So Evident a Danger: The Consequences of War between Britain, Prussia and Russia in 1791

And too costly.

Errrr… most probably, this was intended as an irony. You did not pay attention to the nuances of @marcinL’s sentence : “divide it up among its suppo... I mean give it to the most distinguished and deserving individuals.” 😜

Of course, we can always assume that the recipients of the free goodies will prove to be absolutely unselfish people thinking exclusively about good of the state but if this is the case, why would they need these goodies to start with? Wouldn’t it be better if all the income goes to the state without a big share ending in their (truly patriotic) pockets? 😂

Definitely, the Sejm’s power will be reinforced but, OTOH, we know little about the mental and statesmanship abilities of the new people who are going to move aside the old ones and, what’s known, is not IMO, excessively encouraging: in OTL their activities resulted in turning the post 2nd Partition PLC into no PLC at all. Mostly because the patriotic zeal is not always an adequate substitute of the brains and ability to assess a seemingly obvious general situation and consequences of some actions (like massacre of the unarmed Russian soldiers in the church during a major religious event; what type of a reaction could be expected?).

Anyway, I quite agree that Russia staying away from what’s in your TL is pretty much a Polish domestic dispute may make international situation easier for almost everybody. OTOH, an absence of the Russian-Polish war of 1792 seemingly removes an issue of the 2nd Partition by which RE finally got the valuable territory (right bank Ukraine), which in OTL was valuable economically (and probably strategically as well, in a long run). So, objectively, RE ends up being worse off but, OTOH, with no 3rd Partition and, presumably the following long-term events, it is probably better off. Figuring out the balance is entirely up to you. 😉
It might well have been irony, but the confiscation of the confederates' lands and estates is only natural, especially if they have fled to Russia. Or at the very least, handing them down to the heirs, probably with some suitable future 'education'.

I assume you're referring to figures like Poniatowski and Kościuszko? Who preferred zealous patriotic warfare to trying to make the best of a bad situation? In which case, probably fair. And its worth adding, as you might have mentioned before in the thread, that the 3rd May Constitution is only really half-formed. A giant step forwards but, even assuming everything happens like written, Poland-Lithuania can't easily transition to being a modern state all of a sudden.

Easier certainly, and hopefully interesting going forwards. As always, I will be trying to keep the balance! Fortunately, once the war itself is done, I won't have to ponder that too much. There will be a whole other revolution to consider.
WRT the "national lands", I think the idea of the moment was to sell them on auctions; the idea being somewhat suspicious to the cynic me, smelling of someone wanting to enrich themselves at the state's expense, but is't it alway that way anyway?

The problem wasnt the patriotic zeal, on the contrary, everything they did (1791-92) was half assed. The king had the spine of an earthworm and his passions were compulsively spending money on frivolities and sucking up to Catherine, figuratively and literally. Politicians and institutions, from tax offices to the army, lacked experience, they had an overabundance of naivety though. We can only shake our heads on the idea of the alliance with Prussia. When Russia invaded there should, no, the Constitution itself, should be followed by total mobilization for the war effort, and having Russians pay in blood for every mile of territory, instead the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards and most of those so called patriots turned tail or tured cloak at the first opportunity.

IIRC that was 1794

For once, PLC has the idiot's luck (for now at least)
Well, quite. We will see if it is any different in this particular scenario...

OTL certainly smacks of grand ambitions that never expected to have to deal with serious resistance. And a fair amount of patriotic zeal for certain members of the army carrying them along too far. ITTL, the Prussian alliance actually looks like a stroke of genius, at least for now, and the serious resistance has never arrived. Will this embolden them or give them the breathing room needed? Well, only time will tell how long their luck will hold.
 
It might well have been irony, but the confiscation of the confederates' lands and estates is only natural, especially if they have fled to Russia. Or at the very least, handing them down to the heirs, probably with some suitable future 'education'.

Of course, it would be “natural”. In OTL it was other was other way around: after each partition Catherine was allowing distribution of the estates belonging to the confederates or other “compromised” persons as rewards to the Russian generals, administrators and other “deserving” people. If ITTL the government wins, the confederates estates, or at least a big part of them would be confiscated and most probably given as the rewards to the “patriotic ones”. Which does not mean that the beneficiaries were, on average, much better.
I assume you're referring to figures like Poniatowski and Kościuszko? Who preferred zealous patriotic warfare to trying to make the best of a bad situation?
Poniatowski in the war of 1792 was seemingly quite pragmatic in the terms of knowing where to stop before things got really bad. Can’t say the same about Kościuszko in 1794: it does not look like he understood situation clearly.

In which case, probably fair. And its worth adding, as you might have mentioned before in the thread, that the 3rd May Constitution is only really half-formed. A giant step forwards but, even assuming everything happens like written, Poland-Lithuania can't easily transition to being a modern state all of a sudden.

