Frederick II of Prussia "The Prudent", An Alternate Prelude to the Seven Years War

Did Fredrick the Great only worsen the Seven Years War through his actions between 1746-56?


  • Total voters
    21
Hello All! This is my first thread to Alternate History and I hope it's a good one!

Anyway. Lately I was reading a book on Prussian History called the Iron Kingdom by Christopher Clark (A fantastic book, highly recommended). During his explanation in the interwar period between the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War, Clark mentions Frederick's hasty and ill-judged moves' in the signing of the Convention of Westminster of 1756 which alienated Prussia from it's traditional ally of France by aligning it with the United Kingdom, and Frederick's misinterpretation of Saxon foreign policy which lead him to invade the country in 1756, which made Prussia look like an aggressor.

Clark, albeit not-directly, indicates that both moves really only hurt Prussia in the end by simply piling enemies against it in the oncoming war without any real indication of relief or aid from it's disconnected ally, The United Kingdom.

Therefore, My question is: How would the Seven Years War look like if Prussia had not signed the Convention and Frederick deciding that Saxony wasn't apart of the Russo-Austrian plot against the Kingdom and thus, doesn't invade? Or does his aligning with the U.K. and invading Saxony this fact not even matter?

My thoughts are of four possibilities:

1.) Frederick remains calm, and the his Panic of 1756 (what Clark calls his hasty moves) doesn't occur and doesn't make the first move against Austria. Russia and Austria declare war for ill-made reasons and invade Prussia. The French and Indian War doesn't occur at this time so France and England remain neutral (As neutral as one can be in the 1700's) and the war is a limited one with Prussia vs Austria and Russia

2) Same as before but Frederick decides to strengthen ties with France and renews it's alliance with the expectations of getting help (in the form of Troops and Money) in exchange for the Austrian Netherlands. The war kicks off, same as before but this time it is France and Prussia (and possibly Spain) vs. Austria and Russia

3) The United Kingdom is even more worried about Prussian expansion into it's Hanoverian territories. The U.K. ratifies the 1755 Convention of St. Petersburg, expands it's 'Observance Army' in Hanover, and renews it's alliance with Austria (Now including Russia) and war kicks off in 1756 seeing France, Spain, and Prussia vs. The U.K. plus Hanover, Austria, and Russia

Any thoughts?
 
The French and Indian War, and general Anglo-French conflict overseas, was basically ongoing at a relatively low level even before the Diplomatic Revolution, so a full Anglo-French conflict around 1756 is still extremely likely to occur in this context. Inherent tension in Europe would make a continental conflict likely anyway. The diplomatic context, however, was complex and never truly settled. There are various possibilities, like Britain fighting France /maybe also Spain on iher own, while a Central European conflict unfolds with most actors unrelated to each other across these wars (think of the War of Spanish Succession and the Second Great Northern War as a very approximate parallel).
 
Not signing the Westminster Convention doesn't necessarily prevent Franco-Austrian rapprochement. There is a scenario here where Prussia allows itself to become even more diplomatically isolated than OTL. Frederick could end up fighting the same war but without British subsidies.
 
Hello All! This is my first thread to Alternate History and I hope it's a good one!

Anyway. Lately I was reading a book on Prussian History called the Iron Kingdom by Christopher Clark (A fantastic book, highly recommended). During his explanation in the interwar period between the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War, Clark mentions Frederick's hasty and ill-judged moves' in the signing of the Convention of Westminster of 1756 which alienated Prussia from it's traditional ally of France by aligning it with the United Kingdom, and Frederick's misinterpretation of Saxon foreign policy which lead him to invade the country in 1756, which made Prussia look like an aggressor.

Clark, albeit not-directly, indicates that both moves really only hurt Prussia in the end by simply piling enemies against it in the oncoming war without any real indication of relief or aid from it's disconnected ally, The United Kingdom.

Who really cared if Fritz was or was not an aggressor? He managed to step on too many toes by his inability to control his tongue.

Therefore, My question is: How would the Seven Years War look like if Prussia had not signed the Convention and Frederick deciding that Saxony wasn't apart of the Russo-Austrian plot against the Kingdom and thus, doesn't invade? Or does his aligning with the U.K. and invading Saxony this fact not even matter?

My thoughts are of four possibilities:

1.) Frederick remains calm, and the his Panic of 1756 (what Clark calls his hasty moves) doesn't occur and doesn't make the first move against Austria. Russia and Austria declare war for ill-made reasons and invade Prussia. The French and Indian War doesn't occur at this time so France and England remain neutral (As neutral as one can be in the 1700's) and the war is a limited one with Prussia vs Austria and Russia.

It seems that Clark is too busy with the small trees to see the forest. :cool:

How about Fritz not making Empress Elizabeth his personal enemy? Most probably, she would be hard pressed to find Saxony on the map (and to the end of her life she allegedly had problems with believing that Britain located on the islands) but she surely did not like negative comments about her mental abilities (her close confidant Lestocq had a chance to find that out a hard way). Not having Russia as an enemy would make much more difference than whatever he may or may not do to Saxony.
 
Two seems like the most likely option; while I agree with Hunter that Franco-Austrian reproachment can't be so certainly waved away I can certainly see France, faced with increasing tensions with the British overseas and wanting to put a greater focus on her naval and colonial ventures in order to secure her overseas/commercial interests in a war that could break out over any small issue, deciding that aligning Prussia in order to secure her Eastern European flank and provide a baton to wave at Hannover is the better option.
 
The French and Indian War, and general Anglo-French conflict overseas, was basically ongoing at a relatively low level even before the Diplomatic Revolution, so a full Anglo-French conflict around 1756 is still extremely likely to occur in this context. Inherent tension in Europe would make a continental conflict likely anyway. The diplomatic context, however, was complex and never truly settled. There are various possibilities, like Britain fighting France /maybe also Spain on iher own, while a Central European conflict unfolds with most actors unrelated to each other across these wars (think of the War of Spanish Succession and the Second Great Northern War as a very approximate parallel).

Very true, nothing to argue about here.

Not signing the Westminster Convention doesn't necessarily prevent Franco-Austrian rapprochement. There is a scenario here where Prussia allows itself to become even more diplomatically isolated than OTL. Frederick could end up fighting the same war but without British subsidies.

Hmm, I suppose. But, the feeling I got while reading about the Panic of 1756 was that the French really didn't care for either alliance although it chose the Austrians because: 1) The Prussians aligned themselves with Britain, France's arch-enemy and 2) Austria was already racing for a French alliance under Count von Kaunitz-Rietburg. In fact, the reason I added the part about Saxony is because it was (supposedly) one of the main reasons behind the Second Treaty of Versailles in 1757 (The treaty that made the Austro-French alliance official). Of course, one can't deny the lack of commitment of the French to the Austrians. (Hell, they practically retracted after the Battle of Rossbach in 1757) The Idea floating in my head was kind-of like Scenario one where the French are not diplomatically insulted, still technically have their alliance with Prussia, but don't get involved because there is no point in doing so. Prussia maintains a limited war between Russia and Austria in Brandenburg (Since Frederick the Great had no intention of defending East Prussia). My kind of thoughts for England was that 1) Frederick could make a treaty with England maintaining it will not invade Hanover however; it won't defend it against France. England is satisfied and when war breaks out it doesn't join 2) Frederick ignores the Hanoverian question, England gets worried and when Austria declares war on Prussia, they declare war as well. I however; believe that this version would be beneficial to Prussia as Prussia does't have to worry about France's 120,000 strong army and can now invade Hanover rather easily as Britain never had more than 8,900 soldiers in the region, while Prussia numbered 80,000 although I do suppose England would try to bulk it's forces before the war.

That explanation took far too long :p

Who really cared if Fritz was or was not an aggressor? He managed to step on too many toes by his inability to control his tongue.



It seems that Clark is too busy with the small trees to see the forest. :cool:

How about Fritz not making Empress Elizabeth his personal enemy? Most probably, she would be hard pressed to find Saxony on the map (and to the end of her life she allegedly had problems with believing that Britain located on the islands) but she surely did not like negative comments about her mental abilities (her close confidant Lestocq had a chance to find that out a hard way). Not having Russia as an enemy would make much more difference than whatever he may or may not do to Saxony.

Well, part of the scenario is that Fritz manages to shut his mouth for a few good moments and realize Free Speech doesn't mean just keep yapping :)

Or perhaps I didn't do justice for him :)

About Russia, I feel as though 1.) throughout this time period Russia is FAR to overestimated for what it's worth as Austria was really the one holding the candle during the war (Although, admittedly having the Russians in did do significant damage for Prussia as they occupied Berlin with the Austrians in 1760) 2.) Frederick was in a major Geo-political fight with Russia as the Russians, in agreeing to the Anti-Prussian coalition in 1756, demanded East Prussia for further access to the Baltic, something that Frederick could hardly agree to. From the "Temperature" of Europe at the time, I don't really feel as though Frederick's comments did little to already broaden the divide between Russia and Prussia that had been there for at least the mid-1740s. Although I am happy to hear any suggestions otherwise.

Two seems like the most likely option; while I agree with Hunter that Franco-Austrian reproachment can't be so certainly waved away I can certainly see France, faced with increasing tensions with the British overseas and wanting to put a greater focus on her naval and colonial ventures in order to secure her overseas/commercial interests in a war that could break out over any small issue, deciding that aligning Prussia in order to secure her Eastern European flank and provide a baton to wave at Hannover is the better option.

Yeah, that's kind of the though process I had while writing it. Good minds think alike :p
 
Well, part of the scenario is that Fritz manages to shut his mouth for a few good moments and realize Free Speech doesn't mean just keep yapping :)

Which could easily remove one of his major problems from the table.


About Russia, I feel as though 1.) throughout this time period Russia is FAR to overestimated for what it's worth as Austria was really the one holding the candle during the war (Although, admittedly having the Russians in did do significant damage for Prussia as they occupied Berlin with the Austrians in 1760)

Of course, Austria "hold the candle": unlike Russia it had a clear vested interest in the war. Occupation of Berlin was rather unimportant episode comparing to the Russian occupation of the Eastern Prussia and Pomerania (and a lot of damage elsewhere) and the losses Prussia suffered at Zorndorf and Kunersdorf.


2.) Frederick was in a major Geo-political fight with Russia as the Russians, in agreeing to the Anti-Prussian coalition in 1756, demanded East Prussia for further access to the Baltic, something that Frederick could hardly agree to.

This is a very grey area because the document that formulated Russian goals in the future war (Protocol of the "Conference") was quite vague outside general goal of "weakening Frederic". The rest was more or less along the lines of "possibilities" and, anyway, (a) how exactly Eastern Prussia would extend Russian access to the Baltic if it was separated from the empire by Polish territory and (b) why would such expansion would be looked for if explicit Russian policy was to concentrate naval trade in St-Petersburg even at the expense of the existing ports of Riga and Revel? Add to this almost complete absence of the Russian merchant fleet. The same protocol contained, again, as vague and unclear option, a possibility of a future exchange of the Eastern Prussia (if it is going to be conquered) to some PLC territory but, to illustrate general competence of the Russian ministers and clarity of their thinking, text somewhat assumes that PLC was stretching to the Black Sea.

Then, getting back to the beginning, if Elizabeth did not consider Fritz as a personal enemy there would be no agreement with Austria and the whole issue would be moot. To his credit, Fritz learned his lesson and after the 7YW took care of being extremely nice with Catherine II.

From the "Temperature" of Europe at the time, I don't really feel as though Frederick's comments did little to already broaden the divide between Russia and Prussia that had been there for at least the mid-1740s. Although I am happy to hear any suggestions otherwise.

Well, Austria was a traditional Russian ally (kind of) but there is a big distance between not being a bosom buddy and being an open enemy. Prussia did not have border with Russia so all that vague Protocol's phraseology about preventing the threat was actually about potential danger to a complete Russian hegemony in the PLC. So, logically, it would make sense to let Austria and Prussia to fight each other to a complete exhaustion (or to entry the war in a critical point) thus resolving the whole problem with the minimal effort. Something of the kind did happen in OTL after the 7YW: Russian complete dominance was not disputed until Austria started annexation of the PLC territory to balance Russian acquisitions at the Ottoman expense. Fritz got involved as an intermediary (looking for connection of the Eastern Prussia with his main territory) and Catherine agreed to what became the 1st Partition. Taking into an account the fact that Austria got the best piece of the real estate, Elizabeth's fears had been misdirected and the whole Russian participation in the 7YW proved to be an expensive stupidity.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hello All! This is my first thread to Alternate History and I hope it's a good one!

Anyway. Lately I was reading a book on Prussian History called the Iron Kingdom by Christopher Clark (A fantastic book, highly recommended). During his explanation in the interwar period between the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War, Clark mentions Frederick's hasty and ill-judged moves' in the signing of the Convention of Westminster of 1756 which alienated Prussia from it's traditional ally of France by aligning it with the United Kingdom, and Frederick's misinterpretation of Saxon foreign policy which lead him to invade the country in 1756, which made Prussia look like an aggressor.

Clark, albeit not-directly, indicates that both moves really only hurt Prussia in the end by simply piling enemies against it in the oncoming war without any real indication of relief or aid from it's disconnected ally, The United Kingdom.

Therefore, My question is: How would the Seven Years War look like if Prussia had not signed the Convention and Frederick deciding that Saxony wasn't apart of the Russo-Austrian plot against the Kingdom and thus, doesn't invade? Or does his aligning with the U.K. and invading Saxony this fact not even matter?

My thoughts are of four possibilities:

1.) Frederick remains calm, and the his Panic of 1756 (what Clark calls his hasty moves) doesn't occur and doesn't make the first move against Austria. Russia and Austria declare war for ill-made reasons and invade Prussia. The French and Indian War doesn't occur at this time so France and England remain neutral (As neutral as one can be in the 1700's) and the war is a limited one with Prussia vs Austria and Russia

2) Same as before but Frederick decides to strengthen ties with France and renews it's alliance with the expectations of getting help (in the form of Troops and Money) in exchange for the Austrian Netherlands. The war kicks off, same as before but this time it is France and Prussia (and possibly Spain) vs. Austria and Russia

3) The United Kingdom is even more worried about Prussian expansion into it's Hanoverian territories. The U.K. ratifies the 1755 Convention of St. Petersburg, expands it's 'Observance Army' in Hanover, and renews it's alliance with Austria (Now including Russia) and war kicks off in 1756 seeing France, Spain, and Prussia vs. The U.K. plus Hanover, Austria, and Russia

Any thoughts?

Iron Kingdom- love it. Really anything by Christopher Clark.
 
Hmm, I suppose. But, the feeling I got while reading about the Panic of 1756 was that the French really didn't care for either alliance although it chose the Austrians because: 1) The Prussians aligned themselves with Britain, France's arch-enemy and 2) Austria was already racing for a French alliance under Count von Kaunitz-Rietburg. In fact, the reason I added the part about Saxony is because it was (supposedly) one of the main reasons behind the Second Treaty of Versailles in 1757 (The treaty that made the Austro-French alliance official). Of course, one can't deny the lack of commitment of the French to the Austrians. (Hell, they practically retracted after the Battle of Rossbach in 1757) The Idea floating in my head was kind-of like Scenario one where the French are not diplomatically insulted, still technically have their alliance with Prussia, but don't get involved because there is no point in doing so. Prussia maintains a limited war between Russia and Austria in Brandenburg (Since Frederick the Great had no intention of defending East Prussia). My kind of thoughts for England was that 1) Frederick could make a treaty with England maintaining it will not invade Hanover however; it won't defend it against France. England is satisfied and when war breaks out it doesn't join 2) Frederick ignores the Hanoverian question, England gets worried and when Austria declares war on Prussia, they declare war as well. I however; believe that this version would be beneficial to Prussia as Prussia does't have to worry about France's 120,000 strong army and can now invade Hanover rather easily as Britain never had more than 8,900 soldiers in the region, while Prussia numbered 80,000 although I do suppose England would try to bulk it's forces before the war.

That explanation took far too long :p

How is that even a Franco-Prussian alliance than? If Prussia isen't going to support France against her primary enemy and with her primary concern (IE. Keeping up with and checking the rise of the British), nor France support Prussia against her primary enemies and with her primary concern (IE. Establishing a position of independence / a counterweight to Austria within the HRE), that all we really have is a glorified non-aggression pact.
 
This is a very grey area because the document that formulated Russian goals in the future war (Protocol of the "Conference") was quite vague outside general goal of "weakening Frederic". The rest was more or less along the lines of "possibilities" and, anyway, (a) how exactly Eastern Prussia would extend Russian access to the Baltic if it was separated from the empire by Polish territory and (b) why would such expansion would be looked for if explicit Russian policy was to concentrate naval trade in St-Petersburg even at the expense of the existing ports of Riga and Revel? Add to this almost complete absence of the Russian merchant fleet. The same protocol contained, again, as vague and unclear option, a possibility of a future exchange of the Eastern Prussia (if it is going to be conquered) to some PLC territory but, to illustrate general competence of the Russian ministers and clarity of their thinking, text somewhat assumes that PLC was stretching to the Black Sea.

Then, getting back to the beginning, if Elizabeth did not consider Fritz as a personal enemy there would be no agreement with Austria and the whole issue would be moot. To his credit, Fritz learned his lesson and after the 7YW took care of being extremely nice with Catherine II.

Interesting. I'll have to admit that my knowledge of Eastern Europe past the Vistula is a bit of a grey area. Although I do recall hearing Russian Plans, more of a thought really, of the exchange of East Prussia for Courland with the PLC along with some other territories. (In fact, I just Reread the Iron Kingdom and it actually said Russia was going to trade E. Prussia not annex it) Ops! :(

Well, Austria was a traditional Russian ally (kind of) but there is a big distance between not being a bosom buddy and being an open enemy. Prussia did not have border with Russia so all that vague Protocol's phraseology about preventing the threat was actually about potential danger to a complete Russian hegemony in the PLC. So, logically, it would make sense to let Austria and Prussia to fight each other to a complete exhaustion (or to entry the war in a critical point) thus resolving the whole problem with the minimal effort. Something of the kind did happen in OTL after the 7YW: Russian complete dominance was not disputed until Austria started annexation of the PLC territory to balance Russian acquisitions at the Ottoman expense. Fritz got involved as an intermediary (looking for connection of the Eastern Prussia with his main territory) and Catherine agreed to what became the 1st Partition. Taking into an account the fact that Austria got the best piece of the real estate, Elizabeth's fears had been misdirected and the whole Russian participation in the 7YW proved to be an expensive stupidity.

Hmm, so all Frederick has to do is
1) Be nice to Russia
2) Don't bother with the PLC
3) Fight the Austrians 'till exhaustion and wait for the Russians to get involved

Interesting, so in your opinion, was there any possibility of a Prussian-Russian alliance then?

How is that even a Franco-Prussian alliance than? If Prussia isen't going to support France against her primary enemy and with her primary concern (IE. Keeping up with and checking the rise of the British), nor France support Prussia against her primary enemies and with her primary concern (IE. Establishing a position of independence / a counterweight to Austria within the HRE), that all we really have is a glorified non-aggression pact.

