Tsar Nicholas II

1203 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Easy on the Russian revolution of 1917

Tsar Nicholas II was the first to abdicate in the line of the Romanov Dynasty. In his reign in Russia from 1894-1917 he encountered many obstacles. Tsar Nicholas II decision to go into the Great War which led to the February revolution in 1917 could be seen as the facilitator [awk] that led to his eventual downfall. This essay will look at the some of the issues that played a role in his abdication.

Prior to Tsar Nicholas II becoming the Emperor, Russia had gone through some radical and political changes. Serfdom was abolished [comma] which allowed peasants to own small lands. Previously serfs did not profit from their own hard work. They were owned by their masters and restricted in many ways. Trial by jury was set up to allow equality for all. Industrialization grew rapidly. Russia’s coal, iron, steel and oil production increased at a higher rate compared to other European countries which gave rise to a huge industrial working class. Despite all these positive changes, Russia was still an autocratic country. Tsar Nicholas II continued with this “autocratic” belief.

[Avoid passive voice if possible, and use the active voice. This is stated in directions.]

Tsar Nicholas II “autocratic” belief and backward attitude did not help Russia move forward in the 20th century. Even though Tsar Nicholas II was unprepared for the throne when his father passed away, he believed it was God’s will and his destiny to become the next Emperor. Tsar Nicholas II believed like his father, that to bring Russia to its fruitfulness was to “maintain the principle of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly” . [period after “ ]

Tsar Nicholas II sheltered upbringing was one of the factor that contributed towards his downfall. He di...

... middle of paper ...

...religious man, once again Tsar Nicholas II thought it was God’s will that he should abdicate.

Tsar Nicholas II abdication was a result of the February revolution in 1917 which was due to the people’s unhappiness with the Great War. Russia was not ready for war because of their lack of modern military weapons. The conditions created by the war and the mismanagement of the government at home all prompted his decision to abdicate. He refused to listen to his ministers who were better experienced in running the country. Furthermore Tsarina Alexander was easily influenced by Rasputin and listened to his advice and pushed Tsar Nicholas II to also heed Rasputin’s advice. The royal family’s involvement with the wrong person soiled their family’s name. Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Tsarina Alexandra did not know how to judge people and so were easily influenced.

Show More
Related

  • Tensions in Russia in the Early 1900

    448 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Does Nicholas And Alexandra Show Inadequate Leadership That Led To The Collapse Of The Old Regime

    1380 Words  | 3 Pages

    Tsar Nicholas II was a family man who put his family before the wellbeing of the country. In the Bloody Sunday scene thousands of people were marching to the Winter Palace to request help and protection from the Tsar because he was supposed to be in St Petersburg. However he was not there, he had gone home to tend to his son because he was ill. This resulted in the massacring of approximately 200 people who meant no harm . After his abdication in a conversation with his son Alexi he tells him that he abdicated for him. He tells Alexi, “I didn't want you to pay for my mistakes.” Whether this was the reason for his abdication or not the movie led the viewers to believe that everything he did was for his family. The leader of a country should make decisions that will be better for the country, not their family. He put the wellbeing of his family before the country which shows inadequate leadership that ultimately led to the collapse of the old reg...

    Read More

  • Essay On Tsar's Power Crumbled In 1917

    572 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Assess the impact of World War I on the Fall of the Romanov Dynasty

    968 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 to the war is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporarily displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One.

    Read More

  • The Family Romanov Sparknotes

    1032 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Czar Nicholas II's Abuse Of Power

    128 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Tsar Nicholas and His Downfall

    1157 Words  | 3 Pages

    situation is not serious at all and if it is ignored, it will go away.

    Read More

  • Czar Nicholas II: The Fall Of The Tsar Of Russia

    2251 Words  | 5 Pages

    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,

    Read More

  • Czar Nicholas II

    683 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Tzar Nicholas II - Downfall of Russia

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    Nicholas 2's firm and obstinant belief of his commitment to autocracy can be clearly seen in a letter of reply he sent to a liberal zemstvo head before his coronation. "I shall maintain the principal of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father (Alexandra 3)"(Nicholas & Alexandra, Robert K. Massie). His ultra-conservative political outlook was influenced greatly when a child Tsar Nicholas was educated by the reactionary tutor Konstantin Pobenonstev, enemy of all reform. If there were any doubts about Nicholas' belief in autocracy they would have been put to rest. Pobenonstev was once called "The Highest Priest of Social Stagnation". He once declared, "Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of sovereignty of the people".

    Read More

  • Challenges Faced by the Tsar Nicholas the Second of Russia

    871 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Changes Brought by The Russian Revolution

    785 Words  | 2 Pages

    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,

    Read More

  • Rule of Lenin vs the Tsar

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Was the 1905 Revolution a ‘dress rehearsal’ for the events of either February or October 1917?

    2018 Words  | 5 Pages

    ̳Act of abdication of Tsar Nicolas II‘ in Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution, vol. 1, pp 430– 431.

    Read More

  • 1917 Russian Revolution Essay

    1101 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Tsar Nicholas II

Open Document