What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Tsar: The Abdication of Nicholas II and the Fall of the Romanovs
The definitive story behind the self-destruction of the autocratic Romanov dynasty, by the world’s foremost expert When Tsar Nicholas II fell from power in 1917, Imperial Russia faced a series of overlapping crises, from war to social unrest. Though Nicholas’s life is often described as tragic, it was not fate that doomed the Romanovs—it was poor leadership and a blinkered faith in autocracy. Based on a trove of new archival discoveries, The Last Tsar narrates how Nicholas’s resistance to reform doomed the monarchy. Encompassing the captivating personalities of the era—the bumbling Nicholas, his spiteful wife Alexandra, the family’s faith healer Rasputin—it untangles the dramatic struggle by Russia’s aristocratic, military, and legislative elite to reform the monarchy. By rejecting compromise, Nicholas undermined his supporters at crucial moments. His blunders cleared the way for all-out civil war and the eventual rise of the Soviet Union. Definitive and engrossing, The Last Tsar uncovers how Nicholas II stumbled into revolution, taking his family, the Romanov dynasty, and the whole Russian Empire down with him.
560 pages, Paperback
First published December 3, 2024
142 people are currently reading
1429 people want to read
About the author
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
17 books14 followersTsuyoshi Hasegawa is a Japanese-American historian specializing in modern Russian and Soviet history and the relations between Russia, Japan, and the United States. He taught at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he was director of the Cold War Studies program until his retirement in 2016.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
September 11, 2025
Betrayal of Russia
When I first saw this book was published I asked the question ‘what else is there to say about the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II?’ I have found that Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s book has brought something new to the table and I appreciate that. The Last Tsar is in fact a meticulously researched and richly detailed account of the final days of the Romanov dynasty, with a particular focus on the abdication crisis of March 1917. This book stands out for its hour-by-hour breakdown of the events leading up to Nicholas II’s abdication, offering a level of precision and depth that surpasses prior scholarship from noted historians such as Robert Service, Philip K. Massie, and Dominic Lieven.
I would say that Hasegawa’s biggest achievement is how he has been able to disentangle the web of political maneuverings in Petrograd during the crisis. Rather than presenting a simplified narrative, he lays bare the conflicting aims of various actors, from conservative monarchists to revolutionary socialists, all of whom were working at cross-purposes. This mosaic of misaligned ambitions, combined with a lack of coordination, led to the unintended but complete collapse of the Romanov regime.
Hasegawa’s analysis of Nicholas II is both compelling and frustrating. He places the Tsar squarely at the centre of the collapse, not as a passive victim of history but as its principal architect. Nicholas, in this telling, made every possible misstep: from stubbornly resisting reform to mishandling the Duma and ignoring the shifting political realities around him. Hasegawa is especially effective in showing how Nicholas’ abdication for both himself and his son Alexei sealed the monarchy’s fate. Here, the author diverges sharply from historians like Orlando Figes, who argue that the monarchy was already doomed by 1917. Hasegawa instead posits that a regency for the boy Tsar could have appeased revolutionary demands without dismantling the monarchy altogether.
The supporting cast is equally well drawn. Figures like Alexander Guchkov and Vasily Shulgin, the latter a monarchist who hoped abdication would lead to a constitutional monarchy, are portrayed as both tragic and consequential. Alexander Kerensky emerges as a figure inflated by personal ambition, dreaming of Napoleonic glory, only to be unceremoniously outmaneuvered by Lenin. Grand Dukes Kirill and Nikolai Nikolaevich are shown as would-be reformers who, while lacking faith in Nicholas, still harbored hope for a reformed monarchy. Another strength is Hasegawa’s exploration of the brutal mechanics of realpolitik. The narrative makes clear that the Tsar was not so much overthrown by an uprising from below as eliminated from above, through a calculated and often duplicitous process of political maneuvering. This aspect draws a striking parallel to the fall of Paul I, reinforcing the idea that Romanov emperors often fell more by palace intrigue than mass revolt.
That said, The Last Tsar is not without its limitations. Hasegawa’s portrayal of Nicholas and Alexandra verges at times on hostile. While Nicholas was undoubtedly culpable in his own downfall, the book offers little sympathy for the broader constraints of his position, such as the deteriorating war effort or the structural failings of the Russian state which were, to some extent, beyond his control. Moreover, while the build-up to the abdication is exhaustively detailed, the narrative drops off significantly once Nicholas leaves the stage. The descent into Bolshevik rule, culminating in the murders at Ekaterinburg in July 1918, is mentioned only in passing. This may disappoint those who are looking for a more comprehensive account of the revolution’s aftermath, especially those who believe that the Bolshevik regime’s crimes deserve equal weight in the story of the Romanov downfall. Lastly, while The Last Tsar’s detail is a major asset for specialists and well-informed readers, newcomers to the Russian Revolution may find the dense chronology and sheer volume of names, dates, and factions overwhelming. This is not an entry-level history, it is best approached with a solid grounding in the broader context of early 20th Century Russian politics.
If I am honest I have struggled to rate The Last Tsar. It is difficult to say where it sits. It is a solid but demanding study of the Romanov dynasty’s final days. Hasegawa offers a nuanced and often devastating portrait of Nicholas II, while illuminating the murky political world that surrounded him. It is definitely a definitive work on the abdication crisis, even if its focus leaves some parts of the revolutionary narrative underexplored. For serious students of Russian history, it has something to offer in understanding how monarchy met its end; not with a popular revolt, but with a whisper of betrayal.
When I first saw this book was published I asked the question ‘what else is there to say about the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II?’ I have found that Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s book has brought something new to the table and I appreciate that. The Last Tsar is in fact a meticulously researched and richly detailed account of the final days of the Romanov dynasty, with a particular focus on the abdication crisis of March 1917. This book stands out for its hour-by-hour breakdown of the events leading up to Nicholas II’s abdication, offering a level of precision and depth that surpasses prior scholarship from noted historians such as Robert Service, Philip K. Massie, and Dominic Lieven.
I would say that Hasegawa’s biggest achievement is how he has been able to disentangle the web of political maneuverings in Petrograd during the crisis. Rather than presenting a simplified narrative, he lays bare the conflicting aims of various actors, from conservative monarchists to revolutionary socialists, all of whom were working at cross-purposes. This mosaic of misaligned ambitions, combined with a lack of coordination, led to the unintended but complete collapse of the Romanov regime.
Hasegawa’s analysis of Nicholas II is both compelling and frustrating. He places the Tsar squarely at the centre of the collapse, not as a passive victim of history but as its principal architect. Nicholas, in this telling, made every possible misstep: from stubbornly resisting reform to mishandling the Duma and ignoring the shifting political realities around him. Hasegawa is especially effective in showing how Nicholas’ abdication for both himself and his son Alexei sealed the monarchy’s fate. Here, the author diverges sharply from historians like Orlando Figes, who argue that the monarchy was already doomed by 1917. Hasegawa instead posits that a regency for the boy Tsar could have appeased revolutionary demands without dismantling the monarchy altogether.
The supporting cast is equally well drawn. Figures like Alexander Guchkov and Vasily Shulgin, the latter a monarchist who hoped abdication would lead to a constitutional monarchy, are portrayed as both tragic and consequential. Alexander Kerensky emerges as a figure inflated by personal ambition, dreaming of Napoleonic glory, only to be unceremoniously outmaneuvered by Lenin. Grand Dukes Kirill and Nikolai Nikolaevich are shown as would-be reformers who, while lacking faith in Nicholas, still harbored hope for a reformed monarchy. Another strength is Hasegawa’s exploration of the brutal mechanics of realpolitik. The narrative makes clear that the Tsar was not so much overthrown by an uprising from below as eliminated from above, through a calculated and often duplicitous process of political maneuvering. This aspect draws a striking parallel to the fall of Paul I, reinforcing the idea that Romanov emperors often fell more by palace intrigue than mass revolt.
That said, The Last Tsar is not without its limitations. Hasegawa’s portrayal of Nicholas and Alexandra verges at times on hostile. While Nicholas was undoubtedly culpable in his own downfall, the book offers little sympathy for the broader constraints of his position, such as the deteriorating war effort or the structural failings of the Russian state which were, to some extent, beyond his control. Moreover, while the build-up to the abdication is exhaustively detailed, the narrative drops off significantly once Nicholas leaves the stage. The descent into Bolshevik rule, culminating in the murders at Ekaterinburg in July 1918, is mentioned only in passing. This may disappoint those who are looking for a more comprehensive account of the revolution’s aftermath, especially those who believe that the Bolshevik regime’s crimes deserve equal weight in the story of the Romanov downfall. Lastly, while The Last Tsar’s detail is a major asset for specialists and well-informed readers, newcomers to the Russian Revolution may find the dense chronology and sheer volume of names, dates, and factions overwhelming. This is not an entry-level history, it is best approached with a solid grounding in the broader context of early 20th Century Russian politics.
If I am honest I have struggled to rate The Last Tsar. It is difficult to say where it sits. It is a solid but demanding study of the Romanov dynasty’s final days. Hasegawa offers a nuanced and often devastating portrait of Nicholas II, while illuminating the murky political world that surrounded him. It is definitely a definitive work on the abdication crisis, even if its focus leaves some parts of the revolutionary narrative underexplored. For serious students of Russian history, it has something to offer in understanding how monarchy met its end; not with a popular revolt, but with a whisper of betrayal.
September 10, 2024
If there is one thing I am absolutely sure of about author Tsuyoshi Hasegawa after reading his book The Last Tsar, it is that he is not very impressed with Nicholas II. I was able to arrive at this very insightful conclusion mainly because he says so in the preface of the book. Hasegawa wants this book to be the definitive account of Nicholas II's abdication and how it was not the foregone conclusion many other scholars make it out to be. Hasegawa believes a better leader could have changed the ending, but Nicholas was not that guy.
There is no question of scholarship when it comes to Hasegawa. He is a recognized expert on the topic of the February Revolution and it shows in the book. No detail is overlooked and his conclusions come with a significant amount of sources. No, I didn't actually check them (ain't nobody got time for that), but his reputation precedes him.
Ultimately, two things kept me from enjoying this as much as I had hoped. First, Hasegawa's negative views of Nicholas and Alexandra are so bluntly stated that I was turned off by it. It's not that I disagree with his characterization. It is a small minority (if anyone at all) who would argue that Nicholas was a great ruler or that Alexandra was a positive overall influence. I personally feel that an eminent historian like Hasegawa doesn't need to put so fine a point on it. Give the reader the story with the sources and let them make their conclusions based on your presentation. The other problem was length. This book is too long. In trying to tell the whole story, Hasegawa doesn't leave out any names or actions once the abdication drama starts. It bogs down the narrative horribly. Part I was great and part II was a slog. I found myself thinking about all the cuts which could have been made to knock off 100 pages. Hasegawa could have made his points without belaboring them and chronicling every action no matter how frivolous.
There is such thing as too much of a good thing and Hasegawa goes a bit too far in showing off his scholarship. I certainly would not warn off anyone from The Last Tsar, but it might only be for true nerds of the time period.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and Basic Books.)
There is no question of scholarship when it comes to Hasegawa. He is a recognized expert on the topic of the February Revolution and it shows in the book. No detail is overlooked and his conclusions come with a significant amount of sources. No, I didn't actually check them (ain't nobody got time for that), but his reputation precedes him.
Ultimately, two things kept me from enjoying this as much as I had hoped. First, Hasegawa's negative views of Nicholas and Alexandra are so bluntly stated that I was turned off by it. It's not that I disagree with his characterization. It is a small minority (if anyone at all) who would argue that Nicholas was a great ruler or that Alexandra was a positive overall influence. I personally feel that an eminent historian like Hasegawa doesn't need to put so fine a point on it. Give the reader the story with the sources and let them make their conclusions based on your presentation. The other problem was length. This book is too long. In trying to tell the whole story, Hasegawa doesn't leave out any names or actions once the abdication drama starts. It bogs down the narrative horribly. Part I was great and part II was a slog. I found myself thinking about all the cuts which could have been made to knock off 100 pages. Hasegawa could have made his points without belaboring them and chronicling every action no matter how frivolous.
There is such thing as too much of a good thing and Hasegawa goes a bit too far in showing off his scholarship. I certainly would not warn off anyone from The Last Tsar, but it might only be for true nerds of the time period.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and Basic Books.)
December 28, 2025
Tremendous! An essential book for anyone interested in the Russian Revolution or the end of Imperial Russia, Nicholas II, etc. A five star history and history is the operative word. I will say what many other GR reviewers have said with surprise and often annoyance (considering most people uy bbooks online it never fails to amaze me that they don't read subtitles never mind the publisher's blurbs on Amazon or elsewhere) this is not a biography of Nicholas II. It is a study of the days post the outbreak of the February revolution on the 22nd, and the abdication of Nicholas on March 2nd (all dates in this review, like Hasegawa's book, are in the Julian calendar in use in Russia at that time).
This is forensic history and this should come as no surprise to anyone who has read Hasegawa's very fine history of the February Revolution (please see my footnote *1 below). In over 400 pages he examines in minute detail the overlapping crises that came to a head in 1917 and how Nicholas because of his lamentably excerable poor handling of events doomed both himself and his dynasty. Hasegawa explores the complexities and opportunities that Nicholas missed. The fall of Tsarism was not inevitable, but Nicholas made it so. I have seen other reviewers on GR complain that Professor Hasegawa has a consistently negative view of Nicholas, but if anything he is too sympathetic. Nicholas was not a good ruler and, outside of his immediate family, was not even a nice man. His treatment of his brother Micheal in the abdication crisis was appalling. His loyalty to anyone was always very circumscribed and his self absorption was almost limitless:
"Do you mean that I am to regain the confidence of my people, or that they are to regain my confidence?"
Nicholas said this in response to one of the many appeals to appoint a 'responsible ministry' (not a ministry responsible to the Duma). As asinine remarks go it pretty much takes the biscuit and sums up Nicholas's absolute stupidity.
One of the most fascinating things in the book is the wealth of new information, such as General Alekseev's opinion of Nicholas:
"...He lacks the power of intellect in order to seek truth tenaciously, and he lacks conviction in order to accomplish his decisions...His goodness-tender heart-comes from his weakness, and it inevitably leads to dubiousness and mendacity..." (page 297 of the hardback edition).
On and on Alekseev goes on demolishing Nicholas in a way that if it was a school report might lead any parent to consider drowning their child as a potential danger to itself and the world.
What is most fascinating in the book are the insights Professor Hasegawa provides English language readers into current Russian language perspectives on Nicholas. Who knew that in Russia there is a school of monarchist historians who believe Nicholas's abdication was the result of a conspiracy? (Hasegawa demonstrates the falsity of that idea). What he does show is, what I have long believed, that Nicholas needs a proper, full, English language biography taking advantage of the immense historical research that has come about in Russia.
Anyone who is looking for more romantic tales of the good old days at Tsarskeo Selo should avoid this book and go back to the those biographies regurgitating all the old second hand sources. But if you are really interested in history you will devour this fascinating book.
*1 Professor Hasegawa's 'The February Revolution: Petrograd, 1917: The End of the Tsarist Regime and the Birth of Dual Power' (first published 1980 revised in a new edition in 2017) is probably the best book in English on the February Revolution. Unfortunately when it was first published in 1980 the February Revolution was a backwater in terms of historical study. Everyone was interested in the October revolution.
This is forensic history and this should come as no surprise to anyone who has read Hasegawa's very fine history of the February Revolution (please see my footnote *1 below). In over 400 pages he examines in minute detail the overlapping crises that came to a head in 1917 and how Nicholas because of his lamentably excerable poor handling of events doomed both himself and his dynasty. Hasegawa explores the complexities and opportunities that Nicholas missed. The fall of Tsarism was not inevitable, but Nicholas made it so. I have seen other reviewers on GR complain that Professor Hasegawa has a consistently negative view of Nicholas, but if anything he is too sympathetic. Nicholas was not a good ruler and, outside of his immediate family, was not even a nice man. His treatment of his brother Micheal in the abdication crisis was appalling. His loyalty to anyone was always very circumscribed and his self absorption was almost limitless:
"Do you mean that I am to regain the confidence of my people, or that they are to regain my confidence?"
Nicholas said this in response to one of the many appeals to appoint a 'responsible ministry' (not a ministry responsible to the Duma). As asinine remarks go it pretty much takes the biscuit and sums up Nicholas's absolute stupidity.
One of the most fascinating things in the book is the wealth of new information, such as General Alekseev's opinion of Nicholas:
"...He lacks the power of intellect in order to seek truth tenaciously, and he lacks conviction in order to accomplish his decisions...His goodness-tender heart-comes from his weakness, and it inevitably leads to dubiousness and mendacity..." (page 297 of the hardback edition).
On and on Alekseev goes on demolishing Nicholas in a way that if it was a school report might lead any parent to consider drowning their child as a potential danger to itself and the world.
What is most fascinating in the book are the insights Professor Hasegawa provides English language readers into current Russian language perspectives on Nicholas. Who knew that in Russia there is a school of monarchist historians who believe Nicholas's abdication was the result of a conspiracy? (Hasegawa demonstrates the falsity of that idea). What he does show is, what I have long believed, that Nicholas needs a proper, full, English language biography taking advantage of the immense historical research that has come about in Russia.
Anyone who is looking for more romantic tales of the good old days at Tsarskeo Selo should avoid this book and go back to the those biographies regurgitating all the old second hand sources. But if you are really interested in history you will devour this fascinating book.
*1 Professor Hasegawa's 'The February Revolution: Petrograd, 1917: The End of the Tsarist Regime and the Birth of Dual Power' (first published 1980 revised in a new edition in 2017) is probably the best book in English on the February Revolution. Unfortunately when it was first published in 1980 the February Revolution was a backwater in terms of historical study. Everyone was interested in the October revolution.
May 15, 2025
Thank you to NetGalley and Hachette for letting me review this book.
Holy Moly, was this book a slog. I originally thought this book was going to be a different perspective on why Tsar Nicholas II abdicated the throne, maybe gave a different perspective on why he made the decisions that he made, and maybe would give a guide as to how the Russian Revolution came about. Instead we got a tick-tock of the events leading up to the abdication, including three very long chapters describing 12-16 hours of one day. Then, in the last chapter, Mr. Hasegawa speeds through two weeks. Mr. Hasegawa knows his stuff, that much is clear. However, he knows it too well and shoved all the information into one book.
A few other issues that pop up:
While it was known the Nicholas was not the best ruler, Mr. Hasegawa's utter disdain for him gets repetitive to the point where you have to wonder if his bias gets in the way of telling the whole story.
The editing in the book needs some work. I read on multiple occasions of events happening in 2014-2017 rather than the time it actually took place in 1914-1917.
Because we got the tick-tock, and the book was 440 pages of text, a lot of the information was repetitive and got real old real fast. To the point where I was skipping ahead to new information because I had read about the same concern between leaders of the Stavka and the state Duma over and over again.
They play the what if game in the epilogue, but not further analysis of the abdication nor do they dive into the time between the February and November revolutions in 1917, which is kind of a big deal in the history of the Romanov dynasty.
To wrap it up, a well researched book, but too well researched in my opinion. No deep historical analysis and ends when Nicholas II abdicates, rather then talk about his legacy and death. Swing and a miss for sure.
Holy Moly, was this book a slog. I originally thought this book was going to be a different perspective on why Tsar Nicholas II abdicated the throne, maybe gave a different perspective on why he made the decisions that he made, and maybe would give a guide as to how the Russian Revolution came about. Instead we got a tick-tock of the events leading up to the abdication, including three very long chapters describing 12-16 hours of one day. Then, in the last chapter, Mr. Hasegawa speeds through two weeks. Mr. Hasegawa knows his stuff, that much is clear. However, he knows it too well and shoved all the information into one book.
A few other issues that pop up:
While it was known the Nicholas was not the best ruler, Mr. Hasegawa's utter disdain for him gets repetitive to the point where you have to wonder if his bias gets in the way of telling the whole story.
The editing in the book needs some work. I read on multiple occasions of events happening in 2014-2017 rather than the time it actually took place in 1914-1917.
Because we got the tick-tock, and the book was 440 pages of text, a lot of the information was repetitive and got real old real fast. To the point where I was skipping ahead to new information because I had read about the same concern between leaders of the Stavka and the state Duma over and over again.
They play the what if game in the epilogue, but not further analysis of the abdication nor do they dive into the time between the February and November revolutions in 1917, which is kind of a big deal in the history of the Romanov dynasty.
To wrap it up, a well researched book, but too well researched in my opinion. No deep historical analysis and ends when Nicholas II abdicates, rather then talk about his legacy and death. Swing and a miss for sure.
June 11, 2025
Cautionary lesson for our current rulers like Putin, Trump: Nicolas, last Tzar of Russia, unwilling to give up his autocratic powers until too late, eventually alienated all levels of society. Controlled even by his wife, Alexandra, granddaughter of England's Queen Victoria, she manipulated by mad monk Rasputin because she believed he could save her hemophilic son. A ruler becoming increasingly isolated from change during World War 1 with Germany. Today's rulers should pay attention.
August 15, 2024
Of all the Romanov books I’ve read over the years, this is the most unflattering portrayal of the Imperial couple that I’ve ever encountered. The “intransigence” of Nicky and Alix is the topic of the first half of the book, while the second half addresses the many factors and individuals that led to the abdication of the last emperor of Russia. There are myriad characters to keep track of but it focuses on the individuals who had the most influence on setting the abdication in motion. Yes, Nicholas’ leadership was ineffectual, but I appreciated how Hasegawa emphasized that the end of the Romanov dynasty was political rather than revolutionary. It’s a solid and informative dissection of the various contributing “dominoes” that toppled in the last days of Romanov rule.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.
February 14, 2025
I have always had a real fascination with Russian history [that was amplified in 11th grade, with my World Cultures teacher who taught a almost a full semester of it; my term paper that year was on the "fake" Anastasia, which just reminded me how much I dislike liars, cheats, and people who play on people's emotions for money - UGH ] , and getting this was really exciting for me and was pretty high on my never-ending TBR list. Alas, this just didn't work for me. At all.
Although this clearly deeply researched [his notes at the end were mind-boggling], the execution of ALL. THAT. INFORMATION. [and folks, it is a crapton of information - great googly moogly ] is very...well, in all honesty, is a hot mess of jumbled dates, facts mixed with personal bias [the author is not shy about letting the reader know how much he disliked Nicholas and Alexandra, almost to the point of hate ], and names [so. many. names. that. sound. exactly. the. same. And as I have read/studied a lot of Russian books/literature/nonfiction, the fact that I am emphasizing it tells you just how over-the-top this is; many could have been left out and no one would have been the wiser and our brains wouldn't come close to exploding, but that's just me... ] I basically lost track in the first chapter and scrambled to catch up and just never did. And unfortunately, by the end, I hadn't learned anything new [if there WAS anything for me to learn {and I am sure that there was in all honesty} it was just lost in all that jumble ], and I was left deeply disappointed. Even more disappointing is the fact that I cannot in good conscience recommend this book to anyone; as someone who is new to Russian history will be so bogged down they will not learn anything and chances are they will quit, or if they are like me and have a real love/fascination with Russian history, will read this and more than likely will also be deeply disappointed. Such a waste of what must be some outstanding research.
Thank you to NetGalley and Basic Books for providing this ARC in exchange for an honest review.
