No St. Petersburg

In 1712 Peter I of Russia moved the Russian capital to St. Petersburg.
What if there had been no St. Petersburg?
Suppose Moscow had remained the imperial capital. What happens then?
 
In 1712 Peter I of Russia moved the Russian capital to St. Petersburg.
What if there had been no St. Petersburg?
Suppose Moscow had remained the imperial capital. What happens then?

Depends if Peter the Great still exists in this TL. The guy hated Moscow and everything it represented (Orthodoxy, old Russia, ceremony); there's almost no chance a ruler of his ambition would keep the capital in Moscow.

Maybe he can't stomach the cost of building an entirely new capital out of swamp - in that case, he'd probably opt for the cheaper option of refurbishing Narva/Ivangorod. Pskov could be a much cheaper but distant option, distant because it's not a port city and Peter loved his fleet.

If for some reason, Moscow remains the capital then it's more than likely that Peter will revamp the place, probably destroying a lot of the old structures and erecting structures in the Western style in its place. As Moscow is further away from the West than St. Petersburg, it's likely that 'Westernization' of the Russian aristocracy will move at a slower place if the nobles stay put, with all the cultural/social ramifications of such an event.
 
???Why on earth would you say that?

St.Petersburg was a personal project of Peter the Great. Without him, the capital would stay in Moscow, surely.

If the aim of 'Westernization' and modernization of the ruling dynasty is the same, it's unlikely, as profxyz said, that they would keep the court in Moscow.

If there is not a brand new capital, then they would have revamped one just existing in the West: Riga, Narva, Pskov...you can choose.
 
Unlikely. Maybe a Russified Riga would have been the capital after 1721.

For one thing, Riga was much less defensible than Saint Petersburg. A "Riga as St. Petersburg" Russian capital (or regional capital) would fall during both the Napoleonic Wars and the Soviet-German Wars.
 
Last edited:
For one thing, Riga was much less defensible than Saint Petersburg. A "Riga as St. Petersburg" Russian capital (or regional capital) would fall during both theNapoleonic Wars and the Soviet-German Wars.

In 1721 the Tsars can't foresee that distant powers (France) or still-non-extant ones (Germany) could eventually attack a Russian capital from land.

The key then was that the capital should be defensible from sea attacks.
 
Depends if Peter the Great still exists in this TL. The guy hated Moscow and everything it represented (Orthodoxy, old Russia, ceremony); there's almost no chance a ruler of his ambition would keep the capital in Moscow.

Maybe he can't stomach the cost of building an entirely new capital out of swamp - in that case, he'd probably opt for the cheaper option of refurbishing Narva/Ivangorod. Pskov could be a much cheaper but distant option, distant because it's not a port city and Peter loved his fleet.

Both Narva and Pskov were occupied during Barbarossa, which again raises the problem of defensibility. In contrast, Petersburg held firm in both wars...

In 1721 the Tsars can't foresee that distant powers (France) or still-non-extant ones (Germany) could eventually attack a Russian capital from land.

The key then was that the capital should be defensible from sea attacks.

Peter I might not be able to foresee a French or a German invasion, but Polish and Swedish invasions were recent history. In fact, both Riga and Narva saw heavy fighting during the recent Great Northern War. As a soldier, Peter must have known their strategic vulnerability.
 
Last edited:
No St. Petersburg could be the result of a failure of Peter and Russia. Sweden beats them and there's no toe hold on the Baltic. Sweden, Poland and the Ottoman Empire remain stronger for longer and Russia is essentially Muscovy.
 
St. Petersburg as the capital was the same reason as why Versailles displaced Paris as capital of France - not so much as symbol of moving away from old as a symbol of moving away from REALLY bad childhood/teenage years memories.
The problem was not in whether city exists or not (it was on important trade route and was planned as Russian Liverpool before it became the capital) - it's the memories that date back to 1682 that forced Peter to abandon Moscow. Peter remembered himself as a defenceless child threatened by armed mob way too good.
 

jahenders

Banned
I agree that it seems unlikely would keep the capitol at Moscow (or at least keep it as the sole capitol), but I'll stick to the initial supposition. Early losses against Sweden would have prevented him from St Petersburg, but he might have moved the capitol elsewhere.

If St Petersburg isn't built as a major city and isn't used as the capitol it remains a port of only moderate size.

The capitol remaining in Moscow makes it harder for Petr to retain a Western focus and his efforts to modernize are more resisted and hindered.

With less focus (and strength) North, Russia will likely have more trouble with Sweden and let them, the Poles, and the Lithuanians fight it out. Petr may then turn more of his efforts South around the Crimea.

In general, without the move to St Petersburg (which assumes some success against Sweden), Russia is limited in the North and West. Russia also emerges somewhat more backward than IOTL.
 
Top