Author Topic: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2  (Read 180815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mazukov

  • Guest
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #390 on: September 07, 2006, 07:24:46 AM »
Ruling Russia was by no means a simple task. It was complex.Just looking at the situation of the times. On one side you had ultra rich, and ultra poor. During the turn of the century, Russia was moving fast into the industrial age, but her people working under harsh conditions for low wages, of course there screaming out for better wages, and better working conditions, the powers to be screaming no we should keep the status quo, along he was trying to push Russia into the 20th century and still rule as though it was the 18th and 19 th century. He was doing the right things in regard to pushing his country forwarded into the industrial age that other western countries had been already enjoying the fruits of the industrial age of the time.

The problem was that in Russia he had a work force that was not highly educated nor well trained, I’m not saying that everyone was like that but the major masses who needed do the word at hand had not been. So he did try to push it his country. His other problem and this is the one I think is the major one, he lacked the forced of will power to push it the right way. For example if he had dealt with his own family more firmly he may have been able to pull it off. Looking back at it now it’s easy for us to say hey he should have told his family I’m the tsar this is how we will do it if you don’t like it leave. But when dealing with them he tended to cave in which weakened his hand a great deal and caused a lot of turmoil. 

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #391 on: September 10, 2006, 06:02:14 PM »
Russia was a difficult country to rule, and the Imperial Family was one that was hard to be head of, although Russia was the harder. Nicholas did try, but things just didn't go right, and it was very complicated. It can't be narrowed down to him personally for sure, the cause of the revolution.World War I didn't help matters, and in fact if it hadn't started one wonders what would have been Russia's fate.

Nadezhda_Edvardova

  • Guest
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #392 on: September 15, 2006, 10:53:42 AM »
I think the reason I'm so interested in the IF and their time, culture is exactly because of the quandry.  The contradictions lead to conflict.  According to Elizabeth George (my favorite novelist), it is conflict which drives plot forward.  In the case of Nicholas and Alexandra, their story is endlessly full of contradictions, conflict.  An added level of interest is that their story is true, and we can actually see, touch the places and things with which they were connected.  Had they "lived happily ever after" we would find them very boring. 

They also offer what Anne Shirley called "scope for imagination."  We can exit our daily lives and live vicariously in theirs by looking at photographs, visiting palaces, reading books, or visiting this site and forum.  I idle hours away imagining that I am a member of their court, what would I choose to wear? what would my day be like? Would I choose cream, cognac, or jam in my tea? and so on.  It enlivens this schoolteacher's otherwise mundane existence.

Pax, N.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #393 on: September 18, 2006, 08:34:00 AM »
I think tragedy is part of the interest in the Romanov's story, for sure. But there are many other elements that keep us interested in the Romanovs, and get us interested in them in the first place, actually. The tragedy is there, and it is true that it always sparks human interest, but there is much more to interest us in the Romanovs rather than the quandry of their existence. I think there are many quandries in all our lives,not just one that could you cite as in the case of this specific thread with the Romanovs. Of course, all history actually is a sort of a escape, and yet it helps us remember what is important in real life as well-sort of a quandry. ;)

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #394 on: November 20, 2006, 06:34:53 PM »
I was about to mention the Gilded Age as Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)  christened it. Then I read that Bev mentioned it.  The Gilded Age was in every country.  Here in American there were fabulously rich and crushingly poor.  Anyone who lives anywhere near Newport RI should go to see the "mansions".  These were built as "summer cottages" and were lived in only about 8 week of the year.  These homes have in excess of 100 rooms!  Not a palace of 1000 rooms, but an extravagance none the less.  And the money to build all of this splendor was made on the backs of the working poor.

No country was exempt from the Gilded Age  (remember Titanic?).

I think it is the tragedy of the IFs death that causes of the quandary.  If Nicholas II had died of old age and in bed, I doubt that any of us would be as intrigued as we are by his faults and his graces.

Edited for spelling.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:19:26 PM by Alixz »

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #395 on: November 29, 2006, 11:52:24 AM »
What does the gilded age have to with the Romanovs? I know it was the 1890s, but I was wondering. The gilded age always makes me think of the Vanderbilts and their lifestyle.. But, in Russia it was always the gilded age, as it were for the Romanovs, was it not? But, the last Romanovs, despite the lifestyle they lived or could have lived, had rather simple tastes. That's a sort of quandary, in my mind?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:20:20 PM by Alixz »

James1941

  • Guest
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #396 on: November 29, 2006, 01:19:07 PM »
What has not been mentioned here is that hundreds of thousands of Russians were immigrating each year, mainly to the United States. If Russia had offered them any hope it is doubtful that this would have been the case. While those who made it to America might not have found its streets paved with gold and a chicken in every pot they did find opportunity and their children certainly prospered. Most of the great Hollywood moguls of the era where the sons of Russian immigrants. I think the fact that people were trying to get out of Russia and into the U.S. speaks volumes about conditions in Russia at that time.

Offline londo954

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Live Long and Prosper
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #397 on: November 29, 2006, 01:34:53 PM »
James that's an interesting point however i believe statistically a lot of the Russian immigrants were Jewish. America attracted people from all over the world, most every country in western Europe it is too simplify things too much to say that if things were better in their country they never would of came. America at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the twentieth offered the promise of more . The Myth of the American Dream still held but even that balloon was coming apart at the seems. America like England Ireland and even Russia had a rigid class structure however here the barriers were monetary and the rich took steps to make sure that the poor staid where they were. Only government intervention helped even things out a little ( ie The Sherman Anti Trust acts, Income tax, and later Social security) .
Food for thought ... America offered the myth of the American Dream that quickly fizzled for most of the immigrants. The attraction for the Russian immigrants was FREEDOM.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:21:51 PM by Alixz »

Janet_W.

  • Guest
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #398 on: November 29, 2006, 02:33:51 PM »
Thank you for quoting Anne Shirley, Nadezhda Edvardovna! She's a favorite of mine, too.

Like others who've contributed to this thread, I've also taken flak for being interested in Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children . . . though at times I've become disenchanted as well. But I always return to what drew me to them in the first place: two hardworking, conscientious Victorians, very much in love with each other--not just in the early throes of their physical passion, but throughout their lives--who are the parents of five attractive and distinctively different children, one of whom is disabled for life due to a condition that his loving mother, so desparate to provide her husband and Russia with an heir, has passed on to him.

That they were of the most elevated of European classes--royalty--does not necessarily make them "well bred" or better than others, but it certainly has caused them to be exceptionally well-documented. And since I am interested in people and the way they live their lives, I enjoy reading about royalty, as well as presidents, authors, actors and the like, because their lives tended to be well-documented.

But certainly the omniprescent air of tragedy is part of the equation as well. I have read voraciously about other lives with tragic endings--i.e., the Brontes, Mary Stuart, Anne Frank, Margaret Mitchell, Judy Garland--and tragic events such as Massada, the Titanic, the Alamo, the Donner Party, etc., but to read about people who had so much and then lost so much, but all the same retained their core values has particular appeal to me. The "glamour" of being a Romanov doesn't particularly appeal to me, though I'm certainly in line with them being happiest while living informally. Except for Alexandra, who did what she could within the constraints of her own physical and psychological issues, they performed as requested--especially Nicholas and his two eldest daughters--and enjoyed the perks of an exaulted lifestyle. But the children, being children--and also having been raised in a simple, common sense fashion by their parents--could be just as happy mingling with the average Russian and even "roughing it." Perhaps this is one of the reasons they managed to adapt to their varying levels of imprisonment.

Religion--or lack of religion--does not make a particular difference to me; what matters is the grace and humanity of the people involved.

Also, look around and you'll see that "The Gilded Age" is not really over . . . the nation/state/province/county/community in which you live in very likely features tremendous extremes of poverty and wealth. So in a very real sense we are still confronted with issues that were part of those times . . . the haves vs. the have-nots.

Those of us who wish to make something of our lives and make good decisions are also drawn to the Romanovs: We want to know why it all went wrong, and what we can tweak in our own lives to avoid the same or similar mistakes.

And then there's the matter of fate vs. self-determination. While I respect Shirley MacLaine as both an actress and an author, I don't concur with her belief that we choose the parents and the situations into which we are born. Instead I believe that we are largely the product of both our genetics and environment, of which--in my opinion--we have no choice. All that is left, then, is human will. And the story of Nicholas is very much one of how ancestry and environment--both of which were problematic even before his conception--shape our lives. That Nicholas chose to implement the only true variable--his will--in a way which he felt best but which ultimately brought about his downfall is, as with the flawed heroes of Roman and Greek literature--yet another part of the fascination.

A quandry? Not when we understand that the human condition is much the same today as it was then!
« Last Edit: November 29, 2006, 02:41:10 PM by Janet_W. »

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #399 on: December 14, 2006, 11:15:57 AM »
I did much enjoy Janet _W's post as well. There is not much I could say better than that. I think the Romanovs did not choose their tragedy, events just happened to them, and it was largely beyond any control of theirs. At any rate, some of their choices did make things happen faster.I think the KR quote in Alixz's profile says it very well, that they did not think the Revolution could happen, and that they were careless. I know he didn't write those words in that context, but I believe they can be applied to that family and dynasty, that he himself was a member of.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #400 on: December 14, 2006, 01:23:59 PM »
Imperial Angel,

You are right.  I believe that KR meant care free, but I put in the quote because it struck me, if taken the way you and I both see it, as a commentary on the Romanov condition.

When we are young, we are indeed careless and also care free.  Nicholas, however was not care free, not far a moment of his reign.  But he certainly could be viewed as careless.  The whole of the Romanov clan at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century could certainly be seen as "careless".

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #401 on: December 14, 2006, 03:22:46 PM »
Well, I'm glad we both saw the same thing in the KR quote. Where did you get it from? I think KR had a knack for writing about one thing, but it could easily mean another. That's true of many poems and plays though, isn't it? Perhaps KR caught the mood of the moment there, although he might not have realized it. He was a wise man, and maybe could see the nature of the dynasty and Russia, even if he wasn't writing it about that.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #402 on: December 14, 2006, 04:46:53 PM »
AI - I got it from the King/Wilson book  Gilded Prism  chapter 16 page 147.  It is a poem called Roses written in May 1885.  Way before any of the upheavals of the late 19 and early 20 century.

"In the days of the hopeful young,
"In the days of cloudless azure,
"To us, the storms were unknown,
"We were careless.
"The flowers smelled sweet to us,
"The Moon shone only to us,
"Only for me, with you at night
"Nightingales sang their grief
"In the carefree years.
"We knew the prose of the day:
"As it abounded in goodness,
"Like the fresh roses!
"Now, that time has long passed,
"Replaced with misfortune and grief,
"We encountered great grief;
"But to lose heart, my friend, is sinful:
"Behold, God's peace is excellent;
"The firmament is deep and pure,
"Our garden is green and fragrant,
"And on warm days, it is quiet and clear."
"It seeped through the door,
"The colors of dew, shining in our tears,
"Now, they are again good,
"As fresh as the roses!
"For all that we suffered,
"Grace renders to us a hundredfold.
"Days will dissolve into memory,
"And after the gloomy winter,
"Again, come the blooming valleys.
"Joyous Spring flies away:
"The gentle moon spills its light,
"And we will rest from our labor.
"We will return to our dream of happiness,
"As things once had been,
"And the roses will again be fresh!"

Of course they credit the author KR.  (Any typos are mine)

It is amazing that he wrote this in 1885 over 20 years before the Revolution.  So he could have had no such idea of the things that were to come.  However, the whole of the poem is a fitting epitaph for the Romanov Dynasty.

