WIF: Russian Shlezwig-Holstein

I'm afraid that your vision of the situation is a little bit confused. Russia has army of 40K+ assembled in Pomerania with the explicit purpose to conquer Shlezwig from Denmark. Prussia is Russian ally and Britain is friendly: in the 7YW Russia was not at war with Britain, now it is allied with Prussia, which is British ally. Denmark has an army of 20K+ but no money to maintain it over any considerable period of time (it threatened in late June to invade the free city of Hamburg to force a loan from it). Add to this some trifles like commander of the Russian army being one of the best generals of the 7YW and his army the veterans of the 7YW, which managed to score victories over Prussians.

Now, you can keep repeating that you don't see <whatever> but Russian chances of conquering Shlezwig and threatening/occupying continental part of Denmark are quite good. I'd say much better than 50%.



Which would be a minor problem, taking into account difference in the numbers and quality of the troops and leadership.



Unfortunately, your arguments are hardly reflective of the situation on a ground as existed at that time.



As I mentioned earlier, your understanding of the situation is somewhat confused: Danish threat of Hamburg was considered an act of aggression.

I see that you really trying to larping a Russian spokesman by ignoring reality and pushing a narrative without any connection to reality.

No UK was not a Russian ally, they would not support a syphilic infected madman's insane war against a state which UK had courted as a ally (the Danish king's 1st wife and the mother of the crown prince was a British princess, while another British princess who had left her Hessian husband with her children lived in exile in Denmark, the crown prince later married his British cousin a few years after this conflict). Prussia who had troops in mecklenburg retreated out of Mecklenburg the moment Russian and Danish soldiers entered, so Russia could expect no support from the Prussians. The Danish occupation of Hamburg was not a casus belli, but happened after Russia had declared war, to protect Holstein from invasion from the south, and Russia made a similar occupation of Mecklenburg. The Danish army had fortified positions between Wismar and the Schwerin lakes, removing the biggest strength of the Russians their cavalry, the Danish army had ensured a large supply of food and access to supply lines. While the Russians would have to live of the land, a land which the Prussians had looted for years. The Danish army had ensured a line of retreat if they was defeated, so they was able to pull their soldiers back to Holstein and toward Mecklenburg, where other fortifications awaited, a large naval force was also made ready, and the Danish naval force included 14423 men.

As such we have one force which have had time to fortify itself and had a supply against a slightly bigger force without a clear plan to feed itself far away from their hom,eland and with little idea of the terrain. The Russians could bvvery well win, but the Danes had readied a plan to retreat and ensured that they had supply, even in worst case, and the Russians did win, the Russian lacked naval presence to supply their forces or invading the islands. So even in the case of greatest possible Russian success, the Danes simply wait them out.

This is not alæternate history, this is a pure Russian wank, building lack of understanding of the foreign and domestic concern and position of Russia, the interest of other European actors and how 18th century armies functioned.
 
I see that you really trying to larping a Russian spokesman by ignoring reality and pushing a narrative without any connection to reality.

That's plain foolish. With the same success I could say that you are playing a Danish spokesman without any connection to the reality. Rather meaningless style of a conversation. Taking events of the XVIII personally is silly and I'd appreciate if you calm down and try to avoid personal insults.

No UK was not a Russian ally, they would not support a syphilic infected madman's insane war against a state which UK had courted as a ally (the Danish king's 1st wife and the mother of the crown prince was a British princess, while another British princess who had left her Hessian husband with her children lived in exile in Denmark, the crown prince later married his British cousin a few years after this conflict).

Britain maintained close relations with Russia during the 7YW and Russian change of the alliance would improve these relations even further. Relations of the British royal family were of some importance but extensive trade relations with the Russian Empire had higher priority. During the war the British Ambassador in Russia had been actively courting the "Young Court" starting from the "loans" and all the way to providing wife of the heir presumptive with a boyfriend. Not that active British help would be needed.

BTW, most of the stories about Peter's madness (I must confess that syphilis is a new twist for me, where did you pick up that one?) came into the existence AFTER Catherine's coup and nowadays are seemingly thoroughly compromised.

Prussia who had troops in mecklenburg retreated out of Mecklenburg the moment Russian and Danish soldiers entered, so Russia could expect no support from the Prussians.

Why would Russian army of 40K veterans need active Prussian help against Danish army of 20K?

The Danish occupation of Hamburg was not a casus belli,

Do you understand the difference between "threatened occupation" and just "occupation"? Anyway, Danish threat was used as a casus belli.

The Danish army had fortified positions between Wismar and the Schwerin lakes, removing the biggest strength of the Russians their cavalry,

It does not look like you know what you are talking about: cavalry was NOT the "biggest strength of the Russians" in the 7YW. Infantry and powerful artillery were much more important in their battles. The last Rumyantsev's operation in the 7YW was against the Prussian fortified positions at Kolberg so this would not be something totally new.


QUOTE="Jürgen, post: 17144698, member: 96103"]This is not alæternate history, this is a pure Russian wank, building lack of understanding of the foreign and domestic concern and position of Russia, the interest of other European actors and how 18th century armies functioned.[/QUOTE]

Your Danish patriotism is duly noticed and appreciated but it is irrelevant. By the end of the 7YW Russian army established base in Pomerania and had considerable reserves close to the intended theater besides the 40K assigned for the immediate invasion. Nobody was going to interfere actively on Danish behalf and defensive lines were not impregnable. Of course, you are fully entitled to think otherwise if it makes you feeling better. :cool:
 
Interesting...

The Russian and Danish history fans arguing who would win. I need popcorn...

