There was an iron production in Olonets, which is close to St. Petersburg, but the main source of the Russian iron, Demidov’s “empire” had been on the Eastern slopes of Ural. Moscow, AFAIK, never was too heavy in the metalworks, except for few stat-owned armories. The metalworks in Tula had been established in 1595 and the first big plant was founded in 1712.If I remember correctly, most Russian iron is mined on the West side of the Urals, then the iron is shipped by portage to the Volga, where it is delivered to major iron processing centers such as Moskva and Tula right?
Mostly to @von Adler and @Jürgen but to everybody else as well.
So far, I’m in a state of a serious confusion regarding Danish-Swedish affairs.
Here are some questions:
1. As I understand, Denmark wanted Scania and perhaps some other Swedish possessions in Europe (what exactly.). Did Sweden want something from Denmark (as I understand, the Norwegian adventures were more or less retaliation)?
2. The navies. According to wiki by 1700 Sweden had 38 ships of the line, 10 frigates and unidentified number of the small ships (list includes only five of them) while Denmark had 29 ships of the line and 4 frigates (no data whatsoever on the small ships). Yet, even on the 1st stage of war Charles needed the British-Dutch help for his landing on the Danish territory and on the later stage of war (post 1712) the Danes were mostly successful. I could not find any specifics on the Danish fleet (list of the ships with the armament, preferably).
So far, what I found boils to the following and in each specific case this may be just a personal opinion of a specific author(comments, please on correctness/incorrectness of these observations):
a. The Danes maintained a professional navy while the Swedes had been raising the crews only when the need arise so the Danish crews had been better trained. But an article describing a failed operation to provide Stralsund with the reinforcements (September 1712) points out that Wachtmeister was an experienced admiral and many of his subordinates participated in the 9YW but the Swedish ships had been severely understaffed (approximately 50% of the needed numbers). The detailed numbers are quite impressive but it is not specified up to which degree they were understaffed before epidemics (of what?) hit Karlskrona. Was there a general neglect of the navy? Or was Ulrik Christian Gyldenløve a vastly superior admiral. Does not look like that based on the battle of Køge Bay.
b. One article says that artillery of the Danish fleet was seriously upgraded both in the numbers and in the weight (a lot of 36-pounders) while, judging by the Wiki list, only one Swedish ship of the line, Kung Karl, had 10 36-pounders and in the rest the heaviest caliber was 24-pounds.
c. There was also a claim that the Danish fleet was better prepared for fighting in the shallow waters (in the Northern Baltic this was clearly a problem for the Swedes who could do little to stop operations of the Russian galleys). But was this critical?
So, which of these claims are correct, what could be other factors impacting the balance. IIRC, in his memoirs Just Juel in description of his travel to Russia in 1709 created an impression that at this time the Swedes pretty much dominated the Baltics but perhaps this was because the Denmark did not want a confrontation?
So, basically, in this TL if the “extra” land factors (Prussia and Brunswick) are removed the Danish-Swedish confrontation becomes a pretty much pointless exercise because neither can hit another where it matters.Sweden had 38 ship of the line (1 1st rate, 2 2nd rate, 20 3rd rate, 15 4th rate) and 38 frigates (5th to 6th rate) in 1700. Denmark had, as far as I know (which might be erronous) 29 ships of the line in 1700, but as you say, Sweden needed the English and Dutch fleet to be safe in landing at Holbaek.
Denmark wanted Scania, Belkinge, Halland and Bohuslän back. They also wanted to re-vassalise the Duchy of Holstein-Gottorp and end its ability to conduct its own foreign policy. Getting Wismar from Sweden was probably also a nice boon.
Sweden mostly wanted to retain its territory. Getting Norway would end the need to guard that border quite a lot - every Swedish war against Denmark forced Sweden to dedicate part of its forces to guard against incursions from Norway and man the fortifications on the west coat against Dano-Norwegian naval attacks. Getting parts of or the whole of Norway was regarded as a potential nice to have, mostly to keep that front quiet in future wars, but not essential. Bornholm was also a nice to have to get another naval base, but the strong rejection of the Danish populace against the Swedish governance in 1659 spoke against it.
The Swedish navy in general had smaller ships with lighter armament compared to the Danish ships, and the Danes could sail all year around, while a large part of the Swedish fleet was locked into port by ice conditions part of the year. Standard practice in the Swedish navy was to lay up in November and fit again in March, while the Danish navy sailed all year around. Karlskrona was established to have an ice-free (or as ice-free as the Danish) ports to allow the Swedish navy to sail as much as the Danish navy. Then OTL the Russians established a Baltic navy and parts of the Swedish navy had to return to Stockholm (and the ice conditions there) to defend against Russian incursions.
In general, the duty of the Danish navy will be to dominate the Sound and support any landing and supplying of an army in Scania - for this it can be pretty concentrated. The Swedish navy's chief objective in this era is to maintain connection with Swedish Pommerania and Stralsund in order for Swedish forces to be able to intervene on the continent if they have to. Secondary was to maintain connection with the Baltic provinces (not necessary in the same way ITTL since Russia is friendly and Poland-Lithuania has been humbled).
Most of the Swedish navy was manned by the same system as the army - part-time sailors kept by peasants (with the sailors often fishermen with fishing water rights), which worked very well for the army, but perhaps not quite as well for the navy. Having experience sailing in formation was vital in this era, and part-time sailors had a hard time getting this. The Danes simply had a higher quality navy.
AFAIK, Karlskrona was pretty far off from supplies, and the food provided to the sailors were insufficient when the main fleet gathered there AND Stenbock was gathering his army in Scania to repel the invasion (which he did at the Battle of Helsingborg in 1710). This might have caused a lack of crew later.
3. How useful can be a small craft (from galleys to the cannon boats) useful for the coastal operations against Denmark?
You are reading my mind. There is a minimal distance from Jutland to Funen and approximately 25 km from Funen to Zealand. So if, as you said, these waters are shallow, then a threat of the big-scale landing backed up by a considerable number of the cannon boats, galleys and other such craft (with enough the ships of the line hanging elsewhere in the deeper waters potentially threatening Copenhagen and forcing the Danish battle fleet to react) may be taken seriously enough to look for a peace without the territorial losses. As I said, before starting a brand new war, I want a clear end-game scenario which would not be idiotically gratuitous.The interesting part of the canal is that
Not very Sweden dominated the small craft niche because it makes a lot of sense in Skärgården and similar swallow coastal waters with a lot of small islands. The Danish coastal waters and the Baltic and Kattegat in general favor mid-sized sailing ships. We can see in the Danish-English wars under the Napoleon Wars, where Denmark made heavy use of cannon boats/gunships after the loss of our navy, that while they had some use especially in defense, their offensive use was very limited. They’re fundamental skirmishers, which force the use of convoys, and of they trap warships in shallow waters they can be deadly. They‘re pretty useless in the Sound, but very useful in the Great Belt with it’s more dangerous waters.
So, basically, in this TL if the “extra” land factors (Prussia and Brunswick) are removed the Danish-Swedish confrontation becomes a pretty much pointless exercise because neither can hit another where it matters.
That’s a prerequisite. However, @Jürgen insists that occupation of a continental part (which can’t last forever) is not going to force Denmark to agree to a peace (even if it is being systematically destroyed?).One could say so, but can't Russo/Swedish coalition simply attack Denmark via land, from the rear so to say?
The way i see this war going is Sweden being on defense against Denmark/Norway as they can't reasonably knock them down,or harm each other's seriously and instead they focus on taking down Prussia/Brunswick .
See above: if @Jürgen insists on the position that only Zealand matters, I’m taking this as a fact. If he concedes to a softer position, I’ll be only happy because this would seriously simplify scenario in the area of naval operations with which I’m not too comfortable (of course, I can pick a scenario in which the winds and waves are already favoring the Swedes….).After that they go for Denmark via land/Mecklenburg. If Saxony joins in they even have safe supply line.
Why fight the battle that favours your enemy when you can simply force them to fight on your terms.
That’s a prerequisite. However, @Jürgen insists that occupation of a continental part (which can’t last forever) is not going to force Denmark to agree to a peace (even if it is being systematically destroyed?).
That’s true. But it is not just Sweden but Sweden plus Russia (plus, possibly, Saxony, especially if Saxony wants a piece of Prussia or Brunswick). Seriously different resources.
See above: if @Jürgen insists on the position that only Zealand matters, I’m taking this as a fact. If he concedes to a softer position, I’ll be only happy because this would seriously simplify scenario in the area of naval operations with which I’m not too comfortable (of course, I can pick a scenario in which the winds and waves are already favoring the Swedes….).
The only thing of real value in Jutland is the peasantry and they can be replaced in a generation of peace by natural increase by the survivors and surplus population from the islands (it was why the 1657-60 wars was so disastrous as Swedes crossed the ice to Zealand and Funen and as result it took 2 generation to replace the population loss, the Emperor War and Torstenson War on the other hand was deeply destructive for Jutland but the population losses was replaced fast by Zealanders. The problem for any invading army is also if they systematic destroy the peasantry, they’re going to starve.
It fundamental depend on the war goals of the Swedes and Russians. Denmark won’t give up Norway or Schleswig-Holstein just because someone are sacking Jutland. The weakness of the Danish nobility at this point is that they can’t force the king to give up these things.
A bigger army is not a problem because of the R&S alliance and, if it lands in Zealand, then based upon your premise that only Zealand matters, it should start living off the land ASAP to make a point.As for the wind and waves, I doubt it will really benefit Sweden, it’s not enough to land a army on Zealand, the army need to be bigger than what the Danish can bring up and en if it can love of the land, it really need to be able to get supply from Sweden.
I know what “amt” means but now you are getting pragmatic and we can talk a peace deal. Will it require a full scale invasion of Zealand or Jutland and Funen would be enough to start talks?If Sweden is smart they push a peace treaty where Denmark and Gottorp trades the County of Oldenburg for Aabenraa and Tønder (Tönning) Amts, this would strengthen Gottorp (and Sweden) in north West Germany, while it would only be a minor loss for Denmark, while also making Danish Schleswig continuous removing internal tax barriers and it would let Gottorp keep their position as sovereign princes in Husum, Gottorp, Hytten and Fehmarn Amts.
It’s usual translated county, but it simply a administrative unit.
Ah, now you got to the point In that war I’m forced to plan (everybody is seemingly jumping to the war with Denmark, Prussia and Brunswick so I have to comply ) Sweden does not want anything: the war is going to be started by the “triple alliance” members of which want something at the Swedish expense (as in GNW).
Russia does not want any territorial acquisitions by the obvious geographic reasons: no common borders with any of the alliance members. It just acts as Swedish ally. What Peter wants is an unobstructed trade through the Sound. What is an ideal scenario for him is a trade agreement between all important Baltic players that would allow to raise the prices on the strategic items (in this case timber from Norway). So, after all that kicking is done, can Denmark join the “mafia family”? The king may be getting money from the tolls but those in a timber business surely should appreciate the higher prices on their wood.
A bigger army is not a problem because of the R&S alliance and, if it lands in Zealand, then based upon your premise that only Zealand matters, it should start living off the land ASAP to make a point.
I know what “amt” means but now you are getting pragmatic and we can talk a peace deal. Will it require a full scale invasion of Zealand or Jutland and Funen would be enough to start talks?
A army doesn’t live of food alone. If a army is stuck on Zealand without external supplies, it will be able to lay waste to the country side for a short period and besiege Copenhagen, but in a relative short time it will be reduced to POW, unless it plan to fight the war with spears.
The peace I describe would simply demand a Russian-Swedish military victory, of course white peace with Denmark paying reparations is also possible.
No, none of the preposterous demands: Charles is obsessed with the “just war”. He was attacked, the attackers are defeated and paying a token price for their misconduct. Pressing for much more will be unjust and, anyway, Sweden already got more territory than it can comfortably rule.When I say only Zealand matters, I don’t think Denmark will continue a meaningless war if it’s offered something close to a white peace. But if Sweden demand Norway or Schleswig-Holstein, the Danish king will simply wait them out.
Victory in the field or occupation of the “meaningless” Jutland or just both Denmark’s allies being kicked out of war?
Perhaps even just defeat of Prussia would be enough? Brunswick, as I understand, not a major military factor on its own.
This should not be a big problem to arrange without any extra-terrestrial involvement.Jutland is not meaningless, it’s a good source of taxes, but again the value of Jutland is something which can be rebuilt fast, a few years to replace the dead cattle, a decade to resettle the empty farms and you pretty much get the same taxes out of Jutland again.
But to answer the question, if the war is clearly a lost cause and peace is offered without territorial losses the Danish king will accept such a peace, reparation will be a acceptable price. The Danish state funding built on a efficient tax system as such reparations were only short pain, while territorial losses are usual permanent.
I think if you want a fast peace have a Danish-Prussian army being defeated.
Alexmilman, the epidemic for Karlskrona is the black death/plague. According to Wikipedia it killed 15,000 civilians and soldiers in Blekinge (including Karlskrona) between August 1710 and early 1712. So the reason the ships were undermanned is probably because they were all dead of the plague The wave of black death associated with the Great Northern War was the last broad-scale outbreak in Europe outside the Ottoman empire. Combination of war and plague was devastating. An estimated 1.5 million killed in Poland-Lithuania by war, famine, and plague, 0.25 million in Prussia. Perhaps 0.4 million in Courland, Latgale, Livonia, Estonia, Ingria, Finland. Add in northern Germany, several hundred thousand military dead, and Left-bank Ukraine, and the death toll of Great Northern War probably exceeded 3 million.
The plague killed 60% of Helsinki's population. 40% of Stockholm's population. 20% of Copenhagen. 15% of Hamburg. Similar percentages throughout the region. 10,000 Russians dead of plague at Siege of Riga. It expanded into Habsburg Hungary, Austria, and Bohemia. 25% of Prague's population died.
In terms of Denmark, losing Jutland is not going to make them make peace. In a long many-years war they might eventually cede territory based off losing Jutland and much of Norway, but it would take years for them to accept that. Sweden took 12 years after Poltava to make peace, Denmark might not take that long, but it would still be a long time. Otherwise Zeeland landing is required. One issue is that Sweden and Denmark were about as close as the era gets to nation-states. Denmark really, really wants Scania. Scania was traditionally Danish and resisted Sweden rule strongly. The Scanian population supported the Danes when they tried to regain the area in the Scanian War. Tens of thousands immigrated to Denmark because of the conquest and Scanian War. By the Great Northern War they had moved on, but not Denmark.
Sweden would want to expand Sleswig Holstein and also some territory in Norway for border security reasons, but too much core Danish/Norwegian territory will give them indigestion. It wasn't just Scania that hated the Swedes for a while after, Bornholm had a successful uprising, Jamtland waged guerilla warfare against the Swedes and Trondheim did not like their brief stent either. Jamtland units deserted to the Danes in 1677, 29 years after it was ceeded to Sweden! Eventually they got the Swedes in 1688 to promise that they would not be made to fight outside the province. Karl XII broke this agreement and a bunch got the privilege of being part of the Carolean Death March (aka January invasion of northern Norway). Gains from Denmark proper or Norway will be far, far harder to absorb than any German or Baltic territories (but conversely more valuable in the long-run).