Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nicholas 2 rule in russia essay
The rise and fall of tsar czar nicholas 2
Changes in the Russian revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nicholas 2 rule in russia essay
Nicholas I
Nicholas I has been portrayed, and perhaps rightfully so, as a strict and reactionary tsar. Indeed, his internal policies were often repressive -- he sought to nip any liberalism in the bud, often brutally. His approach to solving problems in the Empire and keeping control was to create the "Nicholas system", a bureaucratic system defined by and completely based on absolute monarchy. Nicholas revamped govermental structure by strengthening and centralizing bureaucratic structures to an unprecedented degree. He did this as an attempt to deal with all of Russia's problems himself. At most importantly the structure known as "His Majesty's own Chancery," which was the nerve-center of the empire's administrative mechanisms. With his new governmental structure, he hoped to create a machine that would, in theory, more quickly and efficiently carry out his will. The reality, however, was a little bit different than what he planned.
However strict or repressive Nicholas may have been, his policies are somewhat understandble considering what domestic and foreign events marked his reign. His accession in 1825 was threatened by an uprising of a group of noblemen who came to be known as the Decembrists. He dealt with the uprising quickly and firmly. He and his administration sentenced the five most important rebel leaders to death by hanging and sentenced many others to hard labor in Siberia. Later in 1830 Europe went through some revolutionary crises.
The youth of Poland had been restless since July 1830.
The fever rose greatly when they heard that the Polish army was to march with the Russians to crush the revolution and prevent the Belgians from acquiring their independence. On the night of November 29, a conspiracy ...
... middle of paper ...
...ucated and badly trained.
Further, anotherer main problem, besides the unwieldliness of the system was the problem of attracting qualified people. Local officials were poorly educated and badly trained, often having learned their narrow routines through a crude apprenticeship system. The head of the Third Department reported in early 1830s that educated and established people were reluctant to become provincial governors because they knew the degree of responsibility which they would have, and how few resources would be available to them.
Overall, Nicholas I's reign did little to further Russia's progress, and in many ways made the country fall further behind Western Europe. Through his opressiveness, strictness, and love for bureaucracy, he put obstacles in the way of the "racing troika," as Nikolai Gogol once called Russia, and effectively tripped the horses.
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
Nathaniel Abraham was eleven years old when he committed the act of murder. Under a 1997 Michigan law a child of any age may be tried as an adult for severe crimes. Abraham was the first juvenile to be tried under this statute. Accused in the murder of Ronnie Lee Greene Jr., Abraham faced first degree murder charges. Now, at the age of fourteen, Nathaniel has been sentenced to a juvenile facility until the age of twenty-one. Oakland County Probate Judge Eugene Moore hopes that rehabilitation will put an end to Nathaniel’s criminal activity. Nathaniel, a black youth from the slums of Pontiac, Michigan, grew up with out a father, or a strong family unit. He, in turn, never learned the responsibility of his actions; he was not privy to an upbringing that reinforced positive ideals. Crime & Criminology describes, in depth, the relation between family and criminal activity in youths. Page 126 (chapter four) sited two relevant facts; 1) Blacks have much higher rates of illegitimacy and female headed house holds. 2) Blacks have a much higher rate of crime than their white counterparts. In Nathaniel’s case, it can be said that his lack of a positive role model, or father figure lead to his involvement in criminal activities. His mother, Gloria, was struggling to raise three children by herself. Nathaniel’s father had left when he was born, leaving her with no one to depend on. The family moved in with an older couple who offered to help them. With limited supervision Nathaniel was a constant source of aggravation for his mother. Police reported that Nathaniel was suspected in over 22 local crimes, ranging from assault to armed robbery. He, in fact, had been arrested five days before Greene’s murder on the charge of robbery. All this by the age of eleven. In families where there is no male role model a child is far more likely to become involved in crime. The data that exists suggests a direct correlation between youths raised without a father and criminal activity.
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.
Released yesterday. Reaccused and retaken yesterday. Indictment delivered to him last night, Suspected and Denounced enemy of the Republic, Aristocrat, one of a family of tyrants, one of a race proscribed, for that they had used their abolished privileges to the infamous oppression of the people. Charles Evremonde, called Darnay, in right of such proscription, absolutely Dead in Law” (245). He is not given a real chance for being given freedom whatsoever, given that he is a member of the nobility. The court pays no attention the the fact that he spurned his heritage and left the country, his sprawling estate, and his lofty title behind in favor of a simple job as a tutor in England. The rebels were taught this cruelty by the aristocrats, and in almost karmic revenge, came back to use it against the very ones who taught them.
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.
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,
Justinian I Justinian had a very significant role in world history. There are many things that are overlooked when speaking of Justinian. For instance, Justinian was a great architect. Many times we overlook the little characteristics of Justinian and we focus on the code of Justinian.
In a period leading up to the eventual Independence from Belgium in 1960, several political parties were formed. The populous argued for independence from Belgium due to many decades of brutality and corruption under Belgian colonization. There were many protests and riots fighti...
One of his killers said in a self-penned memoir, “They sent the army to the trenches without food or arms, they left them there to be slaughtered, they betrayed Rumania and deceived the Allies, and they almost succeeded in delivering Russia bodily to the Germans.” By they, Stanislaus de Lazovert meant the rulers; he included Rasputin in this. Aside from Rasputin’s role as a figurehead, a representation of the end of the dynasty and dictatorship, he was held culpable for some of the actions of the rulers, namely Alexandra, during the duration of the war, and even before. Those who loathed the idea of an autocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, or any other political system in which one or a few people hold the power, naturally loathed him too. Peasants, noblemen, and the clergy alike also simply resented his influence. Some thought him demonic, with his alleged healing powers. Whatever the root behind the hatred, Rasputin was the inevitable bull’s-eye. It was not a question of if he would be killed as a means for the revolution, but of when, and by
The German soldiers killed the Belgian civilians for a myriad of reasons. Three most prominent reasons were the spread falsehoods, such as claiming they had poisoned the wells. “We heard later on that the priest had to pay for it with his death, as the military authorities “knew” that the water in all the wells of that village was poisoned and that the soldiers had only been saved by a lucky accident.” The second most prominent reason is that the Belgians fought back against the soldiers, injuring and killing a few German Soldiers, an example of which being, “We had marched past some more houses when all at once shots rang out; they had been shooting from some house, and four of our soldiers had been wounded.” The last prime example would
It is beyond uncertainty that the Warsaw Uprising which took place 70 years ago in 1944 is one of the most significant, heroic and tragic events in the 20th century of Polish history. During 63 days of patriotic uprising many thousands of predominantly young Poles were killed in an imbalanced battle with the German occupiers. This investigation will focus on the areal support for the Home Army (AK) during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. The essay will discuss the causes and consequences of the action taken by the authority of Great Britain, United States of America and Soviet Union as well as the Polish government in exile regarding the Warsaw Uprising.