Occasionally I like to use my blog for
students to complete an extra credit assignment. It’s time! This blog post goes
along with the “Revolution in Russia” unit. Responding to a blog post is
voluntary. Every student that makes at least one comment that adds to the
post's discussion and meets the criteria detailed below will earn +2 points
extra credit (kind of like an extra credit on a test or "tiz.")
This blog post assignment is designed
to be “honors” level. Yes, it behooves you to read the selection and
participate in the discussion if you are thinking about taking honors next year
– it will give you an opportunity to practice some skills for next year.
However, even if those not taking honors next year will benefit from doing this
assignment. It also helps develop a deeper understanding of what we are
discussing in the classroom.
As we will discuss, one of the more
immediate causes of the Russian Revolution was the people's concerns with
Rasputin's influence on the Tsarina and subsequently government policy. On my
website, in the Unit 7 Revolution in Russia folder toward the bottom of the
World History Handouts page, is an excerpt from Robert K. Massie’s classic
history of the events leading to the Russian Revolution – Nicholas and Alexandra. The excerpt contains both the introduction
by the author and Chapter 12: A Mother’s Agony.
Read the excerpt, reflect on what it
says, and then post a comment that demonstrates some original thought. Your
comment should be 100 words or more and follow the flow of the discussion
thread. It specifically has to address each of the following:
- I included the introduction so that you can get some
background about the author’s approach when writing this book, and perhaps
some insight into his attitudes and potential biases on the subject. Based
on this, how reliable do you think the information presented in his book
is? Very reliable? Somewhat reliable? Not very reliable? Not reliable at
all? Why? (“Many consider it a classic.” is not an acceptable answer. I
gave you the introduction for a reason.)
- For the sake of argument, let’s consider this book
reliable enough for you to form some opinions about what happened during
this time period. What was the most interesting thing you learned that you
did not know before? Why? What question(s) do you now have about what
happened/why it happened? (Good historians ALWAYS have more questions, so
“none” is not acceptable!)
I will accept comments on this post up
until Tuesday February 4 at 11:59pm.
How To Post A Comment
In order to comment, you must first click where it says how many comments have been made at the bottom of the post. The comment field then should be at the end of all the existing comments. Do not use your full name or the full name of any other student that has posted a comment. Your post will be rejected if it includes a full name. First name, last initial works well. If you have a Google Mail account you can obviously use that profile. Just make sure you put your first name and last initial at the end of your post if you have some kind of funky user name. You can also comment as "Anonymous", but again provide your first name and last initial at the end of your post. I can't give you credit if I don't know who you are!
How To Post A Comment
In order to comment, you must first click where it says how many comments have been made at the bottom of the post. The comment field then should be at the end of all the existing comments. Do not use your full name or the full name of any other student that has posted a comment. Your post will be rejected if it includes a full name. First name, last initial works well. If you have a Google Mail account you can obviously use that profile. Just make sure you put your first name and last initial at the end of your post if you have some kind of funky user name. You can also comment as "Anonymous", but again provide your first name and last initial at the end of your post. I can't give you credit if I don't know who you are!
I will be checking for comments once a
day, usually at night, so be patient if your post does not show up right away.
Please let me know if you have
any questions.
With every snow day the deadline slides a day. Yesterday's snow day moves the deadline to tomorrow February 5 at 11:59pm. If the weather folks are correct and we are home tomorrow, it slides to Thursday. Take advantage of the extra time and do this. It will be worth your while!
