Russian history is quite interesting, they went from a bunch of small tribal chiefdoms to a bunch of small city-states then finally into an Orthodox power spanning 9000km
@@pivomanslovensko But I don't particularly despise Russian history, even though it came into conflict with my nation many times. Since when you look at other countries from the time, Russia was not particularly different or evil. The USA and Britain are especially great examples of stunning PR, since nobody remembers all the slaughtering and conquests they did throughout the years. Hell, pretty much all American land is conquered, and they kept suppressing their minorities way into the 60s, yet I'm supposed to like their history but hate Russian history.
@@kevinboros7427 no, everyone remembers the conquests america did. i cant stop hearing it every 5 seconds and its ridiculous for getting blamed for something i had zero control over, so stupid
Considering how the Russian empire was able to spread itself out to the Pacific, long before any European power could do so and was recognised by the Chinese (after many years of Dominion in east asia 🌏) I'd definitely say it was successful.
@@belisariusthemagnificent504 it could not hold onto the american lands though. dont forget why they sold it off plus the one in california they could not hold onto
I mean,being able to maintain your monarchy for 300 years while having an absolutely enormous country size and population,multiple ethnicities,enemies on literally all sides,having expansionist and imperialist ambitions(just like any other empire),also proclaiming to be the successor to Rome and becoming the self-proclaimed leader of the Orthodox people and as well of all the Slavic people sounds pretty successful to me.
@@Butter_Warrior99 Tbh,I would myself love for someone to educate me because I'm only saying it because many people have constantly corrected me for it without even telling me the difference. I guess the only difference is that the Russian Empire was ruled by the Romanov family,but I don't know much,so I'm just guessing at this point.
@@yasirnazirbutt8240 It's the same as the difference between the russian Tsardom and the Moscow duchy. It's the same state, but they're more powerful now so they get to call themselves something cooler. In this case, Peter was big fan of the west, so he changed into "empire" because it sounds more modern and western than "tsardom".
Great video! Alos is it just me or is everyone on the discord ignoring that a new video dropped saying: "Oh hey a new vid! well, I guess I will watch it after this conversation, I guess"
I wonder If you can make a ''What If Everything Went PERFECT For Ottomans'' video, that would be interesting since that after the 17th century Turks seems to be unlucky all the times. Thanks all for all the Content you are making.
You didn't mention the Battle of Prut which was a huge Ottoman success. Ottoman army encircled the entire Russian army as well as Peter the Great himself. However Ottoman grand vizier Baltacı Mustafa failed to get a favorable peace deal. As a sidenote, Baltacı Mustafa was executed by Ahmet III for ruining a great military victory.
They were actually considering a complete extermination of the entire army but Baltaci couldn't trust the Janissaries hence had to be satisfied with a treaty
I would like to recommend a concept for a new series you could do. The idea is that you take the place of a historical leader, and you choose what decisions to make as that historical leader based on what would be the most beneficial for the nation the historical leader you chose ruled over. The way you would go about doing this is you would base your decisions off of the knowledge you had at your disposal at the time. For example, you could do a video where you take the place of Louis XIV and you choose how you would expand the size, influence and power of France in the 17th and 18th centuries. Or you could take the place of Louis XV and decide how you could preserve the French empire in America and India. Perhaps you could even take the place of Louis XVI and decide how you could prevent the french revolution if you were in his position. A criticism you could levy at this idea is that it’s too similar to the series you’re already doing on “What if everything went perfectly for X”, but I disagree. Firstly, this series is about making decisions as a single person, not for an entire nation over the course of hundreds of years. Secondly, with your “What if everything went perfectly for X” series, you utilize the benefit of hindsight. With this series, you limit yourself to the knowledge of your chosen leader. You Don’t HAVE to do it this way, you could utilize the benefit of hindsight for this series too, but limiting yourself this way would help differentiate this series from your “What if everything went perfectly for X” series. You might as well try this idea on for a video and see how it performs. If it performs badly, you don’t have to continue it. But if it performs well, you could have another successful series on your hands. It is low risk, high reward. With how many historical leaders there are, the possibilities for this series are limitless! Some ideas for historical leaders to make videos on are Seleucus, Justinian, Louis the Pious, John I, Charles V, Phillip II of Spain, Charles XII, Peter III, Napoleon, Charles X, Napoleon III, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and so many more!
Here's a funny question for anyone when did you get interested in alternate history for me it was the Red Alert video games and watching alternate history hub I've been watching his videos since early 2014 when I was 12😊
Once you're done with all wars Russia was in from the fall of the Kyivian Rus' to today, could you please do all Roman Wars from the Kingdom of Rome to Byzantium? Thank you.
