Russia without the Romanovs: WI a different Tsar and dynasty chosen in 1613?

[Halagaz]

In 1613 Russia was electing its new Tsar and new dynasty. The Assembly of the Realm settled on Michael Romanov in OTL; but Romanov's election was not a foregone conclusion. There were several other contenders, some of whom were quite serious and just as widely supported.

The most serious of these other candidates was Kanshov-Dmitry Mamstriukovich, son of the late Circassian prince Mamstriuk. His claim was just as valid as the claim of the Romanovs (or anyone else), since Mamstriuk was the brother of Kuchenei-Maria, Ivan IV's second wife. Dmitry was also a competent commander and minor war hero of the Time of Troubles. He had the support of the Cossacks; and he could also be plausibly accepted by enough boyars and the service gentry, including those who actually wanted a foreign-born Tsar.

Charles Philip, brother of the Swedish King, was also considered. So was prince Trubetskoi as one of the two fully native candidates. Seeing one of these two become Tsar would have be interesting, especially Charles...but they both had some crippling political weaknesses, and were unlikely to actually gain the Russian throne.

Simeon Bekbulatovich was not a contender in 1613, but with a slightly earlier PoD he or one of his sons also might have found their way to the throne. His connections to the old Russian dynasty were just as good as the connections of the Romanovs and Dmitry Mamstriukovich (ironically, his election would have also made the Tsar a legitimate male line Chinggisid).


So how might Russia develop if one of these candidates was chosen instead of Michael Romanov?
I'm chiefly interested in a scenario where Dmitry of Circassia becomes Tsar, but thoughts on the other potential Tsars are also welcome.

What would internal development be like? We can assume at least slightly less conservative policies; more favorable to Cossacks and other commoners, and less preferential towards the boyars and gentry (especially those who collaborated with Poland). But what would that actually look like? Would Russia's representative institutions (ie. the Assembly of the Realm) survive in some form? What about foreign relations - with the European powers, the rulers of the steppes, the local powers of the Caucasus...?

 

[Halagaz]

Bump?

 

[mrmandias]

the idea of having a male line Chinggisid is awesome. That said, I have a soft spot for the Cossacks and always thought they got a bit of a raw deal OTL.

 

[Fed]

A Circassian-line Tsar is a fascinating idea, tbh. I don't know if it'd change that much but at least in theory it's awesome.

 

[Bakenellan]

Everyone except Charles Philip should not change much though names and flavor would be different. The crucial question - would any of the candidates satisfy most of their subjects to prevent next round of infighting.

 

[mrmandias]

Sorta off-topic, but its hilarious that the absolute Tsars, autocrats of all the Russias, answerable only to God, etc. . . . were picked by an Assembly kinda at random.

 

[Behemoth]

Something else that may prove to be interesting and, IIRC, has been brought up before, would be if Wladyslaw remained as tsar. As I understand it his father Sigismund, the king of Poland, wanted to convert Russia from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. What if Sigismund allowed his son to go to Moscow?

 

[Halagaz]

A Circassian-line Tsar is a fascinating idea, tbh. I don't know if it'd change that much but at least in theory it's awesome.

the idea of having a male line Chinggisid is awesome. That said, I have a soft spot for the Cossacks and always thought they got a bit of a raw deal OTL.

I agree, and I think those two have the most potential.

As for the Cossacks, it's indeed sad how gullible they turned out to be. Sometimes kinda shifty, but extremely gullible at the same time; which is no small feat.

Everyone except Charles Philip should not change much though names and flavor would be different. The crucial question - would any of the candidates satisfy most of their subjects to prevent next round of infighting.

I think there would be at least some significant changes.
Of all the candidates considered at the time, Michael Romanov seems to have been an almost uniquely bad one. There's no reason to assume the others (Dmitry Mamstriukovich, Trubetskoi or even Bekbulatovich who's admittedly a little suspicious) would rule with the same kneejerk reactionary policies and mule-headed aristocratic selfishness practiced by Michael and his advisors.

I think the changes may even soon start showing on the map, since the Russians may fight much harder - and, for that matter, negotiate much harder - against Poland and Sweden under a different, more pro-Cossack Tsar.

