• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

rongyuyao

Captain
76 Badges
Dec 11, 2011
385
1
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
Reading about the Great Northern War recently, I am curious as to how good of a military commander was King Charles XII?

I read that he defeated an Russian army of 40,000 at Narva with 8,000 Swedish forces. Was he one of those better kings of Sweden or something?
 
Well, he lost. And he had a very good army to start with. (that he ended up eventually wasting)

But still, he was quite competent, his polish campaign especially is fairly impressive.
 
Audacious leader that didn't know when to quit.
 
He was good military campaigner, but lacked strategic sense.
 
Well, what happened to his ministers? Why didn't they assist him strategically while he's out conquering and decimating?
 
I read that he defeated an Russian army of 40,000 at Narva with 8,000 Swedish forces. Was he one of those better kings of Sweden or something?
The army of 40,000 was one the worst armies Russia has ever managed to field. It was not a coherent fighting force. The accursed tsar Peter I put foreign officers in charge of Russian troops, as a result the soldiers did not understand and did not trust their commanders. When the army was suddenly attacked by the Swedes, there was chaos, someone thought the foreign officers betrayed Russia and soldiers started killing officers instead of fighting the enemy.
 
Well, what happened to his ministers? Why didn't they assist him strategically while he's out conquering and decimating?
This was the peak of absolutism in Sweden; I'm not sure if there were any ministers on the calibre of Oxenstierna during this era, and their powers would have been significantly curtailed in either case due to the reforms of Charles XII and his father. Unfortunately, I'm not certain that Charles XII was the sort of person to easily accept advice, especially in something he perceived to be within his own sphere of knowledge.

The army of 40,000 was one the worst armies Russia has ever managed to field. It was not a coherent fighting force. The accursed tsar Peter I put foreign officers in charge of Russian troops, as a result the soldiers did not understand and did not trust their commanders. When the army was suddenly attacked by the Swedes, there was chaos, someone thought the foreign officers betrayed Russia and soldiers started killing officers instead of fighting the enemy.
No, go on, tell us how you really feel about Pyotr Velikiy; don't feel the need to hold back on our account. :p At any rate, while there were many foreign officers, it's worth noting that most Russian officers at Narva, such as Trubetskoy and Veyde, did not do much better (though Veyde does deserve some credit for maintaining his force's cohesion as long as he did). It was really the culmination of a series of individual disasters that together turned into a full calamity. The army was pressed into combat far too early, before it had been drilled into a credible fighting force, and was facing one of the most dangerous armies of Europe as far as both training and seasoning was concerned. The weather itself was devastating, with the winds driving the multi-day blizzard that had surrounded both armies right into the Russians' eyes. There was a key assumption in the senior leadership, up to and including the Tsar himself, that the Swedes would simply sit and take their lumps instead of rallying to the offensive as they actually did. Finally, as you say, there was also a certain distrust of said foreign officers, in significant part because of the first concern above not having given them time to work together to any significant degree (insofar as any such officer/soldier respect could be said to exist in this era on any systemic level). All of it combined to create the disaster that rent the unprepared army asunder. The battle at Golovchin was one in which it cannot be blamed on foreigners, either; that was Sheremetyev's natural caution and methodical nature that contrasted unfavorably with, again, Charles XII's audacity and keen insight.
 
Well, what happened to his ministers? Why didn't they assist him strategically while he's out conquering and decimating?

As mentioned, this was the high-point of swedish absolutism. While he had plenty of able subordinates, he didn't have with the gravitas to actually challenge him successfully.

Also, a lot of his ministers were back in the capital, while Charles were making decisions, essentially, on horseback, without neccessarily consulting them.
 
Given how he was assaulted by three neighbours practically as soon as he rose to the throne, each of whom being a formidable enough enemy, and managed to put one of them durably out of action with a single battle, utterly annihilated the other, and fended off the third for 20 years, I'd say yes, he was pretty good.
 
He failed to appreciate that bludgeoning through the Polish legal system and forcing a puppet king upon it was not an appropriate way to secure his position there. The making of his defeat came from his failures in the Commonwealth, not in Russia.
 
What? He completely annihilated the Commonwealth, which simply ceased to be a player in European politics, forever. It took him a bit of time to get this result, but it was thorough.
 
What? He completely annihilated the Commonwealth, which simply ceased to be a player in European politics, forever. It took him a bit of time to get this result, but it was thorough.

Aside from the faction around his puppet king he failed to effectively co-opt the Commonwealth onto his side, and thus it wound up securely in Peter's camp. The help Leszczynski was supposed to provide for his invasion into Russia never arrived, and as a result his army was led to the walls of Poltava already starving, with no prospect of resupply or reinforcement.
 
What? He completely annihilated the Commonwealth, which simply ceased to be a player in European politics, forever.

Which only benefited Russia, Sweden's eastern enemy. Good job!
 
A quite gifted tactician who had fortune on his side early on, but failed pretty vividly strategically and diplomatically.
 
Really, it is doubtful that anyone could have done any better given the circumstances, Tsar Peter wanted is Baltic port and would not budge. Short of totally crushing Russia I can't see how Sweden could have eneded the Great Northern war with a win.