300 years ago today: Poltava

[Razgovory]

Hitler learned from the Swedes. You don't get any Uke support without first tossing the dogs some Jews to chew on. That is how Russians think.

Ukrainians are not Russian.

Well not Great Russians.  Just little Russians.

[Drakken]

However, since we are now in alt-his territory, did Sweden really had a chance to topple Russia out of the war if it had invaded Russia after Narva, the collapse of Denmark and the peace of Travendal, instead of turning westward and anally raping Martinus' ancestors in Poland to dethrone Augustus of Saxony?

Also, there at least a possible white peace for Sweden in 1707 when Peter was ready to restitute everything except Saint-Petersburg and the line of the Neva. But would it have been a real peace, or only a truce?

Invading Russia in 1701 with Saxony still on the loose around Riga would have been dangerous. And AFAIK difficult. I suppose you would have had to march on Moscow meaning supply problems and not having the advantages of a reinforced army and prepared supply that existed in 1708. My guess is that it was not impossible, but also that improvising invasions of Russia with an unsecured flank isn't really healthy risktaking.

Regarding 1707, Russian access to the Baltic made Russia getting St Petersburg far from a white peace. Charles surrendering the entire Swedish strategic position in the Baltic would have been pretty weird at the height of his power after a great series of victories.

But in hindight, what were Charles's options? Charles' diplomatic abilities were not very stellar, basically it was all or nothing. Besides, the only way to keep all neutrals in check was to keep the Swedish army intact. You do not need to know Poltava to guess that the deal is sealed if Charles loses his army advantage.

That being said, to continue the war invading Russia is almost inevitable since they were the only opponent who had the means to sustain the war theorically indefinitely (or at least as long enough as Peter could keep his large number of domestic opponents in check).

An alternative strategy I can see is an "interior line" type of campaign, which means keeping the Army inside the Swedish territory and sacrificing initiative in favour of keeping the Army intact and close to his supply lines. And of course, paramount to this strategy is to burn Saint-Petersburg to the ground, scorch the banks of the Neva, then retreat. And this allows potentially for a more thorough puppetering of Poland-Lithuania.

It's all hindsight, of course, but in 1705-1707 Charles had enough leverage to work out something had he been patient.

[Valmy]

If Charles was not such a moralizing Protestant fanatic he just would have taken advantage of Peter's love of foreigners and getting tremendously drunk to have Peter assassinated.  It wouldn't have been hard.  The war would instantly have been over.

[Scipio]

If Charles was not such a moralizing Protestant fanatic egomaniacal moron he just would have taken advantage of Peter's love of foreigners and getting tremendously drunk to have Peter assassinated.  It wouldn't have been hard.  The war would instantly have been over.

[Drakken]

If Charles was not such a egomaniacal morno he just would have taken advantage of Peter's love of foreigners and getting tremendously drunk to have Peter assassinated.  It wouldn't have been hard.  The war would instantly have been over.

[Drakken]

If Charles was not such a moralizing Protestant fanatic he just would have taken advantage of Peter's love of foreigners and getting tremendously drunk to have Peter assassinated.  It wouldn't have been hard.  The war would instantly have been over.

Or, even more simple, he would have taken advantage of the absolute disgust and contempt for Peter's love of foreigners by boyars and the Orthodox Church, by backing any coup orchestrated by the shitloads of priests and disaffected traditional noblemen who were absolutely not interested in Peter's view of Russia, especially opening their borders to foreigners and their influence, and who were by large opposed to Peter's warmongering against Sweden.

And they had a very good candidate for his replacement: Peter's son Alexei, who was notoriously oppositional to his father's policies also and a total puppet of the traditionals.

Charles might have made overtures along the line of : "Help us get rid of Peter and his cronies, put Alexis on the throne in the Kremlin, restitute what was ours ante bellum, and we'll let you return to your old ways in peace... with some minor compensations to be discussed afterwards". The boyars would have wet their beds with such a proposal, and it might have been enough to trigger insurrections. And it would have replaced a powerful leader like Peter by a total 3-3-3 pickle-monarch, which is always beneficial for Sweden if Charles wanted to resume war with Russia.

Sadly, even that was too complicated a plot for Charlie. 

[The Brain]

Interior lines would be difficult. Sweden didn't realistically have the resources to win a war of attrition with Russia. Not using the main Swedish asset (the field army) and instead using the major Swedish weakness (the tiny economic base) doesn't sound like win.

Regarding anti-Peter coups, the most powerful and realistic way of generating those was doing just what Charles was doing: marching on Moscow.

Rome would have marched on Moscow. And after Poltava it would have raised new armies and tried to have another go. Just like Charles. Rome is one hell of a role model.

[jimmy olsen]

Interior lines would be difficult. Sweden didn't realistically have the resources to win a war of attrition with Russia. Not using the main Swedish asset (the field army) and instead using the major Swedish weakness (the tiny economic base) doesn't sound like win.

Regarding anti-Peter coups, the most powerful and realistic way of generating those was doing just what Charles was doing: marching on Moscow.

Rome would have marched on Moscow. And after Poltava it would have raised new armies and tried to have another go. Just like Charles. Rome is one hell of a role model.

Rome =/ Sweden

Sweden doesn't have massive manpower reserves to risk on that kind of campaign.

[The Brain]

Interior lines would be difficult. Sweden didn't realistically have the resources to win a war of attrition with Russia. Not using the main Swedish asset (the field army) and instead using the major Swedish weakness (the tiny economic base) doesn't sound like win.

Regarding anti-Peter coups, the most powerful and realistic way of generating those was doing just what Charles was doing: marching on Moscow.

Rome would have marched on Moscow. And after Poltava it would have raised new armies and tried to have another go. Just like Charles. Rome is one hell of a role model.

Rome =/ Sweden

Sweden doesn't have massive manpower reserves to risk on that kind of campaign.

Rome played to win. So did Charles. That's the key. Coups and interior lines (waiting for Peter to die?) relies on luck or someone else to win the war for Sweden. If a person can show a way for Sweden to force a win without marching on Moscow I would be very happy to see it.