Effects of No Napoleonic Wars on Russia

Not at all related to my TL, but what would be the effect of no Napoleonic Wars for Russia? What would Tsar Alexander do? Would he even attempt expansion into the Ottoman Empire like he did IOTL, or would Britain intervene in such a timeline?

For specific timeline details, Napoleon doesn't become First Consul and the French Republic still exists. Western Europe is peaceful for the rest of the early 1800's.
 
Tsar Alexander may found an autonomous Grand Duchy of Lithuania modelled after Finland in such a scenario, it was a real proposal pushed forward by the Lithuanian nobility during 1811 and considered by him.

It's possible that the generally positive opinion on the project was nothing more than a clever ploy by Alexander to ensure the loyalty of the Lithuanian nobility in the case of a war - but, personally, I believe that he at least partially considered implementing it for real, otherwise he wouldn't have discussed the proposal with Glinski so thoroughly and even endorsed an initial write-up of a potential Lithuanian constitution.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
I understand Napoleonic Wars as being post 1804 ...
IMO not going to war against France in 1805 (and then again in 1807) should have a major impact on Russia's southern flank. It had one war there already ongoing, and another brought about by its defeat at Austerlitz.
While the 1804 Persian attack on Russia does not change versus OTL, Russia should have more forces to throw there and - not distracted by Napoleon - beats down Persia faster. The war does not last nine years - 1804-13 - but less. And Russia can score a bigger victory.
Now - the 1805-12 Turkish War. The Turks attacked because Russia moved against the France. Does this war still happen?
The 1808-09 Swedish War might be butterflied away at all. Which means that Sweden dopes not get Bernadotte dynasty.
In sum - Russia has more forces and money to throw on its flank(s). Without the distraction of the French Front the Ottomans - and Persians - might be ground down faster and further.
Result - a stronger, happier Russia. Swedish Finland? A continuing House Holstein-Gottorp Sweden?
 
What do we think the balance of alliances will look like here? Britain almost certainly has to oppose Russia, but does that move France away from the Ottomans and make them Russia's ally? It almost seems like this might push a Crimean War analogue forward a few decades.

I do agree with John Fredrick Parker that this doesn't seem like it will be great for the Ottomans either way.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
The OP mentions Tsar Alexander, at the helm from 1801 ... so IMO the French Revolutionary Wars under Pavel can be skipped.
 
Well, most people tend to use the term to describe all of those wars following the French Revolution, and the OP seems to indicate that war is averted in 1792.

Greatest apologies, I meant to intend that war is avoided post 1800. As in, no 3rd Coalition, the Peace of Amiens stays.

So, it seems like Russia gains more out of Persia, while the Russo-Turkish War of 1806 is still up to debate? Would the rest of the Great Powers even accept a war in a time of peace ITTL?
 
Culturally, the lack of a Napoleonic War could have stalled the 'nativization' of Russian culture, the process of which is described in much-more-rapid form in books like War and Peace. Granted, this nativization was happening to some degree and was exacerbated by the revulsion against the French Terror, but still the shock of the invasion caused a more dramatic move towards Russianization amongst nobility (even then, Count Nesselrode, Russian Foreign Minister 1815-1856, could not speak Russian). This itself would have had ramifications for Russia's conception of itself as defender of Orthodoxy, colonizer of the steppes, and as an 'Asiatic' force that would oppose or reform Europe (crucially, 'Asiaticism' saw Russians as more prone, if not having the 'right', to violence, which influenced the course of reform movements there.)

Politically, the admiration of Napoleonic France's vigor encouraged Alexander I's to reform Russia on Napoleonic principles, just as reaction to his invasion caused its termination. War with France also provided the opportunity for many Russian mid-level officers and aristocrats to experience the political culture of Western Europe, a catalyst for the Decembrist upheaval. A TL without Napoleon might have to take these into account.
 
Not at all related to my TL, but what would be the effect of no Napoleonic Wars for Russia? What would Tsar Alexander do? Would he even attempt expansion into the Ottoman Empire like he did IOTL, or would Britain intervene in such a timeline?