Ironically, Charles Philip is the one candidate most similar to Romanov; he was underage like Michael (and thus easily influenced) and could be just as much of a boyar/gentry Tsar if not more. Though his Swedish connection and Protestantism still put an interesting twist on things

As for further infighting, I believe all of those candidates would have been able to prevent it - with the possible exception of Charles Philip, whose election might have started a new civil war along regional (Novgorod for, central Russia against) or loosely class-based lines.

 

[Russian]

Of all the candidates considered at the time, Michael Romanov seems to have been an almost uniquely bad one.

We shouldn't forget who was Michael Romanov's father, Feodor Nikitich Romanov - Patriarch Philaret of Moscow.
That was the most decisive factor. At that moment Patriarch Philaret was a prisoner in the hands of the Polish king, Sigismund III Vasa, whom he refused to acknowledge as tsar of Muscovy on being sent on an embassy to the Polish camp in 1610.

You should understand the mentality of the Russian people of the time (as a side note, that stays true up until now) - the Russians do honour, revere the martyrs. And Michael Romanov's father, Patriarch Philaret, was a martyr for the (Orthodox) Christianity and for Russia.
Philaret was suffering like Jesus Christ suffered, like the Christian saints suffered; and Michael Romanov was his son. So Michael Romanov had the unique advantage, which no other candidate had.

Sorta off-topic, but its hilarious that the absolute Tsars, autocrats of all the Russias, answerable only to God, etc. . . . were picked by an Assembly kinda at random.

It was not that random (as it seems from outside Russia). In Russia it was kinda natural thing - to choose the son of a national hero / religious martyr to start a new dynasty.

 

[Halagaz]

We shouldn't forget who was Michael Romanov's father, Feodor Nikitich Romanov - Patriarch Philaret of Moscow.
That was the most decisive factor. At that moment Patriarch Philaret was a prisoner in the hands of the Polish king, Sigismund III Vasa, whom he refused to acknowledge as tsar of Muscovy on being sent on an embassy to the Polish camp in 1610.

You should understand the mentality of the Russian people of the time (as a side note, that stays true up until now) - the Russians do honour, revere the martyrs. And Michael Romanov's father, Patriarch Philaret, was a martyr for the (Orthodox) Christianity and for Russia.
Philaret was suffering like Jesus Christ suffered, like the Christian saints suffered; and Michael Romanov was his son. So Michael Romanov had the unique advantage, which no other candidate had.

It was not that random (as it seems from outside Russia). In Russia it was kinda natural thing - to choose the son of a national hero / religious martyr to start a new dynasty.

Still, when we take into account:

-that Patriarch Philaret and the other emissaries were in Polish hands not just because they rejected Sigismund, but also because they were ready to accept Wladyslaw;
-that Philaret was made Patriarch by false Dmitry - not even the "good" one, but the second one;
-that Ivan Romanov was in the Council of Seven, the most infamous of all collaborationist bodies; and that Michael spent the entire Polish occupation in the Kremlin together with the Seven;
-that, while Philaret was kind of a national hero, Trubetskoi and Dmitry Mamstriukovich were definitely national heroes;

...the picture becomes a lot less pretty.

I mean, it's understandable why they chose Michael. I just think they might have made a big mistake, to chose a major boyar who was both underage and so intimately connected with the Seven and all the old regimes.

 

[Russian]

-that, while Philaret was kind of a national hero, Trubetskoi and Dmitry Mamstriukovich were definitely national heroes;

Well, you lost the most crucial part of my reasoning - the 'religious martyr' part.
Philaret was a religious Christian martyr (at least he was perceived as such by the millions of the Russians; you know - suffering imprisoned by the Catholic Polish king, defending the true Orthodox Christianity... this kind of stuff).
Trubetskoi and Dmitry Mamstriukovich were not.

-that Patriarch Philaret and the other emissaries were in Polish hands not just because they rejected Sigismund, but also because they were ready to accept Wladyslaw;

As the Russians saw this particular (Polish) situation it was not about accepting Sigismund or Wladyslaw; it was about endangering the true (Orthodox) Christianity. If Sigismund is accepted as the Russian tsar - then it is a Catholic on the ancient Orthodox Russian throne.
It is unacceptable, unthinkable, outrageous like... I don't know... like a Muslim Ottoman Turkish sultan becoming a Pope of Rome.

