/balt/+/ausnz/

[Luis Carter]

improve edition

[Chase Bailey]

Tsar.

[Grayson Gonzalez]

Me

[Jordan Davis]

He had the disastrous qualities of being both incompetent and stubborn. There are many incompetent and lazy rulers however they generally open to relying on their court/bureaucracy which generally keeps the status quo ticking over.

As for his actions:
>He was a disastrous diplomat and got Russia involved in a terrible war with Japan which marked the first time a European power had been defeated by an East Asian one since the Mongol Conquests. He literally was surprised when Japan responded with military force.
>Destroyed all attempts at indigenous reform squashing both the Duma and Stolypins work effectively killing Russia's chance at modernizing on its own terms like Japan. A process which also radicalized his population.
>Completely botched the situations prior to WWI with his indecision managing at once to both antagonize the Central Powers *and* his own military.
>As the War went downhill (which in the process decimated the elements in the military loyal to him) he left the Capitol to personally lead the war effort and placed the running of the country in the hands of his wife (who was heavily influenced by Rasputin)
>World War I signaled the end of absolute monarchies however unlike all the rest he vehemently refused to abdicate (despite constant warnings by advisers) until he was literally placed under house arrest by the Liberal revolutionaries (yes not the Bolsheviks but the liberals).

All in all he destroyed his state, military and the legitimacy and popularity of the monarchy in the eyes of the people. He is just as responsible for the Russian Revolution (the Red one) as Lenin is.

[Nathaniel Murphy]

I had a rough idea, but i didn't think it would be THAT bad. They are even worse than finns.

[Julian Evans]

Are George

[Henry Jones]

youtube.com/watch?v=6w9zv2Zno0M

[Nathaniel Rodriguez]

>leave balt for a while
>it's full of swedes, spics and snackbars
>+/ausnz/

[Jayden Robinson]

Being an autocracy only works when your autocrat is strong, smart & judicious.

Nicolas II was arguably none of these. He was weak-willed, pussywhipped, out of his depth as a statesmen for the challenges of his time, lacked foresight, perhaps worst of all didn't understand his own people. He thought that everyone in Russia loved him and looked up to him like a father. He failed to learn the lesson of the 1905 revolution that the people needed to see some political progress. He resented the Duma and actively worked against it when he should have been facilitating representative government.

It was inconceivable to him that his blunders and mishaps would result in a full-blown revolution. The Romanovs had been on Russia's throne for like 300 years, he thought they would be there forever.

[Ayden Allen]

Reminder that we were equals with Germans during the Livonian Order times