WI: Grand Duke Michael accepts the Throne?

On march 15 1917 Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne in favor of his son, Alexei. However, after recieving advice from his doctors that the Tsesarevich would not live long apart from his parents, who would be forced into exile, he revised his decision and deferred the throne to his brother, Grand Duke Michael. Michael declined to accept the throne until the people were allowed to vote through a Constituent Assembly for the continuance of the monarchy or a republic. My question is what if Michael had accepted the throne and became Michael II? Supposedly many army units were cheering and swearing allegiance to the new Emperor so would Emperor Michael II be able to change the course of history and somehow save the Monarchy? Or would we see him removed in a few days, the only change being Michael II being considered the last Tsar, rather than Nicholas II?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It's hard to say. But the events in Russia throughout 1917 were so ridiculous that an event such as this might easily result in an outcome radically different from OTL.
 
As long as Tsar Michael II confirms that his continuation as monarch is dependent on the upcoming assembly, he has a very good chance of being accepted as at least a titular head. He would be vital in reconciling the conservatives to the new government, and be a key figure for conservatives and moderates to rally around afterwards.

In the short term, it really depends on how much of the army decides to follow him, and whether the nearby soldiers to him and St Petersburg will obey him. If he has no military support, the provisional government will likely ignore him. If he shows up with an army, they'll likely choose to collaborate with him.

In the medium term, much depends on how he acts with the provisional government, particularly with the prime minister. If Michael interferes too much, he may provoke enough political intrigue to inaugur a civil war. If he lies back and allows the PM and provisional government do whatever it wants, he should survive.

In the long term, it all depends on what Russia does next in the war. The people were too exhausted to keep fighting, yet are unlikely to accept any peace Germany would require. Even Lenin had a hard time forcing the Bolsheviks to accept Brest-Litovsk. How any government under Michael handles this will be very decisive. Almost any result is possible. Most likely, the government is forced to accept German demands.

However, if Michael can survive as Tsar for a year, it gives him much legitimacy and makes it far easier to organize the Whites should civil war happen. Most importantly, as Tsar he would be able to force through the concessions the Whites would need to make with other groups - nationalists, liberals, peasants - to unite an anti-Bolshevik front if needed.

So I think lots of things are possible, but it all depends on how things actually play out. Individual decisions are still very important.
 
As long as Tsar Michael II confirms that his continuation as monarch is dependent on the upcoming assembly, he has a very good chance of being accepted as at least a titular head. He would be vital in reconciling the conservatives to the new government, and be a key figure for conservatives and moderates to rally around afterwards.

In the short term, it really depends on how much of the army decides to follow him, and whether the nearby soldiers to him and St Petersburg will obey him. If he has no military support, the provisional government will likely ignore him. If he shows up with an army, they'll likely choose to collaborate with him.

In the medium term, much depends on how he acts with the provisional government, particularly with the prime minister. If Michael interferes too much, he may provoke enough political intrigue to inaugur a civil war. If he lies back and allows the PM and provisional government do whatever it wants, he should survive.

In the long term, it all depends on what Russia does next in the war. The people were too exhausted to keep fighting, yet are unlikely to accept any peace Germany would require. Even Lenin had a hard time forcing the Bolsheviks to accept Brest-Litovsk. How any government under Michael handles this will be very decisive. Almost any result is possible. Most likely, the government is forced to accept German demands.

However, if Michael can survive as Tsar for a year, it gives him much legitimacy and makes it far easier to organize the Whites should civil war happen. Most importantly, as Tsar he would be able to force through the concessions the Whites would need to make with other groups - nationalists, liberals, peasants - to unite an anti-Bolshevik front if needed.

So I think lots of things are possible, but it all depends on how things actually play out. Individual decisions are still very important.

Most of this sounds right. As I said earlier he had at least some military support. Some units greeted his ascension with great joy so I think he seems to be good short term.

He was also considered pro-democracy by many, including the Tsar, which had led to tensions in their relationship. Even if this claim was exaggerated, it seems that Michael was willing to negotiate and realized that the Autocratic monarchy was over. So he seems good in the middle term.