Exactly.
Easier certainly, and hopefully interesting going forwards. As always, I will be trying to keep the balance! Fortunately, once the war itself is done, I won't have to ponder that too much. There will be a whole other revolution to consider.

Well, quite. We will see if it is any different in this particular scenario...

OTL certainly smacks of grand ambitions that never expected to have to deal with serious resistance. And a fair amount of patriotic zeal for certain members of the army carrying them along too far. ITTL, the Prussian alliance actually looks like a stroke of genius, at least for now, and the serious resistance has never arrived. Will this embolden them or give them the breathing room needed? Well, only time will tell how long their luck will hold.
Well, on a winning side there would be:
  • “Reasonable” people starting from the King, who are going to try keeping status quo and ruffle as few feathers as possible.
  • “True patriots” like Kościuszko who would demand a death penalty for the Targowica “traitors”: in 1794 those who did not manage to flee had been hanged.
ITTL it is entirely up to you to define which party takes over. If the executions still take place, then after Ochakov War is over Catherine may or may not decide that PLC became too revolutionary for her peace of mind and may serve as a bad example. If she does decide this, then the luck is going to be very short lived. However, she may or may not decide that it enough just to punish the “Polish Jacobins” (whom the king may declare the rebels) and, after the captured ones are executed, the 3rd Partition is not happening saving everybody a lot of trouble in future.

As you see, there are plenty of options and I probably missed some.
 
The “deserving” people always were enriching themselves. Surely those who enriched themselves by purchasing the nationalized properties during the French Revolution had been the good Republicans. 😉


It sounds good on paper but in a reality would be of a questionable practicality: these mobilized people would be lacking the weapons and military skills. The French tried levee en masse and it did not work out as expected but at least they still had enough of the regular troops to create demi-brigades, which allowed the raw recruits to get some experience. And, of course, they did not have a territory so easily penetrable by the enemy. The PLC had a shortage of both the military cadres and needed materials.

As was demonstrated by the next war/uprising, the peasants with the scythes could win an occasional encounter but could not win against the competently led regular army.
And this is why there should be much higher level of mobilization after (and tbh, well before) the May 3, instead of congratulingly patting each other's shoulders and sitting on their laurels. The weapons should be bought, weapons manufactures open, recruits conscripted. A 10 million country in late 18th century should absolutely be able to raise and pay for really, very modest 100,000 army and supplement it with militias and the like in the event of invasion. If Russian army got stuck in Ukraine instead of Polish army retreating and the whole thing collapsing, would Catherine insist on continuing the war or could Poland get away with only minor losses or even status quo ante?
 
And this is why there should be much higher level of mobilization after (and tbh, well before) the May 3, instead of congratulingly patting each other's shoulders and sitting on their laurels. The weapons should be bought, weapons manufactures open, recruits conscripted.
It was not that simple. Buying from whom? Some small numbers of weapons surely could be purchased and transported but this was not an easy task in the world of 1790s. “Manufactured”? You need a lot of skilled laborers, which the PLC lacked. You need a lot of proper materials, which required a reasonably developed metallurgy, etc. For comparison, during the GNW, at Poltava (1709) a noticeable part of the Russian infantry had been armed with the pikes because a needed number of muskets could be neither produced nor purchased and we are talking about a country with a bigger purchasing power and already functioning metallurgic industry. In 1813 France hit a similar crisis with muskets production and it had a well-developed armaments industry. With the artillery situation would be not better: special metal, competent labor, metallurgy. The recruits could be conscripted but, as I already mentioned, this system did not work as intended in France until they had been mixed with the regular experienced units, which Poland had too few. And, in the case of France, it took years of a low activity conflict to turn recruits in the quality troops. Under the normal circumstances, with enough of the experienced training personnel, which Poland did not have, it was taking over six months to properly train a recruit (making him able to fight in the proper formations). Less if he was merging into the functioning system, which PLC did not have. Where the officer and non-com cadres would come from? The nobility was enthusiastic but experience of the Bar confederation does not show its readiness for a modern war.
Now, with a few years of peace and preparation, it would be possible to raise a functioning modern army of 100,000 but at that time maintaining a standing army amounting to 1% of the population was an expensive task. Then, excuse my skepticism, but was all peasantry as enthusiastic as the nobility? Especially, non-Polish peasantry?

Of course, if PLC existed in a vacuum (with the ability to buy everything needed) and the whole country was working with a full dedication to a goal, then in theory it probably could do what you described between 1772 and 1793. But, AFAIK, this was not the case domestically and internationally. The reforms started only in 1791. So by 1793 the PLC had what it had and an argument seems to be if the war had to continue “to the last Pole” or if the leadership had to pursue the OTL policy and try to save at least something.



