WI: No False Dmitry I?

[January First-of-May]

Okay. So let's say the guy who would've been False Dmitry I (whoever he really was) randomly falls off his horse or somesuch and dies around the year 1600, ending up as somewhat less than a footnote in history.
At that point, Boris Godunov is already in power, and his son Feodor (the future Feodor II, probably in TTL as well as OTL) is already around. So what happens to them now that they won't have a False Dmitry to contend with? (Assuming they won't, anyway; whether this assumption is realistic is probably another good question.)

 

[January First-of-May]

...Er, anyone?
I thought this was an interesting scenario...

 

[Alex Richards]

You've got a PoD in one of the more obscure and complicated periods of Russian history, it's very difficult to get discussion without providing extra information (I had, for example, to look up Godunov to confirm the exact relationship with the Time of Troubles).

As is, I honestly think someone's going to claim to be Dmitry around that time anyway. Russia's just in too bad of a state, Godunov proving too poor a ruler to prevent someone having a go. I can't see the Time of Troubles being staved off before it really gets to the worst bits, but the exact events could well be different.

 

[January First-of-May]

You've got a PoD in one of the more obscure and complicated periods of Russian history, it's very difficult to get discussion without providing extra information (I had, for example, to look up Godunov to confirm the exact relationship with the Time of Troubles).

As is, I honestly think someone's going to claim to be Dmitry around that time anyway. Russia's just in too bad of a state, Godunov proving too poor a ruler to prevent someone having a go. I can't see the Time of Troubles being staved off before it really gets to the worst bits, but the exact events could well be different.

Well, while I agree on complicated, I didn't know the Time of Troubles was obscure. Though admittedly people probably focus more on what happened in the 1605-1612 period than on the backstory of, say, 1604

On-topic: while I also agree that someone's going to claim to be Dmitry anyway, it would probably be delayed (it's also uncertain whether such an alternate person would be quite as charismatic as OTL False Dmitry I); and if Boris dies and Feodor takes the throne (OTL April 1605) before such a contender gets anywhere major, it could change the dynamics of the *Time of Troubles significantly (though not necessarily in a positive direction).

 

[Aley]

In principle, would be a good dynasty. But given the presence of Basil Shuya unlikely to resist. That bastard still would have killed them.
By the way, is not bad himself was false Dmitri, the university wanted to open in Moscow, the reforms began. But it is not given ...

 

[January First-of-May]

In principle, [the Godunovs] would be a good dynasty. But given the presence of Vasily Shuysky, they're unlikely to stay. That bastard still would have killed them.
By the way, False Dmitry wasn't too bad himself - he wanted to open a university in Moscow, and began reforms. But now we won't get it...

Corrected your post (in the quote above) from your mangled version of English to a more decent one
On-topic: didn't consider Shuysky, but now that I think of it he's indeed a problem. As for the reforms and general positiveness - considering his upbringing, I suspect Feodor would've done similar things if he lived (but I'm not very sure he would).

 

[Alex Richards]

Well, while I agree on complicated, I didn't know the Time of Troubles was obscure. Though admittedly people probably focus more on what happened in the 1605-1612 period than on the backstory of, say, 1604

On-topic: while I also agree that someone's going to claim to be Dmitry anyway, it would probably be delayed (it's also uncertain whether such an alternate person would be quite as charismatic as OTL False Dmitry I); and if Boris dies and Feodor takes the throne (OTL April 1605) before such a contender gets anywhere major, it could change the dynamics of the *Time of Troubles significantly (though not necessarily in a positive direction).

In Russia, it's definitely not obscure. In the West? We've got a big enough struggle to convince people that Poland-Lithuania was a thing that happened, the Time of Troubles is completely off the radar.

In general, the knowledge or Russian history for your average person over here in the UK (and it's probably true in general of America and the Anglosphere) pretty much goes 'Ivan the Terrible killing everyone-Peter the Great westernising-Catherine the Great shagging everyone-Napoleon failing in 1812 (insert vague assertions relating to War and Peace, Tchaikovsky and so forth here)-Battle of Balaclava (mostly on the Light Brigade and Florence)-Lots of composers running around St. Petersburg but otherwise a backwards country-Nicholas II is incompetent-WWI-Revolution-Lenin-Stalin-Purge-WWII-Cold War-Berlin Blockade-Cuba-Vietnam-Glasnost-Fall of the USSR-Putin.' I may be erring on the optimistic side here.

It's pretty awful I know, but considering how dire teaching is when it comes to our own history, there's not much prospect for getting any sort of detail about other countries.

On topic: I'm assuming based on events that Fyodor II would be anti-Commonwealth in policy. Can we presume an intervention by Sweden and Poland at some point? (Sigismund Vasa is still a strong(?) claimant after all).

And some general background information would be both interesting and appreciated.

 

[Major Major]

In Russia, it's definitely not obscure. In the And some general background information would be both interesting and appreciated.

Well . . .

THE
Reporte of a bloudie
and terrible Massacre in the Citty
of Mosco, with the fearefull and
tragicall end of Demetrius the last
Duke, before him raigning
at this present.​

After that Peter Vendronitz Basmaneuf, one of the principallest, and most valiant Boyars, had beene magnificently brought into the Citie, and most honourablie received, by Boritz Fendronitz Godena, who was then Prince of the countrie: and all this, because of his magnanimious defeate, and keeping of the Castle of Novomerskigrod, against the forces of Demetri Ioanavitz, and that for so valiant an act, he had beene rewarded by his said Prince, with great and rich presents, the which fell out, in the moneth of Februarie, 1605. It happened, that about the 13. of Aprill, the said Boritz Fendronitz Godena sodainlie died, not without suspition, of having beene poisoned: and he being interred the day after, his wife a desolate widdowe, and his sonne Fender Borissovitz, were incontinently placed in the Imperiall throne, and received for Prince, and Princesse, by every one of the Citie, and of the Countrie, who did them homage, and sware vnto them, fidelitie, subiection, and obedience. Wherefore, they dispatched incontinently, the said Peter Fendronitz Basmaneuf towards the Campe, as he that was Generall of al the men of warre, to sweare them, according to the custome which was performed by the greatest part of them. . . .

And for more, go to:

http://www.aquinas.edu/history/pdf/baum_troubles_paper.pdf

 

[Alex Richards]

...

that's a very interesting way of rendering Fyodor there...

 

[Aley]

Corrected your post (in the quote above) from your mangled version of English to a more decent one
On-topic: didn't consider Shuysky, but now that I think of it he's indeed a problem. As for the reforms and general positiveness - considering his upbringing, I suspect Feodor would've done similar things if he lived (but I'm not very sure he would).

Thank you. Languages divide the peoples, translators their integrate.
There's still a Romanovs rile, even the whole of the then authorities - scorpions in the bank.
There is another interesting option: Prince Pozharsky. Is considered. that he did not seek to be tsar, but it is not. He made a mistake in 1613, before time disbanded his army.