Sweden wins the Great Northern War

Larrey said:

Feudalism? Norway. No aristocracy in Norway. Bit of a matter of pride with the Norwegians.


Charles XII inherited the situation in internal politics, and does seem to have had ambitions for domestic reforms – but then the wars quickly got in the way.

Click to expand...

I'm curious: is anything known about what kind of plans he did have?

Vaeltaja said:

My take on the topic... Had Sweden won the Great Northern War.

It very much depends on how that would have occurred. Via military or political means, and when exactly. For example there would have been a small chance of actually end the war quite swiftly had Charles pursued Peter instead of going off to campaign in Poland. With Denmark and Russia out of the picture it is quite likely that Poland would not have continued the war. On the other hand Swedes could also have won by crushing the newly built St. Petersburg had the never-ending Polish campaigns simply been ended. It would have an immense blow military, politically and emotionally for Peter to have his 'crown jewel' that he named for himself been brought to ruin.

I suspect that there might have been some chance of Sweden actually staking a more solid - perhaps even lasting - claim on Norway, Denmark, Estonia, Ingria and (modern-day) Latvia. But this would have required actually consolidating the gains. It might have also required some more forward thinking moves like partially devolving powers (i.e. letting Danes be Danes but bow to the Swedish crown, kinda like Norway was in later on) or similar which did not seem to anywhere near Charles' mind.

Click to expand...

Charles is famous for keeping his mind to himself. Fieldmarshall Rehnskiöld seems to have been his only real confidant. So there's a lot of conjecture regarding his actual plans for a lot of things.

But part of the challenge here stems from the fact that we really have no historical indications of how Charles might have behaved or planned for conquest and occupation of large tracts of lands and people. He didn't actually go for that. His wars were about defeating the enemy, and making peace. The closest thing to how a "Carolean" Swedish attempt at permanent conquest might pan out probably comes from grandfather Charles X. And we probably need to assume Charles XII to turn out to be a bit wiser as a monarch than most of us tend to give him credit for.

For a scenario where Denmark and Norway are forcibly brought in to the Swedish empire, lets assume this is accomplished through personal union. Charles becomes king of Denmark, and the reconstituted medieval Norwegian kingdom, which has the advantage of splintering the Danish-Norwegian union. Both Denmark and Norway must be assumed to get considerable self-rule. In Norway this can possibly be done through a somewhat empowered parliament, something akin to the Swedish situation. Denmark is a lot trickier, since the Danish nobility is rich, large and powerful still, to be pacified, broken or bought off (probably the last most feasible). Charles might actually play-up the fact that he is himself half-Danish, the son of a Danish princess (Ulrika Eleonora Sr, daughter of king Fredrik III of Denmark). It might be reasonable to assume a kind of secondary court is set up in Denmark – with a member of the royal family constantly on site to keep tabs on things. In the absence of anything like a queen or heir to Charles, the likeliest candidate would be his sister Ulrika Eleonora Jr (granddaughter of Fredrik III after all), and her husband Fredrik of Hessen.

Given that all these royals – Charles, Ulrika, Fredrik – are childless, there is a rather glaring question about the eventual succession. Treat that as an opportunity and possibly Ulrika and Fredrik can simply adopt a proper Danish prince to be raised as he heir to the throne of the entire new Nordic empire. That could get Denmark online with the future development of such a realm.

Larrey said:

Feudalism? Norway. No aristocracy in Norway. Bit of a matter of pride with the Norwegians.

Iceland is the same thing. (The Swedish island of Gotland is similar – no nobles there. You find some feller named "Kolmodin" in the records, and while he proudly lists himself as "farmer", you need to keep in mind he might still own a third of the island.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I forgot to mention Norway and Iceland. Feudalism also never developed in those 2 countries.

Gvelion said:

Yeah, I forgot to mention Norway and Iceland. Feudalism also never developed in those 2 countries.

Click to expand...

But why? No enough people? Or resources?

chucke said:

But why? No enough people? Or resources?

Click to expand...

Sparsely populated, late christinization, pre-christian germanic traditions still fresh in memory and sometimes also integrated into the medieval framework.

Perhaps most importantly the last: a great proportion of the people already owned land, and also had their own weapons at home. It's pretty difficult for a King to just get rid of that fact, especially once you take geography and population density into account.

NordicDemosthenes said:

Sparsely populated, late christinization, pre-christian germanic traditions still fresh in memory and sometimes also integrated into the medieval framework.

Perhaps most importantly the last: a great proportion of the people already owned land, and also had their own weapons at home. It's pretty difficult for a King to just get rid of that fact, especially once you take geography and population density into account.

Click to expand...

