ITTL there is not given, that there would be unavoidable conflict between "Old Lithuanians" and "Young Lithuanians" and Polish and Lithuanian inhabitants of GDL would see themselves as part of the same nation, like Swedish and Finnish speaking Finns, although compared to Finland, there is third nation, likely going to develop separate identity (Belarussians), and ratio of Polish speakers vs Lithuanian speakers would be higher than Swedish vs Finnish in Grand Duchy of Finland, there would be areas without Lithuanian speakers, when Polish speakers would be spread over Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in some areas constituting majority (along Lithuanian-Belarussian linguistic border, where Polish served as lingua franca and was eventually adapoted by peasants, also in Białystok, if the city is still given to Russia in 1807). It could happen, that conservative aristocracy of GDL would see themselves as the only true heirs of Commonwealth, when inhabitants of Warsaw would be seen as too much "Prussianized" to claim, that they continue tradition of PLC too.
Well, I dunno, but I personally believe that Finland is a good example on how a "Congress Lithuania" without Poland in the Russian Empire would develop. After all, in Russian Finland, Swedish speakers made up a majority in parts of the country, too (Turku region), and they used to make up as much as 15% of the population - and yet, Finland didn't end up Swedish-speaking.
The presence of the Belarusians does throw an additional variable to the mix, though.
There's also one more thing to consider - since Poland is, in this scenario, an integral part of an enemy nation, Russia might actually endorse the Lithuanian National Revival, as a way to eliminate the power of the potentially traitorous Polish-Lithuanian nobility (which, as you said, could still hold ambitions of restoring the PLC). Something similar happened in Finland in OTL to eliminate Swedish influence, and while the Russians suppressed the National Revival in OTL as a result of the 1863 rebellion, they notably reacted to it less harshly than to fighting against the Polish-Lithuanian gentry.
As in "give them the Straits"?The Brits would never agree. Can't figure out why but this was one of "never ever" things for them.
I was more referring to the Danubian principalities, and some land in eastern Anatolia. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Presence of Belarusians would be very problematic for autonomous GDL in the long run, unlike Finland, GDL has large population of East Slavic Orthodox Christians, initially, just after Vienna, Tsar would not care much about this-who cared about feelings of peasants back then? But with rise of nationalism, it could happen, that it would become unnaceptable for Petersburg, that ''Papists" rule over Belarusian Orthodox Christians, who'll be seen by Russians as part of Russian nation. There would be demands by Russian nationalists to abolish autonomy.
The Danubian principalities belonged to the Ottomans and the same goes for Anatolia. IMHO the Ottomans would not be obedient enough to give them to Russia just because Congress of Vienna said so. And conquering these areas was not an easy task: the last (by that time) war ended in 1812 without Russian acquisition of any of them.
No, short of Austria graciously agreeing to cede Galicia to Russia (which was unrealistic), Poland was the only prize Alexander could realistically claim as a compensation for the Russian contribution. Of course, as was already remarked, making Polish territories into an "independent" kingdom with Alexander as a king was the most idiotic option of all possible (both by the level of resistance from other members of Congress and by the long-term consequences) but it can be argued that this was a lesser idiocy than getting Russia into all these wars with Napoleon, starting from the 3rd Coalition: what was, for example, intended Russian gain in the campaign of 1805 (Austerlitz)? Or, strictly speaking, in the campaigns of 1813 - 14? He could do quite well remaining neutral in 1805 and making peace after campaign of 1812: Russia was gaining nothing from "liberation" of Germany and, as far as the Russian grain exports to Britain were involved, immediately after Napoleon's defeat the grateful Brits introduced the corn laws (high tariffs on imported grain) which lasted well after Alexander's death.
