Towards the tail end of his reign, Emperor Paul I made a rapprochement with Napoleon Bonaparte, even going so far to plan a joint Franco-Russian invasion of India. Unfortunately for Paul I, a conspiracy of nobles and generals were dissatisfied with him, so they assassinated him. What if somebody had leaked the information, and Paul catches the assassins? How would a Franco-Russian alliance effect the Napoleonic Wars? How would the invasion of India go?
Russian Emperor Paul I not assasinated
- Thread starter Leistungsfähiger Amerikan
- Start date
I'm going to bump this since I think it's a really good POD.
It's a bit confusing reading about Paul's switching sides from being in an anti-Napoleonic alliance with the British to allying with Napoleon. This section from Wikipedia helps:
"Although by the fall of 1799 the Russo-Austrian alliance had more or less fallen apart, Paul still cooperated willingly with the British. Together, they planned to invade the Netherlands, and through that country attack France proper. Unlike Austria, neither country had any secret territorial ambitions, they both simply sought the removal of Bonaparte.[32] The campaign started well, with an English victory in the north, but when the Russian army arrived in September, the allies found themselves faced with bad weather, poor coordination, and unexpectedly fierce resistance from the Dutch and the French, and their success evaporated.[33] As the month wore on, the weather worsened and the allies suffered more and more losses, eventually signing an armistice in October 1799.[34] The Russians suffered three-quarters of allied losses and the English left their troops on an island in the Channel after the retreat, as England did not want them on the main land.[35] This defeat and subsequent maltreating of Russian troops strained Russo-English relations, but it a definite break did not occur until later.[36] The reasons for this break are less clear and simple than those of the split with Austria, but there several key events occurred over the winter of 1799-1800 that helped: Bonaparte released 7,000 captive Russian troops that the English had refused to pay the ransom for; Paul grew closer to the Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Sweden, whose claim to neutral shipping rights offended the British; Paul had the English ambassador in St. Petersburg recalled and England did not replace him, with no clear reason given as to why; and the English, needing to choose between their two allies, chose the Austrians, who had certainly committed to fighting Napoleon to the end.[37] Finally, two events occurred in rapid succession that destroyed the alliance completely: first, in July 1800, the British seized a Danish frigate, prompting Paul to close the English trading factories in St. Petersburg as well as impound British ships and cargo; second, even though the allies resolved this crisis, Paul could not forgive the English for Admiral Nelson’s refusal to return Malta to the Order of St. John, and therefore to Paul, when the English captured it from the French in September 1800.[38] Paul’s drastic response was to seize all English vessels in Russian ports, send their crews to detention camps and take English traders hostage until he received satisfaction.[39] Over the next winter, he went further, using his new Armed Neutrality coalition with Sweden, Denmark and Prussia to prepare the Baltic against possible British attack, prevent the British from searching neutral merchant vessels, and freeze all British trade in Northern Europe.[40] As Bonaparte had already closed all of Western and Southern Europe to British trade, England, which relied heavily upon imports (especially for timber, naval products, and grain) was seriously threatened by Paul’s move and reacted fast.[41] In March 1801, the English sent a fleet to Denmark, bombarding Copenhagen and forcing them to surrender in the beginning of April.[42] This fleet then prepared to head to St. Petersburg, but by this time the conspiracy had already assassinated Paul and Alexander made peace shortly after taking the throne.[43]"
TL;DR Essentially, Anglo-Russian relations broke down over British interference with neutral shipping. Russia joined the Second League of Armed Neutrality, which Britian considered a form of alliance with France. This lead to the attack on the Danish fleet at Copenhagen, and would have continued (had Paul not been assassinated) to attack the Russian fleet in St. Petersburg. Since our POD is Paul not being assassinated, the attack on the Russian fleet would have gone ahead and firmly placed Russia in Napoleon's camp.
It's a bit confusing reading about Paul's switching sides from being in an anti-Napoleonic alliance with the British to allying with Napoleon. This section from Wikipedia helps:
"Although by the fall of 1799 the Russo-Austrian alliance had more or less fallen apart, Paul still cooperated willingly with the British. Together, they planned to invade the Netherlands, and through that country attack France proper. Unlike Austria, neither country had any secret territorial ambitions, they both simply sought the removal of Bonaparte.[32] The campaign started well, with an English victory in the north, but when the Russian army arrived in September, the allies found themselves faced with bad weather, poor coordination, and unexpectedly fierce resistance from the Dutch and the French, and their success evaporated.[33] As the month wore on, the weather worsened and the allies suffered more and more losses, eventually signing an armistice in October 1799.[34] The Russians suffered three-quarters of allied losses and the English left their troops on an island in the Channel after the retreat, as England did not want them on the main land.[35] This defeat and subsequent maltreating of Russian troops strained Russo-English relations, but it a definite break did not occur until later.[36] The reasons for this break are less clear and simple than those of the split with Austria, but there several key events occurred over the winter of 1799-1800 that helped: Bonaparte released 7,000 captive Russian troops that the English had refused to pay the ransom for; Paul grew closer to the Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Sweden, whose claim to neutral shipping rights offended the British; Paul had the English ambassador in St. Petersburg recalled and England did not replace him, with no clear reason given as to why; and the English, needing to choose between their two allies, chose the Austrians, who had certainly committed to fighting Napoleon to the end.[37] Finally, two events occurred in rapid succession that destroyed the alliance completely: first, in July 1800, the British seized a Danish frigate, prompting Paul to close the English trading factories in St. Petersburg as well as impound British ships and cargo; second, even though the allies resolved this crisis, Paul could not forgive the English for Admiral Nelson’s refusal to return Malta to the Order of St. John, and therefore to Paul, when the English captured it from the French in September 1800.[38] Paul’s drastic response was to seize all English vessels in Russian ports, send their crews to detention camps and take English traders hostage until he received satisfaction.[39] Over the next winter, he went further, using his new Armed Neutrality coalition with Sweden, Denmark and Prussia to prepare the Baltic against possible British attack, prevent the British from searching neutral merchant vessels, and freeze all British trade in Northern Europe.[40] As Bonaparte had already closed all of Western and Southern Europe to British trade, England, which relied heavily upon imports (especially for timber, naval products, and grain) was seriously threatened by Paul’s move and reacted fast.[41] In March 1801, the English sent a fleet to Denmark, bombarding Copenhagen and forcing them to surrender in the beginning of April.[42] This fleet then prepared to head to St. Petersburg, but by this time the conspiracy had already assassinated Paul and Alexander made peace shortly after taking the throne.[43]"
TL;DR Essentially, Anglo-Russian relations broke down over British interference with neutral shipping. Russia joined the Second League of Armed Neutrality, which Britian considered a form of alliance with France. This lead to the attack on the Danish fleet at Copenhagen, and would have continued (had Paul not been assassinated) to attack the Russian fleet in St. Petersburg. Since our POD is Paul not being assassinated, the attack on the Russian fleet would have gone ahead and firmly placed Russia in Napoleon's camp.
Last edited:
Also, a more specific POD could be that Peter Ludwig von der Pahlen has a change of heart when Paul I shows favor on him. Deciding that his job is secure, he turns in the other plotters for more goodwill from the Emperor.
Also, here is more info on the actual Indian March:
"The secret plan of the expedition, as preserved in the Russian archives, envisaged the joint operations of two infantry corps, one French (with artillery support) and one Russian. Each infantry corps had 35,000 men, the total force thus containing 70,000 men, plus artillery and a large contingent of Cossack cavalry.
Napoleon insisted that the command of the French corps be entrusted to General André Masséna. The route of advance schedule for the French corps started in May 1801 via the Danube and the Black Sea through southern Russia via Taganrog, Tsaritsyn, and Astrakhan.