ReplyDeleteRobert K. Massie’s classic novel “Nicholas and Alexandra” tells of the life of the last Russian tsar and tsarina. Massie truly identifies with both of the characters, and has deep sympathy towards the royal family. He truly believes they were going through a rough time, and had the Russian people recognized that, they wouldn’t have overthrown them. He sympathizes with Alexandra over the heartbreak of her son’s hemophilia, and defends her complex relationships with Gregory Rasputin and Anna Vyrubova. Massie comes off as bias towards the royal family, claiming “Nicholas paid for his mistakes – he died as a martyr with his wife and five children.” Clearly, Massie believes that Nicholas was a heroic man, and I think that he almost overlooks the tsar’s mistakes because of the way he treated his family with so much compassion and love. Massie also describes the tsar as having courage and dignity, and states that “It is for these qualities that Nicholas II was an exceptional man. For, in the end, he did succeed.” Because Massie clearly sympathizes with the tsar and his family, this novel is somewhat unreliable. He never addresses the other side of the argument, and almost overlooks the tsar’s mistakes because he was a having family problems. It really leads people to form their own opinions on the subject and raises the question, “If you were in the same situation, would you have done the same thing?” He addresses all of Nicholas’s positive actions, like being with his family during a rough patch of time, but never addresses the things he failed to do for his country. The novel does include direct quotes from those closest to the tsar and his family. The novel has direct quotes from diaries, letters, and memoirs and cites many other primary sources. Finally, the book was published in 1967, and Robert K. Massie was born in 1929. So, although the novel captures the events that did occur leading up to the Russian Revolution, the author did not experience this first hand and degrades his reliability. The book, therefore, is only a secondary source on the topic. To conclude, because Massie sympathizes with Nicholas and the royal family, “Nicholas and Alexandra” is only a somewhat reliable source.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the excerpt, I was able to really understand the situation the royal family was put in before the Russian Revolution. Previous to this, I could not sympathize with the tsar. He seemed well-meaning, but weak and indecisive to me. After reading the book, I can almost admire him for his dedication to his family. Sure, abandoning his country like that was not exactly the wisest move, but he was there for his wife and kids when they needed him the most. I also didn’t know that Anna Vyrubova had so much influence on the tsarina. I learned about Gregory Raputin previously to this; but I didn’t realize that Alexandra trusted him so much because of her friend. I can’t help but wonder why she invested so much in these people though. Rasputin was an ordinary peasant, and Anna was almost an outcast in society, not particularly pretty and certainly not fit to be the best friend of the tsarina. I also can’t help but wonder why the royal family kept these affairs private. Were they embarrassed, or did they just not want people taking pity on them? Keeping the affairs private certainly weakened their rule and led to the collapse of their reign, but did they do it to protect themselves? Would it have made them appear weaker than they already seemed to be by the Russian people, or would they have been sympathized for? In all, “Nicholas and Alexandra” raises many questions about the choices of the last Russian tsar during his last days of rule.
Very nice job Kate! Comments don't have to be this long moving forward, but something with this depth of thought is strongly recommended. Blog assignments like this work best when they turn into civil conversations (note I said CIVIL). Therefore feel free to comment directly to this post or subsequent posts. For example, Kate comes to some well-supported conclusions that you may or may not agree with. She also asks some nice questions that you may want to address. Note, I hate "Yeah, what she said" comments where the commentator does not elaborate.In the end I'm looking for everyone to show some original thought.
ReplyDeleteBTW, there is a maximum length to these things -- 4,096 characters (not words, and spaces count, I think.)
ReplyDeleteThe book, Nicholas and Alexandra, by Robert K. Massie, provides an inside view of the lives of Tsar Nicholas II and his wife, Tsarina Alexandra. Based on the introduction and text from chapter 12, I believe that the text overall gives very reliable information about Tsarina Alexandra's personal struggle with having a son affected with hemophilia. The introduction explains the author's motives to writing the book which feeds into his own personal life and drive to discover how such a prestigious family dealt with such a traumatizing disability. The author possibly wishes to discover more tips about protecting his own hemophilic son. This drive led the author to pursue extensive research by examining primary sources related to Alexandra's struggles. These primary sources include diaries, letters, and memoirs written by people who were closely involved with this struggle. Although the text itself is written by someone who provides secondary source writing that is published over fifty years past this event's occurrence, much of the material shown within the text is primary source evidence. However, despite this specific evidence providing very reliable inside information, if still fails to tell the entire story of the royal family during these years. Thus, the text is no longer very reliable when examining the larger picture of what occurred during this time period as only a one sided view is shown. The introduction clearly shows the author's bias in favor towards the royal family. The author depicts Tsar Nicholas II as an extremely intelligent, caring man. The author makes excuses as to why Tsar Nicholas II may not have been the best leader for the monarch, as the author claims he was simply suited to rule for the English Monarch during the 19th century. The author further claims how previous rulers would not have been suited to take on Nicholas II's role during the tough time period. Clearly, the author believes the good in Tsar Nicholas II and fails to provide many primary sources going against this idea. The same was done for Tsarina Alexandra as she was depicted within the chapter as an extremely caring mother who chose her friends not based on looks, but on personality. This may have been completely true; however, the author still fails to leave out any negative aspects about Tsarina Alexandra. This causes the reader to sympathize for Alexandra and her family, which is a very different scenario and outlook that most Russians held towards the royal family during this time period. The author fails to include any information that makes the royal family look bad, and instead makes the Russian people seem insensitive towards Tsarina Alexandra. Overall, the information provided within the chapter is filled with reliable primary sources. However, the author's biased views towards the royal family leaves out vital pieces of information that are essential for the reader to understand the entire situation of what really occurred, thus creating an unreliable picture of this time period.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting fact that I learned from the text was the reasoning behind why Tsarina Alexandra was so desperate to give birth to a boy despite having given birth to four healthy girls. I discovered that due to the law of succession changed by Tsar Paul, only males could inherit the throne. Tsarina Alexandra simply did not want the throne to be passed on to Tsar Nicholas II's younger brother Michael. She was desperate to keep her direct family in power with the use of a son. I am curious as to why Tsar Nicholas II could not simply change the law of succession again to restore it to its previous rule that the Russian crown could be inherited by either a male or female. I am unaware of this and would like to find out what regulations were preventing anyone from fixing this law once again to allow one of Alexandra's daughters to inherit the throne. I am sure that restrictions were most likely present; however, the novel's failure to explain these restrictions leaves me searching for answers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI deleted a comment because the person's last name was mentioned. Please take it out and repost with your first name and first initial of last name. I saved it if you do not have another copy of it.
DeleteIn Robert K. Massie’s novel, Nicholas and Alexandra, the reader is given an original perspective on how the last tsar of Russia and his family dealt with a disease, hemophilia, in their only son and heir to the thrown. Massie writes that his intention for writing the novel was to, “share, an account of one family whose struggle with the disease was to have momentous consequences for the entire world.” The author describes, quite extensively, how the royal family should be admired for their tremendous effort to protect the tsarevich of Russia as it occupied a significant amount of their time. This dedication caused the public, who didn’t know about the tsarevich’s situation, to spread rumors and overall develop a distrustful view of the royal family. I agree that both the tsarina, as well as the tsar, were depicted as heroic figures, despite their ability to lead their nation. The author clearly shows his bias opinion in favor of the family which makes this source unreliable. Even when he admitted that the tsar was an incompetent leader, he states that he can not be compared to past monarchs due to the events that occurred during this time. Massie evidently is quick to defend the tsar, and is more focussed on how the diagnosis of his son affected his personal decisions, which resulted in a negative perspective of him by the public. As mentioned in the above comment, the author fails to include information about the entire situation, although primary sources provide reputable, first hand accounts. Overall, although a different perspective that defends the royal family is given, this novel fails to inform the reader about the subject at hand in its entirety.
DeleteThe most interesting fact that I learned was that citizens in Russia were unaware that their heir to the thrown had hemophilia. This shows why they had such a negative perspective of the tsarina. It makes me wonder what would have happened if the public found out, and how significant of a difference it would make. Because of the information about how dedicated Alexandra was to her son, it is revealed that the community had an extremely unjustified view of the tsarina. The novel states that the public wasn’t informed because, “What would be the fate of the boy, the dynasty and the nation if the Russian people knew that their future Tsar was an invalid living under the constant shadow of death?” As the author points out, withholding this information was far worse than revealing it, for the public developed a dreadfully cynical view of the tsarina. I disagree with the tsar possibly changing the law of succession when I questioned throughout the chapter, “why won’t she simply have another child?” She already had five! Clearly, she went through an enormous struggle to keep her son safe when Massie even states that the royal families often expect a few of their children to die off during their lifetime.
