Order of the White Eagle - polish entrance into the XIX century

[The Link]

ORDER OF THE WHITE EAGLE

​

Enter the world where Prussia collapsed during the Seven Years' War, and Poland became one of the great powers of the XIX century.


CHAPTER 1: The Commonwealth at the crossroads of history

The XVII century wasn't a nice time for once mighty Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The series of destructible wars left the country vulnerable and ravaged by war. On top of that, the most powerful noblemen, magnates, started disobeying the central government and deciding about their issues all by themselves, leading to an anarchy. There was little help in a fact that from the very beginning of its existence the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a country with a limited power of the monarch, who had to share the power with Sejm (parliament). The country's political system was in fact called the noble democracy: 10% of the country’s population was composed of the noblemen. Seems small, but it was nonetheless a gigantic number compared to the other countries in Europe at the time. The nobility had dozens of rights, and regardless of whether a nobleman was poor or extremely rich, each of noblemen could vote. The power of the monarch was limited, and the monarch was in fact chosen through elections. There was no official dynasty, and in many ways the monarch was simply a lifetime president, having to share the power with the parliament. Of course the son of some monarch could become the next monarch, but he had to win the throne through elections, his succession wasn’t guaranteed. For a long period of time this system worked, because the noblemen felt themselves to be elite, deciding about the fate of the country. But eventually it started becoming flawed, because the noblemen started becoming arrogant and believing that their personal good equals the good for the country. And as the Commonwealth went through series of destructible wars, the magnates started becoming basically lords in their own lands, caring exclusively about themselves. The attitude which eventually started being shared by lesser noblemen as well. There was however someone who wanted to change it.

In 1697 a very ambitious ruler of the german Electorate of Saxony, Frederick August I, became the polish king as Augustus II Strong. He had an ambitious plan of getting for himself Livonia at the cost of Sweden. Sweden was then ruled by a young Charles XII. Everyone throught that he's inexperienced, and that Sweden has just become an easy prey. And so the coalition was formed between Denmark, Saxony and Russia, with an attempt to attack Sweden. Contrary to popular belief, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wasn't a member of this coalition. Augustus entered the war solely as the ruler of Saxony. And while his private saxon forces struck from the Commonwealth as Livonia, he intended to get Livonia exclusively for himself, to increase his position for further plans to eventually introduce an absolutist rule in the Commonwealth with him in charge. But soon the reality verified his plans: Sweden easily crushed his saxon forces, then the Swedes forced the Danes to withdraw from war, and Russians got crushed by the Swedes too. And despite the PLC was officially neutral, it got invaded by the Swedes with an attempt to dethrone Augustus and replace him with a pro-swedish monarch, Stanisław Leszczyński.

And so the Commonwealth became a battlefield for the Swedes and Russians, with some polish-lithuanian noblemen supporting Augustus while others supported Leszczyński. Ultimately the war ended with a total victory for Russia who severely defeated the Swedes, annexed a heck lot of swedish lands, and also became de facto a ruler of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. From now on, pretty much every decision within the Commonwealth had to be approved by Russia, who presented herself as the guardian of favorable for the noblemen status quo: making sure that the Commonwealth is a mess without any coherence, with the noblemen being allowed to do whatever they want. And the selfish polish-lithuanian noblemen in general liked it, seeing the Russian Empire as their friend and protector of their privileges. Augustus II was brought back to the throne, but only under the condition that he'll be allowing this corruption to continue. And he did, seeing the Commonwealth as a lost cause. Once he died in 1733, Leszczyński returned and claimed himself to be a king once more, but the russian intervention quickly dethroned him and gave the throne to Augustus' son, Augustus III, who continued the policy of not interrupting the russian interference into the polish-lithuanian affairs [1].

And as the russian control over the Commonwealth had been increasing, a new power started rising up in the west: the Kingdom of Prussia. Numerous military reforms transformed the prussian army into the most effective army of Europe, and in 1740-1742 the Prussians managed to seize from Austria a rich region of Silesia. This largely increased the position of Prussia, and so a huge coalition was formed between various powers to take Prussia down, including Russia who saw the rising prussian power as a threat to Poland whom Russia saw as Russia's property. And so the Russians too joined the war against Prussia, by striking at Prussia from the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who was already de facto a protectorate of the Russian Empire.

The only major power kinda supporting the Prussians was Britain, but only because Britain had its own grievances against France in the colonies. On mainland Europe, Prussia had only the support of Hanover who was in personal union with Britain. Other than that, Prussia was on its own. And having to fight against so numerous enemies at the same time, Prussia almost bled itself to death and almost collapsed. And then a miracle happened, the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg. The russian empress Elizabeth suddenly died and was replaced by her nephew Peter III, who was basically a fanboy of Prussia. Not only he decided to withdraw the russian troops from captured by Russians Berlin, he additionally ordered his troops to fight on the prussian side. Peter III was soon assassinated in a conspiracy led by his wife Catherine, who then replaced him as the ruler of Russia. But at that time Prussia was already saved. And that's what became crucial for the fate of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, because it was Kingdom of Prussia the one who initiated the partitions of Poland.

In 1763 Augustus III died, marking the end of the Wettin rule in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And in 1764 Catherine the Great gave the polish-lithuanian throne to the lithuanian nobleman Stanisław August Poniatowski who had been her lover. She decided so, because she hoped that he will be yet another puppet. But to a common surprise, the moment he was given the throne, he started massively reforming the country in order to fix it. In response Catherine enforced upon the Commonwealth the so called Cardinal Laws which guaranteed the inviolability of the worst aspects of the Commonwealth's system, and additionally the country was made into the official protectorate of the Russian Empire. This shocked a lot of polish-lithuanian noblemen who until now didn't realise how much dependent the country is on Russia. Soon the patriotic group of noblemen formed the so called Bar Confederation against Russia, and started the military fights against the russian troops present within the Commonwealth... and additionally against the king whom they didn't trust and whom they saw as Russia's puppet. And this is where Prussia came in. Until now, Russia had been harshly objecting any partitions because Russia wanted all of PLC entirely for Russia. But as the Bar Confederates kept fighting, the prussian king Frederick the Great convinced the Russians that it's better to just divide Poland. Additionally the prussian diplomacy started mediating between Russia and Austria. Russia had then simultaneously a huge war against the Ottoman Empire, a war during which the Russians had such huge territorial demands in the Balkans that the Habsburgs started objecting it. Therefore Prussia started persuading the Russians that Austria might agree on the russian territorial demands if Austria gets a compensation in the form of some polish lands. And so ultimately the first partition of Poland was made in 1772.

After that, Poniatowski decided to continue his reforms but much more quietly and more carefully. Mostly through education and the spread of awareness for the necessity of reforms. He founded the Comission of National Education, arguably the world's first Ministry of Education. And he started regularly inviting numerous intellectuals to the so called Thursday Lunches to discuss the politics and enlightenment. And finally a great chance appeared: in 1788 Russia found herself at war against two countries at the same time: against Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. Using it, Poniatowski and his faction started the massive reforms of the so called Great Sejm, culminating in the proclamation of the Constitution of 3 May 1791, Europe's first modern constitution and the world's second after the american one.

The Constitution completely reshaped Poland, and brought anger in Russia. At Russia's order, the anti-reformist noblemen formed the Targowica Confederation who then asked Russia for help, giving to Russia a pretext for an invasion. From the very beginning of the Great Sejm the reformers knew that something like that might happen and had signed during the Great Sejm the alliance with Prussia, in hopes that after Prussia grabbed in 1772 what some people call "the polish corridor", this will be enough for Prussia. But it wasn't, and during the polish war in defence of the Constitution, Prussia betrayed Poland by not coming with help. And although the polish forces defeated the Russians in the battle of Zieleńce, Stanisław August Poniatowski panicked and decided to cancel the Constitution in hopes to buy russian mercy for Poland. But in spite of that, Russia and Prussia made in 1793 the second partition of Poland anyway. The Commonwealth's remnants were occupied by the russian troops and soon the Kościuszko Uprising outbroke against Russia. But Prussia sent the military forces to assist the Russians in the pacification of the Uprising, followed by the third and final partition of Poland in 1795.

But in this world, the partitions do not happen.

In this world, Prussia did collapse during the Seven Years' War. The russian noblemen are already during Elizabeth's reign worried about pro-prussian sympathies of her nephew. So when the empress Elizabeth dies, the conspiracy led by Catherine forms itself much faster and assassinates Peter before he can even become the tsar. Catherine becomes Elizabeth's direct successor, and she continues the war against Prussia, resulting in a total destruction of Prussia. Britain beats France in the colonies anyway, but on mainland Europe there are changes of borders in a way that had been already planned during the war (here's someone's map summarizing how the borders would look like). Austria regains the lost region of Silesia, and in exchange for french help the Habsburgs allow to cede the Austrian Netherlands to France. Sweden regains the lands Prussia had gotten in the later stage of the Great Northern War, and Russia gives East Prussia to Poland in exchange for annexing the Commonwealth's vassal, the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia [2]. The Hohenzollern dominions are reduced to just Brandenburg, which is now forbidden to call itself Prussia ever again. Frederick the Great, not willing to accept this defeat, commits suicide. And this lack of Prussia is the thing which allows Poland to rise. Catherine the Great still makes Poniatowski the ruler of PLC, and the events leading to the outbreak of anti-russian Bar Confederation still happen. But without Prussia pressuring and convining everyone for the partition, the fights against the Bar Confederation remain purely the issue of Russia. And without the prussian diplomatic mediation, Austria remains at hostile relations with Russia as objection to the territorial demands Russia has in the Balkans. In fact, Austria starts being quietly supportive to the Bar Confederates whom Austria sees as a useful distraction making the Russians unable to focus themselves on the expansion to the Balkans. Russia still succeeds to pacificate the Bar Confederation, but there is no partition of Poland. And the pacification of the Bar Confederation in the long run actually benefits Stanisław August Poniatowski. The Bar Confederates, while patriotic, objected any reforms and demanded to keep the status quo favoring the noblemen at the cost of the central government. And so Russia, without really realising it, eradicated the political opponents that could object Poniatowski's attempts to reshape the country. Of course Poniatowski, still being worried about the way the russian armies brutally pacificated the Confederates, decides to be careful in further reforms anyway, but now his internal enemies are less strong. And finally, without the first partition of Poland, by the time the Constitution of 3 May 1791 is proclaimed, Poland will have much more resources and much more lands to oppose the russian invasion. Once Russia invades to cancel the Constitution, Poland successfully beats out the russian troops and the Constitution is maintained.

After that, Poland witnesses another useful event: tsar Paul the First, Catherine's son who hated what Catherine had been doing to Poland because he believed Stanisław August Poniatowski to be his biological father [3]. Once Catherine dies and Paul takes the throne, he decides to don't make any vendetta against Poland. This view is shared only by him, his sons don't follow this way of thinking. But before his oldest son, Alexander, takes power in Russia, Poland enjoys peace in the east and can fully implement all reforms of the Constitution.
And implements lot it does. The power gets divided into three branches according to Montesquieu's separation of powers, the urban population is allowed to participate in the political life of the country, the peasants are taken under the official protection of the country, and the hereditary of the throne is announced, although it's not Poniatowski the one who's about to start a new dynasty. Instead, the role of the dynasty goes to saxon Wettins, the way it was already planned prior to announcement of the Constitution. Although the rule of former Wettins (Augustus II the Strong and Augustus III) was a disaster, a lot of conservative noblemen didn't realise that. For them, saxon times were the times when the nobility's privileges were respected. And because of that, the reformers have decided that the Wettin Dynasty will be announced, with the recreation of union with Saxony, for the sake of satisfying the nostalgic feelings of the conservative noblemen so they'll support the reforms. Therefore the Wettins are officially asked to become the polish kings the moment Poniatowski dies, and naturally Wettins agree, although this time this will be a rule over extremely well-organised and reformed country, rather than an uncoordinated thing the Commonwealth used to be. The decision is also enjoyed by the german inhabitans of East Prussia, who feel that the kings of german origin will not forget about respecting the laws of german minority. And the Wettins do so, but rather just to keep them satisfied and loyal, because just like the lithuanian Jagiellons in the past, the Wettins slowly polonise themselves for the sake of ruling over a country which is much wealthier and more powerful than their homeland.



