Medium-term impacts of a Swedish GNW victory?

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Whenever people talk about Sweden winning the Great Northern War, they talk about either the immediate effects or the fact that unless something changed, Sweden would never remain a true great power long-term. However, I want to look at the medium-term in this thread.

So first off, what is the most plausible way Sweden could have won the war? Would it be Peter getting killed at Narva? Charles taking command at Poltava? Charles going after Russia instead of Saxony after Narva? Brandenburg joining the war and tying down Saxony, allowing Sweden to focus on Russia?
From there, what would a likely peace treaty look like? Poland-Lithuania will probably end up being forcibly alligned with Sweden, for a start. What happens to Norway? Does Sweden take it from Denmark?

With Sweden remaining a great power, does it end up intervening in the War of the Spanish Succession, assuming the GNW ends before it? If so, what effects does that have? I don't think the War of the Polish Succession would happen, but the War of Austrian Succession might. Would Sweden join that war?

If the Seven Years War still breaks out around the same time, I could see Prussia and Russia actually becoming allies, along with Britain, assuming the Diplomatic Revolution still happens. Sweden and Poland-Lithuania would probably join Austria and France, as Sweden already joined in OTL and would be wary of Prussian designs on Poland like Russia was in OTL.

Perhaps most importantly, what is most likely to happen to the American and thus French Revolutions? Would there still be an expansionist French Republic? Napoleon would almost certainly be butterflied away. What does that do for military doctrine? What happens to the Ancien Regime across Europe without Napoleon to bulldoze it down?

 

[Sqdn19]

@von Adler?

I would say to win the Great Northern War:
1. Ideally Peter is there and dies at Narva. IIRC Karl XII returned the POWs. If Peter isn’t killed, not returning them would seem to be a good idea.
2. Karl successfully marches on Moscow, instead of going via Poltava, and Peter falls in battle there.

Unfortunately neither king were willing to make peace without St Petersburg, so for Sweden to win, Peter must be off the throne.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

@von Adler?

I would say to win the Great Northern War:
1. Ideally Peter is there and dies at Narva. IIRC Karl XII returned the POWs. If Peter isn’t killed, not returning them would seem to be a good idea.
2. Karl successfully marches on Moscow, instead of going via Poltava, and Peter falls in battle there.

Unfortunately neither king were willing to make peace without St Petersburg, so for Sweden to win, Peter must be off the throne.

So Karl kills Peter at Narva or in a later battle. How does the war progress from there?

 

[Sqdn19]

So Karl kills Peter at Narva or in a later battle. How does the war progress from there?

I don’t know much about the Russian court at the time, but for Sweden’s sake I hope they agree to give up St Petersburg (I forget what the Swedes called the area between Ingria and Karelia).

That way the war is over and the Baltic will be a Swedish Mare Nostrum until the rise of Prussia. If Prussia rises, actually.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

I don’t know much about the Russian court at the time, but for Sweden’s sake I hope they agree to give up St Petersburg (I forget what the Swedes called the area between Ingria and Karelia).

That way the war is over and the Baltic will be a Swedish Mare Nostrum until the rise of Prussia. If Prussia rises, actually.

St. Petersburg was called Narva I think.

I think Prussia will still rise, since its rise was largely independent of Sweden's actions. Although, I think Prussia and Sweden would end up fighting in an alternate Seven Years War instead of Russia, and Russia might even join Prussia.

 

[McAuslan_in_the_Rough]

St. Petersburg was called Narva I think.

I think Prussia will still rise, since its rise was largely independent of Sweden's actions. Although, I think Prussia and Sweden would end up fighting in an alternate Seven Years War instead of Russia, and Russia might even join Prussia.

Narva is a separate town. St. Petersburg was built on the site of the fortress of Nyenskans.

 

[alexmilman]

Whenever people talk about Sweden winning the Great Northern War, they talk about either the immediate effects or the fact that unless something changed, Sweden would never remain a true great power long-term. However, I want to look at the medium-term in this thread.

So first off, what is the most plausible way Sweden could have won the war? Would it be Peter getting killed at Narva?

Peter was not there when Charles arrived.

Charles taking command at Poltava?

Hardly would change too much:

• There was an overwhelming firepower on the Russian side, quality of their troops noticeably improved and they had few times more deployed troops with more in a fortified camp.
• Strategic position was pretty much hopeless. A detailed explanation would be long so just see the “1st law of warfare” by Montgomery, “never march on Moscow”. 😉

Charles going after Russia instead of Saxony after Narva?

And where exactly would he go in Russia? The standard assumption about Moscow does not work, see above, and what could he do? Chase Peter all over the European Russia with the Russian side having thousands of the highly mobile irregulars and ready to apply the scorched earth policy?

How about something much easier which did not happen just because Charles refused: in 1708 or 09 Peter offered a peace by which he would return all conquests except for a narrow stretch of Ingria with St-Petersburg and a road to it. Charles refused to accept anything except for status ante bellum and compensation. If he accepts, he won the war. St-P at that time and few years to follow was absolutely insignificant settlement with a port visited by less than 5 ships per year and grew in significance only after Peter conquered the Baltic Provinces and for few years pretty much closed Rige, Revel and Narva to channel all trade to St-P.

Brandenburg joining the war and tying down Saxony, allowing Sweden to focus on Russia?

One more scenario going nowhere: for as long as Peter is willing to keep fighting, Sweden can’t force it to surrender because it is simply lacking the necessary resources. Peter’s death may be a short-term option but look at the history of the issue: starting from Ivan IV there were regular Tsardom’s efforts to establish/conquer the port on Baltic coast.

From there, what would a likely peace treaty look like?

See above: pre-war border and compensation of the war expenses and losses. Most probably, the existing trade treaties would be renewed because they were mutually profitable.

Poland-Lithuania will probably end up being forcibly alligned with Sweden, for a start.

And the jelly can be nailed to a wall. 😉

What happens to Norway? Does Sweden take it from Denmark?

This was not an easy task.

With Sweden remaining a great power, does it end up intervening in the War of the Spanish Succession, assuming the GNW ends before it?

On which side?

 

[alexmilman]

Narva is a separate town. St. Petersburg was built on the site of the fortress of Nyenskans.

As a little bit of a nitpicking, it was built near the site of the town of Nyen which formed around Nyenschantz. On the map below (1698) Nyen is behind the river’s bend, on the right.

St-P was founded at the river’s mouth and, unlike Nyen, was suffering from the regular floods.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Peter was not there when Charles arrived.


Hardly would change too much:

• There was an overwhelming firepower on the Russian side, quality of their troops noticeably improved and they had few times more deployed troops with more in a fortified camp.
• Strategic position was pretty much hopeless. A detailed explanation would be long so just see the “1st law of warfare” by Montgomery, “never march on Moscow”. 😉

And where exactly would he go in Russia? The standard assumption about Moscow does not work, see above, and what could he do? Chase Peter all over the European Russia with the Russian side having thousands of the highly mobile irregulars and ready to apply the scorched earth policy?

How about something much easier which did not happen just because Charles refused: in 1708 or 09 Peter offered a peace by which he would return all conquests except for a narrow stretch of Ingria with St-Petersburg and a road to it. Charles refused to accept anything except for status ante bellum and compensation. If he accepts, he won the war. St-P at that time and few years to follow was absolutely insignificant settlement with a port visited by less than 5 ships per year and grew in significance only after Peter conquered the Baltic Provinces and for few years pretty much closed Rige, Revel and Narva to channel all trade to St-P.



One more scenario going nowhere: for as long as Peter is willing to keep fighting, Sweden can’t force it to surrender because it is simply lacking the necessary resources. Peter’s death may be a short-term option but look at the history of the issue: starting from Ivan IV there were regular Tsardom’s efforts to establish/conquer the port on Baltic coast.


See above: pre-war border and compensation of the war expenses and losses. Most probably, the existing trade treaties would be renewed because they were mutually profitable.


And the jelly can be nailed to a wall. 😉


This was not an easy task.


On which side?

Peter left Narva the day before the battle; Had he stayed there's a good chance he would have died.

 

[alexmilman]

Peter left Narva the day before the battle; Had he stayed there's a good chance he would have died.

How many high-ranking officers of Preobrazensky and Semionovsky regiments had been killed at Narva? How many Russian generals died in that battle? And why would he stay, to start with, after he learned that Charles is coming? He was not exactly a “heroic idiot” type and each assumption has to be backed up either by logic or by statistics. 😉

Why is it necessary to add the questionable realities if few years later he did offer Charles a winning scenario?