On: I think Russia would take over S-H. But if it willl turn out right..? I doubt it...
 
Interesting...

The Russian and Danish history fans arguing who would win. I need popcorn...

On: I think Russia would take over S-H. But if it willl turn out right..? I doubt it...

I don't argue Denmark would win, I argue that Russia would lose, because they lack the ability and coalition to end the conflict, and Peter's war goal was too extreme for a compromise to be reached.
 
I wonder, in case the ruling house of both Russia and S-H remains Orthodox, would S-H end up going through religious changes of sorts? Even if minor ones?
Holstein is, after all, part of the HRE. An HRE statelet ruled over by an Orthodox duke would have lended even more legitimacy to Voltaire's statement about the empire.
 
I don't argue Denmark would win, I argue that Russia would lose, because they lack the ability and coalition to end the conflict, and Peter's war goal was too extreme for a compromise to be reached.

Russia losing is still a win for Denmark :p

Russia did have a larger Army in Pommerania ready to invade. If we ignore all coincidences the Russians will most likely occupy Schleswig-Holstein. Like you said, the Danish will wait out except Russia won't lose it. The Russian Navy is not something to underrate it as they defeated Sweden earlier in the 18th century numerous time. Considering the Russians have more fundings for their Navy they might even prevent the Danish Army from returning.

The problem I see is that Britain will by no means tolerate a Russian naval base on the Coast of the North Sea. That is the part I disagree with Alex Milman. Good relationship with Russia in the Seven Years War does not necessarily mean Britain will tolerate Russian Naval Base in position to hit homeground.

I see one possibility: Russia will gain Schleswig-Holstein. But it will not rule it any longer than the Revolutionary Wars. Be it the British, be it France. They might even trade it off for more Poland. So the options split in three:

1. Denmark regains it as compensation for other losses.

2. Some other German dynasty gets it.

3. Prussia gets it for the loss of Posen or whatever.

I can't see Russia keeping it. But don't think the Danes will regain it within 20 years or so and alone.
 
Russia losing is still a win for Denmark :p

Russia did have a larger Army in Pommerania ready to invade. If we ignore all coincidences the Russians will most likely occupy Schleswig-Holstein. Like you said, the Danish will wait out except Russia won't lose it. The Russian Navy is not something to underrate it as they defeated Sweden earlier in the 18th century numerous time. Considering the Russians have more fundings for their Navy they might even prevent the Danish Army from returning.

The problem I see is that Britain will by no means tolerate a Russian naval base on the Coast of the North Sea. That is the part I disagree with Alex Milman. Good relationship with Russia in the Seven Years War does not necessarily mean Britain will tolerate Russian Naval Base in position to hit homeground.

What qualifies as "homeground"? And why would the Brits be concerned about it? It is still far away from Britain and the Brits know quite well that the Russian navy is not their opponent on more than one account. If anything, they had been quite instrumental in building up its strength. During the Russian-Ottoman War of 1768 - 74 Russian Mediterranean expeditions would not be possible with ACTIVE British help:

(a) Baltic Squadron used British ports for repairs and provisioning.
(b) New ship(s) had been purchased in Britain to replace (at least one) that was too seriously damaged for a further travel.
(c) The British seamen had been permitted to enter the Russian service without loss of a rank upon return (if they wanted) search for John Elphinstone, Sir Charles Knowles ("the second Father of the Russian Navy") or Samuel Greig. The pattern persisted all the way to the Revolutionary Wars (Russian and British squadrons had been operating on the Med) and at the time of Lisbon Incident (1807) there were British officers serving in squadron of Admiral Seniavin.



I see one possibility: Russia will gain Schleswig-Holstein. But it will not rule it any longer than the Revolutionary Wars. Be it the British, be it France. They might even trade it off for more Poland.

I wrote on that issue. The area would be lost to the French (who may or may not give it to the Danes) during the war of the 4th Coalition. However, taking into account that Nappy REALLY wanted to have Alexander on his side, it could be returned by the Treaty of Tilsit: no offense to the Danish patriots but as an ally Russian empire was more valuable to Nappy than Denmark which, anyway, had the French (and for a short while even Spanish) troops on its territory. The territory would be regained by the military means in 1813-14.

The interesting point would be post-Napoleonic where situation "forks":

(a) Alexander WANTS to keep it. Nobody in Vienna would start making this a critical issue because the much greater things had been at stake. However, IMO, sooner or later the ownership would be transferred to the German relatives of the Romanov family: the naval base in Kiel would not be critically important for the Russian foreign policy of the post-Napoleonic period.

(b) Arrangement (transfer to somebody like the Oldenburgs or even to Prussia) is agreed upon in Vienna. No hackles are raised in Russia because this was just a personal union. If it goes to one of the minor German states, it is straightforward but in the case of Prussia it may involve some additional exchanges.


So the options split in three:

1. Denmark regains it as compensation for other losses.

Denmark was on a wrong side during the Napoleonic Wars and its compensation at the Alexander's (not "Russian") expense is highly unlikely. If anybody on the victors' side cared about Denmark, Bernadotte would not be allowed to take Norway.

2. Some other German dynasty gets it.

3. Prussia gets it for the loss of Posen or whatever.

We are on the same page.

I can't see Russia keeping it. But don't think the Danes will regain it within 20 years or so and alone.

20 years since its loss means 1783 or earlier. It is reign of Catherine II, post her 1st Ottoman War and post the 1st Partition. Both Prussia and Britain (see above) are close Russian allies (not forgetting their own interests, to be sure) and Austria is digesting its share of the PLC and not going to make any waves either. No offense to anybody's patriotism but the chance of Denmark going at war with Russia at that time does not look realistic. And the chance of it getting away with it is even less realistic. The Napoleonic Wars is a different story.
 
