:Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov, the last standing Tsar of Russia officially known as Tsar Nicholas II, autocrat of Russia. Nicholas II was born on 18th May, 1868 in Tsarskoe Selo, Russia. Nicholas II was the eldest son of Alexander III and his Empress Marie Romanova. Nicholas was eldest of six children. He had three younger brothers, Alexander, George, Michael and two younger sisters, Xenia and Olga. Nicholas II ruled from 1894 until his abdication on 15 March 1917, his reign saw imperial Russia go from being one of the foremost great powers of the world to an economic and military catastrophe. Tsar Nicholas II influenced and sought change in the historical events of Russo - Jap War, Bloody Sunday, October Manifesto, The First Russian Revolution, World War One and the abdication of the throne. Thus bringing about change in Russia and the autocratic system of ruling that lead to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Nicholas firmly believed in the same traits as his father, Tsar Alexander III. After the sudden death of his father in 1894, Nicholas II was crowned Tsar of Russia, and left to rule without any knowledge and training of leadership skills. The state of Russia’s economy and military was in the fate of Nicholas II. As he was unprepared for the new and challenging role to govern the extensive Russian empire. Nicholas II complained to his brother-in-law stating that, ‘I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling’. Nicholas II was different compared to that of the past Tsars, Nicholas’ II early interests did not revolve around political matters. His father, although wanted him to be tough but his personality was the exact opposite. Soon after the death of his fath...
... middle of paper ...
... factor within it self that contributed to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty.
As a result the impact of World War One and tensions that arose in Russia, Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicated by the Duma. As the primary source, ‘At Last’ –Brisbane worker, 22nd March 1971, indicates that the majority of the people did not want a Tsar ruling Russia thus the need for the a revolution. The big hand, in the source represents the size of the people and the forcible removable of the Tsar as it burst through chair. By the second revolution the Romanov dynasty has ended due to the execution of the Romanov’s. The fall of the Russian Empire was a result of a complex web of factors. The ultra conservatism and political inexperience of Tsar Nicholas II greatly contributed to the fall, as did the huge socio-economic changes, modernisation, industrialisation of the period.
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.
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...
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
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,
Much of the blame for the fall of the Romanov Dynasty lays with Nicholas II. His abortive role as a leader and his failure to provide for the people of Russia were just some of the factors that lead to the collapse of the 300 year old dynasty. The fall however was not something that happened instantaneously but instead was a gradual collapse that had many contributing factors such as the influence of Revolutionaries, and the impact of World War I which introduced the detrimental rule of Alexandra and Rasputin while Nicholas was away at the front. Alexandra and Rasputin played a role in developing the social and economic grievances of the country.
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.
Tsar Nicholas II was a major symbol of an autocratic government, a centralized government where an individual had all the power, and also failed to solve Russia’s economic and agricultural issues (Doc. 1). The Tsar’s desire to enter WWI also pushed the nation further into experiencing a revolution. Due to his inability to stabilize the country, riots and strikes arose and in the February
In order for a great leader to succeed, he/she must recognize the aspirations of his/her people and maintain an efficient government. Leaders who do not achieve those will most likely to rule poorly and often lead to the destruction of their regimes. Their failures as leaders cause great chaos in society that either pleased or benefited the people. During the early 18th century, Tsar Nicholas II, took reign and caused chronic discontent brewing throughout Russia. His actions were seen as obstinate such as his managements of society and economy. With Russia’s poor economy that resulted from WWI and increasing burden of tsar for industrial workers and soldiers, the provisional government was at stake. Growing civil unrest, coupled with chronic
First of all, Nicholas Romanov was the royal Tsar of Russia. He was part f a long line of royals from all across Europe. Nicholas was Cousins with the king of England King George V (5th). Nicholas was a very Powerful Tsar before WWI. But during WWI he began to lose power over his people. That would be the start of his downfall.
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".
Nicholas II was the last Tsar to rule the Russian empire before the citizens demanded change within the government, resulting in the Romanov family being brutally murdered and the start of a revolution for Russia. Though Nicholas II was the most powerful man in the country, he did not use his power wisely to support his citizens. The unreasonable decisions of Nicholas II of Russia is what lead to the Russian Revolution. To begin with he made Russia suffer externally politically with his unwise choices during the Russo-Japanese War and World War One. Next, he brought hardship upon his people economically, allowing them to go malnourished without any support from the government; many people starved to death. Furthermore, these unwise decisions
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."
...holas had set a path to glory for Nicholas, who himself is man of poor intellect. Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich. At the time of his father's death in late 1894, Nicholas was an inexperienced youth wholly unprepared for the great task destiny had placed on his shoulders. Nicholas II was barely twenty-six years old at the time of his accession. During his son's golden youth, Alexander III did not allow his son Nicholas much participation in affairs of government. It is likely that Alexander III feared that his eldest son was not intellectually capable of handling the inheritance that was rightfully his. Therefore, the father kept postponing the son's introduction in to the daily running of Russia. Not one person, most of all Alexander III, ever imagined that this young and inexperienced Romanov would ascend the throne as early in life as he did. Czar Nicholas II’s mother Czarina Maria-Feodorovna was nortorouis as a mother who did not allow her children to grow. Therefor altering the young Czar’s behaviour to that all would regret. As Leon Trotsky once said:
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.