Robert K. Massie describes Nicholas II in the text Nicholas and Alexandra, as a great man, which reveals his bias toward the situation. He states, “These human qualities are eternal and will transcend the rise and fall of every empire. It is for these qualities that Nicholas II was an exceptional man. For, in the end, he did succeed.” This demonstrates Massie’s slight bias about Nicholas II and the events of his life. However, the text Nicholas and Alexandra has references to primary sources as well. One example on page 160 states, “She was “indeed a sick woman,” wrote Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, the Tsar’s sister.” This supports that the text Nicholas and Alexandra was a reliable source due to the facts that were included.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra clearly cared for her son, Alexis. On pages 152-3, it states, “For Alexandra sitting beside him, unable to help, each cry seemed a sword thrust into the bottom of her heart.” This excerpt reveals the psychological toll that her son’s chronic condition had on her. Another quote from page 153-4 states, “The normal world, going about its everyday life, seems coldly unfeeling. Since the normal world cannot help and does not understand, she prefers to cut herself off from it.” This shows how Alexandra’s entire aspect on life was changing negatively due to her son’s illness. I found this event to be very interesting because I never thought that a personal hardship that is shrouded in secrecy can produce such controversy among the Russian people. This became apparent when rumors of Alexis’ condition were circulating around the nation. Some examples of this include accusations of mental retardation, epilepsy, and the victim of anarchist’s bombs. One question that I have about the text is that did Alexandra know that her family would be subject to incredible rumors when she hid her son’s physical condition from the public. Also, if she did know this would happen, would it have been better to be honest with the public and expose Alexis’ hemophilia? Overall, this text informed me greatly about this event yet leaves vital questions unanswered. Joey A.
In Robert K. Massie’s “Nicholas and Alexandra”, he talks about Tsar Nicholas 2nd, Empress Alexandra’s, and other royal family struggles like hemophilia during their time in power. The introduction shows very reliable resources to support his answers, however he shows bias in explaining the situation with Alexandra and the royal family having hemophilia. He explained from his research in journals, letters that hemophilia had done to royal families and interpret what it means for someone in their family to have this disease and the struggle that came along with it. The nickname of Nicholas the 2nd was “Bloody Nicholas”. He believed that his nickname came from, him being very, “shallow, week, and stupid… presiding feebly over the days of a corrupt and crumbling system.” He also showed bias from this comment “Nicholas paid for his mistakes. He died as a martyr with his wife and 5 children.” These comments show bias because he believes that Nicholas was self centered and dumb during this time with the government and dying for his mistakes was a good thing. Other people of that period could have disagreed and said that he was brave and strong and died for his good actions.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing I learned that I never learned before was that hemophilia had affected not only Empress Alexandra but a lot of the royal family as well. I believed that only Nicholas 2nd and Empress Alexandra’ s child only had this terrible disease however, I didn’t know that it would spread to other royal families. In the chapter titled “A Mother’s Agony” we learned about hemophilia carriers and how it spread throughout royal families. For example, Queen Victoria was a hemophilia carrier and carried it down to her son, Prince Leopold, who had hemophilia, two of her daughters, Princess Alice and Princess Beatrice were carriers of this disease, and her grandsons had hemophilia as well. On the other hand Alexandra was overprotective of her son and tried to keep him safe. She felt emotionally unstable that if her son got hurt or fell, he could possibly die. On page 152-153 it states, “Mama, help me, help me!... each cry seemed a sword thrust into the bottom of her heart.” She had her son and mothers of other sons of the royal family put in hemophilic padded suits on and padded the trees around the park when they went out to play.
The questions I had for this piece was before she had Alexis, was she going to give up her royal duties and take care of her suffering child? My other question was how did hemophilia only happen to the royal family, later did it spread to other families? How did it start? I look forward to learning answers to these questions as I deepen into this period of history.
In the book, Nicholas and Alexandra written by Robert K Massie the author does express some bias because of personal experiences with his son. I saw this in the beginning of the introduction when talking about tsar Nicholas he said "what matters was that Nicholas was a bad tsar"(ix) .He is yes and no a reliable source simply because he used real facts but did not experience this in real life being born in 1929. He did use quotes from other texts that he cited, and in my opinion are reliable sources but since most of the information he did not experience makes me feel more like it is not a reliable source.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing I learned about that I did not know about before I read this was that Alexandra thought Rasputin had some healing powers and could help cure her son. I found this to be somewhat crazy because obviously humans do not have magical healing powers so for her to believe this, she must have been really desperate for help. One of the questions that I have is how she did not know how her son had hemophilia. In my opinion it is hard to believe that she did not know this considering how so many women in their family had carried this gene. Anthony T.
Good stuff so far. However, I have a few comments. First, don't forget to spell check before submitting. You should ALWAYS do that before submitting something electronic. I even spell check my emails. Next, the adjective form of "bias" is "biased", as in "Yes, Massie is biased."
ReplyDeleteTyler J.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie for its historical accuracy, one can assume that it is quite accurate. Even though Massie wasn’t born during said time, with his birth taking place about a decade after the events of the story, and though he was born in Kentucky, USA rather than Russia, the sources used by him are much more tied to the people in the book. In the text, Massie described the sources used as “The diaries, letters, and memoirs left by the men and women who were intimately involved with this great drama” (viii). Throughout the chapter, Massie also cites the descriptions of the characters he writes are right from key figures from that place and time. Unlike the paintings seen by the class during the 2nd quarter, this is an informational novel, which is able to use evidence and sources from the exact point in time to better add to the text. With all of this in mind, the reliable sources point towards the accuracy of Massie’s account of anguish in the Russian monarchy.
While reading this excerpt, I was mostly intrigued by the compassionate personality expressed by the Tsarina, Alexandra Feodorovna. Massie is able to explain that the infliction of hemophilia on her son, Alexis, filled her with the desire to help others. This explains the story’s later mentioning of her relationships with Sonia Orbeliani, a chronically ill woman, and Anna Vyrubova, a close friend and confidante. This fascinated me, and gave me a much better insight into the lives of the Russian monarchy before the inevitable revolution. The tsarina wasn’t even the only compassionate one in the monarchy. The Tsar Nicolas II is also described in the text to be a kind and loving person. His dedication to his country and the citizens in it are mentioned in the introduction as being very strong. Even though he was not the best Tsar, he was certainly a good man. Massie remarked that “Essentially, the tragedy of Nicholas II was that he appeared in the wrong place in history” (X). His compassion for the people’s issues did not suit the brutality of Europe during that time, and even though he certainly tried to defend his position, he was much more lenient towards his citizens that ancestors of his like Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great.
Looking at previous comments, I would have to agree with what has been previously said. The information displayed in Chapter 12 of American Robert K. Massie’s book entitled, “Nicholas and Alexandra” seems to be relatively reliable based on the sources Massie used to put it all together, however Massie himself seems to be twisting this information towards his point of view of which he explained in the introduction that although many consider Nicholas II to be “Bloody Nicholas” because “the test of greatness in tsars... is not in their private lives or even in their good intentions, but in their deeds,” Massie himself considers that “Nicholas II was an exceptional man” because of the values he placed in his role as the father of a family and the poor placement he was spontaneously put in by the universe in the time of the Russian downfall. Because of this look with which Massie views the events that took place, it seems that he is using the information he gives to explain that Nicholas did everything a good man would have done in the circumstance that his family is in terrible stress. In order to do this, he may have left out some information from other sides of the story, thus making the information not completely reliable. In addition, he was not alive in this time period, so he did not witness these events firsthand which could make the information less reliable. However, unlike previous commenters, I do not think this creates a large gap for incredibility because Massie used primary sources to gather the information. However, one may argue that it does make the information a lot less credible because it is his interpretation of the events that took place and may not be what actually happened.
ReplyDeleteBased on the fact that the information was for the most part relatively reliable, I found it very interesting to read about what Empress Alexandra’s life was actually like taking into account the constant stress she was under. Reading about the actual health problems it caused her, I realized that I never actually stopped to consider what being a mother to a hemophilic child would actually be like. I assumed it would be rather nerve-racking, and it makes sense to me that the mothers had a “natural reaction... to overprotect her child.” However, this chapter expressed this overprotectiveness even further in that the stress of this diseased child caused Alexandra symptoms of “psychosomatic anxiety symptoms brought on by worry over the health of her son.”
As I read the past comments on this blog, I noticed that one response said that the reader was surprised that Alexandra was shocked by the fact that her son had hemophilia given the fact that the majority of her male relatives had it. The text questions if the royals were alerted of the genetic patterns found in the passing of the hemophilic gene, however I wonder if it were more than just the royals but the women of this time period? I know that women were starting to gain more rights at this time, however they were still treated differently than the men. I wonder if more men knew about these genetic patterns instead of the women because the text also mentions that Queen Victoria was surprised by the amount of her offspring that produced hemophilic sons. Furthermore, I noticed that another reader mentioned the fact that Alexandra desperately wanted a son that could be an heir because a previous emperor hated his mother so much that he changed the rule so that no female could take the throne. This led me to wonder why Nicholas couldn’t take the pressure off of his wife by changing the rule back so that one of Alexandra’s four daughters could be considered the heir?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Robert K. Massie's novel "Nicholas and Alexandra", Massie talks about the hard topic of hemophilia and the tsar of Russia's family dealing with the disease in their only son and heir to the throne. Massie shows his connection through his writing when he states that he himself has a hemophiliac son. Although at times, Massie does show some bias, for the most part, this reading is quit reliable. The introduction has very reliable sources with stating both sides for his details. For example, when talking about Nicholas Massie identified that some people thought of him as “shallow, weak, and stupid” but he then goes on to say that some people thought of him as a “good man”. Massie did a very good job of leaving it up to the reader to make their own judgments on his writing instead of putting his own thought and opinions into our heads. Massie goes on to talk about Nicholas and Alexandra and their son’s trouble with hemophilia. However, this may not be one-hundred percent reliable because he is not a primary source and was not actually there to make these inferences. What I found to be most interesting was that because Prince Leopold was the first of the royal hemophiliacs, all of his five sisters were potential carries of the disease. I find it very fascinating that all of the sisters could have and that the gene of being a hemophiliac was that strong. Although, I still don’t understand how this disease took over so many families like Alexandra’s and most of the princess of Europe and yet no one has been able to find a cure for it or at least a medicine that can help it. If it has been around since the late 1800’s why has no one been able to figure out a treatment? To conclude, this novel gave reliable details about hemophilia and has informed me greatly on this topic but when facing the present I’m still not sure on how people are willing to solve these unexplained questions. Cassie N.
ReplyDeleteSophia C.
ReplyDeleteThe book, Nicholas and Alexandra, by Robert K. Massie shows a story of how a royal family has to overcome their son's incurable disease of hemophilia. Along with having to deal with the family disease, the tsarina was greatly influenced by Rasputin, maybe influenced a little too much for historians to handle. To begin, the introduction of this book shows that "like most things in life, of a circumstance of Fate." This small quote shows that the author's fate was to write a book about Nicholas and Alexandra. Based on the information included I think that the information is unreliable. The information is not reliable because Robert states his opinion multiple times in the introduction. Although opinions are important, they are unreliable in a books that evolves around historical events. I believe this because the author, Robert K. Massie, comes off as a bias writer. He is leaning more towards the side of Tsar Nicholas and all of the work the tsar had done in and out of Russia. In conclusion, the book, Nicholas and Alexandra is a bias book leaning towards the side of the Tsar with unreliable information incorporated.
Robert K. Massie the author of the classic Nicholas and Alexander was fascinated with hemophilia because his own child suffered from the disease. His curiosity led him to research the life of other hemophiliacs and their families, which ultimately led him to the famous Tsar Nicholas and Empress Alexandra. I believe his writings in Chapter 12 are reliable because of the extent of research he did. He traced the disease all the way back to the Pharaohs of Egypt and Queen Victoria, he described how it filtered through the European royal families. He also studied very personal details about Nicholas and Alexandra and what the birth of their son, Alexis meant to their family and Russia. Massie is clearly biased toward Nicholas because he can relate to him as a father of a sick child. Before reading this chapter I did not know how Alexandra had met Rasputin, this was my first introduction to Anna Vyrubova. I also did not know how much hemophilia had really affected Tsar Nicholas, his rule over Russia and his family and that it had been kept a secret from the Russian people. If the Russians had known the truth about Alexis’s condition would they still have mistreated and killed the family for their poor leadership? Finally, I can’t help but wonder if Nicholas was a ruler in the 21st century would his family issues be so secretive? Or would he be raising awareness and speaking out for families fighting this disease every day of their lives? - Juliet M
ReplyDeleteHaving a child with hemophilia Massie is very sympathetic towards the tsar and tsarina, because he faces very similar struggles with his own child. “In terms of accomplishment, it may be unfair to compare Nicholas II with his towering ancestors. No one can say how well they would have managed under the cascade of disasters which broke upon Nicholas.” We see in the above quote that Massie claims Nicholas II’s numerous distractions are the reason he was a bad leader. He really sees Alexis’s hemophilia as a huge challenge for the dynasty and claims Nicholas II was a great leader based of his intentions. I believe Massie has overlooked the tsar’s mistakes because of his relentless effort to save Russia. Just as stated in the text “Nicholas was caught in a web he could not get out of.” Massie also sympathizes for the lonely tsarina and defends relationships with Gregory Rasputin and Anna Vyrubova. “Nicholas and Alexandra” focuses mainly on the human emotion that was behind the Russian Revolution. Massie gives us an up close and personal look at the hardships faced by the tsar and tsarina. He even dives into the feelings of the tsarina herself, and how her loneliness justifies her complex relationships and how these relationships affected the Russian Revolution. Because he sympathizes with the dynasty and has a child of his own with hemophilia Robert K. Massie’s “Nicholas And Alexandra” is only somewhat reliable. As it may use firsthand accounts and factual evidence to support the main claim the piece itself is extremely biased. We see examples of biased numerous times throughout the story such as when Massie states “Nicholas paid for his mistakes – he died as a martyr with his wife and five children.” And “It is for these qualities that Nicholas II was an exceptional man.” Clearly, he views the tsar as some sort of Christ figure that had admirable traits. Opinionated statements such as, “In the end, he truly succeeded.” Leads me to believe Massie is very supportive of the tsar which in turn would make his writing biased towards this cause. I believe Massie’s main purpose for writing “Nicholas and Alexandra” was to inform others that Nicholas II was not a bad tsar. He had good intentions that he could not turn into actions, because his reign was overshadowed by numerous conflicts.
ReplyDeleteBased off of what we have learned in class, I had pictured the tsar as someone similar to a French Monarch. I had believed he was the cause of the people starving and the country’s economic problems. While all these problems persisted throughout Russia I pictured the tsar in his cozy palace dining away and spending money at his leisure. But just as Massie stated, “In earlier era we blamed revolutions and wars on a single leader, but now we have become more tolerant and we have put higher value on intentions and effort.” After reading this excerpt I now understand that the tsar was truly trying to save Russia. He was nothing like the French Monarchs, and our history books need to stress this more. The tsar had great intentions, and I now have a much higher respect for him. The most important lesson I have learned is about human emotion in historical figures. When reading from a textbook you just hear names and places and don’t think much of it. After reading this excerpt I have come to realize that the Kings and Queens we learn about are really just everyday people like you and me. They all have everyday problems and this is seen in the case of the Tsarina. By learning this I can now make a greater connection with these historical figures. After reading the excerpt I wonder would there have been a Russian Revolution if Alexis didn’t have Hemophilia? I also wonder If keeping Alexis’s sickness a secret private hurt the dynasty why would the royal family continue to do so? One of my biggest questions is, Why didn’t the tsar kill or kick out Rasputin if he knew he created tensions throughout the country? I hope to find answers to these questions during class. -Nathan C.
Robert K. Massie wrote this book to provide some more information about Nicholas and Alexandra. In the introduction he stated that this was his interpretation of letters that were written between people who were immediately involved in this situation. Since he was not there himself, he just interrupts other people’s writing. This makes this source a secondary source. Although it is a secondary source, it is still somewhat reliable because the author states a lot of facts. In the introduction, however, he did state that his opinion was that he thought that Nicholas was successful because of his qualities were exceptional and that they would have an impact on every empire. Robert K. Massie did show a little bit of bias which would makes this source less reliable.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting how Alexandra would try and help others who could be helped. She devoted her time to help these other people have lives that were worth living for. She already spent a lot of time with her own son trying to help him out by protecting him, yet she continued to give up more of her time to Sonia Orbeliani and Anna Vyrubova. She isolated herself from many other people and devoted a majority of her time to these people. She would even stay up at night to make sure that everyone was alright. She ended up making herself ill. Before reading this I never knew how caring and loving Alexandra was. Other sources of information made her seem more of a cold hearted person because she isolated herself and was not that social of a person. I never really sympathized at all with the Tsar and his family but now reading this made me feel bad for their family. However, I still am wondering whether or not Alexandra knew that by helping out others, she was making herself sick. I still am interested to know more of how Sonia and Anna felt being in this situation.
Robert Massie, the author of the 1967 Nicholas and Alexandra, is known for his distinctively brilliant style of writing. Before one can determine the reliability of this piece, it is essential that we understand the style in Massie’s writing. Robert Massie has a firm understanding of literary techniques such as narrative and plot. When Massie writes, he utilizes narrative perspective amongst his subject that he convinces the reader he is not examining his subject, as much as he is examining the subjects through their own eyes. As Kathryn Harrison in the New York Times wrote, “The genius of ‘Nicholas and Alexandra’ was that it recreated the tragedy of the last Romanov rulers from the inside out, intimately enough to challenge even a Bolshevik to insist on the decadence and inhumanity of monarchs whose first of many misfortunes was an accident of timing, as czarism was defunct if not yet dead when Nicholas inherited the crown.”
ReplyDeleteGiven that this book is written as a secondary source, and the author is attempting to portray the perspective of Nicholas and Alexandra, it could not be fully reliable. However, it also must be considered that Massie has dedicated much of his career to studying the House of Romanov, and could be considered an expert on the subject. Massie has studied diaries, and letters from Nicholas, Alexandra, and others who were “intimately related” in their story. Through Massie’s research, he has gained a better insight into Nicholas and Alexandra’s experience and perspective, and he attempts to piece together, with his own interpretation, a more reliable account of the Romanov’s experience.
Clearly, many authors do write with a bias. Although it is difficult to make a judgment on Massie’s bias without reading the entire book, it seems that Massie wants to share Nicholas and Alexandra’s experience, and convince the reader that the fall of the House of Romanov was matter of fate and timing. Massie suggests in the introduction that Nicholas II was a man with great qualities whose death was for a higher power.
After reading this passage, I am shocked to learn about the devotion and compassion, which both Nicholas and Alexandra had towards their son, Alexis. It is devastating however to learn how lonely and tragic Alexandra’s life had become as she worried about her son. I also never knew that another who had a great influence on the royal family, Anna, connected the influence that Rasputin had over Alexandra. I am also surprised to learn that Alexandra herself was also ill. I would like to learn more about the perspective of the Russian people during the suffering of the royal family. After learning that most Russian’s did not know about the Alexis’s hemophilia, and the diseases severity, it gives me more insight into the pressure felt by the royal family, and the misunderstanding between the people of Russia and the House of Romanov.
-Julia N
In Robert K. Massie’s classic novel, "Nicholas and Alexandra", Massie talks about the awful experience the royal family had to encounter with their son that had hemophilia. Their son's name was Alexis. Alexandra was devastated to find out he had hemophilia because it was her only son and she wanted him to heir to throne. When Alexis was growing, Alexandra was very protective and depressed. in the reading it states, "For Alexandra sitting beside him, unable to help, each cry seemed as a sword thrust into the bottom of her heart," she was very sad to think Alexis would never be able to become royal. The text also states. The royal family of Spain put its hemophilic sons in padded suits and padded the trees in the park when they went out to play. Alexandra's solution was to assign the two sailors to hover so closely over Alexis that they could reach out and catch him before he fell." Alexis was clearly very protective and did anything for the safety of Alexis. Alexandra's hopes became to rise up when she meets a man named Rasputin. Rasputin was reported to have miraculous powers and to be able to heal. Alexandra thought the hemophilia would go away. Later she became close friends with a lady named Anna. She moved near the royal palace. Anna was later "described as sharing the beds of both Nicholas and Rasputin." People got really mad, so she was dragged to prison. Anna then defended herself and was medically certified as being a virgin. Years went by and Alexandra started to get very ill. Nicholas sent her to the German spa to get help. Massie is shown to have a bias towards the royal family. Massie thinks Nicholas is a good man. This causes the novel to be somewhat unreliable. Massie never acknowledges the other opinions on Nicholas. We only know Massie's opinion. Not only did Massie only talk about one side’s opinion on Nicholas, he also was not present to see what actually happened. He does not know every detail about Alexandra and every thought of the royal family. Clearly, Robert K. Massie’s classic novel, "Nicholas and Alexandra", is a somewhat unreliable source because it is a secondary source. Massie was not there writing as it went on, he wrote about it after it happened.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing I learned is that Alexandra later got sick. She had a lot of stress. When she was little she had problems with her legs and back. She was strong enough to hold herself up. She later was informed that she had "'inherited a family weakness of the blood vessels', which often led to "progressive hysteria."' then Nicholas took her to the German spa of Nauheim to get a cure. After many weeks she went back to Russia without a cure. This was interesting to me because I never knew she became ill and went to a spa to try to find a cure. Some questions I have are is there a cure to hemophilia in present day? Another question I have is why does hemophilia occur mostly in males? Lastly, did Alexis die of bleeding to death from injury? Hopefully in the future I will be informed with the answers to these questions. Jessica H.
Good job everyone. I can you you all got a lot out of this. See you in class!
ReplyDelete