cahn | Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 47

The thing is, impostors pretending to be dead tsars is really really common in Russia. (It happens outside Russia too; there were people claiming to be the actually-not-dead Friedrich II Hohenstaufen emperor right up until he would have been over a hundred years old even if he hadn't died when the pope said he did, and it was no longer plausible that he'd still be alive. That was when the "he's not dead!" stories switched to "He's sleeping! He will return in time of need!")

Much as I appreciate the shout out to my stupor mundi, I will add that this phenomonon has a much earlier precedence - as much as three fake Neros showed up after Nero's death, claiming to be him. Given that at least one of them was fairly successful in Rome's Eastern provinces for a while, it probably says something about Nero's image in the Hellenic world versus how he was perceived in Rome and Italy. (I mean, Nero's not the Emperor you would think would rally the people around him, but there you go. Titus, the second Flavian Emperor who was Emperor at the time, supposedly said re: the most succesful Nero impersonator and the trouble he caused, "who would have thought that such a little fish could stink this much".)

I would also be very surprised if there weren't a few fake Alexanders around after Alexander the Great's death. Now possession of his dead body/mummy was important to his generals and Ptolemy staged that daring body steal which is why dead Alexander ended up in Egypt and could be visited for centuries to come, but given the sheer size of his former Empire, surely in some realm or the other belonging to it a fake Alexander or two showed up? I'm speculating, though, Alexander isn't my expertise.

So the most obvious and interesting thing that happens in Denmark during this period is the rise and fall of Struensee (1770-1771). However, we're not going to cover that here, for two reasons: one, it's already been covered in some depth (see the Rheinsberg tag), and two, it didn't have too much impact on foreign policy. Struensee was far more interested in his domestic reforms, and he wasn't in power long, so Bernstorff is still the major player for much of this discussion.

Foreign policy-wise, Bernstorff's priorities are pretty consistently the ones we're familiar with: try to arrange a solution with Russia to the Schleswig-Holstein problem that doesn't involve Russia invading Denmark; try to keep Denmark at peace and neutral.

The only thing that changes over the years is the details of what he considers the best way to implement this.

Earlier in the century, Denmark had been on good terms with Britain. Britain had helped settle matters with Karl XII's invasion early in the Great Northern War, and kept matters from getting worse for Denmark. And there were (and continue to be) many royal intermarriages. But around the mid-century, Danish foreign policy, partly guided by Moltke, shifts toward an alliance with France (see this write-up). When Bernstorff takes over in 1750, this is the situation he inherits, and he sticks with it for a while.

This, however, leads the Brits to think that Denmark is absolutely committed to being an ally of France, when really Bernstorff and Moltke are more pragmatists. They want neutrality, peace, and safety for Denmark. You may recall that Bernstorff was ambassador to France and a good friend of Choiseul when he got appointed to foreign minister in Denmark, but that he had initially declined that position because he was considering transferring to Hanoverian service. In other words, he really doesn't have a firm, principled pro-French or pro-British stance; he's open to whatever works.

Unfortunately, this leaves the British thinking he's pro-French and the French thinking he's pro-British (much like poor FS being considered German by the French and French by the Germans), when actually he's pro-Denmark.

So with his two main goals being "work out an exchange for Schleswig-Holstein that allows Denmark to keep the parts it conquered back in the Great Northern War" and "don't get sucked into any wars," Bernstorff is forced to keep a close eye on politics in Sweden.

For one thing, Sweden and Denmark are ancient enemies, being neighbors (that's how being neighbors in this century usually works). So Bernstorff absolutely has to be a staunch supporter of the 1720 constitution that limits the power of the Swedish monarch.

Furthermore, the Swedish King Adolf Fredrik is a member of the house of Gottorp and a relative of (P)Russian!Pete, meaning he has claims on that Schleswig-Holstein territory. He renounced those claims in 1750, but people are always renouncing claims in this century and then reviving them later. And Bernstorff's convinced that if Adolf Fredrik becomes an absolute monarch, he'll revive those claims. So he's got an extra incentive to keep any attempts by Ulrike and Adolf Fredrik to become absolute monarchs down.

In the 1750s, this means supporting the Hats, which France is also doing. But by 1762, nobody will help with Bernstorff's cause, not even Choiseul with the subsidies France still owes Denmark. Bernstorff is disillusioned with Choiseul. He's also disillusioned with Choiseul's pet Hats in Denmark, whose Seven Years' War policy did not go well.

So in 1765, Bernstorff makes an 8-year treaty with Russia based around keeping the 1720 constitution in force in Sweden.

In 1767, by dint of further negotiations with Russia, he gets his provisional territorial exchange (mageskiftet) of Oldenburg for the relevant bits of Schleswig-Holstein. It will become official if everyone's still on board with it in 1773, when Paul (the actual heir with the claims) reaches his majority and agrees to it.