I don't like a lot of his work.  Some of what he is best known for left me, uh, less than rapturous.  But this one struck a chord.

King/Wilson don't say why he wrote the poem or if was written for someone.  At lot of his poems were written for members of the Imperial Family.  Ella, Serge, and Peter Oldenburg to name just a few.

I have been doing some Googling, but have not yet found anything in English that gives me a clue.  The Russian sites are, well, Russian to me.

Glad you like it!

ALIXZ


« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:24:26 PM by Alixz »

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #403 on: December 15, 2006, 08:45:54 AM »
He was a very talented poet. I love that poem of his, so much. I think it does sound applicable to the Romanovs, but you are right, he could not have known. He died in 1915, three years before the Revolution ever took place. I don't know where he saw the country and the dynasty heading at the time that he died. He was perceptive, if perhaps not knowing the extent of his perception. I don't think he ever thought of the Romanov dynasty in terms of any quandry.

Ra-Ra-Rasputin

  • Guest
Re: Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2
« Reply #404 on: December 18, 2006, 05:29:42 AM »
Well, I can't say I see the 'talent' in KR's poetry myself. It's more self indulgent mish mash of cliches to me, if I'm being perfectly honest.  I wouldn't try and read into it any reflection on the situation of the Romanovs whatsoever, unless we're implying that KR was a mystic.  It's the most conventional piece of poetry I've read in a long time, actually, and the tone of lament is one you will find in many a melodramatic 19th c poem. 'Replaced with great misfortune and grief, we encountered great grief' in particular, is an absolutely dreadful line.  How much of the awfulness of this poem is down to difficulties in translation, however, I don't know.  Did KR write in Russian or English? Who translated this poem? Perhaps there were more subtle uses of language in the Russian that could not be directly translated into English.  Everyone knows that poetry is the most difficult medium to translate, after all.

On the subject of liking the Romanovs being a quandry, I agree.  I strongly dislike the Romanovs, both for their stupidity and the ridiculously outmoded and selfishly opulent way in which they lived, seeing as I'm a bit of a closet Commie and believe in equality and sharing the wealth and all those sorts of socialist idealogies.  I find it difficult to understand why people find the Romanovs such empathetic characters when really they brought all of their misfortune upon themselves.  I cannot find stupidity and pride reasons to empathise with this family.  The only people I feel sorry for are their poor children, who had to get dragged down with their parents to a death they most certainly did nothing to deserve.  Not that Nicholas and Alexandra deserved to die in the way they did either, but they certainly had more control over the situation they ended up in than their children.

However, at the same time, something about them fascinates me.  My main academic interests are in Victorian social history and literature, and so I find the way they lived and seeing the photographs of them going about their daily lives absolutely mesmerising, despite the fact that I find the way they lived in such opulence absolutely deplorable considering how many of their subjects were starving to death and illiterate, etc.  I think that they are so interesting because of the unique, detailed record we have of them.  How many other Royal Families do we see in such photographic detail? What other royal families have been written about and taken apart so often as the Romanovs? Their tragic demise has led to an inordinate amount of interest in their so well documented personal lives, and I think that is why I find them so interesting.  I see them more as part of a wonderful time capsule of a period of time that now makes no sense to me on so many levels, and that is why I find it so fascinating.  To think that less than 100 years ago, people lived like that and believed in such things as a God given right to rule absolutely is amazing.  Finding out why and what motivated these people interests me more than the indivduals of Nicholas and Alexandra themselves, I think.  Nicholas and Alexandra are perfect examples of a certain type of 19th century mindset; people refusing to move forward with the times and desperately clinging onto ideals that were already decades behind what the majority of people wanted.  They were stuck in an idealised past that never really existed, and what made them stuck there and what motivated them to stay stuck there is what I find endlessly interesting, and why I don't mind reading about people I have no respect for and have nothing in common with.  I'd love to do a psychoanalytical reading of the Romanovs.  Perhaps one day I will.  Watch this space.     

Rachel
xx