Alexander II and III "what ifs"

[pamela18335]

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]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

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.