Tsar Alexander III doesn't die in 1894

[Sandy]

Suppose Alexander III hadn't died in 1894 and had been Tsar going into WW1 instead of Nicolas II.  Or indeed had died at a later point but this means that Nicolas now has time to learn to be a less crap Tsar when he does finally ascend to the throne.  Could this have avoided the Russian Revolution?

[Adam in Stroud]

Nov 10, 2023 23:05:32 GMT Sandy said:

Suppose Alexander III hadn't died in 1894 and had been Tsar going into WW1 instead of Nicolas II.  Or indeed had died at a later point but this means that Nicolas now has time to learn to be a less crap Tsar when he does finally ascend to the throne.  Could this have avoided the Russian Revolution?

Well, firstly, Alexander would have been 69 at the start of the war, quite elderly for the era, which might have affected his grip on things.

Secondly, he was a crap Tsar himself, whose rowing back from his predecessor's reforms helped make revolution rather than reform the likely response to the major economic and social changes occurring in Russia. Nicholas II got a lot of his crapness from following his father's belief in autocracy (I don't just mean authoritarianism, I mean the belief that the Tsar was ordained by God and had a duty to take the big decisions himself)

Thirdly, I think it unlikely that any Tsar would have significantly improved the performance of the Russian army in the war, (or in theRusso-Japanese War) or kept Russia out altogether once it started (it was Alexander who made the alliance with France after all), one or the other of which I think was needed to avoid the pressure cooker blowing.

Perhaps Alexander III might have been more cautious in his response to the assassination crisis and helped defuse the situation? If he could help avoid a major war altogether there would have been a chance, perhaps, but it's a tough call.