WI: Ivan V Is Healthy

[alexmilman]

@alexmilman If Ivan is healthy and of sound mind we can safely say a lot changes. First, there is no succession crisis and Peter is never made co Tsar. He would remain heir apparent until Ivan has a son. In OTL he has only daughters and Russian history would change dramatically if his lineage vied with Peters for the throne.

This is an optimistic scenario because Tsardom did not have written succession rules and except for the father to son succession crisis could be created. Ivan was too young to tell for sure that he will grow up sick but Naryshkin clan and their supporters had been powerful enough to manufacture a crisis and initially declare as the only Tsar. Co-tsars were a compromise reached after they were defeated (but still had enough support to matter).

As for Peter, education, I,m afraid that you did not quite get me. There is a suspicion that he suffered from a mental disease which makes concentration on studying very difficult. Peter in OTL had plenty of opportunities to improve his education but ended up with a chaotic set of information that he could pick up without too much of a systematic learning. His writing was terrible even by the standards of time and he was not willing to study even on the minimal level offered.

 

[alexmilman]

Sorry, I'm not overly clued up on the 1695 campaign, so if it achieves the goals as early as 1688 would that mean an earlier peace? Or simply that the Russians would keep pushing further?

In 1695 Peter with 31,000 men and 170 guns went to besiege the Ottoman fortress of Azov (garrison of approximately 3,600) guarding Russian access to the Azov Sea. Needless to say that the whole thing ended up as a phenomenal disaster on pretty much each and every account:

1. A lot of boats had been built in Voronez but Russians could not take control of the river and prevent resupplies.
2. Artillery was unable to breach the walls so failed 2 assaults involved climbing up the walls.
3. An attempt to mine the wall was met with the Ottoman counter-mine and resulting explosion killed few hundreds Russians.

After all that entertainment Peter ordered a retreat to get back the next year with a prepared fleet (2 ships of the line and 23 galleys) which managed to maintain blockade of the fortress and force it to capitulate. Size of the Russian army during the 2nd campaign was 75,000.

At the same time Russian army of 120,000 (1695) and then 70,000 (1696) led by Sheremetev (mostly cavalry, Streltsy, UkrainianCossacks and Kalmyks) successfully took a number of the Ottoman forts in the lower reaches of the Dnieper. However, it was impossible to hold the area (holding forts with an irregular cavalry would be non-trivial task anyway) so most of the forces had been withdrawn and by the Treaty of Constantinople (1700) the remaining Russians were also withdrawn and the lower Dnieper was declared a demilitarized zone.

Basically, the same results could be achieved in 1680's if the effort was directed toward Azov/Dnieper instead of the Crimea.

Needless to say that in 1637 4,500 Cossacks acting on their own took Azov after approximately 2-month siege and hold it until 1642 against the Ottomans (they asked Tsar Michael to accept it but were rejected due to a fear of a major war against the Ottomans). BTW, these Cossacks managed to mine the wall quite successfully.

 

[alexmilman]

Agreed that Sheremetev is not a military genius - however, as his English wikipedia article states "For much of the war he served as the commander-in-chief and most senior officer in the Russian army. Sheremetev was very cautious in his movements but proved more effective than the younger Prince Menshikov, the second-in-command, whose impulsiveness did not always lead to success". And sometimes a cautious man who is winning is better than a rash idiot who is losing.

That said, if we have the original reforms continuing "unbroken", how might things in Russia be different by say, 1700 (I'm assuming Ivan, with better health, will at least see the turn of the century)? Also, is an Empress Sheremeteva completely out of left field (or might he try for a foreign low-ranking royal)? AIUI Sophia married him to Praskovia Saltykova in the hopes of him producing an heir quickly, however, Ivan was slow out the gate OTL.

 

[alexmilman]

Agreed that Sheremetev is not a military genius - however, as his English wikipedia article states "For much of the war he served as the commander-in-chief and most senior officer in the Russian army.

This is incorrect. Sheremetev never was "commander-in-chief" because this (officially non-existing) position was taken by Peter. Strictly speaking, he was not even the most senior fieldmarshal (Golovin got this title in 1700, however he never was a field commander). He was the most senior (and most respected) Russian general in the field but this did not give him any excessive power and in some campaigns he was simply absent with other commanders being in charge (like Grodno campaign: Menshikov and Ogilvi).

He could be in charge of an individual army or share responsibility. For example, Menshikov would be in charge of a cavalry and Sheremetev - infantry (as was at Poltava). Keeping in mind specific of the Petrian Russia, it should come as no surprise that he was quite often reluctant to be in a sole command: Peter and Menshikov had much more ability to procure the necessary supplies.

Sheremetev was very cautious in his movements but proved more effective than the younger Prince Menshikov, the second-in-command, whose impulsiveness did not always lead to success". And sometimes a cautious man who is winning is better than a rash idiot who is losing.

Mendhikov was not Sheremetev's 2nd in command. In 1705 army was split: Infantry was subordinated to Ogilvi and cavalry to Sheremetev after which Sheremetev was further demoted by being placed in charge of the "light corps" operating in Courland. Menshikov was placed in charge of the cavalry during Grodno campaign where he got into conflict with Ogilvi. In the late 1705 Sheremetev was put in charge of suppressing upraising in Astrakhan and as a reward was made the 1st Russian count (usually, this title was granted by an emperor of the HRE). He returned into the main army in 1706 as a commander of infantry (Menshikov retained command of the cavalry). At Poltava he was still in charge of the infantry. He was in charge of the army besieging Riga in 1709—1710 (on this occassion Menshikov was acting as his subordinate) and formally in charge during Prut Campaign but this meant little with Peter being present.

While being cautious, he was far from being universally victorious and Menshikov was far from being a rash idiot and quite successful more than once.

 

[JonasResende]

Basically, the same results could be achieved in 1680's if the effort was directed toward Azov/Dnieper instead of the Crimea.

Needless to say that in 1637 4,500 Cossacks acting on their own took Azov after approximately 2-month siege and hold it until 1642 against the Ottomans (they asked Tsar Michael to accept it but were rejected due to a fear of a major war against the Ottomans). BTW, these Cossacks managed to mine the wall quite successfully.

So Russia could take Azov in the 1680s then? Interesting. Wonder how that might affect things? Russia starts looking at the Straits earlier?

This is incorrect. Sheremetev never was "commander-in-chief" because this (officially non-existing) position was taken by Peter. Strictly speaking, he was not even the most senior fieldmarshal (Golovin got this title in 1700, however he never was a field commander). He was the most senior (and most respected) Russian general in the field but this did not give him any excessive power and in some campaigns he was simply absent with other commanders being in charge (like Grodno campaign: Menshikov and Ogilvi).

He could be in charge of an individual army or share responsibility. For example, Menshikov would be in charge of a cavalry and Sheremetev - infantry (as was at Poltava). Keeping in mind specific of the Petrian Russia, it should come as no surprise that he was quite often reluctant to be in a sole command: Peter and Menshikov had much more ability to procure the necessary supplies.

Noted.

While being cautious, he was far from being universally victorious and Menshikov was far from being a rash idiot and quite successful more than once.

I didn't say he was winning all the way. Nor was I saying that Menshikov was a poor general. However, what I meant was that, if Sheremetev is on a roll/winning streak, he's going to look like the horse to back (even if he is cautious and more plodding), especially if Menshikov is coming up empty with his half-baked (pun on his pie-selling days intended) ideas. Admittedly, the reverse is also true, although I'm not sure Menshikov will be able to climb as high as he did if he doesn't have the tsar (but perhaps only the heir presumptive)'s ear. So I half think that there is likely to be some other boyar/noble who would be desirous of stepping into (a losing) Sheremetev's shoes

 

[alexmilman]

So Russia could take Azov in the 1680s then? Interesting. Wonder how that might affect things? Russia starts looking at the Straits earlier?

Azov was taken during Michael’s reign and held for few years by a bunch of Cossacks. Of course, the Ottomans rebuilt its fortifications afterwards but Peter’s 2nd campaign demonstrated that it just take the adequate preparations to force it to capitulate. The Straits is a completely different kettle of fish and in the early XVIII this goal would be unrealistic: you’d need an army capable of beating the Turks and march all the way to Istanbul, fleet capable of beating the Turkish fleet decisively and the trifles like having a secured rear ( meaning annexation of the Khanate, establishing ports on the Black Sea). Not to mention that for all that Straits thingy to make some practical sense you need to have meaningful trade routes going through the Black Sea: pacified and settled its Northern coast, commercial ports and trade agreements with the European consumers of grain produced on these territories.

I didn't say he was winning all the way. Nor was I saying that Menshikov was a poor general. However, what I meant was that, if Sheremetev is on a roll/winning streak, he's going to look like the horse to back (even if he is cautious and more plodding), especially if Menshikov is coming up empty with his half-baked (pun on his pie-selling days intended) ideas. Admittedly, the reverse is also true, although I'm not sure Menshikov will be able to climb as high as he did if he doesn't have the tsar (but perhaps only the heir presumptive)'s ear. So I half think that there is likely to be some other boyar/noble who would be desirous of stepping into (a losing) Sheremetev's shoes

If Ivan is a ruler there is no Menshikov so this is neither here nor there. Sheremetev is «doomed» to be on a high position even after mestnichesrwo is abolished: he was already pretty much there during Fedor’s reign. There is no obvious reason to assume that his eventual replacement with Anikita Repnin or (much later) with Michael Golitsin would mean change to the worse. Even Shein who was in charge of the Azov campaigns (and later fall out of Peter’s good graces) was probably not a basket case. Sheremetev was a decent person highly respected for his individual qualities (he was the only one exempted from a requirement to get drunk on Peter’s gatherings), personally honest, not a thief (a rarity), not cruel (a greater rarity), had principles to which he was ready to stand (unique) and was a reasonably competent military commander (especially when he had a big numeric advantage) but he was not innovator and not a very good military administrator (tended to rely upon Peter or Menshikov in the area of supplies).

 

[Valena]

I just proposed Maria Sheremeteva as something different from his OTL wife (the Saltykovs weren't the best possible in-laws).
A weird sub-PoD - Agafia Grushetskaya survives the childbirth (baby Ilya still dies, though), and it's ATL Ivan who marries Marfa Apraxina. Now, the Apraxins, unlike the Sheremetevs, were not the Boyar family in grand standing, they were the same as Miloslavskis and Naryshkins the generation before, but in OTL all three Apraxin brothers proved themselves to be competent statesmen, of reformist stock, mind you.

 

[Valena]

The Straits are the pie in the sky by then. I wonder how would Amur War develop TTL, in OTL Sophia recalled the reinforcements sent by Feodor III when they marched as far East as Kazan, would the active Ivan's government do the same?

 

[alexmilman]

The Straits are the pie in the sky by then. I wonder how would Amur War develop TTL, in OTL Sophia recalled the reinforcements sent by Feodor III when they marched as far East as Kazan, would the active Ivan's government do the same?

A serious war that far would pose a lot of the logistical problems with a very unclear benefit in the case of a rather questionable victory. Russians simply did not have a meaningful presence in the area or anywhere nearby to make potential conquest worthy of a significant effort. Stable trade with China was much more important for a while and when demographics and communications changed the expansion happened without too much of an effort.
BTW, from Kazan these reinforcements would have approximately an year of marching to get to the theater: no roads and no supplies most of the way.

 

[alexmilman]

I just proposed Maria Sheremeteva as something different from his OTL wife (the Saltykovs weren't the best possible in-laws).
A weird sub-PoD - Agafia Grushetskaya survives the childbirth (baby Ilya still dies, though), and it's ATL Ivan who marries Marfa Apraxina. Now, the Apraxins, unlike the Sheremetevs, were not the Boyar family in grand standing, they were the same as Miloslavskis and Naryshkins the generation before, but in OTL all three Apraxin brothers proved themselves to be competent statesmen, of reformist stock, mind you.

