Would a healthy Alexei have prevented the Russian Revolution?

Alexei developing hemophilia indirectly led to Rasputin entering the Romanov court and manipulating Alexandria, Alexandria becoming more shy and withdrawn from the court, and the prestige of the Romanov family being tarnished.

Would Alexei not getting sick be able to prevent the Revolution by preventing Rasputin from becoming important, or was Rasputin merely the cherry on top of so many outrages, and that the Revolution was inevitable sick kid or not?
 
It would have changed a great deal, because Alexei's condition greatly impacted Alexandra and she and her outlook greatly impacted Nicholas II. Nicky was that rare breed of men who are stubborn and people-pleasing, which meant he had his own views on a great deal of things and many of them awful and dumb and Empire-wrecking, but it also meant he did not disagree with his advisors even when he was given advice he did not agree with because he did not wish to seem argumentative and wanted folks to think he had listened to them. Then, he merely waited for an advisor to pipe up and voice the opinion he actually did agree with and "go along" with it. Naturally, this made the advisors with whom he pretend to agree with feel left at the altar and think him weak - a cushion which bore the imprint of the last ass it came into contact with, and this colors our understanding of him to this day. So I do not think Nicky was so weak as to be manipulated by his wife and her mesmeric charlatan, but for the sake of family, children and keeping the peace in the house he did humor her beliefs, at it was to the detriment of the monarchy.

What doomed the Russian Empire was World War One. What doomed the Romanov dynasty was how Nicky handled the War. Alexei being a healthy baby boy would not prevent the Great War, but it sure would have modified how Nicky reacted to the War and how his wife reacted to various changes in government and war developments. I'm not going to play pop-psychologist, but other historians have, with regards to Alexandra and her motivations. One interesting case study on Alexandra was written by a historian who himself had a child with hemophilia and he talks, with depth and expertise, on how parents of hemophiliacs react and overreact. The theory holds by finding herself dealing with a condition she had no control over, she tried to exert control over things which she felt she could and aught control to balance the scales. Would a less morose Alexandra with a healthy heir to secure her husband's dynasty be as apt to get involved in the Russian government? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly would have helped.

Would Nicky, with a happier wife and a secure future, make the exact same blunders he committed? Probably not. But he would have committed a slew of new ones instead. He was an Edwardian figure thrust into ruling an allegedly modern state with a feudal and archaic infrastructure and fight a new sort of war. Many much smarter men than him spent three years killing their soldiers on the Western Front before learning how war is waged. And here, he would have been asked with not just understanding how to fight a War, but also rule a state in a new way - which would have contradicted his upbringing.

My thinking: the Russian Empire is doomed and so are the Romanovs, but maybe it doesn't all end in a basement murder.
 
Nicholas II was incredibly poorly suited to leadership. @Greg Grant summarizes his character admirably.

The autocracy was doomed well before the twentieth century- Russia could be ruled as a dictatorship, but the court apparatus of the Romanovs got in the way of governorship. It's useful to consider that the Soviet leadership at its most sclerotic, its most focused on parades and endless committees, its most committed to dealing with the world as it imagined it rather than the problems at it actually faced- in short, the Soviets in the stagnation of Brezhnev or under the cult of Stalin; was never as hidebound and slow to respond to events as the late Romanovs.

Could they have transitioned to a constitutional monarchy? That becomes much harder with World War One, and much harder when Nicholas is the supposed monarch. The man made Louis XVI look quick on his feet, and Charles I a fine judge of the political winds.
Barring him never coming to the throne at all, he needs to be forced to abdicate much, much sooner. I think- though I doubt I'll find a source- that there were a few moments when various ministers cast around for a suitable Grand Duke well before the Great War.
Perhaps if he's removed in favor of his brother Michael in 1904 there's a chance for a grand bargain to be struck- a Duma with teeth for the liberals, a Tsar for the conservatives and a moderate land reform program to try and stymie the various revolutionary groups.

I don't think that's at all likely, but it's got a far greater chance of happening than a healthy Alexei solving issues that were fundamental not just to the Tsarist government but to the character of the Tsar himself.
 
Avoiding World War One is the only thing that would have prevented the Russian Revolution - as we know it, at least. There might have been another 1905 scenario without it but the Romanovs might have weathered that if Nicholas II abdicated to a healthy and able Alexis. Even in 1917, he ONLY abdicated in the name of his son (which might have been illegal) because the Tsarevich was not healthy. With a healthy heir, even in OTL, Nicholas abdicates in favor of Alexis (who would be under a Regency of the same Provisional ministers of our TL) instead of Michael.

The Romanovs also would've had better PR if Alexis is healthy. No Rasputin, Alexandra doesn't shut herself up, the Tsarevich doesn't have to be carried around - he was a good looking kid with a decent mind (in comparison to his father). One of the few good things Nicholas was good at was marketing his family, especially his children (who made the boring Windsors look homely in comparison) including as a contrast to the other decadent nobility and Romanov cousins. Without Rasputin and with a healthy heir I would expect the five Romanov children to be everywhere as representatives of the future of the dynasty.
 
Avoiding World War One is the only thing that would have prevented the Russian Revolution - as we know it, at least. There might have been another 1905 scenario without it but the Romanovs might have weathered that if Nicholas II abdicated to a healthy and able Alexis. Even in 1917, he ONLY abdicated in the name of his son (which might have been illegal) because the Tsarevich was not healthy. With a healthy heir, even in OTL, Nicholas abdicates in favor of Alexis (who would be under a Regency of the same Provisional ministers of our TL) instead of Michael.

The Romanovs also would've had better PR if Alexis is healthy. No Rasputin, Alexandra doesn't shut herself up, the Tsarevich doesn't have to be carried around - he was a good looking kid with a decent mind (in comparison to his father). One of the few good things Nicholas was good at was marketing his family, especially his children (who made the boring Windsors look homely in comparison) including as a contrast to the other decadent nobility and Romanov cousins. Without Rasputin and with a healthy heir I would expect the five Romanov children to be everywhere as representatives of the future of the dynasty.

Yeah, I felt the death of the young Romanovs was an awful tragedy. They seemed like decent kids, and if the Romanovs had reformed their government a little bit early, they might have been a breath of fresh air to their ancient dynasty.

Russian history seems to be a pattern of cautious optimism giving way to disaster.
 
Top