[1] Despite he became the polish king in 1733, he never even visited Poland until 1756, when he had to flee there from Saxony after Saxony fell under the prussian occupation during the Seven Years' War.
[2] There are some sources suggesting that this territorial exchange was planned by the russian empress Elizabeth. It's not certain, but nevertheless it would be something most logical. After the russian forces captured East Prussia, she originally announced the annexation of East Prussia to Russia, but all while refusing to annex anything from the actual Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (meaning these lands which were the Commonwealth proper, rather than the Commonwealth's vassal). This would mean ruling over the territory separated from actual Russia, so the territorial exchange for the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia seems logical. If you want to learn more, the youtube channel "Old Britannia" made a detailed video about the aims of each nation during the Seven Years' War.
[3] It's no joke, he did believe so, or at least he claimed so. He hated his mother, and when he became (after the final partition of PLC) the russian tsar, he used to financially support Poniatowski, he even made for Poniatowski a huge funeral in Saint Petersburg after Poniatowski's death. On top of that, Paul was in general friendly toward the Poles. He released circa 20.000 polish POWs from the russian captivity, including the key polish leaders such as Tadeusz Kościuszko, Tomasz Wawrzecki, Jan Kiliński or Ignacy Potocki. Paul the First also said that if it depended on him, he wouldn't allow for partitions of Poland.

 

[The Link]

A few words from the author. In my description of the reasons behind the Commonwealth's political crisis, some of you might find the similarities with the youtube video "What if Poland was never conquered" made by Monsieur Z. That's because I was a co-author of the script for that video, I used to be a member of his website the USofZ. But in the end his video was a bit different than my original script, so I decided to put here my original script, the one which will go beyond just the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[The Link]

Chapter 2: Napoleonic Wars

Although France achieved its european goals in the Seven Years' War, the colonial aspect of that war is a one big failure: everything France held in India and North America has been lost. France did gain from Austria a payment for help in the form of what used to be Austrian Netherlands, but now Austria, without having to worry about Berlin, is once again a hegemon in the Holy Roman Empire. The temporary diplomatic revolution was just temporary, now France and Austria are again at odds against each other, and what seems to be a rich belgian region which could compensate just a bit the costs of losing the colonies, is quickly spent on more rearmament against the Habsburgs. In this context the gain of Austrian Netherlands did little to upgrade the conditions of the french economy, and soon the french society will be falling into a turmoil and the radical uprisings. Eventually the french revolution outbreaks, with various bloody radicals appearing. And as the french revolution rages in the west, the european countries praise Poland for the introduction of enlightened reforms in a bloodless way and most of all, without execution of the king . Nevertheless, despite this approval the other european countries show for Poland, the Wettins carefully watch the wars waged by France and eventually decide to ally themselves with France when the war rages between Revolutionary France and Habsburgs. France became a bit stronger due to getting the Austrian Netherlands in the Seven Years' War, but so did Habsburgs rose in significance not just by regaining Silesia but also by regaining the leading role in the Holy Roman Empire, now led by Habsburgs against Revolutionary France. And as the bloody franco-austrian war rages across the Holy Roman Empire, the Wettins see it as an opportunity to capture Silesia for both its economical significance and also for the sake of creating a land connection between Saxony and Poland [1]. And as France and Austria fight each other, the involvement in that war just creates a perfect opportunity for that. Although the way Poland peacefully reformed herself is praised in Europe, the Wettins nevertheless convince the polish parliament about the power the polish-saxon union might get by taking Silesia. And besides, when Russia was invading Poland to cancel the Constitution, the russian propaganda had been presenting the Polish Constitution as the deviation inspired by the french jacobins [2], and such accusations could always return. And so the Wettins convince the polish parliament that it's better for Poland to ally herself with France now, rather than to be later alone while the other powers turn against Poland. And so eventually the forces of Poland attack the Habsburgs' dominions and take over Silesia, permanently getting the land connection between Saxony and Poland. The area had been only briefly under prussian control, so there's still plenty of Poles living there [3], but nevertheless the german part of its population feel safe in the same way the german people from East Prussia feel safe about the fact that Poland is ruled by the dynasty of german origin. Besides, the westernmost parts of Silesia are added not to Poland but to Saxony. And just like the german people from polish part of Silesia feel secured knowing that the Wettins are the ruling dynasty, so do the slavic Sorbs [4] in Saxony proper feel safe that Poland is the leading part of the polish-saxon union. Of course Austria is furious about losing Silesia, but the Wettin Monarchy fully develops an alliance with France which is now ruled by the first consul, Napoleon Bonaparte. Austria, combining its forces with (no longer ruled by Paul the First) Russia, tries numerous times to retake Silesia, but having to face against both Poland and France, just makes Austria unable to success [5].

The alliance between Napoleon and Wettins is a huge boost to the military possibilities of Napoleon, because it leaves Austria's attention divided, and Russia is preoccupied with renewed wars against Poland. This makes Napoleon pretty much unstoppable in his conquest of Italy and Germany. All of non-austrian german lands (except Saxony of course) get conquered and subjugated by France, with most of them being formed into the Confederation of the Rhine. Once that happens, the french troops come to aid Poland in fights against Russia. And due to being able to operate on the easternmost lands of Lithuania the french troops, combined with the polish troops, besiege both Saint Petersburg and Moscow, and force Russia to ask for peace. France is the one who is stronger in the franco-polish alliance, and so it is France the one who dictates the terms of peace for Russia. Poland regains what was once the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia, but apart from that there's just one demand France throws toward Russia: the russian membership in the french continental blockade. It is the Great Britain the one who is the main enemy of France, and it's the UK the one who (in response to the french hegemony on the continent) constantly finances every anti-french coalition possible. After the napoleonic navy gets obliterated by the British in the naval battle of Trafalgar, Napoleon decides to take Britain out through economic means: by forbidding the other european countries from trading with the Great Britain, to starve the british economy. And now, Russia is forced to participate in it too. If it wasn't for huge Poland, Napoleon would have had serious difficulties in enforcing his will upon the trade politics of Russia. But because there is a huge polish state whose eastern border almost reaches both the current and former capital of Russia, the French are logistically able to attack Saint Petersburg and Moscow anytime they want to. Thus, the russian membership in the Continental Blockade is ensured.

Simultaneously, due to having a useful polish ally in the east, France doesn't get interrupted by Russia and Austria in the west. Austria is theoretically capable of attacking the french dominions in Germany and Italy, but without all of its armies due to near presence of the polish-saxon union. And because of that, Napoleon has free hand to use much more of his forces to enforce the Continental System upon Spain and Portugal. This results in a very quick napoleonic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, including the quick conquest of Portugal before the british engineers can even start building the fortifications that could make Portugal inpenetrable [6]. The British still hold their ground in the inpenetrable stronghold which is Gibraltar, from which the British support the anti-french guerilla warfare performed by both Spaniards and the Portugese, but overall Napoleon has achieved his goals in Iberia. As much as countering the partisans is costly for France, the iberian ports are closed to any trade with Britain, just like Napoleon intended to. And this brings the Napoleonic Wars to the whole new level.

Having lost the access to both iberian as well as russian ports, the British are much more determined to secure the only ports they still have: scandinavian ones. Denmark is among the countries forced by France to join the Continental System, so the British invade danish Norway and give it to Sweden, because unlike Denmark, Sweden can allow itself for a trade with Britain without fearing the french retaliation. Initially there is an objection among Norwegians, but the Norwegians very soon forget about it, because unlike Denmark, Sweden allows for british trade and as such, the common norwegian civilians don't have to suffer from the lack of colonial wealths. As such the Norwegians largely enjoy the swedish rule, because the alternative would be a return to the uncomfortable Continental System. Thus Sweden gets full loyalty of Norway, and such enlarged Kingdom of Sweden becomes the major trade partner for Britain. Meanwhile Russia, although forced to participate in the Continental System, quietly urges for a rematch. But due to having Saint Petersburg and Moscow so exposed to the franco-polish armies, Russia can't afford to loose the support from her allies, and so Russia gives up on the attempts to conquer swedish Finland.

At this point the only way Napoleon could reach Sweden to force the Swedes to join the Continental System, would be for the napoleonic armies to march at Sweden through russian lands around the Gulf of Finland. Both Britain and Sweden know it, so they want to support the russian defences against a renewed franco-polish attack. Therefore Britain starts secretly sending its engineers to Saint Petersburg, to help organise there what the british engineers didn't make in time in Portugal: the line of mighty inpenetrable forts, so the russian capital will be safe. And just as the british engineers advice the Russians in the secret construction of these forts, the British additionally create additional forts in other strategic locations, to make the access for the franco-polish forces to Finland and Karelia even harder to achieve.

As the buildings of the fortifications finally come to life and Russia officially reenters the anti-napoleonic coalition, both France and Poland attack Russia a second time. And a huge war takes place in Russia, as the clash between the franco-polish armies and the combined armies of Britain, Sweden and Russia. Thanks to the fortifications made by Brtitain, the constant supplies delivered by the Royal Navy trough the Baltic Sea to Russia's imperial capital, and the skills of the russian troops in a meele fight [7], the fortifications are just unconquerable and the french siege of Saint Petersburg is stuck in a stalemate. All while the long, neverending and bloody fights take place around areas of Moscow, with the Russians performing the guerrilla warfare. This troubles the franco-polish troops, but not enough to put them into exhaustion, because they just hunt down the Russians thanks to supplies from Poland, and so there is no clear winner. As the fights in Russia take place, eventually the french-dominated lands in Europe rise up against France from a british initiative, and the french armies are forced to retreat themselves from Russia to take the rebels down. Russia celebrates it as a great victory, but the casualties of Russia are so high that the Russian Empire just isn't able to organise any comeback against Poland whose armies, even without Napoleon, are just too strong. And so the war ends up in a stalemate. Napoleon succeeds in pacificating the rebels in Western Europe and even repulse the british landings in Western Europe, but he too is exhausted. France continues to rule in Western Europe, by simply giving up on the further campaigns in the east for the sake of securing his dominions from new rebellions. This unofficially marks the end of the Napoleonic Wars.



[1] The idea about creating a land connection between Saxony and Poland was made already prior to reign of Stanisław August Poniatowski. Although Augustus III cared very little about Poland, the true power within Saxony was then held by his minister Heinrich von Brühl, who held the actual control over Saxony and tried to rule in Poland as well. He's the one who involved Saxony into Silesian Wars, due to his ambition to get silesian connection between Saxony and Poland. That's why he allied Saxony with Prussia in the First Silesian War, to then switch sides after Silesia went to Prussia rather than to Saxony.
[2] Such accusations were indeed made.
[3] Although the german people used to migrate to Silesia since the medieval times, the region was indeed still majority polish and it was Prussia the one who decided to change it through Friderizianische Kolonisation.
[4] They live in Germany until today.
[5] Even a small Duchy of Warsaw from OTL was capable of beating the Austrians all by itself, the polish-austrian war 1809.
[6] The Lines of Torres Vedras are never made.
[7] The russian troops had been then trained most of all in the fight on bayonets.

 

[alexmilman]

ORDER OF THE WHITE EAGLE

View attachment 844063​

Enter the world where Prussia collapsed during the Seven Years' War, and Poland became one of the great powers of the XIX century.


CHAPTER 1: The Commonwealth at the crossroads of history

The XVII century wasn't a nice time for once mighty Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The series of destructible wars left the country vulnerable and ravaged by war. On top of that, the most powerful noblemen, magnates, started disobeying the central government and deciding about their issues all by themselves, leading to an anarchy. There was little help in a fact that from the very beginning of its existence the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a country with a limited power of the monarch, who had to share the power with Sejm (parliament). The country's political system was in fact called the noble democracy: 10% of the country’s population was composed of the noblemen. Seems small, but it was nonetheless a gigantic number compared to the other countries in Europe at the time. The nobility had dozens of rights, and regardless of whether a nobleman was poor or extremely rich, each of noblemen could vote. The power of the monarch was limited, and the monarch was in fact chosen through elections. There was no official dynasty, and in many ways the monarch was simply a lifetime president, having to share the power with the parliament. Of course the son of some monarch could become the next monarch, but he had to win the throne through elections, his succession wasn’t guaranteed. For a long period of time this system worked, because the noblemen felt themselves to be elite, deciding about the fate of the country. But eventually it started becoming flawed, because the noblemen started becoming arrogant and believing that their personal good equals the good for the country. And as the Commonwealth went through series of destructible wars, the magnates started becoming basically lords in their own lands, caring exclusively about themselves. The attitude which eventually started being shared by lesser noblemen as well. There was however someone who wanted to change it.

