WI : Paul I of Russia isn't assassinated
- Thread starter Yorel
- Start date
An happy napoleon smiling on french-dominated germany.
That, or UK forced to restore malta independence by Paul pressions.
Anyway, whithou Tsar Alexander I really doubt Russia would intervene in europe as OTL
would Paul insist on his ASB idea of invading india?
That, or UK forced to restore malta independence by Paul pressions.
Anyway, whithou Tsar Alexander I really doubt Russia would intervene in europe as OTL
would Paul insist on his ASB idea of invading india?
Wolfpaw
Banned
I think it's actually quite possible. Napoleon was always looking for a way to seize India from the British. IIRC, it was actually the long-term goal of the Egyptian Campaign. Anyways, if Russia and France aren't antagonizing each other in Europe and enjoy good relations, I could certainly see some sort of joint Franco-Russian campaign to attack British India.
As to whether or not such a campaign would be successful, well...
I think it's actually quite possible. Napoleon was always looking for a way to seize India from the British. IIRC, it was actually the long-term goal of the Egyptian Campaign. Anyways, if Russia and France aren't antagonizing each other in Europe and enjoy good relations, I could certainly see some sort of joint Franco-Russian campaign to attack British India.
As to whether or not such a campaign would be successful, well...
French declarations about india were mainly propaganda nonsense, I really doubt they would be actually carried on.
The same on the french corp Napoleon promised to Paul to aid him.
Also consider that a french campaign would focus on trying to export revolution values (pamphlets, ets) as they did in egypt.
If paul's aim was to gulp down a bit of pakistan as new oblast of the russian empire, he would not smile on such propaganda.
Thus, neither the french would want to go, nor the russian would them to come
Wolfpaw
Banned
Just because something starts out as propaganda nonsense doesn't mean it can't actually become a legitimate goal. If France is sitting pretty in Europe and Paul starts making overtures about India, who's to say Napoleon's interests won't be piqued, especially if the British are still holding out and an end doesn't seem like it's coming any time soon.
And as for any Russian fears of the French "exporting" the revolution, well, Napoleon was no dummy, and judging by how France reacted to things like "Up the Revolution!" in places like Haiti, I don't think restraint would be all that difficult to exercise. I know Haiti's a bit different, but still, France wanted colonies just as much as the next guy, and preaching equality and Enlightenment values isn't typically the best way to go about constructing empire.
I know it's a bit of a stretch (I feel like an invasion of Britain would have had to fail/never come to fruition), but given Russian and French imperial ambitions in South Asia, not to mention both understanding that the loss of India (or even having to fight a war there) would cripple Britain, it certainly is a possibility.
And as for any Russian fears of the French "exporting" the revolution, well, Napoleon was no dummy, and judging by how France reacted to things like "Up the Revolution!" in places like Haiti, I don't think restraint would be all that difficult to exercise. I know Haiti's a bit different, but still, France wanted colonies just as much as the next guy, and preaching equality and Enlightenment values isn't typically the best way to go about constructing empire.
I know it's a bit of a stretch (I feel like an invasion of Britain would have had to fail/never come to fruition), but given Russian and French imperial ambitions in South Asia, not to mention both understanding that the loss of India (or even having to fight a war there) would cripple Britain, it certainly is a possibility.
1) Are you thinking to an earlier Tilsit or to an informal agreement?
2) would the spheres of influence in europe match with those of Tilsit OTL? (Finland/Poland)
3) would those upstart colonists the other side of the ocean try to yank the tail of the british lion before 1812?
4) what about those papist irishmen
5) if it is Tilsit, do you think it could go Borodino-shaped?
2) would the spheres of influence in europe match with those of Tilsit OTL? (Finland/Poland)
3) would those upstart colonists the other side of the ocean try to yank the tail of the british lion before 1812?
4) what about those papist irishmen
5) if it is Tilsit, do you think it could go Borodino-shaped?
Originally posted by mailinutile2
Sorry to intrude, but I have some thought about the subject.
1. Some kind of formal alliance, possibly. Napoleon would have wanted it.
2. First you have to beat Austria and Prussia. With Russia's support or neutrality Napoleon can do it easier than IOTL, so there is no problem. Poland might be recreated as enlarged Duchy of Warsaw, or Kingdom of Poland: Russia doesn't give up anything it took during the partitions, but Prussia and Austria yes. Tsar Alexander defended his Prussian ally in Tilsit IOTL, but Paul wouldn't do that. Austria is beaten quicker, its position is weaker, so are its losses. Napoleon might want a loyal watchdog in the east, to keep an eye on Austria, remains of Prussia and Russia too, just in case. Paul I actually rather liked Poles (allegedly he believed Stanisław August Poniatowski, Poland's last king, was his biological father), so as long as Russia can keep all its gains he won't oppose recreation of Poland.
The question is if Prussia would have dared to mess with France in 1806 if the Russians had been at peace with Napoleon. Austria would have probably acted against France anyway in 1805 because of French policy in Italy. Prussians might be stupid enough to try anyway, but...
3. It depends on how big trouble the British get from French-Russian alliance.
4. No idea.
5.
Sorry to intrude, but I have some thought about the subject.
1. Some kind of formal alliance, possibly. Napoleon would have wanted it.
2. First you have to beat Austria and Prussia. With Russia's support or neutrality Napoleon can do it easier than IOTL, so there is no problem. Poland might be recreated as enlarged Duchy of Warsaw, or Kingdom of Poland: Russia doesn't give up anything it took during the partitions, but Prussia and Austria yes. Tsar Alexander defended his Prussian ally in Tilsit IOTL, but Paul wouldn't do that. Austria is beaten quicker, its position is weaker, so are its losses. Napoleon might want a loyal watchdog in the east, to keep an eye on Austria, remains of Prussia and Russia too, just in case. Paul I actually rather liked Poles (allegedly he believed Stanisław August Poniatowski, Poland's last king, was his biological father), so as long as Russia can keep all its gains he won't oppose recreation of Poland.
The question is if Prussia would have dared to mess with France in 1806 if the Russians had been at peace with Napoleon. Austria would have probably acted against France anyway in 1805 because of French policy in Italy. Prussians might be stupid enough to try anyway, but...
3. It depends on how big trouble the British get from French-Russian alliance.
4. No idea.
5.
Only Russia had claim on the whole Poland and on Finland as well.
And russian armies have not been beaten yet.
On the contrary, they achieved significant success in switzerland while Napoleon was touring pyramids and were recalled because Paul felt that british occupation of Malta was an offence to him as an Ospitalier Knight.
Thus I'd say russia would bargain from a better position
In the original napoleon intention I think that Austria was meant to be the french watchdog in the east (thus, marriage to Maria Luise).
If Austria and Prussia are to watched, instead, what about a marriage to a russian princess?
Did Paul have sisters/daughters available?
In any case, an enlarged Duchy of Warsaw would not be powerful enough to survive between austria, russia and prussia
IIRC Prussia at this time was trying to grab something out of the austrian collapse, thus aligning (pro tempore) with Napoleon
OTL Napoleon signed a treaty with Alexander (Tilsit) and waged war against him (Borodino). Would TTL Napoleon do the same with Paul?5) if it is Tilsit, do you think it could go Borodino-shaped?
5.
Originally posted by mailinutile2
And yes, Paul had 6 daugthers. Napoleon thought about marrying Catherine, but tsar Alexander's mother quickly married her with George of Oldenburg. At the time of Napoleon's divorce (in 1809) she was 21 years old. Theoretically Paul, if still alive, could make her marry Nappy. She had 3 children IOTL.
And I was talking about enlarged DoW, after bigger Prussian-Austrian defeat and with neutral Russia: all Polish territories previosuly occupied by Prussia and Austrai. That is Great Poland with Poznań (Posen), Masovia with Warsaw, Pomerelia with Gdańsk/Danzig, Little Poland with Cracow and Galicia with Lwów (lemburg). Quite a country, I would say. In this scenario Russia stll keeps all its gains and looses nothing.
On Finland, perhaps, on Poland no. In 1807 the Duchy of Warsaw was created mostly from territory that had been earlier occupied by Prussia, inluding Warsaw itself. Warsaw and central Poland got under Russian control after Napoleon's defeat when Kingdom of Poland (Congress Poland) was created from Duchy of Warsaw minus Great Poland and Cracow. That is why I said that creation of Duchy of Warsaw (or any other name) does not cost Russia anything
Austria can not be trusted, because Vienna is still angry over Italy and French domination in Germany. Marriage to Maria Luise happened only in 1810, after Napoleon defeated Austria. Again. At that time DoW already existed.
And yes, Paul had 6 daugthers. Napoleon thought about marrying Catherine, but tsar Alexander's mother quickly married her with George of Oldenburg. At the time of Napoleon's divorce (in 1809) she was 21 years old. Theoretically Paul, if still alive, could make her marry Nappy. She had 3 children IOTL.
And I was talking about enlarged DoW, after bigger Prussian-Austrian defeat and with neutral Russia: all Polish territories previosuly occupied by Prussia and Austrai. That is Great Poland with Poznań (Posen), Masovia with Warsaw, Pomerelia with Gdańsk/Danzig, Little Poland with Cracow and Galicia with Lwów (lemburg). Quite a country, I would say. In this scenario Russia stll keeps all its gains and looses nothing.
seraphim74 said:
Please, feel free to. As the one who posted this topic, I'd like to have as many opinion as I can.
mailinutile2 said:
Agreed : the Russian won't resurrect Poland unless they have a need for it. Same for Napoleon, even if the Poles appeal to him.
Besides, if Paul I liked the Poles as seraphim74 said, he could likely take the title "King of Poland" for himself and gives the Poles some autonomy within the Russian Empire.
mailinutile2 said:
It is not necessary for Paul I to marry one of his sister to Napoleon, at least for now : Napoleon is still married to Josephine at the time.
Now, if things go as OTL and Josephine doesn't give an heir to Napoleon while he has the feeling he needs one, he will divorce her.
On a side note, Napoleon had another candidate beside Marie Louise as his second wife : Maria Pavlona, one of Alexander I's sister and thus one of Paul I's daughter... In the end he choose Marie Louise but if he has to do the choice ITTL, he might go for Maria.
[B][B]seraphim74[/B][/B] said:
OTL, Prussia seems hesitant to go to war againt Napoleon during the campaign that ended with Austerlitz. If Russia is aligned with France, Prussia might stay out of the Napoleonic wars.
mailinutile2 said:
It's not impossible, but I don't think so : Father and Son had different opinion on Napoleon (from what I understood).
Alexander I only signed Tilsit because Napoleon had beaten him. However, he did not follow all his end of the bargain in OTL, which led to the Russian Campaign. Basically, he had signed Tilsit to give himself some time.
But Paul I seemed to view Napoleon's coming to power in France as a good thing, contrary to his son who became one of Napoleon's greatest foe.
I don't know much on Paul I (which is why I asked the question) but if he signed a treaty with Napoleon, I have the feeling he wouldn't betray Napoleon. That is if l'Empereur does not do something that lower Paul's view on him.
What about Britain? How would she view Russia's neutrality or alliance with France? As something bad I get it, but how bad?
EDIT : Sorry Seraphim74, didn't see your response while I was posting...
I agree that the personal union of the crowns of Russia and poland on the Tsar head is the neater soulution.
regarding UK: IIRC Finland is at this point is more-or-less subject to sweden.
If England is pissed by this earlier Tilsit, it could interefere in finland against Russia (sweden rights and so on).
Has the Danish fleet been Copenhagen-ized yet?
regarding UK: IIRC Finland is at this point is more-or-less subject to sweden.
If England is pissed by this earlier Tilsit, it could interefere in finland against Russia (sweden rights and so on).
Has the Danish fleet been Copenhagen-ized yet?
Originally posted by mailinutile2
That would require Russia acting AGAINST Austria and Prussia - at that time Poland was mostly under their occupation. During the partitions Russia took mostly Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (Ukraine). The core of strictly Polish provinces, like Masovia, Great and Little Poland, Pomerelia, was taken by Berlin and Vienna. If Paul wants to be crowned king of Poland, he must take at least Warsaw from Prussia and possibly Cracow from Austria.
With Paul alive situation in Europe in early 1800s is slightly different. However, Britain is still hostile to France, Prussia hates that Corsican Usurper ruling in Germany, and Austria dreams about regaining Italy. I think it is a safe bet to say that Britain organizes the Third Coalition with Prussia in place of Russia. The result is most probably Napoleon's victory, even more decisive than IOTL. At that time he and La Grande Arme were pretty much invincible. Now, Prussia and Austria get beaten, but if they ask for peace quickly enough, there migh not be Duchy of Warsaw at all. IOTL Prussians kept fighting, because they counted on Russia's help. ITTL they suffer similar defeats with no help in sight. If they surrender earlier, Napoleon doesn't have to chase them to Warsaw and he never enters Poland.
It is also possible that Paul decide to intervene to help Napoleon. THEN we can have realistic scenario in which he captures Polish lands from Prussia and Austria and either rebuilds smaller Poland (slightly bigger DoW) keeping Russian gains from partition or he simply incorporates them all into Russia.
That would require Russia acting AGAINST Austria and Prussia - at that time Poland was mostly under their occupation. During the partitions Russia took mostly Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (Ukraine). The core of strictly Polish provinces, like Masovia, Great and Little Poland, Pomerelia, was taken by Berlin and Vienna. If Paul wants to be crowned king of Poland, he must take at least Warsaw from Prussia and possibly Cracow from Austria.
With Paul alive situation in Europe in early 1800s is slightly different. However, Britain is still hostile to France, Prussia hates that Corsican Usurper ruling in Germany, and Austria dreams about regaining Italy. I think it is a safe bet to say that Britain organizes the Third Coalition with Prussia in place of Russia. The result is most probably Napoleon's victory, even more decisive than IOTL. At that time he and La Grande Arme were pretty much invincible. Now, Prussia and Austria get beaten, but if they ask for peace quickly enough, there migh not be Duchy of Warsaw at all. IOTL Prussians kept fighting, because they counted on Russia's help. ITTL they suffer similar defeats with no help in sight. If they surrender earlier, Napoleon doesn't have to chase them to Warsaw and he never enters Poland.
It is also possible that Paul decide to intervene to help Napoleon. THEN we can have realistic scenario in which he captures Polish lands from Prussia and Austria and either rebuilds smaller Poland (slightly bigger DoW) keeping Russian gains from partition or he simply incorporates them all into Russia.
mailinutile2 said:
Not yet. It happened in 1810 if i'm not wrong.
seraphim74 said:
Another scenario on Poland is that, if Prussia and Austria don't ask for peace quickly enough (as you mention), Napoleon could want to resurrect Poland to weaken his two foe.
If Russia intervened, Napoleon could gave the Polish core lands to Paul I, allowing him to crown himself King of Poland if he wishes. But if it didn't (which is as much possible as the other scenario), Napoleon would create a Kingdom of Poland as a puppet state of France. He could even strengthen his alliance with Russia by placing one of Paul I's son or someone that is trusted by both France and Russia on the throne.
The plausibility of the scenario depends on how the Third Coalition War would go on. If it's a crushing victory for France (like OTL Austerlitz or Iena-Auesterdt), Napoleon can dictate whatever he wants.
I have doubts though on the fact that this war would be decisive : with the defeat of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon only secures his Eastern Borders. He still has to deal with Britain who doesn't like him.
Considering the fact that Russia is an ally/friend, the situation in Europe for France is the following one :
-Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands are under french control
-The German Minor States and Spain (currently) are allies
-Prussia and Austria are ennemies, but they're weaken in a Third Coalition War scenario.
-Denmark and Sweden are both neutral (as usual), but Denmark tends to be friendly because Sweden tends be hostile.
-The Ottoman Empire isn't really concerned but could be hostile in case of a Franco-Russian alliance.
-Britain and Portugal are ennemies. The Portuguese however are not in a good situation as Spain is nearby and French allied (currently)
With this taken, Britain might still go for a fourth coalition, even though it will be risky. Otherwise, Napoleon is in control of Europe earlier than in OTL.
Another question is what becomes of the Franco-Russian alliance once Paul I dies. He is likely to be suceeded by his eldest son Alexander and we know how good were the relationship between him and Napoleon in OTL. Could be butterflied away by Paul I's longer reign though.
Last edited:
the second league of Armed Neutrality doesn't immediately collapse following the 1st Battle of Copenhagen...Sweden, Prussia and Russia remain allied in an effort to try and defend the interests of neutral shipping against the perceived excesses of the British Blockade, including their rights to continue trading with Imperial France.
The question you should be asking then is whether the British then continue their campaign into the Baltic after Copenhagen in an attempt to destroy the Russian and Swedish fleets.
that in itself would have far reaching consequences on the diplomatic front for Britain...they would likely end up alienated from the other maritime powers of the continent with only Austria perhaps as an eventual ally.
Sweden and Prussia may remain within the Russian Sphere and if not exactly allied with Imperial France, they could become increasingly Hostile diplomatically to Britain. If the league remains ongoing, Denmark will have another option other than the French alliance.
Prussia could find itself reigned in and avoid the fourth coalition war, or have more allies from the north perhaps...though its likely the Imperial French diplomacy with the league will be much different than that with just Prussia.
Consider those immediate effects first before looking down the road to 1810.
As an immediate effect, the Peace of Amiens probably holds a bit longer. Not only will the British have Imperial France to consider, but continuing hostility from the league should it have remained intact. Austria also is not likely to have the aid of Russia immediately, so a 3rd coalition war on OTL schedule is out as well.
Its likely that from an Anti French point of view, that Austrian diplomacy is going to be key...They won't go to war with France if they can help it with only Britain as an ally, no matter how much money London throws at them. they will want the Russians and if at all possible the Prussians on side That means working to ameliorate the differences between the league members and Britain first and then getting L'Emporeur to over step himself with respect to the league souring any goodwill that may have existed. If anyone can pull it off its likely Metternich but its likely to be tough even for him...
So question if the peace of Amiens or Luneville were to hold on the continent could Imp. France succeed against a grand coalition of Austria/Prussia/Russia/ Sweden and Denmark, financed liberally by London with only the Italian allies and the ambivalence of Spain/ say 1808 or '09
something else to consider... the murder of the duc d'Enghien, how does Paul react.
Last edited:
Badly.
Possibly, even Worse.
If he were at peace, we would see public mourning in St Peterbug for the murdered duke, denounce of the treaty with France.
Thus all boils down to the question: is a Russian army marching in northern Pakistan at this time?
[B]AuroraBorealis[/B] said:
I don't see the British risking to turn all the league of Armed Neutrality against them : would be too much counter-productive for them.
They want the French and Napoleon to go down but are they really going to risk their reputation and probably more for that?
As for the league of Armed Neutrality, the French and Napoleon had a skilled politician in Talleyrand. His loyalty to Napoleon is really low but he could make sure the league stays Neutral. And that's what Napoleon will want him to do as it will give him an advantage over Britain.
Interesting question is : What does Britain if Russia, Prussia, Sweden and Denmark remain Neutral? They can only count on Portugal and Austria to fight against France.
[B]AuroraBorealis[/B] said:
Metternich is likely to try the Policy you mention so that Napoleon overstep himself. Napoleon's not an imbecile but I admit he has a bad temper.
However, as I mentionned above, Napoleon has Talleyrand on his side. I don't know how the political duel between Talleyrand and Meternich would end up, but it's quite likely to be interesting as the prize is the alliance/neutrality or hostilness of the league towards France.
