Nicholas II Characteristics

The cause of the February revolution has remained a widely contested debate among various historians, each possessing different interpretations, ideologies and political persuasion. All historians share slight contrasts in opinion, thus attributing the revolution to a diverse number of reasons. Despite the personality of Nicholas II and the impact of the First World War being the principal factors thought to have caused the revolution, the role of the regime on a long term basis can also be seen as significant, as can the failure to adapt to transforming circumstances and satisfy class expectations.

During the course of his reign, Nicholas II only really gave freedom and opportunity to his peasants on a theoretical basis, and in fact implemented little effective reform in order to satisfy their needs. His decisions or lack of decisions, personality, as well as his leadership incompetence all contributed to his down fall and the eventual end to the Romanov dynasty in 1917. It is impossible for a revolution of such a large scale to occur solely based on one factor. Although the First World War contributed to the collapse of Tsarism as it highlighted the existing problems in Russia, I personally believe the countless displays of poor judgement by Nicholas II

himself, contributed by an on-going discontent of the Russian people towards the regime, were the major, overpowering factors. As Smith says “When the February Revolution came, it was not as the result of military defeat, or even war weariness, but as the result of the collapse of public support in the government.”

Even prior to the failure to emancipate the serfs, forms of opposition to the tsarist regime were already evident.

The Decembrist revolt in 1825 demonstrated that opinions in Russian society were changing and the Tsars could no longer rely on the full support of the Russian people. Despite the revolt being crushed by the regime without difficulty, the event can be seen to produce an early form of revolutionary feeling toward the autocracy. I believe the acts of the 3000 Russian army soldiers marked the emergence of a wider revolutionary movement between the regime and nobility, which would become more severe by 1917, when support of the army, intelligentsia, elite and workers melted away from Nicholas

II.

It is difficult to avoid consideration of the long term opposition to Tsardom as it can be argued it is a common theme throughout Russian history from 1825 onwards. Alexander II is often criticised for the growth of opposition in the years during his reign believed to be a period of reaction from the mid-1860s to 1881, rather than reform. Alexander II was commonly known for being indecisive, despite having a liberal education. This caused him to hold sympathetic views toward new ideas which can be reflected in the appointment of his ministers, who would often have contrasting political views. Nikolai Milyutin, who carried out the emancipation of the serfs, and Count Shuvalov, a highly recognised reactionary minister, were both appointed by Alexander II during his reign. W.E. Mosse believes that sharing both liberal and autocratic characteristics was unlikely to achieve political success for Alexander II as it only served as a way of raising unrealistic expectations for the Russian people, in which the reforms did not satisfy them to an adequate level, most certainly on an economic basis. The emancipation is a prime example of this.