More handpicked essays just for you.
Problems faced by tsar nicholas 2nds government in ruling russia
Essay on how russia was ruled by Tsar Nicholas
The rise and fall of tsar czar nicholas 2
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The fall of the Romanov Dynasty was in large part due to the contribution of Tsar Nicholas II towards his own downfall. He played a key role in the declination of his empire and thereby brought about his own downfall through his inability to lead effectively as a sovereign; his shortcomings regarding the demands of the peasants, which lead to peasant discontent; and his involvement in WWI. These factors were instrumental in the ruination of Nicholas II and are part of the role Nicholas II played in his own downfall.
Tsar Nicholas II was ineffective in his governance of Russia and was unable to lead as a sovereign. There were many factors which contributed to this fatal flaw and a major example would be the various character traits possessed by the Tsar which rendered him
…show more content…
In addition Nicholas II was known for finding the day-to-day running of his empire tiresome and uninteresting; this coupled with his obliviousness resulted in a feeling of indifference towards the affairs and issues concerning his empire. This notion is reiterated throughout Trotsky’s book in which he writes, “His (the Tsar’s) ability to control himself…its essence was an inner indifference…a weakness of will…The tsar’s diary is the best of all testimony. From year to year drags along its pages the depressing record of spiritual emptiness…Between his consciousness and events stood always that impenetrable medium - indifference.” This source highlights the Tsar’s unfavorable characteristics in that of his disinterest and obliviousness towards the troubles and issues of his empire, which contributed to the collapse of his regime and in turn his own downfall. These characteristics become even more detrimental when 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.
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
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.
Throughout history there have been many odd characters. Russian history was not excluded. Grigory Rasputin, who was an assistant to the Royal Russian family, was an unusual man.
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.
In mid-19th century Russia, an oppressive rule is a result of the Romanov monarchy and this in... ... middle of paper ... ... ition to being important in portraying Raskolnikov's changing personality. By making such dissimilarity between the two ways that the two characters affect Raskolnikov, we are able to see his downfall and subsequent rise much more clearly.
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 topic of this article discusses the facts about Czar Nicholas II about his downfalls and accomplishments.Nicholas had faith in His view of his role as an autocrat, he obtained his authority from God to whom he was responsible to and it was his duty to preserve his absolute power together. In pursuing his duty, Nicholas had to experience a continuing struggle against himself, which stopped him from assuming too much of a self-confident resolution. He luckily agreed to create a national representative assembly called the Duma, with “consultative powers” and by the manifesto of October 30th he promised a constitutional government under which no law was to take effect without the Duma’s consent. Nicholas even tried very hard to stop the war
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
I picked Ivan the Terrible as the subject of my paper due to his importance in bringing drastic changes to the Russian empire. Ivan expanded the sphere of influence of the Russian empire increasing the importance of the political and social changes made by him. In the words of historian Alexander Yanov, "Ivan the Formidable and the origins of the modern Russian political structure are indissolubly connected."
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
Pobedonestov. It was Pobedonestov who impressed, so vigorously, upon the Tsarevich that reform was dangerous and should be prevented at all costs. It was with this attitude that Tsar Alexander II had allowed his son to grow up, an ideology and attitude that was almost the opp... ... middle of paper ... ... that they were polarised in the methods of reign.
Nicholas II was the last and most intriguing ruler of the Romanov dynasty. For centuries his family had maintained a firm grip on Russia. This all came to a halt when Nicholas took the throne. His lower class subjects lived under harsh and grueling conditions. Many could barely afford to even take care of their own children, much less lead productive lives. Throughout the majority of his rule, these citizens pushed for a government that gave them a greater say. Their requests fell on deaf ears. Nicholas constantly ignored the peasant class and was convinced that conditions in Russia were as optimal as they could be. He believed that the inequality in Russia was a small problem, despite clear evidence that the lower class was constantly suffering.
Nicholas II’s abdication was a reaction to the events that had transpired in Petrograd during the February Revolution. Public demonstrations, the formation of the Petrograd Soviet and the defiance of the Provisional Committee to not dissolve at Nicholas’ orders had shown that the autocrat had lost control of the capital. The abdication itself reads as a feeble attempt to unify the disparate elements of the nation with Nicholas using collective nouns such as ‘our’ to reflect on a shared fraternity between all Russians. This in conjunction with his evoking of God and the sanctity of the throne harkened back to the conservative ideal of God, Tsar, and Fatherland. Yet this nostalgic sentiment shown by Nicholas II for autocracy is ironically symbolic of one of the main reasons why Tsarism ended on March 2nd, 1917. His obstinacy to reform due to an uncompromising belief in the Tsar being divinely appointed made him too stubborn to react to the rapidly changing dynamics of Russian society until it was too late.
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.