• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Jopa79

Lt. General
48 Badges
Aug 14, 2016
1.466
6.096
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
The Swedish Empire
Lilla_riksvapnet_-_Riksarkivet_Sverige[1].png

Three Crowns, national emblem of Sweden

From 1611 to 1721 Sweden was a European Great Power. In this era of 110 years the nation was becoming a dominant in the quest for the control of Baltic Sea and Sweden was a formidable in military power as well. The Swedish Empire emerged its power in the 17th century gaining much more of foreign influence after winning wars against Denmark, Holy Roman Empire, Russia and the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania. The succesful Thirty Years' War under the tenure of Gustav Adolf II(Lion of the North) and the well-conducted following decades determined political and militarian advantage for the Swedes and enabled the existence of the Swedish Empire throughout the 17th century. But all this hard earned glorious status of the Empire would come to an end just for a few bad decisions made by Charles XII. Because of those, the Swedish 'Stormaktstiden', The Great Power Era would end permanently.

Dankaerts-Historis-9256.tif[1].jpg

Gustav Adolf II, the founder of the Swedish Empire

The situation in the early stages of Charles XII reign

Karl_XII_1706[1].jpg

Charles XII of Sweden in 1706

Charles XII was at the age of 15 when he assumed the power. The Empire held a territory more than twice the size of its modern borders. The weakness of Sweden was the fact that the nation was unaligned and had many enemies. In 1700, a triple alliance was formed against Sweden by the nations of Denmark, Poland-Lithuania and Russia. Launching a threefold attack this triple alliance aimed to draw advantage as Sweden was unaligned and ruled by a young and inexperienced king. This attack is better known as the Great Northern War.

Swedish_Pomerania[1].png

Swedish Empire at its height (orange area is Swedish Pomerania)

First campaigns of the Great Northern War
In contrast to the conjecture, Charles XII proved to be an exceptionally skilled military leader and tactician. Denmark had launched a campaign against Swedish Holstein-Gottorp and simultaneously the Commonwealth troops advanced in Swedish Livonia. Charles decided to deal with the Danish first. This time supported by a British-Dutch fleet, the Swedish fleet carried out a bombardment on the city of Copenhagen. The surprise and the pressure from the British and the Dutch forced the Danish out from the triple alliance and the war. Now Charles was able to deploy his army to the Swedish Baltic, where the Commonwealth had laid a siege on the city of Riga.
Besides of this, the Russian army, led by Peter the Great invaded Swedish Ingria and laid a siege to Narva.

Bombardementet_af_København_1700[1].jpg

The bombardment of Copenhagen forced Denmark to withdraw from the war

Battle of Narva and the momentous decisions
220px-Battle_of_Narva_1700[1].jpg

In Narva battlefields

Narva battle was fought still in the early stages of the Great Northern War, exactly in November 1700. It would take 21 years until the war was over, but the decisions Charles XII made here would determine the fate of the Swedish Empire.

The Narva garrison was no more than 1 800 men. The siege force of the Tsardom of Russia was 37 000 men. The Swedish relief force, led by Charles arrived on time and its strenght was 10 500 men. Still the odds were favoring the Russians more than 3:1.

Charles positioned 8 000 of his troops against the Russian nearly 40 000 troops. Firmly counting on the superiority in forces, the Russians presumed that the Swedish would not attack against well fortified forces - but this was where they were wrong. On the battleday blizzard raged and wind blew the snowstorm straight into the eyes of the Russians. Here Charles saw his opportunity and advanced with his troops in the covers made by weather. When within reach, the Swedes attacked in two columns and quikly broke through the Russian lines, cutting them in three and rounded them up. The Russians went on retreat, but panicked and the only exit from the battlefield was on the bridge - the bridge collapsed under the retreating Russians. This stampede caused massive casualties for the Russians - more than 9 000 men. Remaining Russian troops surrendered, they were defeated totally.

Now it was the moment for the unfortunate decisions of Charles. Was he blinded by the flush of this enormous victory, or something else, but Charles made two crucial mistakes in a row. After the crushing defeat Peter the Great was compelled to sue peace, but Charles rejected. This peace offer would certainly have favored the Swedes, rejecting the offer was the first mistake. The battle of Narva had left the Russians very weak - if Sweden had invaded Russia immediately after the battle, Peter would have been almost powerless to stop them and the Swedes would probably marched to Moscow. But neither did Charles this and it was the second mistake. Instead the Swedes turned south and fought against Poland-Lithuania 5-6 long years. After all, the campaign against the Commonwealth was indeed victorious for Charles, the Swedes knocked out the Commonwealth and forced them to withdraw from the war temporarily, like the Danes earlier. But this didn't affect the outcome of the Great Northern War.

