How would Sigismund III have ruled Russia?

The second-wave of the Polish Muscovite War was declared by Polish king Sigismund III in response to Tsar Vasili declaring a military alliance with Sweden. The war had two goals. The primary goal was to weaken Sweden's ally and to gain territorial concessions. A secondary goal was to also Catholicize Russia, a goal which was supported by the Pope.

What made Russia even more inviting was that Russia was in absolute chaos as a result of the Troubles, so the Russians were fighting over a new Tsar.

Russian boyars had offered Sigismund support by supporting his 15-year old son, Prince Wiadyslaw, for the position of Tsar, hoping that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth would end the despotic rule of their current tsars, by having Wiadyslaw as the Tsar of Russia.

The Polish Army won several early victories and had even reached Moscow. However, there was a fine print to the boyars' support. They had also pledged to support Wiadsyslaw for the throne if he converted to Orthodoxy which made Sigismund furious.

Eventually, Wiadyslaw was elected Tsar, but Sigismund stabbed his supporters in the back by then declaring himself Tsar. Knowing that Sigismund wanted to convert the Russian masses from Orthodox to Catholic, the boyars soon changed sides and the Polish presence in the country was soon met with hostility.

A 1611 uprising in Moscow would soon end any Russian support for Polish-Lithuanian Intervention in the Troubles.

But let's imagine that the Russian boyars never forced the stipulation of Wiadyslaw becoming Orthodox and he was allowed to become a Catholic Tsar, but a puppet to his father, Sigismund III.

So, how would Sigismund III, through his son have ruled Russia? Would he have violently supressed all forms of Russian culture and tried to force Polish culture onto the populace or would the conversion of the Russian populace be a slow and gradual process?
 
Last edited:
But let's imagine that the Russian boyars never forced the stipulation of Wiadyslaw becoming Orthodox and he was allowed to become a Catholic Tsar, but a puppet to his father, Sigismund III.
To be completely honest with you, this looks like almost a complete ASB


Orthodoxy by that point was the cornerstone of Russian national identity. The perceived Byzantine Orthodox heritage (the whole Third Rome concept) was the main justification for the Tsar title, being surrounded by religious enemies was the driving force of both Russian internal and external policy.
In fact being Orthodox was by that point so ingrained into Russian identity, that “Orthodox men” (православные) was a common way to address people.

Russians being okay with converting to Catholicism is of the same level of plausibility of late XVII century Netherlands converting to Catholicism or XIV century Ghazis converting to Orthodoxy en mass.



That being said, had Wladislaw converted to Orthodoxy per agreements he had a very real chance of being Russian Tsar (of course OTL Sigismund would probably never allow this, so we need some PoD making Sigismund less fanatical Catholic and more like Henry IV)
Here are some possible consequences of Wladislaw converting to Orthodoxy:

It would certainly cost him a Polish crown but would create a lot of interesting butterflies possibly even leading to a war against his brother John Casimir after their father’s death.
While nobility Grand Duchy of Lithuania was rapidly polonizing at the time, a large portion of it was still orthodox and East-Slavic-speaking ( as far as general population of easter part of PLC goes, it never lost a stable orthodox-East-Slavic majority). IOTL representatives of this nobility remained largely loyal to Polish Crown (after early XVI century) despite their religion and language, but they might be much more willing to side with Wladislaw ( who of course would be closer to them than any OTL Russian tsar).

A Russia that controls large parts of modern Ukraine and Belorussia by XVII century but not because it was able to conquer it, but rather by a combination of dynastic dynamics, local support and conquest( thus creating a much more comfortable atmosphere to local nobles including recognition of a least a part of their “golden rights” and possibly even a separate government of Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the beginning of the union), can be a very interesting place.
 
The second-wave of the Polish Muscovite War was declared by Polish king Sigismund III in response to Tsar Vasili declaring a military alliance with Sweden. The war had two goals. The primary goal was to weaken Sweden's ally and to gain territorial concessions. A secondary goal was to also Catholicize Russia, a goal which was supported by the Pope.

What made Russia even more inviting was that Russia was in absolute chaos as a result of the Troubles, so the Russians were fighting over a new Tsar.

Russian boyars had offered Sigismund support by supporting his 15-year old son, Prince Wiadyslaw, for the position of Tsar, hoping that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth would end the despotic rule of their current tsars, by having Wiadyslaw as the Tsar of Russia.

The Polish Army won several early victories and had even reached Moscow. However, there was a fine print to the boyars' support. They had also pledged to support Wiadsyslaw for the throne if he converted to Orthodoxy which made Sigismund furious.

Eventually, Wiadyslaw was elected Tsar, but Sigismund stabbed his supporters in the back by then declaring himself Tsar. Knowing that Sigismund wanted to convert the Russian masses from Orthodox to Catholic, the boyars soon changed sides and the Polish presence in the country was soon met with hostility.