In the long term, well thats up for debate. It truly depends on how the army does in 1917. I read somewhere that the army was doing better in 1916 until Rasputin intervened and had many officers dismissed because they were his enemies. So maybe these officers could be restored to their previous positions. Also even though the army failed in its offensive on 1917 the Germans were almost constantly on the defense throughout the year. So if the Russians are able to hold out until the American's entry into the war then maybe Russia won't fall into civil war and lose large amounts of prestige and territory. Or if they can't hold out that long, I can see the Russians trying to win enough battles to get into a better negotiating position. Weather or not a civil war will still happen is up in the air. I read on Wikipedia that Alexander Kerensky's arming of the workers in an attempt to counter the army during the Kornilov affair and those workers would go on to support the Bolsheviks. So not arming the workers could go a long way to strangling the Bolshevik revolution in the cradle, so to speak. Really the whole thing is dependent on how good a monarch Michael II will prove to be.

On a minor note, do you think that Michael would legitimize is marriage to Natalia Brasova, making her an Empress and their son Georgy Tsesarevich or would he respect the line of succession and allow Grand Duke Kryil to be the heir? Personally I think he would legitimize his marriage.
 
Most of this sounds right. As I said earlier he had at least some military support. Some units greeted his ascension with great joy so I think he seems to be good short term.

He was also considered pro-democracy by many, including the Tsar, which had led to tensions in their relationship. Even if this claim was exaggerated, it seems that Michael was willing to negotiate and realized that the Autocratic monarchy was over. So he seems good in the middle term.

In the long term, well thats up for debate. It truly depends on how the army does in 1917. I read somewhere that the army was doing better in 1916 until Rasputin intervened and had many officers dismissed because they were his enemies. So maybe these officers could be restored to their previous positions. Also even though the army failed in its offensive on 1917 the Germans were almost constantly on the defense throughout the year. So if the Russians are able to hold out until the American's entry into the war then maybe Russia won't fall into civil war and lose large amounts of prestige and territory. Or if they can't hold out that long, I can see the Russians trying to win enough battles to get into a better negotiating position. Weather or not a civil war will still happen is up in the air. I read on Wikipedia that Alexander Kerensky's arming of the workers in an attempt to counter the army during the Kornilov affair and those workers would go on to support the Bolsheviks. So not arming the workers could go a long way to strangling the Bolshevik revolution in the cradle, so to speak. Really the whole thing is dependent on how good a monarch Michael II will prove to be.

On a minor note, do you think that Michael would legitimize is marriage to Natalia Brasova, making her an Empress and their son Georgy Tsesarevich or would he respect the line of succession and allow Grand Duke Kryil to be the heir? Personally I think he would legitimize his marriage.

Russia really needs to get out of the war. Crucial to the Bolsheviks' appeal was that they were alone among the revolutionary parties in supporting an immediate end to Russia's involvement in World War I. As ironic as their ensuing conduct makes the notion, they were in the spring of 1917 the peace party. Moreover, the conditions under which the ordinary soldiers were being asked to fight was creating intense discontent among a segment of society that was armed, concentrated and increasingly radicalized. Moreover, the Brest-Litovsk lines were the result of Trotsky having botched the negotiations so badly, Russia' internal chaos following the October Revolution, and the obvious diplomatic isolation of the Bolshevik government. So they may be able to leave the war just sacrificing Poland, which of course would not quite mean being cloaked in glory, but still preferable to the most likely alternatives.
 
Also, I know making Michael's acceptance conditional to a democratic process sounds great to our contemporary sensibilities about constitutional monarchy and the consent of the governed. But given the problematic legitimacy of the provisional government, putting a giant parenthesis around the ability of Michael to exercise the power of tsar before the Constituent Assembly meets makes it more likely the process will be derailed by parties who mean to do it ill.

Probably the better legal basis is for Michael to claim as tsar that though he chooses to recognize (perhaps the best way to put it would be to "play along with") the provisional government, the residual powers of the state and final authority still resides with him until a constitutional body convenes, to which he might then cede his power as tsar.

Of course, it seems like he would have to have an entirely different personality from what he had historically in order to pull something like this off. Maybe a point of departure further back in his biography?
 
Also, I know making Michael's acceptance conditional to a democratic process sounds great to our contemporary sensibilities about constitutional monarchy and the consent of the governed. But given the problematic legitimacy of the provisional government, putting a giant parenthesis around the ability of Michael to exercise the power of tsar before the Constituent Assembly meets makes it more likely the process will be derailed by parties who mean to do it ill.

Probably the better legal basis is for Michael to claim as tsar that though he chooses to recognize (perhaps the best way to put it would be to "play along with") the provisional government, the residual powers of the state and final authority still resides with him until a constitutional body convenes, to which he might then cede his power as tsar.

Of course, it seems like he would have to have an entirely different personality from what he had historically in order to pull something like this off. Maybe a point of departure further back in his biography?

Frankly, given how much of a roll over the Provisional Government was (they asked the freaking Petrograd Soviet for permission to form a government when they were the ones who were in a position of greater legitimacy), Mikhail needs only declare that he is returning to the values of 1905 and that his asking the Provisional Government is an act of ensuring unity of the government and it'll be widely accepted.
 
Frankly, given how much of a roll over the Provisional Government was (they asked the freaking Petrograd Soviet for permission to form a government when they were the ones who were in a position of greater legitimacy), Mikhail needs only declare that he is returning to the values of 1905 and that his asking the Provisional Government is an act of ensuring unity of the government and it'll be widely accepted.

Yeah the provisional government was pretty much a joke. I wonder how the world would look if Michael haf taken the plunge so to speak.
 
Yeah the provisional government was pretty much a joke. I wonder how the world would look if Michael haf taken the plunge so to speak.

Are you working on an actual timeline along these lines?

You might also want to consider one in which Grand Duke George doesn't get tuberculosis, or one in which Alexander III doesn't die young but keeps the country sufficiently terrified that the tsarist system muddles through the crisis years without a revolution, or one in which Alexander II doesn't get assassinated but withdraws from public life, so that the Duma really does become a robust parliamentary body.

The other thing about an early end to the war is that you get interesting butterflies from the ramifications elsewhere.
 
Are you working on an actual timeline along these lines?

You might also want to consider one in which Grand Duke George doesn't get tuberculosis, or one in which Alexander III doesn't die young but keeps the country sufficiently terrified that the tsarist system muddles through the crisis years without a revolution, or one in which Alexander II doesn't get assassinated but withdraws from public life, so that the Duma really does become a robust parliamentary body.

The other thing about an early end to the war is that you get interesting butterflies from the ramifications elsewhere.

I've got one on the go where the abdication in favour of Alexis does go through, but I'm in the process of heavily rewriting most of the opening again (I basically know how WWI is going to end up and roughly what happens in Russia to get there, but a lot of the details and characterisation need reworking, and there's a couple of events which need completely changing.
 
Frankly, given how much of a roll over the Provisional Government was (they asked the freaking Petrograd Soviet for permission to form a government when they were the ones who were in a position of greater legitimacy), Mikhail needs only declare that he is returning to the values of 1905 and that his asking the Provisional Government is an act of ensuring unity of the government and it'll be widely accepted.

What he just said! I second all of that!

HoC
 
Frankly, given how much of a roll over the Provisional Government was (they asked the freaking Petrograd Soviet for permission to form a government when they were the ones who were in a position of greater legitimacy), Mikhail needs only declare that he is returning to the values of 1905 and that his asking the Provisional Government is an act of ensuring unity of the government and it'll be widely accepted.

Why didn't he do just that? His doing so would make for an interesting and captivating story!
 
Why didn't he do just that? His doing so would make for an interesting and captivating story!

It was a pretty confused situation. Nikholai had announced to the men from the military he was going to abdicate in favour of Alexis, then Prince Lvov, head of the Provisional Government, sent some messengers from Petrograd causing him to delay since he thought it was news that everything was under control, and which meant he ended up consulting with his doctor.

And honestly, it could just be that Mikhail didn't really want to be Tsar.
 
Russia really needs to get out of the war.

This is true, but it is important to note that people have very different ideas on what constitutes "peace". If "peace" means the war ends, the soldier goes home, and there is no loss of territory, then of course the Tsar will opt for peace.

