Hey so WI Tsar Paul who died of suspicious circumstances leading to the ascension of Tsar Alexander either foils the plot or survives. With a longer lived Paul how do the napoleonic wars play out and what happens to Russia. I suspect we may get a more friendly relationship between France and Russia and in that case how would the balance of power change if a tentative Franco-Russian alliance is reached. Also apparently Tsar Paul wanted to invade India so lets say with him alive the Cossack Expedition reaches Khiva, even if it does not have a significant impact what would the ramifications be since even a failed attack on British controlled India would lead to breakdown of relations between Russia and Britain? Could the Napoleanic state survive in a scenario where Paul retains his grip on power?
WI: Tsar Paul Lives
- Thread starter Gustavus Adolphus
- Start date
The Cossack expedition you mentioned was ill-prepared, to put it mildly, and even chances to reach Khiva were minuscule. Of course, even Khiva is too far away (not to mention other obstacles) for this expedition to be considered even a theoretical threat to the British possessions in India but IIRC approximately at that time the Brits had a general notion that the whole CA should be open to them. OTOH, what will eventually develop into the Great Game continued for almost a century with Britain keeping complaining and no relations being broken over this specific issue.
There was one more plan (AFAIK, not fully adopted) of the Russian-French army marching all the way to India which also seems extremely optimistic (done “by the map” without any serious study of the real conditions) and which could be treated more seriously even in the case of its failure due to a much greater scope.
The open question is could Britain at this specific time afford a complete breaking of the relations with Russia taking into an account that Russia was a main supplier of many strategic materials. The whole thing in OTL was rather weird: Paul organized a second neutrality league, the Brits attacked Copenhagen to force Denmark out of the league, Paul arrested the British ships and goods in the Russian ports, Nelson’s squadron was sailing to Revel in a hope to catch a part of the Russian Baltic fleet (and of course missed it, just as he kept missing the French) and all that time Russia and Britain were not in a state of war (and the British ambassador was actively supporting the plotters). I wonder if the Russian ships were in Revel and Nelson attacked them, would this result in a formal declaration of war?
Now, if Paul survives assassination attempt (*) and Nelson manages to do some rather counter-productive shooting, then Russia is in a firm alliance with France (the British support of the plot may need some proof but an attack on the Russian port can’t be overlooked) and at war with Britain.
Going to war with Britain is going to hit Russian nobility at the pocket (loss of a major buyer of the estates’ produce) but (a) the lower classes are benefitting from the lower bread prices and (b) Russian manufacturing gets a bump because the British imports are killed. Growth of domestic manufacturing should increase demand for some of the estates’ products, creating a new source of nobility’s income. It is possible that a potential negative impact on the nobility is routinely exaggerated because it survived tye British corn laws of 1815-46 and shrinking British interest in the products required for the sail fleet. How important all these supplies had been for Britain at this specific time I can’t tell but IIRC when Paul declared an embargo on selling timber to Britain the Brits started buying it through Prussia. Perhaps similar practice could be extended to other strategic items (thus improving financial situation of the Russia nobles).
In the case of the Russian neutrality we may assume a possibility of the alt-3rd coalition which includes Austria and Prussia. In the case of the Russo-French military alliance I find these coalitions extremely unlikely. Unless, of course, Nappy manages to screw things up forcing Austria and/or Prussia to go to war no matter what and to risk facing the Russian attack, which means that their situation is absolutely desperate.
Could friendship between Napoleon and Paul last “forever” is anybody’s guess but if Nappy is carefully playing up to Paul’s sense of a chivalry and justice (**) the good relations could last. I wonder if Paul would make as much fuss over the Enghien affair as his son did (***).
_____
(*) In one alt-history book he is saved by general Bonapartov who went to the Russian service during the reign of CII. The general is made a fieldmarshal and later fights the French army led by Basileus Thomas-Alexander Dumas near an obscure village called Austerlitz. 😂
(**) At least Paul considered himself chivalric and just and really tried to follow these principles but principe “tried to do as better and ended up as usually” kept working (small surprise when you are surrounded by the dishonest a—holes on a background of which even Arakcheev could pass for a reasonably descent human being with a serious potential for being useful).
(***) For Alexander this was just a convenient excuse for souring relations with Napoleon but Paul may (or may not) take this as a matter of a principle. Of course, Nappy could link Enghien to the assassination attempt, which Paul probably would understand based upon his own and his father’s experience.
Last edited:
I think I said before somewhere that an experienced psychologist could spend a lifetime's work trying to analyze Alex the 1st, and still draw no firm conclusions... extending that to father Paul, who was at times damn near inexplicable, could lead to madness I'm sure...
Paul's reign was so short, that there's really little to go on as far as how things would've gone had he not been assassinated in 1801 - but I think it would've been a wild ride
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him dying of... something other than natural causes sometime after 1801 though, unless his behaviour tended to get less erratic over time... which doesn't typically happen
Paul's reign was so short, that there's really little to go on as far as how things would've gone had he not been assassinated in 1801 - but I think it would've been a wild ride
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him dying of... something other than natural causes sometime after 1801 though, unless his behaviour tended to get less erratic over time... which doesn't typically happen Yeah and historians later down will be like so why again did Napoleon and Paul invade Persia a neutral power to attack British held India?I think I said before somewhere that an experienced psychologist could spend a lifetime's work trying to analyze Alex the 1st, and still draw no firm conclusions... extending that to father Paul, who was at times damn near inexplicable, could lead to madness I'm sure...
Paul's reign was so short, that there's really little to go on as far as how things would've gone had he not been assassinated in 1801 - but I think it would've been a wild ride
Whats all this about Cossacks in Khiva? How could an absolutist tsar support liberte fraternite french state and yet own serfs.
I think it would be a story of a Russia that is full of contradictions.. But depending on what Paul does I can definitly see a case where thanks to Russian support Napoleon trounces Austria and Prussia even harder than otl and what we get is the wierd situation of a Tsar and a revolutionary paritioning Europe between them.
Now the British will be furious but at the time with the manpower of Russia coupled with the skilled French Military the terrifying combo would undisputedly control the land. Now the Ottomans seeing such an allaince will be terrified and will form an alliance with Britain so what we get funnily enough is a war between Russia France and satellite states and Britain and the Ottoman empire since France had interests in Croatia and Dalmatia.
Now the question is given Paul is doing all of the above I expect a bitter fight with the russian nobility in which case as crazy as it sounds the Tsar may try to spur support from the serfs and commoners to counter the nobles or threathen to do and using that popular support crush the noble rebels leading to a mass purge. It would be a strange world and who knows as a result of the russo-franco adventures we may have Britain not be able to focus enough attention on India so the Marathas may still hold on. It wasnt till 1815 that they fell after all.
Now if Russia takes over central Asia and France partitions Persia with Russia, well Britain would basically become isolated especially if the Ottomans are dealt with quickly will just be complaining so what we get is a state of perpetual war and if Paul does do his purges than whoever is his successor I doubt it will be Alexander since Alexander plotted to kill him in the first place would be pro-french. A wierd world indeed
Although in the short term it might cause an Anglo/Russian War, which would be good for the French, the situation might change. The British might just seed Malta to Russia, to make Paul happy, and wait for the struggle for the control of Germany to draw Russia into conflict with France. In the long term Napoleon was always drawn towards an Austrian alliance, which would antagonize Russia. In the end Napoleon could never balance the interests of the other powers of Europe, because of his maximalist demands. Whatever he had, he always wanted more, and pushed everything to the limit.
Well, taking into an account that the Brits conquered India, conversation regarding the aggression against a “peaceful trade company” (term used by the Brits when Russians blocked access to the CA) are hardly convincing. Anyway, Russia was invading Persia since the time of Peter I and last time it was done during the reign of CII so nothing unique there.
Well, IIRC, Nappy restored slavery so the theory and practice clearly were widely separate things. Paul’s own mother was exchanging the Enlightenment ideas with the French philosophers while turning Russian serfdom into the slavery. Actually, Paul caused an outrage among some of the most “enlightened” Russian aristocrats by being the 1st Russian monarch who included the serfs into loyalty oath to the monarch: Golovkin in his memoirs described this as the most terrible act.
It would be if Paul did not find a simple and obvious ideological solution by defining the 1st Consul as “a monarch in everything except the title”.
Russian nobility was not a sold unit and its mass revolt is a fantasy. The things had been routinely done by a small group of the Guards, each with his own interests. Their main problem was not to get involved the soldiers of the Guards regiments because Paul was quite popular among the ranks: he was the 1st who introduced the warm winter coats, made the retired soldiers free, and took care of the good food supplies.
The same goes for the nobility. Many of those in court were against Paul due to his temper but those in the provinces and in the army (as opposite to the Guards) could not care less. Quite a few approved his attempts to put some order into the civic administration which was totally out of hands during the reign of CII and the same goes for his army reforms. A “traditional” story about the army disapproving of the Prussian style drill aisle mostly based upon the writings of his enemies (who had nothing to do with the army) and couple remarks from Suvorov. During the following half a century the Paul’s successors introduced a drill which went far beyond of what Paul did and the Russian officers .... liked it and had been proud of it. Being good at paradeground drill was a sure way to make a career during the reigns of AI and NI.
As far as the “purges” are concerned, I’m afraid that you are confusing the times: Paul was not Stalin and mass repressions based upon the social class would not happen. Anyway, why would they if a majority of the Russian nobility did not feel any specific pressure from Paul and could not care less about the French ideology as long as nobody was trying to take away their serfs.
In OTL Russia took the CA even if later, grabbed a big chunk of Persia and had a strong influence in the remaining Persia. This did not make Britain isolated because its communication with India was not by the land. In the early XIX Russian conquest of the CA was a logistical impossibility.
Quick “dealing” with the Ottomans was one more logistical almost impossibility. Not because they were too strong but due to the geography: Russian armies of that period could not go too far beyond the Danube.
Actually, short of some direct British action (for example caused by Nelson’s excessive enthusiasm on the Baltic Sea) it is unlikely that the bad relations with Britain would deteriorate into the open war. Conversation about the British India is fine but it was owned by the private company and offense against that company (especially one that is not going to materialize) was not exactly the same as a direct attack on Britain.
You hit nail on the head 😂. One never should underestimate Nappy’s ability to shot himself on a foot. Meddling in Germany definitely could end the beautiful friendship.
Always found Paul and Alex I's on-again, off-again "bromance" with Nap interesting, to say the least... for the Autocrats of All the Russias to be flirting with grand strategies with the one man in Europe you'd think would've been their bete noire shows what interesting times those would have been to have lived in
It probably worth noticing that neither Palen nor Bennigsen were on a receiving side of Paul’s temper so it hardly can be convincingly described as a decisive factor for their leading role in a plot. The same goes for Zubov brothers: contrary to the expectations, they did not suffer during his reign.I think I said before somewhere that an experienced psychologist could spend a lifetime's work trying to analyze Alex the 1st, and still draw no firm conclusions... extending that to father Paul, who was at times damn near inexplicable, could lead to madness I'm sure...
Paul's reign was so short, that there's really little to go on as far as how things would've gone had he not been assassinated in 1801 - but I think it would've been a wild ride
Now, while Paul most probably was erratic, we have to keep in mind that practically all information that we have about him was produced by his enemies. And most of these enemies he kept at court and some of them (like Rastopchin) had been owning him their careers and personal wealth. Or take an absolutely useless person like Golovkin (a surviving member of the German branch). He was taken to the court by CII, who had fond memories of his aunt, when he completely run out of money, did not bother to learn Russian, his appointment as an ambassador to the Naples ended up with a diplomatic scandal (he wrote the satirical couplets about the queen and song them into her face), he was recalled and put under arrest. Paul released him and even gave a high court position and do we gave a single world of a gratitude in his memoirs? Only criticism even for the unquestionably good actions like including the serfs into the allegiance oath (as indication that they were subjects of the empire and not just a property of their owner). Ah yes, Paul was mean to him: he ordered him to stop making jokes while in Paul’s presence. After reading some of these “jokes” I can’t disagree with Paul: they were not funny at all.
Actually, some of the contemporary memoirs end up showing Paul as a reasonably indulgent and good-natural person but everything is buried under the avalanche of the “serious crimes”: he introduced the tight pants in the army (did any of the critics bother to look at the uniforms of AI and NI?) re-introduced the obsolete hairstyle with a pigtail (bad) and Prussian-style drill (look at AI and NI) but he also introduced the overcoats (somehow none of the “good” reformers figured this out) and made the retired soldiers free citizens. And the list is going on.
Now, the reasons for his decisions in the foreign policy may be questionable but a final idea of making a lasting peace with the French Republic was much better for Russia than what his son got Russia into: hundreds thousands dead, financial problems, ending up with the Polish time bomb and for what? Probably no need to comment upon the foreign policy of NI: while a lot had been written off upon AI’s “mysterious soul”, NI was a clear case of an unmitigated idiot.
Look at it from a different perspective. While Russian love-hate relations were based upon the conflict between the common economic interests and contradicting territorial interests, there was absolutely no common or conflicting interests between Russia and French Republic/1st Empire. Unlike his son, Paul did recognize this and found a convenient ideological excuse to justify the alliance in his own eyes (and those of the Russian “public opinion”).Always found Paul and Alex I's on-again, off-again "bromance" with Nap interesting, to say the least... for the Autocrats of All the Russias to be flirting with grand strategies with the one man in Europe you'd think would've been their bete noire shows what interesting times those would have been to have lived in
And in fact really never had been, except for over the Ottoman Empire, the Straits and the Levant, which would come to the fore later... but by 1894 that "we have no conflicts, but we have common interests" would certainly crop up again in a BIG way...
The main Russian interest in the Straits during the XIX a century was to force the Ottomans to keep the foreign warships out of the Black Sea. Levant was mostly out of the Russian reach and the main conflict of the interests was with Austria: as I understand, the Danube wads a valuable trade route for Austria with the resulting interest in the Danube Principalities and Russia in post-CII times was operating on the Danube for the reasons not quite clear: the border by low Danube could make some geographic sense but otherwise the region was completely useless for any practical Russian purposes. Well, perhaps having the principalities as the main theater of the Ottoman wars allowed Russia to get territorial gains on the Caucasus with a relatively small effort (pacifying these territories was a different issue).