A 1611 uprising in Moscow would soon end any Russian support for Polish-Lithuanian Intervention in the Troubles.

But let's imagine that the Russian boyars never forced the stipulation of Wiadyslaw becoming Orthodox and he was allowed to become a Catholic Tsar, but a puppet to his father, Sigismund III.

So, how would Sigismund III, through his son have ruled Russia? Would he have violently supressed all forms of Russian culture and tried to force Polish culture onto the populace or would the conversion of the Russian populace be a slow and gradual process?

I’m afraid that OTL part is a little bit off: Wladislaw was offered Tsar’s position by so-called “seiboyarschina” and an idea got a wide support fo a while but conversion to Orthodoxy was the main part, not a fine print. Then, of course, while he was seemingly considering himself a Tsar and even fought a war to enforce this claim, he never was anything but a candidate to the throne: to became a Tsar he had to be (at least) formally crowned and procedure had to be done by an Orthodox Church, which made all Catholic scenario dead upon arrival.

If Wladislaw is converted and is a Tsar, his father’s influence is limited: the important decisions are made by Tsar with an approval of Boyar Duma and, while a military alliance with the PLC is a possibility, allowing Catholicism in Russia is not. Wladislaw is in a foreign country without his own support base (after the False Dmitry #1 presence of the Polish troops and Poles in general in Moscow is not going to be appreciated and, being an elected Tsar and a foreigner, he can easily end up as the False Dmitry).

But let’s assume that he is an Orthodox Tsar of Russia. Why do you think that he is go8ng to be his father’s puppet? War with Sweden is OK as long as it is about getting back the Russian lands occupied by the ToT (Novgorod, etc.). But Sigismund wanted Smolensk (Wladislaw was offered the throne in 1609 and siege of Smolensk was going on in 1609 - 1611) and some other pieces of the Tsardom. How do you imagine a scenario under which Wladislaw cedes him the important parts of his Tsardom without a fight and survives as a Tsar? Surely, his interests as an independent ruler would be in conflict with those of his dear papa. Of course, Wladislaw is less than 15 years old but accepting Sigismund’s regency (instead of a collective regency by the Duma) was unrealistic scenario, especially due to Sigismund’s reputation of a rabid Catholic.

Then, of course, in your scenario, how would Sigismund do all that suppression? Yes, the Polish armies won some victories (especially when the Russian troops did not want to fight for Shuisky) but they also had been beaten and lost Moscow as soon as Sigismund started trying to implement his idea: threat of a Catholicism proved to be a great unifier and Tsardom still had plenty of resources. Now, about the Polish side of an equation. Sejm was reluctant to give funds even for Smolensk campaign and your scenario would require a permanent massive Polish presence all over the Russian territory for many years. The Pope could be enthusiastic about the idea but for the Polish and Lithuanian nobility this would look like a bottomless money pit.
 
Regardless of plausibility-I think, that Władysław would happily leave Catholic Church (he wasn't very religious anyway-he despised Jesuits and was getting sick during mass, his step-mother/aunt even tought, that he is possessed and called for exorcists from Rome for him) and would became more Russian than his subjects if in exchange he could rule as absolute monarch. He would have his dreams fullfilled (at least for a while, some day he would try to liberate Constantinopole and restore Byzantine Empire).
 
Regardless of plausibility-I think, that Władysław would happily leave Catholic Church (he wasn't very religious anyway-he despised Jesuits and was getting sick during mass, his step-mother/aunt even tought, that he is possessed and called for exorcists from Rome for him) and would became more Russian than his subjects if in exchange he could rule as absolute monarch. He would have his dreams fullfilled (at least for a while, some day he would try to liberate Constantinopole and restore Byzantine Empire).

Well, before going all the way to Constantinople, he may have to start with fighting his "dear papa" trying to get back Smolensk. :)
 
Well, before going all the way to Constantinople, he may have to start with fighting his "dear papa" trying to get back Smolensk. :)
He would not fight for mere Smolensk-once Sigismund dies from grief, seeing, that his son became apostate and is going to burn in hell, Władysław would claim the throne of his ancestors.
 
He would not fight for mere Smolensk-once Sigismund dies from grief, seeing, that his son became apostate and is going to burn in hell, Władysław would claim the throne of his ancestors.
Oh poor Sweden.


Joking aside, as I wrote in my previous post, Wladislaw would stand absolutely no chance of being elected to the throne of Poland after converting into Orthodoxy and ruling a lot more absolutist Russia for 20 some years.
GDL though and possibly south-eastern voivodships of Poland can potentially be more willing to accept Wladislaw
 
He would not fight for mere Smolensk-once Sigismund dies from grief, seeing, that his son became apostate and is going to burn in hell, Władysław would claim the throne of his ancestors.

