Thank you for watching! Please subscribe for more and don’t forget to hit the bell icon so you don’t miss our new videos. www.youtube.com/@PeopleProfiles?sub_confirmation=1 Watch our videos advert free and listen to audio only episodes on our website. www.peopleprofiles.com/join/ You can also watch marathon videos on People Profiles Extra www.youtube.com/@PeopleProfilesExtra Or follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/tpprofiles
Yay! I've been eagerly awaiting this video. I've had a fascination with the Romanov family, Czar Nicholas II especially, since I was a child. I'm really looking forward to this 😊
Czar Nicholas was an idiot. He and his wife believed is the Devine Rights of Kings. If he had allowed some changes towards democracy, history could have been very different.
Praise the very name of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, no other name under heaven given in which man must be saved. In the world, there be MANY "gods", there is only One True Living God, Jesus Christ, glory to His name and marvelous works!
Interesting to see that Nicholas and his wife were related to the family of Queen Victoria along not one, but two lineages: 1) Nicholas' mother Maria Feodorovna being the sister-in-law of King-Emperors Edward VII of Great Britain and Friedrich III of Germany, hence the aunt of their sons/successors 2) Alix of Hesse being the grand-daughter of Queen Victoria, through her mother Alice. These decades before the revolution are a near-mythical age and I always enjoy learning more about it - a time of splendour, sharp contrasts and tensions that ended in an unforgiving war and a cataclysm of change (I think some of the people living in Russia at that time had clear premonitions or an understanding that some kind of terrible upheaval was coming)
Ken Follett's The Century Trilogy, tells the stories of families living in Russia, Germany, England and the US during WWI, WWII and the Cold War. Very well researched, and brings these events to life. They're fictional stories. He does say in the forward that when his fictional characters interact with historical figures, like Lenin, that they do so only if it was during a real event, or if they were free to do so that day. They're fascinating books.
Actually, 3 ways, as Nicholas's paternal aunt, Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna, sister of Tsar Alexander III, was married to Queen Victoria's second son, Prince Alfred.
Victoria was known as the "Grandmother of Europe". World War 1 was a "family squabble". All of the crowned heads of Europe at that time were either her grandchild , married to her grandchild or both. Feel free to research this...
The surviving Romanovs escaped Russia from the Crimea in April 1919 from the Crimea. Most don't realise Nicholas had been advised to send his wife and children to the Crimea in January 1917. Sadly he very stupidly refused and sealed their fate. Had he done so they would have been able to escape with Maria Feodorovna and others. At Tsarskoe Selo once the revolution hit there could be no escape as northern Russia, especially around St. Petersburg and Moscow fell into the hands of revolutionaries. That's Kerensky sent Nicholas and his family to Tobolsk in the east. They were safe there for a time until they were sent to Ekaterinburg in April 1918 where they perished early on the morning of 17th July 1918 in the cellar of the Ipatiev House.
Im telling the elders! I thought at our monolith meeting that governs the behavior of all black people we decided what all of us can be interested in?! U are deviating away from what all of us at the annual meeting decided on
Serbs remember him as a saint who saved us, and because of Him, we will forever be in Russian debt ❤ Russian people will always be welcome in Serbia and Serb Republic ❤ Our true brothers
The best book anyone can read on the history of the Romanovs is by Simon Sebago Montefiore....you won't be disappointed! He's written many books on history.....they are all brilliant!
A bit overly simplified there. King Charles made many concessions to Parliament. But then it got to the point where the junto in Parliament wanted to strip his every right as a Monarch. He had no choice but to stand up and defend his throne. True Monarchy should change over time. But their measures to change it were extreme and there is a lot more to the story.
After watching the documentary, I believe that Tsar Nicholas was not very intelligent, which made him indecisive and weak. If he had accepted the offered parliamentary rule, Russia would been a different country and we would have a different world today. But that can be said about a thousand different things. Thank you for a good documentary. I learned a lot.
Even if he had a perfectly adequate intelligence level, his education was severely lacking. He was not educated on how to be Tsar, he was not given royal duties until very close to Tsar Alexander III's death. And I think Tsar Alexander III anticipated having much more time before Nicholas had to take the throne. (foolish assumption really, Tsars of Russia weren't really known for long and peaceful reigns...)
@@LuLu-in-a-MuuMuu the truth is Nicholas received a far better education than his father. Tsar Alexander III. He just made a complete and utter mess of everything. He had highly supportive ministers and relatives at home and abroad. He never listened to any of their very wise advice. They all tried to help him.
@@davidlogan4329well, you cannot expect someone to be very open to advice, no matter how great, when the first doctrine you've imprinted to his head is "You are the god's chosen. Autocracy is the only way of government that can ensure Russia's survival. An autocrat doesn't discuss, doesn't back down and he doesn't give space to anyone. To be advised and therefore influenced by others is to be weak." And when you mention"relatives at home and aboard who wanted to help him" who do you mean exactly? Uncle Vladimir and aunt Maria pavlovna who didn't even lift a finger from their vacation in Paris when Nicholas, his parents and siblings almost got killed in borki in 1888? Not to mention aunt Maria pavlovna who tried to depose Nicholas in favour of her son Kirill in 1917? Uncle Alexei who left the russian navy in a sorry state? Uncle Sergei who was in part responsible for the coronation celebrations and urged Nicholas to go to the French embassy party after the stampede? Or his cousin George V, who left Nicholas and his family to be killed after backing out on his promises to grant them asylum in Britain? How can you lean on such people to help you when you probably have to watch your back all the time?
What different world do you imagine that would we would have today if he stood down from autocratic rule (which he eventually did, btw and the incompetence of Duma eventually paved the way for the Bolsheviks to get full power when people in parliament decided it was a bright idea to allow their revolutionary opponents to be armed).
Been fascinated by the Czar since I read one of Danielle Steel’s novels since I was in high school. All knew “ the Czar was the emperor of Russia before the revolution” now I know more . Thnx
His biggest mistake was marrying Alix. Alexandra wasn't cut out to be empress. She was too shy and stubborn. Nicolas II and Alexandra were incompetent and bad rulers but their children didn't deserved to died with their parents 😢.
I would've thought starting a war with an industrial super power, while arming your own soldiers with sharp sticks or letting a religious crazy run your government were bigger mistakes.
If he'd been a minor royal or country gentleman, then his marriage to Alix of Hesse would have been a very happy one indeed. But neither of them were cut out to be rulers and neither of them was suited for truly supporting the other in their role. I believe Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II are an excellent example of marrying someone who supports you in your role and strengthens you to do it better.
@@LuLu-in-a-MuuMuu Elizabeth II was a constitutional monarch and always acted on the advice of her elected governments. Nicholas was an autocrat who never listened to highly intelligent advioe from his family at home and abroad of from leading statesmen. He caused two unnecessary unwinnable wars and two revolutions. Spot the difference!
This is great documentary! The photos and writing are just beautiful! I love Russian History! I just finished reading…Former People by Douglas Smith! I recommend it to any other lovers of Russian History!