In 1697 a very ambitious ruler of the german Electorate of Saxony, Frederick August I, became the polish king as Augustus II Strong. He had an ambitious plan of getting for himself Livonia at the cost of Sweden. Sweden was then ruled by a young Charles XII. Everyone throught that he's inexperienced, and that Sweden has just become an easy prey. And so the coalition was formed between Denmark, Saxony and Russia, with an attempt to attack Sweden. Contrary to popular belief, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wasn't a member of this coalition. Augustus entered the war solely as the ruler of Saxony. And while his private saxon forces struck from the Commonwealth as Livonia, he intended to get Livonia exclusively for himself, to increase his position for further plans to eventually introduce an absolutist rule in the Commonwealth with him in charge. But soon the reality verified his plans: Sweden easily crushed his saxon forces, then the Swedes forced the Danes to withdraw from war, and Russians got crushed by the Swedes too. And despite the PLC was officially neutral, it got invaded by the Swedes with an attempt to dethrone Augustus and replace him with a pro-swedish monarch, Stanisław Leszczyński.

And so the Commonwealth became a battlefield for the Swedes and Russians, with some polish-lithuanian noblemen supporting Augustus while others supported Leszczyński. Ultimately the war ended with a total victory for Russia who severely defeated the Swedes, annexed a heck lot of swedish lands, and also became de facto a ruler of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. From now on, pretty much every decision within the Commonwealth had to be approved by Russia, who presented herself as the guardian of favorable for the noblemen status quo: making sure that the Commonwealth is a mess without any coherence, with the noblemen being allowed to do whatever they want. And the selfish polish-lithuanian noblemen in general liked it, seeing the Russian Empire as their friend and protector of their privileges. Augustus II was brought back to the throne, but only under the condition that he'll be allowing this corruption to continue. And he did, seeing the Commonwealth as a lost cause. Once he died in 1733, Leszczyński returned and claimed himself to be a king once more, but the russian intervention quickly dethroned him and gave the throne to Augustus' son, Augustus III, who continued the policy of not interrupting the russian interference into the polish-lithuanian affairs [1].

And as the russian control over the Commonwealth had been increasing, a new power started rising up in the west: the Kingdom of Prussia. Numerous military reforms transformed the prussian army into the most effective army of Europe, and in 1740-1742 the Prussians managed to seize from Austria a rich region of Silesia. This largely increased the position of Prussia, and so a huge coalition was formed between various powers to take Prussia down, including Russia who saw the rising prussian power as a threat to Poland whom Russia saw as Russia's property. And so the Russians too joined the war against Prussia, by striking at Prussia from the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who was already de facto a protectorate of the Russian Empire.

The only major power kinda supporting the Prussians was Britain, but only because Britain had its own grievances against France in the colonies. On mainland Europe, Prussia had only the support of Hanover who was in personal union with Britain. Other than that, Prussia was on its own. And having to fight against so numerous enemies at the same time, Prussia almost bled itself to death and almost collapsed. And then a miracle happened, the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg. The russian empress Elizabeth suddenly died and was replaced by her nephew Peter III, who was basically a fanboy of Prussia. Not only he decided to withdraw the russian troops from captured by Russians Berlin, he additionally ordered his troops to fight on the prussian side. Peter III was soon assassinated in a conspiracy led by his wife Catherine, who then replaced him as the ruler of Russia. But at that time Prussia was already saved. And that's what became crucial for the fate of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, because it was Kingdom of Prussia the one who initiated the partitions of Poland.

In 1763 Augustus III died, marking the end of the Wettin rule in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And in 1764 Catherine the Great gave the polish-lithuanian throne to the lithuanian nobleman Stanisław August Poniatowski who had been her lover. She decided so, because she hoped that he will be yet another puppet. But to a common surprise, the moment he was given the throne, he started massively reforming the country in order to fix it. In response Catherine enforced upon the Commonwealth the so called Cardinal Laws which guaranteed the inviolability of the worst aspects of the Commonwealth's system, and additionally the country was made into the official protectorate of the Russian Empire. This shocked a lot of polish-lithuanian noblemen who until now didn't realise how much dependent the country is on Russia. Soon the patriotic group of noblemen formed the so called Bar Confederation against Russia, and started the military fights against the russian troops present within the Commonwealth... and additionally against the king whom they didn't trust and whom they saw as Russia's puppet. And this is where Prussia came in. Until now, Russia had been harshly objecting any partitions because Russia wanted all of PLC entirely for Russia. But as the Bar Confederates kept fighting, the prussian king Frederick the Great convinced the Russians that it's better to just divide Poland. Additionally the prussian diplomacy started mediating between Russia and Austria. Russia had then simultaneously a huge war against the Ottoman Empire, a war during which the Russians had such huge territorial demands in the Balkans that the Habsburgs started objecting it. Therefore Prussia started persuading the Russians that Austria might agree on the russian territorial demands if Austria gets a compensation in the form of some polish lands. And so ultimately the first partition of Poland was made in 1772.

After that, Poniatowski decided to continue his reforms but much more quietly and more carefully. Mostly through education and the spread of awareness for the necessity of reforms. He founded the Comission of National Education, arguably the world's first Ministry of Education. And he started regularly inviting numerous intellectuals to the so called Thursday Lunches to discuss the politics and enlightenment. And finally a great chance appeared: in 1788 Russia found herself at war against two countries at the same time: against Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. Using it, Poniatowski and his faction started the massive reforms of the so called Great Sejm, culminating in the proclamation of the Constitution of 3 May 1791, Europe's first modern constitution and the world's second after the american one.

View attachment 844064

The Constitution completely reshaped Poland, and brought anger in Russia. At Russia's order, the anti-reformist noblemen formed the Targowica Confederation who then asked Russia for help, giving to Russia a pretext for an invasion. From the very beginning of the Great Sejm the reformers knew that something like that might happen and had signed during the Great Sejm the alliance with Prussia, in hopes that after Prussia grabbed in 1772 what some people call "the polish corridor", this will be enough for Prussia. But it wasn't, and during the polish war in defence of the Constitution, Prussia betrayed Poland by not coming with help. And although the polish forces defeated the Russians in the battle of Zieleńce, Stanisław August Poniatowski panicked and decided to cancel the Constitution in hopes to buy russian mercy for Poland. But in spite of that, Russia and Prussia made in 1793 the second partition of Poland anyway. The Commonwealth's remnants were occupied by the russian troops and soon the Kościuszko Uprising outbroke against Russia. But Prussia sent the military forces to assist the Russians in the pacification of the Uprising, followed by the third and final partition of Poland in 1795.

But in this world, the partitions do not happen.

In this world, Prussia did collapse during the Seven Years' War. The russian noblemen are already during Elizabeth's reign worried about pro-prussian sympathies of her nephew. So when the empress Elizabeth dies, the conspiracy led by Catherine forms itself much faster and assassinates Peter before he can even become the tsar.

This is a legend rather unrelated to a reality. CII was just as bigger fan of FII as her husband and PIII was assassinated not for his pro-prussian sympathies but by completely different reasons. He was very popular among the majority of the Russian nobility and among the troops that participated in a war. After coming to power CII changed nothing in a peace treaty and FII was her close confidant and advisor all the way until he screwed her over the partition issue. Besides CII, her main advisor on a foreign policy, Nikita Panin, was inventor of the Northern Accord system based primarily on the Russian-Prussian alliance.

Now, PIII became a Tsar at the moment when EI died so Catherine could not insinuate herself in-between.

Catherine becomes Elizabeth's direct successor,

Obvious impossibility by the reason explained above.

and she continues the war against Prussia, resulting in a total destruction of Prussia.

Do yourself a favor and learn the issue beyond the legend. For all practical purposes Russia was out of war a year before EI died. The only active operation was capture of Kolberg to arrange a secure supply line by the sea (PLC was quite exhausted). Russian c-in-c, Buturlin, refused to conduct any active operations regardless Elizabeth’s orders. Russian-Austrian relations had been spoiled (at least on the military level) beyond repair and in opinion of the Russian army the Austrians are trying to achieve their goals by the Russian hands while Russian army did its fair share by defeating FII at Kunersdorf. What was equally important was that Russia run out of money and CII made this situation even worse by wasting most of what left on her favorite, Grigory Orlov, and the people whom she wanted to please. So there was no miracle or betrayal: Russia could not continue fighting a major war. Period.

Britain beats France in the colonies anyway, but on mainland Europe there are changes of borders in a way that had been already planned during the war (here's someone's map summarizing how the borders would look like). Austria regains the lost region of Silesia, and in exchange for french help the Habsburgs allow to cede the Austrian Netherlands to France. Sweden regains the lands Prussia had gotten in the later stage of the Great Northern War, and Russia gives East Prussia to Poland in exchange for annexing the Commonwealth's vassal, the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia [2].

This exchange was, indeed, planned before the war but, what’s usually overlooked (see relevant protocol of Elizabeth’s Conference) is that the planned exchange also included a vaguely identified territory on the South of the PLC. What’s also overlooked is that all this “generosity” assumed cooperation of the Polish government in passing the Russian troops through the PLC territory, etc. When the whole brouhaha started, it was immediately discovered that cooperation is not needed: the Russian troops had been going wherever they wanted, stood wherever they wanted and attended to their supply needs without asking permission from Warsaw. So the whole issue of gratitude and compensation had been forgotten, estates of the East Prussia had been ordered to swear loyalty to Elizabeth and the region became Russian base.

Courland could be annexed at any time without asking for the Polish permission: its duke already had been spending a quality time in Yaroslavl being quite happy happy for moved there from Pelym and even happier for not being quartered.

The Hohenzollern dominions are reduced to just Brandenburg, which is now forbidden to call itself Prussia ever again. Frederick the Great, not willing to accept this defeat, commits suicide. And this lack of Prussia is the thing which allows Poland to rise.

It does not. The PLC was devastated and to “raise” one needs ready money and already functioning economy. The PLC had neither and it is not clear from your narrative why would CII allow the PLC to get any independence.

Catherine the Great still makes Poniatowski the ruler of PLC, and the events leading to the outbreak of anti-russian Bar Confederation still happen. But without Prussia pressuring and convining everyone for the partition, the fights against the Bar Confederation remain purely the issue of Russia.

Which was quite enough because it was thoroughly destroyed by the Russian troops.

And without the prussian diplomatic mediation, Austria remains at hostile relations with Russia as objection to the territorial demands Russia has in the Balkans.

Actually, most of the demands in that Russian-Ottoman war (and the next one) were on the Black Sea coast, not on the Balkans.

In fact, Austria starts being quietly supportive to the Bar Confederates whom Austria sees as a useful distraction making the Russians unable to focus themselves on the expansion to the Balkans.

See above about the Balkans and Austria was quietly supporting the confederates, which did not prevent them from being beaten.

Russia still succeeds to pacificate the Bar Confederation, but there is no partition of Poland.

Austria already grabbed a piece of it before the partition.

And the pacification of the Bar Confederation in the long run actually benefits Stanisław August Poniatowski. The Bar Confederates, while patriotic, objected any reforms and demanded to keep the status quo favoring the noblemen at the cost of the central government. And so Russia, without really realising it, eradicated the political opponents that could object Poniatowski's attempts to reshape the country.

And soon enough CII found another people opposing his reforms. The main goal was not to allow any meaningful “reshaping” and this goal would not change.

Of course Poniatowski, still being worried about the way the russian armies brutally pacificated the Confederates, decides to be careful in further reforms anyway, but now his internal enemies are less strong.

Really? He had plenty opponents besides overly excited members of the Bar confederacy.

And finally, without the first partition of Poland, by the time the Constitution of 3 May 1791 is proclaimed, Poland will have much more resources and much more lands to oppose the russian invasion. Once Russia invades to cancel the Constitution, Poland successfully beats out the russian troops and the Constitution is maintained.

At which point of this grand schema the pro-Polish ASBs landed? 😉 Resources of two sides were incomparable and by the time in question Russia had a much stronger economy and both much bigger and much better army. Not to mention the generals. Does “Suvorov” ring a bell? The PLC could not even produce enough weapons (hence scythes) while Russia already had one of the metallurgical industries in Europe (soon enough was going to bypass Britain in iron production).
Having Constitution does not automatically propel you into the economically developed country and it is not like this specific constitution was going to.

After that, Poland witnesses another useful event: tsar Paul the First, Catherine's son who hated what Catherine had been doing to Poland because he believed Stanisław August Poniatowski to be his biological father [3].

