Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar

by Edvard Radzinsky, Эдвард Радзинский, Antonina W. Bouis (Translator)

Alexander II was Russia's Lincoln, and the greatest reformer tsar since Peter the Great. He was also one of the most contradictory, and fascinating, of history's supreme leaders. He freed the serfs, yet launched vicious wars. He engaged in the sexual exploits of a royal Don Juan, yet fell profoundly in love. He ruled during the "Russian Renaissance" of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Turgenev -- yet his Russia became the birthplace of modern terrorism. His story could be that of one of Russia's greatest novels, yet it is true. It is also crucially important today.It is a tale that runs on parallel tracks. Alexander freed 23 million Russian slaves, reformed the justice system and the army, and very nearly became the father of Russia's first constitution and the man who led that nation into a new era of western-style liberalism. Yet it was during this feverish time that modern nihilism first arose. On the sidelines of Alexander's state dramas, a group of radical, disaffected young people first experimented with dynamite, and first began to use terrorism. Fueled by the writings of a few intellectuals and zealots, they built bombs, dug tunnels, and planned ambushes. They made no less than six unsuccessful attempts on Alexander's life. Finally, the parallel tracks joined, when a small cell of terrorists, living next door to Dostoevsky, built the fatal bomb that ended the life of the last great Tsar. It stopped Russian reform in its tracks.Edvard Radzinsky is justly famous as both a biographer and a dramatist, and he brings both skills to bear in this vivid, page-turning, rich portrait of one of the greatest of all Romanovs. Delving deep into the archives, he raises intriguing questions about the connections between Dostoevsky and the young terrorists, about the hidden romances of the Romanovs, and about the palace conspiracies that may have linked hard-line aristocrats with their nemesis, the young nihilists.Alexander's life proves the timeless lesson that in Russia, it is dangerous to start reforms, but even more dangerous to stop them. It also shows that the traps and dangers encountered in today's war on terrorists were there from the start.

Genres: History, Biography, Russia, Nonfiction, Russian History, Royalty, Biography Memoir

480 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Radzinsky (Russian: Эдвард Радзинский) is an author of more than forty popular non-fiction books on historical subjects. Since the 1990s, he has written the series Mysteries of History. The books translated to English include his biographies of Tsars Nicholas II and Alexander II, Rasputin, and Joseph Stalin. His book Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives discusses a number of well known controversies about Joseph Stalin, including the existence of a fuller text of Lenin's Testament, the alleged involvement of Stalin as an agent of the Tsarist secret police, and the role of Stalin in the death of his wife and the murder of Sergey Kirov. According to Radzinsky, Stalin was poisoned by order of Lavrentiy Beria. His book includes an interview with a former bodyguard of Stalin, who stated that on the night of Stalin's death, the bodyguards were relieved of duty by an NKVD officer named Khrustalev. This same officer was briefly mentioned in Memories, the memoir of Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva. Radzinsky also supported the hypotesis by Viktor Suvorov that Stalin had prepared a preemptive strike against Nazi Germany

Reviews

[Abeselom Habtemariam · Rating 2 out of 5]

‘’Like all reformers who followed him, including Mikhail Gorbachev, he failed to understand this basic truth: Starting reforms in Russia is dangerous, but it is much more dangerous to stop them.”

Edvard Radzinsky's book on the times and legacy of Tsar Alexander II is a work that offers a broad look into the life of one of Russia's most consequential rulers. It delves into his blueprint for modernization and reform of the Russian people and the massive empire that had been entrusted to him. By exploring the revolutionary repercussions that Alexander II had on his country, Radzinsky provides a window into how history can be shaped by one man's decisions in pivotal times.

The first part of the book starts by briefly going over the history of The Romanov Tsars and Tsarinas; from the time of Peter the Great up to the tumultuous reign of Nicholas I. The second part discusses Tsar Alexander II from the time of his coronation (September 7, 1856) until the Franco-Prussian war (July 19, 1870 – May 10, 1871). The third part is devoted to the revolutionary underground movements in Russia throughout the reign of Alexander II. The fourth and final part, titled ‘’The Return of the Tsar Liberator’’ covers the last years of the Tsar.

‘’He wanted to get rid of the slavery, the backbone of Russian life. The enlightened Russian landowners, those admirers of Voltaire and Rousseau, who collected priceless libraries in their country homes, bought, sold, and gambled away their serfs, sometimes even trading them for hunting dogs, and whipped them mercilessly in the stables.’’

Alexander II's reforms were a revolutionary set of changes that had a long-lasting effect on Russian political and societal life. These reforms, which began in 1861 and lasted until 1881, were aimed at modernizing and liberalizing the vast Russian Empire and transforming it into a state that can rival Europe. They included abolishing serfdom, introducing local government, reforming the judicial system, and introducing military reforms. The two major reforms that were very significant were the Zemstvo reform of 1864, which acquainted Russia with local government institutions, and the judicial reform, which established a system of independent courts regulated by modern principles of legal procedure. The justice reform especially had a serious shortcoming in that it didn’t cater for the peasants, which were roughly 85% of the population.

  Portrait of Tsar Alexander II (1818 - 1881)

Alexander II is synonymous with the emancipation of the serfs, which his great-grandmother, Catherine the Great, wanted to accomplish but never did. However, I felt that the book doesn’t discuss the emancipation manifesto of 1861 as well as it ought to. That’s a very serious lapse. Since the manifesto was the Tsar’s greatest achievement, it would’ve been a great opening for Radzinsky to make the case for the book's basic thesis. In my opinion, for the most part, the book has failed to show why exactly he was ‘’The Last Great Tsar’’. Maybe a lot was lost in translation. But then again, maybe not. This is a bit of a letdown because the book as a whole is not a bad book.

Alexander II also brought an end to the war in Crimea, albeit to a demoralising end. He finally annexed The Caucus, but at such a bloody price. In October 1867, He oversaw the conclusion of negotiations over the Alaska purchase that his father, Nicholas I, started fifteen years prior. The brutal Russo-Turkish War (April 24, 1877 – March 3, 1878) and the subsequent Treaty of Berlin are also part of the Tsar’s rather chequered legacy.

