AHC: Russia awarded all of Poland at post Napoleonic conference

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How could Russia have gotten *all* of pre partition Poland after the end of the Napoleonic Wars?

To qualify, Poland must be at least as much under Russian sovereignty as the Congress Poland kingdom of OTL was.

Might that be a plausible outcome of a Napoleonic wars where France utterly broke apart Prussia and Austria, and if they exist at the end of the war it is only thanks to Russia?
 
All of it? Because that presents a major security issue for Prussia.

images


Prussia would hate to lose West Prussia. They would have to be in a utterly terrible state and have nobody backing them, or be compensated extremely well elsewhere. Like getting the Rhineland AND All of Saxony and some other bits. Even then, West Prussia would still be a issue and likely require a steadfast alliance with Russia. And Prussia would likely want bits like Warmia in East Prussia.

Austria perhaps could be compensated with (parts of) Bavaria, to give up all of it.

But Russia is going to be in a very powerful position, distrusted by the other powers. But also it will be the only oppressor of the Polish, so there is going to be less common European agreement to keeping them down.

If it doesn't have to be at the conference, then a alt war between Russia and Prussia vs the rest could get such a situation. A alt Polish-Saxon crisis. Austria just has it's section taken, while Prussia is trading its Polish land to Russia for German lands. Maybe with Prussia in a weaker state, that Russia had to prop up for the war in part.
 
How could Russia have gotten *all* of pre partition Poland after the end of the Napoleonic Wars?

To qualify, Poland must be at least as much under Russian sovereignty as the Congress Poland kingdom of OTL was.

Might that be a plausible outcome of a Napoleonic wars where France utterly broke apart Prussia and Austria, and if they exist at the end of the war it is only thanks to Russia?

Have there not be a conference at all, but Cossaks unilaterial parading down the streets of Paris after single handedly conquering the continent. Because of Austria and Prussia are going to accept Russia sitting past their main geographic defenses and pointing a sword right at their heart than it's a case of just swapping one hegemon for another and they'll only take that deal if they have no other option.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Prussia would hate to lose West Prussia. They would have to be in a utterly terrible state and have nobody backing them, or be compensated extremely well elsewhere. Like getting the Rhineland AND All of Saxony and some other bits. Even then, West Prussia would still be a issue and likely require a steadfast alliance with Russia. And Prussia would likely want bits like Warmia in East Prussia.

How about Prussia gets to keep Warmia, and those portions of West Prussia on the right bank of the Vistula. It makes East Prussia larger while still shortening its border. Meanwhile the Russians can still consider themselves having made major gains from having practically all Poland, including Danzig, and riparian rights from the Vistula to the sea, to allow for better economic development and exploitation of the Polish provinces? Prussian compensation consists of Saxony, Rhineland-Westphalia, and other bits including Holstein-Gottorp, maybe Mecklenburg or part of it.

But Russia is going to be in a very powerful position, distrusted by the other powers. But also it will be the only oppressor of the Polish, so there is going to be less common European agreement to keeping them down.

So, others in Europe will always cheerlead for any Polish rising? And Polish exiles get as hospitable a reception in Berlin and Vienna as they did in OTL Paris and London?
 
How could Russia have gotten *all* of pre partition Poland after the end of the Napoleonic Wars?

To qualify, Poland must be at least as much under Russian sovereignty as the Congress Poland kingdom of OTL was.

Might that be a plausible outcome of a Napoleonic wars where France utterly broke apart Prussia and Austria, and if they exist at the end of the war it is only thanks to Russia?

This can be a byproduct of Franco-Russian alliance winning these wars. Wishes of Prussia and Austria do not matter and the only thing is to have a restored Polish state to be ruled by a Russian Grand Duke (as a condition for getting the Austrian and Prussian pieces). This would not be exactly “Russia” but close enough: after all Congress Poland was not under “Russian sovereignty” in the terms of being a part of the Russian empire, just had Russian sovereign.
 
This can be a byproduct of Franco-Russian alliance winning these wars. Wishes of Prussia and Austria do not matter and the only thing is to have a restored Polish state to be ruled by a Russian Grand Duke (as a condition for getting the Austrian and Prussian pieces). This would not be exactly “Russia” but close enough: after all Congress Poland was not under “Russian sovereignty” in the terms of being a part of the Russian empire, just had Russian sovereign.
How about a scenario where Tsar Paul I is not assassinated in 1801, and concludes an alliance with Napoleon Bonaparte, eventually attacking Prussia and Austria in an alternate War of the Third Coalition? Napoleon wouldn't be willing nor able to force the Russians to accept the creation of a "Duchy of Warsaw" as he would not have fought them in 1807.
It does not qualify as a post-1815 Congress of Vienna scenario, but it's the most likely set, imo.
 
