PC: Polish War (in lieu of ARW or FR)

Got this idea reading through this old thread -- PoD is 1778, an American loss at Saratoga, leading to a failed ARW and a delayed French Revolution. Poland, however, still passes (a rough equivalent of) the May Constitution of 1791, prompting Russia and Prussia to move toward a Second Partition.

Only this time, France, minus the distractions of imminent financial doom or revolution, decides to throw support behind the Commonwealth, in a bid to curb Prussia; this moves Austria to back Poland as well (for similar reasons). Britain, still headstrong, moves to back their only ally on the Continent, bringing Spain in against them.

And thus you have a continental war:
Britain, Prussia, and Russia vs Austria, France, Spain, and Poland-Lithuania*

What do you think? Plausible?

*(potentially the Netherlands, some German States, and/or even Sweden)

The French financial problems were a long time in the making, but this Polish Adventure could play the role of the American Revolution and make France's financial disintegration come just a few years later than IOTL, around 1800.

Such a war sounds plausible. France's primary benefit here is power in the Germanies, as opposed to stripping Britain of North American colonies.

Any chance of Napoleon rising to a high rank in the French army TTL?

John Fredrick Parker said:

Got this idea reading through this old thread -- PoD is 1778, an American loss at Saratoga, leading to a failed ARW and a delayed French Revolution. Poland, however, still passes (a rough equivalent of) the May Constitution of 1791, prompting Russia and Prussia to move toward a Second Partition.

Only this time, France, minus the distractions of imminent financial doom or revolution, decides to throw support behind the Commonwealth, in a bid to curb Prussia; this moves Austria to back Poland as well (for similar reasons). Britain, still headstrong, moves to back their only ally on the Continent, bringing Spain in against them.

And thus you have a continental war:
Britain, Prussia, and Russia vs Austria, France, Spain, and Poland-Lithuania*

What do you think? Plausible?

*(potentially the Netherlands, some German States, and/or even Sweden)

Click to expand...

You just may have given me a war for my CNA timeline. Danke

Polish Eagle said:

Such a war sounds plausible...

Click to expand...

Splendid

Any chance of Napoleon rising to a high rank in the French army TTL?

Click to expand...

Can't see why not.

IchBinDieKaiser said:

You just may have given me a war for my CNA timeline. Danke

Click to expand...

My pleasure -- feel free to use it

Polish Eagle said:

Any chance of Napoleon rising to a high rank in the French army TTL?

Click to expand...

Because every late 18th, early 19th century TL needs an alt-Napoleon, right?

I don't mean to lash out against you specifically Polish Eagle, just the idea than any alt-French Revolution must have a Napoleonic figure rise to power, as if Napoléon I's fate wasn't the string of lucky breaks and 'right-place, right-time' moments he experienced IOTL.

wolf_brother said:

Because every late 18th, early 19th century TL needs an alt-Napoleon, right?

I don't mean to lash out against you specifically Polish Eagle, just the idea than any alt-French Revolution must have a Napoleonic figure rise to power, as if Napoléon I's fate wasn't the string of lucky breaks and 'right-place, right-time' moments he experienced IOTL.

Click to expand...

*raises hands in submission*

Hey, you try going through two years of history class under a teacher who worships the man and not thinking of him whenever the words "France" or "Revolution" are used.

I think there's a chance Sweden could join in to reestablish their influence in the Baltic.

I like Napoleon and all, but the man took a very specific set of circumstances in his rise to power.

This idea is very interesting, though.

Just one possible problem I could see, wasn't one of the main reasons for the extreme reaction to the May constitution the counter-revolutionary paranoia suffusing the Prussian and Russian courts of the time?

King Henry said:

Just one possible problem I could see, wasn't one of the main reasons for the extreme reaction to the May constitution the counter-revolutionary paranoia suffusing the Prussian and Russian courts of the time?

Click to expand...

Yes. But with Poland suddenly showing a burst of "we're not Russia's puppet" could spook Catherine.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Britain, still headstrong, moves to back their only ally on the Continent, bringing Spain in against them.

And thus you have a continental war:
Britain, Prussia, and Russia vs Austria, France, Spain, and Poland-Lithuania*

What do you think? Plausible?

*(potentially the Netherlands, some German States, and/or even Sweden)

Click to expand...

Not sure about Spain being eager to jump into a general war with Great Britain from the start. They were dealt with quite roughly by GB during the Seven Years War, and Britain's performance during the American Revolution would have shown that was capable of doing so yet again. Besides, Britain was rather lenient with Spain after the Seven Years War, especially when one considers what they could have taken from them.

Spain did not get involved in the ARW until 1779, well after France. Unless GB did very poorly in their war against France, I don't think they would immediately get involved in a war against GB.

As for GB, I have my doubts about whether or not they would be willing to go to the mattress for Prussia. This would be a continental war, the kind that British leaders had tried to avoid since the War of Spanish Succession. Prussia getting taken down a notch by France and Austria would hardly threaten GB's immediate interests, which, in the case of a failed ARW, would lie far more in the New World and India than Europe.

A failed ARW would probably get GB to focus more on retaining its colonies than fighting France. The RN would probably be strengthened after the inefficiencies it displayed during the war. A substantial number of troops would also be permanently stationed in the Colonies to keep a lid on things. Those troops stationed in the New World would be expensive to maintain, and, more importantly, over time, their capability to fight in a European War would degrade. The type of skills and habits they would acquire as American garrison and counter-insurgency troops would not be of any use fighting in Europe.

GB's politicians were simply not eager to engage in a continental war unless they were forced to by the circumstances. The Hannoverian Kings were another story, but by 1791 George III was barely recovered from his insanity, and would be in no position to sway Pitt the Younger, Charles Fox, North, or whomever was Prime Minister. Continental wars were expensive, and offered little prospect of gain. They also did not play to GB's comparative advantages over its enemies; the British Army was a fine fighting force, but it had nowhere near the necessary manpower to fight on the Continent. Neither the aristocracy nor the great merchant-traders would be willing to pay for such an army.

Well Antipater, that's certainly some cold water; much to mull over...

Assuming the British stay out from the start;

Maybe the Dutch join the war on the Russo-Prussian side, after some initial successes on their part. This prompts a Franco-Austrian invasion of the Netherlands, which is successful and occupies large parts of the Netherlands. Would the prospect of the whole of the Channel coast being under two blocs prompt a British intervention? they would see it as a useful opportunity to make the Dutch more friendly to Britain, as well as take a couple of Dutch colonies, such as Ceylon or the Cape, as payment.

I think the prospect of the Low Countries falling under a hostile power or combination of powers would be enough to prompt a British intervention.

Also, would the RN's inefficiencies be exposed by a shorter war? IIRC, it was the combat against the French navy, like the battle of the Chesapeake, that exposed these weaknesses. Without French intervention, all the RN would be doing is anti-commerce raider operations.

imperialaquila said:

Assuming the British stay out from the start;

Maybe the Dutch join the war on the Russo-Prussian side, after some initial successes on their part. This prompts a Franco-Austrian invasion of the Netherlands, which is successful and occupies large parts of the Netherlands. Would the prospect of the whole of the Channel coast being under two blocs prompt a British intervention? they would see it as a useful opportunity to make the Dutch more friendly to Britain, as well as take a couple of Dutch colonies, such as Ceylon or the Cape, as payment.

I think the prospect of the Low Countries falling under a hostile power or combination of powers would be enough to prompt a British intervention.

Also, would the RN's inefficiencies be exposed by a shorter war? IIRC, it was the combat against the French navy, like the battle of the Chesapeake, that exposed these weaknesses. Without French intervention, all the RN would be doing is anti-commerce raider operations.

Click to expand...

... Why do the Dutch join, on the Russian-Prussian alliance no less?

A failed Revolution is in my opinion a sign of things to come. The whole idea that after one revolt the American independence movement would be over is strongly utopian. The first Revolt would most likely be the first in a string.

wolf_brother said:

... Why do the Dutch join, on the Russian-Prussian alliance no less?

Click to expand...

The promise of the Southern Netherlands, as well as some French colonies? Also, IIRC, there were some dynastic links between the Dutch and the Prussians, which would help in getting friendly relations between the Dutch and Prussians.

imperialaquila said:

Assuming the British stay out from the start;

I think the prospect of the Low Countries falling under a hostile power or combination of powers would be enough to prompt a British intervention.

Also, would the RN's inefficiencies be exposed by a shorter war? IIRC, it was the combat against the French navy, like the battle of the Chesapeake, that exposed these weaknesses. Without French intervention, all the RN would be doing is anti-commerce raider operations.

Click to expand...

Completely agree with you on the first point. The French Army campaigning in the Netherlands would be the only thing guaranteeing a British declaration of war against them. However, France would know this, and there would be a good chance they would avoid going to War with the Dutch. They did this during the War of Polish Succession, and GB did not intervene against them.

However, the Dutch would have very little reason to go to war against France. The late Dutch Republic was far less martial after the death of William of Orange, and moreover, the gains to be had from going to war for Russia (protecting their Baltic Trade) would be far outweighed by the potential costs, which would include losing their East Indies trade, which were the lifeblood of Dutch commerce at the time. That would be quite likely given that the French Fleet outnumbered the Dutch Navy (really navies, as every province had their own admiralty). If Amsterdam and Rotterdam were blockaded for more than a year the entire Dutch Economy would be near collapse, and the French would be reaping a bonanza through privateering in the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean.


