More handpicked essays just for you.
Issues tsar nicholas ii had in his reign
Tsar nicholas 11 ccea essay
Historiography of the downfall of nicholas ii
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Nicholas II was the last and most intriguing ruler of the Romanov dynasty. For centuries his family had maintained a firm grip on Russia. This all came to a halt when Nicholas took the throne. His lower class subjects lived under harsh and grueling conditions. Many could barely afford to even take care of their own children, much less lead productive lives. Throughout the majority of his rule, these citizens pushed for a government that gave them a greater say. Their requests fell on deaf ears. Nicholas constantly ignored the peasant class and was convinced that conditions in Russia were as optimal as they could be. He believed that the inequality in Russia was a small problem, despite clear evidence that the lower class was constantly suffering. …show more content…
Nicholas’ denial of the peasant class’ struggles, and his decision to ignore their opinions, increased public criticism of the tsar which in turn brought together more support for the lower class and kickstarted the Russian Revolution. Nicholas’ decision to disband the Duma shortly after it was created was a fatal mistake because it showed the peasants how desperately they needed powerful revolutionaries. In the aftermath of the 1905 revolution many had begun to believe that the tsar was finally recognizing their rights as citizens of Russia. Peasants were beginning to imagine “a new Russia, a free Russia, a Russia that included them,” (Fleming 67). Now no law could be passed without the consent of the Duma, thus removing Nicholas’s autocratic authority (Fleming 66). If the Duma has succeeded the citizens would have finally earned a place in their government. Unfortunately, the Duma was short lived. Just one week before its first meeting Nicholas enacted new reforms that granted himself absolute veto power over any law the Duma would try to pass (Fleming 81) the tsar’s release of all political prisoners. As expected Nicholas turned a blind eye and the deputies became enraged as Nicholas locked the doors of the Tauride Palace and put their legislative careers to rest. However, Prime Minister Stolypin convinced Nicholas that the tsar needed to appear to be working with the peasant class or else they would revolt. (“Tsar Nicholas II…….”). Therefore, Nicholas allowed the election of a second Duma, but not without having election laws that “were written by the first constitutional premier of Russia” (“First Meeting of the Duma”)Giving the citizens a glimpse of legislative hope and then taking it away caused an increase of repressed deputies and encouraged them to band together against Nicholas. Grigori Rasputin’s horrible public demeanor and his grip on the throne spread revolutionism beyond Nicholas’ control Their anger at the tsar for the shutting of the Duma was encouraged as Rasputin became more involved in the monarchy. The public “hated Rasputin and resented his influence over the imperial family” (“Destruction Myth………..”). Nicholas refused to recognize his subjects view of Rasputin. He was convinced this man had saved his son and was doing no harm to the crown. The peasants saw differently. They were absolutely outraged that this vile man was able to leapfrog his way up the political ladder. Vladimir Purishkevich, a deputy of the duma, told off Rasputin declaring that “dark Forces are destroying the Romanov Dynasty” (Fleming 150). By 1916 censorship laws were completely ignored as peasants flooded pamphlets with criticism of the tsar and his government. Rasputin was the perfect scapegoat for the peasants anger and resentment towards Nicholas, allowing revolutionaries to spread their influence quickly amongst the peasant class. The Romanov’s also held the belief that their mandate of god ruled above the citizens opinions. This allowed Nicholas to ignore lower class problems, even declaring their issues as God’s trials against him and his family (Fleming 185). He had no concern for the increasing amount of riots and unrest that spread throughout the city. Major revolutionary leaders such as Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Kerensky didn’t faze Nicholas. Above all “he believed that he had been appointed by god to the throne” (“Why Did the Russian Romanov?”). This unabashed arrogance strengthened revolutionaries anti-tsarist incentive. As Nicholas and Alexandra would hide inside Tsarskoe Selo, wasting away time and praying for god to end the riots; the Soviets and provincial government were tipping the tides of the revolution. Even as the tsar’s army marched against their leader, Nicholas sat upon his throne, a fatal display of his refusal to recognize that no longer did his religious bearing have any affect upon the people of Russia. The vast difference in public opinion towards Nicholas caused a large societal rift among the citizens of Russia. This was due to the fact that Nicholas was unable to manage his identity as a strong leader for the people. Those close to Nicholas such as royalty and nobles regarded him in high esteem because they were treated as true citizens of Russia. They believed that he “expressed his admiration for our national independence of character and opinion.” (Coudert). This is a stark contrast to Nicholas’ treatment of those against the tsar. He actively encouraged his murderous supporters dubbed “The Black Hundred” to take to the streets threatening anyone who was anti-tsar (Fleming 69). While this may have given Nicholas the illusion of power, this only strengthened the revolutionists. They saw Nicholas as a tyrant and pathetic leader who needed to be overthrown in order to save Russia. This swirling hurricane of opinions manifested itself into the communist party. Karl Marx was able to unite the lower classes under the promise of equality. Nicholas’ refusal to acknowledge that his public opinion was failing allowed this party to gain power and become the driving force behind the revolution of 1917. Amongst Nicholas’ throng of mistakes, his most damaging action was becoming commander of the front during World War I.
