The Great Northern War (1700-1721)

[mildred_of_midgard]

Teaser
If you thought Fritz being at war with Austria, France, Russia, Sweden, and much of the Holy Roman Empire, with only English subsidies to back him, was impressive, wait until you hear about Sweden being at war with Russia, Saxony, Poland, Hanover, Great Britain, Prussia, and Denmark/Norway!

If you want to know why this war is confusing, this table of who was on whose side when about sums it up:



Notice in particular how Great Britain goes from:

1700: England, Scotland, and Ireland listed individually on the Swedish side
1717-1719: Great Britain on the Russian side
1720-1721: Great Britain back on the Swedish side

and how Poland goes from:

1701-1704: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the Russian side
1704-1709: Warsaw Confederation on the Swedish side, Sandomierz Confederation on the Russian side
1709-1719: Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth on the Russian side again

and how Saxony drops out of the war for 3 years:

1700-1706, 1709-1719.

Prussia doesn't exactly change sides, in the sense that they don't go to war against Russia, but the separate peace they make with Sweden is pointedly hostile to former ally Russia.

Yep, that's why it took so long for me to be ready to start studying this war, never mind to get enough of a handle on it to report back! But now I've got enough to at least start a conversation.

So let's begin at the end: how does the Great Northern War affect the plot and characterization of the Frederician fandom?

1. Prussia gets Gartz, Fredersdorf's hometown, when Fredersdorf is 12. Why? Because FW decides wars of aggression are fine as long as you're not the one who started them. I guess.

2. Fritz is able to send EC2 to Stettin after the divorce from FW2. Why is Stettin in Prussia? FW's wars of someone else's aggression!

3. Three-year-old Fritz tells SD that he wants to join Dad at war and help him kill the King of Sweden with a big cannon. (Aww.) Who's the King of Sweden here? Charles XII.

4. Duhan is conspicuous for bravery during a siege, leading FW to conclude he will be an excellent role model for his son and never ever help him get into debt to build his secret library or encourage him to wear fancy French clothes, and leading adult Fritz to comment, "It is rare to engage a tutor in a trench." Which siege? The siege of Stralsund, during the Great Northern War.

5. St. Petersburg is founded by Peter the Great in 1703. Where? On land that had belonged to Sweden until that very year.

6. Peter III is overthrown and killed after just six months as tsar of Russia, in 1762. Why? The final straw isn't him being (P)RussianPete, it's him being HolsteinPete, i.e., trying to go to war with Denmark to get back territory that Holstein lost in the Great Northern War.

Russia: There are literally one million more important things that we could be doing FOR US with these resources. Down with HolsteinPete!

7. In 1741, Fritz tells his ally France that they'd better tell their client Sweden to attack Russia and distract Russia from allying with Austria to get Silesia back. James Keith, in Russian service, ends up governor of Finland and meets his life partner Eva Merthen here. HolsteinPete is briefly proposed as Finnish king during this episode, before that idea is scotched. Why does Sweden go to war with Russia? To get back territory they lost in the Great Northern War.

8. Why does Sweden gang up with Russia, Austria, and France against poor innocent Orpheus Fritz in the Seven Years' War? To get back the territory they lost to FW in the Great Northern War of Someone Else's Aggression.

9. Why does Gustav III attack Catherine the Great in 1788-1790? You get one guess.

Does St. Petersburg still belong to Russia at the end of all these wars? It does. Sorry, Sweden. Have some furniture.

10. What is Whitworth doing in Berlin? Trying, with Rottembourg's help, to get FW to sign the separate peace with Sweden al-fucking-ready.

11. Why is Stanislas Leszczynski king of Poland not once, but twice, both times unsuccessfully? Because August the Strong royally pissed off Charles XII, who needed a puppet he could put on the throne of Poland, hence Stanislas.

12. Why should Napoleon have known that invading Russia ends badly? Because Charles XII suffered from Peter the Great's scorched-earth policy and the coldest winter in 500 years in Europe when invading Russia. (Hitler should really, really have known better by the 1940s, or, as Eddie Izzard put it, "I've got a better idea! Oh, no, it's the same idea, it's the same idea.")

Overview
A very, very superficial outline, in hopes it helps you follow along with future posts in which I hope go into more detail.

The 17th century

Territory on the Baltic changes hands. Much of it ends up with Sweden. This is prime real estate, because good ports mean shipping and commerce, as well as naval power.

Furthermore, Sweden's territory in Northern Germany means they have a springboard for any invasions on the Continent they want to launch, which means they can punch above their weight in Continental diplomacy.

1700

An inexperienced and not terribly impressive teenager, Charles XII, is on the Swedish throne. August the Strong of Saxony-Poland, Peter the Great of Russia, and Frederik IV of Denmark see their chance to seize some of their old territory back and get some ports. Russia is effectively landlocked when it comes to Europe and the Atlantic!

Everyone: *attacks Sweden*

Charles XII: *kicks Denmark out of the war*

Charles XII: *kicks Russian butt*

Charles XII: *pushes August the Strong's attempted invasion back into Poland*

Everyone else: "Lookin' good, there, Charles! Time to declare peace?"

Charles XII: "I have resolved never to start an unjust war but never to end a legitimate one except by defeating my enemies." (Voltaire quote.) "We fight on!"

1701-1706:

Charles XII: "Can I invade Saxony? I really, really need to kick August off the throne of Poland, which I can only do by invading his center of power, Saxony."

Marlborough, Eugene, Anne: "No. Stay the hell away from anyone involved in the War of the Spanish Succession, or we'll make you regret it."

1706

Charles XII: "Can I, can I, can I? It's hard to win the war when I'm stuck in Poland."

Marlborough: "Yeah, sure, I just kicked some French butt and we're not so worried anymore over here. Go for it. Just try not to get directly involved in our war, k?"

Charles XII: "I have more enemies than I can count. Can do!"

1707

Charles XII: *gets the Polish Diet to elect Stanislas king and Augustus to abdicate*

Charles XII: *discovers that huge, decentralized Poland is easy to install a puppet king in, harder to make the puppet king control anything except the immediate vicinity of your army*

Augustus: "I only abdicated because I was made to! It doesn't count! I'm still king!"

[Future MT to selenak's AP: "See!"]

Poles: *recognize one of two masters, depending on where Charles' army is at the moment*

1708

Charles XII: "Okay, gotta get Russia off my back. Plus if I stay in Poland, I have to live off the land, and that's not really great PR for my puppet king. Off to Russia!"

1708-1709

Coldest winter of 500 years: *happens*

Swedish supply train + artillery: *never meets up with the main army*

Swedish reinforcements: *never arrive*

Swedish army: *is decimated*

1709

Charles XII: *is wounded*

Charles XII: *decides to fight the big battle with Peter despite the fact that he's being carried around on his stretcher, unable to see anything except clouds and birds overhead*

Charles XII's army: *gets its butt kicked at Poltava*

This is kind of it for Sweden, and this is when everyone in Europe sits up and takes notice of Russia. The dichotomy between how much the western powers despised Russia before Poltava and how awed they were after Poltava has been exaggerated, apparently, but it does mark a turning point not only in the war but in Europe. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this is what made Russia able to attain great power status, and what made Sweden lose it. It wasn't inevitable the day after the battle, Sweden could still have turned things around if things had gone differently, but they didn't.

1709-1714

Charles XII: "I fled to avoid being captured by the Russians, and went to the nearest bordering power that I might be able to inspire to make war on Russia: the Ottoman Empire. How about it, sultan?"

Sultan Mehmed IV (and advisers): "We will fight the Russians a little, only because the bastard Peter took some territory away from us, but once we get it back, why would we continue fighting for your territory?"

Charles XII: "Because--OMGWTF do you not see the potential here?!! We could get rid of Russia as a major threat to you!"

Turks: "Sorry, no?"

1714

Turks: "Okay, we gave you refuge, but fish and houseguests definitely stink after 5 years, especially warmongering kings who are trying to wage a war and run the kingdom of Sweden from what in 2021 will be called Moldova. Can you...leave already? We mean this in the nicest way possible."

Charles XII: "Yes, yes, the political landscape has shifted enough that this suits my plans. I will return...to Stralsund, in northern Germany!"

Swedes: "Can you, like, come home? We haven't seen you since you left in 1700!"

Charles XII: "No can do, I got a war to fight."

Swedes: "We don't have any money! All the young men are dead!"

Charles XII: "You don't seem to understand the part where I only end wars when I have defeated all my enemies, and I haven't defeated all my enemies yet. I will find an A+ minister who will raise money and armies and generally make himself hated for me! And then be executed before my body's cold."

