The Romanovs
The downfall of the Russian Tsar
Nicholas II and Alexandra
Married in 1894
Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia
Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Grigori Rasputin
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Rasputin’s prophesy and death
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
"If I am killed," he told the Tsar and his court, "by my
own people, by the peasants, then you will continue to
rule in peace and harmony. However, if I am killed by
the noble class, then within two years, you and your
children and all the royal family will be no more.”
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Exile to Siberia
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Ipatiev House
Execution on July 17, 1918
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Secret burial and missing bodies
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Analysis of Nicholas’ rule
Historian Barbara Tuchman gives a damning evaluation of his reign:
[The Russian Empire] was ruled from the top by a sovereign who had but
one idea of government—to preserve intact the absolute monarchy
bequeathed to him by his father—and who, lacking the intellect, energy or
training for his job, fell back on personal favorites, whim, and other
devices of the empty-headed autocrat. His father, Alexander III, who
deliberately intended to keep his son uneducated in statecraft until the age
of thirty, unfortunately miscalculated his own life expectancy, and died
when Nicholas was twenty-six. The new Czar, now forty-six, had learned
nothing in the interval, and the impression of imperturbability he conveyed
was in reality apathy—the indifference of a mind so shallow as to be all
surface. When a telegram was brought to him announcing the annihilation
of the Russian fleet at Tsushima, he read it, stuffed it in his pocket, and
went on playing tennis.
Analysis continued
Robert K. Massie provides a more sympathetic view of the Tsar:
... there still are those who for political or other reasons continue to
insist that Nicholas was "Bloody Nicholas." Most commonly, he is
described as shallow, weak, stupid—a one-dimensional figure
presiding feebly over the last days of a corrupt and crumbling
system. This, certainly, is the prevailing public image of the last
Tsar. Historians admit that Nicholas was a "good man"—the
historical evidence of personal charm, gentleness, love of family,
deep religious faith and strong Russian patriotism is too
overwhelming to be denied—but they argue that personal factors
are irrelevant; what matters is that Nicholas was a bad tsar...
Essentially, the tragedy of Nicholas II was that he appeared in the
wrong place in history.
Revisionist History?
Now that you know the facts about the Romanovs,
what would you think if it were twisted around for
political reasons? Example…Rasputin is maligned
by the princes and his death is mythologized to
cause the people to believe he corrupted the Tsar
and family. Or the revolutionaries lie about the Tsar
trying to escape in order for them to have reason to
kill him and his family?
How do you feel about people changing these stories
for entertainment vs. political reasons?
Movies, historical fiction, kids books…