WI Quick Saxon-Danish-Russian victory in Great Northern War
- Thread starter marcinL
- Start date
Maybe a different battle of Narva could help. IOTL iit was a humiliation for Russia that would only be revenged after the Battle of Poltava. If the russians were put in charge of a competent commander who know how to speak russian properly instead of a french who cannot communicate with the tropes, the battle and the war could go very different
The Danes had been out of war before Charles went to deal with the Russians and Saxons so you may start with the Danish part of his campaign being a failure which leaves him dead (a bad storm which leaves a lot of dead). The result is a confusion in Sweden and an absence of the risk-prone military leader. The Saxons still have to take Riga, which would not be a trivial task unless Denmark helps with a naval force. The Russians still have to take Narva (the siege was not going well, to put it mildly) and occupy Ingiria but in general scope of the war is more or less limited and Sweden may ask for peace.
Or you may leave the Danish part the same as in OTL but add competence on the Russian part: in OTL their army circa 1700 was in abysmal shape on all levels from quality of the troops and all the way to the top. Well, of course you can have Charles killed at Narva but it would still be a Swedish victory if everything else is the same: Russian infantry had been placed along the whole contravallation line without the reserves so the attackers could punch them at any point and the only bridges were on the far North end of the Russian camp. Sheremetev's cavalry had been irregulars of a low quality and most of the infantry was not noticeably better. So if Peter spent the time between the Azov campaigns and the GNW productively (he had 4 years) and raised perhaps a smaller but better trained army (and paid attention to the quality of a high command) things could be better. Rather ironically, his idea of a "regularity" was emphasizing an orderly firing at the expense of what in the late XVIII became Russian pride: bayonet fight.
Communicating with the troops was, of course, important but even the best communicator possible would not achieve much "communicating" with these specific troops: they were ill-trained, ill-fed, left in the hopeless situation (and rebelling). Not to mention that they had been spread rather thinly along the perimeter with the river and besieged fortress at their backs and the only bridges being on the far end of the perimeter. In a similar situation the much better French troops had been defeated at Turin in 1706. Follow your idea the commander would have to speak Russian not only properly but very loudly because Russian front was approximately 5 miles long.
To win they'd need to have a seriously different quality (at least on the same level as Preobrazensky and Semenovsky regiments) which would allow to met enemy in the field and to use the numeric advantage. Oops, this did happened. At Poltava.
Communicating with the troops was, of course, important but even the best communicator possible would not achieve much "communicating" with these specific troops: they were ill-trained, ill-fed, left in the hopeless situation (and rebelling). Not to mention that they had been spread rather thinly along the perimeter with the river and besieged fortress at their backs and the only bridges being on the far end of the perimeter. In a similar situation the much better French troops had been defeated at Turin in 1706. Follow your idea the commander would have to speak Russian not only properly but very loudly because Russian front was approximately 5 miles long.
To win they'd need to have a seriously different quality (at least on the same level as Preobrazensky and Semenovsky regiments) which would allow to met enemy in the field and to use the numeric advantage. Oops, this did happened. At Poltava.
A problem about the quality of the russian empire by this time is that the army was very new . Peter the Great was still trying to substitute the traditional streltzy militia (made basically by nobles with de facto hereditary positions) for a modern european army, but many of the soldiers weren't experienced enough and simply began to run away from the battlefield (and because of this many of the commanders of the army weren't russians and could barely speak the language of their subordinate ). The long duration of the Great Northern War was one of the factors that permitted the russian army to organize itself and become a effective combat force.
I think the best way for a earlier success by the alliance against Sweden would be if Charles alienated the British and Dutch before the war. This would mean that Dutch and English wouldn't take Denmark out, which leave Sweden in a far weaker position, as the removal of Denmark from the conflict enable the Swedes to be able to freely use the Baltic Sea. This leave Sweden in a much weaker position in the fight with Russia, this could also result in Sweden open a front earlier in North Germany, which in OTL was a disaster as it allowed Denmark to occupy the Swedish possessions in North Germany (Denmark didn't occupy them to avoid a conflict with the Great Powers, but the moment Sweden decided to use them offensive against Denmark, Denmark had a casus belli for occupy them).
