POLL: Do you think Tsar Nicholas II was a good or bad leader?

Question

I'm 14 and I've been obsessed with the Romanovs for ages, ever since I saw the animation film 'Anastasia' in the UK when I was about 4 (plus I, along with my uncles, love revolutions and history in general).

I'd reached the conclusion ages ago that he was a fair and sensible man, however he was just a weak ruler as the people of Russia during his time considered him. When I think about it, he was just a 21st century tsar who was trying to hold onto one of the largest nations in the world and support his wife and five children.

I was just wondering what anyone else interested on this topic thought?

Thanks :)

Extra info: he and his family were slaughtered by the Bolshevik's during their imprisonment at the Ipatiev House in 1918 following his abdication.

Answer 1

He was not a good leader. He was not privy to  the problems of the people he ruled, and he did very little to correct his problems. While he may have been a good and decent person, his inaction caused the Revolution that eventually brought him down.

Answer 2

No  he wasn;t. He didn't realize that the era of monarchy was gone, and Russia needed changes. When the real revolution started he just called a mayor and told him to " stop the chaos" that was his last order. He also didn;t care about poverty and illiteracy in his country. Only communists solved the problem of illiteracy.

Answer 3

Considering he did a c**p enough job that not only the peasants revolted but so did the elite, and then he wasn't able to hold onto his crown because even the military hated him I'm going with "bad ruler".

But yeah, I mean, Russia's a MASSIVE country, with quite a lot of people, and quite a lot of problems mostly stemming from it's lack of any reasonable land for agriculture. It doesn't surprise me that he was unable to hold onto it, especially in times as difficult as they were then.

I feel sorry for the guy TBH. Watching your whole family executed because people hated you so much would probably be pretty high on anyone's "stuff I don't want" list.

And I totally sympathise with the love of Romanov history. When I was 8 I read about their execution and the possible continuane of Anastacia and I fell in love. Just thinking about visiting Russia one day made me feel like I was going home again or something.

Answer 4

part of his problem was that he was indeed a weak ruler, being swayed by his wife's dedication to Raspitin, and she probably had too much say inother things as well.  he was also still living in the 19th century, not realising that in the 20th century thing were changing.  I believe that the assassination of him and his family was a very poor political choice by there captors, they would have gotton a very large ransom for the family, after all they were related to almost every royal family in Europe.

Answer 5

Well, I mean he was a generous human being, but was a terrible leader. He didn't think before he acted and never thought of his people. Furthermore, nothing was down to protect the poor or give them new opporunities. Also, he didn't even see the conecpt of industrializing. You need to be open minded when you're a leader which he clearly didn't understand. His ancestors such as Catherine and Peter the Great attempted to aid the poor, but little was done.