More handpicked essays just for you.
Causes and consequences of 1905 revolution russia
The 1905 revolution in Russia
Causes and consequences of 1905 revolution russia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
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.
Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894-1917 and was to be its final tsar. He ascended the throne under the impression that he would rule his whole life as it's undisputed leader. Accompanied by his wife, Alexandra, they lived a comfortable life of luxury while the country suffered around them. Nicholas was determined to rule as harshly as his father; however, he was a very weak and incompetent character who did not posses the qualities capable of guiding Russia through its time of turmoil.
In this instance Nicholas did not understand the magnitude of his people's, more specifically the soldiers suffering while at war with Austria and Germany. Often times the war minister, Vladimir Sukhomlinov, misinformed Nicholas regarding the conditions of soldiers leaving the Russian army without food, clothing and weapons. Through this miscommunication, it left not merely the soldiers without defense, but the country defenseless along with them. As a result, “By the following spring, the shortage had grown so severe that many soldiers charged into battle without guns. Instead, commanders told them to pick up their weapons from the men killed in front lines. At the same time, soldiers were limited to firing just ten shots a day. Sometimes they were even forbidden to return enemy fire” (134). This was just one piece of the puzzle that led to the crumble of the Russian autocracy. Especially considering the fact that everyone could see their efforts for winning the war were dissipating all except for one, “. . . everyone in the tsar’s government knew it… everyone, that is, except Nicholas himself” (135). As shown in this instance, basic misconceptions can begin a ripple effect that has the power to put a country in
situation is not serious at all and if it is ignored, it will go away.
Throughout history there have been many odd characters. Russian history was not excluded. Grigory Rasputin, who was an assistant to the Royal Russian family, was an unusual man.
In order to be able to assess the reasons as to why it was that the
Nicholas in the end was the one to blame. He had the ability to aid in the situations and make different choices but didn’t. In the end it was evident that there were many contributing factors to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty, such as the Revolution, the influence of Rasputin and Alexandra and World War I, which all lead to the social and economic issues in Russia. Even with all these factors it still all comes back to Nicholas. His incapability of supplying the Army with the needed weapons and aid, the lack of preparation and direction to the Army and his failure to provide for or even listen to the needs of his people certainly do not make Nicholas look good. Even though it seems that Nicholas had good intentions he was incompetent as a leader and he in fact was one of the main causes of the demise of a 300 year Romanov Dynasty.
How Far Nicholas the Second was Responsible for the Collapse of the Tsarist Regime For the duration of Tsarist autocracy, Russia was considered by far the most rampant of all European nations. Under indispensable law, the despotic Tsar would be the solitary power ruling over all of the Russian empire. Equipped with such an immense power, the ability for an individual Tsar to practice articulate policies and rule efficiently was critical to Russia’s survival. Under a coherent and an unwavering leader, one such as Alexander III, Russia had enough demeanor and agility to prosper as a nation. However the succession of his heir, Nicholas II brought with it a ruler who proved to be both weak and indecisive.
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.
Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say 'weakness in character' we mean being easily influenced/controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a firm believer in autocracy; he was virtually unmovable in this belief. And this obstinant belief clearly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had huge influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a result of Nicholas' character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the huge socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WW1 hugely influenced the coming about of and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage.
The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.
Russia was a rural country that once had regime. The majority of Russia was profoundly poor and the few that were rich were extremely wealthy. Their last ruler had been Tsar Nicholas II who was not a natural leader; in fact most people could describe him as a reluctant and feeble monarch. Russia suffered numerous revolutions and defeats in wars under the regime. As a result their country was damaged, economically and socially. Russia was poverty stricken particularly in the countryside where the peasants lived. There were food shortages and a demand for land from the peasants. By 1900 industrialisation took its toll and many peasants moved from the country side to work in factories. Still there was unhappiness: workers demanded better working conditions and increased wages.
Ivan the Terrible was born on 25 August 1530. He was born in Kolomenskoye, Russia. Ivan was the son of Vasili 3rd and his second wife, Elena Glinskaya. Ivan was three years old when his father died from a boil and inflammation on his leg which developed into blood poisoning. He father request was for his son Ivan to be proclaimed the Grand Prince of Moscow. When Ivan was eight years his mother Elena Glinskaya died for poison. His letter said him and his young brother Yuri felt neglected and offended. On 16 January 1547 he was crowned Maonomakh’s Cap at the Cathedral of the Dormition at the age of 16. Ivan was the first the first person to be crowned as Tsar of All the Russias. As being crowned he had a message to send to the world and to Russia his message was that he is the only one supreme ruler of the country. “ The new title symbolized an assumption of powers equivalent and parallel to those held by former Byzantine Emperor and the Tatar Khan, both known in Russian sources as Tsar. The political effect was to elevate Ivan’s position.”
Alexander I of Russia ruled as Tsar from 1802 to his death in 1825. In this time he did a lot for Russia as country and for the administration. With ever ruler there is usually one major failure that comes to mind; George W. Bush’s post September eleventh policy, or Winston Churchill’s Gallipoli campaign. For Alexander, his greatest failure is the Holy Alliance. The Holy Alliance was a partnership of Russia, Austria and Prussia created in 1815 by Alexander. Its main goal was to instill the Christian values of charity and peace in European political life. These three leaders used this to band together against revolutionary influence from entering there nations. With the implantation of the Holy Alliance, there are three effects that made this a failure; Alexander had a shift from his original liberal ideas to very conservative reactionary ones meaning these reforms were not pushing the country forward the country was at a standstill. The next way how the Holy Alliance was a failure was the Alexander became preoccupied with preserving peace and order in fear that there might be a revolution. Alexander spent most of his last few years trying to hold together this treaty with many other nations trying not to have war break out. The last reason this was such a huge failure is that it made Alexander Obsessed with mysticism and the Christian religion. This is not necessarily a bad thing for a normal citizen but when you are trying to have some progress in nation religion needs to stay out, because of its prominently conservative reforms that come with it. It is for these reasons that Alexander’s greatest failure as Tsar is the Holy Alliance and the implications that it had on behaviors as ruler.
We, the commoners of Russia, demand the withdrawal of the Tsar from his office. Nicholas the second has absolutely no idea how to run an autocracy. When we asked for reformation, that was desperately needed, he gave us a medieval system that is ineffective in modern society. He forced us into a grieving war and for what; for countless innocent young men to die. Our successful farm found their labour and materials extracted for the war. This put many of our hard working farmers into debt with no chance of recovery. These poor wages we receive from the factories causes us to not be able to afford a loaf of bread. Our farmers are issued small amounts of land, and in return, they have to pay a sum to the government. This sum becomes even further