Look, just having "more men" means little unless the quality is comparable on both sides. In OTL the Swedes had the highest quality troops in the region (or arguably in Europe) while the Russian army with an exception of two regimentс was a rubble. The siege of Narva prior to Charles' arrival was quite pathetic. After 2 weeks of bombardment the siege artillery run out of supplies while not doing any serious damage to Narva fortifications. Russian detachment already had been defeated on Ilmen Lake and Sheremetev who was guarding the far approaches to Narva was forced to retreat even before facing Charles because his cavalry did not have forage. At the news of Charles' approach Peter fled ("to speed up arrival of the new regiments", yeah sure) with the Russian fieldmarshal-general Golovin (his favorite who became fieldmarshal without ever leading the troops and admiral-general without ever commanding a navy) leaving in charge Duke de Croy who openly protested this appointment.
Now about the fortifications. For the siege Russian army had traditional circumvallation and contravallation lines of the entrenchments. Contravallation line was more than 7km long. Distance between circumvallation and contravallation lines was approximately 1,200 meters on the right flank (where 2 bridges had been built), 240 meters in the center and approximately 80 meters on the left flank. Taking into an account that the space was also filled with the barracks, there was obviously no possibility of a maneuver. Out of all artillery only 22 cannons and 17 mortars had been placed along the contravallation line (approximately 5 pieces per kilometer).
Regarding the "men", out of the troops present at Narva only 1 regiment was an "old one" (created before Peter's reign), only 2 regiments participated in the Azov campaigns but never saw a field battle. Some of the troops had been the streltsy, old-style infantry obsolete even before Peter's reign. Cavalry was mostly irregulars. Most of the officers never participated in a war. What is surprising is that resistance on the right flank was not broken and the same goes for Weide's division on the left flank. In both cases agreement for free passage had been negotiated: troops on the right flank retreated with the weapons and colors but without artillery and Weide's division - without weapons and colors. Swedes even helped to fix the bridges across the Narva river.
To make the long story short, Peter, in his usual fashion, entered the war without an adequate preparation (ditto for the Azov Campaigns or Prut Campaign) and then was fixing issues in "on line mode". He could use 4 years that he had between peace with the Ottomans and the GNW for training his army up to an adequate condition but he did not. Of course, he had plenty of the reserves (and raised a lot of troops) which he used almost immediately to start pushing Swedes out of the Baltic provinces while Charles was entertaining himself chasing August all over the PLC and Saxony. But what prevented him from training the troops and getting an adequate artillery before going into the war? Absolutely nothing. Of course, Schlippenbach was not in the same league as Charles but in 1702 he was beaten twice by Sheremetev (and then by some other Russian commanders) and the newly-raised Russian troops started taking the fortified places in the Baltic provinces one by one. In 1704 Narva (with a garrison significantly strengthened) was besieged and the siege looked quite differently in the terms of professionalism: it started with cutting Narva off the sea (and supplies), within a week of bombardment fortifications of bastion Honor had been destroyed and after 3 more days the city walls had been scaled and garrison capitulated (it took only 3 hours to take the main defensive perimeter).
Philip
Donor
A slightly different timing of the WotSS could tie up them up before the GNW kicks off.
It was "new" by a single reason: during the regency of Peter's mother (which lasted until 1694, by which time Peter was already 22 years old) most of the existing Western-style troops had been disbanded and at least some of their experienced and successful commanders fall into disfavor for association with Vasili Golitsin. Creation of these troops started during the reign of Peter's grandfather and their numbers kept raising during the reigns of his father and older brother (Peter's favorite, Francis Lefort was a colonel of these troops and his close associate, Jacob Bruce also was serving in them). So there was nothing truly "new" and it was just Peter's inability to do things in an organized fashion.
A general recommendation is to learn at least some basics of the subject before writing or you'll end up with "the collective farm 'Red Cranberry'" like that.
Streltsy were the regular troops, not a militia (quite obsolete well before Peter's time and gradually replaced by the new Western-style troops) and they were NOT "made basically by nobles": you are confusing them with "dvorianskoe opolchenie" which was, indeed, a feudal militia. As far as the "hereditary positions" are involved, "mestnichestwo" institute had been abolished during the reign of Peter's older brother, Tsar Fedor III.
Well, the last war Sweden fought before the GNW ended in 1679 which means that a big proportion of the Swedish soldiers circa 1700 also did not have any first-hand military experience, just had been trained properly. Who prevented Peter from doing the same with his own troops? As for the foreigners on the Russian service, they had been training the Russian troops since the times of Peter's grandfather (BTW, I doubt that von Steuben, Lafayette and Kościuszko had been speaking perfect English or that the officers of Washington's army were well-versed in German or Polish but somehow it worked). More than that, he and his successors kept hiring the foreign officers some of whom managed to do quite well (all the way to the rank of Fieldmarshal, like Peter Lacy who, BTW, served at Narva in 1700).
As the old saying goes, a wise man learns on other people mistakes and fool - on his own. The needed experience was available well before 1700 but was not used properly and Peter was doing things the hard way. BTW, based upon the operations in the Baltic provinces Russian army became reasonably effective at least as far as the successful besieging of the fortresses was involved (something that Swedes of Charles XII never quite mastered) within couple years of fighting.
Would Charles be able to pull the OTL operation against Denmark without the British and Dutch help? If not than the whole schedule of the operations against Russia and Saxony is going down the tubes leaving a lot of alternatives.
Your posts always make me realize I know little about Russia, and most of what I do know is wrong. Also that a lot of others on this site don't either. Better to know you know nothing, right?
If then something prevents the Swedish from coming to the aid of Narva, the siege would likely fail regardless? Do you think this would cause Peter to retreat to prepare a better organized and competent campaign later or would he move onto something else in the region to make at least some progress?
This was something approaching my original thought for this thread, or a change in the Landing at Humlebaek. I thought Charles XII acted quite recklessly at Humlebaek, being one of the first people to start the landing, but a quick check shows he moved primarily once the center already established a foothold. I had considered the possibility of the Landing failing, I thought the Danish had more men there, and Charles XII receiving a far earlier unlucky shot. If Charles died, things would certainly change. The Danish were focusing most of their efforts on Holstein-Gottorp, and Charles' heir is his sister Hedvig and her newborn son by the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. That could cause the Swedes to start getting nervous and might start working for peace earlier. It's not like Ingria was well populated, I think it was like 15,000 at this time, and the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp might be willing to surrender his duchy to Denmark in return for Sweden in right of his wife. Riga and Livonia are far more important. Making a peace with Denmark and Russia to focus all their attentions on Poland-Lithuania could be possible. Not sure if it is likely, but based on Charles' OTL actions is appears that the PLC, although I know Augustus Strong only declared war as Elector of Saxony, was the primary enemy.
Okay, probably very unlikely.
Charles not receiving Dutch and English aid would probably mean that rather than going to Copenhagen, he'd go where the Danish had expected he'd go. The Duchy of Holstein-Gottorp where the Danish were focusing most of their attention anyways. This probably leads to Charles bringing Sweden's northern German territories sooner, making them viable targets for Denmark. How Denmark would fare against Sweden in a war focused on Jutland and northern Germany isn't something I can say. The lack of a quick defeat of Denmark allowing Charles to focus east would really change things though.
You might need Charles XII to die though, since he was apparently quite unwilling to make peace at a loss. So we might need to look at who would succeed him, and the general attitude of the Swedes at this time to see what priorities they'd focus on after Charles' death.
