Empress Elizabeth beats Prussia before dying: what now for Peter?

[Beefhammer]

So on the precipice of a Russian victory over Prussia, the late Empress Elizabeth was replaced by her nephew Peter, who immediately gave his idol Frederick a white peace so that he could have a free hand to expand his native Slesvig-Holstein-Gottorp at Denmark's expense.
Some threads here in the past have asked what would happen within the wider Seven Years' War and its aftermath if Elizabeth had lived long enough to secure Prussia's defeat. Personally, I'm more curious about what Peter would do once his sickly aunt dies no more than a year or two after Prussia's defeat and he becomes Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. The outcome his crowning prevented IOTL has come to pass: Old Fritz has either necked himself or been talked down from it at the last minute, and Elizabeth carried out her plan to trade Ducal Prussia to Poland-Lithuania for suzerainty over Courland and possibly get some border ajustments. How does Peter's reign shake out from here? Is he still overthrown, or does him "merely" carrying out reforms that alienate the upper class not create the favorable environment that him doing that and also giving Russia nothing to show for the blood and treasure it expended getting to Berlin did? How is Russia affected by his reforms? Etc.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I think that Catherine would still want to get power and she probably still can find the right persons to do the coup but @alexmilman certainly knows better what would happen than me.

 

[alexmilman]

So on the precipice of a Russian victory over Prussia, the late Empress Elizabeth was replaced by her nephew Peter, who immediately gave his idol Frederick a white peace so that he could have a free hand to expand his native Slesvig-Holstein-Gottorp at Denmark's expense.
Some threads here in the past have asked what would happen within the wider Seven Years' War and its aftermath if Elizabeth had lived long enough to secure Prussia's defeat. Personally, I'm more curious about what Peter would do once his sickly aunt dies no more than a year or two after Prussia's defeat and he becomes Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. The outcome his crowning

Nitpicking, but an important one: he was not crowned and this was a big mistake on his part used by Catherine’s propaganda as a demonstration that he does not care about Russia. Besides, attitude toward the crowned monarch would be different.

prevented IOTL has come to pass: Old Fritz has either necked himself or been talked down from it at the last minute, and Elizabeth carried out her plan to trade Ducal Prussia to Poland-Lithuania for suzerainty over Courland and possibly get some border ajustments. How does Peter's reign shake out from here? Is he still overthrown, or does him "merely" carrying out reforms that alienate the upper class not create the favorable environment that him doing that and also giving Russia nothing to show for the blood and treasure it expended getting to Berlin did? How is Russia affected by his reforms? Etc.

Taking into an account that Catherine did not change anything in the peace agreement and, while during the coup called Frederick an enemy, soon afterwards signed a mutual defense treaty with him and nobody said a word, this part was a pure demagoguery, just as the stories about Peter’s drinking: surely Grigory Orlov, not to mention Alexey, had much “greater” reputations in this specific area. Besides, there was a quite strong pro-Prussian party at the court: the Panin brothers and Zakhar Chernishov to name just the most prominent ones.

Now, speaking about the “blood”, these noises had been mostly coming from the people who shed none. Catherine, Dashkova, the Guards who did not participate in a war, Bolotov who comfortably spent most of it in Koenigsberg and wrote venomous memoirs about the events in which he did not take part, Razumovsky, Teplov, etc. Most of the Russian nobility were not giving a blip because they were getting nothing but the expenses (the soldiers were their serfs) and could not get anything from the idiotic plan formulated by the Conference prior to the war. Territorial exchange with the PLC could not happen by its king whim and what would be the Sejm’s interest in the East Prussia? To get more Protestants? As was demonstrated few years later, the prevailing opinion was that the PLC already has too many of them. Now, at the Russian side, neither Courland nor Eastern Prussia were of any noticeable interest for the Russian nobility by the obvious reasons: they did not have a free land with the serfs to be allocated to the Russian nobles. IIRC, there were some preliminary negotiations with the Poles but they went nowhere. I don’t remember who and in which thread brought details of these discussions and don’t remember too much except that they were a waste of time.

What about those directly involved? Firldmarshal Buturlyn (the last Russian commander) was stubbornly refusing to fight regardless Elizabeth’s orders. General #1, Rumyantsev, was open supporter of PIII and quite happy to run a war with Denmark (as I understand, there were ongoing negotiations so the conflict could be resolved peacefully). General #2, Zakhar Chernyshov, was an open Frederick’s admirer and, as commander of the Russian auxiliary corps on Prussian side was quite accommodating to Fredrick’s requests and was awarded Order of the Black Eagle.

What about the much ridiculed Peter’s war with Denmark? What would make more sense for the Russian Empire: (a) to have Kiel at its disposal or (b) to give everything away getting back nothing?

As for the future, in OTL CII implemented some of his reforms and about the rest we can do only the idle guesses. Speaking of which, there is a non-zero possibility that PIII would not get Russia into the Polish mess of his own creation.

 

[Beefhammer]

Why so mad though.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Polish mess of his own creation.

Polish mess was creation of Polish nobility at least since XVIth century and long-term any sane government wouldn't want PLC on it's borders, simply because it's waste of resources and while it's easy to manipulate, it's nobility is completely unpredictable and it's hard to take it seriously, because as some French ambassador said: "Poles will take the money and vote anyway for what they want to vote" and when revolution in France began (not influenced by events in Prussia), most of nobility began to sympathize with it due to France proclaiming itself an "Republic" , even those who pretended they don't support it, still supported things like attack on Bastile, and Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki (leader of so called "anti-revolutionary" Targowica confederation) was member of Jacobins, deeply fascinated with American system, letting such an state exist as anything more than rump state from the position of Prussian/Austrian/Russian monarchs would be pure folly.

 

[alexmilman]

Polish mess was creation of Polish nobility at least since XVIth century and long-term any sane government wouldn't want PLC on it's borders, simply because it's waste of resources

Well, why waste these resources? The PLC was so weak that it was incapable of doing a serious harm to its neighbors and its sovereignty was easily ignored when there was a need to march through it or use it as a supply base during a war.

and while it's easy to manipulate, it's nobility is completely unpredictable and it's hard to take it seriously, because as some French ambassador said: "Poles will take the money and vote anyway for what they want to vote"

All that is true and this is exactly while the least harmful approach was to let it remain this way for as long as possible.

and when revolution in France began (not influenced by events in Prussia), most of nobility began to sympathize with it due to France proclaiming itself an "Republic" , even those who pretended they don't support it, still supported things like attack on Bastile, and Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki (leader of so called "anti-revolutionary" Targowica confederation) was member of Jacobins, deeply fascinated with American system,

And so what? How this, if a lot of the events were not triggered by CIIs activities, would be of any serious danger to the neighbors?

letting such an state exist as anything more than rump state from the position of Prussian/Austrian/Russian monarchs would be pure folly.

Well, taking into an account a number of troubles that Russia got by pursuing the OTL course of actions, “folly” was a much less harmful alternative.

 

[alexmilman]

Why so mad though.

What do you mean?

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Well, why waste these resources? The PLC was so weak that it was incapable of doing a serious harm to its neighbors and its sovereignty was easily ignored when there was a need to march through it or use it as a supply base during a war.

The resources wasted are people under governance of PLC government who could be paying taxes to Russian government and they won't because of PLC keeping them, IMHO for Russia aquisition of right-bank Ukraine and at least some part of Belarus was beneficial.

And so what? How this, if a lot of the events were not triggered by CIIs activities, would be of any serious danger to the neighbor

Poles will probably side with France as soon as they will get the opportunity to do so and not even because it's interest, but because of sincere belief in at least part of revolution's ideals, killing the potential spreader of revolution is worth it.

Well, taking into an account a number of troubles that Russia got by pursuing the OTL course of actions, “folly” was a much less harmful alternative.

Number of troubles like easily crushed uprisings?

 

[Beefhammer]

What do you mean?

You just came off as weirdly hostile.

 

[alexmilman]

The resources wasted are people under governance of PLC government who could be paying taxes to Russian government and they won't because of PLC keeping them, IMHO for Russia aquisition of right-bank Ukraine and at least some part of Belarus was beneficial.

These pieces made some sense and right bank Ukraine had strategic value for the war against the Ottomans but the Polish and Lithuanian lands caused too many troubles in the years to come. My opinion on that account is formulated in my ongoing TL and amounts to what you wrote.

Then, look at the OTL process. A straightforward cynical aggression advocated by Fritz would be, of course, immoral but what CII opted for? Put the least qualified person on the PLC throne, spending a lot of money and causing a considerable irritation in the PLC doing it, tried to push through the extremely unpopular dissidents issue spending more money and loosing more popularity, got her pet king acting against her while constantly begging for money (and receiving regular handouts), triggering Bar Confederacy with a prolonged fighting during which a big chunk of the PLC was destroyed by the confederates and Russian troops and which caused war with the OE to which Russia was not prepared. And everything ended with a partition by which CII got the worst part economically and which forced Russia to cede considerable part of the territories captured from the Ottomans. Speaking of which, her idea of the independent Crimea proved to be one more gross and expensive miscalculation which caused a decade of troubles and ended up with an annexation causing one more war with the OE.
And, AFAIK, most Polish blame for the 1st Partition went to Russia for not preventing it (after many years of fighting against agreed upon conditions including protection clause).

Why the Polish constitution was any business of hers is a complete enigma to me. Perhaps it just downed upon her that she chose a lousy piece of pie in the 1st Partition based upon the wrong criteria (defense of the Orthodox instead of profit).

Poles will probably side with France as soon as they will get the opportunity to do so and not even because it's interest, but because of sincere belief in at least part of revolution's ideals, killing the potential spreader of revolution is worth it.

Russia did not have issues with France except for the Polish cause and Ottoman support. While the Ottomans still were an independent force, the PLC, even with the reforms, hardly was something to fear prior to the Napoleonic mobilization of the Duchy of Warsaw. And, by its internal conditions of that period RE was pretty much immune against the revolutions. Poles could side with France against Prussia or Austria but, unlike these two countries, Russia was not at war with the Republic until post-CII time (and during her reign Paul was against the 2nd and 3rd partitions so not everybody sucked up to the revolutionary paranoia). Now, from the Russian geopolitical perspective Poland joining France against Austria and/of Prussia could be even a good thing and if these Russian allies would get a bloody nose, even better.

Number of troubles like easily crushed uprisings?

Not all were easy and internal turmoil and real or perceived disloyalty of a huge region was a very unpleasant thing.

 

[alexmilman]

You just came off as weirdly hostile.

I have no reason to be hostile to you and it was not my intention: I did not say a single word addressing you personally while you just called me “weird”.

But being critical to CII is a completely different issue and I think that on each item I provided enough of a factual backup to justify what you may consider as “hostility”. You can rebut any or all of these items with the facts of your own if you feel that my view is incorrect.