Great Northern War scenario, Played as Poland.

[Doomdark]

Very interesting, yet disturbing AAR...

Play balancing all the scenarios must be a monumental task... In this case, it seems to me that a few adjustments need to be made:

1) This scenario should represent the historical Great Northern War. Thus, it should always start with an attack on Sweden by Denmark, Poland and Russia. Spain and the Knights of Malta? Absolutely not!.

2) Considering that only Denmark and Russia attacked Sweden in this game, the coalition forces should have been severely outmatched by Sweden's superior armies. Historically, Denmark was knocked out of the war almost before it started, and if Poland had not been part of the coalition Sweden would have crushed Russia blindfolded with one hand tied behind her back. This unchecked Russian rampage suggests either that Russia is far too strong or Sweden far too weak. Needs looking into, although it is hard to tell for sure after just one game.

Oh, and I loved your diplomatic maneuvering to pay the pesky Prussians back! That's what alliances are for.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Therefore, Russia decided to ask Spain and the Knights to join the alliance. Remember EU does not ALWAYS deal with historical outcomes.

That is all well and good in the Grand Campaign, but the very point of this scenario is the confrontation between Sweden and the coalition.

Then after Charles invaded Poland, defeating their hopelessly inadequate armies on 2 occasions, Poland became a Swedish ally.

It was not until Charles invaded Saxony and captured August the Fat Coward himself that this happened. (Besides, I wouldn't say Poland became an ally, it just became friendlier towards Sweden.) The whole, lengthy Polish campaign was essentially pointless.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more reports after the patch...

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

VERY nice timeline of Polish military history, Sapura. I'm going to save that text for future reference.

Swedes take 3.5% toll of Polish Prussian trade in subsequent Truce of Atlmark.

Perhaps even more importantly, the Swedes took Livland and Riga (which remained Swedish until Russia nabbed them in the GNW).


Greven,

Pointless might be the wrong word; ineffective describes it better. It is my opinion that the six year long Polish campaign was a strategic mistake by Charles XII, which ultimately did more harm than good (since it gave Russia time to regroup, build up its strength and even found St Petersburg on Swedish soil).

The more logical move would have been to march on Moscow after the battle of Narva in 1700, raising a smaller army in Livland to delay the Poles. With Russia defeated (and they would have been - their army was in disarray), it is likely that the Poles would have yielded without further conflict.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

instead of agrueing here which actually is pointless

How do you mean?

Seriously, discussion is what these forums are for. Perhaps another thread though...

And the consequence IF they are right is that the Polish campaign was neither pointless nore ineffective, but the only fruitful way to end the war.

Interesting. It is certainly the first time I've heard that opinion. Personally I don't think it was very fruitful to march around in Poland for six years trying to get August to realize he was beaten (although Charles could perhaps not have predicted this).

For now, I believe I will stick with Napoleon's analysis, though if I can get my hands on the book you suggested, rest assure I will read it.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Well Greven, how can I argue with a pro?

Still, there are some points I'd like to raise...

They barely noticed the fellow. What they did was laying all the Northern part under harsh taxation.

So you're saying that a major reason for the Polish campaign was to raise money for the Russian campaign?

Interesting. I was under the impression that Charles tried to convince the Sejm to depose August and recognize the Swedish puppet king instead. He wanted to do this quickly, since he actually did recognize the Russian threat and wanted to beat Russia ASAP.

From what I gather, plans to continue into Russia were actually discussed immediately after Narva, but were dismissed in favor of the Polish campaign.

The only part that was rich enough was Poland...

Yet the Swedish army was only about 10000 men strong at that point (and still beat a fortified Russian army three times larger). It should have been possible to maintain such a small force in a quick march on Moscow, like Napoleon suggested in his critique. Of course, actually taking that city would have been another matter...

Secondly, the 'Russia first' attitude was created by swedish 19th century historians heavily influenced by the romanticism of its days.

