Russian Civil War: Czar vs. Nobility

What it says in the title. Through parts of Russian history, some Czars wanted to pass reforms, but faced opposition from the nobility. Could this have ever escalated to a civil war level? At which point in Russian history?
 
I'd say any time in the 19th century. Nicholas I and Alexander II were both the sort of people who wouldn't be afraid to antagonize their magnates by freeing the serfs; you just have to convince them that if they don't, they'll keep falling behind Perfidious Albion until the latter colonizes them. Shouldn't be too hard to manafacture a paranoia-inducing event.

If you want to stick to smallest-possible-change-and-keep-it-within-Russia, I'd have Alexander sent to the front lines of the Crimean to observe and command, Maybe let the British do a little better, and make the resulting scare convince Alex he has to industrialise and modernise now at any cost. Then grab the popcorn. A few civil rights for serfs and a tax increase that applies to the magnates, they'll rebel...we like to paint the Russian Empire as a coherent nation-state, but it wasn't really. The big question will be whether or not the Germans (and which Germans?) choose to get involved.
 
I'd say any time in the 19th century. Nicholas I and Alexander II were both the sort of people who wouldn't be afraid to antagonize their magnates by freeing the serfs; you just have to convince them that if they don't, they'll keep falling behind Perfidious Albion until the latter colonizes them. Shouldn't be too hard to manafacture a paranoia-inducing event.

If you want to stick to smallest-possible-change-and-keep-it-within-Russia, I'd have Alexander sent to the front lines of the Crimean to observe and command, Maybe let the British do a little better, and make the resulting scare convince Alex he has to industrialise and modernise now at any cost. Then grab the popcorn. A few civil rights for serfs and a tax increase that applies to the magnates, they'll rebel...we like to paint the Russian Empire as a coherent nation-state, but it wasn't really. The big question will be whether or not the Germans (and which Germans?) choose to get involved.


You get cookies for finding exactly what I was thinking of AND giving a good POD. So the war could occur from 1860-1880, under his reign, and the war against the Ottomans would be just as good a POD as the Crimean War. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if AH intervened in support of the Nobility--the Czars have always been promoting Pan-slavism. This would give AH a chance to get rid of an emerging enemy. It depends at what point this Civil War takes place on whether the German Empire proper will get involved.
 
Well what about Times of Trouble? Just have a lot more Dimitri, and less patriotic fervor, and nobles deciding to join the winning side.

Or forget the backstabbing nobles part, and have the Polish King or Polish Dimitri #Something be very reform minded. The nobles already hate them.
 
Was there ever a civil war fought between the monarch and all of the nobility, in any country? Perhaps parts of the French fronde?
But anyway, it is difficult to see such a CW in which the monarch isn't easily replaced by the next malleable noble in the line of succession; unless an influential middle class (in czarist Russia? Ha!) or a foreign power supports him with lots of money and troops.

Just look at the fate of two czars who did alienate parts of the nobility: Neither Peter III nor Paul did survive to lead an "imperial" party in a civil war. Plus, the only power able to support the czar militarily seems to be Prussia or Austria, and being seen as pro-German really did not help any Russian emperor.

It might be possible to kill off enough Grand Dukes to find a successor who ist undeniable the true new emperor according to Pauline Law and still completely unacceptable für the Russian nobility - perhaps by marrying as younger GDess to a Prussian prince and afterwards killing every male Romanov in a better position than their son (which will even include his younger uncles, IIRC). But ist would still be an invading army fighting for the rights of the legal pretender against the Russian nobility; hardly a true civil war.

.
 
Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

One possible case where I've considered something like this before. What if in the Great Northern War, after defeating Peter at Narva in 1701 Charles had pushed towards Moscow, seeking to force Russia out of the war totally. Either another defeat or a humiliating peace, provided Charles was wise enough not to push Russia too hard, might prompt a boyar's revolt against Peter.

Steve
 
Jorg has an excellent point; I figure the split would not be even but about 75/25 in favor of the rebels. Without German support it's not really a war, more of a coup. Although the officer corps of the Army and the political police are a pretty good 25% to have. Also correct that assassination is going to be a tactic people reach for first rather than last.

So we need rebel magnates with an...interesting...view of the world. Who think that founding their own Imperial dynasty, or recasting the Empire as an active oligarchy, is better than just offing Alex and taking control of the government during the confusion. I don't have such a person handy, not that it's my best country...but I don't think it's too much handwaving to say that such a person exists, and the other magnates become faced with a prickly choice - Alexander, who is legitimate but too liberal and too cozy with the Germans, or This Other Guy, who's a bit of an usurping megalomaniac but a "real Russian".

