Why do you think that bringing at that time the British art to Russia would be an improvement of what Russia already had or was going to have within a very short time?
Alternate Matches for the Romanovs (Emperors, Empresses, Grand Dukes and Duchesses)
- Thread starter JonasResende
- Start date
Why do you think that bringing at that time the British art to Russia would be an improvement of what Russia already had or was going to have within a very short time?
The influences and traditions set by Victoria in her life time happened quickly.
The influence of Western European lifestyle into Russian could assist with future art literature and other cultural activities not seen in Russia until many centuries later
To start from the end, even now, reign of Victoria is not "many centuries" away. Then, to your main point, it seems that you have no idea what you are talking about as far as the Russian culture of mid-/late-XIX is involved. Do the names of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky ring a bell for you? (just the most internationally famous ones).
Sorry I meant decades, Ivan IV ("the Terrible") of Russia reigned 51 years, so Victories 63 years reigning (or 6 and 1 third decades, is "many" compared to the others) so in those decades she could have a striking influence on the women at court, leading to other ladies in the country following suit.
I understand that Russia had culture, I am just saying that adding a westernized character into Russia, allows more to follow, leading to an influence that would take the russian culture into a different direction, similar to China and Japan having advanced cultures before Western nations applied influence.
You mean to adopt a complete absence of taste in the arts and fashions and became obnoxiously prudish (which was pretty much what Victoria was about) then I'm not sure that the change would be to the better. If, OTOH, you are trying to say that the Russian imperial court of the mid-XIX was insufficiently "European", you simply don't know the subject.
If we are still talking about the "Victorian Age" and alternative wife for Alexander II, an implication that during this period Britain was somehow ahead of Russia in the terms of the arts or that Russian art of that period was somehow "non-European" is plain silly: Russia was in an active cultural exchange with Europe since the early XVIII and its arts had been already quite "Western". In the case you missed it, Victorian Britain was not the cultural center of Europe.
I believe that you are inferring that everything I am saying is offensive, when it is not implied that way, what so ever, and am baiting me into over reacting, all I am saying, is that when you simply comparing History of Russia (1855–92) to that of Victorian era, there is a large difference, that I would like to think that having an influx of British engineers, artists, novelists and politicians, would benefit Russia in the long run, allowing the Russian Tsar to survive into the present day.
No offense but you are obviously confusing apples and oranges. While Russia of the 2nd half of the XIX century had been lagging behind Britain in the issues of technology (and the technical specialists had been welcomed), this was not the case in the areas of arts and literature so the "influx" of these categories of people would be pointless.
To start with, while the Brits tended to be rather unaware of the Russian culture, the British one had been well-known in Russia. The educated Brits of that period usually knew only English (out of the modern languages) but an educated person in Russia of the same period was taught, besides Russian, at least French and German and, quite often, English as well so whatever was worthy of reading was available either in original or in translation and importing the British novelists would make no sense, not to mention that none of them was in the same league with Lev Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (and quite a few others, we are talking about the "Golden Age" of the Russian literature, which started in the early XIX century to be followed by the "Silver Age" of the early XX). Ditto as far as the painters are involved (the pre-Rafaelites were pathetic) and, sorry, but who now remembers any British composers of the Victorian era?
Now, as far as your idea of importing the British politicians is involved, they could not be "imported" into the existing system both because of the existing rules (to be of some importance person needed to have certain rank and such a rank could not be granted to a foreigner who never served in Russia) and because they'd be pretty much useless due to a blissful ignorance of pretty much everything Russian (starting from the geography
). Besides, what would be the point? Russia had plenty of the native liberals with quite advanced ideas and (as would be the case with the imported ones) a very tenuous grasp of the realities. The problem was not in an absence of the ideas but in the tremendous difficulties of their reconciliation with the existing framework. As you may (or most probably don't
) know, the only 2 figures that managed to do something seriously positive to the Russian economy and society were Witte and Stolypin: none of them was anywhere close to being "progressive". OTOH, the progressive reforms of Alexander II had been causing tremendous problems. Milutin's reform of the Russian army (conversion to the universal conscription and liquidation of some class-related privileges) was one of the factors that triggered uprising in Poland (the British experience would be useless because there was no universal conscription until much later). Abolishing of a serfdom was definitely a positive and necessary thing to do but pretty much all liberal authors of the time had been complaining that it resulted in the skyrocketing drinking, general pauperization of the peasants (and economic devastation of the nobility) and many other bad things. Judicial reform - presumably trial by jury is unquestionably good thing but it resulted in the excessively politicized (due to the pressure from the "left") processes and was conductive to the growth of political terrorism (of which Alexander II was one of the victims). Having a British wife of Alexander II would not change anything (emperor's wives had very limited influence outside the family issues) and could even make things worse because the typical for that time condescending British attitude would be resented by everybody. Alexandra Fedorovna grew rather close to Victoria and she grew into a stupid cow unable to communicate with the people and resented by her subjects so why do you think that that one would be much better?
I must admit that even having a classical music library (that's more extensive than my university's school of music's) the only British composers of the period I can find in it are Charles V. Stanford and Hubert Parry (although they're probably more Edwardian). Henry Litolff was born in London but he's pretty much mostly forgotten (I have his concertos symphoniques though, and while NOT Mendelssohn or Schumann, they're pleasing in their own way), and in any case, lived abroad from the age of 17, so I think he's not regarded as any more British than George(s) Onslow (who was similarly born to one parent who was French and one British). So, I'll keep looking, but I know the Master of Musick made a foul up at Victoria's coronation, she liked Bellini and Donizetti, Albert liked Mendelssohn and Schumann, and neither seem to have bothered with native composers.
EDIT: Oh and don't forget Victoria's chronic shyness (much like Alexandra) would make her come across as distant (perhaps even isolated). Her desire for "gemütlichkeit"(?)/cozyness from OTL exemplified in Balmoral and Osborne would translate rather poorly to the Russian court. Alicky was seen as a snob who isolated herself and her family from the court, Victoria might be seen in a similar light.
@alexmilman: do you have a good impression of ANY of the Russian empresses? I've seen you refer to Maria Feodorovna (Sophie of Württemberg) by a similar terminology you used for Alicky. Abd while in Alicky's case I do agree, I'm not so sure about Maria/Sophie. She probably wouldn't be able to rule, but she certainly was far better at filling the shoes of consort than her eldest two sons' wives were IMO. And far from stupid either, since her opening line with Paul was about geometry/mathematics. So not intelligent enough to rule doesn't equal stupid in my book, simply a case of if you're judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree, its not going to look very capable. But ask a bat to swim and it also will make a poor showing, I guess.
Last edited:
So we probably can agree that import of the British Victorian composers into a country of Tchaikovsky and quite a few others less known abroad would not necessarily provide a noticeable progress in that area.
Neither would it work too well in the area of a literature (both poetry and prose) and anyway, everything worth reading was translated to Russian (BTW, am I right that at least at that time the Brits did not practice poetic translation of a poetry? Just curious).
It was rather typical for Alexander III who, as far as etiquette permitted, was isolating his family in Gatchina (as I understand, mostly out of fear of terrorism). Livadia, a summer palace in the Crimea also had been quite isolated but other than that an emperor had to be present at the numerous public functions (specific church services, military parades, official receptions, etc.).
According to Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna (who, to be fair, had a lot of reasons not to like Alexandra), she simply could not communicate with the people and tried to minimize contacts even when this was of a critical importance. Basically, she was a mother of a family who, unfortunately, had been interfering into the state affairs.
Well, at least Maria Fedorovna was good to her husband and, while he was alive, did not interfere into the statehood. Trying to minimize Alexander's drinking was a good thing to do even if she was not quite successful. Then, she was (AFAIK) liked by the people. Probably had much better communicating skills than Alicky. After Alexander's death she was, AFAIK, trying to exercise some good influence on Nicky but it was like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
Wives of Paul I, Alexander I, Nicholas I and Alexander II (the 1st wife) were mostly remarkable by being obscure. They were doing what was expected from them: performed the court duties and (except for the wife of Alexander I) gave birth to the royal children.
And, as far as the empresses in general are involved, Catherine II was without any doubt an outstanding ruler. A lot can be said about what she did wrong or did not do (we are all good with a criticizing
) but, as far as the rulers are going, she was a great one.Surely method of abolishing serfdom was far worse than the one implemented in Prussia. In Prussia not all peasants were given land, and had to pay compensations to former landowners. As result only bigger farms survived. Their owners were able to make some investment and improve productivity. Abolishing of serfdom in Russia created countless small farms, whose owners lived in dire poverty. Former Russo-Prussian border is still visible today on satelite images (on the "Prussian" side fields are bigger). Prussia solved peasant question much better, thus lacked large class of landless peasants or peasants owning only tiny amount of land.
In Russia the landowners retained part of the land and had been paid compensation through the special state bank. The problem was with the 2nd part: unlike Prussia, Russian peasantry was community-based and the same applied to the landownership (parcels of land had been redistributed within community on annual basis thus removing any incentive for improvements). The liberal "movers" behind the reform wanted to minimize social unrest and to preserve convenient for the state communal responsibility for the taxes. A result was the worst (overall) case scenario: the landowners lost big chunks of their estates (sometimes in a patchwork fashion) which made it difficult to start using the advanced technologies while the preserved communities could not and would not use them either. BTW, when (a reactionary) Stolypin introduced his reforms, the Russian liberals (including Lev Tolstoy) had been protesting.
The problem was that it did not create farms: it did preserve the old-style communal ownership. Even after Stolypin's reforms the communal property ownership remained predominant (AFAIK) in the European Russia (but not necessarily what is now Ukraine) which is why forcing the Russian peasants into the collective farms was a relatively easy task.
There was no "Russian-Prussian" border: what you saw on the non-Prussian side was Lithuania with its own pre- and post-imperial "issues".
I've seen comparisions of mir to some proto-kolkhoz. Fully implementation of Prussian style solution was propably impossible, but if peasant question was solved better, result would be massive Russian-wank compared to OTL. What vast majority of population had from Russian position as great empire if they lived in hopeless poverty?In Russia the landowners retained part of the land and had been paid compensation through the special state bank. The problem was with the 2nd part: unlike Prussia, Russian peasantry was community-based and the same applied to the landownership (parcels of land had been redistributed within community on annual basis thus removing any incentive for improvements). The liberal "movers" behind the reform wanted to minimize social unrest and to preserve convenient for the state communal responsibility for the taxes. A result was the worst (overall) case scenario: the landowners lost big chunks of their estates (sometimes in a patchwork fashion) which made it difficult to start using the advanced technologies while the preserved communities could not and would not use them either. BTW, when (a reactionary) Stolypin introduced his reforms, the Russian liberals (including Lev Tolstoy) had been protesting.
The problem was that it did not create farms: it did preserve the old-style communal ownership. Even after Stolypin's reforms the communal property ownership remained predominant (AFAIK) in the European Russia (but not necessarily what is now Ukraine) which is why forcing the Russian peasants into the collective farms was a relatively easy task.
One proposition I've seen once is Alexander I abolishing serfdom during Napoleonic invasion. He is murdered later as result and massive chaos followed, but changes he made are not fully reversible. I don't know if it is remotely possible, but that would be great thing.
I've seen comparisions of mir to some proto-kolkhoz. Fully implementation of Prussian style solution was propably impossible, but if peasant question was solved better, result would be massive Russian-wank compared to OTL. What vast majority of population had from Russian position as great empire if they lived in hopeless poverty? /QUOTE]
Well, to be honest, majority of the population did not have any advantage from the fact that they are subject of the Great Power.
It can be argued that a massive pauperization of a peasantry would create labor force for the growing industry (providing there is adequate capital, experience, etc.). Something of the kind was, IIRC, advocated by Trotsky and then implemented by his opponents during the first 5 Years plans.
AFAIK, there were some expectations but his written statement was "The peasants, our loyal people, will get their reward from the God". Personally, I have no idea if this early reform was possible and what would be the results. Catherine II was playing with the idea but faced an opposition even from the merchant class (they also wanted a right to own serfs) and her surviving comment was "if I do that, the nobility will hang me before the peasants come to save me."
If I may opt slightly out of the format?
Name: Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich
Name of actual consort: Charlotte-Christine of Brunswick-Lüneburg (not sure exactly what Orthodox name she took/was given)
Why the marriage foundered OTL: Wikipedia has this to say (though anyone with more knowledge is free to chime in):
My (admittedly limited) understanding about this match was that Peter the Great was actively searching for a Western bride for Alexei and I'm wondering if anyone knows who else might have been a probable choice or alternatively, if Alexei had rejected the match, who would have been a good choice?
Notably, I don't know that the actual match between Alexei and his wife would have to be a happy one, necessarily, or even that a happy marriage could have prevented Alexei's death but the effects of a mother on a son of hers and Alexei's who ascended to the throne would be fascinating. Charlotte-Christine died a few days after giving birth to Peter (later Peter II) so how that would have gone is also incredibly nebulous. Additionally, neither Peter nor his older sister Natalia lived long enough to have children so a different set of Romanov descendants is also quite fascinating.
Name: Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich
Name of actual consort: Charlotte-Christine of Brunswick-Lüneburg (not sure exactly what Orthodox name she took/was given)
Why the marriage foundered OTL: Wikipedia has this to say (though anyone with more knowledge is free to chime in):
My (admittedly limited) understanding about this match was that Peter the Great was actively searching for a Western bride for Alexei and I'm wondering if anyone knows who else might have been a probable choice or alternatively, if Alexei had rejected the match, who would have been a good choice?
Notably, I don't know that the actual match between Alexei and his wife would have to be a happy one, necessarily, or even that a happy marriage could have prevented Alexei's death but the effects of a mother on a son of hers and Alexei's who ascended to the throne would be fascinating. Charlotte-Christine died a few days after giving birth to Peter (later Peter II) so how that would have gone is also incredibly nebulous. Additionally, neither Peter nor his older sister Natalia lived long enough to have children so a different set of Romanov descendants is also quite fascinating.
Pyotr decided on Charlotte because she was the sister to the wife of the Holy Roman Emperor. Pyotr needed/wanted an alliance with Austria for his war against the Turks. So, any replacement would be a Habsburg proxy most likely.
However, I once saw a TL where Pyotr marries a Courlander princess as a second wife (Eleonore Charlotte ipv Marta Skavronska) while Alexei marries Dorothea Wilhelmina of Saxe-Zeitz. Both have surviving sons and it leads to a succession struggle in Russia but the TL stopped in midway. I'm guessing though, that Prussia/Courland/the Netherlands would be more useful alliances in the GNW than Austrìa in a war with the Turks.
Ah, that makes sense! Would be interesting to what the effects of a Habsburg mother on a very isolated boy coming to the throne. Charlotte's younger sister Antoinette Amalie married Ferdinand Albert II, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and had eight sons and six daughters and lived to 65 so probably the easiest way to achieve a long-lasting Habsburg influence is to switch the two sisters' matches; btw, was this the same war where the Austrians eventually came in on the side of the Turks?
Sounds fascinating!
I'm afraid ICR exactly what war it was. But I suspect that Antoinette's age and the marriage between Ludwig Rudolf's Brunswick-Blankenberg branch and the main Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel branch was necessary, since IIRC Ludwig Rudolf's dad violated the house laws of the Wolfenbuttel Welfs by creating Blankenberg as a secundogeniture. Hence the marriage (ICR the whole story right this instant, but there was a lot of bad blood because of this)
Ehm... Happy New Year!, could someone propose a consort for Elizabeth I of Russia?
PD: It's for a story, plese...
PD: It's for a story, plese...
As far as the successful marriage involved, the results may also include an absence of a palace coup (aka, no Catherine II) and continued reign of Peter III with rather unpredictable consequences.