It is difficult to imagine the history of Russia not only in the 18th century, but also in subsequent centuries without Peter I. Nevertheless, if, due to insuperable circumstances, he could not rule the country, which path would Russia take?
Dynastic entanglements
It is known that Pyotr Alekseevich was the third heir to the throne after the elder brothers Fyodor and Ivan. Fyodor's health failed: he died in 1682, having reigned for 6 years. However, Peter had another competitor - the son of Fyodor, Ilya. It was he who, according to the law, had the primary right to the throne, and only the death of the baby cleared the way for the two remaining brothers of Fedor.
Peter took the Moscow throne in 1682, acting as co-ruler of Ivan. But in fact, the country was ruled by influential families of their mothers: until 1689 - the Miloslavskys (Maria Miloslavskaya - Ivan's mother), and since 1689 - the Naryshkins (Natalya Naryshkina - Peter's mother).
The Miloslavsky clan was represented by another contender for the throne - the daughter of Alexei Mikhailovich, Princess Sophia, however, in the presence of male heirs, she had no chance for him. Having seized power as a result of the Shooting Riot in 1682, she, as regent of the young brothers, ruled the state until 1689.
Only after the deposition of Sophia in 1689 and the death of Ivan in 1696 did Peter finally become the sovereign ruler of Russia. If it weren't for this complicated chain of circumstances - Peter would not see the throne, and his descendants - Peter's Russia. However, let us imagine what our country could be without Peter?
Promotional video:
Polish Rus
During his six years of reign, Fyodor Alekseevich, although he did not manage to bring the initiated innovations to the end, nevertheless set a clear direction in which the country would develop. In 1678 he conducted a general population census. Its importance is evidenced by the fact that Peter canceled the results of the 1710 census, ordering to collect the filing according to the books of 1678. However, the direct taxation introduced by Fedor, which increased the tax burden, was continued by Peter's financial reform.
Fyodor Alekseevich also began a military reform, in particular, he abolished parochialism and eliminated category books that ensured the position of the nobility, and paralyzed the functioning of the army. This dealt a serious blow to the boyars: now promotion depended not on origin, but on personal qualities.
In addition, under the sovereign Fedor, the regiments of a foreign system received a new development. What are the conclusions? The reign of Fedor III in many ways anticipated the ideas of Peter I. It can be assumed that if Fedor had lived twenty years more, we would have seen the fall of the boyars and the army of the European model in his presence.
However, there are also differences. From 1676 to 1681 Fyodor Alekseevich waged a war against the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate. According to the Peace of Bakhchisarai concluded on January 13, 1681, Russia annexed the left-bank Ukraine and Kiev with its environs.
It was Turkey, and not Sweden, that Fedor III considered his main enemy. It is possible that with him we could reach the Black Sea, moderating our belligerence in the West. Fyodor Alekseevich was known as a Polonophile and instilled in the courtiers' love for everything Polish: language, customs, dress, dances. The "Polish Rus" of Fyodor Alekseevich would be noticeably different from the German-Dutch Russia of Peter.
But the fate of the Old Believers under Fedor III could have been very sad. If Peter actually allowed the schismatics a semi-legal existence, then Fedor arranged repressions for them. It was on his conscience the death of Archpriest Avvakum.
To the Black Sea
One can admit the option in which the regent Sofya Alekseevna would become the full-fledged ruler of the country. Voltaire wrote about her as follows: “She had a lot of intelligence, wrote poetry, wrote and spoke well, with a pleasant appearance combined many talents; they were overshadowed only by her ambition."
Following her ambition, the queen would certainly have continued to fight the schism: Her "12 articles", which determined the degree of punishment for Old Believers, would have been only the beginning of large-scale repressions. "Eternal peace" with Poland, concluded by Sophia in 1686, would mean a long alliance with her formidable neighbor, and possibly use it to contain Sweden.
The princess would not have left the Crimean Tatars alone. It was during her regency that the Crimean campaigns of Vasily Golitsyn were organized, which, although they did not bring obvious dividends, nevertheless strengthened the authority of Russia.
However, had it achieved its goal and entered into an agreement with the "Holy League", perhaps this alliance of European powers against the Ottoman Empire would have existed longer and would have borne fruit for Russia in the Crimea and on the Black Sea coast at the beginning of the 18th century.
Tsar Ivan to be
If Peter had not led Russia, then obviously there would have been no ill-fated "law of succession", which abolished the tradition of transferring the throne only to direct descendants and entrusted the fate of the throne to the will or whim of the monarch. In an alternative history, Russia would not have known a series of palace coups that cost the lives of monarchs and heirs, and also influenced the political structure of the state. Perhaps we would not have had a loose guard and all-powerful favorites.
If the law on succession to the throne was preserved after Ivan V, the place of the monarch would be taken by his eldest daughter Catherine. Suppose she would have married Karl Leopold of Mecklenburg-Schwerinsky anyway: then their daughter Anna Leopoldovna would have passed the throne, and her son Ivan VI, who was killed in real history while trying to be freed from captivity, would have passed the throne.
Russia is not the same without Peter
Journalist Yulia Latynina is sure that without Peter I there would have been no Russian Empire, at least in the form in which it was formed in the 18th-19th centuries. What could have happened? Latynina replies: two more major powers would have formed: one with the center in Kiev, the other with the capital in Warsaw. The Moscow kingdom, "stupid and archaic", would have no chance to subjugate these territories with the streltsy army,”the journalist sums up.
According to most researchers, Russia without Peter I would hopelessly lag behind developed European countries, following the example of Japan and China - that is, becoming one of the world leaders only by the 20th century.
The author of a series of books on the economic history of Russia, Yuri Kuzovkov, draws attention to the fact that after the victory in 1709 over the Swedes throughout the 18th century, no one invaded our territorial possessions, which is a great merit of Peter. Otherwise, Russia could not survive. It was thanks to Peter I that Sweden, which at the beginning of the 18th century was one of the strongest powers of the Old World, never turned into a real empire.
Without Peter I, many things would have been different: the history of the Russian fleet would have begun not in the Baltic, but in the Black Sea; the western borders of our state would pass not beyond Pskov, but closer to Veliky Novgorod; the coming year we would not meet on January 1, but on September 1. But most importantly, we would not have St. Petersburg, which grew up thanks to the madness and genius of Peter the Great.
Taras Repin
