WI: Tsar Paul Lives On

IOTL, just when Tsar Paul switched sides in the Napoleonic War and was planning a exhibition to India with France, he was assassinated. WI he avoids assassination and Russia joins France? The man does not strike me as a pragmatist, so a drop of Russian exports does not seem to me grounds that he would then switch sides again. However, would Napoleon make sufficient concessions to Paul? Would conservative monarchies be propped up in Prussia and Austria? Would they succeed in Iran and then India? Even presuming it all falls apart and the Czar lives to 1824, what happens to Russia and France in this event?
 
Last edited:
IOTL, just when Tsar Paul switched sides in the Napoleonic War and was planning a exhibition to India with France, he was assassinated. WI he avoids assassination and Russia joins France? The man does not strike me as a pragmatist, show a drop of Russian exports does not seem to me grounds that he would then switch sides again. However, would Napoleon make sufficient concessions to Paul? Would conservative monarchies be propped up in Prussia and Austria? Would they succeed in Iran and then India? Even presuming it all falls apart and the Czar lives to 1824, what happens to Russia and France in this event?

Well, of course the "Indian expedition" was more than a little bit on a fantastic side but it was conducted by a small number of the Cossack troops and would end up as just one of the many unsuccessful Russian expeditions into the Central Asia that happened before and after Paul (in that regard he was not more "eccentric" than Peter I or Alexander I).

Of course, he was not a pragmatist but (a) his foreign policy was not too much more aggressive than one of his mother (who started Russian involvement on the Med) and (b) he switched sides only after being fundamentally screwed by his allies, Austria and Britain and the British violation of Denmark's neutrality. Nappy did not have to make any noticeable concessions to Paul because his participation in the 2nd Coalition was a purely "cabinet" action.

The Russian exports were, of course, dropping but this worked in both directions (hence British-sponsored assassination). However, as was demonstrated few years later, between Tilsit and 1812 there was a distinctive growth of the Russian domestic manufacturing (usually suppressed by the British imports) combined with the lower bread prices. Probably sooner or later the Brits would give up their policy of searching neutral merchant vessels (anyway, not too many Russian merchant vessels existed at that time so Paul, again, was acting out of principle defending interests of the Baltic countries with the merchant navies).

If Paul survives the assassination plot (and does something nasty to Alexander and Constantine after their involvement is discovered) then he has quite a few years in his disposal until Nicholas grows up. Which means that there is most probably no 3rd Coalition because it is quite questionable if Francis II would risk to face Napoleon on his own. Probably the same goes for the 4th Coalition: would Prussia risk a war without Russian assurances? However, if in both cases the war happens, then both Austria and Prussia are beaten with a lesser effort than in OTL (most of the post-Jena Prussian fighting was possible only due to the Russian involvement).

Russia would probably keep acquiring the territories in Caucasus region (as it did under Paul and his successors) and perhaps starts meaningful expansion into the Central Asia. If the Ottomans are not incited by Nappy (as in OTL against Alexander), then the Russian empire is mostly at peace.

Which leaves an open question of Napoleon vs. Britain: if there is no "Russian resource" (aka, ruler idiotic enough to keep fighting for the British interests), perhaps Britain would sooner or later have to reassess its position and agree to some arrangement.
 
Well, catherine had an expedition going to persia just before she died and paul took over. It seems, there was a moment of opportunity in Asia for the Russians that was lost being Britain's punching bag. I mean, they took over all of Europe and simply gave it all away...for nothing. Just to make it where Britain would have an easier time balancing powers in continental europe so they can expand internationally.
 
Well, catherine had an expedition going to persia just before she died and paul took over. It seems, there was a moment of opportunity in Asia for the Russians that was lost being Britain's punching bag.

It was not actually lost: during the reigns of Alexander I, Nicholas I and Alexander II Russia kept expanding in Asia. Of course, this would probably be at least somewhat easier if the Russian resources were not wasted on fighting Napoleonic France and if the Brits had been busy fighting Nappy and perhaps his successor(s).


I mean, they took over all of Europe and simply gave it all away...for nothing. Just to make it where Britain would have an easier time balancing powers in continental europe so they can expand internationally.

Well, in the end of 1812 when the French were out of Russia Kutuzov expressed the opinion that further fighting in Europe is going to benefit Britain, not Russia. However, Alexander disagreed and 2 more years of pointless (from the Russian perspective) fighting followed just for Alexander being screwed up in Vienna by his own allies. By any stretch of imagination Russia did not need "all Europe". Strictly speaking it did not even need to liberate Prussia as long as security of its own borders could be guaranteed. An idea that Russia is interested in "balancing" anything outside its borders was quite popular but proven to be demonstrably unsuccessful.
 
It was not actually lost: during the reigns of Alexander I, Nicholas I and Alexander II Russia kept expanding in Asia. Of course, this would probably be at least somewhat easier if the Russian resources were not wasted on fighting Napoleonic France and if the Brits had been busy fighting Nappy and perhaps his successor(s).




Well, in the end of 1812 when the French were out of Russia Kutuzov expressed the opinion that further fighting in Europe is going to benefit Britain, not Russia. However, Alexander disagreed and 2 more years of pointless (from the Russian perspective) fighting followed just for Alexander being screwed up in Vienna by his own allies. By any stretch of imagination Russia did not need "all Europe". Strictly speaking it did not even need to liberate Prussia as long as security of its own borders could be guaranteed. An idea that Russia is interested in "balancing" anything outside its borders was quite popular but proven to be demonstrably unsuccessful.
Those resources could ahve been used in colonial occupations in the middle east, which would ahve paid much longer dividends.
 
Those resources could ahve been used in colonial occupations in the middle east, which would ahve paid much longer dividends.

Of course. They could result an earlier conquest of the Caucasus region and at least of the part of what ended up as Russian Central Asia. What's probably more important, this scenario would mean a much lesser stress on the Russian economy: the British loans did not cover all expenses and losses and the people recruited into Russian army in 1813 - 14 could keep working within the Russian economy (soldiers were serving, IIRC, for 25 years so those who got into the army were out of the circulation practically forever).

The notion of the balance of powers was quite silly in a world when those who were making the most fuss about it were exactly the same who were doing most of dis-balancing.
 
Just out of curiosity, would Paul "disinherit" Alexander and Konstantin? Sure, Paul and Alexander didn't get on, but Kostya was supposedly Paul's favourite son. Wonder if he would allow Kostya to divorce Anna Feodorovna sooner than what Sasha did OTL? Also, would his younger daughters (Maria, Ekaterina, Anna) marry differently?

How would this affect the Russian army/merchant marine as well? Or was the army pretty much up to Western European standards by Paul's day?
 
Just out of curiosity, would Paul "disinherit" Alexander and Konstantin? Sure, Paul and Alexander didn't get on, but Kostya was supposedly Paul's favourite son.

If it is found that they are implicated in a plot leaving them in a line of succession would be rather strange, especially with a precedent created by Peter I. Of course, an exact type of a punishment is anybody's guess.

How would this affect the Russian army/merchant marine as well? Or was the army pretty much up to Western European standards by Paul's day?

This is a very good guessing subject. ;)

Presumably, Paul was too much into copying everything Prussian but OTOH Alexander's army at Austerlitz also was not completely up to the highest standards. So probably Paul who is intelligent enough to survive is going to figure out a need of the reforms. After all, the OTL reforms of Alexander's reign had been conducted while the rigorous parade ground was retained (if anything, Alexander, Constantine and Nicholas had been as big parade ground freaks as their father).

OTOH, as was demonstrated by Suvorov's Italian and Switzerland campaigns, when properly led Russian troops were not inferior to the French and Russian navy on the Med also was doing quite well (among other things, successful usage naval artillery for an active support of the troops storming a fortress was a rather rare operation at that time). Basically, during the wars of the 2nd Coalition the allies (Austrians and Brits) proved to be a greater problem than the enemies. :winkytongue:

Not sure if Paul would go for a drastic increase of army size which happened between Tilsit and 1812: this was prompted by a preparation to a major war against Napoleon and in our scenario Paul and Nappy are (presumably) still the buddies.
 
Alexander to a monastery. Not sure what would happen to his wife though - presumably either she joins him in a convent or is sent home? Kostya they can say was "duped"/"bullied"/"pressured" into it.
 
Alexander to a monastery. Not sure what would happen to his wife though - presumably either she joins him in a convent or is sent home? Kostya they can say was "duped"/"bullied"/"pressured" into it.

Well, with Constantine on the throne Russia is definitely up to the "interesting times". The guy was a prick to such a degree that even he himself understood that he is a prick unsuitable for governing the empire. ;)
 
Just out of curiosity, would Paul "disinherit" Alexander and Konstantin? Sure, Paul and Alexander didn't get on, but Kostya was supposedly Paul's favourite son. Wonder if he would allow Kostya to divorce Anna Feodorovna sooner than what Sasha did OTL? Also, would his younger daughters (Maria, Ekaterina, Anna) marry differently?

How would this affect the Russian army/merchant marine as well? Or was the army pretty much up to Western European standards by Paul's day?
With Paul still alive and allied with Napoleon Ekaterina can very well end as second wife of Napoleon..
 
Top