Russia and the 7 Years War

[Arch-Angel]

So I am working on a little idea that isn't ready for public consumption yet, but I wanted to throw this out for consideration/outside help.

What would the effect(s) of Russia sitting out of the Seven Years War be? Most timelines I've seen involve the results being flipped, I haven't found a single Britain/Prussia crush the opposition in Europe. Would this be likely if Russia wasn't involved? Let's say Elizabeth died a few years earlier and Peter still loved Prussia. Would Russia be better off? Would they do anything else? Or they join in the fun as an ally if Britain/Prussia? Would there even be a war? (I feel like there would be because Frederick started it knowing the odds, if he had even better odds I feel like he would be even more gun-ho). What could Prussia conceivably win at the negotiating table? Say Prussia annexes Saxony, what happens to the Wettins?

 

[Shehryar]

Russia doesn't learn the military lessons it learned when it participated in the Seven Years war. This would have implications in the Russo-Turkish wars to come. perhaps we see a stalemate in Crimea?

 

[alexmilman]

So I am working on a little idea that isn't ready for public consumption yet, but I wanted to throw this out for consideration/outside help.

What would the effect(s) of Russia sitting out of the Seven Years War be? Most timelines I've seen involve the results being flipped, I haven't found a single Britain/Prussia crush the opposition in Europe. Would this be likely if Russia wasn't involved?

Most probably, you are still looking for a long war of attrition with an unclear outcome. Russian OTL victories did not produce a "Napoleonic" strategic effect of forcing Prussia into capitulation and the same goes for the Prussian and Austrian victories: they could be more or less spectacular but none of them won a war. Prussia may be somewhat better off and that's it.

Let's say Elizabeth died a few years earlier and Peter still loved Prussia.

Actually. it would be better for your OP if Liz lives longer but simply does not have a personal grudge against the Old Fritz: of course, pro-Austrian party in St-Petersburg was powerful but so was pro-Prussian party and a final choice was defined by Elizabeth's whim with the official reasoning being plain silly. If the claimed goal was to prevent Prussian influence in the PLC then keeping Prussia and Austria fighting each other for as long as possible would achieve this goal without any Russian effort.

Would Russia be better off?

Define "better off". Economically, few years of peace would be much better than the years of war by the end of which Russian treasury was pretty much exhausted (*). Politically, questionable because Russia emerged out of it as a major European military power. Militarily, some useful experience had been obtained allowing to conduct the military reforms.


________
(*) This is a complicated issue. CII was complaining that she does not have enough money to send few thousand troops to the PLC to guarantee election of her former boyfriend while at the same time spending huge amounts of money on her current boyfriend and his family.

Would they do anything else?

They can get engaged in the Russian favorite entertainment of the XVIII century: start war with the Ottomans. Unlike the previous and following OTL wars, the rest of Europe was too busy fighting each other to help the Ottomans getting a reasonably favorable the peace treaty after the lost war. Russia could end up with the possession of the Northern coast of the Black Sea and annexation of the Crimean Khanate few decades earlier than in OTL.

Or they join in the fun as an ally if Britain/Prussia?

Theoretically, they could but there was no more or less obvious reason for doing so beyond, perhaps, sending an auxiliary corps of 20-30,000 if Britain provides a generous subsidy. But why would Fritz ask for it?

 

[dandan_noodles]

I could see the Prussians doing well enough to annex Saxony if the Russians sit it out.

 

[Arch-Angel]

Most probably, you are still looking for a long war of attrition with an unclear outcome. Russian OTL victories did not produce a "Napoleonic" strategic effect of forcing Prussia into capitulation and the same goes for the Prussian and Austrian victories: they could be more or less spectacular but none of them won a war. Prussia may be somewhat better off and that's it.

While I agree, wouldn't the resources directed to Russia be able to be put to use against Austria/France allowing for greater pressure put on those enemies? Frederick has to withdraw from Bohemia in part because of Russia, if Russia wasn't in, then they wouldn't have to leave? Or am I wrong?

