WI: Russian Royal Family die around 1900?

What if the Russian royal family (by which I mean the Tsar, Tsarina, and their children) Died, let's say in a train accident in the year 1900 or there abouts, before either the 1905 revolution or the 1917 revolution.
 
There's enough relatives that there's be legitimate successors, if that's what you're asking.
 
I am assume the Tsar had a brother who would take over. He probably had similar views as Nicholas, so I don.t see anything changing.
 
I am assume the Tsar had a brother who would take over. He probably had similar views as Nicholas, so I don.t see anything changing.

Actually Micheal might have beign a better Tsar than Nicholas....he at least listened to poeple and was amongst those who voiced worries about the growing unrest and Rasputins influence....he was also quite thingie when it can to romance, preferring to marry for love...when he finally could...rather than caring about who they were and what prestige they could bring to the table...caused quite a schism at the time..but ofc all this was after the POD, but i think Micheal mightve being better if he got the throne sooner....possibly even starting to liberalise the country, even slowly, or at least listening to people
 
Actually Micheal might have beign a better Tsar than Nicholas....he at least listened to poeple and was amongst those who voiced worries about the growing unrest and Rasputins influence....he was also quite thingie when it can to romance, preferring to marry for love...when he finally could...rather than caring about who they were and what prestige they could bring to the table...caused quite a schism at the time..but ofc all this was after the POD, but i think Micheal mightve being better if he got the throne sooner....possibly even starting to liberalise the country, even slowly, or at least listening to people

Not only that, but while he didn't dabble in politics much in OTL, he was a strong Anglophile (he spoke English like a native) who on a few occasions spoke out in favor of converting Russia to a constitutional monarchy on the British model. To say nothing of the fact that his wife, Natasha, was a liberal who came from a middle-class background, and considering how devoted he was to her, he would probably be influenced in that way.

The trouble with Michael, though, is his marriage. He gave up everything to marry Natasha (who was married to another man when they met and fell in love), since his brother and all of Russian high society dissaproved of the Grand Duke marrying a previously-married commoner. Now imagine if Michael became Tsar and tried to make Natasha Tsarina: it would pretty much exactly be Edward VIII and Wallis Sampson several decades early.

There's a good book about Michael and Natasha that I have. I actually first learned about it here on AH.com. Check it out, if you'd like:

http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Natas...360286371&sr=1-1&keywords=michael+and+natasha
 
Incidentally, there's no need to kill off the whole family.

Tsarevich Alexis wasn't born till 1904, and daughters were ineligible for the throne, so in 1900 it would be enough for just the Tsar to die.
 

Fenlander

Banned
Depending on the date, this could cast a very nasty shadow over Russo-Japanese relations. A country's leader dies a violent death during a war and there's always going to be suspicions and conspiracy theories claiming the other guys were secretly responsible. If the Anglo-Russian Entente goes ahead as OTL the British may be in for interesting times keeping the peace between their allies.
 
I'm of the impression that Nicholas II was a key player in instigating/bungling/allowing the start of the Japan war. No N2 could very likely mean no Japan war, which butterflies away the 1905 revolution, and which means Russia could still be looking east instead of west, which eases a lot of the European strain of pre WWI.

I'm also of the impression that N2 was a lightweight in the leadership department, so it's likely that a replacement could be better. I hesitate to say the replacement couldn't be any worse, because no matter how bad one is, there's always someone worse. However, suffice it to say, the odds are no worse or possibly better. This isn't like the WI (insert your favorite hero here) died.
 
I'm of the impression that Nicholas II was a key player in instigating/bungling/allowing the start of the Japan war. No N2 could very likely mean no Japan war, which butterflies away the 1905 revolution, and which means Russia could still be looking east instead of west, which eases a lot of the European strain of pre WWI.

I'm also of the impression that N2 was a lightweight in the leadership department, so it's likely that a replacement could be better. I hesitate to say the replacement couldn't be any worse, because no matter how bad one is, there's always someone worse. However, suffice it to say, the odds are no worse or possibly better. This isn't like the WI (insert your favorite hero here) died.

Yeah, Nicholas was very close to the worst possible ruler Russia could have at the time. Determined to keep the autocratic monarchy, but with no desire to do anything with it. He was intimidated by his ministers, so he never held cabinet meetings, only on-on-one talks. He obssessed over minor details which he could delegate to bureaucrats because it allowed him to avoid major issues. 'Lightwieght' doesn't begin to cover it.

If his brother does take the throne, then it'll probably be beneficial, although by this point the Russian Revolution (or at least, some kind of revolution) is probably inevitable; there really is too much inertia to effect any kind of major change.

But if his borther did have to pass over the throne in favour of his wife, then who would it go to? Both of Nicholas' other brothers were dead at this point.
 
Yeah, Nicholas was very close to the worst possible ruler Russia could have at the time. Determined to keep the autocratic monarchy, but with no desire to do anything with it. He was intimidated by his ministers, so he never held cabinet meetings, only on-on-one talks. He obssessed over minor details which he could delegate to bureaucrats because it allowed him to avoid major issues. 'Lightwieght' doesn't begin to cover it.

If his brother does take the throne, then it'll probably be beneficial, although by this point the Russian Revolution (or at least, some kind of revolution) is probably inevitable; there really is too much inertia to effect any kind of major change.

But if his borther did have to pass over the throne in favour of his wife, then who would it go to? Both of Nicholas' other brothers were dead at this point.

This is true that Nicholas really was the wrong guy at the wrong time. He was just too damn insecure and neurotic, that he ended up punching way above his weight on too many occassions.

His brother Michael, based on his OTL personality, may not have exactly been a genius of leadership and politics, but personality-wise, he was closer to what would've been beneficial for Russia: a moderate, mild-mannered, unambitious guy (he never once voiced any desire for the throne, and seemed content to live his life as the tsar's brother, nothing more) who flirted with the idea of British-style constitutional monarchy being introduced in Russia, and may have been more willing to listen to the voices of discontent that were brewing. He was by and large apolitical (though that may have been due simply to him never becoming tsar until it was too late), and was a comparatively easygoing and secure individual who probably wouldn't have been as erratic as Nicholas.

It was Nicholas's ambition and insecurity that caused him to push towards hostility with Japan, despite advisors warning him against the idea. Michael may not have been as inclined to such ambition, meaning that the Russo-Japanese War may be averted, and with it, Russia's defeat and the blow to the tsar's credibility it wrought.

And if the POD is as early as 1900, the issues with his love life are avoided. Michael didn't meet Natasha until 1907.
 
This is true that Nicholas really was the wrong guy at the wrong time. He was just too damn insecure and neurotic, that he ended up punching way above his weight on too many occassions.

His brother Michael, based on his OTL personality, may not have exactly been a genius of leadership and politics, but personality-wise, he was closer to what would've been beneficial for Russia: a moderate, mild-mannered, unambitious guy (he never once voiced any desire for the throne, and seemed content to live his life as the tsar's brother, nothing more) who flirted with the idea of British-style constitutional monarchy being introduced in Russia, and may have been more willing to listen to the voices of discontent that were brewing. He was by and large apolitical (though that may have been due simply to him never becoming tsar until it was too late), and was a comparatively easygoing and secure individual who probably wouldn't have been as erratic as Nicholas.

It was Nicholas's ambition and insecurity that caused him to push towards hostility with Japan, despite advisors warning him against the idea. Michael may not have been as inclined to such ambition, meaning that the Russo-Japanese War may be averted, and with it, Russia's defeat and the blow to the tsar's credibility it wrought.

And if the POD is as early as 1900, the issues with his love life are avoided. Michael didn't meet Natasha until 1907.

Perfect. Michael would probably take the throne, and enact some kind of limited reform. He'd probably avoid getting into the conflict with Japan, which butterflies the 1905 Revolution. Michael probably makes some significant, although not huge, reforms, and institutes a limited constituional monarchy; even if he doesn't and we get a proper Revolution later on, he'll probably have constitutional monarchy forced upon him anyway; hell, maybe he'll be encouraging the revolution onwards to let them get rid of all the business magnates and nobles who've been obstructing his reform attempts for the past two decades :p

On the other hand, military modernisation might be slower, which will be bad for Russia when an *WWI comes around, although it'll probably be a very different WWI.
 
Perfect. Michael would probably take the throne, and enact some kind of limited reform. He'd probably avoid getting into the conflict with Japan, which butterflies the 1905 Revolution. Michael probably makes some significant, although not huge, reforms, and institutes a limited constituional monarchy; even if he doesn't and we get a proper Revolution later on, he'll probably have constitutional monarchy forced upon him anyway; hell, maybe he'll be encouraging the revolution onwards to let them get rid of all the business magnates and nobles who've been obstructing his reform attempts for the past two decades :p

On the other hand, military modernisation might be slower, which will be bad for Russia when an *WWI comes around, although it'll probably be a very different WWI.

There might not even be one.

If Michael accepts a deal with Japan giving Manchuria to Russia and Korea to Japan (which iirc the Japs offered) Russia may spend the next decade expanding its influence in North China, and be far less interested in the Balkans. So Serbia may be left to her fate.
 

whitecrow

Banned
There might not even be one.

If Michael accepts a deal with Japan giving Manchuria to Russia and Korea to Japan (which iirc the Japs offered) Russia may spend the next decade expanding its influence in North China, and be far less interested in the Balkans. So Serbia may be left to her fate.
IIRC Russia wanted a warm-water port in Korea, one you can't gat in Manchuria. So Japanese can offer all they want, it's still not something Russia is interested in.
 
Top