Karl XII (Charles XII)

peo · Dec 21, 2002

The Estonia route would have secured the Swedish domains and been a prestige thing with the new capital.
It would also not have wasted the army in a futile attempt to do something in ukraine.

I agree that he is intresting character. But i don't care for him much.

w_mullender · Dec 23, 2002

Re: Re: Karl XII (Charles XII)

Originally posted by DuquedeBraganca
It's one of the most famous kings Swedish kings abroad I think.
Less known as you go further south like from France to Portugal

Well here he is completely unknown unlike his russian adversary. Gustav Adolf I think is best known here, although still not well. But that is mainly because we didnt have much military dealings with the swedes. I think there are only two times when Sweden is mentioned in our history here:
-The Swedish successes in the 30-years war
-The betrayal of the Swedes in 1672, where they broke the alliance with the dutch.

Karl 12 sounds in character and succes a bit like Charles the Rash. A very able captain, but fighting too much wars and thus unsuccesful in the end.

PS Is he the one who was shot by his own soldiers?

fastson · Dec 24, 2002

Re: Re: Re: Karl XII (Charles XII)

Originally posted by w_mullender

PS Is he the one who was shot by his own soldiers?

He was supposedly shot with a button from a Swedish uniform.

Though it has not been proven that he was shot by one of his own. There are several theories, one that Fredrik of Hessen had something to do with it or another where a soldier who was tried of the war just shot him..

I, however think it was just a random shot.. He just had his head out of the trench for too long.

peo · Dec 28, 2002

I think most people think it was grapeshot from a gun at the fort he was besieging.

ziggy · Jan 11, 2003

The latest book i read about him made me doubt the grapeshot theory. Unfortunately i cant check why, or what the conclusions were, as my dad has borrowed it.

Ape · Jan 11, 2003

Originally posted by peo
The Estonia route would have secured the Swedish domains and been a prestige thing with the new capital.
It would also not have wasted the army in a futile attempt to do something in ukraine.
.

The Baltic provinces were thouroghly plundered and scoured by seven years of war, when he left Sachsen. Everything the army would have needed to survive would have to be shipped from Sweden. The Baltic course would probably not have led to anything other then prolonged fighting in the provinces. But remember that Czar Peter sued for peace, once Charles marched from Sachsen, only wanting the tiny strip of land for his new capitol. Perhaps if Charles had marched to and burned the capitol, Peter would have sued for a "white peace"

unmerged(13750) · Jan 16, 2003

Originally posted by Kung Karl
I have a question to all non swedes. How many of you know anything about the great warrior king Karl XII who ruled Sweden during the great northern war? The great northern were fought between 1700-1721. Sweden was brutally attacked by the imperialistic states of Rusia, Poland-Saxony and Denmark. Sweden beat them up real badly before we lost the war thopugh.

Brutally attacked by the imperialistic states?
Remind me but wasn't Sweden one of Europes most agressive powers at that time.
Also the alliance actually wanted to regain territories previously lost to Sweden.
The Polish-Lithuanian republic wanted to regain its baltic provinces (Livonia).
Denmark wanted to regain Jämtland and Skåne as far as I remember and Russia wanted Ingermanland...

As for Karl XII he did one good thing....he got rid of that Idiot August the Strong, king of Poland and replaced him with Leszczynski......too bad that August managed to regain power after the Swedes were gone.

unmerged(234) · Jan 16, 2003

Re: Re: Karl XII (Charles XII)

Originally posted by Zawisza
Brutally attacked by the imperialistic states?
Remind me but wasn't Sweden one of Europes most agressive powers at that time.
Also the alliance actually wanted to regain territories previously lost to Sweden.
The Polish-Lithuanian republic wanted to regain its baltic provinces (Livonia).
Denmark wanted to regain Jämtland and Skåne as far as I remember and Russia wanted Ingermanland...

As for Karl XII he did one good thing....he got rid of that Idiot August the Strong, king of Poland and replaced him with Leszczynski......too bad that August managed to regain power after the Swedes were gone.

That very much depends on the definition of "at that time".

Sweden had been completly non-aggresive and very peacfull for 40 years (Charles XI reign), and only repelled an occasional danish attack.
Looking a bit further,under the the three rulers before Charles XI; Gustavus Adolphus, Christina and Charles X, yes it was a little more aggresive.

As an polar bear is a little more aggresive than a sheep.

Hatt · Jan 20, 2003

Charles XII was probably murdered by swedish noblemen who assumed power almost instantly after his death, the plans for the new rule were already finished at the time of his death. Arvid Horn and the rest of the swedish nobility then concluded terrible peaces with the aggressors.

Whether Charles was a tactical genius or not doesn't matter, Swedish manpower was neglectable in comparison to that of the enemies, and Peter the Great had completly modernized the Russian army (with the help of captured swedish officers) and navy . It is quite remarkable though that it took 20 years to defeat Sweden.

unmerged(4745) · Jan 20, 2003

The "terible" peaces were like the treaty of Versailes 1918 for Germany or the cnference in Vienna 1814/15 for France.

The adventures in Poland and Ucraine by Karl XII had ruined the ecconomy of Sweden and spoiled the most efficient war machine at land at that time. Although the military system founden by his father was to the end able to enlist solidiers in order to defence the kingdom.

A peace should have been made before Poltava on decent conditions.

unmerged(8399) · Jan 20, 2003

Originally posted by Sten Sture d:ä
The "terible" peaces were like the treaty of Versailes 1918 for Germany or the cnference in Vienna 1814/15 for France.

The adventures in Poland and Ucraine by Karl XII had ruined the ecconomy of Sweden and spoiled the most efficient war machine at land at that time. Although the military system founden by his father was to the end able to enlist solidiers in order to defence the kingdom.

A peace should have been made before Poltava on decent conditions.

To consider the Swedish army at the time "the most efficient war machine" is a gross overstatement, it was no doubt the best army in Northeastern Europe, but no comparison to the French and English armies of the time, they were in a different league.

unmerged(589) · Jan 20, 2003

Originally posted by Aryaman
To consider the Swedish army at the time "the most efficient war machine" is a gross overstatement, it was no doubt the best army in Northeastern Europe, but no comparison to the French and English armies of the time, they were in a different league.

Did you read The Northern Wars 1558-1721 by Frost?

If so, great, if not, check it out! It's good.

IMHO the strategical achievement of the Swedish system speaks for itself. But the tactical successes are also pretty revealing. Especially Kliszow and Fraustadt. I don't really see how the French and English armies could be considered being "in a different league".

unmerged(8399) · Jan 21, 2003

I haven´t read that particular book of Frost, but I like him so I will probably read it in the future.
I consider them in a "different league" first because of their size and the logistical probelms they had to overcome to field those armies. This by itself put then ahead of any other army of the time.
Second, they, specially the English and their Dutch allies were clearly more proficient in firing discipline and, specially, in combining arms in battle, Blenheim and Ramillies as main examples.
Third, the Swedish army always faced inferior armies both in organization and discipline, while French and English were battling each other, making it more difficult to achieve any succesful manouver.
We can discuss this in detail if you want, and probably I will be enlightened by other people knowledge about the Swedish army of that period, but those are my starting positions.

unmerged(589) · Jan 21, 2003

Originally posted by Aryaman
I haven´t read that particular book of Frost, but I like him so I will probably read it in the future.
I consider them in a "different league" first because of their size and the logistical probelms they had to overcome to field those armies. This by itself put then ahead of any other army of the time.

Let me first say that I'd be glad to learn more about the Western European armies of the period, I don't know a lot about them. And also, if at any time in the following I sound like "-The Swedish army did this and that and the English/French did not, so ha!" and I am wrong please forgive me since that is mere ignorance on my part.

Do you mean only the size and logistical problems of individual concentrated armies or also of the armies as a whole? What size were the big individual armies of the English and French?

If the total size of national armies is a factor then I would say that Sweden places pretty high. Sweden fielded a total of ca 108,000 men in 1708 and considering the population of Sweden that is a lot (about 4-5% of total population). AFAIK France for instance fielded a smaller percentage. Also AFAIK Sweden was poorer per capita than most Western European countries at that time.

As for the logistical problems of individual concentrated armies I would say that the Swedish army's performance in the logistical nightmare Russia (much better than Napoleon, and in more difficult circumstances) and the Swedish campaign in Norway in 1718 where 85% of the supplies were brought from depots in the homeland point to a well developed logistical system. Granted Sweden didn't have more than say 35,000 men concentrated in any one army but still...

Originally posted by Aryaman

Second, they, specially the English and their Dutch allies were clearly more proficient in firing discipline and, specially, in combining arms in battle, Blenheim and Ramillies as main examples.

I can't really say much about the firing discipline of the English and Dutch as compared to the Swedish. My knowledge is a bit limited (other than I know the English were good), but let me say that firing discipline and combining arms seems to me to have been pretty good in the Swedish army. Of course an obvious difference is the fact that the English and Dutch placed more emphasis on fire as a way to win battles than the Swedish. My impression is that any superior use of fire by the English can be countered (in discussion) with superior use of cold steel by the Swedish.

Originally posted by Aryaman

Third, the Swedish army always faced inferior armies both in organization and discipline, while French and English were battling each other, making it more difficult to achieve any succesful manouver.

Well here we have a problem. The Swedes never fought the English or French (other than some French mercenaries). The English and the French fought eachother but not the Swedes. Leaving details aside it would seem that it is difficult to say anything about the relative quality of the armies other than maybe that the English and French were not so very different (at whatever level). Was there any common foe during this period, or any "inferior" foes that could be considered roughly equal to facilitate a comparison?

Frost (there he is again) doesn't seem to consider the Saxons inferior to the other Western armies.

Originally posted by Aryaman

We can discuss this in detail if you want, and probably I will be enlightened by other people knowledge about the Swedish army of that period, but those are my starting positions.

Sounds great. My own ignorance of Western European armies of this time period is actually one of the things I've been thinking of doing something about. I would love to get to kill some of my misconceptions about them.

Ape · Jan 21, 2003

Originally posted by The Brain

Frost (there he is again) doesn't seem to consider the Saxons inferior to the other Western armies.

Dont forget the Danes, wich we whipped at Helsingborg a year after Poltava, and again at Gadebusch.

This was IMHO a miracle to be bestowed upon the "indelningsverket" created by Charles XI, father of Charles XII. A miracle in the sense that a year after the greatest and most humiliating defeat Sweden ever has suffered, we were able to put a well equipped and well trained army on the field.

Finnish Dragon · Jan 22, 2003

That´s true. Charles XII started his campaign in the Great Northern war quite impressively. He defeat Danes and made peace with them. Then he defeated Russians at Narva, Estonia. In this moment he made a grave mistake. He turned against Poland. He didn´t finish off Russia.

He could have started a campaign to oust czar Peter I from throne and place a pro-Swede and anti-Polish puppet. This would have created a more pressure on Poland when would have fought against Swedish and Russian armies. With some luck Austria, Brandenburg or Turkey would have joined the war against Poland. If this would happend then Poland would soon want to make peace.

An other option would have been strategic defense and tactical offensive. This means that Swedish army would be a fire brigade which would extinguish the flame of incursion. Positive side is that this would decrease attrition in Swedish army and save manpower. Negative side is that the fighting would happend in Swedish soil and officers would probably request more aggressive moves against enemies.

unmerged(8399) · Jan 22, 2003

1) I mean the size of field armies, some examples
Oudenarde
Allies: 85 Bns, 155 Sqns, 110 guns (around 80.000)
French: 90 bns, 170 Sqns, 80 guns (around 80.000)
Malplaquet
Allies: 128 Bns, 253 Sqns, 110 guns (around 110.000)
French: 96 Bns, 180 Sqns, 60 guns (around 80.000)

2) From A. Konstam, Poltava 1709 in Osprey, I learn that up to 1/3 of the infantry still were pikemen! and that the standard tactic was to fire 2 volleys while advancing, and then close charge the enmy. It doesn´t sound very sophisticated, all that was required for that was good discipline and high morale. That simple straightforward tactic could be devastating against poorly disciplined troops, but it seems to me it would be suicidal against the armies of Marlborough or Villars.
On the other hand, english infantry advanced creating a rolling fire, firing by platoons. To achive this a high level of training was required.

3) The Swedish army also did little use of guns, in general it looks like it lacked firepower when comparing to the English and French armies

4) Swedish cavalry, AFAIK, was deployed in the wings, while English and French were used to deploy it interspaced with inf to support each other, combined arms .

5)In 1707 Marlborough visited Charles XII at Altranstadt, Chandler says that "The Duke was not overly impressed by what he had seen of the Swedish army´s administrative arrangements" although he doesn´t say where he found this. It is the only "comparative" I can recall

unmerged(589) · Jan 22, 2003

Originally posted by Aryaman
1) I mean the size of field armies, some examples
Oudenarde
Allies: 85 Bns, 155 Sqns, 110 guns (around 80.000)
French: 90 bns, 170 Sqns, 80 guns (around 80.000)
Malplaquet
Allies: 128 Bns, 253 Sqns, 110 guns (around 110.000)
French: 96 Bns, 180 Sqns, 60 guns (around 80.000)

Obviously the Swedes never put that number of men in one place because they simply didn't have the manpower. And as for logistical performance a comparison is hard to make since the English and French fought in wealthy parts of Europe with good infrastructure.

It may not be unreasonable to say that the English and French never got to display any great logistics since they never faced the trackless forests and swamps with scattered villages of Eastern Europe.

Originally posted by Aryaman

2) From A. Konstam, Poltava 1709 in Osprey, I learn that up to 1/3 of the infantry still were pikemen! and that the standard tactic was to fire 2 volleys while advancing, and then close charge the enmy. It doesn´t sound very sophisticated, all that was required for that was good discipline and high morale. That simple straightforward tactic could be devastating against poorly disciplined troops, but it seems to me it would be suicidal against the armies of Marlborough or Villars.
On the other hand, english infantry advanced creating a rolling fire, firing by platoons. To achive this a high level of training was required.

Swedish infantry was not "still" equipped with pikes (as it were) since that was a conscious decision based on the fact that the Swedes relied much more on the armes blanches for defeating the enemy. I have not seen anywhere that the Saxons or Danes were known to be poorly disciplined. And "good discipline and high morale" sounds easy, but if it was so easy why didn't everyone use it?

Now I'm not a military man, but it seems to me that if an army with muskets of early 18th century design faces a highly disciplined enemy with high morale that comes charging at it at the double relying on cold steel then the outcome doesn't obviously favor the defender. Reload times, effective range etc.

Speaking of morale I would point to this being one of the fields where the Swedish army really stood out. Outside of the obvious battles the impressive resilience of the Swedish army in the Russian campaign speaks volumes for the high morale of the Swedes.

Originally posted by Aryaman

3) The Swedish army also did little use of guns, in general it looks like it lacked firepower when comparing to the English and French armies

It is true that the Swedes didn't rely a lot on guns. The reason being that the Swedish war of maneuver in Eastern Europe made bringing lots of artillery to the battle sometimes impractical, and of course the fact that artillery is less important for an army relying on shock. When artillery was used I don't see it being used in an inferior way (crossing of the Düna, battle of Holowzcyn for instance). In fact the very modern Swedish artillery played an important part at Gadebusch. Swedish lack of artillery at Kliszow didn't seem to be a very serious handicap.

Originally posted by Aryaman

4) Swedish cavalry, AFAIK, was deployed in the wings, while English and French were used to deploy it interspaced with inf to support each other, combined arms .

They STILL did that!?!

Speaking seriously, the Swedes used to do that under Gustavus Adolphus, not doing it brought no negative consequences for the Swedish armies of the Great Northern War. I don't see this fact that they didn't interspace them pointing either way.

Originally posted by Aryaman

5)In 1707 Marlborough visited Charles XII at Altranstadt, Chandler says that "The Duke was not overly impressed by what he had seen of the Swedish army´s administrative arrangements" although he doesn´t say where he found this. It is the only "comparative" I can recall

There are many diaries and so on with people reporting quick impressions of stuff that we talk about here. Obviously what the duke did or did not see during a very brief visit doesn't say much about how things actually measured up.

Speaking of reported opinions, maybe I will be able to dig up what the French officers in Swedish service in the closing years of the Great Northern War thought about the Swedish army's organization. If I can find the library books I read it in... Hm.

unmerged(8399) · Jan 23, 2003

1) They did fight in some very difficult terrain, like Ardennes and the Swiss Alps

2) You could say "still" as all other armies in Western Europe had already dropped them

3) GA used it in a defensive manner, as many other armies of the first half of the XVII century, in the second half this had evolved into ofensive tactics

4) I don´t give much worth to that comment by Chandler, it was simply the only thing I could recall on comparative grounds.

In general, I would say that I was surprised from my first time in the Paradox forum to read some comments about Swedish military history, I understand that Swedish people had it in high regard, but that idea is not commonly shared by scholars in other parts of Europe.

saskganesh · Jan 23, 2003

it sounds to me that the swedish army had good mobility, and a very strong NCO/officer system. charles was a dynamic general.

outside of the mongols, who ever won a land war in russia? boney made the same mistake.

Karl XII (Charles XII)

Lt. General

Human Rights Advisor of Atilla

Private

Lt. General

Alea Iacta Est

Norrlänning

Removed by request

Lt. General

Sergeant

Major

Colonel

"Oldest Sig" Champ

Colonel

"Oldest Sig" Champ

Norrlänning

Field Marshal

Colonel

"Oldest Sig" Champ

Colonel

General