13 March 1881: The Assassination of Alexander II

On this day in history, 13 March 1881, Tsar Alexander II of Russia was assassinated by Nikolai Rysakov, a twenty-year old Russian revolutionary and member of the left-wing terrorist organisation Narodnaya Volya. The Tsar, as he was prone to do on Sundays, had travelled that day to the Mikhailovsky Manege for the military roll call by a carriage. Rysakov threw a bomb at the carriage which killed one of the Cossacks accompanying the carriage. There were two further bombers, Hryniewiecki and Emelyanov, involved. The Tsar was taken to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg where he was given Communion and last rites before dying later that day, in a horribly mutilated condition.

What drove numerous assassination attempts against the Tsar? Alexander II has traditionally been characterised by historians as successful, in comparison with both his predecessors and successors. Born on 29 April 1818 in Moscow to Nicholas I and his consort Alexandra Fyodorovna, Alexander was emperor for twenty-six years before his reign came to a grisly and bloody end in St. Petersburg, the cultural capital of Russia at that time.

Alexander was tutored by Vasily Zhukovsky, a noted translator and liberal romantic poet. Under his tuition the Tsarevich became familiar with several European languages. Alexander is famous for being the first heir to the throne to visit Siberia, as part of a six-month tour of Russia in which he visited 20 provinces. In 1855, aged thirty-seven, Alexander succeeded the throne following the death of Nicholas I. He continued to prosecute the Crimean War then occupying Russia, before suing for peace aided by his councillor Prince Gorchakov.

Russia had been badly hit by the Crimean War, leading the new Tsar to enact a phase of reforms. Alexander is perhaps most famous for instigating the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. This deeply affected the economic, political and social future of Russia as a nation, for the emancipation involved far greater issues than merely the freedom of serfs. Led by Konstantin Romanov, Yakov Rostovtsev and Nikolay Milyutin, the serfs gained freedom that year. The Russian government also reorganised and rearmed both the army and navy as a result of the devastating effects of the war, and universal military conscription was introduced in January 1874. Security of tenure was also enacted alongside a new penal code and a simplified system of civil and criminal procedure. In all, Alexander II's judicial reforms have by and large been considered successful.


Alexander II and his wife Marie Alexandrovna. 

The Tsar is also famous for encouraging Finnish nationalism, Finland traditionally being a part of the Imperial Russian Empire. At the same time, separatist movements were suppressed, leading to the January Uprising of 1863-4 in which hundreds of Poles were executed and thousands deported to Siberia. Territories of the former Poland-Lithuania were excluded from Alexander's reforms. Native languages alongside Belarusian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian were banned from printed texts, while the Polish language was banned in oral and written form in all provinces except Congress Poland.

The Tsar's reign, despite the relative success of his reforms, was however plagued by repeat assassination attempts. In 1866 Dmitry Karakozov attempted to assassinate the emperor in St. Petersburg, but failed and was executed at the Peter and Paul Fortress. Repeat attempts followed in the following years. The Tsar's reforms were met with criticism and hostility by many of his subjects; some believed he had gone too far while others argued that he had not gone nearly far enough.

Following Alexander's death his son, Alexander III, acceded to the throne. The "Liberator Tsar" had reigned for 26 years and his death was a setback for the reform movement. It is possible that, had he lived, Russia might have become a constitutional monarchy instead of becoming more oppressive during the reign of Alexander III. The assassination inspired anarchists to advocate "propaganda by deed" - ie. using spectacular violence to incite revolution or rebellion. The striking Church of the Saviour on the Blood was built, construction beginning in 1883, on the site of the Tsar's assassination and was dedicated to his memory. Alexander III used the Church to commemorate both his father's death alongside symbolising a return to Russian nationalist spirit and a rejection of the reforms and traditions associated with Peter the Great.


Above: The Church of the Saviour on the Blood was built on the spot of Alexander II's assassination in 1881.

Alexandra Feodorovna, Last Russian Tsaritsa

The doomed last Tsaritsa of Russia, Alexandra Feodorovna, has not fared well amongst historians. Jonathan Bromley dismissed her as "an awkward figure". Gareth Russell, in a sympathetic article exploring parallels between the Russian Empress and Marie Antoinette, queen of France and fellow victim of a political revolution, believed that Alexandra's poor reputation is "tragic", but also suggests that she was "a difficult personality". In 1976, Edward Crankshaw criticised her "instant and implacable hostility to the family into which she had entered" and believed that "she never made a worthy friend". Sixteen years earlier, popular historian Barbara Tuchman characterised her as "weak-witted", "hysterical", "morbidly suspicious" and criticised her for "hating everyone but her immediate family" - a view which somewhat contradicts Crankshaw's suggestion.

Hostility and dislike of Alexandra has not been confined to historians, of course. Her Russian subjects despised her as a "German bitch". She was resented and disliked for her supposed coldness - it has, however, convincingly been conjectured that this apparent reserve conveyed less a coldness than an unease or shyness. Her failure to give birth to a son also caused unrest and contempt; thus the birth of the Tsarevich Alexei in 1904 must have been of considerable relief to the royal couple. The context of the First World War played an essential role in fuelling dislike of the Empress; for her German birth alongside her devotion to the controversial and hated Grigory Rasputin intensified hostility to the Empress and played a significant role in the events which led to the demise of the ruling family, the Romanovs.


Above: The Winter Palace, St. Petersburg. Empress Alexandra never took to the palace, finding it cold and inhospitable.

On the other hand, Russian court memoirs, such as that written by the Empress' closest friend and lady-in-waiting Anna Vyrubova, paint a picture of a warm-hearted, kind woman devoted to her family and passionate about Russia. She was, famously, extremely religious and devoted to Nicholas II's cause. Theirs was a true love match, and of course, the two were together until the very end - mercilessly killed in the brutal tragedy at Ekaterinburg in 1918 alongside their young children. Possibly, Alexandra is one in a long line of unfortunate female consorts resented and disliked by their contemporaries on account of their foreign birth and because they were deemed responsible for their husbands' faults - one need only look at Margaret of Anjou and Marie Antoinette to discover that Alexandra's bitter experiences were hardly unusual.

It is important to separate facts from fiction. Alexandra was born on 6 June 1872 at the New Palace in Darmstadt to Louis IV of Hesse and Princess Alice of Great Britain, and was baptised Princess Viktoria Alix Helena Luise Beatrice of Hesse - though she was later known simply as Alix of Hesse. By virtue of her birth, she was granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Alix became close to her British grandmother, spending holidays with the British royal family. She espoused Victorian values and, according to some, was more suitable for rule as a British consort than as a Russian empress.


Above: Alexandra was born in Darmstadt in 1872.

In 1884, aged twelve, Alexandra met Nicholas Romanov, son of Tsar Alexander III, for the first time at the wedding of Grand Duke Serge, uncle of the Tsarevich, to Alix's sister Elizabeth in St. Petersburg. When Alexandra returned to Russia five years later she and Nicholas fell in love, an enduring romance that was to blossom into a relationship set to last for the next thirty years. Nicholas admitted in his diary at this time: "I have loved her for a long time, but more deeply and strongly since 1889 when she spent six weeks in Petersburg."

Initially, Nicholas' father opposed the marriage, for he wished his son to marry Helene, daughter of the Comte de Paris. However, the Catholic Helene refused to countenance a marriage to Nicholas, for it would have meant renouncing her faith in favour of the Russian Orthodox religion. Victoria herself also expressed misgivings about Alexandra's desire to marry Nicholas. Despite this, in 1894 Nicholas proposed to Alexandra and the two became engaged. In November of that year, Nicholas' father died and he became Tsar of Russia. Three weeks later, the new Tsar married Alexandra who, at twenty-two years of age, was now Empress of Russia. Her tenure would last twenty-three tumultuous years. In May 1896 the two participated in a lavish coronation in Moscow.


Above: The marriage of Nicholas II and Alexandra, by Laurits Tuxen.

The new Empress, as mentioned earlier, experienced difficult relations with her subjects. She seems to have found court protocol uncomfortable, and failed to establish warm relationships with her ladies-in-waiting and amongst Russian aristocratic women. Her preference for the plain Anna Vyrubova caused resentment and hostility. Despite these issues, Alexandra proved a fertile bride, giving birth to four daughters within the early years of her marriage: Olga (1895); Tatiana (1897); Maria (1899) and perhaps the most famous, Anastasia (1901). The long awaited male heir, Alexei, was born in August 1904. He was born with hemophilia, a tragic condition that was to culminate in the downfall of the ruling family, for it was this condition that led Alexandra to seek out the controversial guidance and support of Rasputin.

Hemophilia was fatal in the twentieth century. It was transmitted from Alexandra, who had had tragic personal experiences of the disease - her brother Frederick had died from it alongside an uncle, Leopold of Albany. Her sister also carried the disease. As a result, it was decided that Alexei's condition should be kept secret from the royal couple's Russian subjects. As Robert K. Massie makes clear in his famous study Nicholas and Alexandra (1967), this desire to maintain secrecy was tragically misinterpreted by the Russian peoples, who perceived an evil conspiracy at the heart of the palace concocted by the ruthless tsar and his evil German wife. They never understood that Nicholas and Alexandra were personally devastated by their son's condition and merely wished to retain discretion with regards to it.


Above: Alexandra and her son, Tsarevich Alexei.

It was Alexei's condition that provoked Alexandra into seeking the support of Grigory Rasputin, a reputed holy man and mystic who haled from Siberia. Alexandra was to regard him as a saint, but his closeness to the royal family provoked unease and hatred in Russian society. Disparaging remarks were made about the Empress' supposed relationship with Rasputin, and letters written from her to him were published in society, causing contempt and outrage. Nicholas was more reserved in his judgement of Rasputin, but he appears to have retained him at court as a means of pleasing and subjugating his wife. It is possible that he was unsure what other solutions were possible. Certainly Rasputin inspired controversy, for while some condemned him as a fraud, heretic and nymphomaniac, others regarded him as a saint and a living prophet. The crucial event came in 1912 when Alexei suffered a life-threatening haemorrhage in Spala, Poland. Rasputin sent a telegram stating: "The Little One will not die". Alexei miraculously survived, and from then on, Rasputin's advice was followed while his influence was assured at court. Eventually, Rasputin was murdered in 1916. The Empress' reputation by then was severely damaged, especially on account of her reliance on Rasputin.

The weakness of government, economic instability and the collapse of agricultural production caused unbearable living conditions in Russia during the First World War. The Tsar was blamed for military losses, having taken control of the military. The Empress was left in charge of government, an act that caused further hostility and resentment. One can only feel sorry for Alexandra, for she was acting on account of what she perceived to be her husband's, as well as her country's, best interests. Caught in an impossible situation, she faced hostility and censure from all quarters. There are several parallels with her life and that of Marie Antoinette, but this is perhaps the most disturbing one - the fact that she was embroiled in impossible circumstances with no way out, caught in the public eye. The spring of 1917 saw riots across Russia, and eventually, the royal family was placed under arrest at Tsarskoe Selo.


The last photograph of the Empress. She sits with her daughters Olga and Tatiana.

Alexandra was removed with her family to Tobolsk that August and remained there until after the Bolshevik Revolution in November of that year. In April 1918, she arrived with her daughter Maria at the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg, her final journey. The commander of the house, Alexander Avadeyev, regularly referred to the imprisoned Empress as a "German bitch" while criticising the deposed Tsar as "Nicholas the Blood-Drinker". The royal family led an unbearable existence here, paralysed by fear and uncertainty as to what the future held. In July 1918, plans were finalised to murder the royal family. On 17 July, the former tsar and tsaritsa were shot alongside their five children in the basement of the Ipatiev House by a detachment of Bolsheviks led by Yakov Yurovsky. The Empress' body was later stripped alongside that of her husband, children and some retainers, and was thrown down a disused mine-shaft at Ganina Yama before being buried under some railway sleepers. In the 1990s, the bodies of the majority of the Romanovs were discovered, and were reinterred in the St. Catherine Chapel of the Peter and Paul Cathedral of the Fortress of St. Peter and St. Paul in St. Petersburg. In 2000, Alexandra was canonised as a passion bearer by the Russian Orthodox Church together with her husband, children, sister and the nun Varvara.


Ekaterinburg's "Church on the Blood" was built on the spot where Ipatiev House, execution site of the Romanovs, once stood.

As we have seen, history has not been kind to Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. She has been criticised and condemned as a cold, irresponsible, suspicious, hysterical, even paranoid woman who cared for nothing but her family and resented her subjects. However, the truth is more complicated than that, as recent studies of the last Romanov rulers illustrate. Certainly, she suffered a brutal fate she in no way deserved; her life bloodily cut short with a loss of dignity. Her husband, the love of her life, had been killed only moments before. It was a tragic end for the last Romanov ruling couple in Russia. They deserve our sympathy and compassion. Although Alexandra had many faults, and was not a particularly successful politician, she was in many ways a devoted wife, a successful mother, and a good woman caught in impossible circumstances that devastated Russia and destroyed the royal family.

Elizabeth I - England's Greatest Monarch?

Above: the famous Armada portrait (1588).

"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too". - Queen Elizabeth I, Tutbury on the eve of the Armada, 1588.

Yesterday was the 480th anniversary of the birth of Queen Elizabeth I, only daughter of Henry VIII by his second consort Anne Boleyn. The Elizabethan era was prosperous, exciting, and one never seen before or since. Many historians and commentators in the last four hundred years or so have suggested that Elizabeth was England's greatest monarch. I decided to write this blog post having come across an interesting debate amongst historians Alison Weir, Sarah Gristwood and Martyn Downer about who England's greatest monarch truly was, with the debate favouring either Elizabeth, her father Henry VIII or Victoria.

Elizabeth was well aware that she needed to be a pragmatic yet sensible monarch in context of the fairly disastrous reigns of her predecessors and siblings Edward VI and Mary I. She revered her father's memory and demonstrably sought to emulate him in his magnificence and splendour, while desiring to be, like him, immensely popular with the English people. As a Venetian ambassador wrote in 1558, 'she prides herself on her father and glories in him'. Yet, for the first twenty or so years of her reign, until the growing threat of Spain escalated and Catholic plots surrounding Mary Queen of Scots intensified, Elizabeth was fairly liberal in her religious policies, unlike either her father or sister. While desiring that her subjects outwardly conform to the terms of the Elizabethan religious settlement, ostentatiously Protestant but considerably less rigorous than the Protestant policies of her brother Edward VI, Elizabeth famously quoted her desire not 'to make windows into men's souls' concerning religion.

What could distinguish Elizabeth as England's greatest monarch is first and foremost the political and religious world in which she lived, and her decisions made in context of prevailing European behaviours and events. The late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century witnessed increasing religious violence and hostility in context of the European Reformation and Counter-Reformation. France engaged in acts of religious terror, famously comprising the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572 in which thousands of Protestant Huguenots were slaughtered, while Spain ruthlessly punished heretics and dissidents. The outbreak of the witchcraft persecutions escalated in this era, particularly intense in Germany, leading to the brutal deaths of thousands of innocent subjects, motivated largely by political tensions and religious conflicts. England itself had been influenced by the increasing religious bloodshed affecting all of Europe during this period, when Mary I chose to burn over 200 Protestant heretics at the stake in her five year reign. Monarchs were severely threatened in this era - several French kings died young, one of whom - Henry III - was assassinated; and the Scottish queen Mary was deposed by her subjects on account of her unacceptable Catholic religion and political decisions.


Above: St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, 1572.

Yet Elizabeth did not impose religious bloodshed on her people. As has been already suggested, she allowed people to hold their own religious beliefs and follow their own practices in the privacy of their households, as long as they outwardly conformed to the Protestant settlement enacted by the state. Unlike the Spanish king or in France, she did not punish heresy ruthlessly, and did not enact a reign of terror in her country, unlike her elder sister. She was pragmatic, relatively liberal, and desiring of peace. It was only considerably later, in the 1580s and thereafter, that she began to more ruthlessly punish Catholicism, not because it was associated with heresy but because of its political threat - it was classed as treason. This was only done in context of plots surrounding Mary Queen of Scots, and assassination attempts by hostile Catholics. This seems to mark out Elizabeth as a contender for England's greatest monarch, in view of her religious tolerance and in view of the fact that, unlike either Henry VIII or Victoria, she faced a far greater threat from Europe.

Returning to the foreign policy dimensions of Elizabeth's reign, she could be viewed as England's greatest monarch on account of the fact that, as a woman (when many such as John Knox argued venomously that women had no right whatsoever to rule over men) she was already constrained by her gender, and yet was able to preserve peace and stability in her realm when faced with the hostility of both France and Spain. Most famously, she managed to defeat the Spanish Armada in 1588, and her countless marriage negotiations with men of both these powers - most significantly, the Duke of Anjou in the 1570s and the Archduke Charles of Austria - meant that she was able to remain on good  relations with these countries by virtue of the fact that she offered the promise of matrimony with either one of them. As long as she did so, they did not dare to attack her.


Above: Elizabeth's funeral cortege, 1603.

Elizabeth's reign is extremely famous for the adventures of exploration and trade which began in earnest during the late sixteenth century. She sponsored and supported heroic individuals such as Sir Francis Drake, and a colony in North America was founded which was named after her - Virginia. England's empire expanded globally, and began to engage in competition with the more formidable Spanish empire. Strong relations were maintained with Russia, and there was even the possibility of an alliance between the two nations. Trade and strong diplomatic relations developed between England and the Ottoman Empire. Significantly, Elizabeth was able to achieve a long lasting alliance with Scotland following the execution of Mary Queen of Scots through friendship with James VI and the two kingdoms would finally be united on James VI's succession to the English throne; something which other English monarchs, such as Henry VIII, had spectacularly failed to do.

On top of this, Elizabeth successfully ensured that England became a main player in Europe, supporting fellow Protestants in the Netherlands and France, and her own religious tolerance and shrewd political pragmatism enacted the beginnings of Britain as a Protestant kingdom and, later, a secular state - although this would surely have alarmed the Protestant Elizabeth. The Pope described Elizabeth in admiration and awe, despite being hostile to her: 'She is only a woman, only mistress of half an island, and yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France, by the Empire, by all'.

Elizabeth celebrated many other achievements too. Her patronage and development of the navy carried on the work began by her father and encouraged by her sister, and this ensured that England's navy continued to become more prosperous and successful, which was important in view of the challenges England faced later in the reign from the likes of Spain as a sea power. She was also able to survive severe hostility in her own realm in the wake of Catholic plots and the outbreak of the Northern Rebellion in 1569, preserving her hold on the throne while maintaining peaceful relations with her subjects. As is well known, learning flourished in the Elizabethan era, with science, philosophy and literature expanding greatly, producing momentous individuals such as William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe who continue to be celebrated and revered today. Unlike her brother or sister, Elizabeth was able to rely effectively on shrewd and intelligent political advisers such as William Cecil and his son Robert to ensure that she made sound political and religious decisions, and ultimately to preserve England's stability as a state both nationally and globally.


Above: Elizabeth I, 1563.

As a person, she was a shrewd survivor, overcoming the hostility of her sister Mary and continuing plots from dissatisfied Catholics both at home and abroad. Many historians have earnestly celebrated Elizabeth's achievements and laud her as England's finest ruler. In the early 20th century, she became a symbol of England's national resistance to foreign threat, particularly because of the spectacular defeat of the Spanish Armada. Elizabeth's biographers including John Neale and A.L. Rowse celebrated her reign as a 'Golden Age' of progress. Sarah Gristwood goes so far to say that 'without Elizabeth we would not be who we are today - children of a proud (and Protestant) nation. The Virgin Queen... is a vital part of our national mythology... Before Elizabeth, no woman had ever successfully reigned over the country. After her, no-one could ever again relegate women to the sidelines so easily', setting an important precedent for the later female monarchs Victoria and Elizabeth II.


Above: Elizabethan England.

Other historians, however, have been more reserved and some have even attacked the notion that Elizabeth was England's greatest monarch. Professor David Loades believes that Elizabeth 'failed to find a satisfactory definition of the constitutional relationship between crown, lords and commons', while failing to solve the problem of inadequate revenue. He believes that she was unwilling or unable to accept change, meaning that 'she was so concerned to remain in charge of the ship, and to avoid the icebergs of Spanish and papal hostility, that she failed to spot the other unobtrusive rocks lying in her path. She was not on the bridge when the ship went down'. Christopher Haigh points to military and naval failures, while offering only very limited aid to fellow Protestants in Europe and failing to provide her commanders with sufficient funds to make a difference abroad.

Many historians believe that Elizabeth was short-tempered and indecisive, and enjoyed more than her fair share of luck, regarding, for instance, the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Other historians believe that a different monarch, such as Henry VIII or Victoria, should more fairly be viewed as England's greatest monarch. But while Elizabeth did enjoy an element of luck in her reign, I believe that she can ultimately be viewed as England's greatest monarch because she lived in far harsher and more hostile times (in view of the European threat throughout her reign) than, say, Victoria, and yet was able to respond magnificently to the challenge. She was able to preserve peace and stability in her realm, aided by her excellent advisers such as William Cecil, whom she relied on unfailingly. Elizabeth was supremely aware of the importance of respect and support from the English people, something which her sister and perhaps even her father could not appreciate. The religious tolerance, with its later legacy for the British state; the foreign conquests; the flourishing of literature, science, and philosophy; the extension of empire abroad; and the long-lasting legacy of Elizabethan rule which still remains in place today, indicate that Elizabeth can fairly be seen as England's greatest monarch. As she herself recognised:

'[at a time] when wars and seditions with grievous persecutions have vexed almost all kings and countries round about me, my reign hath been peaceable, and my realm a receptacle to thy afflicted Church. The love of my people hath appeared firm, and the devices of my enemies frustrate'.