He had plenty of opportunities to die outside any battlefield, for example, like a Saxon ambassador in his camp who got drunk and drowned by falling into a tiny creek. Or he could die while sailing his boat on one of Izmailovo ponds, etc.

Charles had a much higher chance to die there: he was leading one of the columns and his horse had been killed.

 

[McAuslan_in_the_Rough]

St-P was founded at the river’s mouth and, unlike Nyen, was suffering from the regular floods.

Thanks for the correction and god damn it, is there a single thing Peter did without creating more hassle for everyone around him.

 

[alexmilman]

Thanks for the correction and god damn it, is there a single thing Peter did without creating more hassle for everyone around him.

Sorry, I don’t know his biography that well. 😂

OTOH, to be fair, perhaps establishing Order of St. Andrew and then of St. Catherine were reasonably harmless acts if you discount the related temptations.

 

[von Adler]

@von Adler?

I would say to win the Great Northern War:
1. Ideally Peter is there and dies at Narva. IIRC Karl XII returned the POWs. If Peter isn’t killed, not returning them would seem to be a good idea.
2. Karl successfully marches on Moscow, instead of going via Poltava, and Peter falls in battle there.

Unfortunately neither king were willing to make peace without St Petersburg, so for Sweden to win, Peter must be off the throne.

What the result is will depend a lot on when and how Sweden wins. A scenario from me, @alexmilman will of course shred it, but that is appropriate.

1. Denmark is knocked out as historically.
2. Sweden retains the prisoners after Narva. A lot of them die due to exposure and the lack of supplies (the inability to support the prisoners were one of the reasons they were freed) for them long-term, the rest are put to work improving fortifications in Ingria and Estonia.
3. The 1701 expedition to take Archangelsk is better set up. It gets of earlier (OTL von Löwe cruised the Baltic and did not get the orders to sail for Archangelsk until later in Spring), it includes a few transports, a battalion of regular infantry and two ships of the line in addition to the OTL five frigates. Sweden has also made a deal with the Sami and during Autumn and Winter 1700, they have transported about 300 men (artillery men, siege experts and engineers) and some supplies by sled to the outskirts of Archangelsk, where these men have surveyed the forts and the lay of the land. When the fleet arrives, they're ready to take the town and do after a month of siege. Sweden allows the normal civilian trade and tolls it, but seizes any war supplies coming in (like the squadron in place did OTL). Sweden can't hold it in the long run, since Russia can bring much more troops and guns over the Northern Dvina river, but early in the war, the trade over Archangelsk provided abour 1/3-1/2 the muskets, musket barrels and gunmetal the Russian armouries used - a two year stoppage in that trade would weaken the Russian ability to rebuild their army after Narva.
4. Karl XII for some reason chooses to ignore Poland-Lithuania. This one is tough, because the contemporaries saw it as a valuable ally against Russia if the regime could be changed, and Poland-Lithuania had looked strong and back on track at Vienna 1683. But for whatever reason, Karl XII occupies Polish Livonia and Courland and then accepts the Polish Sejm's declaration of neutrality. He still marches through Poland, fire-taxing and looting where that does not provide enough, then ignores the Emperor temporarily (like he did 1707) and crosses Silesia into Saxony to occupy it and force August to sign a peace 1703.
5. Somewhere here Peter gets drunk and drowns during a fishing trip, leaving a regency and Alexei to rule Russia.
6. The Russians, lacking muskets, start taking mathlocks out of the old Streltsy regiments' depots. Some of the Streltsy see this as the first step in disarming and then dissolving them and attempt a coup. The regency is in firm control of the Russian state though, and pretty easily crushes the coup/revolt.
7. The larger Swedish army in Ingria and Estonia (left to handle among other thigns the construction of fortifications and guarding the Russian prisoners and having more men due to the Polish front not sucking in so much of the Swedish manpower) manage to turn back the 1702 Russian invasion of Ingria is turned back and Nöteborg recaptured.
8. Karl XII now turns east, and the Russian regency flinches. While the geopolitical situation is the same, they might actually think making peace now and paying some war reparations and then perhaps going after Crimea and the Ottomans would be a more popular war, and to return to take on Sweden when the situation is more favourable (Sweden at war with others, with more allies etc). The shortage of muskets, the short-lived Streltsy revolt and perhaps some other factors may influence this. Russia makes peace and pays war indemnities in say 1705.

