The victory at Helsingborg was only one bright star in a night of darkness. In the Baltic provinces the disasters followed close upon each other. Count Nils Stromberg, the governor-general of Livonia, was forced to surrender the town of Riga, July 1, 1710, after having fought the Russians for months with great bravery. The enemies which forced the able Stromberg to give up his cause were hunger and plagues. Not less than 40,000 Russians had lost their lives outside the walls of Riga. Within a few months Duenamuende, Pernau and Reval also surrendered. This made complete the Russian conquest of the Swedish empire in the Baltic provinces. The operations against Finland, begun earlier, were continued with success. The town and fortress of Viborg, which never had been occupied by foreign troops, were captured in June, and Kexholm in September. The country was unmercifully devastated, in spite of solemn promises to the contrary.
That under such circumstances discontent against the absolute ruler was fostered seems only natural. During the first few years of the Carolinian campaign the noise of the great victories was stronger than the voices of discontent and complaint. When the glorious battles were not followed by treaties of peace, the grumbling voices grew louder. The king was at first not the object of the growing discontent, but the state council, which was considered to make greater demands than were necessary. The king was supposed to fight for a righteous cause against treacherous enemies, but the truth dawned on a good many that a government invested with absolute power was the cause of the misery. The battle of Pultowa brought to a mature state the thoughts of a change in the constitution, thoughts which for years had occupied the ablest men of the country. The double government was to a great extent responsible for the bad state of affairs. The king tried to rule with absolute power from his headquarters in Saxony, Poland and the Ukraine, with Piper as his adviser. At home the state council held the reins of government and sometimes acted in direct opposition to the instructions or intentions of the king. Charles XII. was very jealous of his power, and the state council, foremost in which were a few men of the very highest ability, like Count Arvid Horn, was on this account sometimes unable to carry out its best endeavors. Charles by his methods brought confusion and uncertainty into the deliberations and acts of the government, injuring the commonwealth and the principles of an absolute monarchy as well. The king was not able to supervise the details of his administration, and unrighteous officers profited thereby, by their unlawful collections of taxes, causing open revolts of the suffering population in various parts of the country.