Charles who always stubbornly refused to turn back despite the ragged state of his soldiers and the meager state of the supply stores.

Do you mean only 1709 or also another years?

After Poltava he sent a letter to Peter congratulating him on the victory and saying that he would simply raise a new army of greater size. If ''I just lost 60 000 of our best men but oh well, I'll just get me some new ones'' doesn't say ''I don't care'' to you then I don't know what will.

Asking the same from others that you ask from yourself is not caring, that's treating them as equals. And he did treat the common soldiers as equals, which goes a long way, but he still didn't care.

But could you point out situations when he neglected to keep his soldiers in a good shape? Didn't he care enough about maintenance, quarters, weapons for soldiers? Did he do for his soldiers less than any ther commander of that period?
It seems to me that your bad opinion about Karl XII comes only from one source - he subordinated Sweden and Swedish soldiers to his personal ambitions. He less cared about their subjects than about his personal priorities.

Karl XII on the other hand won battles but lost the war and what use is that?

It means that he was better commander than politician . You don't need to admire him as a politician, but I don't see a reason to underestimate his military achievements.

He was just lucky that his adventurous waste of resources wasn't brought to a very fast end by a Polish invasion thanks to the sejm, probably followed by a Russian invasion, which would most likely mean that Torstensson's war & crossing of the Belts would never happen.

I don't really know why the sejm decided not to invade but they didn't, probably something about stopping the king's ambitions.

You know, Polish nobles were generally pacifists. Sweden gave back Prussian ports in 1635; Vistula trade was free from Swedish blockade. All of this without a single shot. The problem of Northern Livonia was postponed, but Poland didn't resign this land. The issue of rights of Polish king to Swedish throne was only king's problem. An average Polish nobleman didn't care about it at all.So nobles stated - it's enough for us by now; it's time to rest and rebuild our resources; we will come back to Livonian problem when the armistice is finished.
Remember that Poland waged constant wars from 1600 until 1634. It just finished 2 very expensive wars (vs Ottomans and Russians). There was really little enthusiasm for any new war, particulary against enemy who was so compliant like Sweden in 1635.

If you ask me I say he should've sacked both and killed as many nobles as he could, including the sejm, and crowned himself as king of PLC.

I think that Karl XII knew Polish realia much better. Sacking nobility and Sejm could finish only in one way - all the country and society must join to August vs Swedish barbarians. Karl X Gustav did similar mistake in 1655, when he permited to lay a siege to Jasna Góra monastry.
Karl XII didn't do what you would do. Therefore Poland neutralised itself in a civil war. Part of Poland wasted its resources and energy to fight another part of Poland. Nobility didn't have a clear situation - who was a true enemy.
IMO it was an excellent political decision of the Swedish king. Divide at impera

[Salem1]

Do you mean only 1709 or also another years?

But could you point out situations when he neglected to keep his soldiers in a good shape? Didn't he care enough about maintenance, quarters, weapons for soldiers? Did he do for his soldiers less than any ther commander of that period?
It seems to me that your bad opinion about Karl XII comes only from one source - he subordinated Sweden and Swedish soldiers to his personal ambitions. He less cared about their subjects than about his personal priorities.

It means that he was better commander than politician . You don't need to admire him as a politician, but I don't see a reason to underestimate his military achievements.

You know, Polish nobles were generally pacifists. Sweden gave back Prussian ports in 1635; Vistula trade was free from Swedish blockade. All of this without a single shot. The problem of Northern Livonia was postponed, but Poland didn't resign this land. The issue of rights of Polish king to Swedish throne was only king's problem. An average Polish nobleman didn't care about it at all.So nobles stated - it's enough for us by now; it's time to rest and rebuild our resources; we will come back to Livonian problem when the armistice is finished.
Remember that Poland waged constant wars from 1600 until 1634. It just finished 2 very expensive wars (vs Ottomans and Russians). There was really little enthusiasm for any new war, particulary against enemy who was so compliant like Sweden in 1635.

I think that Karl XII knew Polish realia much better. Sacking nobility and Sejm could finish only in one way - all the country and society must join to August vs Swedish barbarians. Karl X Gustav did similar mistake in 1655, when he permited to lay a siege to Jasna Góra monastry.
Karl XII didn't do what you would do. Therefore Poland neutralised itself in a civil war. Part of Poland wasted its resources and energy to fight another part of Poland. Nobility didn't have a clear situation - who was a true enemy.
IMO it was an excellent political decision of the Swedish king. Divide at impera

Mostly 1709 yes but also in 1700 when reinforcements and supplies from Sweden had not yet reached the army in Livonia. He marched through a countryside totally destroyed by Russians. This wore his soldiers out and many perished both before and immediately after Narva due to non-combat causes (as usual they had little to eat).

All right, I will admit that he didn't purposely mistreat his soldiers. After all, in the end they liked him but disdained the other commanders.