As for the RN, their performance from 1775-78 was rather poor, even without having to fight the French or defend the British Isles. They only had something like 40 ships-of-the-line fit for service at the start of the war, and were unable to effectively blockade the American coast, nor defend British shipping from American privateers.

The RN, nominally the strongest navy on earth was largely limited to transporting British Army troops and resupplying garrisons, and could not effectively blockade the dozen deep-water ports the Colonies was entirely dependent upon for trade. The Earl of Sandwich would probably have been relieved of his post as Lord High Admiral shortly after the war, and replaced by a more vigorous and far-sighted admiral probably would have sought correct the deficiencies that had become apparent under his predesesor. Just looking at the figures and noticing that the RN had been stretched to its limits fighting an enemy without a single ship of the line, and further noting that the French and Spanish fleets outnumbered the RN 2-1 if combined would have been quite a wake-up call.

Even without France partaking in the American Revolution, their finances were still in bad shape from the Seven Years War. They didn't intervene in the War of the Bavarian Succession because of their financial issues. Even without the American Revolutionary War (which France mostly payed for by floating loans, rather than establishing new taxes), she's not going to be in a financial situation to intervene in Poland. If she didn't intervene in the Bavarian debacle, which was in her own backyard, why would she in Poland?

Antipater said:

The RN, nominally the strongest navy on earth was largely limited to transporting British Army troops and resupplying garrisons, and could not effectively blockade the dozen deep-water ports the Colonies was entirely dependent upon for trade. The Earl of Sandwich would probably have been relieved of his post as Lord High Admiral shortly after the war, and replaced by a more vigorous and far-sighted admiral probably would have sought correct the deficiencies that had become apparent under his predesesor. Just looking at the figures and noticing that the RN had been stretched to its limits fighting an enemy without a single ship of the line, and further noting that the French and Spanish fleets outnumbered the RN 2-1 if combined would have been quite a wake-up call.

Click to expand...

Why would they dump the Earl of Sandwich so soon after successfully putting down a rebellion when they kept him the entire time they were losing it? To me, that suggests that Britain is unlikely to learn anything from a war that they win, much less one that stays this limited.

Also, thinking on your concerns over whether they'd get into the war in the first place -- hard to ignore that Britain was becoming increasingly diplomatically isolated from the continent, and that Prussia was essentially their only ally. If they abandon Fredrick William at his time of need, that could well close them out completely -- and at some level they'd have to notice that. This, combined with George III's pressure*, could at the very least plausibly entangle Britain in the conflict.

*yes he'd still be insane (though the timing of the bouts are likely butterflied), but overall he's likely still more powerful without the stain of the ARW

DrakeRlugia said:

Even without France partaking in the American Revolution, their finances were still in bad shape from the Seven Years War. They didn't intervene in the War of the Bavarian Succession because of their financial issues. Even without the American Revolutionary War (which France mostly payed for by floating loans, rather than establishing new taxes), she's not going to be in a financial situation to intervene in Poland. If she didn't intervene in the Bavarian debacle, which was in her own backyard, why would she in Poland?

Click to expand...

Technically, UIAM, she didn't intervene in Bavaria precisely because Louis was putting his bets on America. (There's also been some debate on this board as to whether France's finances were in trouble largely because of the ARW or whether it was the straw that broke the camel's back -- I myself don't know enough to really back one side.)

The situation in the Netherlands in the late 18th century was complex, to say it mildly. During these days the Dutch republic was basicly in a civil war without the war part. There were too factions fighting for dominance in the Netherlands. The Dutch stadholder and the patriot movement (basicly a combination of the rich merchants and the rising middle class). At one point the patriots had more or less won and dominated Holland and other important provinces, while the Dutch stadholder had to flee to Nijmegen. Prussian troops entered the Netherlands and put the stadholder back into power (as the stadholder was married to a relative of the Prussian king).

Basicly the situation in the Netherlands was extremely volatile. I realy don't think the Dutch would enter the war on any side. If they would enter, my best guess would be on the Prussian side, as the stadholder would support his inlaws. This would probably start the trouble with the patriots again, as they often favoured France (for some reason unclear to me). In the end I suspect the Dutch would just keep out of it.

BTW if the Dutch enter the war and fall to the French (likely as the Dutch army was crap and the navy way past theirprime), the British would enter the war and not for a price as ridiculous as the Cape colony and Ceylon, which would of course remain Dutch. Please stop trying to give both colonies to britain for the most ridiculous reasons.

^^That gives me another thought -- could civil war break in the Netherlands round this time, where Prussia (w Britain as ally) backs the Staltholder, leading France and Spain to back the republicans?