What are the short-term consequences? Denmark hires its armies to the Emperor as OTL, Sweden hires its German garrisons to the Dutch and English (as it did during the Nine Years War 1688-1697).

Sweden being a geopolitical ally and in a strong position may prevent George I's Hannovrian ambition on Swedish Bremen and the attempts to provoke Sweden to war with Britain by escorting British, Dutch and Russian merchant ships trading with the ports in the Baltics (captured by the Russians and blockaded by the Swedish navy OTL). However, the desire will remain there. It might go down as the Hannovrians become increasingly married to their British throne and starts ignoring their Hannovrian one.

The next coalition against Sweden might be Britain-Prussia-Denmark-Russia, although if the Hannovrians lose their ambition on Swedish Bremen by the time George II ascends the throne, Sweden might still be looking like the best continental anti-French ally for the British rather than Prussia. It is also possible that the pro-naval powers policy and anti-French sentiments in Sweden would mean that Sweden, Prussia and Britain may find common ground.

In general, Karl XII wanted to follow the foreign policy of his father Karl XI and retained his chief minister Piper who was strong in favour of no permament alliances to entangle Sweden in unecessary wars, and a strong anti-French and pro-naval powers foreign policy.

A likely scenario is that Sweden remains pro-naval powers and by the time the War of Austrian Succession is allied ot Austria, Britain and the Netherlands and faces Prussia, Russia and France on the other side.

However, this depends a lot on what Russia does - maybe it tries to start a new war with Sweden over access to the Baltic Sea before that?
Russia might actually see Alexei marrying properly and having heirs, which could cause a completely different set or rulers compared to OTL. Russia's ambition in Poland-Lithuania and "trying to nail the jelly to the wall" might also be completely different in this timeline. It is possible that Russia will be entangled in hard-to-complete campaigns (mostly due to logistics) in Crimea, the Caucasus, Moldavia and Poland-Lithuania, seeing securing their southern flank as essential and perhaps trying as Sweden did to secure Poland-Lithuania as a geopolitical ally in the wars to come with Sweden.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

What the result is will depend a lot on when and how Sweden wins. A scenario from me, @alexmilman will of course shred it, but that is appropriate.

1. Denmark is knocked out as historically.
2. Sweden retains the prisoners after Narva. A lot of them die due to exposure and the lack of supplies (the inability to support the prisoners were one of the reasons they were freed) for them long-term, the rest are put to work improving fortifications in Ingria and Estonia.
3. The 1701 expedition to take Archangelsk is better set up. It gets of earlier (OTL von Löwe cruised the Baltic and did not get the orders to sail for Archangelsk until later in Spring), it includes a few transports, a battalion of regular infantry and two ships of the line in addition to the OTL five frigates. Sweden has also made a deal with the Sami and during Autumn and Winter 1700, they have transported about 300 men (artillery men, siege experts and engineers) and some supplies by sled to the outskirts of Archangelsk, where these men have surveyed the forts and the lay of the land. When the fleet arrives, they're ready to take the town and do after a month of siege. Sweden allows the normal civilian trade and tolls it, but seizes any war supplies coming in (like the squadron in place did OTL). Sweden can't hold it in the long run, since Russia can bring much more troops and guns over the Northern Dvina river, but early in the war, the trade over Archangelsk provided abour 1/3-1/2 the muskets, musket barrels and gunmetal the Russian armouries used - a two year stoppage in that trade would weaken the Russian ability to rebuild their army after Narva.
4. Karl XII for some reason chooses to ignore Poland-Lithuania. This one is tough, because the contemporaries saw it as a valuable ally against Russia if the regime could be changed, and Poland-Lithuania had looked strong and back on track at Vienna 1683. But for whatever reason, Karl XII occupies Polish Livonia and Courland and then accepts the Polish Sejm's declaration of neutrality. He still marches through Poland, fire-taxing and looting where that does not provide enough, then ignores the Emperor temporarily (like he did 1707) and crosses Silesia into Saxony to occupy it and force August to sign a peace 1703.
5. Somewhere here Peter gets drunk and drowns during a fishing trip, leaving a regency and Alexei to rule Russia.
6. The Russians, lacking muskets, start taking mathlocks out of the old Streltsy regiments' depots. Some of the Streltsy see this as the first step in disarming and then dissolving them and attempt a coup. The regency is in firm control of the Russian state though, and pretty easily crushes the coup/revolt.
7. The larger Swedish army in Ingria and Estonia (left to handle among other thigns the construction of fortifications and guarding the Russian prisoners and having more men due to the Polish front not sucking in so much of the Swedish manpower) manage to turn back the 1702 Russian invasion of Ingria is turned back and Nöteborg recaptured.
8. Karl XII now turns east, and the Russian regency flinches. While the geopolitical situation is the same, they might actually think making peace now and paying some war reparations and then perhaps going after Crimea and the Ottomans would be a more popular war, and to return to take on Sweden when the situation is more favourable (Sweden at war with others, with more allies etc). The shortage of muskets, the short-lived Streltsy revolt and perhaps some other factors may influence this. Russia makes peace and pays war indemnities in say 1705.

What are the short-term consequences? Denmark hires its armies to the Emperor as OTL, Sweden hires its German garrisons to the Dutch and English (as it did during the Nine Years War 1688-1697).

Sweden being a geopolitical ally and in a strong position may prevent George I's Hannovrian ambition on Swedish Bremen and the attempts to provoke Sweden to war with Britain by escorting British, Dutch and Russian merchant ships trading with the ports in the Baltics (captured by the Russians and blockaded by the Swedish navy OTL). However, the desire will remain there. It might go down as the Hannovrians become increasingly married to their British throne and starts ignoring their Hannovrian one.

The next coalition against Sweden might be Britain-Prussia-Denmark-Russia, although if the Hannovrians lose their ambition on Swedish Bremen by the time George II ascends the throne, Sweden might still be looking like the best continental anti-French ally for the British rather than Prussia. It is also possible that the pro-naval powers policy and anti-French sentiments in Sweden would mean that Sweden, Prussia and Britain may find common ground.

In general, Karl XII wanted to follow the foreign policy of his father Karl XI and retained his chief minister Piper who was strong in favour of no permament alliances to entangle Sweden in unecessary wars, and a strong anti-French and pro-naval powers foreign policy.

A likely scenario is that Sweden remains pro-naval powers and by the time the War of Austrian Succession is allied ot Austria, Britain and the Netherlands and faces Prussia, Russia and France on the other side.

However, this depends a lot on what Russia does - maybe it tries to start a new war with Sweden over access to the Baltic Sea before that?
Russia might actually see Alexei marrying properly and having heirs, which could cause a completely different set or rulers compared to OTL. Russia's ambition in Poland-Lithuania and "trying to nail the jelly to the wall" might also be completely different in this timeline. It is possible that Russia will be entangled in hard-to-complete campaigns (mostly due to logistics) in Crimea, the Caucasus, Moldavia and Poland-Lithuania, seeing securing their southern flank as essential and perhaps trying as Sweden did to secure Poland-Lithuania as a geopolitical ally in the wars to come with Sweden.

Carl may ignore PLC if Augustus dies at the very beginning of GNW. That makes Saxon siege of Riga pointless-Saxons go home. And PLC without Saxon Elector on the throne has nothing to do with the War.

 

[Jürgen]

@von Adler
Sweden adopting a pro-naval power position would pretty much force Denmark into neutrality toward Sweden. Also I have a hard time seeing Hanover successful pull UK into conflicts with Sweden. So it will very much depend on whether Sweden decides to go with a pro-naval powers or pro-French alliance.

 

[von Adler]

@von Adler
Sweden adopting a pro-naval power position would pretty much force Denmark into neutrality toward Sweden. Also I have a hard time seeing Hanover successful pull UK into conflicts with Sweden. So it will very much depend on whether Sweden decides to go with a pro-naval powers or pro-French alliance.

It did not OTL. Denmark treid to go to war with Sweden 1685 and 1688 and then again 1700 and 1709 (the latter two times the naval powers could not dissuade Denmark). Sweden held a pro-naval powers position from 1680 to 1721

While we know today that Denmark as a grand power was in decline and that Sweden had already "won" the struggle by 1658, Denmark had at least one more war in them to try to retake Scania and the other provinces lost and were actively pursuing that policy. The lessons of the Scanian War 1675-79 for Denmark had not been that Sweden was stronger, but rather that they could take Sweden on if Sweden did not have grand power support.

It was not until Sweden had lost its entire army at Poltava and Denmark had brought home its experienced army from service to the Emperor and invaded Scania and been utterly crushed at Helsingborg by a Swedish army more or less stamped from the ground that Denmark gave up on revanchism with Sweden.

A scenario where Denmark was forced out of the Great Northern War early like OTL and did not re-enter it later would probably have Danish revanchism still cooking for a while longer.

I could see a Russo-Danish war against Sweden in the 1720s in this scenario.

 

[Jürgen]

It did not OTL. Denmark treid to go to war with Sweden 1685 and 1688 and then again 1700 and 1709 (the latter two times the naval powers could not dissuade Denmark). Sweden held a pro-naval powers position from 1680 to 1721

It was when those power was distracted by other conflicts.

While we know today that Denmark as a grand power was in decline and that Sweden had already "won" the struggle by 1658, Denmark had at least one more war in them to try to retake Scania and the other provinces lost and were actively pursuing that policy. The lessons of the Scanian War 1675-79 for Denmark had not been that Sweden was stronger, but rather that they could take Sweden on if Sweden did not have grand power support.

But in many ways that was the correct lesson, Denmark was far geopolitical lesser after 1660, but military it was a far stronger power than it ever had been, and Danish struggle with Sweden was just as much a case of weaken Sweden in Germany to allow Denmark to get rid of the Gottorps and get rid of Swedish encirclement

It was not until Sweden had lost its entire army at Poltava and Denmark had brought home its experienced army from service to the Emperor and invaded Scania and been utterly crushed at Helsingborg by a Swedish army more or less stamped from the ground that Denmark gave up on revanchism with Sweden.

Denmark have up because while it had lost Scania permanently it had gotten its more important objective, that Denmark was no longer encircled by Sweden and Swedish allies.

A scenario where Denmark was forced out of the Great Northern War early like OTL and did not re-enter it later would probably have Danish revanchism still cooking for a while longer.

Denmark would still have a interest in breaking Swedish encirclement, but the interest in Scania will decrease, it already had decreased by the time of the Great Northern War, Denmark didn’t start the conflict with invading Scania, but by occupying Gottorp. While the Danish population wanted Scania back, the Danish kings was more interested in regaining Gottorp.

I could see a Russo-Danish war against Sweden in the 1720s in this scenario.

I have a hard time seeing it, the lesson from the start of the Great Northern War was that Denmark needed to avoid naval power intervention. Just as the ScanIan War taught Denmark that a war with Sweden was meaningless if the French intervened.

Also a lot depends on whether Sweden are willing to sell out the Gottorps. Charles XI was perfect willing to sell out the Gottorps and got peace and a great relationship with Denmark, the Gottorps needed to be saved by the emperor. Of course Charles XII are not willing to sell them out, but a lot depend on who succeed him, do he produce a heir, who do he marry; Sophie Hedvig of Denmark is in her late twenties a little old to marry, and Charles XII seems very uninterested in marriage, but with Sweden at peace and him spending time at home he may decide to do his duty and she would be a obvious choice.

 

[von Adler]

It was when those power was distracted by other conflicts.

But in many ways that was the correct lesson, Denmark was far geopolitical lesser after 1660, but military it was a far stronger power than it ever had been, and Danish struggle with Sweden was just as much a case of weaken Sweden in Germany to allow Denmark to get rid of the Gottorps and get rid of Swedish encirclement

Denmark have up because while it had lost Scania permanently it had gotten its more important objective, that Denmark was no longer encircled by Sweden and Swedish allies.

Denmark would still have a interest in breaking Swedish encirclement, but the interest in Scania will decrease, it already had decreased by the time of the Great Northern War, Denmark didn’t start the conflict with invading Scania, but by occupying Gottorp. While the Danish population wanted Scania back, the Danish kings was more interested in regaining Gottorp.

I have a hard time seeing it, the lesson from the start of the Great Northern War was that Denmark needed to avoid naval power intervention. Just as the ScanIan War taught Denmark that a war with Sweden was meaningless if the French intervened.

Also a lot depends on whether Sweden are willing to sell out the Gottorps. Charles XI was perfect willing to sell out the Gottorps and got peace and a great relationship with Denmark, the Gottorps needed to be saved by the emperor. Of course Charles XII are not willing to sell them out, but a lot depend on who succeed him, do he produce a heir, who do he marry; Sophie Hedvig of Denmark is in her late twenties a little old to marry, and Charles XII seems very uninterested in marriage, but with Sweden at peace and him spending time at home he may decide to do his duty and she would be a obvious choice.

Likewise, Sweden had designs on Norway to remove being surrounded by hostile powers (Norway in the west, Russia in the east, Denmark to the south).

Denmark's attitude may change with how strong she feels, how strong she feels Sweden is (both of which may or may not be related to the actual situation) and how the grand powers, especially the naval powers would be expected to react.

Quite hard to foresee, really.

Only thing we know for certain is that marriage never got in the way of war between Denmark and Sweden.

 

[alexmilman]

What the result is will depend a lot on when and how Sweden wins. A scenario from me, @alexmilman will of course shred it, but that is appropriate.

Why do you expect a negative reaction from me? As you well-know, I’m not a great admirer of Peter and GNW. Of course, there are rather questionable pieces here and there, like streltsy depots: they kept weapons at home and I’m not sure that they still had matchlocks, probably they did not, and most of their regiments were already turned into the soldiers’ ones, etc. BTW, the OTL way out of the muskets shortage was to arm the last rows of the infantry formations with the “half-pikes” and halberds, IIRC, still was the case at Poltava where a high proportion of a fire was delivered by the artillery.

I’m still not sure why everybody is trying to kill Peter as a pre-requisite to a peace (especially I like “Peter gets drunk” part; how about “Peter gets sober”? this would be at least original 😜). Even in 1709 he was making quite reasonable peace offers. But, to give credit where it is due, you managed to avoid a march to Moscow and turned the whole thing into a plausible war of exhaustion so 👏👏


BTW, what was “improper” in Alexey’s marriage to the Emperor’s niece from whom he had a son (future PII)?

1. Denmark is knocked out as historically.
2. Sweden retains the prisoners after Narva. A lot of them die due to exposure and the lack of supplies (the inability to supportcis the prisoners were one of the reasons they were freed) for them long-term, the rest are put to work improving fortifications in Ingria and Estonia.
3. The 1701 expedition to take Archangelsk is better set up. It gets of earlier (OTL von Löwe cruised the Baltic and did not get the orders to sail for Archangelsk until later in Spring), it includes a few transports, a battalion of regular infantry and two ships of the line in addition to the OTL five frigates. Sweden has also made a deal with the Sami and during Autumn and Winter 1700, they have transported about 300 men (artillery men, siege experts and engineers) and some supplies by sled to the outskirts of Archangelsk, where these men have surveyed the forts and the lay of the land. When the fleet arrives, they're ready to take the town and do after a month of siege. Sweden allows the normal civilian trade and tolls it, but seizes any war supplies coming in (like the squadron in place did OTL). Sweden can't hold it in the long run, since Russia can bring much more troops and guns over the Northern Dvina river, but early in the war, the trade over Archangelsk provided abour 1/3-1/2 the muskets, musket barrels and gunmetal the Russian armouries used - a two year stoppage in that trade would weaken the Russian ability to rebuild their army after Narva.
4. Karl XII for some reason chooses to ignore Poland-Lithuania. This one is tough, because the contemporaries saw it as a valuable ally against Russia if the regime could be changed, and Poland-Lithuania had looked strong and back on track at Vienna 1683. But for whatever reason, Karl XII occupies Polish Livonia and Courland and then accepts the Polish Sejm's declaration of neutrality. He still marches through Poland, fire-taxing and looting where that does not provide enough, then ignores the Emperor temporarily (like he did 1707) and crosses Silesia into Saxony to occupy it and force August to sign a peace 1703.
5. Somewhere here Peter gets drunk and drowns during a fishing trip, leaving a regency and Alexei to rule Russia.
6. The Russians, lacking muskets, start taking mathlocks out of the old Streltsy regiments' depots. Some of the Streltsy see this as the first step in disarming and then dissolving them and attempt a coup. The regency is in firm control of the Russian state though, and pretty easily crushes the coup/revolt.
7. The larger Swedish army in Ingria and Estonia (left to handle among other thigns the construction of fortifications and guarding the Russian prisoners and having more men due to the Polish front not sucking in so much of the Swedish manpower) manage to turn back the 1702 Russian invasion of Ingria is turned back and Nöteborg recaptured.
8. Karl XII now turns east, and the Russian regency flinches. While the geopolitical situation is the same, they might actually think making peace now and paying some war reparations and then perhaps going after Crimea and the Ottomans would be a more popular war, and to return to take on Sweden when the situation is more favourable (Sweden at war with others, with more allies etc). The shortage of muskets, the short-lived Streltsy revolt and perhaps some other factors may influence this. Russia makes peace and pays war indemnities in say 1705.

