WIF: the XVIII century Russia - elective monarchy

[Alex Milman]

Strictly speaking, tradition of the elective monarchy can be traced to the mid-XVII: the 1st Romanov was elected and at the end of the XVIII Ivan IV and Peter I had been "elected" by the revolting troops.

After the death of Peter I his widow was "elected" by the Guards as Catherine II and after the death of Peter II the Supreme Council had to elect between Peter's daughter Elizabeth and a daugther of Ivan IV, Anne (the widowed duchess of Curland). They chose Anne and offered some constitutional "Conditions" which would make the imperial power VERY weak. The idea was not supported by the Russian nobility (personified by the Guards) who sought that the aristocratic tyranny is going to be worse than the royal one. What if the "Conditions" had been addressing interests not just of a top aristocracy but of the nobility as well allowing the members of Supreme Council to get support of the Guards? For example, the conditions are establishing a version of the Sejm with a meaningful power AND abolish the mandatory military service for the nobility. Supreme Council is being transformed into something like Commonwealth' Senate (with a different name: Russia already had Senate with clearly defined functions) thus creating the rules for inclusion.

Anne becomes a de facto empress with no meaningful power (all the way to her NOT being a colonel of Preobrazensky Guards Regiment). Not that Russia is governed substantially better but the elective principle is being codified as well as existence of the representative organ with a substantial power. Anne died childless and in OTL it appointed as her successor a baby-child of her niece, Ivan V (tragic figure who spent almost all his life in captivity). After few months of the "reign" he was overthrown by Elizabeth but in ATL the coup is not happening (the Guards came to liking the new system) so Russia has "Romanov"-Braunschweig dynasty with each next hereditary ruler requiring a formal confirmation and having limited power. How would this work out in a long run? Keep in mind that, for quite a while the serfdom was a sacred cow and this is not going to change.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Alex Milman
How would this work out in a long run?

I gather that Russia, ITTL, is much like OTL Poland.

Therefore:

No Russian conquest of the Black Sea coast.

No Russian intervention in German affairs (as in
OTL's Seven Years War.

No partition of Poland.

Russia doesn't take Finland from Sweden.

_Long_-term... How long does this "elective
monarchy" regime persist in Russia? In Poland
it was killed off in the late XVIIth century
by foreign conquest. ITTL, that won't happen,
and ISTM that Russia is even less vulnerable.
If it persists into the XIXth century, that
may prevent Russian conquests in the Caucasus
and Central Asia, or even Russian acquistion
of the Amur River territories from China.

[Alex Milman]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Alex Milman
How would this work out in a long run?

I gather that Russia, ITTL, is much like OTL Poland.

In this time frame it is a little bit too late for such a dramatic decline. The WIF is about the CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy. Something closer to the British or Swedish (contemporary) model than to the Polish anarchy.

The fundamental differences between the constitutional Russian Empire (in the early XVIII) and the Commonwealth:

(a) Russian monarch (elected or not) is still a by far the biggest landowner in the country. Which, among other things, meant that a monarch had a meaningful tool for awarding the loyal servants by granting them land (with those who lives on it). While the reformers could somewhat limit freedom of such grants, nobody (AFAIK) was trying to confiscate these lands from the crown.

(b) Russian top aristocracy does NOT have its private armies and not too much in the terms of the noble vassals.

(c) Related to (b). Even the greatest landowners do no possess the big uninterrupted pieces of land (unlike the Commonwealth): absence of the primogeniture and consistent policy of the earlier Russian rulers took care of this.

(d) Russian nobility (as in "gentry" or "schliachta") is primarily a service class. While Peter's "reforms" made them into the state's slaves (a noble MUST serve in the military or civic administration until he is incapacitated either by the wounds or by age) even the later Decree of the Freedom of Nobility issued by Peter III did not change the fact that most of them still had been serving in the Russian army or in a civic administration (with a freedom to leave the service). Unlike the Commonwealth, a person could improve his status significantly by the service.