I would also mention that the geography was not conducive to the development of larger estates. Mountainous terrain does not lend itself to a feudal economic model.

Yeah, feudalism as we know it from the High Middle Ages was a fairly late development. It spread from its heartland in northern France + England + the German Rhineland beginning in the 12th c.

It had trouble sticking in the northern outposts of Catholic Europe largely due to the economy not quite allowing the kind of landed nobility on great estates that it required. Denmark was certainly rich enough for it so no problems there, but already in Sweden, while introduced, it struggled – the nobles (as in a class of people extempt from tax in return for service as mounted knights) simply weren't numerous, and rich, enough.

It's not as if there weren't powerful men and families in Norway. It just was never formalized as a hereditary class of feudal nobles in the continental style.

pikeshot1600 said:

I would also mention that the geography was not conducive to the development of larger estates. Mountainous terrain does not lend itself to a feudal economic model.

Click to expand...

Good point!

We have strayed from the GNW, but as this is speculative history, I guess that is alright. As to feudal institutions in Sweden-Norway, and why they did not really develop, what may have been the role of Denmark in the later medieval centuries?

All three kingdoms were nominally in union until the Swedish nobles went their own way in the earlier 16th century. Denmark had a close connection to Germany where feudal institutions were more understood, and Denmark is relatively flat and pastoral, so its nobility had some building blocks for a feudal society. I am just postulating here, as I have not understood Denmark as a noble military society. (Certainly under the Oldenburg monarchy, most land warfare was conducted by German soldiers and also many commanders.)

I could be making more of this than there is, but the Swedish opposition to the Kalmar Union may have been partially due to differences in economic models and how the respective societies were affected by them. Maybe I am shooting blanks here as Norway stayed closer to Denmark and their general situation was somewhat similar to Sweden's.

I think that if Sweden wins they would just be invaded again a few decades later. The Swedish Empire was overextended and its neighbours held resentment towards them for their rapid expansion. If Sweden wins I find the only territories they could take are Norway and a maybe some bits of Russia.

Trying to set up a puppet king in Russia and Poland would not be successful for long I think and they would get overthrown eventually. I see the Swedish Empire as simply unmaintainable in its situation at the time and war as inevitable.

WhatAnArtist said:

A Swedish victory at Poltava (1709) would have turned the tide of the war in Sweden's favour decisively. When the Russians won this battle, they, for all intents and purposes, won the war. The next 12 years were just finishing off the already beaten Swedes. The vast majority of the professional Russian army was present at Poltava; had they somehow been defeated, the way to Moscow would be open, and its capture would most probably result in a Russian capitulation. The war was extremely unpopular with the bulk of the lower classes, and there was a lot of resentment against Peter himself because of his constant and controversial "reforms" (I say in quotation marks because it wasn't seen as that by many at the time). There's the possibility that he would be overthrown following a defeat at Poltava and the destruction of his army, and any successor to him would inevitably be pro-peace. Peter was unusual in how unbending and iron-strong his determination to continue the war was; most people just wanted it to end no matter what.

Click to expand...

This is similar to the Napoleon and Leipzig question. It depends on the way of the victory.

If Sweden wins Poltava in a hollow, Pyrrhic manner then there will eventually be another battle they could not win. If they somehow win decisively (Nigh-impossible.) they would destroy most of the Russian army and get some supplies, but then what? They were already withering away due to attrition and scorched earth tactics used by the Russians. I don't really see the Swedes advancing to Moscow if they win at Poltava.

I doubt the automatic Swedish victory if they take Moscow. there might be a reaction but I doubt there would be an outright capitulation and surrender of the Russian army.

WhatAnArtist said:

Depending on what stage of the war this occurred in, it could even result in a decisive French victory and thus the union of the thrones of France and Spain.

Click to expand...

Maybe someone can correct me but I'm skeptical of the claim that France wanted a Franco-Spanish union. Phillip was 5th or so in line for the French throne when the War of the Spanish Succession began and I don't think anybody could've predicted that 3 generations of French heirs to the throne would die suddenly. Louis probably wanted the union but I don't see how it could've been achieved at the time or that it was France's goal from the start.

pikeshot1600 said:

We have strayed from the GNW, but as this is speculative history, I guess that is alright. As to feudal institutions in Sweden-Norway, and why they did not really develop, what may have been the role of Denmark in the later medieval centuries?

All three kingdoms were nominally in union until the Swedish nobles went their own way in the earlier 16th century. Denmark had a close connection to Germany where feudal institutions were more understood, and Denmark is relatively flat and pastoral, so its nobility had some building blocks for a feudal society. I am just postulating here, as I have not understood Denmark as a noble military society. (Certainly under the Oldenburg monarchy, most land warfare was conducted by German soldiers and also many commanders.)

