I want Charles in charge of me

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Bytor, Apr 17, 2017.

  1. Bytor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Location:
    Kitchener, ON
    The hardest part of that was Ducal Prussia and Warmia. Almost everything is still reflected in a border at some level, if it's going down to the township level, but not those two.
     
  2. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    They did lose their artillery but:
    (a) An army besieging Narva represented only a part of the forces that Peter had at that time.
    (b) By the time Charles arrived the besieging army was very short on all types of supply.
    (c) While the losses were high, most of the Russian troops got away, especially the best infantry unites (Preobrazensky, Semenovsky and Lefort regiments and Weide's division) and practically all cavalry.
    (d) The victorious Swedes had been very short on supplies before the battle and capturing the Russian camp did not improve situation too much (see (b)).
    (е) Captured Russian artillery was of no use to the Swedes because it was mostly low caliber (few big cannons were from the previous reign(s)) and run out of cannonballs after 2 weeks of the fruitless bombardment of the fortress.


    Actually, he left for Novgorod where the corps of Prince Repnin was staying (10,000 regular troops and 11,000 Cossacks).

    "The horses do not have a sense of a patriotism and should not be left starving" and his troops had been starving as well. Capture of the Russian camp did not improve food situation noticeably (except that considerable number of Swedes got drunk even before the fight was over). In other words, his practical ability to launch an immediate chase was quite limited.

    Sounds as a complete nonsense taking into an account that Novgorod was a fortified place and that there were more than 20,000 Russian troops there. Not to mention that after Narva Swedish army was not in a good shape for marching for more than 100 km in 4 days (Weide's division left the camp only on December 2nd) during the winter without supplies across the territory where the opponent's irregular cavalry would prevent a meaningful foraging (in OTL Sheremetev's cavalry started raiding of the Swedish-held Baltic provinces only 2 weeks after defeat at Narva).

    With all traditional brouhaha about Narva (which was, indeed Swedish victory), Swedes could not break Russian positions on the right and left flanks and had to negotiate so most of the besieging army got away and a part of it got away in a good order.

    Typical "decision" of all problems: did that cannon fell on his head or perhaps he did not recognize one end of a cannon from another? ;)

    IIRC. Charles was not looking at capturing any piece of the Russian territory.

    Elementary knowledge of the Russian history would tell you that they did not have "fiefs powers" at least since the time of Ivan the Terrible. :winkytongue:
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
    Ciniad and Valena like this.
  3. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    As far as Pskov and Novgorod are involved, in OTL Tsar's tittle included: ".... autocrat of ..... Novgorod, ... Lord of Pskov ...." (самодержец: ... Новгородский, ... государь Псковский ..."). No "Knyaz" title was used for either of them.

    As far as the English equivalents of the Russian tittles are involved (AFAIK, there was a single Russian Duke in OTL), the rule, as far as I can tell, looks as following: an ordinary "knyaz" is translated as "Prince" but titles of the members of the imperial house («великий князь», «великая княжна (великая княгиня)») are translated as "Grand Duke", "Grand Duchess".

    It should be kept in mind that "knyaz" was a very common (and the only) traditional Russian title and meant very little because it could be held both by the completely insignificant families (for example, the members of the low-level Tatar nobility coming to the Muscovite service) and by the top aristocrats (who usually belonged to the boyar families and later to the imperial aristocracy).

    OTOH, in the Western Europe the ducal title was in general higher than one of the count but in the case of Russia this was not the case. With the exception of the very few people who got a title "Светлейший князь" (only 33 people outside imperial family during the whole history of the Russian empire including only 2 hereditary grants plus the junior princes of the imperial house who were not entitled to the title of «великий князь») addressing for a count and prince was the same and their social level was defined by position at court/government. Taking into an account that the title of "knyaz" was rarely granted during the imperial time, the "count" was quite often a sign of a greater importance than a "knyaz" from an old family (also keep in mind that the title had been inherited by all children of a family so you can imagine how many people with the title of "knyaz" had been around).

    In other words, the Western analogies were not completely applicable to the Russian situation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  4. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    Interesting.
    Yes I know, I've mentioned that in similar posts.
    I know this too.
    Well yes, as the higher nobles looked west they would look to more western titles.
    But you do notice the similarities, especially the English uses of Prince in its variety of meanings.
     
  5. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    More fun. :)

    Which "Novgorodians"? Novgorod ceased to exist as an independent entity during the reign of Ivan III and as a semi-independent entity during the reign of Ivan IV. In the case this is still too complicated, by 1700 there were no "Novgorodian boyars" for a couple centuries and the same goes for "Novgorodian" army and the capitals of the principalities of Novgorod and Pskov (this jewel was somewhere).


    Nothing personal but Siberia does not start immediately to the East of Moscow's walls and there would be plenty of more comfortable and meaningful places in between to run to. You may get some idea by reading something about the Time of Trouble or just by looking at the map.

    I can bet that he did not by a very simple reason: there was no sewage system in Moscow of the early XVIII. :winkytongue:
     
  6. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Well, it was not necessarily that simple. Unlike their Western colleagues, Tsars of Moscow were not giving people the titles (exception were titled Tatar nobility for whom equivalent of their title should be found) so the title "knyaz" was, shall we say, "historic" and the same rule was working for a while in the XVIII. So, to provide a person with a title Peter I (and few of his successors) were asking an Emperor of the HRE for a favor and "graf" (count) was a routine grant ("Prince of the HRE" being too high). AFAIK, Boris Sheremetev was the 1st "Russian" count but I'm not sure even about him an, anyway, the system was going on for a while. So this was not as much what the Russian nobles were looking for but rather what was available.

    Of course, some similarities can be found but I would not rely on them too much.

    "Prince" as applicable strictly to the British realities is, as I understand, a member of a royal family. In France the meaning was wider and the Ducal title was sometimes higher (Duke of Engien -> Prince Conde but Prince de Marcillac -> Duc de La Rochefoucauld) but still princely title implied association with the top aristocratic family. I think that more or less the same was applicable to the HRE.

    OTOH, in pre-Petrian Russia "Prince"/"Knyaz" meant absolutely nothing unless person belonged to the Boyar family and the defining factor was Boyar part. For example, Sheremetev boyar family was among the top ranking aristocrats while they did not have any title (Boris Sheremetev was the 1st one with a title and it was "count") but there was unknown number of the low-rank nobility who had title of "knyaz" and would not even dare to place themselves anywhere close to Sharemetev in a social status.

    So how do you reconcile these things outside of a narrow aristocratic/royal application?
     
  7. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    Not quite.
    See my earlier post.
     
  8. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    It most definitely was not. The title included: "...Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod...". In Russian it was "... Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссійскій, Московскій, Кіевскій,Владимірскій, Новгородскій; ..."
     
  9. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Whatever, the main point is that this title was not applicable to either Novgorod or Pskov.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  10. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    I had thought that when Novgorod was absorbed by Moscow the Knyaz title was continued as I read it in a summary of Novgorod somewhere but it looks like the citation I was looking for on the Prince of Novgorod page on Wikipedia has been deleted.
     
  11. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Knyaz wasnot a ruler of Novgorod, just a military leader. The ruler was “posadnik” backed by the boyars and bishop. Anyway, I quoted Tsar’s title in 2 languages and “knyaz” is not there.
     
  12. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    From what I understand the Posadnik shared power with the Knyaz.
    And I've already mentioned the loss of sources that mentioned Knyaz of Novgorod as one of the Tsar's titles. In fact I can no longer find any English sources saying what those were.
     
  13. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    (a) Posadnik was an equivalent of a mayor/burgomeister. Power of a knyaz in Novgorod had been varying from case to case but in general he was just a military leader serving at pleasure of the Republic.

    (b) You don't need to search to deep for the English translation of Tsar's/Emperor's title: just Google and you'll get it. But whatever the English sources are saying, the original (Tsar's/Emperor's title in Russian) does not contain "knyaz" title linked to Novgorod and Pskov.
     
  14. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    So was the mayor at the pleasure too.

    I can only find that true for post Peter. Do you have links for the earlier ones?
    (edit: that's a request not an attack btw)
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
  15. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Posadnik was elected for a year. With prince the term was no regulated and, what’s more important, he did not have a say in the Novgorodian internal affairs (in theory).

    As for the rest, the only thing I found is that Peter was adding items to the title set after Andrusovo (meaning that Novgorod was already in it) and, anyway, we are talking Petrian time.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
  16. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    I finally found what was happening with the titles.

    Titles of Ivan III, Vasily III contained ".. Sovereign of All Russia and Great Prince of .... <including Novgorod and Pskov> ... (in the case of Vasily III "Great Sovereign ...")
    Title of Ivan IV and Fedor I "... Great Sovereign Tsar and Great Prince of all Russia, Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod..., sovereign of ... Pskov ..."
    In all cases above the title is written in such a way that it is not clear if "Great Prince" applies (a) to each of the items separately or if (b) it is a "Great Prince" of the whole entity. Taking into an account that Novgorod (AFAIK) never qualified as "Great Princedom", I'd assume that (b) is more appropriate.

    Titles of Boris I, False Dmitry and Vasily IV did not include explicit list.

    Starting from Michael I (the 1st Romanov) it was what I quoted earlier "... Great Sovereign Tsar and Great Prince Autocrat of all Russia, Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, ... sovereign of Pskov.... ". And modifications along these lines.

    https://www.rusempire.ru/arkhiv-statej/1890-tituly-russkikh-imperatorov.html
     
    The Professor likes this.
  17. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    That explains a few things. Especially as I'm more familiar with the pre Romanov period. Thank you.
     
  18. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Just out of curiosity, what you do you have in mind?
     
  19. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    Sorry you've lost me. In mind for...?
     
  20. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    You wrote "That explains a few things". Which "things" are you talking about?