Why we blame Nicholas?
Maybe , because there were nothing good during this reign which ended by horrible revolution?
I will try to compare:
1. Iwan the Terrible - he made the country a quite bigger
Some would not call this a blessing, given the tremendous, long-term problems attached to governing such a vast geographic area. But more specifically, Ivan IV subjugated the boyar class (a check on autocratic power thus eliminated), fatally weakened the Orthodox church (another check on autocratic power gone), subjected the country to a reign of terror that set a dangerous precedent with its separate co-existent police state (the oprichnina), and bankrupted the nation with his disastrous and unnecessary Livonian War. Additionally, he killed his heir and left a succession problem that led directly to the Time of Troubles.
2. Peter the Great - he changed the county and made a window to Europe.
Historians have already demonstrated that Russia during the reign of Alexei was on the road to Westernizing - albeit very gradually and incrementally. What Peter did was to compress a century's worth of gradual change into one extremely violent and turbulent reign - he inflicted on the nation a revolution from above, the first of many to be endured by the Russian people. In doing so, he left a schism between the upper, Westernized classes and the majority of the population, who became ever more deeply enmeshed in serfdom. This is not to denigrate Peter's accomplishments but to put them into a larger perspective. Peter's goal was for Russia to be a European power - not the better welfare of his people.
Peter also failed to solve the problem of administering such a vast empire (which he had added on to with his conquests against Sweden) and left a succession problem of his own. Additionally, he succeeded in demolishing the Orthodox Church as an institution separate from the state, completing the destructive job that Ivan the Terrible had started. Some may applaud this, until it is remembered that in the West, the Church played a pivotal role in the development of institutional checks on the authoritarian power of kings.
3. Anna Ioanovna and Peter III - their reign period was not so long (maximum 10 years for Anna, which was ended by Court Revolution made by Elizaveth).
True enough, but the nobles attempted (and failed) to put checks on autocratic power at the outset of Anna's reign; and Peter III ended obligatory state service for the nobility - a concession which even Catherine the Great did not dare go back on.
4. Nicholas I - He remarkably good cleared the Decabrist's case then he brought an order to Russian Empire. People became wealthy.
Nicholas I was well aware that serfdom was a liability to a modern European state. He even formed a special committee to look into abolishing it. But he hesitated to take the final step.
He also got Russia into the catastrophic Crimean War - in which Russia's weakness and ill-preparedness demonstrated that broad-sweeping reforms were urgently needed and had been too long delayed.
5. Alexandr III - No war with florished economy. Industrial boom have begun.
Forcible Russification of ethnic minorities, including the Poles, Finns and Balts; clampdown on the zemstva, those organs of local self-government that might have saved the monarchy in the end, if they had only been encouraged to develop; increasing poverty and indebtedness of the nobility and peasantry; increasing radicalization of the Russian intelligentsia and elites.
I guess my point is that the unravelling of the Russian autocracy took centuries to achieve, and that many if not most of the problems Nicholas II inherited were endemic and had gone unsolved by generations of rulers before him. I think it's expecting a bit much that one man would be able to overcome such enormous difficulties in the space of a single reign - at most, I think even a genius (which Nicholas clearly was not) could only have delayed the March Revolution by twenty years or so.