Last edited:
How about a scenario where Tsar Paul I is not assassinated in 1801, and concludes an alliance with Napoleon Bonaparte, eventually attacking Prussia and Austria in an alternate War of the Third Coalition? Napoleon wouldn't be willing nor able to force the Russians to accept the creation of a "Duchy of Warsaw" as he would not have fought them in 1807.
It does not qualify as a post-1815 Congress of Vienna scenario, but it's the most likely set, imo.

This would do as well, except for the fact that, as a heir to the throne, Paul was against the Partitions and Russian 3xpansion at Polish expense. Of course, as an emperor, he may change his views. OTOH, It would be politically difficult for Nappy just to give Poland to Russia while having it as an independent state ruled by a member of the Russian imperial family could be acceptable (not that, being squeezed between France and Russia, the Poles would have too many options). Of course, that state would not include the Russian parts of the partitions.

As for the rest, your title is not exactly the same as the text of OP: “post napoeonic” implies Napoleon’s defeat while the end of Napoleonic wars allows for his victory, which would be the only plausible scenario for the Polish part of the OP.
 
Alexander I was at the same time Prussophile and quite Polonophile (these two things generally do not come toghether) but what if he was Polonophile and Prussophobe? He could thus sacrifice Prussia and make deal with Napoleon (Napoleon could dismantle Prussia, in exchange Alexander gets whole Prussian Poland). Of course it would not be popular decision and Alexander risks assassination, but...
-one tsar was assassinated recently, isn't it enough?
-Alexander's brother Constantine, next in line, was known as biggest Polonophile in Romanov Dynasty.
 
Last edited:
Alexander I was at the same time Prussophile and quite Polonophile (these two things generally do not come toghether) but what if he was Polonophile and Prussophobe? He could thus sacrifice Prussia and make deal with Napoleon (Napoleon could dismantle Prussia, in exchange Alexander gets whole Prussian Poland). Of course it would not be popular decision and Alexander risks assassination, but...
-one tsar was assassinated roku, isn't it enough?
-Alexander's brother Constantine, next in line, was known as biggest Polonophile in Romanov Dynasty.

Dismantling Prussia, especially if Russia is getting territorial gains would not produce significant negative sentiments in Russia. However, you are forgetting that on the top of everything else he was an Anglophile, which was making his sincere alliance with Nappy impossible.
 
Dismantling Prussia, especially if Russia is getting territorial gains would not produce significant negative sentiments in Russia. However, you are forgetting that on the top of everything else he was an Anglophile, which was making his sincere alliance with Nappy impossible.
So what if he was more Polonophile than Anglophile and his desire to became saviour of Poles and King of Poland prevails?
 
The key “philia” needed would be Napoleonophilia. The rest would be its byproduct. :)
If Alexander is known as Francophile/'Nappyphile' would it make any sense to assassinate tsar Paul? I don't think so.
Perhaps surviving Paul makes deal with Napoleon, dividing Europe into French and Russian spheres of influence, Kingdom of Poland is restored from Austrian and Prussian Poland (perhaps even with Prussian Silesia and Pomerania, Oder-Neisse is very practical line as border and neither Napoleon or Paul would care about historical or ethnic borders) as buffer state between French and Russian sphere, either in personal union with Russia or as Romanov secundogeniture under Constantine.
 
If Alexander is known as Francophile/'Nappyphile' would it make any sense to assassinate tsar Paul? I don't think so.
Perhaps surviving Paul makes deal with Napoleon, dividing Europe into French and Russian spheres of influence, Kingdom of Poland is restored from Austrian and Prussian Poland (perhaps even with Prussian Silesia and Pomerania, Oder-Neisse is very practical line as border and neither Napoleon or Paul would care about historical or ethnic borders) as buffer state between French and Russian sphere, either in personal union with Russia or as Romanov secundogeniture under Constantine.