At the Volga estuary, the French were supposed to be joined by Russian forces. Then the joint Russo-French corps was to cross the Caspian Sea and land at the Iranian port of Astrabad. The whole trip from France to Astrabad was calculated to take eighty days. Further advance would take another fifty days via Herat and Kandahar before reaching the main areas of India in September of the same year. The Indian March was designed to look very much like Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, with engineers, painters and scientists taking part. Also meticulously devised (one can see in it Paul's passion for details) was the public relations side of the Indian expedition. For example, the instructions for trade with the local peoples included the recommendation to sell the cloths "of the colorings most liked by the Asians". The expeditionary force was to have in stock a reserve of fireworks for festive illuminations. In January 1801, the Don Cossack ataman Vasily Orlov received orders for his cavalry force to march toward India. The route of advance schedule was to reach the steppe fort of Orenburg in a month, and from there to move via Bukhara and Khiva to the Indus River. Soon after receiving these orders, the 20,000-strong Cossack force started for the Kazakh steppes.
In his book about the Great Game, Peter Hopkirk narrates that Paul had not been able to obtain a detailed map of India until the Cossacks' departure from Orenburg. He quotes the Tsar as instructing Orlov: "My maps only go as far as Khiva and the River Oxus. Beyond these points it is your affair to gain information about the possessions of the English, and the condition of the native population subject to their rule".[1]
When Orlov's modest Cossack contingent advanced as far south as the Aral Sea, they received intelligence of the Emperor's assassination. The Indian March was brought to a halt, and before long the Cossacks were commanded to retreat. It is tempting to speculate that the Pahlen plot was triggered by the Indian adventure, given that the high-placed Russian officials did not approve of it and their conspiracy was financed by British diplomacy. There is no evidence to confirm this conjecture."
I know very little of Central Asian and Indian History; it seems to me that this expedition could go either disastrously or fantastically. If they succeed in starting an Indian revolt, we may have a good Napoleonic Victory POD.
Also, here is more info on the actual Indian March:
"The secret plan of the expedition, as preserved in the Russian archives, envisaged the joint operations of two infantry corps, one French (with artillery support) and one Russian. Each infantry corps had 35,000 men, the total force thus containing 70,000 men, plus artillery and a large contingent of Cossack cavalry.
Napoleon insisted that the command of the French corps be entrusted to General André Masséna. The route of advance schedule for the French corps started in May 1801 via the Danube and the Black Sea through southern Russia via Taganrog, Tsaritsyn, and Astrakhan.
At the Volga estuary, the French were supposed to be joined by Russian forces. Then the joint Russo-French corps was to cross the Caspian Sea and land at the Iranian port of Astrabad. The whole trip from France to Astrabad was calculated to take eighty days. Further advance would take another fifty days via Herat and Kandahar before reaching the main areas of India in September of the same year. The Indian March was designed to look very much like Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, with engineers, painters and scientists taking part. Also meticulously devised (one can see in it Paul's passion for details) was the public relations side of the Indian expedition. For example, the instructions for trade with the local peoples included the recommendation to sell the cloths "of the colorings most liked by the Asians". The expeditionary force was to have in stock a reserve of fireworks for festive illuminations. In January 1801, the Don Cossack ataman Vasily Orlov received orders for his cavalry force to march toward India. The route of advance schedule was to reach the steppe fort of Orenburg in a month, and from there to move via Bukhara and Khiva to the Indus River. Soon after receiving these orders, the 20,000-strong Cossack force started for the Kazakh steppes.
In his book about the Great Game, Peter Hopkirk narrates that Paul had not been able to obtain a detailed map of India until the Cossacks' departure from Orenburg. He quotes the Tsar as instructing Orlov: "My maps only go as far as Khiva and the River Oxus. Beyond these points it is your affair to gain information about the possessions of the English, and the condition of the native population subject to their rule".[1]
When Orlov's modest Cossack contingent advanced as far south as the Aral Sea, they received intelligence of the Emperor's assassination. The Indian March was brought to a halt, and before long the Cossacks were commanded to retreat. It is tempting to speculate that the Pahlen plot was triggered by the Indian adventure, given that the high-placed Russian officials did not approve of it and their conspiracy was financed by British diplomacy. There is no evidence to confirm this conjecture."
I know very little of Central Asian and Indian History; it seems to me that this expedition could go either disastrously or fantastically. If they succeed in starting an Indian revolt, we may have a good Napoleonic Victory POD.
Hmm, at what point does it become rude to bump your own thread. Well, it's not a pointless bump if I contribute---timeline!!