In other words, while the freedom of monarch's actions could be restricted, foundations of the state would remain more or less the same because the nobility was interested in maintaining status quo.

Post by Rich Rostrom
No Russian conquest of the Black Sea coast.

Most probably would happen under almost any regime (short of a complete anarchy): there was a clear interest in these areas. The interest was 2-fold: 1st, as long as the area was in the hands of the Khanate, there would be raids into the Russian territories; 2nd, expansion into these areas meant extension of the land pool available for the grants to nobility.

Post by Rich Rostrom
No Russian intervention in German affairs (as in
OTL's Seven Years War.

Yes, in OTL this was a purely "cabinet war" caused by the personal grudges of Empress Elizabeth and the bribes received by her head of the foreign policy. Objectively speaking, weakening of Austria was in the long-term Russian interests (when it came to the wars against the Ottoman, Austrians as the allies proved to be rather a burden).

However, there still could be involvement into the War of the Polish Succession - Russian nobility did associate itself with this "cause".

Post by Rich Rostrom
No partition of Poland.

This is tricky. By 1720's the Commonwealth was a de facto Russian vassal with the Russian troops stationed there or freely marching through Commonwealth territory. The 1st Partition was a byproduct of (then) political inexperience of Catherine II who was still listening to the head of her diplomacy, Count Panin. Panin was somewhat obsessed with an idea of the "Northern Alliance" and ready to go to the considerable lengths to keep Prussia happy. Basically, Catherine gave up part of the territory which she already controlled.

In Russia the Partitions were not uniformly popular: Grand Duke Paul was not approving of them (of course, when he became an emperor, he did not roll them back) so at least the 1st one could be a matter of a more or less successful propaganda (in OTL it was all about the oppressed Orthodox population :-)). The following ones would be easier: judging by the contemporary memoirs, Russian nobility was noticeably p----d off with the Poles.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Russia doesn't take Finland from Sweden.

Most probably, it would: in OTL, even after the GNW, Sweden more than once declared war on Russia and, except for the last one, the land operations had been uncomfortably close to St-Petersburg.

There would be (short of a dynastic twist which I can't figure out) no Catherine II. Situation with her OTL successors is more interesting because it would mean that Brunswick line is extinct and the candidates are coming from the Swedish royal family (OTL Peter III becomes King of Sweden).

Post by Rich Rostrom
_Long_-term... How long does this "elective
monarchy" regime persist in Russia?

As I said, there could be formal elections of the rulers of, say, Romanov-Brunswick dynasty with more open elections if the line becomes extinct.

Post by Rich Rostrom
In Poland
it was killed off in the late XVIIth century
by foreign conquest.

Indeed. 1st they rebelled to reject the meaningful reforms and then they tried to introduce the reforms when it was too late.

Post by Rich Rostrom
ITTL, that won't happen,
and ISTM that Russia is even less vulnerable.

It is at least possible that in the ATL Russia keeps maintaining the Commonwealth as a vassal state for a longer period of time. For how long this would be possible (neither the neighbors nor the Poles were universally happy with that status) I have no idea. From the geopolitical point of view (and from the view of minimizing amount of the internal problems) it would be desirable for Russian empire to maintain such a status for as long as possible providing they could always find the compliant candidates for the throne of the Commonwealth.

Post by Rich Rostrom
If it persists into the XIXth century, that
may prevent Russian conquests in the Caucasus
and Central Asia, or even Russian acquistion
of the Amur River territories from China.

Not sure how this was related but here are some considerations.