I was already beaten to the joke about the throne of Sweden but, short of some serious baking within the PLC, Smolensk would be an optimistic extent of his possible conquests: Tsardom was too weak after the ToT and needed serious military reforms which in OTL took few decades before resulting in a tangible success. Of course, we can imagine that Wladislaw, being more competent militarily than Michael Romanov, would conduct them more efficiently but still this would take years.
 
I was already beaten to the joke about the throne of Sweden but, short of some serious baking within the PLC, Smolensk would be an optimistic extent of his possible conquests: Tsardom was too weak after the ToT and needed serious military reforms which in OTL took few decades before resulting in a tangible success. Of course, we can imagine that Wladislaw, being more competent militarily than Michael Romanov, would conduct them more efficiently but still this would take years.
That is of course true if we have more or less traditional Russian-PLC war.

Wladislaw however has a very legitimate claim on PLC throne. While this claim would not be enough for him to take Poland proper, I have argued in my first post why I think that there might be a large enough party in Lithuania and possibly the easternmost Polish Voivodships (Chernigov, Kiev, maybe even something to the west of that if Wladislaw is really lucky )

So if we have not Russian-PLC war but a civil war in PLC where Russia is a belligerent side because it supports a side in this civil war (who just happens to be Russian tsar).
Historically Russia had huge successes against Lithuania or PLC when it had decent support from within Lithuania (say war of 1500-1503 or the war of 1654-1667)
So if there is indeed a sizable number of Wladislaw partisans in eastern PLC, the result of the conflict might be rather favorable to Wladislaw.
 
That is of course true if we have more or less traditional Russian-PLC war.

Wladislaw however has a very legitimate claim on PLC throne. While this claim would not be enough for him to take Poland proper, I have argued in my first post why I think that there might be a large enough party in Lithuania and possibly the easternmost Polish Voivodships (Chernigov, Kiev, maybe even something to the west of that if Wladislaw is really lucky )

So if we have not Russian-PLC war but a civil war in PLC where Russia is a belligerent side because it supports a side in this civil war (who just happens to be Russian tsar).
Historically Russia had huge successes against Lithuania or PLC when it had decent support from within Lithuania (say war of 1500-1503 or the war of 1654-1667)
So if there is indeed a sizable number of Wladislaw partisans in eastern PLC, the result of the conflict might be rather favorable to Wladislaw.

Well, as both Wasa AND Orthodox he could get a decent backup in the PLC among the local Orthodoxes. However, this still leaves us with a Catholic majority for which an Orthodox is not acceptable. So we can probably consider some kind of an earlier partition after Sigismund’s death in 1632: the Orthodox areas (Ukraine, Belorussian and perhaps the whole Lithuania if the Protestants are siding with the Orthodox) are acknowledging Wladislaw while the rest (Poland proper , Royal Prussia and perhaps part of Lithuania) supports Jan Casimir (or whoever). But keep in mind that at that time Tsardom is still quite weak militarily.
 
That is of course true if we have more or less traditional Russian-PLC war.

Wladislaw however has a very legitimate claim on PLC throne. While this claim would not be enough for him to take Poland proper, I have argued in my first post why I think that there might be a large enough party in Lithuania and possibly the easternmost Polish Voivodships (Chernigov, Kiev, maybe even something to the west of that if Wladislaw is really lucky )

So if we have not Russian-PLC war but a civil war in PLC where Russia is a belligerent side because it supports a side in this civil war (who just happens to be Russian tsar).
Historically Russia had huge successes against Lithuania or PLC when it had decent support from within Lithuania (say war of 1500-1503 or the war of 1654-1667)
So if there is indeed a sizable number of Wladislaw partisans in eastern PLC, the result of the conflict might be rather favorable to Wladislaw.
He has no claim on PLC throne because it is elective and not hereditiary. He could try his luck in the election and perhaps even win it becoming the first monarch who is Catholic while in Warsaw and Orthodox while in Moscow, perhaps turning Uniate when in travel between his seats.
 
He has no claim on PLC throne because it is elective and not hereditiary. He could try his luck in the election and perhaps even win it becoming the first monarch who is Catholic while in Warsaw and Orthodox while in Moscow, perhaps turning Uniate when in travel between his seats.
He tried to claim Byzantine throne, which was non-existing, so it would not be a problem for him. His brother John Casimir also threatened, that he would start a war over Polish throne if not chosen during election in 1648.
So, ITTL if John Casimir succeede Sigismund III in PLC he could soon piss off enough people, that his subjects would came to conclusion, that his brother, despite being Orthodox, would be better (just like large part of nobility accepted Lutheran Charles X as king before he started massive looting).
 
Top