14:41 Nicholas: NOW will you teach me how to rule? Alexander III: *sigh* I suppose it’s time okay, there’s a lot you need to know before becoming Tsar- uh oh Nicholas: what? Alexander III: I’ve got kidney inflammation *dies* Nicholas: D’oOOOoOoh NOoOoOo!
Alexander III was not responsible for the disastrous reign of his son. As Xenia Alexandrovna stated, "I doubt my father would have ever have gone to war with Germany."
I have mixed feelings about Nicolas II. On one hand, he clearly had no desire to be Tsar, and I think it's awful that he was more or less forced into taking up that position and I really feel for him. On the other, he had very backwards views with the whole divine right of kings which was way outdated in the rest of Europe by the time he took power. It's no doubt he was brought up that way, but that's not an excuse for doubling down and refusing to look at the rest of the world around him and thinking that maybe it was time to update some policies. I think a lot of his failures stem from him just not wanting to be there, but still trying to do his best purely out of the sense of obligation and in the end it resulted in making a huge mess for literally everyone.
This is a fairly good analysis. Nicholas never wanted to be a tsar and he never shied away from admitting that. But he had felt that it was his duty to rule Russia to his best abilities. Unfortunately, his worldview was also very narrow and he was viewing capable and energetic ministers, like Witte and Stolypin with mistrust
I agree. He was best as a priest or even if he wanted to keep some wealth..he would a made a great estate owner. I definitely agree czar Nicholas was not strong enough nor prepared to run all the Russias. His situation was the epitome of "heavy is the head who wears the crown" ...thing is he didn't even want the crown but abdicating off the top wasn't a option. He did gracefully bow out so he and his family being murdered like that was tragic. I'm BLK and I enjoy Russian and eastern European history and culture 👩🏾🏫🫂
@@andythompson6874 the Kaiser lasted for 30 years. Nicholas only 22. The Kaiser would have lasted much longer but for the refusal of the very stupid American President to negotiate at the end of World War One. Such refusal allowed for the collapse of the Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany and the Habsburg dynasty in Austria-Hungary, disastrous events that created massive instability in Europe leading to the power vacuum that allowed Hitler to come to power.
Not a good ruler, completely ill-equipped both by education and nature. But a good father and husband. I read somewhere that he wished he could have just been a gentleman farmer, and if he'd been able to go into foreign exile, I think he and his family would have thrived in that kind of environment. He and his family did not deserve their brutal end, no matter how inept a leader he was
Their deaths were the consequences of his rampant stupidity. Think of the millions of innocent Russians who died because of Nicholas. Then his death is truly insignificant.
@@michaelflick1177 his death is no less significant than millions of innocent Russians who died under his reign. Each death is tragic; his was unnecessarily brutal.
@@davidlogan4329 I am not denying millions died while he reigned. I'm not denying many were killed and murdered in reaction to revolt and "treason", I just believe the treatment of the Romanovs was vengeful and brutal.
The children were quite liked by those who knew them. The elder daughters, Maria & Olga, were the more reserved & quiet compared to their younger sisters in particular Anastasia who was the prankster and most mischievous child but beloved by her family. Alexei, despite his hemophilia, was also an outgoing child especially when with his sisters
Finally - one wise comment among a sea of simpleminded ones! Seriously, the sorry state of today's 'democratic' nations should tell you how much (or how little) the hoi polloi actually understand and why democracy (the illusion built on top of the corporate simulacra that is really ruling anyway) can never work. Before you condemn another for his so called 'failure' to create an orderly house (a claim that is backed by no historical evidence whatsoever), make sure your own house is in order.
I believe that the last Tzar didn't actually want to be the Tzar. He wanted to love his family and was not prepared correctly for the role. Yes, horrible horrors happened under his rule but I believe he was not aware of some of them. Had his son not had hemophilia Alexandra would not have sought out Rasputin and been led down a dark path. But parents with sick children are desperate sometimes. People make mistakes. I believe he was a deeply feeling man just not about governing the country. I have read extensively about the last Romanovs and their predecessors. He was raised in a way and in a family that none of us can fully understand that had been going on for decades. His cousin King George could have saved them but chose not to. The extermination of the entire members of the family was overkill to put it lightly.
@@davidlogan4329 he was more of a family man than a man of the state. He only has himself to blame for why his family went from riches to rags and met such a tragic end in that cellar.
Given that it's been 100 years and his thesis "democracy doesn't work in Russia" still holds true, I'd say good ol' Nicky was quite on point with his political observations.
If 'democracy doesn't work in Russia' it's thanks to the bastards before and after him. On point? What else is a self serving autocrat going to say about democracy?
Nicholas didn't have a clue. Russia is complex. It is a vast country that operates under very difficult conditions. More than half the country is frozen for more than half the year. Go there and experience it even today and you might begin to understand. Nicholas was not a good observer. Russians today are ambivalent at best about him.
Democracy doesn't work anywhere. Tsar Nicholas was just trying to protect his empire from being being occupied by international finance. Saying that he was on point is equivalent to saying that water is wet. There is absolutely nothing 'complicated' about this simple truth.
@@davidlogan4329I'm sorry I've been reading all your comments on here. You seem like a Mr. Know-it-all. You did not live back then, nor did you even know Tsar Nicholas II.
@boondocks you're up against a respected academic on the matter. Do some research if you can be bothered about Nicholas. You might like to start with writings by Nicholas himself. He was a walking disaster area. Even the Romanovs believe this. The documentary is excellent and accurate.
Just finished two books that lead me here the first casulty, and trotsky 1917 New York, now in the .idle of Lenin his 10 day train ride to Russia to lead his revolution.
I’ve always had a problem with the family being made saints by the church. Why? Because they died during the revolution? Millions died. Children died of starvation. Children literally froze to death. The Romanovs lived in a house with three meals a day prepared by their cook. I think those innocent of this debacle deserve to be saints more than Nicholas II.
World history might've been quite different had the Romanovs the common sense to compromise with the various political factions. These narcissist kings get drunk with power, leading to a well deserved and apropos deposition.
I know this is a very brief statement on a very broad topic but it seems to me that much of Russia’s problems with dissidents could have been solved through property rights, individual rights and low taxation With such a large and diverse country you need to keep the loyalty of people through respect rather than cultural means
I wouldn’t have declared war on Japan or mobilized Russian troops against Austria, but besides that I don’t know that there was much Nicholas could do.
@@CanadianMonarchist Nicholas mobilised his army against Germany. He was repeatedly warned of the consequences, but was too stupid to listen. Russia had no hope of ever winning the war. It has insufficient weaponry, ammunition, uniforms, boots, basic foodstuffs and mediocre transportation networks. Nicholas was too stupid to work any of this out. The war dragged on for years going from bad to worse. Nicholas had his chances to end the war through an honourable peace in 1915. His first cousin King Christian X of Denmark had offered to mediate a peace between Russia and Germany. Yet again Nicholas stupidly refused. Instead he took control of the army ensuring that he was blamed for all the inevitable defeats. He was warned by his mother of the consequences of doing so. She told him his place was in the capital to control matters should revolts break out and not hundreds of miles away at general headquarters. Her advice was pertinent as in 1917 he was hundreds of miles away from St. Petersburg and could not control events. HIs solution as always was to fire on the people. In 1917 the army refused to do so and as a consequence the regime collapsed completely. It was impossible to recover it.