A 10 million country in late 18th century should absolutely be able to raise and pay for really, very modest 100,000 army and supplement it with militias and the like in the event of invasion.
Nope. 100,000 would be very close to the limit and “militia” was not an effective tool, especially if the invader is ready to fight the hard way. BTW, why would the Belorussian and Ukrainian peasants suddenly became the Polish patriots ready to fight on the PLC behalf at the risk of their households being destroyed? For them Poles were an “oppressor class”.

If Russian army got stuck in Ukraine instead of Polish army retreating and the whole thing collapsing, would Catherine insist on continuing the war or could Poland get away with only minor losses or even status quo ante?
Wrong question. It would not “stuck” if the fighting continue. The Polish army would be destroyed in Ukraine. Russia had greater military resources, a better and more experienced army and better generals. Retreat at the face of a superior enemy is a reasonable strategy. Of course, it was based upon the wrong expectation that Prussia is going to join Poland against Russia even if it was made quite clear that in Prussian understanding Polish constitution broke the existing alliance.

Anyway, even in the best case scenario, loss of the right Bank Ukraine would be almost inevitable: experience of two Ottoman wars demonstrated its strategic importance for the Russian operations. BTW, how long would it take for Prussia to join Russia actively in a hope to get a bigger share of the PLC?
 
Last edited:
It was not that simple. Buying from whom? Some small numbers of weapons surely could be purchased and transported but this was not an easy task in the world of 1790s. “Manufactured”? You need a lot of skilled laborers, which the PLC lacked. You need a lot of proper materials, which required a reasonably developed metallurgy, etc. For comparison, during the GNW, at Poltava (1709) a noticeable part of the Russian infantry had been armed with the pikes because a needed number of muskets could be neither produced nor purchased and we are talking about a country with a bigger purchasing power and already functioning metallurgic industry. In 1813 France hit a similar crisis with muskets production and it had a well-developed armaments industry. With the artillery situation would be not better: special metal, competent labor, metallurgy. The recruits could be conscripted but, as I already mentioned, this system did not work as intended in France until they had been mixed with the regular experienced units, which Poland had too few. And, in the case of France, it took years of a low activity conflict to turn recruits in the quality troops. Under the normal circumstances, with enough of the experienced training personnel, which Poland did not have, it was taking over six months to properly train a recruit (making him able to fight in the proper formations). Less if he was merging into the functioning system, which PLC did not have. Where the officer and non-com cadres would come from? The nobility was enthusiastic but experience of the Bar confederation does not show its readiness for a modern war.
Now, with a few years of peace and preparation, it would be possible to raise a functioning modern army of 100,000 but at that time maintaining a standing army amounting to 1% of the population was an expensive task. Then, excuse my skepticism, but was all peasantry as enthusiastic as the nobility? Especially, non-Polish peasantry?

Of course, if PLC existed in a vacuum (with the ability to buy everything needed) and the whole country was working with a full dedication to a goal, then in theory it probably could do what you described between 1772 and 1793. But, AFAIK, this was not the case domestically and internationally. The reforms started only in 1791. So by 1793 the PLC had what it had and an argument seems to be if the war had to continue “to the last Pole” or if the leadership had to pursue the OTL policy and try to save at least something.
The 100,000 army was enacted in 1788, and at the same time they should have taken care of the recruits, the armaments and the funds. They actually did, but in insufficient manner, and spent way too much on national cavalry which didnt prove particularly useful (but offered a nice way to make money for various friends and relatives). Weapons were actually bought from Prussia of all places ( and somewhere else but I dont remember from where, Austria or Saxony). With artillery, Poland actually had a solid number of guns, but bringing them to the front was traditionally a problem. The conscription ratio was too low (1 recruit from 50 royal/church "chimneys" and 1 from 100 noble ones). Really, nobody particularly cared whether the conscripts were happy fighting for some country or not, as long as malcontents are properly dilluted in faithful soldiers. Russia, Prussia and Austria were conscripting Poles and what? And nothing , until Napoleon started beating them and Poles defected en masse...

PLC actually had a standing army, and the enlargement was supposed to increase the number of soldiers in existing regiments not create units from scratch (at least in the infantry)
Nope. 100,000 would be very close to the limit and “militia” was not an effective tool, especially if the invader is ready to fight the hard way. BTW, why would the Belorussian and Ukrainian peasants suddenly became the Polish patriots ready to fight on the PLC behalf at the risk of their households being destroyed? For them Poles were an “oppressor class”.
In November uprising Poland has iirc 80k soldiers in the field, raised from half of the territory of the Congress Kingdom which had 1/3 of the PLC's population, and that with the leadership doing what they could (without risking to be hanged by an angry mob) to sabotage the war effort

Though of course they had loads of Napoleonic wars veterans to provide middle and senior cadre even if the generalship wasnt particularly brilliant.
Wrong question. It would not “stuck” if the fighting continue. The Polish army would be destroyed in Ukraine. Russia had greater military resources, a better and more experienced army and better generals.
If you have 30 thousand vs 60 thousand maybe. But if they had equal or greater and reasonabley well supplied forces? They could try preventing Russian corps in Moldavia from crossing Dniester, they could try defeating Russian corpses in detail, whether that works or not is another matter.
 
