WI: No Russian Conquest of Central Asia

[Osman Aga]

I’d say that for this scenario the POD should be somewhere in the late XIII, almost immediately after the conquest: Russian princedoms being truly consolidated within the GH. But the problem is that in this case conquest of the CA (part of which initially was Jochi domain) would be more and not less probable.
Of course, we can also assume a viable GH as a separate state (your idea) but, just by the virtue of a demographic, it may not survive the Russian Eastward expansion.

What if the Russians end up even more divided in the course of the 14th century? I can't think of any reason, medieval Russian history isn't my area. It is a theoretical scenario. Or even better, The Lithuanians and later the Commonwealth gobbles up smaller Russian principalities in the 1300-1500 period as Catholic monarchs. Any idea?

 

[Goldensilver81]

The PLC won as may wars with the Tsardom as it realistically could and the only result was a temporary (few decades) acquisition of the border territories. The only extra thing the Poles could theoretically achieve was to put the Polish prince to the throne of Tsardom. Time for “Balkanization” gone somewhere between the Mongolian conquest and the 2nd gulf of the XV century.

Swedes won at least 2 Northern wars and got (as was their purpose) a piece of the marginally-populated Baltic coast. In the GNW the formulated goal of CXII was to return the lands occupied by the Russians during that war and to get a financial compensation for the causes destruction and military expenses. Disintegration of the Tsardom in the XVIII century was unrealistic, especially taking into the account limited resources in Charles’ disposal.

1) i think with an earlier pod say Ivan the terrible doesn't show up but chaos after his death occurs and poland populates more the eastern region before , have poland not alienate the cossacks by trying to make them serfs etc could lead to poland taking moscow and not becoming that overstretched and making thar past of russia vassals unlikely but possible .

2) as for sweeden you can have charles go to smolesk or have poltava be a crushing defeat for the Russians including peter the great dying ( most likely cause of the defeat )
With his death I can see the conservatives calling for an end to the war (assuming charles didn't get napoleon syndrome and keeps marching till he is defeated) disintegration can be possible but unlikely assuming there is great civil war after the defeat to sweden and succession crisis it could split but the most realistic is that russia becomes a backwater with sweden taking the baltic

 

[alexmilman]

1) i think with an earlier pod say Ivan the terrible doesn't show up but chaos after his death occurs and poland populates more the eastern region before , have poland not alienate the cossacks by trying to make them serfs etc could lead to poland taking moscow and not becoming that overstretched and making thar past of russia vassals unlikely but possible .

Sorry, if Ivan IV does not “show up” so how anything could happen after his death? Anyway, the ToT happened two reigns after his death and to a great degree due to the climate-related famine which hardly can be blamed on him.

The PLC annexing more than in OTL is not really relevant as far as “balkanization” is involved. The best time for disintegration would be period of the “7 boyars” government which was a perfect storm scenario: completely powerless government, Polish occupation of Moscow, troops of False Dmitry II near Moscow, uprisings, etc. And disintegration of the state did not happen because a notion of the national unity already had been there. The Cossacks were good mostly for the raiding and looting purposes and during the ToT they were not alienated from the PLC and actually quite instrumental in some of the victories. But the Ukrainian Cossacks had little to do with the population of Tsardom and by a life style not eager to populate the Central Russia (not that there would be enough of them). OTOH, the Cossacks of Don had nothing to do with PLC and actually played a very important role in defeating the attempt to break the blockade of Polish garrison in Kremlin.

So how the expansion without over-stretching would happen is not clear at all.

2) as for sweeden you can have charles go to smolesk or have poltava be a crushing defeat for the Russians including peter the great dying ( most likely cause of the defeat )
With his death I can see the conservatives calling for an end to the war (assuming charles didn't get napoleon syndrome and keeps marching till he is defeated) disintegration can be possible but unlikely assuming there is great civil war after the defeat to sweden and succession crisis it could split but the most realistic is that russia becomes a backwater with sweden taking the baltic

As for the Swedish scenario, Charles at Smolensk would not “balkanize” the Tsardom any more than Nappy at Smolensk. The time for this was long gone. Fantasy about Poltava is a popular POD but it suffers from two major problems:
1. Taking into an account a shrunk quality gap and overwhelming advantages in the troops numbers and artillery, possibility of the Russian defeat at Poltava is just one step from the ASB.
2. The part about the “conservatives” is also popular but mostly reflects somewhat peculiar ideas regarding the subject because to the best of my knowledge nobody, yet, produced a list of these mystical “conservatives” capable of starting a civil war. Peter’s subordinates at Poltava were as close to the list of the top Russian aristocrats as was realistically possible: Sheremetev, Repnin, Golitsin, Dolgorukov. The same, in the terms of loyalty, goes for the civic administration: Romodanovsky, Golovkin, Shafirov, Tolstoy. Practically all of them had been pro-war seeing it as a source of the promotions and wealth. If Peter is killed, the succession is clear and can’t be disputed. So who exactly and how exactly would be starting the civil war?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

This is interesting, but there is a problem is that the POD has to involve a weaker Russia or stronger Central Asian khanates. As other commentators noted, other than Siberia, other routs for Russian expansion were much tougher. And either a weaker Russia or stronger Central Asian khanates changes a lot of other things.

 

[alexmilman]

What if the Russians end up even more divided in the course of the 14th century? I can't think of any reason, medieval Russian history isn't my area. It is a theoretical scenario. Or even better, The Lithuanians and later the Commonwealth gobbles up smaller Russian principalities in the 1300-1500 period as Catholic monarchs. Any idea?

Well, within OTL framework the GH was not interested in a greater division because it would make the tax collection more difficult. IIRC, the model of a direct tax collection proved to be impractical by the early XIV a because it was causing numerous uprisings. It was much more practical to switch to the later OTL model of tax-farming putting one of the local princes in charge. It would not inevitably end up in the hands of the princes of Moscow but whichever princedom it would be, it would almost inevitably end up in the top position due to the accumulated wealth and influence.


Anyway, in all these schemas of the Polish-Russian or Lithuanian-Russian state it is not quite clear why such a powerful state would NOT expand Eastward to get to the major sources of wealth (mostly furs but also trade with the CA).



Lithuania “gobbled” as much of the Russian territories as it could and probably even more (Ukraine eventually passed under the Polish control) and this did not change much in the terms of consolidation of the Russian state and its further expansion. There was a theoretical opening for serious change if Vitold decisively won at Vorskla and implemented his plan of becoming an overlord of the GH with overlordship of the Russian territories passing directly to him. Taking into an account that his daughter was married to the Prince of Moscow and that he was acknowledged as “protector” of Novgorod, theoretically, this could develop into the Russian-Lithuanian state (providing he managed to murder all his male relatives, convert into Orthodoxy and probably to do few other things). An idea of a Catholic monarch that you mentioned would not play: the princedoms of the Central Russia were already firmly Orthodox and Lithuania (its Lithuanian part) was not big and strong enough to enforce change of a needed magnitude.

 

[Osman Aga]

Well, within OTL framework the GH was not interested in a greater division because it would make the tax collection more difficult. IIRC, the model of a direct tax collection proved to be impractical by the early XIV a because it was causing numerous uprisings. It was much more practical to switch to the later OTL model of tax-farming putting one of the local princes in charge. It would not inevitably end up in the hands of the princes of Moscow but whichever princedom it would be, it would almost inevitably end up in the top position due to the accumulated wealth and influence.


Anyway, in all these schemas of the Polish-Russian or Lithuanian-Russian state it is not quite clear why such a powerful state would NOT expand Eastward to get to the major sources of wealth (mostly furs but also trade with the CA).



Lithuania “gobbled” as much of the Russian territories as it could and probably even more (Ukraine eventually passed under the Polish control) and this did not change much in the terms of consolidation of the Russian state and its further expansion. There was a theoretical opening for serious change if Vitold decisively won at Vorskla and implemented his plan of becoming an overlord of the GH with overlordship of the Russian territories passing directly to him. Taking into an account that his daughter was married to the Prince of Moscow and that he was acknowledged as “protector” of Novgorod, theoretically, this could develop into the Russian-Lithuanian state (providing he managed to murder all his male relatives, convert into Orthodoxy and probably to do few other things). An idea of a Catholic monarch that you mentioned would not play: the princedoms of the Central Russia were already firmly Orthodox and Lithuania (its Lithuanian part) was not big and strong enough to enforce change of a needed magnitude.

