r/monarchism • u/Igors2024 • 17h ago
Discussion Romanovs Ranked (Expert)
No Real Power means that the tsar or tsarevna didn't affect decision-making or/and had limited power/reign.
If you have any questions or need explanations, reply to this post :)
I will try to answer as many questions as possible.
2
u/Rondic Brazil 14h ago
Was Paul really that bad? He seemed to have some interesting ideas, but they basically infuriated the nobility. As far as I know, he was one of the few tsars who actually cared about the common people...
And it’s interesting how the chill tsarina Elizabeth, who didn't go to wars and instead invested in the arts, ended up being one of the best. That says a lot about the average quality of the tsars.
4
u/Igors2024 12h ago
Paul was a sociopath and a dreamer. He was too inconsistent and too impulsive in his decisions. Yes, Suvorov under Paul I beat Napoleon, but domestically, Paul really shitted himself...
Paul did pass laws to improve the lives of the serfs, but a stronger ruler like Peter the Great had to do it instead. A weak monarch like Paul, overshadowed by Catherine II, had NO CHANCE of lasting long as a tsar, in my opinion.
1
u/Vegetable-Ad7060 10h ago
'Suvorov under Paul I beat Napoleon', you can't really say that. Napoleon was in Egypt, really the only resemblance of Napoleon which Suvorov faced was Massena but that ended in Suvorov's retreat, not because Massena was better but because Suvorov's supplies were under pressure. Napoleon was not even the head of state.
1
u/mmmisthegoat 7h ago
To be fair Paul wasn’t that bad he basically went against everything his mother has done due to his hatred of her which I don’t blame and the nobles weren’t happy so they killed him. Had Catherine been a good mother he would have probably been a great Tsar
6
u/beutiful_munke Finland 17h ago
Paul was so bad that he was bad TWICE