March 1801:
-Peter Ludwig has a change of heart when Paul I shows a liking for him. He turns in the rest of the conspirators, claiming he participated in it for the good of the Emperor.
April 1801:
-The Russian fleet is attacked in St. Petersburg by a British fleet. The Russian fleet is badly damaged, and almost totally destroyed. Anti-British sentiment in Russia skyrockets.
September 1801:
-The Indian Expedition reaches the North British India. Despite losing men and material in the long journey, the expedition has initial success in British India.
Napoleon decides against sending an expedition to Haiti due to the continuing campaigning against the British.
I'll go more into detail later.
March 1801:
-Peter Ludwig has a change of heart when Paul I shows a liking for him. He turns in the rest of the conspirators, claiming he participated in it for the good of the Emperor.
April 1801:
-The Russian fleet is attacked in St. Petersburg by a British fleet. The Russian fleet is badly damaged, and almost totally destroyed. Anti-British sentiment in Russia skyrockets.
September 1801:
-The Indian Expedition reaches the North British India. Despite losing men and material in the long journey, the expedition has initial success in British India.
Napoleon decides against sending an expedition to Haiti due to the continuing campaigning against the British.
I'll go more into detail later.
Better timeline:
January 1801:
-A 20,000 strong Russian force is order to march South into India through Kazakh Steppes by Czar Paul.
February 1801:
-Austria, lacking support, signs the Treaty of Luneville with France, ending war.
March 1801:
-Peter Ludwig has a change of heart when Paul I shows a liking for him. He turns in the rest of the conspirators, claiming he participated in it for the good of the Emperor. Emperor Paul doesn't trust Ludwig however, and has him sent to the far East. The Russian force passes the Aral Sea.
April 1801:
-Battle of Copenhagen. A British fleet attacks and destroys the Danish fleet, earning the ire of the Second League of Neutrality. The British fleet coninues into the Baltic, where it attacks the Russian. The Russian fleet is also badly damaged, and almost totally destroyed. Anti-British sentiment in Russia rises, with support soldifying behind Paul I for war with Britain.
May 1801:
-Britain moves for preliminary peace proposals with France.
June 1801:
-The French Expedition to India departs France. It heads for Russia via the Black Sea. The initial Russian force to India becomes delayed when it becomes lost in Central Asia.
July 1801:
-France wins the Agleciras in the Mediterranean Sea. The French Indian Expedition meets with Russian troops at the Vogla estuary. The British receive intelligence of the expedition and begin plans to reinforce India.
August 1801:
-The initial Russian force reaches Northern India and attacks British outposts. The British forces are initially successful at repelling the attacks, as the Russians fail to gain Indian support. The joint French-Russian expedition heads for the Port of Astarabad in Northern Iran.
September 1801:
-The joint French-Russian Indian Expedition reaches the North British India. Uniting with the Russian expedition already present but with dwindling supplies, tactics are switched to try and gain Indian allies.
October 1801:
-The Indian Expedition reaches Southern India. Mysore declares war on Britain. Despite reinforcements, the British face numerous defeats.
November 1801:
-With more pressure on India, the British begin serious negotiations with France.
December 1801:
-The outnumbered British are almost completely driven from India.
January 1802:
-The French and British sign the treaty of Amiens, ending the war. France's colonial Empire is restored, while the British agree to vacate Malta and Egypt. Britain also agrees to end harassment of Neutral shipping, and to a Russian 'sphere of influence' in Central Asia. While many in Britain balk at the proposals, the success of the Franco-Russian alliance makes it difficult for Britain to continue the war, especially as the peace involves the maintenance of parts of the British Empire in India.
February 1802:
- France and Russia recall the Indian Expedition. Britain vacates Malta and Egypt. Napoleon meets with Emperor Paul I, congratulating him on the victory.
January 1801:
-A 20,000 strong Russian force is order to march South into India through Kazakh Steppes by Czar Paul.
February 1801:
-Austria, lacking support, signs the Treaty of Luneville with France, ending war.
