What do you think?
Rate this book
Alexander of Russia: Napoleon's Conqueror
In Paris and London, the crowds hailed him as the man who had conquered Napoleon, as the liberator of Europe, and as a benevolent, enlightened monarch. At home he came to be feared as a reactionary, oppressive autocrat in a country where millions of serfs were still treated as little more than personal property. A grandson of Catherine the Great, a conspirator in the assassination of his own father, and an idealistic and ineffective participant at the Congress of Vienna, Alexander was torn all his life between his liberal illusions and the hard realities of autocratic Russia. In a brilliant biography of one of the most unorthodox of Russia's tsars, Henri Troyat -- winner of the Prix Populiste and the coveted Prix Goncourt -- delivers a masterful portrait of Europe during a momentous period in its modern history. "[Troyat's] broad-brush narrative restores to center stage important personalities and their interplay in the politics of the era." -- James H. Billington, The New York Times Book Review "[A] briskly moving, richly illustrated, flesh-and-blood portrait." -- Publishers Weekly "Troyat's biography of Alexander ... turns out to be more enthralling than most of the novels I've read lately." -- Pamela Marsh, The Christian Science Monitor
336 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1980
3 people are currently reading
153 people want to read
About the author
Henri Troyat
507 books271 followersTroyat was a French author, biographer, historian and novelist.
Troyat was born Levon Aslan Torossian in Moscow to parents of Armenian descent. His family fled Russia in anticipation of the revolution. After a long exodus taking them to the Caucasus on to Crimea and later by sea to Constantinople and then Venice, the family finally settled in Paris in 1920, where young Troyat was schooled and later earned a law degree. The stirring and tragic events of this flight across half of Europe are vividly recounted by Troyat in 'Tant que la terre durera'.
Troyat received his first literary award, Le prix du roman populaire, at the age of twenty-four, and by twenty-seven, he was awarded the Prix Goncourt.
Troyat published more than 100 books, novels and biographies, among them those of Anton Chekhov, Catherine the Great, Rasputin, Ivan the Terrible and Leo Tolstoy.
Troyat's best-known work is La neige en deuil, which was adapted as an English-language film in 1956 under the title The Mountain.
He was elected as a member of the Académie française in 1959. At the time of his death, Troyat was the longest serving member of the Academy.
From Wikipedia
Troyat was born Levon Aslan Torossian in Moscow to parents of Armenian descent. His family fled Russia in anticipation of the revolution. After a long exodus taking them to the Caucasus on to Crimea and later by sea to Constantinople and then Venice, the family finally settled in Paris in 1920, where young Troyat was schooled and later earned a law degree. The stirring and tragic events of this flight across half of Europe are vividly recounted by Troyat in 'Tant que la terre durera'.
Troyat received his first literary award, Le prix du roman populaire, at the age of twenty-four, and by twenty-seven, he was awarded the Prix Goncourt.
Troyat published more than 100 books, novels and biographies, among them those of Anton Chekhov, Catherine the Great, Rasputin, Ivan the Terrible and Leo Tolstoy.
Troyat's best-known work is La neige en deuil, which was adapted as an English-language film in 1956 under the title The Mountain.
He was elected as a member of the Académie française in 1959. At the time of his death, Troyat was the longest serving member of the Academy.
From Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
September 21, 2022
Henri Troyat est l'un de mes auteurs préférés. Admirable écriture tout en intelligence et finesse. Mais je préfère vraiment le romancier à l'historien. Travail remarquable sur cet étrange empereur, qui a tant côtoyé l'autoritaire et sanguinaire dictateur Napoléon le petit. Mais trop touffu, trop de personnages, fastidieux à lire...
October 1, 2017
All right, I found this book at a library book sale (or a used bookstore, can't remember which) and could tell it was dated by the old Kroch's & Brentano's price sticker on the back. One big problem exists with older historical biographies. Outdated "facts". This is evident at the start of "Alexander of Russia" when Troyat claims Catherine the Great never loved her own child, a crude distortion of fact. The Empress Elizabeth (Peter the Great's daughter and ruler of Russia, not to be confused with Alexander's wife) took Paul away from Catherine immediately following his birth and took over his care, thus assuring Catherine had no say in his upbringing and eventually stifling any maternal affection. So, with such a poor example, is it any wonder Catherine did the same in regards to Alexander and his brother Constantine? If one takes all the facts into consideration, her misguided actions aren't as cruel as Troyat paints them. Another point of contention. Without a doubt Catherine had lovers, but she was not the nymphomaniac hinted at in this book. But since this is a biography on Alexander and not Catherine, I can only hope facts pertaining to his life are scrutinized with more care.
If asked to describe Alexander in one word after reading this biography, I'd choose hypocritical (although wishy-washy would work, too). I did admire and have sympathy for his wife, Elizabeth, and thought her life was quite lonely and sad. To say Alexander was a prick to her is being kind. A few months at the end of their lives hardly makes up for years of emotional and physical neglect.
Near the end, the timeline for events became somewhat jumbled with Troyat switching back and forth in time. For example, an event is relayed for 1822 and then a few pages later, an 1818 event is being discussed. This became confusing and the book was much more streamlined before Napoleon's defeat.
While Troyat uses the last few pages of the book to address a popular legend, that Alexander I faked his death and retreated to Siberia to live as a holy man, his arguments are not wholly convincing. I would be interested in reading Alexei Troubetzkoy's account, which goes into more depth, about this matter.
The rating for "Alexander of Russia" falls in the land between a 3 and 4. Though it is a detailed and well-written account, two glaring problems brought the rating down for me.
1. The outdated portrayal of Catherine II.
2. The confusing timeline after the defeat of Napoleon.
If asked to describe Alexander in one word after reading this biography, I'd choose hypocritical (although wishy-washy would work, too). I did admire and have sympathy for his wife, Elizabeth, and thought her life was quite lonely and sad. To say Alexander was a prick to her is being kind. A few months at the end of their lives hardly makes up for years of emotional and physical neglect.
Near the end, the timeline for events became somewhat jumbled with Troyat switching back and forth in time. For example, an event is relayed for 1822 and then a few pages later, an 1818 event is being discussed. This became confusing and the book was much more streamlined before Napoleon's defeat.
While Troyat uses the last few pages of the book to address a popular legend, that Alexander I faked his death and retreated to Siberia to live as a holy man, his arguments are not wholly convincing. I would be interested in reading Alexei Troubetzkoy's account, which goes into more depth, about this matter.
The rating for "Alexander of Russia" falls in the land between a 3 and 4. Though it is a detailed and well-written account, two glaring problems brought the rating down for me.
1. The outdated portrayal of Catherine II.
2. The confusing timeline after the defeat of Napoleon.
August 11, 2025
I've read A LOT about Napoleon and that period of history. I've always wanted to read about some of the other European leaders of that time. And, as this book makes the point, the leader who was most responsible for bringing down the great French conqueror was--Alexander I , Czar of Russia. I think most would say Wellington was the man who defeated Napoleon--at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. But it was in Russia in 1812 that Napoleon suffered his most catastrophic defeat, a defeat that he never really recovered from. It was not inevitable that Napoleon would have lost an army in Russia. As Troyat makes clear, it was Alexander's strategy to retreat away from the invading army, using a scorched earth policy to deny food supplies to the French. The czar believed that the French would run out of supplies and starve--while Cossacks would raid the French along their flanks. It would be winter that would finish off Napoleon--and that is what happened. If it had been up to the generals, they would have fought on the border--and no doubt been soundly defeated. And not only did Alexander drive the French out of Russia, but Alexander became the leader of the Allied coalition that drove all the way to Paris in 1814, forcing Napoleon's abdication and his exile to Elba. When Napoleon returned to France and regained his emperorship, it was Alexander who was determined to fight until Napoleon was defeated once again. I think most historians would agree that, even if Napoleon had defeated Wellington at Waterloo, Alexander would have led a huge Russian army that, along with the Austrians, would have finally defeated Napoleon. While the war showed Alexander to be a hero, as The Liberator of Europe, after the war, I think it was a tragic time for Russia as Alexander proved to be a most autocratic ruler. He became something of a mystic, increasingly interested in religion and detached from reality. After his death, there were rumors that a "holy man" was actually the Czar-- and that Alexander had faked his death. Troyat does not believe that. Russia seems to have had a long history of impostors!
February 21, 2022
Mixed thoughts on this biography of Tsar Alexander I of Russia. On the positive side, I appreciated an easily approachable biography of an important figure in early nineteenth-century Europe and this book does provide a good overview of Alexander's life and the important context of Russia and Europe at this time. On the less positive side, I noted the author often attributed thoughts and emotions to Alexander, sometimes without stating the primary source they were drawn from. I really don't like biographers to openly contemplate a subject's thoughts or emotions without good sources, so this was a bit a sore point for me.
Read
August 3, 2011Well, here's one great example of why our country's founders balanced power between several, theoretically equal entities. Because when one guy runs the whole shebang and can, depending on his mood, either bless you with a palace stocked with slaves, or have you impaled on a stick, you've got problems.
Now, if you've ever been to Russia, and it just plain drives you nuts that they overtly charge foreigners more and Russians less for train tickets, theater tickets, tickets to the great palaces... or if you wonder why, when you wear your all-welcoming American smile out in public and people stare at you as if you're scaring them, you have a taste of that special Russian psychosis that is the product of 300 years of Romanov, followed by 80 years of Soviet rule. We don't know that kind of mental cruelty here because the guy at the top of our political heap gets 4 years (8 years maximum) to make his own special mess of things, before he's back in the private sector with a book deal, a pension, a list of lucrative speaking engagements, and a library to play around with. Not so in Russia. Not now; probably not ever.
Russia had what many consider her golden age in the 18th century, starting of with Peter the Great (Peter I), who modernized the country, brought it European culture and manners, but also was ruthless and paranoid. (Ruthless and Paranoid are constant companions to dynastic rulers, our country's founders well knew.) Then, following a string of mostly undistinguished rulers, including an actual baby, with various intrigues along the way and we get to Catherine II (the Great) and her reign of 34 years. Catherine had a firm grip on the country, enlarged its territory and its cultural treasure, and did everything she wanted. She thought her own son, Paul, didn't have the right stuff, so she nurtured her grandson Alexander in the ways of leadership, and made it clear to her functionaries that she would prefer that Alexander run the country, rather than her son Paul. After she was gone, of course.
And Paul made it easy by being a ridiculously bad, crazy, lunatic. He worried more about marching his soldiers around in perfect formation than in the balance of trade or the myriad internal affairs that make an empire hum properly. Paul turned into a religious fruit loop and terrorized all around him, including random citizens who were simply unlucky to be on the street when he occupied it. Not having our wonderful instrument of a "term" of service, it was necessary to remove Paul by force. He resisted abdicating, so they had to kill him. Alexander got over the regicide of his father... but every now and then it haunted him.
Author Troyat is good at is giving a novelist's touch to this history and enlivening it. The first dozen years of Alexander's reign needs very little polish to make it interesting. He began full of freshman energy, holding out the possibility of reforming the government into something more like a constitutional monarchy, and even hinting at easing up on the Russian peculiar institution - serfdom.
Then Napoleon enters into Russian affairs, first as someone Alexander admires, later as an enemy of all Europe and Russia. Alexander's army (and Russia's winter) collaborate in Napoleon's retreat and eventual abdication as Emperor of France. Then, there's that inevitable "now what?" moment, whereupon Russia became responsible for "fixing" France (sort of like the United States is now responsible for "fixing" Iraq and Afghanistan). The most creative solution seemed to be to restore the Bourbon monarchy by hauling Louis XVIII's fat ass out of exile. And of course, Louis' initial modesty fully flares into the sort of corruption and decrepitude that led to the Bourbon monarchy's earlier downfall...
