Talk:Alexander I of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This Article Fails[edit]

This is not an encyclopedic entry, this is nationalistic propaganda. It needs to be edited by someone who takes history seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Princess Maria Naryshkina[edit]

"Towards the close of his life their reconciliation was completed by the wise charity of the Empress in sympathizing deeply with him over the death of his beloved daughter by Princess Maria Naryshkina."

This statement may be inaccurate. Princess Maria Naryshkina was his mistress, not his daughter. I'd like to correct it, but not until I find out whose death brought he and his wife back together. If anyone knows please correct or advise. Alberia Torkenkluvin 19:18, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)


This page says that Metternich first met Alexander in 1819, however, did they not meet at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15, following the Napoleonic wars? I believe Metternich was one of the signatories for the Holy Alliance, which was crafted at the Congress.

Grand Duke of Finland[edit]

In intro sentence? Ksenon 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(... the first Grand Duke of Finland.) King of Sweden, Johan III Gustafsson I Vasa (1568-1592) took title "Grand Duke of Finland" in his 3.8.1577 dated official letter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Opening of his grave[edit]

Whatever the truth, when the Soviet Government opened Alexander's grave many, many years later, it was empty. Exactly when was "many, many years later". I'd much rather see a precise date. How about a source that gives this information. JackofOz 07:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote some of the last chapter ("Death"), using more neutral language, since most of the rumours are not supported by the sources and there's no direct evidence that the elder Feodor Kozmich ever was (or claimed to be) the emperor Alexander I. [[ouital77 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)]]

Article is quite accurate[edit]

Contrary to the first opinion stated so vulgarly, this article is quite accurate historically, except for some minor errors or omissions (some of which are not errors but rather are still in dispute among historians). Anyone who is a fervent student of Russian history knows that much of it is actually much more dramatic than any novel and nothing needs to be made up or exagerated to add drama to the real Russian history. And this is the opinion of a non-Russian who has been a student of Russian history, art and culture for more than 30 years. wow is wound have never known.

Although I know Russian history is a giant, dramatic tapestry of events, this article really isn't worthy of an encyclopedia, which Wikipedia of course is. While the epic sweep of this Tsar's rule and the context in which he reigned (the Napoleonic Wars) needs to be maintained in the article, much of it just isn't objective. TG312274 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Criticism[edit]

This article is bullshit. I was reading it and just had to stop. This is like a fucking novel.

I agree. There is hardly any criticism. Napoleon was a visionary who wanted the Russian serfs to be freed (as much as he wanted to give rights to the people of Prussia and Austria), but Alexander refused to free the serfs.
Yeah this really does need to be clarified, particularly with the removal of all this dramatic trash. Skim to the facts, man, horrendous article to read. Kilter 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, a lot of the article does seem to be a hagiography of the Tsar, without discussion of say his political philosophy or his autocratic opinions. Much of it doesn't fit in with the principle of NPOV. It's late now in England :) so I will try to work on editing this tomorrow. TG312274 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

be bold[edit]

i 've just been bold and deleted a lot of stuff that just does not belong into an encyclopedia. i could not think of any way to improve it. it just had to go. sorry. trueblood 18:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


What is meant by this line: "and he consoled himself in the traditional manner"? What is this manner? And more citations within the article itself would improve this article. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates, OS and New Style mixed[edit]

We currently have him reigning after he died, an obvious impossibility caused by mixing up old style and new style dates. Can anybody fix this? Smallbones (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


"His view of any relation to the incipient "Americans," (who were almost universally considered unruly) in particular, should be subject to the conventions of his times, as such relations were characterized by heady new freedoms in the New World and the hardly unprecedented restrictions still necessarily in place in the Old World. Thomas Jefferson's opinions of his statecraft would have mattered to him, as to any European ruler of the time, as no more important than the flea that was tormenting his dog."

All I have to say with this paragraph is wow...really? Lame. Despite the fact there's no citations to back this up, I'm not even going to bother complaining about the POV much. (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this sentence and the preceding one are unsourced and appear in the section about *others'* view of Alexander, I deleted them. (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Feodor Kuzmich[edit]

There must be some forensic state on this, either the royal burial or that of the starets. (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


In the Mysterious Death section, we find "During his trip he himself caught a cold which developed into typhus". Typhus is not related to colds. It is spread by a vector: body lice. Alexander may have had one or both illnesses, but the cold couldn't develop into typhus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimzzz (talkcontribs) 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Also there are few citations in the Death section... no citation for cause of death mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimzzz (talkcontribs) 19:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence in 'French Invasion'[edit]

The following first sentence under 'French Invasion' is incomplete:

"In the summer of 1812 with Napoleon's invasion of Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


I am no expert on Alexander I, or colds, or Typhus. Still, it seems completely impossible that a cold "develops into" typhus, as this section suggests in the case of Alexander I. No doubt, during the time of Alexander, people were confused about how the two might be related. According to Wikipedia, which is quite good on this kind of thing, typhus is caused by bacteria. The bacteria basically are carried by ticks. I doubt a cold had much to do with anything.Tombadog (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Now this article is anti-Russian[edit]

The tone is this article seems hostile and disrespectful to the Russian emperor and Russia in general: accusing Alexander of duplicity, paranoia and vindictiveness, and also "erratic" foreign policy, downplaying heroic efforts of the Russian army in the war of 1812 ("few major battles" LOL). Some of the statements are grossly inaccurate (claiming that Russia had only a minor role in European affairs at the time), others are downright absurd, such as the notion that Russian Czar needed liberal rhetoric to shore up his popularity.

The User:Rjensen seems mostly responsible for this dire state of affairs.Keverich2 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to pay respect to any Russian emperor or Russia in general. Its task is not to respect anyone or anything. If you intend to glorify Alexander and/or Russia, you can expect your edits to be reverted. The article cites sources; if you can cite some that disprove the information, please do so here and discuss the issue. Surtsicna (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not willing to tolerate defamation of Russian historical figures either. It doesn't matter what your "sources" say, statement such as His foreign policy was erratic; his allies never fully trusted him. - this kind of crap simply has no place in encyclopedia (See Wikipedia:NPOV). You can bet I will remove itKeverich2 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
for the record I am not "hostile" to the tsars, but I do have a low tolerance for people who demand "heroic" history. Our job as editors is to get the facts right and reflect the current scholarship in the reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your edits are far from impartial. They reflect the typical attitude of inveterate Cold War hawks and actually aim at spreading Russophobic propaganda. I suggest you refrain from editing Russia-related articles in the future. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You know you could help me remove the Russophobic nonsense.Keverich2 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Your description of the French Invasion of Russia is based on book, dated 1911 - talk about "current scholarship". (On a second look, none of your sources qualify as current scholarship) Most of the statements I reverted violated the neutrality requirement. For expample, the statement that His foreign policy was erratic; his allies never fully trusted him. is someone's point of view. It should not be presented as a fact. You could have at least created a new section entitled "criticism" where various critical opinions of Alexander's policy can be presented. Keverich2 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Anti-Russian? A criticism of the tsar makes one an enemy of Russia? well that's not the way it worked back in the Cold War days-- (I recall since I taught history at MGU in Moscow in 1986). The 1911 allegation is silly. This article originated way back in 2001 when someone (not me--I started on this article in 2012) copied the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article word for word. Wikipedia's "neutrality" requirement is not about being neutral regarding Alexander, it's to be neutral regarding the reliable sources. As for his foreign policy: he switched positions back and forth every couple years from neutral to pro-Coalition to pro-Napoleon to anti-Napoleon. That's pretty dramatic--and erratic. As for 1812, Napoleon really did capture Moscow and the Russians really did rely on a scorched earth policy to destroy the available food supplies. That's in all the textbooks and is not controversial. I used standard histories by Gregory Freeze (1997) pp 148-52, Paul Schroeder (1994), and Hugh Seton-Watson (1988) pp 113-42 as well as Cate, The War of the Two Emperors: The Duel between Napoleon and Alexander: Russia, 1812 (1985) (see his Preface) and Dwyer, Citizen Emperor: Napoleon in Power (2013) ch 18-20. What sources are you using by the way? Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view
^^^Which part of this you don't understand, Rjensen? "Erratic foreign policy" is an opinion. So is the notion that scorched earth policy was crucial in defeating the French army. Ascribing "practical contempt to humanity" to someone is an opinion, that borders on defamation.Keverich2 (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The Battle of Borodino was the largest and the bloodiest battle of Napoleonic wars to date. Suggesting that Napoleon captured Moscow without much effort, like you did, is factually inaccurate mildly speaking.Keverich2 (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The text is that there were "few major battles" -- Borodino was the chief one; the second largest was much smaller. "Suggesting that Napoleon captured Moscow without much effort" is your invention. As for scorched earth--all the RS consider it important. An "Erratic" foreign policy is one that swerves this way then that--and Alexander swerved back and forth four times in 8 years. The bit about "practical contempt to humanity" is not mine --it entered the article in 2001 from Encyclopedia Britannica. Rjensen (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Dubious death section missing...[edit]

... Currently. No mention of the mystery nor of Feodor Kuzmich. Thought it was worth mentioning:/--Leofil2 (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been some recent (and not so recent) claims about that: [1] Esn (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I added it in. Esn (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)