Actually. it would be better for your OP if Liz lives longer but simply does not have a personal grudge against the Old Fritz: of course, pro-Austrian party in St-Petersburg was powerful but so was pro-Prussian party and a final choice was defined by Elizabeth's whim with the official reasoning being plain silly. If the claimed goal was to prevent Prussian influence in the PLC then keeping Prussia and Austria fighting each other for as long as possible would achieve this goal without any Russian effort.

Why do you say this? What does Liz give the situation that Peter wouldn't?

 

[Arch-Angel]

I could see the Prussians doing well enough to annex Saxony if the Russians sit it out.

This is what I was inclined to, but I wanted to see if I was out in left field.

 

[Aghasverov]

While I agree, wouldn't the resources directed to Russia be able to be put to use against Austria/France allowing for greater pressure put on those enemies? Frederick has to withdraw from Bohemia in part because of Russia, if Russia wasn't in, then they wouldn't have to leave? Or am I wrong?



Why do you say this? What does Liz give the situation that Peter wouldn't?

I think the upshot of this is that Elizabeth's foreign policy (as with, well, most of her life ) was pretty much dictated by her whims... pretty much the wind could change direction and her attitude toward Prussia could change

 

[alexmilman]

While I agree, wouldn't the resources directed to Russia be able to be put to use against Austria/France allowing for greater pressure put on those enemies? Frederick has to withdraw from Bohemia in part because of Russia, if Russia wasn't in, then they wouldn't have to leave? Or am I wrong?

Nobody can tell with 100% certainty if you are right or wrong. The point is not that the Russian involvement was not important but that it was not a strategically decisive factor.

Why do you say this? What does Liz give the situation that Peter wouldn't?

Peter was quite enthusiastic about Fritz (and so was his wife) so it is harder to imagine a neutral Russia under Peter than under Elizabeth for whom the choice was mostly a matter of a caprice.

 

[Fernan3451]

Nobody can tell with 100% certainty if you are right or wrong. The point is not that the Russian involvement was not important but that it was not a strategically decisive factor.

Wouldn't Russia not participating in the Seven Years War had made Prussia fare better in the Seven Years War, since they don't have to worry about being invaded by Russia in their eastern flank?

 

[Aghasverov]

Most probably, you are still looking for a long war of attrition with an unclear outcome. Russian OTL victories did not produce a "Napoleonic" strategic effect of forcing Prussia into capitulation and the same goes for the Prussian and Austrian victories: they could be more or less spectacular but none of them won a war. Prussia may be somewhat better off and that's it.


Actually. it would be better for your OP if Liz lives longer but simply does not have a personal grudge against the Old Fritz: of course, pro-Austrian party in St-Petersburg was powerful but so was pro-Prussian party and a final choice was defined by Elizabeth's whim with the official reasoning being plain silly. If the claimed goal was to prevent Prussian influence in the PLC then keeping Prussia and Austria fighting each other for as long as possible would achieve this goal without any Russian effort.




Define "better off". Economically, few years of peace would be much better than the years of war by the end of which Russian treasury was pretty much exhausted (*). Politically, questionable because Russia emerged out of it as a major European military power. Militarily, some useful experience had been obtained allowing to conduct the military reforms.


________
(*) This is a complicated issue. CII was complaining that she does not have enough money to send few thousand troops to the PLC to guarantee election of her former boyfriend while at the same time spending huge amounts of money on her current boyfriend and his family.



They can get engaged in the Russian favorite entertainment of the XVIII century: start war with the Ottomans. Unlike the previous and following OTL wars, the rest of Europe was too busy fighting each other to help the Ottomans getting a reasonably favorable the peace treaty after the lost war. Russia could end up with the possession of the Northern coast of the Black Sea and annexation of the Crimean Khanate few decades earlier than in OTL.

