DBWI: What would have happened if Russia and France had not invaded British India?

So I was doing my history work, studying the history faculty (study in Moscow by the way) and I came to the conquest of India by the forces of Paul I and Napoleon I over the forces of the British crown.

The invasion as such began in 1801, but the important thing is that, before this important maneuver, I discovered that the life of Tsar Paul was in danger on the part of certain nobles, supported by the British crown and even his own son.

Alexander I, however, learned that if the plan failed in his father's life, he would be in danger. So he did everything possible to sabotage the plot, which saved the life of Paul I and allowed the invasion of India. Alexander concealed his participation in it and was able to maintain his rights as an heir.

In a short time, the alliance between the Russian Empire and the French Empire was simmering, even today, while the British possessions fell. Now I come to my question.
What would the world be like if the invasion had not happened?
Would Paul's murder be necessary for this to happen?
Would Austria still be the German hegemon in Europe without the help of France and Russia?
What would happen to the French and Russian domains in the Middle East, Asia Minor, Central Asia and South Asia?
And how would the history of the world change?

Personally I can not imagine the world without this event, my grandfather came from the Russian possessions of northern India crossing Central Asia in the process.

-------------
OOC: the first DBWI is that if there are flaws, English is not my mother tongue.
 
Last edited:
So I was doing my history work, studying the history faculty (study in Moscow by the way) and I came to the conquest of India by the forces of Paul I and Napoleon I over the forces of the British crown.

The invasion as such began in 1801, but the important thing is that, before this important maneuver, I discovered that the life of Tsar Paul was in danger on the part of certain nobles, supported by the British crown and even his own son.

Alexander I, however, learned that if the plan failed in his father's life, he would be in danger. So he did everything possible to sabotage the plot, which saved the life of Paul I and allowed the invasion of India. Alexander concealed his participation in it and was able to maintain his rights as an heir.

In a short time, the alliance between the Russian Empire and the French Empire was simmering, even today, while the British possessions fell. Now I come to my question.
What would the world be like if the invasion had not happened?
Would Paul's murder be necessary for this to happen?
Would Austria still be the German hegemon in Europe without the help of France and Russia?
What would happen to the French and Russian domains in the Middle East, Asia Minor, Central Asia and South Asia?
And how would the history of the world change?

Personally I can not imagine the world without this event, my grandfather came from the Russian possessions of northern India crossing Central Asia in the process.

-------------
OOC: the first DBWI is that if there are flaws, English is not my mother tongue.


If invasion would not happen, Paul and Napoleon would not become a laughinstock of Europe for starting a campaign of conquest without having the maps of a conquest object which was far away from the nearest Russian border with the extensive deserts, high mountains and rather nasty natives in between. Of course, the mighty invading force (couple thousands Cossacks of Don and a single French battalion) did not get too far and turned back soon after crossing Yaik River. The only tangible result was fort Muhosransk built on the Caspian coat; later it proved to be useful as a base for the conquest of Turkestan.

Only the fact that none of them committed any serious force for this expedition helped to keep level of giggles on a controllable level domestically (in Paul’s case quite a few people who found situation funny had been sent to increase population of the Eastern Siberia). On the international scale, it was discovered that Francis II developed untypical for a Hapsburg sense of humor. Following war of 1802 dealt with that dangerous syndrome decisively: the HRE ceased to exist and Francis became emperor of Austria with the loss of Galicia to Russia, Venetia to the Kingdom of Italy, various territories to the German allies of Napoleon. Also, Bohemia had been made independent (*)

As for the British possessions in India, as it was mentioned in one of the resent threads, due to the continued losses to the diseases caused by the tropical climate and bad water the Company abandoned the whole project and, with the exception of few trading posts on the coast, evacuated the territory.

Not sure how this expedition or its absence would impact the territories in the ME and Asia Minor which were not conquered by the France and Russia until mid-XIX. I already addressed issue of the CA (Turkestan).

BTW, it is not quite clear why you called Cesarevich Alexander “Alexander I”: as everybody knows he died from before his father did from the fit of hemmhoroids (just as his grandfather did) soon after the plot was discovered. Paul was succeeded by Constantine I.

_____________________________
(*) this is added with an explicit purpose to please John Frederick Parker :))
 
Last edited:

OOC: Posts like this one are the reason why so many of the DBWI threads are failing. You are completely disregarding pretty much everything in the opening post, contradicting what the thread starter laid out, and obsessively pushing through your own narrative without care for anything else.

If you don't like the premise of a scenario or find it unrealistic, fine. Ignore the thread, then. But don't try to force the scenario in a specific direction, especially not when you contradict or ridicule what have already been written before.
 
Well, the conquest could never have happened if Russia and France hadn't (against all odds) convinced Persia to join their team, in return for support against the Durrani and the Ottomans. And conversely, without French-Russian support, the Persian Empire could not have been restored to its old borders (encompassing Mesopotamia, the Arabian coast of Persian Gulf all the way to Oman, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Rajahstan and Gujarat).

Then, when Russia decided to build naval bases in the Persian Gulf (both in Persia proper and in Arabia) as well as a Indian Ocean Fleet, that needed the building of railways across Persia (going from Turkestan and Azerbaijan to the coast), as well as shipyards on Persian (or Persian-controlled) coastal towns. Which spurred the industrial revolution in Persia.

Not to mention, I wonder if the Ottoman Empire would have survived much longer ? In the end of the 18th century, it was still considered a great power of Europe (if one in a slow decline), that was still considered a serious threat by Austria (at least). After the end of Napoleonic Wars, it was no more. Instead, we had the Austrian Empire expanding and adding even more ethnic groups to its mosaic (Serbia, Montenegro, Albania), while Russia gained new puppets in Romania and Bulgaria as well as Constantinople, and Greece became a joint puppet between Austria, Russia and France (which would allow the small country to gain the most freedom of Balkan countries, as when you have three masters you have none, really). Russia would also gobble Eastern Anatolia and Syria, France would gobble Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt and Algeria, and finally, Bonaparte would offer Libya and Tunisia to the new Italian Empire (which cemented the Bonaparte dynasty, founded by one of the brothers, as legitimate rulers of Italy who even gained colonies for the country). And of course, Persia took Mesopotamia.

Also, who would have expected the Triple Alliance to actually hold ? Historically, alliances like the Austria-France-Russia pact were always temporary and crumbled into backstab fast. There, it held. Mostly because of the UK and USA forming their own rival sphere (soon joined by the new Latin American countries, which broke free from Spain and its French patron, as well as by China, Japan and the Maratha Empire).

The first important war between the two spheres, of course, started over Latin America, as France (followed by Austria, Italy and other allies and satellites) launched an intervention to support Spain over the rebels, and the USA and UK opposed this intervention.
This led to the USA conquering Louisiana, Florida and Mexico (which was in full revolution mode at the time so as "liberators"), with British logistical and maritime support. This also led to the Monroe Doctrine, ie. no European power is allowed in the American continent, except for Britain which is the mother-country of the USA.
 
[QUOTE = "skarosianlifeform, post: 18804553, miembro: 67888"] Bueno, la conquista nunca podría haber ocurrido si Rusia y Francia hubieran convencido a Persia (a pesar de todo) a unirse a su equipo, a cambio de apoyo contra los Durrani y los otomanos Y a la inversa, sin el apoyo franco-ruso, el Imperio Persa no podría haber sido restaurado a sus antiguas fronteras (abarcando Mesopotamia, la costa árabe del Golfo Pérsico hasta Omán, Afganistán, Baluchistán, Rajahstan y Gujarat).

Luego, cuando Rusia decidió construir bases navales en el Golfo Pérsico (tanto en Persia como en Arabia), así como una flota del Océano Índico, que necesitaba la construcción de ferrocarriles a través de Persia (que iban desde Turkestan y Azerbaiyán a la costa), como así como astilleros en ciudades costeras persas (o controladas por persas). Lo que impulsó la revolución industrial en Persia.