The 100,000 army was enacted in 1788, and at the same time they should have taken care of the recruits, the armaments and the funds. They actually did, but in insufficient manner, and spent way too much on national cavalry which didnt prove particularly useful (but offered a nice way to make money for various friends and relatives).
So, we are back to the planet Earth with all its problems: money making, relatives and other issues. Constitution of May 3 specified an army size of 100,000 and in 1793 it numbered only 37,000 even if Poniatowski had in theory at his disposal a 48,000. Without turning PLC into something completely different, this level of efficiency has to be expected.

Weapons were actually bought from Prussia of all places ( and somewhere else but I dont remember from where, Austria or Saxony).
With an army of much less than a half of the paper numbers, I have no doubts that they could be bought. What would be situation if the numbers tripled and the war lasted longer is a completely different story.

With artillery, Poland actually had a solid number of guns, but bringing them to the front was traditionally a problem.

Sorry, but having a big number of guns and having an adequate number of modern guns available for the field service are not the same. I have no doubts that there could be a big number of guns stored all over the country since the old times. What was percentage of the modern artillery is a completely different story. The same goes for the trained crews, etc. BTW, modern implies not only the time it was cast but a reasonable uniformity of the calibers and carriages.

The conscription ratio was too low (1 recruit from 50 royal/church "chimneys" and 1 from 100 noble ones).

AFAIK, these numbers are much higher than in RE of that period and Napoleonic Wars so it is high. Does not make sense to compare with the modern universal conscription.
Really, nobody particularly cared whether the conscripts were happy fighting for some country or not, as long as malcontents are properly dilluted in faithful soldiers. Russia, Prussia and Austria were conscripting Poles and what?

AFAIK, prior to almost the end of the XVIII not too many Poles (as in “Polish peasants”) were conscripted into the Russian army by the obvious reason of not having them. 😜

Well, how many Ukrainian and Belorussian soldiers the OTL Polish army had in 1793? I’ll skip the issue of them acting as the “militia” against the Russian troops because you prudently dropped it. 😉

And nothing , until Napoleon started beating them and Poles defected en masse...

In November uprising Poland has iirc 80k soldiers in the field, raised from half of the territory of the Congress Kingdom which had 1/3 of the PLC's population, and that with the leadership doing what they could (without risking to be hanged by an angry mob) to sabotage the war effort
Though of course they had loads of Napoleonic wars veterans to provide middle and senior cadre even if the generalship wasnt particularly brilliant.
And the whole thing lasted for less than a year. In 1792 situation was much worse for the PLC because experience was lacking and so was most of the supporting manufacturing infrastructure created by AI. And in 1830 the Polish army (its regular part) had been armed with the same weapons as the Russians and there were at least some military warehouses on Kingdom’s territory.

If you have 30 thousand vs 60 thousand maybe. But if they had equal or greater and reasonabley well supplied forces?
…. and if they had at least some tanks… 😜

We can definitely come with some kind of a happier scenario but the problem, at least for me, is that it would require too many “if” to have at least two digits probability. The fundamental problems will remain: in 1792 Russia had much greater resources, much bigger field army, much greater experience on all levels including the generalship. As a side note, in 1792 the generals in charge of the Polish War were not from the top echelon. Krechetnikov had very modest military experience and for Kakhovsky this was his first active army command.

They could try preventing Russian corps in Moldavia from crossing Dniester, they could try defeating Russian corpses in detail, whether that works or not is another matter.
Well, they could try a number of things but chances for their success is a very big question mark. Their only chance for a continued fighting was, as @Gwrtheyrn Annwn explained in TTL, a foreign intervention: either Prussia declaring war on Russia or the Russian-Ottoman war lasting much longer and consuming more Russian forces. The 1st did not happen in OTL and not very helpful ITTL and the second even ITTL is coming to the end before Polish War started. Which means that Russia is absolutely free to use the army which is not fighting the Turks and has a big pool of free generals not matched by skill and experience by other side. As, I’m sure, you well know, uprising of 1794 was, by Kościuszko admittance, defeated (why he was associating Poland with himself, I’m not sure) even before Suvorov get into the picture.

On a broader scale, IMO, the whole thing was idiotic on both sides:
  • PLC “leadership” was openly playing anti-Russian card expecting help from the third parties, which had their own interests. Of course, CII’s policy toward the PLC was quite ham fisted, which was quite stupid, but provoking her was a predictably masochistic exercise. As I understand, an important factor was a sense of being offended by CIIs behavior but for many decades the PLC ruling class worked hard on its reputation of being extremely corrupt and inept so what type of an attitudes one may expect?
  • CII screwed things up from the very beginning by trying to enforce solution of the dissidents issue (well, freedom of religion is not a bad thing), being pro reforms (causing Bar Confederacy and resulting 1st Ottoman War) before she was against reforms (Targowice confederacy, while there was an ongoing 2nd Ottoman War) and many other things in between. She could, with a minimal risk, ignore the dissidents issue and let Stanislaw on his own with his reforms or whatever. After all, the traditional goal was to keep the PLC weak so if it kept rotting, how this was her concern. Probably, it is illustrative that before annexing the CH she seriously tried to turn it into an “enlightened” western-style vassal state so there is a pattern leaving some serious questions.
Edit: If it’ll make you feel better about the PLC fate, in my TL about CII I’m planning to seriously change her political course and minimize PLC losses. Leaving it completely intact is not realistic but mostly intact is quite plausible. 😉
 
Last edited:
AFAIK, these numbers are much higher than in RE of that period and Napoleonic Wars so it is high. Does not make sense to compare with the modern universal conscription.
Russia was iirc conscripting for 25 years, in practice for life.
PLC was conscripting for 6-8 years.
1/50 and 1/100 is less than earlier conscription schemes (I think it was a one off draft, not even a constant scheme)
... and nothing compared to mobilization during Kościuszko's uprising when he called up 1 man from each 5 houses and required to provide an armed rider from each 50.

On a sidenote, I actually wonder if 1-2 year universal conscription wouldnt be more digestible for the nobles. Sure they would be losing more working men, but only for a short time

Anyway, ITTL Poland survived 1791, and each year would make it stronger, and thus more likely to defend itself on its own, and more useful in the international order, so less likely to be gang-beaten to the oblivion
 
Russia was iirc conscripting for 25 years, in practice for life.
PLC was conscripting for 6-8 years.
1/50 and 1/100 is less than earlier conscription schemes (I think it was a one off draft, not even a constant scheme)
... and nothing compared to mobilization during Kościuszko's uprising when he called up 1 man from each 5 houses and required to provide an armed rider from each 50.

On a sidenote, I actually wonder if 1-2 year universal conscription wouldnt be more digestible for the nobles. Sure they would be losing more working men, but only for a short time

The problem was that it did not really worked at that time anywhere even if in French Republic/Empire something of the kind existed in theory. A prevailing opinion of these times was that the soldiers had to be professional. As for the nobles part, I suspect that their mentality was not much different from one of the Russian counterparts: why would you need the peasants skilled with the arms on your estate? At least in Russia after the end of a service soldier was a free man rarely returning to his village. If I understand you correctly, this would not be the case in the PLC with the obvious potential problems.
Anyway, ITTL Poland survived 1791, and each year would make it stronger, and thus more likely to defend itself on its own, and more useful in the international order, so less likely to be gang-beaten to the oblivion
As I said, with a much longer time of peace and continued efforts (probability aside), of course, it would be better off. Which does not automatically mean that it would be fully secure and that its neighbors would not be interested in crushing it. But this is a guessing area.
 
Just wanted to thank you both @alexmilman and @marcinL for the very interesting discussion on Poland-Lithuania. The consequences of it surviving will be interesting to explore, even if we go on a detour to France for a while first, so having all this info and inspiration will be very useful!
 
Just wanted to thank you both @alexmilman and @marcinL for the very interesting discussion on Poland-Lithuania. The consequences of it surviving will be interesting to explore, even if we go on a detour to France for a while first, so having all this info and inspiration will be very useful!

I'm very excited to see both the detour and the consequences of a surviving P-L.
As am I.
The idea of Poland-Lithuania surviving longer into the revolutionary wars, and possibly even surviving into the 19th century, makes this timeline a must-read for me.

I'm also interested to see the knock-on effects for the French revolution!
 
I'm very excited to see both the detour and the consequences of a surviving P-L.
As am I.
The idea of Poland-Lithuania surviving longer into the revolutionary wars, and possibly even surviving into the 19th century, makes this timeline a must-read for me.

I'm also interested to see the knock-on effects for the French revolution!
Thank you both, I will endeavour to deliver something worthy of your interest. There's a lot to explore and I hope to be able to dig into all of it.
 
Just wanted to thank you both @alexmilman and @marcinL for the very interesting discussion on Poland-Lithuania. The consequences of it surviving will be interesting to explore, even if we go on a detour to France for a while first, so having all this info and inspiration will be very useful!

Speaking of (de)tour to France, here is a small quote from the book I’m presently reading. It is from a different epoch but it definitely involves Paris and the Russians so it should fit within your TL. 😉

Hopefully, you’ll it:

."Yes, Paris," Colonel Shcherbakov repeated, and his eyes blurred. - What girls are there... Do you know the Parisian women? - Well, so, - Volin shrugged his shoulders vaguely. - I heard something, of course... - He heard, - the colonel chuckled. - You don't hear about them, you have to see them. And the best thing is to feel. Such, I'll tell you, women are the first grade. Everyone in red lace lingerie, on the head sultans of feathers, footed, curvy, doing splits just like that. And how do they dance Kankan, is it something... - Kankan? - Volin asked puzzled. He was presented with a wild picture: Parisian women in one underwear walking around the city, doing the splits and suddenly starting dancing. However, immediately his face was lit up with a guess, and he said understandingly: "You, Comrade Colonel, probably had been in "Moulin Rouge!"”
"Well, yes, in the Moulin Rouge, and where else should I be? - Shcherbakov snorted. - We are men, our place in the Moulin Rouge. We only spent one day in Paris, passing through. No, we could, of course, go to the museum or to the Cathedral of Our Dame Paris, but there was no time at all, you know? We had lunch and went to the Moulin Rouge. Or do you think we should have gone to the museum? - No way, - Volin calmed him down. - You made the right choice. The museum won't run away, and the girls can get old."
😂
 
Last edited:
Chapter 1 - Part 13 - "Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them." Psalm 89:9
Part 13 - "Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them." Psalm 89:9

British Ships in the Black Sea SED.png

Sidney Smith and Pellew's fleet sailing the Black Sea

The second Black Sea campaign was one of the strangest in the annals of the Royal Navy's history. For all Sidney Smith and Pellew's lofty ambitions, there would be no major battle and little damage done to either side by cannon fire. As far as the Russians were concerned, with the peace talks progressing at an acceptable pace, the war in this theatre was effectively done. With no significant supply lines to defend, since Russia's logistics were running primarily inland, no battles to support and not even really anything that the British could hope to capture either, Ushakov could fall back on the same trick as his compatriots in the north. He could simply not come to fight. Having previously based himself at Sevastapol for repairs, the news of the new British fleet prompted Ushakov to sail out of the half-built fortifications there to the safer haven of Azov. Having actual completed fortifications was an obvious improvement and Azov also benefitted from lying on the edge of waters that were both entirely Russian and entirely unknown to the British. Ushakov had no way of knowing that for sure but good reason to guess so, after Rainier's previous performance in the Black Sea. And he was right, Sidney Smith and Pellew had neither the knowledge or when they found where Ushakov had gone, the inclination to attack Azov.

Despite the 2nd Earl of Chatham's best efforts to revitalise the naval war then, the Royal Navy had been checkmated by the, on paper, vastly inferior fleet of a nation that was supposed to have quailed before them. They had not lost the fight, though the performance at the Battle of Ochakov had left much to be desired, they had simply been prevented from fighting and could therefore do nothing. Despite the futility of doing so, Sidney Smith and Pellew had not yet given up hope of achieving something and so remained determined to sail into the Black Sea and bring the fight to the Russians, for honour, for glory, for their orders, etc. The dashing Sidney Smith even attempted to persuade Pellew to attack Azov, perhaps believing his in shore combat experience in the Baltic would hold him in good stead. The more level-headed older officer would not be moved, however, and so a campaign of sailing around the Black Sea coast, attacking what they could until repair or resupply was needed, was agreed. It was little more than institutionalising piracy and raiding but it was the best that could be managed and maybe, just maybe, it would draw Ushakov out of his hiding place to give battle in a fair fight.

This slightly farcical campaign plan led Sidney Smith and Pellew around the west coast of the Black Sea, attacking Russian holdings where they found them Some of the less well-defended coastal towns and villages were subjected to cannon fire and and successfully raids around the mouth of the Danube and near Ochakov. This at least demonstrated that the British sailors had learnt the lessons of the previous venture into the Black Sea. The ignominy of the whole experience was eventually ended by that great bane of sailors, a storm. Catching the British fleet off Crimea in early November, it scattered the ships across the northern Black Sea, leaving Sidney Smith aboard the HMS Duke and two other ships of the line drifting in the Sea of Azov. Pellew, meanwhile, had been blown eastwards towards the coast of Circassia with 5 more ships whilst the rest lay battered and windswept south of the Crimean peninsula. As the latter groups tried their best to limp back to Constantinople, some also starting to suffer the effects of disease, Sidney Smith and his two fellow captains were forced to raise the flag of surrender as they were captured by Ushakov, who had sailed out personally the three ships that had been blown into his den.

