Feodor III survives

krieger

Banned
Vivente rege was high treason in Poland since Bona Sforza used it as a 'one hit wonder' to get Sigmund Augustus crowned/nominated in his dad's lifetime. Jan II and his French wife had tried it as recently as the 1650s and it had backfired. Badly. So, no, I don't think they're going to be going for a VR idea anytime soon. Killing Jakub off might also be a "good" idea. The guy seemed mostly apathetic, plus his issues with mom in the 1690s muddied the water. Had he been dead, it's likely that Marysienka would've backed second son, Alexander (rather than Maximilian II of Bavaria), but @Valena and @Jan Olbracht might have more insight into the matter.
Yes it was, that's why John III couldn't make it happen without foreign support. But if Feodor was willing to help him in VR, then John III would jump on this chance.
 
Sobieski would not do this with fresh memory of downfall of Jan Kazimierz, who instead of enforcing vivente rege was forced to abdicate and leave the country. Sobieski, who fought on King's side during civil war, would be well aware about risk.
 

krieger

Banned
Sobieski would not do this with fresh memory of downfall of Jan Kazimierz, who instead of enforcing vivente rege was forced to abdicate and leave the country. Sobieski, who fought on King's side during civil war, would be well aware about risk.
John Casimir had no foreign support, except of French money. Feodor could back John's ambition with Russian troops, who are very close to PLC and could be used immediately.
 
John Casimir had no foreign support, except of French money. Feodor could back John's ambition with Russian troops, who are very close to PLC and could be used immediately.

Which would be seen in an even dimmer light by the Sejm most likely. A king "forced" on the Poles by foreign bayonets will presumably lead to problems down the line. Earlier war of the Polish Succession, perhaps?
 
Me thinks that moving armies to the border to ensure the preferable candidate wins does not/shall not include high treason. The problem with Jakub was that his domestic support was lacking.

Successful Feodorine reforms have one bigass problem, frequently handwaved in TLs. Namely lack of money. The Tsar inherited broken treasury, and some of his early reforms were in fact budget-saving ones (including clothing reform - Polish dress simply required less of expensive cloth to make than tradition long Russian one).
If the Amur War is tiny bit more successful/Baikal silver mines are discovered earlier, it may win budget some money in early 1690ies, but other than this through 1680ies there is simply no money for big ass wars. The war with Sweden is severely impractical/will happen a bit later in OTL, as otherwise it's shooting themselves in the legs. Russia depended on Swedish imported iron, until the plants are built on the Urals.

To those who complained that the Eastern front in A&D was described as "sluggish", the money problem is the reason. Yes, there is no theft of stuff by Naryshkins, but the treasury was emptied even without it, and if census is the same taxation failure as OTL (some landowners "greeted" state-sent census inspectors with swords and guns brandishing), it can be very difficult to sustain a long war.
 
Peter mobilized the economy at the cost of ruining it, Fedor won't go to such extremes, either cutting down the ambitions or recurresting Alexis I stuff such as salt monopoly/fake coin minting, probably with the same (rebellions) results, should Russia end up in anything resembling prolonged war.
 

krieger

Banned
Which would be seen in an even dimmer light by the Sejm most likely. A king "forced" on the Poles by foreign bayonets will presumably lead to problems down the line. Earlier war of the Polish Succession, perhaps?
Yes, but isn't it perfect situation for Russians? Unpopular and commonly hated King would rely solely on Russian support and would lead to earlier puppetization of PLC by Russia.
 

krieger

Banned
Me thinks that moving armies to the border to ensure the preferable candidate wins does not/shall not include high treason. The problem with Jakub was that his domestic support was lacking.

Successful Feodorine reforms have one bigass problem, frequently handwaved in TLs. Namely lack of money. The Tsar inherited broken treasury, and some of his early reforms were in fact budget-saving ones (including clothing reform - Polish dress simply required less of expensive cloth to make than tradition long Russian one).
If the Amur War is tiny bit more successful/Baikal silver mines are discovered earlier, it may win budget some money in early 1690ies, but other than this through 1680ies there is simply no money for big ass wars. The war with Sweden is severely impractical/will happen a bit later in OTL, as otherwise it's shooting themselves in the legs. Russia depended on Swedish imported iron, until the plants are built on the Urals.

To those who complained that the Eastern front in A&D was described as "sluggish", the money problem is the reason. Yes, there is no theft of stuff by Naryshkins, but the treasury was emptied even without it, and if census is the same taxation failure as OTL (some landowners "greeted" state-sent census inspectors with swords and guns brandishing), it can be very difficult to sustain a long war.
So if the war in 1680s is i possibility, that maybe Feodor could intervene in 1697 election on James's behalf?
 
Yes, but isn't it perfect situation for Russians? Unpopular and commonly hated King would rely solely on Russian support and would lead to earlier puppetization of PLC by Russia.

Would Russia want to puppetize Poland here though? I mean, Poland in the 1690s isn't the same as Poland at the time of the Partitions.
 
So if the war in 1680s is i possibility, that maybe Feodor could intervene in 1697 election on James's behalf?

Russia will meddle with these elections one way or another, that's definite (though not for puppetizing, but for installing friendly ruler/sustaining their gains). I think more about realistic gains in war(s) of 1680ies. Russia will likely enter them with the same reason of permanent ownership of Kiev etc., but the situation by 1690 may be weird.
The approach to war as demonstrated in 1677-1681 campaign tended to be rather slow and focused on moving defence lines southwards, there is very little reason for this to change, though assault of Azov can still happen.
 
John Casimir had no foreign support, except of French money. Feodor could back John's ambition with Russian troops, who are very close to PLC and could be used immediately.
Without these French money John Casimir would not be even able to start his VR campaign, so it was not insignificant help.
Using Russian troops to secure election he would de facto accept Russian protectorate, because his domestic support would be close to zero after such action.
 
Would Russia want to puppetize Poland here though? I mean, Poland in the 1690s isn't the same as Poland at the time of the Partitions.
Also Russia isn't yet as strong as during late 18th century.
It would be easier to secure election of Jakub or Aleksander when Jan III dies.
 
Also, the Eternal Peace would be signed circa OTL period, upon reading more on period 1684 date of entering the war with Turkey is impossible, Tsar's piety nonwithstanding. There are internal turmoils (Volga revolts if anti-Muslim laws are not cancelled), and the Bakhchisarai peace treaty was considered profitable.
1687 is whole another business. But there was a hetman Samoylovich project at the same time - ally with Tatars to attack Poles on second front and take Kiev and other disputed lands (Samoilovich project involved reconquering all the Ukrainian lands) by force. Still, I do think that OTL Golitsin project will prevail.
 

krieger

Banned
Without these French money John Casimir would not be even able to start his VR campaign, so it was not insignificant help.
Using Russian troops to secure election he would de facto accept Russian protectorate, because his domestic support would be close to zero after such action.

Yes, but money alone isn't able to win the war. Russian troops are. John III wasn't a skilled politician, so I think if Feodor himself offered his help in securing the throne, John would not hesitate. He betrayed his country once, by joining Charles X so why shouldn't he act in the interests of Sobieski family?
 
You missed the point. I talked about possible turmoil in Volga region/current Tatarstan caused by OTL 1682 law banning Muslim gentry from owning Christian serfs (some did happened in OTL, and the law was canceled by Sophia).

Well, this is a completely different issue which had nothing to do with the "Westerners" or the Mongols.
 
They WERE close in OTL, despite the emnity. In fact, if not for Fedor's intervention, Peter would have been killed back in 1677. It's unrealistic that he would ignore his godson (!) as teenager/adult OTOH. Google the Bogdanov's books on Feodor, they touch on this topic.

To take care of a child godson is one thing but the rest is rather questionable: they were too different and godson or not, Peter would remain representative of the Naryshkin faction with their interests and hunger for power. I'm not saying that Feodor was going to execute Peter or to send him into an exile or monastery but I have very serious doubts that he would make him a close associate: their governing style, temper and pretty much everything else were too different. And, while Feodor could be initially OK with his brother's "poteshni", situation could not go on forever: having couple battalions of the well-drilled troops located close to Moscow and loyal to a half-brother (who had rather unpredictable temper) was not a very good idea.

Regarding Miloslavskis (not Golitsin), they are unlikely to stay in power for too long during this reign - Fedor had bitter quarrel with his Miloslavski uncle re. his first marriage and removed him from court pretty much.

Agree. My point was that from a perspective of choosing a way different from the Petrian OTL Vasily Golitsin was almost indispensable figure, at least for a while.
 
To take care of a child godson is one thing but the rest is rather questionable: they were too different and godson or not, Peter would remain representative of the Naryshkin faction with their interests and hunger for power. I'm not saying that Feodor was going to execute Peter or to send him into an exile or monastery but I have very serious doubts that he would make him a close associate: their governing style, temper and pretty much everything else were too different. And, while Feodor could be initially OK with his brother's "poteshni", situation could not go on forever: having couple battalions of the well-drilled troops located close to Moscow and loyal to a half-brother (who had rather unpredictable temper) was not a very good idea.
Maybe not THAT much different - after all, Feodor was a fan of mock armies (he and his retinue had wargames at Vorobievy gory etc) as well, and it was HE who introduced Peter to amusement armies. With a phrase "Царям смолоду надо к войне приучаться"/"Tsars should learn the art of war since youth", no less. If there was such a huge a risk, he'd go along with his uncle's proposal to exile the Tsarevich. It is also arguable that many of Peter's behavior quirks were caused by childhood traumas of 1682, absent TTL. So his temper may not be as unpredicable TTL, at least in "not biting the hand that feeds him" (though this is not to be said about his family).
What Peter's personality would be like with no 1682 Khovanchina and with close supervision, is a guess. Not as psychotic as OTL, that's a given.
 
Which would be seen in an even dimmer light by the Sejm most likely. A king "forced" on the Poles by foreign bayonets will presumably lead to problems down the line. Earlier war of the Polish Succession, perhaps?

Indeed. With the exception of the bayonets: AFAIK, they were not used in the Russian army at that time. :)
 
Top