Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Personality traits in leadership influences
18th and early 19th century democracy
Personality traits in leadership influences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Personality traits in leadership influences
Nicholas II’s abdication resulted from various events, these included his autocratic form of governing, the 1905 Revolution, Bloody Sunday, and the Russo-Japanese war. Nicholas II came into rule in 1894 due to his father, Alexander III, dying suddenly of kidney failure. Nicholas was inexperienced and ill-prepared to be the Tsar of Russia and said to his brother-in-law, “I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling.” Indeed, these factors were key in his eventual overthrow at the hands of the bolsheviks in 1917.
Nicholas II lead an autocracy, however, did not have the characteristics to be a successful ruler. The Tsar did not possess the qualities and required knowledge about constitutional,
…show more content…
The autocratic system was always likely to fail due to his lacking of personality traits and attributes that were essential, such as decisiveness and a strong character. This is evident from Sir G. Buchanan, the British ambassador to Russia from 1910, who said, “Emperor Nicholas had not inherited his father’s commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler… “. The Tsar was a conservative leader who believed it was his right to have unlimited control over the Russian people. There was no constitution to limit the Tsar’s power or to control the appointment of ministers, Nicholas was free to appoint and dismiss his advisers with no real reason, as said by L. Trotsky in The History of the Russian Revolution, “...But the Tsar reserved his special caresses for just those officials he had decided to dismiss. Charmed beyond measure at a reception, the minister would go home and find a letter requesting his resignation.” The Tsar had an imperial council and a cabinet of ministers to advise him, however, they were responsible to the Tsar alone and not to a prime minister or parliament. Due to the 1905 Revolution, Nicholas was imposed to introduce a Duma and legalise political parties to appease his people. A year of riots and …show more content…
Preceding the march of January 22, a series of events occurred that led to Bloody Sunday. In 1902, a poor harvest worsened the poverty of the peasants. During 1903, disorder spread to the cities with strikes in the oil industry, engineering works and the railways which threatened to paralyse the economy. Moreover, the Russo-Japanese war began in 1904 with Russia expecting a quick and cheap victory against their ‘inferior’ rival were met with unexpected difficulties. Due to mobilisation of peasants sons, agriculture and food supplies were disrupted, leaving the working class scarce of food. A strike occurred in the Putilov steelworks in St Petersburg in 1905 caused by the dismissal of some men belonging to the Assembly of Russian Workers. The union was founded by Father George Gapon, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, with police assistance and approval. Gapon organised a protest march to the Winter Palace on Sunday 22 January and a petition that would be presented to the Tsar. An estimated 150000 people marched from all parts of the city. It included the following: a guarantee of civil liberties, for example, freedom of speech, measures to alleviate poverty, including the introduction of an income tax, and better working conditions, such
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.
The Meaning of Bloody Sunday Bloody Sunday was an incident of January 22, 1905 where unarmed demonstrators marched to the Winter Palace present a petition to the Czar. They were gunned down by Imperial guards in St. Petersburg. The event was organized by Father Gapon, a paid agent provocateur of the Okhranka, the Czarist internal secret police. Father George Gapon founded the Assembly of Russian Factory and Plant Workers, an authorized and police-sponsored organization designed to deviate any unrest away from violent revolutionary activities. In December1904, there was a strike at Putilov plant.
This blurred distinction between his family and his duties as a ruler caused many to attribute the fall of the dynasty on Nicholas.” He could not stand listening long or seriously to ministers reports or reading them”-Kerensky. Many suggested that Nicholas was ill-prepared to run a country and that he did not have imperative qualities needed in order to maintain power. His ineptitude to rule effectively was an amalgamation of difficult events and poor judgment often caused by people around him conferring their own biases and opinions into his decisions. Despite the influence by Alexandra and others in his inner circle it all came back to the Tsar’s inability to rule effectively.
It was said that the educated people, the contact with other countries should contribute to the government policy. As said in document 1 , "By 1900 there were political parties raging from far right defenders of autocracy and russian power over all other ethnicities, to far left revolutionaries calling for the overthrow of the government." The government there was autocratic, which was when the tsar had all the power/control of the government. Another cause for the Russian Revolution was the outbreak of WW1. "Even before the war urban workers all over the Russian empire had been increasingly radical, but the war brought the government's incompentence and the people's grievances into sharper relief. The first months of the war were a disaster for Russia." It is much easier to overthrow a government than to try andcreate a new government. As said in document 2,"Chaos, conflict, uncertaunty; more violence are much more common and often led to centralized, authoritarian governments." There was celebration all over the streets after the indication that the tsar was overthrown after 300 years of a tsarist government ruling. "The problem was that, after the party, governing problems arose immediately.
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,
without vicious threats and action from the government. In 1894 the Tsar Nicholas 2nd was crowned. He was to start an autocracy leadership in which he ruled alone. The Tsar had great support from the Catholics because he declared he had divine right. therefore meaning he was put on earth by God to rule the people.
Bloody Sunday was a big impact of Nationalism, what started out as a peaceful march of Petersburg workers marching to the Winter Palace led by Father Gapon turned out to be a nightmare. The marchers wanted to establish an eight hour work day, establish minimum wage, and assemble a constitution, while the marchers marched they was fired upon by Russian troops and several hundred marchers was killed. People believed that Bloody Sunday happened under Nicholas II because he could not be found when the marchers were marching to the Winter Palace causing Russian troops to panic. The result of Bloody Sunday caused riots to break out; forming the councils of workers in St. Petersburg and Moscow and the bond between Nicholas II and the people was broken causing October Manifesto. A result of a short term solution October Manifesto was granted, which was a constitution to stop the riots. The primary intentions of the October Manifesto were to divide the revolutionaries.
Bloody Sunday was the day that father Gapon walked to the winter palace with thousands of workers and a petition to outline the problems and hardships caused by the tsar and to demand change be made consisting of an improvement to working conditions, a reduction in working hours and an end to the Russo Japanese war. This is an extract from that petition, “We workers, inhabitants of St. Petersburg, have come to Thee. We are unfortunate, reviled slaves, weighed down by despotism and tyranny. Our patience exhausted, we ceased work and begged our masters to give us only that without which life is a torment. But this was refused; to the employers everything seemed unlawful. We are here, many thou sands of us. Like the whole of the Russian people, we have no human rights whatever. Owing to the deeds of Thy officials we have become slaves.” However this peaceful march ended horribly as when the group of marchers arrived at their destination they were confronted by Russian troops and the police and shots were fired into the crowd resulting in hundreds of dead Russians lying in the street. The events of bloody Sunday were a key factor in the causing of the 1905 Russian revolution as they made Russians angry at the way the tsar, his army and the police dealt with things causing many of
But the Tsar had least central control. After the 1905 Revolution the Russian people were granted civil rights, an... ... middle of paper ... ... ressed the Tsars lost support from the nobles and power, after 1905 revolution Nicholas II had very little central control.