In any authoritarian system, the personality of the supreme ruler is of great importance, voluntarily or involuntarily leaving a noticeable imprint on various aspects of social and political life. political activity. This role is especially great under the monarchical authoritarianism of the Russian model: autocracy based on the charismatic principle.

The power of the king was based on divine permission; he was married to the kingdom and took the oath at the altar. The monarch was responsible for his affairs not before mortals, but before God, which for an Orthodox Christian (the last monarchs were deeply religious people) was an absolute form of responsibility.

Famous public figure Prince V.P. Meshchersky already in the 20th century wrote that "the autocratic Russian tsar is incomparably more limited by his responsibility before God and his conscience than the president of the French Republic."

These notions of supreme power formed the basis of monarchical statehood and arose even before the accession of the Romanovs. IN last years During the imperial period of Russian history, the absolutist model of the state system showed its advantages and, especially clearly, many shortcomings.

At the age of 26, Nikolai, who was called "dear Niki" in the family circle and loved for his kind disposition and good manners, turned into an autocrat, endowed with huge power functions.

There are various assessments of the personality of Nicholas II, many of them are diametrically opposed. I think that it is very difficult to unambiguously evaluate any historically significant figure, but a particular difficulty is connected with the characterization of Nicholas II.

Most often, in the educational literature, reviews of contemporaries are cited that Nikolai did not have bright natural talents, was not stupid, but not deep, was distinguished by lack of will, cunning and stubbornness. Despite the fact that the occupation of state affairs always weighed on the king, he did not allow the thought of abandoning unlimited monarchical power.

Supporters of a pejoratively critical approach place the main responsibility for the development of the crisis in Russia on Nicholas II. He is accused of complete indifference to everything that went beyond court life and family relations, in the inability to control the situation, in the inability to understand the needs of the time, the needs of the country and to carry out the necessary changes to prevent the growth of tension.

According to these notions, critical moment Russian history on the throne was an incompetent ruler, a man of small mind, weak will, reflexive, subject to reactionary influences. He was considered a tyrant, an inert reactionary and a conservative, stubbornly clinging to power.

Arguing their position, supporters of this approach cite numerous facts.

So on the day of the coronation of Nicholas II in Moscow on May 18, 1896, about one and a half thousand people died in a stampede in the Khodynka field. The tsar not only did not cancel the festivities and did not declare mourning, but even took part in court entertainment events that evening, and at the end of the celebrations he expressed gratitude for their "exemplary preparation and conduct" to the Governor-General of Moscow, his uncle Grand Duke Sergei Nikolayevich.

It was typical for Nicholas II to appoint his relatives - the Grand Dukes of the Romanovs - to responsible posts, regardless of their personal qualities and abilities. From this, historians conclude that during the years of crisis and wars, people who were not under control were in key positions. Huge damage to the authority of the autocracy was caused by the activities at the royal court of numerous holy fools and blessed. The most destructive was the influence of the "holy elder" Grigory Rasputin "(G.E. Novykh). First appearing at court in 1905, this peasant, who had certain healing abilities, gradually began to enjoy the unlimited trust of the royal couple.

Another ideological position is directly opposite to the first and evaluates the last monarch in superlatives, citing many facts confirming his good deeds, purity of thoughts and greatness of goals.

His life is way of the cross Russia, the fate of a true Orthodox Christian who fell victim to the malicious aspirations of anti-Russian circles, who completed their black deed with the ritual murder of the royal family in Yekaterinburg in 1918. Such views are still widespread in the circles of the Russian monarchist emigration. Russian foreign Orthodox Church back in 1981, she canonized the tsar and his relatives as saints.

The Bolsheviks called Nicholas II "bloody" and incapacitated, French President Lube - courageous, unshakable, with a strong soul, St. Seraphim of Sarov, John of Kronstadt - righteous, sufferer, saint, and the French modern historian Helen Carrer d'Encausse considers him a handsome prince with unfulfilled dreams.

The rehabilitation of the last Russian tsar is characteristic of many new domestic publications. In them, Nicholas II is shown with all the features and depth of his religious views, as an outstanding, spiritually strong and at the same time politically timid personality with his own contradictions. In my opinion, this approach best describes the personality of the last Russian tsar, i.e. there is no excessive criticism of Nicholas II and no idealization of him. Stereotypes are not acceptable here, a one-dimensional approach cannot objectively reflect the last years of monarchist Russia and their contemporaries.

Much that was written about the last Russian tsar met certain political interests and was determined by the ideological and political predilections of the authors. This topic has not yet been freed from the prejudices of the past.

In my opinion, in historical research it is important to determine the main approach, that is, from what position to assess this or that person: as an ordinary person, to whom, like other people, moral and spiritual requirements are made, or as a person vested with full power .

If you use the first approach, then you need to talk about universal values, such as honesty, kindness, modesty, morality, observance of well-known Christian commandments. Here Nicholas II was a true model.

Nicholas II strove to do everything as best as possible and always act in accordance with his conscience. This is due to such a personal factor as the faith of Nicholas II, sincere, deep faith, without any hypocrisy.

He was convinced that in doing his duty as emperor, he was also doing his Christian duty. At the same time, Nicholas II repeatedly complained about the bitter fate that elevated him to the throne instead of making him a simple soldier. He was haunted by memories of his grandfather, torn apart by a bomb, and the fear of assassination attempts, the victims of which were many of the royal entourage. If the expectation of an heir became a test for him, then the crown prince's hemophilia led to constant internal tension, political anxiety throughout the second half of his reign. Nicholas II had an obsession with bad luck.

