“Charles XII was a great soldier, but a poor strategist and a terrible statesman. Gustavus Adolphus he was not.”
- I guess most experts would agree.
“I believe somebody at the time said something along the line that by beating them repeatedly he was training the Russians how to beat him.”
- I haven’t heard that one before, but it makes sense.
Something that ought to be remembered when comparing what Charles XII did and what Gustavus Adolphus was up to is that Russia was very much of ‘terra incognita’ to Charles XII and to everyone else from Western Europe at that time, while central Europe wasn’t exactly anything resembling a vast, pitch black abyss to Gustavus Adolphus and his men (many of them came from central Europe themselves).
All the same, I agree Charles XII doesn’t seem like a great strategic. He was good at tactics and leadership, but maybe he should have tried harder to reach a peace agreement with Russia after the victory at Narva.
I sincerely appreciate talking to someone who has some knowledge of our country’s history.
Best of regards.
Amateurs talk tactics, professional talk logistics.
Logistically, invading Russia in 1709 was a very bad idea. Napoleon and Hitler had massive difficulties logistically, even with much more advanced technology.
Strategically, his decision to turn his back on Russia and allow Peter to rebound while he flailed around in Poland for 10 years was also a serious mistake. You should always finish off your (at least potentially) more dangerous enemies before turning to secondary foes.