Different Russo Turkish Wars?

What if at the Battle of Kinburn in 1787, General Suvorov was killed by Turkish fire in the Russian charge? Could this turn the tide of the battle to a Turkish victory? Even if the Russians hold Kinburn the butterflies are massive on the rest of the war.
 
Well I was hoping for a more knowledgable person to comment on it, but I'll take a crack. If Kinburn falls to the Turks, that means that the Russians probably won't attempt to take Ochakov until they can recapture Kinburn. If the Turks can hold their ground, this could lead to either a longer lasting Crimean Khanate or a far worse Russo-Turkish War.
 
I don't know much about that war or European diplomacy of the time, but I could see a surviving Turkish presence in the Crimea driving Russia and Austria closer together, possibly forming the basis for a much stronger alliance.

What would the rest of Europe and especially France's position be if the war got a lot worse?

Edit: Huge butterflies if France starts sending military advisers to help the Ottomans, only a year or two before the OTL revolution...
 
Pretty interesting. Since PLC wouldn't feel threatened on his southern border by Ottos as they did in 16/17 cent and they had mutual enemies, it wouldn't be impossible for them to form some sort of alliance ( much more direct one than Franco - Ottoman one ) in hopes of countering Austria and Russia. Ofc, the preconditions would be successful centralization of administration and military modernization efforts of the stated countries. And even if they have settled domestic difficulties their offensive efforts wouldn't be that much bigger than of their enemies. An additional ally in the form of Prussia, or even a deal with Sweden to harass somewhat northern flank of Russia in any upcoming wars could be made. Now that would be something.
 
^

At that time the PLC was already firmly a vasal state of Russia, so I don't see an independent foreign policy appearing.

And while losing Suvorov would be a big blow to the Russians, I don't think he was the only competent general they had at the time. They won wars against the Ottomans before and after Suvorov, so it's not like he was indispensible for victory.
 
^

At that time the PLC was already firmly a vasal state of Russia, so I don't see an independent foreign policy appearing.

And while losing Suvorov would be a big blow to the Russians, I don't think he was the only competent general they had at the time. They won wars against the Ottomans before and after Suvorov, so it's not like he was indispensible for victory.

No he wasn't but he was considered one of the best generals in the Russian Army. Potemkin was another great. Losing Potemkin would have to happen later but Im pretty sure the Russians would attempt to retake Kinburn.
 
And while losing Suvorov would be a big blow to the Russians, I don't think he was the only competent general they had at the time. They won wars against the Ottomans before and after Suvorov, so it's not like he was indispensible for victory.

Yes, you cannot compare losing Suvorov for the Russians and losing Napoleon for the French. Suvorov was not irreplaceable, Napoleon probably was.
 
Yes, you cannot compare losing Suvorov for the Russians and losing Napoleon for the French. Suvorov was not irreplaceable, Napoleon probably was.

While I agree that Suvorov wasn't irreplaceable but without him, Potemkin might have left his troops defensive in the Siege of Ochakov. It is said that Potemkin gave in to Suvorovs constant badgering to attack the city that lead to its fall.
 
Top