‘’All tender feelings of family, friendship, love, gratitude, and even honour must be squashed in a revolutionary by the sole passion for revolutionary work. For him there is only one solace, reward, and satisfaction - the success of the revolution’’

Catechism for the Revolutionary

In 1869, Sergey Nechayev would write (allegedly along with the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin) a revolutionary manifesto called Catechism for the Revolutionary. The engine of revolution seemed unstoppable afterwards. Alexander II survived six attempts on his life. Some more humiliating than others. On the March 13, 1881 (March 1, 1881 Old Style), the Tsar was travelling in a carriage gifted to him by Napoleon III. He was flanked by six Cossack riders and two sleighs carrying the chief of police and the chief of the Tsar's guards. A bomb was hurled at the Royal convoy. The Tsar appeared to be unharmed. He stepped out of the carriage to assess the damage inflicted by the bomb. Soon after, a member of a revolutionary society (Narodnaya Volya to be more specific), approached the sovereign and flung a bomb at his feet. The Tsar didn’t survive the second bomb attack.

He was buried at The Petropavlovsky Cathedral. ‘’The Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood’’ (Tserkovʹ Spasa na Krovi) in St. Petersburg was built on the site of the assassination. And thus the era of the reformist ruler came to an end. His reign ended with the insurmountable revolutionary fire he inadvertently lit. Konstantin Pobedonostsev, a conservative monarchist by all accounts, would write;

‘’[By the late 1870s, Alexander II was a] pitiful and unfortunate man whose will was exhausted and who wanted only the pleasures of the belly.”

This book is not exactly a scholarly work. It’s very much a popular history book as advertised. As pointed out by some readers, there is a mistake at the beginning of Chapter 16 in which Paul I is claimed to be the great-grandfather of Alexander II when in reality he was his grandfather. There are some historical anecdotes thrown here and there, to spice up the story. Not enough citations are used, and instead there are a lot of conjectures. But, It’s written in a smooth and soothing voice. To be totally candid, I saw more of Radzinsky’s dramatist side than his biographer side. Still, I feel like this is an important book because it covers an era of Russian history that is not extensively discussed in books written in English or translated into English.

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Winds of Change

The reign of Tsar Alexander II is one of a crossroad, a missed opportunity, a tragedy of a road not taken. As Edvard Radzinsky writes ‘what ifs’ have no place in history, but they have a place in the heart. This is so true, as anyone passionate about history will ponder this thought many times over.

Alexander II is presented as the ‘last great tsar’, was he great? I’m not sure, but he certainly had the potential to be. The old proverb in Russia states ‘it’s dangerous to reform in Russia, but it’s even more dangerous to stop.’ This was Alexander’s mistake, but to even reform slightly took courage and bravery as those with most access to him were ardently against it. He emancipated the serfs in 1861, ending slavery, at a similar time to the USA but without a bloody civil war. He sold Alaska, something he is criticised for today, but at the time this was widely unpopular in America, Alexander knew he couldn’t defend it, if US troops attacked, which would only be a matter of time. He waged a successful war against the Turks in 1877, which reversed the embarrassing Treaty of Paris after the Crimean War and looked towards a road to constitution before he was murdered in 1881.

He ruled over the Russian renaissance, which the explosion to true greats, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Goncharov and Tchaikovsky. This was all due to his relaxation of the censorship laws. However, as with everything in Alexander’s reign it backfired and caused a chasm between the tsar and people. The serfs didn’t get enough land and became wage slaves, the settlement of the Russo-Turkish War was wildly disproportionate to Russia’s success and showed incompetent diplomacy, the relaxation of the regime grew the terrorist and revolutionary thinkers almost the aristocracy and intelligentsia. It all backfired.

Questioned are asked if the regime wanted the tsar to be murdered, as they feared changed and wanted to cement autocracy. What is sure is that the terrorists, by murdering the last great hope of Russia, caused the opposite to their aims. Under his son Alexander III autocracy and conservatism deepened. Then Nicholas II’s disastrous reign lead to revolution and then Lenin and Stalin and the destruction of society and all people. The irony is that they should have aligned to the tsar, rather than against him, as this would have driven Russia to reform, stability and a constitution. But that’s history, it’s melancholy tale.

Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar overall reads well, which is impressive as it is translated from Russian. It also focuses on the terrorists, Nihilists and People’s Will alongside Alexander, which is important in understand this period of Russian history. I am truly grateful for this book, as very little focuses on this fascinating period in the country’s history. Most books are weighed towards the 20th century, this is a shame. I must however point out there are mistakes, which ruins the credibility to some degree. For example, Paul I is referred to Alexander’s great-grandfather, this may be the fault of the translator or a typo. For me it just took the edge off an all great book.

[Nancy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think Lytton Strachey must have been reincarnated as Edvard Radzinsky. It's the same style of biography; deliciously written, immediate, the facts of the subject's life synthesized and distilled into a highly engaging account, but also with its flaws of lacking rigor and relying too much on such imagined details as the quality of someone's stare or their thoughts, with a fair amount of conjecture in addition. Strachey was a groundbreaker. I have no sense of Radzinsky's place in Russian historiography, so perhaps he also invented the lightbulb, but this modern reader expects citations. A great read and as I didn't know much beyond the bare bones of 19th century Russian history quite informative.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

This fascinating biography covers a lot of ground, explaining the forces that shaped the character and fate of the liberator tsar whom Radzinsky often compares with Mikhael Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union. This biography, which also includes a detailed history of mid-19th century Russia, covers the Romanov family starting with Peter the Great, the tsar's personal life, problems with political reform, the golden age of Russian literature, the populist Narodnik movement, the roots and influences of the late 19th century terrorist group, People's Will and profiles the many contemporaries who were close to the tsar or significant historical figures at the time. Although Razinsky takes on a serious topics and covers a lot of detail gleaned from many sources, his writing is not dry at all. Alexander's tutor, the poet Vasily Zhukovsky, sums up the problems of political reform and dealing with change. "Revolution is a fatal effort to leap from Monday right into Wednesday. But the effort to leap from Monday back to Sunday is just as fatal."

[Lyd's Archive (7/'15 to 6/'18) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have heard people say things about the author of this book making stuff up and lying and bias, but I personally saw no evidence of such. For me, this was a beautiful albeit violent, balanced and enthralling book, highly informative to anyone curious about the roots of the Russian revolution.

[Lydia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first biography that I have read of a Russian monarch not written by Robert K. Massie. I do not know whether Alexander II or Nicholas I were on his to-do list before he died, but I think that both might have deserved his pen. Edvard Razinsky appears to have heavily researched his subject, but the way the book was set up it was not easy to trace his resources. He just listed them all at the end of book.

Autocracy
Orthodoxy
Nationalism

These were the three principles that Tsar Nicholas I left to his heir Alexander II. Nicholas I's reign began in turmoil after Alexander I expired with no male heirs. Before he died began asking his brothers to take over the throne. Two them declined and the one that picked up the mantle was his youngest brother Nicholas, who became the first.

Nicholas I was crowned under the backdrop of Alexander I's victory over Napoleon I and the reinstitution of a monarchy in France. Unfortunately for Nicholas his own reign as Tsar began with the Decembrist revolt of his own elite guards, who wanted to change Russia from autocracy to a republic. It was also his reign that Nicholas I actually discovered Notes on how emperors and empresses were made in Russia, through murder and backstabbing among family and the powerful aristocrats and ancient families with their allies within the elite military units in charge of protecting the Tsar and his family.

Nicholas was able to crush the Decembrists; revamp the military units surrounding the throne; and create what was the called the Third Department (the forerunner to Russia's current internal security system), a surveillance unit that infiltrated all aspects of Russian life. Nicholas I ruled for 37 years with an iron fist, making the autocrat as if he was ordained by God for role and making the most ignorant of his society, some say up to 80%, believe that he was God on Earth. It was a culture of yes-men and repression by servitude and fealty.

Nicholas I left his son with a country near bankruptcy and 23 million human issue ---- serfs. Nicholas I's advisors believed that the next insurrection would come from these 23 millions and they had to be freed. Alexander was left with this assignment and a burgeoning middle class that was becoming better educated and well traveled and army that needed rebuilding after so many conflicts.

Alexander II was one of the better educated Tsars. He was placed under the tutelage of Vassily Zhukovsky, a rather liberal thinking educator. The education that Alexander received was in sharp contrast to the governing style of Nicholas I, which was established early on by the Decembrist uprising.

Alexander II started on a somewhat peaceful line, but there was already bad vibes at the start of his coronation --- a series of mishaps. Meanwhile, there was class of people that were beginning to come into their own --- the educated class that was interested in the government and how it ran and those within that class and in the upper classes that wanted change. Change under the Tsar did not come fast enough for them. When change did come, it came violently and with death. Alexander II freed the 23 million serfs, his crowning glory. Just like Lincoln freeing the slaves, there was talk of reparations and a landowning class that was totally against freedom of the serfs and slaves. As mentioned, Russia was near broke when Alexander took the throne and after so many wars Alexander's government sold land to another expansionist power, the United States, much to disappointment to those wishing to expand the Russian Empire. Also, Alexander II was considering a constitution for his country with representative government, something that was totally contrary to autocratic rule.

All of these changes and the slow implementation gave rise to terrorist groups and their offshoots. Alexander was viewed as an active thinking Tsar and a reactive one circumstances were not to his liking. It was said that the Tsar had a habit of returning to past while looking to future. There were some in country that would not allow him to have it both ways --- retrogrades, consisting of the aristocracy and landed gentry (past); terrorists groups, seeking revolution and middle class (future). Those 23 million were so downtrodden, they were indifferent to any position.

Alexander II's reign gave rise to some of the greatest writers in Russian history -- Dostoevsky, for one, whose works may be more understandable with the company that he kept and his neighbors.

It is a compelling story of a ruler and of a people. It somewhat explains the Russian mentality. It is different reading about a Russian ruler as written by a Russian, rather than American or Englishman writing about a Russian ruler. Could this biography have been written under a crowned autocrat, especially when speaking of the autocrats private lives? Could the details of the Notes on succession only be written some 100 years after the execution of the last Romanovs? Was Alexander II's failings, one of not full committing to his changes and not having the proper support system place?

Much that went on his reign determines the Russia today and its actions.

[Laura Edwards · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a letdown. The book is written in such simplistic fashion, it felt as if I were reading an 8th grade history term paper. And since I've read and enjoyed Radzinsky's biography on Stalin, I am going to lay the fault at the feet of the translator. A shame because I was looking forward to this book. Hopefully, there is another biography on Alexander II out there somewhere.

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tale about any Romanov monarch’s time and place makes for compelling reading, and the life Czar Alexander II is no exception. Russian historian Edward Radvinsky (with translation by Antonina W. Bouis) attempted to tell his story, warts and all, in Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar.

The son of Nicholas I and great-grandson of Catherine the Great, Alexander Nikolayevich had been conditioned to view czardom as a precarious institution. Both his great-grandfather (Czar Peter III) and grandfather (Czar Paul I) were murdered while on the throne.

As a seven-year-old in 1825, Alexander watched as the Decembrists violently attempted to disrupt his own father’s transfer of power. Clashes with the Russian military in December 1825 ended with their defeat, but this uprising in St. Petersburg and the attempted takeover of the Winter Palace reinforced the notion that Russian rulers had to reign with an iron fist. Sedition was to be tolerated in no form whatsoever.

Czar Nicholas I was firmly against society becoming too open to new ideas, a mindset reinforced in the book when Nicholas notes that “In Europe, the ruler must have the art of being sometimes fox, sometimes lion. In Russia he must always be the lion. That is what General Bonaparte taught politicians.” (This same Bonaparte invaded Russia six years before Alexander’s birth, a situation which his uncle heroically handled).

Nicholas’s creation of the Third Department as a police/spy agency was a result of the paranoia that settled on St. Petersburg following years of assassinations and an attempted coup in 1825.

Edvard Radvsinky lays the groundwork for Alexander II’s own time as czar by explaining what he absorbed and experienced while heir to the throne. He earned the Cross of St. George while fighting against the Chechens in the Caucuses, and his father spiked any chance of his marrying Queen Victoria of England while he was on the marriage market (he wanted him to marry Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, a German, not to be a mere spouse of a British monarch).

His father at one point put him in charge of executing political prisoners, one of whom was Fyodor Dostoevsky, only to pardon them in the final seconds before “Fire!” could be shouted.

The Crimean War was in its final throes when Czar Nicholas I died in 1855. Alexander had been sent to aid prisoners in Sevastopol during the siege and had a good idea of the terrible conditions of that war; one of his first acts upon becoming czar would be to draw the conflict to a close.

The book is full of interesting anecdotes, and the story of the czar and his wife’s coronation in The Cathedral of the Assumption in Moscow is no exception. The Golden Orb was dropped and rolled down the aisle during the ceremony after the prince holding it fainted, and Empress Alexandrovna’s crown fell off her head when it was first being set on it. From tales of Nicholas’s and then Alexander’s mistresses to stories about the revolutionary terrorists who would scheme in the underground, Czar Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar at times reads with a novel-like feel.

The new czar would start out determined to introduce a perestroika and institute changes to his dad’s heavy-handed system. His 1861 freeing of the serfs is the act he is best known for; his title of the Great Liberator is a reminder of this liberalizing act. The author does point out the czar’s observation that “If we don’t give the peasants freedom from above, they will take it from below,” perhaps casting down on the disinterestedness of this decision.