I still think it's doable.
 
Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

One possible case where I've considered something like this before. What if in the Great Northern War, after defeating Peter at Narva in 1701 Charles had pushed towards Moscow, seeking to force Russia out of the war totally. Either another defeat or a humiliating peace, provided Charles was wise enough not to push Russia too hard, might prompt a boyar's revolt against Peter.

Steve

This is where I'd do it; Peter was the most reformist Tsar of all, of course: the only one who set out to destroy the Russia he inherited and create a new one, rather than just alter the one he inherited to prevent it from being destroyed. Traditional boyardom resented nearly everything he did; and his support base was wobbly, being based on the dependents who owed their positions to him, his personal guards and army, success in his endeavours (especially against the hated Swedes), and judicious use of exile and the chopping bloc.

His son Alexei became the champion of the boyars, and that of course led Peter to directly or indirectly engineer his death, after investing considerable resources in having agents keep tabs on him all over Europe. Peter was paranoid, it should be remembered (another place where he established the foundation for Russian history after him...); but the threat of a boyar uprising, figureheaded by Alexei and supported by external powers, was taken very seriously by his government. All it takes to push it over the edge, in my opinion, is Peter himself snuffing it in the most embarrasing way possible.

The Swedes aren't really the first place to look, I don't think: Charles XII was never the man to lead his country to anything except disastrous overstretch or perhaps lucky escape, certainly not simultaneous triumph over Denmark, Poland, and Russia (note that in the 1650s, Sweden had lost to all three almost individually, and had only avoided territorial concessions to Russia by playing them off against each other: the Great Northern War, as opposed to the Short Northern Skirmish, was caused fundamentally by Swedish delusions); and the ideological Big Idea of the whole anti-Peter faction was xenophobia.

But if Peter missed his own lucky escape from the Ottomans in 1711, he's dead or captured and either way his credibility is ruined. His followers - almost certainly led by Menshikov as not-Tsar(-yet) - have control of the army and warmaking aparatus (and the tsar had gone into a rather fatalistic mood at that point and prepared careful instructions to be carried out if he were killed); but the anti-Petrine sentiments of the boyars will be overwhelming. The Ottomans, who had domestic reasons not to go adventuring up to Moscow as well as simple common sense, will probably prefer to let Russia tear itself to pieces; Sweden is a dead letter; in short, once Alexei or whoever else the boyars choose as their "leader" has materialised, Russia can destroy itself at leisure.

I don't consider civil war very likely in the 18th century, and it would have to have some dimension (dynastic hiccup, foreign involvement, preferrably several at once) beyond the nobility pushing back against an unloved Tsar. They did that often enough; but since after Peter the nobility became inextricably entwined with the various arms of the state, and since the tsar was after all just one guy, the service nobility could ensure their primacy by means of the good old putsch, as in 1801.

Moving into the 19th century, I'd go for Alexander II. Alexander I's Russia was... complicated, and belonged partly to the 18th C; Nicholas I, I think, was genuinely afraid of change (and not due simply to the tentacles of Metternich: Nick's foreign policy was never particularly reactionary - he congratulated the First French Republic for something-or-other - but his internal policy avowedly was); and the thing that disillusioned him, disastrous foreign policy arse-up, was the end of his reign. With an earlier *Crimean War, I really doubt the pressure on stubborn Nick will be strong enough to make him push his nobles very hard: the OTL war came just at the perfect moment for Britain and the worst for Russia in terms of modernity, really; Russia was just as reactionary (albiet less stagnated) in 1833 or so at what might have been the height of Tsarist power.

As for the tsars after AII, AIII unleashed the forces of industrialisation on Russia, and once society began to transform, the whole of the old structure - tsar, nobles, church, the lot of it - increasingly had to cling together against the threat from the bottom.

Shawn's idea, as it applies to AII, is a good one, but everything has to be just right to spark an actual civil war. Peter was practically asking for it.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, my knowledge of Peter I is very small, although it seems to me that if there was a Civil War in that era, both Sweden and the Ottomans would love to carve out a chunk of Russia. Not being an expert on the timer period, I will defer that point. Assuming no intervention, who will win that War? Peter I or Alexei (it has to be him, because an actual war between father and son is too good to pass up!).

And on Alexander II, I'm surprised everybody is saying that it would not be an even civil war without foreign intervention. Which faction would the military support, the Czar or the nobles?
 
Sadly, my knowledge of Peter I is very small,

It's a fascinating topic. There's a fairly recent biography which is very informative about his times and his Russia, if I could just find the bloody thing... ;)

although it seems to me that if there was a Civil War in that era, both Sweden and the Ottomans would love to carve out a chunk of Russia. Not being an expert on the timer period, I will defer that point.

Oh, I absolutely agree that both will smell opportunity; but working from my 1711 scenario, I'm not certain that there's a very conveniant chunk to be carved anywhere.

This is just before the Russians go on their winning streak against the Ottomans, and their last endeavour, Peter's first campaigns in the previous century, were foiled by some pretty serious teething problems: waste, inefficiency, administrative chaos, command bickering, and poor relations with the Cossacks. In the end, the Russians did take Azov; but then, the Cossacks had done that by themselves decades before, and only withdrawn because the Kremlin was too smart to support them against Ottoman power. Russia got to keep the port in 1700 because the Ottomans had bigger problems elsewhere.

In short, as of 1711, the Ottomans were still the dominant power of the whole Black Sea shore; they'd pretty much given up on the Ukraine (and after Poltava, the pro-Russian Cossacks were in the ascendant), where their various adventures had reached the limits of where they could sustain power close to the Polish and Russian heartlands; and in OTL they batted aside Peter's attempt to attack their position without overly much effort.

In OTL, having practically reduced the tsar and his army to their hostage, the Ottomans let him go, and asked only for Azov back, which the northern-looking Peter wasted no time in giving. The reasons why did this, it seems to me, all still apply if he is an actual prisoner, or if he is a corpse and they're negotiating with his gang: they have nothing in particular to fear from Russia (yet), and also nothing in particular to gain; they're much more concerned with the Hapsburgs, with a formidable army that is starting to disengage from the French and continue its interrupted march against Ottoman overestension in the Balkans; and if there's one thing Sultans didn't like doing in the climate of Constantinople at the time, it was giving the prestige of victory - and a handy corps of loyal veterans - to the Grand Vizier, or anyone else liable to get too big for his boots.

But I do think the Ottomans will become involved in this war to some extent. How much, and for whom, really depends on hos it goes, since they have no interests at stake except keeping the Russians distracted with one-another. They might try and re-open the struggle for Ukraine, but the result of the last round, the Ruyina (which was half of the country depopulated by the march of Ottoman and opposing armies and the Poles free to move back in and party like it was 1648) had discredited them with Orthodox opinion pretty thoroughly.

Ukraine is an interesting question. The Poltava campaign has of course been misrepresented by commentators since Lord Byron :)p), but it was actually little more than Hetman Mazepa taking his personal retinue and joining the Swedes in the hope that they won: the Orthodox church remained staunchly Russophile, and at least half of the Cossacks followed its lead, with the rest playing wait-and-see. (Note also that the defeat of Mazepa did very little to damage Ukraine's autonomy, which declined naturally as the other powers able to play for influence there were beaten back and the Russian state aparatus grew: the Russophile hetman Skoropadskiy was a clever man, and made himself nearly as independant as Mazepa had been.)

Speaking of church support, this is the central problem with overly enthusiastic foreign intervention: the Russian identity upheld by Alexei was deeply Orthodox and anti-foreign. Anybody who rides into the Kremlin on Protestant or Muslim bayonets will only stay there by grace of same. So that's why I prefer to have Peter killed off at a moment when his regime was still vulnerable at home, but the Swedes had largely lost the ability to go on the attack (they were out of Livonia by this time, their forces in Finalnd were a neglected mess with no cavalry and not enough supplies, and the Russians were already building the flotilla that would give them control of Ladoga).

In my opinion, since the Swedes are very unlikely to actually succeed in getting to Moscow and holding up a government (their situation is not better than that of the Poles in 1612, it would seem to me), the situation of the boyars is actually improved as they don't have to explain why, if they hate foreigners and heretics so much, they're allied with them against the rightful tsar of Holy Russia.

The Swedes will do something. If they're lucky, they may even get Ingria back: the Russian claim was old enough to be kosher for the boyars, but Alexei said several times that he would burn Petersburg to teh ground if he rose to power, and when it comes to sea-access beggars can't be choosers. But by this point they lack the capacity to go fooling around in Russia on a large scale. Most of their land forces were already fighting the Danes and assorted Germans, anyway, so Russia going out of the action is more of a respite than an opportunity.

(Phewf! It would appear I've gotten a little carried away; excuse me, but I do love the GNW and Peter the Great generally, which I think have vast unexploited AH potential. :))

Assuming no intervention, who will win that War? Peter I or Alexei (it has to be him, because an actual war between father and son is too good to pass up!).

Oh, it's very dramatically appropriate, I agree, and the two really did have it in for each other. They got really venomous after 1711, at which point Alexei still technically worked for dad (the work being "organising supplies for the troops in Poland" and other things that kept him as far as possible from Russia and the boyars); but with an opportunity like this, and the boyars taking matters into their own hands, I'm pretty sure Alexei would be ready to make an endeavour for the throne in 1711. Let me find that damn biography...

I'm really not sure who'd be the winner, to be honest. Russia was such a bubbling cauldron at the time that it's hard to calculate much about it. I think you could justify things either way, so do what you like!

And on Alexander II, I'm surprised everybody is saying that it would not be an even civil war without foreign intervention. Which faction would the military support, the Czar or the nobles?

That's another interesting question. The Russian army, before the reforms of Milyutin in the 1870s, was... a strange institution. My prediction would be that various officers would lean their own ways depending firstly on the size and solvency of their estates, and take their men with them. It would be a mess.
 
You get cookies for finding exactly what I was thinking of AND giving a good POD. So the war could occur from 1860-1880, under his reign, and the war against the Ottomans would be just as good a POD as the Crimean War. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if AH intervened in support of the Nobility--the Czars have always been promoting Pan-slavism. This would give AH a chance to get rid of an emerging enemy. It depends at what point this Civil War takes place on whether the German Empire proper will get involved.

The war against the Ottomans is probably even better, since at least in the Crimean War, the Russians were gang-piled. If they lost against the Ottomans, there would be cause to question the whole Tsarist system.
 

Blair152

Banned
Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

One possible case where I've considered something like this before. What if in the Great Northern War, after defeating Peter at Narva in 1701 Charles had pushed towards Moscow, seeking to force Russia out of the war totally. Either another defeat or a humiliating peace, provided Charles was wise enough not to push Russia too hard, might prompt a boyar's revolt against Peter.

Steve
Then he'd be like Napoleon. Napoleon did just that in 1812. After Borodino,
which the Russians won by sitting down, Napoleon entered Moscow and waited for the Czar to come crawling to him and asking for terms. He waited until winter came then began his Long Retreat back to France.
Peter the Great probably would have done the same thing. Although Charles IX didn't have that far to retreat to. Sweden's practically on Russia's doorstep.
 
Sweden's practically on Russia's doorstep.

But remember, Napoleon's supply infrastructure started in Poland. The Swedes were in fact beset with supply problems from the moment they entered Russia.

I agree that having the Protestant heretic actually invade the country with any success and try to enforce a government at gunpoint would backfire and create a 1612 situation, where the Orthodox faith and suspicion of foreigners of the entire Russian people would boil over and be exploited by some skilled leader; perhaps Peter, perhaps someone else, who knows.

The point is, Russia is just too big for Sweden to dominate.
 
And on Alexander II, I'm surprised everybody is saying that it would not be an even civil war without foreign intervention. Which faction would the military support, the Czar or the nobles?

Call me a cynic, but I think what's needed is some financial reforms that hurt the magnates without destroying the gentry, which is some tricky targeting. The average 19th century Russian military officer (and civilian Imperial employee) made a salary that would be laughable by Western standards but controlled about 5-20 serfs, which meant he didn't have to pay for food, home repair, and in some cases light industry, or maybe even generated a surplus to sell. People who controlled thousands of serfs and large stretches of land were not encouraged to participate in government or the military - nothing makes a Tsar jumpy like a single subject wielding wealth and military power - but the Tsar didn't antagonize or ask much of them. Blanket reforms like freeing all the serfs from their obligations guts his own army cadre and makes them throw in with the rebels. The spark I was aiming for was something that targets the very wealthy more precisely - perhaps saying something like no one free man could control more than 100 serfs? Whether the Tsar applies the law to himself is an interesting question (the Tsar's own serfs, while vast in number, are already far freer than those bound to a magnate, because the Tsar doesn't bother to oversee them much).

The Peter/GNW war is interesting too, I'd just be afraid that things would get "sorted out" in time for Russia to assume a very similar role to OTL by the 19th :)
 
Last edited:
Top