The More Autocratic Tsar out of Alexander III and Nicholas II
Pobedonostsev, who instilled in them strong beliefs in autocracy and
nationalism, which were reflected throughout their reign, tutored both
Tsars'. When comparing the two Tsars', the impact on the political and
social system is significant and hints at which Tsar was more
autocratic.
Alexander and Nicholas were both autocratic politically, but Alexander
was keener to uphold Autocracy. This involved setting up the Okhrana,
as well as tightening censorship laws. Nicholas on the other hand made
a significant impact on Russian history by introducing democracy to
the Russian people, through the October Manifesto. Even though the
political system was shadowed by Nicholas' unwillingness to fully
democratise, through the fundamental laws (1906) Nicholas had begun to
transform Russia into a modernised industrial power. When compared
with Alexander's political inactivity, it can be deduced that
Alexander was more autocratic than Nicholas.
When examining which Tsar was more autocratic, the role of opposition
and how it was dealt with should not be overlooked. Alexander
introduced mass repression, which included executions and other forms
of torture in order to regain political stability. Similarly, Nicholas
introduced continued repression, but combined this with concessions in
order to diminish opposition and increase popularity towards his
regime. Stolypin's necktie echoes Alexander's ruthless suppression of
opposition to suggest that both Tsars' were autocratic. Yet, a deeper
analysis of both regimes can lead one to conclude that it was in fact
Nicholas who was more autocratic. By transforming Russia into a modern
democratic state, he also made his opposition more active and
demanding, especially since they saw the power of the monarch decrease
gradually in the western countries. Their protests became more
politically motivated and some, such as the Bolsheviks even called for
the collapse of Tsarism. Alexander responded to this with further
repression, for example, the execution of the Vyborg in 1907. The
pessimist school of History agrees that revolution was inevitable
since Tsar Nicholas became more counter-productive further into his
reign.
After the assassination of Alexander the Great in 1881 by Russian socialist revolutionaries, Alexander III ascended to the throne and began to develop a reactionary policy that would be used to suppress the power of anti-tsarist rivals (Kort 23). In the late 1800s, Tsar Alexander III was faced with growing insurrection from the populist peasants, who were demanding more freedoms and land under the Tsarist regime. However, he was unwilling to give up his traditional centralized authority for a more democratic system of ruling. Instead, he sought political guidance from his advisor, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, an Orthodox religious conservative and loyal member of the Russian autocracy. Pobedonostsev was quick to hound revolutionaries by means
By Casey Whyte 1. To what extent does the film Nicholas and Alexandra show inadequate leadership that led to the collapse of the old regime? Provide supportive evidence with appropriate referencing. The film Nicolas and Alexandra portrays inadequate leadership as one of the main causes of the collapse of the old regime.
However, the political system also changed because there was an addition to the local villages. This was the zemstva and to a more national degree, the duma. However, the tsar still had supreme power over these structures. Despite Alexander II’s reforms, Russia still faced a number of problems. Alexander II’s
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 main challenge Alexander II faced in his projects towards modernization of Russia was a compromise between advancing his state thorough improving the lives of his subjects, without falling prey to the demand for further reforms he would be unable to satisfy. Westwood, revisiting Russian History in 1981 phrased the problem as follows: “how to advance the education of the state by educating the people, without educating the people to questions the state? ”.
Tsarism during the period after the 1905 revolution and the March revolution of 1917 faced a ‘wave of social discontent’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57). This was no surprise, as there was many who during that period had thought that there was a ‘straight road [to] a socialist future’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57). However many saw that there was not the means to happen in Russia at the time. Hobsbawm plants the idea of a Bourgeoisies revolution and the class struggles, combined with Karl Marx’s ideas about the impending revolutions. Centralised in Europe was the ideas of socialism and revolution. Hobsbawm reflects the ideas of the time, that they were ‘helpless’ by 1914 and by 1916 the majority followed. This was just the popular opinion of the time of the Russian public. Although he jumps between times, starting with the October revolution then jumping to the ‘overthrow(ing) of Tsarism’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57) then back to the post October revolution. This does not affect the readability of the section. It gives a well-rounded description of the period to form a good base for Part II.
under the autocracy of the Romanovs. Although well intentioned, Nicholas was a weak ruler, out of touch. with his people, easily dominated by others and a firm believer in the autocratic principles taught him by his father. He ruled Russia as an autocrat. Propaganda and the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church encouraged his people to love and respect their tsar and look on him.
We’ve all heard of Anastasia, right?, the classical tale of a young girl escaping the brutal execution of her family. Well her father, Czar Nicholas II, was the last Russian emperor and pretty much caused the whole “Anastasia” story to happen in the first place. His story is told more through the book Animal Farm, a novel written by George Orwell. This is an allegorical tale that reflects the events of the Russian Revolution. Animal Farm and Czar Nicholas II is connected to the real life events in the Russian Revolution in that his poor leadership skills affect his rule negatively, Farmer Jones is used to represent him, and his representation is accurate and relatable to readers.
future leader of the Soviet Union as a “dress rehearsal” for the 1917 revolution. The most important difference is that the 1905 revolution failed to destroy the autocracy in Imperial Russia. A combination of reasons can explain why this revolution failed at overthrowing the Tsar Nikolas the Second. The revolutions participants were not revolutionaries that wanted to overthrow the Tsar, it was not started by revolutionary groups. The military and military context played an important role to the revolution’s failure, and the autocracy’s reforms gave compromise to the protestors who could be satisfied with the changes. These factors show why the 1905 revolution failed to destroy the autocracy.
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".
But Stalin’s dictatorship increased in strength and by 1938, the purges had made Russian’s so fearful, they were willing to accept the totalitarian ruler instead of the democratic system which had originally been hoped for in the February 1917 revolution. Stalin had also used fear as a motivator for workers and managed to industrialise. Overall the most similarities occur between Alexander III and Stalin due to their repressive actions but although all the Tsars and Stalin depended on central control, it cannot be said that there were more similarities because of the power and support for Stalin’s when his reign ended compared to the weak Tsarist system which Russians felt was not worth saving.
Rule of Lenin vs the Tsar The beginning of the 20th century saw a great change in the political structure of the Russia. A country once led under an autocracy leadership. was suddenly changed into a communist state overnight. Dictatorship and communism are at separate ends of the political spectrum. This study so clearly shows both involve the oppression of society and a strict regime in which people are unable to voice their opinions.
The House of Romanov ruled over Russia for just over three centuries. In this time many Tsar’s took the throne until the Emperor Nicholas II was abdicated in March 15,1917. Many factors contributed to the Russian Revolution, but the Tsar Nicholas was mainly responsible for the following reasons: His character
‘Alexander’s assassination, by the revolutionaries themselves, put an end to any hopes of progress for a generation’ Although Alexander intended for social reforms it was once social unrest and revolutionary violence was rife that he decided to implement this. This suggests that it is his belief in his ideology that prevented him from these reforms even the reforms of 1861 was opposed and Alexander stated that ‘it is better to liberate the peasants from above rather than wait till they win their freedoms from below’ . However there is a sense that even if his assassination were not to happen the reforms to be made were only going to pacify the public and wouldn’t really satisfy the demands for freedom and democracy. The leading revolutionary Vera Figner contended that ‘tsarist power would never be able to deliver what they were demanding the only solution was revolution’ .
"From Autocracy to Oligarchy." The Structure of Soviet History: Essays and Documents. Ed. Ronald Grigor. Suny. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 340-50. Print.