WIF: Ivan IV, Mr. Nice Guy

What if, instead of being whatever he was in a real life, Ivan IV "The Terrible" (actually, this nickname, as some other cases, is not quite adequate translation of his Russian nickname but let it be) was actually a reasonably normal person with a general level of sadism and paranoia not exceeding the contemporary standards?

1st. Probably, this would improve internal situation in the Tsardom, as a minimum preventing a catastrophic destruction of the agriculture (English ambassador at his court reported that Tsardom is looking for a major disaster within few years), huge loss of a population and generally negative impact on country's economy .

2nd. Probably, this would allow to prevent serious destruction of the existing military system: "purges" had been quite heavy on the top leadership and even if its quality was in many cases dubious, demoralizing effect was great.

3rd. Not sure if it would prevent defeats in the Livonian War: Russian military system already started lagging behind the Western models but a more sensible person would probably start doing what the early Romanovs (and even Godunov) had been doing: start inviting the foreign mercenaries and begin modernizing his army. To be fair, he created "streltsy" seemingly following Janissary model: infantry with the firearms. But there were too few of them, their quality was not high enough and without the pikes they were helpless in the field battles. However, absence of the excessive cruelties may make his initial conquest in Livonia more attractive to the natives with a resulting support against the later competitors (Poland and Sweden).

4th. This is a rather rhetorical question: would his better reputation make a serious difference in his candidacy as a Duke of Lithuania?
 
What if, instead of being whatever he was in a real life, Ivan IV "The Terrible" (actually, this nickname, as some other cases, is not quite adequate translation of his Russian nickname but let it be) was actually a reasonably normal person with a general level of sadism and paranoia not exceeding the contemporary standards?

Okay, where do you stand on the historiography of Ivan the Terrible, if you know any of it at all? Fair warning I take his letters to Prince Kurbsky to be mostly factual. The extent of Ivan's madness and tyranny is questionable, I slightly buy his blue or sane period, ending with the death of Elena Glinskaya, but only believe his paranoia got worse with the defection of Prince Kurbsky. For a POD, I guess you would need Vasily III and his wife to survive or Elena Glinskaya not to die when she did, but the hows and why are up to what you believe about this situation because the facts are not entirely clear. I assume you still want the conquests of Kazan and Astrakhan to be "on schedule" regardless of what POD?

1st. Probably, this would improve internal situation in the Tsardom, as a minimum preventing a catastrophic destruction of the agriculture (English ambassador at his court reported that Tsardom is looking for a major disaster within few years), huge loss of a population and generally negative impact on country's economy.

It's hard to say, even if Ivan is not paranoid it does not somehow mean he is not prideful. Most of Ivan's cruelty came from his pride than any madness, if he still has a chip on his should I do not think he would take dissent all that well. Also what leeway are taking with Ivan's children and love life? Does Elena die, does he still marry Maria, does Dimitry live, does he let Ivan Ivanovich mary Virginia of Sweden, Is Fyodor born and normal enough, does Vasily live longer etc

2nd. Probably, this would allow to prevent serious destruction of the existing military system: "purges" had been quite heavy on the top leadership and even if its quality was in many cases dubious, demoralizing effect was great.

3rd. Not sure if it would prevent defeats in the Livonian War: Russian military system already started lagging behind the Western models but a more sensible person would probably start doing what the early Romanovs (and even Godunov) had been doing: start inviting the foreign mercenaries and begin modernizing his army. To be fair, he created "streltsy" seemingly following Janissary model: infantry with the firearms. But there were too few of them, their quality was not high enough and without the pikes they were helpless in the field battles. However, absence of the excessive cruelties may make his initial conquest in Livonia more attractive to the natives with a resulting support against the later competitors (Poland and Sweden)[/QUOTE]

I'm not too sure about these points. First, even in OTL, Russia had fought in the Livonian for quite a long time after the Oprichnina and sack of Moscow, and Novgorod hat hurt the country. Second, the Oprichnina was more a system that divided the land to loyalists of Ivan, then a proto-Great Purge, as anyone from any class or ethnicity could join it.

As far as defeat in the Livonian War goes that was less due to Ivan's actions at least domestically, and more a series of preventable defeats and avoidable stalemate. I also have not seen much for the case of Russian military of the time being behind the curb of the rest of Europe. As for "modernizing" judging by what you've said happened under the Romanov's and Gudunov I do not see the "need" for it.

That modernization seems to have happened after Russia suffered a string of majors defeats from the Time of Troubles onward. Under Ivan, Russia had beaten Kazan and Astrakhan and at least ended the Livonian War in a stalemate. Even when Ivan had the services of foreigners, he did not seem keen on adopting any of their military tactics, I feel if Heinrich von Staden was grandstanding about his importance he would have mentioned it. It is not like Russia needed foreigners to adopt muskets and cannons, especially as the benefits would become clear over time.

4th. This is a rather rhetorical question: would his better reputation make a serious difference in his candidacy as a Duke of Lithuania?[/QUOTE]

No, It's unknown how serious he considered his candidacy as Lithuania has plenty of lands that are Russian, I'd say Ivan was more concerned about those lands then becoming Grand Duke of Lithuania. Although depending on what POD you are using Sigismund Agustus could still have an heir.
 

Toraach

Banned
No, It's unknown how serious he considered his candidacy as Lithuania has plenty of lands that are Russian, I'd say Ivan was more concerned about those lands then becoming Grand Duke of Lithuania. Although depending on what POD you are using Sigismund Agustus could still have an heir.
No Lithuania didn't have land which were russian, but ruthenian. Of course there is a matter what during this time meant the word "russki" in eastern slavic langueages, and how they were used. But Muscowy doesn't equal all eastern slavic lands.
What if, instead of being whatever he was in a real life, Ivan IV "The Terrible" (actually, this nickname, as some other cases, is not quite adequate translation of his Russian nickname but let it be) was actually a reasonably normal person with a general level of sadism and paranoia not exceeding the contemporary standards?
In Polish he is called Iwan Groźny. Which Groźny is a polish counterpart of Russian Грозный, which in Russian Groza means the thunderstorm, and in Polish horror/terror. Probably the ancient Poles just took the identical word with his Russian nickname. In Polish Groźny means dangerous/threating. His grandfather Ivan III in Polish has a nickname Srogi, which means strict/severe. You can see that Poles had a bad opinnions about how nice guys were muscovite rulers.
 
Okay, where do you stand on the historiography of Ivan the Terrible, if you know any of it at all?

Which historiography are you talking about? There is more than one with assessment of Ivan varying from a historically positive personage fighting against the reactionary opposition and all the way to him being a raving maniac.

Fair warning I take his letters to Prince Kurbsky to be mostly factual.

Including him blaming everybody else in all problems?


The extent of Ivan's madness and tyranny is questionable,

Let's separate apples and oranges. Extent of Ivan's madness is disputable because some of his actions can be (and had been) explained as a part of a meaningful plan (for example, "oprichnina" and even the Sack of Novgorod). However the fact that he was, even by the standards of his time, a tyrant is rather difficult to deny outside of Stalinist historiography.


I slightly buy his blue or sane period, ending with the death of Elena Glinskaya, but only believe his paranoia got worse with the defection of Prince Kurbsky. For a POD, I guess you would need Vasily III and his wife to survive or Elena Glinskaya not to die when she did, but the hows and why are up to what you believe about this situation because the facts are not entirely clear. I assume you still want the conquests of Kazan and Astrakhan to be "on schedule" regardless of what POD?

Whatever triggered his behavioral pattern and how it could be changed is outside the scope of the question. BTW, "peculiarities" of his behavior had been evident well before his 1st marriage and definitely before Kurbsky's defection: Kurbsky defected because he knew what awaits him after suffering a defeat.

Conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan would happen anyway, a little bit earlier or a little bit later: at least Kazan was de facto Russian vassal before Ivan had been born. It can be argued that the purely military aspect of campaign against Kazan could be handled better and that taking city with the wooden walls should not take 2 campaigns but this is neither here nor there.



It's hard to say, even if Ivan is not paranoid it does not somehow mean he is not prideful.

That's fine. Authoritarian rule already was "in" during the reign of Ivan III with all related consequences.


Most of Ivan's cruelty came from his pride than any madness,

Interesting theory. Not sure how most of the victims managed to hurt his pride but willing to learn. You can start with Novgorod.

if he still has a chip on his should I do not think he would take dissent all that well.

Chip or no chip, his contemporary colleagues tended not to take dissent well, unless they could not prevent it. But massive extermination of the people who simply were not in a position to "dissent" is a seriously different story.


Also what leeway are taking with Ivan's children and love life? Does Elena die, does he still marry Maria, does Dimitry live, does he let Ivan Ivanovich mary Virginia of Sweden, Is Fyodor born and normal enough, does Vasily live longer etc

Irrelebant to the subject: it is strictly about Ivan and his reign not about "unhappily ever after". BTW, Fyodor was quite normal, just a meek and pious person who loved his wife (and even had a child) and was smart enough to chose a right person to act as a head of his government. Dmitry was absolutely unimportant except as a not quite dead corps: Ivan's "marriage" to his mother was not legitimate (proper Church procedure had not been performed).



me: 3rd. Not sure if it would prevent defeats in the Livonian War: Russian military system already started lagging behind the Western models but a more sensible person would probably start doing what the early Romanovs (and even Godunov) had been doing: start inviting the foreign mercenaries and begin modernizing his army. To be fair, he created "streltsy" seemingly following Janissary model: infantry with the firearms. But there were too few of them, their quality was not high enough and without the pikes they were helpless in the field battles. However, absence of the excessive cruelties may make his initial conquest in Livonia more attractive to the natives with a resulting support against the later competitors (Poland and Sweden)

you: I'm not too sure about these points. First, even in OTL, Russia had fought in the Livonian for quite a long time after the Oprichnina and sack of Moscow, and Novgorod hat hurt the country. Second, the Oprichnina was more a system that divided the land to loyalists of Ivan, then a proto-Great Purge, as anyone from any class or ethnicity could join it.

You seemingly did not get what I'm talking about and none of the things you listed are truly relevant to the subject. I'll try one more time. By the time of the Livonian War Western warfare did proceed from the armies based on the mounted feudal militias to those based upon the professional military with the increasing role of the "pike and shot" infantry. There were also noticeable advancements both in the fortifications and in the siegecraft.

Ivan's army remained predominantly traditional Muscovite army which consisted of the feudal militia raised for the specific occasion, vassal Tatars and few thousands of the newly-created infantry with the firearms (but without the pikes so its usefulness on a battlefield was limited). Feudal militia mostly did not have firearms, the horses had been of a low quality (situation that plagued Russian armies all the way to the XVIII century) and there was no real drill of acting in the formations.

Additionally, it suffered from the obsolete system of "mestnichestwo" under which appointments to the command positions had been done based on the service records of one's ancestors and relatives with the resulting prolonged litigations even during the war: person could not allow to be appointed to serve under someone (no matter how talented and experienced) if his ancestors had been serving on the higher positions than ancestors of his appointed commander.

The Polish armies were not the most "westernized" but they had been ahead of Moscow in that area and, at least starting from the reign of Stephen Bathory, they developed a superb regular heavy cavalry.

Ivan's successors started trying to remedy the situation by hiring the foreign mercenaries and later, during the reigns of the first Romanov Tsars, creating the Western-style regiments. But this was a future.

As far as defeat in the Livonian War goes that was less due to Ivan's actions at least domestically, and more a series of preventable defeats and avoidable stalemate. I also have not seen much for the case of Russian military of the time being behind the curb of the rest of Europe. As for "modernizing" judging by what you've said happened under the Romanov's and Gudunov I do not see the "need" for it.

Well, unlike you (and the Stalinist historians who also did not see any problems with Ivan :cool:), Ivan's successors did see such a need and tried to attend to it, which of course was not an easy thing to do.
 
4th. This is a rather rhetorical question: would his better reputation make a serious difference in his candidacy as a Duke of Lithuania?
I wonder, if something, that would further increase his (or his son's) chance could happen-nice Ivan is not refused hand of Catherine Jagiellon? Being married to Catholic would be problematic for him, but there was Jagiellon-Rurikid marriage few decades earlier (Alexander and Helen), Orthodox wife had not prevented Alexander from taking crown, how would it work other way?
 
Top