Theoretically, they could but there was no more or less obvious reason for doing so beyond, perhaps, sending an auxiliary corps of 20-30,000 if Britain provides a generous subsidy. But why would Fritz ask for it?

As for the expensive new boyfriend, I assume you're talking about Potemkin?

 

[alexmilman]

As for the expensive new boyfriend, I assume you're talking about Potemkin?

No, at that time it was still Orlov (and his brothers).

 

[Arch-Angel]

Ok, what if Russia (under Peter or under Liz with a different outlook) joined the Brits/Prussians? Sat the price is PLC? Given that Saxony is on the side of France/Austria and under the Wettins it's not totally out off the table.

 

[alexmilman]

Ok, what if Russia (under Peter or under Liz with a different outlook) joined the Brits/Prussians? Sat the price is PLC?

The PLC already was Russian “client” and, until CII screwed up, this scenario was not challenged.

Given that Saxony is on the side of France/Austria and under the Wettins it's not totally out off the table.

The Saxon kings had been on the PLC throne as long as they suited Russia. When a Saxon candidate was considered an Austrian client, the crown had been given to the Russian one. Not that any of these kings really mattered: if needed, his activities could be easily blocked by the Sejm or pro-Russian confederacy.

 

[Arch-Angel]

The PLC already was Russian “client” and, until CII screwed up, this scenario was not challenged.

The Saxon kings had been on the PLC throne as long as they suited Russia. When a Saxon candidate was considered an Austrian client, the crown had been given to the Russian one. Not that any of these kings really mattered: if needed, his activities could be easily blocked by the Sejm or pro-Russian confederacy.

What could be done to change the opinion of Russia and get them on the Anglo-Prussian side? I'm reading about Elizabeth of Holstein (CII's mom)/Bestuzhev/Lupikhina Affair and wonder if something can be done there.

 

[alexmilman]

What could be done to change the opinion of Russia and get them on the Anglo-Prussian side? I'm reading about Elizabeth of Holstein (CII's mom)/Bestuzhev/Lupikhina Affair and wonder if something can be done there.

Russia may stay out of the 7YW just as it stayed out of fight for most of the WoAS. If the Brits are willing to spend money, there can be Russian “observation corps” somewhere, including the PLC territory. It is impossible to exclude completely a more active participation on the Prussian side because OTL official reason for joining Austria also was not quite sane: stop strengthening Prussia to prevent its participation in the PLC affairs. Needless to say that one of the first concerns of CII was to prevent Austrian candidate from getting the PLC throne. Surely, if Austria and Prussia are fighting themselves into a complete exhaustion while Russia remains neutral, even under EI it would be in a much better position to retain its influence in the PLC.

In a reality, the whole Russian political framework of that period was rather bizarre and mostly shaped by Elizabeth’s whims. Lopukhin affair was a bogus thing that most probably would not be taken seriously by Elizabeth (a drunken officer bypassed by the promotions blabbing something in public) if Natalia Lopukhina was not considered the 1st beauty of the Russian court, which was much worse than a high treason because the 1st one has to be Elizabeth. Of course, the fact that she was from Mons family also could be considered a crime.😂
The alleged crap about restoration of Ivan VI (Austrians trying to use help of Frederick II to achieve this alleged goal, rather bizarre) was laughable: why would the Lopukhins really care about Ivan V branch of the family? Even the Golovkins had been linked to Naryshkins. But they were making careers during the reign of Anne, could not be considered Elizabeth’s loyalists and had to be rid off. If push came to shove Ivan VI could be immediately killed, as in OTL. And the same goes for the rest of the Brunswick family.

Relations with France were initially quite cordial (the French subsidized Elizabeth’s coup) and soured after interception of the letters from the French Ambassador with unflattering personal comments about her.

Anti-Prussian stance was triggered by the wagging tongue of the Old Fritz: he simply could not abstain from making the public remarks about her mental capacities (probably correct and thus more hurting).

So you can imagine something along the lines of MT behaving unfriendly toward EI, etc.