All I want to understand from this is "if Lithuania takes more of Russia it will likely become Russia rather than Lithuania ruling over a lot of Russians, or risk to lose parts of their Russian-Orthodox lands". Did I understand it correctly

 

[alexmilman]

All I want to understand from this is "if Lithuania takes more of Russia it will likely become Russia rather than Lithuania ruling over a lot of Russians, or risk to lose parts of their Russian-Orthodox lands". Did I understand it correctly

You got it exactly right. In OTL it got considerable border areas and after creation of the PLC Ukraine switched to Poland (in Lithuania the Orthodox nobility had lesser rights while in Poland at that time they had the same rights as the Catholics). IIRC, some of the border princedoms voluntarily went to Moscow over the religion issue. With a MUCH greater Russian Orthodox population, for how long the tail would be able to wag a dog?

 

[Pauh the federalist]

With a pod early enough to smother Moscow in the crib ( as an example golden hord burn down the city to make a example of them becuse they rebeled too early during the centuery or 2 they are still strong enough to exert this kind of power), you might get a novgorad focused russia which might be a more western and European centric russia in terms of expansion.

 

[Goldensilver81]

Sorry, if Ivan IV does not “show up” so how anything could happen after his death? Anyway, the ToT happened two reigns after his death and to a great degree due to the climate-related famine which hardly can be blamed on him.

The PLC annexing more than in OTL is not really relevant as far as “balkanization” is involved. The best time for disintegration would be period of the “7 boyars” government which was a perfect storm scenario: completely powerless government, Polish occupation of Moscow, troops of False Dmitry II near Moscow, uprisings, etc. And disintegration of the state did not happen because a notion of the national unity already had been there. The Cossacks were good mostly for the raiding and looting purposes and during the ToT they were not alienated from the PLC and actually quite instrumental in some of the victories. But the Ukrainian Cossacks had little to do with the population of Tsardom and by a life style not eager to populate the Central Russia (not that there would be enough of them). OTOH, the Cossacks of Don had nothing to do with PLC and actually played a very important role in defeating the attempt to break the blockade of Polish garrison in Kremlin.

So how the expansion without over-stretching would happen is not clear at all.




As for the Swedish scenario, Charles at Smolensk would not “balkanize” the Tsardom any more than Nappy at Smolensk. The time for this was long gone. Fantasy about Poltava is a popular POD but it suffers from two major problems:
1. Taking into an account a shrunk quality gap and overwhelming advantages in the troops numbers and artillery, possibility of the Russian defeat at Poltava is just one step from the ASB.
2. The part about the “conservatives” is also popular but mostly reflects somewhat peculiar ideas regarding the subject because to the best of my knowledge nobody, yet, produced a list of these mystical “conservatives” capable of starting a civil war. Peter’s subordinates at Poltava were as close to the list of the top Russian aristocrats as was realistically possible: Sheremetev, Repnin, Golitsin, Dolgorukov. The same, in the terms of loyalty, goes for the civic administration: Romodanovsky, Golovkin, Shafirov, Tolstoy. Practically all of them had been pro-war seeing it as a source of the promotions and wealth. If Peter is killed, the succession is clear and can’t be disputed. So who exactly and how exactly would be starting the civil war?

1) Ivan doesn't come but the time of troubles still exist it's possible you can have Ivan not come but a succession crisis but attacks of other powers

2) pretty much agreed


3) there where conservatives and reactionaries but I must admit I don't know any names also for the other ones Who is to say after a defeat and the tsar dying they don't charge their minds ? Loyalty of course but to whom ?
Alexei Petrovich would be the heir if peter dies and he is a wild card (the "conservatives" or should I say reactionaries did have much sway on him )
He could not care and let the generals continue or he could not care and with his father dead and no sight of victory he calls of the war and make a weak peace treaty with Charles like comodus did with the germanic tribes

Which would be very unpopular and if he gets ousted or assadimated? Then all of peters son are dead or not born i would say relatives as well

Frederick william , catherine of russia and all are well to young to take the throne and sure they can proclaim any of these as emperor or empress and have catherine take over but thar would depended on the time if it's post alexei or he never gets the throne and there is also the possibility of Karl Leopold taking it so yeah there is potential for civil unrest if the battle is lost and peter dies

 

[alexmilman]

1) Ivan doesn't come but the time of troubles still exist it's possible you can have Ivan not come but a succession crisis but attacks of other powers

OK, if there is no Ivan IV or his exact replica, then there is no his Livonian War and most probably no PLC (was created to stand up to Ivan's aggression against Lithuania). Muscovite state is less exhausted and most probably has better relations with its Western neighbors. Now, let's put things straight:
(a) There was no succession crisis after Ivan's death: the crown went to his son, Feodor.
(b) There was no true crisis following Feodor's death: Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov without any noticeable challenges/
(c) Boris ruled for few years without any problems but when the weather was bad for few years in a row with a following terrible famine and massive hunger deaths situation became ripe for the popular unrest. Name of "Dmitry" was just a convenient one: in OTL pretty much every massive rebellion had its own "royalties".

