Emperor Alexander I

[kenmore3233]

From many sources I have learned that Alexander Pavlovich was a very handsome man. Does anyone have pictures that could prove it? I'd be very much obliged

Alexander was definitely known for his sex life. His romantic partners included, among others, Queen Louise of Prussia and Josephine DeBeauharnais, the ex-wife of Napoleon. He was also involved with Josephine's daughter.

[leanora]

Alexander was definitely known for his sex life. His romantic partners included, among others, Queen Louise of Prussia and Josephine DeBeauharnais, the ex-wife of Napoleon. He was also involved with Josephine's daughter.

Hmmm, We haven't read the same things, apparently

For my part, I ever read that Alexander I was not particularly "hot" for sexual relations. He liked to attract women.  But in fact he was never fond of sexual relations. The case of Queen Louise (queen of prussia) is a good example.there was a big attraction between  Alexander I and Louise of Prussia. But their love affair was never more than a simple flirt. it seems that the emperor used to lock the door of his bedroom when he was in official visits in Pussia, because he was afraid the queen (or any other young woman) to slip into his bed. This was the same things for most of the women that Alexander I met in his life.

[Fay]

However it was, after all this napoleonic mess he became very religious, even a mistic, and there was no place for sexual matters in his life anymore. His obsession with God and Christianity was one of the reasons he left his lover and came back to his wife , for example.

[Romanov_fan]

I think he was defintely attractive compared to some of  his contemporaries. As for today's standards, it's hard to tell from old portraits, but not so much. Of course attraction lies in other things than just purely looks. I myself don't find him attractive/handsome, but I can see why contemporaries did. He did have as many mistresses as any other Russian ruler in his younger days, but they weren't the famous people some mentioned.Those were more flirtations, if you will.

[Romanov_fan]

Does the Royal lovers topic still exist? -It souns interesting.

[GD Alexandra]

Does the Royal lovers topic still exist? -It souns interesting.

Only in the Discussion about Iberian Royalty...maybe we should re-open the subject, It really must be interesting.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, it must be. I will look it up. I guess I don't frequent that thread.

[Laura Mabee]

When thinking back to Alexander I and his "reforms" and reign, would you say that he was a pushover? Or do you think his reforms were made through strong will?

To be honest, I am confused. I've been reading over many sources and they all seem to be pointing in different directions. Overall it seems that Alexander I did not let people 'make his decisions' but rather kept friends and good councillors near him to support his ideas. If the men were of like minds with him, (which they all seemed to be for the most case) he would listen to their ideas (provided they showed an orderly, rational, or militaristic fashion to them).
When looking at Speransky, it seemed that the two men were rather like in mind, particularly through 1810-1812.  What about Arakcheev, does anyone feel that he overpowered the Tsar with his own opinions?

I would love all opinions and suggestions for sources.
Thanks so much!
Warmest,
Laura

[Yseult]

Laura, from my point of view, Alexander was more a pushover. Of course, he had the education of a great prince born in the Age of Enlightenment since his paternal grandmother Catherine trusted him to the swiss tutor Frederic Caesar de Laharpe. Laharpe followed the intellectual line traced by the men who regarded themselves from a elite with a mission: to lead the world into progress, taking away irrationality, doubtful superstition and tyranny. The old ways needed to be replaced by new ways of government.

Of course, Catherine was wise enough, or maybe pragmatical enough, to select a second tutor on Alexander: Nikolay Saltykov, a militar who had not the deep beliefs of Laharpe about love of mankind. He was choosen to teach Alexander all the traditions of Russian authocracy.

I think that Alexander was an authocrat with a truly desire of made great reforms, but this was not a new thing in the Russian story. The brief tsar Feodor III, under the influence of his polish friends, made a number of reforms. The regent Sophia Alexeyevna, with his famous advisor prince Golytsin, made a number of reforms. The tsar Peter the Great made a lot of reforms. The german friends of tsarina Anna Ivanovna or later the ministers of Elisabeth Petrovna made a good deal of reforms, too. Catherine tried to enlightened his reign. Paul tried to balanced the reforms of his hated mother reign with his own chivalric ideals. So, Russia was into a large, very large, process of reforms. Of course, Alexander took all this inheritance and go straight ahead...but always with a great support.

I believe that Alexander was seriously damaged by his childhood, when he was always emotionally torn between his grandmother (who adored him) and his father (who suffered a great jealousy to him, because it was said that old Cat wished to be succeeded not for her son, but for her grandson). Alexander became a man who needed a good deal of support. He had his entourage...all these men: Victor Kochubey, Nikolay Novosiltsev, Adam Jerzy Czartorisky, Pavel Stroganof, Mikhail Speransky... They were his "guiding lights", the candles who lighted the path to follow it. Of course, I can be wrong, but I think that without all these men encouraging him, Alexander never had done all that he done.

[Romanov_fan]

Alexander was a complicated man, I have read much about him, and he seems an enigma still at the end. He was very much of the enlightenment education, and tried to do his best to rule this way, but it doesn't seem to have been very extensive, or to have made much of an impact, although I could be wrong. His grandmother, Catherine, never accomplished all the reforms she wished, largely out of practical considerations, so her youthful idealism disapeared. It was rather this way with Alexander as well, that he perhaps intended to do more than he did early on when he had such promise, or later. He might have got lost in ideas rather than action, and I think his childhood was a strange one, his grandmother wanted him as her heir literally, and also in the realm of thought, but he was more complicated than that.

[ilyala]

he was very popular compared to his father. when he came to the throne he was seen as the hope of the nation. the way he handled napoleon was also perceived as quite heroic (although he was quite a duplicitary person). i think he worked quite a lot at his image and that his image helped sugarcoat his more autocratic tendencies. i understand he started off well but ended up being paranoid and controlling.

[Romanov_fan]

He did start off well. I think he wanted to have a good image, but although his grandmother had groomed him in a more modern take on her own image, it seems he never really followed it. At first he did try to be seen as an enlightening and reforming ruler, but later on not so much. He was someone, who like his grandmother may have prefered the image to the reality, but in his case for the wrong reasons. He may have wanted to be seen as a reforming ruler, but he may not have been as conflicted about the issues of reforms, etc as his grandmother was, even if she never carried much of that stuff out.

[LisaDavidson]

I usually avoid answering questions such as this because in my experience, most people do not neatly fit into categories such as "pushover" or "strong willed". I am sure at times he was both at different times of his life. Historians generally regard him as very enigmatic. I found this to be the case also with Nicholas II, who I was recently writing about. What I think can be said about Alexander I is that he made a very strong impression on Western Europe. I really don't think that someone who could be categorized as a "pushover" would have made such a splash.

[Romanov_fan]

I think we are never going to know who Alexander I really was. He came from a complicated dynasty, at a very complicated point, and he inheirited that legacy. His upbringing, being basically raised in Catherine's image, and to her ideal was one thing that must have been confusing. He didn't grow up with his parents, like his own father, although Paul's example as a ruler or person was scarcely a good one, or encouraging one. He always felt guilty over how he came to the throne, and how his father died, but how could it have been any other way? Akexander's rule was better for Russia than that of Paul.

[Laura Mabee]

Thank you guys for your replies.   
I really enjoyed what everyone thoughts were. I have been doing a lot more reading on Alexander I since September, and think of him as quite an interesting Tsar.
 
I really enjoyed everyone's thoughts on Alexander's impressions on the rest of the world. Do you think his actions with Napoleon were his defining moment as Tsar? I have been rolling over some ideas on what made Alexander I known to the rest of the world. So far, his few reforms are overshadowed by his Conquer of Napoleon. Any thoughts/opinions?