The Best Loser

[PanzerJaeger]

Robert E. Lee - Irwin Rommel - Hannibal

These men and many more were excellent strategists who were able to win great battlefield victories while being short of men and under supplied. For good or bad however, they all lost the greater war aswell.

So who do you think was the greatest losing general of all time?

[Byzantine Prince]

Well Im an ancestor of Pyrrhus so I gues I am the biggest loser. Seriously though Pyrrhus coined the phrase "Pyrrhic Victory" so there is no doubt that he was the biggest loser of all time.

[IrishMike]

I would side with Lee. He lost in such a gracious way to a good foe. In fact it was the way he lost that has spawned the spirit of Dixi land that is eveywhere... T-shirts, flags, and of course the song, is still around. He was a self-concious man, realized he was beat and did the right thing. He ended the suffering of his men. That is why I vote for him.

[MoROmeTe]

Napoleon lost bigtime, but he did so againt terible odds. Lee is close and so is Rommel.

[Steppe Merc]

I would probably agree with your's PJ.

[Krusader]

Lee or Hannibal!

[Red Harvest]

Good candidates, but I have a true standout candidate...one you would never have considered: Mikhail Gorbachev gets my vote.

Why? Because he allowed the Cold War to end with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, his own state, rather than a long bloody conflict. It was a rather graceful and relatively bloodless end for an empire. He could have tried to hang on by brutal subjugation of opposition in various states, but he did not. And he receives little respect in Russia for what he did. True the Soviet Union is still smarting from her loss of status, but the states around her seem pleased with being out from under her yoke, and what the Soviets had was unsustainable and destructive.

Lee fails in my mind because he saw the futility of the CSA cause from the beginning. Yet gave his services in extending the slaughter of so many from both sides. While he might have done it for noble reasons, and he conducted himself in a most upright chivalrous mannter, I cannot overlook the horrible cost of what he did before the final surrender.

[Gregoshi]

Interesting suggestion in Gorbachev, Red Harvest.


Lee fought brilliantly against odds, but he fought mostly defensively (aggressively though) and he had the advantage of fighting on his own territory with support of the local populace. He didn't do so well when he went over to the offensive.

Rommel never really had a chance at having a big command. He was one cog in the German war machine in Poland and France and North Africa was a minor (though important) side show. He was handcuffed by Hitler and the High Command in Normandy. He's hard to judge adequately because he was never in "the big show".

Hannibal has to be it. He fought how many years in the enemy's home territory while being outnumbered and still won battles. He did not have the benefit of fighting on know ground with support of the local populace as Lee often did. And in the end, it was all for naught.

[PanzerJaeger]

Lee fails in my mind because he saw the futility of the CSA cause from the beginning. Yet gave his services in extending the slaughter of so many from both sides. While he might have done it for noble reasons, and he conducted himself in a most upright chivalrous mannter, I cannot overlook the horrible cost of what he did before the final surrender.

I did not know he felt that way from the start. I was under the impression he believed that exacting a heavy toll on the Union would cause the population to lose heart in the (still radical in many areas) Lincoln doctrines.

[Gregoshi]

I think you are right PJ. There was hope, at least until Grant came on the scene. In the eyes of the South, "victory" meant the Union quitting the war. In addition to trying to woe support from European powers, Lee's invasions of 1862 and 1863 had the hopes of achieving a victory on Northern soil in order to pressure Lincoln into quitting the war. There were those in the North who didn't support the war - the incompetent, but popular, McClellan was one of them. If I'm not mistaken, he even ran against Lincoln for President in 1864.

[Red Harvest]

I did not know he felt that way from the start. I was under the impression he believed that exacting a heavy toll on the Union would cause the population to lose heart in the (still radical in many areas) Lincoln doctrines.

It is entirely possible I am mixing things up. It has been years since I've read much on Lee. However, my recollection is that he was opposed to secession from the beginning, partially on the grounds that the South could not win. He did make serious attempts to make the Union lose heart and to decapitate the Union once committed to the defense of the CSA...or rather Virginia. Once you are committed to a cause, you try to win or at least make the best possible peace. If my recollection is incorrect, doubtless someone here will set me straight.

And while Gorbachev was not a field "general" per se, he was the leader of an incredibly powerful military...so I took a bit of license in nominating him. The idea being to take a more strategic perspective looking at a "good loser" as doing something for the "overall good" of mankind rather than just putting up a good fight and failing to win. So I can admire the sacrifices he made for a better world for the rest of us.

I admire Lee's genius and his charisma. Hannibal was phenomenal though--imagine Lee trying to spend a decade or so marching around the North without reinforcements. If Gorbachev gets disqualified...then Hannibal makes a good back up.

[Kongamato]

I believe that in the early stages of Napoleon's attack on Russia the general Barclay de Tolly employed a Fabian strategy which nipped and whittled Napoleon's forces into a fraction of what they once were, at the expense of constant retreat. Barclay's strategy became unpopular with the Czar and he was relieved of duty in favor of Kutuzof just before the battle of Borodino.