Last edited:
This is, actually, very hard to tell for sure. In OTL the siege was done abysmally and the Russian troops had been running out of food, forage and the cannonballs (at least for the siege guns) so it is reasonable to assume that, given a complete freedom of action, Peter could abandon the siege. Or he could continue waiting for the reinforcements and supplies (speeding up both was a formal excuse for him leaving an army).
Answer to the 1st question is yes, this would be a distinct possibility. It happened with Azov: 1st siege was a failure and 2nd success due to the better preparations. One important thing that was not done during the 1st siege of Narva but implemented on the very 1st stage of the 2nd siege was to block connection to the sea: in 1704 approximately 2,500 Russian troops took control of the mouth of the Narva River and defeated attempt of the Swedish navy to deliver reinforcements and supplies to the city. So it did not take too much time to learn how things should be done and there was plenty of the available military experience to learn from even before the 1st siege.
As for the 2nd, this was already happening before the 1st Narva and started happening almost immediately after the defeat: the cavalry (regular and irregular) under command of Sheremetev started devastating the Baltic provinces and in a process defeated couple times general Schlippenbach left to defend the area (with an inadequate forces). Slightly later the Russians started taking the Swedish fortresses out of which Noteburg (Schlisselburg) was probably the most important because it controlled access to the Baltic Sea by Neva River. Even during the 2nd siege of Narva Peter took Derpt (Tartu).
I suspected so. Which potentially means an impossibility to launch seaborne operations with a possible exception of the Eastern Baltic coast where the Swedes could use the galleys or just march the troops from Finland to Ingria. This makes Narva the 1st goal with the marching later to relief Riga. More or less the same schema as in OTL but it would take more time and may potentially create some supply issues for the Swedes. In a meantime Denmark has a free hand but what would it be doing?
Denmark would start by occupy Gotland, the moment Sweden declared war on Denmark, beside that if Sweden remove to many soldiers from Sweden proper it will invade Scania (I expect a good chance of such a invasion failling). If Sweden doesn't remove enough troops it will only invade Bohuslän (this will pretty much happen no matter what in a Danish-Swedish conflict). But I think a lot depend on what Sweden does in North Germany. If as @CaedmonCousland suggest Sweden invade Jutland through its North German possessions. Well such a invasion will ikely be a failure, the Swedish successes in 1645 and 1657 are unlikely to be repeated. Instead it will simply result in Denmark invading the Swedish possessions in North Germany and not invading Scania. Swedish Pomerania will likely last the longest, but it will fall in a less than two years. Honestly the smart thing to do if Sweden was run by a rational actor, would be to let the Russian siege of Narva fail on it own, and the negotiate a peace with Denmark and Russia, where Denmark got Gottorp and Russia access to the Baltic (giving the the areas around St. Petersburg). If the Russian siege of Narva fail miserable and Sweden have kept enough troops in Scania that Denmark doesn't invade and haven't attacked through North Germany. I think both would simply decide to cut their losses there for some small gain.
IMO, if we remove Charles XII as a factor (
), say him being killed during an attempt to land on the Danish soil or whatever. then Brandenburg-Prussia may get interested in getting a piece of the Swedish Pomerania as well, which could speed up the whole affair. Given enough time, Russians would take Narva: without Charles coming to the rescue, they would, in the worst case scenario, abandon the siege to return the next year. They'd also attack various places in the Swedish Baltic provinces approximately along the same lines as in OTL. Taking into an account that their demands would be increasing with the successes, a prudent Swedish government may opt for a peace which gives them Narva and Ingria (territory they lost to Gustav Adolph) with Noteburg but retains most of the provinces with the really valuable places like Riga and Revel.
This, of course, leaves the Saxons and Riga. Unlike Peter, August did not have too much in the terms of the "strategic reserves" (he has only the Saxon troops and the OTL is neutral) and, IIRC, his operations against Riga were not too successful even before Charles arrived. If he fails, he fails ultimately and has to abandon the whole idea. And if there are at least some Swedish troops advancing to help Riga (which does not even require Charles to be personally present), the whole affair ends up even faster. After which the PLC may offer a mediation as the peace between Sweden and Saxony is concluded.
IMO, if we remove Charles XII as a factor (
Yes I lean toward the same, on the other hand without his earlier major successes, he may end up a little more rational. But if he dies, the Duke of Gottorp would be the natural successor. He doesn't seem like a overly competent leader, but neither a megalomaniac.
I would say any other potential Danish gain would be Bremen-Verden, Bohuslän and Gotland, but I would say these gains are unlikely with a early peace.
Unlikely, they're busy with the Spanish Succession War.
Honestly Ingria are pretty worthless for the Swedes, so I can see them giving it up.
I could see a more rational Swedish government simply take the war to the Poles (seeing Polish neutrality as a joke) and push for minor gain (Polish Livonia and gaining Courland as a Swedish vassal).
Giving up Gottorp would not be seen as a loss in Sweden, as it wasn't a Swedish possession. Giving Ingria up would be mildly humiliating. While gaining Polish Livonia (and Courland) would make up for it.
This conflict would have mildly weaken Sweden (mostly by making their enemies stronger), but kept them as a major player, but would set things up for a future conflict. Denmark gaining Gottorp significant strenghten Denmark, as it allow the Danish crown to extend full control to the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein. Ingria would result in Russia becoming a player in the Baltic Sea, and increasing Russian profit from their western export.
I expect the next alliance would be Russia, Denmark and Prussia (replacing Saxony), but Russian succession trouble may push that into the future.
The Swedes will likely push for a marriage between Charlotte Amalie of Denmark and Charles Frederick (father of OTL Peter III of Russia).
What might be more important is Hedvig Sophia's politics. Frederick of Gottorp's claim to the Swedish throne would be through her claim, and he also died in 1702 in battle. Assuming this was from recklessness than mere bad luck, he might die relatively quick without greater Swedish success. Sophia would then either be queen-mother, or potentially Queen in her own right for 16~ years.
I can see the first two, but Gotland is pretty strategically located. Assuming Sweden keeps its Livonian territories but loses Ingria, control of the Baltic becomes even more important. I could see them doing a lot to keep it.
Prussia only loaned something like 8,000 troops in return for Hasburg acceptance of his crowning, and Brandenburg had a standing army of like 30,000 at this time. So it isn't impossible for them to attack Swedish Pomerania. However Frederick I wasn't exactly the type. Russia, Denmark-Norway, Saxony, and Poland-Lithuania all recognized his crowning diplomatically in hopes of gaining aid against the Swedes, and he didn't act (the sheer immediate recognition he received as King in Prussia right away is impressive. Almost half of Europe recognized him in hopes of Prussia aiding them in the Great Northern War or WoSS). He preferred to keep things stable in Brandenburg, achieve diplomatic victories, and loan out his troops for money. It might be possible to coerce him into action if the war became the dogpile OTL eventually did, the Swedes being stubborn even as they have no chance of winning, but since this entire scenario is a quick loss for the Swedes I doubt it. Not till Frederick Willaim becomes king will Brandenburg become more active.
While many times governments aren't entirely rational, we have to expect they would. WE can't exactly suggest nonsensical decisions, unless we are able to really figure out the party politics that would make decisions with Charles' death.
So Sweden gives up Ingria, with Narva and Noteborg. This might cause some revanchist thoughts later, but that's a given whenever a country loses.
I disagree about Gottorp. Not only was it a strategic knife in the back of Denmark, Denmark did attack these lands first in the GNW, but Hedwig Eleonora was grandmother to Chalres XII and Hedvig Sophia and all but ran the court at this time. She was born in Holstein-Gottorp, and Hedwig Sophia's son was heir to Holstein-Gottorp. Giving it up is something of great personal cost to the Swedish royal family at this time. I think they'll fight for it until the other political figures forced them to stop. Ulrika Eleonora actually came to the throne after Charles' death by the support of those in the riksrad who sought to end the Carolinian Absolutionism. So clearly there were already internal forces who were seeking to undermine the royal authority. The fighting in Holstein-Gottorp might determine quite a bit of the internal Swedish politics.
