Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Lenin's economic policy in 1917
Lenin's economic policy in 1917
Romanov dynasty essay introduction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Lenin's economic policy in 1917
“He was Tsar Nicholas II of Russia: the wealthiest Monarch in the world, who ruled over 130 million people and one-sixth of the earth’s land surface, yet turned a blind eye to the abject poverty of his subjects.” - Candace Fleming. The Romanov Dynasty ruled over Russia for 300 years, but once Nicholas II came to power, it all came falling down on him. World War I and different instances of prejudice in 1917 provoked the Russian Revolution to come into play. The Russian Revolution then had many affects on the Russian people, and then compelled Nicholas II abdicate the throne; the Bolshevik Party rose to power after that. Then after it all, on the eve of July 17, 1918 Nicholas II, his family, and servants were executed in the cellar of the …show more content…
In fact Nicholas II was the most powerful ruler of his time, but he was not the most considerable ruler. In the article Nicholas II Biography, Biography.com editors state, “Nicholas II was the tsar of Russia under Romanov rule. His poor handling Bloody Sunday and Russia’s role in World War I led to his abdication and execution” ( 1). Nicolas II could not comprehend that his peasants were dying of starvation and diseases, because he was too caught up in his own power. And so, under Nicholas II’s rule, Russia was collapsing. Epic History TV the uploader of Epic History: The Russian Revolution informed us, “It was a country in which workers and peasants lived in poverty and hardship - while Russia’s elite - it’s impearl family and aristocracy - lived lives of gilded luxury” ( 1). Nicholas II was not inclined to be the ruler of Russia, he was too shy mannered and introverted. Also it did not help that his father did not provide him with training in affairs of state. In all, Nicholas should have never accepted the throne; it would have saved many people’s lives, including his and his …show more content…
To start, Russia’s armies were doing poorly; with massive desertions, and the destruction the the army’s morale and discipline. The uploader of Epic History: The Russian Revolution, Epic History TV explained, “An estimated 2 million soldiers lost their lives” ( 2-3). In seeing this, Nicholas II appointed himself as commander-in-chief to watch over and control the army, in hope the army will do better with him being there. But as a result to this act, Nicholas II was never in Russia to see his people suffering from poverty and high inflation. Also in the article Epic History: The Russian Revolution, the uploader Epic History TV told us, “A typhus epidemic and famine claimed the lives of further 9 million civilians” ( 3). There was no one with the power to save the people from their suffering. Most of the Russian people had lost all consideration for their ruler, Nicholas II and his family; which caused the Russian Revolutions to come into
In 1900, Russia was an autocracy led by a Tsar who had a total control over the country. The Tsar was Nicholas II. Along with his family and all other nobles, he was very wealthy and lived in luxury. Other wealthy groups of people were: Ÿ Upper class- Church leaders and lesser nobles. Ÿ Commercial class- Bankers, factory workers all known as capitalists.
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
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.
situation is not serious at all and if it is ignored, it will go away.
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,
The Russian Revolution took place during difficult time in Russia. These troubles began before World War I and lasted up until 1930's. Russia's population was made up of mostly poor, starving peasants. A small working and middle class began to rise to help industrialize Russia. But a corrupt government made it difficult for Russia to advance. This added to the turmoil. World War I placed a serious hurt on Russia. Although at first it raised national pride and enthusiasm, it quickly drained resources and poorly trained peasants quickly found themselves fighting with no weapons. This war sent over 2 million Russians to their death in 1915 alone. Turning points for the Russian revolution were the March Revolution, the November Revolution and Stalin coming to power.
under the autocracy of the Romanovs. Although well intentioned, Nicholas was a weak ruler, out of touch. with his people, easily dominated by others and a firm believer in the autocratic principles taught him by his father. He ruled Russia as an autocrat. Propaganda and the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church encouraged his people to love and respect their tsar and look on him.
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.
Communism as Karl Marx states has existed since the beginning of time. However it wasn’t until the 19th century when the Russian workers widely accepted the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles. The workers enjoyed the system of communism due to their many negative experiences with tsarist rule. Tsar Nicholas II’s inadequacy as both a leader politically and militarily as shown when he appointed himself as Commander-in-Chief in order to increase morale. The short-term ...
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.
Nicholas was considered a selfish ruler with no love for his very own people. Nicholas was forced to give up his throne by a strike that broke out in Petrograd on March 1917(Kindersley). After Nicholas getting forced out of his throne a party called The Mensheviks formed a govern-ment made up of revolutionary’s but failed. The Bolsheviks came right after seeking to enforce Marxism and gain power. The Czar Family were arrested and all killed after a year,
5. Czar Nicholas and the Romanov Dynasty: Nicholas II of Russia was the last emperor of Russia. He caused the loss of the russo-japansese war, and approved the entrance into ww1 which led to the death of millions. He also was in power during bloody Sunday. Czar Nicholas was in turn the last straw before the start of the march the most significant in Russian history (Beck et al. 701).
In 1917, two revolutions were involved in Russia, which terminated centuries of imperial ruling. The Russian revolution was made up of two revolutions, which the first one was in February, and the second one was in October.These revolutions started political, and social changes that lead to the creation of the Soviet Union. By March of 1917, Russia who became civil turned into turmoil, which caused constant food shortages.This turned into a revolt against Czar.By the year of 1917 lots of Russian citizens lost faith in their leader Czar Nicholas II. The citizens lost faith in Czar’s leadership due to the governments corruption, Russia’s economy, and Czar constantly affecting the success of the Duma ( the Russian legislative assembly established by Czar Nicholas II in 1905) .This impacted Russia in a disastrous way, which caused Czar Nicholas II to be overthrown.A few months later after Czar was overthrown, the new provisional government was overthrown by Bolsheviks. The first appearance of the Russian Revolution was in February 1917, due to the destructive involvement in World War I. The military and imperial side of Russia, could not compare to the industrialized Germany at the time. The costly war also made Russia’s economy decline in a major way. Word count: 207