Alexander needed to show Russia some tangible gain and Poland was the available prize. However, just adding few new governorships to the Russian empire would be much more preferable from pretty much all points of view (except for Polish one
): better administrative control, better economic ties to Russia, taxes, at least some cultural integration. Plus (cynically), it would kill (for a while) an idea of the Polish independence by denying them the national institutions and national military power. An idea that the union would work for them as well as it did with Finland was plain stupid: the Finns were grateful for getting quasi-independence 1st time in their history while the Poles had been unhappy with not being completely independent. Seemingly, it never penetrated the "national consciousness" (or whatever) that after being the staunch supporters of Napoleon they realistically could not expect ANY concessions. As a result, the whole affair started with them being moderately grumpy with the grumpiness progressively growing with any attempt to get them within a fold of the Russian politics ending up with a war which they were doomed to lose with most of what they got in Vienna.
I think the best bet is not to have a 100 days and have tensions over Poland and Saxony boil over into an actual war. If Russia and Prussia lose not only would we see a large Saxony we might also see an independent Poland, either under a Habsburg or a Polish noble. Territorially they might get their hands on bits of Lithuania but I wouldn't expect to be any large than Congress Poland.
Another possibility is for the Fifth Coalition to win, thus putting Russia on the side of still fighting Sweden and not taking part in the defeat of Napoleon. In this scenario, Prussia may join in with Britain and Austria and be rewarded; or perhaps Napoleon is killed (there was an attempt on his life in 1809) and the French army is defeated by their own infighting afterward.
Hannover getting the Rhine makes a lot of sense, too, because the British are in personal union with them; tht would please the British and also cause them to figure, "Wel, it works for us, why not for the Prussians and Poles"? Two very different creatures, but the British didn't really care about such nuances. Perhaps this would be the logical result of such an event, or similar, hapening in my "Wshington Wins at Brandywine" TL - I never did figure Europe out after 1809.
Hannover getting the Rhine makes a lot of sense, too, because the British are in personal union with them; tht would please the British and also cause them to figure, "Wel, it works for us, why not for the Prussians and Poles"? Two very different creatures, but the British didn't really care about such nuances. Perhaps this would be the logical result of such an event, or similar, hapening in my "Wshington Wins at Brandywine" TL - I never did figure Europe out after 1809.
While at some point a war had been threatened by Austria, Britain and (Bourbon) France, the chances for Russian/Prussian coalition to lose such a war had been minimal. Austria was quite vulnerable geographically (and did not have a single decent general), a chance for the French rallying behind Louis XVIII and going to one more war for the sake of Saxony was quite small (to put it mildly) and the chance for the British troops marching all the way to Eastern Germany also was not great (besides Wellington being more than a little bit overrated, the Brits did not have too many troops to start with, especially after Waterloo). With the Russian and Prussian troops already being in Germany, Austria would be forced to capitulate before getting any help (which would be hardly coming, anyway). Strictly speaking, Alexander could met the bluff and get an upper hand but he was not a bold or decisive person.
However, victory of the anti-Russian/Prussian coalition in such a war would mean a death of the very idea of having Poland as ANY kind of a state: Austria, Britain and France were for pre-Napoleonic status quo, which meant no Polish state (not to mention that the Polish close affiliation with Napoleon made them unlikely beneficiaries of post-Napoleonic settlement).
If Prussian King (who was Alexander's friend, that matters in these days) never loses his part of Poland, and gains Galizia in 1809, before Congress of Vienna, Alexander is not going to demand Poland from him, it is not Duchy of Warsaw, ruled by defeated Wettins, Prussia is ally! Why would Russia be compensated by land of other member of anti-Napoleonic coallition? Alexander is not going to restore Kingdom of Poland anyway and act as saviour of Poland, King of Prussia did it already.
I certainly understand that they would have been the underdogs but it is useful to consider that they could have won and it is certainly an option. Plus the situation in the Russian Empire is very volatile with the height of Haidamaka revolts and the Polish about to fight their war of independence.
Obviously Austria is too weak to take on either alone but, like I said, it is a possibility.
Having defeated both Prussia and Russia, whom would victorious allies give Poland? Austria would take all? Nope. In such case they would have to restore Poland.