In the Caucus region Russia found itself in a situation somewhat similar to that of the Brits in India: securing a specific peace of a territory results in contact with a new territory which needs to be "pacified". :-)

Russia started with agreeing to accept Heraclius II, a King of Georgia (actually, a king of only a part of it) as a vassal with a promise to protect him against the Persian invasions. Which meant that there should be some way to get there, which meant that something has to be done about the tribes of the Northern Caucasus who were on the way. Another Christian-populated area, Armenia, also was on the wrong side of the mountains. In a process of "repealing" the Persians Russians found themselves in possession of the territories access to which from Russian proper was quite difficult: there were numerous, mostly Muslim, tribes in between. The Russians started with building "Georgian Military road" to provide at least some communication but this was not enough.

In parallel, squeezing the Tatars (specifically, Nogays) out of their historic territories also meant that the Russian territories had been moving toward the Kuban River. Dealing with each of the local tribes meant getting into contact with the new ones, etc. until the conquest was over. Just leaving them alone would not work because in these economically poor areas raiding (and capturing prisoners for ransoming or selling as slaves to the Ottomans and Persians) was pretty much a necessity.

With the Central Asia situation was somewhat similar (raids of the local tribes) with an additional twist: the sedentary areas were a potential market for the Russian goods and, later, a source of the cotton production (this became important at the time of Alexander II).

With China, the Amur territories had been grabbed rather late as a part of "everybody does this". :-)

And, of course, Amur river was a convenient natural border.

[Rob]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 2:45:11 PM UTC-4, Alex Milman wrote:

Shorter Alex = No special geopolitical disadvantage to Russia in *not* being an autocracy. A more limited government could achieve the same territorial influence as OTL Romanovs.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Rob

Post by Rob
Shorter Alex = No special geopolitical disadvantage to Russia in *not* being an autocracy. A more limited government could achieve the same territorial influence as OTL Romanovs.

So what are you suggesting? That Napoleon actually succeed in
convincing Alexander of the joys of liberte, egalite, fraternite?

Either at Tilsit or somewhere else?

I think it unlikely but stranger things have happened.

[Alex Milman]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Rob

Post by Rob
Shorter Alex = No special geopolitical disadvantage to Russia in *not* being an autocracy. A more limited government could achieve the same territorial influence as OTL Romanovs.

So what are you suggesting? That Napoleon actually succeed in
convincing Alexander of the joys of liberte, egalite, fraternite?

Now, THIS would be a tricky thing to do but would he need to do anything of the kind if Alexander is more or less a figurehead?

Post by The Horny Goat
Either at Tilsit or somewhere else?

Tilsit makes sense only as a byproduct of the Russian involvement in the 3rd Coalition in creation of which Alexander was one of the most important factors by the reasons which had been mostly personal (Continental System was not yet introduced and the interests of the Russian nobility were not involved). With a limited imperial power, there is a good chance for this coalition not happening or at least Russia not being involved.

Post by The Horny Goat
I think it unlikely but stranger things have happened.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Rob
Shorter Alex = No special geopolitical disadvantage to Russia in *not* being an autocracy. A more limited government could achieve the same territorial influence as OTL Romanovs.

So what are you suggesting? That Napoleon actually succeed in
convincing Alexander of the joys of liberte, egalite, fraternite?

Now, THIS would be a tricky thing to do but would he need to do anything of the kind if Alexander is more or less a figurehead?

I have a hard time envisioning Alexander as besotted with women and/or
drink which is the "easiest" way to make him a figurehead.

[Alex Milman]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Rob
Shorter Alex = No special geopolitical disadvantage to Russia in *not* being an autocracy. A more limited government could achieve the same territorial influence as OTL Romanovs.

So what are you suggesting? That Napoleon actually succeed in
convincing Alexander of the joys of liberte, egalite, fraternite?

Now, THIS would be a tricky thing to do but would he need to do anything of the kind if Alexander is more or less a figurehead?

I have a hard time envisioning Alexander as besotted with women and/or
drink which is the "easiest" way to make him a figurehead.

Well, in this ATL any Russian monarch is, more or less, a figurehead or at least his power is quite limited.

In OTL, Alexander's earlier anti-Napoleonic policies (all the way to Tilsit) had been predominantly by 2 factors: his personal animosity and his quite open Anglophilia (well-known even when he was just a heir to the throne).

Prior to Tilsit there was no Continental System, which means that for the Russian nobility there was no vested interest in the anti-Napoleonic wars and it is unlikely that the Russian "Sejm" (just to simplify terminology) is going to approve the huge expenses needed for the War of the 3rd Coalition. Keep in mind that the 3rd Coalition came into an existence to a great degree just as Alexander's _personal_ whim: nobody cared about the fate of the Duke of Enghien and very few people on continent cared enough about the "Hanover issue".

More than that, it is unlikely that even the 2nd Coalition is approved with a possible exception for the Mediterranean component (providing adventures in this area had been approved earlier as a part of the popular anti-Ottoman war(s)).

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:59:58 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
Prior to Tilsit there was no Continental System, which means that for the Russian nobility there was no vested interest in the anti-Napoleonic wars and it is unlikely that the Russian "Sejm" (just to simplify terminology) is going to approve the huge expenses needed for the War of the 3rd Coalition. Keep in mind that the 3rd Coalition came into an existence to a great degree just as Alexander's _personal_ whim: nobody cared about the fate of the Duke of Enghien and very few people on continent cared enough about the "Hanover issue".

In my opinion Tolstoi in War and Peace nicely nailed the Russian view
of d'Enghien when he described it as something the drawing room ladies
and gentlemen tittered about with salacious stories but with no
traction at all in the circles where the real decisions were being
made.

(Or if you prefer something that Pierre Bezuhov in his dissolute phase
was highly interested in but that neither Bolkonsky pere ou fils gave
a rats ass about)

[Alex Milman]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:59:58 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
Prior to Tilsit there was no Continental System, which means that for the Russian nobility there was no vested interest in the anti-Napoleonic wars and it is unlikely that the Russian "Sejm" (just to simplify terminology) is going to approve the huge expenses needed for the War of the 3rd Coalition. Keep in mind that the 3rd Coalition came into an existence to a great degree just as Alexander's _personal_ whim: nobody cared about the fate of the Duke of Enghien and very few people on continent cared enough about the "Hanover issue".

In my opinion Tolstoi in War and Peace nicely nailed the Russian view
of d'Enghien
when he described it as something the drawing room ladies
and gentlemen tittered about with salacious stories but with no
traction at all in the circles where the real decisions were being
made.

Tolstoy did not live at that time and did not belong to the social group he described in this scene so what he wrote was not necessary a precise history. :-)

However, I'm afraid that you got things in a wrong order. These people you are talking about had been discussing the incident AFTER the official (Tsar's) point of view had been expressed. These people are a small group on the fringes of a court circle and few years later they'll greet Caulaincourt with enthusiasm.

Post by The Horny Goat
(Or if you prefer something that Pierre Bezuhov in his dissolute phase
was highly interested in but that neither Bolkonsky pere ou fils gave
a rats ass about)

Pierre with his excitement is a caricature but for a majority of the Russian nobility this was not, as you noticed, worthy of rat's ass. However, in OTL Russia it was not anybody's (nobility's) business to question the reasons for a war (Russian participation in the 7YW was even more bizarre) while in ATL this would be a subject of an open discussion with an unclear outcome.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:28:37 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat
when he described it as something the drawing room ladies
and gentlemen tittered about with salacious stories but with no
traction at all in the circles where the real decisions were being
made.

Tolstoy did not live at that time and did not belong to the social group he described in this scene so what he wrote was not necessary a precise history. :-)

Never said he did.

Post by Alex Milman
However, I'm afraid that you got things in a wrong order. These people you are talking about had been discussing the incident AFTER the official (Tsar's) point of view had been expressed. These people are a small group on the fringes of a court circle and few years later they'll greet Caulaincourt with enthusiasm.

