What if Russian Empress Catherine the Great died a bit earlier?

[raharris1973]

Catherine II, 'the Great' died in 1796 at the age of 67. Which, in the 1790s, was quite a bit older than it is these days. She could quite easily have naturally died several years earlier. And pretty much every year of 1790s and most years of her life frankly were pretty eventful.

What if she died right after the 2nd Polish Partition in 1793, with Paul succeeding?

What decisions will Paul be making in those years differently from her?

I imagine he would reign in spending, restore military discipline, but probably also adopt inappropriate less comfortable Prussian-style uniforms, crack down on corruption and be more dour.

How soon, if ever, would circumstances compel him into a war with the French Republic?

Would he reign until he reigned in OTL, with some extra years, or even longer? Or does the clock start for a coup against him the moment he takes power because his belt-tighening, disciplinary measures opposition to corruption and not buying off the courtiers and guards could be seen as no fun and a reason to coup him out?

Would he execute the third and final partition of Poland, or oppose it? Even if sympathetic to the Poles, they may be set to revolt in a way that forces his hand.

Option 2 - For a greater effect, consider if Catherine dies in 1791, before 2nd partition?

I could ask all the same questions as above, and expecially the question regarding whether he goes for the 2nd partition of Poland or not. If he doesn't participate, is it a case of merely abstaining from it, or actively opposing it.

Also, is he coup-proofed until Alexander reaches a certain minimum age, or would coupsters always be ready to crown Alex as a minor and set up a regency?

Also does he handle termination of any Ottoman or Swedish Wars differently?

Option 3 - For an even more dramatic effect, have Catherine die of a surprise illness or an accident in 1771 or early 1772 -

Here, Alexander isn't even born yet. Paul is in his 20s. He is faced with decisions about how to terminate Ottoman and Swedish wars, and potentially the Pugachev rebellion. The latter 'decision' is actually pretty simple - if it's happening, crush it.

Would he engage in the 1st partition of Poland? Another significant foreign policy situation to deal with is the fall out from the American Revolutionary War. Would he evolve along similar lines to Catherine and her League of Armed Neutrality scheme, or be more sympathetic to the British and anti-American out of a general anti-rebellious principle? Or if going for Armed Neutrality, being more militant about it and going to war (and gallantly losing alongside other members of the League)?

 

[Skallagrim]

There's a delicate balance here. The later Catherine dies, the more vindictive and embittered Paul will have become. Even 1791 is "too late", in that regard. Yet 1772 is, conversely, very early. So early that the all-too-young man might be brushed aside in a coup, all in the name of having good leadership.

My own suggestion would be that Catherine dies in mid-1776.

By this point, Paul was certainly convinced (and, when we get right down to it, quite correctly so!) that he was the rightful tsar of Russia, being the only son of Peter III. He, not his mother, should be governing the state! (He had also embraced his tutor's lessons that the rule of women endangered all decent governance, and that only a man belonged on the throne.)

This was why Catherine expended so much effort (twice!) to find Paul a wife on short notice. She hoped to distract him from his ambitions. This began in '72, and worked out as she had intended. Dedication to the family life did distract him from his desire to gain the throne, and at this time, Catherine did allow him to attend the meeting of the council of state-- to prepare him for eventually taking on the role of Emperor. (But she certainly intended for that only to happen after her death!)

However, Paul's first wife died in early 1776. The distraction was gone, and Paul almost immediately returned to the pursuit of his first love: the throne. He began spreading a plan to have a separate court, allowing power to be shared between himself and Catherine. (The notion seems remarkably like the set-up of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire.) The fact is, Catherine wasn't universally beloved either, and Paul hadn't antagonised so many people yet. There were voices at court promulgating the idea of the two of them co-ruling Russia. Catherine had to work hard to get that idea derailed. It seemed like a good compromise to many. When she ensured that the proposal was rejected, the hostility between her and Paul became truly final.

