Let's say that Russian Tsar Nicholas II will have a magical and convincing vision thanks to Alien Space Bats right after the Franz Ferdinand assassination where he will get to see just how exactly the next 107 years of Russian and world history will turn out if he decides to fight on behalf of Serbia in the upfolding crisis. Specifically, in this magical vision, Nicholas will see that by the 2010s, every Slavic and Eastern Orthodox country other than Belarus (which becomes independent by then) and Serbia would be hostile towards Russia and aim to aspire to be a part of the West whereas Russia would still retain a lot of popularity in the Muslim world, such as in Central Asia, Iran, Syria, et cetera, by the 2010s. So, Nicholas decides to throw Serbia under the Austro-Hungarian bus in 1914 during the July Crisis and instead to support and adopt a Pan-Islamic policy as a central focus of Russia's foreign policy. Specifically, I mean having Muslims worldwide become Russia's favorite group and main ally, similar to the status that the Slavs previously occupied.

Anyway, what would the effects and consequences of this would be over the next several decades and beyond?

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 21:46:22 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:

> Let's say that Russian Tsar Nicholas II will have a magical and convincing vision thanks to Alien Space Bats right after the Franz Ferdinand assassination where he will get to see just how exactly the next 107 years of Russian and world history will turn out if he decides to fight on behalf of
> Serbia in the upfolding crisis. Specifically, in this magical vision, Nicholas will see that by the 2010s, every Slavic and Eastern Orthodox country other than Belarus (which becomes independent by then) and Serbia would be hostile towards Russia and aim to aspire to be a part of the West
> whereas Russia would still retain a lot of popularity in the Muslim world, such as in Central Asia, Iran, Syria, et cetera, by the 2010s. So, Nicholas decides to throw Serbia under the Austro-Hungarian bus in 1914 during the July Crisis and instead to support and adopt a Pan-Islamic policy
> as a central focus of Russia's foreign policy.

Besides his religion which was very important to him, Islam then largely
meant Turkey, and almost all of Russia policy was to try to get this area
for Russia.

> Specifically, I mean having Muslims worldwide become Russia's favorite group and main ally, similar to the status that the Slavs previously occupied.

I do not see how it helps Russia much as Muslims only in the latter part of
the 1900s became much of a force in world affairs.

>
> Anyway, what would the effects and consequences of this would be over the next several decades and beyond?

In Europe and the far East nothing, Russia is held back from her goals in
the South.

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sun, 11 Jul 2021 21:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>Let's say that Russian Tsar Nicholas II will have a magical and convincing vision
> thanks to Alien Space Bats right after the Franz Ferdinand assassination where
>he will get to see just how exactly the next 107 years of Russian and world history
> will turn out if he decides to fight on behalf of Serbia in the upfolding crisis.
>Specifically, in this magical vision, Nicholas will see that by the 2010s, every Slavic
> and Eastern Orthodox country other than Belarus (which becomes independent
>by then) and Serbia would be hostile towards Russia and aim to aspire to be a part
> of the West whereas Russia would still retain a lot of popularity in the Muslim
>world, such as in Central Asia, Iran, Syria, et cetera, by the 2010s. So, Nicholas
>decides to throw Serbia under the Austro-Hungarian bus in 1914 during the July
> Crisis and instead to support and adopt a Pan-Islamic policy as a central focus
>of Russia's foreign policy. Specifically, I mean having Muslims worldwide become
>Russia's favorite group and main ally, similar to the status that the Slavs previously occupied.
>
>Anyway, what would the effects and consequences of this would be over the next several decades and beyond?

Nicholas the Apostate would soon be deposed or assassinated.
Whether before or after the Patriarch anathematizes him is a good
question.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> on Sun, 11 Jul 2021 21:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >Let's say that Russian Tsar Nicholas II will have a magical and convincing vision
> > thanks to Alien Space Bats right after the Franz Ferdinand assassination where
> >he will get to see just how exactly the next 107 years of Russian and world history
> > will turn out if he decides to fight on behalf of Serbia in the upfolding crisis.
> >Specifically, in this magical vision, Nicholas will see that by the 2010s, every Slavic
> > and Eastern Orthodox country other than Belarus (which becomes independent
> >by then) and Serbia would be hostile towards Russia and aim to aspire to be a part
> > of the West whereas Russia would still retain a lot of popularity in the Muslim
> >world, such as in Central Asia, Iran, Syria, et cetera, by the 2010s. So, Nicholas
> >decides to throw Serbia under the Austro-Hungarian bus in 1914 during the July
> > Crisis and instead to support and adopt a Pan-Islamic policy as a central focus
> >of Russia's foreign policy. Specifically, I mean having Muslims worldwide become
> >Russia's favorite group and main ally, similar to the status that the Slavs previously occupied.
> >
> >Anyway, what would the effects and consequences of this would be over the next several decades and beyond?
> Nicholas the Apostate would soon be deposed or assassinated.
> Whether before or after the Patriarch anathematizes him is a good
> question.
>
Which Patriarch would that have been in 1914? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Moscow_and_all_Rus%27 "Upon the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700,[4] Peter I did not permit the election of a new patriarch; after 20 years he established a Theological College, soon renamed the Holy Synod, which, as a public body, acted as the general church administration from 1721 to January 1918 - the emperor (to 2 March 1917) being "the last Judge of this Board.""

