Could she do it?

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

All due respect, but I think Sweden's failure is more due to the the fact that Sweden had to fight against 6 countries alone. (Brandenburg, Russia, Poland, Denmark, Netherlands and some other country I can't remember right now). I don't think Russia had much to do with that.

The Finnish front was pretty much a stalemate.

Again you appear mistaken... Russia's allies were useless.

Poland was pathetic and was constantly getting Russian money only to want more a day later.

Denmark was hit out early and only rejoined after Charles defeat at Poltava.

Neterlands most likely wasn't in the war until much later for I believe they were busy with the War of Spanish Succession.

Not sure of Brandenburg but I doubt they could have done it all on their own.

Russia and Sweden were the major players and Russia won completly. No draw anywhere. We kicked your bums outta Finland and the only reason you got that back was so we could get the Baltic States in the treaty.

And don't act like Sweden was all alone. Charles did a fine job at convincing the Ottomans to make war on Russia a number of times.

Accept it, Sweden was absolutly defeated by Russia.

 

[Swedishguy]

I don't know what kind of war you're talking about, but it sure wasn't the Great Northern War. Yes, Russia kicken Swede butt in 1809, but I'm talking mid-1700th century. Do pay some attention.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I don't know what kind of war you're talking about, but it sure wasn't the Great Northern War. Yes, Russia kicken Swede butt in 1809, but I'm talking mid-1700th century. Do pay some attention.

I am talking about the Great Northern War!

*Peter the Great declared war on Sweden in 1700 along wth Poland and Denamrk. Peter laid seige to Narva. Charles of Sweden attack Denmark and knocked them out of the war fast. Then Charles caught Russian forces at Narva and hit the Russians with a massive defeat. Then, while Peter began massive modernization, Charles struck into Poland and fought for a number of years. Eventually Charles invaded Saxony (I believe the two countries, Poland and Saxony, were in Union for their common king, Augustus) and Augustrus was overthrown, a Puppet King put in his place. Then Charles turned towards Russia. He marched towards Moscow but eventually turned into the Ukraine so he might feed his men. Mazeppa of the Cossacks allied with Charles. Winter hit and the Swedes were hurt. Russians attacked a large Swedish Force with supplies for the main army and defeated it. The remnants met up with Charles. Peter defeated many of the Cossack forces and eventually forces Charles into battle at Poltava were the Swedes were defeated. Following the battle the remaining force was chased down and a mass surrender began. Charles retreated into Ottoman Territory.*

Thus you have the tale of Swedish downfall. I know the Great Northern War, I have studied it and take pride in it.

 

[silver 2039]

The war was finally concluded by the Treaty of Nystad between Russia and Sweden in Uusikaupunki in 1721. Sweden had lost almost all of its "overseas" holdings gained in the 17th century, and ceased to be a major power. Russia gained its Baltic territories, and became the greatest power in Eastern Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War

I think the victor is quite clear.

 

[GenMarshall]

More likely not, she would have gone as far as Germany. But England and France would ally to prevent further Russian invasion.

 

[West 36]

More likely not, she would have gone as far as Germany. But England and France would ally to prevent further Russian invasion.

Ohh, IDK, England and France working together at that time?

She couldn't do it. Not in a practical sense anyway. If she focused just on the military, maybe, but she wouldn't hold it for long anyway.

 

[ibn sina]

I am talking about the Great Northern War!

*Peter the Great declared war on Sweden in 1700 along wth Poland and Denamrk. Peter laid seige to Narva. Charles of Sweden attack Denmark and knocked them out of the war fast. Then Charles caught Russian forces at Narva and hit the Russians with a massive defeat. Then, while Peter began massive modernization, Charles struck into Poland and fought for a number of years. Eventually Charles invaded Saxony (I believe the two countries, Poland and Saxony, were in Union for their common king, Augustus) and Augustrus was overthrown, a Puppet King put in his place. Then Charles turned towards Russia. He marched towards Moscow but eventually turned into the Ukraine so he might feed his men. Mazeppa of the Cossacks allied with Charles. Winter hit and the Swedes were hurt. Russians attacked a large Swedish Force with supplies for the main army and defeated it. The remnants met up with Charles. Peter defeated many of the Cossack forces and eventually forces Charles into battle at Poltava were the Swedes were defeated. Following the battle the remaining force was chased down and a mass surrender began. Charles retreated into Ottoman Territory.*

Thus you have the tale of Swedish downfall. I know the Great Northern War, I have studied it and take pride in it.

Take pride in it? What Russians did 300 years ago?
I am a Swede but it's just as well that we lost our position as a great power. Not that we really could retain it Sweden had a population of about 2 million in 1700 Russia's was almost ten times as large. Considering the opposition Sweden faced it did rather well.
But Sweden's constant wars during the 17th century were not good for the common people so I take pride in the fact that Sweden hasn't been involved a war for almost 200 years (not since 1814). That is one of the reasons Sweden is much much wealthier than Russia.

 

[Gelion]

Take pride in it? What Russians did 300 years ago?
I am a Swede but it's just as well that we lost our position as a great power. Not that we really could retain it Sweden had a population of about 2 million in 1700 Russia's was almost ten times as large. Considering the opposition Sweden faced it did rather well.

Britain counquered India. It all comes down to how you can handle yourself and the enemy.

But Sweden's constant wars during the 17th century were not good for the common people so I take pride in the fact that Sweden hasn't been involved a war for almost 200 years (not since 1814). That is one of the reasons Sweden is much much wealthier than Russia.

If its really the case, then good for you.

 

[ibn sina]

Britain counquered India. It all comes down to how you can handle yourself and the enemy.

Good retort, but I think the divide and conquer method used in India would be very hard against a European unified state. Britain's "conquering" of India took over a hundred years and it was not against a united enemy. Heck the biggest difficulty was probably the french in the seven years war.

 

[Gelion]

Good retort, but I think the divide and conquer method used in India would be very hard against a European unified state. Britain's "conquering" of India took over a hundred years and it was not against a united enemy. Heck the biggest difficulty was probably the french in the seven years war.

Interesting, but despite that history is full of inferior forces winning battles and wars against superior enemies.

 

[Tekee]

I think that if Catherine existed for 200 hundred years foreign reltions would not be a problem, if she just took on people one by one, eventually she would overun powerful France, and this is defiently a fantasy seting she is talking about, like a game. The AI dosen't understand that they will LOSE if they all fight each other.

 

[Nuka-sama]

so, she could've conquered Germany, but not the west? What about Austria? Or even the divided Ital0ies? Could she beat them too?

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Britain ain't taking this easily.

 

[holy king]

Interesting, but despite that history is full of inferior forces winning battles and wars against superior enemies.

only up untill the invention of fire arms...
before that a well trained/equipped and organized army could be substantially smaller than it's larger in numbers but inferior equipped/trained enemy and be in fact "favourite" in a battle...
after that it's mainly guerilla warfare that can be used by the underdog, but that surely isnt a tactic that you can fight an offensive war with

 

[Gelion]

only up untill the invention of fire arms...
before that a well trained/equipped and organized army could be substantially smaller than it's larger in numbers but inferior equipped/trained enemy and be in fact "favourite" in a battle...
after that it's mainly guerilla warfare that can be used by the underdog, but that surely isnt a tactic that you can fight an offensive war with

Yes, fire arms make human courage less of a factor, but from the top of my head I remember how Semenov (then a low rank officer) captured a few 100 Germans himself leading only 20 men in 1914 Russian campaign in Prussia (on offensive campaign). Big battles are not coming to my mind, but small operations where personal courage plays more effect often ended up won by the inferior force who had more will to fight (be it offensive or defensive operations).

 

[Swedishguy]

I am talking about the Great Northern War!

OK, your right.