That depends on what you mean by 'attitude'. Attacking Russia first was the correct strategic choice, since Russia was the most dangerous aggressor and also had time on its side. The King wanted to do it as well, and Napoleon thought he should have. Thus, I hardly think the idea can be dismissed a romantic fancy.

In Ukraine Charles could supply his army, in northern Russia he couldn't.

Actually he could have, but he made two crucial mistakes:

1) Lewenhaupt's relief force with its enormous supply train was badly timed and came in too late after the main army. If they could have met up earlier they would have had the necessary supplies to march on Moscow.

2) For some reason, the main army hesitated for several days in some village west of Smolensk (I can't recall the name, but it was sometime after the battle of Holowszyn). Meanwhile Peter scorched the land in between, so that further progress in that direction became difficult. Thus the turn south towards the Ukraine.

Look at the campaigns of Peter the Great. Did he have armies in his northern regions constantly over time?

This is true enough, but I maintain that it should have been possible, with the proper planning, to build up supplies in Estonia and march on Moscow through either Pskov-Smolensk or Novgorod with a force of 15000-25000 men. After all, Peter managed to march 60000 (30000 were non-combatants, but still had to eat ) the other way up to Narva.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Good show Greven!

I must concede to your analyis, since it appears that my own sources are actually in error: Peter Englund talked about the need to wait for Lewenhaupts force in order to sustain a march east and also mentioned that Charles hesitated for too long while the Russians scorched the earth west of Smolensk. Napoleon was apparently no logistician either, and was probably unjustified in dismissing Charles as not being a true general. David Kirby also found Charles' decision to march on Poland pretty incomprehensible.

This just goes to show that people are a bit too eager to embrace the idea of 'Blitzkrieg' for an era when it wasn't possible to transport enormous amounts of supply to the front by train and lorry.

She went for Denmark first and it was a smart move.

Indeed. But the very ease with which Denmark was defeated proves that she was not such a dangerous foe after all. Russia was much more dangerous; Denmark was just the most bitter enemy... and Poland the most regrettable.

After all, Russia could have swallowed Sweden completely if it had been hell bent on doing so. Denmark could not.

Doomie, if you still believe that it would be possible to take the northern route. I would be very interested in getting to know what you actually mean by 'proper planning'.

Unfortunately, you have convinced me that it was not an option, but the thought I had was that Charles should have planned ahead as soon as the Russians declared war and started gathering supplies that he could have used in a Russian summer campaign in 1701.

So, Greven, do you believe that Charles had any hope of defeating Peter at all? Even if he had won at Poltava I very much doubt that Peter would have agreed to peace terms. He would just have allowed the Swedish force to keep fading away on the steppes.

In my mind, other possibilities present themselves... Peter was the aggressor and thus the more likely part to agree to a 'white peace'. With this in mind a new Swedish strategy starts to emerge... Sweden should have forgotten about Moscow and strived instead to hurt Russia. I am thinking expeditions to Archangelsk, Pskov, Novgorod and Smolensk with the sole purpose of destroying and wreaking havoc. Use Russian tactics to defeat Russians.

It is tragic that the Turks were such useless allies... If the Sultan had actually been intelligent, he would have attacked Russia when he was supposed to, and the situation would have been very different.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

After 1703 why didn't the swedes raid Estonia, Latvia, Ingermanland etc from Finland ? No money.

I've always wondered about this... How could Peter be allowed to build a new capital on Swedish soil so close to the Swedish heartlands undisturbed? I believe that the Swedes lacked more than money; they lacked understanding of the importance of raiding tactics. In fact, they held such tactics in great disdain. This was fatally apparent in the GNW (Russian light raiding fleets, raiding parties in Finland and Swedish east coast, etc.)

Like you say, it seems that Charles was more or less alone in the Swedish camp to take initiatives and make proper plans. Axel Oxenstierna will probably never be equalled though... I believe it was Mazarin who said that if all European First Ministers were trying to sail a boat, Oxenstierna should steer.

/Doomie

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 20-06-2000).]