Take a photo of a barcode or cover
236 reviews for:
Nicolau e Alexandra: O relato clássico da queda da dinastia Romanov
Robert K. Massie, Angela Lobo de Andrade
4.28 AVERAGE
236 reviews for:
Nicolau e Alexandra: O relato clássico da queda da dinastia Romanov
Robert K. Massie, Angela Lobo de Andrade
4.28 AVERAGE
This book is long (almost 600 pages) but well worth the read! I learned SO much with the turn of every page. The amount of research that went into this book is astounding. It is so well-written and interesting. It's a story of the Romanovs and how their lives unfolded until the end. I was so fascinated by the royal families that were linked together in this book and how they played a part in each others' lives. Definitely a fascinating book! Visiting St. Petersburg, Russia is now on my bucket list!
A bit dated (1967), but still a very informative account of the reign of the last Tsar.
dark
emotional
informative
sad
tense
I find Russian history to be so fascinating and tragic! This book is about the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia, their hemophiliac son, and Rasputin. So many misunderstandings and political unrest led to the fall of the Romanov empire. This provided the perfect backdrop for Lenin to gather supporters and strength.
I needed to read a book about a world leader for the 2020 Pop Sugar Reading challenge so i ended up choosing this one. At the 40% mark, I decided to call it quits. This is a THOROUGH deep dive into Russia around 1900-1918. I realize that it is hard to condense books like this but it really felt as if Massie had researched this subject and then put ALL OF IT into his book. It just felt dense . There is so much military history which is definitely not my jam. I felt deflated before I'd even pick it up to keep reading and finally just called it done. I don't recommend this.
After sitting on my bookshelf for a little while, I finally decided to get round to reading this. I had heard both praise and criticism for this book, the latter of which stemmed mainly from people who believed that Massie was too 'soft' when approaching Nicholas' character and reign. Upon reading the book, I found that this view is partly explained by Massie's circumstances; having his own son with haemophilia gave the author a unique look into the lives and personal tragedies of the Imperial Family. Whilst there are areas in which most historians criticise the Tsar, Massie provides ample evidence that highlights that upbringing, inexperience, court life and overbearing uncles had a large impact upon the Tsar's actions. Massie argues this with great authority.
Having been published decades ago, I was pleasantry surprised to see that Massie had also spent time writing about the Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia Nikolaevna along with some greatly detailed passages about the Tsarevich (particularly during his time at Stavka).
Overall, I could only find one inaccuracy. This book was both interesting and almost cinematic in its narrative, with Massie's attention to detail (especially his descriptions of Russia) being unrivalled.
Having been published decades ago, I was pleasantry surprised to see that Massie had also spent time writing about the Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia Nikolaevna along with some greatly detailed passages about the Tsarevich (particularly during his time at Stavka).
Overall, I could only find one inaccuracy. This book was both interesting and almost cinematic in its narrative, with Massie's attention to detail (especially his descriptions of Russia) being unrivalled.
It's hard to know what makes the typical 'American' patriot wetter these days: hating China, or loathing Russia. Folks tell me we've made some progress since 1967, but with Dick Cheney getting cheered on by the 'liberals', it's all bread and circuses to me until proven otherwise. What a mood, then, to be reading this book in. On the one hand, you have a great deal of history that I've managed to dance around through both the obstinate blinkers of my US education and my own pursuits of the feminist, the postcolonial, and namely any history that doesn't involve a bunch of cishet white dudes sitting around a drawing room, smoking cigars with one hand and vivisecting colonial territories with the other. As expected from my time with Massie's [b:Catherine the Great|10414941|Catherine the Great Portrait of a Woman|Robert K. Massie|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1403395276l/10414941._SY75_.jpg|15319151], this went down relatively smoothly, and enough blank spaces were filled in and misconceptions untangled (leastwise the less pathologized ones) for me to make a note to myself that fleshing out my mainstream European historical tableau with a few rote yet critically aware types would be a good thing to do at some point. Not all of it is going to be as gloriously an observing train wreck to witness as were the last royal scions of the Romanov family, but it sure will connect certain dots and make sense of some of the 'common sense' I see get peddled by the kyriarchy these days.
However. However. The utter sanctimony that Massie was allowed to get away with in what he chose to talk about and his overall tone, gawking at jewels and blue-bloods parading around under middle-class habitus and then pooh-poohing millions of people who had the umbrage to decide for themselves that certain eulogized parental figures weren't worth the deaths of millions of their kindred: I've love for the New York Times to take this tone with Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin and see how far they get. What, that's not fair cause the Tsar was a (white) autocrat? Has the definition of that word changed in the last sixty years? Or is it the inability of the US to sink its disaster capitalism imperialism into those particular corners that's causing all the fuss, or fear of the all too recognizable chickens that may one day come home to roost after flying across the Atlantic. Sure, some kids got murdered in cold blood, but with students as young as 10 years-old being arrested across the US for "making threats" as of now, please tell me which ones are helpless babies and which ones are bad seeds just waiting to be culled. As such, I certainly learned quite a bit, but if you want a photograph of where the US went and is still going wrong, Massie's fawning (white) paternalism is certainly a good start.
However. However. The utter sanctimony that Massie was allowed to get away with in what he chose to talk about and his overall tone, gawking at jewels and blue-bloods parading around under middle-class habitus and then pooh-poohing millions of people who had the umbrage to decide for themselves that certain eulogized parental figures weren't worth the deaths of millions of their kindred: I've love for the New York Times to take this tone with Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin and see how far they get. What, that's not fair cause the Tsar was a (white) autocrat? Has the definition of that word changed in the last sixty years? Or is it the inability of the US to sink its disaster capitalism imperialism into those particular corners that's causing all the fuss, or fear of the all too recognizable chickens that may one day come home to roost after flying across the Atlantic. Sure, some kids got murdered in cold blood, but with students as young as 10 years-old being arrested across the US for "making threats" as of now, please tell me which ones are helpless babies and which ones are bad seeds just waiting to be culled. As such, I certainly learned quite a bit, but if you want a photograph of where the US went and is still going wrong, Massie's fawning (white) paternalism is certainly a good start.
informative
slow-paced
I'm really glad I finally read a bio of Nicholas and Alexandra, although I'm conflicted over parts of this one.
It's interesting that it comes from an author whose initial motivation is that his own son had haemophilia, and he wanted to see how it had been approached throughout history. I do worry that this means he overemphasises the role of Rasputin, who was powerful after all only because of the disease, although Kerensky himself said that "Without Rasputin, there could have been no Lenin" (and it's also inspired me finally to get that bio of Kerensky, which I really, really hope is good). I as also uncomfortable with the way that Massie seemed to assume that he knew how Alexandra was feeling with regard to her son and his disease; I go a bit leery at the assumption that mothers react the same way, or that you can draw conclusions about emotions etc.
Nonetheless, I do feel that I have a better insight into the lives of the royals, and into their attitudes and motivations. If nothing else Massie provides an interesting perspective on the Duma and how the Tsar interacted with them, and on how Nicholas and Alexandra themselves interacted. I knew nothing, really, of Nicholas' relationship with his father (who was apparently a bully) and with his various royal cousins (Wilhelm gave advice via telegram for a few years!). Perhaps the most profound suggestion is that Nicholas would have been an excellent English king, had he been raised in that sort of constitutional environment - says a lot about his character, I think, or at least Massie's interpretation of it. There is a lot of Rasputin, as I guess is only to be expected, and while Massie clearly has no time for the Siberian I think he does a fairly thorough job of exploring Rasputin's role and attitudes and the way he influenced people. Hard to clear away the garbage (both positive and negative) around such a figure.
Overall, a good exploration of the period and the people.
It's interesting that it comes from an author whose initial motivation is that his own son had haemophilia, and he wanted to see how it had been approached throughout history. I do worry that this means he overemphasises the role of Rasputin, who was powerful after all only because of the disease, although Kerensky himself said that "Without Rasputin, there could have been no Lenin" (and it's also inspired me finally to get that bio of Kerensky, which I really, really hope is good). I as also uncomfortable with the way that Massie seemed to assume that he knew how Alexandra was feeling with regard to her son and his disease; I go a bit leery at the assumption that mothers react the same way, or that you can draw conclusions about emotions etc.
Nonetheless, I do feel that I have a better insight into the lives of the royals, and into their attitudes and motivations. If nothing else Massie provides an interesting perspective on the Duma and how the Tsar interacted with them, and on how Nicholas and Alexandra themselves interacted. I knew nothing, really, of Nicholas' relationship with his father (who was apparently a bully) and with his various royal cousins (Wilhelm gave advice via telegram for a few years!). Perhaps the most profound suggestion is that Nicholas would have been an excellent English king, had he been raised in that sort of constitutional environment - says a lot about his character, I think, or at least Massie's interpretation of it. There is a lot of Rasputin, as I guess is only to be expected, and while Massie clearly has no time for the Siberian I think he does a fairly thorough job of exploring Rasputin's role and attitudes and the way he influenced people. Hard to clear away the garbage (both positive and negative) around such a figure.
Overall, a good exploration of the period and the people.