Now, suppose Catherine dies quite suddenly, just as this ideas are getting spread, and before she can implement a strategy to counter them? This means the impetus to have Paul in power is already there, and the person most opposed to it... isn't there to oppose it. Additionally, because Catherine dies before she can outright oppose it, Paul's sense of hostility towards her is presumably somewhat lessened, compared to OTL.

He ascends as Emperor. He'll still be in need of a wife, and it's probably still going to be some German princess, but nothing's set in stone there.

Paul's commitment to the Prussian drill can't really be averted, but without Potemkin having the chance to be the one to improve the Russian uniform's at Catherine's behest, it's quite plausible that Paul can be convinved that practical uniforms should be introduced at his behest. As we see with Cathering successfully distracting him, a younger, less embittered Pal can most probably be steered in a more desired direction by key advisors. For instance: they could convince him that only aristocratic "knights" need fancy unforms, and that (as in the "glorious days of old") the common foot-soldiers should just wear whatever's practical. Moreover, his obsessions with chivalry could be re-directed to overseeing several chivalric orders loyal to him (basically fancy-dress clubs for his cronies), so that he has no time to spend on bothering the army with his nonsense.

Without Catherine around to favour his son as heir to the throne, there's a decent chance of Paul having a good relation with his heir, so that's a plus.

As far as foreign affairs are concerned: Paul hates France and distrusts Austria, and he favours Prussia and Britain. But overall, he's against intervention. His guiding belief is that Russia needs to reform itself firs, before it can focus on the outside world. He'll be uninterested in further partititions of Poland. He may elect to keep the Crimean Khanate as a protectorate, rather than annexing it. He won't help Britain against the Americans, but he will have no sympathy for the latter at all. Finally, there will be no further Russo-Turkish wars, sine Paul will insist on halting all wars of expansion.

Once the French revolution happens, it's possible that Paul will feel that enough reforms have happened, and that intervention against the revolutionaries is justied. Most likely, however, he'd only commit to that once France allies with Austria. However... without further Russo-Turkish wars, the joins wars with Austria against the Ottomans is averted, too. This directly preceded the French revolution, and a vast portion of the Austrian army died of disease during this war. It significantly contributed to the inability of Austria to act rapidly against the French republic.

So it's possible (although for from a given!) that an Austrian-led coalition confronts the French republicans earlier and more aggressively, causing the French Republic to be crushed in its infancy. The Bourbons are restored, and now firmly in the debt of Austria. Russian intervention then becomes moot. The consequence of this is that Britain, Prussia, Russia and possibly even the Ottomans (as a tag-on member of the club) form an alliance to counter the Franco-Austrian bloc.

 

[raharris1973]

Super thoughtful response!

So early that the all-too-young man might be brushed aside in a coup, all in the name of having good leadership.

Well who could they put in as a plausible alternative? He had no children yet. Any siblings? Or was there never a shortage of alternatives since Peter the Great had made succession 'anything goes'.

Paul hates France and distrusts Austria, and he favours Prussia and Britain.

These preferences were all set pre-French Revolution, and by 1776? What was his bouef with France before they went cuckoo bananas regicidal republican? He was Anglophilic as well?

He'll be uninterested in further partititions of Poland.

Neither Prussia nor Austria would be bold enough to do unilateral land grabs, would they? Would Paul threaten to oppose them by force?

Most likely, however, he'd only commit to that once France allies with Austria.

When would this happen?

However... without further Russo-Turkish wars, the joins wars with Austria against the Ottomans is averted, too. This directly preceded the French revolution, and a vast portion of the Austrian army died of disease during this war. It significantly contributed to the inability of Austria to act rapidly against the French republic.

So it's possible (although for from a given!) that an Austrian-led coalition confronts the French republicans earlier and more aggressively, causing the French Republic to be crushed in its infancy. The Bourbons are restored, and now firmly in the debt of Austria.

An interesting possibility, even if it doesn't get that extreme.

The consequence of this is that Britain, Prussia, Russia and possibly even the Ottomans (as a tag-on member of the club) form an alliance to counter the Franco-Austrian bloc.

Not sure why the the Ottomans would join this British, Prussian, Russian bloc. If Paul is avoiding Ottoman wars after 1776, the Austrians probably are too, so I don't think the Ottomans would feel the need to get into an anti-Austrian alliance, especially since France has been a traditional Ottoman ally.

 

[Buba]

So early that the all-too-young man might be brushed aside in a coup,

Who in his place - Ivan VI still alive? Or would it be Ivan's younger brother, either being as socialised and well adjusted as one can be after an entire life in prison or house arrest? In either case - a court cabal rules, I take it?

 

[Skallagrim]

Well who could they put in as a plausible alternative? He had no children yet. Any siblings? Or was there never a shortage of alternatives since Peter the Great had made succession 'anything goes'.

Who in his place - Ivan VI still alive? Or would it be Ivan's younger brother, as socialised and well adjusted as one can be after an entire life in prison or house arrest? In either case - a court cabal rules, I take it?

It's not just "anything goes". They might conceivably opt to elect a new ruler, but that would be risky. I think that if Paul is really perceived as a threat by too many powerful players at court, they'd quietly dispose of him, while bringing in the eldest of Ivan VI's younger brothers (Peter) as their puppet ruler. Ivan VI himself had died in the 1760s, so he wouldn't be an option. But in this scenario (where Paul presumably gets couped in the mid-1970s), Peter would be around 30. He'd theoretically be able to produce an heir on short notice.

At this stage, the four surviving siblings mostly wanted to be left in peace. They requested to be allowed to walk in nature, and books to read (they had secretly taught themselves to read), but otherwise had no desire for power. But despite being pretty messed up due to their imprisonment, and physically in poor health (various ailments), they were all evidently intelligent. If the courtiers offer Peter the nominal throne, on the basis that they'll do the overning and he and his siblings get a pleasant life, and in return he'll marry and produce children-- no doubt they'd eagerly accept.

The court could just spin this as the "restored Tsar" being "saintly and virtuous, and living a life of piety", and contrast this with the supposed decadent power-politics of the preceding period. They'd get to raise the heir to the throne, ensuring that the next serious ruler would "their man".


----------------------------------------------------

These preferences were all set pre-French Revolution, and by 1776? What was his bouef with France before they went cuckoo bananas regicidal republican? He was Anglophilic as well?

Paul hated the French even before the revolution. He saw them as everything wrong with the world. After the revolution, his hatred increased tenfold. He also disliked Austria, apparently mostly because Catherine favoured Austria. He seems to have liked Prussia for the same reason. I'm not sure how he felt about Britain, but if they're aligned with Prussia against France and Austria, he's rooting for them. (In OTL, he did withdraw the thousands of soldiers that Catherine had promised to support the British against France, but he made it explicit that this wasn't because he didn't support their cause-- he just felt that Russia withrawing from all foreign wars was even more important.)

Neither Prussia nor Austria would be bold enough to do unilateral land grabs, would they? Would Paul threaten to oppose them by force?

Austria wasn't interested (they stayed out of the second partition in OTL, right?) and Prussia wouldn't try anything without Russia also getting on board.

Not sure why the the Ottomans would join this British, Prussian, Russian bloc. If Paul is avoiding Ottoman wars after 1776, the Austrians probably are too, so I don't think the Ottomans would feel the need to get into an anti-Austrian alliance, especially since France has been a traditional Ottoman ally.

With Paul opposed to expansionist wars, Austria is the only serious rival to the Ottomans on the Balkans. And without continued Russo-Turkish wars, the Ottomans retain a firmer grip on their empire-- including more of a hold in North Africa. This increases the likelihood of tension with France. If Napoleon still arises and still moves Austria into his camp (and Paul would still be in charge at the time!), this would be n evident threat to all surrounding nations.

So a stratigy of "a great encirclement" makes the most sense. Is Russia has no quarrel with the Turks, it makes sense to bring them into this alliance. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but I could see it playing out that way.

 

[Buba]

Paul hated the French even before the revolution. He saw them as everything wrong with the world.

Quite astute of him, I'd say ...

The court could just spin this as the "restored Tsar" being "saintly and virtuous, and living a life of piety",

I love this idea!

I didn't remember when Ivan was murdered, hence indeed Peter IV.

He'd theoretically be able to produce an heir on short notice.

[GIGGLES] Allocate some time for bride travel, wedding, and then give him nine months ...

 

[ATP]

Catherine II, 'the Great' died in 1796 at the age of 67. Which, in the 1790s, was quite a bit older than it is these days. She could quite easily have naturally died several years earlier. And pretty much every year of 1790s and most years of her life frankly were pretty eventful.

What if she died right after the 2nd Polish Partition in 1793, with Paul succeeding?

What decisions will Paul be making in those years differently from her?

I imagine he would reign in spending, restore military discipline, but probably also adopt inappropriate less comfortable Prussian-style uniforms, crack down on corruption and be more dour.

How soon, if ever, would circumstances compel him into a war with the French Republic?

Would he reign until he reigned in OTL, with some extra years, or even longer? Or does the clock start for a coup against him the moment he takes power because his belt-tighening, disciplinary measures opposition to corruption and not buying off the courtiers and guards could be seen as no fun and a reason to coup him out?

Would he execute the third and final partition of Poland, or oppose it? Even if sympathetic to the Poles, they may be set to revolt in a way that forces his hand.

Option 2 - For a greater effect, consider if Catherine dies in 1791, before 2nd partition?

I could ask all the same questions as above, and expecially the question regarding whether he goes for the 2nd partition of Poland or not. If he doesn't participate, is it a case of merely abstaining from it, or actively opposing it.

Also, is he coup-proofed until Alexander reaches a certain minimum age, or would coupsters always be ready to crown Alex as a minor and set up a regency?

Also does he handle termination of any Ottoman or Swedish Wars differently?

Option 3 - For an even more dramatic effect, have Catherine die of a surprise illness or an accident in 1771 or early 1772 -

Here, Alexander isn't even born yet. Paul is in his 20s. He is faced with decisions about how to terminate Ottoman and Swedish wars, and potentially the Pugachev rebellion. The latter 'decision' is actually pretty simple - if it's happening, crush it.

Would he engage in the 1st partition of Poland? Another significant foreign policy situation to deal with is the fall out from the American Revolutionary War. Would he evolve along similar lines to Catherine and her League of Armed Neutrality scheme, or be more sympathetic to the British and anti-American out of a general anti-rebellious principle? Or if going for Armed Neutrality, being more militant about it and going to war (and gallantly losing alongside other members of the League)?

1.1793 - no third partition,which was possible becouse russian provoked polish uprising.No trying to crush France,too.
After that - peace with Napoleon,and let him crush others including England.
2.1791 - No war with Poland,no second partition,the same result with bigger Poland as France puppet.
3.1771 - if he become tsar,then no Partition of Poland at all.Peace ewrywhere and reforms.No french revolution probably here,or quickly crushed.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Paul emerging a lot earlier means the whole Greek Plan is butterflied away, since it's not really feasible without any significant influence in the Balkans. I also wonder if this means Paul won't be expanding to Alaska and Hawaii at all, since there was a failed attempt at colonizing the latter, and they only made an attempt to colonize the former that would eventually be sold in 1867.

 

[stevep]

1.1793 - no third partition,which was possible becouse russian provoked polish uprising.No trying to crush France,too.
After that - peace with Napoleon,and let him crush others including England.
2.1791 - No war with Poland,no second partition,the same result with bigger Poland as France puppet.
3.1771 - if he become tsar,then no Partition of Poland at all.Peace ewrywhere and reforms.No french revolution probably here,or quickly crushed.

