I‘m a few episodes into Netflix‘s The Last Czars and it seems as if Nicholas II was either not politically savvy enough to handle Russia‘s changing landscape or was surrounded by terrible advisers. What were the reasons or factors that led to his decision-making? Was he really that out of touch with the common folk as they made him seem to be? And was Alexandra really responsible for some of the terrible decisions that he made?
This is still a very hotly debated question today and much of what is being written about Tsar Nicholas today is being filtered through the current Russian political lens which would be very sympathetic to Nicholas which I will come to later.
To understand why things went so badly for Nicholas we need to look at the time in which he ascended the throne. Russia had been ruled by the Romanovs as a good ol fashioned Autocracy. In other words, all political power and decision making stemmed from the Tsar himself. Whilst the Tsar could appoint nobles (generally) into positions of power, typically it was the Tsar that was the head of it all.
Firstly, Nicholas father had been a well loved and revered ruler and passed earlier than expected. So early in fact that, originally, he had been waiting till Nicholas was 30 before he began schooling him in being the next Tsar and, instead, Nicholas was crowned at the ripe old age of 26. This is important to remember.
Secondly, though Nicholas was reported to be charming, gentle and deeply devoted to family, he was also indecisive, easily manipulated by family and prideful to a fault. On top of all that, he was doggedly tenacious around his belief in autocracy and his own divine right to rule Russia. At many points in his early reign, when political reform was raised with him, he would promise to look into it and then double down on his desire to do the complete opposite of reform.
Thirdly, a little scuffle broke out in 1914 and, against the better judgement of his generals, Nicholas wished to take command of Russia’s part in the war. As WW1 drew on, conditions on the home front got pretty bad for anyone who wasn’t a noble and dissent arose.
Ultimately, there are three key assessments of Nicholas. One, that he was inept and woeful inadequate compared with his beloved father. Two, he was a capable enough ruler but he had surrounded himself with the wrong people and events transpired against him. Three, and probably the kindest assessment, is that Nicholas was the perfect autocrat in his tenacity and belief in autocracy but the world had moved on from autocracy as a viable method of government and Nicholas missed multiple chances to help his country transition to another type in a peaceful, dignified manner.