What do you think?
Rate this book
Nicholas II: Twilight of the Empire
A biography of Russia's last monarch provides new insights into his infamous execution, his role as political leader and emperor, the Old Regime's collapse, and the origins of the Bolshevik Revolution
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
5 people are currently reading
231 people want to read
About the author
Dominic Lieven
19 books104 followersDominic Lieven is Professor of Russian studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science, a Fellow of the British Academy and of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
Read
September 11, 2025Lieven's book is as sympathetic an account of Nicholas II, last Tsar (to date) of all the Russias , as it is possible to write without being self parodying. His aim is to present Nicholas II as a ruler and attempting to explain how he saw himself and his role as a ruler.
Rather than to concentrate on case studies Lieven presents a political biography of Nicholas II, starting with a brief overview of Russian political, social and economic history that grows steadily more detailed as he reaches the present and ending with a chapter that puts Nicholas II in a longer perspective of Russian history with the chapters inbetween taking us through his life.
The problem with how Lieven handles his material is that events including the Russo-Japanese War, the following crisis of the regime in 1905-6 and the consensus among his generals for Nicholas II to abdicate in 1917 come out of the blue. Either some prior familiarity with the period or reading this biography alongside something else could be helpful.
However the strengths of this book - comparisons with other monarchical regimes, not only the obvious ones with his cousins Wilhelm II in Germany and George V in Britain but also with late Imperial Japan, Persia under the last Shah, and Lieven's focus on longer term trends not only within Russia but in other states bump this study into a must read category if one is interested in the comparative development and political structures of states.
For Lieven, Nicholas II needs to be considered in the context of Russia's development and political ambitions. He proposes three modernising cycles as a framework for understanding this. The first was a drive to 'catch up with the France of Louis XIV' beginning in the late seventeenth century ending in the mid nineteenth century, the second focused on industrialisation to maintain great power status starting from the mid nineteenth century and ending the 1970s, with the third cycle starting from the late 1970s onwards and still ongoing is about adapting to the world of the micro-chip and the computer.
From this point of view the revolutions of 1917 don't mark an absolute break with the past but rather, in time, a continuation of its objectives and its methods but with changes in emphasis.
What this means for Nicholas II is that we have to think of his rule not simply in terms of the rivalries of the Great Powers on the eve of 1914 but in terms of a developing country. On the one hand the political ambition, and perhaps need, to remain a Great Power required economic and social change, however that change itself challenged the political order by changing the balance of political power within Russia. Which is essentially the same scenario as Tocqueville described in The Old Regime and the French Revolution .
The particular problem with Nicholas II was that he both took his role as Autocrat very seriously and at the same time was unwilling to step back into a figurehead role while being remarkably unsuited to the business of government . That he had no secretary and stamped his own letters is remarkable in terms of administering an organisation of any size. He provides a perfect picture of somebody lost in the minutiae. At the same time he was incapable of setting a government agenda which meant that ministers competed against each other for influence and pursued uncoordinated policies.
Discussion of the background to Russia's entry to the First World War was also a strength, with humiliation over the Bosnian crisis of 1908-09 putting the regime in a position where they felt that they could not afford to lose face by backing down and consideration of Russia's fate without the revolutions of 1917 was also a strong point. Lieven makes an interesting comparison with Spain and points out that one doesn't need many fingers to count the number of European states that were not under some form of Dictatorial or one-party rule by the end of the 1930s, including of course Italy which had at least some tradition of having a national parliamentary system under a constitutional Monarch. The prospects then for Russia even had the First World War not occurred or if the monarchy had somehow survived were not to be, in Lieven's view, rosy .
Rather than to concentrate on case studies Lieven presents a political biography of Nicholas II, starting with a brief overview of Russian political, social and economic history that grows steadily more detailed as he reaches the present and ending with a chapter that puts Nicholas II in a longer perspective of Russian history with the chapters inbetween taking us through his life.
The problem with how Lieven handles his material is that events including the Russo-Japanese War, the following crisis of the regime in 1905-6 and the consensus among his generals for Nicholas II to abdicate in 1917 come out of the blue. Either some prior familiarity with the period or reading this biography alongside something else could be helpful.
