Could the November Uprising of 1830 have succeeded?

[Pericles]

Looking back at the November 1830 Polish Uprising, I'm wondering-did the Uprising have a chance of winning independence for Poland? Given the power of the Russian Empire, I am sceptical but only know a few details, and the Poles did put up a good fight. If the Uprising could have succeeded, what PoDs/changes would have been needed for it to win? I have seen the suggestion that the Poles should have risen up earlier in 1828, so this would count as a possible PoD. What is the best-case scenario for Poland? How might it and the rest of Europe have then developed?

 

[Lalli]

Not any chances to succeed. Russia would crush any revolt like a bug in 1830. And any great power wouldn't too allow that to succeed. Yes, Belgians succeeded but the Netherlands was much weaker and great powers had lesser worries with independent Belgium.

 

[Pericles]

Anyone who can add more details about this period?

 

[The Link]

Not any chances to succeed. Russia would crush any revolt like a bug in 1830. And any great power wouldn't too allow that to succeed. Yes, Belgians succeeded but the Netherlands was much weaker and great powers had lesser worries with independent Belgium.

The russian military showed a very poor performance during the russo-turkish war 1828-1829. With enough preparations, the Poles could have succeeded.

Anyone who can add more details about this period?

Back then, the Poles had been kinda shocked by the defeat of Napoleon. He used to be the enemy to all partitioners, gave a harsh time to all of them, and the Poles hoped that the Duchy of Warsaw will be expanded into the full restoration of Poland. His defeat kinda broke the polish hope for independence, and for that reason, a lot of Poles kinda gave up and decided to accept the way things are - especially because Congress Poland got the autonomy.

The uprising was started by the young idealistic cadets who just started marching at night through the streets of Warsaw while shouting "Poles! To arms!". They did it just like that, without any consultations with anyone, and they even shot some polish generals whom they met but who told them to just go home. Ultimately the cadets did defeat the russian garrison, but the whole situation caused a lot of confusion in Congress Poland, because Congress Poland had no idea how to react to all of it. Ultimately the independence was announced, but only after the long debates. In other words, the element of surprise was completely wasted. And even when the war officially broke out and even after achieving some remarkable successes, the polish generals were afraid of making any more ambitious moves like throwing the front to the so called Ziemie Zabrane ("the Lands Taken Away", a phrase used by the Poles toward those of former polish-lithuanian lands which were under Russia but outside of Congress Poland). This basically allowed the Russians to regroup themselves and to ultimately strike back.

Shortly said, if the Uprising had to succeed, it would need much more confident leaders, and the whole outbreak of the Uprising should have been planned by some professionals rather than by some younglings.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

The russian military showed a very poor performance during the russo-turkish war 1828-1829. With enough preparations, the Poles could have succeeded.

No, they could not have. If Russia was getting its butt kicked by the rebels, we would see Prussia and Austria offer assistance to the Russians, and all three crush the revolt. The LAST thing the partition powers would want is a revived, independent Poland. That would mean their own Polish subjects would start getting ideas

 

[The Link]

No, they could not have. If Russia was getting its butt kicked by the rebels, we would see Prussia and Austria offer assistance to the Russians, and all three crush the revolt. The LAST thing the partition powers would want is a revived, independent Poland. That would mean their own Polish subjects would start getting ideas

You're probably right. Still, the statement of @Lalli about not a single great power willing to accept the polish success is overreacted. At that time Nicholas I believed himself to be the gendarme of Europe, and he spoke that he's about to go to Western Europe to crush both the Belgian Revolution and most of all the July Revolution in France. The second case would obviously cause the French to support the polish success for the sake of having it as a distraction for Russia. Simultaneously there's Britain. As much as Britain opposed breaking the status quo, a much bigger threat for the status quo were Nicholas' plans to absorb the Ottoman Empire. This was the main concern for Britain, as shown during the Crimean War. Thus, the polish success would be approved by Britain as a way of making Russia less able to attack the Ottomans.