Yes that could be it, which is most likely also why I think Charles XI was a really good king compared to the others. He was the only one who really took care of Sweden and didn't do it as ruthlessly and heedlessly as ol' Gustav Vasa. Now Karl XII on the other hand it seems he simply didn't care as much for Sweden as for, like you say, his personal ambitions. Admittedly Karl XII never got to grow much as a statesman due to always being in constant war. Quite interesting character really... I wonder what he would have gone on to do if that lucky potshot at Fredriksten hadn't taken him and the Swedish empire down with him.

Underrate? no, but he is receiving too much credit imo. This will be rather long, but here I will explain why I don't particularily like him as a commander. I don't even expect you to quote all of it so you don't have to bother, but here goes:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He let things get to his head and thought that Russians couldn't fight after Narva so he left the defenses of Finland, Estonia, Livonia and Ingria in the hands of very meager forces while he took the vast bulk of the army with him into Poland, a nation that had no desire to fight him and only wished to be rid of its troublesome Saxon king's ambitions. Then when he was there, instead of simply butchering his opposition and rewarding those who allied with him he spent years achieving nothing while still rousing the country against him. The only good thing to come out of this campaign was the refit for the army that his stay in Saxony achieved. I'm not saying that butchery was the light at the end of the tunnel, but his approach was imo too much ''excuse me, could you please sign this contract? thank you very much'' and too little ''sign the damn contract or I'll burn your house down and kill your family''.

In fact, his careful campaigning ended up rousing PLC against him anyway since due to the condition of the army he was more and more forced to oversee and abandon breaches in the Swedish field code which forbade plunder and such. On one occassion for example he burned a town down because he had to. Why not do this from the beginning? or better yet, why enter Poland at all? That or he could simply have attacked only the Polish coastline its hinterlands, an age-old Swedish ambition to own, which could've been helped by the navy. But he did the same thing he did in Russia.

Karl XII only had his senses knocked into him after Poltava. So he lost Sweden's army in exchange for gaining his senses . Seriously though, the victory at Narva was not lead by him. Neither was the one at Fraustadt and these are the two most famous Swedish victories of the war.

Overall, Karl XII directed Sweden as if he was playing a computer game with a save & reload function imo. It took another hundred years before someone else was as hopelessly vain as he was in thinking he could just march in and conquer Russia.

Yes, that situation makes sense to me now. Poles just weren't as warlike as Swedes

Now as for that part about handling Poland. I honestly don't have much of an idea of how you'd counter the kind of guerilla warfare that was employed against Karl X, but had I been a commander of that time I would have studied into that. Karl XII did to a wise decision in avoiding Karl X's mistakes, but again, he achieved nothing. Yes Poland neutralised itself but for what purpose? would it not have been wiser to make himself king instead of Stainslaus at least? And Charles never managed to stamp out and obliterate August's army. Likewise he failed with doing that at Holowczyn. The carefulness he showed at some occassions and the total lack of care in others is quite strange

[Radosław Sikora]

He let things get to his head and thought that Russians couldn't fight after Narva so he left the defenses of Finland, Estonia, Livonia and Ingria in the hands of very meager forces while he took the vast bulk of the army with him into Poland, a nation that had no desire to fight him and only wished to be rid of its troublesome Saxon king's ambitions.

But:
1. It was the result of political decision to punish August for his unprovoked attack; it was his priority in that time. IMO it was a bad political decision, but it is irrelevant if we want to judge his military skill
2. After Narva he could expect that Russians are not a problem. And Swedish forces left in that area weren't such small. When Russians attacked in 1702, gen. Schlippenbach had some 8000 soldiers. Certainly not enough to attack, but I think it was enough to defend selected (the most important) cities and fortresses.

Then when he was there, instead of simply butchering his opposition and rewarding those who allied with him he spent years achieving nothing while still rousing the country against him.

He achieved his goal. August was dethronised.
IMO, from political point of view, this goal was wrong (it would be an example of primacy of Karl's ambition over good sake of Sweden), but well, Karl achieved what he wanted. He punished August.

I'm not saying that butchery was the light at the end of the tunnel, but his approach was imo too much ''excuse me, could you please sign this contract? thank you very much'' and too little ''sign the damn contract or I'll burn your house down and kill your family''.

But why do you have an impression that Karl XII wasn't ruthless enough? Do you know some examples of his too soft behaviour towards Poles?

Seriously though, the victory at Narva was not lead by him. Neither was the one at Fraustadt and these are the two most famous Swedish victories of the war.

But not the only ones

You know, the commander in chief is always responsible for the outcome of the battle. If he is responsible, he also should be credited for the outcome of the battle. Karl was at Narva, so he should be credited for that battle (and for the battle of Poltava too).

Anyway, the role of the king was not only approval or refusal of his generals' plans. His very important military role was his personal presence and personal leadership in battles. It increased morale and selfconfidence of his soldiers. And IMO these are 2 military factors which had a great importance in battles of those times.