No GNW (or “Peter goes South”)
- Thread starter alexmilman
- Start date
Glad to see the British failed at actually accomplishing anything with their Egyptian adventure, unless you count losing men and losing money on it a accomplishment.
Although this makes me wonder, will we see Muhammad Ali still rebel against the Ottomans and create a independent Egypt? Or something like the Suez canal? It would do good for the Russians having access to the red sea in order to get a quicker trade route.
Although this makes me wonder, will we see Muhammad Ali still rebel against the Ottomans and create a independent Egypt? Or something like the Suez canal? It would do good for the Russians having access to the red sea in order to get a quicker trade route.
Here is the updated map of the former Poland-Lithuania with Poland and Sweden's gains. Technically all Austria's share of the partition would have been in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, so I am assuming Austria returning everything except Galicia means they cede West Galicia (i.e. Lesser Poland pre-partition), while keeping East Galicia (i.e. actual, historical Galicia).
It isn't everything Poland would want, but they should be reasonably happy. Their population on the eve of this war would have been about 5.5 million. The Prussian territories would have had a population of roughly 250,000 in 1809, and the Austrian ceded territories ~900,000. All core Polish ethnic territories and will increase Poland's population nearly 25%!
It isn't everything Poland would want, but they should be reasonably happy. Their population on the eve of this war would have been about 5.5 million. The Prussian territories would have had a population of roughly 250,000 in 1809, and the Austrian ceded territories ~900,000. All core Polish ethnic territories and will increase Poland's population nearly 25%!
This was actually OTL: I had to streamline description of the whole mess that started in 1803 but Alexandria expedition did happen after the same admiral botched attack on Constantinople.
There are still quite a few years in between so the honest answer is: I don’t know. Seriously, I don’t know even what to do with Russia after this crisis is finished. 😢
How about them sticking to the OTL position? NI simply sent a messenger to MA informing him that he demands submission to the Sultan and it worked. Actually, Muraviev’s communications with MA and with the Sultan and his court were rather funny, at least as he described them.
Thanks. The map is great and you got everything just right including the Kuronian Split.
Of course, they’d want everything including the Swedish and Russian shares but they are not in a position to complain too loudly because they may end up losing more.
Not too bad, taking into an account the limited role they played in liberation of their own territory.
For future things for Russia, sooner or later, a nationalist regime will take over in Poland, then there can be a repeat of the November Uprising, just worse as ATL Poland is rather bigger than Congress Poland. Could have another partition afterward depending what the geopolitical context is then (OTL third partition territories probably wouldn't have been too much of a problem if Alexander hadn't decided to make the Polish heartland also part of the empire).
European politics are also likely to be livelier then OTL 1815-1854, since it isn't as much of an end of history moment as the OTL Congress of Vienna. France is more able to throw its weight around, German nationalism will be a lot weaker, the HRE is still around, it will be more a continuation of pre-French Revolution dynamics. Not that that makes things easier for you, since you will not be able to rely on OTL history near as much going forward.
Russia also can act as the Gendarmerie of Europe whenever Central Europe has an ATL equivalent of 1848. Austria admittedly was not very grateful OTL, but as long as Russia is an absolute monarchy, they have a real interest in suppressing liberalism as it is somewhat contagious.
The British will probably have a scare about Russia at some point, they were prone to thinking whichever great power was doing well at any given moment was a terrifying threat. Then you could have an epic show-down of the British, Prussians, and Austrians versus Russia and perhaps France.
Plus, there is nothing preventing Russia from stupid foreign policy. Looking at OTL great powers, ATL Russia having managed to maintain a broadly sane foreign policy for 100 years is quite impressive. Plenty of stupid, but plausible options: Caucuses (Can easily carve a bunch of land off Persia, just need to clear out the mountaineers to the north for access, easy as pie!), Ottoman Empire (Need to liberate our Slavic brothers, we're Third Rome, so need Constantinople, never mind that will upset all the other Great Powers), or heck, Sweden (Baltic provinces would be great! Who but an internationalist softy would worry about minor things like wrecking the Baltic trade, earning international infamy, or the pain of fighting a very well-run nation that will do a lot better than paper strengths suggest?).
European politics are also likely to be livelier then OTL 1815-1854, since it isn't as much of an end of history moment as the OTL Congress of Vienna. France is more able to throw its weight around, German nationalism will be a lot weaker, the HRE is still around, it will be more a continuation of pre-French Revolution dynamics. Not that that makes things easier for you, since you will not be able to rely on OTL history near as much going forward.
Russia also can act as the Gendarmerie of Europe whenever Central Europe has an ATL equivalent of 1848. Austria admittedly was not very grateful OTL, but as long as Russia is an absolute monarchy, they have a real interest in suppressing liberalism as it is somewhat contagious.
The British will probably have a scare about Russia at some point, they were prone to thinking whichever great power was doing well at any given moment was a terrifying threat. Then you could have an epic show-down of the British, Prussians, and Austrians versus Russia and perhaps France.
Plus, there is nothing preventing Russia from stupid foreign policy. Looking at OTL great powers, ATL Russia having managed to maintain a broadly sane foreign policy for 100 years is quite impressive. Plenty of stupid, but plausible options: Caucuses (Can easily carve a bunch of land off Persia, just need to clear out the mountaineers to the north for access, easy as pie!), Ottoman Empire (Need to liberate our Slavic brothers, we're Third Rome, so need Constantinople, never mind that will upset all the other Great Powers), or heck, Sweden (Baltic provinces would be great! Who but an internationalist softy would worry about minor things like wrecking the Baltic trade, earning international infamy, or the pain of fighting a very well-run nation that will do a lot better than paper strengths suggest?).
Last edited:
Personally i would go for Caucasian blunder down the line.
Well regarding Egypt, trying to gain influence there would probably kick out a Great Game equivalent with the British. While most of the problems in CA are solved to lessen the tensions Egypt is potentially shorter route to India which means that British would want it, even more than in otl given the Growth of French power (Remember France via Batavia already control's the Cape so Red Sea should be reasonable route) and Russian presence in the East Med. I believe Russia should keep to the policy it has with Austria regarding Balkans , basically don't try to expand influence over entire region of Ottoman empire and keep to the regions of influence .
Basically Russian interest in Ottoman empire should be Southeastern Balkans (minus Bosnia and Serbia which are in Austrian interest), otl territories of Ottoman empire in Asia and potentially Tripolia as a base in Med. Influencing those shouldn't step on to many toe's . Also encourage Ottomans in giving more rights to their Orthodox subjects .
Now regarding on what Alex should do next? Maybe end serfdom? He made few comments about it otl. but never acted on it and he now has military reputation to himself beside already tootles nobility (they were already losing power through the policies of previous Emperor's), plus being called liberator would probably stroke his Ego.
Otherwise NW is completely different place with surviving Spanish empire, while France does control Louisiana (i believe exchange was done to more, or less to cement alliance with Spain in Italy as Spanish got some acquisitions there in exchange for getting rid of Louisiana which was already rising tension with US and it's settler's, plus entire thing was pushed by the French Merchants).
So maybe Purchase still happens ?
Last edited:
Honestly I don't see Britain being able to stop Russian influence on Egypt if they wanted, it would mean having to go through a French controlled northern Africa and what exactly are going to do in there? Invade under the pretense of "you've been getting friendly with someone we maybe think is getting too strong" ? Especially because the Russians would have better relationships with the Ottomans, so asking for ferrying troops and ships to the Mediterranean wouldn't be that hard just in case Britain thinks they should have permanent control over Egypt.
They are still prime naval power and control Gibraltar and Malta , so they do have a presence in the Med. Otherwise this isn't really about Russia getting friendly with Egypt, it's about Russia getting unfriendly with the British and potentially starting the great game over nothing.
Egypt is more, or less a place British want to expand their influence over strategic reasons which has nothing to do with Russias goals in Egypt which are honestly non existent at this point, only thing binding them together is the fact that Egypt is part of the Ottoman empire and there's no point for Russia to fight all Ottoman war's, or guarantee it's territories (British can do otl thing and leave Egypt under nominal Ottoman rule).
