well, if the Russian ruler is pro-French that might help. And Kostya's "problem" in governance (as I've seen it summed up in an Alexander I biography) was that the Russian court regarded Kostya's policies towards the Poles as too liberal/lenient, while the Poles regarded them as "too cconservative"/"repressive". I have no idea how "true" that was, but it would imply that his being "garbage at ruling Poland" could be as simple as a case of falling between two stools politically by trying to keep everybody happy.
WI: Alexander I of Russia was born a woman
- Thread starter GameBawesome
- Start date
Interesting, that could be the case, definitely. Perhaps ITTL the Poles are better off...?
Which of the Russian viceroys/governors of Poland could boast some noticeable success unless by “success” you mean crushing any notion of independence? Constantine was following Alexander’s policy and personally was rather fond of the Poles (to a degree that he forbade the Russian troops to act when uprising started and openly cheered the first victories of “his” Polish troops) but this did not really matter because the whole union thing had been fundamentally flawed on both sides and could last only as long as the Russian side was leaving Poland completely alone with its Russophobia, an army commanded by the former Napoleonic generals and the government confusing the Congress Poland with France.
This was OK by Alexander (IIRC, he already had some problems with the Polish interpretation of the constitution which he wrote) because during the last years of his reign he pretty much gave up on the governing. But this could not last forever and any attempt to make Poland a meaningful part of the Russian Empire was going to produce an explosive reaction.
Really? He was following it in his communications with AI and NI. He was just of opinion that the etiquette and common good manners does not apply to his communications with the subordinates and those socially inferior. This on its own would not be a big deal (the whole XVIII century was full of the similar examples) if not his fits of the erratic behavior: one of the main reasons for the plot against Paul was his instability.
Politics was Alexander’s exclusive domain and Constantine was not invited into it. However, within the allowed limits, he was rather vocally preaching peace with Napoleon, before, in 1812, he became even more vocal his opponent. So annoyingly and offensively vocal that Barclay kicked him out of the fighting army.
So there is no valid reason that Constantine was going to abstain completely from the foreign politics but, OTOH, Alexander’s excessive involvement into it was a complete disaster for Russia: hundreds thousands dead, huge financial expenses, moronic idea of the Holly Alliance, subservience to the British interests (as soon as the dust settled he got a big F—You politically, economically and even in PR) and, cherry on the cake, Congress Poland (two wars and countless problems domestic and international). The same goes for NI who was also actively involved in the foreign politics and ended up with the CW. So, if Constantine manages to find an intelligent Chancellor who is not obsessed with the “European balance” and unprofitable alliances, lesser activities in the foreign policy could be good for Russia.
As far as I can tell, the main argument against Constantine as an emperor is “an idiot on the Russian throne”, which is a false premise. The problem would be (and was) “an active idiot on the Russian throne”. The active ones proved to be quite costly both in the short and long run but a ruler who is doing as little as possible is causing a minimal damage (*). Constantine limiting his activities to inventing the fancy uniforms and being rude to the Guards (to be fair, apologizing after the outbursts, which was more than any ruler before or after him did) would make a reasonably good monarch. 😂
(*) A though expressed by a famous liberal writer of the XIX who also happened to make an impressive bureaucratic career and knew tye subject from all perspectives.
Last edited:
Do you think there was a viable solution the Polish question in 1815? Every option I can think of seems to have so many drawbacks.
1) An independent Poland with its borders guaranteed by Austria, Russia and Prussia, the guarantee here being that neither of the three powers would attempt to grab it, and the Poles themselves would not be allowed to try to restore any former territory. Not sure there was enough trust between the powers and Warsaw would probably be perpetually on the lookout for someone to help them grab just about anything they could.
2) A different division between the powers - maybe something more like 1795 with Prussia having Warsaw and Austria having a bigger piece as well - try to split up Polish nationalist sentiment as much possible? Even here it would just simmer and explode periodically.
P.S. Is that quote by Saltykov-Shchedrin? Somewhat akin to Kurt von Hammerstein's idea that stupid and lazy officers can be useful but stupid and industrious ones must be removed at once. It seems like administrators, whether civilian or military come to the same personnel conclusions.
Not realistic because each of the Great Powers involved still would have their own Poles and existence of the independent Polish state was going to cause never-ending problems with them. The guarantees tended not to worth the paper on which they had been written.
Well, nothing is perfect but why not just to return to the borders which existed before the Duchy was created? Why Austria should get a bigger piece and at which expense? Prussian? After all, the Congress of Vienna was, in theory, about rolling things back as much as possible. Of course, AI would be the major obstacle to this solution because he wanted to be ruler of Poland, which required some kind of a Polish state.
Yes (on both accounts). Russia of the XVIII - XIX had been “blessed” with the energetic fools who (including two “Great”), if given enough time, tended to produce truly disastrous results politically, socially and economically.