How to Make a Constitutional Monarchist Russian Empire the Primary World Power (for a Novel)

[Ellis MacVey]

Okay, so, I'm writing an Alternate History novel, and It's set in a timeline where the Russian Empire became a constitutional monarchy and went on to become the primary world power, and I need a little advice on how to make this happen.

I should probably point out, I'm not going to completely rip you guys off, just take some of the ideas you suggest and implement them.

I'd prefer if the POD was around the time of the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars (1790s-1810s), although it can conceivably be before or after this time period.

A tiny bit of soft AH is okay, but generally try to keep it as hard as possible, please.

Thanks a lot!

Yes, I am very strange.

 

[Lenwe]

Easier one Is stop The Assassination of Alexander II so he could implement his more liberal policies

Another one is give to Nicolas I a more powerfull and determinanted personality, he was a liberal minded Zar, but his ambivalence make much of his desired reforms not being done, ir done half-assed

 

[Lalli]

Keep Alexander I more liberal and let him live some years longer. Perhaps him could have son too who continue his father's reforms. And avoid Russia selling Alaska. Then Russia has foothold in three continents. Perhaps even better if you manage expand Alaska further to OTL Canada and even to California.

 

[thezerech]

This would be very difficult to maintain. OerhapP you could see some German style constitutionalism. The getting constitutionalism is easy. Maintaining it is difficult. One pissed of Tsar with a little politicking and the Imperial Army on his side and you can say goodbye to your Constitution. That's the trouble, you're not going to break the power of the Tsar and maintain it.

That being said, for the purpose of a novel, elaborating that reformist Tsars have been in power consistently would be perfectly fine. You could find interesting ways to get rid of the more reactionary sons. Although, it should be noted that this government will likely remain an oppressive regime, especially against minorities. Which is why, imo, it would never last. Multinational democracies don't exist for a reason. They are invariably dominated by one nation which, certainly in the case of Russia, would certainly be the case. This necessitates an illiberal Constitution, or at least a discriminating liberal one.

 

[dunHozzie]

To be honest @johnboy “consequences of an errant shell”, @Mackus “lest we drown by the red tide”, @Drunkrobot “tis but a scratch” all have ideas how to create a middle class and a more economic Russia. Sure they are soft AH, but the ideas are solid.

Another option I’d say is using the Napoleonitic wars to force change: have https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Speransky be more empathic and charismatic, as well as have Barclay de Tolly and Arakcheev reform the army earlier and more decisively to a greater standard but support Speransky. Then take it from there to a Germanic/Prussian military state, as you need strength, discipline and a love of proper organization and logistics to survive. Add a love for new technology - invest in proper trains (1812) and more efficiency & investment in the industry / education, you might keep the reforms alive.

Edit: ignore these that I mistakenly used before

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kutuzov and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Bagration

 

[DocJamore]

I'd argue that having an official constitution, even if it has been suspended, is still better than not having one at all.

 

[alexmilman]

Okay, so, I'm writing an Alternate History novel, and It's set in a timeline where the Russian Empire became a constitutional monarchy and went on to become the primary world power, and I need a little advice on how to make this happen.

I should probably point out, I'm not going to completely rip you guys off, just take some of the ideas you suggest and implement them.

I'd prefer if the POD was around the time of the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars (1790s-1810s), although it can conceivably be before or after this time period.

A tiny bit of soft AH is okay, but generally try to keep it as hard as possible, please.

Thanks a lot!

Yes, I am very strange.

IMO, for a serious chance you'd have to start much earlier, in the late XVII century, replacing the rule of Peter I with one of Princess Sophia conducting Golitsin's reforms (and somehow avoiding a dynastic crisis due to an absence of the male Romanovs): Peter managed to screw things up in such a fundamental manner that when a process of the "un-screwing" started it was too late for Russian Empire to become #1 in the world (unless you mean one of the Great Powers, which it was in OTL). Of course, you'll need the successive rulers continuing the same course for the following decades letting things to settle properly.

Just having a "constitutional monarchy" would be hardly enough because having a constitution does not mean that from this point on everything is going to be just peachy, the economy will flourish, all internal problems will be solved, etc. Ditto for the liberal reforms: Alexander II introduced quite a few of those and ended up being disliked by the Russian liberals and hunted down by the extremists (who by that time had been assassinating regime's officials with a silent approval of a "society" and little opposition from a government). Even a victorious war for seemingly "noble cause" started by a "popular demand" ended up with a massive loss of prestige inside the country, great debt and international isolation. Do you think that all this would change as soon as Alexander sign a constitution? The immediate reaction would be: it is not liberal (or whatever) enough. Just as was the case with one of 1905.

 

[alexmilman]

Another option I’d say is using the Napoleonitic wars to force change: have https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Speransky be more empathic and charismatic, as well as have https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kutuzov and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Bagration reform the army to a greater standard but support Speransky.

I'm afraid that you are more than a little bit confused: neither Kutuzov nor Bagration had anything to do with the reforms of the Russian army or any reforms in general. Neither was any of them capable of anything of the kind if given an opportunity (which, fortunately for everybody, was not the case).

The reforms had been conducted by Barclay when he became Minister of War.

 

[alexmilman]

Easier one Is stop The Assassination of Alexander II so he could implement his more liberal policies

This would make sense if he was assassinated by the reactionaries opposing the liberal reforms but he was killed by the revolutionaries who came into an existence thanks to these reforms and who were supported by "intelligentsia" which also benefited from these reforms. So it is probably safe to say that his reforms were something of a fertile ground for the anti-government feelings and activities. Doing more of the same expecting different results is a classic definition of insanity.

Another one is give to Nicolas I a more powerfull and determinanted personality, he was a liberal minded Zar, but his ambivalence make much of his desired reforms not being done, ir done half-assed

Well, neither Nicholas I nor Nicholas II was "liberal minded". Taking into an account that Nicholas I is not being associated with any reforms, I assume that you are talking about Nicholas II. It does not look like he was too much into the reforms either, except for those in economic area but I would not say that either Witte's reforms of the Russian railroads and finances or Stolypin's reforms were either "liberal" or "half-assed". The main political reform of Nicholas II was Constitution of 1905 but he did not get any noticeable credit for it, at least from the "educated classes". Of course, it would help if he was not as big idiot as he was and did not get Russia into 2 major wars serving no obvious reasons.

 

[bernardz]

Okay, so, I'm writing an Alternate History novel, and It's set in a timeline where the Russian Empire became a constitutional monarchy and went on to become the primary world power, and I need a little advice on how to make this happen.

.

I would suggest something like this. Russia crushes Germany early in ww1, that keeps Nicholas II in power and Russia as a world power. Now Russia has to do something like Stalin after ww2 and take over Eastern Europe. Now you have to remove Nicholas II from power, maybe have much of the royal family killed leaving some kids and the Constitution of 1905 in place.

it would help if he was not as big idiot as he was and did not get Russia into 2 major wars serving no obvious reasons.

Many people forget that he did get Russia involved in two major wars, I am not sure about the no obvious reason with the Japanese Russian War, I will agree with WW1

 

[BellaGerant]

I am not sure about the no obvious reason with the Japanese Russian War, I will agree with WW1

Well, there was no reason to fight the Japanese besides overconfidence and Yellow Peril nonsense. The Japanese weren't confident in their military capabilities at the time and were prepared to acknowledge Russian domination of Manchuria in exchange for Japanese control of Korea, which was a fantastic deal in hindsight and would've resolved the whole issue of the division of NE Asia which was the initial powderkeg for the conflict. Instead, Russia pussyfooted around any diplomatic resolutions due to, among other things, arrogance, which led to them getting beaten by Japan and losing influence over all of NE Asia. There was no reason for that war to have even started, save poor decision making by the Russian leadership.

 

[alexmilman]

Many people forget that he did get Russia involved in two major wars, I am not sure about the no obvious reason with the Japanese Russian War, I will agree with WW1

War with Japan was a complete idiocy caused by a number of very questionable decisions, some of which had been made by the unquestionably intelligent people (like Witte) who looked at the situation from a completely wrong perspective. As an absolute monarch Nicholas had an ultimate responsibility for what happened.

1. "Everybody" (including Witte who considered the whole situation strictly from a financial perspective) considered war with Japan a complete impossibility for the next few decades. As a result, instead of putting all possible effort into finishing the Trans Siberian Railroad, the investments had been made into the railroads in China and Korea because they were bringing immediate income. IIRC, the main line of the trans Siberian Railroad was finished only in 1905 and additional works continued until 1916 (Amur River Bridge at Khabarovsk).