It didn't take long for the luster of defeating Napoleon to fade and Russia's refocused attention on its real problems to displace Alexander from his pedestal. Alexander's essential incompetence eventually leads to the kind of talk among many that helped bring his father's rule to an end. But nothing came of it. His succession is neither simple nor smooth; when Alexander dies (in a remote area of Russia, far from St. Petersburg) there are dueling factions who wish to support one brother, Constantine, who renounces the throne, and another, Nicholas, who gains power and vanquishes some (and executes others) of those who had supported Constantine in the hope that his regime would abolish serfdom (the "Decemberists").
After Alexander I, Russia had two more Alexanders and two Nicholases. We all know how that second Nicholas ended. But that's a different and sadder story.
Now, if you've ever been to Russia, and it just plain drives you nuts that they overtly charge foreigners more and Russians less for train tickets, theater tickets, tickets to the great palaces... or if you wonder why, when you wear your all-welcoming American smile out in public and people stare at you as if you're scaring them, you have a taste of that special Russian psychosis that is the product of 300 years of Romanov, followed by 80 years of Soviet rule. We don't know that kind of mental cruelty here because the guy at the top of our political heap gets 4 years (8 years maximum) to make his own special mess of things, before he's back in the private sector with a book deal, a pension, a list of lucrative speaking engagements, and a library to play around with. Not so in Russia. Not now; probably not ever.
Russia had what many consider her golden age in the 18th century, starting of with Peter the Great (Peter I), who modernized the country, brought it European culture and manners, but also was ruthless and paranoid. (Ruthless and Paranoid are constant companions to dynastic rulers, our country's founders well knew.) Then, following a string of mostly undistinguished rulers, including an actual baby, with various intrigues along the way and we get to Catherine II (the Great) and her reign of 34 years. Catherine had a firm grip on the country, enlarged its territory and its cultural treasure, and did everything she wanted. She thought her own son, Paul, didn't have the right stuff, so she nurtured her grandson Alexander in the ways of leadership, and made it clear to her functionaries that she would prefer that Alexander run the country, rather than her son Paul. After she was gone, of course.
And Paul made it easy by being a ridiculously bad, crazy, lunatic. He worried more about marching his soldiers around in perfect formation than in the balance of trade or the myriad internal affairs that make an empire hum properly. Paul turned into a religious fruit loop and terrorized all around him, including random citizens who were simply unlucky to be on the street when he occupied it. Not having our wonderful instrument of a "term" of service, it was necessary to remove Paul by force. He resisted abdicating, so they had to kill him. Alexander got over the regicide of his father... but every now and then it haunted him.
Author Troyat is good at is giving a novelist's touch to this history and enlivening it. The first dozen years of Alexander's reign needs very little polish to make it interesting. He began full of freshman energy, holding out the possibility of reforming the government into something more like a constitutional monarchy, and even hinting at easing up on the Russian peculiar institution - serfdom.
Then Napoleon enters into Russian affairs, first as someone Alexander admires, later as an enemy of all Europe and Russia. Alexander's army (and Russia's winter) collaborate in Napoleon's retreat and eventual abdication as Emperor of France. Then, there's that inevitable "now what?" moment, whereupon Russia became responsible for "fixing" France (sort of like the United States is now responsible for "fixing" Iraq and Afghanistan). The most creative solution seemed to be to restore the Bourbon monarchy by hauling Louis XVIII's fat ass out of exile. And of course, Louis' initial modesty fully flares into the sort of corruption and decrepitude that led to the Bourbon monarchy's earlier downfall...