For specific timeline details, Napoleon doesn't become First Consul and the French Republic still exists. Western Europe is peaceful for the rest of the early 1800's.

How exactly the Republic exists AND at peace with everybody, especially Britain? The Austrians could be beaten into a prolonged peace or it can be assumed that, after the French are being kicked out of Italy in 1799-1800 some kind of a mutually acceptable arrangement is achieved. But the Brits are totally different story: French Republic can't do them enough harm to kick them out of the war. Not that the Republic was a peaceful state: the Directorate had no idea what to do with its armies in the case of peace and no clear plan for a peaceful existence. Wouldn't it be more realistic to assume that at least war with Britain is going on, at least formally but there is no continental enthusiasm for the anti-French coalitions (without Nappy, Austrians are back in Italy so there is no real reason for them to keep fighting)?

To start from the beginning, in OTL war of 1806 - 12 had been declared by the Ottomans encouraged by the Russian defeat at Austerlitz (and incited by Nappy). So, if there is no Nappy and Russia is not participating in the anti-French wars then there may be:

(a) No Ottoman war whatsoever.
(b) War happens by the Russian initiative and it is much shorter and ends much worse for the Ottomans. Scope of the Russian acquisitions is anybody's guess but I'd assume that they'd be mostly on the Caucasus. Perhaps declaring the Septinsular Republic completely independent from the Ottomans and its expansion all the way to Crete and perhaps even inclusion of Morea, depending on how badly the Ottomans are beaten elsewhere. If there was ever a good time for the "traditional idea" of getting the Straits, that would be it with all future problems like supplying Constantinople (renamed back from Istanbul) and maintaining enough troops and fortifications in the area. Britain would not be able to do anything significant to prevent this from happening.
250px-SeptinsularRepublic1801.jpg


Then, of course, goes Sweden. In OTL Gustav IV Adolf started war with Russia (and lost Finland) because he was unhappy with a request to abide to the conditions of Tilsit Treaty. It is anybody's guess if the war happens in that timeline, which means that Finland may remain in Sweden.

There could be war(s) with Persia (as later happened in OTL) with acquisition of Armenia and Azerbaijan (or something like that) and perhaps an earlier push toward the CA.

Strictly speaking, none of the above would be inevitable because Russia would be better off staying in peace and selling its goods to everybody. I would not expect something as significant as emancipation of the serfs (which means no earlier industrial development) but, with enough of a free time on his hands, Alexander would probably manage to ...er.... "drill army to a clockwork perfection", which he started doing as soon as Nappy was defeated in 1814.
 
How exactly the Republic exists AND at peace with everybody, especially Britain? The Austrians could be beaten into a prolonged peace or it can be assumed that, after the French are being kicked out of Italy in 1799-1800 some kind of a mutually acceptable arrangement is achieved. But the Brits are totally different story: French Republic can't do them enough harm to kick them out of the war. Not that the Republic was a peaceful state: the Directorate had no idea what to do with its armies in the case of peace and no clear plan for a peaceful existence. Wouldn't it be more realistic to assume that at least war with Britain is going on, at least formally but there is no continental enthusiasm for the anti-French coalitions (without Nappy, Austrians are back in Italy so there is no real reason for them to keep fighting)?

To clarify, the Directorate is coup'd, but by Sieyès and another general. Without the ambitious Napoleon, Sieyès becomes the effective leader. Pragmatic, Sieyès has a clear plan alongside the foreign minister Talleyrand. The Austrians aren't pushed in Italy: instead they are distracted and are unable to push further into Italy and France. The Treaty of Campo Formio is reinstated, with Austria retaining Venice and parts of Northern Italy.

Anyways, I agree with most of your points, but how would Russia justify war in this time of peace?
 
To clarify, the Directorate is coup'd, but by Sieyès and another general. Without the ambitious Napoleon, Sieyès becomes the effective leader. Pragmatic, Sieyès has a clear plan alongside the foreign minister Talleyrand. The Austrians aren't pushed in Italy: instead they are distracted and are unable to push further into Italy and France. The Treaty of Campo Formio is reinstated, with Austria retaining Venice and parts of Northern Italy.

