WI: no Miracle of the House of Brandenburg

Wikipedia said:
After the Battle of Kunersdorf, Frederick thought Prussia faced certain defeat. He wrote that it was "a cruel reverse! I shall not survive it. I think everything is lost. Adieu pour jamais".[2] Prussia had lost 19,000 soldiers and was left with 18,000. On 16 August he wrote that if the Russians crossed the Oder and marched on the Prussian capital, Berlin, "We'll fight them – more in order to die beneath the walls of our own city than through any hope of beating them".[3] That day the Russian Field Marshal Saltykov and his army crossed the Oder and the day before the Austrian Field Marshal Laudon and his army had done the same. Field Marshal Daun was marching the rest of the Austrian army north from Saxony. All three forces aimed to march on Berlin.
Frederick massed 33,000 men to defend Berlin against enemy forces which he estimated totalled 90,000. However now came what Frederick called "the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg". The Austrians and the Russians proved reluctant to follow through their victory by occupying Berlin, and in September began withdrawing their forces. The Austrians and Russians had lost 20,000 men at Kunersdorf and both armies had concerns that their lines of communication were being stretched to the limit by marching so far. Also, one of Frederick's generals, his brother Prince Henry, was not involved in Kunersdorf and still posed a threat to the Austrians and Russians. Frederick regained confidence.[4]

Source

So what if Russian and Austrian forces hadn't been so reluctant and had instead taken Berlin? What would have happened then? Alternatively, if Empress Elizabeth of Russia had died later, keeping Russia aligned against Prussia, what would have happened then? Would Prussia have been crushed or not?
 
Almost exactly like Disaster at Leuthen, except worse out for Prussia. Elizabeth's motivations for why she warred with Prussia, she genuinely hated Frederick the Great.

I can see the peace treaty being similar to the one in DaL with the exception of East Prussia, which goes to Russia. In addition, Russia will most likely force Prussia to abandon its pretensions for Kingship, and return to being just styled as Elector of Brandenburg.
 
Almost exactly like Disaster at Leuthen, except worse out for Prussia. Elizabeth's motivations for why she warred with Prussia, she genuinely hated Frederick the Great.

I can see the peace treaty being similar to the one in DaL with the exception of East Prussia, which goes to Russia. In addition, Russia will most likely force Prussia to abandon its pretensions for Kingship, and return to being just styled as Elector of Brandenburg.

Yeah I agree, this is definitely a worse scenario.

Also I can see the victors falling out over the squabbles after the war. I imagine Poland will disappear fairly quick as well.
 
Now that I dunno. With no strong Prussia, the only major powers are Saxony, Austria and Russia. Saxony were probably more supportive of Polish independence than most, and while Russia wanted to make sure Poland remains a client state if not annexed completely into Poland, Austria would not be happy about it, nor would any of its neighbors.

Ironically enough, a weakened and subservient Brandenburg might actually keep Poland around longer, if only smaller and a definitive second-tier power.
 
Now that I dunno. With no strong Prussia, the only major powers are Saxony, Austria and Russia. Saxony were probably more supportive of Polish independence than most, and while Russia wanted to make sure Poland remains a client state if not annexed completely into Poland, Austria would not be happy about it, nor would any of its neighbors.

Ironically enough, a weakened and subservient Brandenburg might actually keep Poland around longer, if only smaller and a definitive second-tier power.
Prussia was the main drive behind the partitions and lands grabbed by it richest and most populous of Poland. Without it, Poland might lose another piece of Belarus and Kurland, but the partitions itself would be probably avoided, Poland would free itself from russian domination at the first good opportunity when the international situation would allow this.
 
This could just as easily have been called America's miracle because without it, America would very likely not exist.

If Prussia taps out, then Britain doesn't get Quebec and Louisiana stays French. Which means the colonists aren't quite so whiny about the meagre taxes they are asked to pay as there is a clear and present danger on their doorstep. This then meanss that there is no taking up of arms and no United States.
 
My understanding was that the plan was that East Prussia would go to Poland in exchange for border districts like Polish Livonia going to Russia.

And I also agree that without Prussia, it's likely Poland survives as a Russian client state for longer - that's in both Russia's and Austria's interest, so long as Poland is friendly to both Russia and Austria.
 
This could just as easily have been called America's miracle because without it, America would very likely not exist.

If Prussia taps out, then Britain doesn't get Quebec and Louisiana stays French. Which means the colonists aren't quite so whiny about the meagre taxes they are asked to pay as there is a clear and present danger on their doorstep. This then meanss that there is no taking up of arms and no United States.

