The Grand Duchess Anastasia was part of the Imperial Romanov family who ruled Russia for almost three hundred years. Anastasia’s father Nicholas II was the last Tsar of Russia before the communist rule. He was not a very good ruler, which caused his people to turn against him and later this caused the assassination of the entire Imperial family. After the family was assassinated rumor that Anastasia had survived began to circulate throughout Russia and later the entire world. People became fascinated with this tragic story and with finding the Grand Duchess Anastasia, but these rumors were false. Sadly, Anastasia did die with her family the tragic night so long ago. “Crowned in 1896, Nicholas was neither trained nor inclined to rule, which did not help the autocracy he sought to preserve among a people desperate for change” (History 1). He was determined to prove that he was fair and just, but instead his people began to fear him because he was such a harsh ruler. As a father Nicolas II was kind and understanding, but he could not be that kind of father to his people. As he grew up his father had educated him in politics and ways to be a good ruler by giving him many tutors, but he never let Nicolas put these things to use. So, when Nicolas was put in power he had absolutely no idea how to be a good ruler. There were two things that ultimately let to Nicolas’s downfall, which were Bloody Sunday and World War 1. Bloody Sunday was a protest by workers led by a priest named Gregory Apollonovich. It was a completely peaceful protest, with no intention of violence. Nicholas II wanted to make martyrs of this people, so he sent armed forces that opened fire on the crowded. Around a hundred people were killed and many more were wounded.... ... middle of paper ... ...omfield in. "Anastasia's Remains 'found in Russia'" The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 30 Dec. 0023. Web. 28 Jan. 2014. Yudina, Anna. "Prominent Russians: Anastasia Romanova." Anastasia Romanova – Russiapedia The Romanov Dynasty Prominent Russians. Autonomous Nonprofit Organization, 2005-2011. Web. 30 Jan. 2014. “Anastasia arrives in the United States.” 2014. The History Channel website. Jan 30 2014, 7:15 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/anastasia-arrives-in-the-united-states. "Cold Case: The Romanovs." Palcs.org. PA Leadership Charter School, n.d. Web. “Romanov family executed.” 2014. The History Channel website. Feb 13 2014, 12:05 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/romanov-family-executed. 11, March. "DNA Testing Ends Mystery Surrounding Czar Nicholas II Children." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2014.
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.
Nicholas was an inadequate leader, the film shows this by portraying him as a man who put his family first, who was too stubborn to appoint a Duma and who didn’t want to be in power. The film implies that this insufficient leadership is what led to the collapse of the old regime however what it doesn’t put enough focus on is the fact that Russia was behind when it came to industrialisation. This too was a major contributing factor that led to the collapse of the old regime. Tsar Nicholas II was a family man who put his family before the wellbeing of the country.
Though the book has no footnotes, it was researched methodically through documents and the work of other scholars. It is very detailed and specific for such a short book. The information about the foreign policy of Russia under Catherine’s rule, and her various wars and military maneuvers, helped explain some of the issues Russian is currently undergoing today in Crimea, the Ukraine and with Turkey. The central theme of reform was also examined in depth, and given the time in which she ruled, and the size of the country, it astonishes me the undertaking Catherine had in front of her. It could take 18 months for an imperial order to reach the far eastern side of Russia, then 18 more months for a reply to get back to her at the
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.
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,
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.
Romanov, Nicholas II. "Letters of the Tsar to the Tsaritsa 1914-1917." Letters to Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 1914-1917. Russian History Websites. AlexanderPalace,org, n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2014. < .
Why does the story begin with the death? Most books use mystery in the beginning and announce the death at the end. But Tolstoy used a different chronology, he started with the death of Ivan and then uses a flashback to show the reader what really happened. Also he chooses to start with the death to make the story seem real and not fictional. At Ivan’s funeral, nobody seemed devastated by the loss of Ivan, which gave the reader an understanding of how little Ivan’s life meant to the people even the ones close to him. Later in the reading, but before his death Ivan questions how he lived his mortality life and what if he lived his life properly. Before his death he had come to the realization that his death would benefit all the others around him. "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" begins with the death of Ivan in order to get it out of the way. In essence the
The origins of Russia is truly not as distinguished as moments such as Vladimir's conversion, or the rule of Peter the Great, yet its impact on Russia is undoubtedly much more important. If not for the year 862, Russia might have been a group of tribes, waiting to be conquered by a western nation. This date is unarguably the single most important year in Russian history.
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
Литературная Критика Oct. 2010: n. pag. http://magazines.russ.ru. Журнальный зал, Oct. 2010. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
After Rasputin failed at being a monk, he began to wander. In 1906 he arrived in St. Petersburg and by this time many people had heard of his supernatural gifts. Years later, he met Czar Nicholas...
The Web. 5 May 2015. Franklin, Simon and Emma Widdis, eds. National Identity in Russian Culture: An Introduction.
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.