IMO all these marriages would not make a critical difference one way or another. With mestnichestwo abolished ruler could chose pretty much whoever he wanted to whichever position. As for the reformists, most of the Russian aristocracy turned reformists overnight to please Tsar and it is not like Apraxins were not absolutely irreplaceable or unusually competent.
Not that being from boyar family was making person a reactionary nincompoop: there were numerous top level aristocrats in Peter’s “government” (civic and military): Sheremetev, Dolgoruki, Golitsins, Repnin, Romodanovski, etc.

 

[Valena]

A serious war that far would pose a lot of the logistical problems with a very unclear benefit in the case of a rather questionable victory. Russians simply did not have a meaningful presence in the area or anywhere nearby to make potential conquest worthy of a significant effort. Stable trade with China was much more important for a while and when demographics and communications changed the expansion happened without too much of an effort.

A little better border + transit rights on Amur are important in securing Baikal region + future settlement of Okhotsk.
In OTL Golovin was intimidated by skillful military display of Chinese, believing their forces being twice as big as they actually were. With different commander (I used Sheremetev Senior who actually commanded the Tobolsk squan OTL for A&D TL) things may change for a little better border.

IMO all these marriages would not make a critical difference one way or another. With mestnichestwo abolished ruler could chose pretty much whoever he wanted to whichever position. As for the reformists, most of the Russian aristocracy turned reformists overnight to please Tsar and it is not like Apraxins were not absolutely irreplaceable or unusually competent.

To say frankly, I don't believe that overpromoting in-laws will stop overnight with the abolishment of mestnichestvo/place priority, and they will still have high positions in government. It's just that OTL Saltykovs are not the best variant, nor is the exclusive relying on Sophia's friends. Golitsin is good, but not be all end all good.
By the way, speaking of friends, I think Ivan is bound to have some. Said Apraxins and Prince Kurakin spring to mind as a good company for him as Tsarevich agewise (I think he'll be too young for Feodor's company of Yazykov and the like). And the reign is bound to be influenced by favorites somehow.

What of patriarchy? The election of OTL conservative candidate after Joachim's death is very unlikely. In A&D I elected Marcellus, Archbishop of Pskov, instead (a reformist-minded bishop). The reform of bishoprics is long overdue, the Siberian Metropolitan seat, for example, is an overblown behemoth, and creating additional bishopric in Irkutsk will do wonders for manageability of Siberia. The hard part is to get top clergy to agree to increase their numbers (in OTL Joachim pretty much cockblocked Feodor's project).

 

[alexmilman]

A little better border + transit rights on Amur are important in securing Baikal region + future settlement of Okhotsk.
In OTL Golovin was intimidated by skillful military display of Chinese, believing their forces being twice as big as they actually were. With different commander (I used Sheremetev Senior who actually commanded the Tobolsk squan OTL for A&D TL) things may change for a little better border.

Well, I'd say that Okhotsk would be on a bottom of the list of the arguments.
To start with, in OTL Okhotsk was already on the map (founded in 1647) and "lost its importance after the Amur Acquisition in 1860" so you are arguing for its earlier demise. Then, even if it had an usable harbor, it was just a coastal settlement, not a port (settlers did not have seagoing skills) and initial access to Kamchatka was by land until 1715 when the 1st ship had been built there (in 1736 location of the settlement had been moved couple miles downstream). In practical terms, its importance was questionable. Even if it was formally a base of the Siberian Military Flotilla since 1731, by 1742 settlement had less than 100 buildings and 8 ships in a harbor (it took Bering something like 2 years to build 2 small ships for his expedition: every nail had to be carried across Siberia). Its importance grew only after the Bering's expeditions found sea otters east of Kamchatka: fur hunters began island-hopping along the Aleutian Islands. Furs were brought back to Okhotsk and carried inland, mostly to be sold to the Chinese at Kyakhta. Surely, Golovin & Co could not foresee this discovery. Besides, the site was poorly chosen: the harbor was bad and there was too little of a plowland so that most of the food had to be imported. The big ships could get in and out of the harbor only with the an incoming or outgoing high tide and proper wind direction, etc.

So the better (much better) deal would mean an earlier version of Amur Acquisition would allow to establish the better communications with the Pacific Coast. However, until Bering's expeditions value of the Pacific coast was too close to zero to fight for it seriously. OTOH, even before 1860 situation started changing noticeably. In 1850 - 53 Nevelskoy founded Nikolayevsk-on-Amur and other forts on the Chinese territory, in 1851 the host of Transbaikalian Cossacks 20,000 strong had been created and Manchu governor could do nothing to prevent Nikolay Muravyov from sailing down the Amur with a convoy of 1,000 people. In 1855 Muravyov sent a 3,000 man force down the Amur, including settlers. The Chinese declared this to be illegal, but did nothing and he kept sending more settlers every year until ij 1858 the local governor had been forced to sign Treaty of Aigun. But, I repeat, all this became possible and practical with the conditions being substantially different from those of the late XVII.

Then, look at the situation from the ROI perspective: costs vs. profits. A protracted military conflict with China would mean interruption of the trade and loss of the revenues (and valuable imports) plus it would mean a permanent significant military presence far away from the places where the troops were really needed: southern and western borders. Neither would regional demographic situation allow to maintain any significant military presence based on the local resources. Treaty of Nerchinsk established a regular trade, which was the main Russian goal. "Golovin accepted the loss of the Amur in exchange for possession of Trans-Baikalia and access to Chinese markets for Russian traders." This is why the whole thing was considered as a success by Sophia's government (and by pretty much everybody else at that time).

To say frankly, I don't believe that overpromoting in-laws will stop overnight with the abolishment of mestnichestvo/place priority, and they will still have high positions in government.

They may or may not. Actually, when Peter finally started ruling the Naryshkins did not get high in his government ( Kirill Alexeyevich Naryshkin was governor of Moscow 1716-1719) and the 1st (and perhaps the only) really significant statesman in the family was Prince Alexander Lvovich Naryshkin (1760–1826). Peter's uncle, Lev Naryshkin, was for a while a head of the Posolsky Prikaz (to be replaced by Golovin in 1699). Lopukhins never made it into power. Saltykov family was reasonably prominent оn their own but did not became power behind the throne even during the reign of Anne. There were 2 fieldmarshals in the family but the 1st of them got his rank during the reign of Elizabeth after his victories in the 7YW. Members of Apraxin family was linked to Fedor III but made their careers under Peter, etc.
OTOH, Ilya Miloslavski, while got some high positions at the court of his son-in-law, Tsar Alexey, never was respected by the Tsar who quite often was dressing him down in public. Ivan Miloslavsky made a great career but he was seemingly a capable person (who got a bad PR by the reasons obvious ).

It's just that OTL Saltykovs are not the best variant, nor is the exclusive relying on Sophia's friends. Golitsin is good, but not be all end all good.

Well, if he would seriously try to implement all reforms attributed to him, he would most probably end approximately as he did in OTL: abolishing serfdom was a high risk proposal. But if he is in power for quite a while he can establish a good framework for the future developments which would not be associated with a maximum pain level.[/QUOTE]

 

[Valena]

The "better border" is the border going by Zeya/Bureya rivers, with Komarsky Fort being the easternmost Russian settlement. Securing the wheat-growing lands of Eastern Dauria is intersting for further colonization of the region (and that is the period when the first gold is discovered in Baikal territories), and is actually plausible, given that China at the time is at war with Dzungars, and Russia for a time being is the only intermediary remaining for Chinese-Persian trade.

 

[alexmilman]

The "better border" is the border going by Zeya/Bureya rivers, with Komarsky Fort being the easternmost Russian settlement. Securing the wheat-growing lands of Eastern Dauria is intersting for further colonization of the region (and that is the period when the first gold is discovered in Baikal territories), and is actually plausible, given that China at the time is at war with Dzungars, and Russia for a time being is the only intermediary remaining for Chinese-Persian trade.

My point remains: your proposals make sense with a benefit of a hindsight which Golovin & Co did not have. At their time Russia did not have an excess of a population or resources anywhere nearby and, prior to the discovery of the sea otters, there was no noticeable reason for the further development of the area.

Besides, there was a clear need to cut the low priority engagements to have military and financial resources available on the Southern and Western borders.

 

[knightdepaix]

Peter the Great has numerous half-sisters who were imprisoned and turned into nuns. Would they be better off to be married away from Russia?