Sin mencionar, me pregunto si el Imperio Otomano habría sobrevivido mucho más tiempo. A finales del siglo XVIII, todavía se consideraba una gran potencia de Europa (si es que estaba en un lento declive), que todavía era considerada una amenaza seria por parte de Austria (al menos). Después del final de las guerras napoleónicas, no hubo más. En cambio, tuvimos el Imperio austriaco expandiéndose y agregando aún más grupos étnicos a su mosaico (Serbia, Montenegro, Albania), mientras que Rusia ganó nuevos títeres en Rumania y Bulgaria, así como en Constantinopla.Y Grecia se convirtió en un títere conjunto entre Austria, Rusia y Francia (lo que permitiría al pequeño país obtener la mayor libertad de los países balcánicos, como cuando tienes tres maestros, en realidad no tienes ninguno). Rusia también engulliría Anatolia oriental y Siria, Francia engulliría Líbano, Palestina, Egipto y Argelia, y finalmente, Bonaparte ofrecería Libia y Túnez al nuevo Imperio italiano (que cimentó la dinastía Bonaparte, fundada por uno de los hermanos, como legítima gobernantes de Italia que incluso ganaron colonias para el país). Y, por supuesto, Persia tomó Mesopotamia.

Además, ¿quién hubiera esperado que la Triple Alianza se mantuviera? Históricamente, las alianzas como el pacto Austria-Francia-Rusia siempre fueron temporales y se desmoronaron rápidamente. Allí, se mantuvo. Principalmente debido a que el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos formaron su propia esfera rival (pronto se unieron los nuevos países latinoamericanos, que se liberaron de España y su patrón francés, así como de China, Japón y el Imperio Maratha).

La primera guerra importante entre las dos esferas, por supuesto, comenzó en América Latina, cuando Francia (seguida de Austria, Italia y otros aliados y satélites) lanzó una intervención para apoyar a España sobre los rebeldes, y EE. UU. Y el Reino Unido se opusieron a esta intervención.
Esto llevó a los EE. UU. A conquistar Luisiana, Florida y México (que en ese momento se encontraba en plena revolución), con el apoyo logístico y marítimo británico. Esto también llevó a la Doctrina Monroe, es decir. no se permite el poder europeo en el continente americano, excepto en Gran Bretaña, que es la patria de los EE. UU. [/ QUOTE]

OOC: I relly like this!
 
OOC: Posts like this one are the reason why so many of the DBWI threads are failing. You are completely disregarding pretty much everything in the opening post, contradicting what the thread starter laid out, and obsessively pushing through your own narrative without care for anything else.

If you don't like the premise of a scenario or find it unrealistic, fine. Ignore the thread, then. But don't try to force the scenario in a specific direction, especially not when you contradict or ridicule what have already been written before.

Did anybody prevented you from contributing some substance to this thread instead of doing pointless lecturing?

BTW, author of the original post liked my comments.
 
Did anybody prevented you from contributing some substance to this thread instead of doing pointless lecturing?

BTW, author of the original post liked my comments.

It's not "pointless lecturing", it's legitimate criticism of your behaviour.

What you were doing was trying to push your own story while completely ignoring the original post. And by doing so, you are spoiling the fun for people who would otherwise enjoy participating in threads like this one.

That you now react so aggressively to a post of mine that in no way was meant malicious is, to be quite frank, stubborn, arrogant and just plain rude.
 
It's not "pointless lecturing", it's legitimate criticism of your behaviour.

What you were doing was trying to push your own story while completely ignoring the original post. And by doing so, you are spoiling the fun for people who would otherwise enjoy participating in threads like this one.

That you now react so aggressively to a post of mine that in no way was meant malicious is, to be quite frank, stubborn, arrogant and just plain rude.

Repeating the same stuff about ignoring the OP is pointless because I did ignore it but as far as enjoying participation is involved, so far you contributed zero context to the thread. You don’t like what I posted, it is your right. Post something that you think is appropriate and the thread will continue your way.

And, BTW, it is you who is being aggressive: I did not call you names. Please, watch your language.
 