In that scenario I was thinking of the Worst case scenario when the Western European Alliances switch during the 7YW (I.E. your allies don't get involved but your enemies does). Also there were plenty of times in European History where an alliance "exists" but the reality is that is is a non-aggression pact. Take this War for example, Austria had signed the First Treaty of Versailles which established the Alliance between France and Austria but has to sign the Second Treaty of Versailles in order to "formalize" what was already stated in the first. So the relations between France and Austria between the signing of the first and second treaty can be called a non-aggression pact since (apparently) an alliance was there but, not formalized. This (rather confusing example) is one of many examples that stretches centuries. Also, with the conflict I established in Scenario 2 in my original post, I have no doubt that France would get involved as in that scenario 1) France is dealing with Britain in the colonies and in the Channel 2) Prussia is dealing with Hanover and 3) France will be helping Prussia by invading the Austrian Netherlands and the Western HRE.

When I responded originally, I was trying to make the point that even if Prussia's ally didn't get involved it still might not turn into a Prussian Potluck for the Anti-Prussian Coalition.
Iron Kingdom- love it. Really anything by Christopher Clark.

I know, it was a fantastic read! I've just ordered Sleepwalkers by him. Do you have any other recommendations? :)
 
Surely the really pragmatic Fritz doesn't antagonise either Russia or Austria and instead advances the Polish Partition by 15 years thus keeping both his major rivals busy (and indeed placing them in direct competition) for decades to come.
 
As previously noted, the French and Indian war is already started. The question becomes how large does it get? Without a continental war, both sides are free to build up forces there. Britain has the advantage on the seas.

the OTL seven years war was started by Fritz. If he is standing down, it only begins if someone else is the aggressor. There is talk that he pre-emptively started the war because he foresaw Austria starting it, which is a valid point. Austria was gearing up to retake Silesia, but there's no indication they were going to do so any time soon. IMO, Fritz correctly saw France as weak and otherwise occupied. He incorrectly saw Austria as continuing to be weak, and saw a great moment to expand his territory. Nothing is inevitable, but realistically a major war is going to happen sooner or later between an expansionist Prussia and a revanchist Austria. Frederick chose the timing of it starting, and it turned out to be near disastrous for Prussia. Change the timing, and it might turn out better for him, or worse. I can easily see the timing delayed by several years without an aggressive F.
 
Interesting. I'll have to admit that my knowledge of Eastern Europe past the Vistula is a bit of a grey area. Although I do recall hearing Russian Plans, more of a thought really, of the exchange of East Prussia for Courland with the PLC along with some other territories. (In fact, I just Reread the Iron Kingdom and it actually said Russia was going to trade E. Prussia not annex it) Ops! :(

There is nothing to be oopsy about because, as I said, the area is grey and, unless someone is a professional historian with a direct access to all needed archive document, your are at the mercy of the authors who are quoting some other authors. ;)

The only thing that I can say for sure, is what is written in a protocol of the "Imperial Conference" (council of ministers) dated by March 15, 1756: I found it on the web. The document is explicitly is saying that "her imperial majesty is not looking for any acquisitions in Prussia" and talking about the Royal Prussia ("королевская Пруссия") which, if conquered, can be returned to Poland in exchange to Courland and/or some other area which would allow "to link the commerce of Baltic and Black seas".

Now, if you have read this carefully, "Royal Prussia" does not make sense because it was, unlike the "Ducal Prussia", already within the PLC. So, most probably, conversation was about "Kingdom of Prussia" (aka, Eastern Prussia). We just may assume that the "Conference" did not bother with the precise geography.

