Maintaining Order The Reign of Nicholas I has been marked with war. He grew up in a time when war was the accepted norm of Russia. As a child he saw his brother fight against the evil, which was Napoleon. With war being part of Nicholas everyday life he quickly became infatuated with it. “He always remained an army man, a junior officer at heart, devoted to his troops, to military exercises, to the parade ground, down to the last button on a soldiers uniform (Riasanovsky, 323)” Nicholas time growing up in Russia had an immense influence on him. He observed strategy’s like those of Prince Michael Kutuzov, and learned only with proper order can one fully achieve military dominance. Three major conflicts accurately describe how Nicholas I used his military. The Polish uprising illustrate his demand for proper order throughout Europe. The Crimean War displayed his love for the Christian faith, and what he would do to protect Orthodoxy. Lastly, the conflict between Greece and Turkey described how Nicholas I would act when a culmination of his ideas, conflicted with one another. Investigating how Nicholas I inherited the throne will give one an explanation on why he was so frightened by liberal thought. Nicholas I was basically forced to inherit the throne because, Constantine declared it was not in the best interest of Russia for him to succeed to the throne. On the day Nicholas I was to be inaugurated a peasant uprising manifested. This rebellion named the Decemberist’s put much more than a damper on Nicholas I afternoon. The revolt caused Nicholas I to never fully trust peasants throughout his reign. “ No doubt it also contributed to the emperor’s mistrust of the gentry, and indeed of independence and initiative on the part of any subjects (Rias, 324).” From that day froward the Emperor would put down a law by the name of “Official Nationality (Rias, 324).” To fully comprehend how and why Nicholas I chose to run his foreign policy the way he did, one must delve into how his Empire was run at home. Nicholas I was influenced heavily by Christianity. Christianity drove him to believe that Official Nationality was the path towards Russian salvation, and only under this system could Russia maintain order. Official Nationality was a conservative system, which consisted of three principals; Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality. “Orthodoxy referred to the officia... ... middle of paper ... ... a conflict that had both religious and revolutionary significance. This conflict between the Orthodox Greeks and the Turks eventually led to the aforementioned Crimean War. Nicholas I had a difficult decision on his hand because he would either have to side with the Orthodox Greeks or the Turks, which were the status quo at the time. One could see what Nicholas I valued more, religion or order. Nicholas I decided to side with the Greeks, making the Ottomans sign the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829 (Rias.,330). Nicholas I rule reflected in a striking manner both his character and his principles. The new regime became preeminently one of militarism and bureaucracy. The entire machinery of government came to be permeated by the military spirit of direct orders, Absolute obedience, and precision. Nicholas I ideals are what kept him from fulfilling the expectation people had of him. His main goals were to conserve autocracy and religious certainty, which Alexander had manifested years before. Nicholas I policy abroad hurt his Empire tremendously. His ignorance towards the possibility of maintaining order without Orthodoxy led his country into complete dissaray, and eventually his death.
Napoleon Bonaparte, an unparalleled military commander who conquered most of Europe around the early 1800’s, invaded Russia in 1812, who was under the rule of Tsar Alexander at the time, lost three quarters of his Grande Armee which was composed of soldiers from all over Europe totaling 600,000 soldiers. This part of history is the most talked about and studied military campaign even today by scholars and military school alike. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 was a extraordinary expedition that shocked the French Empire to its foundation and led to its eventual collapse just a year later. This Historiographic comparative
Prepubescence is an essential period in a child’s development. A person’s environment can alter their personality and affect them in ways that will remain throughout their lives. With Ivan and Charles, it is evident that the conditions they aged in factored into their frame of mind. Ivan, specifically, experienced multiple challenging incidents in his childhood. For example, when Ivan was three years old his father, Vasilly III, fell ill and passed away on February 4, 1533. His father recognized the futility of having an infant king rule a country, so he left a small council of nobles to rule. Similar to Ivan, Charles also had the inconvenience of inheriting the throne too early. Charles was only twelve years old when he was appointed king in September 1380, but he was not allowed to rule at first. In the early years of his reign his father arranged for his four uncles to rule until he was of age. To be entrusted with so much power at such a young age can be very stressful and the lose of a father figure proved to be traumatic in their later years. After Charles’ coronation, documents ceased to mention him until he finally took the throne around age 20. Ivan, on the other hand, devoted his life to education in his early years allowing him to document his experiences. Five years after his father passed away, Ivan’s mother was poisoned and killed. This left him, and his brother Iuri, in the care of the
Human beings can only be oppressed and mistreated for so long before they rebel against their tormentors to show that they will not be victimized any longer. Everyone has their breaking point, that time when they are just pushed too hard, and eventually the peasants reached that point. They decide that they had been abused for long enough and that it is time to put a stop to it, so they do. This revolt had been a
power on the tsar, it was in the best interest of the monarchy to protect and
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".
