Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Czar nicholas ll
The rise of the Romanov dynasty
Annotated bibliography of czar nicholas ll
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Czar nicholas ll
The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill, …show more content…
The Minister of Finance was Sergei Witte was conscious of the inadequate conditions the people of Russia lived under. As previously stated, there was an agricultural deficit and industrially, Russia was one of the “lowest among European nations and poor transportation and communication caused delays that hurt the economy.” Witte understood that Russia’s industrialization was vital; during Nicholas II’s reign he came up with a number of reforms such as protective tariffs on foreign goods, foreign investments, and also managed to put the Russian currency on the gold standard. Regrettably, the low wages, the high taxes and the agricultural deficit caused an immense opposition towards the …show more content…
During the Revolution of 1905, he ordered the mass execution of over 100 and arrested several more rebels. Also, he focused on an agricultural reform in order to address the famine and ineffective use of agricultural land by canceling redemption payments and establishing land banks; creating a positive impact and increased the agricultural production. Moreover, the creation of the Duma can actually be credited to Nicholas II. Additionally, the Czar did not trusted the Duma for their ‘unrealistic’ and hostile demands, their bias towards the aristocracy, the freedom of political debate the Duma and the fact that they were allowed to pass
Nicholas was an inadequate leader, the film shows this by portraying him as a man who put his family first, who was too stubborn to appoint a Duma and who didn’t want to be in power. The film implies that this insufficient leadership is what led to the collapse of the old regime however what it doesn’t put enough focus on is the fact that Russia was behind when it came to industrialisation. This too was a major contributing factor that led to the collapse of the old regime. Tsar Nicholas II was a family man who put his family before the wellbeing of the country.
Russia's industries were beginning to develop and the number of people living in towns was increasing. These people were the urban working class of Russia and they were not as eager to accept the poor wages and conditions as the peasants were.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
I can use this source in my research project to defend why Czar Nicholas II is innocent to the abuse of power of the office of Czar.It reveales to me that even thouch Nicholas struggled with being the new Czar he truly did a lot for Russia to improve in learning abilities.Above all else, Nicholas loved Russia first and then his family; He thought the fate of the two was inseparable. No one knew the fault of the Romanov Dynasty better than him. Czar Nicholas sincerely felt his responsibility for the country, He thought that his destiny was within the country he ruled. I think it was really difficult for him but it was the only way to admit his mistakes and to say "sorry" to his people.
On the other hand there were other problems that effected the Romanov dynasty. After Russia’s removal from Poland the Tsar took it upon himself to become the new commander-in-chief, even th...
After their “peasant economy [had] come to a full collapse and ruin, from which it will not recover in several years”, the peasants started getting furious (Document 5). They became frustrated as their living situation continued to decline rather than improve. Anton Chekhov, a physician, and short story writer, depicted in his short story “Peasants” the life of peasants. He wrote that “they lived in discord, quarreling constantly [...] Who keeps a tavern and makes people drunkards? A peasant.” (Document 7). Peasants were seen by many as the root of the problem and trouble makers. They were blamed for many of the problems in the society. After Nicholas II became Tsar and Russia started to industrialize, the peasants were believed to create more tension. Police Report 4894 to the Ministry of the Interior, claimed that “there has recently emerged a series of peasant disorders in the form of systematic damage to the noble’s fields and meadows” (Document 9). The Nobles were significantly favored over the peasants as the new image of them being the cause of the problems engraved the minds of the public. This was the case until Tsar Nicholas II created the Duma in
situation is not serious at all and if it is ignored, it will go away.
Nicholas’s faltering nature under mounting remonstration from the Russian public, allowed for the total disintegration of the tsarist regime, thus making Nicholas II entirely accountable for the dissolution of his tsarist establishment. Succeeding the assassination of Alexander III, a considerable number of liberal reformers and aggressive revolutionaries came into existence. Such reactions were stimulated partly due to the abrupt halt of the rapid industrialization that was undergone by Russia during the reign of Alexander III. In addition however Nicholas’s policies of tsarism and Russification shaped circumstances in which a large number of liberal and nationalistic groups were becoming gradually more aggravated (Tsarist Russia). Regardless of increasing police scrutiny, numerous well established opposition groups formed against the tsarist regime (history.com).
Sergei Witte was the Minister of Finance from 1892 to 1903, his aim was to modernise Russia’s economy to a level on par with other advanced western nations (such as England and France). To do such a great task Witte needed a plan of action, so he took the ideas of Western states and formed several economic policies. These policies are seen to be very successful in Russia’s economic reform, but to what extent.
Czar Nicholas’ poor leadership forced him to abdicate and caused the Bolshevik takeover. One of the reasons I say that is because of the way he handled “Bloody Sunday”. “Bloody Sunday” was when troops killed over a thousand people in a peaceful worker assembly. After “Bloody Sunday”, workers all over Russia went on strike, and peasants caused uprisings that were suppressed by Nicholas II’s troops causing tensions to increase. Another reason was his disastrous involvement in World War I. In the beginning of the war, Russia’s armies did not do well. To fix this, Nicholas became the commander. Now under his command, their continued failure reflected the Czar himself, further decreasing his popularity. Lastly, civil unrest grew as food riots, chronic food shortages, and labor strikes continued to proceed. This eventually erupted into open revolt, and Czar Nicholas had no choice but to abdicate. Soon after, the new government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin.
Q8. After a hard loss during the Crimean War, the previous Czar Nicholas I position was taken over by his son Alexander II. This brought new change and hope to the people of Russia. Russians were hoping for change at the time, and that is exactly what the driven new Czar had brought to the table. Alexander II came along with the idea of modernization and social change for Russia. In order to do this, Alexander II created his reforms which he thought would be Russia's best interest in order to compete with other nations powers.
Nicholas 2's firm and obstinant belief of his commitment to autocracy can be clearly seen in a letter of reply he sent to a liberal zemstvo head before his coronation. "I shall maintain the principal of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father (Alexandra 3)"(Nicholas & Alexandra, Robert K. Massie). His ultra-conservative political outlook was influenced greatly when a child Tsar Nicholas was educated by the reactionary tutor Konstantin Pobenonstev, enemy of all reform. If there were any doubts about Nicholas' belief in autocracy they would have been put to rest. Pobenonstev was once called "The Highest Priest of Social Stagnation". He once declared, "Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of sovereignty of the people".
The need to modernise in Russia was a problem that the tsar had to face between the years, at the time in question, Russia was very backwards in the way that it farmed its lands, its economy was behind that of the rest of Europe, this meant that action had to be taken, in this area the tsar did have some successes.
out of touch with his people. 'He heard of the blood and tears of the
Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords, while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite.