No French Revolution.

As a fairly new guy here, I'm still finding my way around.....

Can somebody please tell me - is there already somewhere here a good 'No French Revolution' timeline?
 

Philip

Donor
Depends on the the timing of the PoD. Find one in the early 17th Century, and it is easy. Choose one in the late 18th Century, and it is not so easy.
 
Depends on the the timing of the PoD. Find one in the early 17th Century, and it is easy. Choose one in the late 18th Century, and it is not so easy.

Thanks for your response.

To be more specific , I was thinking like this - IIRC, Marx expected the Workers Revolution to happen in industrialised Western Europe, not in Russia.

I was wondering about the plausability of a timeline where the "French" Revolution happens in Russia..... and maybe we get a Russian version of Napoleon.......
 
I was wondering about the plausability of a timeline where the "French" Revolution happens in Russia..... and maybe we get a Russian version of Napoleon.......

Von Sternberg....

But sireously, Russia was really conservative and not too prone to the liberal complete democracy mindset that the age of enlightenment put europe into.
 

Philip

Donor
I was wondering about the plausability of a timeline where the "French" Revolution happens in Russia..... and maybe we get a Russian version of Napoleon.......

Do you want the ideals of the Revolution to develop in Russia or be imported?
 
What connection are you attempting to draw/hoping to find between there not being a French revolution and a French-like revolution happening in Russia and producing a Napoleon-like person in Russia? Or, am I missing something here?
 
Do you want the ideals of the Revolution to develop in Russia or be imported?

I don't mind which. Perhaps a combination of the two. (Perhaps there's a Russian revolutionary exiled to Switzerland who's encouraged by one of Russia's enemies to return home!)

I'm just thinking about the basic plausibility, and whether it's an idea worth exploring, and whether a Russian version of Napoleon might actually win. After all he wouldn't be faced with having to invade Russia (which so weakened Napoleon). Could he conquer most of the European mainland without a prolonged war with Britain? Or even get Britain on his side?


Trouble is, my knowledge of this period of Russian history is not so hot. Yet.
 
Why do you need a revolution to get what you want? Why not just empower the already powerful Tsar Alexander I to hold onto the land he marched through to get to Paris?
 

Philip

Donor
I'm just thinking about the basic plausibility, and whether it's an idea worth exploring, and whether a Russian version of Napoleon might actually win. After all he wouldn't be faced with having to invade Russia (which so weakened Napoleon). Could he conquer most of the European mainland without a prolonged war with Britain? Or even get Britain on his side?

But he would have to deal with holding Russia together. If the is a revolution in Russia, it will take quite some time to order back to the state. If you just want a Russian to conquer Europe, you may be better of skipping the revolution and giving Russia a tsar interested in overrunning Europe.
 
I can see what you guys are saying, but I can't think of a Tsar wanting to do anything so extraordinary as that- expand his borders maybe, but not try to do anything on such a grand scale as Napoleon.

But feel free to persuade me that i'm wrong. :)
 
You could always do a Great Man timeline with some fictional Tsar with an inferiority complex and a desire for conquest. However, if Russia started to go all Mongol on Europe and start conquering, I think Britain would almost certainly ally against Russia, along with France and maybe the HRE.
 
If you get an alternate French king, maybe. Especially if there's no successful American Revolution.
 
Top