Alexander I of Russia lives longer

Poor Tsar Alexander lived to be 47 years old. Assuming that he never got ill and lived on until... 1853 at least... How does this affect Europe? Will Alexander at the end decide to support the Greeks even though he was hesitant? Will he intervene in Belgium in favor of the Dutch? Will he intervene in Hungary to save the Habsburgs?
 
Poor Tsar Alexander lived to be 47 years old. Assuming that he never got ill and lived on until... 1853 at least... How does this affect Europe? Will Alexander at the end decide to support the Greeks even though he was hesitant? Will he intervene in Belgium in favor of the Dutch? Will he intervene in Hungary to save the Habsburgs?

Alexander I was rather difficult to predict but he was one of the creators of Holy Alliance so there is no reason to assume that he would be less dedicated to its ideas than Nicholas I who just followed Alexander's pattern. He may (or may not) be more lenient toward Poland thus excluding the uprising. As for the Belgian revolution, Queen of the Netherlands was his sister so one may guess either way. In OTL military intervention was prevented by a combination of cholera and Polish Uprising so one can only guess if cholera alone would be enough.

The main potential difference was that he was much less obnoxious in his personal style than his younger brother and perhaps would be able to avoid some of the issues which led to the OTL anti-Russian coalition and Crimean War. OTOH, both Alexander and Nicholas had the same foreign minister (and a tendency to act as his own foreign minister). OTOH, taking into an account Alexander's hate of Napoleon, it is quite possible that he would be as rude to his nephew as Nicholas. But would he press the issue of the Russian protectorate of the Ottoman Christians and one of control over the Holy Sites?
 
Alexander I was rather difficult to predict but he was one of the creators of Holy Alliance so there is no reason to assume that he would be less dedicated to its ideas than Nicholas I who just followed Alexander's pattern. He may (or may not) be more lenient toward Poland thus excluding the uprising. As for the Belgian revolution, Queen of the Netherlands was his sister so one may guess either way. In OTL military intervention was prevented by a combination of cholera and Polish Uprising so one can only guess if cholera alone would be enough.

The main potential difference was that he was much less obnoxious in his personal style than his younger brother and perhaps would be able to avoid some of the issues which led to the OTL anti-Russian coalition and Crimean War. OTOH, both Alexander and Nicholas had the same foreign minister (and a tendency to act as his own foreign minister). OTOH, taking into an account Alexander's hate of Napoleon, it is quite possible that he would be as rude to his nephew as Nicholas. But would he press the issue of the Russian protectorate of the Ottoman Christians and one of control over the Holy Sites?
I agree that as a creator of the Grand Alliance, he would have supported the policies that they eventually supported in the ensuing years all the way until the Crimean War that ended the Concert of Europe. As for supporting the Dutch, often familial relationships often did not take precedence in the crowned heads of Europe over National interests. Besides, Russia is geographically far too removed from Belgium, and I think that the fear of a revolt of any kind so close to the causes that revolutions have as a toxic effect on France would make him adhere to the ultimate decision made by the powers to grant Belgium its independence.
 
I agree that as a creator of the Grand Alliance, he would have supported the policies that they eventually supported in the ensuing years all the way until the Crimean War that ended the Concert of Europe. As for supporting the Dutch, often familial relationships often did not take precedence in the crowned heads of Europe over National interests. Besides, Russia is geographically far too removed from Belgium, and I think that the fear of a revolt of any kind so close to the causes that revolutions have as a toxic effect on France would make him adhere to the ultimate decision made by the powers to grant Belgium its independence.

Well. Nicholas was planning a military expedition and making necessary diplomatic preparations. We can only guess how far Alexander would be ready to go. Both of them understood "national interests" pretty much along the lines of a military power and ability to intimidate the neighbors so not too much of a difference there.
 
Well. Nicholas was planning a military expedition and making necessary diplomatic preparations. We can only guess how far Alexander would be ready to go. Both of them understood "national interests" pretty much along the lines of a military power and ability to intimidate the neighbors so not too much of a difference there.
Tue, but Nicholas I didn't follow through. Most likely the fact that there was a large buffer between Russia and the Belgian/Dutch border, (Called Germany), also, France in 1830 survives a revolution but remained a monarchy under Louis Philipe I, dodging that bullet, and with Austria and Prussia likely not wanting any possible revolution, nationalist or liberal, spreading into Germany, and the British as it seemed were for Belgian independence, (the eventual King Leopold I by virtue of being the widower of the late heiress presumptive, and also a "British Prince" by his late father in law George IV's order in council,) still leads me to believe, a more practical decision to not intervene was the wisest choice.
 
Tue, but Nicholas I didn't follow through. Most likely the fact that there was a large buffer between Russia and the Belgian/Dutch border, (Called Germany), also, France in 1830 survives a revolution but remained a monarchy under Louis Philipe I, dodging that bullet, and with Austria and Prussia likely not wanting any possible revolution, nationalist or liberal, spreading into Germany, and the British as it seemed were for Belgian independence, (the eventual King Leopold I by virtue of being the widower of the late heiress presumptive, and also a "British Prince" by his late father in law George IV's order in council,) still leads me to believe, a more practical decision to not intervene was the wisest choice.

And what in the list above makes Nicholas different from Alexander?

BTW, as far as a ‘large buffer’ was involved, the most important part of that buffer had close family ties with Russia (check to whom Nicholas was married) and the same applied to Oldenburg and Wurtemberg. Not sure how exactly the fact that Prussia and Austria did not want any type of a revolution would work against anybody’s intention to crush a revolution.
 
I think to lay out the implications of Alexander living longer you have to understand that by 1820 he was in the midst of what would be today be diagnosed as a deep clinical depression. Some modern scholars even claim his behavior resembled schizophrenia in certain aspects. It is no exaggeration to say that it was a major reason the junior officers who became the Decembrists were so emboldened in their plots* against the government. Years before his death, Alexander had been warned by several senior officers that there were advanced plots by certain elements in the Imperial Guard to overthrow him and murder the members of the Romanov dynasty to establish a republic. The Emperor ignored all of their pleas and allowed the would be rebels to continue to gain influence.

If Alexander lives 20-30 years longer than he did in OTL, then this is going to come to a head at some point, and it will be far worst than the Decembrist Revolt was. That coup was launched because the more radical leaders panicked when Alexander died and thought their best chance to succeed in their plans was to strike during the troubled first days of Nicholas's rule. Under this proposed scenario, they would lay low and no doubt become even more entrenched in the highest levels of the Empire's bureaucracy. Alexander's passivity in this case might lead to something like the coup that overthrew Pedro II of Brazil in 1889, but it could also explode into a full out Civil War if Nicholas and more reactionary elements in the government have enough support available to them to stage serious resistance.

Regardless of this possible outcome, Alexander's mental health would most likely continue to deteriorate under the stress of managing the government, which he had come to see as an onerous burden. If he has a full mental breakdown and a regency has to be established, it would cause a political crisis, and could also cause a civil war to break out. There was no mechanism in place for the Russian government to make provisions for an emperor who had not died yet was no longer capable of ruling. It would be infinitely more messy than the confusion over the succession that broke out in OTL, and cause everything in the Empire to come to a screeching halt for an extended period of time; two or three months at a minimum. The Polish Army might even decide to time its revolt against the Russians to take advantage of the chaos and have a much greater chance of winning independence, or really muck things up by forcing the Prussians and Austrians to get involved with an invasion in order to keep their own Polish territories secure.

For all of the invective hurled at Nicholas I by his critics (a lot of which is deserved), he was the man who ordered the organization of Russia's first modern written legal code and and set up the mechanisms for the smooth (if heavily micromanaged) flow of authority from the Throne to all of the offices of government. Also, his aggressiveness in foreign policy which backfired on him during the Crimean War proved to be very effective in the early years of his reign, greatly expanding Russia's territory and influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Far East. His heavy-handedness in Poland caused a revolt, but also oversaw its quick and efficient suppression. He was a man of energy and action, and in the 1830's and early 40's that was the sort of leader Russia needed. It also could have used a leader who was not so thin-skinned, insecure, inflexible, and unable to embrace new technologies, but I am not so convinced Alexander would have been much better in that regard. If Nicholas had died at forty-seven like his brother did he would most likely be remembered far more fondly by history than the currently accepted view.

That is my take on it at any rate, but I focus a lot on the personality of the subjects involved and perhaps do not take into account the greater social forces around them.


*Tolstoy dramatized the deep feeling of discontent among the gentry and intelligentsia at the Emperor's seeming disconnection from the everyday concerns of ruling his empire in the very last chapter of War and Peace
 
Last edited:
For all of the invective hurled at Nicholas I by his critics (a lot of which is deserved), he was the man who ordered the organization of Russia's first modern written legal code and and set up the mechanisms for the smooth (if heavily micromanaged) flow of authority from the Throne to all of the offices of government. Also, his aggressiveness in foreign policy which backfired on him during the Crimean War proved to be very effective in the early years of his reign, greatly expanding Russia's territory and influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Far East. His heavy-handedness in Poland caused a revolt, but also oversaw its quick and efficient suppression. He was a man of energy and action, and in the 1830's and early 1840's that was the sort of leader Russia needed. It also could have used a leader who was not so thin-skinned, insecure, inflexible, and unable to embrace new technologies, but I am not so convinced Alexander would have been much better in that regard. If Nicholas had died at forty-seven like his brother did he would be remembered far more fondly by history than the currently excepted view.

That is my take on it at any rate, but I focus a lot on the personality of the subjects involved and perhaps do not take into account the greater social forces around them.


*Tolstoy dramatized the deep feeling of discontent among the gentry and intelligentsia at the Emperor's seeming disconnection from the everyday concerns of ruling his empire in the very last chapter of War and Peace

In all hindsight you sometimes have to take the good and the bad and make your own call on it.

Then again, I personally feel that his deep depression he suffered, and the declining mental health since 1820 was probably what hastened his declining overall health that ultimately led to his demise 5 years later. Granted, he probably could've lived another 10-15 years (I've never seen any member of the Romanov family, and I'm defining as Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, not the Romanov's prior to Paul I, living past 62 until after the fall of the monarchy in 1917.) But would 15 years be enough for junior officers to infiltrate the government and military to call for an early revolution?

Also Decembrists wanting a republic? Gotta look into that now.

EDIT: So it seems, at least in the case of one of the societies, the other wanted a British-styled Constitutional Monarchy.

Which would've been impossible on a later death of Alexander I given what we know of Nicholas I. Only it'd be worse because their preferred candidate (Constantine Pavlovich) would either be dead or dying, Michael, the youngest of Paul's children only had females (which were already excluded by the Pauline laws), which meant that Nicholas and his children were the only monarchists left.

Long story short, the Decembrists will have to adopt a republic or its a failure.
 
Last edited:
In all hindsight you sometimes have to take the good and the bad and make your own call on it.

Then again, I personally feel that his deep depression he suffered, and the declining mental health since 1820 was probably what hastened his declining overall health that ultimately led to his demise 5 years later. Granted, he probably could've lived another 10-15 years (I've never seen any member of the Romanov family, and I'm defining as Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, not the Romanov's prior to Paul I, living past 62 until after the fall of the monarchy in 1917.) But would 15 years be enough for junior officers to infiltrate the government and military to call for an early revolution?

Also Decembrists wanting a republic? Gotta look into that now.

EDIT: So it seems, at least in the case of one of the societies, the other wanted a British-styled Constitutional Monarchy.

Which would've been impossible on a later death of Alexander I given what we know of Nicholas I. Only it'd be worse because their preferred candidate (Constantine Pavlovich) would either be dead or dying, Michael, the youngest of Paul's children only had females (which were already excluded by the Pauline laws), which meant that Nicholas and his children were the only monarchists left.

Long story short, the Decembrists will have to adopt a republic or its a failure.

The Decembrists would not have a realistic chance to succeed (even with the plan assuming assassination of a whole imperial family): time of the coups was over and the Guards were not what they were in the XVIII century. Not that any of them had a realistic chance to raise high enough in administration (civic or military) to became a new Palen. The same goes for personalities: no charismatic personalities whatsoever.

As for the plans (not that they were too important due to a low chance of success) there were numerous plans which can be characterized as generally republican but none of them was practical.
 
Top