1) It takes two to make peace as it does war. Any Czar who is willing to accept Napoleon controlling the continent and disrupting their own trade is likely to get displaced very quickly. This assumes that with a 1793 POD Napoleon still emerges. Your still likely to end up with a military dictator at some point but how he will compare with Napoleon is an unknown. He might be a less skilled general but possibly politically competent so a powerful France could survive as the dominant power in western Europe.

2) Again depends on the circumstances. Still going to have a republic that probably descends into dictatorship and widespread war. Likely to prevent the 2nd partition if Paul is unwilling to support it but Russia will want to ensure that Poland stays weak.

3) Continued dynastic wars until something gives. France is probably the most likely to boil over still as its advanced enough idealogically and socially to have the capacity for social change and a corrupt enough established elite to give a demand for such change. It may or may not be quickly crushed but that if it is that simply pushes the problem into the long grass until it recurs.

 

[ATP]

1) It takes two to make peace as it does war. Any Czar who is willing to accept Napoleon controlling the continent and disrupting their own trade is likely to get displaced very quickly. This assumes that with a 1793 POD Napoleon still emerges. Your still likely to end up with a military dictator at some point but how he will compare with Napoleon is an unknown. He might be a less skilled general but possibly politically competent so a powerful France could survive as the dominant power in western Europe.

2) Again depends on the circumstances. Still going to have a republic that probably descends into dictatorship and widespread war. Likely to prevent the 2nd partition if Paul is unwilling to support it but Russia will want to ensure that Poland stays weak.

3) Continued dynastic wars until something gives. France is probably the most likely to boil over still as its advanced enough idealogically and socially to have the capacity for social change and a corrupt enough established elite to give a demand for such change. It may or may not be quickly crushed but that if it is that simply pushes the problem into the long grass until it recurs.

1.Who say about France controllong Europe? Napoleon proposed Russia alliance against England,and Russia refused.
But Paul would agree to that.

2.Paul would not attack Poland,so no second partition.And we would remain weak,our reforms gave us only 65.000 strong army.
Enough to defend ourselves,but not for being dangerous to anybody.
That is why Poland here would become Napoleon puppet,like in OTL.

3.There would be no revolution,if french elites belived in their right to rule.Napoleon schoot protestors in Paris with fieldguns,Louis lost his head becouse he was too weak to do so.
And,entire protests was financed by England and Filip Egailte.Kill ringleaders,and there is no revolution.

But,even without that,austrian army would crush them if they not bleed fighting turks before that.

 

[stevep]

1.Who say about France controllong Europe? Napoleon proposed Russia alliance against England,and Russia refused.
But Paul would agree to that.

2.Paul would not attack Poland,so no second partition.And we would remain weak,our reforms gave us only 65.000 strong army.
Enough to defend ourselves,but not for being dangerous to anybody.
That is why Poland here would become Napoleon puppet,like in OTL.

3.There would be no revolution,if french elites belived in their right to rule.Napoleon schoot protestors in Paris with fieldguns,Louis lost his head becouse he was too weak to do so.
And,entire protests was financed by England and Filip Egailte.Kill ringleaders,and there is no revolution.

But,even without that,austrian army would crush them if they not bleed fighting turks before that.

1) France and Russia were allied for a while after 1802 but that ended up collapsing because Napoleon wanted too much power.

2) Russia would still like to maintain dominant power in Poland so likely to have conflict here.

3) That's your belief but there's no evidence to support it. The thing that drove the revolution was that the French [self-proclaimed] elite, i.e. the clergy and aristocracy refused to accept that they didn't have unparalleled power and were determined they would continue to be parasites with total tax exemptions, which made it impossible to resolve the fiscal and economic problems.

The revolution wasn't financed by England, although you might wish to believe that to hide the fact it was the screw up of the old regime that caused the entire mess. You can no more stop it by killing people calling for reform than you could stop Ukrainian resistance to Putin's war if he had managed to kill Zelenskyy early in the invasion.

 

[Buba]

France and Russia were allied for a while after 1802 but that ended up collapsing because Napoleon wanted too much power.

