Friends/Social life?

[Romanov_fan]

Perhaps seeing what his parents did wrong would have inspired him in a better direction. Anyway, it is very true that he would have had to avoid Alexandra's advice, because goverment was one area where she thought she had some talent, and really didn't, and yes, she would have been quick to give him advice. As for his training, it was true he needed some, and his illness often woud have made this difficult. It seems he was stronger than Nicholas, which could have been good or bad as one takes it. He perhaps could have come to the throne under a constitiuonal monarchy and this would have helped immensly. We simply don't know , but isn't the speculation fun?  

[RomanovFan318]

Guess I really did open a can of worms with this subject. :-/ I knew everyone would probably have differing opinions and that is fine provided no one is rude to each other and so far that has been the case.

You do bring up some good points Tsarfan and Dasha.

I really think that this question can't be answered with 100% accuracy as can any of the other "what if" questions.  No one really knows what kind of Tsar Alexei II would have been because sadly he never got a chance to rule.

There are several situations that I think could have occurred had Nicholas II died a natural death and Alexei become Tsar.

He could have become a weak Tsar just like his father and let his mother and Rasputin rule the country.

He could have become the best Tsar Russia had ever seen bringing about major reforms and turning the absolute monarchy into the greatest constitutonal monarchy the world had ever seen.

He could have become another Ivan Grozny and delighted in torturing in exiling people who dared to question his authority.

Or he could have become a good Tsar, better than his father but still not considered great. He would have moved Russia toward a more constitutional form of government but still not as much as like in England.  (this is what would have happened IMO) I think he was mature enough to have realized  and learned from the many mistakes his father had made.


And I agree with  IA. Speculation is fun!

[Romanov_fan]

Thanks for raising some of the possibilities on this subject. It is very interesting !

[Tsarfan]

I really think that this question can't be answered with 100% accuracy as can any of the other "what if" questions.  No one really knows what kind of Tsar Alexei II would have been because sadly he never got a chance to rule.

There are several situations that I think could have occurred had Nicholas II died a natural death and Alexei become Tsar.

He could have become a weak Tsar just like his father and let his mother and Rasputin rule the country.

He could have become the best Tsar Russia had ever seen bringing about major reforms and turning the absolute monarchy into the greatest constitutonal monarchy the world had ever seen.

He could have become another Ivan Grozny and delighted in torturing in exiling people who dared to question his authority.

Or he could have become a good Tsar, better than his father but still not considered great. He would have moved Russia toward a more constitutional form of government but still not as much as like in England.  (this is what would have happened IMO) I think he was mature enough to have realized  and learned from the many mistakes his father had made.

Sorry if I exposed my hand in my earlier post as an old curmudgeon who has lost touch with the exuberance of youth.  I think it's great that you're all so interested in the history of Nicholas and his era.

As your post just demonstrated, I'm sure you're all able to engage in thoughtful analysis of a very complex subject.

One of the biggest temptations that can cause one to go wrong in studying history is to make it fit the mold in which you wish it had set instead of confronting the form it actually took.

Perhaps I was out of line, but I was just trying to invite some calibration of observations to actual facts instead of to fond desires.  It may not seem so initially, but that is what makes the study of history satisfying on a much deeper level.

Okay . . . end of speech from the old curmudgeon.

[RissiaSunbeam1918]

Haha don't worry, you don't come off as such.

You sort of have to look on the factual side every once in a while. We all know how we wanted Alyoshenka to turn out, but we may never know.

[RomanovFan318]

Okay . . . end of speech from the old curmudgeon.

You didn't come off as that IMO, Tsarfan. You brought up some excellent points.

Guess my original post made me come of as a youngster when I am actually an adult with a college degree.

I've just always liked to discuss these "what if" scenarios of history.

[Romanov_fan]

It is easy to make history the way we want, rather than the way it really went, that is incredibly true, great observation Tsarfan. We do have to realize there are many things we can say, not all of them ones that might have happened, and that they are only possibilities. So, we need to keep in mind that is all they are-possibilities, that might seem truer to us than others. And we can distort history when we speculate, but I have always enjoyed speculation, although some people don't. But there is always the factual with the fanciful, even if we don't what that to be there. Speculation is great at any age, as is realizing the facts.