It is said that if Justinian had sided with the Christians when dealing with the Classical Greek teachings, he would be cutting a major part of his heritage. The people, most of which, were not prepared for such an action (The Empire at the time of Justinian). Even though his dream of restoration had failed, he didn’t fail in all areas. many of the areas such as art, literature, architecture, and the famed Code of Justinian, are still around today.
Countries rise and fall, but within this chaos is the certainty that new leaders will emerge to fill the shoes of those fallen. What is it that separates the great leaders from the lesser? This question weighed heavy on the minds of many great Renaissance thinkers due to the power that derives from this knowledge. In the 16th century, Niccolò Machiavelli sought out to answer this time worn question. It was in his publication of The Prince, that Machiavelli spread his cold and practical formula of how to rule. In The Prince, Machiavelli clearly states what characteristics great ruler have. These Machiavellian traits show themselves in the life of Alexander the Great and some of the traits used by Machiavelli were taken from Alexander’s style of ruling. Even though he lived before the creation of The Prince, much of Alexander’s success stems from his Machiavellian principles of war, deception, and his ability to absorb the culture of conquered territories by limiting changes in their government.
One plundered Pleshchev’s house; the other the house of State Chancellor Nazarii Ivanovich Chistii…They dragged him from the secret hold or store room, and immediately without pity or mercy they killed him with oak clubs.” Rebellions were not the only form of violence within a political rule, violence was seen amongst the high ranking officials, nobles and tsar. In order to get what they wanted, they stop any who would oppose them. Ivan the Terrible would be a prime example of violence brought to the state and its people through political rule. “Wishing to destroy the old feudal system of Russia, by which the princes were practically independent rulers of their appanages, Ivan IV began a systematic purge of aristocracy in the late 1550’s and many nobles died on the scaffold.” These political states of violence would influence the development of early Russia through the centuries. Not only would Russia be at a state of violence for centuries politically, but culturally as
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
Nationalism in Russia can be traced back as far as the 15th century but died off soon after then began to pick back up right before the Russian industrial revolution. Russia under the rule of Tsar Nicholas the Second was very unpleasant. Nicholas even said that he was not capable of Ruling Russia like his father with the same amount of courage or zeal. His main focus was keeping the status quo of Russia and he had very little knowledge of his state affair. His defeat in the Japanese Russo War was very humiliating for him and his country. It had been the first time a European country was defeated by an Asian one. Nicholas had many more failures than accomplishments but one of his major accomplishments was that he proposed many reforms. He put protective tariffs on foreign goods, foreign investment
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,
In the 19th century, Tsarist Russia was in need of various significant reforms and changes. Westernizers and Slavophiles had varied points of view about how Russia should be governed and what to be done with the crumbling country. Slavophiles believed in conserving traditional Russian autocracy and Russian culture and tradition, while Westernizers sought to modernize and adopt western beliefs and systems. These two viewpoints can be generalized into two main categories; liberal and conservative. From the years 1855-1881, Alexander II led the autocracy. He was known to by many as the “great reformer”, because he emancipated the serfs and put in place many other radical reforms. After the assassination of Alexander II, his son, Alexander
In the Empire, the Emperor had complete jurisdiction over all policies and decisions. In the beginnings of the empire, h...
The reign of Nicholas II catalysed the downfall of Tsardom. His lack of concern for civil liberties and political sternness directly lead to the revolutions. However, it was not just the weak leading of Tsar Nicholas II but rather the whole system of autocracy that was to blame for Russia’s misfortune, with its ideology fundamentally primitive and oppressive towards the greater population. The Russian society was formed around a hierarchy that was inefficient and degenerate to those below. This would lead to economic and social problems for the people of Russia, as well as a lack of progression and eventually, downfall.
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.