Here we go again. Paul considered expansionist policies of his mother the wrong ones because expansion was going too fast and at the expense of establishing the internal order.

Once Catherine dies and Paul takes the throne, he decides to don't make any vendetta against Poland. This view is shared only by him, his sons don't follow this way of thinking.

Errr… except that Alexander had a Polish mistress, his wife had a Polish lover, who also happened to be his close friend, and, such a trifle, post-Napoleonic raise of the Polish economy was heavily subsidized by AI from the Russian treasury and the trend continued after his death for years.

But before his oldest son, Alexander, takes power in Russia, Poland enjoys peace in the east and can fully implement all reforms of the Constitution.
And implements lot it does.

[snip]
All the snipped stuff does not contain a single word about building up manufacturing.

[1] Despite he became the polish king in 1733, he never even visited Poland until 1756, when he had to flee there from Saxony after Saxony fell under the prussian occupation during the Seven Years' War.
[2] There are some sources suggesting that this territorial exchange was planned by the russian empress Elizabeth. It's not certain,

It was quite certain. It was also quite certain that this plan was abandoned.

but nevertheless it would be something most logical. After the russian forces captured East Prussia, she originally announced the annexation of East Prussia to Russia, but all while refusing to annex anything from the actual Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (meaning these lands which were the Commonwealth proper, rather than the Commonwealth's vassal). This would mean ruling over the territory separated from actual Russia, so the territorial exchange for the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia seems logical.

Your ideas regarding the logic are not necessarily related to the reality. There were plenty states with the territories separated from each other. The closest example would be the Kingdom of Prussia at the tine of FII. Not only did it have pieces here and there in the Northern Germany but East Prussia was a separate piece all the way to the first partition. The “logical” thing for Russia would be to annex Courland and thus to get the land connection. Or to simply ignore this disconnect and keep going freely through the PLC and Courland territories.

If you want to learn more, the youtube channel "Old Britannia" made a detailed video about the aims of each nation during the Seven Years' War.

Yeah, youtube as a source of the historical information …. Well, never mind.

[3] It's no joke, he did believe so, or at least he claimed so. He hated his mother, and when he became (after the final partition of PLC) the russian tsar, he used to financially support Poniatowski, he even made for Poniatowski a huge funeral in Saint Petersburg after Poniatowski's death.

Yep. He had a high respect to the principle of a monarchy and liked the chivalric gestures. But, as much as he disapproved CIIs policies, he did not roll back the partitions.

 

[The Link]

PIII was assassinated not for his pro-prussian sympathies but by completely different reasons. He was very popular among the majority of the Russian nobility and among the troops that participated in a war.

Not really, he used to attack the russian culture while praising the german one (like trying to introduce the protestant uniforms for the orthodox priests), all while surrounding himself with the advisors from Holstein. Meanwhile Catherine sank into the russian culture, learnt to fluently speak russian, converted to orthodoxy etc. And for these reasons she was so loved by the Russians. Anyway, who cares what were the motives of Catherine? Regardless of what her personal motives were, she perfectly used the unrest among the Russians for her advantage.

For all practical purposes Russia was out of war a year before EI died. The only active operation was capture of Kolberg to arrange a secure supply line by the sea (PLC was quite exhausted). Russian c-in-c, Buturlin, refused to conduct any active operations regardless Elizabeth’s orders. Russian-Austrian relations had been spoiled (at least on the military level) beyond repair

Is this why Frederick was so traumatized and why he referred already to the lack of russian initiative after the battle of Kunersdorf as a miracle? Last time I checked, despite the "Russian-Austrian relations being spoiled beyond repair", the Russians did continue the war and entered Berlin.

Russia run out of money and CII made this situation even worse by wasting most of what left on her favorite, Grigory Orlov, and the people whom she wanted to please.

And your point is? Didn't I write that in this scenario Catherine takes over earlier? Even if you think that her earlier takeover was impossible, I don't see what's the point of bringing up the topic of future russian situation before that siutation even happens. And if Russia was so out of money, then perhaps Russia wouldn't be able to militarily support Prussia during Peter's reign.

This exchange was, indeed, planned before the war but, what’s usually overlooked (see relevant protocol of Elizabeth’s Conference)

Didn't you realise that this part of my comment was specifically about the Kingdom of Prussia? Not about any additional plans for Poland, just Prussia. And by the way, could you please make up your mind? On one occasion your attitude to me is "How can you not know that the exchange was certain", and literally in the next sentence you say "It was certain that this was abandoned". That's the very point I tried to make. Perhaps I didn't specify my point clear enough, so I'll make it here: while there were the plans for the territorial exchange "East Prussia for Poland, Courland for Russia" (such plan was already proposed during the austro-russian talks from 1746), it wasn't certain whether Russia will stay to this idea. Funnily enough, you also mock me for saying that it would be more logical for Russia to annex Courland rather than East Prussia, and literally in the same paragraph you admit that it would be indeed logical. What's your problem?

Yeah, youtube as a source of the historical information

And what's so wrong in sending others to a quick summary of the Seven Years' War?

The Hohenzollern dominions are reduced to just Brandenburg, which is now forbidden to call itself Prussia ever again. Frederick the Great, not willing to accept this defeat, commits suicide. And this lack of Prussia is the thing which allows Poland to rise.

It does not. The PLC was devastated and to “raise” one needs ready money and already functioning economy. The PLC had neither and it is not clear from your narrative why would CII allow the PLC to get any independence.

Have you even read the whole script, rather than singular parts of it? No Prussia means no first partition, and thus bigger chances for PLC because Russia is the only one the PLC has to worry about.

Austria was quietly supporting the confederates, which did not prevent them from being beaten.

You make it sound as if I wrote that the Bar Confederates don't get beaten...

Austria already grabbed a piece of it before the partition.

She did, but Spisz and Podhale are a tiny thing and their loss wasn't costly at all. When during the War of the Polish Succession 1733-1735 Stanisław Leszczyński was elected with the political support of Austria's archenemy which was France, even then Austria left the actual fights on the polish soil to be handled just by Russia and Saxony. Austria didn't care that much about grabbing huge portions of lands from Poland, and that's the point. Russia remains the only one Poland has to worry about.

At which point of this grand schema the pro-Polish ASBs landed? 😉 Resources of two sides were incomparable and by the time in question Russia had a much stronger economy and both much bigger and much better army. Not to mention the generals. Does “Suvorov” ring a bell? The PLC could not even produce enough weapons (hence scythes) while Russia already had one of the metallurgical industries in Europe (soon enough was going to bypass Britain in iron production).
Having Constitution does not automatically propel you into the economically developed country and it is not like this specific constitution was going to.

(sigh)... Scythemen started being used only during the Kościuszko Uprising.

After that, Poland witnesses another useful event: tsar Paul the First, Catherine's son who hated what Catherine had been doing to Poland because he believed Stanisław August Poniatowski to be his biological father [3].

Here we go again. Paul considered expansionist policies of his mother the wrong ones because expansion was going too fast and at the expense of establishing the internal order.

And I thought that you claimed that Catherine was against expansion upon Prussia... As for Paul's motives, regardless of what they were, the result remains the same: lack of vendetta against Poland.

Errr… except that Alexander had a Polish mistress, his wife had a Polish lover, who also happened to be his close friend, and, such a trifle, post-Napoleonic raise of the Polish economy was heavily subsidized by AI from the Russian treasury and the trend continued after his death for years.

To be honest I just meant that Alexander wasn't living in a fantasy (like Paul's obsession about the membership in the Order of Malta), and preferred the actual real politics over some sentiments. As for post-napoleonic raise, it was just a side effect of the fact that Congress Poland was a trade route between Europe and Russia. The trend continued after his death for years? Nicholas the First hated the Poles, but that's not the topic of this discussion.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

see relevant protocol of Elizabeth’s Conference)

link please?

Not really, he used to attack the russian culture while praising the german one (like trying to introduce the protestant uniforms for the orthodox priests), all while surrounding himself with the advisors from Holstein. Meanwhile Catherine sank into the russian culture, learnt to fluently speak russian, converted to orthodoxy etc. And for these reasons she was so loved by the Russians. Anyway, who cares what were the motives of Catherine? Regardless of what her personal motives were, she perfectly used the unrest among the Russians for her advantage.

less "Russians" and more a bunch of lazy, drunken guardsmen who didn't want to leave their cushy barracks.

Let's compare apples with apples shall we?
Pyotr passed 192 new laws/ukazes during his reign. That works out to more than 30 per month.
Catherine passed an average of 12 per month during her reign. Pyotr Velikiy only eight per year.

Now, quantity is not the only rubric. There's quality too. Maybe Pyotr III really did spend his days in a drunken stupor like Katya claimed:

First up was the Law of Liberty of the Nobles (releasing the nobles from obligatory military service). It was so unpopular among the Russians that the nobles wanted to erect a golden statue to Pyotr III. One of the first things "gay Queen Katya what have you done?" (as she is called in a Ukrainian folksong) was to re-institute the former obligatory military service. It was only removed in 1785
Pyotr abolished the Secret Chancellery (re-instituted by Catherine, albeit under a different name) and declared that all Russian dealings be done in the open (again, re-instituted by his widow)
What pissed the Orthodox Church off? His ukaz for the "freedom of religion" (namely that the Church was no longer allowed to persecute Old Believers), combined with a second ukaz that abolished the Church's right to have any degree of control over non-religious lives of their members. Both of these were re-instituted by Catherine.
Oh, and Pyotr was so terrible he started the abolition of serfdom by forbidding officials to be rewarded with gifts of souls. This also set the Orthodox Church against him since one of the biggest holders of serfs (910,866 men, so double the number for women and children) was the monasteries. No fear, Catherine the Not-So-Great is Here, she put everything to right by cancelling Pyotr's ukaz. She didn't give the serfs back to the Church. But she didn't free them either. In fact, she gave so many serfs to Orlov, Potemkin and others, that she had to introduce serfdom in places (like Novo-Rossiye) where it hadn't existed before. In fact, under Catherine, Russian serfdom turned into little more than slavery, and there were four "slave markets" at Novgorod, Moscow, St. Petersburg and Samara. Serfs were now sold separately from the land, families could be broken up and parents separated from children or spouses from one another.

Also

By other decrees, Peter ordered the founding of a state bank, to whose accounts he contributed 5 million rubles from personal funds to ensure the issuance of the first bank notes in Russia, and to replace damaged coins. The price of salt was also reduced, peasants were allowed to trade in cities without obtaining permission and paperwork (which immediately stopped numerous abuses and extortions). In the army and navy , it was forbidden to punish soldiers and sailors with batogs and "cats" (these are four-tailed whips with knots at the ends).

Peace treaty and alliance with Prussia​

Now consider the most terrible "crime" of Peter III in the eyes of the patriots - the conclusion of peace with Frederick II and the abandonment of East Prussia. In fact, it was Catherine II who lost Prussia without receiving anything in return. Moreover, the hasty and unjustified withdrawal of the "Western Group of Forces" after the assassination of the emperor in 1762 is reminiscent of the strange "flight" of the Russian army from the territory of the former GDR. Let us explain the situation: Russia had no rights to the Kingdom of Prussia, and this conquest would never have been recognized by other monarchs of Europe. Remember what difficulties Russia has always experienced when trying to retain at least something from the lands of defeated Islamic Turkey. Even if it was the "Wild Field" - the land of the future New Russia, empty due to the constant raids of the Crimean Tatars, to which the serfs of the central Russian provinces were brought, and also the Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, and Armenians fleeing from the Ottoman oppression were allowed to settle. From scratch, it was necessary to build not only villages and landowners' estates, but also large cities - Odessa, Kherson, Nikolaev, Mariupol, Yekaterinoslav (Dnepropetrovsk), Krivoy Rog, Aleksandrovsk (Zaporozhye) ... And here - a well-developed territory inhabited by not "Mohammedans", but German Lutherans, and this is not an Ottoman province, but a European kingdom. These lands were separated from Russia by the traditionally hostile Commonwealth and the Duchy of Courland, whose status had not yet been finally determined. The land route to East Prussia could be blocked at any moment, the supply by sea was problematic and depended on the position of Britain (primarily) and Sweden. To keep this territory there was not the slightest chance and no possibility. But Russia had absolutely legal, undisputed rights to Holstein and Stormarn, as well as to Schleswig and Dithmarschen (which Denmark temporarily captured). The new Russian emperor, Peter III, was the duke of these lands. Thousands of young Holsteiners came to Russia to serve their duke, even when he was Grand Duke. At the same time, East Prussia was a rather poor and backward agrarian country, the real backyards of Europe, Holstein and Schleswig were much richer principalities, and even with a unique geographical position that allowed them to control both the North and Baltic Seas.