1715

Europe: *has just finished up the War of the Spanish Succession*

Europe: *has nothing better to do than try to get Baltic territory*

1715-1720

This is *reeeeally* interesting if you're into diplomacy, which apparently I am, because there are two different sets of shifting alliances going on in 1715-1720. One in the north, centered on the ongoing Great Northern War, and one in the south, centered on the aftermath of the War of the Spanish Succession. This is when England and France team up for almost the only time of their lives! This is when everyone keeps switching sides in the Great Northern War!

Why does everyone keep switching sides in the Great Northern War? In a word, balance of power.

In 1700, Sweden had all the territory and controlled the waters (sort of), and this was very bad if you were not a Swede. Increasingly from 1715 to 1720, Russia is gaining territory, and Peter's pet brainchild, the navy, is dominating the Baltic. That's very bad if you're not a Russian.

So various people who fought with Russia against Sweden are now teaming up with Sweden against Russia. (Most notably, G1, in GB/Hanover.) And various countries are trying to make up their mind which set of alliances they want to be in now. (Most notably, FW, in Prussia.)

1718

Charles XII: *is shot in the head during a siege in Norway, killed instantly*

He's been back to Sweden, but he's never set foot in Stockholm since he left, and he never saw most of his family again.

1718-1721

War of the Quadruple Alliance: *happens in the south of Europe*

Fighting + peace talks: *happen in the north of Europe*

The war ends with Sweden losing a lot of territory to various other countries, but not as much as they could have if Great Britain hadn't gotten worried about Russia.

1720

South Sea Bubble: Investment bubble in Great Britain bursts, leading to the usual economic downturn after a speculation bubble bursts.

Mississippi Bubble: Investment bubble in France bursts, leading to ditto.

France and England: *are not in a position to resist Russian expansion like they'd hoped*

Peter the Great: "Ha! I am the real winner of this war."

Ghost of Charles XII: "Mildred still thinks I'm cooler, though."

HolsteinPete, aka Peter III of Russia, connections
cahn: 6. Peter III is overthrown and killed after just six months as tsar of Russia, in 1762. Why? The final straw isn't him being (P)RussianPete, it's him being HolsteinPete, i.e., trying to go to war with Denmark to get back territory that Holstein lost in the Great Northern War.

Oh, huh! That was actually really interesting to me because I'd always got the impression it was because he was so enamoured of Fritz :)

mildred_of_midgard: Fritz was definitely part of it! But it was when Peter started telling the army that they were going to march off to fight Denmark and he was going to go with him, and Fritz was like, "Okay, if I can't talk you out of this STUPID IDEA, please at least get crowned in Moscow first? So that your subjects consider your person too sacred to assassinate?" and Peter was like, "Pfff, everyone's been telling me for years how glad they'll be to finally have a man in charge instead of a woman, no one would ever!" and prepared to march off to war against Denmark, that he got overthrown, a few days after writing that "What are you worried about?" letter to Fritz.

So! This means I should explain about Holstein, so you can understand where HolsteinPete was coming from.

Just so you're prepared, I consider Holstein the single most complicated part of the Great Northern War. :P But I'm glad I finally figured it out, because the confusion has been bugging me ever since I started reading about Peter III.

To begin at the beginning, there's Holstein, and there's Schleswig. Both are smallish (but significant) regions in the vicinity of the Denmark-Germany border. Holstein is the southern part, today in Germany, Schleswig is the northern part, today partly in Germany, partly in Denmark. This map is for 1866, but close enough to give you the general idea for these two regions. (Note, though, that Prussia has gobbled up some nearby territory since our period.)



The Schleswig-Holstein region was divided between two¹ brothers in the 16th century. One brother was the King of Denmark, and one was the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. Where is Gottorp, you ask? Gottorp is a castle in the city of Schleswig. Thus Schleswig is a region and a city, Holstein is a region, and Gottorp ("Gottorf") is a castle in one of those regions. "Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp" is thus a shorthand for "Schleswig-Holstein at Gottorp," which is short for "The Schleswig-Holstein Duchy, as opposed to the royal Schleswig-Holstein area ruled by the kings of Denmark, has its ducal seat at Gottorp."

If you can follow that, you will be at least 50% less confused than I was for a very long time.

So here's the next most confusing part.

The two new territories were neither geographically contiguous nor politically independent. The 1650 map looks like this. Don't worry about the details, just notice the number of colors and the lack of contiguity.



Only the first three items of the legend are important enough to translate; for the rest, you just need to admire the pretty colors and take them as a reflection of just how complicated the geopolitical situation was.

- Koniglicher Anteil = Royal part
- Herzoglicher Anteil = Ducal part
- Gemeinsam regierte Anteil = commonly ruled part (this right here tells you they're going to have problems)

Notice how the first three colors are also not contiguous, and include regions both in the north (Schleswig) and the south (Holstein).

And if you want to know what the last item is, it says that Holstein is fighting with its neighbors over the dark purple, so just to add more fat to the fire.

Now, what were the dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp and kings of Denmark were supposed to do with this complicated map? They were supposed to share ², and get along, and play nicely with each other, and pretend conflicts of interest didn't exist. And, because we're talking generations of power politics, that didn't happen. Mostly the Schleswig-Holstein dukes and Danish kings fought with each other.

Now this is where you have to understand a very important concept of early modern Europe: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Also called "leapfrogging diplomacy," because there is a tendency, not absolute but noticeable, for countries in Europe to be allied with the country on the other side of their neighbor. This is why France and Scotland had what was called the "Auld Alliance" (predating even the early modern period): both hating on England. This is why France and the Ottoman Empire were such old allies: both hating on Austria. And why Fritz kept trying to bring Turkey into the war against Austria.

And, it's why the Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp are so buddy-buddy with the Swedes: both hating on Denmark. The Schleswig-Holstein dukes married into the Swedish royal family so much that I'm going to have to share some family trees later.

Meanwhile, what you need to know for the Great Nothern War is that Charles XII's brother-in-law was the duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. When Denmark decided to go to war with Sweden, the first thing they did was decide to attack, not Sweden, but Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. Charles XII, who was BFFs (lovers?) with his brother-in-law, and whose political interests were aligned with Holstein-Gottorp, freed it from Denmark and knocked Denmark out of the war. (More details on how he did this to come.)

By the end of the war, Sweden was overextended, though, and Denmark managed to hang onto the Schleswig portion of the Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp duchy in 1720-1721. That made the Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp duchy into just the Holstein-Gottorp duchy.³ Peter III's dad never stopped trying to get Schleswig back. Peter III, who grew up in Holstein, was raised to believe that it was his sacred family duty to restore the lost family property.

So the first thing he did when he had an army, in 1762, was try to get it back. Unfortunately, Russia was like, "We just bled and died to take very important territory (East Prussia) away from Old Fritz, and you're giving it back to him for free, and now you want us to go bleed and die for fucking Schleswig?! Which is of no strategic or economic importance to Russia at all?? You have got to be kidding me. Catherine, you're looking particularly regal today."

And the rest, as they say, is history. (Catherine's first move, learning from her predecessor, was to get crowned at Moscow with every traditional ritual ever. Which was interesting in her case, because a lot of people were like, "Aren't you supposed to be regent for your son?" And she was like, "You should see me in a crown." :P "And now also my person is too sacred to assassinate." Which doesn't stop everyone, of course⁴, but it definitely helps give you that aura of royal mystique.)

Notes, because it's *that* complicated:

1. Three, but I'm reducing this to the bare minimum that affects Peter III. Seriously, there were multiple divisions and reunifications that are elided here.

2. To make matters worse, the parts in Holstein were in the Holy Roman Empire, so nominally the kings of Denmark and the dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp were subjects of the Holy Roman emperors in the southern region of their territories. In practice, you can ignore this, because the emperors didn't really care enough to bother the dukes and kings about it. Which is good, because the Schleswig-Holstein dukes and Danish kings had enough trouble with each other and with the kings of Sweden.

3. This means it was called "Holstein-Gottorp" after 1721 even though Gottorp was (and still is) in Schleswig, i.e. now under the sole control of the kings of Denmark. Which means Gottorp was no longer in Holstein-Gottorp, which was now called "Holstein-Gottorp" for historical reasons. (Talk about maximal confusion.) So the ducal seat had to be moved to Kiel in Holstein, which the dukes still controlled. This is where Peter III grew up.

4. Selena or I will have to tell you about Pugachev one day.

Holstein genealogy
Okay, family tree time, because Horowski is right, the connections are key!

1.


Sorry about the quality: that's Charles XI up there in the top right.

This family tree is why Peter III was:

- Duke of Holstein-Gottorp (son of the previous duke)
- Heir to the Russian throne (grandson of Peter the Great)
- Temporarily heir to the Swedish throne (great-nephew of Charles XII, great-grandson of Charles XI)
- Temporarily king of Finland (great-nephew of Charles XII, great-grandson of Charles XI).

To elaborate, 1742 was an iiinteresting year. I remind you that this is in the middle of the 1741-1743 war in which Sweden tries to get lost territory back from Russia.

James Keith is occupying Finland in the war and calling a diet to decide what to do next. There's talk of making Finland into a buffer state between Sweden and Russia, and Peter's voted king in October 1742. 

At the same time, the Swedes are in a succession crisis, because Charles XII's sister has just died without leaving her husband an heir. So Peter, her great-nephew, is voted heir to the throne in October 1742.

Over in Russia, Elizaveta is also having a succession crisis, because she's just taken over the throne a year before, and she's in her 30s, unmarried, childless, and without good marriage prospects, so she names Peter, her nephew, her heir on November 7, 1742.

You can see that all these things were happening simultaneously, and as soon as everyone found out, two of the offers were taken back, and Peter got to keep his inheritance to the biggest and most powerful country, and unfortunately the one he had least personal connection to or interest in.

Going back to Sweden and elaborating a bit more, the vote for Peter played into class and party politics in Sweden, and was related to the ongoing war in Finland. The part relevant to our discussion is that the people who voted for Peter were hoping that his election would make Elizaveta happy and more lenient in her peace. Why would this make her happy? 

Because Russia and Holstein had been allies. Peter's dad had lived at Peter the Great's court for a while, trying really hard to get Peter the Great to help get Schleswig back. Peter the Great apparently liked him, and he did make an effort! But critically, he did it after he had won his war, not after handing back the territory gained in the war and switching sides, and he didn't do so at the expense of Russian interests. Which meant he didn't end up expending the resources necessary to recover it for his buddy Peter's dad (Charles Frederick), and Schleswig remained in Denmark's hands. But you can see where future Peter III got the idea that Russia helping Holstein recover Schleswig was totally natural. He was just...really bad at politics.

2.


This family tree is why Catherine the Great is considered an appropriate bride for Peter (this and some intriguing by Fritz, who wants more Germans near the throne in Russia, to counteract Elizaveta and her Prussian-hating foreign minister Bestuschev).

3.


This family tree is how Catherine the Great is related to Ulrike's husband.

I need to end this post for now, but since the discussion has turned this way, I'll try to cover the Swedish succession crises (yes, two of them) briefly, with family trees, hopefully tomorrow. Remind me if I forget, one is relevant to Charles XII and the other to Ulrike!

Swedish genealogy
More genealogy:



The first succession crisis is when Charles XII steadfastly refuses to consider marriage until after the war is over, and is well aware the war might last twenty years, and that he keeps sticking his neck out in battle.

He said something very similar to what Fritz said in the 1730s about his failure to have kids with EC. Fritz said that thrones never lack for heirs, and Charles said Sweden would never lack a king. They were not wrong! But in Charles' case, he had two potential heirs: his younger, still-living sister, and his older sister's son.

Swedish succession law didn't provide a clear winner here. Charles was supposed to name his heir. And he refused to get involved. He treated both his sister and his nephew with affection, and didn't want politics breaking up the family. And he's supposed to have quipped, "I can't make myself obeyed now that I'm alive, what makes you think I'll be obeyed after I'm dead?"

So of course two parties developed as time went on. After he died, his sister and her party won. She became queen in 1718. She abdicated in favor of her husband in 1720. I've seen two reasons given by secondary sources: one is that she loved her husband too much to deny him anything. The other is that when absolute power was taken away and parliamentary government imposed on the monarchs, she wasn't interested in power if it wasn't absolute.

And then they never had kids, and when she died in 1741, that kicked off the second succession crisis. That's the one where Peter III, the son of the losing candidate from the previous succession crisis, the nephew, got elected as heir. Then that decision got reversed with Russian help, as luzula told us, and some minor Holstein guy, Ulrike's husband, got named instead. Apparently because Elizaveta thought he was a mild-mannered, tame guy who would do everything she wanted. And then he didn't. (Catherine, you should have seen this coming with Poniatowski!)

And then Ulrike and her husband made a play for absolute power, which backfired, and then their son, Gustav III, made Fritz and Heinrich finally agree on something when he actually pulled his self-coup off.

Secret meetings
selenak: Speaking of 80s tv shows, Mildred's Great Northern War write ups retrospectively make me doubly amused about how this is presented in the first episode of Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria tv show, where the evil Swedes are invading Saxony for no reason right at the start, and later when Charles is making a secret tourist trip to Dresden incognito and Countess Cosel finds out, she's all "let's kill the bastard!" while August nobly says "no can do, it's against the royal bro code!"

mildred_of_midgard: I was thinking of this when I got to this episode! Charles did make a secret incognito tourist trip to Dresden. His officers were horrified when they found out. But August did not in fact take him prisoner or harm him in any way. Charles never gave an explanation of why he suddenly had to see Dresden, leaving historians to go, "Compulsive curiosity about his enemy, I guess."

I saw nothing about August bending a highly symbolic iron bar around Charles, so that's either not covered in my sources, or fictionalized based on the fact that August did historically like to show off his strength by bending iron bars (and so did his son Maurice de Saxe, I believe).

selenak: Wow, so the royal bro code really must have been a thing.

mildred_of_midgard: It really was! Only up to a point, though; only 4 years earlier, Augustus had had the competition for the Polish throne kidnapped and locked up: the two Sobieski brothers. This was one reason Charles's escapade made everyone nervous.

Genealogical note: the kidnapped princes were two of the sons of John III Sobieski, king of Poland famous for freeing Vienna from the Turks in 1683, and one of these two sons, James Sobieski, was the father of BPC's mother, Maria Clementina Sobieska.

That was in 1704, when Charles XII's supporters in Poland had declared that Augustus was no longer king, and they were about to vote on a successor. Since the Sobieskis were locked up, Stanislas got elected. (At least one of my sources says that Stanislas agreed in writing that he would be king only until James Sobieski was freed. Also that after Poltava, when Charles was in Turkey and Augustus was de facto king again, Stanislas told Charles that it was okay, that he didn't really need to be king of Poland, let it go...and Charles, true to form, was like, "No, dammit! I made you king, and this war does not end until you are king! That Augustus is a no-good, treaty-breaking, invading-without-declaration-of-war, rascal! Though I admit he's great to hang out with in person."

Everyone else, tired of the war: *sigh*)

By 1708, when Charles made his incognito visit, Augustus had been defeated and had signed his abdication and recognition of Stanislas, and Saxony had been occupied by the Swedes.

selenak: Well, since Dresden was and now again is very gorgeous indeed, see pic spam at Rheinsberg, at least Charles did see some nice sights.

mildred_of_midgard: Indeed! To quote from Massie:

Charles, accompanied by only seven Swedish officers, rode incognito into Dresden to spend an afternoon with his former enemy, the Elector Augustus. Charles’ visit was so sudden that he found the Elector still in his dressing gown. The two monarchs embraced, Augustus put on a coat, and together they went for an afternoon ride along the Elbe. It was a pleasant meeting between the two first cousins and Charles bore no personal ill-will against the man who had attacked him six years before and whose dethroning he had pursued so relentlessly for so many years across the plains of Poland. Now that Augustus was punished, Charles’ attitude toward him was sunny. At the end of their ride, Charles inspected the famous Green Vault collection that had so fascinated Peter nine years before, and visited his aunt, Augustus’ mother, the Dowager Electress of Saxony. It was the last time the King would see either his aunt or his cousin.* Despite these pleasantries, the Swedes around Charles worried about the King’s reckless decision to ride into the capital of a former enemy accompanied by only seven men. Charles later put their fears aside, smiling and saying, “There was no danger. The army was on the march.”

selenak: (Somehow I doubt that Peter the Great would have let him walk around in Moscow.)

mildred_of_midgard: I don't know. Given how Peter went out of his way to treat Charles with exaggerated respect, including any prisoners of war connected to him, and to lament that he never got to meet Charles so he could demonstrate his faithful adherence to the royal bro code...he might have.

selenak: (St. Petersburg wasn't yet an option to sight see in.)

mildred_of_midgard: For cahn, it was still in the process of being built. At great cost to human life. Peter built it in a malaria-ridden swamp with inadequate drinking water and supplies through sheer willpower and reckless disregard of his subjects' lives. The nobles didn't want to move there, the craftspeople didn't want to work there, and the poor serfs had never been consulted on what they wanted. When Peter learned that there was a shortage of, I forget what it was, but bricklayers or whatever, in St. Petersburg, he banned the use of bricks anywhere else in Russia, forcing the bricklayers to move to St. Petersburg to find work. And so on and so forth.  Estimates of the death toll in building the city vary, but they range from 30,000 to 100,000.

