Posted by Damian on 6/26/2008, 3:01:08, in reply to "Re: Nicolas II - saint on the throne or simply an ineffective ruler"
195.93.21.67
In my opinion Nicholas II is the best example of how an hereditary,autocratic system of government can fail.Such a system is only ever as effective as the person of the ruler.When that person is up to the job like Peter the Great or Alexander III,then the system can work.But when that person is not up to the job like Nicholas II,a crisis will soon ensue especially if conditions in the country demand radical change as they did in the Russia of Nicholas II.
Like Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France,Nicholas II was not a bad man,just wholly out of his depth like those other two rulers in being unable to understand and deal with the political crises facing him.Being unable to understand and foresaking all sensible advice,he took refuge in doing as little as possible,hoping the situation would somehow sort itself out by itself.Like those two previous rulers,he ultimately paid for that mistake with his throne and his life and,in Nicholas's case,the life of his entire family.
Like the other two rulers,he was no saint but neither was he a devil.He was just a very ordinary man thrust into a position for which he was hopelessly unprepared and hopelessly ill-equipped to deal with.
He did not know how to function as an autocrat but he would possibly have made a good constitutional,figure-head monarch of the modern variety.It was his tragedy to be born in the wrong place,in the wrong time,to the wrong family.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread