Austrian and British army vs Russian army

In early 1815, which army would win: Austrian & British or Russian if they were to fight in Poland?


  • Total voters
    17
If the Austrian and British armies (including the Dutch and other foreigners under British command) fought the Russians in Poland in early 1815 (before 100 days), who would win?
 
If the Austrian and British armies (including the Dutch and other foreigners under British command) fought the Russians in Poland in early 1815 (before 100 days), who would win?
And the Prussians are somehow disappearing?

Scenario is so vague that it is impossible to say something meaningful without more specifics being added. OTOH, if we assume that the Brits managed to march across the Germany starting their march in the early January while the Russians are not moving from Poland, then by the time the Brits and Austrians are reaching the Polish border there is a loud “oops” because Nappy is landed in France and marching on Paris: “dear former allies, please do not move: we are going back to fight the Ogre and then will be back to fight you”. 😂
 
I picked British because the British navy can just destroy Kronstadt and bombard St. Petersburg into submission (they were planning on doing this during the Crimean War, but Russia surrendered before it could happen).
 
What does Prussia do - the forces are closely matched and this could be the deciding factor ? Also why are they fighting?

Further if this is before the 100 days its a guaranteed stalemate: they will rush back to fight France well before a decision could be reached in this war.
 
How long a timescale are we looking at? I'd expect the Anglo-Austrian forces to be able to drive the Russians out of Poland itself, but not to force Russia into accepting a peace it doesn't want to. Then in the long run, Russia might well be able to raise enough troops to retake Poland.

(Of course, this is assuming that Napoleon doesn't come back to France, and that no other countries get involved in the fighting.)
 
How long a timescale are we looking at? I'd expect the Anglo-Austrian forces to be able to drive the Russians out of Poland itself, but not to force Russia into accepting a peace it doesn't want to. Then in the long run, Russia might well be able to raise enough troops to retake Poland.

(Of course, this is assuming that Napoleon doesn't come back to France, and that no other countries get involved in the fighting.)
Assuming the Napoleonic Wars did happen in this timeline (which brings up a whole bunch of questions since the Russians were in Paris), how do you suppose the Austrians who are still recovering push the Russians out of Poland? Also, how do we suppose the British get their soldiers into Poland in the first place?
 
Are you really asking a different question? Are you really asking who has a better army in 1815, rather then if they fought a war at that time? Having a hypothetical battle is a different question then fighting a real war, in a real place. The outcome of a real war depends on the circumstances of the conflict. How does the British Army get to Poland? Why would they even want to get there? The British still have many of their best units fighting in North America. In a war between these countries over Poland, I would imagine no British Army would be sent. The British would send money, and the RN would raid in the Baltic, and Black Sea. Prussia would side with Russia, and tip the balance of land forces against Austria, in Poland. Blucher would fight Wellington in Belgium. France under Louis XVII would side with Austria, invade the Prussian Rhineland, and send a Corps to support Wellington in Belgium. The big winner would be Napoleon.
 
I picked British because the British navy can just destroy Kronstadt and bombard St. Petersburg into submission (they were planning on doing this during the Crimean War, but Russia surrendered before it could happen).
It was quite difficult at that time for any navy to destroy Kronstadt with the island forts guarding the passage (or any descent sea side fortress) https://yandex.ru/images/search?pos=0&img_url=https://sun9-31.userapi.com/Hiikglha3q_X8nIoTNHanf-DpHKjZO96TGLn8g/Jhb6QcJOWBM.jpg&text=форты+кронштадта+18+век&rpt=simage

and existing range of a naval artillery would made bombarding St-Petersburg even more difficult: the wooden ships would have to sail couple miles up Bolshaya Neva River to reach the important area (with a fortress of Peter and Paul being on one of the banks). Taking into an account availability of the numerous field artillery in St-Petersburg area and the fact that the river is only 400-500 meters wide, limiting possibility of a maneuver, that trip up river would be " quite enjoyable" (in Pratchettian sense). How about looking at the map? :winkytongue:

Not to mention that even destroying some palaces in St-Petersburg would not result in capitulation of the Russian Empire (it seems that you are confusing capital with the whole state).

You forgot to mention that during the CW the allies failed to destroy much less defended Sveaborg (1,000 allied guns, 20,000 shells against the forts and a single 120 guns ship defending the entry), that they simply did not risk to attack Kronstadt in 1855 and that a planned attack involved construction of the armored floating batteries, total of 350 gunboats and mortar vessels, which were not available in 1815 and that the naval artillery of the mid-XIX had been much more powerful including the bombing guns.
 
Last edited:
Top