Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #1

[Tsarfan]

Hi, AGRBear.  The quote from Alexandra at Tobolsk was reported in "The Fate of the Romanovs" by Greg King and Penny Wilson, on p. 85.  She said to an attendant, within earshot of both Yakovlev and Kobylinski, "If he is taken alone, he'll do something stupid, like he did before" (apparently referring to the abdication).

She also told Yakovlev on his introductory visit that she did not allow anyone to see the Emperor outside of her presence -- a rather interesting glimpse into the nature of their relationship.

The quote from Botkin might have come from the same book, but I cannot find it on a quick perusal.  (I've read so many things that, while I'm pretty good on remembering the quotes, I lose track of the sources.)  

[helenazar]

BTW, is an exaggerated emotional dependency on one's spouse also a trait of ACOA?

I believe that co-dependency, which could go either way - either being overly submissive or overly domineering toward another person, usually a spouse. I would say it fits, but then again, it's difficult to say since the guy has been dead for almost 90 years and we never actually met him . But as I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Here are some of the traits (from ACOA site):

-Frightened by angry people and any personal criticism.

- Live life from the viewpoint of victims and are attracted by that weakness in love and friendship relations.

- Have an overdeveloped sense of responsibility.

- Judge selves harshly and have a very low sense of self-esteem.

- Dependent personalities who are terrified of abandonment

- Reactors rather than actors

[RichC]

Rich C did mention to whom he wrote.  The person was Uncle Vladimir, and it was before Nicholas became Tsar.

Was good old uncle Vladimir like our uncle/cousin Henry?

This note/letter certainly tells us he was willing to swallow his pride and admit he'd made a mistake.  What was the mistake?

Also, we need to take note this was written before he became Tsar.

AGRBear

AGRBear, I apologize.  I should have mentioned the source in my original post.  I'm afraid I was in a hurry to go out, so I left it out.  Anyway, I read the quote in a biography of Witte titled Count Sergei Witte and the Twilight of Imperial Russia by Sidney Harcave, Sharpe, 2004.

The quote appears in chapter 6 and the note says it was from Krasnyi arkhiv 17 (Red Archive 17) published in 1926.  Apparently Red Archive was a leading Soviet historical journal and was published from the early 1920's through World War II.

BTW, Nicholas wrote the note shortly after he became Tsar, not before.

[Elisabeth]

I believe that co-dependency, which could go either way - either being overly submissive or overly domineering toward another person, usually a spouse. I would say it fits, but then again, it's difficult to say since the guy has been dead for almost 90 years and we never actually met him . But as I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Here are some of the traits (from ACOA site):

-Frightened by angry people and any personal criticism.

- Live life from the viewpoint of victims and are attracted by that weakness in love and friendship relations.

- Have an overdeveloped sense of responsibility.

- Judge selves harshly and have a very low sense of self-esteem.
 
- Dependent personalities who are terrified of abandonment

- Reactors rather than actors

I've got to admit, all this sounds very much like Nicholas.

He couldn't abide personal or professional confrontations, to the extent that he would agree with a person to his face rather than openly contradict him - then sack the person once he had left.

He viewed himself as a Job-like character, born on the day of Job and sentenced to a life of suffering and self-sacrifice. Being tsar was not an opportunity but yet another cross to bear.

He was certainly attracted to suffering. Alexandra was famous for her air of melancholy long before she ever gave birth to a hemophiliac son.

I've remembered another Nicholas quote, too, that exemplifies his low self-esteem. It concerns his relationship with the army: "How can you expect them to take commands from a dwarf?" or words to that effect. He was not tall like the other Romanov men - another source of self-loathing, it seems.

Emotionally dependent and afraid of abandonment: after the Revolution, Nicholas and Alexandra refused to countenance the idea that the family might be separated - the children sent to safety on their own. The emphasis on this very close, claustrophobic family circle, with very few outsiders - or even close relatives - allowed to penetrate its confines.

A reactor rather than an actor: well that sums it up quite nicely. Nicholas never did anything original; he always followed the lead of others - most notably his father, Alexander III, but also that of Nicholas Nikolaevich, in signing the October Manifesto.

Of course we can't know for certain that the shoe fits, because as Helen rightly says, we never met Nicholas personally - but at least on the surface it appears to be a remarkably close fit...  

[AGRBear]

I'm not sure if anyone can psychoanalyze Nicholas II because you cannot sit down with him and talk to him one on one.  Sure, we have a lot of "gossip", "rumors", stories, letters but much of it is based on heresay. And there is the factor of the mental state of the person writing the letter or ____.   Plus, there are too many unknowns.  We don't know how he was affected in events like his grandfather's Alex. II's death, or what kind of relationship he had with his father who may have been known to drink to much and may have been a "mean drunk"....  And, I could go on and on....  There wre rumors he was smoking "hemp" and for a time taking "cocaine" ....  We don't know if he suffered from lack of sleep or scattered moments of depression or deep depression....  Was he one of those smart people who have a hard  time with people?  Was he above average in intelligence but never had the proper guidence?  Etc. Etc. Etc. .  

I think it's best to stick to historial facts on this thread which tell us the "negative attributes" and if you want to be an arm chair psycholoist  perhaps we can  continue this line of thought over on a new thread.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Thanks Rich C and Tarfan for the sources.

I always like to know where I can find all the "goodies" being thrown around on this thread which has proven quite interesting.

AGRBear

[Elisabeth]

I'm not sure if anyone can psychoanalyze Nicholas II because you cannot sit down with him and talk to him one on one.  Sure, we have a lot of "gossip", "rumors", stories, letters but much of it is based on heresay. And there is the factor of the mental state of the person writing the letter or ____.   Plus, there are too many unknowns.  We don't know how he was affected in events like his grandfather's Alex. II's death, or what kind of relationship he had with his father who may have been known to drink to much and may have been a "mean drunk"....  And, I could go on and on....  There wre rumors he was smoking "hemp" and for a time taking "cocaine" ....  We don't know if he suffered from lack of sleep or scattered moments of depression or deep depression....  Was he one of those smart people who have a hard  time with people?  Was he above average in intelligence but never had the proper guidence?  Etc. Etc. Etc. .  

I think it's best to stick to historial facts on this thread which tell us the "negative attributes" and if you want to be an arm chair psycholoist  perhaps we can  continue this line of thought over on a new thread.

AGRBear

Bear, whether you are aware of it or not, all this "psychoanalysis" of Nicholas makes him a much more sympathetic character than Tsarfan and a truckload of historians have made him out to be. The general historical verdict is that Nicholas was a terrible tsar: dull-witted (even stupid), weak-willed, indecisive and demonstrably incompetent.

ACOA therapy merely attempts to explain why some people, the children of alcoholics, behave in self-defeating or even self-destructive ways, as Nicholas clearly did. I don't see anything disrespectful in trying to see Nicholas as a human being who suffered from certain developmental disadvantages because of his alcoholic father.

Otherwise you are left with a massively incompetent tsar with no excuse for his incompetence - something I hardly think you want!

[RichC]

Bear, whether you are aware of it or not, all this "psychoanalysis" of Nicholas makes him a much more sympathetic character than Tsarfan and a truckload of historians have made him out to be. The general historical verdict is that Nicholas was a terrible tsar: dull-witted (even stupid), weak-willed, indecisive and demonstrably incompetent.

ACOA therapy merely attempts to explain why some people, the children of alcoholics, behave in self-defeating or even self-destructive ways, as Nicholas clearly did. I don't see anything disrespectful in trying to see Nicholas as a human being who suffered from certain developmental disadvantages because of his alcoholic father.

Otherwise you are left with a massively incompetent tsar with no excuse for his incompetence - something I hardly think you want!

I agree.  It does make him more sympathetic.  Earlier in this thread I was suggesting that Nicholas' failures had more to do with his character/personality traits rather than a lack of raw brains.  Perhaps he did suffer more than we hitherto realized from bad parenting.  Indeed, I know people who might score very well on an IQ test but nevertheless make very bad decisions in their lives because they were poorly brought-up.

Perhaps if Nicholas had been brought up by people who strove to give him the confidence in himself he seems to have lacked, things might have been different.  Also, that's really too bad about the height thing.  If his father was making fun of him over his height -- that's unforgivable.   Nicholas was a very handsome, powerfully built, man.  It's a shame if he felt inadequate because he was short.  

[Tsarfan]

Now c'mon, folks . . . I never said Nicholas was not a sympathetic human being.

One of the fundamental problems of hereditary monarchy is that people often end up in roles of almost unimaginable responsibility who have neither inclination nor talent for the roles.  As much as we might pity Nicholas as a human being, he nevertheless occupied a role on which the well-being and even the lives of millions of people depended.  Thousands of Jews died or were dispossessed during the pogroms of his reign.  1.4 million Russians died in the first year of the Great War.  Untold millions died under Stalin.  The fact that Nicholas might have not been up to the role because his father was an alcoholic is small comfort for the millions of victims of his policies.

Abdication or refusing one's inheritance was not unheard of in the Romanov family.  There is compelling evidence that Alexander I might have faked his death to escape his duties.  His next-eldest brother Constantine refused the throne, which instead passed to Nicholas I.  Grand Duke Michael in 1917 refused the throne (albeit in extenuating circumstances).  The paradox is that Nicholas was too weak to be tsar and too weak not to be.

And we're all a little out on a limb here attributing so much so readily to an alcholic father.  There are a few anecdotal indications that Alexander drank to excess.  There are more indications that he didn't:  an early riser who pursued a gruelling work schedule, a wife who seemed truly devoted to him, a doting daughter (Olga) who took her father candidly to task in her old age for certain failings . . . but never his drinking.  Additionally, there are masses of writings on his reign, memoires by imperial ministers and others from the era, and correspondence within the imperial family that make no mention of it.  It's quite a stretch to pin so much of Nicholas' failures on such a thin thread of evidence.