Anyways, I agree with most of your points, but how would Russia justify war in this time of peace?

You mean war against the Ottomans? An excuse always could be found or simply presented by the Ottomans who were somewhat slow in understanding the existing realities.
 
OK, so a final Peace of Amiens, good place to look

Would Seniavin get another Med posting in this scenario? A peacetime fleet would have less problems supplying etc but what would it's purpose be? To attack the Barbary States or the Ottomans are the only answers

Malta - could the Knights of St John simply walk in and reclaim control or is Russia going to be the power behind the throne here?
 
You mean war against the Ottomans? An excuse always could be found or simply presented by the Ottomans who were somewhat slow in understanding the existing realities.

The Ottomans at the time of Napoleon were perfectly aware of how weak they were. The only reason they entered into a war with Russia is bc they felt they had to bc of Napoleon. Furthermore, the only reason that Russia was able to war with the Ottomans is because they were allowed to by Napoleon. With a strong French counterweight remaining in ATL, I don't see how the Russians would get the greenlight to expand their power. France isn't just going to sit around while Russia carves up the Ottomans. Every single one-on-one Russo-Ottoman war only happened bc specific political events prevented other powers from intervening.
 
The Ottomans at the time of Napoleon were perfectly aware of how weak they were. The only reason they entered into a war with Russia is bc they felt they had to bc of Napoleon. Furthermore, the only reason that Russia was able to war with the Ottomans is because they were allowed to by Napoleon.

You are clearly ignoring a timetable. The war started in 1806 while Russia was still fighting against Napoleon and continued until 1812. How Napoleon would be able not to allow Russia to fight this war while being at war with Russia? And how could he forbid Russia to fight that war after Tilsit without starting a new war with Russia? If the Ottomans had any serious illusions about being backed by Napoleon, it means that they were delusional.
 
You are clearly ignoring a timetable. The war started in 1806 while Russia was still fighting against Napoleon and continued until 1812. How Napoleon would be able not to allow Russia to fight this war while being at war with Russia? And how could he forbid Russia to fight that war after Tilsit without starting a new war with Russia? If the Ottomans had any serious illusions about being backed by Napoleon, it means that they were delusional.

My timetable is fine. As you yourself say, the war started while Russia was still fighting with Napoleon. Furthermore, Napoleon had been continually attempting to establish an alliance with the OE since late 1805 by that point. How is it delusional to expect that the enemy France had been fighting for two wars straight (and was currently fighting!) would continue to be an enemy in the near future? At Friedland, Napoleon had crushed Russia forces and caused them to ask for a truce. The only reason Russia was able to continue the war against the OE was because Napoleon had given them the greenlight in exchange for joining the continental system. If he hadn't made this reversal (which btw failed miserably as a policy in the end), Selim would have been vindicated. Russia was not going to continue bashing its head against the crushing power of the French just so that they can continue getting pieces of the OE.

It was the crushing French victories over Russia at Austerlitz/etc that finally convinced Selim III that the French were too powerful to be defied and that getting on their good side was the best bet. This is why Selim replaced the pro-Russian governors the Principalities and replaced them with pro-French governors pushed for by the French ambassador. This was the action which caused Russia to invade (the OE did not actually declare the war first) Do you really think it would have been a better idea to continue defying Napoleons pressure for a more pro-French stance?

The idea that "an excuse could always be found or presented by the Ottomans" is ridiculous. Russia could only invade the OE if if they were willing to go to war with France/already in a war with France or if France was okay with it. In the case of the 1806 war, it started as the former and moved to the latter. Without the constant crushing victories of the French over all their enemies + pressure for an alliance, the OE will continue their policy of neutrality in order to continue crucial reforms. The Russians will not attack the OE unless they're willing to go to war with France. If our PoD means that there isn't any war for the early 1800's against France, then that means Russia isn't willing to risk war with France. Without the desire for a Russian alliance and entry into the continental system, it defies belief that France would just sit back and watch as Russia carves up the OE.
 
Last edited:
Top