220px-Victory_at_Narva[1].jpg

Russian forces surrender to Charles

The victorious Carolean Army is crushed in Poltava
The Swedish Carolean Army under command of Charles XII invaded Russia in 1708. The Swedish forces had advanced from a victory to another and the army hadn't been defeated for 10 years. The Russians had recovered from the Narva defeat and formulated scroched earth strategy baiting the Swedes into a trap. And they succeeded in this.

In summer 1709 at Poltava, the Carolean Army was short of supplies and it was weakened due to the hard winter. The strenght of the army had shrunk into a half of its original forces - now only 20 000 of men. On the othrer side, the Russians had 80 000 of troops and this time well-drilled also.

The desperate Swedish assault against the Russian lines was a disaster for Charles. Neither did any good the cavalry maneuvers in the flanks. The battle was absolute defeat for Sweden, the worst in its military history, the nation never recovered from this battle during the war - it was the downfall of the Swedish Empire.

300px-Marten's_Poltava[1].jpg

Battle of Poltava in 1709

The conclude of The Great Northern War
After the disastrous defeat Charles fled to the Ottoman Empire. He spent several years in there and managed to provoke a war between the Ottomans and the Russians. Charles expenses during this long visit was covered by the Ottoman state budget, however, finally the Ottomans got tired of Charles' scheming and he was expelled from the country. Charles made his journey back home on horse across the Europe in only two weeks.

Meanwhile the anti-Swedish Coalition had formed up again and correspondingly the strenght of the Swedes had fallen. Sweden's enemies launched attacks from west and from south and at the same time the Russians advanced troughout Finland to attack the Stockholm district. For the first time Sweden found itself in a defensive war. Charles planned to counter-attack and invaded Norway, hoping this could force Denmark to withdraw from the war.

In 1718, during the Norway campaign, while inspecting the trenches close to the perimeter of the Fredriksten fortress, Charles was struck in the head by a projectile and killed. Still it took three more years to end The Great Northern War. The Coalition against Sweden had overwhelming strenght, which constantly grew. Sweden was without allies and had high war exhaustion. The country was forced to sign peace in Nystad, Finland.

Charles.jpg

The loyal soldiers bringing home the body of Charles XII

The aftermath
Probably because of the decisions made by Charles XII after the battle of Narva caused the defeat of Sweden in The Great Northern War and the loss of the status as a Great Power. Sweden lost Estonia, Livonia, Ingria, Karelia and Kexholm, Bremen-Verden and Pomerania. If the defeat would have been avoided, the following major wars would have been in the Napoleonic era at the latest. The decline in power meant that from nowon Sweden was considered as a minor European nation. The last war Sweden has waged is the Finnish War in 1808-1809. After that the country has remained outside the conflicts, offering humanitarian aid for those who in need.







 
After that the country has remained outside the conflicts, offering humanitarian aid for those who in need.

Arguably a much greater contribution to world affairs, and a better policy for the Swedish people.
 
Probably because of the decisions made by Charles XII after the battle of Narva caused the defeat of Sweden in The Great Northern War and the loss of the status as a Great Power. Sweden lost Estonia, Livonia, Ingria, Karelia and Kexholm, Bremen-Verden and Pomerania. If the defeat would have been avoided, the following major wars would have been in the Napoleonic era at the latest. The decline in power meant that from nowon Sweden was considered as a minor European nation. The last war Sweden has waged is the Finnish War in 1808-1809. After that the country has remained outside the conflicts, offering humanitarian aid for those who in need.

Well almost, the Swedes participated in the war of the Sixth Coalition and got Norway as the prize. But that was really the last.
 
Hmm...you are right about the war of the Sixth Coalition, I must admit. But Sweden wasn't so active in the war if I'm correct. Only the battle of Leipzig, where Swedish troops were present, if we talk about major conflicts of that particular war. But anyway...it was 1813-14 then. And if we still keep in the topic, and I recall myself, there might have been some hostilities between Sweden and Norway during the personal union era, but I think it's niggling already.
 
