No too Great Northern War

General premise:
This requires a somewhat ASBish thing, namely slight changes in the personality of two Peter I.

Peter must have to improve his ability to think logically and consistently before jumping to the action so, in the late 1695, during prolonged drinking party following capture of Azov, he occasionally hits his head which results in some subtle changes that none of his entourage even noticed (I'm rather reluctant to attribute the positive changes strictly to extensive drinking and whoring ;) ).

Still in OTL:
Access to the Sea of Azov proved to be of a limited usefulness as long as the Ottomans controlled the Strait of Kerch.

upload_2018-5-30_14-15-48.png


In 1696 creation of the Russian navy had been decreed. In 1699 Russia's Azov fleet set sail for Kerch, the peninsula in the eastern Crimea. The attack fleet numbered ten ships of the line armed with a total of 366 guns and carrying a combined crew of 2,126 seamen and officers, and accompanied by two galleys and sixteen smaller craft. The Pasha of Kerch was so overwhelmed at the sight of this unexpected and threatening display of naval strength that he surrendered without offering resistance.

The 46-gun Krepost [Fortress] carried the Tsar's first diplomatic mission across the Black Sea to Constantinople. According to the truce signed a year later, the Sea of Azov and its coastal territory were officially relinquished to Russia but Kerch was returned to the Ottomans with a provisions allowing free Russian shipping on the Black Sea.

This was better than nothing but, in practical terms, not so much: there was still Crimean Khanate with its regular raids into Southern Russian territories and not a single good port (the wharves were up the Don River in Voronez, which created numerous problems).

In 1698 Johann Patkul, at that time on a service of August II Strong, of Saxony and Poland, appeared in Moscow with the proposal of a great alliance against Sweden. His initial plan involved participation of Saxony, Denmark and Brandenburg but, when Brandenburg proved to be unwilling, he reluctantly switched to Russia (nobody in Europe was excessively impressed by the Azov campaigns and Russian military prestige was quite low). According to his plan, August, helped by the general anti-Swedish uprising of the local nobility, will conquer Livonia (Riga, the biggest port on the Baltic sea, was going to be a major price) while Peter will get Estonia and Ingria (the only place of a noticeable significance - port of Narva).

250px-Sw_BalticProv_en.png


POD:
Peter received Patkul but did not show any enthusiasm:

1st, Russian tasks on the South had been far from completed: there still was unresolved "Crimean Issue", need for the better ports, and of the further Ottoman concessions regarding the navigation rights (not as much because there was a pressing demand from the Russian merchants, there was none, but rather as a matter of "principle": in Peter's opinion to become "European" Russia must have navy so why drop things in a middle for some wild goose chase schema).

2nd, There was no pressing need for having an access to the Baltic Sea. Archangelsk on the White Sea had been functioning and the trade through the Swedish-held ports of Narva and Revel never stopped (by Stolbovoy Peace the custom dues had been set to an acceptably low level). For the growing trade with Persia and China Baltic ports were completely irrelevant.

3rd, Experience of the Azov campaigns clearly demonstrated that Russian army is not, yet, up to the serious tasks.

Patkul left Moscow with nothing but the best wishes while Peter confirmed the existing peace treaty with Charles.

Not too Great Northern War:

August was not too dismayed by Patkul's failure: after all, nobody was taking Russia seriously anyway and the combined forces of Saxony and Denmark should be quite adequate for the task. In the early 1700 7,000 of the Saxon troops marched to Riga without even bothering to take with them a siege artillery. They took 2 outlying fortifications but could not proceed any further and after hearing about approach of the Swedish forces assembled in Livonia, retreated. Few months later August arrived with his main force (and artillery) but well-fortified Riga refused to capitulate. By the fall of 1700 August lost interest and left the siege: his infantry was sent to the winter quarters in Curland, cavalry to Lithuania and August himself went to Warsaw (admittedly, much more entertaining place). There was a rumor that the merchants of Riga secretly offered August a bribe of 100, 000 thalers for leaving them alone.

300px-Bm04004abm.jpg


After forcing Denmark to sign a peace treaty, Charles arrived to Livonia in the late 1700 and proceeded dealing with August whom he considered a bad person both for his immoral life style and because of his change of religion (as a "man of principle" Charles though that the sins and injustice must be punished).

For the next few years Charles had a quality time chasing August all over Poland. In 1704 he created his own Polish king, Stanislaw Leschinski, while August and his supporters officially declared the Commonwealth being at war with Sweden, which added an extra factor to the ongoing entertaining: now the Poles could chose which of two kings they can support, which allowed them to start fighting each other, Swedes and Saxons in all possible combinations. By 1706 Charles forced August to abdicate (as King of Poland) and, finally figured out that invasion of Saxony may be a good idea (strategy and diplomacy were not exactly his forte). August immediately capitulated and Swedish army was left in the winter quarters in Saxony.

The Northern War is over (at least for a while) without growing into something even marginally "Great".

