Peter III of Russia not assassinated

Hi!

I read somewhere that the only reason Catherine the Great came to power in Russia was because her husband, Peter III, couldn't rule properly and was overthrown.

What would have happened had Peter stayed on the throne (either because he was competent, so no coup was attempted, or the coup fails) and Catherine doesn't come to power?
 
The coup failing and Figchen exiled to some far-off manor would be interesting. After all, GD Paul Petrovich will be raised by governesses and tutor anyway.

Politically, Peter will aim at peace with GB and Sweden and an alliance with Prussia. An army of almost 50.000 men was already in place in Pomerania to march against Denmark, which in turn was allied with France, IIRC.

Most European powers will be exhauted then, after seven years of fighting. If nothing really strange happens, Denmark-N will be defeated. That means the acquisition of at least the ducal parts of Holstein and Schleswig, perhaps of all of S-H and the County of Oldenburg by Peter.

On one hand, the Electorate of Hanover will not be happy with a strong Russian presence at its northern borders, and Great Britain will not like Russian presence on the North Sea. OTOH, I doubt they will do more than offer to negotiate between Russia/Holstein and Denmark.
 
Peter wasn't overthrown because he couldn't rule properly, that's just Catherinine propaganda that was spread to legitimize Catherine's rule. Actually Peter was quite the competent ruler and was an enlightened despot. The coup that over threw him was of a few regiments that didn't benefit from Peter's enlightened rule. Had Peter stayed in power Russia would have attacked Denmark for Schleswig (Peter was Duke of Holstein Gottorp) and Russia would have continued the alliance with Prussia that Peter created. Denies rivalry Perer would have made his reforms stick and we'd see a better off Russia.
 
Peter wasn't overthrown because he couldn't rule properly, that's just Catherinine propaganda that was spread to legitimize Catherine's rule. Actually Peter was quite the competent ruler and was an enlightened despot. The coup that over threw him was of a few regiments that didn't benefit from Peter's enlightened rule. Had Peter stayed in power Russia would have attacked Denmark for Schleswig (Peter was Duke of Holstein Gottorp) and Russia would have continued the alliance with Prussia that Peter created. Denies rivalry Perer would have made his reforms stick and we'd see a better off Russia.

This is also a myth perpetuated by Peter's apologists. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Peter was very unpopular among the nobility, the Church and to a lesser extent the army. It wasn't a matter of being unable to govern but more of a case of Peter going to far, to fast in his reforms without gaining proper support. None of the Guard regiments in the capital challenged Catherine's coup nor did any of the nobility. That shows the truth in my point that Peter III had little support among the Russian elite.
 
Would an alternative Pugachev revolt still happen? The underlying causes aren't going away.

One of the reasons Pugachev's rebellion got so much support was him claiming to be the deposed Peter III. Given that mass media in 18th century Russia was non-existent (and by mass media I mean even newspapers), none of the peasants knew what Peter looked like or that he was dead by this time.

As to the causes, Peter actually made it a crime punishable by law for a landowner to kill a peasant, and peasants who worked for the state or church were given better treatment than peasants working for individual estates. Maybe if he'd reigned longer, their treatment would've continued to improve. But given that there were also crop failures, plagues and epidemics going on, there might have still been a rebellion, but it wouldn't have been able to gain as much support.
 
Top