Then things are getting more interesting. Let's start with the document:

Courland part is understandable (especially taking into an account that by that time the Duke of Courland had been sitting under arrest in Russia (and probably feeling happy that he was not executed, as was initially planned, and returned from Siberia to European Russia). But the vague part about other territories (acquisition of which would stop endless problems and troubles) with even more hypothetical part about the Black Sea perhaps hints to the Polish Ukraine with a future elimination of the Crimean Khanate (surely, source of the troubles and, unlike Poland, having access to the Black Sea).

And, quite generously, Austria is promised Silesia to (a) weaken Fritz and (b) strengthen Russian - Austrian alliance against the Ottomans. Even with a contemporary knowledge it may be argued that Austria as an ally against the Ottomans was a handicap rather than advantage: Russian already had to give away all advantages it got in a war of 1735 - 39 thanks to the "ally" who managed to be defeated even by the much smaller Ottoman forces (Battle of Banja Luka: 10,000 Ottomans defeated 26,500 Austrians) and to lose Belgrade.

Then we have a fact: population of the Eastern Prussia had been ordered to swear loyalty to Elizabeth. Of course, it was pointed out that this by itself also means little, etc.


Hmm, so all Frederick has to do is
1) Be nice to Russia
2) Don't bother with the PLC
3) Fight the Austrians 'till exhaustion and wait for the Russians to get involved

Interesting, so in your opinion, was there any possibility of a Prussian-Russian alliance then?

In the case of "Fritz the Nice Guy" probably option #3 would not involve Russian component at all.

There was Prussian-Russian alliance established by Peter III and retained by Catherine II so nothing extraordinary there. Short of Elizabeth's personal dislike (and the fact that her Chancellor had been taking Austrian bribes), there was no serious reason to fear Prussian interference into the Polish affairs: Russian troops had been stationed in the PLC and a big part of PLC's aristocracy had been getting "pensions" (or some other "encouragements") from Russia. Time of Repnin's Sejm was still ahead but, with Prussia and Austria being busy fighting each other, it could come much sooner than in OTL.

Russian-Austrian alliance had historic roots all the way back to the regency of Princess Sophia and the Great Ottoman War (but at Karlowitz Austria refused to further Russian interests so it took an additional fighting and a separate Peace of Constantinople). As far as I can tell, the only tangible benefit for Russia was in the fact that for a while the titles of "count" and "prince" had been granted by the imperial court on the Russian requests. In all other aspects value of that alliance can be rated as between "neutral" and "negative" and, with the Russian successful expansion at the Ottoman expense, Russian and Austrian interests started getting more and more mutually contradictory.

The 1st sign was Austrian annexation of PLC territory after the 1st Ottoman War of Catherine II with a following major (the most valuable out of 3 shares) grab during the 1st Partition. Fritz also wanted his share but, unlike Maria Theresa, he did not risk to proceed without Catherine's consent.
 
Surely the really pragmatic Fritz doesn't antagonise either Russia or Austria and instead advances the Polish Partition by 15 years thus keeping both his major rivals busy (and indeed placing them in direct competition) for decades to come.

It was impossible at that time to "advance" partition of the PLC without antagonizing Russia: the official Russian goal in the 7YW was to weaken Fritz to such a degree that he would not be able to threaten status quo in the PLC. And, of course, Austria did not really needed any provocation to be antagonized against Fritz: it wanted Silesia back.
 
For those who need visual guidance, I decided to brush up my mapping skills and created a map of the Hypothetical Austro-Russian victory against the Prussians using the Imperial Conference as referance
(Historical Bits)
1)Russia has Courland as a vassal, grabbed a bit of Poland's upper territories, and spontaneously conquered the Crimean Khanate
2)Poland as Ducal/East Prussia as a vassal
3)Austria has Silesia
(Not So Historical bits/ Prussia must Perish!)
1)Prussia lost land to Sweden, Saxony, Britain/Hanover.
2)Prussia is forced to give Kleves, Mark, and Ravensburg to the Emperor to become independent duchies.
3)Ansbach and Beyruth, are invaded and loose their Hohenzollern Leaders
4) Frederick died in battle with no heir ( as in OTL) and the Austro-Russians put a weak Hohenzollern in charge
5) The Prussian monarchs lose the title "King in Prussia" and are instead referred to "Prince of Brandenburg", Prussia must give up half it's army, pay Versailles-level reparations etc.
Frederick the Prudent Map.png

(pst-the last part was for fun and not meant to be taken seriously!!!!)
 