Real entertainment starts:

At this point European states became seriously interested in what was so far considered a somewhat "exotic" conflict. Presumably 30 - 40,000 thousands Swedes (nobody knew for sure how many) led by Charles XII (by whatever reasons, his status of the great and perhaps even the greatest general of the time was not questioned) and strategically placed in Saxony could make a lot of difference depending on which (if any) side he chose. The Duke of Marlborough traveled to his headquarters but these two instantly disliked each other and their meeting ended up being a competition "who is a bigger prick".
350px-Holy_Roman_Empire_c._1700.png


Charles was definitely tempted to help his Protestant brethren in Hungary, presently fighting against the Hapsburg rule and to help Protestants in Austrian Silesia.

France was working diligently on bringing Charles to its side (after all, Sweden was a traditional ally of France).

The Emperor was ready to make a compromise peace with Sweden but, unlike OTL where Charles has "item # <whatever>, now I have to punish Russia" on his list, Charles has nothing interesting to do and refuses. The Hapsburgs being traditional enemies of Sweden, his choice is obvious and the fact that his army is within 10 marches from Vienna, make this choice even more obvious.

By that time the Allies are successful on the "Northern Front" (Battle of Ramillies) and in Italy (Battel fo Turin) but are losing ground in Spain where by November 1706, the Bourbons controlled Castile, Murcia and parts of Valencia.

From this point scenario is open to the further speculations. :cool:

Peter and the Ottomans

Peter keeps building up his army and navy getting ready to the next war against the Ottomans. His immediate target - the Crimean Khanate.
 
For sure, Charles XII would still lose, he was addicted to war and never had enough.
And Leszczyński like IOTL would still be seen as usurper, once Sweden stops backing him, he's in troubles. Unless Augustus is completly resigned, he should return to the throne sooner or later.
 
General premise:
This requires a somewhat ASBish thing, namely slight changes in the personality of two Peter I.

Peter must have to improve his ability to think logically and consistently before jumping to the action so, in the late 1695, during prolonged drinking party following capture of Azov, he occasionally hits his head which results in some subtle changes that none of his entourage even noticed (I'm rather reluctant to attribute the positive changes strictly to extensive drinking and whoring ;) ).

250px-Sw_BalticProv_en.png


POD:
Peter received Patkul but did not show any enthusiasm:

1st, Russian tasks on the South had been far from completed: there still was unresolved "Crimean Issue", need for the better ports, and of the further Ottoman concessions regarding the navigation rights (not as much because there was a pressing demand from the Russian merchants, there was none, but rather as a matter of "principle": in Peter's opinion to become "European" Russia must have navy so why drop things in a middle for some wild goose chase schema).

2nd, There was no pressing need for having an access to the Baltic Sea. Archangelsk on the White Sea had been functioning and the trade through the Swedish-held ports of Narva and Revel never stopped (by Stolbovoy Peace the custom dues had been set to an acceptably low level). For the growing trade with Persia and China Baltic ports were completely irrelevant.

3rd, Experience of the Azov campaigns clearly demonstrated that Russian army is not, yet, up to the serious tasks.

Patkul left Moscow with nothing but the best wishes while Peter confirmed the existing peace treaty with Charles.

Not too Great Northern War:

August was not too dismayed by Patkul's failure: after all, nobody was taking Russia seriously anyway and the combined forces of Saxony and Denmark should be quite adequate for the task. In the early 1700 7,000 of the Saxon troops marched to Riga without even bothering to take with them a siege artillery. They took 2 outlying fortifications but could not proceed any further and after hearing about approach of the Swedish forces assembled in Livonia, retreated. Few months later August arrived with his main force (and artillery) but well-fortified Riga refused to capitulate. By the fall of 1700 August lost interest and left the siege: his infantry was sent to the winter quarters in Curland, cavalry to Lithuania and August himself went to Warsaw (admittedly, much more entertaining place). There was a rumor that the merchants of Riga secretly offered August a bribe of 100, 000 thalers for leaving them alone.

300px-Bm04004abm.jpg


After forcing Denmark to sign a peace treaty, Charles arrived to Livonia in the late 1700 and proceeded dealing with August whom he considered a bad person both for his immoral life style and because of his change of religion (as a "man of principle" Charles though that the sins and injustice must be punished).

For the next few years Charles had a quality time chasing August all over Poland. In 1704 he created his own Polish king, Stanislaw Leschinski, while August and his supporters officially declared the Commonwealth being at war with Sweden, which added an extra factor to the ongoing entertaining: now the Poles could chose which of two kings they can support, which allowed them to start fighting each other, Swedes and Saxons in all possible combinations. By 1706 Charles forced August to abdicate (as King of Poland) and, finally figured out that invasion of Saxony may be a good idea (strategy and diplomacy were not exactly his forte). August immediately capitulated and Swedish army was left in the winter quarters in Saxony.

The Northern War is over (at least for a while) without growing into something even marginally "Great".

Real entertainment starts:

At this point European states became seriously interested in what was so far considered a somewhat "exotic" conflict. Presumably 30 - 40,000 thousands Swedes (nobody knew for sure how many) led by Charles XII (by whatever reasons, his status of the great and perhaps even the greatest general of the time was not questioned) and strategically placed in Saxony could make a lot of difference depending on which (if any) side he chose. The Duke of Marlborough traveled to his headquarters but these two instantly disliked each other and their meeting ended up being a competition "who is a bigger prick".
350px-Holy_Roman_Empire_c._1700.png


Charles was definitely tempted to help his Protestant brethren in Hungary, presently fighting against the Hapsburg rule and to help Protestants in Austrian Silesia.