What qualifies as "homeground"? And why would the Brits be concerned about it? It is still far away from Britain and the Brits know quite well that the Russian navy is not their opponent on more than one account. If anything, they had been quite instrumental in building up its strength. During the Russian-Ottoman War of 1768 - 74 Russian Mediterranean expeditions would not be possible with ACTIVE British help:

(a) Baltic Squadron used British ports for repairs and provisioning.
(b) New ship(s) had been purchased in Britain to replace (at least one) that was too seriously damaged for a further travel.
(c) The British seamen had been permitted to enter the Russian service without loss of a rank upon return (if they wanted) search for John Elphinstone, Sir Charles Knowles ("the second Father of the Russian Navy") or Samuel Greig. The pattern persisted all the way to the Revolutionary Wars (Russian and British squadrons had been operating on the Med) and at the time of Lisbon Incident (1807) there were British officers serving in squadron of Admiral Seniavin.





I wrote on that issue. The area would be lost to the French (who may or may not give it to the Danes) during the war of the 4th Coalition. However, taking into account that Nappy REALLY wanted to have Alexander on his side, it could be returned by the Treaty of Tilsit: no offense to the Danish patriots but as an ally Russian empire was more valuable to Nappy than Denmark which, anyway, had the French (and for a short while even Spanish) troops on its territory. The territory would be regained by the military means in 1813-14.

The interesting point would be post-Napoleonic where situation "forks":

(a) Alexander WANTS to keep it. Nobody in Vienna would start making this a critical issue because the much greater things had been at stake. However, IMO, sooner or later the ownership would be transferred to the German relatives of the Romanov family: the naval base in Kiel would not be critically important for the Russian foreign policy of the post-Napoleonic period.

(b) Arrangement (transfer to somebody like the Oldenburgs or even to Prussia) is agreed upon in Vienna. No hackles are raised in Russia because this was just a personal union. If it goes to one of the minor German states, it is straightforward but in the case of Prussia it may involve some additional exchanges.




Denmark was on a wrong side during the Napoleonic Wars and its compensation at the Alexander's (not "Russian") expense is highly unlikely. If anybody on the victors' side cared about Denmark, Bernadotte would not be allowed to take Norway.



We are on the same page.



20 years since its loss means 1783 or earlier. It is reign of Catherine II, post her 1st Ottoman War and post the 1st Partition. Both Prussia and Britain (see above) are close Russian allies (not forgetting their own interests, to be sure) and Austria is digesting its share of the PLC and not going to make any waves either. No offense to anybody's patriotism but the chance of Denmark going at war with Russia at that time does not look realistic. And the chance of it getting away with it is even less realistic. The Napoleonic Wars is a different story.

Britain has already had many concurrents near the North Sea. A potential power like Russia is the last thing they want that could danger the British Isles (as I named it as homeground). And Russia was an emerging power in the 1760s. There is no way the British officials would not see the danger. Helping the Russians to the Mediterranean Sea is one thing, but letting them having a Naval Base in the North Sea is totally a different matter.

What I was surprised was you named Catherines rule by 1783. Isn't her rule butterflied away with Peter III regaining Schleswig-Holstein. The relationship with Prussia won't be strained regardless tho.

About the Danish performance. It isn't really irrational patriotism. It wasn't the first time that a smaller nation was attacked by a larger enemy and its allies (France with England, Cologne and Münster vs Dutch Republic) and the Dutch survived it. Now it is hard this would happen again but thinking like Denmark has like zero chance is silly. I'd say 80-20 in favor of Russia.
 
The treat of Russia occupying continental Denmark is redundant. The valued provinces of Denmark are the isles and Norway, Jutland was not. Yes occupation of Schleswig will sting, but the rest of Jutland not so much.

Money might have been tight, but you're acting as the Danish state is about to go bankrupt, it is not and it will be able to find the finances somewhere. Remember Denmark profited mightily during the 18th century from being able to stay neutral.

I don't doubt that Russia would be able to occupy Holstein, Schleswig and Jutland. It still have to fight the Danish army that is fortified (and more is a modern fighting force). and while such a battle might be favoured towards Russia, Denmark can much more easily supply its forces. For Russia to stop this they have to beat Denmark in the Baltic, and in the danish sounds. The navy is Denmark's strength it is very much a capable force and I sincerely doubt Russia will be able to blockade Denmark. Which is needed to hurt Denmark.

I simply doubt Russia's long term ability to stay in Holstein, Schleswig and Jutland. Let's not forget if Russia is unable to force the issue in their favour (on the water) Russian trade in the the baltic is gone.

And this occupation is not gonna bankrupt the danish state. It took the loss of the Danish navy, the stranglehold of Danish trade for several years.

Denmark is not a land power to be considered seriously
I'm sorry what ?

I'm tired of this picture of Denmark being seen as a small nation during this period. It is not the Denmark that lost Norway or Schleswig-Holstein in the 19th century. It is ONE of the most heavily militarized societies of Europe doing the time, only outdone by Prussia or Sweden.

Claiming that @Jürgen 's response is marred by patriotism is down right insulting when considering some of the statements about Russia in this thread and other about Denmark. I might be nationalistic but I'm also realistic.

Can we try to be reasonable and actually consider the situation. Denmark is definitely gonna risk a war over Schleswig-Holstein. They just fought in one over it. The people commenting about what Denmark would do and are capable of, while ignoring something that Jürgen says is respectless considering the fact that he knows his stuff.