Sad history of a Family and a Destiny, the whole family. Their way of elimination I feel it had nothing added to the contribution of the Russian Revolution, with or without them the revolution was on his way, the ending of the familiy is very close to a case of family crimen, with sadism and with no specific objective or goals with the death o Mom, daughters . It is a a good point of reference for those designing or "imagining" revolutions today, corpses does not help the cause ( I think so). The Almighty keep their souls together in heaven.
Nicholas’ rule is so interesting to me. Most of my great grandparents were of Russian Jewish descent, and their families had lives there for centuries. Their reality was so different, so gritty, so abject. When the animated Anastasia movie came out, I was about 7-8. I was so excited for a new princess movie. My mother took me and let me know in an age appropriate way that it was pretty much a made up story about real people. She also explained that our ancestors lived in Russia during that time and it was very hard for them, which is why they came to America. I’m forever grateful that they made that difficult journey and undertook the difficult task of being immigrants so that future generations didn’t have to suffer as they did.
My heart always broke when I read about the fate of Nicolas, his wife, and his beautiful children. I heard his mother didn’t want to believe the horrible events of his end, and I don’t blame her. No mother wants to believe her son died like that.
Maria Feodorovna worked out what had happened. She was only too aware other members of her family had been murdered. She was not a stupid woman. She always wrote "only God could help them." That was her code to show she knew they were all dead.
One of the most catastrophically inept rulers in world history. His catalogue of failures, bungles, and mistakes is endless and were so profound he ended a 300 year dynasty. And they made him a saint. Talk about failing upwards.
Indeed. But unfortunately, it was necessary. You see, at the time of Alexander III's death, the crown was seriously at risk of ending up at the hands of grand Duke Vladimir and his wife, grand duchess Maria pavlovna. You see, tsar Alexander III and his wife, empress Maria feodorovna never liked or trusted Vladimir. And with Nicholas being the only amongst their three sons (George had tuberculosis, so it'd be unlikely to inherit the throne in case Nicholas died without sons and Michael wasn't tsar material) the pressure to keep the throne away from Vladimir's hands was great
I've always felt that Nicholas was the worst person to be ruler of Russia during the time he ruled. He was completely unsuited to be an autocrat (both in temperament and in government education), but he also felt he couldn't be the Russian Tsar unless he was an autocrat. In many ways he was like Louis XVI of France in that the best he could do was maintain the status quo, but what do you do when the status quo is the problem?
@@davidlogan4329 in this line of work, nobody has clean hands, buddy. When you govern a multinational empire with decades of brewing rebellious sentiments, conflict is inevitable. Oh, and you'll have a different appreciation for Nicholas when you compare him to the likes of Lenin and Stalin 🙄🙄
@@davidlogan4329 and it is not me who's saying that Nicholas was a good man, but most of the people who personally knew him. I guess that their testimony holds weight
Hopefully not. May I recommend StarMedia's wonderfully made documentaries..beginning with the history of the Romanovs. The English narrator is excellent, the explanatory illustrations ..even the music is first rate. The actors all look like the historical people they dramatize. Over all. Superb.
1:00:05 Soldier: you can’t run the war! Who’s gonna be in charge of the country while you’re gone?! Nicholas: obviously, my German wife and a homeless wizard! DUH!
Spring of 1915, you forgot the key fact from WW1, genocide of Armenian people and extermination of entire Armenian population out of their homeland by Ottoman Empire. Germany supported Turkish government for their gain in the war and it cost them 1.5 million Christian lives
Lo llevaron engañado a la sede al cuartel general y lo retuvieron allí que corazón más duro preparar todo para obligarle a abdicar sin necesidad sin necesidad wue traicion Dios mío. Que paciencia le dio El Señor para sufrir tanta traicion y perdono todo y a todos Nikolas II Zar de Rusia EL GRANDE Y SABIO
I always compare life to the story of the Romanov Dynasty. A beautiful story spanning over 300 years is told, a story of Tsars and Tsarinas, Emperors and Empresses. Each time you read their story, as you get to the last chapter, that of Nicholas Romanov II, you wish it to have a happy ending but it never does. Same is life, we wish it to be happy but in the end we all die. Each man that ever lived must die. Sad.
Very good objective look at Tsar Nicholas. Whether it is documentary or Robert K. Massie's book, ''Nicholas and Alexandra,''one must look at the Tsar as a weak Indecisive ruler unwilling to rid his country of the evils of autocracy. And, one must question the sanity of the Russian Orthodox Church for conferring ''sainthood'' on a man who was unwilling to stop what should have been the UN=Christian pogroms.
Sorry can't agree This way of regarding the last Tsar is so outdated. .No one saying he was a successful ruler ,after all when you end up being slaughtered with all your family ,one can't claim that. But since the fall of the soviet union and the fate of Gorbachev and dare I say with Putin today , the choises facing the Tsar were not so easy as putting on a top hat and being George v . The pogroms etc are more complex issues and if winked at by some local officials ,were not by Tsar and government. And anti semitism was an attitude very widespread then . Had deep roots ,economic ,in the peasants. Do look at today ! That is not to condone it of course . Not at all but one must look at the then culture . If Nicholas ii had been bloody ,had been a Stalin ,his successors would be sitting on the throne now ! For all it's failings and issues ,and just look at UK in same period , late imperial Russia was racing ahead on all levels ,as the Stolypin land reforms in creating independent peasants with own land. . Art and science too. Rasputin was a separate issue and damaging for the church but a really did represent the peasant standing near the Tsar. His murder was not seen by the common people as an event to to be celebrated but the boyars killing a peasant . And the haemophilia of Alexei was the reason as you know why he was in the inner circle. . As for the war it was the St Petersburg liberal elites as same today ,who sought war not the right so to speak . Read Durnovo' s briefing paper on the implications of war ,to the tsar and ministers. In 1910 Stolypin had said give Russia twenty !years of peace and she will be unknowable . Sadly there were only 5. As for the war , it was the grand duke who was a disastrous war leader. When the Tsar took symbolic command with Alexeev running the show ,in 1915 ,by the next year the front had been stabilised and the shell shortage,that all armies had ,was no more and early in 1917 Russia and the entente were poised for victory. And in February 1917 good reason to believe that Guchkov and Kerensky were exciting street disturbances in St Petersburg to force Tsar to abdicate and give throne to Grand duke Nicholas or Michael. The Tsar abdicated entirely alone . What a difference it may have made if his family had not gone down with measles . But he abdicated to save blood letting . If he had been a Stalin !! And see how incapable and useless Kerensky and the liberal bubble were in keeping the ship of state afloat. As to sainthood. It's clear you do not understand at all. They are Passion bearers. The church makes no comment on Nicholas as a ruler ,but on his and family's faith and the way they bore themselves at the end and their deaths. That is what is being judged. As a ruler he made mistakes and in the last year under Rasputin's influence ,VERY ENGLISH tsarina Alexandra made many but sincerely! Nicholas ii was often right but pushed by the liberal elite who represented nothing but themselves as today too, sent the people to war. . One should read Dominic Lieven early 1990s magisterial book ,Nicholas ii to get a more nuanced and up to date understanding of Nicholas and the period. But this simplistic view of him as some sort of idiot is so blind and prejudiced. At its simplest a man who spoke fluently three languages and Russian ,might not be that stupid.
As we know now, the horrors of the communist rule were and still are greatly exaggerated, whereas the horrors of the monarchy are only partially mentioned in small amounts.
Nicholas II as supreme governor of all Russias was too much attached to authoritarian, conservative and traditional vision of power; he lacked of a larger view (worldwide, universal, modern) and trust in his own people.
Se olvidan decir que El Santo Zar Nikolas II conenzaba el día von la Oración y acababan el día también con la Oración poniendo a Dios siempre el primero en sus vidas
Amazing work as always. Nicholas II of Russia reminds me a lot of Louis XVI of France. Both were monarchs who ascended the throne while their nations were in...very iffy positions and their positions were being threatened by modern (at the time) ideas of democracy and liberalism. Neither monarch was malicious but they were not particularly clever and they were rather weak meaning they were not particularly well equipped to face the challenges they faced even with the autocratic power they wielded. They then made their own situations worse with very poor decisions such as getting involved in the American Revolution for Louis and the Russo-Japanese War and WWI for Nicholas. Both monarchs tried to hold onto all of their power long past the point it was clear that was no longer tenable, and that mistake ultimately got them both killed along with their families.
@@ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣΑΜΑΝΑΤΙΔΗΣ-β7μ Nicholas was not a good person. He murdered millions of ordinary Russians. Louis XVI was not a good person either. He knowingly allowed his people to starve and live in abject poverty. Revolutions never happen when people are happy.
Well, let's begin with the wealth the crown owned. The empire had the world's largest population. And with all these people paying taxes, as well as the crown being directly involved in state monopoly, like the production and sale of vodka and the usage of state railways, you understandably have quite the income. Now, as for what Russia exported: mostly grain, potatoes and other food stuffs and raw materials like oil and coal. Later, as industrialisation took a hold, industrial products were added to this list, making Russia the state with the sixth largest share of the world's trade
Sad about the kids though! Having those parents, one thing born into a power perverse institution! Another is to have an amount of a good well aware head in connection to reality on ones shoulders! what really is going on and assess the events happening and do the only right thing for the benefit of the people
Thank you for watching! Please subscribe for more and don’t forget to hit the bell icon so you don’t miss our new videos. www.youtube.com/@PeopleProfiles?sub_confirmation=1
Watch our videos advert free and listen to audio only episodes on our website. www.peopleprofiles.com/join/
You can also watch marathon videos on People Profiles Extra www.youtube.com/@PeopleProfilesExtra
Or follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/tpprofiles
Yay! I've been eagerly awaiting this video. I've had a fascination with the Romanov family, Czar Nicholas II especially, since I was a child. I'm really looking forward to this 😊
same here!
Me too!😊
Me to
Ditto!
Czar Nicholas was an idiot. He and his wife believed is the Devine Rights of Kings. If he had allowed some changes towards democracy, history could have been very different.
For everyone involved in these videos, you are sincerely appreciated. God bless 👍🏾
Praise the very name of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, no other name under heaven given in which man must be saved. In the world, there be MANY "gods", there is only One True Living God, Jesus Christ, glory to His name and marvelous works!
Interesting to see that Nicholas and his wife were related to the family of Queen Victoria along not one, but two lineages:
1) Nicholas' mother Maria Feodorovna being the sister-in-law of King-Emperors Edward VII of Great Britain and Friedrich III of Germany, hence the aunt of their sons/successors
2) Alix of Hesse being the grand-daughter of Queen Victoria, through her mother Alice.
These decades before the revolution are a near-mythical age and I always enjoy learning more about it - a time of splendour, sharp contrasts and tensions that ended in an unforgiving war and a cataclysm of change (I think some of the people living in Russia at that time had clear premonitions or an understanding that some kind of terrible upheaval was coming)
Ken Follett's The Century Trilogy, tells the stories of families living in Russia, Germany, England and the US during WWI, WWII and the Cold War. Very well researched, and brings these events to life. They're fictional stories. He does say in the forward that when his fictional characters interact with historical figures, like Lenin, that they do so only if it was during a real event, or if they were free to do so that day. They're fascinating books.
Actually, 3 ways, as Nicholas's paternal aunt, Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna, sister of Tsar Alexander III, was married to Queen Victoria's second son, Prince Alfred.
@@alienajaxon250thanks for the recommendation! I’ll definitely check this out.
Suchen Sie im Netz das Buch:"A COURSE OF CANAAN"//Dann werden Sie verstehen,wer für Kriege und Revolutionen verantwortlich ist.
Victoria was known as the "Grandmother of Europe". World War 1 was a "family squabble". All of the crowned heads of Europe at that time were either her grandchild , married to her grandchild or both. Feel free to research this...
Thanks for your work and time ❤
This was just excellent. Thank you. I learned a lot.
I love Russian history, married a man who's great grandmother was from Odessa.
The surviving Romanovs escaped Russia from the Crimea in April 1919 from the Crimea. Most don't realise Nicholas had been advised to send his wife and children to the Crimea in January 1917. Sadly he very stupidly refused and sealed their fate. Had he done so they would have been able to escape with Maria Feodorovna and others. At Tsarskoe Selo once the revolution hit there could be no escape as northern Russia, especially around St. Petersburg and Moscow fell into the hands of revolutionaries. That's Kerensky sent Nicholas and his family to Tobolsk in the east. They were safe there for a time until they were sent to Ekaterinburg in April 1918 where they perished early on the morning of 17th July 1918 in the cellar of the Ipatiev House.
Odesa is a Ukrainian city these days. Don't even imply it's ruzzian.
@@НатальяПарванчук bolga 😮 oraa
Russian Odessa 😊
All history is for all people!👍👍
Thank you, I had been waiting for you to cover this man.
Cheers.
He certainly wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed hence his ending up dead on the cellar floor in Ekaterinburg.
Excellent work, as always. Please make a documentary on king Otto and queen Amalia of Greece.
Am i the only blk person that appreciates and enjoys learning russian history? 🤨🤦🏾♀️🤌🏾
Nope! I've been fascinated with all Russian monarchy since I was young. I'd love to visit Russia one day, but I've heard the racism there is deep.
Im a person of color and I’m fascinated by this
Im telling the elders! I thought at our monolith meeting that governs the behavior of all black people we decided what all of us can be interested in?! U are deviating away from what all of us at the annual meeting decided on
@@ElteejayI’d love to visit if only i the situation wasn’t so unstable
@@Elteejaymy brother visited Russia. He had no issues
Great quality video and very interesting to watch even for the Russian who know the topic in detail. Thank you!
Serbs remember him as a saint who saved us, and because of Him, we will forever be in Russian debt ❤
Russian people will always be welcome in Serbia and Serb Republic ❤ Our true brothers
Another amazing documentary. By far my favourite UA-cam channel
Amazing channel. But I also like PBS Eons and The Why Files, as well as Timeline.
The best book anyone can read on the history of the Romanovs is by Simon Sebago Montefiore....you won't be disappointed! He's written many books on history.....they are all brilliant!
Yes... however he does gloss over a few things as his background gives him a bias.
@@dsoule4902 such as? He is a highly respected historian, far more credible than a great many others.
@@davidlogan4329 child skeletons just outside the Pale.
Amazing:)! Thank you so much for up loading. I LOVE history❤
This reminds me of King Charles I
He was also offered to change to a monarchy with a parliament.
His refusal cost him the crown and his head.
EL TEMA ES QUE LOS SOBERANOS RUSOS ERAN ELEGIDOS POR DIOS ES UN PRIVILEGIO QUE NO TIENE NINGUNCPAIS EUROPEO MUCHAS DIFERENCIAS EN TODOS LOS ASPECTO
A bit overly simplified there.
King Charles made many concessions to Parliament. But then it got to the point where the junto in Parliament wanted to strip his every right as a Monarch.
He had no choice but to stand up and defend his throne.
True Monarchy should change over time.
But their measures to change it were extreme and there is a lot more to the story.
@@kingcharlesireturn5495Should've accepted🤷♂️
Amazing documentary, thank you.
Thank you I enjoyed this very much.
Yay I saw this and I was so pumped!!! Thanks for the stellar content .
Ever since finding out my mother DNA is Russian/Serbian, I’ve been obsessed with Russian history
Here in mother Russia we play Russian roulette every Friday.
After watching the documentary, I believe that Tsar Nicholas was not very intelligent, which made him indecisive and weak. If he had accepted the offered parliamentary rule, Russia would been a different country and we would have a different world today. But that can be said about a thousand different things. Thank you for a good documentary. I learned a lot.
Even if he had a perfectly adequate intelligence level, his education was severely lacking. He was not educated on how to be Tsar, he was not given royal duties until very close to Tsar Alexander III's death. And I think Tsar Alexander III anticipated having much more time before Nicholas had to take the throne. (foolish assumption really, Tsars of Russia weren't really known for long and peaceful reigns...)
@@LuLu-in-a-MuuMuu the truth is Nicholas received a far better education than his father. Tsar Alexander III. He just made a complete and utter mess of everything. He had highly supportive ministers and relatives at home and abroad. He never listened to any of their very wise advice. They all tried to help him.
@@davidlogan4329 True !!!!
@@davidlogan4329well, you cannot expect someone to be very open to advice, no matter how great, when the first doctrine you've imprinted to his head is
"You are the god's chosen. Autocracy is the only way of government that can ensure Russia's survival. An autocrat doesn't discuss, doesn't back down and he doesn't give space to anyone. To be advised and therefore influenced by others is to be weak."
And when you mention"relatives at home and aboard who wanted to help him" who do you mean exactly?
Uncle Vladimir and aunt Maria pavlovna who didn't even lift a finger from their vacation in Paris when Nicholas, his parents and siblings almost got killed in borki in 1888? Not to mention aunt Maria pavlovna who tried to depose Nicholas in favour of her son Kirill in 1917?
Uncle Alexei who left the russian navy in a sorry state?
Uncle Sergei who was in part responsible for the coronation celebrations and urged Nicholas to go to the French embassy party after the stampede?
Or his cousin George V, who left Nicholas and his family to be killed after backing out on his promises to grant them asylum in Britain?
How can you lean on such people to help you when you probably have to watch your back all the time?
What different world do you imagine that would we would have today if he stood down from autocratic rule (which he eventually did, btw and the incompetence of Duma eventually paved the way for the Bolsheviks to get full power when people in parliament decided it was a bright idea to allow their revolutionary opponents to be armed).
Човјек који је својом љубављу задужио Србију за вјекове вјекова, вјечна му слава и хвала 🇷🇸❤️🇷🇺
Been fascinated by the Czar since I read one of Danielle Steel’s novels since I was in high school. All knew “ the Czar was the emperor of Russia before the revolution” now I know more . Thnx
No, I love Russian history as well! Especially history of Nicholas II and his beautiful family.
Fascinating illustrative history.
thank you for these videos!
Thank you. Enjoyed very much.
Love this channel and learning so much! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Really enjoyed this 👌
Absolutely Magnificent!!¡
Love your content guys! Please do Alexander the liberator😊😊😊❤❤
You are not alone.I love history.The story of the Ronanovs is fascinating.
Oh! A new documentary about the Romanovs!
THANK YOU!! 💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻
Excellent Program!
Well researched and presented. Always enjoy your videos ❤
Thank you for sharing.
His biggest mistake was marrying Alix. Alexandra wasn't cut out to be empress. She was too shy and stubborn.
Nicolas II and Alexandra were incompetent and bad rulers but their children didn't deserved to died with their parents 😢.
I would've thought starting a war with an industrial super power, while arming your own soldiers with sharp sticks or letting a religious crazy run your government were bigger mistakes.
If he'd been a minor royal or country gentleman, then his marriage to Alix of Hesse would have been a very happy one indeed. But neither of them were cut out to be rulers and neither of them was suited for truly supporting the other in their role.
I believe Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II are an excellent example of marrying someone who supports you in your role and strengthens you to do it better.
@@LuLu-in-a-MuuMuu no compares a rusia con Inglaterra muy diferente alma y muy diferente mente
Soooooo Well Put!!!
@@LuLu-in-a-MuuMuu Elizabeth II was a constitutional monarch and always acted on the advice of her elected governments. Nicholas was an autocrat who never listened to highly intelligent advioe from his family at home and abroad of from leading statesmen. He caused two unnecessary unwinnable wars and two revolutions. Spot the difference!
Excellent video
This is great documentary! The photos and writing are just beautiful! I love Russian History! I just finished reading…Former People by Douglas Smith! I recommend it to any other lovers of Russian History!
Read Simon MOntefiore's book. It's excellent.
This is a very interesting video 👏 !!!
14:41 Nicholas: NOW will you teach me how to rule?
Alexander III: *sigh* I suppose it’s time okay, there’s a lot you need to know before becoming Tsar- uh oh
Nicholas: what?
Alexander III: I’ve got kidney inflammation *dies*
Nicholas: D’oOOOoOoh NOoOoOo!
Lol I couldn't help but think of Oversimplified while watching this.
Not accurate at all.
Alexander III was not responsible for the disastrous reign of his son. As Xenia Alexandrovna stated, "I doubt my father would have ever have gone to war with Germany."
@@michaelflick1177What’s inaccurate about it?
@@CanadianMonarchist have explained it.
I think Russian history is 100%
accurate
I must thanks a lot your hard
work
Amazing watching it twice
Very good video thanks, I liked. Which video edit software for this?