I could be making more of this than there is, but the Swedish opposition to the Kalmar Union may have been partially due to differences in economic models and how the respective societies were affected by them. Maybe I am shooting blanks here as Norway stayed closer to Denmark and their general situation was somewhat similar to Sweden's.

Click to expand...

The Swedish nobles went their own way ALL THE TIME while the Union was still in effect. It's how Karl Knutsson Bonde, Charles VIII, became king of Sweden no less than three times. (And in between, planning his comeback, he set himself up as a pirate chief at least once.)

The Swedish nobles weren't reacting to being in a union – and certainly not for some kind of proto-nationalist notions — but they were reacting against the union king, and his adminstration's, attempts to more directly rule the Swedish lands. The locally sourced Swedish nobility considered that THEIR job, and would rebel at the drop of a hat. Eventually they stopped appointing counter-kings like Charles, and the Sture family in particular provided Stewards to rule as-if-kings-except-not-in-name. (The military balance in Sweden was usually settled by which side the various county levies chose, but the county levies tended to chose side depending on which side their traditional enemies in this or that province chose – the Valleys vs the Uplands etc.)

By the 1520's this had become a new semi-permanent situation when union king Christian II, having yet again militarily sudued his rebellious kingdom, went for the radical solution of literally knocking the block off of this troublesome Swedish nobility – in the 1519 Stockholm Bloodbath. Effectively he removed a generation of Swedish higher nobility in one go. And then he got hit with the rebellion of Gustav Eriksson Wasa – bankrolled by Lübeck and the Hansa (unhappy with Christian becoming too powerful and the Union too united, since it was directed against them – and yes the Hansa Connection allowed rebels against the Union easy funding well before Gustav Wasa), and with crucial popular support from the commoners, while the nobility was temporarily down and out for losing their heads, with the survivors decidedly not keen on Christian as king.

Gustav I Wasa was otoh new kind of threat, a non-royal usurper who was arguably the first Renaissance Prince in Sweden – extremely brutal, brilliant at power-politics, with a flair for propaganda, and the only thing he had less than scruples was formal education. He completely broke the format. No Swedish monarch put down as many rebellions against their rule as he did, and killed as many of his own subjects in the process. Naturally at the end of it all he got dubbed "Father of the Nation".

Mastersonmcvoidson said:

I think that if Sweden wins they would just be invaded again a few decades later. The Swedish Empire was overextended and its neighbours held resentment towards them for their rapid expansion. If Sweden wins I find the only territories they could take are Norway and a maybe some bits of Russia.

Trying to set up a puppet king in Russia and Poland would not be successful for long I think and they would get overthrown eventually. I see the Swedish Empire as simply unmaintainable in its situation at the time and war as inevitable.

Click to expand...

We agree on this.

There would still have to be a fight over it, and Sweden might still continue to win against the odds. Depending rather a lot on what kind of alliances and international support it might get.

That's also why we go into these what-if scenarios of some kind of super-successful Charles XII could have achieved a new kind of United Kingdom of the North, and that rather far-fetched possibility of the conquest of both Denmark and Norway.

Since the international agreement was that the Baltic was best not dominated by any single state getting too big for its britches, whether Sweden or Denmark, the only way to shift that to a new situation of equilibrium would require a crushing victory and a completely new political situation. A union of the Three Kingdoms in the 18th c. eventually ruled by Christian VI (born 1699) of Denmark and Norway, also being Christian III of Sweden – after being adopted by his aunt Ulrika Eleonora.

Biggest problem internally I can forsee is how a super-victorious Charles XII would have been unwilling to not hoard personal power, when we know that in Sweden's case the end of semi-absolute royal power and the introduction of rule by parliament in 1721 was a boon.

Done like that it continued Great Power status might be manageable up until the Napoleonic Wars. Then again, one can always ask why that kind of Great Power status is good for?

Futurist said:

What would have happened had Sweden won the Great Northern War? As in, what would the effects on this have been for Sweden, for the rest of Europe, and for the rest of the world?

For reference: Great Northern War - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

The hard part of this scenario is how much power Sweden gets and how this effects Europe. The easy part is just to edit out Russian power and things that only happened as a consequence of that.

Sweden was loosing the war while winning battles

even if he had won at Poltava , no big change
Peter would have raised another army
Charles was running out of men and money while being surrounded by enemies
he had to constantly win to keep them at bay
but winning was a cost he couldn't afford

Mastersonmcvoidson said:

This is similar to the Napoleon and Leipzig question. It depends on the way of the victory.