The problem with this entire conflict are that I can't see Russia winning, the Russians may very well beat the Danish army, through it's not given, but the result will just be the Danes retreat to the islands, close of Russian Baltic trade and wait the Russians out. The Russian navy won't best the Danish one, and honestly the Dane can afford to wait. The problem are made worse by the fact that if Russia occupies the Jutish peninsula the Danes can use their navy and large marine corps to attack Russians up and down the peninsula. This entire conflict was badly thought out, by changing sides at the point he did, he alienated the Swedes, who was necessary part of the attack on Denmark, the Russian navy wasn't really ready for the conflict, and the Danish army could very well have defeated the Russian one in Mecklenburg, at last UK, Netherlands and France all had a common interest in Russia not controlling the access to the Baltic, which meant the Danes could likely have received funding abroad, if they had to retreat to the islands (and Norway), and these countries would likely accept Denmark closing the Baltic for Russia for the rest of the conflict.

Also this seems to be willfully ignored. Can we please get some comments on it.

What is Russia gonna do when they're standing on the Jutland peninsular, realising that, that is not enough to bring Denmark to the negotiation table.

You need to threaten Copenhagen and Copenhagen is not Berlin, good luck walking there.
 
Last edited:
Britain has already had many concurrents near the North Sea. A potential power like Russia is the last thing they want that could danger the British Isles (as I named it as homeground).

The Brits, being at that time intimately involved in building the Russian Navy and its operations, knew quite well that such a danger does not exist: a seemingly simple task of getting out of the Baltic Sea had been a major problem even at the time of Catherine's 1st war against the Ottomans. Even with the later improvements, it was never competitor to the British navy and, due to the fact that Russian primary opponent were the Ottomans who happened to be French allies, there was no conflict of interests.

Then, when you are talking about the competition, what competition could there be if practically all Russian foreign trade had been handled by the British merchant ships and the Russians did not have any merchant fleet on the Baltic Sea even by the time of the French Revolution?

It is all anachronistic fantasies based on retroactive application of much later realities.


And Russia was an emerging power in the 1760s. There is no way the British officials would not see the danger. Helping the Russians to the Mediterranean Sea is one thing, but letting them having a Naval Base in the North Sea is totally a different matter.

Sorry, but this is a purely theoretical fantasizing: the Brits knew quite well that the Russian Baltic navy is not going to be a problem for them and that Russia just as much interested in friendship with Britain (the main consumer of its products) as other way around. Where would they compete?


What I was surprised was you named Catherines rule by 1783. Isn't her rule butterflied away with Peter III regaining Schleswig-Holstein. The relationship with Prussia won't be strained regardless tho.

Sorry, I was talking about the OTL. It is rather difficult to project the ATL future in the terms of the Russian foreign wars but, keeping in mind that Catherine did not change anything in Peter's peace with Prussia, there are 2 realistic options:

1st, he is getting involved in a war against the Ottomans in which case things are going pretty much along the OTL lines.

2nd, the war is not happening and Russian Baltic fleet keeps rotting in the Gulf of Finland: Peter III never demonstrated any interest to the navy.


About the Danish performance. It isn't really irrational patriotism. It wasn't the first time that a smaller nation was attacked by a larger enemy and its allies (France with England, Cologne and Münster vs Dutch Republic) and the Dutch survived it.
Now it is hard this would happen again but thinking like Denmark has like zero chance is silly. I'd say 80-20 in favor of Russia.

I'm OK with your numbers but staring a war with a chance to win 20 against 80 (you were talking about Denmark taking Shlezwig back) is silly.
 
Russia losing is still a win for Denmark :p

Not really Denmark losing their battles on the mainland would result in the Jutish peninsula being looted and it will take decades to gain the ame taxation from it again, next Denmark will also gain a lot of debt

Russia did have a larger Army in Pommerania ready to invade. If we ignore all coincidences the Russians will most likely occupy Schleswig-Holstein. Like you said, the Danish will wait out except Russia won't lose it. The Russian Navy is not something to underrate it as they defeated Sweden earlier in the 18th century numerous time. Considering the Russians have more fundings for their Navy they might even prevent the Danish Army from returning.

The Danish navy was superior to the Swedish one, both in quantity and quality, the Swedish navy was also split between the Baltic and Kattegat naval forces, while Denmark had one united force. The Russian Baltic navy had also been neglegted for decades and the brackish water at St. Petersburg increased rot. The Danish navy on the other hand was never neglegted, because it was seen as one of the most important strategic assets for Denmark, and the Danish naval personal was experienced sailors, and large forces could be called up to the navy.

The problem I see is that Britain will by no means tolerate a Russian naval base on the Coast of the North Sea. That is the part I disagree with Alex Milman. Good relationship with Russia in the Seven Years War does not necessarily mean Britain will tolerate Russian Naval Base in position to hit homeground.

Yes, which is why there will be no British support for this idiocy.
I see one possibility: Russia will gain Schleswig-Holstein. But it will not rule it any longer than the Revolutionary Wars. Be it the British, be it France. They might even trade it off for more Poland. So the options split in three:

1. Denmark regains it as compensation for other losses.

2. Some other German dynasty gets it.

3. Prussia gets it for the loss of Posen or whatever.

I can't see Russia keeping it. But don't think the Danes will regain it within 20 years or so and alone.

