Tsar Nicholas I dies in 1850

[katchen]

It has been argued that Russia lost the Crimean War due to poor logistics. That if Russia had built railroads from St. Petersburg to Odessa and Vinnitsia and Sevastopol, the British would have not prevailed in the Crimean War; that poor logistics doomed Russia in the Crimean War.
So what would have happened if Tsar Nicholas I had reached an untimely end in 1850, soon enough for Alexander II to build some railroads into some sensitive border areas.? Would Tsar Alexander even attack the Ottoman Empire over the status of the Ottoman Empire's non Christian minorities? If so, would Russia or the Wallies win this war?

 

[Aley]

And how would he built them? Just Nicholas I and was an enthusiast of the construction of railways, so that without it, nothing would have changed.

 

[katchen]

Nicholas was by the accounts I have read, an arch-conservative. Nicholas was opposed to industrialization, along with much of the Russian ruling class. The only railroad Nicholas got built ran from St. Petersburg to Moscow.
Wheras Alexander II wanted reforms and realized that Russia needed better logistics and infrastructure. Alexander might well have created the legal structure for private enterprise to build railroads in Russia if he lacked control of the monies to build railroads.
Or it can be argued that Alexander would have stayed out of war with Turkey in 1855 altogether, delaying war until he had the logistics to move quickly to the Dardenelles and bar them against the Royal Navy.
If Nicholas had died in 1847, we might see an entirely different outcome of the Revolution of 1848 butterflied in, which is where it really gets interesting. Alexander II might not have intervened in Austria to defeat the Hungarians and if he did, probably not without a quid pro quo such as perhaps at least Galicia and Slovakia or maybe also including Transylvania and Croatia. AlexanderII was not one to fight to restore status quo antes.

 

[Aley]

Nicholas was by the accounts I have read, an arch-conservative. Nicholas was opposed to industrialization, along with much of the Russian ruling class. The only railroad Nicholas got built ran from St. Petersburg to Moscow.
Wheras Alexander II wanted reforms and realized that Russia needed better logistics and infrastructure. Alexander might well have created the legal structure for private enterprise to build railroads in Russia if he lacked control of the monies to build railroads.
Or it can be argued that Alexander would have stayed out of war with Turkey in 1855 altogether, delaying war until he had the logistics to move quickly to the Dardenelles and bar them against the Royal Navy.
If Nicholas had died in 1847, we might see an entirely different outcome of the Revolution of 1848 butterflied in, which is where it really gets interesting. Alexander II might not have intervened in Austria to defeat the Hungarians and if he did, probably not without a quid pro quo such as perhaps at least Galicia and Slovakia or maybe also including Transylvania and Croatia. AlexanderII was not one to fight to restore status quo antes.

Nonsense. Nicholas was the only conservative in politics, the new technologies he treated with great enthusiasm. By the way, he was an engineer by training.
Railway Petersburg-Moscow, at the time of construction, was the longest in the world.
In 1848, Nicholas stepped out of fear that the revolutionary movement will spread in Russia, and by the Hungarian revolutionaries he treated with sympathy, because he thought it necessary destruction of the landlord system of land ownership.