What do you think Rasputin's motivation was in helping the IF?

[AngelAnastasia]

In Massie's book, Nicholas and Alexandra, he states that Rasputin had no desire for money or power, but only to continue living out his debauched lifestyle.
If that was the case, why did Rasputin help the Imperial Family in easing Alexei's hemophilia symptoms? I doubt it was out of sympathy as I believe that he was evil.
Perhaps to boast about gaining such favor with the tsar of Russia to (who else?) women? Maybe Rasputin told women that if they, um, granted his favors, then he could persuade the tsar to make decisions that they wanted? That really is all I can think of, but I know there definitely could be more solid theories out there.
Suggestions?

[wakas]

I know it's not your first post, AngelAnastasia, but anyway, welcome on the forum!

I'm not a fan of Rasputin either, but I do think that his intentions were good, at least at the beginning. He really wanted to help them. And it was only after that he began to abuse of his position. However, I'm not a specialist of the subject. That's only my opinion.
Not too long ago, someone recommanded me a book, called "The Murder of Grigorii Rasputin:" by Margarita Nelipa. I've heard  it demystify a lot of things about Rasputin. Maybe you'll find your answer there.
Hope it does help you.

[edubs31]

I agree with 'wakas' and do not think Rasputin was evil. In fact he seemed to have a fairly developed sense of social justice. One example that stands out is his defense of the Jews...surely not a position popular with many Orthodox Christians in late imperial Russia.

He wanted to help the imperial family even if his motives were driver largely by personal gain. I really don't see this as being all that different from church clergy asking for monetary donations from its members. People in general often have selfish motives, even when we do favors.

The question I have, and perhaps this is something Nelipa touched on in her book that I have not yet read, is what did Rasputin think of himself. Did he truly believe he was equipped with special powers and granted spiritual gifts from God? Or did he know all along that he was a charlatan, and use only his clever skills & guile to make his way into the imperial circle?

[AngelAnastasia]

Not too long ago, someone recommanded me a book, called "The Murder of Grigorii Rasputin:" by Margarita Nelipa. I've heard  it demystify a lot of things about Rasputin. Maybe you'll find your answer there.
Hope it does help you.

Thanks for the reccomendation! I'm at a paradox as to whether or not I want to read a biography of Rasputin's. I would love to learn more about the subject, but at the same time I'm not a fan of raunchiness, which of course Rasputin had a ton of, so I don't know how explicit it would be...

[wakas]

Not too long ago, someone recommanded me a book, called "The Murder of Grigorii Rasputin:" by Margarita Nelipa. I've heard  it demystify a lot of things about Rasputin. Maybe you'll find your answer there.
Hope it does help you.

Thanks for the reccomendation! I'm at a paradox as to whether or not I want to read a biography of Rasputin's. I would love to learn more about the subject, but at the same time I'm not a fan of raunchiness, which of course Rasputin had a ton of, so I don't know how explicit it would be...

I don' like raunchiness either, so i understand your hesitation. Unfortunately I can't tell how much explicit the book is, as I didn't read it. But from what I've heard it's a very interesting book. Maybe I'll buy it someday, cause I really want to know what kind of man Rasputin truly was.

[wakas]

The question I have, and perhaps this is something Nelipa touched on in her book that I have not yet read, is what did Rasputin think of himself. Did he truly believe he was equipped with special powers and granted spiritual gifts from God? Or did he know all along that he was a charlatan, and use only his clever skills & guile to make his way into the imperial circle?

Very interesting question. I've never considered the question from his own point of view before and I have no idea of the answer. However, I'd like to know it too.

[AngelAnastasia]

I would have never guessed that Rasputin had somewhat of good intentions from the way he is always portrayed. For me, it's the equivalent of trying to picture a macho Nicholas, a bubbly Alexandra, or an elderly Alexei - bizarre.
I'm leaning more towards buying Rasputin's biography now, he was quite a complex character.

[Georgiy]

You certainly should read Margarita Nelipa's book. It provides a lot of information about Rasputin and was in no way 'raunchy'. Rasputin was in my opinion not evil. He seems to have been a genuine Orthodox believer, in the beginning, and I think had good intentions at least at first. However, I think he was naive, used, and fell victim to his own passions.

[AngelAnastasia]

You certainly should read Margarita Nelipa's book. It provides a lot of information about Rasputin and was in no way 'raunchy'.

Alright, thanks for letting me know, as that was my main concern.

Rasputin was in my opinion not evil. He seems to have been a genuine Orthodox believer, in the beginning, and I think had good intentions at least at first. However, I think he was naive, used, and fell victim to his own passions.

Interesting.

[Belochka]

You certainly should read Margarita Nelipa's book. It provides a lot of information about Rasputin and was in no way 'raunchy'. Rasputin was in my opinion not evil. He seems to have been a genuine Orthodox believer, in the beginning, and I think had good intentions at least at first. However, I think he was naive, used, and fell victim to his own passions.

Many thanks for recommending my book Georgiy!

Best regards,

Margarita

[Georgiy]

Your book was well balanced and an interesting read. I am looking forward to the one about the Tsesarevich.

[Belochka]

Your book was well balanced and an interesting read. I am looking forward to the one about the Tsesarevich.

The Tsesarevich book should be available next year.

It will not just be a simple story about a boy and his dog, but will also examine the era in which he lived and died.

Margarita

[Belochka]

You certainly should read Margarita Nelipa's book. It provides a lot of information about Rasputin and was in no way 'raunchy'. Rasputin was in my opinion not evil. He seems to have been a genuine Orthodox believer, in the beginning, and I think had good intentions at least at first. However, I think he was naive, used, and fell victim to his own passions.

Another very important aspect about my book concerning Grigorii Rasputin is that it dispells the utter nonsense that a British military weapon was supposedly used at the crime scene.

Margarita

[John Walker]

I delayed replying to Belochka's last post waiting to see if Richard Cullen would bite - which I presume was the purpose of the post!  Richard has been strangely silent since Jan 2012 when Belochka suggested a confusion in bullet size caused by misunderstanding of imperial and metric measurements.  Richard!  You may be tired of having your opinion and that of the top British forensic pathologist, Professor Derick Pounder, questioned but you would do us all a favour if you made an unequivocal statement in reply.
In the absence of a response from Richard I must contradict Belochka's statement that Nelipa's book "....dispels the utter nonsense that a British military weapon was used.....".  It doesn't!  It merely states the author's view that one wasn't used.  Richard Cullen states Pounder "...concluded that he had no doubt that the injury to the head ..... was caused by an unjacketed (lead) bullet of .455 calibre as used in the Webley Revolver".
Reverting to the original subject, Rasputin's motivation, Nelipa's book is essential reading for anyone trying to understand the man.  There are contentious issues in the book but the biography of the man and the assessment of his character are exceptionally well balanced and researched;  I felt the author was presenting an unbiased report on the man and then drawing reasoned and well-argued conclusions.  Many authors do it the other way around.  They start with their belief and then write a selective biography to justify that belief.