So you want what? "Ivan doesn't come" but who does? His brother Yuri of Uglich or some other figure real (Yuri Ivanovich, Andrey Ivanovich) or fictional? You have to be more specific. Then, who are "the other powers"? The PLC does not exist, Lithuania is too weak for conquest of the Muscovite State, Poland does not have common borders. Sweden just got a new dynasty and has other problems besides starting a war with Moscow (not that it is already a major military power).

And the bad weather still has to be there.

The only power capable of realistically attacking Muscow is the Crimean Khanate and this was mostly about the looting and/or formal acknowledgement of a vassalage. Khanate of Kazan is already ruled by the client of Moscow.

3) there where conservatives and reactionaries but I must admit I don't know any names also for the other ones Who is to say after a defeat and the tsar dying they don't charge their minds ? Loyalty of course but to whom ?

Sorry to say so but you are a victim of the stereotypes (): an idea that Peter's war for the Baltic coast was something related to being "progressive" is a popular stereotype with no traction to the reality unless you are going to define Ivan IV and Peter's father as "the progressives": both of them had been trying to conquer these areas. Ivan IV even tried to build up a navy based in Narva. Fighting there was a traditional thing, return of the "ancestry lands" (flimsiness of the claim seemingly did not bother the Russians) .

Then goes the terminology: "conservatives and reactionaries" is a nice slogan but in this context it has close to zero meaning except for the Old Believers who are rather irrelevant within the context of rebellion and balkanization . Practically all "who did matter" were not the "reactionaries" since the reign of Alexey because innovations already had been there and the Russian nobility liked these changes.

Alexei Petrovich would be the heir if peter dies and he is a wild card (the "conservatives" or should I say reactionaries did have much sway on him )

That's nice. You don't know who these "reactionaries" were but are sure that they had much sway on him. Well, at least one of the most important people implicated in Alexey's Affair, Kikin, was quite progressive. You can easily find his short bio on Wiki and find out that he was an important participant of the Peter's reforms and his main sin was that he was taking Alexey's side (not a big surprise because he had an earlier quarrel with Menshikov). Another implicated person, Vasily Dolgorukov, had some disagreements with Peter and after Alexey's affair was demoted and sent into exile. But he also hardly was a "reactionary" and during the reign of Elizabeth became President of the College of War and made significant improvements regarding the organization and logistics of Russian military.

He could not care and let the generals continue or he could not care and with his father dead and no sight of victory he calls of the war and make a weak peace treaty with Charles like comodus did with the germanic tribes.
Which would be very unpopular and if he gets ousted or assadimated? Then all of peters son are dead or not born i would say relatives as well .

During Poltava campaign Alexey was in change of improvement fortifications of Moscow but even if we assume that stuff about the "weak peace treaty", this hardly has anything to do with the "balkanization" or anything of the kind. His father lost Ingria but, AFAIK, Tsardom did not fall apart. Defeats in the wars were quite usual and somehow Russia did not fall apart after defeat at Narva or quite a few other defeats preceding Poltava victory. Neither was Peter assassinated or ousted. So you are in the area of a free flight of a fantasy. What if each and every ruler in Europe is assassinated simultaneously? What if Charles XII is assassinated? Etc.

Speaking of the relatives, there were 3 legitimate daughters of Ivan V and by that time, after the regancies of Sophia and then Natalia, woman on the throne was not a complete impossibility.

Frederick william , catherine of russia and all are well to young to take the throne and sure they can proclaim any of these as emperor or empress and have catherine take over but thar would depended on the time if it's post alexei or he never gets the throne and there is also the possibility of Karl Leopold taking it so yeah there is potential for civil unrest if the battle is lost and peter dies

If you are talking about the future Catherine I, her marriage of 1707 was secret and until 1712 she did not have a claim. Catherine Ivanovna in 1709 is 18 years old so if she is a candidate, there can be a short regency or no regency at all.
What Frederick William has to do with anything I have no clue. As for Karl Leopold, how about checking the dates before posting? Catherine Ivanovna got married only in 1716.

 

[Goldensilver81]

OK, if there is no Ivan IV or his exact replica, then there is no his Livonian War and most probably no PLC (was created to stand up to Ivan's aggression against Lithuania). Muscovite state is less exhausted and most probably has better relations with its Western neighbors. Now, let's put things straight:
(a) There was no succession crisis after Ivan's death: the crown went to his son, Feodor.
(b) There was no true crisis following Feodor's death: Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov without any noticeable challenges/
(c) Boris ruled for few years without any problems but when the weather was bad for few years in a row with a following terrible famine and massive hunger deaths situation became ripe for the popular unrest. Name of "Dmitry" was just a convenient one: in OTL pretty much every massive rebellion had its own "royalties".

So you want what? "Ivan doesn't come" but who does? His brother Yuri of Uglich or some other figure real (Yuri Ivanovich, Andrey Ivanovich) or fictional? You have to be more specific. Then, who are "the other powers"? The PLC does not exist, Lithuania is too weak for conquest of the Muscovite State, Poland does not have common borders. Sweden just got a new dynasty and has other problems besides starting a war with Moscow (not that it is already a major military power).

And the bad weather still has to be there.

The only power capable of realistically attacking Muscow is the Crimean Khanate and this was mostly about the looting and/or formal acknowledgement of a vassalage. Khanate of Kazan is already ruled by the client of Moscow.




Sorry to say so but you are a victim of the stereotypes (): an idea that Peter's war for the Baltic coast was something related to being "progressive" is a popular stereotype with no traction to the reality unless you are going to define Ivan IV and Peter's father as "the progressives": both of them had been trying to conquer these areas. Ivan IV even tried to build up a navy based in Narva. Fighting there was a traditional thing, return of the "ancestry lands" (flimsiness of the claim seemingly did not bother the Russians) .

Then goes the terminology: "conservatives and reactionaries" is a nice slogan but in this context it has close to zero meaning except for the Old Believers who are rather irrelevant within the context of rebellion and balkanization . Practically all "who did matter" were not the "reactionaries" since the reign of Alexey because innovations already had been there and the Russian nobility liked these changes.




That's nice. You don't know who these "reactionaries" were but are sure that they had much sway on him. Well, at least one of the most important people implicated in Alexey's Affair, Kikin, was quite progressive. You can easily find his short bio on Wiki and find out that he was an important participant of the Peter's reforms and his main sin was that he was taking Alexey's side (not a big surprise because he had an earlier quarrel with Menshikov). Another implicated person, Vasily Dolgorukov, had some disagreements with Peter and after Alexey's affair was demoted and sent into exile. But he also hardly was a "reactionary" and during the reign of Elizabeth became President of the College of War and made significant improvements regarding the organization and logistics of Russian military.



During Poltava campaign Alexey was in change of improvement fortifications of Moscow but even if we assume that stuff about the "weak peace treaty", this hardly has anything to do with the "balkanization" or anything of the kind. His father lost Ingria but, AFAIK, Tsardom did not fall apart. Defeats in the wars were quite usual and somehow Russia did not fall apart after defeat at Narva or quite a few other defeats preceding Poltava victory. Neither was Peter assassinated or ousted. So you are in the area of a free flight of a fantasy. What if each and every ruler in Europe is assassinated simultaneously? What if Charles XII is assassinated? Etc.

Speaking of the relatives, there were 3 legitimate daughters of Ivan V and by that time, after the regancies of Sophia and then Natalia, woman on the throne was not a complete impossibility.







If you are talking about the future Catherine I, her marriage of 1707 was secret and until 1712 she did not have a claim. Catherine Ivanovna in 1709 is 18 years old so if she is a candidate, there can be a short regency or no regency at all.
What Frederick William has to do with anything I have no clue. As for Karl Leopold, how about checking the dates before posting? Catherine Ivanovna got married only in 1716.

ok lets see
1)
a) never said there was a succesion crsis after ivan just said you can have a succesion crisis in general
b) never claimed this x2
c) pretty much and yes climate change requieres abs so its staying.

as for other powers it depends ivan birth and the foundation of the PLC are 40 years appart and Poland and Lithuania where already in a personal union of its not like they wont exist any more also if ivan dies young or is never born his brother is the next choice been born in 1532

but the immediate ones as you mentioned as you mentioned is the Crimean khante but then again who says in that time line with Ivan ( and his brother or his succesors) not going south that the ottomans dont gain a foothold in Azov and the Khanate of Astrakhan becomes an ottoman protectorate in turn like the crimeans they can start raiding to russia, after all they dont need to conquer russia just prevent its expansion and cause destabilization.


2) in this episode of things i never said : "Sorry to say so but you are a victim of the stereotypes (): an idea that Peter's war for the Baltic coast was something related to being "progressive" yeah no i said that what changes the mind referring to the people who want war and the tsar dies and the battle is a defeat who is to say some dont waver? but hey it dont blame you my writing suck either that our your strawman is showing .


"That's nice. You don't know who these "reactionaries" were but are sure that they had much sway on him. Well, at least one of the most important people implicated in Alexey's Affair, Kikin, was quite progressive. You can easily find his short bio on Wiki and find out that he was an important participant of the Peter's reforms and his main sin was that he was taking Alexey's side (not a big surprise because he had an earlier quarrel with Menshikov). Another implicated person, Vasily Dolgorukov, had some disagreements with Peter and after Alexey's affair was demoted and sent into exile. But he also hardly was a "reactionary" and during the reign of Elizabeth became President of the College of War and made significant improvements regarding the organization and logistics of Russian military."


except his mom and her family for his infancy and it worked since he was opposed to peter and a lot of the clergy as well like Glebov who was enligned with them or at least was in favor of them to some degree but you can say if source on this time being the Romanovs 1613-1918 by Sebga Montefiore is wrong , then i will accept that .

"During Poltava campaign Alexey was in change of improvement fortifications of Moscow but even if we assume that stuff about the "weak peace treaty", this hardly has anything to do with the "balkanization" or anything of the kind. His father lost Ingria but, AFAIK, Tsardom did not fall apart. Defeats in the wars were quite usual and somehow Russia did not fall apart after defeat at Narva or quite a few other defeats preceding Poltava victory. Neither was Peter assassinated or ousted. So you are in the area of a free flight of a fantasy. What if each and every ruler in Europe is assassinated simultaneously? What if Charles XII is assassinated? Etc."

i said its quite unlikely , also yes what you say is true but then again you ignored that i said in this context the tsar would be killed the forces defeated and if Alexie pulls a Commodus he will be unpopular for basically giving up and that would mean a nominal victory for Sweden , i dont see how is fantasy to have an uncaring ruler who gave up on popular war to important people not be assassinated of course i never said he sings the peace and then just like that he is killed it could be months if not years down the line.

"if you are talking about the future Catherine I, her marriage of 1707 was secret and until 1712 she did not have a claim. Catherine Ivanovna in 1709 is 18 years old so if she is a candidate, there can be a short regency or no regency at all.
What Frederick William has to do with anything I have no clue. As for Karl Leopold, how about checking the dates before posting? Catherine Ivanovna got married only in 1716."

this is why i mentioned Fredrick william since he was married to Catherine Ivanovna the marriage can still occur its a possibilty the other one for Karl i did got it wrong my apologies .

 

[alexmilman]

except his mom and her family for his infancy and it worked since he was opposed to peter and a lot of the clergy as well like Glebov who was enligned with them or at least was in favor of them to some degree

His mom was confined in a nunnery and did not have any political influence. Eudoxia was in a nunnery since Alexey was 8 or 9 years old so there was no close contact for 11 years and the stories about her being a center of anything are just rumors, probably generated by the official propaganda as a part of justification of Alexey’s trial. Actually, Alexey was not in any kind of a serious opposition to Peter. He surely was not in a full agreement with some of his activities, which clearly identifies him as an intelligent person, but he was well-educated (unlike his fatter), was interested in the fortification, knew foreign languages, traveled abroad and was married to a member of the imperial family. None of which identifies himself as a reactionary. He was at odds with Menshikov and, no surprise there, with Catherine but it seems that they were the aggressive side. Not sure what exactly (except for a complete lack of any education) makes them progressive so the authors who are freely distributing these labels are immediately under suspicion.


The Lopukhins during Peter’s reign did not held any critically important positions and, anyway, why would they rebel against Alexey or suddenly turn “reactionary”. Eudoxia’s uncle was officer of the Guards and had one of the low-level court ranks. His son in 1708 graduated from the School of mathematics and navigation and sent to Great Britain where he served in the navy until 1717. After return he became one of the first Russian captains of the Russian navy, fought with the distinction in the GNW and was highly decorated. So there is no reason to suspect the family in any excessive conservatism.

. Glebov was not a clergymen. He was an officer (a major) who was sent to oversee Eudoxia’s confinement and became her lover (was tortured and executed with a cruelty unusual even for Peter).

Some clergy was not happy with the ongoing changes but the most prominent figure, Dmitry of Rostov, died in 1709 and Feofan Prokopovich had been much more influential. Speaking of which, by 1709 Russian Orthodox Church pretty much lost its position as a semi-independent force: Peter prevented the election of a new patriarch, and instead appointed Stephen Yavorsky as patriarchal "exarch", locum tenens, but had very little in the terms of real power and was heading a church with the bishops council. So, yes, there was unhappiness, especially among the monks, but they had neither power nor influence to start a revolt. Even the monastery property had been administered by the governmental structure, Monastyrsky Prikaz.

So we have: a not too intelligent nun, a major with few soldiers and few monks. All of them should start a civil war over unsatisfactory peace treaty .... Very convincing.

 

[Goldensilver81]

His mom was confined in a nunnery and did not have any political influence. Eudoxia was in a nunnery since Alexey was 8 or 9 years old so there was no close contact for 11 years and the stories about her being a center of anything are just rumors, probably generated by the official propaganda as a part of justification of Alexey’s trial. Actually, Alexey was not in any kind of a serious opposition to Peter. He surely was not in a full agreement with some of his activities, which clearly identifies him as an intelligent person, but he was well-educated (unlike his fatter), was interested in the fortification, knew foreign languages, traveled abroad and was married to a member of the imperial family. None of which identifies himself as a reactionary. He was at odds with Menshikov and, no surprise there, with Catherine but it seems that they were the aggressive side. Not sure what exactly (except for a complete lack of any education) makes them progressive so the authors who are freely distributing these labels are immediately under suspicion.


The Lopukhins during Peter’s reign did not held any critically important positions and, anyway, why would they rebel against Alexey or suddenly turn “reactionary”. Eudoxia’s uncle was officer of the Guards and had one of the low-level court ranks. His son in 1708 graduated from the School of mathematics and navigation and sent to Great Britain where he served in the navy until 1717. After return he became one of the first Russian captains of the Russian navy, fought with the distinction in the GNW and was highly decorated. So there is no reason to suspect the family in any excessive conservatism.

. Glebov was not a clergymen. He was an officer (a major) who was sent to oversee Eudoxia’s confinement and became her lover (was tortured and executed with a cruelty unusual even for Peter).

Some clergy was not happy with the ongoing changes but the most prominent figure, Dmitry of Rostov, died in 1709 and Feofan Prokopovich had been much more influential. Speaking of which, by 1709 Russian Orthodox Church pretty much lost its position as a semi-independent force: Peter prevented the election of a new patriarch, and instead appointed Stephen Yavorsky as patriarchal "exarch", locum tenens, but had very little in the terms of real power and was heading a church with the bishops council. So, yes, there was unhappiness, especially among the monks, but they had neither power nor influence to start a revolt. Even the monastery property had been administered by the governmental structure, Monastyrsky Prikaz.

So we have: a not too intelligent nun, a major with few soldiers and few monks. All of them should start a civil war over unsatisfactory peace treaty .... Very convincing.

1) sorry my mistake got confused with Dimitry

As for the final yes but if we are going by the scenario thar peter dies and it's a swedish victory .

We have to take the young tsar that has a high change of throwning away a popular war to important men made a weak peace treaty and then ?

Add this that how would he rule and how much interest would be put on it as he didn't want to be tsar so again he can very well leave the government in the hands of capable men or highly corrupt incompent ones in either way it's an opening to massive corruption .

and with himself wasting his time and money of his many activities ( really getting Romans vibes but oh well )
If this does happen I can see some people wanting to kill him depends when he dies that the succession can be smooth and the successor would have to fix the damages or or if Peter II Alexeyevich still is born and is like the otl well then you would have (depending when his father dies) two bad tsars for history and really would depend if the next one fixed the issues .
or maybe the tsar dies where there or no clear succession.

add to this that sweden is still around and has "won" the great northern war so there is that .

The possibility for a major crisis is there depends a lot if Alexey steps up or leaves the right people in charge and if they don't become to corrupt to the point that it causes problems and how bad or good his successor if he leaves one .