History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The Russians captured Azov and Taganrog in a war with Turkey that ended in 1700. Then they decimated the Swedish army at Poltava in 1709, thereby crippling their main enemy, and freeing the bulk of their forces for action against any enemy, including Turkey.

The Russians were "on a roll" by 1710. How and why would they lose Azov and Taganrog to Turkey so soon after winning such victories? Or did these victories make them overconfident?

Conversely, if the Turks won, it didn't seem to have done Sweden or its King, Charles XII, any good (given the ending of that war), even though they were allies of Turkey. Why is that?

share|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Peter greatly underestimated the size and speed of the Ottoman army, overestimated his chances to peel away Ottoman vassals as allies, allowed his supply lines to be disrupted, and misread the terrain and Ottoman maneuvers, bogging his forces down in a marsh.

This should have been the end of Peter the Great, but his reputation and the timidity of the Ottoman general Pasha Baltadji meant he escaped with a negotiated peace instead of capture and the complete destruction of his army.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.