Military advisors strongly advised Nicholas against this, declaring that “the monarchy would become [a] scapegoat” (“Tsar Nicholas II………”). The tsar saw differently he was adamant that taking the role of commander would boost morale for his soldiers and increase public faith in the war effort. One of his close friends went as far to claim “his [Nicholas’] journeys to the front had been a great success” (Gilliard). Yet again, this proved to be a disastrous example of his blindness towards the public. Becoming commander of the front meant that someone had to temporarily manage affairs at Tsarskoe Selo. Naturally Nicholas chose his wife Alexandra, ignorant of the public’s hatred for her and Rasputin. Citizens viewed it as “a subversion or usurpation of the tsar’s rightful authority” (“Tsar Nicholas II………”). If a monarchy was to rule, they wanted one that would retain strong leadership through these troubling times. While Nicholas “examined” the fittest soldiers of Russia, revolts gained momentum in Petrograd. Also unbeknownst to the tsar was the fact that his wife along with Rasputin were kicking out important ministers at a time when Russia needed strong domestic leadership the most. Nicholas’ seemingly insignificant move of becoming commander lowered the subjects view of his leadership and presented them with a weak and feeble …show more content…
leader. Some could say that Nicholas’ wasn’t an ignorant leader because he had no way of being informed about the lower classes. The claim is that Nicholas was far too busy dealing with the war and other matters, that his court thought it best to focus on issues closest to the tsar. However, the tsar had the secret police entirely at his disposal, and he frequently requested that they keep him informed of any situations in Russia. The police would gather any news they could and then procure it into a document that was “colloquially known in Russian police circles as “The Czar’s leaflet” (“How They Keep the Czar Informed). This leaflet was not bound by any censorship laws as the only reader of it was the tsar himself. Therefore, it is imperative to realize that the realities of lower class hardships were not mollified in these writings. At one point the leaflet described a group of peasant men and women who had “slowly perished from thirst, starvation, and lack of air” (“How They Keep the Czar Informed”). Thus, Nicholas should not be viewed as an unresponsive puppet who was at the mercy of the Russian people.The tsar was a leader who knew the debilitating conditions his subjects were living under. Rather than quelling their pain, he turned his back on them, resulting in the peasants dependence on one another and their initiative to start a revolution. Although Nicholas did grant the peasants some demands such as the Progressive Bloc and the Duma, his facade of working with the people was not well kept and therefore the chaos amongst the lower classes rose.