However the strengths of this book - comparisons with other monarchical regimes, not only the obvious ones with his cousins Wilhelm II in Germany and George V in Britain but also with late Imperial Japan, Persia under the last Shah, and Lieven's focus on longer term trends not only within Russia but in other states bump this study into a must read category if one is interested in the comparative development and political structures of states.
For Lieven, Nicholas II needs to be considered in the context of Russia's development and political ambitions. He proposes three modernising cycles as a framework for understanding this. The first was a drive to 'catch up with the France of Louis XIV' beginning in the late seventeenth century ending in the mid nineteenth century, the second focused on industrialisation to maintain great power status starting from the mid nineteenth century and ending the 1970s, with the third cycle starting from the late 1970s onwards and still ongoing is about adapting to the world of the micro-chip and the computer.
From this point of view the revolutions of 1917 don't mark an absolute break with the past but rather, in time, a continuation of its objectives and its methods but with changes in emphasis.
What this means for Nicholas II is that we have to think of his rule not simply in terms of the rivalries of the Great Powers on the eve of 1914 but in terms of a developing country. On the one hand the political ambition, and perhaps need, to remain a Great Power required economic and social change, however that change itself challenged the political order by changing the balance of political power within Russia. Which is essentially the same scenario as Tocqueville described in The Old Regime and the French Revolution .
The particular problem with Nicholas II was that he both took his role as Autocrat very seriously and at the same time was unwilling to step back into a figurehead role while being remarkably unsuited to the business of government . That he had no secretary and stamped his own letters is remarkable in terms of administering an organisation of any size. He provides a perfect picture of somebody lost in the minutiae. At the same time he was incapable of setting a government agenda which meant that ministers competed against each other for influence and pursued uncoordinated policies.
Discussion of the background to Russia's entry to the First World War was also a strength, with humiliation over the Bosnian crisis of 1908-09 putting the regime in a position where they felt that they could not afford to lose face by backing down and consideration of Russia's fate without the revolutions of 1917 was also a strong point. Lieven makes an interesting comparison with Spain and points out that one doesn't need many fingers to count the number of European states that were not under some form of Dictatorial or one-party rule by the end of the 1930s, including of course Italy which had at least some tradition of having a national parliamentary system under a constitutional Monarch. The prospects then for Russia even had the First World War not occurred or if the monarchy had somehow survived were not to be, in Lieven's view, rosy .
August 21, 2025
A Victim, Not the Cause
Dominic Lieven is a heavy hitter when it comes to Europe and Russia in the last decades of the 19th century leading up until the First World War. Towards the Flame and Russia Against Napoleon (which is of course 100+ years before WWI) are masterclasses in political history. Nicholas II falls into the same category.
Focusing more on the political world of the last decades of Romanov rule in Russia, Lieven is able to show with clarity and convincing arguments that the problems and complexities that Nicholas faced were almost impossible for anyone to resolve. It would have been even too much for a Pitt the Younger or a Bismarck, if he could find one. Peter Stolypin was the closest he got but not on the same level. Also, in line with the tragic series of events that led to the regimes collapse, he was assassinated in 1911, further condemning the regime to the abyss. However, as others have argued elsewhere (for example Simon Sebag Montefiore or Sean McMeekin) the regime probably would have survived without the war, as Romanov rule was relatively secure until its collapse. It took a major event to remove it.
As I mentioned above, Lieven’s analysis is that he was a victim of the world he inherited and the system around him. Has he wanted to reform and modernise, there would have been huge resistant. The political class was small, the middle class revolutionary, capitalism was highly lagging behind the west and with the sheer size of Russia the problems were magnified. This was more than a strain one man could bear at the top for so long. Even if he wanted to become a citizen king, it would have been extremely difficult and would not necessarily have saved him, as this has its own problems.
Nicholas was intelligent and hard working. This was part of his problem. He understood different points of view, which lead him to be indecisive. He also loved his country and people and tried to do his best for them, which backfired as he has been known in the Soviet war (through relentless and effective propaganda) as Nicholas the Bloody. Only now since it’s collapse are we seeing a fairer judgement.
