WI: Peter the Great Never Returns?

What if Peter the Great of Russia never returns from his grand, Europe-travelling embassy to learn about ship navigation and building, either by choice, or after he is mugged and killed or something along those lines. How would his advisors react? Who would get the throne? What would be Russia's fate?
 
As his brother Ivan V was already dead, I'm guessing his son Alexis would get the throne. As much of the nobility was alarmed by his reforming ways, they probably would have seen the young Alexis as some maleable who would keep the status quo. One question would be how Peter's sister Sophia would react? Would she make a power grab herself, or would she get behind Alexis?
 
What I'm now wondering after reading a bit about Alexis' and his father's later relationship, is that since he seemed reluctant to have power and seemed to have been manipulated by the nobility to be their pawn in a grab for the throne (he admitted so much, even though it was under torture, so it may have been a lie, but the likely poisoning after the torture seems to say that he told the truth.)

So would Alexis ascend to the throne relatively smoothly with the nobility's support, or would Sophia maybe try at something and convince him to abdicate?
 
Last edited:
I'd assumed you were talking about Peter's trip to the West in the late 1690s in which case Alexis would only be a boy of about 8 on his father's death. I'd think ambitious people would want him on the throne so they could try and rule through him. I'm not sure Sophia would want him to abdicate as there weren't any other suitable candidates on her family's side.

If we're talking about Peter's later trip to the West - 1716-17 then Sophia would be dead and so play no part in the accession. I think Alexis would want the throne - firstly because it was his birthright and secondly because it was a chance to undo some of his father's reforms which he didn't support. I think most of the nobility would have supported him as they didn't like Peter's reforms either. Of course Peter's close friends like Menshikov might have pushed for Peter's young son by Catherine to take the throne with a regency - though as that little boy didn't live very long it would have been a brief reign!
 
If it is the 1690s trip then the Great nordic war is butterflied away since Denmark and Poland do nothing without Russian help OR the whole thing goes as OTL up to Narva and after Narva Russia makes peace leaving Poland to be the only nation against Sweden. Without a Russian interference the war ends around 1704 with Saxony losing controll of Poland and Poland a puppet nation of Sweden. Times of Troubles 2.0 of Russia?
 
Yeah I was thinking of the 1690 trip. Most interesting I think would be that in all of these scenarios it seems that Russia stays almost landlocked.
 
Yeah I was thinking of the 1690 trip. Most interesting I think would be that in all of these scenarios it seems that Russia stays almost landlocked.

In the short term maybe but Russia had been trying to get access to the Baltic since Ivan the Terrible and Livonian War and they aren't going to stop just because Peter is dead.
 
In the short term maybe but Russia had been trying to get access to the Baltic since Ivan the Terrible and Livonian War and they aren't going to stop just because Peter is dead.

Yeah, Agree, but the question would be... how much of the Russia final success were thanks to the Peter's reforms/ westernized army?
 
Difficult to say, the Russians had Western style forces (aka the Regiments of the New Order) before Peter and in 1681 the Western style units were the majority of the army (90,000 vs 55,000 Streltsy) and the proportion was growing. One advantage the Streltsy had was that as part time soldiers they were cheaper than Regular units, which is why in OTL it took until 1720 to finally abolish them. So in the absence of Peter it may take longer or it may never happen with the Streltsy evolving into a reserve militia to back up the regular Regiments of the New Order, which wouldn't be the worst military idea in history.
 
IIRC, there were quite a few reforms under Peter to not only the land forces but to the navy as well. He studied shipbuilding in Amsterdam and sent a delegation to Malta to observe their naval training. With Peter not returning, IMHO it would take a considerable amount of time for Russia to have a more modern navy.
 
IIRC, there were quite a few reforms under Peter to not only the land forces but to the navy as well. He studied shipbuilding in Amsterdam and sent a delegation to Malta to observe their naval training. With Peter not returning, IMHO it would take a considerable amount of time for Russia to have a more modern navy.

Without Peter and without the Great Nordic War, Russia won't be having a coast to have a navy at (except the white sea, but the ability to do anything there is severly limited).
 
The Great Northern War began the point it began, because Denmark, Saxony and Russia saw the new Swedish king as a good opportunity to start the war. Without Peter the alliance need to wait for a new opportunity. The question are what Charles XII does instead. I expect the warmongering idiot to start or join another war. Likely he will join the War of Spanish Succession.
 
IIRC, there were quite a few reforms under Peter to not only the land forces but to the navy as well. He studied shipbuilding in Amsterdam and sent a delegation to Malta to observe their naval training. With Peter not returning, IMHO it would take a considerable amount of time for Russia to have a more modern navy.

The Russian Navy was absolutely Peter's baby so take him off the table and you probably won't see anything like that any time soon, which broadly speaking would be a good thing for Russia. Even with St. Petersburg Russia is not a natural naval power, the Baltic is a closed lake unless you have the Dane's onside and the Barents Sea is just too hostile for ships of this era. Which is why post Peter his Navy shrank rapidly as resources were spent more sensibly.
 
Top