True

Post by Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat
(Or if you prefer something that Pierre Bezuhov in his dissolute phase
was highly interested in but that neither Bolkonsky pere ou fils gave
a rats ass about)

Pierre with his excitement is a caricature but for a majority of the Russian nobility this was not, as you noticed, worthy of rat's ass. However, in OTL Russia it was not anybody's (nobility's) business to question the reasons for a war (Russian participation in the 7YW was even more bizarre) while in ATL this would be a subject of an open discussion with an unclear outcome.

Pretty much every character in that book is - most especially old
Count Bolkonsky.

As a teenager I fell in love with Sonia but knew enough to know the
difference between a character in a novel and a real person.

[Alex Milman]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:28:37 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat
when he described it as something the drawing room ladies
and gentlemen tittered about with salacious stories but with no
traction at all in the circles where the real decisions were being
made.

Tolstoy did not live at that time and did not belong to the social group he described in this scene so what he wrote was not necessary a precise history. :-)

Never said he did.

Post by Alex Milman
However, I'm afraid that you got things in a wrong order. These people you are talking about had been discussing the incident AFTER the official (Tsar's) point of view had been expressed. These people are a small group on the fringes of a court circle and few years later they'll greet Caulaincourt with enthusiasm.

True

Post by Alex Milman

Post by The Horny Goat
(Or if you prefer something that Pierre Bezuhov in his dissolute phase
was highly interested in but that neither Bolkonsky pere ou fils gave
a rats ass about)

Pierre with his excitement is a caricature but for a majority of the Russian nobility this was not, as you noticed, worthy of rat's ass. However, in OTL Russia it was not anybody's (nobility's) business to question the reasons for a war (Russian participation in the 7YW was even more bizarre) while in ATL this would be a subject of an open discussion with an unclear outcome.

Pretty much every character in that book is - most especially old
Count Bolkonsky.

So all of the above boils down to the following:

1. With a meaningful constitutional monarchy there would be a lesser chance of the "cabinet wars" (those fought on monarch's whim without any clear national interest): 7YW, War of the 2nd Coalition, War of the 3rd Coalition with a possible absence of the wars of 1812 - 14, war of 1828 - 29 (not sure if there was enough of a "popular support" in Russia for the Greek independence) and perhaps 1853 - 56 as well.

2. OTOH, taking into an account that majority of the Russian nobility still would be serving in the military, the meaningless wars would not imply an absence of enthusiasm: the reasons for a specific war could be unclear but it was a way to get promotions, awards and general "glory". Getting back to your favorite source, Nicholas Rostov could not care less about the reasons for the war but was parading his cross of St. George for everybody to see (and his stories on how he got it were much more heroic than a reality).

[Alex Milman]

Post by Rob
Shorter Alex = No special geopolitical disadvantage to Russia in *not* being an autocracy. A more limited government could achieve the same territorial influence as OTL Romanovs.

Not "more limited government", more limited royal power.

As for the territorial influence, well, the Brits did quite well in that area while having a constitutional monarchy.

However, the European policy may get noticeably different by potentially minimizing international adventures and this could make noticeable differences outside the Russian borders. Remove Russian participation in the 7YW, Russian participation in the 2nd Coalition and after fleeing from Egypt Bonaparte does not have a good backup for his demagoguery (French conquests in Italy are not lost). Remove "Russian factor" and there is probably no third coalition or perhaps the whole set of the events would look differently (if there is a coalition at all: Alexander was a major "moving factor" in its creation).

No absolute monarchy means to favoritism of Catherine II, which means that in the Russian-Ottoman War of 1787 - 92 Russian army is not under command of a person absolutely unsuitable for such a role (Potemkin), that the time and effort is not being wasted and the Ottomans are being squeezed out of Moldavia (which could prevent the wars of the XIX century), etc.

The immediate internal change would be strengthening of a serfdom but there is a possibility of expanding the right to have serfs to a merchant class (with a fast development of the serf-driven industry).