What are the short-term consequences? Denmark hires its armies to the Emperor as OTL, Sweden hires its German garrisons to the Dutch and English (as it did during the Nine Years War 1688-1697).

Sweden being a geopolitical ally and in a strong position may prevent George I's Hannovrian ambition on Swedish Bremen and the attempts to provoke Sweden to war with Britain by escorting British, Dutch and Russian merchant ships trading with the ports in the Baltics (captured by the Russians and blockaded by the Swedish navy OTL). However, the desire will remain there. It might go down as the Hannovrians become increasingly married to their British throne and starts ignoring their Hannovrian one.

The next coalition against Sweden might be Britain-Prussia-Denmark-Russia, although if the Hannovrians lose their ambition on Swedish Bremen by the time George II ascends the throne, Sweden might still be looking like the best continental anti-French ally for the British rather than Prussia. It is also possible that the pro-naval powers policy and anti-French sentiments in Sweden would mean that Sweden, Prussia and Britain may find common ground.

In general, Karl XII wanted to follow the foreign policy of his father Karl XI and retained his chief minister Piper who was strong in favour of no permament alliances to entangle Sweden in unecessary wars, and a strong anti-French and pro-naval powers foreign policy.

A likely scenario is that Sweden remains pro-naval powers and by the time the War of Austrian Succession is allied ot Austria, Britain and the Netherlands and faces Prussia, Russia and France on the other side.

However, this depends a lot on what Russia does - maybe it tries to start a new war with Sweden over access to the Baltic Sea before that?
Russia might actually see Alexei marrying properly and having heirs, which could cause a completely different set or rulers compared to OTL. Russia's ambition in Poland-Lithuania and "trying to nail the jelly to the wall" might also be completely different in this timeline. It is possible that Russia will be entangled in hard-to-complete campaigns (mostly due to logistics) in Crimea, the Caucasus, Moldavia and Poland-Lithuania, seeing securing their southern flank as essential and perhaps trying as Sweden did to secure Poland-Lithuania as a geopolitical ally in the wars to come with Sweden.

 

[von Adler]

Why do you expect a negative reaction from me? As you well-know, I’m not a great admirer of Peter and GNW. Of course, there are rather questionable pieces here and there, like streltsy depots: they kept weapons at home and I’m not sure that they still had matchlocks, probably they did not, and most of their regiments were already turned into the soldiers’ ones, etc. BTW, the OTL way out of the muskets shortage was to arm the last rows of the infantry formations with the “half-pikes” and halberds, IIRC, still was the case at Poltava where a high proportion of a fire was delivered by the artillery.

I’m still not sure why everybody is trying to kill Peter as a pre-requisite to a peace (especially I like “Peter gets drunk” part; how about “Peter gets sober”? this would be at least original 😜). Even in 1709 he was making quite reasonable peace offers. But, to give credit where it is due, you managed to avoid a march to Moscow and turned the whole thing into a plausible war of exhaustion so 👏👏


BTW, what was “improper” in Alexey’s marriage to the Emperor’s niece from whom he had a son (future PII)?

I intended it as a compliment - you know a lot about Russia and Russian internal politics in the era, and are thus equipped to tell me why the timeline I made would not be realistic because A, B and C. A lot like I do when people try to present late Kalmar Union survival scenarios.

Peter had a very strong grip on the Russian state, he was very stubborn and he understood that in the long run, Sweden could not force Russia to peace and that if he just kept at it, he would win in the end. I have a hard time imagining peace that both Karl XII and Peter would accept - it feels more likely that a regency would accept paying war indemnities than that Peter would accept a peace where he paid indemnities and gained no territory.

I had Alexei's marriage and affair mixed up, I thought his affair with Afrosina and fallout with Peter happened before his marriage and the birth of his daughter. When was the marriage agreed? The regency might go for an internal candidate, either to benefit one of the regents (his own family) or to shore up support instead of Charlotte Christine. My original post was thus intended as "a proper marriage instead of an affair", but I had the timeline confused.