Although this clearly deeply researched [his notes at the end were mind-boggling], the execution of ALL. THAT. INFORMATION. [and folks, it is a crapton of information - great googly moogly ] is very...well, in all honesty, is a hot mess of jumbled dates, facts mixed with personal bias [the author is not shy about letting the reader know how much he disliked Nicholas and Alexandra, almost to the point of hate ], and names [so. many. names. that. sound. exactly. the. same. And as I have read/studied a lot of Russian books/literature/nonfiction, the fact that I am emphasizing it tells you just how over-the-top this is; many could have been left out and no one would have been the wiser and our brains wouldn't come close to exploding, but that's just me... ] I basically lost track in the first chapter and scrambled to catch up and just never did. And unfortunately, by the end, I hadn't learned anything new [if there WAS anything for me to learn {and I am sure that there was in all honesty} it was just lost in all that jumble ], and I was left deeply disappointed. Even more disappointing is the fact that I cannot in good conscience recommend this book to anyone; as someone who is new to Russian history will be so bogged down they will not learn anything and chances are they will quit, or if they are like me and have a real love/fascination with Russian history, will read this and more than likely will also be deeply disappointed. Such a waste of what must be some outstanding research.
Thank you to NetGalley and Basic Books for providing this ARC in exchange for an honest review.
October 4, 2024
This book takes you deep into the world of Russia and the Tsar, his family and all the mistakes that were made by him and others around him that lead to the execution of the Romanov family.
As new research has been uncovered, Last Tsar feels as though you are watching the events happen. There is a lot of detail and would certainly appeal to anyone interested in understanding the facts on a deeper level with new insights about telegrams that were not delivered and missing facts that could have diverted their deaths.
I would not say this is an easy read as there is much to follow and keep organized as a reader as there are many players, but it is worth the deeper perspective.
As new research has been uncovered, Last Tsar feels as though you are watching the events happen. There is a lot of detail and would certainly appeal to anyone interested in understanding the facts on a deeper level with new insights about telegrams that were not delivered and missing facts that could have diverted their deaths.
I would not say this is an easy read as there is much to follow and keep organized as a reader as there are many players, but it is worth the deeper perspective.
April 3, 2025
A hard read - so much history and detail also, the print was very small. Many times I would verify facts.
Overall a good book on The Last Tsar.
Overall a good book on The Last Tsar.
February 10, 2025
This book is the crowning achievement of Professor Hasegawa’s career completing his. Studies of the February Revolution of 1917. The research is in unparalleled in comprehensiveness that makes the biography read like a whodunnit!! He has numerous examples of possible explanations of the Tsar and other actors actions. Was it possible that 1917 could have turned out differently? The book is beautifully written and the love of subject and history is evident. Truly a pleasure to read.
January 10, 2025
Couldn’t finish. Terrible writing, seriously biased.
May 24, 2025
A well-researched, nuanced, and insightful work.
The book is pretty dense. The book doesn’t really have much new to add, but Hasegawa does a great job setting the stage and explaining the background, but most of the book deals with the last four years of Nicholas’s reign. As expected, his portrait of the last Romanovs is pretty unflattering, and he describes in detail how Nicholas alienated his people and his own governments. Hasegawa calls Nicholas “the most ill-equipped and inadequate ruler in all of Europe.” He notes that Nicholas, who never asked to be or wanted to become Tsar, would have been better off as a figurehead and a constitutional monarch, rather than as the head of state he attempted to be. In peacetime, Nicholas’s incompetence and cluelessness may have been more manageable, but the pressures of revolution and modern war would crack the facade wide open. Other statesmen of the era would prove equally inept, but, unlike Nicholas, they had more competent advisers and underlings. When revolution came, he proved unable to figure out what was happening or why, and unable to figure out a path out of it. “It is difficult to imagine,” Hasegawa writes, “how Nicholas could have done a worse job.”
Hasegawa notes that high politics, rather than a revolutionary uprising of the workers and soldiers, proved decisive in overthrowing the monarchy. The book’s scope is fairly broad, covering more people than just Nicholas and his family. His coverage of Rasputin is as critical as expected, and Alexandra, whom he calls “unhinged,” comes off as one of the story’s main villains. His description of Nicholas’s abdication is particularly dramatic.
There’s a few minor quibbles if you’re familiar with the Romanovs already; at one point Hasegawa writes that Alexandra’s older sister died of diptheria (it was her younger sister) He also gets the date of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination mixed up. The writing feels a bit disjointed at times. The Tsarevich Alexis is called “Alexei,” somewhat annoyingly, since he uses the traditional English names for everyone else. The timeline also jumps back and forth a bit, particularly towards the end.
A compelling, thoughtful and well-written work.
The book is pretty dense. The book doesn’t really have much new to add, but Hasegawa does a great job setting the stage and explaining the background, but most of the book deals with the last four years of Nicholas’s reign. As expected, his portrait of the last Romanovs is pretty unflattering, and he describes in detail how Nicholas alienated his people and his own governments. Hasegawa calls Nicholas “the most ill-equipped and inadequate ruler in all of Europe.” He notes that Nicholas, who never asked to be or wanted to become Tsar, would have been better off as a figurehead and a constitutional monarch, rather than as the head of state he attempted to be. In peacetime, Nicholas’s incompetence and cluelessness may have been more manageable, but the pressures of revolution and modern war would crack the facade wide open. Other statesmen of the era would prove equally inept, but, unlike Nicholas, they had more competent advisers and underlings. When revolution came, he proved unable to figure out what was happening or why, and unable to figure out a path out of it. “It is difficult to imagine,” Hasegawa writes, “how Nicholas could have done a worse job.”
Hasegawa notes that high politics, rather than a revolutionary uprising of the workers and soldiers, proved decisive in overthrowing the monarchy. The book’s scope is fairly broad, covering more people than just Nicholas and his family. His coverage of Rasputin is as critical as expected, and Alexandra, whom he calls “unhinged,” comes off as one of the story’s main villains. His description of Nicholas’s abdication is particularly dramatic.
There’s a few minor quibbles if you’re familiar with the Romanovs already; at one point Hasegawa writes that Alexandra’s older sister died of diptheria (it was her younger sister) He also gets the date of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination mixed up. The writing feels a bit disjointed at times. The Tsarevich Alexis is called “Alexei,” somewhat annoyingly, since he uses the traditional English names for everyone else. The timeline also jumps back and forth a bit, particularly towards the end.
A compelling, thoughtful and well-written work.
June 18, 2025
A blow-by-blow account of the fall of the Romanovs, Hasegawa details the events, mistakes, and moments of fate that led to the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917—and how it could've all been prevented. Naive, weak, suspicious, and usually a total pushover, Nicholas II's 22-year reign was mired with errors and bad advice—mainly from his wife and Rasputin—that ultimately ended in his, and his dynasty's, downfall. Though Hasegawa's time jumping makes the timeline of events fuzzy at times (and Russian names don't help matters), this is one book you want to read if you really want to dissect how the Russian Empire lost its monarchy. It has all the players and all the plays (possible to know) included.
April 11, 2025
I can't really decide who this book is written for. There wasn't really any 'new' information overall, even though newly available sources were used. This book read almost like a restatement of facts, with some conclusions about motivation I'm not sure I agree with. The presentation was almost too clinical, then an opinion would be thrown in that was jarring (and often had a completely different conclusion then I had gotten from the facts).
Often the author was a little wobbly on timelines and subsequently the promise of a cohesive narrative was broken almost immediately. It would take a few minutes to realize the narrative skipped forward a bit to make a point, but then suddenly we were sent backwards. It also is stated pretty plainly that this author hates Nicholas II... and the only person they hate more is Alexandra. This is a micro history of (basically) the 3 years leading up to Nicholas's abdication. It's pretty much universally acknowledged that Nicholas II was a very bad Tsar and that autocracy is bad, but the vitriol here prevents a true nuanced portrait of the subject. I also think the author's open hate of Alexandra clouds how much sway she (and Rasputin) really had over government decisions. What the public and the family THOUGHT was going on is important in understanding their hostility towards Nicholas and Alexandra, but it's also not what was really going on. Over and over the author acknowledged that Nicholas ignored what Alexandra and Rasputin requested of him.
I appreciate the minutia of the political force behind (and then opposed to) the monarchy and I don't disagree with the conclusion that those politics toppled the Tsar moreso than a grassroots revolution, but I felt at times the human factor was overlooked and that doesn't allow a complete picture either. This was very well researched, I don't dispute that at all. It's just some of the author's opinions when it comes to motivations and actuality vs perception don't quite hit the target for me.
Also, if you know anything about Russian names, you know how confusing it can be to throw a bunch of them at a reader in a constant barrage with little reminder of who they are.
Often the author was a little wobbly on timelines and subsequently the promise of a cohesive narrative was broken almost immediately. It would take a few minutes to realize the narrative skipped forward a bit to make a point, but then suddenly we were sent backwards. It also is stated pretty plainly that this author hates Nicholas II... and the only person they hate more is Alexandra. This is a micro history of (basically) the 3 years leading up to Nicholas's abdication. It's pretty much universally acknowledged that Nicholas II was a very bad Tsar and that autocracy is bad, but the vitriol here prevents a true nuanced portrait of the subject. I also think the author's open hate of Alexandra clouds how much sway she (and Rasputin) really had over government decisions. What the public and the family THOUGHT was going on is important in understanding their hostility towards Nicholas and Alexandra, but it's also not what was really going on. Over and over the author acknowledged that Nicholas ignored what Alexandra and Rasputin requested of him.
I appreciate the minutia of the political force behind (and then opposed to) the monarchy and I don't disagree with the conclusion that those politics toppled the Tsar moreso than a grassroots revolution, but I felt at times the human factor was overlooked and that doesn't allow a complete picture either. This was very well researched, I don't dispute that at all. It's just some of the author's opinions when it comes to motivations and actuality vs perception don't quite hit the target for me.
Also, if you know anything about Russian names, you know how confusing it can be to throw a bunch of them at a reader in a constant barrage with little reminder of who they are.
February 3, 2025
Really good book about the reign of Nicholas II abd Alexandra, with the antics and subsequent murder of Rasputin. Didn't like how he ended the book with the abdication in March of 1917 instead of going through until July 1917 with the murders. But after talking with a Russian friend, I understand that telling is a whole other book.
February 23, 2025
Incredibly detailed, which both makes it harder to read and is its greatest strength.
November 13, 2025
I had planned to write a much more thorough review about this book, but by the end I felt that it would be too much word vomit. First, if you want to read this for the full Nicholas and Alexandra relationship, this is not the book for you. There are many other books that cover the family. This is solely a breakdown of the events in February 1917 and the politics behind the abdication drama.
That being said, I didn’t find this to be the complete/detailed breakdown of the abdication drama nor the February revolution. Hasegawa’s other work “The February Revolution: Petrograd 1917” is significantly more detailed and thorough. I do appreciate his dedication to covering the subject in such a comprehensive manner over his lifetime. And maybe this work is meant to be a synthesis of his work and analysis.
The current text I found to be more of an overall framework of events. It does get heavy into the politics especially once Nicholas departs for Stavka, as that’s when the true maneuvering began. So that part of the analysis I found useful and much more summarized than his earlier work.
I do not agree with Hasegawa that Nicholas is solely to blame for the entire collapse. There were significant internal and external circumstances that presented unimaginable pressure. I truly believe that autocracy was already past its shelf life. Alexander II was assassinated for his liberal ideologies. Russia was hours away from a constitution when monarchists blew his legs off. Alexander III and Nicholas watched him die. Are we really that surprised both of them came to hate the idea of a constitution or legislative body?
Yes, Alexandra and Rasputin had unconscionable levels of control. But he was the only person who could alleviate Alexei’s pain. Alexandra was fanatically religious. Are we really shocked that she believed him sent by God and that he could see everything?
The Romanovs also differed from other royal families in the simple sense that they actually loved each other. Nicholas and Alexandra loved each other and their children immeasurably. The same could not be said for King George V and Mary who were objectively terrible parents. So we should not be surprised when Nicholas abdicated on behalf of Alexei because he is genuinely concerned about his health. What father would want that for his son?
In the end, autocracy had expired. Anyone on the throne would’ve struggled. What if Alexander III hadn’t become ill? How would he have faired in the war? What if a constitution had been granted some 35 years earlier by Alexander II? What if the girls didn’t get measles and Nicholas stayed in Mogilev? What if it was colder in St. Petersburg? There are so many extenuating circumstances and pivotal life changing moments that it is disingenuous to lay all the blame at the hands of Nicholas. He viewed autocracy as absolute because that’s how he was taught and raised. It’s all he knew. He watched his grandfather die for believing otherwise.
4/5 stars. Go read his earlier work, it is much more detailed in my opinion. To truly understand the collapse of autocracy in Russia, you have to understand the whole sociological, psychological, industrial, and political landscape. It’s not as simple as Nicholas = bad.
That being said, I didn’t find this to be the complete/detailed breakdown of the abdication drama nor the February revolution. Hasegawa’s other work “The February Revolution: Petrograd 1917” is significantly more detailed and thorough. I do appreciate his dedication to covering the subject in such a comprehensive manner over his lifetime. And maybe this work is meant to be a synthesis of his work and analysis.
The current text I found to be more of an overall framework of events. It does get heavy into the politics especially once Nicholas departs for Stavka, as that’s when the true maneuvering began. So that part of the analysis I found useful and much more summarized than his earlier work.
I do not agree with Hasegawa that Nicholas is solely to blame for the entire collapse. There were significant internal and external circumstances that presented unimaginable pressure. I truly believe that autocracy was already past its shelf life. Alexander II was assassinated for his liberal ideologies. Russia was hours away from a constitution when monarchists blew his legs off. Alexander III and Nicholas watched him die. Are we really that surprised both of them came to hate the idea of a constitution or legislative body?
Yes, Alexandra and Rasputin had unconscionable levels of control. But he was the only person who could alleviate Alexei’s pain. Alexandra was fanatically religious. Are we really shocked that she believed him sent by God and that he could see everything?
The Romanovs also differed from other royal families in the simple sense that they actually loved each other. Nicholas and Alexandra loved each other and their children immeasurably. The same could not be said for King George V and Mary who were objectively terrible parents. So we should not be surprised when Nicholas abdicated on behalf of Alexei because he is genuinely concerned about his health. What father would want that for his son?
In the end, autocracy had expired. Anyone on the throne would’ve struggled. What if Alexander III hadn’t become ill? How would he have faired in the war? What if a constitution had been granted some 35 years earlier by Alexander II? What if the girls didn’t get measles and Nicholas stayed in Mogilev? What if it was colder in St. Petersburg? There are so many extenuating circumstances and pivotal life changing moments that it is disingenuous to lay all the blame at the hands of Nicholas. He viewed autocracy as absolute because that’s how he was taught and raised. It’s all he knew. He watched his grandfather die for believing otherwise.
4/5 stars. Go read his earlier work, it is much more detailed in my opinion. To truly understand the collapse of autocracy in Russia, you have to understand the whole sociological, psychological, industrial, and political landscape. It’s not as simple as Nicholas = bad.
February 24, 2025
Of all the Romanov books I’ve read over the years, this is the most unflattering portrayal of the Imperial couple that I’ve ever encountered. The “intransigence” of Nicky and Alix is the topic of the first half of the book, while the second half addresses the many factors and individuals that led to the abdication of the last emperor of Russia.
I was very much looking forward to reading this book, since I am a passionate researcher of all things Romanov and Russian Revolution. However, three things in Chapter 1 have considerably lessened my enthusiasm.
First - the assertion that Alexandra's older sister died along with her mother of diphtheria. It was actually her younger sister. A minor point, to be sure, but for a scholar of the Romanovs, something that editing should have caught.
Second - the reference to Alexei as a 'spoiled and rambunctious kid'. This weirdly informal language doesn't fit within a scholarly biography.
Third - Maria was born in June, not May.
There are myriad characters to keep track of but it focuses on the individuals who had the most influence on setting the abdication in motion. Yes, Nicholas’ leadership was ineffectual, but I appreciated how Hasegawa emphasized that the end of the Romanov dynasty was political rather than revolutionary. It’s a solid and informative dissection of the various contributing “dominoes” that toppled in the last days of Romanov rule.
I did appreciate the relationship with Nicolas and his younger brother Michael, most biographies gloss over this relationship despite how important it actually was.
I was very much looking forward to reading this book, since I am a passionate researcher of all things Romanov and Russian Revolution. However, three things in Chapter 1 have considerably lessened my enthusiasm.
First - the assertion that Alexandra's older sister died along with her mother of diphtheria. It was actually her younger sister. A minor point, to be sure, but for a scholar of the Romanovs, something that editing should have caught.
Second - the reference to Alexei as a 'spoiled and rambunctious kid'. This weirdly informal language doesn't fit within a scholarly biography.
Third - Maria was born in June, not May.
There are myriad characters to keep track of but it focuses on the individuals who had the most influence on setting the abdication in motion. Yes, Nicholas’ leadership was ineffectual, but I appreciated how Hasegawa emphasized that the end of the Romanov dynasty was political rather than revolutionary. It’s a solid and informative dissection of the various contributing “dominoes” that toppled in the last days of Romanov rule.
I did appreciate the relationship with Nicolas and his younger brother Michael, most biographies gloss over this relationship despite how important it actually was.
July 22, 2025
Certainly not a book for people with no experience in Russian history. This is my first foray into the history of this vast and complicated nation, and I only went in with a cursory understanding of imperial Russia from a previous book I read, ‘The Sleepwalkers’ by Christopher Clark. There were plenty of times I couldn’t follow who was who in the Duma or the tsarist entourage.
However, the writing by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is fantastic and I could not put this book down. The drama surrounding Nicholas II’s abdication really is rich. I found Part II fantastic unlike other commenters; the ride to Tsarskoe Selo was my favorite part of the book. Imagine being stuck on a slow-moving train, knowing resources for your army and nation are being diverted during a revolution so you can simply travel, and every second brings you closer to either death or abdication? Fascinating stuff.
This is the culmination of the author’s lifelong research into the February Revolution and it shows. It’s deeply researched and its characters come to life on the page in a way few books do. Rarely do we get a book so well-researched and well-communicated to boot.
If you are an expert in this topic this is the perfect book for you. If you are a beginner, don’t sweat too much on determining who’s who and just continue down the fateful ride to Petrograd with Nicholas II. You won’t be disappointed.
However, the writing by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is fantastic and I could not put this book down. The drama surrounding Nicholas II’s abdication really is rich. I found Part II fantastic unlike other commenters; the ride to Tsarskoe Selo was my favorite part of the book. Imagine being stuck on a slow-moving train, knowing resources for your army and nation are being diverted during a revolution so you can simply travel, and every second brings you closer to either death or abdication? Fascinating stuff.
This is the culmination of the author’s lifelong research into the February Revolution and it shows. It’s deeply researched and its characters come to life on the page in a way few books do. Rarely do we get a book so well-researched and well-communicated to boot.
If you are an expert in this topic this is the perfect book for you. If you are a beginner, don’t sweat too much on determining who’s who and just continue down the fateful ride to Petrograd with Nicholas II. You won’t be disappointed.
June 12, 2025
This isn’t a sweeping biography of Nicholas II—it’s a focused, gripping study of the final days of his reign, centered on the February Revolution and the events leading to his abdication.
Rather than diving into Nicholas’ personal life or the tragic end of his family, the book narrows in on political missteps, missed opportunities, and the forces that tore the monarchy apart. We hear from a broad cast: revolutionaries, citizens, Romanovs, and officials—woven together through underused and often overlooked sources. That alone makes it a fresh take.
However, be warned: while Nicholas and Alexandra’s personal struggles are acknowledged, the portrayal isn’t exactly sympathetic. The tone can feel harsh—painting them as tragically obstinate, blind to change, and ultimately culpable in their own downfall. It’s almost as if the book channels the same urgency and hostility of the revolutionaries themselves.
If you’re drawn to imperial history, political collapse, or nuanced portrayals of doomed leadership, this one’s for you.
Rather than diving into Nicholas’ personal life or the tragic end of his family, the book narrows in on political missteps, missed opportunities, and the forces that tore the monarchy apart. We hear from a broad cast: revolutionaries, citizens, Romanovs, and officials—woven together through underused and often overlooked sources. That alone makes it a fresh take.
However, be warned: while Nicholas and Alexandra’s personal struggles are acknowledged, the portrayal isn’t exactly sympathetic. The tone can feel harsh—painting them as tragically obstinate, blind to change, and ultimately culpable in their own downfall. It’s almost as if the book channels the same urgency and hostility of the revolutionaries themselves.
If you’re drawn to imperial history, political collapse, or nuanced portrayals of doomed leadership, this one’s for you.
did-not-finish
July 28, 2025I had two problems with this ultimately 1) the author is an academic and did not attempt to try to modify their prose style for a larger audience (so, SO dry) and 2) the almost palpable personal vitriol that the author clearly has for Alexandra. Look, I am not looking to make excuses for this dead woman who undoubtedly helped exacerbate a tense situation, but there's no recognition that for everything she encouraged her husband to do none of it would have mattered if he hadn't fucking done it.
Anyway, not for me.
Anyway, not for me.
April 12, 2025
I am finally done with The Last Tsar by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. It was a 3 star read!
I did end up learning some new things I didn't know before: like, I had no idea that when Nicholas II was cornered into abdicating his throne on the imperial train back from Mogilev, he had no contact with anyone at all, incl. his brother Mikhail (who would have been his illegal successor). I also didn't know that he saw his mother one last time before the whole family was arrested and then sent into exile.
But the thing that broke my heart the most was his son, Aleksei, who had spent his whole life up to that point, thinking he would be Tsar one day in spite of his haemophilia, learning from his tutor that his father had abdicated for himself and for the tsarevitch. Aleksei, though only 12 years old, asked "What will happen to the country without a leader?"
On the whole though, this book was way too long and talked about way too many people. It switched between these people really quickly, which made it hard to remember who was who. If I was really motivated, I could have made a little chart in my notebook to keep track. But this could have been remedied by the book itself if it had come with a little tree or something that showed who was who. Same with the maps. Would have been nice to have a map that showed the different routes the Tsar took in the crucial days before his arrest, instead of describing it in a confusing way over hundreds of pages.
January 29, 2025
My nonfiction for January!
I have had an ongoing obsession with the Romanovs since I was a kid so when I came across this one I had to read it. It’s a full accounting - thanks to newly discovered artifacts - of what led up to the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the subsequent fall of 300 years of Romanov rule in Russia. Ultimately, this one fell kind of flat for me. It’s clear the author, while an expert on the subject of the Romanovs, was less than impressed with Tsar Nicholas II rule (understandably). However I felt it went slightly over the top, for example, when using a list of adjectives describing his incompetence adding “stupid” seems less than professional and not needed.
This was also a very dry read, focused more on basically listing every fact and minor individual who played a role than providing a narrative to follow. There was a lot of bouncing around and I thought it could have been condensed for a more cohesive reading experience. Due to the amount of names dropped, places, and travel described in the book I think maps, photos, or a list of important people would have been a helpful addition.
Also, while I understand that Alexandra’s influence on him did not help his rule, blaming an ineffectual ruler on the women in his life is old and boring.
I have had an ongoing obsession with the Romanovs since I was a kid so when I came across this one I had to read it. It’s a full accounting - thanks to newly discovered artifacts - of what led up to the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the subsequent fall of 300 years of Romanov rule in Russia. Ultimately, this one fell kind of flat for me. It’s clear the author, while an expert on the subject of the Romanovs, was less than impressed with Tsar Nicholas II rule (understandably). However I felt it went slightly over the top, for example, when using a list of adjectives describing his incompetence adding “stupid” seems less than professional and not needed.
This was also a very dry read, focused more on basically listing every fact and minor individual who played a role than providing a narrative to follow. There was a lot of bouncing around and I thought it could have been condensed for a more cohesive reading experience. Due to the amount of names dropped, places, and travel described in the book I think maps, photos, or a list of important people would have been a helpful addition.
Also, while I understand that Alexandra’s influence on him did not help his rule, blaming an ineffectual ruler on the women in his life is old and boring.
December 23, 2024
A tour de force of new sources.
Reviewed in the United States on December 17, 2024
I have just finished Tsueyoshi Hasegawa’s magesterial “The Last Tsar”. Its mastery of chronology shatters many previously held perceptions of the February Revolution. It is a must-read for the new scholarship contained within - so much, it is almost hard to keep track of all the new information.
In a real tour de force of impeccable sourcework, Hasegawa points out how Nicholas slowly alienated even his closest supporters over the days between February 26 and March 3rd. The February Revolution was by no means a forgone conclusion, but watching the successive failures of those closest to the throne makes for intense reading.
The book has a compelling point of view, and it will shock many with its revelations about such participants as Duma Chair Mikhail Rodzianko and Supreme Commander Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaievich, who were very much directly responsible for setting up situations that ultimately spelled the end of the dynasty. Many will be surprised at the book’s exoneration of Grand Duke Kirill (which will bother some: but please read the documents before you have an opinion). Primary accounts of the things people closest to Nicholas and Alexandra said about them are also disturbing, and the lists of names of some of the families involved in the couple’s downfall will create considerable comment.
This book will bother a lot of people, in particular the ‘Tsarebozhniki’ who are only interested in tendentious arguments that support their point of view. It also makes clear that there are a lot of sources that Western popular (and academic) historians have relied on for years which should get a lot less play than they do (I’m looking at you, Rodzianko, Paleologue, and Voeikov).
Can’t wait to hear what people think. This is the kind of gripping, no-nonsense history I wish were written and read more often on the Romanovs and the revolution
Reviewed in the United States on December 17, 2024
I have just finished Tsueyoshi Hasegawa’s magesterial “The Last Tsar”. Its mastery of chronology shatters many previously held perceptions of the February Revolution. It is a must-read for the new scholarship contained within - so much, it is almost hard to keep track of all the new information.
In a real tour de force of impeccable sourcework, Hasegawa points out how Nicholas slowly alienated even his closest supporters over the days between February 26 and March 3rd. The February Revolution was by no means a forgone conclusion, but watching the successive failures of those closest to the throne makes for intense reading.
The book has a compelling point of view, and it will shock many with its revelations about such participants as Duma Chair Mikhail Rodzianko and Supreme Commander Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaievich, who were very much directly responsible for setting up situations that ultimately spelled the end of the dynasty. Many will be surprised at the book’s exoneration of Grand Duke Kirill (which will bother some: but please read the documents before you have an opinion). Primary accounts of the things people closest to Nicholas and Alexandra said about them are also disturbing, and the lists of names of some of the families involved in the couple’s downfall will create considerable comment.
This book will bother a lot of people, in particular the ‘Tsarebozhniki’ who are only interested in tendentious arguments that support their point of view. It also makes clear that there are a lot of sources that Western popular (and academic) historians have relied on for years which should get a lot less play than they do (I’m looking at you, Rodzianko, Paleologue, and Voeikov).
Can’t wait to hear what people think. This is the kind of gripping, no-nonsense history I wish were written and read more often on the Romanovs and the revolution
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 6, 2025
Did not finish.
Who would have guessed the author hated Nicholas II. Well if you didn't, you certainly would know from the very first pages and it continued through the 80 odd pages I only managed to get through.
What was worse was the patronising / misogynist attitude towards Alexandra; simply because she wasn't a quiet, passive woman who stayed in the background of her husband's life.
This made the book unreadable.
Who would have guessed the author hated Nicholas II. Well if you didn't, you certainly would know from the very first pages and it continued through the 80 odd pages I only managed to get through.
What was worse was the patronising / misogynist attitude towards Alexandra; simply because she wasn't a quiet, passive woman who stayed in the background of her husband's life.
This made the book unreadable.
December 22, 2024
If you want all the facts, this is a book for you. If you want to be entertained, this is not a book for you.
June 25, 2025
I went into this only having a vague idea that Nicholas II wasn't a good Tsar, being more a family man and too attached to old fashioned ideas of how to rule, though nothing concrete as to what exactly he did wrong. This book did nothing to clarify.
To start: where were the maps?! There was nothing of the kind in this book and it absolutely needed them as it began describing the war. Toward the end we got diagrams of the rail lines around Petrograd, and that was all.
I have read a great deal over the years about the last Romanov family, but always from the 'family' side: books solely about the four daughters, books only about Alexandra; never a book about Nicholas and his policies. All I know about him was gleaned from passing mentions in those other books. And while this book went into (too much) detail about the people he appointed and removed from positions, I'm still not exactly sure what he did 'wrong' apart from just existing with the wrong ideals in his noggin.
Part of that may be the enigma of the man himself: the book shows how consistently Nicholas failed to show great emotion or go into detail even in his private diary entries. Momentous days go into his diary with the same paltry lines about the weather and who came to tea as the ordinary days do. I don't see that that necessitated giving endless details about his ministers endless telegraphs and high fevers, and would have instead preferred a shorter book or that this one be marketed as a scholarly textbook that you use for a necessary citation rather than as an evening's reading.
Not entirely sure what the point of the Epilogue was, because it was certainly not an epilogue. If you don't have the time or inclination to read the whole book, flip to the epilogue: the entire book is given in recap, start to finish, with little additional insight (mostly concentrated toward the end) where the author was, I think, a little too hopeful or naive in his suggestions as to where the monarchy might still have been salvaged in some fashion, leaving the possibility open all the way until the day before the abdication, which as even someone with passing knowledge of the time would certainly laugh off as having any genuine potential. I was hoping for a chapter discussing "the fall of the Romanovs", showing what befell the extended family: there are many, many books I have read and own concerning the minutiae of the last days of Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, Alexei, and the household staff that were with them to the end, and I did not expect any such detail here; just what happened to the rest of the Romanovs. Who was exiled, who was executed, even in glancing detail, would have been a more informative and useful Epilogue than an overview of the book we just read.
Though I began to skim large portions of this as it does become highly repetitive (often discussing the exact same concerns being hashed out by the exact same people in nearly exactly the same words), I don't believe the author's point in the introduction was proved or confirmed in even the slightest fashion. His idea that modern American politics and MAGA are in any way the same as the situation the monarchy found itself in during turn-of-the-century Russia are (again) laughable--and I don't even like Trump.
To start: where were the maps?! There was nothing of the kind in this book and it absolutely needed them as it began describing the war. Toward the end we got diagrams of the rail lines around Petrograd, and that was all.
I have read a great deal over the years about the last Romanov family, but always from the 'family' side: books solely about the four daughters, books only about Alexandra; never a book about Nicholas and his policies. All I know about him was gleaned from passing mentions in those other books. And while this book went into (too much) detail about the people he appointed and removed from positions, I'm still not exactly sure what he did 'wrong' apart from just existing with the wrong ideals in his noggin.
Part of that may be the enigma of the man himself: the book shows how consistently Nicholas failed to show great emotion or go into detail even in his private diary entries. Momentous days go into his diary with the same paltry lines about the weather and who came to tea as the ordinary days do. I don't see that that necessitated giving endless details about his ministers endless telegraphs and high fevers, and would have instead preferred a shorter book or that this one be marketed as a scholarly textbook that you use for a necessary citation rather than as an evening's reading.
Not entirely sure what the point of the Epilogue was, because it was certainly not an epilogue. If you don't have the time or inclination to read the whole book, flip to the epilogue: the entire book is given in recap, start to finish, with little additional insight (mostly concentrated toward the end) where the author was, I think, a little too hopeful or naive in his suggestions as to where the monarchy might still have been salvaged in some fashion, leaving the possibility open all the way until the day before the abdication, which as even someone with passing knowledge of the time would certainly laugh off as having any genuine potential. I was hoping for a chapter discussing "the fall of the Romanovs", showing what befell the extended family: there are many, many books I have read and own concerning the minutiae of the last days of Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, Alexei, and the household staff that were with them to the end, and I did not expect any such detail here; just what happened to the rest of the Romanovs. Who was exiled, who was executed, even in glancing detail, would have been a more informative and useful Epilogue than an overview of the book we just read.
Though I began to skim large portions of this as it does become highly repetitive (often discussing the exact same concerns being hashed out by the exact same people in nearly exactly the same words), I don't believe the author's point in the introduction was proved or confirmed in even the slightest fashion. His idea that modern American politics and MAGA are in any way the same as the situation the monarchy found itself in during turn-of-the-century Russia are (again) laughable--and I don't even like Trump.
October 21, 2025
Wow, this book was long. I knew that going in, of course, given its heft, but still, wow. Still, I learned a lot from this book. Most previous books that I'd read about this period have never truly shown the breadth of all that happened to bring down the Romanov dynasty. Hasegawa posits that the fall of the Romanovs was not predetermined, but came about after multiple horrendous choices made by Nicholas II, which drove the various factions within Russia - liberals, the military, even his own kin, etc. - to plot against and remove him from power.
Okay, let's be honest, that's a pretty fair assumption. Nicholas II was a terrible ruler - weak, lacking in charisma, utterly unprepared and unwilling to *be* a ruler that matched the times he lived in. So many books that I've read in the past, though, often flit over that to try and put something of a shine by pointing out that he was a devoted husband and father. In this case, that actually turned out to be part of the problem - for all of his notions of autocracy and belief in the monarchy, Nicholas proved unwilling to put his money where his mouth was and actually uphold that belief by keeping the deal of abdicating the throne in favor of his son. He refused to countenance being separated from Aleksi, who was a frail child wracked by the dangers of hemophilia, and refused to see his son under the care and sway of his younger brother's wife, whom he and his own wife despised (since Aleksi would ostensibly be under the regency of Nicholas' younger brother during his minority). So... basically, every conceivable misstep he could make, he did.
Of course, Hasegawa doesn't just cover Nicholas' movements and actions during this time, but all of the players involved - and there are *a lot*. As another reviewer said, this book is perhaps not for beginners looking into this period of Russian history. It is very easy to become overwhelmed by the sheer number of names and people involved.
Overall, very informative, but also overwhelming in its length and breadth.
Okay, let's be honest, that's a pretty fair assumption. Nicholas II was a terrible ruler - weak, lacking in charisma, utterly unprepared and unwilling to *be* a ruler that matched the times he lived in. So many books that I've read in the past, though, often flit over that to try and put something of a shine by pointing out that he was a devoted husband and father. In this case, that actually turned out to be part of the problem - for all of his notions of autocracy and belief in the monarchy, Nicholas proved unwilling to put his money where his mouth was and actually uphold that belief by keeping the deal of abdicating the throne in favor of his son. He refused to countenance being separated from Aleksi, who was a frail child wracked by the dangers of hemophilia, and refused to see his son under the care and sway of his younger brother's wife, whom he and his own wife despised (since Aleksi would ostensibly be under the regency of Nicholas' younger brother during his minority). So... basically, every conceivable misstep he could make, he did.
Of course, Hasegawa doesn't just cover Nicholas' movements and actions during this time, but all of the players involved - and there are *a lot*. As another reviewer said, this book is perhaps not for beginners looking into this period of Russian history. It is very easy to become overwhelmed by the sheer number of names and people involved.
Overall, very informative, but also overwhelming in its length and breadth.
May 10, 2025
(3.5 stars) This work is primarily focused on the events from Jan-Mar 1917, which saw Tsar Nicholas II abdicate the throne, setting the stage for the major upheaval in Russia over the course of 1917. The work starts with some biographical sketches of Nicholas’ life. Basically, it gives credence to the thought that he was far from the ideal candidate to be a tsar, or to rule like he did. His father, Alexander III, was a literal and figurative bear of a man, whose power and charisma could make an autocratic style of leadership work. Nicholas was not. It got even worse when his wife, Alexandria, took an active role in advising him. While it can seem a bit rushed, the idea is to provide the context for why Nicholas and his decisions would lead to the fall of the Romanovs. Yet, this sketch take almost the first 3rd to two-fifths of the book. All of that to set up the fateful weeks and days in early 1917, when some of Nicholas’ actions or inactions, enabled his abdication of the throne.
There is some good history and detailed play-by-play of those events, especially the fateful train ride to Pskov, where Nicholas was cajoled/persuaded to abdicate, but then he took his actions further than even the conspirators, mainly military and government officials, felt was necessary. Then, the work all but abruptly ends with his abdication and return to his family. Perhaps more of a follow up on the immediate and near-term impacts of Nicholas’ actions and what resulted for those involved in getting him out of power.
For what is in there, it is a solid review of what can sometimes be overshadowed. Yet, the work also felt lacking in some other details, and came across as a bit unbalanced. Maybe the bio sketches could have been shortened, or perhaps it could have expanded the details on the back end to offer some more balance. Not a bad read, but maybe not the greatest book on the subject.
There is some good history and detailed play-by-play of those events, especially the fateful train ride to Pskov, where Nicholas was cajoled/persuaded to abdicate, but then he took his actions further than even the conspirators, mainly military and government officials, felt was necessary. Then, the work all but abruptly ends with his abdication and return to his family. Perhaps more of a follow up on the immediate and near-term impacts of Nicholas’ actions and what resulted for those involved in getting him out of power.
For what is in there, it is a solid review of what can sometimes be overshadowed. Yet, the work also felt lacking in some other details, and came across as a bit unbalanced. Maybe the bio sketches could have been shortened, or perhaps it could have expanded the details on the back end to offer some more balance. Not a bad read, but maybe not the greatest book on the subject.
February 21, 2025
In The Last Tsar: The Abdication of Nicholas II and the Fall of the Romanovs, historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa offers a meticulously researched account of the final days of Tsar Nicholas II's reign, shedding new light on the factors that precipitated the collapse of the Romanov dynasty. Published in December 2024, this work delves into the complex interplay of personal failings, political missteps, and societal upheavals that culminated in the abdication of Russia's last tsar.
Hasegawa, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, utilizes newly accessible archival materials to challenge prevailing narratives about the inevitability of the Romanovs' downfall. He posits that it was not fate but rather Nicholas II's obstinate commitment to autocracy and his resistance to necessary reforms that doomed the monarchy. The book provides a nuanced portrayal of Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra, exploring how their insularity and reliance on figures like Rasputin alienated them from both the Russian elite and the general populace.
Critics have praised The Last Tsar for its comprehensive analysis and engaging narrative. The Times highlights Hasegawa's examination of Nicholas's "fatal stupidity," noting that the author argues the monarchy's collapse was not predestined but resulted from the tsar's consistent incompetence and refusal to adapt.
The Times
Similarly, Open Letters Review commends the book for providing more than a standard rehash of the Romanovs' demise, emphasizing Hasegawa's nuanced agenda in examining the reasons behind the end of the three-century-old dynasty.
Open Letters Review
The Last Tsar stands as a definitive account of a pivotal moment in Russian history, offering fresh perspectives on the abdication of Nicholas II and the subsequent fall of the Romanov dynasty.
Hasegawa, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, utilizes newly accessible archival materials to challenge prevailing narratives about the inevitability of the Romanovs' downfall. He posits that it was not fate but rather Nicholas II's obstinate commitment to autocracy and his resistance to necessary reforms that doomed the monarchy. The book provides a nuanced portrayal of Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra, exploring how their insularity and reliance on figures like Rasputin alienated them from both the Russian elite and the general populace.
Critics have praised The Last Tsar for its comprehensive analysis and engaging narrative. The Times highlights Hasegawa's examination of Nicholas's "fatal stupidity," noting that the author argues the monarchy's collapse was not predestined but resulted from the tsar's consistent incompetence and refusal to adapt.
The Times
Similarly, Open Letters Review commends the book for providing more than a standard rehash of the Romanovs' demise, emphasizing Hasegawa's nuanced agenda in examining the reasons behind the end of the three-century-old dynasty.
Open Letters Review
The Last Tsar stands as a definitive account of a pivotal moment in Russian history, offering fresh perspectives on the abdication of Nicholas II and the subsequent fall of the Romanov dynasty.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews