|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 10, 2021 21:39:34 GMT
Yeah, there must be a lot of average Joe's who had it worse, but Joe's don't make the history books. So who the poor bastard who must have just looked up and said "What did I do to deserve this?'
Mine is Tsar Ivan VI. Two months old when his Aunt, Empress Anna, died and left him the throne. 13 months later, another aunt, Elizabeth, knocked him off the throne. Eventually, poor Ivan was sent to a fortress near he White Sea, where his only contact was with his jailer. Then to the dungeons of Shlisselberg, where he wasn't even to be called by name, just "the certain prisoner". Don't forget, he's just a little kid. When Auntie Liz died, things got better for a bit under Peter III. But wen completely to hell when Catherine the Great took over. Ivan was the big threat, since Catherine wasn't even Russian. let alone a Romanov. A guard tried to free Ivan and that was it. Catherine had him strangled. Poor kid didn't do a thing. And that got him 20 years of solitary confinement and a horrible death.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 11, 2021 2:06:54 GMT
Yeah i have to agree with you on your choice for the most pitiful person in history.
But Elizabeth was not his aunt she was his first cousin twice removed, his mother Anna Leopoldovna was the niece of Anna, Ivan VI was the great nephew of Empress Anna
His siblings was sent to Denmark in 1780 and lived the rest of their life in house arrest in Denmark.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Feb 11, 2021 4:23:07 GMT
And ppl wonder why extra-terrestrials want no part of us.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 11, 2021 18:26:30 GMT
And people say how cruel that male lions will kill the cubs of another lion--but you know, it's over quick. Humans really are masters at causing long-term suffering. Just the invention of a cage-a prison cell, a dungeon---created how much new kinds of suffering?
The 12 Caesars has a few nightmarish stories about political imprisonment.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 11, 2021 19:35:54 GMT
Yeah i have to agree with you on your choice for the most pitiful person in history. But Elizabeth was not his aunt she was his first cousin twice removed, his mother Anna Leopoldovna was the nice of Anna, Ivan VI was the great nephew of Empress Anna His siblings was sent to Denmark in 1780 and lived the rest of their life in house arrest in Denmark. Yeah, I forgot. The Romanov family tree is a bit muddled between Mikhail and Mad Tsar Paul. Anna Ivanova, Anna Leopoldovna, Anna Pavlovna
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Feb 13, 2021 21:37:38 GMT
Two of them, similar to your example, the Princes in the Tower. Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. Poor kids.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 13, 2021 22:13:26 GMT
Two of them, similar to your example, the Princes in the Tower. Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. Poor kids. Ding ding.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 14, 2021 11:32:18 GMT
Two of them, similar to your example, the Princes in the Tower. Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. Poor kids. Similar, but Ivan VI suffered more, I think. I don't think Ivan ever had another child to play with. Certainly none for a long time. Separated from his parents, only a jailer for "company". The jailer wasn't even allowed to call him by name. Peter III talked to him once. He asked if he knew his name and Ivan replied "Gosudar", Emperor. So Ivan did know who he was. And knew that his life hung on a very slim thread. Edward V did know that he wasn't going to live a long life. He reportedly spent most of his time in prayer and confession, knowing that it was just a matter of time. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, especially if it's a child's head. Tsarevich Alexei, son of Nicholas II was another. To live with his hemophilia, to know his disease was jeopardizing a 300 year old dynasty, to know that his disease might have played a part in bringing down that dynasty and to know the probable fate of his father and mother. He certainly knew of Charles I and Louis XVI.
That painting of Edward and Richard is one of my favorites. The fear in their eyes...
This one also. the fear in Richard's eyes and the resignation in Edward's
Did Richard III do them in or Henry VII? They were more of a threat to Henry. Richard III was only a monster in Shakespeare's eye
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 18, 2021 0:59:53 GMT
Two of them, similar to your example, the Princes in the Tower. Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. Poor kids. Similar, but Ivan VI suffered more, I think. I don't think Ivan ever had another child to play with. Certainly none for a long time. Separated from his parents, only a jailer for "company". The jailer wasn't even allowed to call him by name. Peter III talked to him once. He asked if he knew his name and Ivan replied "Gosudar", Emperor. So Ivan did know who he was. And knew that his life hung on a very slim thread. Edward V did know that he wasn't going to live a long life. He reportedly spent most of his time in prayer and confession, knowing that it was just a matter of time. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, especially if it's a child's head. Tsarevich Alexei, son of Nicholas II was another. To live with his hemophilia, to know his disease was jeopardizing a 300 year old dynasty, to know that his disease might have played a part in bringing down that dynasty and to know the probable fate of his father and mother. He certainly knew of Charles I and Louis XVI.
That painting of Edward and Richard is one of my favorites. The fear in their eyes...
This one also. the fear in Richard's eyes and the resignation in Edward's
Did Richard III do them in or Henry VII? They were more of a threat to Henry. Richard III was only a monster in Shakespeare's eye
Do you feel he was.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 18, 2021 1:13:02 GMT
Similar, but Ivan VI suffered more, I think. I don't think Ivan ever had another child to play with. Certainly none for a long time. Separated from his parents, only a jailer for "company". The jailer wasn't even allowed to call him by name. Peter III talked to him once. He asked if he knew his name and Ivan replied "Gosudar", Emperor. So Ivan did know who he was. And knew that his life hung on a very slim thread. Edward V did know that he wasn't going to live a long life. He reportedly spent most of his time in prayer and confession, knowing that it was just a matter of time. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, especially if it's a child's head. Tsarevich Alexei, son of Nicholas II was another. To live with his hemophilia, to know his disease was jeopardizing a 300 year old dynasty, to know that his disease might have played a part in bringing down that dynasty and to know the probable fate of his father and mother. He certainly knew of Charles I and Louis XVI.
That painting of Edward and Richard is one of my favorites. The fear in their eyes...
This one also. the fear in Richard's eyes and the resignation in Edward's
Did Richard III do them in or Henry VII? They were more of a threat to Henry. Richard III was only a monster in Shakespeare's eye
Do you feel he was. It could have been Henry Tudor. Richard did control the Yorkist faction. He had little to worry about from the Princes. But they would have been a huge threat to Henry. Hell, their ghosts were a threat to Henry. Perkin Warbeck ran around saying he was Richard of Shrewsbury. We will never know
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 18, 2021 12:34:37 GMT
Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia (1904-1918) is also pitiful i would say.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 18, 2021 16:07:15 GMT
Probably nowhere close to being the most pitiful, but I always find Paul Robeson's life sad. His father was pushed out of his job by racists and his mum died in a fire. Despite all this, he went on to have a successful football, singing and acting career and graduated with a law degree.
Disgusted by the mistreatment of blacks in the US, he became a campaigner for racial equality and an outspoken critic of capitalism, imperialism and the Cold War. This meant he fell foul of McCarthyism, he was blacklisted by the press, his football career was removed from records, he felt he couldn't work in the movie industry anymore and his concerts in the US were cancelled.
He took his career international as a result but was hounded by the CIA and MI5. He attempted suicide in 1961, then had a nervous breakdown in London where he was subjected to ECT and heavily drugged but denied any psychotherapy. In the end his family got him to East Germany where he received better treatment but never fully recovered. He returned to the US and mostly lived the rest of his life a recluse before he died in 1976.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 18, 2021 20:12:29 GMT
When it comes to Russian royals Tsar Nicholas II's life was actually pretty pitiful, all in all. The last scion of a powerful 300-year long dynasty, whose reign appeared to be cursed from the outset; never properly trained by his father to assume the responsibilities of the throne, he came into power nearly completely unprepared to rule and soon enough found himself at the mercy of fate in the form of his diseased son, an hysterical wife given over to religious fanaticism and a nearly insane belief in absolute autocracy, and a 'healer' who had his own political agendas to push. And in the end Nicholas led not only himself but his entire family and a number of his loyal staff to a ghastly end. Can't have been pleasant for him to have to reflect on how his own weakness of character helped bring about a sort of literal end of the world to his country, people and intimates during the time he spent in captivity.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 18, 2021 21:36:36 GMT
When it comes to Russian royals Tsar Nicholas II's life was actually pretty pitiful, all in all. The last scion of a powerful 300-year long dynasty, whose reign appeared to be cursed from the outset; never properly trained by his father to assume the responsibilities of the throne, he came into power nearly completely unprepared to rule and soon enough found himself at the mercy of fate in the form of his diseased son, an hysterical wife given over to religious fanaticism and a nearly insane belief in absolute autocracy, and a 'healer' who had his own political agendas to push. And in the end Nicholas led not only himself but his entire family and a number of his loyal staff to a ghastly end. Can't have been pleasant for him to have to reflect on how his own weakness of character helped bring about a sort of literal end of the world to his country, people and intimates during the time he spent in captivity. I'm no that big of a fan of Nicky. If only he had thrown a bone to democracy in 1905. He could have set up a near absolute monarchy, like Germany or Austria and the people would have been overjoyed. Yeah, I know he didn't want to modernize, not after seeing Grandpa Alex II with his legs blown off, But he had to give in in 1905 and the world didn't end. If he hadn't ignored the 1905 Duma, 1917 might not have happened. or maybe it would, the War was crippling Russia. He was virulently anti-Semitic, his rule was rough on Russian Jews.
A telling example of Nicholas's mindset. He was playing tennis when he was handed a telegram, saying the Russian Baltic Fleet was at the bottom of Tsushima Strait. He shoved the telegram back in his pocket and resumed his tennis
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 18, 2021 22:59:25 GMT
Wasn't he ritually murdered? It sounded like his body had evidence that he had been killed in some ceremony--shot in the head over and over. What did the rest of them go through? He can't be blamed for everything-the bolsheviks assassinated Petr Stolypin--they tried to kill him a few times. He was a reformer--his murderer was the son of a millionaire. Solzhenitsyn believed he would have kept Russia out of WW1. And the education system got worse after the monarchy was gone. I am pretty sure most Russians don't blame him for the Red Terror. He was weak and his family line was probably doomed, but he was dealing with maniacs who wanted to take over the country. Could anyone really have stopped it with concessions? What was Trump supposed to do? He was moderate by any reasonable standard (police are good, jobs in America are good) and yet the bolshevik types want open borders and America Last policies. They are saying 75 million Americans are enemies. How do you reason with people who think like that? So I do not think the Czar could have done much. He probably had bolshevik agents in his court just like Trump did.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 18, 2021 23:25:35 GMT
When it comes to Russian royals Tsar Nicholas II's life was actually pretty pitiful, all in all. The last scion of a powerful 300-year long dynasty, whose reign appeared to be cursed from the outset; never properly trained by his father to assume the responsibilities of the throne, he came into power nearly completely unprepared to rule and soon enough found himself at the mercy of fate in the form of his diseased son, an hysterical wife given over to religious fanaticism and a nearly insane belief in absolute autocracy, and a 'healer' who had his own political agendas to push. And in the end Nicholas led not only himself but his entire family and a number of his loyal staff to a ghastly end. I can't bring myself to feel any sympathy for him to be honest. That his tyranny grew out of empty-headedness rather than malice doesn't really make it better for all those he let die from poverty or sent to their deaths in pointless wars. Blaming his wife and advisors is all well and good but it was ultimately his decision to listen to them. His people were better off without him for the most part. Life expectancy, education levels and calorie consumption all dramatically increased in the Soviet period compared to the late-imperial period.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 18, 2021 23:49:09 GMT
Wasn't he ritually murdered? It sounded like his body had evidence that he had been killed in some ceremony--shot in the head over and over. What did the rest of them go through? His skull had no bullet wounds. He died in the first volley from the squad by all accounts. Don't know where you get the idea it was some weird ritual. Stolypin's assassin was not a Bolshevik. He was an anarchist who also served as a double-agent for the secret police. It's uncertain what his motivations were. Only briefly, during the Civil War. By 1937, 75% of the population were literate, compared to 28% in 1897. In 1905, peaceful protestors asked for mild political reforms and measures to address poverty. They were massacred by Tsarist troops. Were these really maniacs? Perhaps, perhaps not, but Nicholas II certainly didn't try, except for temporary measures that he quickly rolled back once immediate danger had passed.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 19, 2021 0:21:48 GMT
Stolypin's assassin was not a Bolshevik. He was an anarchist who also served as a double-agent for the secret police. It's uncertain what his motivations were. He had more in common with the Bolsheviks than he had with the average Russian. Stolypin was too nationalist apparently. And since his assassin was said to be in the employment of the secret police--who else might have been in 1905 that had dual loyalties?
And by 1937, maybe their education system improved-although it became extremely political, but then they had mass famine which is linked directly to the policies of this new government. How nice it would be to reduce problems to whether someone has reforms in a single year--but I think the Trump era demonstrates how false that idea is. How moderate can you get and yet he's blamed for everything. Democracy is showing it's problematic side in the modern age. The fact is you cannot have democracy when people have different interests. It worked for Greece because they all had the same backgrounds. It seems to be problematic if the society has people with too many different interests. Then it is different strokes for different folks-that seems to be what Russia experienced.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 19, 2021 0:27:20 GMT
When it comes to Russian royals Tsar Nicholas II's life was actually pretty pitiful, all in all. The last scion of a powerful 300-year long dynasty, whose reign appeared to be cursed from the outset; never properly trained by his father to assume the responsibilities of the throne, he came into power nearly completely unprepared to rule and soon enough found himself at the mercy of fate in the form of his diseased son, an hysterical wife given over to religious fanaticism and a nearly insane belief in absolute autocracy, and a 'healer' who had his own political agendas to push. And in the end Nicholas led not only himself but his entire family and a number of his loyal staff to a ghastly end. I can't bring myself to feel any sympathy for him to be honest. That his tyranny grew out of empty-headedness rather than malice doesn't really make it better for all those he let die from poverty or sent to their deaths in pointless wars. Blaming his wife and advisors is all well and good but it was ultimately his decision to listen to them. His people were better off without him for the most part. Life expectancy, education levels and calorie consumption all dramatically increased in the Soviet period compared to the late-imperial period. I have read about 30-40 books about Nicholas II and the Romanovs and its not as black as white as many people think. And i am not saying Nicholas II was a good leader.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 19, 2021 0:46:54 GMT
Stolypin's assassin was not a Bolshevik. He was an anarchist who also served as a double-agent for the secret police. It's uncertain what his motivations were. He had more in common with the Bolsheviks than he had with the average Russian. Stolypin was too nationalist apparently. And since his assassin was said to be in the employment of the secret police--who else might have been in 1905 that had dual loyalties?
And by 1937, maybe their education system improved-although it became extremely political, but then they had mass famine which is linked directly to the policies of this new government. How nice it would be to reduce problems to whether someone has reforms in a single year--but I think the Trump era demonstrates how false that idea is. How moderate can you get and yet he's blamed for everything. Democracy is showing it's problematic side in the modern age. The fact is you cannot have democracy when people have different interests. It worked for Greece because they all had the same backgrounds. It seems to be problematic if the society has people with too many different interests. Then it is different strokes for different folks-that seems to be what Russia experienced.
Quit with the Trump worship, bugwit
|
|