What is the purpose of the thread? To discuss Charles XII or educate others on him?
 
What is the purpose of the thread? To discuss Charles XII or educate others on him?

The purpose is to create free discussion about the topic. I find myself interested in that point, when after Narva Charles made his decisions, which changed the course of the war.
 
I think that one of Charles' greatest mistakes was trying to fully subjugate the Poles and install a puppet monarch over them, it didn't really work and just wasted a lot of time and effort.
 
I think that one of Charles' greatest mistakes was trying to fully subjugate the Poles and install a puppet monarch over them, it didn't really work and just wasted a lot of time and effort.

See, now you are creating free discussion about the topic...nice:)
 
I think that one of Charles' greatest mistakes was trying to fully subjugate the Poles and install a puppet monarch over them, it didn't really work and just wasted a lot of time and effort.

Well, back to the real topic. This is exactly the other false choice, which Charles carried out after the victory in Narva. Against the advices of all his generals Charles decided to try knock out the Commonwealth from the war. Because of the major defeat of Narva battle, the army of Tsardom of Russia was very weak and Charles had wide open road to Moscow. For some reason Charles never used this opportunity. Instead, like you said he fought several years with the Poles and even he managed to compel the Commonwealth temporarily to withdraw The Great Northern War, it didn't mean anything in the outcome of the war. And I really can't see the idea, why Charles decided to continue to wage the war.
 
Stripping certain areas of troops and then still demanding aggressive action - as was the case with Ingria/Karelia - certainly contributed to Charles XII's problems. Then again these are also very closely related to the problems he created by not settling the matter with Russians right after Narva in the first place. It is worth noting that Swedish attempts to raid (by both and land and sea) the new Russian constructions at mouth of Neva river were costly affairs. Thousands of men lost without any gains. Lybecker's raid in 1708 was utterly disastrous - not quite so in the manpower but it resulted in a loss of over 5 000 horses (practically every single one the Swedish army had in the area) - since it practically immobilized the forces Swedes had in the area (removing threat posed by those forces to modern day St. Petersburg) and allowed Peter to move additional forces from Ingria to face Charles in the south just in time for Poltava...
 
Stripping certain areas of troops and then still demanding aggressive action - as was the case with Ingria/Karelia - certainly contributed to Charles XII's problems. Then again these are also very closely related to the problems he created by not settling the matter with Russians right after Narva in the first place. It is worth noting that Swedish attempts to raid (by both and land and sea) the new Russian constructions at mouth of Neva river were costly affairs. Thousands of men lost without any gains. Lybecker's raid in 1708 was utterly disastrous - not quite so in the manpower but it resulted in a loss of over 5 000 horses (practically every single one the Swedish army had in the area) - since it practically immobilized the forces Swedes had in the area (removing threat posed by those forces to modern day St. Petersburg) and allowed Peter to move additional forces from Ingria to face Charles in the south just in time for Poltava...

But still, after Narva Charles refused the peace offer suggested by Peter. And this offer would certainly favored the Swedes...I just try to clarify for myself...first Charles defeats Russians in Narva, he refuses the peace offer, neither he pursues the Russians to Moscow, instead he wants to fight with the Commonwealth and is wasting valuable time there, meanwhile Peter is gathering and recovering his army, then 5 years later Charles invades Russia, Carolean Army has severe supply problems throughout the 1 year invasion, arctic winter weakens the Swedes and the Russian army is sitting near the fire place in Poltava, then in summer the famished army of Charles makes desperate assault on Russian lines but is crushed, Charles flees to the Ottoman Empire and enjoys the fruits of the court, back in Europe Denmark and the Commonwealth rejoins the war, Charles makes his famous ride back home noticing, that the Swedes are in trouble, starts the useless campaign against Denmark, gets killed in Norway, Sweden loses the Great Northern War and the status as a Great Power, end of story.
 
But still, after Narva Charles refused the peace offer suggested by Peter. And this offer would certainly favored the Swedes...I just try to clarify for myself...first Charles defeats Russians in Narva, he refuses the peace offer, neither he pursues the Russians to Moscow, instead he wants to fight with the Commonwealth and is wasting valuable time there, meanwhile Peter is gathering and recovering his army, then 5 years later Charles invades Russia, Carolean Army has severe supply problems throughout the 1 year invasion, arctic winter weakens the Swedes and the Russian army is sitting near the fire place in Poltava, then in summer the famished army of Charles makes desperate assault on Russian lines but is crushed, Charles flees to the Ottoman Empire and enjoys the fruits of the court, back in Europe Denmark and the Commonwealth rejoins the war, Charles makes his famous ride back home noticing, that the Swedes are in trouble, starts the useless campaign against Denmark, gets killed in Norway, Sweden loses the Great Northern War and the status as a Great Power, end of story.

Ok after Narva he makes a peace with Peter... what next, the only one still standing is Poland-Saxony. So Charles goes there fights the same war, loses manpower etc. Meanwhile Peter rebuilds his army and a new idea comes to his mind. Why not attack the Swedes in the back.

And this is the question you had to answer: there was a de facto peace between Sweden and Russia. Would a de iure treaty change anything?
 
Ok after Narva he makes a peace with Peter... what next, the only one still standing is Poland-Saxony. So Charles goes there fights the same war, loses manpower etc. Meanwhile Peter rebuilds his army and a new idea comes to his mind. Why not attack the Swedes in the back.

And this is the question you had to answer: there was a de facto peace between Sweden and Russia. Would a de iure treaty change anything?
First - there wasn't even a de facto peace between Sweden and Russia. Warfare continued all the time after Narva. Nöteborg (Shlisselburg) was captured by the Russians in 1702. Nyen in 1703. Then Russians founded St. Petersburg in the marsh (and bog) lands at the mouth of Neva river and build two forts to protect it from naval raids (Kronstadt and Kronslot) Swedes tried to force Russians away in 1705 by raiding the area via both land and sea. Russian barges (lodja) raided certain places in SE Finland in 1706. Russians besieged Viborg in 1706 - but the siege failed as Swedes had the command of the sea. Swedes launched 12 000 strong expedition against St. Petersburg in 1708 (Lybecker's raid i mentioned earlier). Russians made new attempt - this time with some naval support - against Viborg in 1710 and captured the town. Like in other places in the are the fortifications had fallen to neglect during the preceding peace (in late 17th century) which helped Russian efforts quite a bit. And i skipped quite a few other events. So while there perhaps may not have been respective leaders of Sweden and Russia present there it was very far from being peace of any sort.

IIRC what Peter wanted was access to the Baltic. Charles could have given this to him. For example allowing Russian ships unobstructed access through Neva for example - to Old Ladoga that is. After Narva an agreement on such terms might have been possible. But then there wouldn't have been St. Petersburg either.
 
First - there wasn't even a de facto peace between Sweden and Russia. Warfare continued all the time after Narva. Nöteborg (Shlisselburg) was captured by the Russians in 1702. Nyen in 1703. Then Russians founded St. Petersburg in the marsh (and bog) lands at the mouth of Neva river and build two forts to protect it from naval raids (Kronstadt and Kronslot) Swedes tried to force Russians away in 1705 by raiding the area via both land and sea. Russian barges (lodja) raided certain places in SE Finland in 1706. Russians besieged Viborg in 1706 - but the siege failed as Swedes had the command of the sea. Swedes launched 12 000 strong expedition against St. Petersburg in 1708 (Lybecker's raid i mentioned earlier). Russians made new attempt - this time with some naval support - against Viborg in 1710 and captured the town. Like in other places in the are the fortifications had fallen to neglect during the preceding peace (in late 17th century) which helped Russian efforts quite a bit. And i skipped quite a few other events. So while there perhaps may not have been respective leaders of Sweden and Russia present there it was very far from being peace of any sort.

IIRC what Peter wanted was access to the Baltic. Charles could have given this to him. For example allowing Russian ships unobstructed access through Neva for example - to Old Ladoga that is. After Narva an agreement on such terms might have been possible. But then there wouldn't have been St. Petersburg either.

I agree, that it was state of war between Sweden and Russia after Narva and this status remained until the peace treaty of Nystad. And yes, Peter indeed wanted the access to the Baltic Sea, because without the access there was no trade option either in that region for the Russians. And Charles wanted to remain this state of affairs. Sweden was nearly finishing its objectives in the quest of the control of the Baltic Sea and he didn't want anymore competitors to the Baltic trade.
 