With Paul the love affair with Nappy would be rather tumultuous and unpredictable while with Alexander it could be perhaps less passionate but steadier. :)

As for the sense involved, it was two-fold: 1st aspect - the British interests which in this case is not served by assassination and 2nd -Paul’s personality, which generated a lot of unhappiness (just think about the horrible idea of forcing a discipline upon the Guards!) and a sense of insecurity even among the people whom he favored (like Palen). In the area of paradeground drill Alexander was a true son of his father (even if he did change the uniforms from Prussian model) but his character was steadier. Anyway, the expectations were that he would return country to Catherine’s times (which he promised in his manifesto) - one would think that an endemic corruption and general disorder is not something to generate a nostalgia but too many people benefited from them.

On the main subject, Paul may even object to the idea as a matter of principle: he was sincerely concerned with the issues of justice, legitimacy, etc. OTOH, if handled Maltese-style with a solemn delegation calling upon his knightly nature and <whatever else> in helping to restore the unjustly destroyed Poland (does not apply to the Russian-held territories) and this call is backed by a similar message from his friend Nappy talking about the unjust Austrians (with a reminder that they behaved naughtingly and betrayed Paul’s trust) and Prussians (who could be compensated at the expense of the naughty Brits/Hanover who planned attempt upon his life) then Paul may concede to the idea and borrow one of his sons to serve as a king of Poland.

With Alexander Nappy could probably cut on demagoguery.
:)
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Would Napoleon have been willing to share any more of Europe with Russia than he did at Tilsit? How good a bargain for itself could Russia make with France?
 
Would Napoleon have been willing to share any more of Europe with Russia than he did at Tilsit? How good a bargain for itself could Russia make with France?

At Tilsit he did not do any sharing because Russia was a defeated enemy, which Nappy simply could not crush. But if from the time of the Consulate Russia is a willing ally, then we have a seriously different picture: Austria and Prussia are squeezed between two greatest continental powers which would make the 3rd and 4th coalitions extremely unlikely. Basically, the “whole Poland” question becomes relevant with a prerequisite “in a fit of a suicidal stupidity Prussia and Austria declared a war on France and Russia ...” Or Russia just remains neutral concentrating on the Ottomans and Persia.

Then Russia may end up with Grand Duke being made a king of a recreated Polish state. The only reason for such a candidacy would be a guarantee of absence of demands regarding Russian-held Polish and Lithuanian lands.

The main problem with the whole idea is that there was a distinct mutual animosity. So how and why would you put them together without problems in a foreseen future? Having them as completely independent states may be at least some kind of a solution.
 
Last edited:
I dont think Alexander cared to take west prussia, especially since the prussians were already in his pocket.
But you could have the other powers back down over the polish saxon crisis.
Many takes this to mean the prussiabs dont get the rhineland but i doubt that, they didnt get it because they wanted it they got it because the British stuck them with it.
We could later see the homeless Wettins end up on the throne of Belgium assuming that still happens.
 
So we need some trick to provoke Austria and Prussia to risk a war with Napoleon. Complicated but doable IMHO but requires more deaths and some personality changes:
-Alexander dies before Tilsit, but after Prussia is crushed.
-ITTL Constantine in addition to being Polonophile happened to be also Prussophobe and Francophile. After getting throne he abandons Prussia's case, in exchange Nappy gives him Prussia's Polish lands.
 
So we need some trick to provoke Austria and Prussia to risk a war with Napoleon. Complicated but doable IMHO but requires more deaths and some personality changes:
-Alexander dies before Tilsit, but after Prussia is crushed.
-ITTL Constantine in addition to being Polonophile happened to be also Prussophobe and Francophile. After getting throne he abandons Prussia's case, in exchange Nappy gives him Prussia's Polish lands.

You are doing “dentistry Soviet style” :). It is simple:

1. Paul lives and maintains his league of the neutral states. Russia is friendly to France but stays away from the military entanglements.
2. Brits provide enough of ££ to Austria and Prussia to convince them to start an alt-3rd Coalition. Anyway, in OTL the Prussians were delusional enough to think that they can beat Nappy on their own so this does not require the ASBs
3. Coalition is defeated and the Poles are revolting pretty much as in OTL. Nappy helps the uprising to spread to the Austrian territory.
4. Nappy declares an independent Polish state and asks his dear friend Paul if he can spare one of his brats to be a King of Poland (to assure that there are no designs regarding the Russian-held parts of the PLC). Paul, he always was sympathetic to the “Polish cause” and even released some Poles imprisoned/exiled by his mother including Kosciuszko (who he sent nice presents), agrees and Constantine is on the Polish throne.
 
Top