Russia Admonished: The Battle of Narva in the Great Northern War

Swedish Reenactors portray Karoliner on the march in summer months
Photo by Anders Bertrandsson

Dear Reader,

Today, we have our second guest post- this time from Michael Glaeser.[1] As a historian who has published on the Great Northern War, Michael brings a great depth of experience to the subject in this post: the Battle of Narva.

If you would like to write for Kabinettskriege, or have an idea for a post, please contact us via the link on the upper right. Without further introduction- here is Michael's post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the year 1700, the Kingdom of Sweden was the dominant power in the Baltic. The sea was very much a Swedish one with the nation’s territory circling around the waters to include Finland, Ingria, Estonia, Livonia, and parts of northern Germany. For many socio-political reasons, Denmark-Norway, Saxony-Poland-Lithuania, and Russia formed an alliance to seize control and beat back Swedish hegemony. The three-pronged attack was meant to be quick and decisive. After all, the King of Sweden, Charles XII, was only an eighteen-year-old adolescent…

Immediately after declaring war on Sweden on August 20th, the Russians began their push into Ingria to besiege the fortified town of Narva. With Russia having no access to the Baltic, Ingria was a vital strip of land that Tsar Peter I desperately wanted to have back. As Narva was also the lynchpin fortress on the border of Ingria and Estonia, Peter wanted to take the town first and use it as a base of operations from which Russian troops could pour into neighboring regions. More importantly, it was only fourteen kilometers away from the Gulf of Finland and that vital seat on the Baltic Sea.

Looking for sources: a British Newspaper from 1700 describes the battle

Due to its strategic location, the town of Narva was well fortified. The Swedes added a ring of bastions in the 1680s to supplement the existing 15th-century castle. This was done under the watch of the aged field marshal and engineer Erik Dahlberg, the "Swedish Vauban". The western side of the town had the most open approach but this too had defensive features including a dry moat. The town itself held a garrison of 1,460 infantry, substantially lower than the planned 3,100, but it did include additional cavalry as well. These were under the command of Henning Rudolf Horn at the time of the siege.

While Russian troops immediately advanced into Ingria, it wasn't until the end of October that the artillery and siege guns arrived at the outskirts of Narva. With over 37,000 men facing the town, the general expectation was that Narva could only hold out until the end of the month. Peter had arrived to personally supervise the siege and take part in the forthcoming surrender. Horn and his men clung to the safety of the town walls and were no doubt encouraged by the letters sent from Charles indicating that "we will soon be with you and dislodge the enemy".[2]

Russian Army flags used at Narva (later captured by the Swedish Army)

Following the sweeping success against Denmark, Charles and the Swedish army mustered for shipment to the Baltic provinces in early October. They had arrived and disembarked by the 8th and a plan was formulated to send a relief force to Narva while the king and another body of troops headed south to break the siege of Riga launched by Augustus, the Elector of Saxony.[3] Swedish commander Otto Vellingk brought news of an improved situation- Augustus did not get the necessary support from his ally Peter and rather than face the wrath of the Swedes alone, decided to break his siege and send his army into winter quarters. Given the suspension of Saxon operations and the seasonably bad weather that mired the roads, Charles felt safe enough to divert all efforts towards Narva and come to grips with his cousin at a later point.

On November 13, the Swedish army began its march through soggy and scorched lands. Given the scarcity of food, the weather, and the state of the roads, the army was in need of a morale boost. This came on the 17th when the king led a small detachment against a much larger Russian force led by General Boris Sheremetev at a chokepoint called Pyhajoggi pass. Sheremetev was under orders to withdraw without forcing a battle but the retreat of 5,000 of the enemy had an uplifting effect for the tired Swedes. More importantly, this was the first independent action for Charles who held his own and managed his men well enough to earn praise.

Despite hearing news from Sheremetev that the Swedes were approaching, the Russian command was unconcerned. Western European warfare had become known for lengthy sieges rather than fast assaults and pitched battles. The belief in the Russian camp was that the Swedes would halt, gather strength, and then force the issue. Tsar Peter even left the siege a day and a half before the Swedes arrived on the 19th in order to direct more reinforcements. The tsar's leave of absence on the eve of battle has garnered much attention from contemporary observers and historians. Naturally, the Swedes painted Peter as a coward, someone who saw the writing on the wall and wanted no part in an eventual defeat. But given the prevalence and preference for siege warfare, Peter probably thought he had more time. In any case, it was a fortuitous move on his part.