No Russia won't gain Schleswig-Holstein not with the existing POD, the idea that Denmark will give up 1/3 of their population without a fight are completely ignorant of the history in question. It should tell everything necessary to know about this conflict, that the moment Peter had been removed from power, the Russians decided to make peace with Denmark. They knew this conflict would be hard. Also Denmark fought two bloody wars with Prussia and the rest of Germany over Schleswig-Holstein, while being in a civil war at the same time. The first one latest 3 years and ended with Denmark keeping it, while next time it took almost a year for Prussia and Austria to beat Denmark.

I could make a POD for Russia gaining Schleswig-Holstein, it would in fact not be that hard, but any moment for Russian gaining it are past, when Peter III began his idiotic war. It would demand different actions before Peter started the war.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Okay Comical Ivan
This is one of those posts that, had it be made by some members, would have been an informal "cut it out".

Unfortunately you have seven previous actions, all in this same general wheelhouse.

Well try one more action.

Kicked for a week.

It would be advisable to reconsider your posting style when you return.
 
800px-Jutland_Peninsula_map.PNG

To get all these abstract theories about the British concerns into some connection with a reality, here is the map. Peter III, war or no war, was Duke of Holstein, which means that his territory had access to the Northern Sea and Kiel on the Baltic Sea also was in his hands. Danish part of Schlezwig was not adding anything substantial in that regard and there was absolutely no reason for Britain to get scared or involved. More than that, after Peter's death, his son, Paul inherited this title and territory and there were no problems with the Brits during the years he was a duke.

In OTL, the issue had been settled in 1767 (5 years after Peter's death): Paul (or rather Catherine on his behalf) exchanged Holstein to the Oldenburg and Delmenhorst and gave them to Friedrich August von Oldenburg (Catherine's uncle).
 
Interesting...

The Russian and Danish history fans arguing who would win. I need popcorn...

On: I think Russia would take over S-H. But if it willl turn out right..? I doubt it...

Sorry, but you are missing one critical point: the planned war was not about Schlezwig-Holstein. It was about Schlezwig only and (IIRC) only about part of Schlezwig owned by Denmark. Peter III was Duke of Schlezwig-Holstein and in the possession of Holstein. "Russia" would not take anything, it would be Peter in his capacity of a Duke trying to get Schlezwig by using the Russian troops in his capacity of the Emperor of Russia. As simple as that. And yes, at least in OTL the territory was turned over. Can't tell how Peter III would behave.;)

And, BTW, I'm not "arguing", just providing some considerations repeatedly saying that people are completely free to disagree (arguing somewhat assumes that you are taking the sides). Anyway, I know better after, quite a few years ago on one of the SH groups a very nice guy from <you may guess where> became very angry when someone dared to say that in 1700 Charles XII defeated Denmark. I'm also not arguing with the Russian, Ukrainian and many others patriots: usually it just produces irritation on both sides. :cool:
 
o get all these abstract theories about the British concerns into some connection with a reality, here is the map. Peter III, war or no war, was Duke of Holstein, which means that his territory had access to the Northern Sea and Kiel on the Baltic Sea also was in his hands.

You're a bit misinformed, he was not duke of Holstein, but Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. The actual possessions he directly ruled are rather limited, as the Holstein-Gottorp line lost the majority of its territories in the Great Northern War, which was located in Schleswig, that Peter wanted to gain back.

sh1721.gif


Orange = Kingdom of Denmark.
Dark Orange = Gottorps lost possesions to Denmark in Schleswig, and the County of Rantzau's return to Denmark in Holstein.
Light Yellow = jointly ruled areas between Denmark and the Gottorp line.
Teal/blue/purple = Gottorp possessions.

So what you're saying is Peter is going after Schleswig, but the rest of Holstein he has no interest in ? Because To be honest if he is just going after Schleswig (andt his that all parts or just the previous Gottorp parts?) then sure, he is not gonna gain access to any impressive North Sea Habours.

But if he is going for it all, which seems much more likely, he will be going for Altona, Denmarks largest North sea habour. You're still ignoring that Denmark remained friendly with Britain during this period. It's all fine and dandy saying that they are now friendly with Russia because of Peter's stunt, but ignoring the other side of the diplomatic scale seems rather odd.

Sorry, but you are missing one critical point: the planned war was not about Schlezwig-Holstein. It was about Schlezwig only and (IIRC) only about part of Schlezwig owned by Denmark.

So all of it? considering the Danish king rules all of Schleswig during this period. Or just as the previous parts of Schleswig that the Gottorp dukes ruled?
And Peter is simply okay with being joint ruler of Holstein, having the least to say in that duchy? It is after all the richer part of Schleswig-Holstein?

Peter III was Duke of Schlezwig-Holstein and in the possession of Holstein.

Titular duke of Schleswig at best, but if I remember correct the Gottorp line gave up all rights to Schleswig. he is Duke of Holstein, and only in possession of a small part of Holstein, while jointly ruling other parts.

I'm also not arguing with the Russian, Ukrainian and many others patriots: usually it just produces irritation on both sides.

I might be coloured because I'm from Denmark, but can you just assume I actually know what I'm talking about, and are capable of being reasonable?

Disregarding a persons opinion and more crucial knowledge due to "patrioism", nationalism or whatever you wanna call it, as easy as you have done. Seems like a slippery slope.

So what I'm from Denmark, is my opinion on Denmark and its history irrelevant because I'm Danish? I hate to pull credentials, because it is something I don't think is necessary on a board and discussion like this. So far all you have bought to the front is claims from Wikipedia (Which I generally think is an exellent source) but parts of Wikipedia also disagrees with what you're saying.