True of Louisiana, but why Quebec? Kunersdorf happened only a month before the British capture of Quebec, so these changes presumably wouldn't affect that. It also happened after Minden, so the French threat to Hanover, in 1759 at least, is already dealt with, and neither the Austrians nor Russians is particularly interested in Hanover or in a particularly good position to do anything there. So George II doesn't have to give up Quebec to ransom Hanover, either. So why should a Prussian defeat prevent the British from taking Canada?
 
True of Louisiana, but why Quebec? Kunersdorf happened only a month before the British capture of Quebec, so these changes presumably wouldn't affect that. It also happened after Minden, so the French threat to Hanover, in 1759 at least, is already dealt with, and neither the Austrians nor Russians is particularly interested in Hanover or in a particularly good position to do anything there. So George II doesn't have to give up Quebec to ransom Hanover, either. So why should a Prussian defeat prevent the British from taking Canada?

Because Britain will be without allies on the continent and unable to legitimise her hold on Quebec. The French and her allies have won, why should they give up anything? Especially as Quebec is not worth much to the Brits and they aren't particularly interested in it in and of itself. They're not going to continue the war just to hold on to it. If Prussia comes to terms then Britain does too.
 
France had already taken Hanover, and then inexplicably let it go with an agreement to stay out of the war, which Hanover immediately reneged on.

the French and Indian war was an entirely different story. Why would France quit when they're victorious in Europe, when they didn't quit while they were behind in Europe? They tried going back to Hanover, but England had shored up the defenses, and were repelling them. Meanwhile, Britain is kicking France's butt at every turn all over the globe. they're not going to quit while they're ahead and holding steady in Hanover.

I tend to think things turn out pretty much like OTL: Britain abandons Prussia, and France eventually figure out they've lost, big time.

There is also the possibility that the Austrians and Russians were right, that Berlin would be stretching too far, and if they did go for the kill, might find themselves over extended and the miracle goes the other way, with Frederick regrouping and Prince Henry helping to prove that A and R were indeed over extended. Frederick had his moments of depression and may have been speaking more from an air of defeatism than correctly assessing the situation.

And, I've never understood the thinking that if Canada were still French, the Patriots would be quaking in fear and wish to remain under Britain's protection. The population difference means the ability of Canada to project power is limited. IMO, if all other factors remain similar, the Patriots still rebel. They weren't afraid of British held Canada who had real reason to threaten them. What's going to be different is that Burgoyne won't be coming down from Montreal, and thus won't get trapped at Saratoga, the Patriots won't get their first major victory that convinces France that they're for real and openly back them. IF the patriots are still victorious, they're going to immediately cozy up to Britain as an ally against France. Britain will oblige because they want the US trade and they don't want France to gain ground.
 
I agree with others. The Seven Years War was actually two wars: a British-Bourbon war and an Eastern one. Even the peace deals were separate. The Western deal is pretty much the same. The Eastern one entails rump Brandenburg, Silesia to Austria and East Prussia to Russia.

I disagree about a trade with Poland. Russia will keep East Prussia and use it to subjugate Poland further. If Poland ever resists troop movements between East Prussia and Russia, it is an excuse for Russia to invade Poland. Austria is not strong enough to resist this, and France probably does not get involved due to financial issues. Also Catherine's coup probably does not happen: lots of complaints but the main outrage was the Tsar giving away conquered territory. That means a more north Europe focused Russia and probably less integration of Southern Russia.
 
I disagree about a trade with Poland. Russia will keep East Prussia and use it to subjugate Poland further. If Poland ever resists troop movements between East Prussia and Russia, it is an excuse for Russia to invade Poland. Austria is not strong enough to resist this, and France probably does not get involved due to financial issues. Also Catherine's coup probably does not happen: lots of complaints but the main outrage was the Tsar giving away conquered territory. That means a more north Europe focused Russia and probably less integration of Southern Russia.

No Russia would give away East Prussia. That's why they negotiated it out with PLC. It was a good deal for Russia. They give away distant land filled with Germans for neighbours land. And they could already subjugate Poland quite well without East Prussia.
 
What was the extent of the negotiation? Prussia is not that distant and it projects Russian power into central Europe and hems in Poland. Peter III was also a Germanophile and would rather have German subjects than Polish ones.
 
I agree with others. The Seven Years War was actually two wars: a British-Bourbon war and an Eastern one. Even the peace deals were separate. The Western deal is pretty much the same. The Eastern one entails rump Brandenburg, Silesia to Austria and East Prussia to Russia.
Yes, I'm honestly not sure the British would be willing to trade back their various colonial gains to ransom Hanover; Parliament was never particularly fond of it anyway. They certainly wouldn't trade them for Prussia, and there isn't much the Austrians and Russians either can or want to do about that.

On the other hand, if the French don't convince the Spanish to join in, then Spain doesn't lose Florida et al., but is less aware of the need for the various reforms that allowed it to be so successful in the ARW.
 
Top