I am in awe at your ability to bring any kind of systematic sense into this mess.
Only possible because we have over two years of context! I wouldn't have wanted to try this even a year ago.
while Charles himself was sorely underestimated as a teen at the start, Swedish reputation for warrior awesomeness was actually still high in Europe from the preceding century
This is very true! When the alliance was being formed, the idea among the other allies was that Russian soldiers would make good cannon fodder. No one took them seriously yet (and with good reason, although Peter the Great's tremendous personal energy turned things around faster than anyone realized).
Stanislas Leczyinski, in addition to being Charles' luckless puppet king, was also Louis XV.' father-in-law, so the French should, in theory, have had a vested interest in keeping him in power, and should have sent military aid once Charles had left the country.
Well, this is conflating Stanislas' two reigns. Charles left the country in 1708, when Louis XV hadn't even been born yet (1710). When Stanislas was Louis' father-in-law (starting in 1725) and they should have sent (more) military aid was during the War of the Polish Succession (starting in 1733). But Poland was far away, France was more interested in the Rhineland and northern Italy, and as far as intervention in Poland was concerned, France concentrated on the diplomatic side, trying to get the much closer principalities of Sweden and the Ottoman Empire to intervene against Austria, but in vain. And so Stanislas lost the same throne for the second time.
Émilie died in Lorraine. *sob*
Sob. :(
And thank you for drawing the connections for cahn!
LOL. I also can see why you want me to read a proper biography of the man.
I do, I do! But don't use one of your precious Stabi slots; I've ordered a physical copy, which will arrive at some point.
(That's not Pölnitz' "Sex life of August the Strong", err, I mean, "Galant Saxony", which has been on my to read list for a while.)
Read this one too!
Lastly, and to get back to Peter: I think one key difference between them, coolness or lack of same aside, was that Peter had ideas for Russia that went beyond war, though of course some of them needed war as means to an end.
Yes, agreed. Charles was extremely focused on winning his war without losing any territory. Had he pulled an MT and conceded some territory and tried to get it back later, maybe things would have turned out differently. But trying to fight all your enemies for two decades without a breather is hard, both to pull off a victory and to get anything else done.
Whereas I haven't heard of Charles being interested in (and good at) any other aspect of being a King than military glory.
Charles XII would like to point out that unlike Peter the Great, he had less incentive to worry about domestic affairs, since he actually inherited a modern country in good shape. His father (Charles XI) was like a kinder, gentler FW: interested in peace so he could build up a well-administered kingdom with an efficient army and well-stocked treasury to leave his son. But minus all the crazy and the abuse.
Fritz: Fame for wars or for domestic affairs? Por qué no los dos? :P
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: The Great Northern War: Overview
Date: 2021-11-01 09:56 pm (UTC)Only possible because we have over two years of context! I wouldn't have wanted to try this even a year ago.
while Charles himself was sorely underestimated as a teen at the start, Swedish reputation for warrior awesomeness was actually still high in Europe from the preceding century
This is very true! When the alliance was being formed, the idea among the other allies was that Russian soldiers would make good cannon fodder. No one took them seriously yet (and with good reason, although Peter the Great's tremendous personal energy turned things around faster than anyone realized).
Stanislas Leczyinski, in addition to being Charles' luckless puppet king, was also Louis XV.' father-in-law, so the French should, in theory, have had a vested interest in keeping him in power, and should have sent military aid once Charles had left the country.
Well, this is conflating Stanislas' two reigns. Charles left the country in 1708, when Louis XV hadn't even been born yet (1710). When Stanislas was Louis' father-in-law (starting in 1725) and they should have sent (more) military aid was during the War of the Polish Succession (starting in 1733). But Poland was far away, France was more interested in the Rhineland and northern Italy, and as far as intervention in Poland was concerned, France concentrated on the diplomatic side, trying to get the much closer principalities of Sweden and the Ottoman Empire to intervene against Austria, but in vain. And so Stanislas lost the same throne for the second time.
Émilie died in Lorraine. *sob*
Sob. :(
And thank you for drawing the connections for
LOL. I also can see why you want me to read a proper biography of the man.
I do, I do! But don't use one of your precious Stabi slots; I've ordered a physical copy, which will arrive at some point.
(That's not Pölnitz' "Sex life of August the Strong", err, I mean, "Galant Saxony", which has been on my to read list for a while.)
Read this one too!
Lastly, and to get back to Peter: I think one key difference between them, coolness or lack of same aside, was that Peter had ideas for Russia that went beyond war, though of course some of them needed war as means to an end.
Yes, agreed. Charles was extremely focused on winning his war without losing any territory. Had he pulled an MT and conceded some territory and tried to get it back later, maybe things would have turned out differently. But trying to fight all your enemies for two decades without a breather is hard, both to pull off a victory and to get anything else done.
Whereas I haven't heard of Charles being interested in (and good at) any other aspect of being a King than military glory.
Charles XII would like to point out that unlike Peter the Great, he had less incentive to worry about domestic affairs, since he actually inherited a modern country in good shape. His father (Charles XI) was like a kinder, gentler FW: interested in peace so he could build up a well-administered kingdom with an efficient army and well-stocked treasury to leave his son. But minus all the crazy and the abuse.
Fritz: Fame for wars or for domestic affairs? Por qué no los dos? :P