Ok after Narva he makes a peace with Peter... what next, the only one still standing is Poland-Saxony. So Charles goes there fights the same war, loses manpower etc. Meanwhile Peter rebuilds his army and a new idea comes to his mind. Why not attack the Swedes in the back.

And this is the question you had to answer: there was a de facto peace between Sweden and Russia. Would a de iure treaty change anything?


I concur, it is the logical thing to do for Peter after signing this peace treaty. Since history is written by the victor, we would know about the humiliating peace treaty of Narva, which was recified after the just war of ...

Sweden had no way of keeping her territory. Manpower...
 
I concur, it is the logical thing to do for Peter after signing this peace treaty. Since history is written by the victor, we would know about the humiliating peace treaty of Narva, which was recified after the just war of ...

Sweden had no way of keeping her territory. Manpower...

But there was still one other option. After Narva Charles could have chased the vulnerable Russians and capture Moscow and this was a true opportunity. After capturing Moscow, Peter would be forced to make a new peace offer with even more sections favoring the Swedes. And the Russian recovery would have been much slower, if even happened in the following years. At the same, Charles could have searched for allies from the west, Great Britain, the Dutch, or the French, which would be more assent to form an alliance with the Swedes after the Russian had been defeated. Also, the Ottomans could have been more interested in the alliance.

This might have been the option for the Swedes to keep the status as a Great Power.
 
But there was still one other option. After Narva Charles could have chased the vulnerable Russians and capture Moscow and this was a true opportunity. After capturing Moscow, Peter would be forced to make a new peace offer with even more sections favoring the Swedes. And the Russian recovery would have been much slower, if even happened in the following years. At the same, Charles could have searched for allies from the west, Great Britain, the Dutch, or the French, which would be more assent to form an alliance with the Swedes after the Russian had been defeated. Also, the Ottomans could have been more interested in the alliance.

This might have been the option for the Swedes to keep the status as a Great Power.

Remember that another major war is happening i do not know whether choosing a side in the War of Spanish Succession would have been a good idea.
His hope is peace with Russia fast and close the Polish part before anyone else recovers and then get Arvid Horn as prime minister and sit out all major wars.
 
Remember that another major war is happening i do not know whether choosing a side in the War of Spanish Succession would have been a good idea.
His hope is peace with Russia fast and close the Polish part before anyone else recovers and then get Arvid Horn as prime minister and sit out all major wars.

Yes, I know the War of Spanish Succession and according to my information the Ottomans weren't with in belligerents, instead they were looking the possibilities for regional expansions on the Russians. So, it wasn't mandatory for the Swedes to intervene the Spanish Succession War, if making an alliance.

For not to forget the original thread, a little reminder. I tried to catch the readers attention to the point, that there was other options available for Charles as well in addition which he choose. It is contrary to the common sense to first give the enemy a deathblow and then not to complete the job - and this is exactly what Charles did, he forced Peter on his knees, but then turns his gaze on the Commonwealth, gives Peter several years, so he can surely fully recover and well drill the Russian Army. The Poltava disaster was only a matter of time after that decision. What if Stalin would have done the same when Germany was collapsing in World War II? Suddenly the Red Army would have made a full turn at the gates of Berlin and the Germans could have complete the research of the secret/wonder weapons and then strike back?

After Charles decisions Sweden had already lost the Great Northern War, because after the year 1700-1701 it wasn't anymore possible to defeat the Russians. As a matter of fact the Swedish Russian invasion in 1708 was Charles third crucial mistake. The Carolean Army was already weakened in the Commonwealth campaign and there weren't enough of resources to cover the losses in manpower and material. After the hard winter 1708-1709 the Carolean Army had shrunk to half of its strenght and it was suffering from the lack of supplies and famine. The foolhardy assault on the Russian lines can be compared to the Pickett's Charge in Gettysburg 1863. Like it happened to the Confederate, the Swedish war effort never recovered the Poltava disaster militarily or phsychologically.
 
Yes, I know the War of Spanish Succession and according to my information the Ottomans weren't with in belligerents, instead they were looking the possibilities for regional expansions on the Russians. So, it wasn't mandatory for the Swedes to intervene the Spanish Succession War, if making an alliance.

