WI Tsar and family die in Borki crash?

[SenatorChickpea]

Yes, this was sparked by listening to the latest episode of Revolutions but it's been going around my head for a while.

What if the Tsar and his family die in the rail disaster at Borki in 1888? The Tsar and, I believe, all his children were in the dining carriage. Supposedly the Tsar rescued them by bearing the weight of the collapsing roof upon his shoulders. Even if that's true and not imperial propaganda, let's presume that he's in a slightly different position- he's risen from the table to make a toast perhaps- and is immediately killed in the crash.


That leaves several interesting scenarios, but I'll focus on two:

1. His children die too. The Tsardom probably passes to Grand Duke Vladimir, a hardline conservative. He would probably be a more competent Tsar than Nicholas II, though that's hardly saying much, but his hostility to reform potentially means Sergei Witte never rises to prominence after the crash.
That potentially leads to an interesting scenario where despite the apparent similarity with OTL in that there's a stubborn and reactionary Tsar, because Russian industrialisation is slightly delayed you might see not see radical Marxists enjoy their ascent in this period. A Tsardom that's overthrown by radicals who have more of a cult of the peasantry could be interesting.
Alternatively, a more competent Tsar means that the hardline government lasts longer but potentially crashes more spectacularly.

or

2. The older children die, but Prince Michael survives. Michael was only ten in 1888, which naturally means a regency. That seems to me to be a potentially interesting scenario for Tsarist reform. Assume for the sake of the argument that the Regency isn't dominated by reactionaries, that Witte's ascension more or less proceeds on schedule and that Michael is crowned at all which isn't necessarily certain.
What happens to the autocracy if the great period of economic and industrial growth goes alongside an absent autocrat? It's potentially a golden opportunity for reformers, though they may not realise it. Even when Michael comes to the throne, he'll have been educated and have come of age in a radically different environment than his brother did historically.


Any thoughts? Am I wildly off base? Given that Rasputin won't rise to prominence in this timeline, does anyone have any other suggestions for early twentieth century mystics who could be the subject of a disco anthem?*





*'Alli-Alli-ster Crowley, wrote his wisdom cryptically...'

 

[Japhy]

The first scenario is a great set up for something where Kerensky is the radical revolutionary leader of Russia since the SRs would probably be the dynamic revolutionary force.

Also yeah definitely Crowley.

 

[heraclius]

Grand Duke Vladimir (born 1847, d 1909) was as conservative and forceful but more intelligent and less rigid than Alexander III, so he may have been open to appointing capable and strategic thinkers like Witte if they were pointed out to him as 'coming men' and patriots by his advisers. In that case the railway programme and industrialization of the 1890s and 1900s could have gone ahead as in OTL; but he was less gullible and easy to influence than Nicholas II so probably less open to over-optimistic military expansionists in the War Ministry. Would he have been more cautious about taking the Japanese on in 1904 to protect Russia's recent acquisition of a protectorate over Manchuria than Nicholas, at least unless he had modernised the armed forces first? Nicholas' attitude to Japan combined blithely optimistic trust in Russia's superior military quality with border-line racism towards the Asian nations' abilities; neither was unique to him among the current Russian elite but he appears to have been more naive than some senior officials and to have taken poor advice.

Vladimir was also pro-German in the terms of whether to back the 'Dreikaiserbund' league planned by Alexander III with autocratic Prussia/Germany and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in the 1880s, and crucially had a NE German princess as his wife - Marie Pavlovna, born a princess of Mecklenberg-Schwerin and an intelligent and forceful St Petersburg hostess who opposed the OTL realignment of Alexander III and then Nicholas II with France and Britain in the 1890s. Unlike Nicholas' half-British wife Alexandra, daughter of Queen Victoria's daughter Alice (d 1878), she had no close - if any - British links and disliked the UK politically as too democratic ; would she have pushed Vladimir to keep up the German alliance, and so avoided a realignment of Russia with France? That way we do not get the threat of opposing power-blocs in Europe in the 1900s, a close Russian alliance with France, or any French guarantee to help Russia if it goes to war with Germany or AH - though the Russians and Austria-Hungary would still have been clashing over the Balkans and the AH annexation of Bosnia in 1908 could well have derailed an existing Russian/ AH alliance. Russia as its 'big Slav brother' would still have had a protective attitude towards Serbia, backed up by the Orthodox Church, so the Russians and AH would have been at odds in 1908-14. But with a closer and firmer Russia/ Germany relationship, not the swings from admiration to hostility, between the weak and easily-influenced Nicholas as Czar and his overbearing 'cousin Willy' in Berlin we do not get a wavering and constantly shifting Russo-German relationship. Vladimir's son and heir GD Cyril (born 1876) , probably Czar from 1909, was a stronger character than Nicholas, so even if he ends up standing up to Germany he would probably have been less naive about tackling AH over its attack on Serbia with a military mobilization in July 1914 without making sure William II knows that this will NOT mean any mobilization against Germany except in self-defence if G mobilises . So there is less risk of escalation of 'tit for tat' mobilizations into war in August 1914?

Cyril was also flexible enough to be capable of calling a 'Duma' and a (managed) Parliamentary system into being to fend off revolution rather than holding out to the last moment as Nicholas did in 1905. In OTL February 1917, as a naval officer he even led his regiment behind a red flag to the Duma after the Feb Revolution broke out to swear allegiance to them and was accused by the fuming Czar and Czarina of behaving like 'Phlippe Egalite', Duc d'Orleans, in backing revolution in 1789. He may have been out to impress the new regime and keep his job or be elected Czar; but he was flexible and not hostile 'per se' to democracy like the hard-line and incompetent reactionary Alexandra.

In OTL Cyril also married a divorced woman, ie the Czarina's brother GD Ernest of Hesse's divorced wife, Victoria Melita, daughter of Queen Victoria's son Alfred D of Edinburgh and sister of Queen Marie of Rumania - for which Alexandra hated him. This annoyed the Church, who ruled it illegal; had he been Czar and done this, would there have been a struggle between him and the Church? Also, his children would have been 'illegitimate' in some Church opinion - and indeed his own parents' marriage was questioned by the Church as his mother did not convert to Orthodoxy ie she was a 'heretic' and not legally married. So this may have pushed Cyril as Czar towards seeking liberal backing in politics; less risk of revolution?

 

[Alex Richards]

I suspect Cyril would have been pushed towards a different marriage himself, but certainly if there's rumour-mongering against his mother (some sort of alliance of convenience between the religious conservatives, the anti-Germany faction and the extreme Pan-Slavicists who would have favoured breaking up A-H?) I can see that playing into taking an opposing position and aiming for a sort of 'German model' of Government- i.e. 'oh sure there's a Duma, but I'm in charge.'

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Interesting thoughts. I'm always fascinated by the idea of alternate historiography. In a timeline where Vladimir and then Cyril successfully develop Russia into a managed democracy you can picture reams of books being written about the quixotic hopes of local Marxists who clearly were sowing their seeds on barren ground, et cetera.

 

[CaliGuy]

Grand Duke Vladimir (born 1847, d 1909) was as conservative and forceful but more intelligent and less rigid than Alexander III, so he may have been open to appointing capable and strategic thinkers like Witte if they were pointed out to him as 'coming men' and patriots by his advisers.

Agreed. Also, wouldn't Witte still become notable in this scenario due to the Borki incident and his warning leading up to it? :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Witte#Railways

"In 1879, Witte accepted a post in St. Petersburg, where he met his future wife. He moved to Kiev the following year. In 1883, he published a paper on "Principles of railway tariffs for cargo transportation", in which he also spoke out on social issues and the role of the monarchy. Witte gained popularity. In 1886, he was appointed manager of the privately held Southwestern Railways, based in Kiev, and was noted for increasing its efficiency and profitability. Around this time, he met Tsar Alexander III but came into conflict with the Tsar's aides when he warned of the danger in using two powerful freight locomotives to achieve high speeds for the Royal Train. His warnings were proven in the October 1888 Borki train disaster, which resulted in the appointment of Witte to the position of Director of State Railways."

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that Vladimir actually supported the creation of a Russian proto-Duma in 1881 right after Alexander II's assassination. Alexander III initially had the same position on this, but later his conservative adviser and former teacher/tutor Konstantin Pobedonostsev unfortunately changed his mind in regards to this. So, maybe we could see some kind of Russia Duma emerge/develop earlier in this scenario.

In that case the railway programme and industrialization of the 1890s and 1900s could have gone ahead as in OTL; but he was less gullible and easy to influence than Nicholas II so probably less open to over-optimistic military expansionists in the War Ministry. Would he have been more cautious about taking the Japanese on in 1904 to protect Russia's recent acquisition of a protectorate over Manchuria than Nicholas, at least unless he had modernised the armed forces first? Nicholas' attitude to Japan combined blithely optimistic trust in Russia's superior military quality with border-line racism towards the Asian nations' abilities; neither was unique to him among the current Russian elite but he appears to have been more naive than some senior officials and to have taken poor advice.

Very possible.

Vladimir was also pro-German in the terms of whether to back the 'Dreikaiserbund' league planned by Alexander III with autocratic Prussia/Germany and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in the 1880s, and crucially had a NE German princess as his wife - Marie Pavlovna, born a princess of Mecklenberg-Schwerin and an intelligent and forceful St Petersburg hostess who opposed the OTL realignment of Alexander III and then Nicholas II with France and Britain in the 1890s. Unlike Nicholas' half-British wife Alexandra, daughter of Queen Victoria's daughter Alice (d 1878), she had no close - if any - British links and disliked the UK politically as too democratic ; would she have pushed Vladimir to keep up the German alliance, and so avoided a realignment of Russia with France? That way we do not get the threat of opposing power-blocs in Europe in the 1900s, a close Russian alliance with France, or any French guarantee to help Russia if it goes to war with Germany or AH - though the Russians and Austria-Hungary would still have been clashing over the Balkans and the AH annexation of Bosnia in 1908 could well have derailed an existing Russian/ AH alliance. Russia as its 'big Slav brother' would still have had a protective attitude towards Serbia, backed up by the Orthodox Church, so the Russians and AH would have been at odds in 1908-14. But with a closer and firmer Russia/ Germany relationship, not the swings from admiration to hostility, between the weak and easily-influenced Nicholas as Czar and his overbearing 'cousin Willy' in Berlin we do not get a wavering and constantly shifting Russo-German relationship. Vladimir's son and heir GD Cyril (born 1876) , probably Czar from 1909, was a stronger character than Nicholas, so even if he ends up standing up to Germany he would probably have been less naive about tackling AH over its attack on Serbia with a military mobilization in July 1914 without making sure William II knows that this will NOT mean any mobilization against Germany except in self-defence if G mobilises . So there is less risk of escalation of 'tit for tat' mobilizations into war in August 1914?

In regards to Russia-German relations, it might depend on whether Russia would believe that Germany would be more interested in being a genuine honest broker in Austro-Russian disputes over the Balkans or whether Germany would be more tempted to side with Austria in these disputes.

Cyril was also flexible enough to be capable of calling a 'Duma' and a (managed) Parliamentary system into being to fend off revolution rather than holding out to the last moment as Nicholas did in 1905. In OTL February 1917, as a naval officer he even led his regiment behind a red flag to the Duma after the Feb Revolution broke out to swear allegiance to them and was accused by the fuming Czar and Czarina of behaving like 'Phlippe Egalite', Duc d'Orleans, in backing revolution in 1789. He may have been out to impress the new regime and keep his job or be elected Czar; but he was flexible and not hostile 'per se' to democracy like the hard-line and incompetent reactionary Alexandra.

Yeah, Cyril might have handled this better than Nicholas and Alexandra did in real life.

In OTL Cyril also married a divorced woman, ie the Czarina's brother GD Ernest of Hesse's divorced wife, Victoria Melita, daughter of Queen Victoria's son Alfred D of Edinburgh and sister of Queen Marie of Rumania - for which Alexandra hated him. This annoyed the Church, who ruled it illegal; had he been Czar and done this, would there have been a struggle between him and the Church?

In all likelihood, as the Russian Tsar, he'd simply get the Russian Orthodox Church to agree to his will. They might not like it, but realistically speaking, what else could they do?

Also, his children would have been 'illegitimate' in some Church opinion - and indeed his own parents' marriage was questioned by the Church as his mother did not convert to Orthodoxy ie she was a 'heretic' and not legally married. So this may have pushed Cyril as Czar towards seeking liberal backing in politics; less risk of revolution?

Very possible.

BTW, another question: Would a Russian Tsar Vladimir be more inclined to militarily intervene against the Ottoman Empire during the Hamidian massacres of 1894-1897? If so, what would the effects of this Russian military intervention have been and how would the other Great Powers have reacted to it?

 

[CaliGuy]

Interesting thoughts. I'm always fascinated by the idea of alternate historiography. In a timeline where Vladimir and then Cyril successfully develop Russia into a managed democracy you can picture reams of books being written about the quixotic hopes of local Marxists who clearly were sowing their seeds on barren ground, et cetera.

One such book might be an alternate history book called Lenin's Russia: The Soviet Union: A Century of Misery. It would be quite interesting to read if it wasn't so tragic.