He was unable keep his throne strong while also appeasing the peasants. The speed at which he granted the peasants freedom and then took it away was a large benefactor to the escalating tension in Russia. Enraged deputies demanded that Nicholas “end capital punishment, abolish government violence, and start distributing nobility-owned estates to land-hungry peasants” (Fleming 84). This was in great shock to Nicholas who recoiled at the idea of granting peasants any more demands. . Against the suggestions of his ministers, Nicholas refused even to hold a meeting with the Duma’s new assembly called the Progressive Bloc, even though others saw it as a chance for the monarchy to “establish a true alliance between tsar and people” (“Tsar Nicholas II……..”). In theory, it is evident that Nicholas did grant some of the peasant’s demands, however his upheaval of the promises he made transformed a group of poor citizens into a revolutionary
force. Altogether, Nicholas II was given various opportunities to strengthen the bond between tsar and the people. Instead he constantly ignored the complications of the peasant class. This neglect led to a deep hatred for the previously beloved tsar and destroyed the majority of the population’s faith in their monarchy. Circumstances were so dire that peasants could no longer see themselves under the rule of Nicholas and therefore turned to the revolutionaries to fix their problems. For a monarchy to be successful they must have a strong balance between the needs of the royals and those of the peasants. Lower class citizen are an integral part of any society, and the further they are repressed, the more a government and economy will fail. Nicholas actively denied the peasants of the right they deserved and without realizing it, created a group of formidable opponents who would do whatever it takes to fight for their rights The last Romanov’s reign was a prime example of how a monarchy that does not work with its people, is not a monarchy for long.
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.
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
While most of Europe had develop strong central governments and weakened the power of the nobles, Russia had lagged behind the times and still had serfs as late as 1861. The economic development that followed the emancipation of peasants in the rest of Europe created strong industrial and tax bases in those nations. Russian monarchs had attempted some level of reforms to address this inequality for almost a century before, and were indeed on their way to “economic maturity” (32) on par with the rest of Europe. But they overextended themselves and the crushing defeats of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the First World War in 1917 lost them the necessary support from their subjects and created “high prices and scarcity” which were by far “the most obvious factors in the general tension”
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,
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.
In the late 19th century Russia had been notably behind Europe economically, they weren’t in possession of the modern farming technologies that could efficiently provide for a large country. As a result 90% of the Russian population were peasants (Massey, 4). The serfs lived in deep poverty; they didn’t have the appropriate apparatus to produce enough crops and most of their landlords had unbelievably high demands. In an effort to reform the economy’s recession tsar Alexander II liberated the serfs. However this created more bad for both the serfs and the nobles. In the beginning the serfs saw this is a great victory and another reason to be thankful for their tsar. But as timed pass by the peasants saw this life of liberty and freedom to be increasingly difficult. The government directly compensated the nobles, while the less desirable land was sold to the peasants at a much higher price. They monthly rent they paid the nobles was replaced with paying the state (Massey, 5). And while the population nearly doubled between 1861-1917 poverty increased not only with the peasants but with the nobles as well. Nobles found it hard to assimilate them to a new life style where they would have to trade their lavish goods with farming tools and as result many of them acquired a large amount of debt. This period signifies a time where the people of Russia opened their eyes to the deep poverty and lives of oppression they were living. This is the point where the feelings of peasants who previously worshiped the tsar turned bitter. After consistent resistance to industrialization the tsar had finally given in, aggressive approaches were put in place and railroads grew more than 15,500 miles in 1880 (Massey,6). As the Industrial production con...
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.
The Russian revolution of February 1917 was a momentous event in the course of Russian history. The causes of the revolution were very critical and even today historians debate on what was the primary cause of the revolution. The revolution began in Petrograd as “a workers’ revolt” in response to bread shortages. It removed Russia from the war and brought about the transformation of the Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, replacing Russia’s monarchy with the world’s first Communist state. The revolution opened the door for Russia to fully enter the industrial age. Before 1917, Russia was a mostly agrarian nation. The Russian working class had been for many years fed up with the ways they had to live and work and it was only a matter of time before they had to take a stand. Peasants worked many hours for low wages and no land, which caused many families to lose their lives. Some would argue that World War I led to the intense downfall of Russia, while others believe that the main cause was the peasant unrest because of harsh living conditions. Although World War I cost Russia many resources and much land, the primary cause of the Russian Revolution was the peasant unrest due to living conditions because even before the war began in Russia there were outbreaks from peasants due to the lack of food and land that were only going to get worse with time.
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.
In this book, we can see that there are two classes in the society. One class consists of the poor and the other consists of rich or the ruling party, who are the representatives of Tsar. One group wants to establish a classless society and the other group wants to exploit the poor and keep them down. The group members who revolt against the representative of Tsar are Mother, Pavel, Andrei, Natasha, Sa...