The city was still built largely of wood, and it caught on fire regularly from the first days of its building, through the two fires that nearly killed Suhm, up through Catherine the Great's day at least, and probably beyond. (Not helped by the lack of adequate fire departments in the 18th century.)

The Great Northern War and the Spanish Succession"
To give cahn some more repetition of links to things we've covered, and repetition of the chronology:

In 1708, when Charles leaves Poland, Louis XIV is in the middle of the War of the Spanish Succession, and it's not going well. Had he wanted to get militarily involved in the Great Northern War, he would not have been in a position to do so, for:

1704: Loses the battle of Blenheim to Marlborough.
1706: Loses the battle of Ramillies to Marlborough.
1708: Loses the battle of Oudenarde to Marlborough.
1708: Loses the siege of Lille to Marlborough, opening the way to Paris for the Allies.
1709: Has to withdraw his troops from Spain, leaving Philip V to fend for himself.
1709: Loses the battle of Malplaquet to Marlborough, but through the strategic victory, at least manages to keep Paris from being sacked and to eventually demand better peace terms.

1709 is when the Allies start getting so punch drunk that they start demanding Louis make war on his grandson Philip V in Spain so that MT's dad future Charles VI can be Charles III of Spain. Louis' refusal to do that is what brings on the battle of Malplaquet. Which is fought just two months after Peter the Great ends Charles' invasion of Russia at Poltava.

Remember, the Great Frost of 1708-1709 plays a role in why Louis, in early 1709, decides to explain himself to his starving subjects for once and justify the decision to continue fighting, and, at the same time, the Great Frost plays a role in why Charles' army is so decimated over in Russia. There's a whole lot of important stuff happening at the same time.

In another post, I'll talk in more detail about how several of Charles' decisions were affected by the War of the Spanish Succession.

Charles in Saxony
More details on Charles and Augustus.

As noted, Charles found it impossible to deliver a final defeat to Augustus as long as Augustus could draw on his power center of Saxony. Charles really really wanted to invade Saxony. But the British and Dutch wouldn't let him.

Now why are the British and Dutch (hence forth the Maritime Powers, as they're usually called in my reading) such an obstacle?

Well, the War of the Spanish Succession is going on. The Maritime Powers are allied with the current Holy Roman Emperor, Joseph I (MT's dad's older brother). He is trying to put MT's dad, future Charles VI, on the throne of Spain. If Charles attacks Saxony, the Austrians will be forced to defend it. Any resources they spend defending Saxony are resources they can't spend fighting Louis XIV. The Maritime Powers really, really want Louis XIV's butt kicked.

Why doesn't Charles decide he can take on the Austrians and the Maritime Powers on top of everyone else? Aside from the fact that he's not *that* much of an idiot, he needs the Maritime Powers for one specific thing.

What one specific thing? Our old friend Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp.

Remember that back at the beginning of the war, Denmark, one of the first three allies to gang up on Sweden and decide to partition its empire, made the first move by occupying Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. And remember that Charles knocked Denmark out of the war in a few weeks. Part of this was his coolness, but a big part was that the Maritime Powers were the guarantors of the treaty that Denmark had violated. So they showed up with a navy to help Charles out, and said that if Denmark tried that again, they'd find themselves facing the British and Dutch navies again. This is that "Dutch Republic (1700), England (1700), Scotland (1700), Ireland (1700)" in the chart of "who's who" I gave at the top of the thread. William III and everywhere he was leader of through personal union intervened just long enough to help keep the peace in Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, then went back to planning their own war.

So now it's 1701-1706, and if Charles invades Saxony, Leopold has to divert troops from the war in which he's allied to the Maritime Powers against Louis, the Maritime Powers get mad, Denmark invades Schleswig-Holstein again, and Charles is up one enemy and down one ally in this war (plus the new enemies of Austria, and Maritime Powers). This is why I said you have to know the War of the Spanish Succession if you want to understand the Great Northern War. There will be more overlap later.

As noted, it's not until 1706, after Marlborough and Eugene have won some striking victories, that everyone's okay with Charles attacking Saxony. In fact, Louis was like, "You should come join me! Fight Marlborough and Eugene! We can divide up Germany together!"

Charles: "I have my priorities, sir. And I am staying neutral in your war. Maritime Powers, I will refrain from invading Saxony if you can get Augustus to abdicate."

Maritime Powers: *try*

Maritime Powers: *fail*

So Charles marches through Silesia, where he is hailed as a liberator by the Protestants. He tells Emperor Joseph that he'd better stop oppressing the Protestants and had better guarantee their religious liberties. Joseph does so.

In the words of Massie,

By a threat to march against Vienna, Charles did win for the Silesians the right to reopen their Lutheran churches; indeed, the Emperor Joseph said that he was lucky that the King of Sweden had not demanded that he become a Lutheran himself.

Mildred: That sounds as implausible as it is hilarious. Even leaving religious commitment aside, I would hope the Holy Roman Emperor would have more pride than that! Primary sources or it didn't happen.

One of Mildred's later, more reliable books: "According to Voltaire, Joseph said..."

Mildred: OH. That explains why it's hilarious and snarky and implausible! That is such a vintage Voltaire dig against a Catholic monarch on behalf of Voltaire's pre-Fritz problematic fave. Mystery solved.

Marlborough, meeting up with Charles in person: "So, Anne and I really loving your championing of the Protestant cause in Europe! If she weren't a female, she'd come here herself to fangirl you in person! But we're kind of teamed up with a Catholic monarch right now, against a much, MUCH more dangerous Catholic monarch, known as Louis the Expansionist Bastard, so can you try not to disrupt the balance of power in Central Europe until we're done?"

Charles: "Look. I have no interest in your war. But I'm gonna do what I came here to do."

Marlborough, to Anne, afterward: "I think we're safe. I think he's way more interested in Russia after he finishes Saxony. Also, I'm not sure about that whole 'travel light, live off the land' thing he's got going. The lack of supply lines might backfire on him eventually."

The reader who knows how his invasion of Russia went: "AHAHAHA you called it, Marlborough."

Charles, to his advisors, afterward: "A man worthy of respect. But kind of overdressed for a soldier, don't you think?"

So Charles is hanging out in Saxony, where everyone remembers the Swedes from the Thirty Years War and has fled in terror. He takes all the cities without any resistance. He keeps his men from looting. He impresses everyone with his simplicity and piety in contrast to La Saxe Galante. His army makes itself loved by the Saxons, who are sorry to see him go. (I bet they really missed him when Fritz showed up.)

Augustus isn't there. He's off east with the Russians, trying to get support for his war against the Swedes.

So while Augustus is prosecuting a war against Charles in Poland, Charles is in Saxony making the ministers sign a treaty according to which Augustus has to break off his alliance with the Tsar of Russia and stop fighting Charles. The treaty is signed. Augustus learns of it. He manages to keep the Russians from finding out right away, but he's in a super awkward position.

Then, right as the large Russian force is closing on the small Swedish force, Augustus sends the Swedish commander a secret message telling him about the treaty and urging him to retreat without fighting.

Here, Augustus’ reputation finally caught up with him. The King was so well known for duplicity and chicanery that Mardefelt assumed the message was only another of Augustus’ tricks and ignored it.

(This is why I want that bio of Augustus.)

In the ensuing battle, the Swedes were crushed by the Russians, who outnumbered them 2-1. (This was a huge deal that showed that the Russian army had greatly improved under Peter, since previously, 2-1 was no big deal for the Swedes.)

Augustus, embarrassed by this Russian victory, scrambled desperately to adjust himself to his new position between Peter and Charles. He wrote to Charles apologizing for the battle and offering excuses for his inability to prevent its occurrence.

On November 30, Augustus arrived in Saxony and visited Charles...He apologized personally for what had happened...and Charles accepted his explanation, but insisted that Augustus confirm his abdication by writing Stanislaus to congratulate him on his accession to the throne of Poland. Being completely within Charles’ power, Augustus swallowed even this bitter pill. As Charles had written discreetly but serenely in a letter to Stockholm, “For the present, it is I who am Elector of Saxony.”

Then the secret incognito visit to Dresden happens, and then Charles pulls out and heads for the inglorious invasion of Russia.

That explains why it's hilarious and snarky and implausible! That is such a vintage Voltaire dig against a Catholic monarch on behalf of Voltaire's pre-Fritz problematic fave. Mystery solved.

selenak: Hehe. Mystery solved indeed. Say, is Voltaire also the source for the Saxons loving Charles? Because while I can see them comparing him positively with August in the religious department (given August had became a Catholic to get the Polish crown and Saxony still was 90% Protestant), but even the opening sequence of the entertaining 80s tv series aside, the whole "Swedes were perfect gentlemen in Saxony, everyone loved Charles and hated August" sounds distinctly not how the whole thing is presented in any German take I've come across in passing. (Including German wiki, whose take on this part of the Great Northern war is "Das Land wurde rigoros ausgebeutet", i.e. "the land got ruthlessly exploited".