Repeating the same stuff about ignoring the OP is pointless because I did ignore it but as far as enjoying participation is involved, so far you contributed zero context to the thread. You don’t like what I posted, it is your right. Post something that you think is appropriate and the thread will continue your way.
But that's the point, it's not about "continuing the thread my way"; these threads are meant as collaborative efforts, where multiple posters slowly create a story organically.

And, BTW, it is you who is being aggressive: I did not call you names. Please, watch your language.
Excuse me, but where exactly did I call you names? I indeed criticised your behaviour, but I did so without any name-calling.

You don't have to take my (well-meant!) advice. You don't want it anyway, it seems. But that doesn't mean you have to accuse me of offences I didn't commit.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
OOC: Posts like this one are the reason why so many of the DBWI threads are failing. You are completely disregarding pretty much everything in the opening post, contradicting what the thread starter laid out, and obsessively pushing through your own narrative without care for anything else.

If you don't like the premise of a scenario or find it unrealistic, fine. Ignore the thread, then. But don't try to force the scenario in a specific direction, especially not when you contradict or ridicule what have already been written before.
Bad news about DBWI - The OP is almost never in control. It is almost ALWAYS the second or third poster who controls the scenario (one reason the DBWI is, without doubt, the most difficult sort of T/L to successfully sustain).
 
Alexmillman is making the mistake of assuming that the Franco-Russian goal in India was to seize India for themselves; it wasn't, as they weren't stupid and knew that this would be unsustainable. What their expedition did do was support the Marathas, who were their allies; the Marathas were able to push the British out of India with Franco-Russian support, and, of course, eventually unify the subcontinent (except for the French and Russian treaty ports, but hey, gotta have those warm water ports). This, along with Marshall Toussaint's campaigns of liberation in the Caribbean (can you imagine if Napoleon had tried something so stupid as restoring slavery?) allowed for the eventual Franco-Russian victory over Britain.
 
This, along with Marshall Toussaint's campaigns of liberation in the Caribbean
Personally I think that this is just hype for political purposes. Yes Toussaint did deliver a resounding defeat to the British army, but he never left Hispaniola thanks to the RN. He liberated one island (abit one of the bigger ones). The British only failed to expand onto Hispaniola, they did not lose any territory. The geography of the region favoured the naval focus of the British.
 
Personally I think that this is just hype for political purposes. Yes Toussaint did deliver a resounding defeat to the British army, but he never left Hispaniola thanks to the RN. He liberated one island (abit one of the bigger ones). The British only failed to expand onto Hispaniola, they did not lose any territory. The geography of the region favoured the naval focus of the British.
Well, they didn't lose territory directly to the French, but slave revolts in Jamaica and their other colonies made them completely worthless to the British economy. Meanwhile Toussaint parried invasion after invasion while smuggling weapons out to the rebels. And of course the British had to give independence to the Kingdom of Jamaica during the Congress of Berlin.
 
Well, they didn't lose territory directly to the French, but slave revolts in Jamaica and their other colonies made them completely worthless to the British economy. Meanwhile Toussaint parried invasion after invasion while smuggling weapons out to the rebels. And of course the British had to give independence to the Kingdom of Jamaica during the Congress of Berlin.
They were not compeltly worthless to the British economy. The production of slave based goods increased in that period.
While the Kingdom of Jamaica did get nominal inderpeance, it was ruled by the King's son, a probambly slowed down the end of slavery as its law making was dominated by the landowners until its reintegration in the 1850's.
In India and Europe Napolean may have won, but the objective factors of the caribean helped the British too much.
 
Alexmillman is making the mistake of assuming that the Franco-Russian goal in India was to seize India for themselves; it wasn't, as they weren't stupid and knew that this would be unsustainable. What their expedition did do was support the Marathas, who were their allies; the Marathas were able to push the British out of India with Franco-Russian support, and, of course, eventually unify the subcontinent (except for the French and Russian treaty ports, but hey, gotta have those warm water ports).

Actually, I did not make any assumptions on the subject of expedition, just commented that it was planned without a necessary level of knowledge in the areas of geography and logistics and, as a result, proved to be impossible to accomplish: the troops turned back well before they reached subcontinent. The same was a fate of the later expedition of General Perovsky. Operation became technically possible (and do a great degree succeeded) only after the Russian conquest of Turkestan and submission of Afghanistan, which happened in the late XIX.

Even a proposed plan of marching through Persia would not work: Shah could not guarantee supplies and did not control territories on his Eastern borders (from which it was still few hundred miles to the Maratha-held territories with the British-held areas being mostly on the wrong side of them).

This was a known problem with Paul: while not being a fool, he was extremely impulsive, especially when irritated (and combination of the British-sponsored attempt of assassination and Nelson’s untimely appearance in a vicinity of Kronstadt had been quite irritating even without an issue of Malta). However, he was able to recognize that his decision was wrong and reverse it as happened with switching from the alliance with Britain and Austria to alliance with France. As soon as Indian expedition proved to be a wrong decision he went back to his earlier policy but on a greater scale: not just Russian-Swedish-Danish blockade of the British trade on the Baltics but a much greater schema involving, with Napoleon’s help, most of the continental Europe. After encountering numerous problems during the first few years (and defeat of the Austrian-Prussian coalition in the 3rd Coalition War) schema eventually proved effective enough to convince Britain that a lasting peace is a better alternative.

As for the ports, Paul was not interested in that issue because Russia did not have a merchant fleet and its navy could not get, at this time, into the Indian Ocean. The whole schema seems to be confused with the much later plans (late XIX) proposed by General Skobelev and is one of the historic legends (like lending of Alaska for 99 years): if you call monarch “the Great”, the reign should be associated with some impressive deeds, no matter how stupid and unsuccessful (like Prut Campaign, Persian expedition and Khiva expedition of Peter I or Paul’s own involvement in the 2nd Coalition). This is quite understandable, because the whole period was a subject of the numerous historical falsifications financed by pretty much all sides involved and especially by the Russian monarchy. I strongly suspect that Academic Fomenko is going to deal with this issue as soon as he is done wit the faked chronology of Europe.
 
Actually, I did not make any assumptions on the subject of expedition, just commented that it was planned without a necessary level of knowledge in the areas of geography and logistics and, as a result, proved to be impossible to accomplish: the troops turned back well before they reached subcontinent. The same was a fate of the later expedition of General Perovsky. Operation became technically possible (and do a great degree succeeded) only after the Russian conquest of Turkestan and submission of Afghanistan, which happened in the late XIX.

Even a proposed plan of marching through Persia would not work: Shah could not guarantee supplies and did not control territories on his Eastern borders (from which it was still few hundred miles to the Maratha-held territories with the British-held areas being mostly on the wrong side of them).

This was a known problem with Paul: while not being a fool, he was extremely impulsive, especially when irritated (and combination of the British-sponsored attempt of assassination and Nelson’s untimely appearance in a vicinity of Kronstadt had been quite irritating even without an issue of Malta). However, he was able to recognize that his decision was wrong and reverse it as happened with switching from the alliance with Britain and Austria to alliance with France. As soon as Indian expedition proved to be a wrong decision he went back to his earlier policy but on a greater scale: not just Russian-Swedish-Danish blockade of the British trade on the Baltics but a much greater schema involving, with Napoleon’s help, most of the continental Europe. After encountering numerous problems during the first few years (and defeat of the Austrian-Prussian coalition in the 3rd Coalition War) schema eventually proved effective enough to convince Britain that a lasting peace is a better alternative.

As for the ports, Paul was not interested in that issue because Russia did not have a merchant fleet and its navy could not get, at this time, into the Indian Ocean. The whole schema seems to be confused with the much later plans (late XIX) proposed by General Skobelev and is one of the historic legends (like lending of Alaska for 99 years): if you call monarch “the Great”, the reign should be associated with some impressive deeds, no matter how stupid and unsuccessful (like Prut Campaign, Persian expedition and Khiva expedition of Peter I or Paul’s own involvement in the 2nd Coalition). This is quite understandable, because the whole period was a subject of the numerous historical falsifications financed by pretty much all sides involved and especially by the Russian monarchy. I strongly suspect that Academic Fomenko is going to deal with this issue as soon as he is done wit the faked chronology of Europe.
Fomenko? That conspiracy theorist isn't worth the time of day. Yes, Paul pulled out of India but by the time he was doing that the Marathas were doing his job for him.
 