I just wanna say as a person, with a somewhat decent knowledge about topics in northern europe, specifikly centered around Denmark. Don't you want my VIEW on your alternative history? I'm not against "Denmark lossing" I'm the first to admit that Denmark have had far more losses than victories, just look at its history.

I get that your driving a narrative with a certain outcome. and when someone comes out and say they doubt the possibilities of it, it is annoying. But how about working with us to get your outcome instead of pulling the patriotism / Nationalism card saying our input is irrelevant.

and, BTW, I'm not "arguing", just providing some considerations repeatedly saying that people are completely free to disagree (arguing somewhat assumes that you are taking the sides).

No you're avoiding a dicsussion where each side have a voice. I think the discussion in this thread particularly lacks a view from the opposite site, both Jürgen and I have tried to give you this, and it have been willfully ignored.

Anyways. Feel free to ignore this post and I will leave, comment on it, and we can have a proper discussion.
 
You're a bit misinformed, he was not duke of Holstein, but Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. The actual possessions he directly ruled are rather limited, as the Holstein-Gottorp line lost the majority of its territories in the Great Northern War, which was located in Schleswig, that Peter wanted to gain back.

sh1721.gif


Orange = Kingdom of Denmark.
Dark Orange = Gottorps lost possesions to Denmark in Schleswig, and the County of Rantzau's return to Denmark in Holstein.
Light Yellow = jointly ruled areas between Denmark and the Gottorp line.
Teal/blue/purple = Gottorp possessions.

So what you're saying is Peter is going after Schleswig, but the rest of Holstein he has no interest in ? Because To be honest if he is just going after Schleswig (andt his that all parts or just the previous Gottorp parts?) then sure, he is not gonna gain access to any impressive North Sea Habours.

What I'm saying is not important. What important is what Peter III was saying. The official position was that the war is about Schlezwig. He was seemingly OK with whatever he had in Holstein and what he was getting out of it: few hundred of his "Holstinian" troops with which he was playing in Oranienbaum. Also, he had a right to award Holstinian order of St. Anne which was retained by his son, Paul, even after Catherine settled the "holstinian issue" with Denmark.

Why did he decide to be so concerned about Schlezwig nobody (AFAIK) can tell for sure. Was the whole thing 100% rational? I don't think so. But being rational was not a "must" for the Russian monarchs and Peter just got Russia out of a much greater mess, 7YW, rationale for the Russian participation in which was even more questionable.

The whole issue of the North Sea harbors, under ANY imaginable scenario, is absolutely irrelevant: for the Russian Baltic fleet of that time just getting out of the Baltic Sea (with Denmark being friendly) was a major task involving noticeable losses. Usually, it was maneuvering inside the Gulf of Finland and that was it. It took Catherine's Ottoman Wars to start developing Russian navy but for her policies the Northern Sea and its ports was not important at all: British ports had been much more useful on many accounts.

But if he is going for it all, which seems much more likely, he will be going for Altona, Denmarks largest North sea habour. You're still ignoring that Denmark remained friendly with Britain during this period. It's all fine and dandy saying that they are now friendly with Russia because of Peter's stunt, but ignoring the other side of the diplomatic scale seems rather odd.

No, Britain was not friendly with Russia "because of Peter's stunt". It was friendly with Russia even during the 7YW when they were on the different sides but not at war with each other. And the reason for this friendliness was quite material: existing trade relations had been extremely important for both countries (Britain needed Russian timber, iron, hemp and grain and Russia needed revenues).

Peter's intention to go to war over Schlezwig did not result in an immediate military action so the Brits would have enough time for the diplomatic interference if they wanted. Neutral position would suit them just fine: their trade on the Baltic is not impacted (I'll repeat one more time: practically all Baltic trade with Russia had been conducted by the British merchant ships so Denmark could do nothing to it without serious consequences) and they could offer a mediation at any time.

So all of it? considering the Danish king rules all of Schleswig during this period. Or just as the previous parts of Schleswig that the Gottorp dukes ruled?
And Peter is simply okay with being joint ruler of Holstein, having the least to say in that duchy? It is after all the richer part of Schleswig-Holstein?

Yes, it seems that your "program minimum" amounts to pretty much everything Peter was looking for: "his" part of Schlezwig. As for Holstein, he never ruled it to start with, being brought to Russia as a boy. AFAIK, when he grew up (still heir presumptive of Russia) he did not interfere in the Duchy's administration in any serious way beyond, as I said, requesting a detachment of soldiers.

So, what we are talking about is more or less much ado about nothing. The armies would do some ritual dancing. In the worst, for Denmark, case scenario, Rumiantsev forces the Danish force to get on the open and gains a victory: staying all the time in a fortified position was not the best strategy as had been demonstrated at Pirna, especially when the opponent has enough numbers to keep you in that position AND to do something nasty to your countryside (*). But these details would not really matter too much because very little is at stake and none of the sides suffers from excessive bloodthirstiness toward opponent.

Soon after the whole mess starts, it is almost definitely going to be some diplomatic (either direct or with the Brits as intermediary) action with Peter ending up getting his favorite cookie (few pieces of land which he is never going to visit). There are celebrations in St-Petersburg, Rumiantsev is getting his fieldmarshal's baton and the Danes are issuing a sight of relief (and perhaps celebrating as well because they did not lose anything worth mentioning).

In OTL Catherine II settled the whole issue (acting on behalf of her son who inherited father's title and claim) within few years after Peter's murder by ceding the territory and claim (except rights to the order of St. Anne) to Denmark in exchange to Oldenburg which she gave to her uncle: within her political framework these territories and messy claims had been just impediments. She was playing ultra-Russian card which means that aggression is going to happen in a completely different place and it does not make sense to have unresolved complications over the issues which do not matter.