If anything any Russian interest in Egypt can be negotiated with the British, they can conquer Egypt to secure route to India while making agreement with Russia about free passage to the Red Sea and further. British are primarily naval power anyway so this dependence wouldn't change much )only thing it would achieve is force Russia in the naval race).
ATM Russia has weary profitable relationship going on with the British and British are in no position to pursue great power rivalries on a whim due to obvious (or perceived) French threat, without geopolitical clash of interest that is and that situation is something Russia should seek to maintain and not seek to supplement France as British rival, or involve itself in ongoing Franco/British rivalry on either side.
Why cause of conflict where you don't have to over something you can get more, or less peacefully.
Otherwise if something is to be reexamined it's Austrian share of the Balkans, at this point with Serbian autonomy and more rights for Orthodox people there's really no need to allow further spread of Austria towards the Balkans, nor is Austria in position to force the issue.
Last edited:
This is a possibility but not necessarily in the OTL idiotic form of starting with getting a territory of no value and then spending enormous effort providing an access to it. Then “which Caucasus” is a big question mark. If just Persian that I’m not sure that, with the friendly Ottomans, the whole Imamate thing could pick up: after all, the Sultan is a Caliph and you probably need some formal approval to declare yourself anything (I’ m guessing). In general, the whole policy could be much less hamfisted than in OTL with a stress on protectorate-like arrangements and the direct occupation of the really valuable areas.
In OTL this was simpler: NI acted as something of the Sultan’s “protector” in the conflict with MA but simply expressed a “wish” for their reconciliation leaving the rest open to the imagination with a hint that it will be up to the Sultan to ask or not to ask for a real help. In practical terms and leaving aside “specifics” of NI’s character, Russia did have s profitable trade supplying Instanbul with grain and did not have any specific interests in making Egypt independent or quazi-independent.
AFAIK, for quite a while they did not make any serious moves and even were OK with the French influence there but, this being said, why Russia is going to be involved? Screwing the British access to India is not its goal because it is not going to benefit in any obvious (to me) way so why creating a conflict out of nothing?
IMO, the Russian Balkan policy was extremely expensive and equally foolish because the whole region had close to zero economic value and was causing nothing but troubles and expenses (war of 1877-78 alone cost over 1B rubles). The same goes for the notion of the Christians’ protection: it would be much easier to negotiate a descent treatment with the friendly Ottoman government that relies upon the Russian protection against the Austrian aggression. And then, as a monarch, why would a Russian Emperor support rebellions against a friendly monarch? Just because of the religion? What if the Sultan/Caliph start encouraging unrest of the Russian Muslim subjects? Especially in the Caucasus.
Questions:
1. What is Russian practical interest on the Balkans (any part of them)? AFAIK, zero. They are too poor to be the important importers and had very little of value as the export items. Plus, all the local nations tend to hate each other and can’t even decide which territory belongs to whom.
2. Why bother to rock the boat and destroy the system which is working for more than a century by pursuing fantoms when the practical results (arrangements for the Russian navy) can be easily reached peacefully with the friendly Ottomans (who had a lot of reasons to remain friendly)?
On that, I already started a slowly going reform Kiselev-style many decades ahead of the schedule so by now in the practical terms the serfdom should be pretty much gone (😂) leaving some small percentage that can be emancipated either naturally (as not too profitable) or by a decree without causing major economic disturbances. The community model is still in place but it is a voluntary, not a mandatory arrangement.
I already mentioned it before but (a) by the time in question in OTL the overwhelming majority of the Russian officers and bureaucrats did not own any serfs (and many of them were the 1st, 2nd generation nobles) and (b) most of the land owners had state loans with their estates as a collateral (in other words, state pretty much owned their lands because they could, at best, pay percentages on a loan but not the principal). So this was mostly an issue of uncertainty regarding the future of a landowner class (which AII practically destroyed). The real military and administrative power already was in the hands of people who did not belong to that class.
How this is Russian business? 😜
With diplomacy sewing up all their European frontiers securely, perhaps we can see Russian Napoleon undo the Qing dynasty a century early? There's profit to be had and the Brits aren't even in a real position to do anything about it yet.