But these negotiations with Russia have implications for Denmark's relations with other powers.

First of all, being the moderate, pragmatic type, Bernstorff has never wanted to put all his eggs in the Russian basket. He's done his best to keep his French allies in the loop about his negotiations with Russia, trying to convey that he's not abandoning them, he's just adding in some new alliances. Unfortunately, the French consider this a rank betrayal.

Likewise, the British, around this time, decide they too would like an alliance with Denmark, mostly because they've tried and failed with the other major candidates (Russia, Prussia). But while the British are trying to entice Denmark into an alliance, Bernstorff's in the middle of some delicate negotiations with Russia, so he can't afford to do anything that might piss off Russia and jeopardize the Schleswig-Holstein exchange. He tells the British that the only way he can sign a treaty with them is if they agree to guarantee Denmark's possession of the Schleswig-Holstein territory.

But the British realize that Paul may not agree to this in 1773; he is, after all, his father's son. He may have strong feelings just like dear old Dad. And then they, Britain, would be stuck going to war for something that only benefits Denmark. And look how that worked out when Peter III tried dragging Russia into a war that only benefitted Holstein. So why would George III's ministers agree to something similar?

So that fizzles out. However, relations between Denmark and Great Britain improve a little when Christian VII makes his grand tour, which we've heard about, in 1768. He and Bernstorff both make a good impression on the populace as well as the ministers. Horace Walpole apparently is especially impressed.

But at the same time, French foreign policy and Danish interests are diverging more and more. Since Bernstorff made that treaty with Russia, Choiseul has given up on the old alliance with Denmark, because Denmark is obviously pro-Russian and thus pro-English and anti-French. Furthermore, Choiseul has decided that an actual monarch in Sweden is the way to counter Russia's hegemony. So he decides to encourage Adolf Fredrik to temporarily abdicate, in hopes of setting off a chain of events that would lead to absolutism in Sweden.

It does lead to the fall of the pro-Russian Cap party, meaning the Caps can no longer help Bernstorff defend the 1720 constitution of Sweden. So Bernstorff, as we've seen, partially mobilizes the Danish fleet and starts a game of chicken. It leads him into a December 1769 treaty with Britain in which they promise to help out if France gets involved, to maintain the Swedish constitution, by force if necessary, and to conquer some Swedish territory to compensate for war expenses, if necessary.

As we've seen, the crisis around Sweden dissipates peacefully in 1770, Struensee's rise to power begins, and Bernstorff is dismissed in September.

Struensee lasts only a year, being overthrown in January 1772. Due to the scandal over Caroline Mathilde's affair with Struensee, there is friction between Britain and Denmark. It ends peacefully but with mutual bad feelings.

Furthermore, as a result of the fall of Struensee and the subsequent rise of Juliana Maria, Bernstorff's nephew ends up in power. Like his uncle, he follows a generally pro-Russian (but not slavishly so) foreign policy, and he successfully finishes negotiating that treaty whereby Paul gives up his Schleswig-Holstein claims in exchange for some more land and money, plus an alliance. Paul comes of age and chooses to accept it rather than follow in his father's footsteps in this respect.

The fact that Russia, Sweden's biggest threat, has Denmark as an ally again helps inspire the absolutist coup of Gustav III in Sweden in August of 1772. Another crisis is averted when Britain and Prussia refuse to go to war and get into a staredown with Catherine, who swallows her defeat and decides not to go to war.

In conclusion, you can see it's all very complicated and everything is tangled and intertwined.

Anyway, there was a lot of this in Russia during the Time of Troubles in the early seventeenth century, and the practice continued in the eighteenth century. There were people claiming to be any tsar who'd died young or disappeared: Peter II, Ivan VI, Peter III...Catherine had *already* had to deal with a number of would-be tsars claiming to be Peter III in the early years of her reign.
I still find this hilarious! And thanks for the write-up. : )

Er, the rest of the comment will be about your off-hand Jacobite reference!

This is one of the advantages the Romans had over the Celts, and that the English had over the Jacobites! Many individual fierce warriors are not always the best at working together as a unit.
I think you mean "Highlanders" here instead of "Jacobites"? I mean, some Jacobites were English, many were Lowland Scots, and many were Irish. Conversely, many Highlanders were not Jacobites.

I don't actually think "Highlanders are individually fierce but not always the best at working together as a unit" was a large contributing reason why Jacobite rebellions failed. In the '45, for example, the difficulties people had working together were, I think, mainly caused by the different actors having different goals. (BPC: I want to conquer the whole of Britain! Many of the Scots: We want to dissolve the union and have Scotland for ourselves! France: We want to cause dissension in Britain!)

So do I agree that "Highlanders are individually fierce but not always the best at working together as a unit"? Well, yes and no. On the yes side, it's true that the clansmen 1) were bad at sustained and boring military work, such as siegework, 2) would go home with their spoils and then come back again later, 3) had personal loyalty to their chief, so if their chief fell they would lose morale, 4) didn't want to be far away from home for extended periods of time.

But there are also ways in which they were great at working together as a unit. The clan was a ready-made regiment with an officer structure already in place, which had great cohesion and great loyalty to the officers. Many Highlanders also had experience from modern military units abroad and in other parts of Britain and were not some sort of primitive warriors. The clans which kept traditional structures in place (like the Camerons) could mobilize much faster and with better results, compared to clans like the Campbells which began to let land to the highest bidder, thus weakening the loyalty of the tenants to the chiefs and making it less likely that they would want to serve them as soldiers. And in the Highland charge, they are working together, just working together with a different tactic than holding the line and shooting.

The Jacobite army in '45 was in some ways better coordinated than their opponents, particularly in the way that they could divide into two divisions, decide on a place to go, and then move in coordinated units and actually converge on that place in good time.

I think you mean "Highlanders" here instead of "Jacobites"?

Yeah, I actually typed "Highlanders" first, then figured that might confuse

cahn and decided to put "Jacobites" instead so she had a vague idea what period I was talking about, then I thought about adding a note for clarity, pretty much exactly on the lines of what you said here, but I got sucked back into Pugachev and forgot to come back to it. I should have known our resident Jacobite expert would call me on any sloppiness! :D

Many Highlanders also had experience from modern military units abroad and in other parts of Britain and were not some sort of primitive warriors.

Indeed, indeed.

But there are also ways in which they were great at working together as a unit. The clan was a ready-made regiment with an officer structure already in place, which had great cohesion and great loyalty to the officers.

Oh, yeah, *within* a clan was great! I was thinking more of the "My clan will fight on the right!" "No, mine!" type thing. But like I said, that can happen in more impersonal armies too.

There are always trade-offs when you compare organizations where more of the relevant bonds are between individuals and where they're more between abstractions like "the employee" and "the state". The early modern period is very much a transitional time along that continuum. But in pretty much any time, you'll see some elements of both, which is why I say "continuum".

Thank you for elaborating on the nuance that it was irresponsible of me not to elaborate on!

I still find this hilarious!

Voltaire found it hilarious too!

When she passed along the information that the impertinent fellow was actually claiming to be Peter III, Voltaire picked up her airy, dismissive tone, mentioning to d’Alembert “this new husband who has turned up in the province of Orenburg.”

Thank you for elaborating on the nuance that it was irresponsible of me not to elaborate on!
No worries, that elaboration was probably my job! *g* I mean, I could not resist when you brought it up.

There are always trade-offs when you compare organizations where more of the relevant bonds are between individuals and where they're more between abstractions like "the employee" and "the state".
Yeah, that's very true.

Hee, I can imagine!

I could not resist when you brought it up.

The thing is, I would not have been able to resist either, if someone had come in saying what I said there! I used to rant about people's sloppy language around Jacobites vs. Highlanders vs. Scots vs. Catholics when I was a teenager! It was only because it was an aside this time that I forgot to go back to it. :D

I was just thinking of what you wrote the other day, about being super into some things, but not others which are seemingly adjacent. I'm listening to the revolutions podcast, and while I was definitely into the English Civil War, I am so uninterested in the American revolution! I just keep zoning out, especially in the military parts. Apparently, some military stuff is super interesting to me (most especially the Jacobite stuff)! And other military stuff just...isn't.

Forgot to comment on this, but it's hilarious. : D

Note the extra cruelty of her being whipped in front of her father's house as well.

Ugh, every time I think I'm used to FW he does something else that's just... needlessly cruel! :(

In fact, in between negotiations, this had happened: Catherine to Fritz: Mind if I keep your brother as my personal satrap and make him King of Wallachia? Fritz: YES. NO HEINRICH FOR YOU.

And now we also know it was NO WALLACHIA FOR YOU, EITHER.

I laughed at this! (Again.)

(I told you 1768-1772 was complicated!)

Ha, yes, wow!

Yep! As long as you think that Kurrent and French together is easily doable on a regular basis with the rest of your schedule! (Brought to you by someone I know who often tries to set goals that work as long as everything else is going perfectly, with no give in case everything is not going perfectly, which sets them up for failure. I don't think you have tendencies this way, but because of said person I do have that caveat once we start talking about multiple goals :) )

Thank you for this! :D

the audioguide will tell you that Izabela was a stone cold fox (true) and that Poniatowski betrayed the nation of Poland, and probably kicked every puppy in the country personallu.

This made me laugh and also check out her portrait! (I know those lie, but still, yeah, at least some evidence for her stone cold fox-ness!) Poor Poniatowski! (Unlike mildred, as you have seen, I am in fact a Poniatowski stan, in addition to feeling sorry for him :) )

Adam Czartoryski, whose first contribution to Polish independence was attempting to seduce Alexander into liberal ideas, and just plain seducing Alexander's wife, before it turned out that genetics were not on his side, and Alexander's theoretical liberal beliefs did not stand up to actually being Tsar.

This also made me laugh; thank you for the educational post!

However, nothing comes of this negotiation, partly because Gustav is too much of a snob, but mostly because Vergennes doesn't know his boss (one of his bosses) would want him to provide Gustav with money for this endeavor.

The correct response to reading about French diplomacy in this period is: *facepalm*.

LOL forever. Like

luzula, this was also my reaction, although I didn't go so far as to write it before reading on :D

That is a gripping description of the coup!

For the first and last time in his life he had shown that he was everything that his most devoted admirers believed him to be.

Again like

luzula, I find this ominous...

Wasn't Vergennes also the guy who had to negotiate with Franklin and John Adams about supporting you tax dodgers?

LOL! Yeah, I remember he was in Proud Destiny!

No wonder this is the Swedish King to end up a Verdi tenor!

Oh wait, this is the same guy?! Yeah, I can see it...

The christening of Elizaveta's first daughter can best be described as...awkward, after Paul I loudly said how INTRIGUING it was the baby had such dark eyes, when her parents were so fair.

Yep, there's a reason the French quota is only 2 pages and the Kurrent quota is only "some".

Brought to you by someone I know who often tries to set goals that work as long as everything else is going perfectly, with no give in case everything is not going perfectly, which sets them up for failure.

Me: She's talking about the time she had to bail me out of Yuletide!

I don't think you have tendencies this way

She's not???

:P

ETA: There's also a reason we still have a handful of posts to go on 1764-1772, and I haven't yet done the write-up on Philippe the Regent and his ambitions in Spain! (Spoiler: There is *some* material to report, but so far he still has not made an outright bid for the throne.)

But Kurrent is coming along! It's starting to click, at least for extremely clean handwriting, and I'm hoping to move to more interesting texts this week (with my fingers crossed that dealing with large volumes of less clean handwriting is doable).

Edited 2024-01-24 13:40 (UTC)

LOLOLOL. But see, you learned from your mistake and didn't do it last year! :) (Which is good, because clearly I had no time to bail you out :) )

OMG. That's amazing! And, as you say: awkward. (And as always, I am here for the awkward gossipy sensationalism!)

Pugachev promised to free the peasants and exterminate the nobles. It was basically the Russian Revolution or French Revolution avant la lettre.

Wow! Although it seems like it never really got all that far...

The empress then wrote to Voltaire attributing “this freakish event” to the fact that the Orenburg region “is inhabited by all the good-for-nothings of whom Russia has thought fit to rid herself over the past forty years, rather in the same spirit that the American colonies have been populated.”

I laughed!

“Why does he call himself Tsar Peter?” the Don Cossacks asked. “He is Emelyan Pugachev, the farmer, who deserted his wife Sophia and his children.”

Well then!

Fritz faced this same problem when trying to end feudalism and by and large came to the same "keep myself in power by supporting the nobles" conclusion; Joseph made opposite choices and had to claw back most of his reforms. Leopold died too soon.

Hm. Was there anyone who didn't come to this conclusion (besides Leopold)?

Haha, thanks for this,

luzula!

I don't have much to say about this (except thank you as always) but "Philip is not yet a frog" made me choke a bit :D

Reminder that Paul is one to talk, given his life long obsession to be as much as Peter III as possible because Catherine heavily implied that Paul was not, in fact, Peter's biological son but Saltykov's. And of course Alexander himself according to the German wiki entry on his sister-in-law was rumored to have fathered one of her kids.

...I think the lone happily married Czar and Czarina in several centuries must have been the last ones, Nikolas and Alexandra. Who absolutely sucked as monarchs but were very much in love with each other till the end.

Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 47

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

1764-1772 Foreign policy: Denmark

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: David Bergeron: King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire - I

Re: Doris Ritter

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Sweden: Lead-up to the coup (1768-1772)

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Sweden: Lead-up to the coup (1768-1772)

Re: New quota and yelling

Re: Izabela Czartoryska

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Sweden: Gustav's coup (1772)

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Sweden: Gustav's coup (1772)

Re: Izabela Czartoryska

Re: New quota and yelling

Re: New quota and yelling

Re: Izabela Czartoryska

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: The Pugachev Rebellion

Re: Two Philippes, no waiting, redux

Re: Izabela Czartoryska