Alexander III of Russia survives longer - does Imperial Russia?

BooNZ

Banned
What if Alexander III does not die in 1894, but survives in reasonable health for another 20 years? I understand Russia followed a substantially similar course after his death until around 1899, as the influence of Sergei Witte over Nicholas II started to wane.
 
What if Alexander III does not die in 1894, but survives in reasonable health for another 20 years? I understand Russia followed a substantially similar course after his death until around 1899, as the influence of Sergei Witte over Nicholas II started to wane.
Alexander III does seem to be a more sensible and confident ruler than his son.

If we can also give Germany's Frederick III two extra decades, we might well avoid the Great War.
 
Alexander had planned on starting to train Nicholas II for government when Nicholas was 30 but unfortunately died when Nicholas was 26. Having Alexander live longer might actually allow Nicholas be prepared to be a somewhat effective ruler. Also Kaiser Wilhelm II was in awe of Alexander so maybe he might be able act as a calming influence on Wilhelm.
 
Would there still be Russo-Japanese War? And if Russia still lose that and revolution occurs, how AIII would react?
 

BooNZ

Banned
Would there still be Russo-Japanese War? And if Russia still lose that and revolution occurs, how AIII would react?
I believe AIII would have ultimately avoided military confrontation with Japan and not followed the OTL Russian adventurism in Korea.
 
I believe AIII would have ultimately avoided military confrontation with Japan and not followed the OTL Russian adventurism in Korea.
I agree. In fact AIII's diplomacy skills might derail Britain's influence with Japan.

Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Intervention could have been avoided. Certainly Russia has no need for Port Arthur. Better to have supported Japan's claim, and then build the TSR to the city to support trade between Japan and western Russia.
 
Last edited:
What if Alexander III does not die in 1894, but survives in reasonable health for another 20 years? I understand Russia followed a substantially similar course after his death until around 1899, as the influence of Sergei Witte over Nicholas II started to wane.
Does Russia still sell Alaska to the USA? Perhaps Britain and Russia can come to terms and Russia instead sells Alaska to Britain, perhaps in exchange for territory in Asia?
 
Not sure what change your expecting. Nicholas pursues almost all the same policies and even keeps many of the same ministers for the first decade of his reign. Giers dies and Vannovski retires at Defense but other than that there aren't too many changes. Even when there are ministers are replaced by people close to the former holder (Kuropatkin is the 3rd in line of the Army). Tyrtov at the Navy is an exception but even there Nicholas keeps his Uncle as Grand Amiral

Witte is still finance minister so no great change in economic policy- the 1899 recession would still happen on schedule

Alexander is as anti-Semitic as Nicholas so the Jewish part of the unprising is still likely- the 1905 revolution was concentrated in heavily Jewish areas and about 30% of those condemned to prison for it were Jews. Given the policies of Nicholas and Alexander that seems a reasonable estimate of Jewish participation. though Jews may have been singled out for special treatment

THe Russiafication policy would be similiar so the Armenian problems would remain. Alexander had a soft spot for the Finns so maybe a more relaxed policy there

Alexander might have been more brutal in crushing the revolt but its still likely He's even lesss likely than Nicholas to make reforms afterwards so the problems would just fester
 

BooNZ

Banned
Not sure what change your expecting. Nicholas pursues almost all the same policies and even keeps many of the same ministers for the first decade of his reign. Giers dies and Vannovski retires at Defense but other than that there aren't too many changes. Even when there are ministers are replaced by people close to the former holder (Kuropatkin is the 3rd in line of the Army). Tyrtov at the Navy is an exception but even there Nicholas keeps his Uncle as Grand Amiral

Yeah - Nah. Nicholas was initially heavily influenced by Witte and to that extent the Russian Imperial policy demonstrated strong continuity in the five years following the death of Alexander. However, from 1899 the influence of Witte started to wane and Nicholas was increasingly surrounded and influenced by hawks. The result is Russian adventurism in the East and pan-slavism in the Balkans. I would contend under Alexander, Russia would have continued to strive for a benign foreign policy and Witte would have retained greater influence at the highest levels.

Witte is still finance minister so no great change in economic policy- the 1899 recession would still happen on schedule
My understanding was the 1899 recession was not limited to Russia, so yeah, I don't see any significant changes until after 1900.

Alexander is as anti-Semitic as Nicholas so the Jewish part of the unprising is still likely- the 1905 revolution was concentrated in heavily Jewish areas and about 30% of those condemned to prison for it were Jews. Given the policies of Nicholas and Alexander that seems a reasonable estimate of Jewish participation. though Jews may have been singled out for special treatment

THe Russiafication policy would be similiar so the Armenian problems would remain. Alexander had a soft spot for the Finns so maybe a more relaxed policy there

Alexander might have been more brutal in crushing the revolt but its still likely He's even lesss likely than Nicholas to make reforms afterwards so the problems would just fester
Yes, I understand Alexander would be more regressive as far as political/religious freedoms, or at least more competent in suppressing them. However, assuming Alexander manages to avoid OTL foreign entanglements, the Russian state would remain far stronger in terms of its credibility and economy.
 
Yeah - Nah. Nicholas was initially heavily influenced by Witte and to that extent the Russian Imperial policy demonstrated strong continuity in the five years following the death of Alexander. However, from 1899 the influence of Witte started to wane and Nicholas was increasingly surrounded and influenced by hawks. The result is Russian adventurism in the East and pan-slavism in the Balkans. I would contend under Alexander, Russia would have continued to strive for a benign foreign policy and Witte would have retained greater influence at the highest levels.

My understanding was the 1899 recession was not limited to Russia, so yeah, I don't see any significant changes until after 1900.

Yes, I understand Alexander would be more regressive as far as political/religious freedoms, or at least more competent in suppressing them. However, assuming Alexander manages to avoid OTL foreign entanglements, the Russian state would remain far stronger in terms of its credibility and economy.

Russia's foreign policy in the far east is laid down b Giers before he dies- that Russia could not suffer a Japanese Korea as that would lead to the choking off Russia's far eastern provinces. It wold be the creation of a second Bosphorus. I don't see Alexander straying from that line anymore than Nicholas but he'd be less likely to pay for the defense bills leaving Russia even weaker. One can argue over the details and and implementation would be different but that is just speculation

As for Witte- Alexander picked ministers to implement his policies not the other way around. Witte's policies don't vary much from Vyshnegradski's so the general economic policy would stay the same. Alexander would have trimmed Witte's sails long before Nicholas- a minister stepping out of his field was never tolerated

In any event, the revolutionary violence predates the Japanese War with the first acts of violence in 1902. Alexander was bullheaded and set in his ways so he's not going to suddenly listen to Yerolov and reform Russian agriculture
 

BooNZ

Banned
Russia's foreign policy in the far east is laid down b Giers before he dies- that Russia could not suffer a Japanese Korea as that would lead to the choking off Russia's far eastern provinces. It wold be the creation of a second Bosphorus. I don't see Alexander straying from that line anymore than Nicholas but he'd be less likely to pay for the defense bills leaving Russia even weaker. One can argue over the details and and implementation would be different but that is just speculation

As Foreign Minister, Giers managed to keep Russia out of military conflicts and he died in 1895 after enduring ill health for a number of years. How was an aggressive Russian foreign policy in the east, heavily inspired by a long dead Foreign Minister, who had a reputation as a pacifist? A cornerstone of Alexander's rule was the avoidance of foreign military conflict and Russian eastern aspirations would have been subordinated to that priority. I would "speculate" that Russian foreign policy in the East under Alexander would not be hijacked (per OTL) by foreign policy hawks or private interests.

I understand Witte was a foreign policy dove and OTL during the 1890s used his position as Finance Minister to keep a tight reign on military budgets. Alexander also had a reputation as a pacifist, but had a solid grasp of military matters. It is doubtful the Russian overall military spending through the 1890s would be significantly less than OTL, but certainly priorities might be different.

As for Witte- Alexander picked ministers to implement his policies not the other way around.
Agreed and Alexander had already recognised Witte as his most capable minister as evidenced by his rapid promotion. Witte was also a royalist, a pacifist and a conservative, which happened to reconcile with Alexander's world view. It is my opinion those policies espoused by Witte, would not be inconsistent with those ultimately adopted by Alexander.

Witte's policies don't vary much from Vyshnegradski's so the general economic policy would stay the same.
Agreed, which is why I believe Russia is likely to maintain a similar path until around 1899 when OTL Witte started to lose his influence over Nicholas.
Alexander would have trimmed Witte's sails long before Nicholas- a minister stepping out of his field was never tolerated
Why? In matters of state Witte understood and generally agreed with Alexander, who would not have the same insecurities as Nicholas. Indeed, on his death bed Alexander couselled his son to listen well to Witte, so it is reasonable to assume that Alexander would have retained confindence in his Finance minister given his OTL strong performance.

In any event, the revolutionary violence predates the Japanese War with the first acts of violence in 1902. Alexander was bullheaded and set in his ways so he's not going to suddenly listen to Yerolov and reform Russian agriculture
There were ongoing acts of revolutionary violence in the decades preceeding the Russo-Japanese war including the assasination of Alexander II (father) and Alexander III's death is often attributed to an injury sustained during another such assasination attempt.

I think political/representational reform would stagnate, but I don't think Alexander had anything against economic progress. I doubt if Alexander would have too many objections to advances in animal husbandry, but there are likely to be strong opinions on land reform. Land reform would probably have more impact the landed nobles than Alexander, so intrigue abounds.
 
Top