What if the Cossack revolt led by Stenka Razin in early 1670's Russia had been much more successful in its scope?
I don't think Razin could have succeeded in utterly destroying the tsarist government -- the boyars, the tsar and the patriarchate were against him for the entirety of the rebellion, and it's not likely that the Cossacks could have maintained the cohesion necessary to run a state as burgeoning as the Russian Empire. On the other hand, if Razin and his followers had managed to reach and sack Moscow (as they had done to many of the cities they captured for the duration of the rebellion), could this have instigated a recurring trauma in the minds of the tsardom that would complicate its future relations with the remaining Cossacks?
 
What if the Cossack revolt led by Stenka Razin in early 1670's Russia had been much more successful in its scope?
I don't think Razin could have succeeded in utterly destroying the tsarist government -- the boyars, the tsar and the patriarchate were against him for the entirety of the rebellion, and it's not likely that the Cossacks could have maintained the cohesion necessary to run a state as burgeoning as the Russian Empire. On the other hand, if Razin and his followers had managed to reach and sack Moscow (as they had done to many of the cities they captured for the duration of the rebellion), could this have instigated a recurring trauma in the minds of the tsardom that would complicate its future relations with the remaining Cossacks?

They did not have any realistic chance to reach Moscow: their earlier successes had been in the places with the small garrisons of the second rate troops, gorodovie streltsy, who quite often were unhappy with their situation and joined the revolt. As soon as he faced the troops sent by the central government, his army was defeated.

It does not look like the “rule” in the captured places amounted to too much but looting, drinking and mass murders so you can figure out what his greater success may mean to the country.
 
Top