Tsar Peter, killed before his prime

The qauestion I ask is simple: what if Peter the Great died before he could bring Russia out of the dark ages?? Maybe he would be killed at Azov, or died of alcohal poisoning one night? What would be the effects on Russian and world history if the country continued its old ways and his reforms didn't take place?

I should say that this is my first thread in months so I would be happy if there is some debate and discussion.
 
The question is did he actually ended dark age of Russia or just contrary prolonged it? AFAIK there are controversy among Russian historians on this question.
 
That's a very interesting thought.

It's always seemed to me that Peter, though a remarkable person, got credit for what was really the strength of his people. After all, Russia expanded before AND after his reign, and Charles XII would have found a way to ruin Sweden even without Peter as an adversary-- Voltaire's history is great reading on that last point.

A couple of interesting what-if's. One, if the Russian Orthodox Church hadn't been made so subservient to the tsarist state as Peter made it, I wonder if the USSR would have been as hostile to the church as it was. Obviously Marxism is basically anti-religious, but maybe it would have looked more like how post-1945 Yugoslavia handled the Orthodox Church in Serbia.

I thought of this because I read a NY Times article lately about colonies of Old Believers from all over the globe returning to Russia, or at least being invited to do so.

Also, interesting to consider the how the whole Westernizers vs. Slavophiles divide would have developed without Peter's force-feeding his version of modernity to his people.
 
Russia had modernisers before Peter and it would not have lacked for them entirely, but there is a chance that without his reforms at that specific time, it might have missed the chance to emerge as a recognised European power. The Petrine reforms ensured that Russia had a modern navy to challenge Sweden for dominance of the Baltic and an army that could fight on European terms. If this drive had not happened it is quzite possible that Russia would have taken its cues frpom its immediate neighbours and maintained a military suitable for driving into Siberia and capable of standing up to the Ottomans, but one that when it ventured west would be regarded (and dismissed) as barbarian hordes. That doesn't mean it would necessarily lose wars - the Ottoman military was quite capable of inflicting bad defeats on the Austrians, after all - but that it would not be regarded as a potential ally and political power 'among equals'.
 
For all that he was a remarkable man, Russia wasn't as inward-looking or as backward as traditional historiography would present it.

I daresay that even if by some fates Sofya managed to create some stability in the government, much of the same reforms would be initiated and even the army would eventually find its legs (she was unhappy with the Streltsi as well and inviting foreign experts wasn't something Peter started, really). In fact, either would continue Alexey's policies. Peter was simply the more decisive of the two and well, was blessed with being male. That helped a lot.

And as others have said, not all his legacy is positive. Many western-inspired innovations are quite regrettable, all in all, not to mention the succession instability and pattern of palace coups he left after himself. Another ruler (although granted not Sofya) could well have done better.
 
For all that he was a remarkable man, Russia wasn't as inward-looking or as backward as traditional historiography would present it.

I daresay that even if by some fates Sofya managed to create some stability in the government, much of the same reforms would be initiated and even the army would eventually find its legs (she was unhappy with the Streltsi as well and inviting foreign experts wasn't something Peter started, really). In fact, either would continue Alexey's policies. Peter was simply the more decisive of the two and well, was blessed with being male. That helped a lot.

And as others have said, not all his legacy is positive. Many western-inspired innovations are quite regrettable, all in all, not to mention the succession instability and pattern of palace coups he left after himself. Another ruler (although granted not Sofya) could well have done better.


Ah but could she be the power behind that government instead.
 
The Petrine reforms ensured that Russia had a modern navy to challenge Sweden for dominance of the Baltic and an army that could fight on European terms.
Of those two he actually created only navy, while the army he got was already rather modern.
 
Of those two he actually created only navy, while the army he got was already rather modern.

True. The navy was a big deal but once again the early efforts started under Alexei and if Sofya wanted to keep fighting the Turks (she did, and not only because of alliance obligations) she'd need a navy too.

So even the navy was a necessity rather than a fluke.
 
Top