AHQ: How can Russia revitalize itself?

[alexmilman]

Thanks. Its a real shame. AII's reign occupied such a pivotal point in Russian history, yet its furstraitingly difficult to find ways to make it a net positive. And I can't kill him off when young, sense that would just pass the crown to Konsantin, who'd be just as bad. That means either working around AII, assassinating him in 1866, or getting NI to pull the trigger on the end of serfdom and a few other proposed modernizations.



Yeah that's the issue I'm running into. Its one thing to change events (like listening to one minister over the other), but changing an existing historical figure's personality feels a bit ... handwavy. Looking at AII's upbringing, the only real thing I could think of would be a different tutor for him rather then the "liberal-romantic" Vasily Zhukovsky. But even then, IDK.



Between what you've mentioned, and my own (admittedly limited) reading, the best solution seems to be AII turning to Kiselyov and Muravyov (as well as possibly keeping Nikolai Milyutin) as leading ministers instead of tossing out every lead official from his father's reign. Not sure how to get AII to that solution though. Or to get him to just take a step back and let his ministers cook, rather then his back and forth views throughout the emancipation.



So basically Russia's industrialization needed tons of work, and would coast tons of rubbles, yet outside the Rail network was never properly prioritized until AIII's reign. I did find a book that coudl help me figure out some places on where to push, Beginnings of Russian Industrialization, 1800 - 1860 by William Blackwell. Its a fairly old book (from the '60s or '70s), but its about the only thing I've been able to find that specifially deals with Russia's industrialization from outside AIII's reign.



So basically, the Russians learned lessons toward some of their issues, but just the wrong ones. They doubled down on things that simply weren't going to work in modern warfare, and neglected the things they actually needed to focus on. That feels like something that could be fixed without a huge amount of butterflying.



So again, major personality issues from AII. Which is something that's pretty darn hard to butterfly without getting into hand waving territory. I'm almost thinking the best bet would be a successful 1866 assassination attempt against him...



Sounds like quite a few monarchs.



I saw that mentioned in an essay I was reading the other day! I mean, they're definitely wrong, but that does make sense. And explain why the reform needed a land component for the peasants.



Yeah, can see the issues with tenancy. It would also need to fully abandon the communal model to work "properly", but neither side was yet to the point where the communal system could be reasonably abandoned.



So basically, one would need the Russian nobility to wake up and realize they need to reform their land managament if they were to reach the economic power of the British or Prussian nobility. And, considering that the vast amounts of land they had morgaged by the 1850s wasn't a giant waving red flag to them, its likely that such a shift wouldn't be possible before their economic downturn in the later half of the 19th century helped significantly weaken the nobles' financial position.



Jez. I didn't think it was possible for my low estimations of AII to get any worse, but he keeps surpising me.



So realistically, land reform in the model of Stolypin would have to wait until the late 19th century. Got it.



I was more meaning that the communal model was part of the issues.



Did not know that, very interesting. So potentially, French loans could be available for Russia if properly tapped into. Say if Nappy III was persuaded to balance out his major focusing on a British alliance with positive relations to one of the eastern powers (Russia, despite the Crimean war, being the easiest sense French ambitions didn't really cut into Russia's sphere).

It seems that we are thinking more or less along the same lines. Following the popular definition of the Russian liberals of mid-XIX, AII was “victim of the environment”. Of course, this was used to explain that the representatives of the lower classes are in their sorry position not because of their own drinking but because society is not accommodating enough; well, why not to apply it not just to the bottom but to the top as well: after all, AII also did not live in a vacuum.😉

As far as the industrialization was involved, part of the blame is on the owners of the private plants: too much of the enormous money the leading manufacturing dynasties like Demidovs were getting over more than a century had been wasted on a life style without a vision of not too remote future. Of course, switch to the bessemer technology was not easy and the main manufacturing area of Ural did not have the right coal but the regional industrialists did construct a railroad connecting their businesses with the river port and eventually the RR connecting these plants to the coal had been built so they could made it their priority (ditto for switching to steam from horse- and water-power) or the state could make such railroad(s) its priority.

