WI : Russia had remained a monarchy?

Placed in Before 1900 because I don't think Nicky II could've saved it.

Say, if Nicholas, son of Alexander II had survived, or if Alexander III decided to runaway from home and married morganatically, leaving the willing Vladimir to the throne, could having either of them becoming Tsar save the empire?
 
Vladimir was a moron; I suspect he would have been worse than Nicholas II. If he saves the empire it will be on sheer dumb luck, and it would probably have been the kind of "save" that just kicks the revolution can a few years down the road.

Nicholas seems to be the more promising candidate.
 
Your best bet may be a longer living Alexander III. However, to be honest, I don't see an absolute monarchy surviving in Russia.
 
Best way to surviving Russian monarchy is allowing Alexander II's oldest son living and Alexander II dying from natural causes on 1890's. Then you can save monarchy and change it as constitutional monarchy.
 
Agreed. I think keeping the monarchy as a figurehead is the only way they survive. All the reforms are made while the reformers can still point to the monarchy and appease conservatives.
 
Agreed. I think keeping the monarchy as a figurehead is the only way they survive. All the reforms are made while the reformers can still point to the monarchy and appease conservatives.
Doesn't need to be a figurehead, just need to make the transition from autocracy to a constitutional monarchy with a powerful monarch.
 
What is the difference between the UK and Nazi Germany? Answer: The Nazis had a constitution.

Constitutional monarchs are overrated. The monarch can keep some power and work with the reformers

Well, I would even say that constitutions are overrated. The word "constitutional" can apply to many types of states and governments.
 
I see it as possible even with Nicholas II it's just that he was never really groomed for the role, so having Alexander II live longer and maybe have either Alexander III's reactionary views never kick in from his father's death, or at the very least make sure Nicholas doesn't marry Alexandra.
 
I think it's useful as a shorthand for "monarchy where the powers are significantly restricted by an elected body".
 
Best way for the monarchy to survive is for the assassins failing to get Alexander II, he lives another 20 years, dies a natural death, puts his reforms in place AND (unless you butterfly the death of Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich as well) have AII train the future Nicholas II, instead of either Alexander III ignoring his education and/or placing it in the hands of hard-core conservatives (which is what happened in OTL).
 
Alexander II assassination is probably the focal point here. It cut short willingness to reform which existed during his rule and brought reactionary Alexander III to full throttle. The only way for Russian monarchy to survive is to turn from absolutism to limited monarchy. Limits may vary, but I suspect monarchy would continue to play a significant role in state affairs (and it was a largest land holder) until much later times.
 
The problem with Alexander II assassination is a truckload of conspiracy theories regarding disapproval of his morganatic marriage. In short, many were interested in.. well, not guarding the Tsar too hard (conspiracy when the assassins are actively encouraged is a stupid one, but not being overly enthusiastic with guarding His Majesty is somewhat plausible).
 
The problems is the assumption that Alexander II was working towards some form of limited monarchy. In reality it is more likely that he was looking at ways to make the country easier to administer whilst retaining the monarchy and trying to help move Russia forward in terms of its economic development etc.
The reforms that he introduced were never going to satisfy everyone - the old guard resented what they saw as a weakening of the autocracy (and their own grip on power) and growing numbers of liberals saw the reforms as too little too late or a rate of reform that was simply to slow.

If you look at what he had already introduced - local government, education reform, judicial reform, military reform and the abandoment of censoring material before publication - it was all worthwhile but it didn't effectively change the thing that most resented - all power remained technically in the hands of the Lord Emperor.

In 1880 Alexander appointed Loris-Melikov to look at administrative and economic reforms but died before those could move forward - he was not about to grant a constitution but was creating commissions to look at further reforms - we know that was likely that might have included some form of parliamentary body but of course it didn't happen - and if it had you should really imagine a body closer to the limited one granted after the 1905 revolution rather than something closer to the Western European parliaments.

At the heart of the arguement you have two seperate schools of thought fighting for the Emperor's consent - 1) reformers who argued the only way to drag Russia into the modern world and to end anarchist agitation and internal terrorism was reform and on the other hand 2) Those who believed an end to political reform, harsher penalties for agitators and increased monitoring and repression of reformist groups - in effect restating and backing up the autocracy was the only way to save the nation.

Alexander's murder reinforced the view of his already sceptical son and heir that the second approach was the better one - something that was passed on to his son Nicholas (who wasn't really up to the job and like all the Romanov children had been brought up with the attitude the Emperor was always right - moving towards reform for Nicholas was not only a betrayal of his coronation oath but a betrayal of his father).

To move forward you have to keep Alexander II alive long enough to enact some form of further reform and to remain in a loose alliance with Germany and Austria (which might also help avoid Russia committing itself to France and then Britain), you can also try and keep his eldest son alive (though I am sceptical whether he was as pro-reform as some might think), if Alexander II lives into the mid 1890s then Alexander III might have died already (his complaint was in part linked to his drinking) in which case Nicholas II will succeed his pro-reform grandfather.

The last chance for reform might also be Nicholas II dying of typhoid in 1900 succeeded by his youngest brother Michael who was very young and therefore might have been able to move forward in a way that Nicholas just couldn't bring himself to do.

There are other issues - war firstly with Japan and then with Germany and Austria speeded up dissatisfaction and revolution - a different Emperor with a Duma might not have committed themselves to conflict (not defending Serbia would be hard but war with Germany was avoidable if you take away Russia's commitments to France and Britain - Alexander II remained committed to his fellow Emperor's throughout his reign and unlike his son he didn't have a fiercely anti-Prussian wife)
 
Sure, that any parliamentary body installed by Alexander II would be very limited, but the fact it would be established in 1885 instead of 1905 and by Emperor will and not by the pressure from the Revolution provides for time to evolve.
 
The issue is that Alexander II and Melikov's proposals was the creation of two Imperial commissions to advice on further reform - not a constitution or a Parliament - nor were those commissions to be directly elected.

So assuming the commissions are formed and then recommend certain changes the Emperor is unlikely to be introducing major changes very quickly nor is it unlikely that Alexander II might water them down a bit to satisfy hard-liners within his court and family.

So I doubt change would come much before the 1885 to 1890 period (and nearer the latter end of that span)

Assuming the new system is similar to 1906 which is not unlikely - the new Russian state will be in effect - The Emperor, the State Council, council of ministers and Duma and a formal constitution.

In other words a slight dilution of Imperial Power - as the Almanach de Gotha described it in 06/7 - a semi-absolute state.

The problem will be if as Nicholas II did a future Emperor ignores the constitution and overrides it to limit or change elections to the Duma for example.

Even a twenty year head start isn't going to make much difference - in fact it might even build resentment amongst moderate liberals if it doesn't go as far as they like or if the Emperor or State Council members ignore the Duma.

The issue at the heart of this is that none of the Romanov's at this period (even the most liberal leaning ones) favoured a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy.

I think it is fair to say that if the economy does well and Russia avoids war then it might avoid revolution and the longer for reform however small to bed down the better - I think violent revolution and civil war was avoidable in the short-term by moderate reform given time to bed down but it needs to also have the promise of further reform down the road.

The Russian state also had problems - it didn't have a well educated strong middle-class (or lower nobility) who identified with the crown but who were not slavish to it.
 
Alexei Nicholaevich, born without hemophilia, succeeds to the throne after the tragic death of both Nicholas and Alexandra, of typhoid in 1908. Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich as some sort of regent-figure head. And while were at it Franz Josef dies in 1910. That could keep Franz Ferdinand busy in Vienna long enough to postpone the OTL WWI. Buys the Romanovs and the Duma bit of time--a lot still rides on avoiding war.
 
Last edited:
Better Russia and Better World. Without Bolshevism and also Nazism will never come to power either because Germany will remain a Monarchy till now.
 
I don't know that Russia could have been held together at that size while remaining a monarchy, unless there was some sort of devolved structure in place beyond the weak, largely symbolic protectorates of OTL.
 
Top