Take a photo of a barcode or cover
237 reviews for:
Nicolau e Alexandra: O relato clássico da queda da dinastia Romanov
Robert K. Massie, Angela Lobo de Andrade
4.28 AVERAGE
237 reviews for:
Nicolau e Alexandra: O relato clássico da queda da dinastia Romanov
Robert K. Massie, Angela Lobo de Andrade
4.28 AVERAGE
Some criticisms: He's a bit of a monarchist who has a tendency to downplay the causes of revolution, such as the brutal existence under autocracy. Also, like many others, he almost completely airbrushes the girls out of the story.
Apart from that though, this is an exemplary piece of historical narrative which illuminates a story of such proportions that Shakespeare, Tolstoy and George RR Martin together couldn't have written it. Massie brings them all to life: the mountainous Alexander III, the chaos god Rasputin, the haemophiliac child Alexis who unwittingly caused an empire to tumble. And, at the centre of it all, Nicky and Alex, two quiet, pious souls desperately in love with each other, but doomed to die a most brutal death.
It's a great work of historical non-fiction, that reads like a novel at times. The fact that we know they're all going to end up dying in a basement (spoilers: yes, even Anastacia) just makes it more compelling.
Apart from that though, this is an exemplary piece of historical narrative which illuminates a story of such proportions that Shakespeare, Tolstoy and George RR Martin together couldn't have written it. Massie brings them all to life: the mountainous Alexander III, the chaos god Rasputin, the haemophiliac child Alexis who unwittingly caused an empire to tumble. And, at the centre of it all, Nicky and Alex, two quiet, pious souls desperately in love with each other, but doomed to die a most brutal death.
It's a great work of historical non-fiction, that reads like a novel at times. The fact that we know they're all going to end up dying in a basement (spoilers: yes, even Anastacia) just makes it more compelling.
I read this book for a book report this year and at first I thought that I would absolutely hate it because I had to read it. Then, I actually began reading it. I immediately fell deep into the story of Tsar Nicholas and Empress Alexandra and I couldn't put the book down. Needles to say I got an A+ on the report and a book that I will probably read and re-read multiple times.
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Massie takes a deep look at the family life of Nicholas II, and the book retains this focus throughout. It's not surprising, then, that he finds the causes of the collapse of the Romanovs in that family life. He writes well, portrays his characters well, and I almost buy his central idea: that the autocracy fell primarily because of Nicholas' softness and weakness, combined with the perverse results that came from Alexandra's care for her only son's hemophilia.
Maybe a bigger bastard as Tsar could have forestalled the revolution, or altered its result. But I'm not so sure. Three great dynasties in Europe all fell within a couple of years of each other. I tend to think that bigger forces were at work than the family matters that are the subject here. But the family matters, on their own, are pretty fascinating, and Massie does a really good job of making these people understandable and human. And the story itself is pretty compelling and tragic.
Maybe a bigger bastard as Tsar could have forestalled the revolution, or altered its result. But I'm not so sure. Three great dynasties in Europe all fell within a couple of years of each other. I tend to think that bigger forces were at work than the family matters that are the subject here. But the family matters, on their own, are pretty fascinating, and Massie does a really good job of making these people understandable and human. And the story itself is pretty compelling and tragic.
A comprehensive joint biography of the Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra Feodorovna, quite sympathetic to them, even as it acknowledged that these people had utterly no political astuteness (and rightly so!).
I think undue weight was given to the role of Rasputin in the downfall of Tsarist Russia, but otherwise I enjoyed the depth of detail and the inclusion of people and events that provided a wide context for the events yet to come. Engaging like the best history books, this one has made me want to wade further into the world of early Bolshevik Russia.
I think undue weight was given to the role of Rasputin in the downfall of Tsarist Russia, but otherwise I enjoyed the depth of detail and the inclusion of people and events that provided a wide context for the events yet to come. Engaging like the best history books, this one has made me want to wade further into the world of early Bolshevik Russia.
Nicholas Alexandrovich Romanov, The soft spoken, educated, well mannered gentleman who found himself in the position of ruling the vast Russian Empire.
Alas, there was just one little problem with that. Nicholas was an incompetent ruler. A mediocre man, he speeded up the inevitable: that of the fall of the crown.
Nicholas was at the wrong place at the wrong time, multiplied by epic proportions.
It is indisputable that the Romanov dynasty was coming to a close. This was a culmination of events over the previous years before and during his reign, years that had *change* written all over it. It is also quite certain that the events *as* they happened, was because of the Tzar and Tzarita. Their personalities, their actions, their responses- all which have played a role in the tragic story.
There was restlessness in Russia. There was hunger, death, pogroms and blood baths zigzagging through their empire. But throughout the book they seem almost oblivious.
Would Nicholas, under different circumstances, have agreed to responsible government?
Wouldn't he have been pleased as a constitutional monarch, one who is not burdened by weighty national problems, but rather a king who can devote his time to philanthropy and a life among the world gentry?
--
The cast of characters comprising this epic book, part history, part romantic tragedy, has been fascinating.
There was the well -bred Nicholas. The person who would have made a fine museum curator or librarian. Nicholas who remained on the throne despite his incompetence and therefore has blood on his hands.
The Empress, Alexandra Feodrovna, the 'German Woman' of Victorian genes, the loyal and romantic wife, the devoted mother, the haughty and fanatic ruler.
Being a very private person and busy with her mothering, she was a misunderstood woman who was hated by the masses.
The Tzarevich, Alexis. The hemophilic son who changed the lives of all those around him, sending waves of repercussions further and further out. ( like that butterfly in China causing a hurricane halfway across the world.
His 4 sisters who are raised in the isolation of the palace, unaware of the world intrigue swirling over their heads.
There's Pierre Gilliard, the loyal tutor whose perspective is often shared in the book.
Doctor Botkin who served the royal family, and died along with them.
Anna, the dumpy friend of the Empress and one that has played no small part in influencing world events.
And of course, Gregory Rasputin, the starets, or rather- the mad monk who ruled Russia.
That such a man could come into so much power, there must be enough backwardness or enough fanaticism. Rasputin lucked out and had both. The backwardness of Russia and the fanaticism of Alexandra.
Grisha was a fascinating man of two faces, a holy drunkard who unwittingly came into so much power, and then made the most of his time with it.
( As an aside, the backward people sooner came around to seeing his true colors, but the fanaticist never did. An interesting observation worth noting.)
---
The author, Robert Massie is not an academic. He's a writer. A writer extraordinaire.
More than an academic work on Russian history, Massie wrote a historical narrative that reads like a novel.
Massie, through is skill and storytelling, shows us that often it is not events that shape history, but rather personalities that shape historical events.
Alas, there was just one little problem with that. Nicholas was an incompetent ruler. A mediocre man, he speeded up the inevitable: that of the fall of the crown.
Nicholas was at the wrong place at the wrong time, multiplied by epic proportions.
It is indisputable that the Romanov dynasty was coming to a close. This was a culmination of events over the previous years before and during his reign, years that had *change* written all over it. It is also quite certain that the events *as* they happened, was because of the Tzar and Tzarita. Their personalities, their actions, their responses- all which have played a role in the tragic story.
There was restlessness in Russia. There was hunger, death, pogroms and blood baths zigzagging through their empire. But throughout the book they seem almost oblivious.
Would Nicholas, under different circumstances, have agreed to responsible government?
Wouldn't he have been pleased as a constitutional monarch, one who is not burdened by weighty national problems, but rather a king who can devote his time to philanthropy and a life among the world gentry?
--
The cast of characters comprising this epic book, part history, part romantic tragedy, has been fascinating.
There was the well -bred Nicholas. The person who would have made a fine museum curator or librarian. Nicholas who remained on the throne despite his incompetence and therefore has blood on his hands.
The Empress, Alexandra Feodrovna, the 'German Woman' of Victorian genes, the loyal and romantic wife, the devoted mother, the haughty and fanatic ruler.
Being a very private person and busy with her mothering, she was a misunderstood woman who was hated by the masses.
The Tzarevich, Alexis. The hemophilic son who changed the lives of all those around him, sending waves of repercussions further and further out. ( like that butterfly in China causing a hurricane halfway across the world.
His 4 sisters who are raised in the isolation of the palace, unaware of the world intrigue swirling over their heads.
There's Pierre Gilliard, the loyal tutor whose perspective is often shared in the book.
Doctor Botkin who served the royal family, and died along with them.
Anna, the dumpy friend of the Empress and one that has played no small part in influencing world events.
And of course, Gregory Rasputin, the starets, or rather- the mad monk who ruled Russia.
That such a man could come into so much power, there must be enough backwardness or enough fanaticism. Rasputin lucked out and had both. The backwardness of Russia and the fanaticism of Alexandra.
Grisha was a fascinating man of two faces, a holy drunkard who unwittingly came into so much power, and then made the most of his time with it.
( As an aside, the backward people sooner came around to seeing his true colors, but the fanaticist never did. An interesting observation worth noting.)
---
The author, Robert Massie is not an academic. He's a writer. A writer extraordinaire.
More than an academic work on Russian history, Massie wrote a historical narrative that reads like a novel.
Massie, through is skill and storytelling, shows us that often it is not events that shape history, but rather personalities that shape historical events.
Although I enjoy reading history, my interest is mainly in British and Western European history. But I suppose the tragedy of the last of the Russian Tsars fascinates many people. Having only just finished watching The Last Prince, a drama in which the Romanovs play a small but significant part, I thought I would start this acclaimed biography that I had picked up in a Kindle sale a while ago.
It is a fascinating read, which uses the Tsar and his Empress as the cornerstone by which he can discuss the entire Russian Imperial family, the politics and familial relationships that led to WWI, and the Russian Revolution.
Massie is clearly sympathetic to the plight of the Romanov couple as parents of a seriously ill child. He admits that his own interest in the couple was triggered by the birth of his own son who, like the Tsarevich Alexi, suffers from haemophilia. For all that, he is highly cognisant of the flaws of both Nicholas and Alexandra. Nicholas would have made a good Tsar in times of peace and plenty, but not in the turbulent political climate of early Twentieth Century Europe. Alexandra was too shy to be entirely comfortable in the public role of consort and as a result was often described as “cold” and “arrogant”, when by Massie’s reckoning she was simply too shy to speak and too aware of the dignity of her husband’s position.
The book could easily have been called “Nicholas, Alexandra and Rasputin”, for discussion of the legendary Russian villain takes up a large chunk of the book. Massie almost entirely blames the fall of Imperial Russia to Rasputin. If Alexandra had not been so convinced that he was a genuine “Man of God” and the only one capable of keeping her son’s illness under control, he would not have had so much power, would not have been able to give the Tsar and Empress such bad advice or drive out so many of the honest and capable ministers that would have supported Nicholas through the war. This in turn would have led to better conduction of the war and fewer acute crises, which would have given the ordinary people less cause to complain and given less credence to the revolutionaries’ aims.
It is a fascinating read, which uses the Tsar and his Empress as the cornerstone by which he can discuss the entire Russian Imperial family, the politics and familial relationships that led to WWI, and the Russian Revolution.
Massie is clearly sympathetic to the plight of the Romanov couple as parents of a seriously ill child. He admits that his own interest in the couple was triggered by the birth of his own son who, like the Tsarevich Alexi, suffers from haemophilia. For all that, he is highly cognisant of the flaws of both Nicholas and Alexandra. Nicholas would have made a good Tsar in times of peace and plenty, but not in the turbulent political climate of early Twentieth Century Europe. Alexandra was too shy to be entirely comfortable in the public role of consort and as a result was often described as “cold” and “arrogant”, when by Massie’s reckoning she was simply too shy to speak and too aware of the dignity of her husband’s position.
The book could easily have been called “Nicholas, Alexandra and Rasputin”, for discussion of the legendary Russian villain takes up a large chunk of the book. Massie almost entirely blames the fall of Imperial Russia to Rasputin. If Alexandra had not been so convinced that he was a genuine “Man of God” and the only one capable of keeping her son’s illness under control, he would not have had so much power, would not have been able to give the Tsar and Empress such bad advice or drive out so many of the honest and capable ministers that would have supported Nicholas through the war. This in turn would have led to better conduction of the war and fewer acute crises, which would have given the ordinary people less cause to complain and given less credence to the revolutionaries’ aims.
Excellent book about the lives of the last Czar of Russia.
This is how history books should be written: endlessly fascinating, completely gripping. This reminded me of [b:Marie Antoinette: The Journey|17151|Marie Antoinette The Journey|Antonia Fraser|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1166804502s/17151.jpg|1850916]; both books read like a novel, both involved monarchs who were good people, charitable, kind to those of lower rank, more down-to-earth than most absolute monarchs, and loving parents who were utterly unequipped to lead a country and tragically lived in times when incompetence lead to their deaths,the destruction of their families and bloodshed and terror in the countries they loved so much. You'd think that Nicholas and Alexandra would have learned something from the fates of Louis and Marie Antoinette, but I guess not.
This book is, of course, strongly biased towards the royal family. Even when admitting their flaws and their mistakes, it is very sympathetic to them (which isn't a bad thing; as PEOPLE they were great, as monarchs not so much). But it's hard to keep in mind while reading that though the Romanov family didn't deserve their fate, the anger directed at them was from people whose families who suffered just as badly under their reign who are forgotten by history.
Also, I learned that Rasputin was a Russian Sex God and he got more action than you ever will (and, contrary to what the movie told me, he did not look like Alan Rickman and was in fact quite ugly, smelly and dirty). Though part of his sucess rate was due to the fact he was a molester, and the rest of it was likely he psychologically manipulated the women, so he's not to be emulated.
This book is, of course, strongly biased towards the royal family. Even when admitting their flaws and their mistakes, it is very sympathetic to them (which isn't a bad thing; as PEOPLE they were great, as monarchs not so much). But it's hard to keep in mind while reading that though the Romanov family didn't deserve their fate, the anger directed at them was from people whose families who suffered just as badly under their reign who are forgotten by history.
Also, I learned that Rasputin was a Russian Sex God and he got more action than you ever will (and, contrary to what the movie told me, he did not look like Alan Rickman and was in fact quite ugly, smelly and dirty). Though part of his sucess rate was due to the fact he was a molester, and the rest of it was likely he psychologically manipulated the women, so he's not to be emulated.
My favorite part of this book was how Massie argued that Alexei's hemophilia was the root cause of the fall of the Romanov dynasty. I'm giving it 3 stars only because I could have done without all the miltary/war history and I probably won't read the entire book again, but I enjoyed it and I definitely have passages I'll return to.