Unfortunately, the only "peace" Germany will accept in 1917 is what they asked for and got IOTL - the loss of the Baltics, Belarussia, and Ukraine. Once Germany's terms become known even the Bolsheviks didn't want to make peace. Lenin only pushed it through against that protest because he was realistic to know that refusal meant the German Army enters Petrograd and hangs all the Bolsheviks. Only when the German Army began marching again did the Bolsheviks cave.

Every other Russian government faces the same bad choice.

Ultimately Russia has two chances. 1) A tremendously bad deal like Brest Litovsk, or 2) hope to hold on in the East by not mounting any offensives and luring the Germans deeper and deeper into Russia.

The last option may be their best option, but it does run the real risk the army will just collapse or mutiny. However, there is evidence the Russian soldier was willing to fight in defense and hold his position. He just wasn't willing to attack.

There are no obvious good options by 1917.
 
Are you working on an actual timeline along these lines?

You might also want to consider one in which Grand Duke George doesn't get tuberculosis, or one in which Alexander III doesn't die young but keeps the country sufficiently terrified that the tsarist system muddles through the crisis years without a revolution, or one in which Alexander II doesn't get assassinated but withdraws from public life, so that the Duma really does become a robust parliamentary body.

The other thing about an early end to the war is that you get interesting butterflies from the ramifications elsewhere.

I wasn't before but in all honesty I'm seriously considering it:D. I know a lot about Late-Imperial Russia and the last Generation of Romanovs but I'm shaky on the Important Ministers, Government Officials and Military Officers. So if anyone can recommend a book or website on these persons I've mentioned it would be a huge help.

I've got one on the go where the abdication in favour of Alexis does go through, but I'm in the process of heavily rewriting most of the opening again (I basically know how WWI is going to end up and roughly what happens in Russia to get there, but a lot of the details and characterisation need reworking, and there's a couple of events which need completely changing.
o

Oh yeah I had forgotten that you had a TL in the works about his topic. I loved your original TL with the Imperial Family getting sent to England. Any idea when we'll see it up?

It was a pretty confused situation. Nikholai had announced to the men from the military he was going to abdicate in favour of Alexis, then Prince Lvov, head of the Provisional Government, sent some messengers from Petrograd causing him to delay since he thought it was news that everything was under control, and which meant he ended up consulting with his doctor.

And honestly, it could just be that Mikhail didn't really want to be Tsar.

Exactly. between the riots and protests in the major cities, some of the army units going over to the rioters/Rebels sides and Nicholas's confusing double abdication, the situation was a very confusing, much worse than the French Revolution. Personally I think it would have been MUCH better if the Original plan was kept, with Alexei as Emperor and Michael as Regent. Or someone should have tried to get control over the situation before the abdication. Personally I think that even in February/March of 1917 the situation was still salvageable for the Monarchy if someone had been willing to step up. Its a shame that Michael chose to defer the throne.

The best choice would have been to accept the Throne on an interim with final acceptance being dependent on the Constitutional Assembly's final acceptance.

This is true, but it is important to note that people have very different ideas on what constitutes "peace". If "peace" means the war ends, the soldier goes home, and there is no loss of territory, then of course the Tsar will opt for peace.

Unfortunately, the only "peace" Germany will accept in 1917 is what they asked for and got IOTL - the loss of the Baltics, Belarussia, and Ukraine. Once Germany's terms become known even the Bolsheviks didn't want to make peace. Lenin only pushed it through against that protest because he was realistic to know that refusal meant the German Army enters Petrograd and hangs all the Bolsheviks. Only when the German Army began marching again did the Bolsheviks cave.

Every other Russian government faces the same bad choice.

Ultimately Russia has two chances. 1) A tremendously bad deal like Brest Litovsk, or 2) hope to hold on in the East by not mounting any offensives and luring the Germans deeper and deeper into Russia.

The last option may be their best option, but it does run the real risk the army will just collapse or mutiny. However, there is evidence the Russian soldier was willing to fight in defense and hold his position. He just wasn't willing to attack.

There are no obvious good options by 1917.

Pretty much this. It doesn't matter if Russia's an Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, Republic, or Soviet Dictatorship, the truth is Russia is in a shit situation and nothing was really going to change this.

I think that the best choice would be holding a defensive position, with the option of withdrawing further into Russia and using the Winter as a weapon, similar to Napoleon's invasion of Russia a century earlier. And if the Russian soldier is willing to hold position then they could just save the situation yet.
 
I think Michael II's success would have been based on whether or not he could find a middle ground. Strong enough to be a symbol the country could unite around without doing so in a way or being strong enough to scare or antagonize any of the real power players.

Had Micheal II been able to find and hold that kind of middle ground it might have created an atmosphere where the real power players might have formed a real coalition government and done so because they viewed it as being in their best interest.

Depending on the strenght and stability of that coalition government, it might have made it more difficult for Stalin to come to power or to become the kind of dictator he became in OTL.

Two other earlier scenarios I've wondered about.

1. Alexander III lives out a normal lifespan. A much stronger more decisive Tsar like Alexander III is going to make a big difference. I've read that Nicholas II often felt overwhelmed by his father and the idea of one day succeeding him on the throne.

2. What if Alexander II had not been assassinated and actually made the reforms he had proposed. I have wondered if those truly behind Alexander II's assassination were the revolutionaries or if it was the old guard as it were who plotted it fearing their own loss of power if Alexander II's reforms were enacted.
 
This is true, but it is important to note that people have very different ideas on what constitutes "peace". If "peace" means the war ends, the soldier goes home, and there is no loss of territory, then of course the Tsar will opt for peace.

Unfortunately, the only "peace" Germany will accept in 1917 is what they asked for and got IOTL - the loss of the Baltics, Belarussia, and Ukraine. Once Germany's terms become known even the Bolsheviks didn't want to make peace. Lenin only pushed it through against that protest because he was realistic to know that refusal meant the German Army enters Petrograd and hangs all the Bolsheviks. Only when the German Army began marching again did the Bolsheviks cave.

Every other Russian government faces the same bad choice.

Ultimately Russia has two chances. 1) A tremendously bad deal like Brest Litovsk, or 2) hope to hold on in the East by not mounting any offensives and luring the Germans deeper and deeper into Russia.

The last option may be their best option, but it does run the real risk the army will just collapse or mutiny. However, there is evidence the Russian soldier was willing to fight in defense and hold his position. He just wasn't willing to attack.

There are no obvious good options by 1917.

I'm not sure the boundaries would be that bad. I seem to recall Orlando Figes has some interesting passages in A People's Tragedy about Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk that imply he really screwed the pooch, so to speak. But let's assume for the sake of argument it's as bad as you say. Brest-Litovsk required a huge number of German troops to implement. In effect, it was the Russians retreating east and requiring the Germans to make an extraordinary commitment of manpower on the Eastern Front to fill an expanding balloon of occupied territory. There just wasn't any fighting. And in any case there's one thing we know for sure about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: the government that signed it lived to fight another day and made it all the way to 1991, which is a deal any Russian monarchist would take over events as they actually unfolded in a heartbeat.
 
I've got one on the go where the abdication in favour of Alexis does go through, but I'm in the process of heavily rewriting most of the opening again (I basically know how WWI is going to end up and roughly what happens in Russia to get there, but a lot of the details and characterisation need reworking, and there's a couple of events which need completely changing.

Sounds interesting. I'll definitely check it out. And I am not ashamed to admit the Keira Knightly-Jude Law Anna Karenina has me swooning over imperial Russia like the dirty bourgeois pig I know at heart that I am.
 
TMOT1955: While we're throwing extended lifespan scenarios at the wall to see what sticks, why not Grand Duke Georg? Wasn't he supposed to be intelligent and witty before tuberculosis made him a shut-in? If he makes it healthy to 1917 he's mature, has a military career behind him, and is probably much more worldly than Nicky. (Which is not hard.)

Emperor Constantine: Maybe the point of departure could be further back in Georg's early life? He seems to have been kicked around by the rest of the family rather badly over the whole marriage question, and that may have left him bruised and passive. Maybe instead he actually marries Princess Pat, finds himself surprisingly happy, and rather than the dark sheep of the family comes to see himself as a worthy tsar in waiting.
 
Top