[B]AuroraBorealis[/B] said:
"Impossible n'est pas Français" as said Napoleon
.Seriously, it would be a huge challenge for l'Empereur but he can overcome it. They're won't have been a single war between 1801 and 1808/9 in this scenario : France will still have many of its veterans. And while it's true that he won't have fought many wars, let's not forget that Napoleon was a Tactical genius.
mailinutile2 said:
True : this was one of Napoleon's mistakes as it shocked many of the European monarchs. Paul would probably not be an exception.
mailinutile2 said:
Not so sure. I don't really know how close the Tsar was to the duke. And even then, I don't recall something similar happening in Europe when Enghein was murdered (but I don't know all the details on this affair).
Paul I might be saddened by the Duke's execution and his opinion on Napoleon might lower a bit because of it. But I don't if he would be going as far as to denounce the treaty with France.
So he reacts much as Gustav IV, though not quite as devil incarnate for Napoleon.
I don't see the British risking to turn all the league of Armed Neutrality against them : would be too much counter-productive for them.
They want the French and Napoleon to go down but are they really going to risk their reputation and probably more for that?
As for the league of Armed Neutrality, the French and Napoleon had a skilled politician in Talleyrand. His loyalty to Napoleon is really low but he could make sure the league stays Neutral. And that's what Napoleon will want him to do as it will give him an advantage over Britain.
Interesting question is : What does Britain if Russia, Prussia, Sweden and Denmark remain Neutral? They can only count on Portugal and Austria to fight against France.
Metternich is likely to try the Policy you mention so that Napoleon overstep himself. Napoleon's not an imbecile but I admit he has a bad temper.
However, as I mentionned above, Napoleon has Talleyrand on his side. I don't know how the political duel between Talleyrand and Meternich would end up, but it's quite likely to be interesting as the prize is the alliance/neutrality or hostilness of the league towards France.
"Impossible n'est pas Français" as said Napoleon
Seriously, it would be a huge challenge for l'Empereur but he can overcome it. They're won't have been a single war between 1801 and 1808/9 in this scenario : France will still have many of its veterans. And while it's true that he won't have fought many wars, let's not forget that Napoleon was a Tactical genius.
True : this was one of Napoleon's mistakes as it shocked many of the European monarchs. Paul would probably not be an exception.
Not so sure. I don't really know how close the Tsar was to the duke. And even then, I don't recall something similar happening in Europe when Enghein was murdered (but I don't know all the details on this affair).
Paul I might be saddened by the Duke's execution and his opinion on Napoleon might lower a bit because of it. But I don't if he would be going as far as to denounce the treaty with France.
Well lets see.. the Br initially saw the league as in the Fr. interest, its why Parker and Nelson sailed for the Baltic in the first place...to break the league.
after 1st Copenhagen, they did sail for Karlskrona but did not engage the Swedes and thence on to Reval only to find that the Russians were massed at Kronstadt and that a change in Russian policy was in the offing with the ascension of Alexander. Since that hasn't occurred I'm pretty sure there would be an engagement in the Gulf of Finland or off Kronstadt. A sound defeat for the Russians will not go down well but it will take the wind from the sails of the league. If the Russians win or are able to force even the A withdrawal then the the league gains new life,, and the Swedes may even engage the picket of Karlskrona if those few British sentries manage to stay around. Undoubtably the Danes will be brought back in in short order a well. they still have the bulk of their Fleet intact.
In re reading the events leading to the 3rd coalition... French invasion of Haiti, British failure to withdraw from Malta etc. It seems that Amiens will probably still fail, though i have to ask, are the British likely to declare war on France and their Spanish allies ( forgot about San Ildefonso earlier) If they face concerted hostility and opposition from the league...has the British Baltic adventure been enough to push the league into an outright French alliance. I suppose it really depends on how things go off Kronstadt. A combined League, French and Spanish Naval force is going to be more than enough to give even the RN bed spins. What did I read...127 ships of the line in the combined league navies of Den-Norway/Sweden and Russia.
Does anyone have a sense of how large the Parker/Nelson fleet was and what the Russians would have amassed at Kronstadt.
That' what the Tsar actually did OTL (court mourning at St. petersburgh, break of relations with france)