Nicholas II was Unprepared to Rule. Why?

[Romanov_fan]

I agree with Pavlov that Nicholas and Alexandra were not suited by personality to be rulers of a country such as Russia. In that sense, they contributed to the start of the Revolution;however, there were other factors at work, because the forces that led to the Revolution happening had been developing for years in Russia, long before the birth of Nicholas II, even. So these factors seem to have been more at work than Alexandra's personality and actions in causing the Revolution. Also, Queen Mary, King George V and the British royal family were constituentional monarchs, it must be kept in mind, which is rather different than being an autocrat like Nicholas II was, or an autocrat's consort, as Alexandra was. I think Nicholas would have made an excellant constitutional monarch, but he wasn't suited to be an autocrat. So the difference that the Romanovs, especially Nicholas and Alexandra had a lot of power, whereas the British royal family actually had very little power must be borne in mind, although it's true that Alexandra's personality and attitude was likely not suited to even being the consort of a constituentional monarch, and also Nicholas II was not a good autocrat.

[Alixz]

The topic of this thread and the question in the title is that Nicholas II was unprepared to rule and why was he unprepared to rule?

W know that he was "unsuited" as we always say, but why was he unsuited?  What was there about him and his up bringing that made him unsuitable.  What did he lack inherently and what was he denied by his surroundings that left him unable to rule the Russian Empire at the time that he was chosen to do so?

And why, when he was so lacking in the ability to make up his mind and seemed to agree with the last person he spoke to, was he so dead set on Alix as his only consort?

He courted her for nearly 10 years if you go back to his first meeting with her at the wedding of Ella and Serge.  If he had only put half as much effort into governing his country as he put into securing Alix for his wife, he would have been an admirable monarch.

[Yelena Aleksandrovna]

I read that He didn't feel able to became Tsar, and also he didn't want to
be Tsar

[mercman]

In The Last Days of the Romanovs there are references to drug use, "probably a blend of henbane and hashish administered by a Tibetan doctor, P.A. Badmaev, recommended by Rasputin to counter stress and insomnia."  I know this was discussed briefly in a thread about Alexandra's illness, but there was no further discussion about proof of this potential addiction that the royal couple may have shared.  There are also sources claiming that they were addicted to opiate analgesics, probably related to Nicholas' headaches and the Tsaritsa's sciatica, which continued during their captivity.  Being a physician, I can tell you that addicts go through hard-to-conceal withdrawal symptoms within a few days of missing their drugs (opiates).  This is not the same for hashish, which is a THC containing substance.

[nena]

True. Rasputin had something do to with those 'pills/drugs' Tsar used sometimes. I read that in Razdinsky's Rasputin File.

In The Last Days of the Romanovs there are references to drug use, "probably a blend of henbane and hashish administered by a Tibetan doctor, P.A. Badmaev, recommended by Rasputin to counter stress and insomnia."

[PAVLOV]

I think many people in the those days used drugs like hashish and cocaine, and even took small quantities of arsenic and strichnine for various ailments. Unless Nicholas abused his "medication", one will never know how this affected his performance as Tsar.

I think his situation would probably have driven most people to either drink or drugs. Who knows.....he may have found that being a bit high helped him get through the day ! 

I dont want to say this, but if I was married to Alexandra, I would probably not have been averse to a bit of self "medication" myself. 

   

[RomanovsFan4Ever]

I dont want to say this, but if I was married to Alexandra, I would probably not have been averse to a bit of self "medication" myself.  

The problem is that Nicholas II considered Alexandra has his self medication...he was undecided about a political decision?, he asked suggestions to Alexandra, he allowed Alexandra to read and comment his personal notes on his diary, he accepted Rasputin in the court life (as well as the political life!!!) because Alexandra asked him to do so...it looks like a dependence, isn't it?

[Mexjames]

In The Last Days of the Romanovs there are references to drug use, "probably a blend of henbane and hashish administered by a Tibetan doctor, P.A. Badmaev, recommended by Rasputin to counter stress and insomnia."  I know this was discussed briefly in a thread about Alexandra's illness, but there was no further discussion about proof of this potential addiction that the royal couple may have shared.  There are also sources claiming that they were addicted to opiate analgesics, probably related to Nicholas' headaches and the Tsaritsa's sciatica, which continued during their captivity.  Being a physician, I can tell you that addicts go through hard-to-conceal withdrawal symptoms within a few days of missing their drugs (opiates).  This is not the same for hashish, which is a THC containing substance.

Do you think that the lack of "medication" would have caused, in turn, a lack of decision-making on the part of the Emperor? Would the withdrawal symptom be, at least in part, a passive attitude?

On the other hand, I don't know to what extent the physicians of the day knew the effect of the drugs they prescribed, like opiates, for example.  Would there be any chance that the opposite would happen, that is, that realizing the Emperor's addiction, his captors would actually give him enough medication to keep him "high"? Could the Emperor's behavior also be due to the fact that his captors might have blackmailed him to "stay put", or else, no drugs?

[mercman]

Withdrawal from opiates appears, at least to a casual observer, like a really bad "cold."  And there is too much cause and effect for even the most uneducated person to realize that they need the drug.  So I seriously doubt that this could have gone unnoticed, even back then by his lowly captors.  If this was used to their (the captors) benefit in anyway is totally speculative at this point because we have not established that Nicholas was addicted to these drugs.

[Mexjames]

Thanks!

[nena]

I have been trying, for many times, to define Nicholas' personality from different spectars. (I am not Dominic Lieven   )

Nicholas lacked some important behaviours which were necessary for being the Sovereign Emperor of the Russia by the beginning of the 20th century. Unfortunately, both Nicholas and Alexandra left one bad image of heartless couple which are dancing in palace while peasants are dying in Moscow's hospitals. (Khodinka disaster) Yet Nicholas was one clever man, and had remarkable memory. And Alexandra's influence was fatal -- she recognized in him on weak man, who needs her support in any way, and then she (un)wittingly used it to 'manipulate'. She was stubborn.  But, he had been raised in Russian Orthodoxy, and he believed that any decision aimed towards democracy, may require people's vengeance and weakness of his state. On the other hand, it is partly fault of Alexander III himself. Instead of referring to the Tsesarevich 'You are like girlie', he could have given to him general instructions of ruling the country. After Tsar's premature death in Autumn of 1894 at Livadia, Tsesarevich Nicholas automatically refused all obligations for country and future ruling. He only wanted to avoid bloodshed, which is a contradiction with some references he said about killing people, like - you should have shot them! And, several Nicholas' concepts of looking at people were wrong. I mean, he thought that they are only poor peasants who are willingly working in fields having God's protection, while they are completely loyal to him. By this, I don't mean that he dispraised them. Anyway he got an epithet 'Bloody Nicholas'.  I have been wondering, was it easy to rule and to have in hands cca. 1/6 territory of the Earth? Certainly it wasn't. Nevertheless, Narodnaya Volya won in the end, and all of this ended with pogroms and needless bloodshed.  

It is my effort for being critical a bit. I don't want anyone to take this as bad.

[RomanovsFan4Ever]

It is my effort for being critical a bit. I don't want anyone to take this as bad.

I'm 100 % agree with you!...I think that you have done a very good analysis of the complex personality of Tsar Nicholas II.
I particularly appreciated what you said about the fault of Alexander III...referring to the future ruler of the biggest country of the world with the words "You are like a girl" was indeed injurious.

[PAVLOV]

 I think Nicholas II and Alexandra were, because of their mismanagement of Russia, entirely responsible for what happened in the end. If Nicholas had acted responsibly,and from a position of strength, instead of a position of weakness which was caused by their combined incompetence as rulers of the biggest nation on earth, they could have changed the course of events. Nicholas had many opportunities, even up to the end. He chose to ignore them.
The fact that they managed to survive the 1905 revolution was in itself a miracle. Senior court officials knew that Nicholas was aware of the march arranged by father Gapon, and chose to flee the Winter Palace for the safety of Tsarskoe Selo, coincidentally the night before the protest took place.  He left Grand Duke Vladimir to deal with the situation. They left in a carriage for the station  at the insistence of Alexandra who begged her husband to leave, and she was hardly ever to return to the capital since that fateful day. The divide between the Tsar and his people after that became complete, and the estrangement that separated him from Russian, fuelled by his wife's influence, assumed proportions that only became wider and wider as time went by. They therefore became distant and the subject of gossip. This combined with a bad education, neglect by his father as a weakling, the dominance of his ignorant and arrogant wife, made Nicholas totally unfit to rule Russia. How he managed to survive as long as he did is also a miracle.         

[Douglas]

Nicholas II was not prepared to rule Russia because his father Alexander III was unprepared to rule with with any real intelligence.

These problems go back several generations.

The Tsars lived in an unreal fantasy world of pampered luxury.  Weathy people live lives that are shielded from reality.  This is especially dangerous if this goes on for many generations.  They get soft and lazy and before you know it...the masses revolt and storm the palace.

[wox24]

Maybe he was unprepared but he was a good tsar. I know claims about him but Ihave not any reason to change my idea.