Thus, the personality of Nicholas II, whose main features many contemporaries are trying to determine, at first glance, seems simple, but in fact is full of contradictions. He is distinguished by a special moral and religious approach to power.

The contradictory aspects of the character of Nicholas II manifested themselves in his relationship with the remarkable reformer Witte, in the events of 1905 "Bloody Sunday", during the crisis in the Far East and many other significant events.

There are, as it were, two Nicholas II: one is a real person, the other is a myth created by ill-wishers. The real Nicholas II was a smart, balanced person with high moral principles, a deeply believing Orthodox Christian and a wonderful family man. Like any statesman, he had mistakes and miscalculations, but all the activities of Nicholas II were aimed at the good of Russia.

In the name of Russia, Nicholas II was ready to sacrifice not only power, but also his very life and the lives of his loved ones, which he proved, for example, in the royal train car in Pskov, surrounded by traitor generals, in the basement of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg among the murderers.

Another Nicholas II - a fabricated myth, picked up by the Russian intelligentsia and introduced into the minds of ordinary people, painted the image of a weak-willed and narrow-minded pseudo-ruler who was "under the heel" of his wife and the terrible Rasputin. Stereotypes of thinking, misunderstanding and bias worked. This deceitful image gradually replaced the real personality of the king in the ideas of society, belittling his role and personal qualities.

If we evaluate compliance personal qualities Nicholas II to his state functions, then it is required to more objectively characterize his role in the social and economic life of Russia, which is the subject of the next paragraph.

Emperor Nicholas Russia

And his worldview was determined even before he ascended the throne; almost no one knew them. Communication with the young king turned out to be an unexpected revelation for many.

Faith in God and in one's duty as a king was the basis of all the views and character of Emperor Nicholas II. He believed that the responsibility for the fate of Russia lies with him, that he is responsible for them before the throne of the Most High. Others may advise, others may hinder Him, but the answer for Russia before God lies with him. From this followed the attitude to the limitation of power - which he considered shifting responsibility to others who were not called, and to individual ministers, who, in his opinion, claimed too much influence in the state. “They will screw it up - and answer me,” such was, in a simplified form, the reasoning of the Sovereign.

Emperor Nicholas II had a lively mind, quickly grasping the essence of the issues reported to him - everyone who had with him business conversation, unanimously testify to this. He had an exceptional memory, particularly for faces. The sovereign also had a stubborn and tireless will in the implementation of his plans. He did not forget them, he constantly returned to them, and often in the end he achieved his goal.

A different opinion was widely spread because Nicholas II, over an iron hand, had a velvet glove. His will was not like a thunderclap, it manifested itself not in explosions and violent clashes; rather, it resembled the steady run of a stream from a mountain height to the ocean plain: it goes around obstacles, deviates to the side, but in the end, with unfailing constancy, approaches its goal.

The ministers with whom the Sovereign had to part often said that he "cannot be relied upon." But what did that mean? In carrying out the plans approved by him essentially, Sovereign, according to the testimony of the same ministers, for example, Witte, knew how to show calm stamina under the most unfavorable conditions. Only with regard to their personal careers, the ministers really could not “rely” on the Sovereign: he always put the matter above the faces, and if he disagreed with the actions of his ministers, he dismissed them, regardless of their past merits. At the same time, he tried to "gild the pill"; resignation was usually accompanied by external signs of favor and the appointment of high pensions. By his nature, he also did not like - and this, perhaps, was a certain disadvantage - to say things unpleasant to others. right in the face, especially if it was about people with whom he had collaborated for a long time, to whom he was grateful for a lot in the past. But this was a matter of form, not substance; there was no "cunning," as his enemies claimed. Cunning presupposes intent, calculation; and what advantage could there be for the tsar in the fact that the minister, after a gracious reception, learns in the evening about his resignation from the Imperial Rescript? The gracious reception only accentuated the absence personal disaffection, and the resignation testified to business divergence.

Before ascending the throne, Emperor Nicholas II had only one serious occasion to show his will and character. Russian political system did not allow the manifestation of political differences in the royal family; it could not have happened under Emperor Alexander III that the heir publicly applauded a speech directed against his father's government (as the German crown prince did in the Reichstag in 1911). the heir to the crown prince showed his will only in a matter that personally concerned him. He fell in love with a little princess at an early age Alice of Hesse, the younger sister of the Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, the wife of his uncle, and for ten years invariably kept her memory. Emperor Alexander III, Empress Maria Feodorovna were against this marriage. They didn't want to marry a German princess; there were speculations about the marriage of the Russian heir to Princess Helena of Orleans, from the family of the pretender to the French throne. But the heir, with quiet persistence, rejected these plans and kept the image of Princess Alice in his soul. In the end, the parents gave in, and in the spring of 1894, the engagement finally took place. In this struggle, which lasted several years, the heir turned out to be stronger in character.

Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Alice of Hesse), 1896

Emperor Nicholas II - this is recognized by his enemies - had a completely exceptional personal charm. He did not like celebrations, loud speeches; etiquette was a burden to him. He disliked everything ostentatious, artificial, all broadcast advertising (this might also be considered a disadvantage by some in our age!). In a close circle, in a one-to-one conversation, he knew how to charm his interlocutors, whether they were senior dignitaries or workers in the workshop he visited. His large gray radiant eyes complemented the speech, looked straight into the soul. These natural data were even more emphasized by careful upbringing. “In my life I have never met a person more educated than the current reigning Emperor Nicholas II,” wrote Count Witte already at the time when he was essentially the personal enemy of the Sovereign.

Based on the book by S. S. Oldenburg "The reign of Emperor NicholasII"

Autograph of Nicholas II

It is hardly possible to give an objective assessment historical personality, even if you draw information from the lips of contemporaries. Any characteristic bears the features of subjectivity. Moreover, the personality of Nicholas II is rather controversial, however, like any other. And yet to get a comprehensive picture of the personality of the latter Russian emperor is possible only as a result of consideration of various aspects of his life, as well as the characteristics given by his contemporaries and researchers of his life and work. This is how we will do it.

Childhood and upbringing

Nicholas II is the eldest son of Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna. Born May 18, 1868 in Tsarskoye Selo. Title from birth His Imperial Highness (sovereign) Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich. After the death of his grandfather, Emperor Alexander II, on March 1, 1881, he received the title of heir to the Tsarevich.

In early childhood he was brought up by an Englishman, and in 1877 General G. G. Danilovich was his official tutor as an heir.

Nicholas II

The future emperor was educated at home as part of a large gymnasium course; in 1885-1890 - according to a specially written program that combined the course of the state and economic departments Faculty of Law University with the course of the Academy General Staff. His studies continued for 13 years. For the first eight years, special attention was paid to general education: the study political history, Russian literature, English, German and French (Nikolai was fluent in English); the next five years were devoted to the preparation of a statesman: the study of military affairs, legal and economic sciences. His teachers were people of world renown: N. N. Beketov, N. N. Obruchev, Ts. A. Kui, K. P. Pobedonostsev and others. but they had no right to check the assimilation of the material and put marks. The future emperor also studied the history of the church, the history of religion and theology. On May 18, 1884, having reached the age of majority, he took the oath in the Great Church of the Winter Palace. From that time on, he began to actively involve him in public service: the first two years he served as a junior officer in the Preobrazhensky Regiment. For two summer seasons he served in the ranks of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment as a squadron commander, and then camp duty in the ranks of the artillery. In August 1892 he was promoted to colonel. His father introduces him to the affairs of the country, inviting him to participate in meetings of the State Council and the Cabinet of Ministers. At the suggestion of the Minister of Railways S. Yu. Witte, in 1892 Nikolai was appointed chairman of the committee for the construction of the Trans-Siberian railway. Thus, by the age of 23, he received extensive information in various fields of knowledge and fields. state activities. Together with his father, he made study trips to the provinces of Russia, and then on the cruiser "Memory of Azov" traveled to Far East. For nine months, with his retinue, he visited Austria-Hungary, Greece, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and later returned to Russia by land from Vladivostok through all of Siberia. During the trip, Nikolai kept a personal diary. In Japan, an assassination attempt was made on Nikolai, the reason for which remained unclear.

On the Russian throne

Monogram of Nicholas II

Nicholas ascended the Russian throne in October 1894, a few days after the death of Alexander III. And in November 1894 he married Alexandra Fedorovna. Memories of the young emperor of that time were left by the lady-in-waiting of Alexandra Feodorovna, Baroness S. K. Buksgevden: “Easy to handle, without any affectation, He had an innate dignity that never allowed one to forget who He was. At the same time, Nicholas II had a slightly sentimental, very conscientious and sometimes very simple-minded worldview of an old Russian nobleman ... He treated His duty mystically, but was also indulgent to human weaknesses and had an innate sympathy for ordinary people- in particular to the peasants. But He never forgave what He called "dark money matters."

In his first public imperial speech, he stated: “I know that in Lately in some zemstvo assemblies the voices of people carried away by senseless dreams about the participation of representatives of the zemstvos in matters of internal administration were heard. Let everyone know that, devoting all my strength to the good of the people, I will guard the beginning of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as my unforgettable, late parent guarded it. . For some reason, these words caused an ambiguous reaction from many. For example, cadet V.P. Obninsky wrote: “The performance of January 17, 95 can be considered the first step of Nicholas on inclined plane, along which he continues to roll hitherto, descending lower and lower in the opinion of both his subjects and the entire civilized world. The historian S. S. Oldenburg wrote about the speech on January 17: “Russian educated society, for the most part, took this speech as a challenge to itself. The speech of January 17 dispelled the hopes of the intelligentsia for the possibility of constitutional reforms from above. In this regard, it served as the starting point for a new growth of revolutionary agitation, for which funds began to be found again. . As you can see, the ambiguous attitude of society towards Nicholas II can be traced from the first days of his accession to the throne.

The coronation of Nicholas and his wife took place on May 26, 1896, it was marked by a terrible event - Khodynka.

V. Makovsky "Khodynka"

Khodynka disaster- a stampede that took place in the early morning of May 30, 1896 on the Khodynka field (now it is the beginning of Leningradsky Prospekt) on the outskirts of Moscow during the celebrations on the occasion of the coronation of Emperor Nicholas II on May 26, in which more than a thousand people died and were maimed. On this day at 5 o'clock in the morning on the Khodynka field in total there were at least 500 thousand people. The Khodynskoye field (about 1 sq. km in area) was repeatedly used for folk festivals. Temporary "theaters", stages, booths, shops were built along its perimeter, including 20 wooden barracks for the free distribution of beer and honey and 150 stalls for the distribution of free souvenirs - gift bags, in which there were a mug with the monograms of Their Majesties, a pound polar cod, half a pound of sausage, a Vyazma gingerbread with a coat of arms, and a bag of sweets and nuts. In addition, the organizers of the festivities planned to scatter tokens with a commemorative inscription in the crowd. And suddenly a rumor spread that the barmaids were distributing gifts among “their own”, and therefore there would not be enough for all the gifts, the people rushed to the wooden buildings. The distributors, realizing that the people could demolish their shops and stalls, began to throw bags of food directly into the crowd, which only increased the crush. In total, 1,360 people died on the Khodynka field, and several hundred more were injured. Most of the dead (except those identified on the spot) were buried in a common grave at the Vagankovsky cemetery.

Read about the activities of Nicholas II on our website: and.

In connection with the opinion expressed earlier that assessments of the personality and activities of Nicholas II were contradictory and subjective, I would also like to add that they were often unfair and superficial. For example, one can compare the assessment of the emperor's behavior during the surrender of Port Arthur in 1904 by an outsider and the feelings of the emperor himself, expressed by him in his personal diary. K. N. Rydzevsky, referring to the diary of Alexandra Bogdanovich, describes the reaction of Nicholas II to this event: “ The news, which depressed everyone who loves their fatherland, was accepted by the king indifferently, not a shadow of sadness is visible on him. . Y. Danilov writes: « In the royal train, the majority was depressed by the events, realizing their importance and gravity. But Emperor Nicholas II almost alone kept a cold, stony calm. He was still interested in the total number of versts he had made while traveling around Russia, recalled episodes from various kinds of hunts, noticed the awkwardness of the faces that met him, etc. ».

Nicholas II with his wife Alexandra Feodorovna

Nicholas II himself wrote in his diary about this event as follows: “December 21st. Tuesday. I received amazing news at night about the surrender of Port Arthur to the Japanese due to huge losses and soreness among the garrison and the complete exhaustion of shells! It was hard and painful, although it was foreseen, but I wanted to believe that the army would rescue the fortress. The defenders are all heroes and have done more than could be expected. That is the will of God!”

Defeat in Russo-Japanese War(the first in half a century) and the subsequent suppression of the unrest of 1905-1907. (subsequently aggravated by the appearance of rumors about the influence of Rasputin) led to a fall in the authority of the emperor in the ruling and intellectual circles.

Further, the negative attitude towards Emperor Nicholas II among a part of society only intensified. On January 9 (according to the old style), 1905, in St. Petersburg, on the initiative of priest Georgy Gapon, a procession of workers to the Winter Palace took place. Was drawn up in the name of the emperor Petition for workers' needs, which, along with economic contained a number of political demands. The main demand of the petition was the elimination of the power of officials and the introduction of popular representation in the form of a Constituent Assembly. When the government became aware of the political content of the petition, it was decided not to allow the workers to the Winter Palace, but, if necessary, to detain them by force. On the evening of January 8, Minister of the Interior P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky informed the emperor of the measures taken. Nicholas II did not give the order to fire, but only approved the measures proposed by the head of government. On January 9, columns of workers headed by the priest Gapon moved from different parts of the city to the Winter Palace. The workers (and this was already a crowd that did not heed the voice of reason) stubbornly strove for the city center, despite warnings and even attacks by cavalry. The accumulation of a 150,000-strong crowd in the center of the city could not lead to anything good, and the troops were forced to fire rifle volleys at the columns. According to official government figures, 130 people were killed and 299 wounded on the day of 9 January. On the evening of January 9, Nicholas II wrote in his diary: "Hard day! In St. Petersburg, there were serious riots due to the desire of the workers to reach the Winter Palace. The troops had to shoot in different parts of the city, there were many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and hard!”

These events were the beginning of the revolution, as well as sharp decline popularity of the king. January 9 became known as "Bloody Sunday".

Since 1907, the Stolypin agrarian reform began to be carried out, and Nicholas II was a fairly consistent supporter of its implementation. And in 1913, Russia was in first place in the world in the production of rye, barley and oats, in third (after Canada and the USA) in wheat production, in fourth (after France, Germany and Austria-Hungary) in potato production. Russia became the main exporter of agricultural products, it accounted for 2/5 of the total world export of agricultural products, although grain yields were 3 times lower than in England or Germany, potato yields were 2 times lower.

Supreme Commander

On August 1, 1914, Germany declared war on Russia: Russia entered the world war, which ended for it in the collapse of the empire and dynasty, although Nicholas II made every effort to prevent war both in all the pre-war years and in last days before it starts. Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich was appointed commander-in-chief, but in early June 1915 the situation on the fronts deteriorated sharply, and Nicholas II decided to remove the Grand Duke who could not cope and himself to stand at the head of the Russian army. August 23, 1915 Nicholas II assumed the title of Supreme Commander. The soldiers of the Russian army met this decision of Nicholas without enthusiasm. But the offensive of the German troops was stopped, the parties switched to positional warfare, and work on the formation and training of new troops revived throughout Russia. The industry at an accelerated pace produced ammunition and military equipment. By the spring of 1917, new armies had been raised, better supplied with equipment and ammunition than at any time before in the entire war. Nicholas II hoped for a victorious end to the war and was not going to conclude a separate peace.