Besides Napoleon being about as trustworthy as Hitler, alliances in those days were short term.
Also France - since XVIth century a behemoth (unless torn apart internally) - was stronger than usual hence the rest of Europe ganged up on it.

 

[ATP]

1) France and Russia were allied for a while after 1802 but that ended up collapsing because Napoleon wanted too much power.

2) Russia would still like to maintain dominant power in Poland so likely to have conflict here.

3) That's your belief but there's no evidence to support it. The thing that drove the revolution was that the French [self-proclaimed] elite, i.e. the clergy and aristocracy refused to accept that they didn't have unparalleled power and were determined they would continue to be parasites with total tax exemptions, which made it impossible to resolve the fiscal and economic problems.

The revolution wasn't financed by England, although you might wish to believe that to hide the fact it was the screw up of the old regime that caused the entire mess. You can no more stop it by killing people calling for reform than you could stop Ukrainian resistance to Putin's war if he had managed to kill Zelenskyy early in the invasion.

1.No,it collapsed becouse Talleyrand advised Alexander so.Paul would not listen and be happy with his part of Europe.
2.And they still would have powere here.King Poniatowski was russian agent after all.
3.Napoleon killed protestors with fieldguns,and it worked.It would work for poor Louis,too - but he was bleeding heart.
And payd for this with his life.And his waif.And his son.

Elites now are parasites - and nobody is making revolutions.Jacobins was parasites - and nobody except Vandea fight them.Soviets were parasites,and ,again,nobody fight them.

You could be parasite and rule as long as you kill dudes who try finance revolutions in your country,and those who fall for that.

You are victim of state school official History about bad evul aristocrats who was felled by good Revolution.

Sadly for you,revolutions which do not get rich dudes money NEVER win.
And those rich dudes becomed as bad or worst then evul aristocrats.

 

[stevep]

1.No,it collapsed becouse Talleyrand advised Alexander so.Paul would not listen and be happy with his part of Europe.
2.And they still would have powere here.King Poniatowski was russian agent after all.
3.Napoleon killed protestors with fieldguns,and it worked.It would work for poor Louis,too - but he was bleeding heart.
And payd for this with his life.And his waif.And his son.

Elites now are parasites - and nobody is making revolutions.Jacobins was parasites - and nobody except Vandea fight them.Soviets were parasites,and ,again,nobody fight them.

You could be parasite and rule as long as you kill dudes who try finance revolutions in your country,and those who fall for that.

You are victim of state school official History about bad evul aristocrats who was felled by good Revolution.

Sadly for you,revolutions which do not get rich dudes money NEVER win.
And those rich dudes becomed as bad or worst then evul aristocrats.

Your a victim of your god delusion. That is you think you can change reality by wishing something to be different. Reality however doesn't believe you.

As usual your also wrong about my own views and background.

 

[ATP]

Your a victim of your god delusion. That is you think you can change reality by wishing something to be different. Reality however doesn't believe you.

As usual your also wrong about my own views and background.

Nope,my delusional friend.I take world as such as it is,not somehow i want or not want.
Talleyrand sabotaged Napoleon,and Russia should actually support France then against England.Like tsar Paul.
That is why british murdered him using russian useful idiots.

And,if you known ONE REAL REVOLUTION where opressed masses win with elites without some rich dudes help,then please tell me when that miracle happened.
Becouse History proved,that every time opressed masses arise alone,they get massacred.

 

[stevep]

Nope,my delusional friend.I take world as such as it is,not somehow i want or not want.
Talleyrand sabotaged Napoleon,and Russia should actually support France then against England.Like tsar Paul.
That is why british murdered him using russian useful idiots.

And,if you known ONE REAL REVOLUTION where opressed masses win with elites without some rich dudes help,then please tell me when that miracle happened.
Becouse History proved,that every time opressed masses arise alone,they get massacred.

There are differences between gaining the support of some wealth elements of the population and being manipulated and directed by foreign elements.

Examples of the former could well include say the Roman revolt that overthrew the monarchy and also the English Civil war. The nearest examples of foreign involvement there were the three Scottish interventions which ended up with Scotland being occupied by the Commonwealth and reports of papal delegates encouraging mass slaughter in the cluster-fuck that was Ireland before Cromwell ended the chaos there. Not sure how some of the classical Greek revolts or the Swiss rebellion against the Hapsburg's fit it in very much doubt there was foreign aid in the latter. The Dutch rebellion probably also comes into this category as well although there was external aid to the rebels in later stages simply because Spain under Philip II was a threat to so many other people as well.

In terms of rebellions without foreign support where the rebels succeed then the prominent ones are the French and Russian rebellions in 1789 and 1917. Germany did aid the Bolsheviks by sending Lenin and some of his fellow vermin to Russia but that was after the actual real rebellion occurred. Of course the latter did end up very badly for the ordinary people, both in the short and medium term and even after the fall of the Soviet empire as a shadow of it is helping Putin remain in power.

 

[ATP]

There are differences between gaining the support of some wealth elements of the population and being manipulated and directed by foreign elements.

Examples of the former could well include say the Roman revolt that overthrew the monarchy and also the English Civil war. The nearest examples of foreign involvement there were the three Scottish interventions which ended up with Scotland being occupied by the Commonwealth and reports of papal delegates encouraging mass slaughter in the cluster-fuck that was Ireland before Cromwell ended the chaos there. Not sure how some of the classical Greek revolts or the Swiss rebellion against the Hapsburg's fit it in very much doubt there was foreign aid in the latter. The Dutch rebellion probably also comes into this category as well although there was external aid to the rebels in later stages simply because Spain under Philip II was a threat to so many other people as well.

In terms of rebellions without foreign support where the rebels succeed then the prominent ones are the French and Russian rebellions in 1789 and 1917. Germany did aid the Bolsheviks by sending Lenin and some of his fellow vermin to Russia but that was after the actual real rebellion occurred. Of course the latter did end up very badly for the ordinary people, both in the short and medium term and even after the fall of the Soviet empire as a shadow of it is helping Putin remain in power.

Sorry for being unclear.Either foreign money,or local rich dudes pouring their moneys.
Becouse poor opressed people never achieved anytching.Except being slaughtered.

Cromwell the genocider do not ended chaos,but made clusterfuck which last to our days.
Swiss - i really doubt they could win only to brave Wilhelm Tells,but rather thanks to merchant moneys.

Dutch rebellion was supportet by England openly,and probably France,too.

France - Filip Egalite pay for anti-royal propaganda,and hide rebels in his Palace.Later he lost his head for his stupidity,but without him there would be no revolution.
The same goes for England money,they were bitter about France help for USA and supported revolutionists till 1792.
It cost them,too,but in long term they win replacing stable state with mdern french shit.

Revolution - you forget Wall Street support,even before sending Trocky the genocider there.
And,tsar was topped becouse some idiots there:
1.Killed elite tsar foot guard in suicidal attack after 1916 Brusiłow offensive
2.Send calvary elite units from Petersburg
3.replaced foot guard with fresh recruits
4.Order them massacre workers and go to front/after their predecessors were slaughtered there/
5.Fresh troops mutinied and topped tsar.

It was not succesfull worker revolution,but russian elites fuck-up.
Old tsar guard would massacre workers
calvary tsar guard would massacre workers.

But no,they must kill loyal tsar troops and then send fresh replacments to do their bidings.

P.S USA - only reason why they succed,was rich dudes money from states who do not want gave money to King but to themselves,and France help.

If there really was only poor patriots,it would end like whisky rebellion and was remembered as such.

 

[Buba]

USA - only reason why they succed,was rich dudes money from states who do not want gave money to King but to themselves,and France help.

Spain wishes to point out that it heavily funded the revolt before any DoW.

 

[ATP]

Spain wishes to point out that it heavily funded the revolt before any DoW.

Well,true.And dutch helped,too.Anyway,it is another proof that succesfull revolution need a lot of cash either from local oligarchs or foreign powers.