Battle of Narva, Robert K. Massie, Peter the Great, 331.

In the tsar's place as acting commander was Field Marshal Charles Eugene Du Croy, a western trained general who fought against the Swedes at Lund and the Ottomans at Vienna. He had the vastly larger Russian force organized behind a nine-foot-high wall in front of which was a six foot wide dry trench. He was also backed up by over 140 cannon and mortars. Due to the size of Narva, the most glaring error was that his forces were stretched out over a six-kilometer line. The Swedish attack would focus on two columns smashing into the enemy and then rolling up both flanks. With poetic timing, or perhaps divine intervention, a snowstorm picked up in intensity and blew directly into the faces of the waiting Russians. The Swedes used the opportunity to launch their attack with Charles and his Drabants concentrated on the left column. It was this group that was the first to shatter their opposition. A Swedish volley within 30 paces caused many of the defenders to “fall like grass”. Hastily made fascines filled the dry trench, and ladders allowed the Swedes to scale the walls and enter the Russian camp. Success quickly followed on the right as well: “We charged directly sword in hand and so entered. We slew all who came at us and it was a terrible massacre”.[4] That the fighting was intense is evidenced by the commentary surrounding Charles. He had a horse shot out from under him and lost a shoe in the soggy mud. After the battle, a bullet was found lodged in his neckcloth, the first of five to hit him in his life.

With the Swedes storming into the camp, a panic set in. Many of the Russian commanders were foreign and some could not even communicate in the language of their subordinates. Distrust and an unwillingness to fight for their officers led many Russians to flee. Most famous was the rout across Kamperholm bridge which became so inundated with fleeing men that it collapsed under their weight. Many drowned as a result. Du Croy and the Russian guard regiments provided a valiant resistance but were forced to surrender. A small holdout of Russians continued to fight until nightfall at which point friendly fire was inflicting unnecessary casualties on the exhausted Swedes. By the morning, the battle was over.

More Russian Banners Captured at Narva 

The Swedes counted over 600 dead. The Russians had anywhere between 8,000 to 12,000. The number that surrendered was even higher forcing the Swedes to set the majority free and allow them to return to Russia with and without arms. Leading commanders were taken prisoner for ransom or future exchanges. All of Peter's artillery was claimed as war booty forcing the tsar to famously confiscate church bells in an effort to cast new cannon. A near spiritual success was the capture of a large number of Russian flags and standards.[5] Among the victors, General Magnus Stenbock was quick to praise his colleague and king: “It is God’s work alone, but if there is anything human in it, it is the firm, immovable resolution of His Majesty and the ripe dispositions of General Rehnskjold.”[6] For all his losses, Tsar Peter remained optimistic and redoubled his efforts to modernize his forces: “When we had that misfortune, or putting it better great fortune, compulsion then drove away sloth, and forced us to labor day and night."[7] It was a process that paid dividends on a summer day in the Ukraine some nine years later.


Thanks for Reading,



Mike Glaeser,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Michael Glaeser is an early modern historian specializing in the Great Northern War and the reign of Charles XII of Sweden. He is published in The Great Northern War Compendium and taught history at the University of New Hampshire. He is also an avid reenactor and wargamer. He completed his graduate work at the University of Sheffield, England.
[2] Hatton, Charles XII of Sweden, 150.
[3] Augustus "the Strong" was both the Elector of Saxony, King of Poland, and Duke of Lithuania.
[4] Massie, Peter the Great, 333.
[5] A vast majority of these captured flags still reside in the Army Museum in Stockholm, and are on display.
[6] Massie, Peter the Great, 337.
[7] Rothstein, Peter the Great and Marlborough, 35.

Britian vs. France and the Creation of the Modern World

Britain vs. France: The Creation of the Modern World

Dear Reader:

Today, we will look at one of the great rivalries in history. Like modern sports rivalries, the honor and reputation of the contestants was at stake, but unlike today, the fate of the world also hung in the balance. This rivalry, Britain vs. France, shaped the world that we live in. This rivalry led to multiple wars, including two periods of warfare lasting a hundred years or more! In this post, we will examine the second of those hundred year wars, lasting from roughly 1688 to 1815, with short periods of peace throughout. This was one of the defining conflicts of the Kabinettskriege period. For a timeline of events referred to in this post, click here. 

