Was Alexander III the greatest Russian tsar since Peter?

Was Alexander III the greatest Russian tsar since Peter?

>staunch reactionary and autocrat unlike his cuck father
>oversaw the longest period of peace in modern Russian history
>advanced Russia's economy greatly
>understood and sympathized with the peasantry and as such knew their need for an absolutist rule, unlike his dad and son who were just generic detached aristocrats
>staunch anti-semite
>strong nationalist who preferred to speak in Russian and not German/French, devout Orthodox

His only mistake was not grooming Nicholas properly before he suddenly died, but Nicky was just an idiot.

>staunch anti-semite

So based amright guys? Only his pogroms made communist movement stronger and basically created jude-bolsheviks.
But it probably gave us Jack the Ripper to so kudos.

Judeo-bolsheviks would've been swiftly crushed under Alexander. Nicky was just incompetent in every situation, be it WW1, Stolypin and Witte's reforms, Russo-Japanese war or the Bolshevik revolution.

I heard he passed due to alcoholism. Is this true?

no, the Imperial family suffered a train accident and it fucked Alexander's kidneys up.

I would rate him as a better Tsar if he hadn't created a system so autistic that only he and his ministers could run it, without really preparing his successor to run said system.

No.

>Revert your father's reforms
>Surprise surprise, people get fed up of the monarchy's shit and murder your son and his entire family a few decades later
But hey lads he wasn't cucked do I fit in yet?

>(((people))) get fed up
Fixed. Actual Russian people loved him, there were no revolts during his rule and people relished the peace.
Now Alexander II was indeed a cuck and his reforms ended up with him getting killed by a leftist terrorist. More people should read De Maistre's Petersburg Dialogues to understand why autocracy is essential for Russia.

His reversing of his father's reforms led to his son's lack of willingness to reform, which led to revolution.

Nicky got deposed because he was incompetent and seen as weak, which is unforgivable for a Russian tsar.
>stuttering, soft pretty boy
>manlet
>lost to a bunch of rice eating gooks
>got stramrolled by the eternal Kraut in WW1
>rumored to be cuckolded by a village sorcerer
Nobody is going to respect a man like that. Contrast this to Alexander who was 190 cm tall, had a deep voice, looked like a Siberian lumberjack, was composed and ruled with an iron fist.

Damn he looks like his father but with a dash of a Bond villain,

Nicky got deposed primarily because of the third one you mention
>got steamrolled by the eternal kraut

And, frankly, there wasn't that much he could have done to stop that. He wasn't in command of the army until it was too late and the damage was already done. Alexander III had it easy because he wasn't in a major war.

>Alexander III had it easy because he wasn't in a major war.
Because he knew how to avoid wars and maintain peace. He was literally called миpoтвopeц (peacemaker).

You can singlehandedly blame him for the loss of you beloved absolute monarchy. Alexander II was ushering Russia into the modern world by ending serfdom, putting in massive reforms, and giving the intelligentsia a voice so he could hear their grievances. Then reactionary son comes along. Kills all the reform. Rules with an iron fist. Makes intellectual meetings illegal. Sends everyone into SIberia. Follows a Russia for Russians theme despite it being majorily multicultural. Ingrains into his son that rulers need to be autocratic and strong but does not teach him how to be one. Dies. Son is a weak cuck who tries to rule like daddy. Everyone is pissed, hungry, and abused. Revolution unavoidable thanks to jackass McRedneck.
If Alexander II managed to carry out his plans its entriely possible that Russia could have made it through WWI without falling into revolution.

>he thinks reform was actually a good thing
Once again, read De Maistre. He predicted what would happen to Russia 100 years in advance, and identifies the reasons as well.

How about you read 10 peer review books on Russian History dealing with the period from 1820 - 1920, then get back to me. Basing your analysis off of one book written by a guy who lived in the 1700s is kinda retarded. And yes reform would have been a good thing is it happened.

But it did happen. The abolition of serfdom was one of the greatest tragedies of Russian history.
>peer review
American/Anglo spotted. Fuck off.

> serfdom ending is a bad thing

k buddy

>repeating what I said like you're making a statement yourself

>implying Nicky could fix the damage anyway

"Hey king, keep the masses enslaved and shut those intellectuals, scientists, and economists up."
What a wise man. Such bold advise that coinsidently keeps him and all his buddies at the top of the power structure. That surely would not result in a backward unenlightened society.

You are scum that does not uphold the egalitarian values of the west. If you wish to live in barbaric times when people owned one another, in times where you would most likely be someone's property, when a king could dismiss advisors at will, when people had no say in their sovereignty thats fine. But do not pretend that it would have been for the greater good.

He caused the damage.

>unenlightened society
That's not a bad thing.

>You are scum that does not uphold the egalitarian values of the west.
I don't care for the west, or its values. They can drown in their own shit for all I care.

Describe your perfect society to me user. I want to have a good laugh with my buddies

Go to hell.

He is a butthurt Slav.

Slavs are literally worse than niggers and Hitler was right for wanting to murder them all.

t. Schlomo Schekelbergowitz