Alexander II and III "what ifs"

[Russophile]

Of course you can call me Russo darling! And a little later we'll have a nice bottle of Merlot with Osipi.

It's an excellent book. I highly enjoyed it.
Do you think the Imperial Yacht was "unavailable" as Alex II understood how formidable Minnie was becoming?

 

[COUNTESS]

I don't think Alexander II was less liberal, but more circumspect. Also, his iwfe was ill for many years, no excuse and he found solace in the arms of Katherine. What a shock!! Placing her and her family above his ailing wife, was downright uncaring. Yet, he loved his wife, for many years before. What made him so cold, as to do what he did? Many powerful men have been very foolish in these matters. I don't think Dagmar was running back to Denmark. It makes good copy. She knew her place and, certainly, was going to use it.

 

[pamela18335]

Lovely! I'll bring the caviar and toast points (yum!)

No, I don't think Alexander II was reacting to Marie's formidability; I think he was ~hmmm, how to put this??~ royally pissed off! The Emperor obviously loved his mistress/wife, and she had been snubbed or slighted on a number of occasions by not only Marie but other members of the Imperial Family. I think Marie's comment about leaving Russia and going back to Denmark was rather the last straw, and he flexed his Imperial muscles to both ensure that she could not leave, and to put her firmly in her place.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I now blame the murderers of Alexander II for the revolution of 1917. If those bastards hadn't murdered the most liberal tsar Russia had never had, the country would have had a constitution by the 1885. Instead with his death the country got reactionary Alexander III and his disdain for everything to do with law and order. Sorry I know this thread is over a year old, but I just wanted to get my theory out there.

 

[Benedict XVI]

A few days after his assassination he was supposed to have proposed to share his power. He was one of the few to even think about it. He would have stopped the 1917 revolution. What I don't get is why on gods green earth where they so mad at him? The Romanovs would still be on the throne. It would have been understandable if it was his father Nicholas I who was anti-liberal, but instead it's his son. Didn't the assassins realize that just like before Tsarist oppression would return and kill them all.

 

[branchg]

A few days after his assassination he was supposed to have proposed to share his power. He was one of the few to even think about it. He would have stopped the 1917 revolution. What I don't get is why on gods green earth where they so mad at him? The Romanovs would still be on the throne. It would have been understandable if it was his father Nicholas I who was anti-liberal, but instead it's his son. Didn't the assassins realize that just like before Tsarist oppression would return and kill them all.

The roots of the 1917 Revolution started long before Alexander II's reign and would have proved very difficult to stop, given the huge gap between the very poor and uneducated serfs and the highly wealthy elite in Russia.

The Empire itself, much like the Soviet Union, was a witches brew of ethnic and cultural discord surpressed with violence and military force.

 

[Benedict XVI]

That is true they had been plotting against the autocracy since the Decemberist revolution of 1825. But it would have helped alot and they probably would not have gotten rid of the monarchy altogether. They would have had alot more people to blame there problems on to. He probably would have made life much easier for the peasants which would have made the people not want to get rid of him. So if it happened and they wanted to get rid of the monarchy they would have let the Romanovs leave in peace and go in exile

 

[AristoCat]

I now blame the murderers of Alexander II for the revolution of 1917. If those bastards hadn't murdered the most liberal tsar Russia had never had, the country would have had a constitution by the 1885. Instead with his death the country got reactionary Alexander III and his disdain for everything to do with law and order. Sorry I know this thread is over a year old, but I just wanted to get my theory out there.

The majority of the revolutionaries didn't want peace or shared power or liberalism, or freedom, they just wanted to kill and kill and kill and kill. It was about revolution for the sake of revolution, not about freedom or prosperity or anything that was worht having.

 

[Benedict XVI]

The majority of the revolutionaries didn't want peace or shared power or liberalism, or freedom, they just wanted to kill and kill and kill and kill. It was about revolution for the sake of revolution, not about freedom or prosperity or anything that was worht having.

That makes a lot of sense. In that Case they should have joined the army to fight.