 

[alexmilman]

You're probably right. Still, the statement of @Lalli about not a single great power willing to accept the polish success is overreacted. At that time Nicholas I believed himself to be the gendarme of Europe,

No, this was what the democrats in Europe thought about him after he crushed the Hungarian Revolution (which happened much later). To quote from Britannica, “To the upper classes in central Europe, Nicholas I was the stern defender of monarchical legitimacy; to democrats all over the world, he was “the gendarme of Europe” and the chief enemy of liberty.”
It is rather hard to expect that he shared opinion of his ideological opponents, which was not even been expressed in the 1830’s. For the rest of Europe the uprising of 1830-31 was pretty much the Russian domestic issue: rebellion of the subjects against a legitimate crowned monarch.

and he spoke that he's about to go to Western Europe to crush both the Belgian Revolution and most of all the July Revolution in France.

The talk was cheap and no actions followed. In both cases it was just an expression of the attitude rather than a real readiness to march across the whole Europe.

The second case would obviously cause the French to support the polish success for the sake of having it as a distraction for Russia.

The key word is “success”. France may be sympathetic to an independent Polish state but a prerequisite was gaining and maintaining such an independence for a noticeable period of time, which was extremely unlikely all the way to a technical impossibility: Nicholas had much greater resources, his own production of the weapons (Kingdom’s army had Russian weapons and the Kingdom did not have its own adequate armaments industry), he had more experienced troops and, while Dibich may be disputable, Paskevich was a very good commander with an experience well above available on the other side where the latest fighting was dated by 1814 and none of the commanders, IIRC, was above a divisional level. The main Russian problem was, as usually, logistics: NI had to bring the troops from the great distances over the bad roads and this was a huge handicap. Obviously, the Poles did have some local successes on the initial stage (to a noticeable degree thanks to Constantine’s position) but the luck could not continue forever.

Now, how exactly the French “help” would materialize for the country which is landlocked and the only realistic access to it being through Prussia, which was Nicholas’ ally? Not to mention that the newly-established July Monarchy hardly was going to start a major war in a middle of a nowhere?

Simultaneously there's Britain. As much as Britain opposed breaking the status quo, a much bigger threat for the status quo were Nicholas' plans to absorb the Ottoman Empire.

The same problem as with France but even more so because Britain did not have an army capable of going into a big war on its own and its navy would be quite useless. BTW, NI in 1830-31 did not have plans to “absorb” the OE.

This was the main concern for Britain, as shown during the Crimean War.

Which happened two decades later within a seriously different geopolitical and geographic framework.

Thus, the polish success would be approved by Britain as a way of making Russia less able to attack the Ottomans.

In 1831 Russia did not have to attack the OE: actually it was Ottoman’s ally in 1833, which influenced Britain and France to apply diplomatic pressure and force Muhammed Ali to make a peace. In other words, 3 Great Powers still were on the same side even if by the different considerations.

 

[Ambusher11]

No, they could not have. If Russia was getting its butt kicked by the rebels, we would see Prussia and Austria offer assistance to the Russians, and all three crush the revolt. The LAST thing the partition powers would want is a revived, independent Poland. That would mean their own Polish subjects would start getting ideas

Actually, at least according to Karl Marx, Metternich (yes, Metternich!) in 1830 was initially willing to restore Poland if it had an Austrian prince, but this ultimately didn't go anywhere due to Palmerston being opposed and Louis Philippe being unwilling to act without Britain.

Outbreak in Warsaw 29 November 1830. Prince Metternich indulged in a scheme for the reconstruction of Poland, in favour of an Austrian prince, and broached it to England and France; but as Louis Philippe would not act without England, and as Palmerston proved true to the Czar [Nicholas], the whole was quashed in embryo.... The ambitious designs of the Emperor Francis on Poland soon vanished, before the disturbed state of Italy.

As for Prussia, well, it was neutral during the November Uprising. There might've been plans for Prussia to crush the 1830 uprising, but these weren't carried out since AFAIK France threatened war with Prussia if it attempted to crush the uprising.

 

[The Link]

@alexmilman Have I said anything about the franco-british military help for Poland? I simply expressed that to say about Poland's reappearance as "any great power wouldn't too allow that to succeed" is blatantly incorrect, nothing more. Whether Poland would maintain its freshly regained independence is a different topic.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Actually, at least according to Karl Marx, Metternich (yes, Metternich!) in 1830 was initially willing to restore Poland if it had an Austrian prince, but this ultimately didn't go anywhere due to Palmerston being opposed and Louis Philippe being unwilling to act without Britain.



As for Prussia, well, it was neutral during the November Uprising. There might've been plans for Prussia to crush the 1830 uprising, but these weren't carried out since AFAIK France threatened war with Prussia if it attempted to crush the uprising.

I would agree that this is the most plausible scenario for a successful November Uprising, but there’s a few added hurdles beyond British and French disinterest.

Per the French historian Louis Leger ("History of Austro-Hungary to 1889"), the biggest single problem is that Italy rose up in revolt at the same time, and Austria's attention was diverted to invading Parma and Modena, since Venice was much more revenue-producing for the empire than Poland (despite the fact that the Polish cause was, oddly, something that drew support from the Magyar, liberal German, and even Slav inhabitants of the empire). The fact that the intervention in Italy brought Austria against France would make cooperation on the Polish question difficult (to elaborate on what Marx said). In retrospect, the intervention was somewhat pointless, since Austria lost all those possessions in Italy a generation later--but it does weigh heavily at the time.

Austria also has a bone to pick with Prussia still, over the loss of Silesia in the prior century (a matter of some interest particularly to the Czechs), so perhaps that could be an additional bone thrown to Austria if Prussia intervenes against the effort to put a Hapsburg prince in Warsaw.

So I think to get Austrian intervention on Poland's side, one would need a different settlement of Italy at the Congress of Vienna such that Austria has much less interest there, or no Italian revolution of 1830, at the least. Then a Franco-Austrian pact against Prussia and the Tsar (now where have we heard that one before?) might happen.

 

[alexmilman]

I would agree that this is the most plausible scenario for a successful November Uprising, but there’s a few added hurdles beyond British and French disinterest.

Per the French historian Louis Leger ("History of Austro-Hungary to 1889"), the biggest single problem is that Italy rose up in revolt at the same time, and Austria's attention was diverted to invading Parma and Modena, since Venice was much more revenue-producing for the empire than Poland (despite the fact that the Polish cause was, oddly, something that drew support from the Magyar, liberal German, and even Slav inhabitants of the empire). The fact that the intervention in Italy brought Austria against France would make cooperation on the Polish question difficult (to elaborate on what Marx said). In retrospect, the intervention was somewhat pointless, since Austria lost all those possessions in Italy a generation later--but it does weigh heavily at the time.

Austria also has a bone to pick with Prussia still, over the loss of Silesia in the prior century (a matter of some interest particularly to the Czechs), so perhaps that could be an additional bone thrown to Austria if Prussia intervenes against the effort to put a Hapsburg prince in Warsaw.

So I think to get Austrian intervention on Poland's side, one would need a different settlement of Italy at the Congress of Vienna such that Austria has much less interest there, or no Italian revolution of 1830, at the least. Then a Franco-Austrian pact against Prussia and the Tsar (now where have we heard that one before?) might happen.

Very good points but let’s assume that Italy is quiet for a while leaving Austria with free hands while uprising is still going on. I’ll try to do this systematically but, if something is missing, which is quite possible, the additions and corrections are more than welcomed.

The important thing to keep in mind, which is so far was ignored (unless I missed it, in which case my apologies), is that NI is a legitimate king of Poland, properly crowned with all enchilada (IIRC, there could be a claim that he was not crowned with the Polish crown but, taking into an account that there was no serious fuss on this account for him or AI, this seems to be pretty much irrelevant). Which means that any “settlement” involves at least two elements:

• Abdication of NI as the King of Poland.
• Clear definition of what “Poland” means (Congress Kingdom or the additional territories claimed by the Polish patriots).

Direct Austrian (and French) intervention during the Uprising:

• Austria. Such a pact would be extremely risky for Austria because France was far away and both Russia and Prussia quite close. Besides, wouldn’t there be a formal problem? Nicholas was a legitimately crowned king of Poland so to put Austrian anything on the Polish throne Metternich needed his formal abdication, not just the Polish claim that they don’t want this king, because this would create a dangerous precedent for the Hapsburg monarchy to start with. This means not just a war with Russia and Prussia but a war with an overwhelming success which is forcing NI to abdicate as a King of Poland. Personally, I don’t see how this can happen but perhaps I’m missing something fundamental. As a side note, in 1830 Russian army was not yet backward in its weaponry as was the case in 1854 so, IMO, the Russians and Prussians in Vienna are more likely than Austrians and Poles in St.Petersburg (or Moscow) and Berlin. 😉
• France as an active military factor is highly questionable: the radicals had been supportive of Poland (but did not rush to Poland to fight on the insurgents side) but Louis-Philip and conservatives were not, which forced Lafitte to resign. The country at that time was in the internal turmoil (clash between the supporters of the Restoration and “the people” on February 14, 1831, process of the ministers of Charles X with the ”public disturbances”, trade-financial crisis of 1831 with a resulting high unemployment, etc.) and in 1832 situation became even worse with the cholera, uprisings in Paris and Lion, uprising in Vendee. Hardly an environment conductive to starting a major war over the ideological considerations in a theater far away from France and with the …er… “historic memories” being not very encouraging.

Success of the Uprising before foreign intervention. Now, how about a quasi-ASB premise of the “successful uprising” (the ill-organized weaker side gaining a crushing victory of a much stronger dedicated opponent is a favorite scenario in the fantasy books and movies but usually does not happen in OTL)? What exactly does this mean? Even when their position became quite lousy, the Polish side kept insisting on “return” of the voyevodships lost during the Partitions, aka, territories of Belorussia and Western Ukraine incorporated into the RE. The goal was quite unrealistic both politically and militarily even if Poland would retain NI as its King (this claim already failed with AI). Now, on NI side, the abdication was pretty much out of question under any realistic scenario I can imagine (will be glad to see proposals from those with a better developed imagination). So, the obvious question is how exactly the rebels will gain the territories they claimed and force NI to capitulate and abdicate?

The relevant numbers:

• In March 1831, the Polish army had 57,924 infantry, 18,272 cavalry and 3,000 volunteers - a total of 79,000 with 158 guns. In September, by the end of the uprising, the army numbered 80,821 men. However, part of that force were the raw recruits, many of them badly armed.
• The number of all Russian troops that were supposed to be used against the Poles reached 183 thousand (not counting 13 Cossack regiments), but it took 3-4 months to concentrate them. The main problems were, as always, the fools and the roads but, with Dibitch gone the first of these problems was more or less resolved (*). 😂
• By the beginning of 1831, the Poles had about 55 thousand completely ready; on the Russian side, only Baron G. C Rosen, the commander of the 6th (Lithuanian) Corps, could concentrate about 45,000 in Brest-Litovsk and Bialystok. By February 1831, the strength of the Russian army had increased to 125.5 thousand.

So, operating with these numbers, or something close, how the military part could be resolved in the Polish favor?


I’d be really interested in seeing a plausible plan for any of these scenarios because what sense does it make to discuss what will happen “after success” if it is rather unclear how to get to the point of “success”?

———
(*) I’m unjust to Dibitch: he was handicapped by a need to concentrate the arriving troops and by a season when the roads were only marginally operational. However, in this campaign he was seemingly quite passive or perhaps “methodical”?

 

[The Link]

Besides, wouldn’t there be a formal problem? Nicholas was a legitimately crowned king of Poland so to put Austrian anything on the Polish throne Metternich needed his formal abdication, not just the Polish claim that they don’t want this king, because this would create a dangerous precedent for the Hapsburg monarchy to start with.

When it comes to casus belli, Russia had been gradually (and already under Alexander the First) liquidating the freedoms guaranteed for Congress Poland at the Congress of Vienna: in 1819 the freedom of press was abolished, in 1821 the freedom of assembly was abolished etc. So Austria could simply use the fact that Russia doesn't respect the things she was supposed to respect according to the Congress of Vienna. And if Prussia (worried about the "prussian Poles" being inspired to make their own rebellion) supported the Russians by declaring war on Austria, then this would be a blatant undermining of Austria's authority. After all, Austria was the one who got the position of the leader of the German Confederation, so the prussian declaration of war on Austria would be a violation of the german aspect of the Congress of Vienna.

so, IMO, the Russians and Prussians in Vienna are more likely than Austrians and Poles in St.Petersburg (or Moscow) and Berlin. 😉

Um... who said here that the austro-polish troops would be in St.Petersburg/Moscow or in Berlin?