It was no longer a St. Petersburg "window to Europe", but "elite real estate" in the then "European Union" with a permanent "residence permit" - territories from which it was possible to freely receive both the necessary specialists and technologies that were not available in Russia. But we know that the Europeans have always been (and are) very negative about the transfer of advanced technologies to "barbaric" Russia. We have already spoken about the strategic position of these lands, powerful Russian military bases on their territory changed a lot in the balance of power and the further course of European history. Peter perfectly understood all this, and therefore, according to the agreement drawn up by him, Petersburg returned East Prussia to Frederick II, but only on condition that Schleswig and Dithmarschen were returned to Russia, for the conquest of which Frederick undertook to allocate an army of 20 thousand people to help Russia: 15 thousand infantrymen and 5 thousand cavalry. Negotiations with Denmark were scheduled for July 1762. In case of their failure, Russia and Prussia began hostilities against the Danes and no one doubted their success. And even after that, Peter retained the right, at his own discretion, to stop the withdrawal of Russian troops from Prussia "in view of the ongoing unrest in Europe." That is, the "Western Group of Forces" could remain in Prussia for many more years and, perhaps, decades, guaranteeing the "obedience" of Frederick II and his "compliance". While Peter III was alive, Russian troops still controlled Prussia. Moreover, a Russian squadron from Revel, which reinforced them, approached Koenigsberg (the Kronstadt squadron was ordered to be ready for the campaign).weapons and food depots. In addition, Frederick II undertook to support candidates convenient for Russia for the thrones of the Commonwealth and the still independent Courland. Now the lines of the German treatise, quoted in the first article, have become clearer to you - Ryzhov V.A. Peter III. Too good for his age ?:

 

[alexmilman]

link please?

Neue Seite 7

less "Russians" and more a bunch of lazy, drunken guardsmen who didn't want to leave their cushy barracks.

Plus the members of the court camarilla who were personally offended by PIII: wasn’t it terrible to require from a person who got general’s rank (just for being close to the throne) that he should learn at least basics of a military service? Kyrill Razumovsky, who was promoted to a Hetman and President of the Academy of Sciences directly from a swineherd because his brother slept with Elizabeth, definitely thought so and used Academy’s typography to print Catherine’s manifesto, etc.

Let's compare apples with apples shall we?
Pyotr passed 192 new laws/ukazes during his reign. That works out to more than 30 per month.
Catherine passed an average of 12 per month during her reign. Pyotr Velikiy only eight per year.

Also don’t forget that PIII passed a fundamental law about freedom of nobility and that CII did use some of his ideas (modified version of that law, creation of the state bank).

Now, quantity is not the only rubric. There's quality too. Maybe Pyotr III really did spend his days in a drunken stupor like Katya claimed:

What he physically could consume was nothing comparing with the drinking level of PIII or with the experiences of Grigory and Alexey Orlov, who were the main political figures of the first part of CII reign or just with the habits of the Guards. So it was the kettle criticizing a pot.

In general, it is probably relatively easy to check what was a normal daily consumption of an alcohol of a Russian noble or British gentleman of that period or even early XIX.

First up was the Law of Liberty of the Nobles (releasing the nobles from obligatory military service). It was so unpopular among the Russians that the nobles wanted to erect a golden statue to Pyotr III. One of the first things "gay Queen Katya what have you done?" (as she is called in a Ukrainian folksong) was to re-institute the former obligatory military service. It was only removed in 1785
Pyotr abolished the Secret Chancellery (re-instituted by Catherine, albeit under a different name) and declared that all Russian dealings be done in the open (again, re-instituted by his widow)
What pissed the Orthodox Church off? His ukaz for the "freedom of religion" (namely that the Church was no longer allowed to persecute Old Believers), combined with a second ukaz that abolished the Church's right to have any degree of control over non-religious lives of their members. Both of these were re-instituted by Catherine.
Oh, and Pyotr was so terrible he started the abolition of serfdom by forbidding officials to be rewarded with gifts of souls. This also set the Orthodox Church against him since one of the biggest holders of serfs (910,866 men, so double the number for women and children) was the monasteries. No fear, Catherine the Not-So-Great is Here, she put everything to right by cancelling Pyotr's ukaz. She didn't give the serfs back to the Church. But she didn't free them either. In fact, she gave so many serfs to Orlov, Potemkin and others, that she had to introduce serfdom in places (like Novo-Rossiye) where it hadn't existed before. In fact, under Catherine, Russian serfdom turned into little more than slavery, and there were four "slave markets" at Novgorod, Moscow, St. Petersburg and Samara. Serfs were now sold separately from the land, families could be broken up and parents separated from children or spouses from one another.

Yes, her successors had to start rolling back some of the most obnoxious aspects like selling the serfs on auction without a family or limiting right to sell them without a land, etc.

And let’s not forget some other “glorious” aspects of her reign:

• Russia first time in a history got a foreign debt.
• Unlimited emission of the paper money led to the sharp devaluation and loss of a public trust which Paul tried to fix.
• Harsh oppression resulted in a number of the rebellions of which Pugachev rebellion was just the biggest one.
• Acquisition of the Crimea was accompanied by such a mismanagement that in a short time its well-developed agriculture was destroyed and the Tatars had been emigrating into the Ottoman Empire all the way into the reign of AII.
• Domestic mismanagement and corruption reached the level comparing to which Russia of PI could pass for a orderly state (unlike time of PI when everybody was at least in a fear of torture, property confiscation and even execution, “the Catherine’s eagles” feared nothing and behaved accordingly).

Also

Very good summary of the PIII-FII treaty.

As far as the PLC is involved, CII chose the worst candidate possible alienating even the “Family” , which was traditionally pro-Russian, over the issue which was not, strictly speaking, Russian business. And she appointed the worst possible person as the Russian ambassador to the PLC.

OTOH, I do not agree with the assessment of Courland as a potential obstacle to the Russian communications: the Duchy, or rather its nobility, could be hostile or friendly but it was powerless and by that time the Russian rulers tended not to give a damn.

Now, as far as the peace with Prussia goes, there were no unhappy noises from the fighting army. Enthusiasm of Rumyantsev definitely overweights the libels of Bolotov who comfortably spent most of the war in Koenigsberg and did not distinguish himself in any form and shape during that war.

 

[alexmilman]

Not really, he used to attack the russian culture while praising the german one (like trying to introduce the protestant uniforms for the orthodox priests), all while surrounding himself with the advisors from Holstein.

PI got a lot of praise for destroying the traditional Russian culture and the favorite subject of the Russian “progressives” all the way into the late XIX century was denouncing Russia for not being “European” enough so the first part of the argument is plain silly. The second part is that the Russian court f that time had very little to do with any “culture” in its appearances: it was a caricature of the French court. Story about the “advisors” is neither here nor there because an overwhelming majority of the top figures from Elizabeth’s reign retained their positions.

Meanwhile Catherine sank into the russian culture, learnt to fluently speak russian, converted to orthodoxy etc.

Peter was converted into Orthodoxy when he was appointed heir to the throne. Learn at least the basics. CII did try to learn Russian but most of the documents and her literary works had been edited by her secretary. As for her own writings, she is a proud holder of a record: managed to make 4 mistakes in three letters word. How “perfect” her spoken Russian was we can’t tell because all information on the subject came from her bottom-kissers. But, of course, she was a capable person, no argument there. The issue is what exactly was she capable of.

And for these reasons she was so loved by the Russians.

Which “Russians”? Surely not by the peasants, Cossacks, Bashkirs, etc. who joined Pugachev and other rebellions. Not by the serfs sold on auction, etc. She was loved by the aristocracy (not all of it, there was a strong opposition), by the Guards who totally forgot meaning of the word “discipline”, by the high-ranking personages in the army who expected the huge rewards and abused their positions right and left, by the high-ranking officials (by the same reason). Taking into an account that it was these people who left the memoirs, you got all these stories about “love”.

Anyway, who cares what were the motives of Catherine?

Actually, anybody seriously interested in the Russian history does care because these motives had been defining her domestic and foreign policy.

Regardless of what her personal motives were, she perfectly used the unrest among the Russians for her advantage.

There was no unrest. This was just one more palace coup, which were more often than not putting people on the Russian throne in the XVIII century.

Is this why Frederick was so traumatized and why he referred already to the lack of russian initiative after the battle of Kunersdorf as a miracle?

He tended to dramatize things. Kunersdorf was something of a watershed in the Russian-Austrian relations on a military level.

Last time I checked, despite the "Russian-Austrian relations being spoiled beyond repair", the Russians did continue the war and entered Berlin.

A small detachment got into it and got out of it very quick. The broken relations do not mean a broken alliance. It means that after Kunersdorf cooperation between the Russian and Austrian military leadership had been steadily deteriorating. The Russians had been accusing Daun in not being able to provide them with food and in the intention to win a war by the Russian hands while doing nothing. The supply part was correct, the rest was not but it did not matter. Buturlin, the last c-in-c simply moved most of his troops to the PLC and stood there disregarding Elizabeth’s orders.

Didn't you realise that this part of my comment was specifically about the Kingdom of Prussia? Not about any additional plans for Poland, just Prussia. And by the way, could you please make up your mind? On one occasion your attitude to me is "How can you not know that the exchange was certain", and literally in the next sentence you say "It was certain that this was abandoned".

Can you read carefully and quote in the whole sentences? The exchange was “certain” in the pre-war plans but the idea was abandoned after East Prussia was occupied: its population had to swear loyalty to Elizabeth.

That's the very point I tried to make. Perhaps I didn't specify my point clear enough, so I'll make it here: while there were the plans for the territorial exchange "East Prussia for Poland, Courland for Russia" (such plan was already proposed during the austro-russian talks from 1746), it wasn't certain whether Russia will stay to this idea. Funnily enough, you also mock me for saying that it would be more logical for Russia to annex Courland rather than East Prussia, and literally in the same paragraph you admit that it would be indeed logical. What's your problem?

You definitely have reading problem. What I did say was that if East Prussia was made a part of the Russian Empire then annexation of Courland would be a logical step for providing an easy land communication.

And what's so wrong in sending others to a quick summary of the Seven Years' War?

Nothing. Except that youtube is not a serious source.

Have you even read the whole script, rather than singular parts of it? No Prussia means no first partition, and thus bigger chances for PLC because Russia is the only one the PLC has to worry about.

Except Austria.

You make it sound as if I wrote that the Bar Confederates don't get beaten...

You made it sound as if the Bar Confederacy represented some really serious military obstacle. Russia was dealing with it while fighting a much more serious war with the Ottomans.

She did, but Spisz and Podhale are a tiny thing and their loss wasn't costly at all.

Except that Spisz had important salt mines, which produced considerable income. Measuring losses just by square mileage is not always a correct approach.

When during the War of the Polish Succession 1733-1735 Stanisław Leszczyński was elected with the political support of Austria's archenemy which was France, even then Austria left the actual fights on the polish soil to be handled just by Russia and Saxony.

Because it was fighting on other fronts and did not have resources to spare.

Austria didn't care that much about grabbing huge portions of lands from Poland, and that's the point.

No kidding. Again, you are talking about “huge portions”. How about the economically important ones? By the 1st Partition Russia got huge mileage, big part of which were swamps and forests of the dirt poor Belorussia. Austria got smaller but mostly economically developed territory. Who got a greater income?

Russia remains the only one Poland has to worry about.

Poland did not have to “worry” about Russia because it was too late for worrying in OTL and would be the same in your time line.

(sigh)... Scythemen started being used only during the Kościuszko Uprising.

I’m just giving you an example. PLC did not have manufacturing developed enough to produce enough weapons for an army big enough to defeat the Russian army.

And I thought that you claimed that Catherine was against expansion upon Prussia...

I suspect that even on youtube you can find something about CIIs expansionism. Yes, she was not planning to expand at the Prussian expense but there were numerous other places in which he did expand or at least tried to expand.

As for Paul's motives, regardless of what they were, the result remains the same: lack of vendetta against Poland.

There was nothing to carry vendetta against in OTL but the rest is just your wishful thinking. Defeat of the Russian army would ask for a revenge and Paul may or may not be tempted to look for it: Russian military prestige was a very important part of the imperial ideology.

To be honest I just meant that Alexander wasn't living in a fantasy (like Paul's obsession about the membership in the Order of Malta), and preferred the actual real politics over some sentiments.

Paul’s “obsession” was not much more of a fantasy than Catherine’s Mediterranean expedition: Russia had been quite active on the Med and even got its own protectorate (together with the Ottomans) on the Ionic Sea. Malta was a part of this policy and the whole circus with the Order was a way for making this claim legitimately (Paul was something of a freak in “legitimacy” area). So this was a much more “real politics” than CII’s Greek Project. AI had his own share of the fantasies and his obsession with the Kingdom of Poland was one of them: the results were bad for both sides.

As for post-napoleonic raise, it was just a side effect of the fact that Congress Poland was a trade route between Europe and Russia. The trend continued after his death for years? Nicholas the First hated the Poles,

More of history by youtube? NI obediently followed the course of AI until it came into a clashing conflict with the realities. Both sides kept blaming each other for breaking the agreement (referencing to the same polish constitution) but AI made the conflict inevitable by openly subordinating Russia to the Polish interests.

but that's not the topic of this discussion.

 

[The Link]

Are you always going to accuse "You learn from Youtube" whoever has a conversation with you? That's kinda cheap. You keep talking over and over again about the way Russia had Poland in check, and in that I agree. But you fail to notice that in spite of that, throughout the XVIII century Russia didn't annex anything from Poland up to 1772, despite she could indeed do it whenever she wanted to. But she chose to don't do it, preferring to don't spoil her image of Poland's friend. So I don't see why you find as so out of touch the idea of the Russian Empire keeping this charade by giving East Prussia to Poland.

The lands gained by Russia were indeed less developed, and that's the point. The fights in 1792 would take place there, while better developed lands (not being lost to anyone in 1772) remain in the west, faraway from the front. Austria? She was busy with France in 1733-1735, the exact same way Austria was also busy with France... in 1792. Revolutionary France declared then war on Austria, and for this reason in OTL Austria didn't participate in the second partition of Poland.

You keep giving me an impression that you found my pointing out Peter's fanboyism as "a sign of love for Catherine, I must correct him by enlightening him how bad for Russia she was". Meanwhile, the idea of Catherine destroying Prussia wasn't any glorification or condemnation or any evaluation of anything she was doing within Russia. It was simply for the sake of destroying Prussia, nothing more. And if you believe Catherine to be so bad for Russia, keep it that way, because I don't care. Well, if she was so terrible ruler, then perhaps you're overestimating the russian capabilities to pacificate reformed Poland from this timeline.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Are you always going to accuse "You learn from Youtube" whoever has a conversation with you? That's kinda cheap. You keep talking over and over again about the way Russia had Poland in check, and in that I agree. But you fail to notice that in spite of that, throughout the XVIII century Russia didn't annex anything from Poland up to 1772, despite she could indeed do it whenever she wanted to. But she chose to don't do it, preferring to don't spoil her image of Poland's friend. So I don't see why you find as so out of touch the idea of the Russian Empire keeping this charade by giving East Prussia to Poland.

The lands gained by Russia were indeed less developed, and that's the point. The fights in 1792 would take place there, while better developed lands (not being lost to anyone in 1772) remain in the west, faraway from the front. Austria? She was busy with France in 1733-1735, the exact same way Austria was also busy with France... in 1792. Revolutionary France declared then war on Austria, and for this reason in OTL Austria didn't participate in the second partition of Poland.

You keep giving me an impression that you found my pointing out Peter's fanboyism as "a sign of love for Catherine, I must correct him by enlightening him how bad for Russia she was". Meanwhile, the idea of Catherine destroying Prussia wasn't any glorification or condemnation or any evaluation of anything she was doing within Russia. It was simply for the sake of destroying Prussia, nothing more. And if you believe Catherine to be so bad for Russia, keep it that way, because I don't care. Well, if she was so terrible ruler, then perhaps you're overestimating the russian capabilities to pacificate reformed Poland from this timeline.

Might I suggest we all just take a step back and take a deep breath?

 

[alexmilman]

Are you always going to accuse "You learn from Youtube" whoever has a conversation with you?

You keep bringing this issue and I mentioned it only couple times. So stop playing a victim of abuse.

That's kinda cheap.

Do you have the factual corrections of what I said?

You keep talking over and over again about the way Russia had Poland in check, and in that I agree. But you fail to notice that in spite of that, throughout the XVIII century Russia didn't annex anything from Poland up to 1772, despite she could indeed do it whenever she wanted to.

And the point being what?

The main reason why the whole thing happened was CII. She was an usurper of the throne and a foreigner on the top of it. With a legitimate heir being present. The way for her to survive was to try playing the religious card pretending to be a defender of the Orthodox Church in the PLC. On this she was actually in concert with FII who also was having the issue with the treatment of the Protestants. Both agreed that having a compliant candidate on the Polish throne may help but CII picked up her former lover, because he did not have any power of his own, alienating “The Family” and dooming the whole issue. Then she supported his early reforms itch expecting that this would help to resolve the dissidents issue. The result was Bar Confederacy -> war with OE -> success -> Austria and Prussia getting worried about breaking the “balance”-> lousy peace with OE (giving back most if the gains) -> Russia not being in position to stand up to the A&P pressure ->1st Partition.
PIII, being a legitimate monarch, did not have to worry about the dissidents issue more than his predecessors and almost definitely would not push a moneyless and powerless young idiot as a candidate at the expense of the available powerful pro-Russian candidates so the trigger of the whole sequence of the events would not be there. If you are bent upon the PLC wank, the better scenario would be retaining PIII who is going to preserve status quo.

You keep giving me an impression that you found my pointing out Peter's fanboyism as "a sign of love for Catherine, I must correct him by enlightening him how bad for Russia she was".

I have no idea what you are trying to say and what does it have to do with what I wrote.

As for the assessment of CII, both I and @Kellan Sullivan supplied facts related to CII’s “evaluation” as a ruler of Russia. Any disagreement with these facts?

As for CII vs. Prussia, she was FII’s client to the same degree as PIII was and as Grand Duchess she was, allegedly, helped financially by the British Ambassador who besides money supplied her with a lover. Speaking of which, Stanislav Ponyatovsky lived in Russia in 1755-62 which would make it rather difficult for him to become a father of Paul who was born in 1754 (most probably with the help of count Saltykov, which gave material to a famous joke of AIII about his own “Russian” ancestry). So your theory regarding Paul’s filial feelings goes down the drain.

Meanwhile, the idea of Catherine destroying Prussia wasn't any glorification or condemnation or any evaluation of anything she was doing within Russia. It was simply for the sake of destroying Prussia, nothing more.

@Kellan Sullivan already explained to you why this was pretty much impossible. The only thing he did not mention was that Prussia was an ally of Britain and Russia, while being at war with Prussia, maintained very close relations with Britain, its main source of income in gold (and other things as well). British political influence in Russia was quite strong even during the reign of EI and gratuitous Catherine’s anti-Prussian stance could be changed in more than one way.

Now, from a purely militarily point of view, ability of the Russian army to destroy Prussia was negligible. Russian logistics was already overstretched by a need to bring supplies all the way from St.Petersburg and Riga and on the Austrian side Fieldmarshal Doun was too passive to go for the kill (one of the main reasons for post Kunersdorf rift). He considered return of Silesia as his main task and operated accordingly.

And if you believe Catherine to be so bad for Russia, keep it that way, because I don't care. Well, if she was so terrible ruler, then perhaps you're overestimating the russian capabilities to pacificate reformed Poland from this timeline.

Even with a ruler as inefficient as CII Russian Empire possessed the resources more than adequate for dealing with the PLC: having a constitution does not automatically map into having a developed economy and strong army.

BTW, in your 2nd part you wrote something about the British engineers helping Russians to create a line of the impregnable fortifications similar to those of Portugal. Putting aside the fact that the Russian military of the early XIX were quite competent in fortification area, to copy Torres Vedras experience in the Baltic provinces one would need to bring there the terrain as well, which would be quite a task taking into an account that the Baltic region is rather flat.

The same for Napoleon’s plan to invade Sweden via Russia and Finland. In OTL he was planning to do this from Denmark. The Russia-Finland-Sweden option was quite unrealistic logistically even without the Russian version of the Torres Vedras as was demonstrated by the Russian logistical problems during the war of 1808.

 

[The Link]

You both explained how there were the persons who hated Peter the Third and you wrote how selfish they were. But whether they were selfish or not, these persons did exist. Just the fact that you don't like them, doesn't erase their existence. What kind of logic is that? So yes, Catherine's earlier coup isn't out of question.

Stanislav Ponyatovsky lived in Russia in 1755-62 which would make it rather difficult for him to become a father of Paul who was born in 1754 (most probably with the help of count Saltykov, which gave material to a famous joke of AIII about his own “Russian” ancestry). So your theory regarding Paul’s filial feelings goes down the drain.

All polish historians agree that there's no way Poniatowski could be Paul's father, you're not bringing up anything new. And didn't I write myself about Paul "or at least he claimed so"? The context of that text of mine showed skepticism.

Paul’s “obsession” was not much more of a fantasy than Catherine’s Mediterranean expedition: Russia had been quite active on the Med and even got its own protectorate (together with the Ottomans) on the Ionic Sea.

Aw, but I thought you said that Catherine's demands were too small to spark an objection from Austria...

Even with a ruler as inefficient as CII Russian Empire possessed the resources more than adequate for dealing with the PLC: having a constitution does not automatically map into having a developed economy and strong army.

Yet despite the Commonwealth had been diminished by the first partition, the Russians still suffered the defeats in the battle of Zieleńce, the battle of Racławice, the poorly managed first siege of Warsaw etc. Poniatowski simply chickened out and capitulated instead of keeping the fight.

AI had his own share of the fantasies and his obsession with the Kingdom of Poland was one of them: the results were bad for both sides.

The only thing in which Congress Poland was harmful for Poles, was the fact that its existence spawned the pseudohistorians abroad, thinking that the Poles live exclusively there and nowhere else. Other than that, Congress Poland enjoyed under Alexander the First a huge autonomy and the Poles highly enjoyed it.

As for post-napoleonic raise, it was just a side effect of the fact that Congress Poland was a trade route between Europe and Russia. The trend continued after his death for years? Nicholas the First hated the Poles,

More of history by youtube? NI obediently followed the course of AI until it came into a clashing conflict with the realities. Both sides kept blaming each other for breaking the agreement (referencing to the same polish constitution) but AI made the conflict inevitable by openly subordinating Russia to the Polish interests.

Subordinating Russia to the Polish interests? Is this why Alexander the First reduced the concept of Poland to just the lands Russia gained at the Congress of Vienna, ignoring the polish-lithuanian lands grabbed by Russia prior to that? Nicholas the First obediently followed the course? Is this for real?


"I've been saying for a long time that the Poles are a lost nation whose improvement we can't expect, and that they alone are the cause to all of their misfortunes, and that the government does everything in its might, and that they must be made happy against their own will and kinda through violence".
-Nicholas I, on 10 July 1835

"At least a hundred years must pass before this country's spirit will change".
-Nicholas I, on 28 August 1832

"They must be deprived of any ways to impair us. It is very important that the revolutionary spirit of a supposedly catholic fanaticism more and more blinds those morons to the point, that they themselves help to put a muzzle on themselves".
-Nicholas I, on 7 December 1844

"I don't expect their gratitude and I'll admit that I despise them too much to pay to it any attention. I try to earn the gratitude of Russia, the descendants' - that's the thought which doesn't leave me".
-Nicholas I, on 10 June 1832

"They are stopped only by fear and apprehension of losing everything what they still have to lose. As long as our strength is not just the military number but also the implacable means for merging with Russia, a threat of depriving them of this specificity of theirs which makes the remnant of their supposed nationality - we'll have an advantage over them, even if just a shaky one. But if only we weaken in using these means or we'll allow for trusting them - all will be lost and we will face a certain defeat".
-Nicholas I, on 18 April 1845

"I know only two types of Poles: those who rebelled against me, and those who stayed loyal to me - the first ones I hate, the second ones I despise".
-Nicholas I to Frederick Willian IV of Prussia

"Don't ever give freedom to Poles, while trying to lead to an end the hard work of russificating this country".
-Nicholas I, in his political testament to Alexander II



As I said, none of it has anything in common with this scenario. But since you asked...
So, any next vulgar words?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

So, any next vulgar words?

I repeat

Might I suggest we all just take a step back and take a deep breath?

 

[Historymaster]

@Kellan Sullivan alexmilman have the tendency to pose himself in a very annoying way, every time someone have different ideas about Russia then him.
@The Link I suggest you simply go on with your idea.

 

[alexmilman]

You both explained how there were the persons who hated Peter the Third and you wrote how selfish they were. But whether they were selfish or not, these persons did exist. Just the fact that you don't like them, doesn't erase their existence. What kind of logic is that? So yes, Catherine's earlier coup isn't out of question.

OK, the coup could happen few weeks earlier and then what? Catherine was just as pro-Prussian as her husband and pro-Austrian party was holding exclusively on Elizabeth’s personality. Which, as I mentioned, was not even enough to force Buturlin into the action.

All polish historians agree that there's no way Poniatowski could be Paul's father, you're not bringing up anything new. And didn't I write myself about Paul "or at least he claimed so"? The context of that text of mine showed skepticism.

Then why mention it at all? A simple comparison of the dates removes any doubts and respect shown by Paul to a former king had nothing to do with anything.

Aw, but I thought you said that Catherine's demands were too small to spark an objection from Austria...

I said it about what?

Yet despite the Commonwealth had been diminished by the first partition, the Russians still suffered the defeats in the battle of Zieleńce, the battle of Racławice, the poorly managed first siege of Warsaw etc. Poniatowski simply chickened out and capitulated instead of keeping the fight.

Yes, they did. It happens during a war. Poniatowski did not chicken out, he understood that strategic situation is hopeless and fighting to the last soldier would result in nothing but a complete ruin.

The only thing in which Congress Poland was harmful for Poles, was the fact that its existence spawned the pseudohistorians abroad, thinking that the Poles live exclusively there and nowhere else. Other than that, Congress Poland enjoyed under Alexander the First a huge autonomy and the Poles highly enjoyed it.

The harm was in an assumption that the existing situation would survive forever. This optimistic assumption led to a war and removal of the Kingdom from the map. If AI was not so obsessed with his self-aggrandisment, he could try to retain a small but independent Polish state. Union could not work in a long run. No matter how you’d turn it, these two nations did not like each other. Russians since the ToT and the Poles since at least mid-XVII and definitely after the Repnin Sejm. Napoleonic wars made things worse: in the Russian contemporary writings the Polish troops had been emphasized as those excessively cruel and prone to the looting. We can argue if this was or was not true but perception definitely was there. AI ordered to love the Poles and, taking into an account that most of the Kingdom’s leadership were former Napoleon’s collaborators, this made Russian attitudes even worse. On their side the Poles rarely missed an opportunity to underscore that they are “Europeans” while the Russians are barbarians. Truly “happy” combination.

Subordinating Russia to the Polish interests? Is this why Alexander the First reduced the concept of Poland to just the lands Russia gained at the Congress of Vienna, ignoring the polish-lithuanian lands grabbed by Russia prior to that? Nicholas the First obediently followed the course? Is this for real?

He was forced to by a backlash from Russia: giving away the Russian governorships was considered too much by the Russian public opinion and the Polish leadership was ill-advised to request this. But he kept subsidizing Poland.


Quotes below are nice try but they are all post-1830 and are irrelevant to what I wrote about the initial period of his reign. But, if you bring them, they were reflective of the general attitude of the Russian public (as reflected in the Russian classic literature of that period) after 1830 and all the way into the late XIX. The Poles, judging by their literature, were not different. As I said, putting these two nations together was not a good idea.

"I've been saying for a long time that the Poles are a lost nation whose improvement we can't expect, and that they alone are the cause to all of their misfortunes, and that the government does everything in its might, and that they must be made happy against their own will and kinda through violence".
-Nicholas I, on 10 July 1835

"At least a hundred years must pass before this country's spirit will change".
-Nicholas I, on 28 August 1832

"They must be deprived of any ways to impair us. It is very important that the revolutionary spirit of a supposedly catholic fanaticism more and more blinds those morons to the point, that they themselves help to put a muzzle on themselves".
-Nicholas I, on 7 December 1844

"I don't expect their gratitude and I'll admit that I despise them too much to pay to it any attention. I try to earn the gratitude of Russia, the descendants' - that's the thought which doesn't leave me".
-Nicholas I, on 10 June 1832

"They are stopped only by fear and apprehension of losing everything what they still have to lose. As long as our strength is not just the military number but also the implacable means for merging with Russia, a threat of depriving them of this specificity of theirs which makes the remnant of their supposed nationality - we'll have an advantage over them, even if just a shaky one. But if only we weaken in using these means or we'll allow for trusting them - all will be lost and we will face a certain defeat".
-Nicholas I, on 18 April 1845

"I know only two types of Poles: those who rebelled against me, and those who stayed loyal to me - the first ones I hate, the second ones I despise".
-Nicholas I to Frederick Willian IV of Prussia

"Don't ever give freedom to Poles, while trying to lead to an end the hard work of russificating this country".
-Nicholas I, in his political testament to Alexander II



As I said, none of it has anything in common with this scenario. But since you asked...
So, any next vulgar words?

Please relax and stop treating conversation as a personal insult. You posted a TL and it is quite normal to expect comments and objections. Everybody is being treated the same way. If you don’t want them, just post something along the lines “please, don’t comment”.

 

[RedSword12]

I have to say, this timeline really is not exactly plausible. You have so far provided no substantive changes to support weakened Poland being able to fend off a Russian invasion. It was a desiccated husk of its former self long before Stanislaw August, and a few years of reforms aren't going to fix that.

 

[Jürgen]

One problem I see here is the lack of effect of the Prussian defeat on the rest of Europe. I also somewhat disagree with the bordersm there’s a minor mistake like the Oldenburg and East Frisia mix up, and Danish owned Ösel and Dagö. I also don’t see Brandenburg keeping Mark and Cleve. I also don’t think that France will get the entire Austrian Netherlands, I would go with them getting the County of Flanders and Hainaut. This would leave Antwerp in Austrian hands making the British less nervous. I would also give Saxony something either Magdeburg or Mark and Cleve (if Saxony doesn’t get the latter, Austria will take them).


Austria have regained Silesia and is in a stronger position, Joseph II reign will be completely different and I think there’s a good chance that his reform will be successful, he will likely also trade the remnant of the Austrian Netherland for Bavaria.

The lack of a strong Brandenburg means no intervention into the Time of Patriots in Netherlands, meaning the Dutch revolutionaries doesn’t go in exile in France, increasing the chance of a less radical French Revolution.

Sweden with control over Strettin is also an entire different beast, it will be able to use the major port to fund the Swedish state budget. I think the royal coup in 1772 will still happen. But Sweden will be in a better position.

 

[The Link]

Please relax and stop treating conversation as a personal insult. You posted a TL and it is quite normal to expect comments and objections. Everybody is being treated the same way. If you don’t want them, just post something along the lines “please, don’t comment”.

No offence, but it's you the one who treats this scenario as some sort of personal insult, with all your rage about history. Chill out, this website is called Alternate History.

As for Sweden, in OTL Napoleon could at best only attack Sweden through proxy way, by demanding the danish-norwegian union to do it. In this timeline the French aren't able to land themselves in Scandinavia for the same reason they couldn't do it in OTL: the british navy prevents them from doing it. In case of the russian version of Torres Verdas, here the "mountains" are just the lakes. As for napoleonic invasion of Sweden through Finland, it would be indeed a logistical nightmare, but just like it was a logistical nightmare in OTL for Napoleon to march on Moscow, yet he did it anyway.

 

[The Link]

One problem I see here is the lack of effect of the Prussian defeat on the rest of Europe. I also somewhat disagree with the bordersm there’s a minor mistake like the Oldenburg and East Frisia mix up, and Danish owned Ösel and Dagö. I also don’t see Brandenburg keeping Mark and Cleve. I also don’t think that France will get the entire Austrian Netherlands, I would go with them getting the County of Flanders and Hainaut. This would leave Antwerp in Austrian hands making the British less nervous. I would also give Saxony something either Magdeburg or Mark and Cleve (if Saxony doesn’t get the latter, Austria will take them).


Austria have regained Silesia and is in a stronger position, Joseph II reign will be completely different and I think there’s a good chance that his reform will be successful, he will likely also trade the remnant of the Austrian Netherland for Bavaria.

The lack of a strong Brandenburg means no intervention into the Time of Patriots in Netherlands, meaning the Dutch revolutionaries doesn’t go in exile in France, increasing the chance of a less radical French Revolution.

Sweden with control over Strettin is also an entire different beast, it will be able to use the major port to fund the Swedish state budget. I think the royal coup in 1772 will still happen. But Sweden will be in a better position.

Well, I kinda expected some minor mistakes on the map. I've never been good with any programs for making the maps.
In OTL the Electorate of Saxony got horrendously plundered by the prussian troops during the Seven Years' War, and the actual victors of the Seven Years' War just wouldn't treat Saxony as their equal. That's why I assumed that they would treat Saxony as unworthy of getting anything.

In case of the Holy Roman Empire, I did wonder whether to include the issue of Bavaria and the fact that there's no Prussia to spark the War of the Bavarian Succession. But in OTL Austria kinda wanted to get Bavaria simply to get some compensation for the failure in retaking Silesia. So I assumed that without a desire to rebuild its reputation, Austria would ignore a chance in Bavaria. Although there is indeed a chance that Austria annexes Bavaria anyway. But whatever the case, the effect goes down to one thing anyway: France gets more land, but so does Austria get more power within the Holy Roman Empire, whether directly or indirectly.

As for the dutch patriots, the French Empire, weakened by the unsuccessful campaign in Russia, is going to face some instability. And the Dutch are about to be among those who will stay loyal to France.

 

[The Link]

CHAPTER 3: The decades of uncertainty

The unofficial end of the Napoleonic Wars settled the stage for a new status quo in Europe. The way the napoleonic ideas have spreaded the ideas of enlightenment across Europe, completely reshaped the way of thinking among the common civilians of Europe. The was no more room for feudalism, and the ideas of democracy and modern ideas started being common. But it also spreaded the feeling of national solidarity among the people France had conquered. The mentioned nations started feeling oppressed and started wondering whether they truly need the french administration to govern themselves in a modern way. Thus the Napoleonic Empire, that had just barely pacificated the rebellions that occured during the russian campaign, is facing serious troubles. Who knows how the things could have played out had the French lacked during the russian campaign the supply base in the form of Poland. But despite succeeding to function, Napoleonic Empire must now reevaluate its policy toward the non-french nations it had managed to subjugate in the recent decade. There are the nations that are loyal to France. Belgium, gained by France already in 1763, had been well integrated before the outbreak of the french revolution. There are also the Swiss, whose democratic nature goes along with the democratic institutions performed by France [1]. Besides, in both the case of Belgium and Switzerland, there are the french-speaking people there, who serve for metropolitan France as useful mediators with Belgium either with the Helvetic Republic. There are also the Dutch, whose prorevolutionary faction of Patriots has been active in their country ever since 1780s [2], and they're the ones who have been put in charge to rule for Napoleon in the Batavian Republic. And there are also the Illyrian Provinces, Austria's former possessions on the coast of the Adriatic Sea. For centuries they had been ruled by Habsburgs, and thus the Illyrians see the french rule merely as a replacement for the rule of Habsburgs, and a better one due to modern things France has introduced. Thus the Illyrian Provinces are also loyal to France.

But in case of other french-dominated nations, the things aren't so good for France. They have nor republican past, neither the french population to mediate in the relations with metropolitan France. The Germans, Italians, Spaniards and Portugese - each of them have separatist tendencies, especially Spain. Spain used to be politically inefficient throughtout the entirety of the XVIII century and for that reason, there are some Spaniards who appreciate the modern institutions brought by France and who see them as a way to modernize the country [3]. But there's a far stronger factor of Spaniards remembering the french cruelty against the Spaniards during the Iberian Campaign, as well as remembering the french persecution of the Spanish Church to which the Spaniards are deeply attached. Out of all regions of Napoleonic Empire, Spain is the most unstable one.

As for the Germans, Italians and Portugese, their opposition is less strong, but it exists nonetheless. In general their mindset is confused, because they did get a lot of modern values from France, but nevertheless they do see Napoleon as an occupant. And although nor Germans neither Italians had a unified state, now they start to develop the national unity against France. And as much as they subconsciously enjoy the ideas brought by Napoleon, they would like to try them on their own, rather than under the french rule. And all of these separatist tendencies are still alive due to consciousness of how close they were to success, how the French only barely managed to pacificate them after the french retreat from Russia.