But destructive forces were already at work. Historian A.B. Zubov writes: Forces in opposition to Nicholas II had been preparing a coup d'état since 1915. These were the leaders of various political parties represented in the Duma, and big military men, and the top of the bourgeoisie, and even some members of the Imperial Family. It was assumed that after the abdication of Nicholas II, his minor son Alexei would ascend the throne, and the younger brother of the tsar, Mikhail, would become regent. During February Revolution this idea was put into practice ».

On February 23, 1917, a strike began in Petrograd, which became general three days later. Chairman of the State Duma M. V. Rodzianko sent a series of telegrams to the emperor, who was at the Headquarters, about the events in Petrograd. The telegram dated February 26, 1917 stated: “ I most humbly convey to Your Majesty that the popular unrest that began in Petrograd is assuming a spontaneous character and menacing proportions. Their foundations are the lack of baked bread and the weak supply of flour, inspiring panic, but mainly complete distrust of the authorities, unable to bring the country out of a difficult situation. Telegram dated February 27, 1917: « Civil War started and flared up.<…>Order, in the repeal of your royal decree, to convene again the legislative chambers<…>If the movement is transferred to the army<…>the collapse of Russia, and with it the dynasty, is inevitable.

Renunciation of NicholasII

Nicholas II after abdication

At about 3 pm on March 2, the tsar decided to abdicate in favor of his son under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. But the renunciation procedure was long and confusing, Nikolai was not always informed about the events correctly, he changed his mind several times ... In his diary, he writes: “ In the morning Ruzsky came and read his long conversation on the phone with Rodzianko. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma seems to be powerless to do anything, since the Social-Democratic Party represented by the workers' committee is fighting against it. I need my renunciation. Ruzsky passed this conversation on to the headquarters, and Alekseev to all the commanders-in-chief. By 2½ o'clock the answers came from everyone. The bottom line is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front in peace, you need to decide on this step. I agreed. From the rate sent a draft manifesto. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke and gave them a signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy sense of experience. Around treason, and cowardice, and deceit.

On March 3, the former tsar found out about the refusal of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich from the throne, writing in his diary: “It turns out that Misha renounced. His manifesto ends with a four-east for elections in 6 months of the Constituent Assembly. God knows who advised him to sign such a disgusting thing! In Petrograd, the riots have stopped - if only it continued like this.” . He draws up the second version of the renunciation manifesto, again in favor of the son. General A.I. Denikin stated in his memoirs that on March 3, in Mogilev, Nikolai told General Alekseev:

I changed my mind. I ask you to send this telegram to Petrograd.

On a piece of paper, in a distinct handwriting, the sovereign wrote with his own hand about his consent to the accession to the throne of his son Alexei ...

Alekseev took away the telegram and ... did not send it.

On March 8, the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet, when it became known about the plans of the tsar to leave for England, decided to arrest the tsar and his family, confiscate property and deprive civil rights. The new commander of the Petrograd district, General L. G. Kornilov, arrives in Tsarskoye Selo, who arrested the empress and posted guards, including to protect the tsar from the rebellious Tsarskoye Selo garrison. Before Nikolai leaves Mogilev, the representative of the Duma at Headquarters tells him that he "should consider himself, as it were, under arrest." On March 9, the tsar arrived at Tsarskoye Selo as "Colonel Romanov". From March 9 to August 1, 1917, Nikolai Romanov, his wife and children lived under arrest in the Alexander Palace of Tsarskoye Selo.

Link

In view of the strengthening of the revolutionary movement and anarchy in Petrograd, the Provisional Government, fearing for the lives of the prisoners, decided to transfer them deep into Russia, to Tobolsk; they were allowed to take the necessary furniture, personal belongings from the palace, and also to invite the attendants, if they wish, to voluntarily accompany them to the place of new accommodation and further service. On the eve of his departure, the head of the Provisional Government A.F. Kerensky arrived and brought with him the brother of the former emperor, Mikhail Alexandrovich (Mikhail Alexandrovich was exiled to Perm, where on the night of June 13, 1918 he was killed by local Bolshevik authorities). The Romanov family settled in the governor's house specially renovated for their arrival. They were allowed to walk across the street and the boulevard to worship at the Church of the Annunciation. The security regime here was lighter than in Tsarskoye Selo. The family led a calm, measured life.

In early April 1918, the transfer of the Romanovs to Moscow was authorized for the purpose of holding a trial against them. At the end of April 1918, the prisoners were transferred to Yekaterinburg, where they were requisitioned for their accommodation. a private house. Here, five people of the attendants lived with them: the doctor Botkin, the lackey Trupp, the room girl Demidova, the cook Kharitonov and the cook Sednev.

Nikolai Romanov, Alexandra Fedorovna, their children, Dr. Botkin and three servants (except for the cook Sednev) were killed using cold and firearms in the Ipatiev mansion in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 16-17, 1918.

The eldest son of Alexander III - Nikolai "Niki" - took from his father simplicity in communication and liveliness of character. He was charmingly playful, loved outdoor games and activities - and this desire to be always on the move, to keep himself in good physical shape remained with Emperor Nicholas II for life. Baroness Sophie Buhsgevden recalled: "The Emperor was very hardy; only on the coldest days he put on a coat, he usually went out in a military jacket, which he constantly wore; he did not like warm clothes and put on only a knitted jacket under his jacket."

But at the same time, from an early age, Nika showed refinement, poetry and inner grace, a desire for beauty and love for all living things. Already in the little boy, his dreamy-thoughtful look attracted attention. Surprising seemed his very beautiful, as many emphasized, clean eyes, when Nicky looked at the birds flying high in the sky ...

He was worried about the pain of every living being - and he prayed for a sparrow that had fallen from its nest. He was fascinated by the sound of poetic lines - and Nicky asked that they read poetry aloud to him when he himself could not read yet. Since early childhood, sincere, excited religiosity lived in the soul of this boy, manifesting itself even in small things. All these qualities of the future emperor developed perfectly in the natural family atmosphere supported by the father.

The children of Tsar Alexander III were brought up in love, in joy, in the light of Christ's teachings, in simplicity and unselfishness. Therefore, one can argue a lot about the qualities of Nicholas II as an emperor, but one thing remains undoubted - he was a truly holy man, in his life, as in death, who showed people his highest Christian qualities - care, mercy and love.

Now you can often hear the question: why was he considered a saint? Only the Lord knows the exact answer to this question, glorifying his chosen one with miracles, phenomena of unexpected and quick help to people in difficult situations through prayers to the king. But we will also say that, considering the earthly life of Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, we see holiness in this very life, and not only in the fact of a worthy martyr's death.

Emperor Nicholas was a father not only for his five children, but also for millions of his subjects. “Not everyone can be satisfied with family happiness alone,” remarked the adjutant wing A. Mordvinov. “Another vast family is his homeland, which the sovereign sought to serve not only because fate and birth put him at the head of the country, but simply as a Russian, occupied his thoughts and caused hidden, deeply painful experiences.

This love for his country was not passive - it manifested itself primarily in the amazing efficiency of the emperor. Nicholas II, having no secretary, did all the work himself, even putting state seals on envelopes before handing them over for dispatch. Not a single paper was left on his desk - he always read and returned everything without delay.

Another bright one distinguishing features Nicholas II - mercy, the desire to do good, coming from the heart, alien to any hypocrisy. "He was generous and helped a lot, donating in retirement from his personal income," writes Baroness Sophie Buchshowden.

Contrary to popular legends, Nicholas II was characterized by extraordinary endurance and willpower - qualities that everyone who knew the Sovereign more or less closely tells about. "Nicholas II was reproached for being weak-willed, but people were far from the truth," said his wife, Empress Alexandra. The historian Oldenburg noted: "The sovereign had a velvet glove over his iron hand. His will was not like a thunderbolt. It was not manifested by explosions and violent clashes." Baroness Buhsgevden notes: "Restraint was his second nature. Many asked: did he fully realize the tragedy of some events? - his attitude was so calm, his expression was so secretive. In fact, it was a mask." His wife understood this very well and shared her pain with her close friend Yulia Den: “He is strong, not weak. I assure you, Lily, it costs him tremendous effort to suppress the outbursts of anger inherent in all Romanovs. He overcame the insurmountable: he learned to control himself - and for this he is called weak-willed. People forget that the greatest conqueror is the one who conquers himself."

“Once S. D. Sazonov (Minister of Foreign Affairs) expressed his surprise at the emperor’s calm reaction to a morally unattractive person, the absence of any personal irritation towards him. And this is what the emperor said to him: “I have already succeeded in this string of personal irritation for a long time to force yourself to be completely silent. Irritability will not help anything, and besides, a harsh word from me would sound more offensive than from anyone else "" (Oleg Platonov. "Emperor Nicholas II in a secret correspondence").

Nikolai Aleksandrovich showed restraint in relations with his family. He did not allow himself a single irritable word, not a single sullen or angry look. He applied strictness to children as needed, but one word with authority, and sometimes a stern fatherly look, was enough to calm down the excessively naughty children.

The inner strength inherent in the emperor, his awareness of his power, was combined in his nature with rare modesty, kindness and responsiveness. "He was extremely delicate, even to the point of refinement" (A. Mordvinov). By his nature, he was completely incapable of harming anyone personally. By this, Nikolai Alexandrovich produced the same impression on almost all people - even on his personal enemies, such as Alexander Kerensky and Prince Georgy Lvov: they were fascinated by his personality.

And this kind charm of the saint has passed through history, it affects us even now, through the reviews of contemporaries, through photographic portraits. And if the holiness of the last Russian emperor is still in doubt, you should not look for an answer in the books of unscrupulous or misguided authors - just pray to him.

The eldest son of the heir to the throne, Alexander Alexandrovich, who became Emperor Alexander III in 1881, and his wife Maria Feodorovna, daughter of the Danish king Christian IX, before the marriage of Princess Maria-Sophia-Friederika-Dagmara, Nicholas II was born on May 6, 1868 in Tsarskoye Selo.

In April 1894, the heir was engaged to Princess Alice of Hesse. The bride arrived in Russia a week and a half before the death of Alexander III, which followed on October 20, 1894. The next day, on the 21st, she accepted Orthodoxy and the name of Alexandra Feodorovna, and on November 14 the marriage took place. Already at the solemn reception of the deputations who arrived with congratulations on the wedding, on January 17, 1895, Nicholas II warned against "Senseless dreams (in the prepared speech it was groundless, but Nicholas knew this speech poorly) about the participation of representatives of the zemstvo in matters of internal government." “Let everyone know that, devoting all my strength to the good of the people, I will guard the beginning of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as my unforgettable late parent guarded it.”

With this motto of his reign, the emperor signed his own death warrant. The country demanded reforms, two main issues remained unresolved - the agrarian and the question of power. But Nicholas II showed political blindness, insisting on maintaining the status quo.

Nicholas II received the usual upbringing and education for the royal heirs. Training sessions for the heir to the throne began in 1877 under the leadership of Adjutant General G. G. Danilovich, a former inspector of classes in the cadet corps and director of a military gymnasium. The lesson plan was designed for twelve years. The first eight years were devoted to the gymnasium course with the replacement of ancient languages ​​with the basics of mineralogy, botany, zoology, anatomy and physiology, teaching was introduced in English and the study of political history, Russian literature, French and German. The last four years, to which one more had to be added, were devoted to the "course of higher sciences", military, legal and economic. Religious education was given to the heir by Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev, confessor of the royal family. Economic sciences were taught by prof. N. H. Bunge, Minister of Finance, thinker of the liberal reformist direction, and legal sciences- K. P. Pobedonostsev, the leading ideologue of conservatism, who taught law to several great princes, and among them - the future Alexander III. International law conducted by M. N. Kapustin. Political history was taught by E. E. Zamyslovsky, who taught a course in Russian history at St. Petersburg University and the Historical and Philological Institute, the author of a number of studies on foreign news about Muscovite Rus', a great connoisseur of historical sources, whose son became one of the leaders of the Black Hundreds movement. N. N. Beketov read chemistry.

The military cycle was especially intense, the subjects of which were taught by the most prominent representatives of various branches of military science.

The degree of his education is assessed differently; strict court etiquette did not allow asking the crown prince what the listener learned from the lectures of the teachers. A careful reading of the diaries allows us to conclude that Nikolai himself had no particular interest in studying. The only thing that interested him was military science, military history. Nicholas II gave more importance to these lessons than to political and economic sciences.

So, one of his interlocutors in Tobolsk exile, where the court rule no longer applied, found out that “the tsar really knew Russian military history, but his general knowledge of the history of the people is very weak; he either forgot, or was generally poorly versed in the periods of Russian history and their significance, all his reasoning in this respect was reduced to the history of wars.

Only one of the teachers could say with accuracy that his lessons were learned by the listener - this is Pobedonostsev K.P. He was a conservative to the marrow of his bones, and his views left a big imprint on the worldview of Nicholas II. Opposing everything Western, everything that is called democratic freedoms, Pobedonostsev was firmly convinced that an Orthodox unlimited autocratic monarchy was the most expedient form of state for multinational Russia. He believed that in order to preserve the existing system in Russia, it was necessary to abandon reforms and keep Russia, as it were, in a frozen state, otherwise everything would collapse. Pobedonostsev K.P. managed to instill in his student hatred for public opinion, behind which he recognized "terrible power."

In this state of affairs, the education of the king was very one-sided. The questions that worried the then educated society left him indifferent. Of the populist theory or of Marxism, which was gradually conquering the minds of his subjects, the tsar had not the slightest idea. Nicholas II constantly communicated with the guards officers, often honored the soldiers with attention. But he did not find time for scientists and representatives of creative professions. Moreover, the tsar had a persistent prejudice against the intelligentsia (although he considers himself an intellectual) and jokingly said that he would order the Academy of Sciences to delete this “lousy” word from the Russian language.

The tsar was a deeply religious person, but, like his ancestors on the Moscow throne, he understood Orthodoxy almost exclusively as its ritual aspect. He strictly observed the church regulations regarding fasting, prayers and religious holidays, made pilgrimages, revered icons. Under him, in an atmosphere of grandiose celebrations, the canonization of Seraphim of Sarov was carried out. Nicholas II was waiting for the fulfillment of the prediction of this righteous man that the first half of his reign would pass among unrest and unrest, but the second half would be peaceful and serene. This blind faith of an educated and cultured person in dubious prophecies will become clear if we recall the words of one of the courtiers closest to the king: “He bowed only before the elemental, irrational, and sometimes contrary to reason, before the weightless, before his ever-growing mysticism.”

Nicholas II was brought up in the conviction of the divine origin of autocratic power. “Here, for example, the monarchy! he explained to one of his interlocutors. - You don't need it; I don't need it; but as long as the people need it, we must support it.” The king believed that autocratic rule was the best way to curb the elements of self-destruction, and was determined to preserve all the prerogatives of the monarch.

Nicholas II sincerely believed that he was responsible for his actions only before God. Such an idea strengthened the conservatism of Nicholas II and prevented an adequate assessment of the situation. These qualities of his were aggravated by his ideas about the people, supposedly primordially loving and revering God and the king. Even the events of 1905-1907. did not shake that confidence. These convictions were fueled by a stream of loyal addresses, mostly inspired by the authorities or public organizations of a monarchist orientation, as well as by the impressions that the royal couple had during holiday trips around the country.

Nicholas II continued the same national policy as his father. The tsar paid tribute to national and religious prejudices, in particular, he repeatedly demonstrated prejudice against the Jews, although he could not be called a rude anti-Semite. Nicholas II showed clear anti-Western sentiments. Although the anniversaries of the victories of Peter I were widely celebrated during his reign, the tsar himself admitted that he did not share the general admiration for the great reformer: “This is an ancestor whom I love less than others for his passion for Western culture and defiance of all purely Russian customs. You can not plant someone else's immediately, without processing. Perhaps this time as a transitional period was necessary, but it is unsympathetic to me. Sometimes the Russian patriotism of Nicholas II manifested itself in curious trifles. Thus, he emphasized words of foreign origin in ministerial reports, teaching them to use their native language. Nicholas II loved the folk costume, and sometimes received dignitaries dressed in uniforms, dressed in a red kosovorotka.

Nicholas II sought not only to reign, but also to rule. He dealt with state affairs conscientiously, not missing even the smallest details. The tsar never had a personal secretary, he himself looked through a lot of documents and stamped letters with his own hand. It cannot be said that the tsar did not value good ministers and preferred them to political nonentities. However, he was morbidly jealous of his power. Therefore, during his reign, all independent and independent statesmen had one fate: sooner or later, the minister turned into a rival in the eyes of the monarch and fell into disgrace.

The nature of the last Russian monarch was a mystery even to statesmen who constantly communicated with him. Many contemporaries spoke of the amazing, even unnatural indifference of the king to everything that did not affect him personally. Rodzianko much later complained to his employees that the tsar was stingy with words in conversations, mostly escaped with silence, did not give answers to questions, meeting with him was a kind of torture, because they were connected with the need to speak without any response. But according to the same Rodzianko, as soon as a question that concerns him personally is raised in a conversation, he is completely transformed.

The proof that Nicholas II was "inert" in political matters are his diaries. Nicholas II kept diaries from childhood until his death, and throughout his life (except for the summer of 1918) there was not a single joyful or sad day that would prevent Nicholas II from writing at least a few lines in his diary. The style of the diaries is mostly even, unemotional. From the first days of the reign, replete with upheavals, there was almost no response to social trends or events.

For example, “January 9th. Sunday. Hard day. Serious riots took place in St. Petersburg as a result of the desire of the workers to reach the Winter Palace ... Lord, how painful and hard! - and without any transition: Mom came to us from the city right in time for mass. We had breakfast with everyone. Walked with Misha. Mom stayed with us for the night. “January 10th. Monday. There were no major incidents today. There were reports. Uncle Alexei had breakfast. He accepted a deputation of the Ural Cossacks who came with caviar. Walked…”

Although there is another point of view. "The tsar himself never showed true feelings in front of strangers and avoided emotions even in personal letters and in a diary."

The characteristics of his appearance are also contradictory. General Yu. N. Danilov found him handsome. The famous lawyer and writer A.F. Koni wrote that he was charming, a man with a kind and affectionate look of a gazelle. This assessment was shared by S. Yu. Witte. M. K. Lemke, on the contrary, in his staff diary on October 16, 1915, wrote: “Today I could look at him closely ... and observe for a long time ... The Tsar is ugly, the color of his beard and mustache is yellow-tobacco, peasant, his nose is thick, his eyes are stone" .

His speech was clear and intelligible. He almost did not use foreign words, but spoke with a barely noticeable accent.

He was accurate in time, always observed the daily routine. His hearing was sharp, he could recognize people from afar by their steps. He had a tenacious visual memory.

In conversations, he usually did not argue with the interlocutor, did not express his opinion, almost always remained impassive.

Koni disputes two main “dominant opinions about him”: as if, on the one hand, he is a person rooted in lack of will, and on the other, he is an insidious and deceitful Byzantine, narrow-minded, stupid and uneducated. Both of these definitions are wrong, Kony insisted. "My personal conversations with the king convince me that this man is undoubtedly intelligent."

Other observers also considered Nikolai an intelligent person, or at least not stupid. He, they noted, had both clarity of judgment and a certain sharpness of thought. But at the same time, it is noted that he lacked the logic of development. Having made one decision, he did not see that it was necessary to make another.

This was also the case with the Manifesto of October 17, which had to be carried through to the end. But the Manifesto itself was deeply hated by the emperor, the ideas of representation were deeply alien to him. As soon as the revolutionary movement began to decline, the reform activity of Nicholas II also declined.

The attitude of Nicholas to reformism, as well as the whole structure of his thinking, could not but be reflected in the memory of the “hunt for the king”, which the Narodnaya Volya ended with the assassination of Alexander II.

In the conditions of the revolution of 1905-1907. the king became more and more lonely and crushed. Nicholas II hated State Duma since its inception. She was perceived by him as the funeral of the autocracy.

Subsequent events showed that the idea of ​​a monarchy finds fewer and fewer supporters among the people, and the king begins to realize this.

Thus, the personality of Nicholas II was rather contradictory. But the era itself was also contradictory.

The era demanded swift and revolutionary reforms, but Nicholas II could not carry them out both due to the peculiarities of his character and due to many years of tradition, secular and ecclesiastical, social thought of a conservative nature, and finally, due to a sincere conviction in the need for an autocratic system for the common good.

Many contemporaries and historians note that if the reign of Nicholas II had fallen on a calm era, he would not have gone down in history under the nickname "Bloody".