It didn't take long for the luster of defeating Napoleon to fade and Russia's refocused attention on its real problems to displace Alexander from his pedestal. Alexander's essential incompetence eventually leads to the kind of talk among many that helped bring his father's rule to an end. But nothing came of it. His succession is neither simple nor smooth; when Alexander dies (in a remote area of Russia, far from St. Petersburg) there are dueling factions who wish to support one brother, Constantine, who renounces the throne, and another, Nicholas, who gains power and vanquishes some (and executes others) of those who had supported Constantine in the hope that his regime would abolish serfdom (the "Decemberists").
After Alexander I, Russia had two more Alexanders and two Nicholases. We all know how that second Nicholas ended. But that's a different and sadder story.
November 11, 2019
Aleksander I to syn Pawła, ale przede wszystkim wnuk Katarzyny Wielkiej, której był ulubieńcem. To ona miała największy wpływ na kształtowanie charakteru przyszłego władcy, sama zrobiła dokładnie to samo, co uczyniono niegdyś jej - zabrała dziecko matce. Katarzyna II miała w tym swój cel - Aleksander miał być jej następcą, a swojego syna, Pawła, chciała pominąć.
Wysiłki czynione przez Katarzynę i nauczycieli przyszłego cara dały jednak efekt niejednorodny, na który zwraca uwagę Bazylow: "[...] od Laharpe'a i Murawiowa nauczył się liberalizmu, a raczej tylko metod gładkiego rozprawiania na liberalną modłę, na dworze przywykły do obłudy i pozy, lektura utworów literackich wyrobiła w nim skłonność do patosu i fałszywej czułostkowości. Przeżycia gatczyńskie też odegrały swoją rolę, budząc w nim brutalność i bezwzględność, zawsze zresztą starannie maskowane - pod tym względem Aleksander był prawdziwym mistrzem. Nie pozostała wreszcie bez wpływu i głębokich następstw sytuacja, w jakiej objął władzę". A w jaki sposób objął władzę można się domyślić - spisek, morderstwo jego ojca, koronacja.
Takim człowiekiem był "Pogromca Napoleona", a zbiór tych wszystkich jego cech nigdy nie usposabiał mnie specjalnie przychylnie. Podobnie nie przepadam za jego oponentem, Napoleonem, więc trochę wymęczył mnie ich konflikt.
Książka "Aleksander I Pogromca Napoleona" była czwartą i (na szczęście) ostatnią przeczytaną przeze mnie biografią rosyjskich władców tego autora. Właściwie zarzuty mam ciągle te same - szukanie sensacji, przesadne ubarwianie i pewna zamierzona rozrywkowość mająca ułatwić czytanie ludziom mniej zainteresowanym historią. Możliwe, że jestem już uprzedzona do Troyata, ale tak właśnie odbieram jego książki. Osobiście uważam, że książka o historii powinna być pisana w odwrotny sposób - nawet o wydarzeniach kontrowersyjnych i okrutnych powinno pisać się w sposób wyważony.
Wysiłki czynione przez Katarzynę i nauczycieli przyszłego cara dały jednak efekt niejednorodny, na który zwraca uwagę Bazylow: "[...] od Laharpe'a i Murawiowa nauczył się liberalizmu, a raczej tylko metod gładkiego rozprawiania na liberalną modłę, na dworze przywykły do obłudy i pozy, lektura utworów literackich wyrobiła w nim skłonność do patosu i fałszywej czułostkowości. Przeżycia gatczyńskie też odegrały swoją rolę, budząc w nim brutalność i bezwzględność, zawsze zresztą starannie maskowane - pod tym względem Aleksander był prawdziwym mistrzem. Nie pozostała wreszcie bez wpływu i głębokich następstw sytuacja, w jakiej objął władzę". A w jaki sposób objął władzę można się domyślić - spisek, morderstwo jego ojca, koronacja.
Takim człowiekiem był "Pogromca Napoleona", a zbiór tych wszystkich jego cech nigdy nie usposabiał mnie specjalnie przychylnie. Podobnie nie przepadam za jego oponentem, Napoleonem, więc trochę wymęczył mnie ich konflikt.
Książka "Aleksander I Pogromca Napoleona" była czwartą i (na szczęście) ostatnią przeczytaną przeze mnie biografią rosyjskich władców tego autora. Właściwie zarzuty mam ciągle te same - szukanie sensacji, przesadne ubarwianie i pewna zamierzona rozrywkowość mająca ułatwić czytanie ludziom mniej zainteresowanym historią. Możliwe, że jestem już uprzedzona do Troyata, ale tak właśnie odbieram jego książki. Osobiście uważam, że książka o historii powinna być pisana w odwrotny sposób - nawet o wydarzeniach kontrowersyjnych i okrutnych powinno pisać się w sposób wyważony.
August 20, 2018
Победителят на Наполеон се оказва, както очаквахме, маршал Кутузов (макар и стар, сенилен и полусляп), а самият император Александър е по-скоро едно четирийстегодишно разглезено и нерешително дете, чието основно умение - да оцелява в условията на руската политика и дворцови интриги - все пак се оказва най-важното му качество.
Троая е много добър автор, но повече харесвах книгите му относно историческите личности от по-старо време. За по-новите има толкова много запазена информация, че авторът се занимава основно с личните им познанства и отношения, писма и т.н. без да се старае да даде тъй занимателната допълнителна информация относно начина, по който живеят самите те, обкръжението, бита им и на руските хора по време на тяхното управление.
Троая е много добър автор, но повече харесвах книгите му относно историческите личности от по-старо време. За по-новите има толкова много запазена информация, че авторът се занимава основно с личните им познанства и отношения, писма и т.н. без да се старае да даде тъй занимателната допълнителна информация относно начина, по който живеят самите те, обкръжението, бита им и на руските хора по време на тяхното управление.
April 18, 2024
Just to make a short review, as I am not a specialist of history, let alone Russian history, but I love historical novels and have read many. This book is very well written and I really enjoyed reading it as a novel, but I prefer historical novels that are closer to the facts. So it does indeed feel like more of an attempt to picture a nice Alexander, although I may need to do more research myself.
August 7, 2024
Rating this 4 stars with some reservations. Serious work of non-fiction and very detailed. Probably most enjoyed by folks interested in Russian history or European history or military history. As someone who is not a devotee of either, I did find myself drawn into the book...sometimes. At other times, it was a great sleep aid as I was overwhelmed with the minutiae. Well written and probably 3 1/2 or 3 3/4 stars for me.
Want to read
April 21, 2024___________________________________
FROM BOOK: L'idea russa. Da Dostoevskij a Putin (Bengt Jangfeldt)
FROM BOOK: L'idea russa. Da Dostoevskij a Putin (Bengt Jangfeldt)
June 19, 2019
You'd think I'd have a phD in Russian history by now.
October 20, 2019
I really enjoyed this work. It was very well written. Well researched easy to follow so you don't need to be a history major to understand his narrative.
January 24, 2014
A quote toward the beginning of this book must sum up everything that takes place in a Russian monarch's head: "He wanted everyone around him to be happy, but all he saw was jealousy, suspicion, calculation, muffled hatred" (18). It seems every czar suffered from these very things inside his own head, and was completely surrounded by them in his advisers, foreign leaders and even close, personal friends and family whom they thought they could trust.
Alexander I, the grandson of Catherine the Great, was no different, as Henri Troyat's brilliant biography makes note. From birth, Alexander new he would rule some day, and he saw around him the tendencies and behaviors of people in absolute power; Catherine wanted to be a kind and enlightening ruler who opened up Russia to the same path Europe had been on; conversely, his father, Paul, wanted to isolate Russia and intimate people only with Russia's vast military. Alexander saw both of these behaviors growing up and tried to emulate them both during his life, for better or for worse.
History probably knows him best as the czar who brought down Napoleon, thanks to a harsh winter and the beguiling friendship he pretended to have with the great French dictator. He ended up marching his soldiers into Paris and demanding that Napoleon step down. He was cheered across Russia, Europe and England as a victor, and people thought he was a hero. He thought he was a hero too, even comparing his conquering of Napoleon to an apotheosis.
But Troyat reveals that shortly after Napoleon's downfall, Alexander became a sick, haunted man. He was forever haunted by the coup, the regicide, that killed his father by an assassin's hand and brought him to the throne — he never escape the guilt, although he had no direct involvement in the murder. Perhaps to repent for that, or to absolve his sins, Alexander also turned heavily to God and mysticism, which is where everything went awry.
These two major events, or courses, in his life were the most fascinating thing about Troyat's book. He brings to life Alexander's struggles and triumphs, relationships and reflections, in a well-rounded balance of everything that comes with the, by nature, harsh, despotic office of the czar. Troyat leans heavily on Alexander's notoriety for defending Russia (although not Moscow) from Napoleon, which takes up a large chunk of the book, but he also devotes much of the book to what Alexander saw of those around him. Alexander was no dummy, that's for sure; even the people he surrounded himself with knew what he was up to and vice versa. The sense I got from reading this book is that Alexander knew what a great ruler he was or could have been, but somehow, toward the end, he lost his way.
His life, depicted here by Troyat, is a series of ups and downs, a true roller coaster of accomplishments and failures that plagued Alexander to the end of his life. He seems to be a neglected ruler in the two centuries that have passed since his most famous feat; perhaps it's his adamance of being remembered that has made people forget him more than the other czars before him.
Alexander I, the grandson of Catherine the Great, was no different, as Henri Troyat's brilliant biography makes note. From birth, Alexander new he would rule some day, and he saw around him the tendencies and behaviors of people in absolute power; Catherine wanted to be a kind and enlightening ruler who opened up Russia to the same path Europe had been on; conversely, his father, Paul, wanted to isolate Russia and intimate people only with Russia's vast military. Alexander saw both of these behaviors growing up and tried to emulate them both during his life, for better or for worse.
History probably knows him best as the czar who brought down Napoleon, thanks to a harsh winter and the beguiling friendship he pretended to have with the great French dictator. He ended up marching his soldiers into Paris and demanding that Napoleon step down. He was cheered across Russia, Europe and England as a victor, and people thought he was a hero. He thought he was a hero too, even comparing his conquering of Napoleon to an apotheosis.
But Troyat reveals that shortly after Napoleon's downfall, Alexander became a sick, haunted man. He was forever haunted by the coup, the regicide, that killed his father by an assassin's hand and brought him to the throne — he never escape the guilt, although he had no direct involvement in the murder. Perhaps to repent for that, or to absolve his sins, Alexander also turned heavily to God and mysticism, which is where everything went awry.
These two major events, or courses, in his life were the most fascinating thing about Troyat's book. He brings to life Alexander's struggles and triumphs, relationships and reflections, in a well-rounded balance of everything that comes with the, by nature, harsh, despotic office of the czar. Troyat leans heavily on Alexander's notoriety for defending Russia (although not Moscow) from Napoleon, which takes up a large chunk of the book, but he also devotes much of the book to what Alexander saw of those around him. Alexander was no dummy, that's for sure; even the people he surrounded himself with knew what he was up to and vice versa. The sense I got from reading this book is that Alexander knew what a great ruler he was or could have been, but somehow, toward the end, he lost his way.
His life, depicted here by Troyat, is a series of ups and downs, a true roller coaster of accomplishments and failures that plagued Alexander to the end of his life. He seems to be a neglected ruler in the two centuries that have passed since his most famous feat; perhaps it's his adamance of being remembered that has made people forget him more than the other czars before him.
February 27, 2023
Il secondo protagonista indiscusso del Congresso di Vienna (che ripeto, sancisce l’equilibrio europeo per almeno mezzo secolo), è Alessandro I. Se Talleyrand era controverso, e il di cui operato è riassumibile nella felice definizione di Castelot “gli interessi di Talleyrand coincidevano con quelli della Francia e dell’Europa”, Alessandro Pavlovich Romanov è invece contraddittorio. Tutto si è detto di lui, e ogni interpretazione contiene del vero. Questo perché la sua personalità complessa, dissimulatrice, doppia, capace di slanci sinceramente liberali si scontrò con la natura stessa del potere che gli pervenne tra le mani. La Russia non poteva essere riformata (non vi era riuscito Pietro il Grande, non l’aveva voluto Caterina, nonna di Alessandro tra le cui mani egli crebbe), e un autocrate Alessandro rimase fino al termine della vita. Una vita complessa, appunto. Imbevuto dei principi illuministi in cui la nonna tanto credeva, salvo respingerli poi alla vista del sangue versato in Francia nel 1789, ma pure sempre con un occhio - desideroso di approvazione - rivolto alla follia paterna filoprussiana e dispotica, Alessandro (e qui le letture divergono) non prese attivamente parte al complotto che costò la vita a Paolo I. Sempre che restare nella propria camera in attesa che i congiurati facciano il proprio dovere non sia definita “parte attiva”...
Quindi le iniziali riforme liberali mai portate a termine; poi la guerra contro Napoleone. Le armate di Alessandro saranno quelle russe che più si spingeranno a ovest nella Storia, superando anche quelle di Suvorov che si fermarono all’altezza di Novi Ligure. Coi Cosacchi “che abbeveravano i cavalli alle Tuileries”, inizia il consesso dei vincitori di Napoleone che poi si sposterà a Vienna. Per definire la doppiezza morale dell’uomo, elevato da tutta Europa a nuovo faro della libertà, basterà ricordare che il Regno di Polonia di cui cinse la corona aveva davvero la costituzione più liberale d’Europa; ma che ebbe vita breve e che in pieno delirio mistico Alessandro non si allontanò molto dall’albero da cui cadde. Mori nel 1825, a 48 anni.
Quindi le iniziali riforme liberali mai portate a termine; poi la guerra contro Napoleone. Le armate di Alessandro saranno quelle russe che più si spingeranno a ovest nella Storia, superando anche quelle di Suvorov che si fermarono all’altezza di Novi Ligure. Coi Cosacchi “che abbeveravano i cavalli alle Tuileries”, inizia il consesso dei vincitori di Napoleone che poi si sposterà a Vienna. Per definire la doppiezza morale dell’uomo, elevato da tutta Europa a nuovo faro della libertà, basterà ricordare che il Regno di Polonia di cui cinse la corona aveva davvero la costituzione più liberale d’Europa; ma che ebbe vita breve e che in pieno delirio mistico Alessandro non si allontanò molto dall’albero da cui cadde. Mori nel 1825, a 48 anni.
April 6, 2013
I cannot agree with the blurb on the back describing the book is "more enthralling than most novels." However, it is perfectly readable and not at all dry. I imagine that anyone with an interest in this time period or in Russian history would enjoy it, but I doubt that the book would appeal to the general reader.
December 6, 2020
Certainly one of the best of Troyat’s several biographies of Russian czars and czarinas. All of them are easy to read and fascinating. Troyat’s Russian author biographies are also great. Together, his books offer a pretty good introductory curriculum on modern Russian, pre-Soviet history.
January 13, 2014
La vie du star Alexandre I de Russie le vainqueur de Napoléon, les guerres napoléoniennes, le congrès de Vienne,
April 3, 2017
Yeah, he was nuts. Only trusted his own judgement which was instinctive and inconsistent. Head turns by last advisor. Convinced of his divinity. An autocrat. A nation with a gulf separating the 90% from the 9 and 1%. Hmmmmmm. A cautionary tale?
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews