WI Pitt and Prussia launched a war on Russia in the 1789-1791 timeframe?

WI Pitt and Prussia launched a war on Russia in the 1789-1791 timeframe?

  • a) Prussia/Britain could win

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • b) Suvorov would kick Prussia’s butt on land

    Votes: 7 70.0%

  • Total voters
    10

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What happens as a result? Pitt the Younger and friends wanted to cut Russia down in size at the time and Russian bribery in London sabotaged approval for war. Apparently Prussia's King at the time wanted to expand in the Baltic at Russia's expense.

What if these two countries, members of the "Triple Alliance" of 1788 with the Netherlands, had gotten the war they sought?

Could Prussia and Britain win against Russia? If they won, what would they get?

Or would Russia defeat the Prussians and British on land?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Some additional background from wiki, to move this along:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Alliance_(1788)

The Triple Alliance of 1788 was a military alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and the United Provinces. Great Britain saw it as necessary to maintain the balance of power, and Prussia was hoping for the territorial gains. The alliance was primarily aimed at the Russian Empire, which stood to increase its influence with its looming victory over the Ottoman Empire. Due to efforts of Russian diplomacy, particularly in fostering parliamentary dissent in Great Britain, where the main proponent of action against Russia, William Pitt the Younger, lost support, the Alliance fell apart before it was ready to engage in planned military action against Russia. The destruction of the Triple Alliance is considered a major success of the Russian diplomacy.

British aims vis-a-vis Russia: From the British perspective, the Alliance was formed to maintain the balance of power in Europe, particularly with regards to France and Russia, and the potentially unstable regions of the Baltics, the Balkans and the Netherlands. Great Britain would be content if Russia would retreat from its war with the Ottomans without any territorial changes.

Prussian aims vis-a-vis Russia: Prussia, on the other hand, was hoping for some territorial gains in the Baltic region, through war (with Russia) or diplomacy (from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), or a combination of the above.
 
Considering that France was, at the time, going through its escalating revolution, a relatively large-scale war between an Anglo-Prusso-Turco-Dutch alliance and an Austro-Russian alliance would prove an useful opportunity for the revolutionaries to expand.
I wonder who the Assembly at Paris would pragmatically ally with.
 
Last edited:
Some additional background from wiki, to move this along:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Alliance_(1788)

The Triple Alliance of 1788 was a military alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and the United Provinces. Great Britain saw it as necessary to maintain the balance of power, and Prussia was hoping for the territorial gains. The alliance was primarily aimed at the Russian Empire, which stood to increase its influence with its looming victory over the Ottoman Empire. Due to efforts of Russian diplomacy, particularly in fostering parliamentary dissent in Great Britain, where the main proponent of action against Russia, William Pitt the Younger, lost support, the Alliance fell apart before it was ready to engage in planned military action against Russia. The destruction of the Triple Alliance is considered a major success of the Russian diplomacy.

British aims vis-a-vis Russia: From the British perspective, the Alliance was formed to maintain the balance of power in Europe, particularly with regards to France and Russia, and the potentially unstable regions of the Baltics, the Balkans and the Netherlands. Great Britain would be content if Russia would retreat from its war with the Ottomans without any territorial changes.

Prussian aims vis-a-vis Russia: Prussia, on the other hand, was hoping for some territorial gains in the Baltic region, through war (with Russia) or diplomacy (from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), or a combination of the above.


IMO, both purposes were unrealistic. Russian army of 1788 was better than Prussian in the terms of tactics and had better generals (Rumyantsev and Suvorov being most prominent) while the Prussians still had been dwelling in the age of the Old Fritz (and their presumably best commander was the Duke of Brunswick). Of course, a need of dealing with the Prussians could negatively impact the Russian operations against the Ottomans but by the end of 1788 Russian armies achieved pretty much everything they really wanted: with the fall of Ochakov the Northern coast of the Black Sea was secured and there was no chance for the Ottomans to regain the Crimea. Scope of the further operations could be limited to holding positions in Moldavia with the released troops being sent to deal with the Prussians making Prussian gains on the Baltic coast extremely unlikely.

Britain could add very little to the equation in the terms of a land force and the same goes for the naval affairs. Russian 1st Mediterranean expedition was over and the 2nd one was years away so not too much for the British navy to do on the Med. Ochakov was taken by the Russians in December of 1788 so not too much to do on the Black Sea either. The Black Sea fleet was already created but with Nelson still being a ship commander (IIRC) it is interesting to speculate about a possible outcome of a potential confrontation (AFAIK, Admiral Fedor Ushakov was a highly rated figure). Anyway, it would be impossible to take back the Ottoman ports already captured by the Russians so what's the point?
Sending the British fleet in the Baltic Sea (which was Pitt's idea) was a little bit on the idiotic side: it could do no serious harm to the Russian coastal fortifications or to the Russian fleet safely staying in the ports. It hardly could disrupt Russian commercial traffic because almost 100% of that traffic had been done by ... the British ships (hence absence of enthusiasm among the British merchants).

What, IMO, was silly in the whole combination is the fact that at this time Britain was a major consumer of the Russian raw materials (timber, iron, hemp, etc.) and grain and a war could hit the British economy. The Netherlands were justifiably afraid that in the case of a war Russia will refuse to pay its debts to the Dutch bankers. Basically, the whole thing looks as a big political bluff based upon expectation that Catherine II would buy it (as more or less happened after her 1st Ottoman War when Maria-Theresa and Fritz pushed her into the 1st Partition). But by 1788 she was an experienced ruler sure of her military power and well-versed in the foreign policy (as was demonstrated by the Russian diplomatic activities related to this episode) so the bluff did not work.
 
Top