Pseudo-Dmitri, a successful Tsar

"Although Dmitri's unconventional ways and toleration of Catholics and Protestants bothered some, for almost a year he remained a popular tsar who pursued enlightened policies. He made, however two crucial errors. The first was neglecting to eliminate permanently the intrigues against him of the squat, bald, nearsighted Vasili Shuisky. The second was failing to deal effectively with the rising anti-foreign sentiments aroused by the behavior of many Poles who accompanied his future bride, the Polish Catholic Marina Mniszech, to Moscow in early May 1606." --Walter G. Moss, A History of Russia

So, let's say that the first Pseudo-Dmitri deals with these issues, and manages to become a mildly successful Tsar with a male heir. He was supported by Polish gentry, and so it would seem that he would gravitate toward friendship with Poland, while continuing Ivan IV's goals of expansion in Siberia and against Sweden. His reign would, if successful, avert the Dmitriads and the rise of the Romanov dynasty. What are the other effects of a Pseudo-Dmitriad Dynasty?
 
"Although Dmitri's unconventional ways and toleration of Catholics and Protestants bothered some, for almost a year he remained a popular tsar who pursued enlightened policies. He made, however two crucial errors. The first was neglecting to eliminate permanently the intrigues against him of the squat, bald, nearsighted Vasili Shuisky. The second was failing to deal effectively with the rising anti-foreign sentiments aroused by the behavior of many Poles who accompanied his future bride, the Polish Catholic Marina Mniszech, to Moscow in early May 1606." --Walter G. Moss, A History of Russia

So, let's say that the first Pseudo-Dmitri deals with these issues, and manages to become a mildly successful Tsar with a male heir. He was supported by Polish gentry, and so it would seem that he would gravitate toward friendship with Poland, while continuing Ivan IV's goals of expansion in Siberia and against Sweden. His reign would, if successful, avert the Dmitriads and the rise of the Romanov dynasty. What are the other effects of a Pseudo-Dmitriad Dynasty?

Let's see, a better set of relations with Poland-Lithuania and possibly butterflying the Times of Troubles. Which also makes Wladyslaw IV Vasa's candidacy for the throne of Russia redundant.
 
Assuming a unified and stable leadership in Russia after 1606, what odds would you all give her in a war against Sweden over control of a Baltic port? Assume Polish-Lithuanian neutrality in such a conflict, with limited support on the part of individual Polish-Lithuanian magnates.
 
Assuming a unified and stable leadership in Russia after 1606, what odds would you all give her in a war against Sweden over control of a Baltic port? Assume Polish-Lithuanian neutrality in such a conflict, with limited support on the part of individual Polish-Lithuanian magnates.

Would Poland give only a limited support? After all, the Vasas were on the throne, and they had quite a lot of wars between 1600 and 1630 with their Swedish cousins.
 
Would Poland give only a limited support? After all, the Vasas were on the throne, and they had quite a lot of wars between 1600 and 1630 with their Swedish cousins.

The Polish Vasas were remarkably schizophrenic on what exactly they wanted out of Sweden. On some days, they wanted the entire throne back, on others, Zygmunt just wanted to make sure that his son would become a Duke of a Swedish Livonia and thus have a shot at the throne later.

Not to mention the Sejm's general opposition to their Swedish adventures.
 
The Polish Vasas were remarkably schizophrenic on what exactly they wanted out of Sweden. On some days, they wanted the entire throne back, on others, Zygmunt just wanted to make sure that his son would become a Duke of a Swedish Livonia and thus have a shot at the throne later.

Not to mention the Sejm's general opposition to their Swedish adventures.

Sure, but IOTL it didn't stop them from having four conflicts with Sweden between 1600 and 1630. Now with Russia as a reliable ally they might be even more confident about going to war.
 
Originally posted by Polish Eagle
Assuming a unified and stable leadership in Russia after 1606, what odds would you all give her in a war against Sweden over control of a Baltic port? Assume Polish-Lithuanian neutrality in such a conflict, with limited support on the part of individual Polish-Lithuanian magnates.

Why neutrality? PLC was at the time at war with Sweden (until 1611) - they would love some Russian support. PLC gets Estonia, Russia gets Ingria. If Charles IX pisses Denmark off as he did IOTL (Kalmar War) we might even see a coalition of Denmark-PLC-Russia against Sweden. Poor Sweden.
 
Originally posted by Polish Eagle


Why neutrality? PLC was at the time at war with Sweden (until 1611) - they would love some Russian support. PLC gets Estonia, Russia gets Ingria. If Charles IX pisses Denmark off as he did IOTL (Kalmar War) we might even see a coalition of Denmark-PLC-Russia against Sweden. Poor Sweden.

Ingria was Russian pre-Dymitri. What they wanted IIRC was the port city of Narva. You're right about Polish-Swedish wars though, it doesn't make any sense for PLC to be neutral.
 
I stand corrected, then. :eek: I forgot about the Polish-Swedish war at that time.

Things are certainly not looking good for Sweden, then. Could this mean the restoration of the Polish Vasas to the Swedish throne?
 
"Although Dmitri's unconventional ways and toleration of Catholics and Protestants bothered some, for almost a year he remained a popular tsar who pursued enlightened policies. He made, however two crucial errors. The first was neglecting to eliminate permanently the intrigues against him of the squat, bald, nearsighted Vasili Shuisky. The second was failing to deal effectively with the rising anti-foreign sentiments aroused by the behavior of many Poles who accompanied his future bride, the Polish Catholic Marina Mniszech, to Moscow in early May 1606." --Walter G. Moss, A History of Russia

So, let's say that the first Pseudo-Dmitri deals with these issues, and manages to become a mildly successful Tsar with a male heir. He was supported by Polish gentry, and so it would seem that he would gravitate toward friendship with Poland, while continuing Ivan IV's goals of expansion in Siberia and against Sweden. His reign would, if successful, avert the Dmitriads and the rise of the Romanov dynasty. What are the other effects of a Pseudo-Dmitriad Dynasty?
Well, to be a "mildly alive Russian Tsar" meant to get rid of any "Polish gentry" and to be as far from Catholics and Protestants as possible.
Pseudo-Dmitri was stupid enough to think that he was the autocrat, the owner of Russian land, that he could do whatever he wanted.
That was a myth. Russian tsar had a very 'limited freedom of action'. Actually the tsar was supposed to do what was expected of him, to maneuver among different influential groups.

So if he managed to live through all troubles of Russian politics that would have meant that he did exactly what first Romanov tsar Mikhail did.
 
Originally posted by Polish Eagle
Things are certainly not looking good for Sweden, then. Could this mean the restoration of the Polish Vasas to the Swedish throne?
Not necessarily. While Polish-Lithuanian noblemen were interested in gaining Estonia, they were not so enthusiastic about Sweden itself. Even when Sigismund was king of Poland AND Sweden they were quite unhappy whenever he went to Sweden, because in their opinion he was neglecting his royal duties in Poland, which should be his first responsibility. It would take an invasion of Sweden to put Sigismund back on his Swedish throne, and PLC had no fleet to get there (unless Denmark provides ships). Also, the Sejm wouldn't be so eager to give Sigismund strong enough army in fear he might use it to impose absolutist rule in PLC. Another problem would be trouble on the southern border of PLC - Tatar raids, growing tensions with the Ottoman Empire, rebelions among the Cossacks. The Sejm would be more interested in sending an army there, possibly with Russian support.
OTOH, if Charles IX is stupid enough to mess with PLC, Russia and Denmark at the same time, Swedish aristocrats might decide he is not the best choice for a king after all, overthrow him and offer the crown back to Sigismund or his son Władysław, without any additional conditions (IOTL when Sigismund was overthrown in Sweden, the crown was initially proposed to little Władysław, under the condition that he would live in Sweden to be brought up in Protestant faith) except religious tolerance. Or, if Charles dies as IOTL, Gustav Adolph quickly surrenders everything he can to PLC, Denmark and Russia just to keep the crown. Or Charles IX avoids pissing of Denmark, since he is already at war with PLC and Russia. He would loose it (it is almost certain), but as I mentioned, id doesn't mean he (or his son Gustav Adolph) would loose the crowon. GA might even surrender Eastonia to PLC, wait for some time, rebuild Swedish army in his own way, and try again later.
 
Well, to be a "mildly alive Russian Tsar" meant to get rid of any "Polish gentry" and to be as far from Catholics and Protestants as possible.
Pseudo-Dmitri was stupid enough to think that he was the autocrat, the owner of Russian land, that he could do whatever he wanted.
That was a myth. Russian tsar had a very 'limited freedom of action'. Actually the tsar was supposed to do what was expected of him, to maneuver among different influential groups.

So if he managed to live through all troubles of Russian politics that would have meant that he did exactly what first Romanov tsar Mikhail did.

Peter I pissed off quite a lot of people, starting with Strelets. He also failed to keep far from Protestants - employed lots of Germans, and had his family intermarry with Protestants. Yet he stayed mildly alive.

Dmitri has nowhere near as firm position as Peter. Yet could he use what freedom of action he did have to employ foreigners - playing one group of foreigners off against another, to ensure he is not a Polish puppet but a Russian ruler serving Russian interests - have Orthodox Russians trained abroad and generally modernize Russia (short of unpopular measures like forcible shaving which Peter did)?
 
The main problem sounds like it would be that Dmitri* may not have a good base for support, so when someone starts plotting, his position will last exactly as long as people have any confidence in him being able to remain on top, which starts a vicious cycle.

* If he pulls this off, no one is referring to him as Pseudo-Dimitri. No one not intending an early retirement, at least.
 
Peter I pissed off quite a lot of people, starting with Strelets. He also failed to keep far from Protestants - employed lots of Germans, and had his family intermarry with Protestants. Yet he stayed mildly alive.
The number of people pissed off by Peter I was significantly less than the number of people who supported him. That's normal and it was wise of him.
The strelets mutinied when he was far away from Russia for a very long time - that was quite extravagant for a Russian tsar and he dearly paid for this - nearly lost his throne. Quite an ordinary thing for any ruler in the world - 'do not stay far away from your country for too long' (a copy-book maxim for kings).

All who married into the Romanovs family became true faithful Orthodox. No doubt about it. That flattered and pleased all the Russians.
Dmitri has nowhere near as firm position as Peter. Yet could he use what freedom of action he did have to employ foreigners - playing one group of foreigners off against another, to ensure he is not a Polish puppet but a Russian ruler serving Russian interests - have Orthodox Russians trained abroad and generally modernize Russia (short of unpopular measures like forcible shaving which Peter did)?
You are right about Dmitri having nowhere near as firm position as Peter. So Dmitri had almost no freedom of action. At all. His only concern was supposed to stay alive.

Dmitri was riding a wild furious unpredictable horse (Russia). Even a second of nonchalance could cost him his life.

If Dmitri had managed to stay alive for say ten years he could have tried VERY-VERY carefully to modernize Russia. But better he had previously had some success in some war to prove that he was a good tsar and that he had the 'moral' right to change anything.
Actually that was what all the Romanov tsars did. Peter I only continued what they had begun.

* And one more thing comparing Peter I and Dmitry: I
- If Peter I did what Dmitri had done he would have been dead like this Polish Catholic fan/lover.

In this country the Russians wanted to be 100% sure that Orthodoxy was as sacred and untouchable as ever. And in this country the Russians liked to be in charge.
Though the foreigners were encouraged to be used to make this country stronger and more competitive, they were seen as just 'paid nobodies' unless they got russified.

If the tsar understood these essentials he was permitted to force shaving of beards or whatever other trifles he fancied.
 
Last edited:
Top