AHC Latin Patriarch of Moscow
- Thread starter varyar
- Start date
Have the Kievan Rus to have closer trade and diplomatic contacts with the Catholic neighbors than with the Bizantines and there would be a realistic chance for a different affiliation. By the time Moscow became capital of the state and got Patriarch of its own, it is few centuries too late. The only other realistic option is Byzantine Church patching relations with the Rome well before the fall of Constantinople. Mitropolite of Moscow is a subordinate of Patriarch of Constantinople so he should follow the order from a higher authority. After the fall of Constantinople the Russian church may get into the direct communication with the Rome about its own patriarchate arguing that Patriarch of Constantinople is de facto subordinate to the Sultan.
The polish invasion during the time of troubles goes more successfully?
Last edited:
That’s the idea that was at the top of my list - okay, it basically was the list.
Poles did hold Moscow Kremlin for over 2 years, 1610-1612. Precisely who, of what rank, were holding services in the churches of Moscow Kremlin then?
The Orthodox priests. Patriarch (appointee of the False Dmitry #2) was kept in the PLC as a prisoner.
Too late to be practical. By that time Tsardom was firmly Orthodox and Wladislaw’s chance to become a Tsar was killed by the conversion issue.
Did the Orthodox priests serve the Catholic Polish garrison soldiers, too?
In Constantinople, in 1204, the Latins elected their Patriarch (a Venetian) within 1204. And already in March, before the city would fall on 12th of April, the Crusaders made an agreement to replace the Orthodox patriarch, whatever his response to removal of emperor might be (he fled the city).
Why did Poles in 1610-1612 not get around to appointing their own bishop for Moscow? What were they talking/negotiating about the option?
The Poles most probably had their own chaplains but I doubt that they had been conducting services in the Orthodox churches.
An idea that if in 1204 the crusaders decided to elect their own Patriarch then in the XVII the Poles would have to do the same is, of course, interesting but analogy is extremely shaky because, to put it mildly, the analogy is irrelevant due to the numerous differences.
1st, the Poles entered Moscow in the end of 1610 peacefully, as a part of a political agreement with the functioning government: Wladislav would be accepted as Tsar subject to his conversion to the Orthodoxy. Sigismund’s refusal broke the deal and the armed resistance started.
2nd, within couple months (or even faster) Zolkiewski marched out of Moscow with a bulk of his army.
3rd, starting from the March of 1611 the Polish garrison was under blockade and by May most of the Moscow (admittedly, burned by the Poles) was controlled by the Cossacks of Trubetskoy and the 1st Opolchenie creating serious problems with supplies and causing massive desertions (the only thing needed to legalize a desertion was to create a confederation, which did happen). Gonsevski with most of the garrison left in June 1612 leaving in Kremlin less than 3,000. The 2nd Opolchenie arrived in the late August. Khodkewich tried to break through the blockade to strengthen and supply garrison in the early September of 1612 but failed and garrison capitulated on November 7.
In other words, most of the time the Poles(and Lithuanians) in Moscow had been under the siege, starving and hoping for relief’s arrival so playing the religious games hardly was high on their list of the priorities. None of their commanders, even Zolkiewski, was in a position to establish Catholic patriarchate in Moscow: this was not Hetman’s prerogative.
It is relevant as a starting point to investigate what precisely those differences were.
And Žolkiewski´s deal, which Sigismund disapproved of, included not having a Latin Patriarch.
Turns out that by 1610, Moscow had 3 Orthodox Patriarchs, all of whom were in Polish hands:
- Ignatius - patriarch appointed by Dmitry I, imprisoned in Kremlin by Shuisky, released in 1610 and found by Poles in Moscow
- Hermogenes - patriarch appointed by Shuisky, found by Poles in Moscow
- Filaret - patriarch appointed by Dmitry II, caught by Poles in 1610 when visiting them for negotiations.
Patriarch Hermogenes was executed in Kremlin in February 1612... by starvation. Died on 17th.
Killing a VIP prisoner by hunger takes several days, and Hermogenes was THE most important prisoner at hand in Kremlin (Czar Vasily Shuisky had been transferred to Poland back in 1610). It won´t be done without approval from head of the garrison.
Other religious games the garrison had a practical opportunity and motive to play (but also motives to refrain from). Which of them did they actually do?
- Orthodox clergy were mouths, and potential fifth column inside the walls. How about killing the rest like Hermogenes, or just sending them out of gates to feast with the besiegers?
- If they had their Catholic chaplains, how about taking over some or all Orthodox churches for Catholic services?
But when did Poles back in Poland give Moscow up for lost?
If the King in late 1610 rejected Žolkiewski´s deal, he had the opportunity to appoint a Latin patriarch for Moscow.
Did Poles back in Poland in 1610-1612, when relief forces were still getting through, consider appointing a Latin patriarch and sending him to take office?
Last edited:
You forgot that besides the priests the top Russian aristocracy (including future Tsar Michael) also had been in Kremlin.The Poles kept playing Wladislav card which required Russian cooperation and wholesale slaughter of the priests and aristocrats hardly could advance their cause: Wladislav surrender his claim and returned the royal insignia only in 1634.
Now, a notion that in a Catholic world it was up to the king to create a new patriarchate and appoint its head seems to be a little bit heretical: wasn’t this up to the Pope?
Turning the clock back a little, could the Council of Florence (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence) be resolved and accepted by Constantinople a few years earlier, and at least a faction of the Muscovite hierarchy brought aboard? Maybe some high ranking Russian clergy is either genuinely converted or at least ambitious enough to risk a formal union with Rome and, handily, the Latin patriarchate?
Support of the Great Prince was needed so if Vasily II supports the move, it can happen. But what would be the “carrot”? In OTL Russian church was declared autocephalous as an answer to the Byzantine position at the Council so perhaps it was up to the Papacy to make an offer which would be hard to refuse but what could it be? It is not that at this time “the west” cared too much about the Great Princedom of Moscow which was still small, weak and vassal of the GH.