The premise is unrealistic: Russian and Prussian troops had been on the Rhine and in Austria and, unlike Austrian troops which were all over the place, at least Russian armies had been pretty much concentrated. The British troops would not be a major factor being too few and too far, and the French were not enthusiastic about Louis XVIII and tired of war. So how exactly Russian/Prussian coalition could be defeated?
But, if we accept your premise, Britain, Austria and France had been for restoration of pre-revolutionary Europe (aka, Poland split 3 ways) and AGAINST any independent Polish entity both as a matter of principle and because the Poles had been too closely associated with Napoleon. Which means that the losing side (R&P) retains their pieces of Poland (as per 3rd Partition) but Prussia is not getting Saxony.
If you are talking about the Austro-British-French coalition, they could not win short of the ASB's intervention. The whole thing was a bluff which Alexander bought mostly due to his Anglophilia (he REALLY wanted to be liked by the Brits). In the practical terms, it is rather difficult to win when a potential enemy (Russia) has more troops on your (Austrian) territory than you do and on the top of all this there was a Prussian army strong enough to prevent any possibility of the Brits joining Austrians. France, at this specific point, would not have any enthusiasm for a new war on behalf of Louis XVIII. So what's there to consider?
You lost me completely. Which "Haidamaka revolts" in 1815? The last Haidamak revolt happened in 1768 in Poland.
Again, you are confusing me: the closest in time Polish war for independence happens only in 1830.
This is a possibility of a type favorite by the writers of fantasy books: a small bunch of the unorganized heroes takes upon a strong well-armed and well-organized enemy and wins by a pure heroism (or because the enemies just allows to kill themselves as in "Lord of the Rings" movie).
But, this aside, how Poland would benefit from a victory of the side that was adamantly against its restoration?
If somehow Anglo-Austro-French coalition won, defeated Prussia is not going to be given any land. Britain hoped, that Prussia would serve as their sword against France and Russia, having fought on Russian side against Britain, Prussians would prove that they are useless for this purpose. There would be need to create some counterbalance to Russia-restored Polish-Saxon union would be perfect.
Last edited:
Nope. Any idea of such a combination would smell of the Napoleonic times and, as such, rejected. Defeat of the Russian/Prussian coalition would mean that they are not getting what they initially wanted but even in the best case scenario the victorious side would be far away from "Napoleonic-style" victory that allowed to dictate the conditions. The fighting would be on the Rhine and in the German/Austrian lands, nothing like Jena campaign. King of Saxony was too heavily involved with Nappy to be rewarded and the Duchy of Warsaw (or its equivalent) would be a taboo. I'd say that getting back to the 3rd Partition would be the most realistic scenario, especially keeping in mind that the victors were for restoring pre-revolutionary status quo.
Depends. If Prussians decided to fight to the bitter end, they would be punished, but more likely, seeing they're not going to win, they'll simply betray Alexander to save their asses.
You keep sticking to the unrealistic scenario: in 1815 military power of Russia and Prussia was exceeding one of a potential opposition plus Russia and Prussia had a strategic advantage of having their troops within Austrian territory. Not that, in the worst possible scenario (short of ASB's intervention or Nappy being recalled to fight on the British side) would endanger Prussian asses to any noticeable degree: the "opposition", even if Austria would manage to resist for a short while, simply would not be able to get to Brandenburg. But, anyway, you keep ignoring the plain fact that in OTL the whole confrontation was about Austria, Britain and France being AGAINST the Polish statehood. In other words, in your scenario Polish chances would be lower, not higher.
They were against Polish statehood under Romanovs, they were not driven by insane anti-Polish obsession.
But, as it is not likely scenario, that coalition would crush Russians and Prussians, it doesn't really matter.
But, as it is not likely scenario, that coalition would crush Russians and Prussians, it doesn't really matter.
Crush them with what? their tattered armies and war weary populous?