Charles Xii Of Sweden Puns

Let’s say that in some way, Frederick The Great had managed to get his hand on a time travel machine and went back some 50 years back, and was facing the Swedes led by Charles XII.

For the sake of not giving either side an advantage, this battle is on a completely flat, grass plane, and each have somewhere around 20,000 men.

Who do you think would win?

Charles XII: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_XII_of_Sweden

Frederick II (also know as the Great): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great

" Exceptional for abstaining from alcohol and sex, he felt most comfortable during warfare. Contemporaries report of his seemingly inhuman tolerance for pain and his utter lack of emotion. His brilliant campaigning and startling victories brought his country to the pinnacle of her prestige and power, although the Great Northern War resulted in Sweden's defeat and the end of her empire within years of his own death. " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_XII_of_Sweden#Legacy

While many other Kings and leaders of his time would indulge in lusts and desires, Charles XII deemed Sweden's victory to be the most important priority. He completely dedicated himself to this and said he would only marry after this was achieved. Could this have contributed to his successes? I believe so.

Saw this video about the great northern war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCTohrWP-Lo&list=PLjLK2cYtt-VCNNtfD06zOlwOFkP-r64fT&index=2

Seems pretty legit, but i cant find any reference on the fact that the king himself actually did this.

I mean it wouldnt be out of this persons character to do something like this, he did have huge balls, sometimes to the detriment of his troops.

But since i cant find any referance on it i wonder if its just a propaganda sceme from the king and his entorages part.

Would really like something to go on here, if you live/have lived in Krakow and is a history nerd like me, please reply.

It seems like if people knew about Tartaria for so long, they'd be trying to invade it earlier. The old StolenHistory post makes the case for Napoleon's supposed invasion of Russia being a joint attack on Tartaria, and I'm pretty sure that Operation Barbarossa was also a cover story for a joint Nazi-Soviet invasion, so it seems like the supposed Great Northern War was also the coverup of an anti-Tartarian expedition that went wrong? Surely there's no other way 200,000 losses were taken by both the Swedes and the Russians?

Your objective was to take Moscow and, IIRC, your closest territory was Latvia, which is 883km away. However, in 1709, your forces found themselves in Poltava, which is over 1,300km away. My questions are, therefore, twofold:

1. How did you lost if you apparently advanced 500km further than you intended?
2. How did you end up there if you had already passed Moscow?

So after securing the peace of Travendal from Denmark-Norway, repelling the invasion of Polish Lithuania and defeating Russia at the battle of Narva, many a diplomat and minister wrote to King Charles to sue for peace against the now defeated alliance and become an arbiter of the War Of Spanish Succession in the west. Instead he opted to resume hostilities with Polish Lithuania and attempt a conquest of Russia.

But what if Charles took this advice, got peace with the anti-Swedish alliance and became an arbitrator? Which side, Hapsburg or Bourbon Spain would he most likely have favored? How does this change the fortunes of the Swedish empire with no Great Northern War having been fought and lost? And with the new King Of Spain in their debt, what benefits would be offered to the Swedish Empire over the next century?