Russia without Peter the Great

Depending on other factors and PoDs - modernization is still underway - Alexis I children were brought with those ideas.
There's the TL where the butterflies cause Peter never become a Tsar (or co-Tsar for this matter) in 1682, having rather different childhood etc.). The modernization still takes place, but it's Polonophile rather than Germanophile in appearance (and with a lot of Byzantine cosplay). Chapter XXIV and so on in this index.
 
Sweden might be able to cling onto hegemonic control of Northern Europe, including its territories in Finland and the Baltic.
 

jahenders

Banned
Impact would be huge. Petr had a huge impact in starting the modernization of Russia, turning its focus Westward, and strengthening the monarchy. Without him, Russia likely wouldn't undertake a serious effort for strong naval power in the Baltic, there may not be a Great Northern War and Sweden would retain more power in Finland and the Baltic states. Instead, Russia might have come into conflict with the Persian Safavid Empire sooner and been able to retain their gains there.

In general, without Peter, Russia's progress is slowed or delayed by a few decades and they have less power in the West, but slightly more to the south. So, in general they're likely more backward during the 1700s and there's more Polish/Swedish/Lithuanian power between them and Prussia. If that's the case, Russia may not get drawn very far into the Napoleanic Wars. Thereafter, they wouldn't be viewed so much as part of the European Family of Kings.

I think their size would eventually push their power to the West, but they'd be weaker than IOTL in the Napoleanic era and toward WWI. They might potentially be less inclined/able to act as the "Protector of the Slavs."
 
Impact would be huge. Petr had a huge impact in starting the modernization of Russia, turning its focus Westward, and strengthening the monarchy. Without him, Russia likely wouldn't undertake a serious effort for strong naval power in the Baltic, there may not be a Great Northern War and Sweden would retain more power in Finland and the Baltic states. Instead, Russia might have come into conflict with the Persian Safavid Empire sooner and been able to retain their gains there.

In general, without Peter, Russia's progress is slowed or delayed by a few decades and they have less power in the West, but slightly more to the south. So, in general they're likely more backward during the 1700s and there's more Polish/Swedish/Lithuanian power between them and Prussia. If that's the case, Russia may not get drawn very far into the Napoleanic Wars. Thereafter, they wouldn't be viewed so much as part of the European Family of Kings.

I think their size would eventually push their power to the West, but they'd be weaker than IOTL in the Napoleanic era and toward WWI. They might potentially be less inclined/able to act as the "Protector of the Slavs."

None of these events would happen. Let's be merciful towards out butterflies
 

jahenders

Banned
I don't think they're that far fetched. Peter wanted Russia to be a (European) naval power and that meant driving out the Swedes. His expansion/aggression led to the Great Northern War. A different ruler who, perhaps, decided that being a major naval power wasn't Russia's best option might turn to other interests. Without Russia presenting itself as a Baltic threat, the Swedes might have been content to strengthen their hold on Finnish and Baltic possessions.

Peter really pushed Russia to modernize. If you don't have that push, they're going to be slower. As it was IOTL, they were considered backward even as late as WW1, so if you slow that down, they're likely to be even more backward and (presumably) less likely to pick a fight.
None of these events would happen. Let's be merciful towards out butterflies
 
We have to take into account the possibility, too, that even without Peter there would in the 18th or 19th century come another Russian leader who aims to modernize the nation and to make it a sea power. Russia has, potentially, the resources to push Sweden out of the Baltics and Finland, and in my view that is a very high possibility in 1700-1850 anyway - the Russian power would most likely grow and the Swedish power comparatively shrink during this time. Take just demographics - in the 1720s, Russia had almost eight times the population of Sweden, in 1800 at almost 15 times. We also know from the OTL, for example, that for major periods of time, Sweden tended to neglect its defences in Finland, especially naval forces that could operate in the archipelago and along the shallow coasts and, having to think also the threat of its old enemy Denmark, might be surprised by any iteration of a suddenly (partly) naval-oriented Russia.

This is all to say that after 1700, I believe Sweden would in most TLs face a rough time holding on to its empire on the Baltic, never mind how many people on this forum would like it to. Saying that just butterflying Peter Romanov would be the magic bullet to stop Russia breaking out into the Baltic is to disregard many major historical trends and processes of the time and to indulge in the "great man theory", IMHO.
 
Sweden is not the only state affected. Poland/Lithuania, forex. Nor is naval expansion the only issue. Peter does significant army and governmental reforms.

Without his 40 odd year reign none of this happens then. Could end up with Russia developing at the same pace and with the same issues as Poland and the ottomans.
 
Without his 40 odd year reign none of this happens then. Could end up with Russia developing at the same pace and with the same issues as Poland and the ottomans.

His actual (not de-jure) reign was more like 30 years, and Regency did more bad than good to Russia.
 
Honestly, Peter's biggest legacies are a large conscript army and navy, a whole new cadre of nobility, and the first successful monetary reform away from silver coinage.

All that sounds good and reasonable until you realize that it was built entirely around building a new oligarchy loyal directly to the king and presiding over retrenched institution of serfdom, monetized by an agricultural export economy completely controlled by foreign capitalists, with the currency set in the central bank to prevent the nobility from going into business and competing with the state. Instead all the nobles were given sinecures on an almost hereditary basis and got their income from government service.

So Russia being "backwards" in 1914 is a direct result of Peter's reign. The new nobility and guards units he raised actively assassinated and overthrew all reformist monarchs until finally Nikolai I's little show of brutality put an end to palace coups.

I personally think Sophia remaining in place could lay the foundation for a different kind of reform: a more liberal theology favoured by the church, a move towards a paid standing army, and a gradual easing rather than strengthening of serfdom. All she has to do is get rid of Peter and keep Golitsyn (who was the driving force behind the Polonophile reform) from embarrassing himself in the Crimean wars.

Would she do it? I don't know. But a non-reforming Russia sans Peter is frankly a strange notion. Peter initially came to power backed by conservative forces, as the conservative candidate.
 
There's one thing that I think would be a virtual certainty sans Peter's existance: St. Petersburg would have remained a trackless swampy estuary with no permanent settlement completely indistinguishable from all other Finnish trackless swampy estuaries.
 
I personally think Sophia remaining in place could lay the foundation for a different kind of reform: a more liberal theology favoured by the church, a move towards a paid standing army, and a gradual easing rather than strengthening of serfdom. All she has to do is get rid of Peter and keep Golitsyn (who was the driving force behind the Polonophile reform) from embarrassing himself in the Crimean wars.

Would she do it? I don't know. But a non-reforming Russia sans Peter is frankly a strange notion. Peter initially came to power backed by conservative forces, as the conservative candidate.

Have you read my TL? There I kept Feodor III alive and killed off Peter's mom (leader of conservative party) earlier. Without 1682 Golitsyn/Golitzine in Wiki translit used for TL/ stays "just" a Chancellor and does not try commanding the army himself (which sucked). Though a lot is taken straight from A.Bogdanov book, what is sorta a cliche on fai.org.ru is a new thing on AH.com.
 
Have you read my TL? There I kept Feodor III alive and killed off Peter's mom (leader of conservative party) earlier. Without 1682 Golitsyn/Golitzine in Wiki translit used for TL/ stays "just" a Chancellor and does not try commanding the army himself (which sucked). Though a lot is taken straight from A.Bogdanov book, what is sorta a cliche on fai.org.ru is a new thing on AH.com.

Link me please?

I haven't been reading much AH lately but this I could take a look at.
 
Second post of this thread.
There is the link to index - Russian stuff starts in Chapter XXIV from signing of TTL Eternal Peace and the earlier events (the major butterfly for Russia is no crippling of Feodor III in horse accident in 1674) are alluded to but not discussed. Sophia's fate is slightly unrealistic here, but the specific circumstances leading to what happens to her there will be discussed in the Chapter currently in progress - in short, it involves a hefty bribe to 4 Lords Spirituals of Sejm, a conversion to Greek Catholic creed to stay on "winning" side, and then re-conversion back on deathbed (allusion to her OTL death circumstances).
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9789292&postcount=1006
 
You still can see clashes with both Sweden and Poland-Lithuania, Russia under Ivan the Terrible still tried to invade Livonia for control over the Baltic, and Lithuania and Russia had been long time enemies, with Poland joining the mix. You also had the nastiness of the Time of Troubles and Polish Lithuanian as well Swedish intervention as more recent examples of conflict.

Polonophile Russia, given the above I would find it to be odd? Then again, I never saw Russia needing to adopt western customs, but western technology.
 
You still can see clashes with both Sweden and Poland-Lithuania, Russia under Ivan the Terrible still tried to invade Livonia for control over the Baltic, and Lithuania and Russia had been long time enemies, with Poland joining the mix. You also had the nastiness of the Time of Troubles and Polish Lithuanian as well Swedish intervention as more recent examples of conflict.

Polonophile Russia, given the above I would find it to be odd? Then again, I never saw Russia needing to adopt western customs, but western technology.
Western technology adoption started under Alexis I. It was NECESSARY - any sane Tsar will build plants on the Urals etc. Just not abuse micromanagement the way Peter did - some of the stuff was just pants-on-the-head stupid and led to very-very unflexible structure.
 
Polonophile Russia, given the above I would find it to be odd? Then again, I never saw Russia needing to adopt western customs, but western technology.

Oh I'm sure issues could arise, but there was a period of close cooperation in the later Romanov Muscovite era prior to the Empire, and thereafter Russian diplomatic dominance until the partitions.

It's actually kind of OTL.
 
Top