I should probably sum up what I'm trying to say: The fall of the Romanovs certainly cannot be blamed on Rasputin. Like I mention below, I believe that the main reason was the inability of Nicholas to either crack down like a true tyrant, or yield to the demands of the 1905 revolutionary liberals, and make Russia a constitutional monarchy (like the UK). However, on top of all the grievances the elite in Petersburg, the farce of the holy man straight out of the Middle Ages must have only intensified their feeling that the Tsar must be overthrown.
Hi, I have read a slightly different account of this particular character's influence on Russian history, but make no mistake, he was critical in the downfall of the Romanovs.
In my undergrad days, I majored in Russian history and I do not recall ever hearing that Rasputin was a pacifist. If anything, Rapsutin was a supporter of the Tsar and mother Russia.
The Tsaritsa, Nikolas' wife, was German...this probably had something to do with the implications of treachery, since she was Rasputin's patron.
Rasputin is fascinating because of the influence he held over the Romanovs, at a critical time, and because of that, the influence he has had on world history. It was a bad influence on all accounts.
Most Russian elites with half a brain hated Rasputin since they could see what he was: a power-hungry con artist who preyed on the Tsaritsa's motherly instinct to care for her hemophiliac son. That is how he first got his foot into the palace at Petersburg.
Before shortly he was influencing the Tsar as well, who was not a particularly strong leader. Strong leaders are the only ones who ever survive in Russia. It was in fact Rasputin's advice that Nikolas go to the front in WWI and take personal control of the Russian Army, which was a tremendous mistake, since Nikolas had no military strategic training. The Germans ended up making no headway in the west, but beating the Russians so bad that people started...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document