There's also Korea and Japan to be meddled with, or perhaps the Turks could be convinced to strike against Iran?
There's also Korea and Japan to be meddled with, or perhaps the Turks could be convinced to strike against Iran?
Allow me to rephrase myself, when i thought about regions of influence i was thinking more along the lines of which regions would Russia like to see under control of friendly Ottoman government. Example being that if Austria pushes to hard in the Balkans Russia would get involved to protect the Ottoman government. Same with religious rights, i was referring to encouraging Ottomans to reform in that direction (which they'll legitimately have to do to quell unrest in the region), but nothing like full-blown independence.
Last edited:
Yes, something along these lines. After all, the Ottomans already had the vassal states so why don’t have more of them? Greece can be a tricky issue because Britain and France got involved but there would be no reason for Russia to jump into the same bandwagon because it has nothing to gain.
Logistics for bringing over 100,000 troops (occupation and everything) to the theater and then for bringing and supporting a bigger number of the Russian settlers in the Far East and especially Manchuria would be, IMO, impossible without the RR. And what is a purpose in undoing an existing dynasty, which is weak and reasonably compliant? It will be replaced with a havoc and this is not good for the trade.
There is already trade with Japan ITTL and Korea is going to be more or less “open” automatically after Russia got Ussury region. As for Iran, why would Russian need Ottoman help?
Interesting Polish commonwealth is starting to look increasingly big, I think it's fine as long as the corruption and nobility infighting spread to areas previously under control of Prussia and Austria otherwise next generation Russia may have to deal with Poland. Maybe encourage the decadence and corruption if possible? It's still better all the way for a weak commonwealth to shackle polish nationalists to than let them fight for their utopian ideal.
Egypt is starting to emerge as a power, I wonder if they try their colonial empire scheme.
Egypt is starting to emerge as a power, I wonder if they try their colonial empire scheme.
O yeah I read about that war, should be noted that the 1877 war their was a major hidden cost, a lot of Russian volunteers and groups raising funds ect definitely was also a issue, given it created a lobby to intervene much more in the Balkans.
The Congress Poland was under the Russian control and the main issue for the uprising was, AFAIK, what the Poles considered infringement upon their constitutional rights. IITL Poland is a completely independent state so this hardly can be an issue. From the PR point of view in the last war Russia acted as a protector of the Polish <whatever> and Poland even got some of the lands back and gained some military glory. Of course, sooner or later the hot heads may decide that it is a good idea to return all lands lost to Prussia and Austria and this may end up badly but we are not at that point, yet.
ITTL the policy is to leave a big enough Polish buffer state and not allow the further partitions. Prussia and Austria got their shares but that’s it. No serious reason to encourage the further activities in that area.
Well, so far I was pretty much avoiding the German affairs and will try to keep it that way… 😉
Making the Russian XIX politics as stupid as it was in OTL is not difficult but what’s the point? We already know what happened under this worst case scenario and the challenge, as I see it, is to avoid as many stupidities as possible while still remaining on the Planet Earth.
So far, Russia and Britain had minimal conflicts of interests and none of them was worthy of a serious confrontation. If Russia is not handicapped by the domestic backwardness (which is so far pretty much avoided), there would be very little “epic” in the Russian military confrontation with Prussia and/or Austria, especially if France is being involved. Anyway, what Britain is going to gain by such a confrontation?
See above. 😂
You see, in OTL the Russian political course was heavily impacted by the foolish decisions made in the XVIII and then early XIX century. A not too bright ruler like NI or AII was pretty much a hostage of these decisions because deviation would result in what considered as a loss of a prestige. Now, if the initial stupidities are avoided or impact of their later implementation would be much smaller.
For example, getting into the Caucasus in the early XVIII, when all sides involved were on the same technological level, was a disaster, in the mid-/late-XVIII it started a prolonged bloody mess over pretty much nothing but in the 2nd half of the XIX it, including the mass expelling of the Circassians and conquest of Chechnya, happened relatively easily because the technological gap became a strategic factor.
