Alexander II and III "what ifs"

[lexi4]

Alexander II was known as a reformer. He recognized that the spirit of Russia was changing and realized that changes must be made if the monarchy were to survive.
He abolished capital punshiment and abolished slavery; relazed laws on censorship; developed a new penal code. He seemed to sense that revolution was on the horizon and work towards keeping it at bay. Some scholars have suggested that Alexander II was on a path of Westernization and had that path continued, Russia might have established a Constitutional monarchy instead of an autocracy.

The assassination of this Reformer Tsar left his son, Alexander III ruler of all Russia. Alexander III lacked the temperament of his father and did not share his ideas of reform. He wasn't prepared to take the throne. His brother, Nicholas, was the heir apparent until in his death in 1865. Nicholas's death came as a blow to Alexander II who lost heart and was lacked the energy needed to education his second son. Therefore, the relationship between the two was strained.

When Alexander III became tsar, he did away with many of the reforms made by his father and returned to more of an autocratic rule. His rule could be described as "anti-reform."

After all of that here is the question, do you think Alexander II would have continued in his father's footsteps had his father devoted more time to his education? Was Alexander II's reaction to reform based on fear having seen his own father killed? His autocratic ways set the stage for the next tsar, who would be the last tsar of Russia.
Lexi

 

[Royal Fan]

its Difficult to say Hindsight being what it is so I Cannot say id like to think Alexander II Wouldve help mould his son had he lived and that possibly couldve saved the Dynasty

 

[lexi4]

its Difficult to say Hindsight being what it is so I Cannot say id like to think Alexander II Wouldve help mould his son had he lived and that possibly couldve saved the Dynasty

Thank you to responding to my post.

Yes, you would think. But he didn't help Alexander after Nicholas died. He didn't have the heart for it. He was devasted by his oldest son's death. Prior to that Alexander III had received no formal training to become a tsar. There was no reason for him too. The rellationship between Alexander II & III was strained at best. I think Alexander II resented his father and I also think he was an angry man.
Lexi

 

[COUNTESS]

Alexandra who, after Nicholas died? I don't think it was a contest. Alexander II was a bright man, with foresight, as to the real situation in Russia. Yet, he was still assinated. He did see, that the way they ruled had to be modified. He understood international politics. Alexander III, had no real formal education in international politics nor how to rule a nation. He got to his position by attrition. He was quite stubborn and never wanted to deal with change. Yet, he was a wonderful husband and father. He just did not have the temperment or credentials to rule a nation, especially at the time he did.

 

[lexi4]

Sorry about that. Alexander.
I agree it is not a contest. I was hoping for a discussion about the relationship between Alexander III and his father and how that might have impacted the decisions he made a Tsar.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Although Alexander II "freed the serfs," many of them found themselves in the same situation except in name. It was like when the slavery was abolished in the US, but after the Civil War, many blacks became involved in sharecropping which was almost the same as slavery except in name.

I guess Alexander II's reforms were progressive but ultimately not quite effective...and it things only got worse when Alexander III reversed them.

 

[Thomas Parkman]

The reign of Alexander III was an unmitigated disaster, followed by the pathetically inept and tragic Nicholas II. By then of course Russia was in an impossible situation. If the constitutional reforms that were on the desk of Alexander II had been implemented it is possible Russia would have been spared the horrendous nightmare that followed. If the land reform had been begun twenty years earlier then all might have been saved.

The truth about the matter is that Alexander III was a not very intelligent indidividual who was, as the British say, above his ceiling. With appalling consequence.

 

[lexi4]

Thomas,
You summed it up very well. Alexander was megalomaniac who was convinced he ruled by Divine Right. He believed that his own brand of religious autocracy was well suited for the Russian people and saw himself as a god-like autocrat. He was opposed to the Petrine model of autocracy because it would put limits on the Tsar's powers. He preferred the principles of personal rule and distrusted bureaucracy. Had he followed in the footsteps of his father, the Revolution might have been avoided.

 

[COUNTESS]

There was still a step between revolution and Alexander III and that was Nicholas II. Alexander II called Alexander III the bullock. He knew his son was not bright and very stubborn and, yet, as many presumed he would bypass this "lesser intellect", for his more urbane and charming son Vladimir. Yet, he didn't. Pobedonostsev, held back courting Alexander III favour, for he really though that Alexander II, would not allow him to be the heir.

 

[lexi4]

Countess,
I am confused. How could anyone have thought he would bypass Alexander II? According to the laws of succession, he was next in line. He was one of the most influential men in Alexander II's empire.
Lexi

 

[Russophile]

There was still a step between revolution and Alexander III and that was Nicholas II. Alexander II called Alexander III the bullock. He knew his son was not bright and very stubborn and, yet, as many presumed he would bypass this "lesser intellect", for his more urbane and charming son Vladimir. Yet, he didn't. Pobedonostsev, held back courting Alexander III favour, for he really though that Alexander II, would not allow him to be the heir.

This is interesting. Sources, Countess?