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> on Mon, 12 Jul 2021
14:23:26 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com> on Sun, 11 Jul 2021 21:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> >Let's say that Russian Tsar Nicholas II will have a magical and convincing vision
>> > thanks to Alien Space Bats right after the Franz Ferdinand assassination where
>> >he will get to see just how exactly the next 107 years of Russian and world history
>> > will turn out if he decides to fight on behalf of Serbia in the upfolding crisis.
>> >Specifically, in this magical vision, Nicholas will see that by the 2010s, every Slavic
>> > and Eastern Orthodox country other than Belarus (which becomes independent
>> >by then) and Serbia would be hostile towards Russia and aim to aspire to be a part
>> > of the West whereas Russia would still retain a lot of popularity in the Muslim
>> >world, such as in Central Asia, Iran, Syria, et cetera, by the 2010s. So, Nicholas
>> >decides to throw Serbia under the Austro-Hungarian bus in 1914 during the July
>> > Crisis and instead to support and adopt a Pan-Islamic policy as a central focus
>> >of Russia's foreign policy. Specifically, I mean having Muslims worldwide become
>> >Russia's favorite group and main ally, similar to the status that the Slavs previously occupied.
>> >
>> >Anyway, what would the effects and consequences of this would be over the next several decades and beyond?
>> Nicholas the Apostate would soon be deposed or assassinated.
>> Whether before or after the Patriarch anathematizes him is a good
>> question.
>>
>Which Patriarch would that have been in 1914?

Metropolitan Macarius II. He may have been Civil Service, and he
may have been approved by the Tsar, but if the Tsar apostatizes ...
Any Tsar who embraces "the Hagorites" is going to make himself
every unpopular with Russian Nationalists as well as all Orthodox from
the Ecumenical Patriarch down to the newly illumined.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Moscow_and_all_Rus%27
> "Upon the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700,[4] Peter I did not permit
>the election of a new patriarch; after 20 years he established a Theological
>College, soon renamed the Holy Synod, which, as a public body, acted as
>the general church administration from 1721 to January 1918 - the emperor
>(to 2 March 1917) being "the last Judge of this Board.""

You are correct. St Tikhon "Enlightener of North America" was the
first Patriarch since the time of Tsar Peter the Great.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 7/11/21 11:46 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> Specifically, in this magical vision, Nicholas will see that by the
> 2010s, every Slavic and Eastern Orthodox country other than Belarus
> (which becomes independent by then) and Serbia would be hostile towards
> Russia and aim to aspire to be a part of the West whereas Russia would
> still retain a lot of popularity in the Muslim world, such as in Central
> Asia, Iran, Syria, et cetera, by the 2010s.

Russia has some allies in the ummah, but only allies of convenience,
who are particularly disliked by the US or other western powers.

Russia itself... a lot of jihadis have fought in Chechnya against
Russia, and many Chechnyan exiles have joined jihadi groups such
as ISIS. Modern Islamism is, ultimately, hostile to _any_ non-
Moslem government, especially any that rule over Moslems.

Pan-Islamism was nothing in the early 1900s; if anything it was
promoted by the Sultan of Turkey's claim to be the Caliph.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:03:21 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/11/21 11:46 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > Specifically, in this magical vision, Nicholas will see that by the
> > 2010s, every Slavic and Eastern Orthodox country other than Belarus
> > (which becomes independent by then) and Serbia would be hostile towards
> > Russia and aim to aspire to be a part of the West whereas Russia would
> > still retain a lot of popularity in the Muslim world, such as in Central
> > Asia, Iran, Syria, et cetera, by the 2010s.
> Russia has some allies in the ummah, but only allies of convenience,
> who are particularly disliked by the US or other western powers.
>
> Russia itself... a lot of jihadis have fought in Chechnya against
> Russia, and many Chechnyan exiles have joined jihadi groups such
> as ISIS. Modern Islamism is, ultimately, hostile to _any_ non-
> Moslem government, especially any that rule over Moslems.
>
> Pan-Islamism was nothing in the early 1900s; if anything it was
> promoted by the Sultan of Turkey's claim to be the Caliph.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

So, Russia's rule over Azeris, Chechens, other Muslim Caucasians, and Central Asians will be a permanent hinderance to any Russian efforts to appeal to Muslims during this time?

Interestingly enough, a lot of these Muslims have seceded from Greater Russia in 1991 in real life, so there would be less Muslim resentment of Russia now than in the past, other than for the Chechens, of course. But even there Putin essentially allows Kadyrov to run it like his own personal fiefdom, with Sharia law and everything!

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 6:23:12 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:03:21 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > On 7/11/21 11:46 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > > Specifically, in this magical vision, Nicholas will see that by the
> > > 2010s, every Slavic and Eastern Orthodox country other than Belarus
> > > (which becomes independent by then) and Serbia would be hostile towards
> > > Russia and aim to aspire to be a part of the West whereas Russia would
> > > still retain a lot of popularity in the Muslim world, such as in Central
> > > Asia, Iran, Syria, et cetera, by the 2010s.
> > Russia has some allies in the ummah, but only allies of convenience,
> > who are particularly disliked by the US or other western powers.
> >
> > Russia itself... a lot of jihadis have fought in Chechnya against
> > Russia, and many Chechnyan exiles have joined jihadi groups such
> > as ISIS. Modern Islamism is, ultimately, hostile to _any_ non-
> > Moslem government, especially any that rule over Moslems.
> >
> > Pan-Islamism was nothing in the early 1900s; if anything it was
> > promoted by the Sultan of Turkey's claim to be the Caliph.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> > --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
> So, Russia's rule over Azeris, Chechens, other Muslim Caucasians, and Central Asians will be a permanent hinderance to any Russian efforts to appeal to Muslims during this time?
>
> Interestingly enough, a lot of these Muslims have seceded from Greater Russia in 1991 in real life, so there would be less Muslim resentment of Russia now than in the past, other than for the Chechens, of course. But even there Putin essentially allows Kadyrov to run it like his own personal fiefdom, with Sharia law and everything!

BTW, I don't think that the US dislikes countries such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, et cetera too much. But the West also doesn't have as much to offer them as Russia has. Ukraine can at least hold out for the possibility of eventual EU membership in several decades' time, assuming that it actually manages to clean up its act by then. But no one is ever actually going to admit any Central Asian countries into the EU!

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:02:14 AM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Mon, 12 Jul 2021
> 14:23:26 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >> Nicholas the Apostate would soon be deposed or assassinated.
> >> Whether before or after the Patriarch anathematizes him is a good
> >> question.
> >>
> >Which Patriarch would that have been in 1914?
>
> Metropolitan Macarius II. He may have been Civil Service, and he
> may have been approved by the Tsar, but if the Tsar apostatizes ...
> Any Tsar who embraces "the Hagorites" is going to make himself
> every unpopular with Russian Nationalists as well as all Orthodox from
> the Ecumenical Patriarch down to the newly illumined.
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Moscow_and_all_Rus%27
> > "Upon the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700,[4] Peter I did not permit
> >the election of a new patriarch; after 20 years he established a Theological
> >College, soon renamed the Holy Synod, which, as a public body, acted as
> >the general church administration from 1721 to January 1918 - the emperor
> >(to 2 March 1917) being "the last Judge of this Board.""
> You are correct. St Tikhon "Enlightener of North America" was the
> first Patriarch since the time of Tsar Peter the Great.
>
My point was that, as you note, Metropolitan Macarius II was never a Patriarch, so Nicolas II could not have been anathematised by a non-existent Patriarch.

In Tsarist times, how did the Metropolitan of Moscow rank relative to the Metropolitan of St Petersburg?

I note however that you refer to the 'Ecumenical Patriarch' - so maybe you were thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanus_V_of_Constantinople ?

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> on Tue, 13 Jul 2021
01:48:02 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:02:14 AM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Mon, 12 Jul 2021
>> 14:23:26 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> >> Nicholas the Apostate would soon be deposed or assassinated.
>> >> Whether before or after the Patriarch anathematizes him is a good
>> >> question.
>> >>
>> >Which Patriarch would that have been in 1914?
>>
>> Metropolitan Macarius II. He may have been Civil Service, and he
>> may have been approved by the Tsar, but if the Tsar apostatizes ...
>> Any Tsar who embraces "the Hagorites" is going to make himself
>> every unpopular with Russian Nationalists as well as all Orthodox from
>> the Ecumenical Patriarch down to the newly illumined.
>>
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Moscow_and_all_Rus%27
>> > "Upon the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700,[4] Peter I did not permit
>> >the election of a new patriarch; after 20 years he established a Theological
>> >College, soon renamed the Holy Synod, which, as a public body, acted as
>> >the general church administration from 1721 to January 1918 - the emperor
>> >(to 2 March 1917) being "the last Judge of this Board.""
>> You are correct. St Tikhon "Enlightener of North America" was the
>> first Patriarch since the time of Tsar Peter the Great.
>>
>My point was that, as you note, Metropolitan Macarius II was never a Patriarch, so Nicolas II could not have been anathematised by a non-existent Patriarch.
>
>In Tsarist times, how did the Metropolitan of Moscow rank relative to the Metropolitan of St Petersburg?

I am going to assume that the Metropolitan of the capital city
'ranks' the Metropolitan of any other city. As has been said, it may
have been a Civil Service position, but even those have their
hierarchy.
>
>I note however that you refer to the 'Ecumenical Patriarch' - so maybe you were thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanus_V_of_Constantinople ?

Not specifically. Whoever is Bishop of Constantinople is also
Patriarch and thus 'Imperial Patriarch' but remains merely first among
equals for the same reason the Metropolitan of Moscow precedes the
Metropolitan of St Petersburg. No matter how many want to believe the
EP is the Orthodox "Pope".
While the EP is considered to be first in Honor, his jurisdiction
outside of his diocese is limited; he cannot move or replace priests
or bishops outside his diocese, there is no Cathedra for him to speak
from. The Hierarchy in Orthodoxy is relatively flat: Bishops,
Priests, and The Faithful.

Anyway, having the Tsar apostatize will antagonize all of
Orthodoxy, in and out of Russia, and he will be referred to as
"Nicholas the Apostate" just as Emperor Julian had been in the 4th
century. He will also antagonize all the Russian Nationalists, in and
out of the Government. It has been said that the Imperial Ministries
had what was effectively a vet power on policy, by being 'slack' in
their protection of ministers from assassination.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Tue, 13 Jul 2021
> 01:48:02 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:02:14 AM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Mon, 12 Jul 2021
> >> 14:23:26 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >> >> Nicholas the Apostate would soon be deposed or assassinated.
> >> >> Whether before or after the Patriarch anathematizes him is a good
> >> >> question.
> >> >>
> >> >Which Patriarch would that have been in 1914?
> >>
> >> Metropolitan Macarius II. He may have been Civil Service, and he
> >> may have been approved by the Tsar, but if the Tsar apostatizes ...
> >> Any Tsar who embraces "the Hagorites" is going to make himself
> >> every unpopular with Russian Nationalists as well as all Orthodox from
> >> the Ecumenical Patriarch down to the newly illumined.
> >>
> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Moscow_and_all_Rus%27
> >> > "Upon the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700,[4] Peter I did not permit
> >> >the election of a new patriarch; after 20 years he established a Theological
> >> >College, soon renamed the Holy Synod, which, as a public body, acted as
> >> >the general church administration from 1721 to January 1918 - the emperor
> >> >(to 2 March 1917) being "the last Judge of this Board.""
> >> You are correct. St Tikhon "Enlightener of North America" was the
> >> first Patriarch since the time of Tsar Peter the Great.
> >>
> >My point was that, as you note, Metropolitan Macarius II was never a Patriarch, so Nicolas II could not have been anathematised by a non-existent Patriarch.
> >
> >In Tsarist times, how did the Metropolitan of Moscow rank relative to the Metropolitan of St Petersburg?
> I am going to assume that the Metropolitan of the capital city
> 'ranks' the Metropolitan of any other city. As has been said, it may
> have been a Civil Service position, but even those have their
> hierarchy.
>
In 1914, the capital of Russia was St Petersburg, not Moscow.

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> on Thu, 15 Jul 2021
10:20:50 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Tue, 13 Jul 2021
>> 01:48:02 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> >On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:02:14 AM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> >> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Mon, 12 Jul 2021
>> >> 14:23:26 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> >> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> >> >> Nicholas the Apostate would soon be deposed or assassinated.
>> >> >> Whether before or after the Patriarch anathematizes him is a good
>> >> >> question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Which Patriarch would that have been in 1914?
>> >>
>> >> Metropolitan Macarius II. He may have been Civil Service, and he
>> >> may have been approved by the Tsar, but if the Tsar apostatizes ...
>> >> Any Tsar who embraces "the Hagorites" is going to make himself
>> >> every unpopular with Russian Nationalists as well as all Orthodox from
>> >> the Ecumenical Patriarch down to the newly illumined.
>> >>
>> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Moscow_and_all_Rus%27
>> >> > "Upon the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700,[4] Peter I did not permit
>> >> >the election of a new patriarch; after 20 years he established a Theological
>> >> >College, soon renamed the Holy Synod, which, as a public body, acted as
>> >> >the general church administration from 1721 to January 1918 - the emperor
>> >> >(to 2 March 1917) being "the last Judge of this Board.""
>> >> You are correct. St Tikhon "Enlightener of North America" was the
>> >> first Patriarch since the time of Tsar Peter the Great.
>> >>
>> >My point was that, as you note, Metropolitan Macarius II was never a Patriarch, so Nicolas II could not have been anathematised by a non-existent Patriarch.
>> >
>> >In Tsarist times, how did the Metropolitan of Moscow rank relative to the Metropolitan of St Petersburg?
>> I am going to assume that the Metropolitan of the capital city
>> 'ranks' the Metropolitan of any other city. As has been said, it may
>> have been a Civil Service position, but even those have their
>> hierarchy.
>>
>In 1914, the capital of Russia was St Petersburg, not Moscow.

Sorry, I'm not as up on this modern history as I'd like. While
the capital may have been moved, for many the capital would (and Home
Office) would remain in the "true Capital" - Moscow. Without getting
into the weeds, I'm going to say that it is also possible that for the
Orthodox Church, "Just because the Civil Government has moved to a New
Capital City, doesn't me we will move." There is a cliche that some
issues can be resolved in 200 years. Others take longer, and many are
likely only to be resolved when The Lord Jesus returns.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 3:15:54 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Thu, 15 Jul 2021
> 10:20:50 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Tue, 13 Jul 2021
> >> 01:48:02 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >> >On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:02:14 AM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >> >> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Mon, 12 Jul 2021
> >> >> 14:23:26 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >> >> >On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 PM UTC+1, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >> >> >> Nicholas the Apostate would soon be deposed or assassinated.
> >> >> >> Whether before or after the Patriarch anathematizes him is a good
> >> >> >> question.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Which Patriarch would that have been in 1914?
> >> >>
> >> >> Metropolitan Macarius II. He may have been Civil Service, and he
> >> >> may have been approved by the Tsar, but if the Tsar apostatizes ...
> >> >> Any Tsar who embraces "the Hagorites" is going to make himself
> >> >> every unpopular with Russian Nationalists as well as all Orthodox from
> >> >> the Ecumenical Patriarch down to the newly illumined.
> >> >>
> >> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Moscow_and_all_Rus%27
> >> >> > "Upon the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700,[4] Peter I did not permit
> >> >> >the election of a new patriarch; after 20 years he established a Theological
> >> >> >College, soon renamed the Holy Synod, which, as a public body, acted as
> >> >> >the general church administration from 1721 to January 1918 - the emperor
> >> >> >(to 2 March 1917) being "the last Judge of this Board.""
> >> >> You are correct. St Tikhon "Enlightener of North America" was the
> >> >> first Patriarch since the time of Tsar Peter the Great.
> >> >>
> >> >My point was that, as you note, Metropolitan Macarius II was never a Patriarch, so Nicolas II could not have been anathematised by a non-existent Patriarch.
> >> >
> >> >In Tsarist times, how did the Metropolitan of Moscow rank relative to the Metropolitan of St Petersburg?
> >> I am going to assume that the Metropolitan of the capital city
> >> 'ranks' the Metropolitan of any other city. As has been said, it may
> >> have been a Civil Service position, but even those have their
> >> hierarchy.
> >>
> >In 1914, the capital of Russia was St Petersburg, not Moscow.
>
> Sorry, I'm not as up on this modern history as I'd like. While
> the capital may have been moved, for many the capital would (and Home
> Office) would remain in the "true Capital" - Moscow. Without getting
> into the weeds, I'm going to say that it is also possible that for the
> Orthodox Church, "Just because the Civil Government has moved to a New
> Capital City, doesn't me we will move." There is a cliche that some
> issues can be resolved in 200 years. Others take longer, and many are
> likely only to be resolved when The Lord Jesus returns.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Moscow#Empire_(1721%E2%80%931917) "Moscow ceased to be Russia's capital (except for a brief period from 1728 to 1732 under the influence of the Supreme Privy Council) when Peter the Great moved his government to the newly built Saint Petersburg on the Baltic coast in 1712." I.e. more than 200 years before 1914.