Correction, the third Northern war or great Northern war was not started by Sweden. It was a coalition between Russia, Denmark, Saxony and the Commonwealth. Denmark and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were defeated quite badly after which the Swedish army marched on Moscow and half the army were killed by the cold and disease. And after that the battle of Poltava happend which ended the Swedish dominance
That cold summer in the middle of Ukraine (Poltava), the food production region, was immensely devastating for the marching army of the very well developed to cold climate swedes, which before that were starving after they ravaged polish lands (well-known for their lack of food and supplies), and even support from cossacks, who joined the swedes against Peter, must have weakened them even more. 0 chances.
by any chance can you do a what if crassus conquer persia? preferably with the 3 triumvirs being younger due to the answer most likely being crassus dies of old age
The notion of making this vid is something I can only approve, yet some inaccuracies are in place as well. Such as in 2:00, it was not such as easy as just "Russia vs. Sweden then Russia vs. Sweden + PLC". First, it was the Livonian Order being essentially target of Russia, the kind of up for grabs target, and there was not even solidified PLC in place. Instead, there were separated (yet) states of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, albeit ruled by the same dynasty in union. It was the Livonian war which forced both states to unify, because the GDL was hit hard by Russians. It was not a total destruction of Lithuanian war effort, but rather political and economical exhaustion, and thereby Lithuanians were forced to accept the separation of about a half of Grand Duchy's territories in modern-day Ukraine, which were given to Poles. Eventually, the Union of Lublin was signed and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created. Of course, much of Lithuanian nobles were totally fine with such an act, because they wished to share the Polish nobles' rights and priviliges, yet I digress. Eventually, however, the forces of Commonwealth beat Russians back, as was said in video. And that's not even the worst part of it: Livonian War was lasting about 25 years from 1558 up to 1583, with Russia being at war (at most simultaneously) with the PLC, Sweden, Livonian Order and Crimean Khanate raids - including that one about which was mentioned. That's a war effort one could wish to have, indeed, - yet, it seems, precisely because of it Russia was in such knee-deep heap of troubles afterwards.
Ah yes, I've forgot to mention some pecuilarities of the Time of Troubles in Russia. You see, it was just initially that Sigismund III Vasa wished to install a mere puppet on Russian throne. Later on, however, he planned to install his son, the one who was later known as Władysław IV - and Russian ruling interregnum council of boyars had even approved it. Therefore, there was just about less than 2 years of Władysław IV, albeit he was not enthroned properly because of conflicting ambitions of Russian oligarchic nobility and Sigismund III. Even after the expulsion of Polish forces out of Moscow and electing the Romanov by Zemskiy Sobor (interesting case of estates, almost in democratic fashion electing an autocrat with powers close to absolute), Władysław IV still hoped to fulfill his claims on Russian throne, yet he refused it after another war in 1634.
russia could have easily become more powerful than america if they hadnt lost in ww1. just imagine them keeping all their land while also gaining more from the central powers
It's not like I wouldn't enjoy such scenario but it is unrealistic. There still needs to be a lot changing. If they manage to hold on to land till today but also get industrialised then for sure it be a very impressive power.
Not quiet, that titles, as I can see, were not equal _per se_ . Yes, the etymology of "Tsar" stems from title of Caesar indeed, yet in Roman Empire the highest title was Augustus, while Tsars were, apart from Muscovy, in some Balkan states, when they wished to present themselves as claimants of imperial Roman legacy, yet not full-grown empires in being. Take two Bulgarian tsardoms and Serbian one, which is called Empire as well. The long story short, it seems, is that one who claims to be Tsar pretends to carve up an empire of their own, yet is not fully equal to Emperor. Not to mention that in medieval Russia the Cazan, Crimean and other Genghisid' khans were titled as "Tsars" as well. Up to XVIII century, it seems, it was kinda too ambitious to claim an empirehood according to European monarchic traditions (there was an Empire, albeit, as Voltaire said, not really Holy, Roman neither Imperial). And Peter I was the one of new generation of monarchs who forsake that tradition and viewed that if your ambitions are full-grown and no one could interfere, it is not an issue at all to claim a status of empire. Such were, for example, both Napoleon the First and the Third, later on. And yes, Peter I was indeed a great fanboy of Western culture.
@@SuurTeoll however Tsar started as a title due to Tsar Simeon I The Great wanting to not only rule the Roman Empire but to have the Bulgarian Princedom be elevated to the same level as the Byzantine Empire. For which he and his son notably got recognition from the Byzantines themselves of the Imperial title. So in short Tsar IS an Imperial title. Peter I really only wanted his state to be more western so he foresaked the Slavic imperial title. Also the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Serbian Empire were both recognized as such by the Byzantines. And hell the pope even refused to recognize the title to Bulgaria when Tsar Kaloyan tried converting to Catholicism because it was an Imperial title and he saw there being only one Empire, the "Roman" one.
@@rawka_7929 Indeed, yet I still not convinced that Tsar title had not it's meaning shifted, at least by the times of XVIII century and, especially, in Russian context. Therefore, I believe that particularily in minds of Russian tsars, their title was not equal to emperors'. Though I do lack any wish to prove my position, but I just share my opinion, no more and no less.
@@SuurTeoll the title was equal in reality. It was Tsar Peter of Russia who tried shifting it not to be in his attempt to overly westernise Russia. Honestly instead of him developing a developed rich eastern culture he just went full western which is a thing I dislike about him.
Dude it's freaking weird. You asking about more favourable scenario for 1 of the most successful empires in last millennia. it's getting cheaky. Ain't Canada, Australia and New Zealand enough? Britain has insanely great elites. If these elites get transferred into a third world country they would probably make it a powerhouse.
Didn't Muscovy declare itself the Russian empire in 1721, after they won the great northern war? Also, the great northern war wasnt strated by Sweden, Muscovy broke its truce and attacked the young Karl XII together with Denmark and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania. The outnumbered Sweden beat both Denmark and SPL, only to be decimated by the Russian winter.
Technically, it depends on what you define as "Muscovy". If Muscovy is a state which is known as Grand Duchy of Moscow, then it was Ivan IV the Terrible who proclaimed himself as a Tsar (not mentioning his predecessor, Grand Prince Vasiliy III, who already claimed the title of "Sovereign of all the Rus" yet not set this claim in Tsar title). After Ivan IV, however, the Russia is known as the Russian Tsardom ("Русское царство" in Russian) up until the 1721 and that exact case of declaring the Russian Empire. The nuance is, in Western Europe of, shall we say, Latin-based culture it still was known as Muscovy. For example, as it was defined in "Notes on Muscovite Affairs" by Sigismund von Herberstein. Therefore, it is common in some cultures and traditions to conflate the names, and that's kinda normal, because this is how common habit works. In Russia, for example, people are totally fine of conflating the names of England and Great Britain simultaneosly when referring to the United Kingdom, even if aware of national identities of Welsh, Scottish and Irish (Northern Irish) people; as well as Holland/Netherlands etc.
Grand duchy of Moscow declare themselves independence after the fall of golden horde and the first tsar married Constanti 11 niece declare Moscow as third rome
@@widodoakrom3938 Let me clarify, if you won't mind: they never *declared* their state as the "Third Rome", at least in the ways as Charlemagne did with his Empire of the West. It was proposed in XVI century as an idea of sorts, but up to XIX century such idea was not as crucial as later on. It's in XIX century when Russia started to propagate it's claim on "Romanhood" with main purpose of justifying potential Constantinople seizure. In broad analogue, it's like the Third Reich concept: there were people who indeed believed it, yet the state itself hadn't changed it's official name, and from 1871 up to 1943 the state's name was German Reich (after 1943 and up to end of WW2 - Great German Reich). Yet in essence, though, that's all correct you had put up there.
It's funny that Poland was so curshed during the deluge, than during great norther war, than again during bar confederation witch ended with Poland loosing a lot of land, had 6 times smaller and inexperianced military and weak goverment facing experianced russian army, but most historians agree that in 1792 if the king and his closest circle didn't panic Poles could relistically beat back the Russians. Honeslty just shows that Russian empire's army wasn't that great.
Also I recently discovered that during one of king elections in Poland they could elect Ivan the Terrible as a king. Imagine Russia-Poland-Lithuania. Definitely a cursed timeline. And then he marries an english queen as he wanted lol
@@Admin-gm3lc In 1610, when Poles began occupying Moscow, hetman Stanislaw Zolkiewski made a deal with Russian boyars that the son of the Polish king, Wladislaw, would become a new tsar. The only real hook was that he'd have to convert to orthodox christianity. The king declined the deal, as he feared for the assasination of his young son and also he wanted the crown for himslef. Ironicly, after the Russians attacked Smolensk (mentioned in the video as a Russian defeat), in the peace that ended the war, now-adult king Wladislaw IV willingly gave up his rights to the Russian crown, even tough he didn't have to.
Here's a scenario what if all Slavic people were all United and all spoke the same language and religion like for example if they were all Russian and orthodox sounds pretty interesting especially for later centuries but it sounds like a nightmare to someone that's polish for example😅
Hard to imagine because of how divided the slavs are, I mean you got Catholic, latin alphabet slavs like Poland, Czechia and Croatia, while you have Orthodox, Cyrillic alphabet slavs like Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian, then some in the middle like Serbia and Montenegro.
Man, there really was a possibility that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could've easily conquered the Russians and then Poland 🇵🇱 could into space. Unfortunately, hard feudalism and corrupt nobility ruined what could've been a possible golden age for the Poles.
russia attacked sweden in the great northern war it was a defensive war and a land grab by russia charles the xii had no real ambitions of hegemony he just installed another king in poland he didnt even annex any territory in the peace treaty which he signed with the poles after counquering saxony it was charles x gustav who wanted to dominate poland since he was actually crowned king of poland which charles xii was offered but declined