Alexander would also end another war early in his reign, and this one would be a victory. His capturing of Imam Shamil helped end the insurgency in the Caucuses, and the story of how the czar handled the Islamist imam was compelling reading. Equally compelling is the story of how Alexander II’s nephew Grand Duke Nicholas Konstantinivoch was expelled from court after trying to steal diamonds for his American mistress, Fanny Lear. He was essentially exiled to Tashkent (modern day Uzkbestikan) and became a local hero of sorts in the Asiatic outskirts of Russia’s late nineteenth century empire.

Radvinsky attempts to give a feel for the big events of Czar Alexander's twenty-six years as ruler. The 1867 sale of Alaska to the United States for $7.2 million was an important foreign policy move, while the crushing of Poland’s January Uprising attempt to gain autonomy in the empire played a role in fomenting a growing autocratic streak in the czar.

He had initially set out to make reforms and liberalize the country. But protests (particular on college campuses) over a lack of land allotments for the freed serfs followed upon their liberation. An attempt to reform Russia’s Polish lands by granting them more local self-government ended with a movement for full independence, a second situation which made Alexander II question the benefit of perestroika.

One strong element of the book is the time it takes to explain the growing insurgent movement launched by Sergey Nechaev. This movement of younger Russians was full of individuals who hated the entire concept of czardom and endorsed violence as a way to overthrow this autocracy. Their formation of the People’s Will formed a party which expressly endorsed political murder to create revolutionary change in Russia.

The narodniki might have not preached violence but were still revolutionaries.

They largely consisted of well-off young Russians who went to the countryside in the 1860s and 1870s in order to preach revolution to the peasants and recently freed serfs. The reception the nardodniki often received from dirt poor workers in the countryside-frequently puzzlement and a lack of understanding as to why they were there in the first place-was almost comical. Together with the narodniki, these movements were the forebears of the Bolsheviks and a sort of proto-Communist underground which would come to fruition three to four decades later.

The growing disorder they were causing in Russia was clear. Local officials were shot at and assassinated. The czar survived several point blank assassination attempts with revolvers. On one occasion dynamite was exploded underneath the train tracks but blew up the wrong train in his retinue, while on another occasions a dynamite explosion set off in the Winter Palace killed many but did not take his life.

There were at least six attempts on his life which came close to success.

Within this context, the Russo-Turkish War in 1877-1878 was held up as an attempt to distract from domestic problems and unite the populace behind the flag. Alexander II would show up in-person during the Siege of Plevna to watch the fighting during a conflict ostensibly fought to protect Slavic brothers from Turkish bullying. The war would get off to a bad start for Russia before ending in victory with their troops at the gates of Istabul. To hear the author tell it, Russia only held back from retaking the former capital of eastern Christianity under threats of intervention from England were they to take this step.

Radzinsky does excellent work explaining some of the battles and generals on both the Russian and Turkish side during their year-long war.

The fumbled peace after this war, culminating in the Treaty of Berlin, was shown to further weaken Alexander II’s precarious standing. He would essentially barricade his palace and only travel with Cossacks heavily guarding his retinue following the string of failed assassination attempts; this was a far cry from the more open society he had wanted to see unfurl after his 1855 coronation.

But this turned out to be for naught, as members of the People’s Will ended up assassinating the czar with a bomb on March 2nd, 1881, while returning from Mikhailovsky Manege in St. Petersburg. Ironically, on that very morning Alexander had finalized plans for a Russian constitution and was preparing to once again try the reformist ideas he had jettisoned since his early years as czar.

The book implies that the Russian security services, despite their vaunted ability to penetrate the country’s terrorist cells, were becoming lax. It is also implied that this might have been because some members of the state actually wanted his son and heir Aleksander to take over sooner rather than later.

The more conservative officials saw Alexander II warming up to reform ideas once again and were anxious for his son, who was more under the influence of the reactionary wing, to be the one in power. No actual evidence is offered up, but this is one of only a handful of times the author offers speculation. There was also unhappiness with the manner in which Alexander quickly made public his mistress Catherine Dolgorukova following the death of Empress Alexandravno. He had three children with Catherine even before the empress’s death and made little effort to hide their relationship before or after her passing. Many in the court felt he flouted tradition and let her move in too rapidly following Alexander's death.

Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar is really a strong biography. It is full of the big picture and smaller pictures of the czar’s time in power, bringing together regional and world events in a way that strengthens the story it is attempting to tell. The writing style is solid, as Radvinsky moves things along briskly while also not short changing readers in the details department.

From diplomacy to sex to underground terrorist cells and their leader, this book packs in more than a typical biography of a nineteenth century figure. It is deserving of five stars, and there is much knowledge to be gained and information to be imbibed from cracking open its deeply informative pages.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Fresna305 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Мне сложно передать свое отношение к этой книге. С одной стороны, это очень странная биография, в которой описываемая личность уходит даже не на второй план, а куда-то на самые задворки книги. С другой стороны, эт�� замечательный исторический роман, который вряд ли откроет читателю (конечно, если тот не прогулял/проспал все уроки истории в старших классах) что-то совсем уж новое, но систематизировать знания поможет. Опять же, для меня это именно художественное произведение, основанное на исторических фактах, а не учебное пособие или строго научная литература.

Радзинский разделил свое произведение на три части. Первая, или предпосылки правления Александра II — сжато изложенная эпоха дворцовых переворотов, где подчас придворные решали, жить государю или умереть, закончившаяся уже более подробно описанным правлением Николая I, который теперь единолично вершил судьбы подданных и управлял их умами. Вторая — царствование "двуликого Януса", собственно реформы и контрреформы Александра II; шаг вперед — два назад. Наконец, третья — рождение невероятно могущественной и неистребимой силы, которая опять стала способна распоряжаться судьбами государей, как гвардия в старые дониколаевские времена. Молодые, сильные, отважные, умные. Террористы. Третья часть книги посвящена им. И, на мой взгляд, она не совсем удачна. Перегруженная именами, датами, фактами, она тем не менее не раскрывает ни одну личность полноценно...

Если подвести итог, то извлеченную мной из этой книги пользу можно свести к трем пунктам:
1. Достоевский. При всей моей любви к нему, я так и не удосужилась прочитать полноценную его биографию, особенно четко прослеживающую связь его произведений с историческими событиями, им предшествующими и сопутствующими. Эта книга, конечно, не биография писателя, но регулярно показывает, какие факты нашли отражение в знаменитом пятикнижии Достоевского.
2. Систематизация. Наиболее важные события эпохи Александра II сложились в моей голове в относительно стройную систему, при этом не перегруженную авторскими домыслами и выводами.
3. Террор. Повторюсь, что это произведение не показалось мне особенно полным и полезным пособием по зарождению и развитию террора в России, но как опорную точку для дальнейшего углубленного изучения темы его можно использовать. Причем, мой главный критерий в этом плане — непредвзятость автора. Когда я открываю что-то новое для себя, я в первую очередь хочу, чтобы мне не навязывали чужое мнение, но дали возможность сделать выводы самой. Радзинский, озвучивая собственную позицию, позволяет читателю размышлять самостоятельно.

[Nathan Bell · Rating 5 out of 5]

The tsar's carriage rushed down the street toward his assassins. He had just passed legislation that would have given Russia a constitution. Twenty years before, he had freed Russia's slaves with a proclamation. But neither of these things were good enough for the young radicals who wanted to "awaken" the nation to revolution. They flung a bomb at the carriage, killing the tsar and a few innocent bystanders. The fact that innocent people had died was little concern of theirs because even in 19th century Communism, the ends justified the means.

In Russia, there have historically been two options: autocracy or anarchy. Several Romanov tsars had been executed by their royal guards. When Nicholas I came to power, he decided to change all of this. He got rid of the royal guards and created his own secret police, who censored ideas and spied on the Russian people. Church and state were united in Orthodox Russia, and the tsar controlled the church. When he decided to attack the crumbling Ottoman Empire in 1853, he claimed that it was about liberating Orthodox Christians from Turkish oppression. Yet Russia also wanted access to the Black Sea. He was brave enough when he thought his army would win, but when it was clear that he would lose Sevastopol, his ego crumbled. But it was pneumonia; not war, which took his life. He had raised his son to rule just like him, and while he was alive, the heir was afraid of him. But when Alexander II came to power, it soon became clear that he had other plans. He accepted Russia's defeat gracefully and made peace with Napoleon III of France- at least momentarily.

During his father's reign, Russian serfs could be bought, sold, married off, and forced to work as slaves under terrible conditions. There were so many serfs that for decades, Russian leaders feared that they would one day rise up. Freeing them without giving them land was a recipe for disaster. And so, Alexander II did what no one before him had done: he freed the serfs with an emancipation proclamation in 1861 (no doubt, his pen pal in America, Abraham Lincoln, took note of this). Because of angry Russian aristocrats and landowners, the serfs were not given enough land, and many believed that his reform was totally inadequate. In Russia, a monarch making any reform was dangerous, but not as dangerous as stopping reforms. Once people who have never been free taste freedom, they never want anything else.

Alexander made two tragic mistakes- he replaced the liberals who had pushed him to make the reforms with the retrogrades who had opposed the reforms. He was like a two-faced Janus, looking both backwards and forwards. Young liberal students who had been forbidden to speak freely under Nicholas I suddenly started complaining about every problem in Russia, and many joined revolutionary groups. Alexander's second mistake was his blatant disregard for the sanctity of marriage. He repeated the mistakes of his father, even indulging in pornography (decades later when the Bolsheviks raided the palace, they would find his stash of erotic paintings and cartoons). When his wife's health started deteriorating, he took a very young girl as his mistress and fathered children with her, to the disgust of the entire family. The person most threatened by this may have been the heir, Sasha- a clumsy, unintelligent young man who was also strong enough to bend a steel rod and tear through a deck of cards. If the new mistress bore children, he might lose his place as the heir. Soon there would be attempts on the tsar's life.

One attempt on his life was made while he was in France. Fearing that former Russian ambassador Otto von Bismarck's imminent war with France would give Russia a dangerous neighbor, he had traveled to Paris to support the French. When a local Polish refugee made an attempt on his life, the French did not react in his defense. He angrily left for home and decided to let Bismarck crush the French. Bismarck won his war with France and the nation of Germany was born.

When it was clear that he was unpopular, Alexander decided to wage another war with the Turks in 1877. The Russian army managed to free Slavic Christians in the Balkans and had nearly advanced to Constantinople, when the British got involved and sent in their navy. Bismarck joined with the British in reversing Russia's gains, and Alexander returned to an angry nation. The retrograde party hated him for his reforms. The liberals hated him for stopping the reforms. Some of the soldiers hated him for his failed war. His family was angry because of his new mistress. The young revolutionaries hated him just because he was a tsar.

There would be several more failed attempts on his life. The revolutionaries formed "The People's Will," an organization that despite its goal of equality, had two classes: those on top who planned the revolution from above with unquestioned authority and those below who were to sacrifice their own lives to the revolution. Their chief objective was to kill the tsar. After several failed attempts, most of the revolutionaries were caught. Alexander finally decided to start reforms again.

He did so by appointing someone else to lead Russia temporarily: Loris Melikov. Under the tsar's supervision, Melikov made plans for a constitution and representative government- something Russia desperately needed. Alexander's new wife became Melikov's advisor and many feared that she was manipulating both the tsar and his new reform minister. As news of possible reforms leaked to the public, Alexander's reputation started to improve. Yet there were two major opponents to the reforms: the retrogrades who feared losing power and a few surviving members of the People's Will who feared that reforms would endanger their planned revolution. It is possible that the retrogrades may have known about the revolutionaries and used them to take out the tsar.

On March 1st, 1881, the revolutionaries succeeded in killing the tsar. Like Abraham Lincoln, who had freed the slaves in America, the tsar who had liberated the serfs had been assassinated. But there was no revolution. Now the angry young Sasha who could bend a steel rod with his bare hands was a grown man, as well as the tsar of all Russia. Sasha effectively became known as Alexander III. His own son, "Nicky," was 13 years old. Nicholas II had become their heir of Russia in blood, and in 1918, would end his own reign in blood. He had seen what happened when Russian people were given freedom. A man who had been head of the retrograde party, Konstantin Pobodonostev, became a tutor for young Nicholas and taught him to show no mercy. When Alexander III died, Nicholas ruled as a ruthless, yet weak leader who would wage a costly war with Japan in 1904. When the Bolsheviks finally took over Russia and executed Nicholas, along with his entire family, some may have believed that there would be a change for the better. But while Communism made great boasts, it offered only oppression. Russia would not know freedom until Gorbachev, who, like Alexander II, made reforms. Today, Russia is stuck with Putin, who is as bad as any of the Romanovs. From my American perspective, Alexander was the best of the Romanovs. He was a friend of Abraham Lincoln, he sold us Alaska, and he emancipated the serfs, which likely reenforced Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation here in America

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a peculiarity of the Russian monarchy that I can simultaneously be horrified by and feel sorry for them. Radzinksy, writing after the fall of the Soviet Union, manages to balance the revolutionaries and the royal family so that we sympathize and condemn both sides at once, leaving us shaking our heads at the tragedy.

Russia has had some of the most screwed up politics anywhere for pretty much most of its existence. As Radzinsky points out repeatedly, in Imperial Russia, literally everyone is a slave to the Emperor. It's still a lot better to be a rich, noble slave than a serf, though.

It's clear that over the last few (incredibly dysfunctional) monarchs, Russia had become aware that they were riding a tiger. Lording over serfs was a bad place to be, politically, but how to get off without getting eaten? The best the Romanovs managed was to delay the perhaps inevitable.

But Alexander II tries. He tries so hard at first. And it goes so badly. Letting a little freedom results in the murders of his officials by revolting students. So he smashes down on them.

Meanwhile, you can't help but sympathize with would-be revolutionaries facing an incredibly corrupt, dehumanizing, horrific systems of repression. But their conclusion that any amount of death and horror is justified in the name of revolution...hindsight only makes it even more clear what the natural progression will be of setting aside morality.

So everyone does horrible things. And it ends terribly for everyone. Thus pushing off the revolution for two more generations, so everyone can do even more horrible things.

[Lili Kyurkchiyska · Rating 3 out of 5]

Много ме забавлява приповдигнатия тон на разказа. Вместо да засипва читателя със сухи факти, Радзински го въвежда в пикантния свят на дворцовите клюки и мрачното залутано съществуване на революционерите-терористи, създавайки му обобщена представа за епохата. Това е изключително полезно, когато тематиката е нова; но лишена от надлежното представяне на фактите, тяхното съизмерване и достигането до изводи по научен път, книгата губи част от тежестта си. От друга страна, психологическото вникване е важно за опознаването на личността. И въпреки че изключително много ми хареса, остави у мен впечатление за детска приказка, а не за сериозна биография.
I enjoyed very much the style of the author. Instead of thrusting dull facts upon the reader, Radzinsky introduce him into the spicy world of court gossips and into the dark existence of the revolutionaries-terorists. This is extremely helpful when the subject is new to the reader; but destitute of proper presentation of the facts, their commensurability and making conclusions in scholarly manner, the book lоses weight. On the other hand the psychological understanding is important for getting to know the individuality of the person. And although I liked the book very much, it leaves to me impression of fairy tale, not that of biography.

[Tom Andersson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detta är faktiskt en av de första böckerna som jag köpte på egen hand. Det var nog 2006/2007 för ett arbete i Historia B på gymnasiet. Nu har jag läst den igen från pärm till pärm.

Den är bra och inlevelsefullt, om än något ”lindqvistigt” skriven. Och Alexander II är ju onekligen en väldigt spännande person i en spännande tid i Rysslands historia.

Det är dock väldigt mycket mer än bara Alexander II som avhandlas i den biografin, ibland till den grad att det inte känns som en biografi.

Man får aldrig riktigt grepp om Alexander. Ingen tydligt insikt i hur han resonerade och vad han kände. Det hör dock snarare källäget till än brister i boken. Dock är passagerna där Dostojevskij och flera av terroristerna avhandlas långa och ingående. Ibland känns det som man får veta mer om dem än om tsaren de mördade.

Överlag en bra bok, om än något lång, som även ger en bra förklaring till varför Ryssland utvecklade sig som det gjorde under andra halvan av 1800-talet fram till revolutionen 1917.

[David Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Last Great Tsar". I'd hesitate to group Alexander II with Peter the Great or Catherine the Great. If Radzinsky was trying to make that case, he failed. He was certainly better than the two who followed him, but that doesn't set a very high bar.

Alexander II freed the serfs and was attempting to move to a constitutional government when he was assassinated. But he wasn't particularly successful as a diplomat or military leader, and he had a bad tendency to vacillate.

I found the material on the terrorists quite interesting. Alexander II was killed by suicide bombers; had survived multiple assassination attempts and bombings, including a blast in the Winter Palace. Dynamite was a recent invention - terrorism was a high tech affair.

[Славея Котова · Rating 4 out of 5]

Аз бях сигурна в началото, че ще дам 1 единствена звездичка за тази книга, но!.. Първо, това не е никаква биография на Александър II, това са 1/3 пикантерии от спалнята на тейко му и самия него и 2/3 история на създаването и дейността на "Народна воля". Второ, тия от изд."Прозорец", що така гнусно са премахнали библиографията, която присъства в английските и руските издания?! Няма и бележки под линия, от къде Радзински взима пряката реч не мога да разбера. В този смисъл с пълното съзнание, че е възможно половината неща в книгата да не са сигурни, изпитах огромно удоволствие от четенето й. Много четивна с прост и неакадемичен език, силно наподобява историческа мистерия, накрая завършва с цитат на любимия Достоевски, което в крайна сметка й вдигна акциите от 1 на 4 звездички, хаха!

[Ted · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book should have borne a different title as there is too much extraneous material for it to be a biography of Alexander II. A solid third is devoted to the various revolutionaries/terrorists of the time. The author spends pages and pages discussing Dostoesvsky, Turgenev, and the other novelists of the day. Now, some of that interested me, but most of it bored me. Moreover, these subjects were not what I was looking for in a book called "Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar." Indeed, the character of the tsar himself remained a mystery to me. Certainly, nothing in the book would lead me to believe that Alexander deserves the appellation "Great." I would not recommend this book.

[Clem · Rating 5 out of 5]

I knew virtually nothing about Alexander II when I picked up this book, and as I read through it, I kept asking the question: What exactly made this man great? If anything, he seemed quite average at best. Maybe the author was comparing him against the other despotic leaders of the country’s tumultuous history? I’ve read one other offering by author Edward Radzinsky on Nicholas II (called “The Last Tsar”; not a lot of creativity when naming these books) and that tsar was definitely a train wreck, so maybe we really do need to look at Alexander II in perspective to his historical peers.

Still, this was a very enjoyable piece of work. I found myself immersed in history and wanting to know more – before, during, and after Alexander’s reign. The best claim to the man’s fame is he eliminated serfdom (i.e., slavery) in Russia. This is probably why the author refers to him as “great”. Sadly, all we have to do is look at when slavery was abolished in the United States to know that the transition from slave to free is not necessarily an easy one. Yes, the initiative was good, but one could argue that the masses of enslaved people in Russia now had a lot of freedoms thrusted upon them, yet they weren’t exactly content with a few extra morsels of bread each day. So revolution was in the air. Even though “The Russian Revolution” wouldn’t take place until approximately 50 years after Alexander’s reign, the initial signs were beginning to pop up everywhere, and there were actually several assassination attempts on Alexander’s life; the last one being successful.

The author covers an awful lot of ground in this book, and there are some that claim that this book isn’t necessarily a straightforward biography of Alexander II, but rather an in depth look at the history during his time period. I suppose this is true, but in order to truly understand the man and his reign, I would argue such detailed diversions are necessary and even welcome. We read an awful lot of the main instigators of the revolutionary movement and their in-depth motivations. There’s an awful lot of the culture and arts discussed as well. I read more in this book about people such as Fyodor Dostoevsky that I’ve ever come across anywhere else. But these diversions are in fact critical and they did help set the mood.

And yes, there’s a lot of personal information about the ruler as well. The most well-known and scandalous episode in the man’s history is when he fell in love with a much younger woman and essentially tossed his much older wife aside while hoping she would quietly die. Much to the chagrin of everyone in the country, Alexander II had his own illegitimate family on the side that he took great pleasure in while his obedient subjects learned to look the other way. Being a despotic tsar has its privileges.

The hardest part for me when reading Russian history is having to assimilate all of the complex names of the people (when I typed ‘Fyodor Dostoyevsky’ a few paragraphs earlier, I had to look up the correct spelling.) When we read about so many of the royal family members as well as the masses of revolutionaries, authors, poets, and statesman, the names make your head spin and I had an awful time trying to remember if the person I read about on page 278 was the same person I read about earlier on, say, page 153. It also doesn’t help when it seems as though every third male has the name “Alexander”, and many of the females are named “Alexandra”. Plus, all of these individuals have middle names, royalty names, nicknames, and on and on and on. The author probably should have only used one variation of each person’s name, but maybe since he is Russian, he couldn’t see the hindrance that Western readers would encounter.

Overall, though, this was a very colorful enjoyable journey into Russia’s past and I would definitely recommend it. I should also point out that I enjoyed this book much better than the Nicholas II biography (‘The Last Tsar’) by this author, but it has been a while since I read that one, and it also seems as though there are many other books and narratives on Nicholas II due to his place in history. I’m not sure how many narratives are available on Alexander II, but after reading this one, I can conclude that this book tells the novice everything they might want to know about the man, the people, and the place.

[Maddie Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

I will be up front and say that I did not complete this book as at a certain point I just got too frustrated to continue, which is a shame because I was actually very excited to read it when I saw it. Alexander II was a fascinating tsar in the whole of Russian history. He facilitated many of the projects Catherine the Great wanted to do but was unable to in her lifetime, most notably the emancipation and abolishing of the system of serfdom in Russia. He also promoted education in Russia as well as modernized the country's infrastructure and military. However I don't know if it was the fault of the translator or Radzinsky himself, but the book read like a high school research paper. Very simplistic writing and attempts at quips that I suppose were funny in the original Russian but simply do not work for a serious biography. Sections attempted to "surprise" the reader or intrigue them but fell flat most of the time. Far too many rhetorical questions as well as personal opinions of the author that were not supported by evidence. Too often I read "Was Alexander aware of this (insert major historical event here)? Most likely, here is what I think he probably thought about it and no I will not provide any source." Speaking of sources, nothing is cited throughout the entire book. Any quote is just ended with "as a contemporary said," or "someone once said of him." No names or further references to seek out the context for these quotes. That was the most highly disappointing fact of this entire book. What is the point of reading a biography if you aren't able to verify if any of the information presented to you is true? Another thing I disliked about the book is the lack of cohesion. Obviously in a biography there will have to be some jumping around for context, but I felt that this book jumped around way too often for my taste. None of the topics built upon one another like in a typical biography or were even connected at all. They seemed to just be presented in whatever order they sprang in to the authors mind, which was confusing and frustrating at times.

I also CAN NOT abide by the fact that for some reason the author thought it was appropriate to refer to Tsar Alexander II by the informal diminutive "Sasha." Sure that would have been alright (if a little odd) in the earlier section discussing his childhood and upbringing, but it was used in sections after he had assumed the throne. And it was not consistent either, sometimes he was Alexander, sometimes Tsar Alexander, and other times just Sasha. This was not in references to quotes by the way, the author legitimately referred to him as "Sasha" just outright. The first time I saw it, I had an audible reaction because it caught me so off guard.

All in all, I severely wish this book was better as I have a deep love for Russian Tsarist history and desperately wanted to read about Alexander II. It is unfortunate that this is the definitive biography of him and it was so underwhelming. Give it a go if these things don't bother you like they bothered me but I would recommend seeking out an alternative if you are interested in Russian history.

[Ryan Strimple · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alexander II was not only the great emancipator of serfs; he was the father of terrorism. I appreciate how Radzinsky weaves together the narrative of Alexander’s life, his achievements, his failures, and his incredibly vacillating nature.

I selected this book because I wanted to learn more about Alexander as well as the initial liberal ideas floated/implemented during his reign. History likes to blame Nicholas II for the downfall of the Romanov dynasty, but it is my opinion that the seeds were planted much earlier. How did Alexander’s reign influence his son and grandson? We know Alexander III greatly despised his father’s morganatic marriage and illegitimate children. We know that the retrogrades (monarchists) heavily influenced his decision making and own reign. He saw each reform as a misstep, the undoing of Russian Tsarism making a mockery of autocracy in the face of God.

I appreciated how Radzinsky flirted with the idea that the Third Department was intentionally deficient at detecting and preventing plots to assassinate the Tsar. Both sides wanted him gone. The revolutionaries realized that he was so unpopular that their own terroristic acts became heroic. The retrogrades realized that they could just let these college-aged terrorists do their bidding for them. It was the first time in Russian history that a Tsar was eliminated by the people, and not from within. This planted the seed for revolutionary revolt.

At times, I felt the book was more about the terrorists and their organizations. However, I feel that the inclusion of this detail is important to understand the context and sentiment at the time. Alexander would free the serfs, he would even begin the process to grant a constitution, but this would not be enough for the people who now had their taste of freedom.

His reign would undoubtedly set the stage for his grandson’s demise. Russia had her taste of liberalism. Autocracy was neutered by Alexander II. His son would try to reverse the trend. He would become ill and die unexpectedly. Nicholas II would inherit a firestorm of unbridled public opinion. He would be cornered by a population that saw his rule as outdated, oppressive, and irrelevant. The further you dig into the Romanov dynasty, the more cracks present themselves. This book is important in understanding the man and his people at this turning point in Russian history.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really terrific biography of Alexander II, his court, and the revolutionaries who bedeviled his regime. Radzinsky expertly introduces and goes so far as to credibly inhabit many, many characters—it’s as though he is a contemporary of theirs, so thorough is his exploration of their beliefs, motivations, and individual stories.

As awful as the autocracy was, oppressing the lives of so many people for centuries, so too were the acts of the impassioned revolutionists determined to bring that autocracy down. Overlords on the one hand, nihilists on the other. Something had to give (historically, harsh suppression of liberal thought).

Alexander II is not entirely unsympathetic. Perhaps he is the first “monarch” I felt I had come to know. Credit this to the author’s great skills. Having read Robert K. Massie’s Peter and Catherine biographies (to which this book is a superb companion history), I began to fathom the uniqueness of Russian tsardom as compared to European royalty.

Neither is Radzinsky unsympathetic towards the revolutionists, even if, though we may be amazed by their devotion to cause, we find their acts bloodthirsty. He implies that there may have been no other way to effectuate change.

This is not a history of the Russian people. There is little in it about the country’s wars, and foreign policy is seen through the views of the court. Likewise, there is little about the internal story of the country, least of all outside St. Petersburg and Moscow. And yet I rank it as a superior history.

Dostoyevsky is prominent, which was fascinating—I knew little about him as a historical figure. I can now much better appreciate his concern about fanaticism (the yearning for a just world, not to mention peace of mind!) and the human condition.

[Colin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A throwback to my college major of Russian Studies and a decent preparation to rereading Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Alexander II freed 23 million serfs without firing a shot and sold Alaska to the US. Nihilists tried to assassinate him seven times before finally succeeding. Any tale of the Romanovs seems replete with spooky coincidences and premonitions of the bloody slaughter to come. Even having the final tsar Nicholas II present as a child seems ominous. Author Radzinsky excels at capturing the zeitgeist, the popular literature, the villains as well as the establishment aristocracy. We learn a lot about the assassins, which is very instructive. Poor Alexander II was squeezed on both sides - reformers complained it wasn't enough and conservatives complained he was too lenient and was opening a Pandora's box of chaos. They wanted the Tsar to clamp down, arrest and execute. Famous author Dostoevsky had a very bizarre role in the final successful assassination. So much has been written about Nicholas II, the final Romanov Tsar, but so little about Alexander II - the Lincoln of Russia - albeit much rougher around the edges and aristocratic mutton chops.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

While a fascinating topic, the Tsar who freed tens of millions of Russian slaves (serfs) at the same time of the US Civil War, yet he fell to the fate of a murderous plot hatched by the young, liberal group, The People's Will, the book takes too many tangents off the main inquiry. I presume the author was trying to give the reader perspective of the prevailing times in Russia and while appreciated and helpful at certain junctures, I feel that it distracted too much overall.

Alexander's grandson, Nicholas II would befall a similar fate a few decades later to the Bolsheviks. The seeds of that bloody revolution and movement were planted during Alexander's time.

Russia's history of authoritarianism and so called popular movements is complex. The book tackles that history.

In all an educational and at times entertaining book.

[Fergie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found Edvard Radzinsky's book on Russia's 'Last Great Tsar', Alexander II disappointing. I was hoping for a biography of the man, but was left wanting to know more about the grandfather of Russia's last Tsar, Nicholas II.

I felt the book spent an inordinately large amount of time on the nihilists & terrorists who would bring an end to Alexander II's life. The book was far too tangential. The author did attempt to connect everything in the book to the Tsar, but I felt he went into far too much detail on the lives and dealings of the political terrorists of the time as well as the murderes of Alexander.

The book was fair and clearly well-researched. I just wish I would have been able read more about the subject of the book and less about the people who conspired to bring about his end.

[Natasha Belle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Александр II — царь-освободитель, убитый своим же народом. Эта история в изложении Радзинского вновь доказывает: террор — не выход. Нельзя через убийство обрести настоящую свободу и уважение. Власть, конечно, можно, но какой ценой — что и показало правление его внука.
Отдельно интересны человеческие драмы: например, история с женой Александра III, которая должна была быть женой его брата. Некрасов и Достоевский с его связями с «бесами» — тоже яркие персонажи этой книги.
Стиль Радзинского неизменно восхищает: он пишет так, что сердце откликается на каждое слово. Он знает историю и говорит ее голосами из дневников и записок приближенных людей. Его рассказ живой, с идеальным балансом атмосферы, чувств и действий.
Когда-нибудь прочитаю всего Радзинского.

П.С. Стиль очень напоминает Акунина, у кого-нибудь так же?

[Kate Irwin-smiler · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wish I knew enough about Russian history to Susa out the author’s biases. He makes some weird tangential comments that I suspect are indicative if I knew how to interpret them.

This history starts long before Alexander II and there is a lot of genealogy. Unfortunately the names in the text don’t always match the names in the family tree - again, I don’t know enough to match up different names. It’s also largely about the socialist & terrorist movements of the 1860s/1870s, which seemed extraordinarily detailed & full of names I had no context for.

[LEGO Yoda · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this was absolutely incredible.

Not only is it an engrossing intimate look at Alexander II's reign and his character, but Radzinsky did something truly inventive by doing a sort of dual narrative here. It'd focus on Alexander, then jump to the slowly developing revolutionary youth in Russia and the overall culture (with a strong focus on writers like Doestevesky and Tolstoy) in Russia. It's something really interesting I've never really seen done in a history book before, really interesting.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found reading this book to be a strange experience. It's packed full of information...but it is related in a style I can only describe as "story book". It's it a cautionary tale? An apologist guide to Russia? A lament, or a statement of resigned indifference? And if you're going to make comparisons to Gorbachev in the late 20th century, surely you should establish a thesis for such an approach from the outset? A useful research tool, but one very odd read.

[Bryan Crumpley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Russian history is awesome and this book is no exception. Radzinsky does an awesome job bringing in multiple perspectives and sources to draw the clearest picture of this time period. Probably my favorite aspect of this book is the perspective of famous writers like Tolstoy and Dosteosvky (who intimately experienced many of these events). Great read for anyone else intrigued in random bits of Russian history!

[Claire Baxter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alexander II has always been my favourite tsar and it was also interesting reading about a group of fanatics who were convinced that once having taken radical action in the belief that they were saving the country, everyone else would join them in revolution, only to be disappointed to find that life just continued around them instead. Sound familiar? Also shades of Gorbachev here in policies like glasnost and much-needed reforms that once started were difficult to stop.

[Briar · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you want to learn about Russia, this is an excellent book. Radzinsky does a good job of painting a picture of Russia and many of her people. However, as a biography, I am disappointed. I did learn some about the tsar, but I learned much more about others through the glimpses given by the author. My favorite quote is about the last tsar, not Alexander II. It was a good read, but I want to learn more about Alexander II.