March 1801:
-Peter Ludwig has a change of heart when Paul I shows a liking for him. He turns in the rest of the conspirators, claiming he participated in it for the good of the Emperor. Emperor Paul doesn't trust Ludwig however, and has him sent to the far East. The Russian force passes the Aral Sea.
April 1801:
-Battle of Copenhagen. A British fleet attacks and destroys the Danish fleet, earning the ire of the Second League of Neutrality. The British fleet coninues into the Baltic, where it attacks the Russian. The Russian fleet is also badly damaged, and almost totally destroyed. Anti-British sentiment in Russia rises, with support soldifying behind Paul I for war with Britain.
May 1801:
-Britain moves for preliminary peace proposals with France.
June 1801:
-The French Expedition to India departs France. It heads for Russia via the Black Sea. The initial Russian force to India becomes delayed when it becomes lost in Central Asia.
July 1801:
-France wins the Agleciras in the Mediterranean Sea. The French Indian Expedition meets with Russian troops at the Vogla estuary. The British receive intelligence of the expedition and begin plans to reinforce India.
August 1801:
-The initial Russian force reaches Northern India and attacks British outposts. The British forces are initially successful at repelling the attacks, as the Russians fail to gain Indian support. The joint French-Russian expedition heads for the Port of Astarabad in Northern Iran.
September 1801:
-The joint French-Russian Indian Expedition reaches the North British India. Uniting with the Russian expedition already present but with dwindling supplies, tactics are switched to try and gain Indian allies.
October 1801:
-The Indian Expedition reaches Southern India. Mysore declares war on Britain. Despite reinforcements, the British face numerous defeats.
November 1801:
-With more pressure on India, the British begin serious negotiations with France.
December 1801:
-The outnumbered British are almost completely driven from India.
January 1802:
-The French and British sign the treaty of Amiens, ending the war. France's colonial Empire is restored, while the British agree to vacate Malta and Egypt. Britain also agrees to end harassment of Neutral shipping, and to a Russian 'sphere of influence' in Central Asia. While many in Britain balk at the proposals, the success of the Franco-Russian alliance makes it difficult for Britain to continue the war, especially as the peace involves the maintenance of parts of the British Empire in India.
February 1802:
- France and Russia recall the Indian Expedition. Britain vacates Malta and Egypt. Napoleon meets with Emperor Paul I, congratulating him on the victory.
The Idea of a french-russian alliance, thus preventing the Expedition of Napoleon of 1812 (which contributed to his downfall), is very interesting, but the expedition in India seem a bit too much successfull. I think it would be more plausible a british recognition of an extension of Russia sphere of influence in Persia and maybe free hand for them in in Central Ansia (with a quicker expansion) and Western China.
p.s. I think this expedition would be more symbolic than anything else ( just to say: we can do it).
p.s. I think this expedition would be more symbolic than anything else ( just to say: we can do it).
Last edited:
If Paul I survived, Russia and France remained in good terms and in end also allies against Britain, but i guess invasion of India was a little too ASB. Better for French and Russians if they concentrated their efforts over invasion of British islands, or to split Ottoman Empire, maybe with the Austrian help.
Thande
Donor
I don't think the India idea would ever come off. It was another one of Napoleon's loony ideas and would bog down ages before it got near India. An example of such a plan that was actually implemented in OTL is worth bringing up: Spain was originally invaded as what was seen as a trivial stepping stone to the conquest of North Africa. The result was the Peninsular War and we all know how that ended.
Faeelin
Banned
I don't think this is fair to call it one of Napoleon's loony ideas, given that the British and Russians also thought about invading India the same way again and again OTL...
The bigger problem/possibility is that if the Russians can keep the League of Northern Neutrality together, they will cut the British off from their naval supplies, with significant effects on the British fleet.
Thande
Donor
Yes, but that was decades later when both sides had actually got all the way up to Afghanistan.
Why? Not saying it would for sure, but curious. Seems plausible to me.
Can you explain that last part? I didn't know the British got their Naval supplies from the League of Neutrality.