(Not that August didn't exploit Saxony too, but as its liege lord, that was par for the course.

mildred_of_midgard: I don't know the source, but I was actually going to comment today that "the Saxons loved Charles" is another one of those things that my pro-Charles sources say but that is strikingly like *other* Fritzian claims I've encountered, so it's another thing I'm reporting without necessarily believing.

Georg Heinrich von Görtz
Georg Heinrich von Görtz is the A+ minister of Charles XII that cahn asked if he was like tragic Fredersdorf.

Well, a little bit, but either way, he's interesting in his own right, imo.

Massie makes Görtz sound like one of the most amazing, larger-than-life characters in the story. He starts out a minister in Holstein-Gottorp service, acting as diplomat abroad, and meeting with the likes of Queen Anne, Peter the Great, and other monarchs. But Holstein-Gottorp is too small for him.

Then he ends up meeting Charles, and they realize they're a match made in heaven. Charles is the king with the grand military vision, Görtz has administrative and diplomatic genius. Charles gives him full powers as minister. Which already makes a lot of people jealous, because he's still technically a Holsteiner, helping out his ally, rather than someone whose exclusive loyalties are to Sweden.

This is already a big problem, because not only is he a foreigner, his boss is Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, who is Charles XII's nephew (and future dad of Peter III).

Why is this a problem?

Well, remember how Charles refuses to choose between his nephew and his sister as his heir? If his nephew's ambassador is unofficial prime minister of Sweden, the sister's party can only assume that he's going to be working on behalf of the Holstein claim to the throne. So Görtz has already got some powerful enemies there. But don't worry, he'll get more!

We're in the late stages of the war. Sweden is out of men, out of money, out of overseas territory. But not out of Charles XII and Görtz! Together, they're determined to turn it around! Görtz was, according to Massie,

an audacious international adventurer without real ties of nationality but with a taste for power and a passion for intrigue. He had a complex, versatile intellect which allowed him to work on several divergent, even contradictory schemes simultaneously. It has been said of him that “he achieved twenty times as much as Talleyrand or Metternich while working with less than one twentieth of their resources.” For four years—from 1714 to 1718—Goertz, armed with the power of the king, loomed over Sweden. In person, he was a dramatic figure, tall, handsome (in spite of an artificial eye, made of enamel, which replaced one lost in a student duel), charming and a brilliant conversationalist.

...

[Charles] admired Goertz’ energy, his breadth of vision, his analytical capacity and his willingness to attempt, like Charles himself, vast, grand-scale schemes and radical solutions even with limited resources. As Charles saw it, Goertz applied in administration and diplomacy the same dash and reckless bravado which the King employed in war. Thereafter, until Charles’ death, Goertz was indispensable to him. He took absolute control of Sweden’s finances and all the great domestic departments of state. He became the King’s voice, if not his brain, in Swedish diplomacy. By February 1716, he was describing himself as Director of the Finances and Commerce of Sweden.

He goes to work, raising taxes, creating a paper currency, doing whatever it takes to make it so Charles can fight on. Naturally, the Swedes, already exhausted, like Görtz as much as you might imagine.

Massie says he was accused of financial dishonesty, but was in fact so honest that he even paid for state needs out of his own pocket. (This was a thing that happened; Peter's favorite Menshikov and Catherine's favorite Potemkin were both accused of embezzlement, but they both, when you examine the records, apparently used personal money for state purposes and state money for personal purposes, considering the one a loan to the state and the other a repayment of the money they'd advanced. The bookkeeping was so chaotic that it was impossible to tell in the end who owed who. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Görtz did the same.)

But try telling the Swedes that. So now Görtz has got three sets of enemies: Swedes who are upset that a foreigner is getting all this favor, Swedes who support C12's sister Ulrike Eleonora over Holstein nephew Charles Frederick as heir to the throne, and Swedes are Done With This War Already (TM).

But Charles thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread, and Charles is an absolute monarch!

So now Görtz's job is to go negotiate with other major powers, like Russia, about ending the war on terms Charles will accept.

This is Massie's take (note my qualifier):

Görtz is a people skills genius who takes a weakened Sweden that should really be suing for peace, and makes it into the diplomatic power of the north that everyone is courting. He's wheeling and dealing, wielding smoke and mirrors, using psychology, just like a poker player pretending his hand is a lot stronger than it is. It works amazingly! He gets really good terms!

And Charles rejects them, because the only acceptable Charles XII terms are "I defeat my enemies utterly and don't cede an inch of land." (You saw this coming, right?)

So Görtz tries again! He doesn't tell Charles what he's up to, and he asks forgiveness rather than permission, and he gets another really good deal!

Which Charles rejects, and goes on fighting for all-or-nothing.

At this point, I was super impressed with Görtz, and the fact that he and Charles were both so amazing in their respective but completely different domains was pushing my ship buttons. (As I've explained, this is why I find it hard to ship Fritz/Fredersdorf more than I do: they're both good at so many of the same things, and even where they're not, I don't get that clear sense that their partnership had that clear division of labor like Charles and Görtz. "The same dash and reckless bravado which the King employed in war" is a ship made to order for me.) 

BUT. The fact that they weren't on the same page and Görtz was increasingly having to keep secrets from Charles was making shipping harder. (I know that would be a feature rather than a bug for some of you reading this. For this particular dynamic, for me, it's a bug.)

But then! I read Hatton. And Hatton's take is that the claim that Görtz was doing genius diplomacy basically behind Charles' back, and Charles' stubbornness and arrogance kept making it all for naught, is the *old* school of thought. Whereas if you read all the archives, not just from Sweden, but of the whole anti-Swedish coalition--as well as Sweden's would-be allies, in the military sense, the Jacobites and Alberoni of Spain, and of her formal allies although not co-belligerents, Hesse and France--the threads of the negotiations can now be more clearly distinguished.

(Hatton may not be perfect, but this kind of thing is why I like her.)

According to Hatton, reading all the archives you can get your hands on reveals that Charles and Görtz knew their letters were being read. This was a safe assumption in 18th century diplomacy, as selenak and I have explained.

So our antiheroes had a whole system going where they would send letters that they meant to be read, which made it look like Görtz was taking his diplomatic maneuvering extremely seriously and Charles was the one rejecting it. But their secret letters, which have only just (as of 1968) been studied, make it clear that they were on the same page, and that Görtz's job was to distract the allies and buy time for Charles' military initiatives. And he knew it and was on board with it.

Me: HELLO MY NEW SHIP.

But then, in 1718, Charles is shot through the head on one of these military initiatives, as we've learned. In the grab for the throne, his sister Ulrika Eleonora moves fast and wins.

Görtz has three sets of enemies, as described above--Swedes who hate the war, everyone suspicious of foreigners, and Ulrika Eleonora's anti-Holstein party--and one of them is now on the throne. And his protector is gone.

He's promptly arrested and accused of alienating the late king's affections from the people. Meaning everyone is super upset at the war and blaming Charles, but he's the king and my brother, so we can't have that, so let's blame the minister! Who worked hand in glove with Charles and did only what he wanted. Never mind that, off with his head! He's the one who made Charles, after 14 years of insisting on continuing the war of his own accord, decide to keep continuing the war another 4 years. (Um, guys, Charles' track record is against you.)

Görtz got a show trial. To quote Massie at length again:

From the beginning, Goertz was doomed; in vain, he protested the lack of jurisdiction of the special commission. His claim that he was an alien and untouchable was rejected. His petition to have legal counsel was refused as unnecessary. He was not allowed to call his own witnesses or to confront hostile witnesses. He was not allowed to develop his defense in writing or to bring notes into the courtroom. He was given only a day and a half to prepare his reply, which permitted him time to read only one fifth of the evidence presented against him. Inevitably, he was found guilty, and unanimously he was condemned to be beheaded and his body buried under the scaffold, a mark of special contempt. He received the sentence with composure, but petitioned that his body might be spared this final disgrace. Grimly, Ulrika ordered the entire sentence carried out. Goertz mounted the scaffold with courage and dignity and said, “You bloodthirsty Swedes, take then the head you have thirsted for so long.” As he laid his head on the block, his last words were, “Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” His head fell at the first blow, and his body was buried on the spot.

He outlived Charles by just 2 months.

Oh, I should add that Massie relies heavily on Hatton for his C12 material, so I'm not sure how he overlooked her comment about the "ostensible" correspondence and the recently turned up "real" correspondence. But she makes a way better case than he does, so I'm going with her interpretation until further notice.

selenak:
He does sound like a fascinating character! However, German wiki upon a quick check paints a somewhat darker picture of him - not in Sweden, where it agrees he did exactly what Charles wanted and that his death was judical murder - but before that, in Holstein.

