WI: Paul I of Russia

What if Paul I of Russia was more rational? In my opinion, by holding the Russian court to his strict standards of "chivalry", and attempting to force through strange and mad "reforms" upon the Russian army, he managed to antagonize both major elements in the Russian state and made his assassination inevitable. Either way, if Paul were to force his idiosyncrasies on one pillar of power instead of both, he would at least be a bit more secure on his throne.

So what do you think? What would have happened if Paul I had managed to hold on for longer?
 
There could be interesting butterflies for the Napoleonic Wars if he'd survived. He had been strongly opposed to Republican France, but then shifted course in the last year of his life and turned on Britain.
 
Paul-Alexander Flip flop.

I wonder if he would have changed course much like his son Alexander I. Alexander I formed an alliance with Napoleon, albeit after being beaten repeatedly on the battlefield, and later rejoined Britain in an alliance against the French. Would Paul I have done so? Ironically, it was Alexander I who was more sympathetic initially to the French Revolutionary ideals as a result if his forced upbringing by his grandmother, Catherine the Great, an enlighten despot, as compared to the reactionary "anti-mom" policies of her son, Paul I who would have been more naturally anti-French Revolutionary.
 
Paul I had was about to conclude a strategic alliance with France, just when he was assassinated, with british support.
 
For the purpose of simplicity, let's take it that Paul followed a similar foreign policy to Alexander I's.

For my part, I think that Paul's defensive policies would have been vindicated in the wake of Napoleon's invasion of Russia.
 
Top