I have mixed feelings about Nicolas II. On one hand, he clearly had no desire to be Tsar, and I think it's awful that he was more or less forced into taking up that position and I really feel for him. On the other, he had very backwards views with the whole divine right of kings which was way outdated in the rest of Europe by the time he took power. It's no doubt he was brought up that way, but that's not an excuse for doubling down and refusing to look at the rest of the world around him and thinking that maybe it was time to update some policies. I think a lot of his failures stem from him just not wanting to be there, but still trying to do his best purely out of the sense of obligation and in the end it resulted in making a huge mess for literally everyone.
This is a fairly good analysis. Nicholas never wanted to be a tsar and he never shied away from admitting that. But he had felt that it was his duty to rule Russia to his best abilities.
Unfortunately, his worldview was also very narrow and he was viewing capable and energetic ministers, like Witte and Stolypin with mistrust
He would have been a good village priest.
But totally unsuited to be an autocratic ruler of the largest country in the world.
I agree. He was best as a priest or even if he wanted to keep some wealth..he would a made a great estate owner. I definitely agree czar Nicholas was not strong enough nor prepared to run all the Russias. His situation was the epitome of "heavy is the head who wears the crown" ...thing is he didn't even want the crown but abdicating off the top wasn't a option. He did gracefully bow out so he and his family being murdered like that was tragic. I'm BLK and I enjoy Russian and eastern European history and culture 👩🏾🏫🫂
Correct , I read he wanted to be a farmer and watch things grow !!!!!😊🇬🇧
@@Mamadukee1 the German Kaiser stated that Nicholas was not even fit to grow turnips.
The Kaiser was in no position to critique anyone, being so emotionally unstable that he was himself.
@@andythompson6874 the Kaiser lasted for 30 years. Nicholas only 22. The Kaiser would have lasted much longer but for the refusal of the very stupid American President to negotiate at the end of World War One. Such refusal allowed for the collapse of the Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany and the Habsburg dynasty in Austria-Hungary, disastrous events that created massive instability in Europe leading to the power vacuum that allowed Hitler to come to power.
Not a good ruler, completely ill-equipped both by education and nature. But a good father and husband. I read somewhere that he wished he could have just been a gentleman farmer, and if he'd been able to go into foreign exile, I think he and his family would have thrived in that kind of environment. He and his family did not deserve their brutal end, no matter how inept a leader he was
Their deaths were the consequences of his rampant stupidity. Think of the millions of innocent Russians who died because of Nicholas. Then his death is truly insignificant.
@@michaelflick1177 his death is no less significant than millions of innocent Russians who died under his reign. Each death is tragic; his was unnecessarily brutal.
Their deaths were attributed to the evil that overthrew him. History shows this.
@@LuLu-in-a-MuuMuu Nicholas caused the deaths of millions. Think about that before commenting further.
@@davidlogan4329 I am not denying millions died while he reigned. I'm not denying many were killed and murdered in reaction to revolt and "treason", I just believe the treatment of the Romanovs was vengeful and brutal.
God bless the people's profile
The Romanov children seem like such nice children. Their parents, however.....
The children were quite liked by those who knew them. The elder daughters, Maria & Olga, were the more reserved & quiet compared to their younger sisters in particular Anastasia who was the prankster and most mischievous child but beloved by her family. Alexei, despite his hemophilia, was also an outgoing child especially when with his sisters
This is interesting information
I love Russian history
Me too ✋🏻
Thank u for this vid❤
There's no amount of explanation is enough to convince ordinary people to understand how difficult it's to rule!
Finally - one wise comment among a sea of simpleminded ones! Seriously, the sorry state of today's 'democratic' nations should tell you how much (or how little) the hoi polloi actually understand and why democracy (the illusion built on top of the corporate simulacra that is really ruling anyway) can never work. Before you condemn another for his so called 'failure' to create an orderly house (a claim that is backed by no historical evidence whatsoever), make sure your own house is in order.
It's difficult to be a good ruler when you reject highly intelligent advice from family at home and abroad and leading statesmen.
Well researched and interesting 🤔
Please do a video on Daniel Torotich Arap Moi
Really interesting
A souls recognizes a soul ✨♾️
This is a Great Video I Enjoyed it Immensely 👍 😊
I believe that the last Tzar didn't actually want to be the Tzar. He wanted to love his family and was not prepared correctly for the role. Yes, horrible horrors happened under his rule but I believe he was not aware of some of them. Had his son not had hemophilia Alexandra would not have sought out Rasputin and been led down a dark path. But parents with sick children are desperate sometimes. People make mistakes. I believe he was a deeply feeling man just not about governing the country.
I have read extensively about the last Romanovs and their predecessors. He was raised in a way and in a family that none of us can fully understand that had been going on for decades. His cousin King George could have saved them but chose not to. The extermination of the entire members of the family was overkill to put it lightly.
Michael II--Nicholas' brother and proposed regent for Alexi--was the last Tzar. He abdicated the same day he became Tzar.
My birthday is the 18th May. OMG😮
Great video 🎉😊🎉❤
it's a nice video, congratulations🎉🎉🎉
If only Nicholas II hadn't been such a stubborn dogmatic ruler, he could have kept both his head and his crown.
He simply wasn't up to the job and never listened to those who gave highly intelligent advice.
@@davidlogan4329 he was more of a family man than a man of the state. He only has himself to blame for why his family went from riches to rags and met such a tragic end in that cellar.
Given that it's been 100 years and his thesis "democracy doesn't work in Russia" still holds true, I'd say good ol' Nicky was quite on point with his political observations.
If 'democracy doesn't work in Russia' it's thanks to the bastards before and after him. On point? What else is a self serving autocrat going to say about democracy?
Nicholas didn't have a clue. Russia is complex. It is a vast country that operates under very difficult conditions. More than half the country is frozen for more than half the year. Go there and experience it even today and you might begin to understand. Nicholas was not a good observer. Russians today are ambivalent at best about him.
Democracy doesn't work anywhere. Tsar Nicholas was just trying to protect his empire from being being occupied by international finance. Saying that he was on point is equivalent to saying that water is wet. There is absolutely nothing 'complicated' about this simple truth.
@@davidlogan4329I'm sorry I've been reading all your comments on here. You seem like a Mr. Know-it-all. You did not live back then, nor did you even know Tsar Nicholas II.
@boondocks you're up against a respected academic on the matter. Do some research if you can be bothered about Nicholas. You might like to start with writings by Nicholas himself. He was a walking disaster area. Even the Romanovs believe this. The documentary is excellent and accurate.
Just finished two books that lead me here the first casulty, and trotsky 1917 New York, now in the .idle of Lenin his 10 day train ride to Russia to lead his revolution.
Nikolaï Alexandrovitch was such a handsome man. Always had a crush on him. But i hate the fate of his family. Horrible
Why does it matter what ethnicity you are to enjoy this documentary?
Like or not. Accept or not. Their King is ☠DEAD☠
I’ve always had a problem with the family being made saints by the church. Why? Because they died during the revolution? Millions died. Children died of starvation. Children literally froze to death. The Romanovs lived in a house with three meals a day prepared by their cook. I think those innocent of this debacle deserve to be saints more than Nicholas II.
The link between Ulyanov and Vladimir Lenin. I didn't know they were brothers.
Неплохо. Просто лаконично без пропаганды.
World history might've been quite different had the Romanovs the common sense to compromise with the various political factions. These narcissist kings get drunk with power, leading to a well deserved and apropos deposition.
There's was no compromise. The decision to overthrow all the european monarchs was made.
I know this is a very brief statement on a very broad topic but it seems to me that much of Russia’s problems with dissidents could have been solved through property rights, individual rights and low taxation
With such a large and diverse country you need to keep the loyalty of people through respect rather than cultural means
Weak, incompetent and indecisive. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t have been killed and lost his throne
I wouldn’t have declared war on Japan or mobilized Russian troops against Austria, but besides that I don’t know that there was much Nicholas could do.
@@CanadianMonarchist Nicholas mobilised his army against Germany. He was repeatedly warned of the consequences, but was too stupid to listen. Russia had no hope of ever winning the war. It has insufficient weaponry, ammunition, uniforms, boots, basic foodstuffs and mediocre transportation networks. Nicholas was too stupid to work any of this out. The war dragged on for years going from bad to worse. Nicholas had his chances to end the war through an honourable peace in 1915. His first cousin King Christian X of Denmark had offered to mediate a peace between Russia and Germany. Yet again Nicholas stupidly refused. Instead he took control of the army ensuring that he was blamed for all the inevitable defeats. He was warned by his mother of the consequences of doing so. She told him his place was in the capital to control matters should revolts break out and not hundreds of miles away at general headquarters. Her advice was pertinent as in 1917 he was hundreds of miles away from St. Petersburg and could not control events. HIs solution as always was to fire on the people. In 1917 the army refused to do so and as a consequence the regime collapsed completely. It was impossible to recover it.
Sad history of a Family and a Destiny, the whole family. Their way of elimination I feel it had nothing added to the contribution of the Russian Revolution, with or without them the revolution was on his way, the ending of the familiy is very close to a case of family crimen, with sadism and with no specific objective or goals with the death o Mom, daughters . It is a a good point of reference for those designing or "imagining" revolutions today, corpses does not help the cause ( I think so). The Almighty keep their souls together in heaven.
Nicholas’ rule is so interesting to me. Most of my great grandparents were of Russian Jewish descent, and their families had lives there for centuries. Their reality was so different, so gritty, so abject.
When the animated Anastasia movie came out, I was about 7-8. I was so excited for a new princess movie. My mother took me and let me know in an age appropriate way that it was pretty much a made up story about real people. She also explained that our ancestors lived in Russia during that time and it was very hard for them, which is why they came to America. I’m forever grateful that they made that difficult journey and undertook the difficult task of being immigrants so that future generations didn’t have to suffer as they did.
Who else only knows of this era as a direct result of Anastasia movie in the late 90s?
My heart always broke when I read about the fate of Nicolas, his wife, and his beautiful children. I heard his mother didn’t want to believe the horrible events of his end, and I don’t blame her. No mother wants to believe her son died like that.
Maria Feodorovna worked out what had happened. She was only too aware other members of her family had been murdered. She was not a stupid woman. She always wrote "only God could help them." That was her code to show she knew they were all dead.
@@michaelflick1177 I can’t imagine how much her heart broke.
@@sweethistortea she tried from day one to help him, but he would not listen. She even rushed to his side after he abdicated.
One of the most catastrophically inept rulers in world history. His catalogue of failures, bungles, and mistakes is endless and were so profound he ended a 300 year dynasty. And they made him a saint. Talk about failing upwards.
Technically not a saint, but a Passion Bearer. Still more than he deserved imo, but not quite the same. And his daughters still didn’t deserve to die.
@@caraelizabeth7307 the daughters were victims of the father.
@@davidlogan4329 I completely agree.
they shouldnt have pushed through the wedding that November.. Its been less than a month of mourning.. Its a bad omen - same month, same year
Indeed. But unfortunately, it was necessary.
You see, at the time of Alexander III's death, the crown was seriously at risk of ending up at the hands of grand Duke Vladimir and his wife, grand duchess Maria pavlovna.
You see, tsar Alexander III and his wife, empress Maria feodorovna never liked or trusted Vladimir.
And with Nicholas being the only amongst their three sons (George had tuberculosis, so it'd be unlikely to inherit the throne in case Nicholas died without sons and Michael wasn't tsar material) the pressure to keep the throne away from Vladimir's hands was great
I've always felt that Nicholas was the worst person to be ruler of Russia during the time he ruled. He was completely unsuited to be an autocrat (both in temperament and in government education), but he also felt he couldn't be the Russian Tsar unless he was an autocrat. In many ways he was like Louis XVI of France in that the best he could do was maintain the status quo, but what do you do when the status quo is the problem?
True !!!!!!😊🇬🇧
A good man who wanted to do his best, but an inadequete ruler.
@@ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣΑΜΑΝΑΤΙΔΗΣ-β7μ Nicholas was not a good man. He had the blood of millions on his hands.
@@davidlogan4329 in this line of work, nobody has clean hands, buddy. When you govern a multinational empire with decades of brewing rebellious sentiments, conflict is inevitable.
Oh, and you'll have a different appreciation for Nicholas when you compare him to the likes of Lenin and Stalin 🙄🙄
@@davidlogan4329 and it is not me who's saying that Nicholas was a good man, but most of the people who personally knew him.
I guess that their testimony holds weight
The Tsar had a bad start and went down from there
Hopefully not. May I recommend StarMedia's wonderfully made documentaries..beginning with the history of the Romanovs. The English narrator is excellent, the explanatory illustrations ..even the music is first rate. The actors all look like the historical people they dramatize. Over all. Superb.
1:00:05
Soldier: you can’t run the war! Who’s gonna be in charge of the country while you’re gone?!
Nicholas: obviously, my German wife and a homeless wizard! DUH!
Rasputin wasn’t homeless, but that description made me smile. 😊
😂🤣😅🤣😂😂🤣🤣
I think that’s from OverlySimpified’s vid about the Russian Revolutions; that made me snicker
Spring of 1915, you forgot the key fact from WW1, genocide of Armenian people and extermination of entire Armenian population out of their homeland by Ottoman Empire. Germany supported Turkish government for their gain in the war and it cost them 1.5 million Christian lives
GOD APPOINTED KINGDOM. ❤
It's ashame what the Bolsheviks did to this whole family
Then they starved 30 million people . They don't want criticism for the holodomor, but in the same breath want sympathy for the holocaust.
It's the result of the gross stupidity of Nicholas.
It was a far greater shame what Nicholas did to millions of innocent Russians. He murdered them.
@@davidlogan4329how brother ?
Lo llevaron engañado a la sede al cuartel general y lo retuvieron allí que corazón más duro preparar todo para obligarle a abdicar sin necesidad sin necesidad wue traicion Dios mío. Que paciencia le dio El Señor para sufrir tanta traicion y perdono todo y a todos Nikolas II Zar de Rusia EL GRANDE Y SABIO
I always compare life to the story of the Romanov Dynasty. A beautiful story spanning over 300 years is told, a story of Tsars and Tsarinas, Emperors and Empresses. Each time you read their story, as you get to the last chapter, that of Nicholas Romanov II, you wish it to have a happy ending but it never does. Same is life, we wish it to be happy but in the end we all die. Each man that ever lived must die. Sad.
There was never going to be a happy ending under the grossly incompetent Nicholas.
Holy Royal Martyrs of Russia pray to God for us. 🙏☦
They cannot pray for you. They are dead.
he was given the right to govern, but not taught how to govern a vast country
NIcholas had a far better education than his father and wider experiences. There are no excuses for his rampant stupidity and incompetent ruile.
He received a better education than his father. He just wasn't very bright.
Very good objective look at Tsar Nicholas. Whether it is documentary or Robert K. Massie's book, ''Nicholas and Alexandra,''one must look at the Tsar as a weak Indecisive ruler unwilling to rid his country of the evils of autocracy. And, one must question the sanity of the Russian Orthodox Church for conferring ''sainthood'' on a man who was unwilling to stop what should have been the UN=Christian pogroms.
The church only made them Passion Bearers, the lowest level of sainthood for martyrdom. They expressed grave misgivings about his role as Tsar.
Sorry can't agree This way of regarding the last Tsar is so outdated. .No one saying he was a successful ruler ,after all when you end up being slaughtered with all your family ,one can't claim that.
But since the fall of the soviet union and the fate of Gorbachev and dare I say with Putin today , the choises facing the Tsar were not so easy as putting on a top hat and being George v .
The pogroms etc are more complex issues and if winked at by some local officials ,were not by Tsar and government. And anti semitism was an attitude very widespread then . Had deep roots ,economic ,in the peasants. Do look at today ! That is not to condone it of course . Not at all but one must look at the then culture .
If Nicholas ii had been bloody ,had been a Stalin ,his successors would be sitting on the throne now ! For all it's failings and issues ,and just look at UK in same period , late imperial Russia was racing ahead on all levels ,as the Stolypin land reforms in creating independent peasants with own land. . Art and science too.
Rasputin was a separate issue and damaging for the church but a really did represent the peasant standing near the Tsar. His murder was not seen by the common people as an event to to be celebrated but the boyars killing a peasant . And the haemophilia of Alexei was the reason as you know why he was in the inner circle. .
As for the war it was the St Petersburg liberal elites as same today ,who sought war not the right so to speak . Read Durnovo' s briefing paper on the implications of war ,to the tsar and ministers.
In 1910 Stolypin had said give Russia twenty !years of peace and she will be unknowable . Sadly there were only 5.
As for the war , it was the grand duke who was a disastrous war leader. When the Tsar took symbolic command with Alexeev running the show ,in 1915 ,by the next year the front had been stabilised and the shell shortage,that all armies had ,was no more and early in 1917 Russia and the entente were poised for victory.
And in February 1917 good reason to believe that Guchkov and Kerensky were exciting street disturbances in St Petersburg to force Tsar to abdicate and give throne to Grand duke Nicholas or Michael.
The Tsar abdicated entirely alone . What a difference it may have made if his family had not gone down with measles . But he abdicated to save blood letting . If he had been a Stalin !!
And see how incapable and useless Kerensky and the liberal bubble were in keeping the ship of state afloat.
As to sainthood. It's clear you do not understand at all. They are Passion bearers. The church makes no comment on Nicholas as a ruler ,but on his and family's faith and the way they bore themselves at the end and their deaths. That is what is being judged.
As a ruler he made mistakes and in the last year under Rasputin's influence ,VERY ENGLISH tsarina Alexandra made many but sincerely!
Nicholas ii was often right but pushed by the liberal elite who represented nothing but themselves as today too, sent the people to war. .
One should read Dominic Lieven early 1990s magisterial book ,Nicholas ii to get a more nuanced and up to date understanding of Nicholas and the period.
But this simplistic view of him as some sort of idiot is so blind and prejudiced.
At its simplest a man who spoke fluently three languages and Russian ,might not be that stupid.
@@nickstone3113 misguided view.
Autocracy is less evil and more transparent than democracy.
I don’t get the impression that the Russian Orthodox Church is very concerned about bigotry and violence toward others.
As we know now, the horrors of the communist rule were and still are greatly exaggerated, whereas the horrors of the monarchy are only partially mentioned in small amounts.
Oh boy.
Uhhhh I don't think the horrors of the communist rule is exaggerated at all in fact I don't think we will even realize how brutal it was....
The UK's one is doing pretty ok.They only good for Social Media Gossip these days
"greatly exaggerated" ok bud
I smell Antifa 🤢
Nicholas II as supreme governor of all Russias was too much attached to authoritarian, conservative and traditional vision of power; he lacked of a larger view (worldwide, universal, modern) and trust in his own people.
Se olvidan decir que El Santo Zar Nikolas II conenzaba el día von la Oración y acababan el día también con la Oración poniendo a Dios siempre el primero en sus vidas
Amazing work as always. Nicholas II of Russia reminds me a lot of Louis XVI of France. Both were monarchs who ascended the throne while their nations were in...very iffy positions and their positions were being threatened by modern (at the time) ideas of democracy and liberalism. Neither monarch was malicious but they were not particularly clever and they were rather weak meaning they were not particularly well equipped to face the challenges they faced even with the autocratic power they wielded. They then made their own situations worse with very poor decisions such as getting involved in the American Revolution for Louis and the Russo-Japanese War and WWI for Nicholas. Both monarchs tried to hold onto all of their power long past the point it was clear that was no longer tenable, and that mistake ultimately got them both killed along with their families.
A great approach to the matter. Both of them were good people but inadequate monarchs
@@ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣΑΜΑΝΑΤΙΔΗΣ-β7μ Nicholas was not a good person. He murdered millions of ordinary Russians. Louis XVI was not a good person either. He knowingly allowed his people to starve and live in abject poverty. Revolutions never happen when people are happy.
@@ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣΑΜΑΝΑΤΙΔΗΣ-β7μ they were not good people. They had the blood of millions of Russians on their hands.
Never quite understood where all the wealth came from to build all these palaces, also not sure what that country exported
Well, let's begin with the wealth the crown owned.
The empire had the world's largest population. And with all these people paying taxes, as well as the crown being directly involved in state monopoly, like the production and sale of vodka and the usage of state railways, you understandably have quite the income.
Now, as for what Russia exported: mostly grain, potatoes and other food stuffs and raw materials like oil and coal. Later, as industrialisation took a hold, industrial products were added to this list, making Russia the state with the sixth largest share of the world's trade
@@ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣΑΜΑΝΑΤΙΔΗΣ-β7μ thank you for that information
Sad about the kids though! Having those parents, one thing born into a power perverse institution! Another is to have an amount of a good well aware head in connection to reality on ones shoulders! what really is going on and assess the events happening and do the only right thing for the benefit of the people
I think it is interesting that even when the Czar’s family was in their last days as prisoners they still had servants!
Some “perks” to being royal POWs. Course those poor servants were executed along with them