"As leader of the finances, he made himself unpopular through the raising and ruthless procuration of ever new taxes. An austere household, on the other hand, he rejected in opposition to Magnus von Weddenkop. But his colleagues, too, had the favor of the Dowager Duchess (who was Charles' older sister Hedwiga, btw) and Görtz couldn't yet completely dominate policy. (...) After the death of the Dowager Duchess Hedwig Sophia 1708, Christian August took over the government, and Görtz gained additoinal influence. He had his rival Weddenkop arrested in 1709 and claimed his Hamburg property. After Görtz had the Görtz Palais built in Hamburg, Hamburgian mocked that due the dishonest personality of the builder, the inscription over the entrance should say "spolia holsatiae" ("Robbery Goods from Holstein"). Weddenkop got arrested in Tönning and wasn't freed until 1714 (against the strict orders of Görtz who had wanted him to be executed when transfered to the Danes). Weddenkop later got completely rehabilitated, got his property restituted and died in 1721 in Hamburg.

Like I said, German wiki entirely agrees that what happened later in Sweden to Görtz was a show trial. But it looks like he was familiar with the practice from doing it to others. BTW, German wiki also says Görtz' daughter Henriette got her father's estate back from Gustav III., but not until then. And it provides a Voltaire quote about him, adding Voltaire had met Görtz in person (presumably when Görtz was still a travelling diplomat?), and which says: "There never lived a man who was so smooth and bold, so inventive in misfortune, so decisive in his enterprises as he was. No plan frightened him, and he was ready to use every means."

(German wiki's source referencing - among others, our old buddy Reinhold Koser, Fritz source finder extraordinaire!)

ETA: all in all, it makes Görtz sound like two other 18th century finance ministers who were efficient, ruthless, very hated but essentially doing exactly what their boss, who as the ruling monarch couldn't be blamed, wanted them to, to wit , Brühl in Saxony and Joseph Suess Oppenheimer in Würtemberg. (The later died after a show trial, too, with an added dose of vicious antisemitism since he was a Jew.) German wiki says in Görtz 'case, they even had to invent a law (against giving "bad advice") to justify it! Still, I imagine Weddenkop in Hamburg wasn't exactly heartbroken when hearing the news and experienced a "karma is a beautiful thing" moment.

Daughter of ETA: The Görtz Palais in Hamburg has its own wiki entry and a colorful history itself, to put it mildly. After Görtz 'execution in 1719, it served as the Imperial Embassy in Hamburg. Why? Because Hamburgians, for what reason the entry doesn't say, had plundered and destroyed the original envoy's house and so the city of Hamburg offered this one in recompense. It remained the Imperial embassy until 1806 (end of HRE, hello, Napoleon) upon which it became the city hall for as long as the French occupation lasted. Then it became the headquarters of a newfounded Hamburg bank. And in the 20th century, it had its darkest chapter, since it became the local Gestapo Headquarter, which lasted until the firebombing of Hamburg, which destroyed the building except for the frontal facade. Post was

Son of ETA: wow, Weddenkop's German wiki entry is even more negative about Görtz than Görtz 'German wiki entry (and mentions Weddenkop's heirs were still sueing Görtz' heirs many years after his death.

Choice bits:

Wedderkop tried politically to maintain the stable and friendly relationship with Denmark gained through the Peace of Traventhal, but with this attitude increasingly came into conflict with his rising adversary Georg Heinrich von Görtz and his pronounced sense of power, to which he ultimately fell victim. After the death of Duke Friedrich IV. In 1702, he had found a better relationship with the administrator of the duchy, Prince-Bishop Christian August von Lübeck, who led a dissolute life, but at the same time led the affairs of government for the only two-year-old Duke Karl-Friedrich. Wedderkop received a temporary boost from an investigation into the finances of the duchy initiated from Stockholm,

And:

With the death of Hedwig Sophia of Sweden in 1708, the widow of Duke Friedrich IV, who died in the Battle of Klissow in 1702, Wedderkop found himself increasingly in need of protection and, to be on the safe side, withdrew to his palace on Neuer Wall in Hamburg. On December 19, 1709, for incomprehensible reasons, Wedderkop allowed himself to be lured to a meeting of the Privy Council at Gottorf Castle, where the 72-year-old was warmly received, but after a dinner with the administrator he was arrested at night and taken to Tönning fortress . The arrest was made without a court judgment or investigation. Since there were actually no incriminating circumstances against Wedderkop, the process turned out to be difficult. but was nevertheless concluded as a piece of questionable cabinet justice in 1713 with a death sentence against Wedderkop. In 1713, King Frederick IV of Denmark and his allies besieged the Swedish troops under Magnus Stenbock, who were trapped in the Tönning fortress. Magnus von Wedderkop was only released again when the fortress was handed over. He spent the remaining years of his life in Hamburg in the Duke's Speersort 12/14 house trying to sort out his financial affairs, because his palace on Neuer Wall had been confiscated by Görtz. On July 1, 1719, the Duke of Holstein Wedderkop and his heirs gave Tremsbüttel the usufruct for a period of 30 years as a substitute for the injustice suffered. of Denmark besieged in 1713 with his allies the Swedish troops trapped in the fortress Tönning under Magnus Stenbock. Magnus von Wedderkop was only released again when the fortress was handed over. He spent the remaining years of his life in Hamburg in the Duke's Speersort 12/14 house trying to sort out his financial affairs, because his palace on Neuer Wall had been confiscated by Görtz. On July 1, 1719, the Duke of Holstein Wedderkop and his heirs gave Tremsbüttel the usufruct for a period of 30 years as a substitute for the injustice suffered. of Denmark besieged in 1713 with his allies the Swedish troops trapped in the fortress Tönning under Magnus Stenbock. Magnus von Wedderkop was only released again when the fortress was handed over. He spent the remaining years of his life in Hamburg in the Duke's Speersort 12/14 house trying to sort out his financial affairs, because his palace on Neuer Wall had been confiscated by Görtz. On July 1, 1719, the Duke of Holstein Wedderkop and his heirs gave Tremsbüttel the usufruct for a period of 30 years as a substitute for the injustice suffered. because his palace on Neuer Wall had been confiscated by Görtz. On July 1, 1719, the Duke of Holstein Wedderkop and his heirs gave Tremsbüttel the usufruct for a period of 30 years as a substitute for the injustice suffered. because his palace on Neuer Wall had been confiscated by Görtz. On July 1, 1719, the Duke of Holstein Wedderkop and his heirs gave Tremsbüttel the usufruct for a period of 30 years as a substitute for the injustice suffered.

Yep, Weddenkop definitely thought in 1719: "There is a God! Thank you, Lord. If ever someone had it coming ..."

Frederick IV of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp
Charles XII's brother-in-law, Frederick IV the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, was Peter III's paternal grandfather. Not to be confused with his contemporary, Frederik IV the King of Denmark, who waged war on Charles XII and Frederick IV! (I am spelling the Danish guy "Frederik" in a futile attempt to reduce confusion.)

Refresher:


Not too long after Charles became king, when he was still living in Sweden and not waging war everywhere but Sweden, Duke Frederick came to visit.

Frat parties ensued.

Apparently of the rowdy, hard-drinking, breaking shit, "I'm trying to get myself killed, someday everyone will realize the Kalabalik was totally in character" rather than the "have sex with anything that moves" kind...with the caveat that there may well have been sex that contemporary sources and/or modern historians have left out.

The Swedes were all "blame the advisor!" already and spreading rumors that the Duke, nicknamed the Gottorp fury, was trying to get Charles killed to give his family a shot at the throne, but if you ask me, you have two young men, one in his teens and one in his twenties, with no constraints on their behavior, and I don't think you have to add a conspiracy in there to make sense of why they would run wild.

The stories that were told about their antics even Massie, Mr. "I never met an anecdote I didn't like," says are 100% exaggerated--there was not actually blood flowing down the palace steps--but there clearly were a lot of antics. My favorite is the time they had a drinking party, and got a bear so drunk it fell out the window and died.

Dowager Queen Grandma, who was a tough woman known for being strong-willed and politically active, stormed into the room and glared at her grandson, who was disheveled and slurring and totally embarrassed.

He then swore off alcohol, or strong alcohol, or getting drunk, something along those lines, forever, and stuck to it. He became known throughout Europe for his Spartan lifestyle, not just in terms of alcohol (watery beer at best, mostly just water), and sex (none that my sources report), but also clothing (plain uniform, no wig), money-spending (no), workaholism (all the time), sleeping conditions (outside on a plank of wood with no blanket, just like his soldiers). In fact, when he was planning the incognito ride back to Swedish territory in 1714:

As his ascetic personal habits were known across Europe, one member of his party joked that the King could establish an impenetrable disguise if he wore a curled court wig, stayed in the most luxurious inns, drank heavily, flirted with every girl, wore slippers most of the day and slept until noon.

Imagine the opposite of that, and you've got Charles XII.

For comparison, keep in mind August the Strong and FW will be founding their anti-drinking society in just a couple decades (drunken bear episode is 1699), and this is contemporary Peter the Great's idea of a society, the "Most Drunken Council of Fools and Jesters":

In October 1691 Peter produced its "rules of order." On 1 January 1692 he placed at its head his former tutor, Nikita Zotov, awarding him the titles "Most holy lord Ianikita, archbishop of Press-burg and patriarch of all the Iauza region and Kukui" and "prince-pope" (Pressburg was the fortress on the Iauza River that Peter’s army had stormed, and Kukui a stream that ran through the German Quarter, which was thus also called "Kukui"); the "Council" likewise had a conclave of twelve cardinals. Peter himself performed a deacon’s duties. The first commandment for members of the "Council" was daily drunkenness. Upon initiation, new members were asked, not "do you believe?" but "do you drink?" Some of its rituals cannot be described, because of their indecency.

If that last sentence makes you wonder when the book was written, the answer is 1996 (!), but by a Russian (and helpfully translated into English for the Mildreds of the world). Robert Massie, 16 years earlier, had no trouble describing the rituals for his audience. Oh, Russia.

So Charles XII goes overnight from drunken bear falling out window to...I'm genuinely trying to think of a comparison here. FW founded the anti-sobriety society, the Spartans had gay sex, uptight Victorian gentlemen were in prostitutes up to their ears (or such is my impression of the "not my period" century)...anyway, some extreme of abstemiousness.

The thing that makes me hesitate is that there are dozens of biographies that describe Fritz exactly like this. Including the total lack of sex, or interest in women. And the whole glorified military hero thing is going to have very similar influences on the historiography of C12 and Fritz.

Anyway, like literally everything else I say about C12, take that with a grain of salt, but this is what all my sources are telling me so far.

Incidentally, I've mentioned that C12's dad was like a sane FW. One of the historians I read, I forget which one, says that C11 was such a workaholic he even made monarchs like Fritz and Joseph II look like slouches. I instinctively bristled :P, but then I remembered that Fritz had actual hobbies and a life, so while he was constantly busy and productive, if you're only counting state business, then yeah, the music, poetry, art collecting, Classics and French literature studying, round table conversations, talking to Voltaire, talking about Voltaire, reading Voltaire, writing to Voltaire, reading Voltaire's letters aloud, and petting his dogs, would count against him. So fine. :P

Anyway, sane C11 might have played a role in how C12 turned out. He was chill! Not, I hasten to add, when it came to fighting wars or performing feats. But when it came to interacting with people one-on-one. C12 was the anti-scapegoater. In fact, he bent over backwards so much to find out the good about everyone that contemporary Swedes joked that the best way to have your merits brought to the King's attention was to have someone accuse you of wrongdoing. When his generals lost a battle, he would make excuses about how the oral orders he'd given them probably weren't totally clear, and anyway shit happens.

AW: !!!

Also in Opposite Fritz Land:

1. No interest in the fine arts, although he did enjoy attending French plays.
2. Loved math, was apparently very good at math, would visit universities to chat about it with the professors, felt up to a whole new system of arithmetic notation. :P
3. Big on personal hygiene.
4. Preferred German to all other languages, inc. Swedish. Understood French but refused to speak it.
5. Did get to learn Latin and became fluent enough to have conversations with university professors in it.

When he was told that he should learn French so that he could show French ambassadors appropriate honor by being able to speak to them without an interpreter, he said that an ambassador coming to Sweden should honor the country they were in by speaking Swedish. Point for Charles!

Johann Patkul
C11 as the sane FW. They both were big into enriching the crown by acquiring lands from the nobility. I'm not entirely sure, but my impression is that FW paid for his when they became vacant, whereas C11 was more like, "The Crown giveth and the Crown taketh away."

This ended up casting a long shadow. In the short-term, he made Sweden into a financially solvent state after his predecessor's ruinous wars. In the long-term...Well, it's a bit of a long story, settle in.

Sweden conquered Livonia, modern-day Latvia, in the seventeenth century. The local nobles had been promised that they would be exempt from the taking away of their estates, called reduction. And then C11 kept reducing their estates!

One Livonian noble, Johann Patkul, protested. Vehemently. In person to the king. C11 was like, "You seem upright and honest, and I like the way you spoke frankly. But I'm not changing my mind." So Patkul went off and wrote an inflammatory pamphlet, which resulted in C11 having him placed under the death penalty.

So Patkul decides to take Livonia back from the Swedes. He goes in person and (according to the books I've been reading, single-handedly, although that might be a little too neat to be true), convinced Frederik IV of Denmark, Peter the Great, and August the Strong that making war on Sweden when C12 was just a teenager was just the thing to do! One of my sources says he convinced August that the northern Baltic territories would support the campaign to make Poland a hereditary monarchy. August was all over that!

Now Charles is in a three-front war. He's not happy with Patkul.

Energetic and active, Patkul keeps moving around the courts of the major players in the war, advising them on how to conduct the war.

Eventually, he pisses off August/the Saxons enough that they have him arrested for treason and locked up. Peter the Great keeps trying to intercede for him, pleading for mercy and to have Patkul handed over to the Russians (who are much less pissed off at him) instead. August
wavers.

He waits too long. After Charles has conquered Saxony, he demands the extradition of certain prisoners, ESPECIALLY Patkul. August, knowing that of all the people pissed off at Patkul, Charles is the MOST pissed off, is like, "Wait, no, can I get out of this?"

Charles: NOW, buddy.

Patkul: *ends up in Swedish captivity*

European monarchs: Have mercy on him!

Charles: You are confusing my chill toward my generals with my total lack of chill toward my enemies. This guy single-handedly started a three-front war against my country, which was minding its own business, to take advantage of my youth!

Patkul is broken on the wheel and decapitated. To quote Wikipedia:

Differing slightly, the accounts agree that Patkul, after a prolonged process of breaking his bones with the wheel, begged for his decapitation (crying "Kopf ab!") and rolled to the block on his own; the following decapitation did however not succeed until after several strikes.

See how we have a block here, meaning an axe was used, and several strikes were needed. Which is why I, if I were a murderer, would prefer to use a sword, in the hilarious words of luzula.

Btw, 19th century historian Bain says that while history has generally been kind to Patkul (Massie certainly has), treating him as a fearless patriot, he was actually quite awful to his peasants and just wanted the freedom to continue oppressing them.

Me, raised on stories of the slave-owning Founding Fathers: I don't know if it's true in this particular case, but the logic checks out!

FW and Whitworth
Intro
So Blanning, in his G1 bio, says that the Great Northern War, complex as it is, is responsible for some of the least coherent scholarship of the period (not disagreeing), but that the Whitworth bio is a particularly clear account. That was what led me to the Whitworth bio.

Where I promptly went, "What one earth are you talking about, Blanning?" I got other useful info out of the book, but as far as the GNW was concerned, I couldn't even keep up with what was going on.

Later on, I discovered that while the Whitworth bio is a terrible introduction to the GNW, once you already understand the general outline of the GNW and the side-switching, it's very valuable for the parts it covers, which is: "Excruciatingly detailed account of the negotiations involving Hanover and Prussia in the last few years of the war." (Which should tell you why it's a terrible introduction.)

So now I'm here to tell you (some of) what Whitworth, Rottembourg, and FW were up to in the late 1710s. I'll do my best to simplify, as it is confusing.

The War
Our story starts in 1714. As a reminder:

- C12 has just returned from the Ottoman Empire up to Stralsund, which is besieged.
- G1 has just become King of Great Britain.
- The War of the Spanish Succession is ending.
- FW has just become King of Prussia (1713).

The entire war can be summarized under two points:

Point 1. It starts because Sweden's neighbors want or want back territory that Sweden conquered in its 17th century glory days.
Point 2. Most of its complexities (side-switching, etc.) are due to European powers caring about the balance of power.

The balance of power is key here. In the mid 1710s, Sweden has de facto lost most of its overseas territory and is only hanging on because C12 doesn't know when he's beat. Russia is on the rise as a great power and is about to be the big winner of the war.

Motives
In the mid 1710s:
- Hanover cares about point 1 of the war: get Swedish territory!
- Prussia cares about point 1: get Swedish territory!
- Russia cares about point 1: get Swedish territory!
- Britain is starting to shift the focus of their caring to point 2: keep Russia from dominating the Baltic!
- France is with Britain.