France as an active military factor is highly questionable: the radicals had been supportive of Poland (but did not rush to Poland to fight on the insurgents side) but Louis-Philip and conservatives were not, which forced Lafitte to resign. The country at that time was in the internal turmoil (clash between the supporters of the Restoration and “the people” on February 14, 1831, process of the ministers of Charles X with the ”public disturbances”, trade-financial crisis of 1831 with a resulting high unemployment, etc.) and in 1832 situation became even worse with the cholera, uprisings in Paris and Lion, uprising in Vendee. Hardly an environment conductive to starting a major war over the ideological considerations in a theater far away from France and with the …er… “historic memories” being not very encouraging.

Once again, who exactly said here that the french troops would go to Poland?

Success of the Uprising before foreign intervention. Now, how about a quasi-ASB premise of the “successful uprising” (the ill-organized weaker side gaining a crushing victory of a much stronger dedicated opponent is a favorite scenario in the fantasy books and movies but usually does not happen in OTL)?

Indeed, which is why I wrote that the cadets who started the uprising, should have been replaced with someone who knows how to fully use the advantages Poland had, such as the ability to quickly act before Russia can react.

I’d be really interested in seeing a plausible plan for any of these scenarios because what sense does it make to discuss what will happen “after success” if it is rather unclear how to get to the point of “success”?

You know, you're the one who started wondering what would happen afterwards, not us.

 

[HunterX]

I just don't see where the military capability to stop the Russian reconquest exists. Poland can't stop it on its own and is too isolated to receive any meaningful assistance. You'd need a POD that crippled the Russian response.

 

[The Link]

I just don't see where the military capability to stop the Russian reconquest exists. Poland can't stop it on its own and is too isolated to receive any meaningful assistance. You'd need a POD that crippled the Russian response.

We could theoretically assume that the decembrists are still active in Russia, and that Nicholas I is worried that the further fights in Poland might give the decembrists the ability to threaten his rule, so he would decide to temporarily forget about Poland. Kinda like what the Soviets did in OTL in 1921.

As for the further years... If Poland lives long enough and Nicholas the First keeps talking that eventually he's about to attack the Ottoman Empire, it could be Poland the one whom the French and Brits would aid in the equivalent of the Crimean War. Through the attacks on Russia elsewhere, not by any expeditions directly to Poland.

 

[alexmilman]

When it comes to casus belli, Russia had been gradually (and already under Alexander the First) liquidating the freedoms guaranteed for Congress Poland at the Congress of Vienna:

Not exactly the case. You are talking about the document “Principles of the Constitution of Polish Kingdom” written by Adam Czartotizsky and, indeed, published in Vienna. But this was not a mandatory document guaranteed by anybody, just the intentions, not a Constitution, which made it clear in a preamble that it is not a right inherent to the Polish people but a favor granted to them by the All-Russian Tsar. It also stipulated that the new kingdom will be a hereditary appanage of the House of Romanov and that the foreign policy of the kingdom should remain in the Russian hands. Almost immediately after the new kingdom was established Prince Adam was relieved of all authority and replaced by Novosiltsev. Well, not to mention that the “independent” state heavily relied upon the regular subsidies from Russia.

An item about the hereditary rights made rebellion illegal and the same applies to any communications with the foreign countries so the rebels could not at the same time both defend the constitution and violate it. OTOH, if the rights are granted as a favor, then their only guarantor is a grantor. So while removal of some rights was a bad thing, these actions still could be considered legal: at least for a whole decade nobody rebelled over their violation.

Austria had absolutely no say on the issue.

in 1819 the freedom of press was abolished, in 1821 the freedom of assembly was abolished etc. So Austria could simply use the fact that Russia doesn't respect the things she was supposed to respect according to the Congress of Vienna.

It could not because there were no international guarantees of any type and this was an issue between NI and his Polish subjects.

And if Prussia (worried about the "prussian Poles" being inspired to make their own rebellion) supported the Russians by declaring war on Austria, then this would be a blatant undermining of Austria's authority.

Not sure how Prussia by joining its Russian ally in the case of Austrian aggression against RE will be undermining Austrian anything. Vienna did not make Austria an international overseeing authority of any kind. But this is all quite irrelevant by a simple reason of Austria in OTL 1831 simply would not risk such a war.

After all, Austria was the one who got the position of the leader of the German Confederation, so the prussian declaration of war on Austria would be a violation of the german aspect of the Congress of Vienna.

