If Alexander III of Russia had lived up to 1900

maverick

Banned
Tsar Alexander III of Russia was born in 1845, and IOTL died in 1894, making him 59, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to have him live 6 more years to see him die in 1900, or 10 more years to see him die in 1904 at age 69, right?

IOTL he died of Nephritis, a kidney disease I know nothing about, but I Assume can be butterflied away, no?:eek:

In any case, what does the extended rule of the reactionary Alexander mean for Russia?

Probably little during the first years due to Nicholas's tendency to follow Alexander's policies...

Then again, Nicholas II may marry another princess, one without hemophilia...or he might die and be replaced by someone else as Tsarevich
 
You are wrong. In 1894 he was only 49 years old so without his disease he could with no problem live until say 1915 when he would have been 70 years old. His disease was caused by the railroad accident at Borki where his kidneys were hurt. So if the acident didn't take place, we could in fact have seen him live until WWI.

The most important difference between Alex III and Nicholas II was character. Where Alex III was loyal to his men, Nich II would put them aside after some gossip would take place in court. This happened in 1903 when the Plehve clique made him believe that Sergei Witte belonged to a Jewish conspiracy. Witte was sacked, Plehve followed him up only to lead the country into the RussianJapanese war.

Now I don't know how Alex III would have reacted to the public unrest in the country, but I certainly believe his politics would have been more constant.

The marriage of Nich II with Alix is another story. He was only allowed to marry her when it became obvious that his father wouldn't live much longer. Of course with no hemofilia, no Rasputin would make the Romanovs didn't look so silly.
 

maverick

Banned
You are wrong. In 1894 he was only 49 years old so without his disease he could with no problem live until say 1915 when he would have been 70 years old. His disease was caused by the railroad accident at Borki where his kidneys were hurt. So if the acident didn't take place, we could in fact have seen him live until WWI.

The most important difference between Alex III and Nicholas II was character. Where Alex III was loyal to his men, Nich II would put them aside after some gossip would take place in court. This happened in 1903 when the Plehve clique made him believe that Sergei Witte belonged to a Jewish conspiracy. Witte was sacked, Plehve followed him up only to lead the country into the RussianJapanese war.

Now I don't know how Alex III would have reacted to the public unrest in the country, but I certainly believe his politics would have been more constant.

The marriage of Nich II with Alix is another story. He was only allowed to marry her when it became obvious that his father wouldn't live much longer. Of course with no hemofilia, no Rasputin would make the Romanovs didn't look so silly.


Oh, damn you, fussy math:eek:

But an interesting analysis...
 
What do you mean by this: under Alex III the industrial and economic advances are 11 years slower? Why would that be?

Because he was less Progressive and more Reactionairy than Nicholas, he presumably won't appoint the likes of Sergi Witte but instead someone like Konstantin Pobedonostsev. He fear Industrial Revolution would change everything in Russia as it had it Western countries that wasn't in his favour, he'd also fear giving away power to French investors and would try and stop the rise of the borgeoisie. Of course some kind of Industrial developement is inevitable but would be slowed with such a reactionairy figure at the helm; hell Russia could have Industrialised even quicker under George or Michael as even Nicholas was too Reactionairy.


Regards Bobbis
 

Germaniac

Donor
The Romanovs were notorious for dying at a young age Cathrine II and Alexander II were the only ones to make it to their 60's. Lets say instead that he makes it to around 60 years old.
 
Because he was less Progressive and more Reactionairy than Nicholas, he presumably won't appoint the likes of Sergi Witte but instead someone like Konstantin Pobedonostsev. He fear Industrial Revolution would change everything in Russia as it had it Western countries that wasn't in his favour, he'd also fear giving away power to French investors and would try and stop the rise of the borgeoisie. Of course some kind of Industrial developement is inevitable but would be slowed with such a reactionairy figure at the helm; hell Russia could have Industrialised even quicker under George or Michael as even Nicholas was too Reactionairy.


Regards Bobbis


I have a few objections to this:

Pobedonostsev was never a minister under Alex III. Witte was however minister of finance from 1892 on until Nicholas II put him aside. If we may believe Witte, he had a very good relationship with Alex III, in contrast to Nicholas II.

Some important developments were done under Nicholas II, introducing the Gold standard ad the completion of the Trans Siberian railway, but they were started under Alex III. I think his efforts to maintain peace under all circumstances did more good for the Russian development than the capricious Nic II. He was more a 'Realpolitiker'.

It is true that Alex III was suspicious of all things of Western origin but he was not a reactionary at all cost.
 
Last edited:
The Romanovs were notorious for dying at a young age Cathrine II and Alexander II were the only ones to make it to their 60's. Lets say instead that he makes it to around 60 years old.

Medics were improving though. There were certainly SOME Romanovs who made it to their 70s.
 
Because he was less Progressive and more Reactionairy than Nicholas, he presumably won't appoint the likes of Sergi Witte but instead someone like Konstantin Pobedonostsev. He fear Industrial Revolution would change everything in Russia as it had it Western countries that wasn't in his favour, he'd also fear giving away power to French investors and would try and stop the rise of the borgeoisie. Of course some kind of Industrial developement is inevitable but would be slowed with such a reactionairy figure at the helm; hell Russia could have Industrialised even quicker under George or Michael as even Nicholas was too Reactionairy.


Regards Bobbis

But, ah, none of this is true. For one, I can't think of a way that Nicholas was more progressive. Sure, he created a Duma, because he didn't seem to have any choice. He disagreed with it about everything, wished it didn't exist, advocated his divine right to rule, and undermined it with a byzantine electoral law while giving no oversight over the executive. He was every bit as reactionary in sentiment as his father, and given how little the Duma got done, I find it hard to imagine industrialisation slowed by eleven years in its absence.

For another thing, as Hugo says, it was Alexander III who appointed Witte and by Witte's account got on well with him, Nicholas who fell out with him. You evidently don't know much about this period.

For another, are you suggesting he'd appoint everybody's favourite hyperreactionary Pobjedonostsjev as Minister of Finance over Witte? That makes sense... What you're missing is that the two, who of course had very differant opinions on a lot of things, were employed by the Tsar in two different differant capacities. Witte was Finance Minister, in charge of making Russia's economy modern (this was his goal, and given that he was allowed to get on with his job, one can hardly insist that Alexander III was horrified at the prospect). Pobjedonostsjev was Procurator of the Synod, in charge of keeping Russia politically backward. Two differant jobs for two differant men. What "appointment" are you actually talking about?

You haven't given any evidence that Alexander III was against any economic modernity. Notably, the Russian industrialisation period starts in 1885 by most reckonings, and does not suddenly pick up in 1894, with many of the achievments of NII's early reign, as Hugo points out, having been planned under AIII. If he was so phobic of French capital, why did AIII let it pour into the country? He wanted to prevent the emerging middle class getting any ideas politically, certainly, which explains what Pobjedonostsjev was up to, but that doesn't mean we was determined to hold the country in the pre-industrial era. Why then did he appoint Witte as well?

You seem to be convinced that dictatorships are anethma to industrialisation. I like democracy and think it and prosperity go hand in hand, but contemporary China is what we might call a modern "reactionary" power and it's roaring away. Your observatuions are based on no evidence, and you've said at least one thing that's provably wrong.
 
Last edited:
I fully support "I Blame Communism"'s idea that political traditionalism does not equal economic backwardness. In fact, if 20th century is any indication, it is the other way around. USSR, Asian Tigers, China made significant industrial progress while ruled by some most dictatorial regimes known to humankind. So, longer life of AIII does not necessarily mean decreasing tempo of industrialization comparing to OTL. In fact, it was AIII who started serious industrialization in 1880s and laid down Russo-French alliance (after Germany allowed Reinsurance Treaty to lapse), basically defining NII's European policy.

So, what would longer reign of AIII spell for Russia? 1st thing to spring to mind is increasing level of social and ethnic (as far as policy toward Slavic minorities and Trans-Caucasians within the Empire was concerned, Finns and Central Asians were less affected, Jews were actively pushed to emigrate, although rapid raise of Jewish population, caused by improvements in health care, defied the policy) unrest. AIII's way to deal with social ills was to gloss them over and to increase police repressions against dissident groups. Taking into account that pressure within the boiler was rapidly raising OTL (Empire was shaken in 1905-1907 and erupted in 1917), repressive policies might have an opposing effect, causing violent revolution around 1905. It is far from certain, but pretty possible.

It is possible that longer reign of AIII would delay WWI or butterfly it away altogether. French IOTL were sure that Nicholas II would come to their help in the case of war, so they steered pretty recklessly in their German policy. And Serbs pretty much steered Russian court to whatever direction they wanted ("tail wagging the dog"). AIII (although he, through influence of his Danish wafe was pretty anti-German) would be less reliable ally and less prone to dangerous moves in support of Serbian radicals. Again, just like with internal situation within Russian Empire, inherent instability of European political system post-1870 is not going to disappear, but more cautious policy of Russian monarch could lead to flashpoints like Saraevo being handled in more diplomatic fashion (a mere uttering from SPb "we don't approve" would probably butterfly OTL marriage between Black Hand and Serbian government away).

And last but not least - American (and probably Israeli) Jewish community today would be much larger ITTL. AIII's policy (as described by Pobedonostsev, who was in driver seat there) was somewhat along the lines "keep 1/3 of them behind the Pale, assimilate 1/3 of them, push the rest into immigration". So, would AIII rule longer, more Jews would leave Russian Empire.
 
In my opinion the biggest differences of a longer AlexIII rule as opposed to OTL NII rule would be:

No gambling internationally (No Russian-Japanese war, no mobilization 1914 as first county to do so)
More control of power probably until the end of his reign.
 
Top