If Sweden wins Poltava in a hollow, Pyrrhic manner then there will eventually be another battle they could not win. If they somehow win decisively (Nigh-impossible.) they would destroy most of the Russian army and get some supplies, but then what? They were already withering away due to attrition and scorched earth tactics used by the Russians. I don't really see the Swedes advancing to Moscow if they win at Poltava.

I doubt the automatic Swedish victory if they take Moscow. there might be a reaction but I doubt there would be an outright capitulation and surrender of the Russian army.



Maybe someone can correct me but I'm skeptical of the claim that France wanted a Franco-Spanish union. Phillip was 5th or so in line for the French throne when the War of the Spanish Succession began and I don't think anybody could've predicted that 3 generations of French heirs to the throne would die suddenly. Louis probably wanted the union but I don't see how it could've been achieved at the time or that it was France's goal from the start.

Click to expand...

And per our other talk of paranoia on the other thread I agree with you on the French not wanting a Spanish union. But unlike the British with the naval thing, the intent was irelevant cause that union would be an unfortunate death or two from happening. If Philip gets the French throne some day, union's happening not a choice and royal heirs died at a very high rate back in that time, for example Victoria was born fifth in line to the British throne and under the French system the person who'd gotten it would have been the son fifth son of George III(nothing special about the example except it's the one that came to my mind rn). They did eventually end the war on the promise the Union wouldn't happen, still though the French and Spanish not being literally united didn't change that previously the Spanish and Austrians hadn't been literally united and both times the two branches of the same family usually ended up on the same team. A literal Franco-Spanish union would just set that in stone and maybe since the countries bordered would create some sort of super state that would never be possible with the German Hapsburgs and Spain.

sparky said:

Sweden was loosing the war while winning battles

even if he had won at Poltava , no big change
Peter would have raised another army
Charles was running out of men and money while being surrounded by enemies
he had to constantly win to keep them at bay
but winning was a cost he couldn't afford

Click to expand...

Not if Peter is actually deposed. Which as close to knowing Charles' objective we can get.

And the OP assumes Charles wins, at least until this can happen.

Mastersonmcvoidson said:

Maybe someone can correct me but I'm skeptical of the claim that France wanted a Franco-Spanish union. Phillip was 5th or so in line for the French throne when the War of the Spanish Succession began and I don't think anybody could've predicted that 3 generations of French heirs to the throne would die suddenly. Louis probably wanted the union but I don't see how it could've been achieved at the time or that it was France's goal from the start.

Click to expand...

With rival houses of Bourbon and Habsburg each ready to resist to the utmost the other's claim, partition of the Spanish empire appeared the only solution if a general war were to be averted. In September 1698 William III and Louis XIV met secretly to frame what became known as the First Partition Treaty. There were three major claimants to be
considered:
Bourbon candidate - Philip Duke of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV
Leopold's son (by his second wife) - the Archduke Charles
The Elector of Bavaria Joseph Ferdinand - grandson of Leopold I and his former Spanish wife Margaret Theresa of Spain.

The choice of the two royal planners fell on the young Bavarian prince, who being the least powerful of the three candidates was the least likely by his acquisitions to disturb
the balance of Europe. Consolation prizes would be provided by pruning the Spanish inheritance of it's Italian possessions—the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Sicily and Naples) going to the French Dauphin Louis, and Milan to the Archduke Charles.
This settlement was signed by England, France and Dutch Republic. However, young Joseph Ferdinand died on February 3rd of 1699. Spanish succession was uncertain again. Louis and William tackled the knotty problem of succession in June of 1699 and agreed on a Second Partition Treaty. In March of 1700 Treaty was signed in London. They selected as the chief heir the Archduke Charles, who was to be King of Spain and the Indies and ruler of the Spanish Netherlands, on condition that these territories should never be joined to the Empire. Naples, Sicily and Milan would go to the French Dauphin. The division seemed reasonable, but Leopold wanted all for his son and refused to accept such terms.

Charles II died on 1 November 1700 and Louis received the offer on 9th, giving him the option to accept or insist on the Treaty of London. The latter would in theory give the throne to Archduke Charles but if Leopold continued to refuse the territorial concessions, Louis could demand Britain and the Dutch join him in enforcing the Treaty, leaving Austria isolated. However, French diplomats advised the anti-French mood of the Habsburg court meant war either way, while Britain and the Dutch would neither fight for nor against Austria. On balance, this made it preferable to accept the will of Charles.

Peter being deposed is not going to happen , under any circumstances
even if the Swedes occupy Moscow , the poles and French had been there and it did them no good
there was no worthwhile rival claimant
Peter would still have his Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky elite regiments ( or what's left of them )
they were fanatic in their obedience and his best support

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41bshEGIeNL._SX316_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

I am reading this book. 1793 by Niklas Natt och Dag.

What are the Swedish members thinking about it?