British Soldiers in North America

Britain vs. France: The Background

Why did Britain and France engage in this period of conflict? The answer, though complicated, can be boiled  down to this: both wanted power in Europe, and power overseas. Louis XIV of France, often called the "Sun-King," ruled over France during the first half of the 2nd Hundred Years War. Louis XIV consolidated much of the states power into the person of the monarch, and greatly increased France's military forces.  During this time, France still had the position of Europe's leading power. Govind Sreenivasan, a historian at Brandeis University, refers to France as the, "nine hundred pound gorilla," of early modern Europe. Around the year 1700, France possessed a huge population, roughly 20 million compared with 6 million in Great Britain, less than 6 million in the Low Countries, 8 million in Austria, and 1.5 million in Prussia. Thus, in order to oppose France, the countries of Europe needed to ally with one another in order to resist French expansion.

French Soldiers of the War of Spanish Succession

The Opening Stages: 1688 to 1715

The French juggernaut was opposed by England, Austria, the Dutch, and Prussia, in the Nine Years War, and the War of Spanish Succession. In the Nine Years War, the French sought to oppose William III, a Dutch Prince who recently took the throne of England. In this conflict, the French won most of the victories in Europe, but failed to invade England or have notable success at sea. In the War of Spanish Succession, the Allies attempted to prevent the unification of France and Spain under the house of Bourbon. While the French candidate did eventually take the Spanish throne, the French lost overseas power, and were forced to give up power in Europe as well, such as the Spanish Netherlands, and the Kingdom of Naples. Louis XIV died shortly after the conclusion of the War of Spanish Succession. While the war was technically a French victory, it was costly, and weakened the French position in future wars. Louis XIV's policies also created higher levels of social unrest in France, a trend which would continue under his successor, Loius XV.

The World in the Balance: 1715 to 1789 

During this period, the French and the English engaged in numerous wars over colonial possessions. While the French occasionally made local gains, they were heavily defeated in the Seven Years' War, (known as the French and Indian War in North America) and lost what we now know as Canada to the British. They experienced a brief revival late in the 18th century, assisting the American rebel colonists in obtaining independence in the American War of Independence. For once, the French navy was able to pull through when it mattered, defeating the British in the Battle of Chesapeake, and ensuring Cornwallis' surrender to a joint American-French army at Yorktown. Throughout the 18th century, the French overseas empire lost ground to the British, most notably in Canada and India.

The Battle of Waterloo-The Last Gasp of the Franco-British Wars

The Final Chapter: 1789 to 1815 

In 1789, the French people, dissatisfied with their living conditions, rose up in revolution against yet another Louis (the XVI). This dramatic event led to consternation throughout the rest of Europe, as other monarchs began to fear for their lives. It also had horrible consequences for warfare. The French revolutionaries, unable to compete with the rest of European armies in quality, instituted the Levee en masse, drawing on the entirety of the population for support in the war. This quickly enlarged the French army, and required the other European states to follow suit. Unfortunately for France, even the Levee en masse, the higher morale of French troops, or the genius of Napoleon and his marshals could not save the French from the combined power of Europe's monarchies. The French were defeated at Waterloo in 1815, and Napoleon went into his final exile. Even more disastrously, France lost her overseas colonies, as a result of the unparalleled British navy in this period.


The Results: How did this give us the modern world?

In the 1688 to 1815 period, the British managed to defeat the French repeatedly in overseas conflict, despite the French success during the American War of Independence. The British dominated Canada, India, and managed to keep France from overwhelming the rest of Europe. After 1815, the French, while still forming a potent piece of European (and global) affairs, never quite threatened the rest of Europe as they did in the 1688 to 1815 period. The British joined an alliance dedicated to the punishment of French expansion, and ended up winning a global empire of their own in the process. Eventually, the other European powers realized that Britain was running away with the global game. Unfortunately for the French, the damage was done, and the French Revolution turned France into the enemy of the whole of Europe. Today, in places like Canada, India, and the United States, we are still reminded of the consequences of this competition.


Thanks for reading,


Alex Burns