Russia and America

So I was reading up on Paul I and discovered him to be a bit mercurial in temperament but liberal in politics. Relating to my Laurens Lives Thread is it possible for the formation of a American-French-Russian alliance to counter act more reactionary regimes?
 
Leaving aside the problem of his being assasinated for a moment, alliance with France was precisely Paul's master-plan. He wanted to acquire Malta as a Russian base, and launch thrusts towards India.

If a Franco-American alliance came about, and Paul somehow avoided dying, done.
 
Leaving aside the problem of his being assasinated for a moment, alliance with France was precisely Paul's master-plan. He wanted to acquire Malta as a Russian base, and launch thrusts towards India.
I've heard about this before. What I want to know is how he was planning on doing it...
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I've always thought that an (earlier) alliance between France and Russia was very feasible, especially with regards to their designs on wrenching India away from the British.

For example, I could certainly see a Franco-Russian campaign in the early 1800s (once Britain's at bay, of course) aimed at "driving the Turk out of Europe" which was, IIRC, Napoleon and Alexander's original "intent" at Tilsit (the long-term goal being India, of course).
 
"acquiring Malta" is a bit of an exageration.
He was outraged by the fact that britons occupies Malta, since the island is tha traditional home to Hospitalier Knights and he was invested as one.
Russia had not really the power projection to reach the med: Ottoman empire was ill but not dead yet.

Regarding india, he dreamed of a cossack army descending in pakistan.
He sent a few exploratory parties to check roads and territories (he had not even maps of the russian territories in the area) and was murdered.

It is not really correct to define him as a liberal.
He was a real autocrat, deriving his power directly by God.
But, precisely because he considered himself to be so, he was an enlighted one, and felt the moral obligation to improve his subject condition
 
His offending approach to his opponents was a very ad-hoc, process-less approach to pruning the power of the nobility and working towards transfering the control over the serfs under state jurisdiction.

The serfs would remain, but maybe the later emancipation would be easier?
 
I do appreciate the speculation guys but we are not talking about a situation the POD being 1796 but 1782 so a little different.

Let me set the stage a little, Since I am looking for this in respect to the situation of my TL. France has gone through a revolution several counter coups and has basically settled on a COnstitutional Monarchy with a Minor Louis XVII as king and Lafayette, Napoleon, and Talleyrand being his guardians/regents (his brother's uncles launched coups and were guillotined, his nephews are under benevolent house arrest). Meanwhile seeing France in a weakened state Austria and Spain support these coups and get defeated (Spain is intriguing in America as well, but check the TL for the that, No Spoilers ;)). So as of 1800 France has turned back both Spain and Austria and is currently rebuilding and overcoming a decade of war. In that situation, with Paul I as emperor (why would he still be assassinated with a POD 14 years previous?) would it be likely for these two powers to ally and stick it to the Austrians? Is this in the interest of Regency France?

If you have questions regarding the TL please ask or by all means read it (it is quite good if I do say so :D). Thanks for the comments
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Wasn't Russia at Amiens supposed to have protectorship of Malta after a French withdrawal, but Napoleon didn't like it, which was one of the reasons why Amiens broke down?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Wasn't Russia at Amiens supposed to have protectorship of Malta after a French withdrawal, but Napoleon didn't like it, which was one of the reasons why Amiens broke down?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Not exactly
Uk (which was occupying Malta) was to give it to France as a protectorate, or at least to let it free.
Uk refused to abandon Malta, and that was one of the reasons for Amiens to break down.
(there were others, of course)
 
Not exactly
Uk (which was occupying Malta) was to give it to France as a protectorate, or at least to let it free.
Uk refused to abandon Malta, and that was one of the reasons for Amiens to break down.
(there were others, of course)

The UK was supposed to return Malta to the Knights but Malta was too strategically important, among other reasons (the Maltese would never allow it, for example) they decided to keep it rather than let it fall into a pro Russian or French camp again.
 
(the Maltese would never allow it, for example)

Absolutely so; they had a really large uprising vs. the French, and had them locked inside Valletta and Fort Chambray in Mgarr, although it took the British to achieve the desired results.

I don't think there was any anti-Russian sentiment, but there was a lot of pro-British sentiment after the rebellion.

Not sure about the Knights, but they were really rather unpopular, all in all.
 
Absolutely so; they had a really large uprising vs. the French, and had them locked inside Valletta and Fort Chambray in Mgarr, although it took the British to achieve the desired results.

I don't think there was any anti-Russian sentiment, but there was a lot of pro-British sentiment after the rebellion.

Not sure about the Knights, but they were really rather unpopular, all in all.

Yeah, its the closest we ever got to a Maltese Revolution. It was damn successful, and Dun Mikiel Xerri had a plan to inflitrate Valletta and let the Maltese in, but the very night the plan was betrayed and Xerri and 40 other conspirators were shot by firing squad. Hes a national hero back here.

The French, ironically, were welcomed in as a change from the hugely unpopular Knights. They managed to screw that opportunity up royally.
 
In short: britons decided not to comply Amiens clauses and to keep Malta, and the maltese ultimately decided that having a far-away master (UK) was better than having a nearer one (france).
Mind you, the french had their share of responsibility on the failure of Amiens agreement, too
 
Top