France was working diligently on bringing Charles to its side (after all, Sweden was a traditional ally of France).

The Emperor was ready to make a compromise peace with Sweden but, unlike OTL where Charles has "item # <whatever>, now I have to punish Russia" on his list, Charles has nothing interesting to do and refuses. The Hapsburgs being traditional enemies of Sweden, his choice is obvious and the fact that his army is within 10 marches from Vienna, make this choice even more obvious.

By that time the Allies are successful on the "Northern Front" (Battle of Ramillies) and in Italy (Battel fo Turin) but are losing ground in Spain where by November 1706, the Bourbons controlled Castile, Murcia and parts of Valencia.

From this point scenario is open to the further speculations. :cool:

Peter and the Ottomans

Peter keeps building up his army and navy getting ready to the next war against the Ottomans. His immediate target - the Crimean Khanate.

I see two problems with first, the Crimea was not as big of a target, even with its threat. Moscow was sacked and burnt in 1571 by the Crimean Tatars, and defeated in a retaliatory battle in 1572, while the ongoing Livonian War lasted about eleven more years. In terms of valuable trade, Russia still had control over the Volga, or at least most of it, and the Black Sea was not the most tempting of targets. For the Black Sea to be worthwhile that required good relations with the Ottomans, who had basically vassalized the Crimean Khanate by then, so fighting the Crimean's mean fighting the Ottoman's too as Crimea becomes the dagger at the Ottoman throat.

For the second reason, the Baltic was always seen as valuable. Arkhangelsk could only operate for certain periods of time, before ice would build up, apparently even when Russia had enough of Ingria for a port, it still was not seen as good enough. Hence why there was a Livonian War in the first place. So I don't see going South as being the more "rational" option, when Russia had long prioritized a better port on the baltic regardless of the threat of the Tatars.
 
Indeed, I agree with above in that a Baltic port was a long term strategic goal of Russia. You'd probably be better off in having the Azov campaigns and subsequent events escalate between Russia and the Ottomans. Or maybe an actual diplomatic agreement between Sweden and Russia. Charles XII was very young. If there were more rumblings on a Danish-Polish-Saxon alliance being formed, there might be enough people in Sweden trying to preempt a greater alliance. Ingria only numbered like 15,000 at this time, and even its Swedish forts were decaying. Peter might be able to offer an exchange. The Kola Peninsula or maybe even Karelia for Ingria. While a bit far fetched, Russia was one of Sweden's historic enemies, there are more absurd happenings IRL. Sweden could even be planning to face Russia in a generation or two. However placating Russia with a Baltic port so Sweden can turn west and south makes sense, and when they are taken care of they could turn back east.

Not like Russia could build a massive city on the Baltic in a few years, right? :rolleyes:

Why is Charles XII going so far into Germany? You'd think he'd be focusing on expanding Swedish Pomerania.
 
1st, Russian tasks on the South had been far from completed: there still was unresolved "Crimean Issue", need for the better ports, and of the further Ottoman concessions regarding the navigation rights (not as much because there was a pressing demand from the Russian merchants, there was none, but rather as a matter of "principle": in Peter's opinion to become "European" Russia must have navy so why drop things in a middle for some wild goose chase schema).

2nd, There was no pressing need for having an access to the Baltic Sea. Archangelsk on the White Sea had been functioning and the trade through the Swedish-held ports of Narva and Revel never stopped (by Stolbovoy Peace the custom dues had been set to an acceptably low level). For the growing trade with Persia and China Baltic ports were completely irrelevant.

3rd, Experience of the Azov campaigns clearly demonstrated that Russian army is not, yet, up to the serious tasks.
I like your idea as any other Feodor III/Alexis II/"rational" Peter wanker likes, but... there are some problems with this logic.

The problem with why "wild goose chase" was sold OTL, was because Russia was not up to taking war with Ottomans ALONE (and was unable to find any allies during the Great Embassy). So he signed up for what was viewed as an easy job in good company where the good company would do much of work. It was also expected to be short, after all Peter's father did occupy towns in Ingria in 1650ies. Peter might have considered his army to be at least peer to his father's army back then. He also did not expect Augustus to turn out as incompetent as he did.

For "Thanks but no thanks" attitude you need more of a PoD than just Peter being "rational", that is chances that the Turks would be beaten in company. Stronger Persia ready to backstab the Turks would result in Peter double thinking about Northern front, for example.
 
I like your idea as any other Feodor III/Alexis II/"rational" Peter wanker likes, but... there are some problems with this logic.

The problem with why "wild goose chase" was sold OTL, was because Russia was not up to taking war with Ottomans ALONE (and was unable to find any allies during the Great Embassy). So he signed up for what was viewed as an easy job in good company where the good company would do much of work.

This was, indeed, how and why it did happen in OTL. However, you probably agree that the logic "we can't fight this specific fight alone so let's join some other war just because there is a good company" has its own problems as well. ;)

It can be argued that the wars on the "Southern front" had definite geopolitical sense for Russia, which was confirmed by the pre- and post-Petrian wars stretching all the way to the XIX century. OTOH, situation on the Baltic cost hardly was critical, keeping in mind existence of Archangelsk on the White Sea and the Russian-Swedish trade agreements allowing transit trade with the reasonable custom dues (Russia had at least some leverage: grain sales to Sweden).

Then, look at the situation from a purely economic perspective. In his push of "westernization" Peter killed the only seafaring activities that Russia had, those on the Northern Sea. An order to build and use only the ships based upon the Dutch model was ...er.... "a stroke of genius": unlike the local ships, the Dutch ones were not good for sailing in the icy waters. A traditional argument about Russia "suffocating" without a port (why does it HAD to be on the Baltic coast?) is not very convincing: prior to being conquered by Moscow, Novgorodian Republic had access to the Baltic coast and conducted a thriving trade with the Hanseatic towns WITHOUT having any merchant fleet or even bothering to build a port on the coast it owned: its part of the trade activities was restricted to carrying the merchandise by the river and lake to and from Novgorod. Not that the attitudes changed noticeably even by the time of Catherine II.

As a long-term consideration, strengthening ties with the Eastern markets would help to develop Russian own manufacturing while Peter's orientation doomed the country to be supplier of the raw materials.

Then goes a wisdom of making a "window to Europe" and walking through it instead of using the doors as the normal people would (AFAIK, the "window" thingy was introduced by Italian philosopher and poet, Francesco Algarotti, who visited Russia during the reign of Empress Annne). St-Petersburg was, in the XVIII century, one of the worst possible sites for a sea port and a naval base because, thanks to a major river, water is not salty enough and Peter's navy had been happily rotting. By the time Peter seriously started its development, he already had an existing port of Riga (and Revel and Narva and few more) - the biggest port on the Baltic coast (and, IIRC, an ice free one), which also happened to be a traditional "terminal" for the Lithuanian grain exports. To give economic boost to St-Petersburg, the existing trade relations had been artificially broken.

It was also expected to be short, after all Peter's father did occupy towns in Ingria in 1650ies. Peter might have considered his army to be at least peer to his father's army back then. He also did not expect Augustus to turn out as incompetent as he did.

His father's army met only a very weak Swedish opposition due to the ongoing Swedish-Polish War. Of course, Peter jumped into the bandwagon expecting that the war will be done by somebody else. But this, as you hopefully agree, is a risky course to take. Whatever his father's experiences was, his own just demonstrated that even dealing with a single isolated Ottoman fortress was a major problem for his army. Based on which consideration he expected the military miracles from the Saxons, I can't imagine but the Swedes still had a solid military reputation.

For "Thanks but no thanks" attitude you need more of a PoD than just Peter being "rational", that is chances that the Turks would be beaten in company. Stronger Persia ready to backstab the Turks would result in Peter double thinking about Northern front, for example.

You are right but (a) I did not want to bother everyone to death with the obscure details like a relative importance of the Baltic coast vs. Crimean Khanate, importance for the Ottomans of the salt imports from Sywash area or potential importance of what later became Novorossia. Persia at that time was, IIRC, in the state of turmoil but, as the not-too far distant OTL future demonstrated, Russia was quite capable of fighting the Ottomans successfully. Preferably, without the allies because the only meaningful ones, the Austrians, proved to be a serious liability. ;)

I'd say that for someone with a more consistent mindset than OTL Peter it would be prudent to keep developing upon the existing "investments": (a) continued construction of the Azov fleet and, with the access to the Black Sea guaranteed by Treaty of Constantinople, its training as a fighting naval force, (b) training of the troops based upon the existing experience, (c) developing infrastructure of the region to allow logistical support for the future war, etc.

On (b), as was demonstrated by Peter's adventure on Prout, "standard" European tactics was not very good for the specifics of fighting the Ottomans in the Black Sea region. Even the later experience of the reign of Empress Anne was not quite satisfactory: victories in the field battles did not compensate for the huge losses from exhaustion caused by the slow cautious marches and, while the military part of the conquest of Crimea proved to be surprising easy, the same cumbersome methods of a warfare forced both Munnich and Lacy abandon the peninsula suffering losses from the "natural causes" approximately 10 times higher than those by KIA. The fundamental problems had been known even by the time of Peter so perhaps his idealized version could dedicate some effort to finding the solutions: in OTL they did not require any magic.

BTW, thanks for the link. Not sure how to get into that forum.
 
For sure, Charles XII would still lose, he was addicted to war and never had enough.
And Leszczyński like IOTL would still be seen as usurper, once Sweden stops backing him, he's in troubles. Unless Augustus is completly resigned, he should return to the throne sooner or later.

Yes, this is a general idea and I was planning to elaborate on the possible options if there is non-zero interest to the subject.;)
 
The forum per se is dead, it's the old version of fai.org.ru - I only gave the link to cool discussion.
http://fai.org.ru/forum/topic/37603-tsar-fedor-reformator/?page=1
A link to more up-to-date version of the thing on the thriving current board version (newbie topicstarter warning is given, some content is going to be facepalm heavy - and many arguments are rehashed from the thread I gave the link before; but if you're interested in somewhat living debate, that's a go).

It gives general idea of "saner Petrine reign" aka Feodor III reign TL. Though it got bogged down in meaningless discussion, it outlines the general idea of ruler with the mindset you've described for Peter in your TL outline - AKA willing to spend a decade building outposts, moving the "zasekas" southwards, etc etc.
Also, the arguments outlied by you are what I've used to convince @Emperor Constantine that in TL with Alexis II/Feodor III living longer the "Crimean problem" would be solved more diligently, and the Baltic trade would not be the immediate priority, that solved by proxy trades (I'll spoil a bit - TTL we have Jacob Kettler getting MUCH more competent successor compared to OTL, and close Russian-Couronian cooperation covering the trade needs).

Also, the Petrine idiocy in banning kochs needs not to be described, as is the one in ruining Russian internal market. Not understanding economy as the result of poorly spent youth is not understanding economy. Peter was shiny things chaser supreme.
 
I see two problems with first, the Crimea was not as big of a target, even with its threat. Moscow was sacked and burnt in 1571 by the Crimean Tatars, and defeated in a retaliatory battle in 1572, while the ongoing Livonian War lasted about eleven more years.

You are talking about the ancient history. :)

Much closer to this ATL the Tatars had been quite instrumental in Konotop disaster and they had been a permanent destabilizing factor on the southern border, especially after Tsardom acquired the left bank Ukraine. Keep in mind that slave trade was a big element of Khanate's economy and the slaves had been captured during the raids to the Tsardom's territories.


In terms of valuable trade, Russia still had control over the Volga, or at least most of it,

This route was enabling trade only with Persia and during that period Persia was rather unstable politically. Anyway, while being important (when it worked), this trade was not enough to cover all existing needs.

and the Black Sea was not the most tempting of targets. For the Black Sea to be worthwhile that required good relations with the Ottomans, who had basically vassalized the Crimean Khanate by then, so fighting the Crimean's mean fighting the Ottoman's too as Crimea becomes the dagger at the Ottoman throat.

All this is correct but, as OTL demonstrated, these considerations could and had been dealt with: conquest of the Crimea and serious military successes against the Ottomans in the late XVIII allowed both development of the territories on the North shore of the Black Sea but also a transit trade through the Straits.

For the second reason, the Baltic was always seen as valuable.

I'm afraid that you are confusing two different things (which had been perpetrated by the Russian/Soviet official history as being a single thing): trade through the Baltic ports and direct possession of these ports. The 1st never stopped even when Russia did not own a single inch of the coastal area. Virtue of the 2nd as an "immediate must to have" was blown out of proportion. Let's start from the beginning: is a port vital for you if you don't have any merchant fleet, don't have the merchants interested in conducting the overseas trade, and don't have credit institutions allowing such a trade?

By the Treaty of Kardiss Russian merchants had been permitted to keep their trade establishments in Stockholm, Riga, Narva and Revel but it does not look like there was too much of a serious interest.

Arkhangelsk could only operate for certain periods of time, before ice would build up, apparently even when Russia had enough of Ingria for a port, it still was not seen as good enough. Hence why there was a Livonian War in the first place.

"Not good enough" for what? What became Russian traditional main export items by the late XVIII (grain, iron, timber) were not on the list of the "5 big items" controlled by the state in the late XVII (flax, hemp, high quality leather, ordinary leather, salted pork fat). The main grain export was to Sweden via Narva.

As for the Livonian War and the following pre-Petrian attempts in that area, how exactly the whole thing was supposed to work, even in the case of a complete military success, at the time of Ivan the Terrible if even a travel abroad was considered as a deadly danger for an Orthodox soul and in a process of his conquest Ivan was systematically exterminating the local population? The only potentially workable option could be a short-lived vassal "kingdom of Livonia" that he created for his son in law.

Of course, Tsar Alexis was a sane person but it does not look like the Russian exports noticeably suffered after the Treaty of Kardiss. OTOH, if Peter was really interested in trade and economy, why was he consistently working on destroying the existing trade routes on Baltics in favor of his pet project?

So I don't see going South as being the more "rational" option, when Russia had long prioritized a better port on the baltic regardless of the threat of the Tatars.

Well, it just happened that, starting with Empress Anne, the Russian rulers not only managed to see the rationale in this specific option but also had been making a consistent effort to implement it. :)
 
This route was enabling trade only with Persia and during that period Persia was rather unstable politically. Anyway, while being important (when it worked), this trade was not enough to cover all existing needs.
Not as much "unstable" as "having laughably weak central government in form of alcoholic Shah and Vizier deciding stuff".

Persian trade was also dependent on tranquility on Volga (BTW I presume Bulavin rebellion & concurrent Kalmyk unrest won't be happening TTL when there is no frantic attempt to redirect the mobilization effort/increase taxes to cover the ass after Narva disaster).

And speaking of Persian trade, if Volga-Don canal is built (yet another thing abandoned in chase of shiny Baltic things), and Crimean project is achieved (complete with right to transit via Bosphorus), Russia can become a trading hub sitting on Caspian-to-Black Sea route. Either with Navy on their own or selling stuff to Venetian intermediaries recurresting old Tana/Venice trade route.

Not only the ubiquitous grain, but also reexported Persian goods. Russian-Persian trade at the time of Alexis I had the advantage of being in barter rather than in bullion, so there is some serious cash to fill the treasury.
 
On another side, that means that Peter never meets Marta Skavronskaya, and the PoD is before him discovering Anne Mons likes whoring around/does not like him. I'm dreading and facepalming on idea of Mons the Tsarina, but this is waay too close TTL.
 
The forum per se is dead, it's the old version of fai.org.ru - I only gave the link to cool discussion.
http://fai.org.ru/forum/topic/37603-tsar-fedor-reformator/?page=1
A link to more up-to-date version of the thing on the thriving current board version (newbie topicstarter warning is given, some content is going to be facepalm heavy - and many arguments are rehashed from the thread I gave the link before; but if you're interested in somewhat living debate, that's a go).

It gives general idea of "saner Petrine reign" aka Feodor III reign TL. Though it got bogged down in meaningless discussion, it outlines the general idea of ruler with the mindset you've described for Peter in your TL outline - AKA willing to spend a decade building outposts, moving the "zasekas" southwards, etc etc.
Also, the arguments outlied by you are what I've used to convince @Emperor Constantine that in TL with Alexis II/Feodor III living longer the "Crimean problem" would be solved more diligently,

Can I make a remark along the lines of the "great minds ....." without appearing too immodest? ;)

It is often forgotten that one of the main things done by the ruling Naryshkin clique while Peter, already a fully grown married "balbes" and a father, was entertaining himself by sailing the boat on a lake and drilling his two pet regiments, was to roll back most of the achievements of the previous reign and the following recency. On of the big items was most of the modern army created by Peter's predecessors. It had its drawbacks (one of which from Peter's perspective would be the uniforms better suited to the Russian climate than what he came with and what Potemkin summarized as "garbage") but it already had some positive experience (even managed to defeat the Swedes). Most of it simply disappeared from the books leaving only the Streltsy.

BTW, if you read "Peter I" by "Aleshka" Tolstoy, you probably remember the scene when supporters of the Naryshkins (Matveev, Dolgoruki, etc.) are thrown from the steps of a Kremlin palace on the pikes of the rioting streltsy. Here goes the question: how could this happen if streltsy did not have the pikes, only the battleaxes and muskets? OTOH, the modern troops did have the pikemen to support the musketeers and the late Ivan Miloslavsky, head of the clan opposing Naryshkins, was in charge of the pikemen of Tsar's Guards.


and the Baltic trade would not be the immediate priority, that solved by proxy trades (I'll spoil a bit - TTL we have Jacob Kettler getting MUCH more competent successor compared to OTL, and close Russian-Couronian cooperation covering the trade needs).

Quite interesting.

Also, the Petrine idiocy in banning kochs needs not to be described, as is the one in ruining Russian internal market. Not understanding economy as the result of poorly spent youth is not understanding economy. Peter was shiny things chaser supreme.

I found that "shiny things chaser supreme" of yours absolutely brilliant summary of his reign and attitudes. Thanks. :rolleyes:
 
Quite interesting.
The TL itself is planned as a reboot of our Turtledove-winning Apollinis & Dianae TL, now with less ASB late 1680ies (by the end the TL jumped a small Black Sea shark and turned out very soap-opera'esque so we dropped it). It is currently the discussion in progress.
BTW, if you read "Peter I" by "Aleshka" Tolstoy, you probably remember the scene when supporters of the Naryshkins (Matveev, Dolgoruki, etc.) are thrown from the steps of a Kremlin palace on the pikes of the rioting streltsy. Here goes the question: how could this happen if streltsy did not have the pikes, only the battleaxes and muskets? OTOH, the modern troops did have the pikemen to support the musketeers and the late Ivan Miloslavsky, head of the clan opposing Naryshkins, was in charge of the pikemen of Tsar's Guards.
Aleshka is too diminishing for guy who wrote the masterpieces of Aelita & Buratino. When you get sci fi writer writing the work glorifying both his lineage (Tolstoy features in this thing prominently) and the idea that bureacratic absolutism is the best thing since sliced bread (it was in the line with concurrent Stalin propaganda), you got to get some liberties. But at least he wrote good sci fi.
1682 massacre you're talking about is described way too colorful, but it still was bloody (though weaponry is inaccurate) was one of the events that damaged Peter's psyche, and then his mom/uncles encouraged him being a manchild (Zotov as a teacher at the court that has Sylivester Medvedev and Spataru? Joachim deserves the credit as "How to grow "balbes" manchild" arranger supreme, along with his other sins - TBH Peter abolishing Partiarchy was too radical, but when THIS is what you need to finally divide the behemoth of Siberian Metropolitan Bishopric in two... says about quality of Joachim and Adrian as Patriarchs).

Peter was a figurehead of conservative faction, that encouraged manchild pasttimes for him so that he does not prevent them from doing conservative stuff. Like dismissing New Model /Novy Stroy regiments of Alexis I/Feodor III so that by the time of Azov there is disaster.
To be honest "progressive" regency of Sophia was also not without flaws. Anne of Austria at least did not let Mazarin command armies himself (Golitzine situation - he was a good Chancellor but meh general, but the Regent loved him, so...).
 
Last edited:
BTW, if you read fai.org.ru, I go as Charles there. Valena is the nickname created soley for this forum, as common versions of my main nickname were already taken by the time I've registered an account (and I didn't want to go with crossgender nickname here in order to avoid confusion).
 
Indeed, I agree with above in that a Baltic port was a long term strategic goal of Russia. You'd probably be better off in having the Azov campaigns and subsequent events escalate between Russia and the Ottomans. Or maybe an actual diplomatic agreement between Sweden and Russia.

There was an existing diplomatic and trade agreement between Sweden and Russia, Kardiss Treaty (1661). Upon accession of Charles XII Peter refused to confirm it.

As for the Russian-Ottoman relations, you probably agree that it should not make too much sense to spend enormous effort on building a navy, gaining access to the sea and negotiating with the Ottomans freedom of navigation and than just to abandon all of the above for something completely different.

Charles XII was very young. If there were more rumblings on a Danish-Polish-Saxon alliance being formed, there might be enough people in Sweden trying to preempt a greater alliance. Ingria only numbered like 15,000 at this time, and even its Swedish forts were decaying. Peter might be able to offer an exchange. The Kola Peninsula or maybe even Karelia for Ingria.

Actually, the alliance was Danish-Saxon (PLC was not, yet, involved) but, yes, why not let it to do the job and, if they are successful, play a nice little vulture by grabbing some insignificant piece of the Swedish territory (Noteburg became so insignificant that administrative center of the region was transferred to Narva). Of course, it turned to be that Charles is an absolutely uncompromising figure but this was not known before the war started and at least a little bit of a negotiation with the Swedish delegation in Moscow could be attempted (a very insignificant piece of a swampy land for the money Sweden needed or swapping the territory).

While a bit far fetched, Russia was one of Sweden's historic enemies, there are more absurd happenings IRL.

But they were friends for the last 3+ decades.

Sweden could even be planning to face Russia in a generation or two. However placating Russia with a Baltic port so Sweden can turn west and south makes sense, and when they are taken care of they could turn back east.

Not sure that Charles would buy any remotely reasonable logic but .....

Not like Russia could build a massive city on the Baltic in a few years, right? :rolleyes:

It did not, anyway: by the time of Peter's death St-Petersburg had little similarity with the brilliant capital it became by the time of Catherine II.

Why is Charles XII going so far into Germany? You'd think he'd be focusing on expanding Swedish Pomerania.

Ah, you seemingly have serious misunderstandings about Charles personality. :winkytongue:

He was somewhat obsessed with a notion of "justice": those who acted unjustly by attacking him or his allies must be punished. In OTL the list included Denmark-Norway, Saxony and Russia (in this order). In ATL Russia is off the list. Charles is deep in Germany because, after the years of chasing August all over the Commonwealth (principle "enemy is coming, we are leaving, enemy is leaving, we are coming" had been in use well before Mao formulated it), this military genius finally figured out that the whole thing can be brought to the end by invading Saxony: much smaller and much more important to August.

Now, Charles is in Saxony and August is punished. What's next? Expanding Swedish Pomerania is really not too exciting as a goal and it would be unjust to fight against the fellow Protestants (Brandenburg-Prussia) over the borders settled by his predecessors. OTOH, doing something REALLY NASTY to the Emperor (this epitome of the "Evil Catholicism") is a right and proper thing to do, especially taking into an account that he is oppressing the Protestants in Silesia and that there is an anti-Hapsburg uprising in still predominantly Protestant Hungary. Then, of course, how one can forget a noble tradition of Gustav Adolph, that "Lion of the North", who spent all that quality time in Germany looting and burning everything he could ....oops.... sorry, I meant "defending the Protestant Faith".
 
Now, Charles is in Saxony and August is punished. What's next? Expanding Swedish Pomerania is really not too exciting as a goal and it would be unjust to fight against the fellow Protestants (Brandenburg-Prussia) over the borders settled by his predecessors. OTOH, doing something REALLY NASTY to the Emperor (this epitome of the "Evil Catholicism") is a right and proper thing to do, especially taking into an account that he is oppressing the Protestants in Silesia and that there is an anti-Hapsburg uprising in still predominantly Protestant Hungary. Then, of course, how one can forget a noble tradition of Gustav Adolph, that "Lion of the North", who spent all that quality time in Germany looting and burning everything he could ....oops.... sorry, I meant "defending the Protestant Faith".
And this, guys, is why Rupert of the Rhine is my favorite Wittelsbach hothead ever. Though he never was a King, so "brilliant tactician, mediocre strategist, not a diplomat at the slightest" got redeemed by cool qualities/talents in him (he also lived long enough to somewhat redeem item #3 with experience). Which Karl XII simply did not have to the sufficient degree... Soldier King fleur only goes this far.
 
Not as much "unstable" as "having laughably weak central government in form of alcoholic Shah and Vizier deciding stuff".

As opposite to the alcoholic Tsar and his court deciding stuff. :openedeyewink:

Speaking of which, when during the reign of one of Peter's predecessors the trade relations with Persia had been installed (again), the 1st thing sent to Persia on Shah's demand was an equipment for the distilling plant with a considerable amount of the ready final product (IIRC, something on a scale of few thousands liters).

Persian trade was also dependent on tranquility on Volga (BTW I presume Bulavin rebellion & concurrent Kalmyk unrest won't be happening TTL when there is no frantic attempt to redirect the mobilization effort/increase taxes to cover the ass after Narva disaster).

SNAFU was Peter's modus operandi and its byproducts were countless.

When not pushed to the extreme the Kalmuks had been a valuable asset, like in 1735 - 39 when they attacked the Nogay Tatars in Kuban River area while the Russians had been operating against Crimean Khanate.

And speaking of Persian trade, if Volga-Don canal is built (yet another thing abandoned in chase of shiny Baltic things), and Crimean project is achieved (complete with right to transit via Bosphorus), Russia can become a trading hub sitting on Caspian-to-Black Sea route. Either with Navy on their own or selling stuff to Venetian intermediaries recurresting old Tana/Venice trade route.

Yes, business as usual: starting something and then drop it in the middle for something else.

Not only the ubiquitous grain, but also reexported Persian goods. Russian-Persian trade at the time of Alexis I had the advantage of being in barter rather than in bullion, so there is some serious cash to fill the treasury.

While at least initially trade on Baltics was heavily into the import of the Western items and probably (at least until exports of the Russian iron kicked in) had a negative trade balance for Russia as was the case with the Russian-French trade in the late XVIII.
 
While at least initially trade on Baltics was heavily into the import of the Western items and probably (at least until exports of the Russian iron kicked in) had a negative trade balance for Russia as was the case with the Russian-French trade in the late XVIII.
That's why the South offers the lucrative trade route (though Volga route is available via North as well, moving border with Khanate south also gives access to fertile lands) where the trade balance is going to be better.

Your TL outline is awesome, though to work it depends not only on Peter having no ADHD, but also some postcognition (such as the fact that Britain & Netherlands will gang up on Sweden). The OTL f*ckup (other than SNAFU/"army method" attitude) was because of not taking this factor in account. The mindset when selling the idea was:
  • Denmark blockades Swedish Navy, not letting major transfer of troops;
  • Poles/Saxons deal with remaining Swedish garrison in Livonia;
  • Russians... help a little.
  • Profit!
Maybe it was even bought as part of "see what my army is good for" (the answer turned out to be "nothing", but that's in the future.
Britain/Netherlands screwed up the plan on stage 1, and then it piled up, while at heart it was a sound plan. The saner Tsar not interested in strenghtening either PLC or Sweden would... wait and see how it goes. The British factor OTL was the major surprise for Peter & CO.
Also, Peter himself admitted, that August talked him into the scheme in 1698, Patkul was just cherry on the pie. If the conversation goes different from "they got a kid for king, and the Danes would blockade their coast doing all the heavy work", the results are different.

I'm just thinking what argument from before-1698 PoD may convince Peter that the idea is silly (simply having no ADHD does not work). Leak of alliance of maritime powers with Sweden?
 
Peter must have to improve his ability to think logically and consistently before jumping to the action so, in the late 1695, during prolonged drinking party following capture of Azov, he occasionally hits his head which results in some subtle changes that none of his entourage even noticed (I'm rather reluctant to attribute the positive changes strictly to extensive drinking and whoring ;) ).
The particular Eureka moment might have been realizing (during Great Embassy) that Swedish iron trade & their flax/hemp/other naval goods stuff goes to wharfs of Britain & the Netherlands, so in any possible war with Sweden blockaded the blockading side (unless it exports this stuff on its own) is due to get some asskicking from these powers.
Farfetched, I know, but it's the only way to realize that "easy walk in good company" is BAD idea from the get go.
 
what do Sweden take from Poland, do Sweden establish a presonal union with Lithuania, if not that I expect Sweden to at least annex Royal Prussia and Courland, this would give the Swedes total control over Polish export. I would expect that controlling these two areas would likely double or triple the Swedish state budget, which to large extent build on Livonia.

I would say the next logical target would be to find a way to expand Swedish Pomerania to include all of Pomerania. But doing so would be very risky and likely to logical for Charles. Going to war with France are a conflict with small risks, relative small reward, but potential much glory. A war with France would improve Sweden's diplomatic position, but the gain would primarily be colonial.

Going to war with Austria on the other side would have great risks no greater rewards, but little glory. The fast defeat of Denmark build on the Dutch and British navy, if Sweden enter the war against these powers, Denmark will likely be offered great gains to go to war with Sweden. This would pretty much be a disaster for Sweden while Denmark are no equal to the Swedes, they could pretty much cut the Swedish empire in half thanks to the bigger Danish navy.

As for Russia I like the idea of a Black Sea St. Petersburg, a Don-Volga canal, I suspect this would increase the Austrian focus on gaining a Black Sea port, which would create a entire alternative trading route, which would connect Persia-Russia-Austria, which I suspect will be very bad long term news for the Ottomans.
 
Top