-that Philaret was made Patriarch by false Dmitry - not even the "good" one, but the second one;

Hm, that's embarrassing and kind of awkward.
But that was before.
Now at the moment Patriarch Philaret is ready to accept torture, pain and death for the true (Orthodox) Christianity.
So (as the Russians perceived it) Philaret redeemed, atoned his former sin, and became the most famous religious (national) hero.
And actually he showed to everybody that whatever bad things you did during the infamous 'Time of Troubles' - you can rectify the situation, the former sins might be forgiven, pardoned. You know, it's deeply engraved into Christianity - like 'Paul the Apostle situation'.
And every Russian can follow this example - let's forget what we did during the Time of Troubles and let's forgive. That was the message. That was how the Russians saw this.

This religious aspect of this situation is extremely important.
Because when we say "Russians" while speaking about 'Time of Troubles' it is historically incorrect; the Russians called themselves "Christians" meaning of course 'true Orthodox Christians'.
Their self-identity was not along the national, 'ethnic' lines, it was first and foremost religious self-identity.
So there were a lot of Russian military heroes who bravely fought for Motherland and definitely deserved fame. But it was Patriarch Philaret who became Father of the country, who became the symbol of sacrificing himself; and it was felt that his son would be perceived as a unifying figure and he would be accepted by the most Russians.
Which actually happened.

So my point (again) - the election of Michael Romanov is not that random as it may seem from the first sight.

 

[Workable Goblin]

As the Russians saw this particular (Polish) situation it was not about accepting Sigismund or Wladyslaw; it was about endangering the true (Orthodox) Christianity. If Sigismund is accepted as the Russian tsar - then it is a Catholic on the ancient Orthodox Russian throne.
It is unacceptable, unthinkable, outrageous like... I don't know... like a Muslim Ottoman Turkish sultan becoming a Pope of Rome.

The point Halagaz was trying to make, as I see it, is that the mission was not trying to protect Orthodox Christianity, it was merely trying to replace one Catholic with another. To borrow your analogy, it would be as if Mehmet II was elected Holy Roman Emperor...and a mission was sent not to protest this outrage, but to persuade him to allow Bayezid II to be elected instead. Either way, you're still have a Muslim Turkish Emperor, it's just the identity of said Emperor is different.

 

[Halagaz]

The point Halagaz was trying to make, as I see it, is that the mission was not trying to protect Orthodox Christianity, it was merely trying to replace one Catholic with another. To borrow your analogy, it would be as if Mehmet II was elected Holy Roman Emperor...and a mission was sent not to protest this outrage, but to persuade him to allow Bayezid II to be elected instead. Either way, you're still have a Muslim Turkish Emperor, it's just the identity of said Emperor is different.

Indeed - Wladyslaw was also a Catholic. They thought Wladyslaw should convert to Orthodoxy, but there were no guarantees for this. And, while Philaret at least rejected Sigismund, Ivan Romanov and Michael continued collaboration with the Poles until the very end.

I suppose the religious aspect of politics comes into play here again: "all sins are forgiven" and so on. Which, is, again, understandable...but it still seems like the Romanovs had quite a lot of sins to forgive. Michael seems like a bad choice in hindsight. And, even without hindsight, there were signs - it's still strange how they didn't see it coming.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

What would happen if Russia has Romanov dynasty, but with Ivan winning the 1613 election?
How many votes did Mikhail get?

 

[Russian]

The point Halagaz was trying to make, as I see it, is that the mission was not trying to protect Orthodox Christianity, it was merely trying to replace one Catholic with another. To borrow your analogy, it would be as if Mehmet II was elected Holy Roman Emperor...and a mission was sent not to protest this outrage, but to persuade him to allow Bayezid II to be elected instead. Either way, you're still have a Muslim Turkish Emperor, it's just the identity of said Emperor is different.

They thought Wladyslaw should convert to Orthodoxy, but there were no guarantees for this.