There was Prussian-Russian alliance established by Peter III and retained by Catherine II so nothing extraordinary there. Short of Elizabeth's personal dislike (and the fact that her Chancellor had been taking Austrian bribes), there was no serious reason to fear Prussian interference into the Polish affairs: Russian troops had been stationed in the PLC and a big part of PLC's aristocracy had been getting "pensions" (or some other "encouragements") from Russia. Time of Repnin's Sejm was still ahead but, with Prussia and Austria being busy fighting each other, it could come much sooner than in OTL.

So essentially all Frederick needs to do is to not care about Poland (rather continue to not care about Poland), have enough respect to the Russians to the point were he doesn't make fun of their leader, and Prussia wont have to worry about a Northern front with 60,000 men. It seems like if Frederick really was prudent, the Seven Years War would only be between Prussia and Austria.

Maybe we could even get rid of the war all-together if Maria Theresa has a stroke in 1756 and can't sign the declaration of war :)
 
So essentially all Frederick needs to do is to not care about Poland (rather continue to not care about Poland), have enough respect to the Russians to the point were he doesn't make fun of their leader, and Prussia wont have to worry about a Northern front with 60,000 men. It seems like if Frederick really was prudent, the Seven Years War would only be between Prussia and Austria.

Maybe we could even get rid of the war all-together if Maria Theresa has a stroke in 1756 and can't sign the declaration of war :)


Short of MT part, more or less along the lines you described. Eventually, he may get a piece of the PLC by waiting until Austria starts annexation and convincing Russia that going on with the 1st partition is for everybody's benefit. :p
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Interesting. I'll have to admit that my knowledge of Eastern Europe past the Vistula is a bit of a grey area. Although I do recall hearing Russian Plans, more of a thought really, of the exchange of East Prussia for Courland with the PLC along with some other territories. (In fact, I just Reread the Iron Kingdom and it actually said Russia was going to trade E. Prussia not annex it) Ops! :(



Hmm, so all Frederick has to do is
1) Be nice to Russia
2) Don't bother with the PLC
3) Fight the Austrians 'till exhaustion and wait for the Russians to get involved

Interesting, so in your opinion, was there any possibility of a Prussian-Russian alliance then?



In that scenario I was thinking of the Worst case scenario when the Western European Alliances switch during the 7YW (I.E. your allies don't get involved but your enemies does). Also there were plenty of times in European History where an alliance "exists" but the reality is that is is a non-aggression pact. Take this War for example, Austria had signed the First Treaty of Versailles which established the Alliance between France and Austria but has to sign the Second Treaty of Versailles in order to "formalize" what was already stated in the first. So the relations between France and Austria between the signing of the first and second treaty can be called a non-aggression pact since (apparently) an alliance was there but, not formalized. This (rather confusing example) is one of many examples that stretches centuries. Also, with the conflict I established in Scenario 2 in my original post, I have no doubt that France would get involved as in that scenario 1) France is dealing with Britain in the colonies and in the Channel 2) Prussia is dealing with Hanover and 3) France will be helping Prussia by invading the Austrian Netherlands and the Western HRE.

When I responded originally, I was trying to make the point that even if Prussia's ally didn't get involved it still might not turn into a Prussian Potluck for the Anti-Prussian Coalition.


I know, it was a fantastic read! I've just ordered Sleepwalkers by him. Do you have any other recommendations? :)

I think he wrote a bio of the Kaiser which was good. He certainly has written at least a contribution to a kaiser anthology.
 
Top