Agree about Riga and the Poles though. The PLC had already become quite dysfunctional at this time, although I doubt anyone other than Charles' would go so far as to attempt to place his own candidate on the PLC throne. So the Swedes only probably push till the Sejm decides to smack down Augustus somehow. Potential gains depend on Swedish success or lack of.
However as this is a challenge for a quick Saxon-Danish-Russian Victory does it fit the challenge if Augustus loses?
The real damage to Sweden would be if it does lose its northern German territories. The Swedish military was dependent on tolls from Bremen-Verden, Wismar, the Oder, etc, to finance it. While assuming a Swedish victory over the Poles the tolls there won't be affected, Denmark taking the former two (even without Swedish Pomerania) would have actual effects on the Swedish ability to finance the army it had in its empire stage. Keeping Livonia, or even expanding it with Courland, might allow it to keep its breadbasket regions but Sweden was never going to stay relevant through population numbers. Assuming this alt-GNW ends while the WoSS is still ongoing, I could absolutely see Sweden either joining or even leasing out its troops Prussian style once the leaders realize they can't keep their current military going without foreign subsidies or looting someone.
Sweden has traditionally been a French ally, and probably would if the divergence point was the English and Dutch never sending aid to Sweden at the beginning of the war. If the divergence was something else, I could very much see Sweden loaning out its troops to the Dutch or English...especially as doing such probably means the English and Dutch don't incite the Danish to attack Sweden. Whatever happens, it would dertimine the international situation for the next war. Prussia would almost definitely be a player once Frederick William becomes king.
The potential marriages of Charlotte Amalie probably depend on the specifics of the situation.
Alexmilman, assuming a quick victory for Russia regardless of whether the first campaign for Narva succeeds or not, how will Peter's politics likely change? You've made it a point to say Peter didn't do much to prepare his military between the Azov Campaign and Narva. Would he continue this behavior until the next war comes by where he has to put together a better army, or did he appear to learn and promote military reform during peacetime? We can assume St. Petersburg still happens with Ingria under their control, but I don't think the Russian Baltic fleet was much valued for a while. Would the Russian army be able to fight back evenly with the Swedes if the Swedes attacked in a decade, or even knock them out entirely? If the Russian-Swedish conflict ended ~1702, what quality of troops/defenses would be around St. Petersburg around 1712-1715?
A question I'm really wondering is how would a quick end to the war change the pandemics of 1709 around the Baltic? The Winter of 1709, the plagues that ravaged Poland, Livonia, EStonia, Sweden, etc. All these were even more devestating due to the widespread looting and slaughter of the Great Northern War. How would these events develop in times of peace?
Last edited:
Also the Danes never had any great interest in the island. The only reason for Denmark to keep it are as a support base for the Russians, ensuring complete Russo-Danish naval superiority in the next war.
Yes agree
yes a mild victory
Yes I can see why Sweden wouldn't give it up, the problem are that Gottorp are the least harmful loss for the Sweden to Denmark, and unless Sweden want to bring the war to North Germany it's the only realistic loss, and bringing the North German possessions into play would be disasterous for the Swedes. Danish naval dominance simply give the Danes a edge in North Germany.
Well it's technical a victory for the majority of the alliance.
I don't remmeber the book right now, but from memory around 50% of the Swedish state budget 1660-1700 came from Livonia (and Estonia I think, but primarily Livonia[1]), while 10% came from Bremen-Verden, Scania gave another 10%, the rest of Sweden (and Finland 25%) and the rest of the North German possessions 5%.
Smaller effect without the population being starved.
[1]Because of Riga and weaker noble estates in Livonia than Estonia, which increase the Swedish states ability to tax the province's population.