In reality Emperor Nicholas II was not well-suited for rulership and was not involved much in the practical management of the Russian army during WW1, despite a (mostly symbolic) decision to assume the role of commander in chief after the Great Retreat he left most decisions to his chief of staff. However what if upon arriving at STAVKA HQ with Alexei in September 1915 and personally taking command at the advice of Rasputin... Tsar Nicholas turns out to actually be really good at the job.
In fact military command turns out to be the one area where the normally indecisive Tsar thrives. Whatever qualities come together to create great generals and strategic geniuses in history, it turns out the Tsar possesses them, becoming an active and strangely competent military leader. To a degree that Tsar Nicholas could regularly make the rolls of 'Best 20th century generals' lists.
We can justify it somewhat by saying in this tl Nicholas had a lifelong secret interest in military history and spent much of his life studying military readings in private to the determent of productively running the empire. Sort of similar his ancestors Tsars Peter III and Paul I (who also both ended overthrown), except with the talent to back it up. History pre-1915 remains unchanged since he never made a public deal of his hobby and his advisors didn't pay much attention to his advice when he tried to dabble.
The tradeoff is that while Nicholas turns out to be sort of a military savant, he remains as clueless when it comes to politics and domestic discontent as historical. Additionally while he can nudge the Entente's grand strategy as a HoS & C-in-C, he lacks context to directly provide advice on France or Britain's fronts.
So:
-What could a militarily brilliant Nicholas do to change the situation? Militant savant or not, he's still only 1 man (although one with the powers of an autocrat and an eye for identifying talented military subordinates) commanding one of the largest frontlines in history. Even with the benefit of hindsight the conclusion of most western commenters is that the German army is so overpowering the only hope is surrender or a miracle.
-Could military success (or at least avoiding some of the more embarrassing debacles) provide the prestige to postpone the overthrow of the Romanovs? Historically Nicholas will only have only have a year and a half before being ousted in February 1917, so if he makes any changes it will have to be by then to extend his tenure.
-Assuming Russia manages to survive WW1, once the war is over he'll keep his military skills, but its back to the same old politics. Whether he wins or loses the war how is history supposed to reconcile a Tsar that was a genius in the military sphere but an amateur in the domestic sphere.
-If all efforts are in vain and a Russian Civil War still happens, a military-minded Tsar could be a real asset for the White Army in this tl.
-Seeing how the whole idea was Rasputin's in the first place, if Generalissimo Nicholas works out better than expected has the Mad Monk been proven right yet again?
In fact military command turns out to be the one area where the normally indecisive Tsar thrives. Whatever qualities come together to create great generals and strategic geniuses in history, it turns out the Tsar possesses them, becoming an active and strangely competent military leader. To a degree that Tsar Nicholas could regularly make the rolls of 'Best 20th century generals' lists.
We can justify it somewhat by saying in this tl Nicholas had a lifelong secret interest in military history and spent much of his life studying military readings in private to the determent of productively running the empire. Sort of similar his ancestors Tsars Peter III and Paul I (who also both ended overthrown), except with the talent to back it up. History pre-1915 remains unchanged since he never made a public deal of his hobby and his advisors didn't pay much attention to his advice when he tried to dabble.
The tradeoff is that while Nicholas turns out to be sort of a military savant, he remains as clueless when it comes to politics and domestic discontent as historical. Additionally while he can nudge the Entente's grand strategy as a HoS & C-in-C, he lacks context to directly provide advice on France or Britain's fronts.
So:
-What could a militarily brilliant Nicholas do to change the situation? Militant savant or not, he's still only 1 man (although one with the powers of an autocrat and an eye for identifying talented military subordinates) commanding one of the largest frontlines in history. Even with the benefit of hindsight the conclusion of most western commenters is that the German army is so overpowering the only hope is surrender or a miracle.
-Could military success (or at least avoiding some of the more embarrassing debacles) provide the prestige to postpone the overthrow of the Romanovs? Historically Nicholas will only have only have a year and a half before being ousted in February 1917, so if he makes any changes it will have to be by then to extend his tenure.
-Assuming Russia manages to survive WW1, once the war is over he'll keep his military skills, but its back to the same old politics. Whether he wins or loses the war how is history supposed to reconcile a Tsar that was a genius in the military sphere but an amateur in the domestic sphere.
-If all efforts are in vain and a Russian Civil War still happens, a military-minded Tsar could be a real asset for the White Army in this tl.
-Seeing how the whole idea was Rasputin's in the first place, if Generalissimo Nicholas works out better than expected has the Mad Monk been proven right yet again?