In that same vein, Quintus Fabius Maximus himself might deserve a spot in this thread too.

An interesting but somewhat questionable candidate would be Richard Nixon. It's not that he lost the Vietnam war, he simply stopped fighting it and cut the losses. Also, it may not even qualify as the same war since the North took over only after breaking a cease-fire agreement.

[Kalle]

Some good suggestions but of course you are all wrong! ~;)

There is no greater looser then Charles XII of Sweden.

Attacked by the coalition of Denmark, Sachsen/Poland and Russia in the year 1700 he manage to fight ever growing numbers of enemies until he was shot dead in 1718 (murdered either by his own or by a norwegian/danish shot).

In every battle the swedes, usually led by Charles himself in the front rank, fought against armies at least twice the size of their own army.

The first major battle was at Narva against the russians. Peter "the great" cowardly let command to De Croy and ran away when he heard Charles and his army was approaching to save the besieged fortress. 8000 - 10000 Swedes annihilated the russian army consisting of about 40000 men. Yes an army 4-5 times bigger and the swedes had been marching through snowstorms in haste the 4 days before the battle.

Other famous battles; Crossing of Düna, Kliszow, Fraustadt, Holowczyn.

In 1709 after 9 years of victories Charles was deep in the Ukraine laying siege to Poltava. (forced there by bad decissions and unlucky circumstancies) Peter arrived with his army and Charles choose to fight them and kill them as he allways had before. Charles earlier had been shot in the foot and had fever so he could not as usual lead from the front and inspire his men. The surprise attack failed and one of the swedish attackformations got cought fighting a fort that they were suppose to walk by and took heavy casulties.

None the less the few swedes that finally reached the russian battleline charged against 100 cannons and tens of thousands of russians. Their comrades falling around them still the charge hit home and the russians wavered as nothing they did to the swedes seemed to have any affect on their morale.

Unfortnatly the swedish cavalry who now could have won the battle for the swedes was far away chasing russian cav and the few swedish infantrymen finally turned and ran for the first time in 9 years fighting.

The battle of Poltava was the doom for Sweden as a great power and the start for a new great power - Russia.

So no doubt Charles XII is the greatest looser. I could provide much more arguments but no time for the moment.

Kalle

[SwordsMaster]

Some good suggestions but of course you are all wrong! ~;)

There is no greater looser then Charles XII of Sweden.

Attacked by the coalition of Denmark, Sachsen/Poland and Russia in the year 1700 he manage to fight ever growing numbers of enemies until he was shot dead in 1718 (murdered either by his own or by a norwegian/danish shot).

In every battle the swedes, usually led by Charles himself in the front rank, fought against armies at least twice the size of their own army.

The first major battle was at Narva against the russians. Peter "the great" cowardly let command to De Croy and ran away when he heard Charles and his army was approaching to save the besieged fortress. 8000 - 10000 Swedes annihilated the russian army consisting of about 40000 men. Yes an army 4-5 times bigger and the swedes had been marching through snowstorms in haste the 4 days before the battle.

Other famous battles; Crossing of Düna, Kliszow, Fraustadt, Holowczyn.

In 1709 after 9 years of victories Charles was deep in the Ukraine laying siege to Poltava. (forced there by bad decissions and unlucky circumstancies) Peter arrived with his army and Charles choose to fight them and kill them as he allways had before. Charles earlier had been shot in the foot and had fever so he could not as usual lead from the front and inspire his men. The surprise attack failed and one of the swedish attackformations got cought fighting a fort that they were suppose to walk by and took heavy casulties.

None the less the few swedes that finally reached the russian battleline charged against 100 cannons and tens of thousands of russians. Their comrades falling around them still the charge hit home and the russians wavered as nothing they did to the swedes seemed to have any affect on their morale.

Unfortnatly the swedish cavalry who now could have won the battle for the swedes was far away chasing russian cav and the few swedish infantrymen finally turned and ran for the first time in 9 years fighting.

The battle of Poltava was the doom for Sweden as a great power and the start for a new great power - Russia.

So no doubt Charles XII is the greatest looser. I could provide much more arguments but no time for the moment.

Kalle

Sorry to disagree m8. About your Narva battle depiction: Firstly it was fought in heavy snowstorms, so the russians couldn´t coordinate their enormous army due to lack of visibility and the fact that most of the army were new recruits.

Secondly, the swedes managed to break the center of the russian camp, which put them under risk of a flank attack (and they knew it). The russian officers surrended to the swedish king because they could not see the situation the army was in, and 40.000 men were NOT annhilated by any means. almost 30.000 left the camp next morning after the swedes allowed them to keep theyr weapons and flags. (as a sign of respect). This is from ("Peter I" by Tolstoy)

Secondly, Charles was a good general, but that does not mean the russians haven´t beated the swedes in 9 years, does it? They took a few fortresses in the balcan sea and beated a few swedish generals as well.

