I wasn't attempting to give an assessment of her character. That would take too long. I only meant to point out that IMHO she isn't the only person to blame for Russia's decline. I wasn't suggesting that she was either a good or bad person. I don’t think the issue is that black and white. I see Alexandra as a complex, desperate, tragic figure with deep-seated emotional problems. She had the drive that Nicholas lacked, but she was also oblivious, narrow-minded, and stubborn. She felt she had a good grasp of Russian politics when she was in fact was even less politically astute than her husband. She saw only what she wanted to see in life. That said, Alexandra can only be blamed for so much. I don’t feel that she can be blamed for Nicholas’ failings. Her own failings, yes, but not his.
As for her failure to improve the lot of average Russians, no, she never did undertake any substantial program to do this, but that’s not surprising. One can't improve the lot of others unless one understands what ails them. Alexandra had no real concept of how anyone in Russia actually lived. She didn't even understand the nobility. She certainly had no clue about the peasants’ and workers’ lives. That isn't an excuse. It's just the truth. Does her ignorance excuse her from any blame? No, of course not, but I think it does help explain her actions. She made an arrogant assumption from the beginning that some how, by virtue of marrying the Tsar, she had automatically reached a soul connection with the Russian people, that she understood them completely, and was loved by them. Of course, that was nonsense and folly, but it was one of many false illusions she fiercely clung to.
I agree that in some ways Nicholas could have been molded to a large extent by any woman he married. However, while Nicholas was certainly malleable, he wasn’t entirely devoid of personal opinions. It is too easy to just dismiss Nicholas as a weakling. The truth, when you read his letters, diaries, the statements he made during his life, is rather more complex. Yes, at times he was weak and her will triumphed over his, but at other times, when Alexandra was blamed with influencing him, she had in fact done nothing more than reinforce views Nicholas already held. I think those who loved him wanted to believe that it was only a matter of a woman with a totally different agenda overriding her husband's will by force of her own, and that if he had been left to his own devices, he would have made different decisions. In some instances that would have undoubtedly been the case, but not in all of them. For example Nicholas had long held opinions almost identical to Alexandra’s regarding the supposed well-being of the peasants, the wonders and glories of divine right and autocracy, etc., he firmly believed in all of that long before he met Alexandra. She never had to convince him of any of those things.
Also, I find it doubtful that Nicholas (even had he never met Alexandra) would have found himself married to a liberal or a reformer, even a moderate one. That just seems completely out of character for him. Even if he had been attracted to someone like that, given his upbringing, I still believe Nicholas would have resisted liberalizing the government. He was never attracted, even in his youth, to reforms in the way that a small handful of the Romanovs were. Nicholas was old enough to vividly remember his Grandfather's assassination. His father blamed not only the true Revolutionaries, but even the most timid of liberal reformers for causing the assassination. Having been raised in that atmosphere must have had a lasting effect on Nicholas. By all accounts Nicholas not only feared but revered his father Alexander, and Alexander III was a diehard reactionary. Nicholas spent most of his life not only trying to please Alexandra, but also attempting to rule the way “Papa” would have wanted him to. His father’s influence should never be discounted when contemplating Nicholas’ actions.