This forces Napoleon to change his politics. Although the armed rebellions and the british landings have been taken down, Napoleon softens his politics on the non-french regions for the sake of keeping their loyalty. The Continental System is however maintained, to the huge irritation of the common people deprived of the colonial goods, but that's the only harsh policy implemented upon the common civilians by Napoleon.

Still, the Continental System is enforced only upon the dominions of France and upon Denmark and Austria. Not wanting to risk another wave of british-ignited uprisings during the absence of the napoleonic armies, Napoleon decides to completely give up on the attempt to wage wars against Russia and Sweden, and unwillingly gets over the fact that they trade with the UK. And this has a lot of consequences for Sweden: Sweden's position gets stronger. Due to a fact that Denmark is still forced to participate in the Continental System, the Norwegians don't want the restoration of the danish-norwegian union, and prefers to instead stay with Sweden. But most of all, the Continental System slows down the spread of the british industrial revolution to the mainland of Europe, resulting in the Swedes getting the acccess to the british inventions much earlier than others. Russia has such access to the british inventions too, but due to a national pride from what is perceived as the victory over the godless french revolution, Russia falls into deep conservatism and neglects the modernization. This results in Sweden becoming de facto the only european country that can fully utilize the ealier access to the british industrial inventions, and it allows Sweden to witness a huge increase in its population, decreasing the gap that had existed between the small scandinavian population and the rest of the continent. The gap will be still there and Sweden is not going to demographically surpass the other european regions, but nevertheless there is a huge (for the scandinavian standards) increase of population in all of swedish controlled areas: not just in Sweden proper, but also in Norway and in Finland which the Swedes still control, due to the fact how the circumstances had caused Russia to give up on the attempts to take it away from Sweden.

As for Poland, due to getting Silesia and having now close ties with Saxony, Poland regains the position of a great power. The victory over Austria and the scale of fights Poland participated in, solidifies the feeling that the times of weakness are long gone. And as the time passes, polish nationality additionally spreads itself to the east. Already in the Constitution of 3 May the lithuanian noblemen agreed for the liquidation of the administrative separations between Poland and Lithuania [4], and as the time passes, eventually the people commonly start treating themselves simply as the citizens of Poland. The baltic Lithuanians and Latvians still exist and function, but in a similar way to the Welsh within England. As for Belarusians and the people from Ukraine, as the Slavs they just polonise themselves, mostly because the modern polish society is attractive as the alternative to the despotic absolutism represented by Russia. There are still of course the memories about the cossack uprisings that used to happen in the past, but in the general memory the cossack uprisings start being treated simply as the social conflicts between the noblemen and the lower classes of the society [5], something which now has been fixed by the fair inclusion of the lower classes into the issues of the country. And as the polish literature flourishes, the romantic poets living in the east, such as Adam Mickiewicz and Juliusz Słowacki, praise the local folklore as a part of bigger homeland. Although, their work isn't as dramatic as it would be if Poland had collapsed. And under the influence of an alliance Poland has with France, the literature also touches the topic of revolution by warning about the dangers of the revolution if it goes too far (Zygmunt Krasiński's "Undivine Comedy"). All to praise the useful alliance, but with keeping Poland's own identity.

However, the way France has abandoned the desire for further expeditions against Russia, forces Warsaw to adapt itself to this situation. Napoleon and the Wettin Monarchy are still in an alliance against the Austrian Empire and together hold Austria in check, vowing to support each other if Austria tries to do anything against either of them. But this is the only thing in which the polish-saxon union could get the french support. Against Russia, Poland is on her own. But similarly the Russian Empire doesn't have any allies against Poland. Sweden used to support the Russian Empire, because Sweden feared the concept of the napoleonic armies marching at Finland through Russia. And now that the French Empire lost interest in waging the wars against Russia, so does Sweden no longer see the necessity in aiding the Russians. The Russians could still potentially count on Austria, but as long as there's France, Austria won't dare to make any move against Poland. And thus, any potential polish-russian wars would be one-on-one (with Poland being treated as not just Poland, but as the polish-saxon union in general).

The situation in which the Austrians found themselves, is also remarkable, because during the napoleonic wars Austria lost not just Silesia, but also some of its western german-speaking lands which have been added by Napoleon to the french-dominated Confederation of the Rhine, and this leaves the stability of the Habsburg Monarchy at stakes. Prior to napoleonic wars the Habsburg dominions had been officially the separated beings, officially connected to each other only by the Habsburg dynasty. But during the napoleonic wars the holy roman emperor Francis II Habsurg, in response to Napoleon announcing himself the french emperor, proclaimed the fusion of Habsburg dominions into the unitary Austrian Empire. There was however one problem: there wasn't that much german-speaking Austrians to truly call this empire exclusively Austrian Empire. And now, after the losses of the significant portions of the german-speaking lands, there are even less Austrians within the Austrian Empire. A lot of german nobility from the lands that are now the Confederation of the Rhine flee to the Austrian Empire and seek an asylum. But those are just noblemen, whereas the huge armies are the thing Vienna needs the most. And Austria just isn't able to offer these german noblemen much, without the reliable armies which could enforce the order in the lands the mentioned noblemen would like to govern. Shortly said, Vienna simply lacks the strength to rule over its non-german dominions through force. Under these circumstances, the Habsburgs decide to emulate the rule of Wettins. Seeing how the Wettins get the support of Poland by respecting the polish national identity, the Habsburgs eventually decide to do the same by announcing (merely a decade after the end of the napoleonic wars) the annulment of Francis' proclamation of the Austrian Empire, and the announcement of Austria-Hungary. There are of course many other ethnicities within Habsburg realms rather than just Hungarians, but Habsburgs decide to just throw most of the responsibilites to keep them in check on the shoulders of Hungarians, who start introducing the policies of magyarization. Some of german noble refugees get the governing positions in Bohemia and in the last pieces of still controlled south-slavic lands, whereas the others of these refugees get the positions within Hungary where they have to support Hungarians in their policies of magyarization.

The Wettins watch these internal reforms of Habsburgs, but at this moment the Wettins are far more concerned about Russians, against whom in case of war, as already mentioned, the Wettins would be alone. Russia would be alone too, but nevertheless the Wettins decide to secure themselves. Russia still tries to rebuild herself from the casualties suffered during Napoleon's russian campaign, so while Russia is still recovering, Poland decides to increase its strength by the expansion upon Moldavia. The backward Ottomans just seem to be an easy target. Besides, the polish control over Moldavia will cut off the Russians from the expansion to the Balkans. And additionally, Moldavia is faraway from Sweden, so there's no risk of scaring the Swedes and causing them to reenter into an alliance with Russia. And so Poland declares war on the Ottomans and beats the Ottomans, not only getting the principality of Moldavia but even expanding it to the coast of the Black Sea.

This dictates the further foreign policies of the Russian Empire, because the polish takeover of Moldavia, alongside the moldavian enlargement to the coast of the Black Sea, effectively cuts off the Russians from the Balkans, whereas Russia still wants to fulfill a longtime dream of capturing Constantinople. But in the context of being unable to reach Constantinople through the Balkans without having to firstly wage a costly war against Poland, Russia decides to reach Constantinople through what seems to be an easier path: through the Caucasus. As such, the Russian Empire increases its activity in the Caucasus, originally claiming that it's just to help the Armenians. And this increased russian activity in the Middle-East is soon met with a hostility from the Great Britain, who doesn't want anyone too active in the Middle-East as a potential competition for the british colonial affairs. Originally Russia does succeed to gain lands in the easternmost part of Armenia, but when the Russian Empire launches a full-scale invasion into Anatolia from Caucasus, the Great Britain staunchly opposes it, declares war on Russia, and lands its armies in Crimea to sabotage the deliveries of supplies for the fights in the east of Anatolia. With Britain still being at odds with France, Britain is the only great power coming to aid the Ottomans. But without any territorial gains upon nor Poland neither Sweden, the Russian Empire isn't as strong as it would be otherwise, so the British are able to beat Russia all by themselves. Soon after losing this Crimean War, Russia sells Alaska to the USA to get money for its financial troubles, and in hopes for a potential war between the Great Britain and the United States of America. The United States buy Alaska, but are far more concerned with their other issues.

Almost 100 years ago, after the british victory in the colonial theatre of the Seven Years' War, the Great Britain started imposing the high taxes upon its american dominions that had been governing themselves as the Thirteen Colonies. This, combined with the fact that the Thirteen Colonies had been since always governing themselves all by themselves, eventually caused the American Revolution which overthrew the british reign and led to the formation of the USA. But this was a federation of the colonies who just happened to have a common british enemy, other than that they were its own beings. And now the southern states start accusing the central american government of disrespecting them. Eventually the southern states declare a secession and the American Civil War outbreaks. The north wins this war and forcefully reunites the USA. But the southern secession had been nevertheless heard across the Atlantic Ocean, and inspired the anti-french separatists to do the same. After Napoleon the First died of a natural cause, his position is taken over by his overconfident nephew Napoleon the Third. And once the german, italian and iberian separatists start demanding the independence, in each case financed by the Great Britain, Napoleon the Third in his overconfidence allows himself to be provoked and starts introducing the draconian laws, which distrurbs the subtle balance achieved by his predecessor. This results in the series of armed uprisings, each financed by Britain, and the ultimate result is the series of secessions from France: the german one, the italian one, the spanish one and the portugese one. As these regions rise the armies to secede, and they demand not just the areas where their borders officially reach but also any lands in which their people live: whether it's Rhineland in case of Germany, or Catalonia in case of Spain. And just as these armed secessions appear, Austria-Hungary additionally involves itself by sending its troops to reannex the Illyrian Provinces, by using the fact that France can't send there any reinforcements without firstly marching through hostile italian either german territories. However, this annexation is the only thing Vienna can count on. The german-speaking lands which Napoleon the First took away from Austria and gave to the Confederation of the Rhine many decades ago, no longer see themselves as Austrians, now its people see themselves exclusively as the Germans who reject the austrian rule. Similarly the Italians want their own state and refuse to give away anything ever owned by Austria in Italy. Therefore both the Germans and the Italians staunchly reject any austrian revisionism upon their lands. They do allow for the austrian reannexation of the Illyrian Provinces, but simply because of disliking the Illyrians for their loyalty to France. Nevertheless, although it's not as much as Vienna would want, Vienna is nevertheless happy to retake at least some of its former dominions.

And Austria-Hungary pretty much effortlessly reconquers the Illyrian Provinces, due to a fact that the Illyrian Provinces are geographically cut off from the metropolitan France who is too busy with the fights against the Germans and Italians. Ultimately France chooses to abandon its directly controlled possessions in both Italy and Iberia for the sake of maintaining the control over the german lands west of Rhine, a river considered to be a geographical border of France. And in that France succeeds, as well as in keeping the control over the Helvetic Republic, Belgium, and the Batavian Republic, although the last one loses its german lands to the newly proclaimed Germany.



[1] In OTL at the end of the XVII century there were numerous protests within Switzerland against the centralization of power, and the ideas of french revolution started being quite popular among these protesters. There was an emigration of some swiss politicians to France, and they're the ones whom Napoleon asked to prepare an uprising in Switzerland for the incoming french takeover. And once the french invasion happened, only the cantons of Bern, Solothurn and Fribourg showed some resistance.
[2] In OTL this faction tried to take over the Netherlands, but was defeated due to the military intervention of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1787. But in this scenario at that time Prussia is no more, so the dutch revolutionaries are continuing their activity in the Netherlands up to the napoleonic times.
[3] Although the Spaniards absolutely loathed the french cruelty from the Iberian Campaign, in OTL after Napoleon's downfall the Spaniards nevertheless tried to implement some modernization. And ironically, France was the one who stopped it by the military intervention in 1823.
[4] Prior to Constitution the country's official name was "Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów" (Republic of Two Nations), whereas the Constitution of 3 May refers to the country simply as Poland either Rzeczpospolita (only Rzeczpospolita, without "of two nations"). On 20 October 1791 an addnotation was added, the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations, which assured that the territories of what used to be the Grand Duchy of Lithuania will have guaranteed the equal number of representatives in the ministries, in the Comission of the Treasure, in the Comission of the Military etc. Some historians suggest that it was the restoration of the lithuanian separateness, but nevertheless, officially the administrative uniformity implemented by the Constitution has been kept.
[5] A lot of Cossacks were ethnically polish peasants and vice versa - a lot of noblemen were ethnically Ruthenians.