Fomenko? That conspiracy theorist isn't worth the time of day. Yes, Paul pulled out of India but by the time he was doing that the Marathas were doing his job for him.

To deny Fomenko authority within DBWI framework is something close to a sacrilege (*) :teary:

Well, let's separate DBWI legend from the DBWI facts. Sorry for a long-windiness.

There were 2 completely separate things.

The 1st one, usually (and quite mistakenly) referenced as "Paul's expedition to India" was a knee jerk reaction to a combination of a failed assassination and Nelson's excessive eagerness (he was openly bragging about his plans to cut down the "trunk",Paul, of the Neutrality League "tree" in which Sweden and Denmark had been just branches). While nobody denies the obvious fact that Nelson was a great naval tactician, his mental capacities in other areas were not always quite adequate (like asking the government to take care of Emma and his daughter). Surely, appearance of his squadron in the vicinity of Kronstadt was quite untimely (even if there is no indication that he was aware of the assassination plot) and request to let his squadron into the port "for resupplies" was considered as an extreme arrogance. All of the above added to Paul's earlier irritation over the issues of Malta and maltreatment of the Russian contingent involved in the British-Russian attempt to land in Holland. Of course, he freaked out and decided to do something "visible" ASAP. The most obvious (and the most foolish) action would be to order a contingent of the Cossacks of Don to start riding "toward India". This "expedition" was widely advertised in expectation (not quite unfounded) that the Brits would be reacting by sending reinforcements to the Company troops in India (even in Russia very few people knew the details of that "expedition" so the rumors were about a huge host of the Cossacks and irregular nomads, Kalmuks and Bashkirs, riding to India). Taking into an account that even in the relatively late XIX the British government had very vague idea about geography of the space between (what became by that time) Russian Empire and India in the terms of the distances, landscape and local population, it should come as not a big surprise that the bite was swallowed and, instead of strengthening the Caribbean, the troops had been sent to India. In a meantime Paul ordered to arrest all British merchant ships in the Russian ports (something like two hundreds, IIRC) and to confiscate all British goods and properties in Russia: with a hype about India, this action got a little attention.

2nd, reality. Soon after the 1st order had been issues there was a sobering up. While Paul (and Russians in general) also did not have an adequate knowledge of Afghanistan, Pamirs and other relevant details, the problems related to crossing even more or less known areas of the Turkestan (including Khiva and Bukhara) were generally recognized. It was obvious that no troops would not be able to march across couple thousand miles of a mostly hostile territory with the vast deserts and rather high mountains. OTOH, it was obvious that the Marathas could benefit from the current European expertise. They did have a lot of Sepoy troops trained by the French officers and the Brits reported that their artillery was quite good in the terms of material. However, experience of their French commanders was quite dated and the same goes for their leader, Pierre Perrone (sp) who was not eager to fight against the Brits to start with (**). The Sepoys had been trained mostly along the lines of a typical XVIII century infantry tactics with its heavy reliance on fire vs. the bayonet charge. The same goes for the artillery. While the guns had been quite good, the artillery could not maneuver on a battlefield and commanders had no idea about concentration of fire, horse artillery, etc.
It was decided to send in secret few experts with a much modern experience. Candidacy of a leader was more or less obvious: in 1798 Lieutenant colonel Yermolov was fired from the service and sent to Kostroma at the suspicion of being politically unreliable. Prior to that he distinguished himself during the Polish campaign of 1794 (under command of Suvorov), war of the 1st coalition (in Austrian army) and in the Perisan campaign of 1796. He already had a solid reputation of a very good artillery commander and extremely brave and energetic officer (had been awarded St. George of the 4th class and St. Vladimir of the 4th class). He kept professing his loyalty to Paul and was eager to take any assignment. For the infantry tactics, search for the cadres was even easier: there were plenty of junior officers and non-comms, fresh from Suvorov's campaigns in Italy and Alps and well versed in the aggressive tactics that was heavily relying upon the bayonet charges (as one of Paul's confidants, Count Arakcheev put it, "if the Austrians could learn how to fight Suvorov's way, anybody can"). So the small expedition of the future instructors had been quietly assembled and strengthened by few French officers secretly sent to Russia. They managed to travel through Persia (at peace with Russia at that time) and safely reached Marathas territory where they spent the next couple years training the local troops. The Second Anglo-Maratha War of 1803 - 06 ended as a draw with neither side making any serious territorial gains. Strategically, the Brits failed to secure Deccan Plateu and officially repudiated Treaty of Bassein. OTOH, with an exception of the tiny territory of Surat, Marathas failed to squeeze British East India Company from the territories it already controlled.
Map-of-India-1800-AD-Courtesy-peopleofindia1868.png

