Romanov's death.

Early this morning at around 02:00 AM in 1918 Former Tsar Nicholas the second, his wife, four daughters, his son, and a few servants were led into the basement of the Ipatiev house. They were told by the Bolshaviks they were being moved out of the city of Yekaterinburg to avoid being caught in the attacks by the White Army, spear headed by the Czech legion. The leader of the local Cheka, a man by the name of Yurovsky, entered the small basement after a short bit followed by a group of soldiers. Nicholas asked what was going on and Yurovsky stated that according to the Ural Executive Committee he was to execute the Tsar.
With that Yurovsky and his men opened fire on the family until they ran out of ammunition for their side arms before advancing and finishing off anyone who had somehow survived the hail of lead with Bayonets, the bodies were hauled off and doused in acid before being burned and buried.



On the anniversary of their death I have come to ask a question in morals.
“If a leader is incompetent, does that make him a bad person?”



Nicholas the second was raised in royal splendor, he was born in the dieing age of kings and queens, and the noble families of Europe were enjoying the last years of their wealth and power.
At the age of 26 he was abruptly handed the throne when his father died at a young age, his father had taught Nicholas nothing about ruling, planning to instead save it for when Nicholas turned 30, Nicholas had no desire to become the Tsar but took the throne out of a sense of duty.
On his coronation date several hundred people were killed in a stampede caused by poor organization and free stuff (Like Black Friday) Nicholas, rather then taking a day to recognize the loss, was advised to go to a French Ambassador’s event to try and maintain relations with France, this was seen as a very poor omen and led to resentment by the Russian people.
The next debacle was the Russo-Japanese war, Russian expansion in the far east clashed with Japanese ambitions and led to Japan launching a surprise attack on Port Arthur. The Russian forces dispatched to fight Japan ended in utter defeat and an embarrassing peace treaty.
In 1905 Nicholas was out of the city when a massive peaceful demonstration took to the streets of St Petersburg, when they approached the palace, the soldiers guarding it opened fire, whether the soldiers panicked, or were provoked has not been determined. In light of this Nicholas gave many powers to a newly elected state Duma (Like Congress) but the damage to his reputation was done.



Nicholas's only son Alexei was a Hemophiliac, his blood would not clot so even the smallest cut could bleed until it became fatal, the only man who had shown the ability to help heal Alexei was a wandering Monk named Rasputin, in time he became a confident of the family and an adviser, the public however did not know of Alexei's disease and ill rumors about Rasputin were spread, in addition while Rasputin was a skilled healer his advice on world events was terribly flawed. This led to problems since the stress of Alexei's disease led to the family, especially the mother, giving him their full trust.



When Russia entered WW1 it did so with much fan-fare and promise fulfilling a defensive treaty that should never have been made, however the war soon turned sour as incompetent commanders and poor equipment lead to defeat after defeat. Finally as logistics collapsed the people revolted and State Duma called for Nicholas's abdication, which he gave in a railroad car he was traveling in from the front lines where he had been trying to repair the situation.



The family spent the next year in varying states of arrest as the Bolsheviks took power in a coup against the Duma and established a Socialist regime, this was not taken well by some Russians who fought against it with tooth and nail and revolted into many factions across Russia, united mainly by a desire to stop the Bolsheviks.



Reports on what kind of man Nicholas was very widely since the Communists painted him as a monster while those who escaped painted him as a saint, especially compared to the Communists.
The reports in his favor state he was a very spiritual Christian who loved his God and family deeply and above anything else and that he genuinely tried to do his best to rule the nation and felt terrible guilt for everything that went wrong in the country.



The reports against him state he was a power hungry Tyrant who blamed everyone but himself.




My question is this, if the reports in his favor are true, and he was personally a good man but a bad leader, does that make him a good man? Or does his failings as a leader and inability to distinguish between bad advisers taint even his good traits?
I'm not asking whether or not his rule was poor, his actions as a leader reeked of incompetency and he should be held responsible for his mistakes, but is good intentions marred by incompetence and poor advice enough to make him a bad person? How would you judge a man like that?