Carl 12 of Sweden vs. Peter the Great of Russia

Alec Trevelyan 006 · Post by **Alec Trevelyan 006** » 14 Jul 2004 00:30

Carl had the best army how did he loose to untrained Russian soldiers who were poorly organized?

Lord Gort · Post by **Lord Gort** » 14 Jul 2004 00:50

By ignoring the vagaries of the Russian winter and believing that Lewenhaupt could bring the supplies to him over such bad roads, in such short time with so few troops.

By ignoring the ever increasing capability of Russian troops, and taking the example of the Streltsy and not the western trained regiments, to be the hall mark of the Russian army at the defeat at Narva.

And finally for looking down his nose at Peter and refusing a compromomise peace, ignoring the fact that while Mistress of the North Sweden did only posess 2 million citizens, and far more enemies in the form of Ausgustus of Saxony, Dennmark, and the opportunist Prussia.

regards,

Alec Trevelyan 006 · Post by **Alec Trevelyan 006** » 14 Jul 2004 01:02

I get it few Swedish population but more Russian. Thats why they lost.

Thanks, Adjalov

Acolyte · Post by **Acolyte** » 05 Aug 2004 22:58

Maybe Carl the 12th was simply too young at that time to pull off such a military operation.

mars · Post by **mars** » 05 Aug 2004 23:20

Kind of more complicate than that, I recommand a very good book:"The Northern Wars : War, State and Society in Northeastern Europe, 1558-1721" by Robert I. Frost
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books
This book will explain everything about this subject

Lord Gort · Post by **Lord Gort** » 07 Aug 2004 00:47

.............and dont forget "Peter the Great" by R.K.Massie.

Acolyte · Post by **Acolyte** » 07 Aug 2004 05:56

Thanks for the link & book title.

Regards,

Acolyte

Askold · Post by **Askold** » 29 Aug 2004 18:32

I don't think Russian winter had anything to do with it - the earlier victories of Charles actually occured during snowing conditions. Also Sweden has winter too

The major loss occured at Poltava, and reasons behind it are:

1. Charles did not want to wait for the rest of Cossack army to join his side (when Mazepa signed Ukrainian-Swedish treaty, he brought only few regiments, while the others units were still forming)
2. Swedish army was actually exhausted from constant partizan raids and traveling.
3. During the battle, the Swedes had only 4 cannons vs. 30 Russian.
4. Charles got wounded and had to be carried around - this was bad for morale.

Galahad · Post by **Galahad** » 11 Sep 2004 09:18

"4. Charles got wounded and had to be carried around - this was bad for morale."

It was worse than that. Charles' style of leadership required him to be active and capable of making rapid decisions to affect the flow of the combat. Being stuck on a litter on one part of the field didn't help matters. Being unable to ensure his subordinates followed their orders was another. Charles' plan of battle at Poltava was based on passing through the line of Russian redoubts, ignoring them, and then making a concentrated attack on Peter's infantry behind them. If the plan had been followed, the likely result would have been the same as previous fights, such as Narva.

It didn't happen, though, in considerable part because Charles was unable to exercise command as he was accustomed to.....because of it, subordinates ignored their orders and wasted both time and men attacking the redoubts.

Charles had intended a hammerblow on the Russian infantry.....he wound up trying it with a tackhammer rather than a sledgehammer.

HK · Post by HK » 02 Oct 2004 23:25

Charles problems were not on battelfield. Poltava is usually overated, 2 after this Peter offered generous peace offering back all Sweden´eastern provinces exept lands surrounding StPetersborough. Actually Charles had many time chances to end or pull out of war with good results, but political and diplomatic impotence are main reasons to be blamed.

Sweden was ofcourse very small country compared with oppoents and waging war on many fronts is always very costly. Though you cannot blame only Charles for loosing a war. He was very young when became king and inherited many problems from past and then almost immidetly big war breake up.

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » 04 Oct 2004 09:23

As for books, Peter Englund's "Poltava" is one of the best battle accounts I have ever read, from any conflict.

Poltava was something of a nightmare situation for the Swedes. The Swedish Army was more or less cut off between the fortified town of Poltava, which it was besieging, and Peters Army, who was separated from Charles' by forest and a line of strong redoubts in the interval between the woodlands. His supply situation was becoming critical. The plan was to overrun the redoubt line by a surprise attack at first light, and then move on to attack the Russian Army. However, the Swedish approach march in the darkness was confused, the deployment was delayed, and orders were unclear. As a result, the attack was made in daylight, the redoubt line was not taken by surprise and losses were heavy. Parts of it were overrun, elsewhere the attempt failed. When the Swedish Army subesequently deployed against the much larger Russian force, they had not only suffered heavy casualties but were still missing important elements who had continued to assault the redoubt line. Despite its weakness, the assault drove in the Russian center, but the left flank (if I remember correctly) broke and fled under intense fire, with predictable results.

cheers

Loïc · Post by **Loïc** » 11 Jun 2022 01:10

While Isolated Russia celebrates tsar who opened 'window to Europe' and Sweden-Finland should join NATO/OTAN...the Russian president offers his particular vision of an other period of the History after WWII, the long, 21 years, Great Northern War

Putin compares his actions to Peter the Great's conquests

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday compared his current actions to Peter the Great's conquest of the Baltic coast during his 18th-century war against Sweden.

After visiting an exhibition in Moscow dedicated to the 350th birthday of tsar Peter the Great, Putin told a group of young entrepreneurs that "you get the impression that by fighting Sweden he was grabbing something. He wasn't taking anything, he was taking it back".

When Peter the Great founded Saint Petersburg and declared it the Russian capital "none of the countries in Europe recognised this territory as belonging to Russia," Putin said.
"Everyone considered it to be part of Sweden. But from time immemorial, Slavs had lived there alongside Finno-Ugric peoples," the Russian leader added.
"It is our responsibility also to take back and strengthen," Putin said, in an apparent reference to Russia's offensive in Ukraine.
"Yes, there have been times in our country's history when we have been forced to retreat, but only to regain our strength and move forward," he said.

The defeat of Sweden in the Great Northern War (1700-1721) made Russia the leading power in the Baltic Sea and an important player in European affairs.

But with ties Russia's ties with the West currently shattered by the Ukraine invasion, Moscow authorities are downplaying Peter's affinity for Europe and focusing on his role in expanding Russian territories.

More than three centuries after he sought to bring Russia closer to Europe, Russians on Thursday marked the 350th birthday of tsar Peter the Great with the country deeply isolated over the Ukraine conflict.

Peter I reigned first as tsar and then as emperor from 1682 until his death in 1725.
Text from France24

peter.jpg

Axis History Forum

Carl 12 of Sweden vs. Peter the Great of Russia

Carl 12 of Sweden vs. Peter the Great of Russia

Re: Peter Putin the Great of Russia