WI Czarevich Nicholas dies in 1891?

In 29 April 1891 while Czarevich Nicholas escorted by his cousin Prince George of Grece was returning to Kyoto after a day trip to Lake Biwa in Otsu. He was then suddenly attacked by Tsuda Sanzo one of his escort policemen, who swung at the Tsarevich's face with a sword scarring his forehead. The quick action of his cousin, Prince George of Greece, who parried the second blow with his cane, saved his life.
WI Prince George wasnt fast enough to deflect the blow and the Czarevich was assassinated that day? Grand Duke George was next in line of succession to Czar Alexander III but he was already on ill health and if he succeeds Alexander III as Czar George I i guess he would have a short reign causing Instability to Russia... How is History altered if there was no Nicholas II? Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Two thoughts;

1) I prefer the term Tsardine. :D

2) Nicholas II tended to more get in the way of the army during the Great War, and aside from that was somewhat inept. A different Tsar might have delayed the Russian, and later Bolshevik, Revolutions.
 
Two thoughts;

1) I prefer the term Tsardine. :D

2) Nicholas II tended to more get in the way of the army during the Great War, and aside from that was somewhat inept. A different Tsar might have delayed the Russian, and later Bolshevik, Revolutions.

1) Ah but a Tsardine is the (mermaid) daughter of a Tsar :D

2) Hmm, is Nicholas II more or less destabilising than a succession crisis?
 
Succession crisis would have occured since i dont see Czar George I living long due to his poor health and Grand Duke Mikhail would have renounced the Crown since he wanted to marry his commoner mistress (same case as Edward VIII)
So if i am not mistaken the next in line to the throne would be Grand Duke Vladimir third son of Czar Alexander II and uncle to Nicholas George and Michael...
 
Succession crisis would have occured since i dont see Czar George I living long due to his poor health and Grand Duke Mikhail would have renounced the Crown since he wanted to marry his commoner mistress (same case as Edward VIII)
So if i am not mistaken the next in line to the throne would be Grand Duke Vladimir third son of Czar Alexander II and uncle to Nicholas George and Michael...

Russia is tricky, the law says the oldest living son of the Czar I don't know if the Grand Duke Mikhail could turn it down or if Grand Duke Vladimir would get it if he did
 
Michael Alexandrovitch was his parents favourite child by all accounts which leads me to suspect that the likeliest situation is that George Alexandrovitch renounces his rights due to his health before his father's death and 16 year old Michael succeeds his father in 1894. The earlier years of his reign will almost certainly be dominated by his mother Marie and politicians like Witte. War with Japan becomes unlikely which reduces the risk of a 1905 revolution which in turn means that there is likely less political reform....unless Michael falls under the influence of more radical thinkers.
His marriage is completely different in the early 1900's he desperately wanted to marry his first cousin Beatrice of Saxe Coburg Gotha - but Nicholas II had refused consent (they were first cousin's) and Michael then went on to fall for the woman he eventually married. As Lord Emperor Michael can marry who he likes if he does marry Beatrice then this might improve relations with the Vladimir line as Grand Duke Kyril is married to Beatrice's sister Victoria Melita.
Michael and Beatrice are likely to have had healthy children so unless she produces a brood of girls the succession arguements vanish.
 
Well u think that Czar George I or Mikhail II or Vladimir I could have dealt with rising Bolshevics better than Nicholas II did?
 
OK, just to say that while Nicky was not the best of Tsars, he was more competent than has generally been made out.

Source: The Romanovs- Ruling Russia 1613-1918 by Lindsey Hughes
 
OK, just to say that while Nicky was not the best of Tsars, he was more competent than has generally been made out.

Source: The Romanovs- Ruling Russia 1613-1918 by Lindsey Hughes
If George survives to WWI (though i highly doubt it) he would be in poor health to assume personal command of the armies as Nicholas II did in OTL and let the Generals handle the war so i guess the outcome of WWI for Russia would be better... Plus i guess that Mikhail or Vladimir as Czars would have let the Generals deal with it rather than involve directly...
 
Nicky was a horrible Tsar, the worst since... Shuyskiy maybe. That's said, he was not a horrible person and could be a fine cavalry officer. He just was very unfit to rule an empire in troubled times.

Different Tsar would not make problems go away, but it's concievable that they will be treated somewhat better. Not likely much better, but maybe enough to prevent bolshevik takover.

It's still a question if a monarchy survives in any form beyond 1920-s. I don't know if Michail or any Romanov Tsar would be willing to part with autocracy without a fight.
 
The point is: would someone else been involved in the Port arthur affair with japan?
would he manage differently the 1905 tumoil?
What were the views of the would-be-Tsars about liberal concessions?
 
Nicky was a horrible Tsar, the worst since... Shuyskiy maybe. That's said, he was not a horrible person and could be a fine cavalry officer. He just was very unfit to rule an empire in troubled times.

Different Tsar would not make problems go away, but it's concievable that they will be treated somewhat better. Not likely much better, but maybe enough to prevent bolshevik takover.

It's still a question if a monarchy survives in any form beyond 1920-s. I don't know if Michail or any Romanov Tsar would be willing to part with autocracy without a fight.

Bolded part: TBH, Nicky did have some major defects. He subscirbed to the principles of the 17th Century Autocracy as a continuation of his father's ideals, he was stubborn, vehemently resistant to change and out of touch with reality. However, I think this statement shows a little to much of the Soviet propoganda. Among the Key principles of the Russian Autocracy were that the Tsar was a champion of Orthodoxy (which Nicky certainly was). He also firmly believed in the idea that if he could circumvent the modern workers and establish a direct connection between the rural peasants and the Tsar, then Russia would be brought to greatness. Naive perhaps, but I would certainly say that there were other Tsars in the 18th-19th centuries worse than Nicky.
 
Bolded part: TBH, Nicky did have some major defects. He subscirbed to the principles of the 17th Century Autocracy as a continuation of his father's ideals, he was stubborn, vehemently resistant to change and out of touch with reality. However, I think this statement shows a little to much of the Soviet propoganda. Among the Key principles of the Russian Autocracy were that the Tsar was a champion of Orthodoxy (which Nicky certainly was). He also firmly believed in the idea that if he could circumvent the modern workers and establish a direct connection between the rural peasants and the Tsar, then Russia would be brought to greatness. Naive perhaps, but I would certainly say that there were other Tsars in the 18th-19th centuries worse than Nicky.


I have to say that if Nicholas II was Czar in another era he could have been a brilliant ruler.. But fate decided to be the last in a line of Czars... Anyway if he predeceased his father i guess that subsequent Czars (George, Michael or Vladimir perhaps) they could be better than him in OTL...
 
I suppose Rasputin disappears from history, and he isn't missed. He might start an interesting Russian cult.
 
Top