Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was no reason to murder an empress or queen consort, and certainly not the Romanov children. But revolutions are often about settling old scores, and also showing there is no going back to the old order so....
You may not agree with the reason, but there was one. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were dealing with a counter revolution almost immediately after taking power. As long as a member of the Romanov family was alive, they would remain royal symbols around which the opposition could rally. Murdering the Romanovs eliminated that symbol. The Bolsheviks saw it as a necessity for the survival of their revolution.
You may not agree with the reason, but there was one. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were dealing with a counter revolution almost immediately after taking power. As long as a member of the Romanov family was alive, they would remain royal symbols around which the opposition could rally. Murdering the Romanovs eliminated that symbol. The Bolsheviks saw it as a necessity for the survival of their revolution.
But why wait for a long time before the execution though? First they were housed in Tobolsk and then to Ekaterinburg; so much security and so much effort only to murder them in the end?
I wonder why they did not get it over with in St. Petersburg as soon as the abdication was over and out?
But why wait for a long time before the execution though? First they were housed in Tobolsk and then to Ekaterinburg; so much security and so much effort only to murder them in the end?
I wonder why they did not get it over with in St. Petersburg as soon as the abdication was over and out?
Several thoughts: It was not everyday that a Russian peasant mob overthrew the czar, there were many political factions vying for power, they originally wanted a show trial, and there was a civil war going on, and there really wasn't a president for execution. In decades of czarist rule leading up to the revolution, only a handful of people were executed by the government. Execution was a very rare thing, and was outlawed (except for the military) in 1917. It probably took awhile for enough stakeholders to agree that execution was the route to take.
By the way, do you know if Marie Antoinette really did tell her subjects that if they dont have flour for the bread, they should just eat cake (something in those lines)?
Commonly attributed to her, though historians doubt that it was ever said. It does make a nice anecdote to drive home the fact that the ruling class was oblivious to what was happening with the lower classes, and their collective experience trying to get by.
As a carrier of muscular dystrophy, the Romanov tragedy has fascinated me for decades. I often wonder how history would have been changed if Alexandra had not been a carrier of hemophilia.
On another note, although most of you probably know of this, the case of Anna Anderson (the Anastasia impostor) is absolutely fascinating. The book by Peter Kurth, The Riddle of Anna Anderson, truly had me questioning whether Anastaia did survive, until I read The Resurrection of the Romanovs by King and Wilson.
But why wait for a long time before the execution though? First they were housed in Tobolsk and then to Ekaterinburg; so much security and so much effort only to murder them in the end?
I wonder why they did not get it over with in St. Petersburg as soon as the abdication was over and out?
That happens in a lot of coups. I don't doubt if there was a revolution in the US, the president would probably be kept alive for quite a while, either as a hostage or because if he died, he'd become a martyr. No sane revolutionary wants his predecessor thought of as a martyr. If they stick him in a cell somewhere, eventually people forget about their former ruler and he quietly dies with no one knowing or caring. But however hardcore people are about a revolution, going the whole nine yards and killing their former ruler is almost always a shock to the population.
But why wait for a long time before the execution though? First they were housed in Tobolsk and then to Ekaterinburg; so much security and so much effort only to murder them in the end?
I wonder why they did not get it over with in St. Petersburg as soon as the abdication was over and out?
The events explain it and are more complicated than people think.
There were two revolutions in 1917. The first revolution occurred in March and forced the czar to abdicate his thrown. The provisional government under Alexander Kerensky took power. Kerensky had no desire to kill the czar or his family. He tried to find a foreign country to take him in. This was problematic. Europe was tired of fighting World War I and anti-war and anti-monarchy movements were springing up in England and other countries. The czar was not looked on favorably. The other issue was that Kerensky might have been the head-of-state, but he was not in full control of Russia. Some cities were ungoverned and some were governed by councils of workers. The czar would not have been safe passing through such areas on a train or otherwise.
A decision was made by Kerensky hold the czar in protective custody until a country could be found to take him in . Before such a country could be found a second revolution took place. In October 1917, the Bolsheviks took power in a military coup. Kerensky went into exile and the unfortunate czar was taken prisoner by the Bolsheviks. Bolshevik leaders, Lenin, and Trotsky struggled over what to do with Nicholas and his family. One thought was to bring him to trial and broadcast the trial by radio throughout the new Soviet Union. This idea was rejected because the Bolsheviks soon found themselves in the midst of a civil war with white Russians.
The czar was transported to Ekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains. A decision was reached by the Bolsheviks to kill the czar and his family. This was done in 1918.
You may not agree with the reason, but there was one. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were dealing with a counter revolution almost immediately after taking power. As long as a member of the Romanov family was alive, they would remain royal symbols around which the opposition could rally. Murdering the Romanovs eliminated that symbol. The Bolsheviks saw it as a necessity for the survival of their revolution.
Females could not inherit under Romanov house rules. thus there was no reason for the harsh treatment and subsequent murders of the empress, her daughters, and various sisters or other female members of the imperial family.
Lenin had a score to settle not just with the Romanovs but entire old order of royalty, nobles, elite and so forth. Read the book "Former People" to learn just what brutal horrors Lenin and Bolsheviks carried out against such persons.
The events explain it and are more complicated than people think.
There were two revolutions in 1917. The first revolution occurred in March and forced the czar to abdicate his thrown. The provisional government under Alexander Kerensky took power. Kerensky had no desire to kill the czar or his family. He tried to find a foreign country to take him in. This was problematic. Europe was tired of fighting World War I and anti-war and anti-monarchy movements were springing up in England and other countries. The czar was not looked on favorably. The other issue was that Kerensky might have been the head-of-state, but he was not in full control of Russia. Some cities were ungoverned and some were governed by councils of workers. The czar would not have been safe passing through such areas on a train or otherwise.
A decision was made by Kerensky hold the czar in protective custody until a country could be found to take him in . Before such a country could be found a second revolution took place. In October 1917, the Bolsheviks took power in a military coup. Kerensky went into exile and the unfortunate czar was taken prisoner by the Bolsheviks. Bolshevik leaders, Lenin, and Trotsky struggled over what to do with Nicholas and his family. One thought was to bring him to trial and broadcast the trial by radio throughout the new Soviet Union. This idea was rejected because the Bolsheviks soon found themselves in the midst of a civil war with white Russians.
The czar was transported to Ekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains. A decision was reached by the Bolsheviks to kill the czar and his family. This was done in 1918.
Kerensky was an incompetent fool. He could have sent the Czar and his family to Crimea (south Russia), but chose Siberia. This was in part for the family's own protection (so said Kerensky), but his other motive was to make the former Autocrat of All The Russias taste the same bitterness of exile he and his family had forced many Russians to so over the years.
All of the Romanovs who made it to Crimea were saved including the dowager Empress Marie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