2. The money had been loaned to the Chinese government to pay reparations to Japan (IIRC, something on the scale of 150M rubles but don't quote me on this ). So you can say that to a great degree Russia paid for Japanese rearmament.

3. Infatuation with an idea of having a warm water port resulted in Port-Arthur/Dalnii adventure which cost huge amounts of money and required railroad construction outside Russian territory. Now, look at the map below.

Entry into the internal harbor is very narrow making getting in and out quite difficult and allowing to block it by sinking one or two ships (and a big part of it was dry during the low tide leaving a limited space for the ships, look at the grey line inside the harbor). Small wonder that at the time of Japanese attack most of the Russian squadron was in an outer harbor, vulnerable to an attack. Due to the limited amounts of money allocated for the fortification works (15M rubles altogether) these works should be finished only by 1909. Only 4.5M had been spent by 1904, mostly on the sea-side fortifications. When the war started the land-side construction was going with all possible speed but it was impossible to finish 5 years job in 5 months.

4. Russian Pacific fleet had been split between Port Arthur and Vladivostok, none of which had adequate facilities for the major repairs. The money spent on Port-Arthur and Dalny could be used to address this issue. Besides, the whole fleet located in Vladivostok would be both safer and stronger.

5. The military refused to allow usage of Port Arthur as a commercial port so the extra resources had been spent to built such a port in Dalny, on a far end of the East-China Railroad. The project cost 30M rubles and the only beneficiary were Japanese who captured it easily and used as a military-naval base (with all Russian-built port installations, depots, repair facilities, etc.): as a commercial port it could not compete with the Chinese Yíngkǒu.

6. A prerequisite of the whole plan was Russian dominance on the land, which did not happen in OTL making fall of Port Arthur just a matter of time.

7. The whole thingy with Port Arthur was a clear spit into the Japanese face just waiting for the trouble to happen.

 

[dunHozzie]

I'm afraid that you are more than a little bit confused: neither Kutuzov nor Bagration had anything to do with the reforms of the Russian army or any reforms in general. Neither was any of them capable of anything of the kind if given an opportunity (which, fortunately for everybody, was not the case).

The reforms had been conducted by Barclay when he became Minister of War.

Actually when I was reading up on Kutuzov and Bagration both were lauded for their skill. I just took them as prodigies of Suvorov and made them the agent of change. Because while the army was vast, had pretty good discipline and the ability to fight well, it could do with more firing practice, more maneuvering/formations skill and logistics. Kutuzov was proponent for the first, Bagration for the latter two. Getting them and the already successful reforms from de Tolly and Arakcheyev we further stack the deck towards successful army reform

 

[HIM Dogson]

I'd say having Alexander I's daughter be born a son and survive is a good step. This might be way too alternate, but you could also have the French Revolution never reach Russia's doorstep for whatever reason; Alexander wanted to reform quite a bit but was hamstrung by a reactionary backlash against France. I can see why you wouldn't want to do that, though, as that POD has huge implications for all of Europe that would likely make a book too complicated.

 

[bernardz]

1. "Everybody" (including Witte who considered the whole situation strictly from a financial perspective) considered war with Japan a complete impossibility for the next few decades

..

I agree there was a major underestimation of Japan, not just by Russia but almost everyone.

3. Infatuation with an idea of having a warm water port resulted in Port-Arthur/Dalnii adventure

..

Yep. the potential rewards to Russia was huge, most importantly a major chunk of the trade in the region plus a warm water port outside of European control, Russia could certainly have used such a port both in ww1 and ww2. This is why I do think that there was an obvious reason unlike ww1

6. A prerequisite of the whole plan was Russian dominance on the land, which did not happen in OTL making fall of Port Arthur just a matter of time. .

This the Japanese only just did, even with the incredible victories that they won. Even with these victories, the Russians still had plenty of fight left in them while Japan was close to bankruptcy.

7. The whole thingy with Port Arthur was a clear spit into the Japanese face just waiting for the trouble to happen.

The spit was particularly bad as the Japanese were driven out by the West only to see the Russians take it.

 

[Lenwe]

Well, neither Nicholas I nor Nicholas II was "liberal minded". Taking into an account that Nicholas I is not being associated with any reforms, I assume that you are talking about Nicholas II. It does not look like he was too much into the reforms either, except for those in economic area but I would not say that either Witte's reforms of the Russian railroads and finances or Stolypin's reforms were either "liberal" or "half-assed". The main political reform of Nicholas II was Constitution of 1905 but he did not get any noticeable credit for it, at least from the "educated classes". Of course, it would help if he was not as big idiot as he was and did not get Russia into 2 major wars serving no obvious reasons.

You are right I was thinking in Paul I of Russia, before Nicholas I of Russia and for some reason I merge Nicholas I and II personalities

 

[alexmilman]

Actually when I was reading up on Kutuzov and Bagration both were lauded for their skill. I just took them as prodigies of Suvorov and made them the agent of change.

I see. OK, it looks like you are somewhat confused on the subject. At the time in question Russian army was in an obvious need of the fundamental reforms which was made clear by the campaigns of the 3rd and 4th Coalition. It was not up to date in quite a few areas and did not have organization capable of handling the much greater numbers.

References to Suvorov are popular but pretty much irrelevant on two accounts. 1st, he never was anything but a very talented field commander with a minimal administrative experience (had no part in Potemkin's military reforms and never commanded a really big army). 2nd, his tactical methods had been stressing a bayonet charge at the expense of infantry fire and almost complete neglect of artillery. In other words, had been seriously obsolete by 1806.

Bagration was a talented tactician but as a strategist he was a complete zero (it is enough to read his letters written at the beginning of 1812 campaign to confirm Alexander's opinion that he was a lunatic) and he was not known for any administrative talents needed for conducting a military reform.

Kutuzov, was much more a diplomat and a courtier than he was a general and as a military commander (even prior to Austerlitz campaign) he was mostly noticeable by a lack of decisiveness (after his troops scaled the wall of Ismail he sent Suvorov a messenger asking what to do next, etc.). His strength was (a) in his connections (besides being himself of aristocratic origin he was married a woman from a well-connected aristocratic family, married his daughters well and was linked to pretty much everybody who mattered) and (b) in a very flexible backbone (making morning coffee to Platon Zubov was just one of his numerous "talents", enough to say that he was on the good terms with Potemkin, Zubov, Pavel and Alexander, which could be considered almost mutually exclusive combination). During his long career he did not demonstrate any inclinations of doing a tedious administrative work even on an army level. He was very good in pushing the blame (both after Austerlitz and when he took command in 1812) and responsibilities so that he could enjoy the life.

Military reform required a competent workaholic and Barclay was seemingly the only one fitting the bill (Arakcheev did a considerable work as well but it was limited to improvement artillery).

Because while the army was vast, had pretty good discipline and the ability to fight well, it could do with more firing practice, more maneuvering/formations skill and logistics.

Wrong again. Army was not "vast" by the standards of time and only Barclay's reforms allowed to increase the numbers dramatically by providing the necessary administrative infrastructure. The process of increasing the numbers was not completed by 1812 but foundation was there.

Kutuzov was proponent for the first, Bagration for the latter two. Getting them and the already successful reforms from de Tolly and Arakcheyev we further stack the deck towards successful army reform

Army reform was already successful and neither Bagration nor Kutuzov would be useful in any way. If anything, their activities could be only counter-productive. I have no idea where did you get an idea about Kutuzov being proponent of anything but look at his record in 1812. During the offensive he managed to almost destroy his own army just by not bothering with providing adequate supplies.

 

[alexmilman]

I agree there was a major underestimation of Japan, not just by Russia but almost everyone.

Yep. the potential rewards to Russia was huge, most importantly a major chunk of the trade in the region plus a warm water port outside of European control, Russia could certainly have used such a port both in ww1 and ww2. This is why I do think that there was an obvious reason unlike ww1

The "rewards" were mostly from Manchuria. Dalny as a commercial port did not pay for itself and it seems that location prevented it from becoming a successful competitor of the Chinese ports. Port-Arthur meant splitting the Pacific fleet (and bottling Port Arthur part of it in an extremely vulnerable location) and wasting big amounts of money that could be better used within Russian Empire. Neither Port Arthur nor Dalny would be of any practical use during WWI, especially if the wasted money had been used to build-up Vladivostok and finish Trans Siberian Railroad. It does not make sense to even discuss them within the context of WWII: they'd be separated from the SU by Japanese-occupied Manchuria.

The whole nonsense with the warm water port was a result of the popular obsession among the naval professionals which had little to do with the Russian specifics. "Outside of European control" was also outside of any practical usefulness (except for the war with Japan which nobody anticipated). What was the purpose of that fleet? Russia did not have any oversea colonies on the Pacific to defend and if its own ports on the Pacific had been freezing during winters a potential enemy would not be able to attack them during that time.

 

[alexmilman]

I'd say having Alexander I's daughter be born a son and survive is a good step. This might be way too alternate, but you could also have the French Revolution never reach Russia's doorstep for whatever reason; Alexander wanted to reform quite a bit but was hamstrung by a reactionary backlash against France. I can see why you wouldn't want to do that, though, as that POD has huge implications for all of Europe that would likely make a book too complicated.

Well, Alexander's father made a peace with the Republic as soon as it "got a king in everything but name" but this was going against the British interests and those of the Russian nobility so he ended up badly.

 

[dunHozzie]

I see. OK, it looks like you are somewhat confused on the subject.

Actually not so much. Lacking in facts, sure I can see your point as I had to do with Google and some common sense not to trust sources lacking references and such. Confusion not so much, that sounds a tad condescending to me.

References to Suvorov are popular but pretty much irrelevant on two accounts. 1st, he never was anything but a very talented field commander with a minimal administrative experience (had no part in Potemkin's military reforms and never commanded a really big army). 2nd, his tactical methods had been stressing a bayonet charge at the expense of infantry fire and almost complete neglect of artillery. In other words, had been seriously obsolete by 1806.

Interesting. I did not read that. I’ve read remarks like: “He preferred aimed fire to mass volleys but also argued for bayonet assaults for the psychological effect.” which seems similar, but is very different. (Source: https://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_suvorov.html)

Yet researching further I do come across multiple references to the bayonet, so perhaps you’re right. Thanks for the insight. As to your second point: I do come across remarks like:

http://www.historynet.com/aleksandr-suvorov-count-of-rymniksky-and-prince-of-italy.htm”[/URL]]
Aleksandr Suvorov bequeathed a triple legacy to his country. First, there were his victories, which gave Russia territory, prestige and military tradition. Second were his theories regarding the organization and preparation for, as well as the waging of, war. Third, was the ‘Suvorov school’ of generals who had apprenticed under him among them, Napoleon’s ultimate Russian nemesis, Mikhail Kutuzov.

And

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aleksandr-Vasilyevich-Suvorov-Graf-Rimniksky”]Suvorov[/URL] set about molding it according to principles he set out in his celebrated military treatise, Nauka pobezhdat (Science of Victory)—remarkable for its clipped, colloquial style, its novel emphasis on speed and mobility, and the use of the bayonet and accuracy of fire. But on the accession of the emperor Paul I (reigned 1796–1801), the old Prussian parade-ground emphasis was reimposed, and, refusing to hide his opposition to it, Suvorov was dismissed.

While I never liked grandiose statements like ultimate nemesis, the 2nd remark and the second quote stood out to me. I find your dismissal of someone who is - in multiple sources - being quoted to actually write relevant content for military reform a bit hard to stomach without references. But maybe it’s just me. I apparently made plenty mistakes (see below)

Bagration was a talented tactician but as a strategist he was a complete zero (it is enough to read his letters written at the beginning of 1812 campaign to confirm Alexander's opinion that he was a lunatic) and he was not known for any administrative talents needed for conducting a military reform.

Again, it seems like you’ve done more research then me, so you’re probably right. The reason he stood out to me is due to remarks he made in support of proper training, disciple, logistics, maneuvering, economy of fire and such. Basically, to me he made sense. Not the best reason to choose him, but I needed someone to support a reformer as one man can only influence so much.

...Kutsonev dismissal...

This is clearly where I went very wrong. After reading up more of the man, I can clearly see your point. My bad.

....Barclay....

This was indeed another clear stupid oversight from me by not giving Barclay the credit he was due. He also serves the purpose I needed a reformer for, namely establishing a proper military training and school of continuous improvement in the military.

Army reform was already successful.

Interesting, sad that this never materialized as lasting. (Not sarcasm or a diss)

Anyway thanks for correcting me. So at the thread author: read listen more to Barclay where I wrote Kutusov, have him supported by good military men and them support Speransky. The general idea is still solid to me. To enforce the change both the Tsar and Speransky need military support and popular momentum (victory)