 

[COUNTESS]

King-Kaiser-Tsar, by Catrine Clay, pages 47 and 48. I, too, wondered about that statement, as succession was succession.

 

[Marengo]

I was wondering, why would we think that Vladimir would have done a 'better' job? Wasn't he the one that was always urging Nicholas II not to allow any kind of liberalism and such?

 

[lexi4]

King-Kaiser-Tsar, by Catrine Clay, pages 47 and 48. I, too, wondered about that statement, as succession was succession.

Thank you very much Countess. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around that statement. You are correct, succession was succession and there was never any question, once Nicholas was dead, over whether or not Alexander III would become the Tsar. In fact, some of his education was changed after his brother's death which was more in line with the studies of a tsar.
Thank you for the source. What do you make of it?
Lexi

 

[COUNTESS]

Tsars can and have changed succession rights. Paul did it to females, as his relationship with his mother was terrible. Catherine would have done it to him. But, that was long ago. Nicholas I came to power, because his older brother Constantine refused to leave Warsaw and rule. Who knows. Perhaps, Alexander III, could have been persuaded, to step aside, in favor of his more urbane and intelligent brother, Vladimir. I have never read that account before, but it is possible. I, think, that it was more in outsiders minds, than in Alexander II mind.

 

[Russophile]

King-Kaiser-Tsar, by Catrine Clay, pages 47 and 48. I, too, wondered about that statement, as succession was succession.

Thanks for the book. I wasn't familiar with that one. I'll have to find it!

 

[Russophile]

Tsars can and have changed succession rights. Paul did it to females, as his relationship with his mother was terrible. Catherine would have done it to him. But, that was long ago. Nicholas I came to power, because his older brother Constantine refused to leave Warsaw and rule. Who knows. Perhaps, Alexander III, could have been persuaded, to step aside, in favor of his more urbane and intelligent brother, Vladimir. I have never read that account before, but it is possible. I, think, that it was more in outsiders minds, than in Alexander II mind.

Oooh, I thought it was because Constantine had a morganitic marriage in addition to not wanting to leave. Wasn't it said he used to fire cannons in his palace?

 

[COUNTESS]

Constantine was as strange as his father and looked a great deal like Paul. Catherine married him of to Princess Julianne of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, an aunt of Queen Victoria's, but they were separated for 19 years and after 20 years that marriage was annulled. He was appointed Governor of Poland and he like his job. Two months after his annulment he married Countess Joanna Grundzenska, who became Duchess of Lowicz. In connection with this he did renounce the throne. On Alexander I's death, Nicholas still had his brother procalimed Tsar. Thus the Decemberist Revolution and Constatine renounced the throne after one month.

 

[lexi4]

Tsars can and have changed succession rights. Paul did it to females, as his relationship with his mother was terrible. Catherine would have done it to him. But, that was long ago. Nicholas I came to power, because his older brother Constantine refused to leave Warsaw and rule. Who knows. Perhaps, Alexander III, could have been persuaded, to step aside, in favor of his more urbane and intelligent brother, Vladimir. I have never read that account before, but it is possible. I, think, that it was more in outsiders minds, than in Alexander II mind.

In a sense, Nicholas did change succession laws when he abdicated the throne for Alexei. But by that point in time, it really didn't matter much. The dynasty was doomed.

 

[ysbel]

But czars had changed succession before. Didn't Peter the Great keep the right to name his successor himself?

He was not the only czar that did that.

 

[pamela18335]

Alexander III

OK, friends, I've asked you all to postulate in "what if's" before, so here I go again!

Alexander III was quite an interesting man, I think. Certainly not his father's son in terms of his approach to tsardom, as his father was rather liberal in his thinking. After Alexander II's assassination, Alexander III became even more conservative (reactionary?), ruling with an iron fist. He was an autocrat's autocrat. Unlike poor Nicky, Alexander had the physical stature, decisive nature and strength of purpose to rule as an autocrat.

Unfortunately, Alexander III died at quite a young age; he was only 49. That early death put a green, unseasoned, untrained Tsarevitch on the throne. It robbed Alix of the opportunity that Marie Feodorovna had had: to become familiar with the customs and court of her adopted land, fluent in its language, to have (more or less) uncomplicated time with her beloved husband, to mature.

How might have the history of Russia and the Imperial Family been different if Alexander had lived an additional ten or fifteen years?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Speculation, but Alexander III might have had to deal with the Russo-Japanese War and perhaps the Russian navy would have been better equipped. Nicholas and Alexandra would be content to see their family grow and remain more in the background, although there still would have been pressure on Alix to bear a son. And I believe that Alexander III would not have allowed Rasputin to influence the royal couple, even if the mad monk was able to alleviate Alexei's symptoms.

Russia, in my opinion, would have fared better under Alexander III.

 

[Russophile]

Copy that VM! Also, AlexIII being the big gruff man that he was, NOBODY pushed him around, unlike Nicky where ALL his uncles pushed him around. You didn't "eff" with Alexander III!

Now, as to how Russia would have fared, that gives rise to speculation. Alexander would have definately kept Russia together, and not brokered anything Lenin or Kerensky was selling. However! How would he have done with the industrial revolution? Marie the younger was talking about how many needs Russia had and how ill-equipped they were to handle things with getting them into the 20th Century.

 

[Royal Fan]

I Wonder if he couldve prevented the Civil War had he lived long enough?

 

[pamela18335]

Pobedonostsev, held back courting Alexander III favour, for he really though that Alexander II, would not allow him to be the heir.

Countess, other than your quote above, there really is a distinct lack of inclusion of Pobedonostsev in this discussion.

Pobedonostsev began teaching Nicholas Alexandrovich (Nixa), Tsesarevich and heir apparent to Alexander II in 1861. His expertise was in areas of theory of law and administration. After Nixa's early death, he was asked to tutor Alexander Alexandrovich (Alexander III). Given Pobedonostsev's strict conservatism, I find it extraordinary that Alexander II, liberal-minded and forward-looking, employed him as a tutor for either of his sons. Perhaps Pobedonostsev kept his political views to himself and stuck to his specific topics.

I don't think that Alexander III's reactionary views were a result of fear after his father's assassination, but that Alexander II's assassination simply served to confirm his own beliefs, possibly implanted, but certainly supported and encouraged by Pobedonostsev. Regardless, Pobedonostsev was exceedingly influential in Alexander III's reign, becoming tutor to Nicholas Alexandrovich (Nicholas II) in turn.

I have never found anything documented concerning Nixa's view of Alexander II's liberal bent. If, as I believe, father and son were close (unlike father and second son), it's possible that had Nixa lived, he might have followed in his father's footsteps. Alexander III would never have succeeded, and Russian history might have been profoundly different.

(In case you haven't noticed in other threads, I love "what-ifs" ).

 

[COUNTESS]

I think you are , abosolutely, right. Alexander II was a man of insight, I, too, find that Pobedonostsev was a very odd choice. Alexander III was a good student, more is the pity, of his tutor, and had a xenophobic view of the world, Nicholas II had no vision whatsoever. So, if Nixa had lived, all that followed might have been different. You might have seen enlightment. Ah, I, too, love supposition.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Did Alexander II become less liberal towards the end of his reign? I've read that his liberal brother, Grand Duke Konstantin became more disillusioned when Alexander stopped believing in Konstantin's liberal point of view (which lead to friction in K's marriage and having a second family with a mistress). On the other hand, I've also read the imperial family greatly disliked Alexander's mistress and later morganatic wife Catherine Dolgorukov, in addition to her scandalous conduct, for her liberal influence on the tsar.

 

[Russophile]

I do know Minnie was very upset with Alex II for installing his mistress above his wife's chambers ( from Little Mother of Russia) where the children were running around all day long making noise and the Empress could hear it and was constantly reminded of the mistresses' presence.

 

[pamela18335]

Did Alexander II become less liberal towards the end of his reign? I've read that his liberal brother, Grand Duke Konstantin became more disillusioned when Alexander stopped believing in Konstantin's liberal point of view (which lead to friction in K's marriage and having a second family with a mistress). On the other hand, I've also read the imperial family greatly disliked Alexander's mistress and later morganatic wife Catherine Dolgorukov, in addition to her scandalous conduct, for her liberal influence on the tsar.

EmpressRouge, I don't believe so. If I recall correctly, the day that Alexander II was assassinated, there was a draft manifesto on his desk which was to have been published to the Russian people that would have paved the way for a parliamentary body. Needless to say, Alexander III made short work of that.

 

[pamela18335]

I do know Minnie was very upset with Alex II for installing his mistress above his wife's chambers ( from Little Mother of Russia) where the children were running around all day long making noise and the Empress could hear it and was constantly reminded of the mistresses' presence.

Russo (may I shorten your name...easier on the fingers ) I am currently rereading "Little Mother of Russia". Marie Feodorovna had ample reason to dislike Catherine Dolgoruky. First there was the very public affair between the then-married Alexander II and the young woman, which was seen as damaging to the Imperial image and highly disrespectful to her mother-in-law. Then came the move of the mistress and their children into the Palace and their installation in quarters directly above the failing Empress's bedroom, with the incumbent noise to which you refer. Not even waiting the Church-appointed mourning period, Alexander then married Catherine, informing his family only afterward.

More telling however, I think, was the clear concern that Alexander II might possibly crown his new wife. Just think of Marie Feodorovna's position had that happened! By Russian court law, his new Empress would then have taken precedence over Marie Feodorovna, not only during the Emperor's lifetime, but even after his death, and the Tsesarevich's accession. Marie Feodorovna would then become Russia's "second lady" as it were, until Catherine's death, a situation she did not plan to tolerate. She went as far as declaring that if Catherine were crowned, she (MF) would leave Russia for Denmark. Alexander II responded to this declaration by making the Imperial yacht "unavailable".

Such drama!

As an aside to all this, I'm glad that I'm rereading LMoR, which I last read 11 years ago when it first was published. I'm reading it from quite a different angle than I did at first, and am getting a distinctly different impression of Marie than I had at first read.