[helenazar]

There are a few anecdotal indications that Alexander drank to excess.  There are more indications that he didn't:  an early riser who pursued a gruelling work schedule, a wife who seemed truly devoted to him, a doting daughter (Olga) who did take her father candidly to task in her old ago for certain failings . . . but never his drinking.  Additionally, there are masses of writings on his reign, memoires by imperial ministers and others from the era, and correspondence within the imperial family that make no mention of it.  It's quite a stretch to pin so much of Nicholas' failures on such a thin thread of evidence.

I have news for you  : being an alcoholic doesn't always mean spending most of your time in a drunken stupor, lying somewhere in the gutter and coming home to beat up your wife and children. This is a huge myth. 90% of functioning alcoholics can be described exactly how you just described A III.
In addition, in Russia, drinking to excess would not be considered that abnormal, so I don't think anyone would make a big deal out of it by documenting it in their memoirs, etc, a lot.
However, if he was indeed an alcoholic, all AIII's children (and his wife) would have been effected by it one way or another. And since NII happened to be the Tsar of all the Russias, whatever effected him, effected the rest of the country. Not everything what happened could be attributed to this, but if this indeed was the case, a lot could be. Read up on ACOA's, you'd be surprised!  

[Tsarfan]

I'm not as unfamiliar with alcoholism as you think.  My partner just got the 12-year medal from AA and is very active in support groups for alcoholics and their families.

However, I still want to see more evidence of Alexander's alcholism than the tales of a tour guide at the Tauride Palace, who was the original source of the story about the "hide-away".  It seems to me that parental conduct that would have been sufficient to create a character as weak as Nicholas' would have drawn more comment than we see in the record.

[helenazar]

However, I still want to see more evidence of Alexander's alcholism than the tales of a tour guide at the Tauride Palace, who was the original source of the story about the "hide-away".  It seems to me that parental conduct that would have been sufficient to create a character as weak as Nicholas' would have drawn more comment than we see in the record.

Oh, I am definitely not trying to say that this is a historical fact, it's not! But we are just talking about some interesting possibilities, that's all...

[RichC]

Even if it turns out that Alexander III never drank and was never an alcoholic (I never read anywhere that he was one) I have read numerous sources that state he was a lousy father to Nicholas.  Shouldn't that be taken into account when discussing Nicholas' attributes?

When Nicholas won Alix's hand his father told him something like, "I never expected you to succeed."  What a thing to say!

[helenazar]

Even if it turns out that Alexander III never drank and was never an alcoholic (I never read anywhere that he was one) I have read numerous sources that state he was a lousy father to Nicholas.  Shouldn't that be taken into account when discussing Nicholas' attributes?
 

Absolutely. It sort of amounts to the same thing though: his parent's influence on the formation of his character.

[Tsarfan]

Granted, there were negative parental influences on Nicholas.  But such influences can produce strength of character and a determination to prove oneself as well as weakness.  A lot depends on the raw material.

Look at the great monarchs who had horrific childhood experiences:

Elizabeth I of England, whose mother was beheaded by her father, spent her childhood cycling in and out of grace in a court where the consequences could be deadly.  In fact, she came within a tentative signature of being murdered by her half sister.  She laid the economic foundations for England's future empire and oversaw England's rise to global naval domination.

Frederick the Great was bullied and abused by his father.  He was even forced to watch the beheading of his best childhood friend (and likely lover) by his father.  He went on to become a great general who established the hegemony of Prussia in central Europe and the core of what became modern Germany.

Louis XIV had a manipulative mother who ignored her son's interests to connive with her lover Cardinal Richelieu to the point that the nobility revolted, almost taking Louis captive.  His reign was the apogee of absolutism in modern Europe.

Peter the Great witnessed the wholesale murder of his mother's extended family during childhood and barely escaped with his life.  He was brought up in part by a half sister who, had she seen the necessity in time, would have probably eliminated him to clear her own way to the throne.  He went on to turn Russia into a land and sea power of the first order.

Catherine the Great was hauled from home as a teenager and parachuted into a strange world of violent politics where she was wed to a murderous sadist.  She managed to become the dominant monarch of her age.

Yes, Nicholas' father was an insensitive lout, and his mother was an overly-protective shield.  Elizabeth, Frederick, Louis, Peter, and Catherine should have been so lucky.

If monarchs can get off the hook for destroying their countries by arguing an unpleasant childhood, it's a true blessing that the institution is breathing its last in our times.  Monarchs have always set themselves above and apart from the rest of humanity.  In so doing, they lose the defense of humanness for their mistakes.

Jeez . . . now I'm wondering why I chose "Tsarfan" as my moniker.  I really do have a love/hate relationship with the institution of monarchy, I guess.