Was Tsar Nicholas II a good ruler?

In the years since Nicholas II’s death, it seems that there are a more sympathetic view of him as both a ruler and a person. While I can probably agree with him being a decent family man, I don’t understand the idea that he was a decent ruler. Yes, he could be considered better than his father, but that feels like a low bar to be compared to. Considering the poor living conditions of Russian peasants, the attacks on Jewish settlements, and his hindrance on any attempts to let a constitutional government fully form after the events of Bloody Sunday, it doesn’t seem like Russia was doing great under him, even before WWI. I will admit some things that he was blamed for weren’t exactly his fault, but what exactly did he do to qualify as someone who should have stayed Tsar? Is it due to the horrific events that occurred during and after the Soviet Union formed that people are nostalgic for the period before it? Is it because of the inhuman way his wife and children died that gave him a huge sympathy boost?
 
People support Nicholas either because they prefer pre-modern social order (minority in English speaking world), or because they prefer him to Bolsheviks. Personal support is a product of how his family was murdered.

He wasn’t a capable leader because he got his empire into two unnecessary wars and lost both of them, with the second being the end of a three century empire and traditional Russia. He failed with his ouster in the February Revolution and completely as he sat by unable to do anything about the October Revolution. All of the economic development, increase in literacy, and Russification of certain regions meant nothing as they were all tossed away with that.

The Orthodox Church has given him Sainthood, which along with representing an older Russia makes him popular to many in Russia today.
 
Reza shah Pahlavi another of those despots who were posthumously rehabilitated as their successor regime was much worse in many ways
 
Nicholas was too much of an out of touch moron to actually rule the country and viewed the world as what he saw it as and not what it was. a genuine empathy for his people was ruined by reactionary beliefs and refusal to accommodate the middle class’s political Consciousness until the 1905 revolution, which he then squandered by undermining the duma.

His greatest crime is making it so the bolsheviks had a chance of ruling Russia.
 
Last edited:
As an honest question, where do you find such an opinion? I have never seen it mentioned and everyone normally agrees that he was incompetent and a horrible ruler.
 
In a word, no.
He was a terrible ruler. Incompetent, vacillating and disconnected.
The man might as well have been a reincarnation of Charles I. Nicholas repeated all of Charles's mistakes despite having the lessons of history to warn him not to.
 
Last edited:
Is it because of the inhuman way his wife and children died that gave him a huge sympathy boost?

Personally, I'd only include the kids in the pity boost. My recollection from Grade 9 Social Studies was that Alexandra was practically laughing when she heard about the Bloody Sunday kilings.
 
Well, considering almost every move he made from 1905 to 1917 was not only the wrong move but the disastrously wrong move I would say that he was a bad ruler.
 
As an honest question, where do you find such an opinion? I have never seen it mentioned and everyone normally agrees that he was incompetent and a horrible ruler.
Honestly, I haven’t heard anyone claim that he’s a great ruler. It’s more like, to me at least, he’s had his image softened. It seems like his position as a father and husband are more emphasized and his actions as a ruler is put more like a tragic figure in greek mythology. Though that’s based on some books and documentaries that I’ve seen.
 
The man might as well have been a reincarnation of Charles I. Nicholas repeated all of Charles's mistakes despite having the lessons of history to warn him not to.
An excellent comparison. Both were ineffectual, vain, incompetent and detached from reality. However at least Charles had the excuse of living in the seventeenth century.
 
Personally, I'd only include the kids in the pity boost. My recollection from Grade 9 Social Studies was that Alexandra was practically laughing when she heard about the Bloody Sunday kilings.
To be fair to Alexandra, she did feel bad about Bloody Sunday killings. The problem was she (unknowingly or otherwise) was kinda victim blaming them by writing to her sister that if the crowd had just listened to the guards, they wouldn’t have gotten shot at. Also, she had the idea that real Russians wouldn’t have protested, so they must have been convinced by unpatriotic revolutionaries. I will say, she’s not a sociopath, but she definitely left the massacre with the wrong message.
 
To be fair to Alexandra, she did feel bad about Bloody Sunday killings. The problem was she (unknowingly or otherwise) was kinda victim blaming them by writing to her sister that if the crowd had just listened to the guards, they wouldn’t have gotten shot at. Also, she had the idea that real Russians wouldn’t have protested, so they must have been convinced by unpatriotic revolutionaries. I will say, she’s not a sociopath, but she definitely left the massacre with the wrong message.

Thanks. I think it might have been that letter that my textbook was quoting.
 
Yes, huge strides on rapid modernization, industrialization, reform, improvement of quality of life, rapid economic growth and development and others had happened under his reign.

Compare that to the commie rule.


He even tried to stop ww1 problem is Germany and especially France due to them wanting revenge during the Franco Prussian war escalated the situation. Often he got blamed for escalating it. There is a reason why he did not fully mobilize immediately, because I heard that he wants to like guys we can still stop this.

I also heard that he tried to become more tolerate of the Jews apparently.

His blocks on reform is practically mainly understandable as like Russia is not ready for constitutional rule.

As like Tsarist Autocracy was efficient, just as his dad proved. And like also proved as the Duma was so disfunctional that he needs to often meddle in there affairs and just ignore them and let him decide just to get things done.

That's not counting in the improvement in healthcare, education apparently alot of things.
 
Last edited:

Here a discussion about things a thread started by me but locked
 
Much of the American historiography of the Tsarist regime is literally just regurgitated Bolshevik propaganda.
Russia under Nicholas II was making tremendous strides in development - and that was precisely why it was so fragile
 
Top