Alexandra: The Last Tsarina

by Carolly Erickson

Release Date: 01 September, 2002

Edition: Paperback

Price:

More Info

A new outlook on an old character

I definitely confess to having a weakness for all things Russian including accounts of the Romanovs. While I wasn't sure what to expect from Carolly Erickson, I was extremely pleased with her most recent book, "Alexandra: The Last Tsarina". Other reviews have labeled the work "history lite" and I do see what they mean - very little time spent on Alexandra's views and influences politically (for which there exists substantial documentation as viewed in the Romanov classic "Nicholas and Alexandra" by Robert K. Massie) - it would have taken up too much page space describing political climates and individual personalitites. Nicholas also appears to be an intellectual lightweight with very little mind of his own. While he was easily influenced, there exists a decent amount of material indicating Nicholas' frustrations with his wife and her often highly emotional views (see Massie). However, Erickson should not be faulted for her excellent and highly readable prose. Russia of this era truely comes alive and a real sense of Alexandra's world helps aid the reader in making decisions about her behavior.

Also contradicting a below review, I definitely feel that Erickson's book has brought out at least two major new contributions to the scholarly work about the Romanovs. Namely, bringing to light the fixation of Nicholas and Alexandra with the French mystic, Phillippe Vachot, one time butcher then hypnotist and charlatan to the aristocracy. Their reliance on his judgements and spiritual healing so early in their marriage and reign is incredibly predictive of their later dependency on Rasputin, down to their referring to Vachot as "our friend" in correspondance to one another. The fact that Vachot stated prior to his death that he would be reincarnated in another man who would come to give them spiritual guidance, all but cemented the later easy acceptance of Rasputin. The second of Erickson's contribution centers around a more detailed account of Alexandra's ongoing health problems (someone with chronic leg pain is going to hate balls and receptions involving hours spent on her feet, regardless of her shyness) many of them mental in nature. Also, how easily accepted drugs of their period (barbituates and cocaine) were used by both Nicholas and Alexandra as little was known of side effects by physicians of the time. This drug use (which occurs right around WWI and the downfall of the monarchy) could only have greatly infuenced decisions made in a completely autocratic government.

An excellent work and one worthy of reading by any Russian scholar interested in the time period and Romanov dynasty.

There are better books out there on Alexandra

I truly disliked this biography, I thought it was poorly written & researched, melodramatic and frankly dull, given its subject matter. I struggled to finish it. Better books for insight into Alexandra are: "Purple Secret" by John Rohl, et al. for its chapter on Alexandra's complex medical history; Robert Massie's "Nicholas & Alexandra" for its sympathetic understanding of Alix's traumatic childhood loss of her mother, and what it's like to be the parent of a hemophaelic (& despite Massie's inaccuracies, such as stating that Queen Victoria was strongly in favor of the marriage of Nicky & Alix & that she tried to talk Alix into it, when in fact she dreaded it), and, oddly enough, a biography of Alix's mother, "Princess Alice" by Gerard Noel, which gives excellent insight into Alix's parents and German background. Also, "Advice to My Granddaughter" a collection of letters between Queen Victoria and Alix's oldest sister, Princess Victoria of Battenberg. There is also "A Lifelong Passion", a collection of letters & diaries of Nicholas & Alexandra and the people around them. Any one of these has more value than Erickson's book. I have not read Greg King's biography of Alexandra so cannot comment on it. I've enjoyed Erickson's Tudor biographies, so I'm trying to be fair, but this one didn't cut it.