However, Peter was a different personality. Definition "crazy syphilitic" (if I remember exact words) actually describes his grandfather, Peter I. PR campaign skillfully launched by Catherine after his assassination created an image of insane person but it works only if one keeps ignoring the fact that during his short reign he managed to do a number of very important things. Some of the major ones:

(a) Got Russia out of the big expensive cabinet war. With all brouhaha about the "betrayal" Catherine did not change anything in his peace treaty with Old Fritz and maintained very friendly relations with Prussia. Intended war with Denmark was considered by the contemporaries as a small potato. Except for the Gurads who did not want to leave St-Petersburg and preferred to change a ruler.

(b) Decree of the "freedom of nobility" - abolished life long mandatory military service for the Russian nobility allowing them to start paying more attention to their estates with a resulting general improvement in the Russian economy. Everybody was quite ecstatic: Peter was offered a golden statue to commemorate this decree but modestly declined.

(c) Abolished Political Secret Police (which his wife immediately restored).

(d) Abolished physical punishments (flogging, cutting the tongue, etc.) for the nobility.

(e) Was planning to announce equality of the religions. Now, THIS raised a lot of hackles but can we say that this was a bad thing?

(f) Tried to introduce at least some military discipline and training among the Guards. This was a killer (for him) but done by his successors.

Of course, he had some peculiarities (seems to be in a family) and Sclezwig thingy was one of them. How would it play in a long run we can't tell. Probably it is safe to assume that, if he survived, this mostly titular, "possession" would last during his life time to be inherited by his son. Would he be able to make some practical use out of it? I don't see how. Surely, he was NOT going to incorporate it into the Russian empire, which means continuation of the business as usual. His son is one more grey area: we know what he was in OTL but this was a byproduct of the decades of a neglect and even open hostility from his mother so ATL Paul could have a seriously different personality. Anyway, the options are the same: either a titular Duke or a land swap. Chances for the swap will keep growing with each next emperor.

The only potentially interesting situation arises in a highly unlikely case when the whole thing keeps going on until the mid-XIX when Russian emperor is still a titular Duke of <whatever & whatever> and the 1st Schlezwig War is on a horizon.

-----------------------------
(*) One of Pratchett's "rules of war": if your opponent occupies a very strong position, make sure that he keeps occupying it. :)
 
Last edited:
The official position was that the war is about Schlezwig. He was seemingly OK with whatever he had in Holstein
Interesting, if a bit weird. That does not mean he could change his mind if he is very succesful in the conflict. Something any danish government might also see as a possibility.

The whole issue of the North Sea harbors, under ANY imaginable scenario, is absolutely irrelevant: for the Russian Baltic fleet of that time just getting out of the Baltic Sea (with Denmark being friendly) was a major task involving noticeable losses. Usually, it was maneuvering inside the Gulf of Finland and that was it. It took Catherine's Ottoman Wars to start developing Russian navy but for her policies the Northern Sea and its ports was not important at all: British ports had been much more useful on many accounts.

Ok so let's say there is no British pressure on Russia I concede that to you, though I don't see any reason for British pressure on Denmark either considering the family relations. This leaves it to Russia and Denmark to duke it out, so to say. From what I gather your stance is that this is a minor conflict of territory that is worthwhile little, considering the next quotes:

So, what we are talking about is more or less much ado about nothing. The armies would do some ritual dancing. In the worst, for Denmark, case scenario, Rumiantsev forces the Danish force to get on the open and gains a victory: staying all the time in a fortified position was not the best strategy as had been demonstrated at Pirna


This might very well in the big picture, be seen as territory of little worth, and any would be foolish to fight one of the great powers for it.. Except the former territories was considered VITAL for Denmark. So much in fact, it was deemed more important to gain these territories during the Great Northern War than regaining the traditional lands of Skåne, Halland and Blekinge. The fact is (IMO) that Denmark will feel it is necessary to fight over these territories, it will be a nightmare if the Gottorps become a thing again in Schleswig-Holstein and it will be a diplomatic nightmare for Denmark again.

So while Peter might expect this war to be a dance, Denmark will man its defenses, yes the 20.000 troops under the French general will likely be rooted out of his position in Mecklenburg/Holstein. but if he is not decisivly defeated he will withdraw his troops to the fortresses that have been built and kept modern during the previous 100 years. We're talking about Lykstad(Glückstad) and Ballum in the west, Tønder was a Gottorp fortress used in the great northern war, unsure if it had been levelled or just taken over after Denmark took control of it. And in the in the east, Fladstrand(Frederikshavn), Hals & Fredericia. These are just the ones I could quickly find, there are likely other fortifications.

You mentioned "staying all the time in a fortified position was not the best strategy as had been demonstrated at Pirna" There is one thing that is different from Pirna (as far as I can gather) and the above mentioned fortifications, the access to the sea. The Danish fortifications are not to stop an advance up the peninsular per say, they will be happy about that. It will stretch the Russian forces thin to occupy the peninsular while still keeping forces at each of the fortresses.

And as I doubt Russia is capable of besting Denmark at Sea, these fortresses can't be encircled and starved. They have to be taken by storm not necessarily an easy task. Especially considering the Danish navy will just evacuate the majority of the troops then.

And if Peter is happy with his troops occupying continental Denmark, and letting the Danish army stew in its fortresses. Then it opens up for the Danish army to go on the offensive, using superior mobility (fleet transport) Denmark can marshal a large army at any of these fortresses and sally out, defeating the inferior (numerical) besiegers. There is a reason Austria and Prussia considered Denmark a hard opponent. it is the exact same tactic that would be used 100 years later.

Soon after the whole mess starts, it is almost definitely going to be some diplomatic (either direct or with the Brits as intermediary) action with Peter ending up getting his favorite cookie (few pieces of land which he is never going to visit).

I think this is the issue. in such a scenario where Denmark is brow beaten to the negotiation table in such a fashion, yea this would likely happen. The problem is these territories are in Danish opinions worth fighting for, and considering that Denmark during this period is heavily militarized (over 50 % of the state budget went to the military) and have previously shown willingness to fight even when territory is occupied. This is not the Denmark that was humiliated in 1864 and decided not to use the military as a political tool. That is not the case here.

One of the old danish members once described it as such:
pre-1864 Danes was a lot more militarised than the Prussians, foreign observers described Prussia as a army with a state, while Denmark was described less colourful as "a army rather than a country".

You really need to threaten Copenhagen to get the danish government to the negotiation table without fighting, and I simply do not see how Russia is gonna do that in this period, unless the water of course freezes over...
 
Last edited:
Interesting, if a bit weird. That does not mean he could change his mind if he is very succesful in the conflict. Something any danish government might also see as a possibility.

There are endless possibilities to pretty much everything but at least on the surface things were seemingly straightforward and limited in scope (not being an expert on the issue I may miss some details but, IIRC, even Wiki talks about PARTS of Schlezwig). "A bit weird"? Sure, It was considered a folly by quite a few people in Russia but general Rumiantsev was quite enthusiastic and most probably not only him. OTOH, Russia just got out of a much greater "weirdness": the 7YW in which it did not have a clearly defined goal and which was by far more expensive.

Of course, Denmark was not ready to make any concessions without a fight but, as I said, at least superficially the whole thing looks like it could be relatively easily resolved with a minimal fighting (to save prestige).

Ok so let's say there is no British pressure on Russia I concede that to you, though I don't see any reason for British pressure on Denmark either considering the family relations. This leaves it to Russia and Denmark to duke it out, so to say.

That's exactly what I keep saying.

From what I gather your stance is that this is a minor conflict of territory that is worthwhile little, considering the next quotes:

This might very well in the big picture, be seen as territory of little worth, and any would be foolish to fight one of the great powers for it.. Except the former territories was considered VITAL for Denmark. So much in fact, it was deemed more important to gain these territories during the Great Northern War than regaining the traditional lands of Skåne, Halland and Blekinge. The fact is (IMO) that Denmark will feel it is necessary to fight over these territories, it will be a nightmare if the Gottorps become a thing again in Schleswig-Holstein and it will be a diplomatic nightmare for Denmark again.

Look at the map you produced. As I understand, the issue was just about some pieces of Schlezwig without changing the existing administrative mess elsewhere or grabbing extra territories. Of course, if the war proves to be a prolonged affair, the operations are going to spread elsewhere. This is why I'm assuming that soon after it starts, the sides are starting talking to each other.


So while Peter might expect this war to be a dance, Denmark will man its defenses, yes the 20.000 troops under the French general will likely be rooted out of his position in Mecklenburg/Holstein. but if he is not decisivly defeated he will withdraw his troops to the fortresses that have been built and kept modern during the previous 100 years.

No, I did not say that Peter was expecting it to be a dance. I said that in my opinion it would be a "dance" as in "typical maneuvering warfare of that time". Peter took the military part quite seriously (he had pretense of being a military man, which he was not outside parade ground). He put in charge the best Russian general (with a very good record built during the 7YW) and allowed him to select the best troops and to make whatever preparations he considered necessary.

But, with the minimal success and willingness to negotiate expressed by Denmark Peter most probably would be persuaded to start talks. And persuasion would come from more than one side. There would be internal pressure laced with flattery. Most probably Old Fritz would also chip in because the sooner his newly found Russian allies get out of Pomerania the better for him. The Brits may add their share because quarrel between their allies/friends is working for the French (French general in charge of the Danish troops is not a good sign).


And as I doubt Russia is capable of besting Denmark at Sea, these fortresses can't be encircled and starved. They have to be taken by storm not necessarily an easy task. Especially considering the Danish navy will just evacuate the majority of the troops then.

All true, in general, but (a) as I keep saying, I don't think that the whole affair would escalate to a full-scale prolonged war and (b) Kolberg during the 7YW and Riga during the GNV had been forced to capitulate by the batteries placed on the shore cutting access from the sea. In other words, a lot depends upon the specific layout.

Sorry, but I'm not going to speculate regarding the wisdom of spreading forces between the fortresses and then expecting that the enemy is going to besiege all of them simultaneously thus spreading his own forces thin. By the mid-XVIII this style of a warfare was getting out of fashion and Rumiantsev was not an idiot.

Then, you keep listing the territories at least some of which, if I understand correctly, were out of scope of the Peter's claim so it does not make practical sense to use parallels with the 1st Schlezwig War. Not to mention that it looks like quite a few other factors had been seriously different, including Denmark's military capacities.


You really need to threaten Copenhagen to get the danish government to the negotiation table without fighting, and I simply do not see how Russia is gonna do that in this period, unless the water of course freezes over...

You keep misinterpreting the things I said. There is a huge difference between "without fighting" (which is yours) and minimal fighting which I'm talking about.

And as for the water freezing, this happens during the winters on the Baltic Sea and in 1658 Charles X Gustav led the Swedish troops from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt to Funen and the Great Belt to reach Zealand.
 
Last edited:
Top