Having been inundated, or indoctrinated, with stories of Russian savagery, the British feared the worst but found Ushakov and his men to be men of honour. Sidney Smith would later describe Ushakov as "one of the finest gentlemen I have ever encountered, all the finer for being unexpected from one of his heritage." As this suggests, Sidney Smith's encounter with the Russian admiral might have warmed his spirits but did little to mend the popular perception of Russians as a whole. After a week in quite hospitable custody, in which the British officers were entertained by Ushakov and the Russian and British sailors worked together to repair the ships, Sidney Smith and his companions were released. The gunpowder, though not the cannons, had been removed from their ships as was typically done in the case of released prisoners of war and they had, as honour demanded, promised to fight the Russians no further. The farewell dinner was as splendid an occasion as circumstance allowed and was hoped by many to be the first sign of peace. Within months, sensationalised versions of the week's stay at Azov would fill British newspapers and at least one officer published a memoir of the experience. Sidney Smith himself would include his own in his much later career memoirs. Most of these accounts tended, like Sidney Smith himself, to emphasise Ushakov's personal honour and that of his men but held them up above the common folk of their country, especially the local peasants around Azov.

In the meantime Sidney Smith returned to Constantinople, joining the similarly beleaguered Pellew there for the remainder of the war. After the dramatic diplomatic failures of the Rainier, Sidney Smith in particularly now set about working to remedy Britain's reputation in the Sublime Porte. In combination with his brother, he managed to establish himself as a popular figure in the Ottoman court and, though the Russo-Ottoman peace would still be signed in December 1791, went a long way to repairing Britain's standing as a friend to the Ottomans. The storm blown end to the second Black Sea expedition thus drew to a close another chapter of the Ochakov War. It, like the war as a whole, was not done officially yet but the British would have no further military involvement in the conflict. Only one active power, Russia aside, remained in Prussia but that chapter too was on the verge of closing with the rest of the book.
 
Last edited:
Part 13 - "Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them." Psalm 89:9

View attachment 891712
Sidney Smith and Pellew's fleet sailing the Black Sea

The second Black Sea campaign was one of the strangest in the annals of the Royal Navy's history. For all Sidney Smith and Pellew's lofty ambitions, there would be no major battle and little damage done to either side by cannon fire. As far as the Russians were concerned, with the peace talks progressing at an acceptable pace, the war in this theatre was effectively done. With no significant supply lines to defend, since Russia's logistics were running primarily inland, no battles to support and not even really anything that the British could hope to capture either, Ushakov could fall back on the same trick as his compatriots in the north. He could simply not come to fight. Having previously based himself at Sevastapol for repairs, the news of the new British fleet prompted Ushakov to sail out of the half-built fortifications there to the safer haven of Azov. Having actual completed fortifications was an obvious improvement and Azov also benefitted from lying on the edge of waters that were both entirely Russian and entirely unknown to the British. Ushakov had no way of knowing that for sure but good reason to guess so, after Rainier's previous performance in the Black Sea. And he was right, Sidney Smith and Pellew had neither the knowledge or when they found where Ushakov had gone, the inclination to attack Azov.

Despite the 2nd Earl of Chatham's best efforts to revitalise the naval war then, the Royal Navy had been checkmated by the, on paper, vastly inferior fleet of a nation that was supposed to have quailed before them. They had not lost the fight, though the performance at the Battle of Ochakov had left much to be desired, they had simply been prevented from fighting and could therefore do nothing. Despite the futility of doing so, Sidney Smith and Pellew had not yet given up hope of achieving something and so remained determined to sail into the Black Sea and bring the fight to the Russians, for honour, for glory, for their orders, etc. The dashing Sidney Smith even attempted to persuade Pellew to attack Azov, perhaps believing his in shore combat experience in the Baltic would hold him in good stead. The more level-headed older officer would not be moved, however, and so a campaign of sailing around the Black Sea coast, attacking what they could until repair or resupply was needed, was agreed. It was little more than institutionalising piracy and raiding but it was the best that could be managed and maybe, just maybe, it would draw Ushakov out of his hiding place to give battle in a fair fight.

This slightly farcical campaign plan led Sidney Smith and Pellew around the west coast of the Black Sea, attacking Russian holdings where they found them Some of the less well-defended coastal towns and villages were subjected to cannon fire and and successfully raids around the mouth of the Danube and near Ochakov. This at least demonstrated that the British sailors had learnt the lessons of the previous venture into the Black Sea. The ignominy of the whole experience was eventually ended by that great bane of sailors, a storm. Catching the British fleet off Crimea in early November (?), it scattered the ships across the northern Black Sea, leaving Sidney Smith aboard the HMS ? and two other ships of the line drifting in the Sea of Azov. Pellew, meanwhile, had been blown eastwards towards the coast of Circassia with 5 more ships whilst the rest lay battered and windswept south of the Crimean peninsula. As the latter groups tried their best to limp back to Constantinople, some also starting to suffer the effects of disease, Sidney Smith and his two fellow captains were forced to raise the flag of surrender as they were captured by Ushakov, who had sailed out personally the three ships that had been blown into his den.

Having been inundated, or indoctrinated, with stories of Russian savagery, the British feared the worst but found Ushakov and his men to be men of honour. Sidney Smith would later describe Ushakov as "one of the finest gentlemen I have ever encountered, all the finer for being unexpected from one of his heritage." As this suggests, Sidney Smith's encounter with the Russian admiral might have warmed his spirits but did little to mend the popular perception of Russians as a whole. After a week in quite hospitable custody, in which the British officers were entertained by Ushakov and the Russian and British sailors worked together to repair the ships, Sidney Smith and his companions were released. The gunpowder, though not the cannons, had been removed from their ships as was typically done in the case of released prisoners of war and they had, as honour demanded, promised to fight the Russians no further. The farewell dinner was as splendid an occasion as circumstance allowed and was hoped by many to be the first sign of peace. Within months, sensationalised versions of the week's stay at Azov would fill British newspapers and at least one officer published a memoir of the experience. Sidney Smith himself would include his own in his much later career memoirs. Most of these accounts tended, like Sidney Smith himself, to emphasise Ushakov's personal honour and that of his men but held them up above the common folk of their country, especially the local peasants around Azov.

In the meantime Sidney Smith returned to Constantinople, joining the similarly beleaguered Pellew there for the remainder of the war. After the dramatic diplomatic failures of the Rainier, Sidney Smith in particularly now set about working to remedy Britain's reputation in the Sublime Porte. In combination with his brother, he managed to establish himself as a popular figure in the Ottoman court and, though the Russo-Ottoman peace would still be signed in December 1791, went a long way to repairing Britain's standing as a friend to the Ottomans. The storm blown end to the second Black Sea expedition thus drew to a close another chapter of the Ochakov War. It, like the war as a whole, was not done officially yet but the British would have no further military involvement in the conflict. Only one active power, Russia aside, remained in Prussia but that chapter too was on the verge of closing with the rest of the book.
Great chapter. If you don’t mind, I’d recommend to replace Azov with Taganrog, which was at that time the Russian naval base on the Azov Sea. The Azov city lost its importance as a port well before your TL and did not have a protected harbor, being located up the river.


1709322785977.jpeg

BTW, by that time there was a lot of contacts between the RN and Russian fleet: quite a few British officers served in the Russian navy, the 1st Mediterranean Expedition made a prolonged stay (and considerable repairs and hirings) in Britain, etc. But you did that “getting familiar” stuff just beautifully. 😉
 
Catching the British fleet off Crimea in early November (?), it scattered the ships across the northern Black Sea, leaving Sidney Smith aboard the HMS ? and two other ships of the line drifting in the Sea of Azov.
It looks like some placeholders from the draft version were left in here.
 
It looks like some placeholders from the draft version were left in here.
Oops! A good catch there.
Great chapter. If you don’t mind, I’d recommend to replace Azov with Taganrog, which was at that time the Russian naval base on the Azov Sea. The Azov city lost its importance as a port well before your TL and did not have a protected harbor, being located up the river.


View attachment 891714
BTW, by that time there was a lot of contacts between the RN and Russian fleet: quite a few British officers served in the Russian navy, the 1st Mediterranean Expedition made a prolonged stay (and considerable repairs and hirings) in Britain, etc. But you did that “getting familiar” stuff just beautifully. 😉
Aha, that is useful to know. Will change when I fix the placeholders too.

Similarly, thanks for the extra info! I figured that even if they had met in the past, the circumstances of the at would probably have led to quite a lot of rhetoric about the Russians being backwards savages. But still, having some extra background to the friendliness is always good!
 
Oops! A good catch there.

Aha, that is useful to know. Will change when I fix the placeholders too.

Similarly, thanks for the extra info! I figured that even if they had met in the past, the circumstances of the at would probably have led to quite a lot of rhetoric about the Russians being backwards savages. But still, having some extra background to the friendliness is always good!
Of course. This was the case even in the later times when the contacts had been much more extensive: “Russian bear” was a byproduct of that propaganda even if its meaning fluctuated from strictly negative (as per Kipling) to reasonably positive, depending upon the political affiliations. To be fair, most of the population of the Russian Empire was rather backward but then, at least until the late XIX the same applied to most of the British population who could not even speak the proper English “and if you speak the way she does instead the way you do, well maybe you’d be selling flowers too.” 😂


As a side note, the bear never was a “self-symbol” until Olympic games in Moscow when it was presented in a very cute form of a bear cub. 😂
 
Top