Here's a good history question. Do any of you believe that the Romanov monarchs deserved to be killed?

Question

We all know that most of the Romanovs or anyone related to them were executed during the start of the Russian Revolution. We know that Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra were executed along with their five kids. Here's the question:

Do you believe that the Tsar and the Tsarina got what was coming to them (execution) or do you believe that they were poorly mistreated and should've stayed in exile?

Or do you believe that only the Tsar should've been executed?

For the record: their kids really didn't deserve to die since they had no hand in the ruling of Russia.

What is your take on this? I, myself, have a history degree but I'm still divided on this question even though I'm biased in favor of the Romanovs (I studied them as a hobby when I was a teenager).

I'm not asking you to make up my mind for me; I'm just curious as to what you truly think, considering the historical backdrop and what the Tsar did.

Answer 1

Even the excesses of the Romanovs cannot justify the execution of the entire family. Catherine began an era of true aristocratic thought, privilege and abuse in Russia, the Romanov executions ended it. Russian history has always seen excess....the Bolshevik Revolution, the Pogroms,etc....
The execution of only the Tsar, in popular thinking, would have left heirs, relatives, etc, capable of stirring up sentiment for the old regime, which would have been a danger to Lenin. Thus, the entire family, including all with even a provisional claim to the throne, were destroyed.
Sad, unnecessary........Exile would have been preferable, in my opinion. Or, at the very least, execution of Nicholas and exile of the rest.

Answer 2

Due to the lack of any sort of impartial legal body immediately following the "October" revolution (The Tsarist regime itself encompassing that body), the execution of anyone at that time could not be at least legally defended. Contrary to the rational criminal standpoint, research has indicated that corporal punishment may not be a particularly effective form of punishment either. In fact, the brutalization effect (increase in homicide immediately following public execution) has been cited as evidence to the contrary. It is then difficult to argue that executing anyone has any positive effect on society. The question of whether or not the Romanov's "had it coming" then becomes a moot point. To state the other perspective, the death penalty in America is defended because of its use as a bargaining chip by the plaintiff during criminal litigation. Research indicating any benefit of the death penalty is usually mixed but it does exist. The cross-cultural applicability of these studies must come into question though. Also, a life in relatively comfortable exile is perhaps too light a sentence for such a mismanagement of power. Lacking an impartial governing body, however, Russia did not have the power to enact any other. In short, killing is usually not the solution to killing and/or gross mismanagement of a nation resulting in multiple deaths. Blame is too easily spread in any governing body and the mere ineffectiveness of the Romanovs in governing should not necessarily be considered a reason for killing them.

Answer 3

I basically agree with you. Definitely the children and non-ruling family members who had no hand in the current situation or politics deserved any kind of punishment. Killing children for any reason is horrible. And I personally don't believe in the death penalty so I would not think that Nicholas deserved to die. However, as leader of his country he should have been responsible and accountable for the conditions of his people and country. I believe in a fair trial with just punishment for those found quilty. I also think they killed everyone so there would be no chance of ever having a ruling family again. If you kill all the royals, you can't have a royal family!

Answer 4

I don't believe the Romanovs deserved to be executed. I think they were executed because of decades of oppression and corruption of the whole line. They were paying for the sins of the fathers. They just happened to be the last ones of the line. They were so far removed from their people, they did not understand what was happening. The children definitely did not deserve to die. If WW I had not been so bad for Russia, I do not believe he would have been executed either.

Answer 5

"L'etat, c'est moi" - despite the fact that if Louis XIV (no longer XVI) did no longer say this, he articulated the definitely reason your "hapless" rulers have been given the awl... actually, in Charles's case. i'm The State. Monarchy replaced into easily an progression over despotism - for the main section. It meant that the order of succession replaced into extensive-unfold in enhance. much less messy than having warlords combat for the throne - that's what occurred, after all, while the succession broke down. yet that meant that the State's ability replaced into invested in those kings. that's an undesirable lot of duty... and an undesirable lot of blame. Imperfections of character that for the duration of us, could basically make freinds of you and that i roll their eyes, interior the kings of previous further approximately existence-or-dying issues, each and all the time. there's no "justice" in them being performed. No ravenous peasant replaced into further back to existence via doing so. No oppression requited. No credit rolled or victorious hymms burst forth in Dolby sound. They have been killed as a results of fact they have been inept / unlucky adequate to be left conserving the bag while their thoughts ran out. efficient adult adult males are too bloody risky to be left around while the hot regime comes into city. it is that easy; "off together with his head."

Answer 6

Any surviving member of the royal family had the potential to become a focus for a counter-revolution even if they would not actively foment it. In that pragmatic sense the execution was logical.

But I don't think anyone should be killed, as a general proposition.

Answer 7

Of the 'Big Three' monarchs put to death, Nicholas II has always seemed the least impressive. He lacked both Charles I's awareness of the issues and Louis XVI's basic benevolence.
He still didn't deserve his end, though.

Answer 8

no i don't believe they should have been killed. i think exile would have been better for them or something like with what Britain did and keep them as figure heads.

Answer 9

I saw the movie on that wasn't it Anastasia survived ? of one of the children . but the option I think of killing the family was that non of them coming into power.. that is my answer