They did not just think, it was agreed and all the necessary documents were signed that Wladyslaw was to convert to Orthodoxy.
The Russians and the Polish had a long history of treaty, contractual relations and usually they met their obligations, complied with the treaties.
Anyway that wouldn't be the good beginning of the reign to break the promise, I guess.
That would break all Wladyslaw's rights to the Russian throne from the Russian point of view, and that would annihilate all the oaths of allegiance to him.

Michael seems like a bad choice in hindsight. And, even without hindsight, there were signs - it's still strange how they didn't see it coming.

I don't know what makes you think so. Michael's reign restored Russia after the turbulent Time of Troubles. It was surprisingly good choice. After so many years of humiliation Russia started to recover.
But ye, Michael was lucky to have his father back from the Polish captivity to support him.

 

[Russian]

I suppose the religious aspect of politics comes into play here again: "all sins are forgiven" and so on. Which, is, again, understandable...but it still seems like the Romanovs had quite a lot of sins to forgive.
.

That might seem a paradox but the fact that the Romanovs had quite a lot of sins to forgive worked in their favour as a next royal dynasty. I'll try to explain my point:
You see, during a long long Time of Troubles nearly all the Russians somehow stained themselves by having collaborated with some of 'Pseudo-Dmitrys', the Polish conquerors or both. Well, if not all, but overwhelming majority of the Russians.
And everybody was afraid that if the newly chosen tsar was blameless, had a white-snow reputation, well... those who had sinned might have to pay for that dearly. With the Romanovs you wouldn't have to worry about your 'dirty' former deeds, you might sleep tight - and count on all your sins being forgotten and forgiven.

 

[Halagaz]

I don't know what makes you think so. Michael's reign restored Russia after the turbulent Time of Troubles. It was surprisingly good choice. After so many years of humiliation Russia started to recover.
But ye, Michael was lucky to have his father back from the Polish captivity to support him.

Michael's repression against the Cossacks in the middle of war weakened the Russian armies and forced Russia to make huge and unnecessary territorial concessions to Sweden and Poland; especially Poland, in the Truce of Deulino. So that's one thing he screwed up...even if we don't focus on the long-term negative consequences of his promotion of rigid serfdom and narrow gentry interests.

The election of Michael did mark the end of the Troubles and the start of Russia's recovery, but it can't be assumed that other candidates wouldn't have done just as well - or better.

 

[PhilippeO]

I just think they might have made a big mistake, to chose a major boyar who was both underage and so intimately connected with the Seven and all the old regimes.

Underage Boyars might actually be advantage from point of view of other Boyars families. They want Tsar that can be influenced and marry their daughters.

 

[Halagaz]

Underage Boyars might actually be advantage from point of view of other Boyars families. They want Tsar that can be influenced and marry their daughters.

That's one of the more bizarre aspects: at first, the boyars didn't want Michael, they were holding out for the Swedish prince; it was cossacks and commoners who supported him. Then, in the end, the boyars reluctantly agreed on Michael - and it turned out he was the boyars' friend and the cossacks' enemy all along.

 

[Russian]

That's one of the more bizarre aspects: at first, the boyars didn't want Michael, they were holding out for the Swedish prince; it was cossacks and commoners who supported him.

There were a lot of fractions among the boyars which supported different candidates for the throne.
But yes, the idea of electing a foreign prince as the tsar was attractive especially for the boyars.
One should understand the mentality of the Russian nobles: the boyar bloodlines, the families and clans competed with each other for centuries. And to imagine that some of them would become so high above others... that was a painful experience. Malignant envy burned many a boyar's heart.
Better have a foreign prince - this way no boyars' clique would gain an advantage over the other factions.

Then, in the end, the boyars reluctantly agreed on Michael - and it turned out he was the boyars' friend and the cossacks' enemy all along.

As I see it - in the end everybody realized that it was not about someones' hurt pride or feelings. It was about getting such a tsar, which would get the most support in the country - to stop the Civil wars, to end up with perpetual False Dmitries appearing and getting popular support.
Actually it was about survival of the Russian statehood, the national religion, the identity. The boyars hated the idea of someone from their midst to rise so high, but having the country overrun by the Non-Orthodox enemies again and again - they loathed that even more.