The Romanov Dynasty

choi

The Romanov dynasty | Long They Ruled; A cruel story of hereditary power. Economist, Feb 20, 2016
http://www.economist.com/news/bo ... wer-long-they-ruled
(book review on Simon Sebag Montefiore, The Romanovs; 1613-1918. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2016)

Quote:

"His [Nicholas II's] ill-starred reign was redeemed only by the 'grace, patience, humour and dignity' which the doomed royal family showed in their captivity.

"The [Russia] system rested on the idea that only 'an all-powerful individual blessed by God' had the clout (the author prefers 'effulgent majesty') to run such a vast state, while also personifying the sacred mission of Orthodox Christianity. The key was delegation. Peter and Catherine, for all their whims and tyrannical ways, were superb at this: Catherine’s favourite, Grigory Potemkin, was an outstandingly gifted administrator; Alexander Suvorov an equally impressive military commander. The other monarchs mostly tried to run Russia themselves, with results ranging from the indifferent to the disastrous.

"Many of his [book author's] reflections on the Romanov era apply well to Vladimir Putin's domains now: the 'Russian pattern of behaviour,' he writes, is 'servility to those above, tyranny to those below.'

"The focus [of the book] is tightly on the intrigues of the court, and on the Romanovs’ role in European high politics. Economics, business, society and culture get only the skimpiest treatment. That is a pity. Alexander Etkind, an émigré historian, has argued that the root of Russia’s misfortunes is its natural wealth, which encourages its rulers to plunder the country, like colonial masters, rather than develop it. Yet despite its mostly dreadful rulers, the vast land did begin to modernise. The tragedy is that the later Romanovs were too scared [of revolutionaries], and in Nicholas II’s case also too out of touch, to start the reforms that could have saved them. That dilemma is as familiar as it is ancient.


Note:
(a) "RULING Russia was not a tempting prospect in 1613, when the first Romanov reluctantly took the throne. * * * Simon Sebag Montefiore’s story starts with the miserable, melancholic Michael, dragged to the smouldering ruins of the Kremlin by feuding boyars who were desperate for unity in the face of defeat by mighty Poland. Over the next three centuries the shrunken, war-torn principality of Muscovy became a colossal empire"
(i) Michael I of Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_I_of_Russia
(1596 – 1645; reign 1613 – 1645; the first Russian Tsar of the house of Romanov; His accession marked the end of the Time of Troubles [qv] of 1598-1613)
(ii) boyar
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boyar
(iii) Moscow Kremlin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Kremlin
(usually referred to as the Kremlin; The name Kremlin means "fortress inside a city")

Quote: "During the Time of Troubles, the Kremlin was held by the Polish forces for two years, between Sept 21, 1610 and Oct 26, 1612. The Kremlin's liberation by the volunteer army of prince Dmitry Pozharsky and Kuzma Minin paved the way for the election of Mikhail Romanov as the new tsar. During his reign and that of his son Alexis, the eleven-domed Upper Saviour Cathedral, Armorial Gate, Terem Palace, Amusement Palace and the palace of Patriarch Nikon were built. Following the death of Alexis, the Kremlin witnessed the Moscow Uprising of 1682, from which czar Peter [I or the Great] barely escaped. As a result, both of them disliked the Kremlin. Three decades later, Peter abandoned the residence of his forefathers for his new capital, Saint Petersburg.

* Kremlin (n; obsolete German Kremelien the citadel of Moscow, ultimately from Old Russian kremlĭ)
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kremlin
(iv) The Economist is wrong. During the Polish–Muscovite War (1605–18), Polish–Muscovite War did not burn Kremlin per se, but did burn part of Moscow. See

Daniel H Shubin, Tsars and Imposters; Russia's Time of Troubles. New York: Algora Publishing, 2009, at pages 196-197
https://books.google.com/books?i ... 0polish&f=false
(1611: "The Polish occupation was about 7000 troops in Moscow under the command of Gowsevski, while the population of the city [of Moscow] between 200,000-300,000.  Polish troops rested in empty homes in the Eastern Quarter while their officers in the Kremlin debated what to do next. * * * The Polish leaders realized their inability to win overwhelming odds against them: outnumbered by the residents of Moscow, a make-shift army organizing and advancing toward them, and their King Sigismund at Smolensk with his fixation on the Siege and not concerned with providing them troops. Polish officers occupying the Kremlin gave the order to burn Moscow.  On March 19, 1611, fighting began in the street of Moscow between Russians and Poles in the Eastern Quarter. The fighting spread in the streets, the two enemies were shooting at each other from rooftops and towers and windows, although Russians far outnumbered Poles. The fighting spread into the White Quarter. Driving forward the residents were pushing the Poles into the Kremlin, their only place of refuge. That evening, 2,000 cavalry of Germans Poles left the kremlin and Eastern Quarter and set on fire the buildings of the White Quarter: houses, churches, businesses")

(b) "dismal failures such as Alexander III, who ruled Russia as a 'curmudgeonly landowner' "

Alexander III of Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_III_of_Russia
(1845 – 1894; reign 1881-1894; He was highly conservative and reversed some of the liberal reforms of his father, Alexander II [who was assassinated]; Nicholas II was Alexander III's son)
(c) Alexander Suvorov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov
(1729 or 1730 – 1800)

coincided with the time of Catherine the Great
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_Great
1729-1796; reign 1762-1796 (age 67))