When Whitworth is sent to Berlin in 1716 and 1719, he has to navigate these different concerns, two opposing ones being those of his boss, G1 of Hanover + Britain. (I don't envy these ambassadors, seriously.)

FW wants Swedish Pomerania, and most especially Stettin, which is a valuable port on the Oder. (EC2 will later be sent here by Fritz after her divorce from FW2.)

Motive Maps
Map 1: Pomerania before 1720 (from Wikipedia):



Notice Gartz, Fredersdorf's home town, also on the Oder in Swedish territory! Berlin is just on the very bottom of the map. To the east is Küstrin. Küstrin is on the Oder. If you follow the blue line up through Schwedt, Gartz, and Stettin to the Baltic, you'll see the territory FW wants, and why Stettin is such an important port.

Map 2: Pomerania through history (possibly copyrighted, so just linking). Focus on the second and third panels, showing what was lost in 1720.

The entire article contains lots of great maps.

G1 (as Elector of Hanover) wants Bremen and Verden, which will give Hanover some coastline along the North Sea.

Map 3: Hanover, Bremen, Verden (from Wikipedia):



Map 4: The Swedish Empire. Focus on the part that borders Russia, east and south of Finland.



This map does a pretty good job of showing why Russia was an early adopter of war on Sweden.

All the medium green stuff off to the east and south of the Baltic--Karelia, Ingria, Estland, Swedish Livonia--will be lost by Charles XII to Peter the Great. St. Petersburg will be built in Ingria. This is why Russia comes out the big winner: Peter can now build a big fleet and dominate the Baltic. What I wish this map did was show national borders, so you could explicitly see that Russia had no Baltic ports in 1700, because the Baltic was little more than a Swedish lake (as it was enviously called at the time).

So what happens in 1714 is Peter the Great has already conquered all that territory, and FW wants in on the divvying up of the Swedish empire! He makes an alliance with Peter in which he will help Peter with the war on Sweden in return for Russia's recognition of Prussian acquisition of as much of Swedish Pomerania as it can get.

But whereas Hanover is focused on map 3, territory Hanover can acquire from Sweden, in the late 1710s, Britain is focused on map 4, territory Russia has already acquired from Sweden. Britain is worried that the Baltic is going to turn into a Russian lake. This is where balance of power comes in.

Whitworth's Job
So the Brits send Whitworth to Berlin to try to get FW to leave his buddy Peter, make some territorial concessions to Sweden, and join the alliance in the north that the British are trying to form. That alliance is aimed at making sure Sweden remains a viable force that, with its allies, can keep Russian ambitions within limits.

But while Whitworth is in Berlin, back home there's a huge battle between the Hanoverian ministers ("We hate Prussia! We want territory! No alliance with Prussia, no territorial concessions to Sweden!") and the British ministers ("Win Prussia over! Support Sweden! Preserve the balance of power!"). This makes Whitworth's job extra difficult until the British ministers win out and he finally isn't getting conflicting messages.

You may remember that Whitworth was stationed in Russia in the early 1700s (and dismayed by all the drinking that meant he'd never be able to be influential there). That's where he destroyed the tobacco factory. Well, in those days, pre-Poltava (1709), England wasn't taking Russia seriously as a military or diplomatic power. Whitworth, on site and getting to know Peter, was all, "Serious threat here, people! Alarm, alarm! Do something before he gets too mighty to handle!"

And, of course, Whitworth called it. Ten years later, Britain is now getting on board, although still not as much as Whitworth would like.

So now Whitworth's job is to talk FW into abandoning Russia in favor of Hanover/Britain.

But FW is 1) eager to get all the territory he can out of Sweden, 2) not thrilled about breaking alliances, 3) reeeeally not convinced that Great Britain is in a position to protect him from his big scary powerful and soon to be angry neighbor Russia. His foreign minister Ilgen is more pro-Russia than pro-Hanover. (Ilgen is Ariane's maternal grandfather, father of the Baroness von Knyphausen who gets a cameo in "Lovers lying two and two".)

So FW goes back and forth and back and forth, trying to decide whether he's better off staying friendly with Russia, or abandoning them for the British-Hanoverian alliance and making the best deal with Sweden the British will support. This constant vacillation drives Whitworth and Rottembourg crazy. (More on Rottembourg below.)

British: Maybe we could just let FW have Stettin, but not the surrounding territory, and only for a certain number of years, like 25. Would that be okay, Charles?

Charles: You missed the part where I do not negotiate with terrorists invaders. Stettin is mine. Also, you idiots, if you let Prussian troops garrison a city for years at time, they will not leave it at the end of the agreed-upon time period!

[Mildred: 100% hard agree. Can you imagine telling Fritz in 1745 that he has to give up Stettin?]

After a lot of back and forth like this, suddenly everything happens all at once. Hanover signs a treaty with Sweden, getting Bremen and Verden, right as FW is prepared to sign his own treaty with Sweden, taking a good chunk (but not all) of Swedish Pomerania.

This is good news for British-Hanoverian diplomacy...Except! Except that it's going to be a lot harder to sell the Swedes on accepting their losses to Hanover if they're simultaneously losing territory to Prussia precisely because the British got involved.

So what Whitworth does (we're not sure whose idea it was, but could have been his), is backdate the signing of the treaty in Berlin to the day before the Hanover-Sweden treaty was signed. That way, the British could tell the Swedes, "Sorry, it all happened too fast! The Berlin treaty was signed by the time we made you sign the Hanover treaty." This is a lie, because Whitworth knew damn well the Swedes had already been forced to concede a lot of territory by the time he got the signatures on his own treaty forcing them to concede more territory.

The handwavy explanation was, "Well, FW had already verbally *agreed* to the treaty by that date, it's just that he then got sick with what seems to have been a stress-induced illness caused by his inability to make up his mind over whether it was okay to betray your allies or not."

(Fritz: I will have a lot of stress-related illnesses during my reign, but not that particular one!)

Conclusion
So in the end, Sweden lost almost everything but less than it could have, if not for British intervention; Hanover got what it wanted; Prussia got some of what it wanted; Russia got all the things. The alliance directed against Russia petered out because France and Britain were far away, busy with other things, and both hit by economic crashes in 1719/1720, while none of the other powers (like Prussia) were prepared to take on Russia militarily single-handedly just to preserve trade that would benefit the Brits.

Trade Addendum
Why does the trade benefit the Brits? As we learned in the Whitworth write-up, the Baltic is of key economic importance to the Brits, because that's where they get the raw materials for their navy: tar, hemp for ropes, wood for their ships... The whole tobacco conflict in the late 1690s and early 1700s was caused by the English, being mercantilists like the rest of Europe, wanting to increase their exports to Russia to balance out the imports, because the imports were so critical they simply couldn't do without them.

The whole part where England/Great Britain imports its raw materials for its navy from Baltic regions drives pretty much all of their foreign policy in the 1710s. Which I have not reported on the details of, but it's worth knowing that was their main concern and why they got involved. Because if there's one thing we know about the Brits during this period, it's that they are a naval power.

France Addendum
Toward the end of the Great Northern War, France had closed out the War of the Spanish Succession and had some free time on its hands. One thing they wanted to do was make sure everyone (read: Philip V) agreed to the terms of the peace treaties (read: Spain lost a lot of territory). The easiest way to do this, they felt, was twofold. First, ally with Britain and Prussia. Two, restore peace in the north so that Britain and Prussia would be free to focus their energies on the south (Italy, the Mediterranean, Spain), when Philip V went to war to try to get back the lost territory.

So Rottembourg was sent to Berlin with a twofold mission accordingly. One, try to get Prussia out of the Austrian camp and into the French-British camp. Two, help negotiate the Prussia-Sweden treaty so that there could be peace in the north. France would act as guarantors of the treaty. This meant his job was to help Whitworth with FW.

Whitworth, on his side, had received instructions to work with Rottembourg. (See this write-up for more details.) One of the reasons G1 had allied with France was to get French guarantees of Bremen-Verden. As we've seen, it was weird to have England/Britain and France allied during the Second Hundred Years' War (1689-1815)! But 1716-1731 was a weird time period, diplomatically, for Europe.

[Blanning is not actually a fan of the 1720s. This passage made me laugh, especially remembering him in a different book complaining about the quality of the scholarship on the Great Northern War. Apparently the whole 1700-1730 period is Just That Complicated (TM).

Even the most gifted narrator would find it difficult to construct an account of the 1720s both coherent and interesting, or indeed either of those things. Only intense concentration and repeated reference to the chronology can reveal which abortive congress was which, which short-lived league brought which powers together, who was allied to whom, who was double-crossing whom, or whatever.]