Prussia acting in concert with its ally as a reaction of the Austrian attack on that ally would not be violating anything. But this argument is irrelevant because Austria would not risk such an attack. Never did in OTL except when was forced to do this by Nappy.

Um... who said here that the austro-polish troops would be in St.Petersburg/Moscow or in Berlin?

This was a joke. Do you know what the smileys are about?

The point, which you are missing is that for Austria to have any legitimate claim to the Polish throne (referencing to mentioned Metternich’s wish to put Austrian archduke on it), Nicholas must abdicate and for that he must suffer an absolutely smashing defeat. If there are some other reasons for him to do this, please bring them up.

Once again, who exactly said here that the french troops would go to Poland?

I’m sorry but you clearly did not understand what the post is about: I’m trying to analyze systematically possible scenarios for the victorious uprising and commenting on plausibility of each of the possible combinations. “Systematically” means that you have to bring pretty much all possible scenarios and analyze plausibility of each of them. If you agree that the French participation is unlikely, you are just confirming what I said on this specific item.

Indeed, which is why I wrote that the cadets who started the uprising, should have been replaced with someone who knows how to fully use the advantages Poland had, such as the ability to quickly act before Russia can react.

OK, fine, so let’s assume for the argument sake that there is somebody with the brains in charge and the whole thing is started as you want. The problem, as I already pointed out, was in a plain fact that Kingdom did not have advantages allowing to win against the RE. The opponent had more troops, even more reserves, it had its own armaments production and a loss was not a politically acceptable option.

As I said, I’m quite willing to see a scenario by which the uprising can win so why don’t you present some so that we can have a meaningful discussion of its plausibility?

 

[alexmilman]

We could theoretically assume that the decembrists are still active in Russia,

At a risk to sound impolite, which is not my intention, but this is a pure fantasy. How exactly are they “active” for the six years? This was a narrow based attempt of a military coup which became possible only due to the succession crisis: the rebellious officers managed to misled soldiers of few units and the whole thing was crushed by a single artillery battery.

and that Nicholas I is worried that the further fights in Poland might give the decembrists the ability to threaten his rule, so he would decide to temporarily forget about Poland. Kinda like what the Soviets did in OTL in 1921.
dier

Analogy with 1921 is simply irrelevant because the “decembrists” were nothing like the “white movement” and CW in OTL Russia. OTOH, while in 1921 for the Soviets the war outside their borders was one of conquest, in 1831 from the Russian perspective it was a rebellion against the legitimate monarch and, what’s worse, one with the claim to the territories which the Russians considered their own.

 

[The Link]

Not exactly the case. You are talking about the document “Principles of the Constitution of Polish Kingdom” written by Adam Czartotizsky and, indeed, published in Vienna. But this was not a mandatory document guaranteed by anybody, just the intentions, not a Constitution, which made it clear in a preamble that it is not a right inherent to the Polish people but a favor granted to them by the All-Russian Tsar. It also stipulated that the new kingdom will be a hereditary appanage of the House of Romanov and that the foreign policy of the kingdom should remain in the Russian hands. Almost immediately after the new kingdom was established Prince Adam was relieved of all authority and replaced by Novosiltsev. Well, not to mention that the “independent” state heavily relied upon the regular subsidies from Russia.

An item about the hereditary rights made rebellion illegal and the same applies to any communications with the foreign countries so the rebels could not at the same time both defend the constitution and violate it. OTOH, if the rights are granted as a favor, then their only guarantor is a grantor. So while removal of some rights was a bad thing, these actions still could be considered legal: at least for a whole decade nobody rebelled over their violation.

Austria had absolutely no say on the issue.

It could not because there were no international guarantees of any type and this was an issue between NI and his Polish subjects.

Not sure how Prussia by joining its Russian ally in the case of Austrian aggression against RE will be undermining Austrian anything. Vienna did not make Austria an international overseeing authority of any kind. But this is all quite irrelevant by a simple reason of Austria in OTL 1831 simply would not risk such a war.

Austria wasn't an international overseeing authority by the Congress of Vienna itself, but there was the Holy Alliance whose principle was to guard the order established at the Congress of Vienna. And yes, one of the Holy Alliance's principle was the legitimism, based on which the tsar could theoretically do whatever he wanted to do with his subjects. However, the other principle was the balance of power, and during the conversations in Vienna there was an issue of Russia being too powerful, which is why it was decided that the Kingdom of Poland should not be directly incorporated into the Russian Empire. And this second case was the thing the Austrian Empire could claim to defend, by accusing the Russian Empire of making the preparations for the annexation. Besides, one of the main conceptions of the Congress of Vienna was the full restoration of the european borders from the times before the outbreak of the french revolution. If we take this part literally, then theoretically the PLC should have been restored in the borders it had in 1789. And as much as it was unrealistic to expect Russia to just give up on her conquests, Russia keeping her gains from partitions was contradictory to the initial conception of the Congress of Vienna. So the restoration of the PLC, at least in some of its 1772-1793 borders (everything could not be realistically regained), could be an additional casus belli.

Prussia would most likely fear the loss of its gains from the second partition of Poland, but Austria could just claim that as long as the autonomy of the Grand Duchy of Posen is respected, it will not be disturbed.

At a risk to sound impolite, which is not my intention, but this is a pure fantasy. How exactly are they “active” for the six years? This was a narrow based attempt of a military coup which became possible only due to the succession crisis: the rebellious officers managed to misled soldiers of few units and the whole thing was crushed by a single artillery battery.

To be honest, I simply assumed that the decembrists simply don't make their revolt in 1825 and postpone it.

 

[alexmilman]

Austria wasn't an international overseeing authority by the Congress of Vienna itself, but there was the Holy Alliance whose principle was to guard the order established at the Congress of Vienna. And yes, one of the Holy Alliance's principle was the legitimism, based on which the tsar could theoretically do whatever he wanted to do with his subjects. However, the other principle was the balance of power, and during the conversations in Vienna there was an issue of Russia being too powerful, which is why it was decided that the Kingdom of Poland should not be directly incorporated into the Russian Empire. And this second case was the thing the Austrian Empire could claim to defend, by accusing the Russian Empire of making the preparations for the annexation.

Besides, one of the main conceptions of the Congress of Vienna was the full restoration of the european borders from the times before the outbreak of the french revolution. If we take this part literally, then theoretically the PLC should have been restored in the borders it had in 1789.

We can’t take it literally because CofV ended up with the agreement on the borders, which were different from those of 1789.

And as much as it was unrealistic to expect Russia to just give up on her conquests, Russia keeping her gains from partitions was contradictory to the initial conception of the Congress of Vienna.

Taking into an account that RE was one of the most important members of the congress, the “concept” in the form you are implying, hardly existed as something everyone agreed upon.

So the restoration of the PLC, at least in some of its 1772-1793 borders (everything could not be realistically regained), could be an additional casus belli.

15 years after the congress it would not because it would contradict the signed documents.

Prussia would most likely fear the loss of its gains from the second partition of Poland, but Austria could just claim that as long as the autonomy of the Grand Duchy of Posen is respected, it will not be disturbed.

Aggressive war of Austria against Russia, not to mention Russia and Prussia was unrealistic in 1831 and probably at any other time.

Anyway, judging by your post, you don’t presently have a scenario by which the uprising can end up with a success (as a minimum, independent Kingdom in its existing borders) so I rest my case until you come with one.

To be honest, I simply assumed that the decembrists simply don't make their revolt in 1825 and postpone it.

No further questions.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Abstracting from chances of the uprising to succeede, if it happened it would be massive gain for Russia in the long term, as such humiliation would force RE to implement really radical reforms, which would more than balance loss of Congress Poland. At the same time increase of Russia's power would be overlooked (and thus not contained) by other powers, who'd underestimate Russian strenght, having in mind Russia's humiliation in Poland.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Abstracting from chances of the uprising to succeede, if it happened it would be massive gain for Russia in the long term, as such humiliation would force RE to implement really radical reforms, which would more than balance loss of Congress Poland. At the same time increase of Russia's power would be overlooked (and thus not contained) by other powers, who'd underestimate Russian strenght, having in mind Russia's humiliation in Poland.

It would also have implications for Austria. If Galicia is not joined to the restored Poland, then Poland becomes an enemy of Austria (perhaps even allied to the Tsar; IOTL pro-Tsar sentiment did exist after 1846), if it is, then it changes the balance between the various Slav nationalities in the non-Hungarian parts of the state. In particular, the Czechs might end up stronger, politically.