Russia's time in the sun?

When was Russia actually recognised as a major European power? Throughout the Medieval and early modern period Russia is largely fragmented and ineffective militarily. Sure, ever since the Romanovs Russia has been steadily increasing in size and population, but, by contemporary Western standards, it was still a vast mass of territory that was incoherent, and with only rudimentary communications that made effective political control almost impossible. Even during the times of Peter the Great nobody saw Russia as part of the European mainstream; their lands, however big and impressive, seemed a hindrance rather than help.

Russia’s prestige appeared to be almost non-existent before the 18th century, but by the 1790s they were seen as the arbiter of Europe, and this was even before Napoleon was humbled in Moscow. How did this all happen? Perhaps the military effort was the key: the series of stunningly successful wars against Sweden, Turkey and Prussia made Russia look invincible at times. Was the 18th century Russia’s time in the sun?

I guess it was a gradual process. Russia gained a lot of prestige with Sweden knocked out as a great northern European power after the Great Northern War. By the late 17th century Poland had lost its status too, and with Sweden gone Russia was now influencing politics in Poland and thereby becoming more interesting for other great powers. In the later third of the century Russia also defeated the Turks several times, giving them a firm hold in the Black Sea.

There is also the population factor. Russia went from about 14 million in 1722 to 36 million in 1796. About 9 million had come from conquests so the original areas had nearly doubled.

If we look at economic factors then Russia had an iron production of 10,000 tons in 1720, and more than 162,000 tons in 1800 which was about equal to Britain. Its exports went from 4.6 million rubles in 1743 to more than 43 million in 1793.

Cheers CBR :bow:

Economics and social factors aside, I’m particularly interested in the role of military conflicts and their effects on Russia’s prestige, especially that of the Seven Year’s War. The common consensus is that Russia’s intervention in Seven Years’ War represented the supreme military effort that got her the big entrance into the European mainstream is rather dubious. Though Prussia under Frederick was a recognised power, and Russian troops did occupy Königsberg and later on Berlin, we also shouldn’t forget that Frederick was fighting on several fronts simultaneously against considerably larger forces. So was the Seven Years War the conflict in which the Russian army won their country great glory and prestige, or was it all a sham considering the fact that Frederick never had the resources to give the Russians a proper fight?

Another area where I only have minimum knowledge about is Russia’s role in Poland (Polish orgahs please enlighten me!). Catherine got her former lover Poniatowski elected to the Polish throne; did that mean Poland was essentially a satellite state forced to do Russia’s biddings? Also the partitions of Poland might be seen as another event that significantly enhanced Russia’s prestige, but seeing that Poland is already a Russian protectorate surely it would be better to leave it intact as a buffer zone, whilst weakening Prussia and Austria and the same time. Were the partitions of Poland a Russian success, or was it actually a series of Prussian diplomatic victories that did Russia little good?

Russia's performance in the SYW was a bit lackluster. The generalship was not that great and was IIRC partially influenced by having an Empress with a frail health and a future prussophile Tsar.

There was also some logistical issues that was influenced by the strategic approach: They had two options 1) think longterm and grab a Prussian port so the army could winter there and 2) move more in sorth western direction to directly support the Austrians in Silesia.

As the Austrians had difficulties supporting the Russian army it moved back to Vistula for winter quarters on several occasions, and therefore had some distance to cover when returning. The latter approach was preferred as they expected to make short work of Prussia, at least in the early part of the war but also because a combined army would be impossible for Frederick to stop.

An attempt to take Kolberg was dropped in 1758 because of poor generalship, but finally succeeded in 1761 which put Prussia in a bad position. But ultimately Prussia was saved by the death of the Russian Empress as well as poor Austrian economy that forced peace in the end.

The battle performance of the Russian army was quite good as can be seen at Zorndorf and Kunersdorf.

But I would say that the whole concept of Austria and even France wanting to ally with Russia to deal with a central European threat (Prussia) shows how the prestige of Russia had increased. It had become an important player by that time.

When it comes to Poland then I would say that Russia was already dominant by the end of the GNW and it is the Russians doing the work in Poland in the Polish War of Succession. But Russia was not alone of course and that be seen in the partitions as both Austria and Prussia took their part. I don't know if it can described as a success for any of the parties really. Sure the Prussians managed to connect to their eastern province but at the same time lost a buffer zone and got a direct border with Russia. Maybe Russia gained the most from it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

The generalship was not that great and was IIRC partially influenced by having an Empress with a frail health and a future prussophile Tsar.

---

Sorry for being such a newbie but what does IIRC mean?

Quote:

---

But Russia was not alone of course and that be seen in the partitions as both Austria and Prussia took their part. I don't know if it can described as a success for any of the parties really. Sure the Prussians managed to connect to their eastern province but at the same time lost a buffer zone and got a direct border with Russia. Maybe Russia gained the most from it...

---

How so? I always thought the partition was an event engineered by the Prussians which benefited them the most. Catherine only joined in the land grab after Frederick's proposal. Instead of having an intact Poland as a satellite state which depended heavily on Russia's whims, it was split three ways with Russia having the biggest, but also arguably the poorest share. I still think keeping an independent Poland as a vassal state would have been the better option for Russia at the time.

IIRC= If I recall Correctly

In the years before the first Partition Russia was in a potential weak spot: war with Turks, Sweden potentially adding to the troubles making Russia go into a defensive alliance with Denmark, and Austria standing on the side lines worrying about Russian success in the Balkans/Black Sea. So yeah I would say Prussia ended up getting something that it had wanted for quite a while (land connecting to East Prussia) but Russia managed to appease their neighbours while expanding against the Turks.

Poland was not all peaceful though as Russia faced revolts and had to deal with that. Later on Poland seemed to gain strength and Russia (or at least some factions) saw Poland as having outlived its role as a protectorate. IMO Poland might have been vassal of Russia but it did not mean Russia had all control nor that Austria and especially Prussia had no influence at all. I do think Austria wanted it the least but better to take something than leave it all to Prussia.

Robert Massie's book "Peter the Great" speaks to this issue in depth and it's a rocking good read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

In the years before the first Partition Russia was in a potential weak spot: war with Turks, Sweden potentially adding to the troubles making Russia go into a defensive alliance with Denmark, and Austria standing on the side lines worrying about Russian success in the Balkans/Black Sea. So yeah I would say Prussia ended up getting something that it had wanted for quite a while (land connecting to East Prussia) but Russia managed to appease their neighbours while expanding against the Turks.

---

Ah yes! Almost forgot about the background of the partition and the possiblity of a war between Russia & Prussia vs Austria & France. I suppose carving up Poland as a peaceful solution to Russia's expansion into the Balkans was probably seen as viable by the rest of the major powers. Seems Russia didn't come off that badly out of the partition after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Robert Massie's book "Peter the Great" speaks to this issue in depth and it's a rocking good read.

---

I'll give it a go in time - it's quite a voluminous read!

Wouldn't Alexander II be Russia at it's height?

I'm not saying it because freeing the Serfs and intending to convert into a constitutional monarchy is more appealing than the absolutists but under Alexander II there was more food surplus than usual, Iron exports were high, the Russians had Eastern Europe effectively (but temporarily) subdued, the British and French were in fear over the Crimea and Russian ambitions in the East, and Alexander II was the counter weight to the threat of British and French intervention in the civil war.

Then of course there is the USSR which needs no explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quintus.JC

I'll give it a go in time - it's quite a voluminous read!

---

Yeah, Mr. Massie is never shy with the word count. But betwen the subject and how the story is told, it's a helluva book. A great social, political, and military history lesson. And the description of the parties are fantastic! The book is five-star in every way.

I'm only a happy enthusiast as to European history compared to many here, but this has got to be one of the must-read books if you want to understand how things got to be the way they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Robert Massie's book "Peter the Great" speaks to this issue in depth and it's a rocking good read.

---

awesome cheers.

having read Dreadnought i now love massie, but hadn't found this book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OvidiusNasso

Wouldn't Alexander II be Russia at it's height?

I'm not saying it because freeing the Serfs and intending to convert into a constitutional monarchy is more appealing than the absolutists but under Alexander II there was more food surplus than usual, Iron exports were high, the Russians had Eastern Europe effectively (but temporarily) subdued, the British and French were in fear over the Crimea and Russian ambitions in the East, and Alexander II was the counter weight to the threat of British and French intervention in the civil war.

Then of course there is the USSR which needs no explanation.

---

Personally I'd consider the Russian Empire under Alexander I as enjoying the height of prestige and influence. After Napoleon got trashed in by General Winter Alex became hailed as the saviour of Europe - this military triumph hid away all of Russia's constitutional, administrative and economic weaknesses. Alexander II freed the Serfs as a result of the disastrous Crimean War, by which time all of those weaknesses were already exposed to the West. Though still considered a major power, the industrial surge of Germany kind of put Russia in the background for much of the time till WWI.