[nokhor]

i'm with Red Harvest on this one regarding lee. it was my impression that lee was against slavery and against seccession from the start, and the only thing that made him join the confederacy was that he felt he had a moral obligation to defend his country [old virginny.]

and on the loser thread in a similar vein to gorbachev, i would pick kruschev. for backing out of the cuban missile crisis, knowing that the loss of prestige would cost him his power rather than see wwiii start. even though the u.s.s.r. putting nukes in cuba was supposed to be tit for tat because nato had recently put nukes in turkey.

[Krusader]

When it comes to the wars between Sweden & Russia in the 1700s, I have the impression both Swedish & Russian sources on the matter are biased.

Back to topic:

I have a hard time choosing between Lee & Hannibal.

[Kalle]

Of course u can disagree. I also disagree with you :P


Sorry to disagree m8. About your Narva battle depiction: Firstly it was fought in heavy snowstorms, so the russians couldn´t coordinate their enormous army due to lack of visibility and the fact that most of the army were new recruits.

The russians inability to coordinate their army can only put blame on the russian command not on Charles success. And they knew the swedes were there, they fired cannonballs on them while the swedes formed their troops for battle.

I never said the battle was not fought in snowstorm. Taking advantage of the snowstorm was a good move and does not take anything away from the Swedish victory. The snow fell the swedes in the back and into the eyes of the russians. Good move to attack Charles.

Most of the Swedish troops had never seen battle either. The swedish army was a creation of Charles father Charles ~;) He saw the need for it after an earlier war against the danes. On the other hand the Swedes were well trained, sweden had a professional army of trained farmers ~;) . Having trained your troops for combat before sending them to combat adds to the greatness and does not take away from it. For instance the swedes were trained to advance until they saw the eye of the enemy (for effect) - then they fired their one shot and charged with sword, pike and bayonet. Apart from this the russian army was not only new recruits, there were elite regiments under command of hired dutch and german officers (such as de Croy himself).


Secondly, the swedes managed to break the center of the russian camp, which put them under risk of a flank attack (and they knew it). The russian officers surrended to the swedish king because they could not see the situation the army was in, and 40.000 men were NOT annhilated by any means. almost 30.000 left the camp next morning after the swedes allowed them to keep theyr weapons and flags. (as a sign of respect). This is from ("Peter I" by Tolstoy)

Well tell me what battle does not mean risks, specially when fighting a force 5 times as big as ur own? Fact is the swedes concentrated their small forces on two points in the russian line (fieldfortification) and broke through on both spots and roled up the now confused russian line. Russians panicked and tried to flee over rivers where ice and bridges did not hold for all. Many drowned.

After the russian center was crushed Croy decided to surrender.

The day after the battle 30000 russians marched passed the swedish king and lay down their weapons and flags. The russian commanders became prisoners but the normal trooper was free to leave. Over 230 flags and 180 cannons were surrendered to the swedes. I have myself seen many of these flags at the swedish museum of the history of war. And I also think it adds to his "loosing greatness" that he let all these russians go.

At Fraustadt some years later his best commander, field marshal Rehnschiöld was not as nice. He massacred all the russian prisoners taken at that battle.

So to say that the russians were annihilated was a gross exxageration agreed but this only increses Charles greatness as he is also merciful :P


Secondly, Charles was a good general, but that does not mean the russians haven´t beated the swedes in 9 years, does it? They took a few fortresses in the balcan sea and beated a few swedish generals as well.

Yes the russians came back to the baltic while charles was dealing with his third enemy, sachsen/poland. In 1703 for example they founded St Petersburg on what was then swedish land. I never said anything else. However Charles is only one person and can not be in the baltic provinces and poland/sachsen at the same time. Neither the russians or anyone else can claim they beat charles in battle until 1709.

I can also add another argument. During the capture of Krakow the Swedes upon arriving found the gate to the suburbs open, they hurried in and arrived at the closed main gate of the city.

Some talking with the polish officer showed he refused to surrender. During these talks the officer had come outside the gate. Annoyed by the delay the swedish king with some guards forced their way into the main city. The polish officer ran for the fortress but the swedish king ALONE followed him into the fortress, singlehandedly stopped an enemy officer from firing his cannon and all the rest of the fully armed enemy soldiers did nothing. After this incident the polish commander surrenderd Krakow - to one man.

If further evidence is needed i might talk of when Charles with a few hundred men battled an entire turkish army at Bender...

Kalle

[Kalle]

When it comes to the wars between Sweden & Russia in the 1700s, I have the impression both Swedish & Russian sources on the matter are biased.

Fact I; Narva, greatest Swedish victory in history in terms of scope and proportion of number of men on both sides.

FactII; No other Swedish king has been so loved and hated praised and critizied by his own people including professional historians. In sweden there is plenty of litterature written by swedes that critizise Charles XII very hard. But one thing is true without doubt, he was a splendid tactical commander and had an army that was willing to die for him since he shared the dangers of the troops he commanded.


Back to topic:

I dont see how discussing charles XII is off topic.

Kalle

[PanzerJaeger]

Very intresting guy that Charles the 7th, thanks for the information. :bow:

[SwordsMaster]

And I re-disagree ~;)


Apart from this the russian army was not only new recruits, there were elite regiments under command of hired dutch and german officers (such as de Croy himself).

The regiments that did NOt break. The Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky guard regiments held their positions on the stakes, even after their de Croy fled.

Of course you are right, the swedes broke through, but they didn't really have achoice as what to do with the prisoners. What would you do with 40.000 prisoners with an army of barely 10.000? Even killing them all was counter-productive.


Anyway, IMO Peter did what he had to do as a King when he left the army. Charles however was a horrible king. A king's first duty is to care about the welfare of his kingdom, not hunting armies deep in the Ukraine. And besides, if a king gets killed in the first rank, despite all his bravery, his army will be beaten and his country probably lost. So I don't really see how wise that was.

And calling Peter a coward is exaggerating. He was at the siege of Azov, he was there when the russians took Narva, and he learnt from his mistakes because he finally took Narva and beaten Charles didn't he? And the fact that Charles was stupidly chasing after an army deep into the Ukraine says more about his stupidity than his courage. What was he doing there? He HAD many chances to turn back, but he didn't so who is there to blame?

Russians Sheremetyev destroyed completely 8.000 men of gen. Schlippenbach (sp?) and took part of the fleet of the admiral de Prou (sp?) with FOOT soldiers.

They annihilated 1/3 of the Narva garrison by dressing up like swedes and so forcing lieutenant Horn to attack the russian lines to rescue what he thought were reinforcements.

And main main point: what was Charles doing in the Ukraine when his armies were destroyed in the North?

[cegorach]

@Kalle

I agree that Charles XII was really 'a legendary leader' and an excellent commader so I think he deserves a place in 'the greatest loser' hall of fame, however he lost the war mainly because he underestimated Russia and invaded Poland wasting 8 years at least.

After Narva he could easily sign a peace treaty/cease-fire or even an alliance with Poland/Sachsen, but he proved to be too narrow-minded and too stubborn to do this.

You see he had broken the balance of power in eastern europe forever - there was somethig like this: only Sweden alone or allied with Poland could stop Russia alone ( i.e. without allies).

I think that this idiot king August II of Poland ( and the elector of Saxony) made a horrible mistake allying with Russia vs. Sweden, but in 1700 he was ready to change his decision and Charles failed to notice this ( his advisors didn't, but he didn't listen).

So he spent 8 years In Poland and Saxony and next even failed to support his Cossack allies, Poltava was later...


My regards Cegorach/Hetman ~:)

[Gregoshi]

...So I don't really see how wise that was.

...says more about his stupidity than his courage.
SM, I think your first description is more accurate - his faults are from lack of wisdom rather than lack of intelligence. From what I've read in this thread, Charles seems rather intelligent when it comes to military matters - at least tactically. However, it sounds like he lacked the wisdom necessary to be a good king (and military strategist).

Words like "coward", "stupid", etc are a bit harsh unless it is well documented that the words are appropriate, if you all take my meaning. ~:)

[SwordsMaster]

SM, I think your first description is more accurate - his faults are from lack of wisdom rather than lack of intelligence. From what I've read in this thread, Charles seems rather intelligent when it comes to military matters - at least tactically. However, it sounds like he lacked the wisdom necessary to be a good king (and military strategist).

Words like "coward", "stupid", etc are a bit harsh unless it is well documented that the words are appropriate, if you all take my meaning. ~:)


Ok, maybe I went a bit too far, I just wanted to make the point.

I meant he was too selfish, considering only his own personal "glory" instead of thinking about his kingdom which was what he was supposed to do.

[SwordsMaster]

I think that this idiot king August II of Poland ( and the elector of Saxony) made a horrible mistake allying with Russia vs. Sweden, but in 1700 he was ready to change his decision and Charles failed to notice this ( his advisors didn't, but he didn't listen).

IMHO, even if August allied with Charles after losing Warsaw, he had less than 10,000 men left, so even if they both allied, I´m not sure if they could have beaten the russians so easily. That is, the reinforcements Peter sent to support August and keep Charles busy in Poland would be used to crush August´s army, before they had the chance of uniting with the swedes.

Ah, but we will probably never know.

[Theodoret]

What about the Emperor Julian?

Defeated the Germans when Caesar in the West, then fought a whirlwind campaign across Europe after he threw down the gauntlet to Constantius. Admittedly, he was rather lucky that Constantius died before he could march on Julian with his army in Syria, but then again the best generals tend to be lucky.