By a number of not quite clear political considerations (secret letters exchanged between Paul and Napoleon on that subject never had been found) the true "expedition" was kept secret while the fake Cossack "march on India" had been over-advertised thus paving the way to the numerous legends on both sides: for a while the Brits seriously believed in the Cossacks as a potential invasion force while the Russians of a "patriotic persuasion" had been engaging in all types of the fantasies all the way to the "Cossacks defeating Brits in India" (which had been routinely confusing the British government with the British East India Company and even declaring that by 1800 the whole India was British colony).

As I already mentioned, the whole period of the late XVIII - early XIX was a subject of the dedicated political propaganda with the resulting historic legends that had little contact with the reality but served to ...er... "lifting national spirit" (***)

_________________________________________
(*) Outside of DBWI universe, he is not just a "conspiracy theorist" but a complete lunatic (ditto for his co-writers). His ideas about the Russian world-wide preeminence (based mostly on the facts that name "Vladimir" means "ruler of the world" and that river Don exists both in Russia and in England) would be funny if they were not backed by a fundamental ignorance (in history, general culture, archeology, etc.) and application of the pseudo-scientific methods (AFAIK, he is a renowned mathematician). But even then his "true identities" stuff is hysterically funny.

(**) At least in OTL. When he eventually returned to France Napoleon treated him quite coldly.

(***) One of the most popular (world-wide) legends was a successful construction of Suez Canal at the order of Napoleon during his Egyptian Campaign with a following transfer of the French flotilla to the Red Sea and planned naval expedition to India which was cancelled due to the diseases in the French force. As (hopefully) everybody knows by now, after the indecisive naval battle at Abukir Bay most of the French fleet had been recalled back to France for support of never materialized attempt to land on the British soil (and idea which Napoleon always considered to be logistically absurd). Suez Canal was constructed few decades later during the reign of Napoleon II, son of Napoleon I nicknamed "Little Napoleon", when the "age of steam" made it practical. It was, indeed, used by the French-Russian expeditions of the mid-XIX for establishing the trade bases on the coast of the subcontinent (the Brits still controlled the East coast, even if with some losses to the expanding Maratha state.

Another, less popular world-wide, legend is related to the alleged Russian help to the American Revolution. The legend is based on 2 seeming unrelated facts: (1) refusal of Catherine II to send help to the Brits against the rebelling colonists and (2) Pugachev rebellion of 1762 - 69. Adherents of this theory are claiming that in 1769 Catherine II made a secret pact with the rebels leadership allowing them to escape to the East all the way to the North America, crossing Bering Strait during the winter, and picking up the Polish "rebels" cooling their heads in Siberia. Allegedly, that host of the Cossacks, Bashkirs and Poles made it all the way to the rebellious colonies (geography never was a problem for the national legends) and arrived by the early 1770's to their destination helping the rebels to win a war. (Presumably) scientific research of the legend can be found in the book "Three headed Eagle".
 
Last edited:
Top