Actually, as far as the Caucasus is involved, the only economically meaningful (even this in a retrospect) part of it did not require the acrobatic tricks needed for maintaining connections with Georgia. You are just moving Southalong the Caspian coast (starting from the Terek ITTL), taking Derbent. Then you are pretty much done and can go all the way to Baku or further. The “wild” tribes are on your right but their ability to project power beyond the cordon line is close to zero, their communications with the outside world are extremely limited and their spiritual leaders can’t even declare a jihad without being denounced by the Caliph.
“Carving” Persian Armenia and Georgia (multiple states and tribes)? Who seriously needs them? There is nothing to loot there and, even when and if they are conquered, administration of “Georgia” is going to be a nightmare because every third “native” imagines himself an independent ruler. Historically, the whole charade started with a BS: to get Russian help in the fight against the Persians & Ottomans the local rulers (who were shifting between the Russians and traditional overlords almost on the daily basis) had been spreading the rumors about enormous mineral riches of their mountains (gold and pretty much everything else imaginable except for the very big diamonds). The first Romanovs (Michael or Alexey) started with sending the “researching party” which returned with a report after which the idea died. Peter was just itching for fighting somebody and launched his Persian expedition based, IIRC, upon speculations of Volynsky (who ended up as a martyr of the struggle against non-existing German tyranny, which does not change the fact that he was more than a little bit of a scumbag). The conquest proved a huge drain on the Russian finances and military force. Pretty much the same was the case with CII who was full of the “ideas” and rarely bothered herself with the details. After this Russian Empire pretty much stuck with a piece of Georgia which it could not abandon without a loss of face and to keep which it had to conquer the logistically worst pieces of the mountain area.
“Slavic brothers” actually came into the picture relatively late: AFAIK, neither Rumanians nor the Greeks are the Slavs. Of course, support of the panslavism by the Russian monarchs was rather touchy, taking into an account that by the time it came into existence the Romanovs were practically pure-breed Germans. There was a historic anecdote about AIII investigating his ancestry, especially the rumor that Paul was actually son of Saltykov. When such a possibility was confirmed he reacted “good, this means that I have at least some Russian blood”. Seriously, besides the hysteria in a rather narrow circle of the “educated classes” the practical part of the war of 1877-78 (if there was one, of which I’m anything but sure) was a revenge for the CW. And, BTW, with all idiocy involved, AII & Gorchakov spent few years (making the claim regarding help to the Serbs preposterous) achieving consent of the Great Powers for this adventure. So even the bottom level stupidity had some limits.
The Third Rome ideology was pretty much dead well before Peter I and actually it more or less involved a denial of Constantinople: the 1st & 2nd Rome fell for their sins so “we (Muscovite state) are the third Rome”. Actually, during the XIX century the Russian armies had been within a spitting distance from Constantinople but its annexation was not even considered: among other reasons it would be a fundamental logistical stupidity.
The Baltic Provinces had been reasonably “great” at the time of OTL PI but ITTL I don’t see how they are making too much sense by the early XIX. They are predominantly agricultural areas with the few port cities prospering mostly by transit trade the Russian part of which is done on the most favorable conditions and, anyway, Russia has its major port on the Baltic. The provinces still have their own traditional “liberties” and a high degree of a self-administration so their incorporation into the Russian legal and administrative structure is not going to be easy. On a positive side, due to almost complete absence of any perspectives in the area there is a consistent outflow of the most active segment of their nobility, merchants and artisans to Russia, which is very convenient: no obligations and a lot of benefits. Not to mention that these provinces are producing an useful buffer in the case of the future conflict with a (much stronger) Prussia. And, taking into an account that Sweden depends on the Russian support in the case of troubles in Germany, cordiality of that relation is based upon the mutual interests.
Caucasian adventure against Persia looks more plausible and, as in OTL, short of the (OTL) foolishness, it does not require a serious mess in the mountains. In OTL the problems with Chechnya had been quite separate from the Russian conquest of Azerbaijan.
Getting deeper into the CA mountains with the khanates and Dzungaria already Russian looks like an adventure just for the sake of adventure except for the research needed for figuring out a precise border with the British sphere of interests.
Now, as far as the prestige is involved, AIII was doing just fine explicitly avoiding any serious entanglement and the Russian international prestige was higher than during the reigns of AII and NII.