For not to forget the original thread, a little reminder. I tried to catch the readers attention to the point, that there was other options available for Charles as well in addition which he choose. It is contrary to the common sense to first give the enemy a deathblow and then not to complete the job - and this is exactly what Charles did, he forced Peter on his knees, but then turns his gaze on the Commonwealth, gives Peter several years, so he can surely fully recover and well drill the Russian Army. The Poltava disaster was only a matter of time after that decision. What if Stalin would have done the same when Germany was collapsing in World War II? Suddenly the Red Army would have made a full turn at the gates of Berlin and the Germans could have complete the research of the secret/wonder weapons and then strike back?

After Charles decisions Sweden had already lost the Great Northern War, because after the year 1700-1701 it wasn't anymore possible to defeat the Russians. As a matter of fact the Swedish Russian invasion in 1708 was Charles third crucial mistake. The Carolean Army was already weakened in the Commonwealth campaign and there weren't enough of resources to cover the losses in manpower and material. After the hard winter 1708-1709 the Carolean Army had shrunk to half of its strenght and it was suffering from the lack of supplies and famine. The foolhardy assault on the Russian lines can be compared to the Pickett's Charge in Gettysburg 1863. Like it happened to the Confederate, the Swedish war effort never recovered the Poltava disaster militarily or phsychologically.

The problem Sweden had was that it needed victories like Narva and Fraustadt i.e. annihilate and numerically superior enemy army with minimal losses on their side. Just look at the Commonwealth Campaign, lots of decisive Swedish victories, but in the end it was pyrrhic, because they lost irreplacable men.

Now about Narva November 1700, decisive Swedish victory, the Russians are annilated. Because of the season there is no way that the Swedish army can move to Russia proper. That could have happened sometimes Spring/Summer 1701. What did the Swedish Army IRL in this period?
- February 1701 stopped a Russian advance south of the Lake Pskov
- July 1701 defeated a 30.000 strong Polish-Russian force near Riga

I do not see any opportunity to strike directly to Moscow because if he leaves the Polish-Saxon(and Russian) forces unmolested they are going to besiege Riga and threaten to capture the Baltic Provinces thus the Swedish Army would be cut from the supplies and will be destroyed Summer 1701 deep inside Russia.

He did the sane thing and neutralized the next imminent danger. Really the only faint option he had is to make peace with Russia ASAP and close the Polish Campaign quickly. Then the weakness of Sweden will not be uncovered for a couple of decades.
 
The problem Sweden had was that it needed victories like Narva and Fraustadt i.e. annihilate and numerically superior enemy army with minimal losses on their side. Just look at the Commonwealth Campaign, lots of decisive Swedish victories, but in the end it was pyrrhic, because they lost irreplacable men.

Now about Narva November 1700, decisive Swedish victory, the Russians are annilated. Because of the season there is no way that the Swedish army can move to Russia proper. That could have happened sometimes Spring/Summer 1701. What did the Swedish Army IRL in this period?
- February 1701 stopped a Russian advance south of the Lake Pskov
- July 1701 defeated a 30.000 strong Polish-Russian force near Riga

I do not see any opportunity to strike directly to Moscow because if he leaves the Polish-Saxon(and Russian) forces unmolested they are going to besiege Riga and threaten to capture the Baltic Provinces thus the Swedish Army would be cut from the supplies and will be destroyed Summer 1701 deep inside Russia.

He did the sane thing and neutralized the next imminent danger. Really the only faint option he had is to make peace with Russia ASAP and close the Polish Campaign quickly. Then the weakness of Sweden will not be uncovered for a couple of decades.

If the Swedish invasion of Russia would have happened 1700-1701, the circumstances for the Swedes wouldn't have been worse than they were in 1708-1709 at least. Charles was already gambling, when he decided to attack the Commonwealth and left his rear open for the Russians. So, why not to do it vice versa, it wouldn't have included any more risk to leave the rear open for Commonwealth and secure the supply with the garrisons of Riga and Narva and raiding the depo in St.Petersburgh constructions. For real Charles invaded Russia in winter 1708-1709 and it was a terrible winter, in 1700-1701 the winter was mild. Besides, Charles wouldn't have faced opposing forces, because the enemy was defeated and could not have practiced scorched earth -tactics.

In summer/autumn 1701 Charles would have found his allies from the Ottomans and the Cossacks of Ukraine. This alliance Sweden-the Ottomans-Cossacks of Ukraine could have defeated the remaining enemies, the Commonwealth and Denmark.