Tsar Konstantin I

I've been looking into a possible TL dealing with a more liberal Russian Empire. At first I thought about simply allowing Alexander II to survive his assassination attempt but then I came across his younger brother, Grand Duke Konstantin.

He was the driving force behind many of his brother's reforms, particularly crucial in pushing through the emancipation of the serfs. He was a committed progressive and unlike his brother extremly self-confident to the point of pigheadedness. He served as Viceroy of Poland for some time and treated the Poles with far more respect than the average Romanov. He attempted to have one of his children christened with a Polish name, but the St. Petersburg establishment went apoplectic at the idea of an Imperial prince connected with Poland. He was also dedicated to Naval reform and after his experience during the Crimean War convinced of the need for international diplomacy.

So say we have Alexander die in a horse riding accident during the Crimean War. Soon after old Tsar Nicholas dies, leaving Konstantin in charge of the Empire in the midst of the Crimean War. He was convinced the war was unwinnable so he might call for peace earlier and possibly accept harsher terms.

I'm planning some more in-depth research in the near future I was wondering if anyone learned in 19th C. Russia could tell me how likely and quickly do they think reform in the economy, politics etc. could take place? Would Poland get the Finland treatment? How would pan-Slavism work under a diplomatic Tsar?
 
sadly for you, Alexander II has 4 sons by the time he becomes Tsar, Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich (Tsar Alexander III), Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, and Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich born 1843, 1845, 1847 and 1850 respectively.
 

Zioneer

Banned
sadly for you, Alexander II has 4 sons by the time he becomes Tsar, Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich (Tsar Alexander III), Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, and Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich born 1843, 1845, 1847 and 1850 respectively.

You could kill them all off in the assassination attempt that got rid of Alexander II, right? Then just do that.
 
sadly for you, Alexander II has 4 sons by the time he becomes Tsar, Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich (Tsar Alexander III), Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, and Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich born 1843, 1845, 1847 and 1850 respectively.

But Jape postulated Alexander II dying during the Crimean War as a result of a horse-riding accident.

So with the Crimean War running from 1853-1856 it would mean that Alexander's 4 sons would be ages 13 (Nicholas), 11, (Alexander - later Alexander III), 9 (Vladimir) and 6 (Alexei).

Would any of them even be old enough to take the throne? And even if they did, would they rule by themselves or would Konstantin have a vast amount of influence in an "advisory" role?

Having Alexander II die early (and not being assassinated) might also affect Alexander III if he comes to the throne (assuming his brother Nicholas still contracts meningitis) - Alexander III would probably still be more reactionary, but maybe not quite as reactionary. Definitely his education would have been different since until Nicholas had a son, Alexander would become the heir apparent for Nicholas and it is doubtful that he would only have received the education needed only for a Grand Duke as happened in OTL.

Does anyone know what Nicholas would have been like? This alt-Nicholas II would presumably have reigned for at least 8 years (and probably more since he may not have gone on a tour of southern Europe and contracted meningitis) and all the while his ultra-liberal uncle would be around. If *Nicholas II lived to be about 60 and if he was as liberal as his father or was greatly influenced by his uncle Konstantin then the effect might be the same as having a Tsar Konstantin I. This *Nicholas II would have reigned from the mid 1850s to about 1900-1903 (or even later).

If under Russian succession laws, a regency was still required for minority reigns then, the following scenario could be possible:

- Tsar Alexander II dies from horse-riding accident in Crimean War (say 1855).

- At age 12, his eldest son becomes Nicholas II but Konstantin becomes regent and ends the Crimean War (which in the long run might be better for Russia since it would cut the losses and allow for an earlier reorganization of the army, etc).

- eccentric Konstantin is regent for 4 years and during this time Alexander's education is radically different from what he would have received in OTL. Alexander might still become resentful (especially if his uncle Konstantin shows impatience with him), but this early change in his life might ameliorate him.

- Nicholas II assumes full powers around 1860.

- whole host of changes from then on. If Nicholas II isn't assassinated before the 1900s, then it's pretty much anyone's guess as to what would have happened.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Just have Alexander II die prior to his succession. According to strict Russian Line of Succession, according to Paul I, Konstantin becomes the Heir. In Russia the line did not pass to the grandson, it passed to the oldest son OF THE EMPEROR there had just never been a situation in which it was challenged.
 
The biggest difference with Konstantin becoming Tsar would be that Alexander III would not become Tsar and reverse most of the reforms of his father. So that would obviously increase the chance of Tsarist Russia to survive the social changes of the 20th century.

What is also interesting is who follows him up. His eldest son Nikolay was an adventurer, womaniser, but also a very gifted person I read on Wiki. So perhaps more political risks, even more chances for war, earlier WWI over the Balkan, all this is possible. But also more reforms, more liberal politics than under Nicholas II, who was consumed with the autocratic legacy of his father.
 
Top