AHC: Paul I of Russia rules longer

Taking into an account the cozy Franco-Russian relations and the fact that Paul became a Grand Master of the Order, probably its return to the initial owner would be the most appropriate. OTOH, if we keep in mind how these things had been handled at that time, Britain could be "compensated" by receiving another island on the Med (at Ottoman expense).
Britain do not need to be compensated as, under the terms of the peace of Amiens, Malta was destined to France not England...
 
One thing is more or less clear: he was trying to convert Russian Empire into an orderly state which was not an easy thing to do after rather chaotic reign of his mother. Hence his succession law, reform of "Barschina" which defined that the serfs could work no more than 3 days per week on the fields of their owners (while being her to the throne he noticeably improved situation in his own estates), military reform which caused a lot of mocking but also contained quite a few positive things: improved (pretty much non-existent) discipline of the Guards, cut privileges for the generals (who predictably got unhappy), improved conditions of soldiers' life, developed strategic plan for defense of Russia, modernized artillery, etc.

So we can imagine pretty much whatever we want.
Well, considering (FWIG, anyway) that the succession law survived OTL, and that the question of serfdom in Russia is always a charged topic when thinking about what was realistically possible, looking at military reform might be the most promising place to start. Does anyone happen to know how much of the bolded above managed to continue into Alexander I's reign, or if any of these problems managed to persist in Russia's military history?
 
Well, considering (FWIG, anyway) that the succession law survived OTL, and that the question of serfdom in Russia is always a charged topic when thinking about what was realistically possible, looking at military reform might be the most promising place to start. Does anyone happen to know how much of the bolded above managed to continue into Alexander I's reign, or if any of these problems managed to persist in Russia's military history?

To the best of my knowledge:

(a) The Guards became the most/best drilled (as far as parade ground is involved) part of the Russian army all the way to the end. Couple examples. 1st, it was recorded by Lev Tolstoy that the Guards marched in a parade ground fashion all the way from St-Petersburg to Austerlitz (all questions to Lev Tolstoy ;)). 2nd, an anecdote from the reign of Nicholas I. He was reviewing a honor guard assembled to met the King of Prussia. Everything was seemingly perfect but he went away unhappy. His aid asked: "What happened, Your Majesty? Are they breathing?" and got an answer "Yes, they are, scumbags!" Anyway, whatever was an army drill during Paul's reign, it was seemingly peanuts comparing "developments" during his 2 sons reigns.

(b) Soldiers' food noticeably improved during Paul's reign (and he was quite liked by the ranks) but situation was at least somewhat deteriorating at least by the time of Nicholas I (Russia was in a sever financial crisis).

(c) Development of the strategic plans kept going on during Alexander's reign and into the modern times. In 1812 Russian armies had been positioned according to plan offered by general Phul (sp) and then with a great difficulty extricated themselves out of a potential death trap.

(d) Modernization of artillery and its organization continued during the reign of Alexander with Arakcheev and Yermolov playing important roles.

(e) Not sure about the generals but it seems that various types of their compensation were better defined than in the time of Catherine (not that difficult). However, it seems that by the time of the RJW things were getting out of control again (and we know the results).
 
It really depends when Paul would die. If he dies just some years later like 1803/04 there could be some minor changes during the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss but the major change would be that the Second league of neutrality would exist longer and there would be major repercussions for the attack on Copenhagen. Prussia will maybe hold Hanover longer than OTL.

If he would not die before 1805/06 Amiens would still fail ,because both parties broke the treaty left and right. Which allies Britain will find is more interesting. I think Sweden and Neaple will still ally with them ,because both Kings are idiots and the Duke of Enghien incident really pissed Gustav off. Austria would probably still join , because Napoleon broke Luneville (annexation of Genua, incorporating cisalpine republic by crowning himself King of Italy) and that pissed them off. Furthermore Franz II was a poor leader and followed the words of the war party two times OTL instead of listening to his more capable brother Charles, therefore I think they would join Britain. The biggest change I would think would be that under the pressure of both Napoleon and Paul , Friedrich Wilhelm III would crumble and take Napoleons offer of alliance for Hanover.

Following this scenario Paul dies after this war, we have a much stronger Prussia and a much weaker Austria. IF Napoleon does what he does best pissing off his allies we get a Fourth Coalition war with Prussia and Russia against France. Or Napoleon is not an ass to everyone else and we may see his dream fulfilled with an invasion of England.
 
The Guards became the most/best drilled (as far as parade ground is involved) part of the Russian army all the way to the end.

(c) Development of the strategic plans kept going on during Alexander's reign and into the modern times. In 1812 Russian armies had been positioned according to plan offered by general Phul (sp) and then with a great difficulty extricated themselves out of a potential death trap.
So it sounds like these TTL reforms will be similar to OTL.
(b) Soldiers' food noticeably improved during Paul's reign (and he was quite liked by the ranks) but situation was at least somewhat deteriorating at least by the time of Nicholas I (Russia was in a sever financial crisis).
Well, Russia’s economic situation a quarter century after a PoD that might prevent the Napoleonic Wars as OTL knows it is pretty much impossible to predict here. That said, if Paul prioritizes keeping troops feed, it might have more staying power.
(d) Modernization of artillery and its organization continued during the reign of Alexander with Arakcheev and Yermolov playing important roles.
But considering those two had fallen from grace under Paul, combined with the lack of learning experience that was Austerlitz, those reforms might actually be less effective TTL.
(e) Not sure about the generals but it seems that various types of their compensation were better defined than in the time of Catherine (not that difficult). However, it seems that by the time of the [Russo-Japanese War] things were getting out of control again (and we know the results).
Well, a century is plenty of time for an institution to decay after even the bed of reforms; so no idea here either.
It really depends when Paul would die.
That is a very good point. FWIW, I’ve been thinking in terms of Paul having a typical lifespan for a male Russian Tsar (so 48-52, or 58-62 at the very oldest), and of having his son inherit the throne at a not so atypically young age (so around 26 or 29 at the youngest).

So we’re talking summer of 1804 at the very earliest, though 1805 or 1806 would be better.
If he would not die before 1805/06 Amiens would still fail, because both parties broke the treaty left and right. Which allies Britain will find is more interesting. I think Sweden and Naples will still ally with them, because both Kings are idiots and the Duke of Enghien incident really pissed Gustav off. Austria would probably still join, because Napoleon broke Luneville (annexation of Genoa, incorporating cisalpine republic by crowning himself King of Italy) and that pissed them off. Furthermore Franz II was a poor leader and followed the words of the war party two times OTL instead of listening to his more capable brother Charles, therefore I think they would join Britain.
You make a very good point here, but I’m still not so sure that Austria is quite dumb enough to challenge France on the continent this early without Russian reinforcements, and effectively alone.*

*The one time they tried that OTL, the War of Fifth Coalition, came on the heels on years of military reform and build up by the Hapsburg monarchy; in fact, it can be said that the financial strains of said escalation were the main cause, since the alternative to defying Napoleon in 1809 (when he was already knee deep in Spain) was disarmament.
 
Top