Is Rasputin the most overrated figure in history ever?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He gets mentioned and portrayed so much, and yet he had no influence. Like if he never existed the timeline would be exactly the same. Not relevant at all.

[darklordoftech]

No way. His curse gave birth to the USSR.

[bore]

Whether he at all affected the course of Russian history is up for debate, but he definitely did change one thing forever:

The disclaimer came as a result of litigation against the 1932 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) film Rasputin and the Empress, which insinuated that the character Princess Natasha had been raped by Russian mystic Rasputin. The character of Natasha was supposedly intended to represent Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia, who sued MGM for libel. After seeing the film twice, the jury agreed that the princess had been defamed.[1][2] Irina and her husband Felix Yusupov were reportedly awarded $127,373 (equivalent to $2,434,000 in 2019) in damages by the English Court of Appeal in 1934, and $1,000,000 (equivalent to $19,000,000 in 2019) in an out-of-court settlement with MGM.[1][2] As a preventive measure against further lawsuits, the film was taken out of distribution for decades.[2]

The film began with a claim that "This concerns the destruction of an empire … A few of the characters are still alive—the rest met death by violence." Reportedly, a justice in the case told MGM that not only was this claim damaging to their case, but that their case would be stronger if they had incorporated a directly opposite statement, that the film wasn't intended as an accurate portrayal of real people or events.[3] Prompted by the outcome of this case, many studios began to incorporate an "all persons fictitious" disclaimer in their films, to protect themselves from similar court action.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Rasputin did have an impact in terms of further damaging the reputation of the Imperial family at a time when this was the last thing they needed.

Rasputin's influence also had a direct hand in the administrative chaos and constant changing of officeholders during the year 1916, which crippled the administration of supply and the railways among many other facets. This collapse of the supply network meant that the cities froze and starved while food rotted in boxcars in the Ukraine and oil/coal sat in the Caucuses and other areas. This lack of supply created the backdrop for the February Revolution.

[John Dule]

He gave us a good Boney M song

[jaymichaud]

Nah, there are a few off the top of my head who are more overrated. If we want to stick to royals then Henry VIII takes the cake.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nah, there are a few off the top of my head who are more overrated. If we want to stick to royals then Henry VIII takes the cake.

Henry VIII was quite influential and had an impact on history even if he was a massive asshole.

[KaiserDave]

Grigori Yefimovich is indeed overrated by history. The monarchy was doomed after 1905 with or without him. He did cause great chaos in the period where Nicholas II took up Supreme Command, specifically with Ministerial appointments and everyday governing (helping install incompetents like Protopopov) and he did tarnish the image of the dynasty. But ultimately yes he is highly overrated, the worst of this being the claim that he slept with the Empress, this is demonstrably false and a slander that has unfortunately survived the years. Alexandra Feodorovna was an incompetent, but she was not sleeping with Rasputin. There are other myths as well, as for his treatment of the Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, there is evidence that he simply took him off Aspirin (a blood thinner). While it's possible he was able to calm the boy and slow the flow of blood, this is far from magical. Nobody denies Grigori was a highly unique presence. The other myth is that he somehow averted death through mystical powers when all evidence shows he was soundly killed by a single shot to the head (possibly fired by a British agent in on the plot).

[Tamika Jackson]

[Agonized-Statism]

Yes. Moreover, it's dangerous historical revisionism to claim he had any role in the downfall of the Romanovs. Their embrace of him serves only to show how weird and detached from reality they were.

[Samof94]

Yes. Moreover, it's dangerous historical revisionism to claim he had any role in the downfall of the Romanovs. Their embrace of him serves only to show how weird and detached from reality they were.

His influence was pretty minor and Communists probably could have taken over if he had died as a little boy.

[Agonized-Statism]

Yes. Moreover, it's dangerous historical revisionism to claim he had any role in the downfall of the Romanovs. Their embrace of him serves only to show how weird and detached from reality they were.

His influence was pretty minor and Communists probably could have taken over if he had died as a little boy.

Not just could have- would have. Things had been headed that way since the late 19th century at least.

[YPestis25]

Yes. Moreover, it's dangerous historical revisionism to claim he had any role in the downfall of the Romanovs. Their embrace of him serves only to show how weird and detached from reality they were.

His influence was pretty minor and Communists probably could have taken over if he had died as a little boy.

Not just could have- would have. Things had been headed that way since the late 19th century at least.

Eh, I think that's quite deterministic. It's often forgotten just how small a minority the Bolsheviks were in 1917, so much so that their name, Bolshevik, the prefix bol meaning large, was meant to make themselves seem larger than they were in reality.

I agree that the Romanovs were probably doomed after 1905, but I don't think the Communists were the only, or even the most likely contenders to replace them.

[Agonized-Statism]

Yes. Moreover, it's dangerous historical revisionism to claim he had any role in the downfall of the Romanovs. Their embrace of him serves only to show how weird and detached from reality they were.

His influence was pretty minor and Communists probably could have taken over if he had died as a little boy.

Not just could have- would have. Things had been headed that way since the late 19th century at least.

Eh, I think that's quite deterministic. It's often forgotten just how small a minority the Bolsheviks were in 1917, so much so that their name, Bolshevik, the prefix bol meaning large, was meant to make themselves seem larger than they were in reality.

I agree that the Romanovs were probably doomed after 1905, but I don't think the Communists were the only, or even the most likely contenders to replace them.

Right, but that's not what we're talking about. If the only thing changing in the timeline is Rasputin, then everything else goes the same way.

[Samof94]

Yes. Moreover, it's dangerous historical revisionism to claim he had any role in the downfall of the Romanovs. Their embrace of him serves only to show how weird and detached from reality they were.

His influence was pretty minor and Communists probably could have taken over if he had died as a little boy.

Not just could have- would have. Things had been headed that way since the late 19th century at least.

Eh, I think that's quite deterministic. It's often forgotten just how small a minority the Bolsheviks were in 1917, so much so that their name, Bolshevik, the prefix bol meaning large, was meant to make themselves seem larger than they were in reality.

I agree that the Romanovs were probably doomed after 1905, but I don't think the Communists were the only, or even the most likely contenders to replace them.

Some kind of pseudo fascism could have easily emerged in Russia with an Orthodox flavor.