As for the money, the financial crisis started during the reign of NI but, IMO, the fundamental problems were going back to at least CII with the never-ending military conflicts and extreme wastefulness of administration. So I’d start change from her reign (as I’m doing in my ongoing TL) gradually creating a different framework that would allow the evolutionary modernization rather than “revolutionary” one which also was a mixed blessing: in OTL inviting the foreign investments was a necessity but as a result by the early XX Russian metallurgy and coal mining were controlled by the syndicates with headquarters in Paris and policy in these areas was reflecting much more interests of the French investors than those of the Russian economy. The same goes for a big part of the oil industry and the banking. Perhaps, with the international and domestic course changing in the 2nd half of the XVIII to a more peaceful one, by the mid-XIX Russian industry would be more up to date, finances would not be as lousy as in OTL and transition would not be too painful.

But agriculture was a tough nut and, outside of the mind-controlling ASBs, I’m not sure if the communal model could be easily abandoned. However, how about something like the following:

• Russia avoids most of the unnecessary wars starting from the 1780s: CII wins 1st Ottoman War decisively and annexation of the Crimea is a part of the Kuchuk-Kairandgi peace so there is no 2nd Ottoman War; there is no 3rd partition, no Coalition wars, no Ottoman wars of the early XIX; preferably, no conquest of the Caucasus (terrible waste of life and resources) except for the Caspian coast with Baku region.
• With these wars and two Polish upraising avoided, Russian finances are in a much better shape and the same goes for the private entrepreneurs.
• The private banks are being in circulation since early XIX.
• Government maintains protectionist policy since the early XIX.
• After the reign of CII the serfdom is gradually easies, especially in the area of simplifying release of the serfs by individual owners so they can become cadres of the growing industry.
• Mass emancipation creates a big pool of the poor peasants who are going into the industry (in OTL Emancipation “coincided” with the industrial crisis and low employment).
• Happy end follows with the “masses” and capitalists holding each other’s hands will walking toward a shining horizon. 😂

With more money and better industry the military problems will be easier (but not easy) to resolve: the only remaining problem would be the idiots. 😂

So you are greatly simplifying AIIs task by basically paving the road by which he has to go and removing some major OTL stumbling blocks along it.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

What is debatable? That he was a chairman of this commission? You can “debate” it as much as you want but this is a fact.

Which committee?

I wrote quite clearly that not all his actions were good. Nobody pretended that he was an angel or genius and most of the rulers throughout the history were not. But by the end of his reign the empire was much better positioned internationally and economically than by the end of AII rule. So what is your point?

Neither did I say that Alexander II was perfect in every one of its policies, I was just saying that serfdom had to be abolished at some point which other emperors don't seem very keen on doing.

What NI would have if he lived in the early XX is a big question because he would be brought up in the different environment. So this is just a baseless speculation.

Everything is speculation on this site, you can't go back in time to see what would've happened so we speculate.

Circumstances triggering WWI were a sequence of the stupidities easily avoidable.

An Archduke is shot in Sarajevo during heightening tensions in Europe, AH sends an ultimatum to Serbia with German backing you have two options:
1. Back Serbia and potentially create a world war.
2.Ignore the event completely and let Serbia die without doing anything to prevent it apart from moral support, which would make you look like an idiot.
Every Tsar I know would choose 1 over 2.

 

[TrickyApe]

But agriculture was a tough nut and, outside of the mind-controlling ASBs, I’m not sure if the communal model could be easily abandoned.

Agreed it's a tough nut. It would have been slightly less tough if Nicholas I (and I guess Alexander I before him) hadn't replicated the communal model on the newly settled lands in the Black Earth region. I understand there was a certain experimentation with granting individual plots to peasants but not much because it was felt to risk social stability, or something like that.

 

[alexmilman]

Agreed it's a tough nut. It would have been slightly less tough if Nicholas I (and I guess Alexander I before him) hadn't replicated the communal model on the newly settled lands in the Black Earth region. I understand there was a certain experimentation with granting individual plots to peasants but not much because it was felt to risk social stability, or something like that.

AFAIK, the rural commune was, indeed, considered something of a foundation of the bottom level loyalty to the regime and, IMO, not without a good reason: it is easier to manipulate “the mass” rather than the equivalent number of the individuals and, within the mass thevwell-to-do individuals would be both more loyal and have more weight then the potential troublemakers. Look at the painting below: who is going to be taken more seriously? 😉