Despite being an apostate in a largely Christianised Empire, he managed to consolidate power, and even started to revive the Hellenic pantheon. He was also noted for his tolerance and humility. His 'persecution' of the Christians amounted to forbidding them from ransacking pagan temples, and preventing them from claming to be philosophers (which at the time was absolutely right, as the early Christians hated the philosophers and managed to get the Academy in Athens closed down). When the citizens of Antioch became highly critical of him (despite his extensive efforts to alleviate the food shortage in the city), rather than kill off the ringleaders as one might expect a Roman Emperor to, Julian wrote a satire about the citizens and pinned it to the door of his residence.

His Persian campaign was largely forced upon him, but his initial moves were sucessful. He pushed the Persians across both the Euphrates and the Tigris, sucessfully taking town after town. It was only when he refused the Persian requests for peace after crossing the Tigris that he began to make mistakes. Even here, things would have gone better if the King of Armenia hadn't proved to be a treacherous ally, not only withholding aid, but also encouraging desertion in the Roman armies. It was only after his allies, and his lieutenants in command of other armies in the campaign, deserted him that he was forced to retreat. It was a succesful retreat - the Roman army managed to escape largely intact. Unfortunately, in a Persian raid during the retreat, Julian rushed to command the troops without putting on his brestplate, and was stabbed in the side with a spear.

[Kalle]

Hello again,

This time i both agree and disagree.

Swordsmaster;


The regiments that did NOt break. The Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky guard regiments held their positions on the stakes, even after their de Croy fled.

Yes, they held on but they did surrender in the end didnt they? And where were they when they could have won the battle with that flankattack of yours? No matter how you try you can not make a russian victory out of Narva.


Of course you are right, the swedes broke through, but they didn't really have achoice as what to do with the prisoners. What would you do with 40.000 prisoners with an army of barely 10.000? Even killing them all was counter-productive.

I really cant imagine when i would think it was productive to kill people. Nonetheless, this point is totally irrellevent, I cant see how it takes anything away from either the victory or Charles.


Anyway, IMO Peter did what he had to do as a King when he left the army. Charles however was a horrible king. A king's first duty is to care about the welfare of his kingdom, not hunting armies deep in the Ukraine. And besides, if a king gets killed in the first rank, despite all his bravery, his army will be beaten and his country probably lost. So I don't really see how wise that was.

When the battle of Narva happened Charles was not deep in the Ukraine was he? Circumstancies and some bad decision finally forced him to the Ukraine and he was not there chasing any armies, more on this below. Remember we are talking about the greatest loosers not the greatest winners. If Charles did no errors he might be the greatest winner instead. It is the first 8-9 years of victories that makes Charles a topcandidate as the worlds greateast looser and his personality that is so complex or uncompromising and in the end a part of his downfall.

One thing is for sure though, If you think Peter was tending to the welfare of his kingdom by fleeing at Narva I can assure you that whatever action Charles did in the front rank of his troops was made foremost with the thought of the survival of his kingdom.

Charles did not want peacetreaties which would give him another little peace of land (he had plenty of opportunites to sign such treaties) and 10 years later be attacked again. He wanted a peacetreaty that would ensure peace for a long time thus he was not searching to add new land to sweden. Charles had a very complex personality where honor and trust was taken to the very extreme. No peace could come before his enemies, who so cowardly and decievingly had attacked sweden (in Charles opinion) were dethroned. To put it simply - he did not trust them or what they said - they had to be dealt with with the sword.

Gustav II Adolphus led his army at the front, he died at Lützen, that did not mean the country was lost, just to prove you wrong on that account.


And the fact that Charles was stupidly chasing after an army deep into the Ukraine says more about his stupidity than his courage. What was he doing there? He HAD many chances to turn back, but he didn't so who is there to blame?

Well since you dont know what he was doing there i will tell you. After August had been dealt with, Charles turned to face the last enemy - Russia. After another brilliant victory at Holowczyn over the "new" russian army (proving that Charles still knew how to deal with the russians) things started to go wrong. Coming deeper and deeper into russia he was faced with the typical russian tactic of avoiding major combat, annoying raides on small patrolles, scorched earth tactic and so on. His hope and plan was for general Lewenhaupt to bring in reinforcements and supplies. Lewenhaupts forces never made it though. Only 3000 men of 16000 reached the main army and all supplies were in the hands of the russians who had attacked and beated Lewenhaupt.

Winter started to come and without supplies Charles had to turn from his way to Moscow his army melting away day by day. He turned south to go to the Ucraine where he had much hope. The hetman Mazepa promised him an entire army and plenty of supplies. The russians reached the ukraine first though. So Charles was deprived of both Mazepas army and the supplies. Mazepa himself and a few thousand of his men joined forces with Charles. So basically that is what he was doing in the Ukraine - he didnt go there to chase a russian army. He went there forced by general winter and in the hope of help and supplies. Saying Charles was stupid is a stupid thing to say. He was 18 years when the war started and kept winning and ruled his kingdom and commanded his army. Stupid?? I think not. I think he most likely was brighter then any people in this forum. (he was also a very skilled mathematician if we are to talk intellectual matters)

As for the russians taking Narva and baltic provinces meanwhile - well again they didnt face Charles. And i agree, it would have been a wiser move to move north instead of trying to reach Moscow. But again its easy to be clever after something has happened.

As for Peter being caring for his kingdom I find that very debatable. How many russians died because of his decissions? Not only in war but in other projects aswell.


I meant he was too selfish, considering only his own personal "glory" instead of thinking about his kingdom which was what he was supposed to do.

You are wrong. Personal glory prolly was important to Charles (and it definitly was for Peter) but Charles thought about his kingdom all the time, it was what he was fighting for.


Cegorach;



I agree that Charles XII was really 'a legendary leader' and an excellent commader so I think he deserves a place in 'the greatest loser' hall of fame, however he lost the war mainly because he underestimated Russia and invaded Poland wasting 8 years at least.

I agree to some extent, but it is easy to be wise after something has happened. Charles XII (that is the twelth not the seventh as suggested in a post above) did not trust August and also he believed he needed his southern flank secured before dealing with Peter.

His real objective though was to have August dethroned as king of Poland and put his own candidate as the new king. This would allow him to draw on Polish support against Russia. Charles did make this happen but nonetheless he never got the strong Polish support he hoped for since Charles candidate for the thrown was pretty much only Charles candidate and didnt enjoy much support in Poland.

The main reason the war was lost id say is a combination of underestimation of the russians and also the staggering diffrence in the amount of resources available. As an example Sweden (counting all the provinces around the baltic) had about 3 million people, about half of that number lived inside the borders that is Sweden today. Russia had about 15 million and then we must remember that Russia was not the single enemy. Thus Peter could replace one beaten army with another one while Charles was hard pressed to win all the time since his manpower was very small. (nonetheless he put 3 swedish armies on its feet)


After Narva he could easily sign a peace treaty/cease-fire or even an alliance with Poland/Sachsen, but he proved to be too narrow-minded and too stubborn to do this.

As I have explained above it was not an option for Charles to sign peace with someone who had proven himself untrustworthy. The signature of August would not be worth the paper it was written on if u ask Charles, and can you really blame him for thinking so about august in the year 1700?


You see he had broken the balance of power in eastern europe forever - there was somethig like this: only Sweden alone or allied with Poland could stop Russia alone ( i.e. without allies).

Well, this we know nothing about - who could stop who is only speculation. As it was after the war both Poland and Sweden had lost its power to russia.

Braking the balance of power was the doing of the attackers not the defender.


I think that this idiot king August II of Poland ( and the elector of Saxony) made a horrible mistake allying with Russia vs. Sweden, but in 1700 he was ready to change his decision and Charles failed to notice this ( his advisors didn't, but he didn't listen).

Yes, there is no doubt he made a mistake allying with russia. But in the end can you blame Charles for not trusting this man in the year 1700?


So he spent 8 years In Poland and Saxony and next even failed to support his Cossack allies, Poltava was later...

See my explanation on why Charles was in the ukraine. Yes he failed to support them and yes Poltava was after this happened.



Anyways I also have another candidate;

Napoleon Bonaparte. I wont make a long post about him but surely he is one of the greatest loosers. Sorry i did not see he allready was suggested above. Well anyway i agree he deserve his spot in the greatest looser hall of fame.

regards

Kalle

[SwordsMaster]

Yes, they held on but they did surrender in the end didnt they? And where were they when they could have won the battle with that flankattack of yours? No matter how you try you can not make a russian victory out of Narva.

I'm not even trying to. I just get the impression that you didn't consider the russians even able to stand a chance against Charles' "genius".

About the guards: Of course they surrended when their officers commanded them to do so. If the general had surrended, the whole army had to follow his lead, what else could they have done? Besiege Narva with half a dozen regiments?


Circumstancies and some bad decision finally forced him to the Ukraine

I agree here. He did make bad decisions, and it was more due to his bad decisions and not the circumstances that he was stuck deep in russia.

example: Instead of going into the Ukraine, he could have turned back into Poland, or even move North to retake the fortresses the russians took on the baltic along with the supplies gathered there.



One thing is for sure though, If you think Peter was tending to the welfare of his kingdom by fleeing at Narva I can assure you that whatever action Charles did in the front rank of his troops was made foremost with the thought of the survival of his kingdom.

Wrong. What if he was killed? His kingdom would sink into civil war and unrest.
Even before the war, his treasury was empty and the parliament didn't support him, not even like him. Noone dared to speak after the first victories and the huge army that the king now commanded.


Gustav II Adolphus led his army at the front, he died at Lützen, that did not mean the country was lost, just to prove you wrong on that account.

Well, I never said Gustav Adolf was a good king, did I?



As for Peter being caring for his kingdom I find that very debatable. How many russians died because of his decissions? Not only in war but in other projects aswell.

Well, this deserves a whole new thread, but I will try to answer as short as I can.

See, for some reason, in Russia all progress was made not progressively, but in giant steps. Happened with Peter, and happened again with Stalin.

Peter DID raise Russia to the european level of development from the almost medieval one in less than 20 years. That included breaking old habits (example: the russians counted the years from the biblic creation of the world and not from the birth of christ, before Peter forced them to).
Peter needed new markets and so declared war on the Turks to fight for a port in the Black sea and the Swedes for a port in the Baltic, to have direct trade routes to Europe. Peter himself built ships, he spent years of his life in the Netherlands learning and working on a dockyard, and was also a very fine artilleryman.

Of course all these changes provoked high unrest from the conservative sectors (streltsy and some old noble families), and there were a few uprisings and almost a civil war where most of the streltsy were eliminated and hanged for treason. (A bit harsh, but there were a few assassination attempts by the streltsy to kill Peter before he was Tsar, and he had a hatred towards them).

Add to all these, the lack of education and the belief shared by most russians at the time that they were "The third Rome" and so more worthy than any other nation, and so didn't have to change to be like the "others", and you may understand some of the troubles Peter had.


I think this is one of the longes posts I've ever written..... ~;)

[doc_bean]

Napoleon : one of the greatest military and political geniuses of all time

Phillipus of Macedon: not really a 'loser', except that history will always remember him after his son Alexander the Great, while it was his reforms, conquests and political alliances that made it possible for Alexander to do what he did.

Hannibal: the obvious choice :-)

[Kalle]

Hello again,

Well Swordsmaster, I dont doubt you have knowledge about Peter but now you start to talk about things which you apparantly know very little. But first ill comment what you say about Narva.


I'm not even trying to. I just get the impression that you didn't consider the russians even able to stand a chance against Charles' "genius".

About the guards: Of course they surrended when their officers commanded them to do so. If the general had surrended, the whole army had to follow his lead, what else could they have done? Besiege Narva with half a dozen regiments?


Of course they stood a chance, they were 5 times as many, but apparantly you are correct - they could not handle Charles genious. Yes why shouldnt they be able to besiege Narva with a few regiments if they are so good - afterall Charles was able to defeat 40000 russians with only a few regiments ~;)


example: Instead of going into the Ukraine, he could have turned back into Poland, or even move North to retake the fortresses the russians took on the baltic along with the supplies gathered there.

It sounds as if you think it was a motorized army who just had to turn and drive back the other way on good roads. Turning back into Sachsen/Poland or going north ment marching through the same cold and resourcefree hell twice. It would probably had melted the army to nothing. In Ukraine he had hope for reinforcements/allies and plenty of supply. It was a bad decission (the one which make him looser instead of winner) to drive deep into Russia - I say nothing else - but once he had taken that decission the march to the Ukraine was pretty much decided by winter and lack of supplies.


Even before the war, his treasury was empty and the parliament didn't support him, not even like him. Noone dared to speak after the first victories and the huge army that the king now commanded.


This is where you start to talk of things you do not know anything. First of all his treasury was not empty. In the year 1700 Sweden, to Peters and other attackers surprise, was well prepared, regarding military issues, financial issues and to some extent diplomatical issues. Sweden had been part in many wars in 17th century but in no one had the country been so properly prepared and adjusted to it as when the great northern war started.

And what is this parliament you talk of? Charles had crowned himself 15 years old in 1697 (his youth and inexperience was a major factor for the attackers to dare attack). Charles was responsible only to God, he was an absolute monarch. During his whole reign there was no uprising allthough the people was hard pressed with the long war, plague and so on. Not even when Charles didnt have any way to put power behind his words, during his 5 years as guest in Turkey did any uprising or coup happen.

You see, unlike in Russia, the swedish farmers were free men, they were represented at the parliament and had allways been. (at this time parliament or high council had no or very little authority since the king was responsible only to God). The farmers (by far more numerous then all other classes combined in swedish society at this time) saw the king as a guarantee for their freedom, their enemy was the high nobility not the king. The power of the high nobility had been crushed by Charles father, he claimed back much of the land given to them earlier. He also made sure he had the right to put whomever he wanted in any position - earlier the high noiblity had exclusive rights to high positions - no more. All these messures were liked by newer nobility, farmers and so on.

In 1697 the high nobility had their chance. Charles was to young to be a king and was suppose to be represented by the high council until he was old enough to rule on his own. The nobility did not take this chance - instead they said that Charles was mature enough to rule and so he crowned himself 15 years old.

And Charles commanded the army before the war aswell, please let me know why and who didnt dare to speak. Many have posted here that Charles advisers had diffrent opinions then Charles - for instance they adviced him to seek peace. They were not shot or tortured for having diffrent opinions.


Wrong. What if he was killed? His kingdom would sink into civil war and unrest.

No this is not by any means true. In fact Charles WAS killed when he was in the front rank. Shot in the head in Norway 1718. Sweden did not fall into anarchy or civil war. (theories about him being shot and murdered by his own side exist and the matter is still undecided - remember this was in the end of his reign after 18 years of constant warfare)

I was trying to show with my example of Gustavus Adolphus being killed in the front rank that a killed king doesnt mean anarchy or civil war but you did not understand it. Instead u said;


Well, I never said Gustav Adolf was a good king, did I?

No, and that was not the point. The point was that even though Gustav was killed in the front rank it didnt mean civil war.

Now please enlighten us all with some elaboration on the financial and parliamentary situation in Sweden in the year 1700 - you seem to know what I dont.

As for the rest of your post - progress in russia didnt just happen. Both Peter and Stalin made things happen at terrible costs in human lives and I am convinced that russias progress had been much better and happier without one of the worlds biggest criminals - Stalin.

Kalle

[SwordsMaster]

Both Peter and Stalin made things happen at terrible costs in human lives and I am convinced that russias progress had been much better and happier without one of the worlds biggest criminals - Stalin.


Well you are partially right there. The costs in human lives was high, but IMO, without Stalin Russia would have never won WW2. Just as without Peter, it wouldnt have been a major player in Europe for a long while if at all.

But thats a different matter. ~;)


Of course they stood a chance, they were 5 times as many, but apparantly you are correct - they could not handle Charles genious. Yes why shouldnt they be able to besiege Narva with a few regiments if they are so good - afterall Charles was able to defeat 40000 russians with only a few regiments

I meant to say, that they were not just bags to be beaten or shot, as they proved by finally taking Narva. I´m not trying to take anything from Charles´ victory, I´m just saying that if the same battle happened, say 4-5 years later, even with the same generals and troop composition, the outcome could have been different.

Charles did very well, first striking fast and hard on Denmark, and then getting to Narva in the right moment.

But Peter was NOT wrong by leaving his army, beacuse he knew they didn´t stand a chance against the swedes (one of the reasons he mobilised such a huge army, to make up with numbers for the lack of everything else). He fortified Novgorod expecting Charles to strike on Russia fast (which would probaby be a smarter move than marching deep into Poland after already having taken Warsaw and having a puppet king.


It was a bad decission

Agree ~:cheers:


remember this was in the end of his reign after 18 years of constant warfare

Are you saying that a man who did nothing but warring for 18 years was a good king?

A good king that cared about his peoples?


No, and that was not the point. The point was that even though Gustav was killed in the front rank it didnt mean civil war.

Fair enough, but that was a different story altogether.


Now please enlighten us all with some elaboration on the financial and parliamentary situation in Sweden in the year 1700 - you seem to know what I dont.

See, apparently, Charles was not dedicating himself too hard to political matters, choosing his hobbies (hunting) and some "feasts" mocking some of the members of the Rikstag (sp), - one of the anecdotes I´ve read somewhere says he brought rabbits into the parliament and then unleashed his hunting dogs, creating havoc among the old men - so he couldn´t count on their sympathy, and his OWN treasury was empty due to all these fairs and feasts. Of course I might be wrong, because my sources are mostly russian, but nevertheless, at some point during the war, copper money was produced, and Stokholm population went down some 20,000 people.

[Kalle]

Allright, I think we can now finally agree on most things. ~:) Not all though ~;)

I leave the discussion about Stalin since it not belong in here I think allthough im pretty sure Russia would have been a very dangeorus enemy to the germans even without Stalin but that is a thing that can not be known for sure.

First you say that the Russians were not sitting ducks at Narva (and of course they were not) and then you say Peter was correct to leave the army since he knew his army didnt stand a chance.

Well if we disregard the contradiction

oooppss my brother coming to pick me up

to be continued :)...

[SwordsMaster]

First you say that the Russians were not sitting ducks at Narva (and of course they were not) and then you say Peter was correct to leave the army since he knew his army didnt stand a chance.

I said the russians stood a chance, I didn´t say the army was good, except for those guard regiments. Actually the army was VERY poor. It was the first one trained by european officers who were given too much liberty, as Peter himself acknowledged later, and dedicated themselves more to drinking (to get used to the cold, they said ~:cheers: ) and beating the russian soldiers because those didn´t understand german/dutch/french/etc... So the result was not as to lift anyone´s expectations.

The guard regiments were trained with Peter himself, and some of his old foreign friends who had lived in Moskow for years and understood the russian nature much better than the fresh ones... And of course, under direct surveilance of the Tsar, the officers gave the best of themselves....

So, once Peter received the news of the swedish king having defeated the danes, and moving towards them with a chosen army of 10,000, he decided it was more important to save his country, therefore fortifying Novgorod (where huge reserves of grain were), than just making a heroic point and staying with the army which was going to be lost anyway. Besides, Peter wasnt too appreciated by his soldiers because of the harsh discipline thay have never been used to and the measures he took to brutally supress rebellions (he was called the "antichrist" by some). So he left deCroy, and took with him Menshikov and 50 dragoons to escort him to Novgorod.