This essay examines the role of tzar within the fall of the Romanov dynasty. Tsar Nicholas II roles had contributed in the decline and fall of the Romanov Dynasty. He wasn’t the main reason for the decline of the romanov dynasty, but he was a part of it.
Politically czar tzar was poorly ready for the position, once he was placed in power he was an indecisive potentate being simply influenced by others and forever creating poor selections. Czar tzar was ill-prepared to receive the crown once his father died in 1894. His inability to rule effectively was combined by variety of inauspicious events throughout his reign. In Feb 1904, Japan launched a coup de main on the Russian Pacific squadron at Port Arthur. This event marked the beginning
…show more content…
One of the reasons is that he was totally unfit to rule as an autocrat over Russia. When a conflict would occur, instead of fixing the situation he prays to the lord and puts it in gods hand. Which is telling us straight away how unfit he was to rule, he can pray to god and hope for the best but he has to also fix the situation and do something about it as a ruler. Nicholas gave the impression of being unable to cope with the tasks of ruling a vast Empire in the grips of a deepening revolutionary crisis. Tsar nicholas ii had involved russia into the first world war, this caused millions of Russian casualties which had angered the Russian people and so Russia erupted into a civil …show more content…
If he made some changes it would certainly helped their politics, economy, and society but instead tsar nicholas ii felt there was no need to change.
He had no desire at all to lead, he knew about discontent among Russians but did nothing about it, too distracted by son’s illness, and he was too stubborn to changes which also led to the fall and he knew nothing about the business of ruling.
During his reign, russian social democratic labor party was formed then they later became the bolsheviks. After bloody Sunday, Tsar nicholas ii signed the october manifesto which allowed the Duma to be installed, the problem with the duma was that the sarc veto he had to give any bill he saw was fit . All hell broke loose when world war 1 broke out, the tsar had signed an agreement to help serbia russia was dragged into the war at first the people were on the side of the tsar then eventually public morale was stopped russia's supplies were dwindling, around this time tsar had decided to be his army in the
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
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.
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.
It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia
In 1905 , Russia had a prerevolution that was put down of the Czar. Instead of learning from this prerevolution, Czar Nicholas II, made a very big mistake by in not introducing some reforms to correct the problems. So because of his actions, the situation grew worse. In 1917, the Russians were fighting in World War I. A good majority of the Russian people were weary and uncontent with the way the war was going and with the Czar's rule. This uncontent along with economic hardships caused riots and demonstrations to break out. The Czar called for the army to put down the revolution as they did in 1905. But the army joined the revolt and the Czar was kicked out of power soon afterwards. A temporary government was set up to decide on what kind of government Russia was gonna set up. Two political parties were set up. The Bolsheviks were one of the two. The leader of the Bolshevik party was a man named Lenin. Lenin was a firm believer of the theories and ideas of Karl Marx. So with his slogan of "Bread, Peace and Land", Lenin gained the support of the peasants and gained control of Russia and setup a communist state.
Nicholas II agreed to abdicate the throne in hopes of preventing a Russian civil war (Anastasia Biography). When his father died, he automatically had all of Russia resting in his hands and he had no desire to be the ruler, so he didn’t know what was best for the country. Assassinating him and his whole family was the end of life for an innocent family who hadn’t committed any crimes while ruling. The influence of Rasputin may have led the unprepared Nicholas to make the wrong decisions. For the children to be punished for their father’s lack of experience and good judgement was unfair and
Alexander who died in 1894 had left Russia with a society no longer controlled by tsarist rule and when Nicholas took the throne after his father's death Russian society was not prepared to turn on it's heels and return to how it use to be . Nicholas II was 26 when his father died and was soon to marry the German princess, Alix of Hess, Granddaughter of Queen Victoria .
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
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
The czar soon retracted these concessions and repeatedly dissolved the Duma, contributing to the growing public support enjoyed by the Bolsheviks and other revolutionary groups.” In 1914 Nicholas led Russia into World War One, the war was very costly and food rations became less and less, and many soldiers were tired and or injured. This caused the hatred for Nicholas to grow. In 1915, Nicholas (II) personally took command of the army and left his wife (the czarina) Alexandra to rule in his place. While the czar was away, Gregory Rasputin replaced all of Nicholas’ ministers and officials. Nicholas was forced to give up the throne to his brother, who turned it down, ending the czarist autocracy in Russia. For many years after, the Romanov family was in hiding, while a civil war broke out all over Russia. “Just after midnight on July 17, Nicholas, Alexandra, their five children, and four family retainers were ordered to dress quickly and go down to the cellar of the house in which they were being held. There, the family and servants were arranged in two rows for a photograph they were told was being taken to quell rumors that they had escaped. Suddenly, a dozen armed men burst into the room and gunned
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.
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
There was pressure for Nicholas to change Russia’s government system from an autocracy to a constitutional monarchy, especially because of the discontent the people felt after Russia was horribly defeated in the Russo-Japense war. Nicholas was not prepared to be the Tsar of Russia, part of the reason he was so unsuccessful was because “he tried to emulate his father’s autocratic rule but he lacked his father’s domineering personality and there where-withal to provide a government.” A reason why this can be said to be Russia’s most important revolution is because of the events that took place on January 22nd 1905. Thousands of working class people came together at the Winter Palace to protest against their working hours and low wages. The peaceful protest was lead by father Gapon, many of the workers were holding portraits of the Tsar as a sign of respect, but there were troops called to attack the protesters. The palace guard attacking and killing these protestors showed how out of touch Nicholas was with his people. The response of the middle class and not just the peasants is really what turned the events of “Bloody Sunday” into a “revolutionary crisis of authority for the tsarist government”. Ultimately, Nicholas lost all chance of preventing a full blown revolution after the events of Bloody Sunday because “it drove liberals to the
This book offers a collection of nine essays by historians giving their interpretation of the reign Nicholas II. There is a divide of negative and positive interpretations, offering views of the chances of liberal constitutionalism in Russia after 1906. There are essays on the rapid force of industrialisation, as well as essays that focus on constitutional developments and the Duma activities during the reign of Nicholas II. This book should be able to offer valuable information about the activities under Tsar Nicholas II and tsarism that lead to his