Ultimately I feel he was too isolated from the problems and changes Russia was going through. He wasn’t completely oblivious to them, however in the country’s time of need he became ineffective as I imagine most people would be. I do not condone autocracy and would not want it to have continued. I feel that he didn’t deserve to be murdered along with him family and servants in a basement in Siberia. For that reason the studies and challenge to Soviet and Leninist narrative is important. That’s why you should read this book.
Dominic Lieven is a heavy hitter when it comes to Europe and Russia in the last decades of the 19th century leading up until the First World War. Towards the Flame and Russia Against Napoleon (which is of course 100+ years before WWI) are masterclasses in political history. Nicholas II falls into the same category.
Focusing more on the political world of the last decades of Romanov rule in Russia, Lieven is able to show with clarity and convincing arguments that the problems and complexities that Nicholas faced were almost impossible for anyone to resolve. It would have been even too much for a Pitt the Younger or a Bismarck, if he could find one. Peter Stolypin was the closest he got but not on the same level. Also, in line with the tragic series of events that led to the regimes collapse, he was assassinated in 1911, further condemning the regime to the abyss. However, as others have argued elsewhere (for example Simon Sebag Montefiore or Sean McMeekin) the regime probably would have survived without the war, as Romanov rule was relatively secure until its collapse. It took a major event to remove it.
As I mentioned above, Lieven’s analysis is that he was a victim of the world he inherited and the system around him. Has he wanted to reform and modernise, there would have been huge resistant. The political class was small, the middle class revolutionary, capitalism was highly lagging behind the west and with the sheer size of Russia the problems were magnified. This was more than a strain one man could bear at the top for so long. Even if he wanted to become a citizen king, it would have been extremely difficult and would not necessarily have saved him, as this has its own problems.
Nicholas was intelligent and hard working. This was part of his problem. He understood different points of view, which lead him to be indecisive. He also loved his country and people and tried to do his best for them, which backfired as he has been known in the Soviet war (through relentless and effective propaganda) as Nicholas the Bloody. Only now since it’s collapse are we seeing a fairer judgement.
Ultimately I feel he was too isolated from the problems and changes Russia was going through. He wasn’t completely oblivious to them, however in the country’s time of need he became ineffective as I imagine most people would be. I do not condone autocracy and would not want it to have continued. I feel that he didn’t deserve to be murdered along with him family and servants in a basement in Siberia. For that reason the studies and challenge to Soviet and Leninist narrative is important. That’s why you should read this book.
November 5, 2024
This is not really a biography of Nicholas, more examination of him, his actions and character within the context of Russian history, both of his time and subsequently. It is immensely thought provoking and interesting and Professor Lieven's background as an academic historian and his own families history (the Lieven's were one of the great Baltic noble families whose numerous famous administrators and generals were integral to Russia's imperial history) provide him with remarkable insights. In examining the Russian Emperor and empire and the challenges it faced with reference to other empires from Spain to Persia and India he provides a great deal of insight into the problems and challenges Nicolas faced.
He certainly presents Nicholas as a far more pro-active figure than is usual though he does not challenge the consensus that he was a hopelessly inept one. A great deal of Nicholas's problems can be put down, I think, to his mother, the sister of Queen Alexandra the mother of his cousin George V of England. The comparisons with George are not new, but both he and Nicholas were infantilised by their mothers, though neither of their fathers did much to counteract it, and both remained, essentially, without maturity or depth so no more then grown-up children. It didn't matter politically in the case of George, though it ushered in the long years of stodgy banality that UK monarchs are famed for which probably saved the UK monarchy, though it can't be argued that this was good for the UK. But with Nicholas it did matter and was disastrous for Russia because he totally incapable of running an empire, and determined not to let anyone else rule, he buried himself in minutiae stamping letters, melting sealing wax and reading every divorce petition, etc. He had no secretary and was way to stupid to understand how administrators would bury the unwary under pointless papers to deflect them from important ones. When challenged he responded like a child who fears his toy will be taken by stubbornly clutching on and refusing to see or hear what he didn't want to. Only for Nicholas his toy was the Russian Empire and his stubbornness had consequences for millions of people. He also was famously mendacious, telling people what they wanted to hear and then doing the opposite. He also, pre the Russo Japanese War and 1905 revolution, carried on his own schemes behind the backs of his ministers. That is not a sign of a good monarch, but a weak one. One monarch famous for this behavior was Louis XV, one of France's worst monarchs.
When I read this I did not realise that it had been published originally in 1994 - for students of late imperial Russia that makes a difference because there is a wealth of new information studies pouring all the time. That doesn't necessarily invalidate most of what is said but I do believe Nicholas needs a new comprehensive biography one that might deal with him honestly and break away forever from the fantasy figure he has become.
He certainly presents Nicholas as a far more pro-active figure than is usual though he does not challenge the consensus that he was a hopelessly inept one. A great deal of Nicholas's problems can be put down, I think, to his mother, the sister of Queen Alexandra the mother of his cousin George V of England. The comparisons with George are not new, but both he and Nicholas were infantilised by their mothers, though neither of their fathers did much to counteract it, and both remained, essentially, without maturity or depth so no more then grown-up children. It didn't matter politically in the case of George, though it ushered in the long years of stodgy banality that UK monarchs are famed for which probably saved the UK monarchy, though it can't be argued that this was good for the UK. But with Nicholas it did matter and was disastrous for Russia because he totally incapable of running an empire, and determined not to let anyone else rule, he buried himself in minutiae stamping letters, melting sealing wax and reading every divorce petition, etc. He had no secretary and was way to stupid to understand how administrators would bury the unwary under pointless papers to deflect them from important ones. When challenged he responded like a child who fears his toy will be taken by stubbornly clutching on and refusing to see or hear what he didn't want to. Only for Nicholas his toy was the Russian Empire and his stubbornness had consequences for millions of people. He also was famously mendacious, telling people what they wanted to hear and then doing the opposite. He also, pre the Russo Japanese War and 1905 revolution, carried on his own schemes behind the backs of his ministers. That is not a sign of a good monarch, but a weak one. One monarch famous for this behavior was Louis XV, one of France's worst monarchs.
When I read this I did not realise that it had been published originally in 1994 - for students of late imperial Russia that makes a difference because there is a wealth of new information studies pouring all the time. That doesn't necessarily invalidate most of what is said but I do believe Nicholas needs a new comprehensive biography one that might deal with him honestly and break away forever from the fantasy figure he has become.
September 11, 2025
A prolonged apologia for the weak, feckless, and narrow-minded last Romanov tsar.
February 20, 2024
A well-written and sympathetic biography of Nicholas. According to the introduction, Lieven wanted to “challenge some traditional views of Nicholas and his regime,” but the book mostly reinforces the conventional portrait of the Tsar.
Lieven focuses mostly on Nicholas’ reign as emperor, so Russian politics, society, economics, and foreign policy are covered quite a bit. Like many accounts, he balances the Tsar's family life as a devoted husband and father with his record as a statesman of limited vision and ability, prone to indecision and overwhelmed by a position that he never wanted. He also argues that Alexandra’s role in his government’s internal chaos can be exaggerated.
The narrative is dramatic and insightful. Lieven sometimes compares Nicholas to other statesmen, such as the monarchs of Iran or Japan, but these comparisons don’t really illuminate Nicholas and his problems very much. There is little on Rasputin. Lieven goes surprisingly easy on Nicholas’s decision to assume supreme command in the world war. The writing can be a bit dense, too. There’s also a few typos.
A balanced and well-researched work.
Lieven focuses mostly on Nicholas’ reign as emperor, so Russian politics, society, economics, and foreign policy are covered quite a bit. Like many accounts, he balances the Tsar's family life as a devoted husband and father with his record as a statesman of limited vision and ability, prone to indecision and overwhelmed by a position that he never wanted. He also argues that Alexandra’s role in his government’s internal chaos can be exaggerated.
The narrative is dramatic and insightful. Lieven sometimes compares Nicholas to other statesmen, such as the monarchs of Iran or Japan, but these comparisons don’t really illuminate Nicholas and his problems very much. There is little on Rasputin. Lieven goes surprisingly easy on Nicholas’s decision to assume supreme command in the world war. The writing can be a bit dense, too. There’s also a few typos.
A balanced and well-researched work.
April 4, 2015
This well-informed, sympathetic and beautifully-written biography of Russia's last Tsar is primarily political, which is to say that Dominic Lieven deals mainly with the challenges and problems Nicholas II had with being the CEO of a vast, diverse and not very well-administered empire (Tsars in Russia ruled as well as reigned), a job that he was not particularly well-suited for. The administrative structures in late 19th/early 20th centuries Russia were archaic (the Tsar had no chancery or even a personal private secretary to assist him!), to say the least, and Nicholas, while he was intelligent, hard-working and tried very hard, was not the right sort of man for the job, especially during and era of war and revolution. Lieven puts these issues firmly in context with helpful comparisons of how other monarchs of the era coped - or didn't - with burdens much less weighty. He also takes the time to deal with Nicholas's personal and family life, and examines the awful ends he and his family came to at the hands of the Bolsheviks. They all deserved a kinder fate. In short, this is a very good biography indeed.
September 21, 2017
Possibly the most sympathetic account of Nicholas II. More than biography this book is, however, a character study. The author does not blindly defend the Tsar, but tries to see the affairs from his point of view and without the hindsight. I would not recommend the book to a "Romanov beginner", but it is definitely a book, alongside Massie´s Nicholas and Alexandra, to have if you are interested in the last Russian Emperor.
November 14, 2008
Loved this.
October 26, 2025
I am a fan of all of Dominic Lieven's works on Russia. Mr. Lieven has something of an insiders view since he is descended from individuals who had important governmental and military roles in most of the periods he is writes about. This is not to say that he does not undertake enormous original research, but some aspects of a period are hard to convey except by someone who has lived through them -- particularly the feelings of stress and anxiety. I believe that this informed outlook enriches his anaylsis of the crises that Nicholas II constantly faced, and provides some needed sympathy for a ruler who was quite overmatched by his times.
October 9, 2019
A bit dated but very interesting. Covers the basics of Nicholas II's life and the Russian Revolution until 1917. There are some editing issues, though. For example, the diplomat and foreign secretary Aleksander Izvolsky’s last name is sometimes spelled Izvolsky and sometimes Isvolsky. Pick one or the other please! But, the writing is balanced and clear. I intend to read some of the author’s other books when I get a chance.
October 17, 2020
A topic that interests me very much- but this book, though well researched and well written, was a bit dry. Still don't regret buying it. My copy was withdrawn from the library and was for sale.
June 22, 2013
I'm not an slow reader at all, but this book took me almost 3 months to finish it...and has only 371 pages!!. Maybe is the translation, maybe is the way it is written, but some parts I had to read it 2 or 3 times to really get what the autor wanted to say. I read history a lot and never suspected that this book will be so hard (so abstract) to read. Maybe because it's not written as a normal history book, but as a disertation of someone that actually knows a lot about this theme, like if the autor is drinking coffee with you and gives you his personal ideas about the fall of Romanov Empire. Some parts, I have to say it, were very boring and put me to sleep in 2-3 minutes (that's why I lasted so much time reading the book!), even when I read a lot about Russian history.
My personal apreciation of the book: Dominic Lieven knows a lot about Russian history but fails to concrete, the whole book is reading the personal interpretation of the autor and a disertation of the facts, not the facts themselves, and the way its written sometimes it's very abstract. As I said it before: maybe was the translation to Spanish in the edition I own. My advice: don't read this book unless you have a very well organized pool of knowledge about Russian (and In general European) history and politics.
My personal apreciation of the book: Dominic Lieven knows a lot about Russian history but fails to concrete, the whole book is reading the personal interpretation of the autor and a disertation of the facts, not the facts themselves, and the way its written sometimes it's very abstract. As I said it before: maybe was the translation to Spanish in the edition I own. My advice: don't read this book unless you have a very well organized pool of knowledge about Russian (and In general European) history and politics.
October 26, 2014
A little bit dry in comparison to Robert Massie's more narrative writing style. However, lots of details and focus on Russia and the events that led to the fall of tsarism.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews