.webp?x=8 "Top Hat (black) - Traditional. Classy. Elegant.")
!historychads !anticommunists what's our assessment? Incompetent moron? Bloody tyrant? A product of his time? I already know our resident commies will say he got what he deserved. His wife was extremely r-slurred, ignored all of based granny Victoria's advices and was probably boned by a creepy peasant.
!neolibs was Sergei Witte /our/ guy? Was Stolypin taken from us too soon?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's a very interesting case which contrasts itself with the Louis XVI. Whereas the latter was so soft and empathetic, deciding to negotiate with the revolutionaries and bow to their demands just to avoid bloodshed, culminating in him ceding his power and getting executed, Nicholas seems to be a pretty bloodthirsty figure whose violent and abusive only served to fuel the revolutionary backlash against him. Idk if there's such a thing as monarchic horseshoe theory, but this is as close as it can get to one
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Louis XVI is such a tragic figure, he was a nerdy king who would have been an unremarkable French monarch had he lived in normal times. His wife was also slandered by the revolutionaries (made up quotes, bogus incest accusations) while everyone who knew her described her as compassionate and well meaning. They were extremely sheltered and out of touch from the harsh realities of their people, but I never got the impression they were bad.
Alexandra Fyodorovna got a lot of trash talk as well but it was much well deserved. Queen Victoria told her public image matters a lot and Alexandra responded with “Russia isn't England grandma, they worship us as gods, we don't need to do any effort”
About Bloody Sunday, wasn't Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich who ordered to shoot the protesters in front of the Winter Palace?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What i dont get with him. Being such nerd looser. Shouldn't he be book smart at least. Shouldn't he have read about past kings and understand what was happing around him?
Usually its Charles the Bold types who are out of touch and dont understand whats happening.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
With nerdy I meant stuff like locksmithing, clockmaking and being a map/geography autist
No one has the benefit of hindsight, something like 1789 never happened before, even the English Civil War was different, that's why the Romanovs should have known better, monarchies falling and kings losing their heads wasn't news in the early 20th century.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
People were angry all the time in french in later 18th centry. Louis XVI himself witnessed big bread riot himself way before revolution. He knew what mood was.
He also knew things would get worse if aristocracy acted as uppity and in past french kings knocked them down to pegg to preserve stability.
He had seen food riots and other unrest. Aristocracy acting crazy and people willing to act crazy too.
He also saw american revolution where people just ditched elite to forge their own way. And his neurodivergent brain didnt connect the dots it might happen in his kingdom.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
As described in the trve telling of the history
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
In both cases. They didnt see real proplem. Both thought issue was masses and thought they could be dealt with one way or another.
But in both cases issue was aristocracy who were reason why masses had enough.
Both cases their predecessors had in those situations dealt with aristocracy to avoid collapse of kingdom/state.
But these two fools didnt see what was happening.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context