I am surprised that it took until the 12th post on this thread for someone to bring up the elephant in the room when discussing any Russian intervention in India: Afghanistan! I am not sure of the tech level of the Pashtuns living in Southern Afghanistan/Northwest India, but I highly doubt they would let a massive cossack force march through their lands unopposed. Even passive resistance would take a toll on any invading army, since it is a long and tough trek across Afghanistan before even reaching the Hindu Kush, the only practical way to enter India without taking a detour into Tibet. Hell, the mountains themselves would pose a daunting, if not Herculean obstacle.
A cossack invasion of India may seem to bear some superficial resemblance to the Timurid and Mogul invasions, but it differs in several important respects. First, the cossacks were not true nomads by the early 19th century, they were a part of the Russian Empire's military apparatus, albeit one with special privileges. They had their own laws and villages, but they were not some horde of horsemen to be flung by the Tsar to smite his enemies like some latter day Mongol Horde. Cossacks would only be marginally more suited to conquering India than regular Russian forces. Second, the Russians were Orthodox Christians, not Muslims, which would vastly increase the hostility against them when crossing the Steppes (much of which were outside the Russian Empire at this time), and especially in Afghanistan.
That being said, I have not doubt that some cossacks (maybe 1/5 of the departing army) could have reached India from Russia though incredible and courageous feats of endurance that would no doubt pass into legend in Russia. But their would simply not be enough of them left alive for them to sweep across the subcontinent and capture Hindustan, let alone Southern India, a feat that eluded the Moguls. Mysore is a LONG way from Delhi, and there were a large number of potentially hostile powers separating the two, including the Sikhs in Punjab, and the Maratha Confederacy.
Faeelin
Banned
Oh, yes; Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic, basically. The League of armed Neutrality all put them under the control of parties that were anti-British (and at least anti-blockade), and Tsar Paul saw himself as the key protector of it.
It's a bit like the oil supply of today, although less so.
Oh you bet!
Russia was a major source of the naval supplies, along with Sweden and Finland in particular. After Russia grabbed Finland, they became a crucial piece in solving the Napoleon challenge for Britain. Luckily for them Napoleon wasn't very obliging to Alexander or his ambitions.
Leaving aside the idea of an invasion of India, what would happen after the British attack to Saint Petersburg? The Russians would have lost their fleet, so they couldn't force an "armed neutrality". But the Austrians, that would be a possible target, had already made peace with Napoleon in February. However, the Ottomans were still attacking the French in Egypt. Could they have decided for an attack against the Ottoman Empire then?
More interestingly, what would happen if they DID attack? They weakly muddled around in Finland to no particular effect in the real war of 1809, and chased down a damaged Russian 70-gun ship. Further, though Kopenhagen was an amazing success there's examples of Britain blowing it badly when dealing with coastal fortresses (ahem, Aegean Campaign).
And the Russian navy wasn't all that bad. It wasn't all that good either, but it was large and overall combat-ready unlike Kopenhagen, the first time round. Supporting Kronstadt, they could make British losses extremely costly to them and this could let France recover.
The English really were concerned about the threat of the League getting its act together after Paul's death. United, the Danish and Russian navies were a credible threat; if the other league members joined, they balance in the Baltic would not be good for Britain. Fortunately for them, the RN is the RN and a league of nations with icebound ports cannot prevent the RN from sneaking in and beating them one by one.
Last edited:
I'm not too familiar with the details of Tsar Paul's assassination but I seem to remember that his son Alexander had knowledge of the plot beforehand? If he actually did, how does Tsar Paul's survival effect Alexander and Grand Duke Konstantin?
This stuff about the League of Neutrality does make things much more interesting. To me, this POD has the interesting tidbit of the possible invasion of India(which will probably fail) but the fascinating possibility of a Franco-Russian alliance early in the Napoleonic Wars. I'm curious how the rest of the League would react---would the assault on Copenhagen and Russia send them into the Russo-French camp, or would they try to remain neutral? More importantly, if the League can put a stranglehold on British Naval supplies, would Britain seek peace? Britain sought peace by late 1801 IOTL; in this ATL, since the French have Russian allies, there are threats to India and to the logistics of the Royal Navy, I'd expect them to seek a peace and probably stick to it. The question is how long would they stick to it?