In his book, Lazar Volin (1970) A century of Russian agriculture. From
Alexander II to Khrushchev, asks an interesting question

That "Napoleon did not touch serfdom in Russia. What the reaction of the
Russian peasantry would have been if he had lived up to the traditions of
the French Revolution, bringing liberty to the serfs"

On 10/30/2021 11:41 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> In his book, Lazar Volin (1970) A century of Russian agriculture. From
> Alexander II to Khrushchev, asks an interesting question
>
> That "Napoleon did not touch serfdom in Russia. What the reaction of the
> Russian peasantry would have been if he had lived up to the traditions of
> the French Revolution, bringing liberty to the serfs"
>

I think the biggest question isn't that WI, but why Volin thinks it's
even a possibility.

Does he think the skin colour would have done it?

Because the Revolution had actually freed-in-name the slaves throughout
the French Empire, and Napoleon's main reason for having to sell
Louisiana was that he wound up wasting so much money in his attempt to
re-enslave the Haitians.

Even if we *do* posit a Napoleon* who insists on free labour worldwide,
I have no idea if the freed-on-paper serfs can do anything to hinder the
Russian war effort enough to cause the Russian Empire to fall to the
French. AFAIK, they're still capable of arming themselves only with farm
implements, as both swords and muskets should be forbidden to them, so
they probably have to try to attack only when they're behind Russians
who are already shooting at the Grand Armee. Even then, once a few of
them take the soldiers by surprise, won't those people and a good
portion of any in line behind them die quickly, since they're now going
to be a prime target for musket balls (not the cannon though--turn those
on the peasantry and the men from the Continent will overrun your
positions).

I can't see that it would do enough good as even a propaganda victory to
cause Russia to fall.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Sun, 31 Oct 2021 16:41:14 +1100 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>In his book, Lazar Volin (1970) A century of Russian agriculture. From
>Alexander II to Khrushchev, asks an interesting question
>
>That "Napoleon did not touch serfdom in Russia. What the reaction of the
>Russian peasantry would have been if he had lived up to the traditions of
>the French Revolution, bringing liberty to the serfs"

How Napoleon could "touch serfdom in Russia"? Seeing as how
Napoleon's writ only covered that part of Russia he (through the
Grande Armee) could see, what could he do? Aside from "freeing" the
serfs where he was (much as the Union Army would free the slaves in
the American War, mostly by driving out the slave holders.), what
could he impose in the course of his campaign.
If memory serves, part of Napoleon's problem in Russia was a
scorched earth retreat by the Russians, including the peasants &
serfs.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 17:29:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> If memory serves, part of Napoleon's problem in Russia was a
> scorched earth retreat by the Russians, including the peasants &
> serfs.

Would serfs about to be freed scorch their new farms?

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 00:54:02 -0600, Chrysi Cat wrote:

> Because the Revolution had actually freed-in-name the slaves throughout
> the French Empire, and Napoleon's main reason for having to sell
> Louisiana was that he wound up wasting so much money in his attempt to
> re-enslave the Haitians.

But these are workers, the Russians have not him.

On 10/31/2021 10:45 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 17:29:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> If memory serves, part of Napoleon's problem in Russia was a
>> scorched earth retreat by the Russians, including the peasants &
>> serfs.
>
> Would serfs about to be freed scorch their new farms?
>
Would the Russian soldiers carrying the torches give them a choice?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/31/2021 10:46 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 00:54:02 -0600, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>
>> Because the Revolution had actually freed-in-name the slaves throughout
>> the French Empire, and Napoleon's main reason for having to sell
>> Louisiana was that he wound up wasting so much money in his attempt to
>> re-enslave the Haitians.
>
> But these are workers, the Russians have not him.
>
???

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 17:29:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

> How Napoleon could "touch serfdom in Russia"? Seeing as how
>Napoleon's writ only covered that part of Russia he (through the
>Grande Armee) could see, what could he do? Aside from "freeing" the
>serfs where he was (much as the Union Army would free the slaves in
>the American War, mostly by driving out the slave holders.), what
>could he impose in the course of his campaign.
> If memory serves, part of Napoleon's problem in Russia was a
>scorched earth retreat by the Russians, including the peasants &
>serfs.

I agree - I further say that Napoleon was IN Russia for at most 5
months (23/6/1812 -> don't know but before year end) so it's not as if
he had time even had he wished. Even the Reds during the Civil War
didn't have the country completely in hand by the end of the Civil War
which lasted 4-5 years.

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 05:42:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 10/31/2021 10:45 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 17:29:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>>> If memory serves, part of Napoleon's problem in Russia was a
>>> scorched earth retreat by the Russians, including the peasants &
>>> serfs.
>>
>> Would serfs about to be freed scorch their new farms?
>>
> Would the Russian soldiers carrying the torches give them a choice?

Well the destruction would be less.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 09:12:29 -0700, The Horny Goat wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 17:29:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> How Napoleon could "touch serfdom in Russia"? Seeing as how
>>Napoleon's writ only covered that part of Russia he (through the
>>Grande Armee) could see, what could he do? Aside from "freeing" the
>>serfs where he was (much as the Union Army would free the slaves in
>>the American War, mostly by driving out the slave holders.), what
>>could he impose in the course of his campaign.
>> If memory serves, part of Napoleon's problem in Russia was a
>>scorched earth retreat by the Russians, including the peasants &
>>serfs.
>
> I agree - I further say that Napoleon was IN Russia for at most 5
> months (23/6/1812 -> don't know but before year end) so it's not as if
> he had time even had he wished. Even the Reds during the Civil War
> didn't have the country completely in hand by the end of the Civil War
> which lasted 4-5 years.

The propaganda value!

In addition, another question is what would happen if a serf were to lose
their freedom and land after having been granted it by Napoleon.