Nicholas I
Nicholas I has been portrayed, and perhaps rightfully so, as a strict and reactionary tsar. Indeed, his internal policies were often repressive -- he sought to nip any liberalism in the bud, often brutally. His approach to solving problems in the Empire and keeping control was to create the "Nicholas system", a bureaucratic system defined by and completely based on absolute monarchy. Nicholas revamped govermental structure by strengthening and centralizing bureaucratic structures to an unprecedented degree. He did this as an attempt to deal with all of Russia's problems himself. At most importantly the structure known as "His Majesty's own Chancery," which was the nerve-center of the empire's administrative mechanisms. With his new governmental structure, he hoped to create a machine that would, in theory, more quickly and efficiently carry out his will. The reality, however, was a little bit different than what he planned.
However strict or repressive Nicholas may have been, his policies are somewhat understandble considering what domestic and foreign events marked his reign. His accession in 1825 was threatened by an uprising of a group of noblemen who came to be known as the Decembrists. He dealt with the uprising quickly and firmly. He and his administration sentenced the five most important rebel leaders to death by hanging and sentenced many others to hard labor in Siberia. Later in 1830 Europe went through some revolutionary crises.
The youth of Poland had been restless since July 1830.
The fever rose greatly when they heard that the Polish army was to march with the Russians to crush the revolution and prevent the Belgians from acquiring their independence. On the night of November 29, a conspiracy ...
... middle of paper ...
...ucated and badly trained.
Further, anotherer main problem, besides the unwieldliness of the system was the problem of attracting qualified people. Local officials were poorly educated and badly trained, often having learned their narrow routines through a crude apprenticeship system. The head of the Third Department reported in early 1830s that educated and established people were reluctant to become provincial governors because they knew the degree of responsibility which they would have, and how few resources would be available to them.
Overall, Nicholas I's reign did little to further Russia's progress, and in many ways made the country fall further behind Western Europe. Through his opressiveness, strictness, and love for bureaucracy, he put obstacles in the way of the "racing troika," as Nikolai Gogol once called Russia, and effectively tripped the horses.
Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894-1917 and was to be its final tsar. He ascended the throne under the impression that he would rule his whole life as it's undisputed leader. Accompanied by his wife, Alexandra, they lived a comfortable life of luxury while the country suffered around them. Nicholas was determined to rule as harshly as his father; however, he was a very weak and incompetent character who did not posses the qualities capable of guiding Russia through its time of turmoil.
The film Nicolas and Alexandra portrays inadequate leadership as one of the main causes of the collapse of the old regime. 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.
First, the Jacobin leader Robespierre’s tried to protect the revolution but this plan backfired. It backfired because immediately after the publication of this decree, all suspected persons within the territory
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,
This blurred distinction between his family and his duties as a ruler caused many to attribute the fall of the dynasty on Nicholas.” He could not stand listening long or seriously to ministers reports or reading them”-Kerensky. Many suggested that Nicholas was ill-prepared to run a country and that he did not have imperative qualities needed in order to maintain power. His ineptitude to rule effectively was an amalgamation of difficult events and poor judgment often caused by people around him conferring their own biases and opinions into his decisions. Despite the influence by Alexandra and others in his inner circle it all came back to the Tsar’s inability to rule effectively.
Rasputin and the Tsarina had been believed to have been in control of the Tsarist regime in the years 1914-17 during the Tsars absence in its entirety. But this was in fact not the case in all respects, such as the control of the armed forces, which were still very much under the control of generals as it had been in the time beforehand. Although Rasputin and the Tsarina seemed to have control over this, it was obvious that Tsar Nicholas II would not leave his army under the control of people who were not qualified, especially under the likes of Rasputin. Some people believe that Rasputin was able to influence the Tsar through the Tsarina who was highly fond of him for his ‘healing’ of her ill son, but this can be argued as wrong due to the fact that the Tsar, although he listened to almost everything his wife had to say, did not always actually use her advice in his acts as the Tsar, even if they could sometimes be persuading in his decisions.
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.
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.
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
He encouraged the noblemen to cut their beards and sleeves; forbade them from spitting on the floor and eating with their fingers, encourage polite conversations, and had noblemen and women dress in western clothing for events such as weddings and banquets. He sent their children to western Europe to be educated and also hired thousands of western Europeans to staff academies, design the new buildings, and serve in the tsar’s army, navy, or administration. While the noble’s in Western Europe got special privileges it was the opposite in Russia. Everyone could be taxed and be summoned for military service. In 1722 he imposed the Table of Ranks that made the nobles work their way up from the lower landlord class to the highest military class. By doing this he forced them into a lifelong government service and had them earn their status. This also gave average people the chance to rise up in
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 mis-rule of Russia by the Rominov's had been going on for many, many years, coming to a head with the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Rominovs especially Nicholas 2nd believed that they were appointed by G-d to rule the country, and that whatever they thought, must be right. This led them to rule the country for their own interests and for the interests of the rich and important, not for the interests of most of the population, the peasants. The Tsar didn't listen to the peasants or most of his ministers, appointing and firing them at will. The Tsar, by not listening to his people or caring about their needs, helped Russia to stay very economically backwards when compared to the rest of the world. This helps to link into the cause of social and economic hardships, another important cause.
Before the Russian Revolution, Russia was going through some hard times. In Russia, during the early 1900’s, there was a huge difference between the rich and the poor. There was a large number of peasants living in poverty. On the other hand, there was a restricted amount of people living in a life of lavish, who owned large plots of land, and had servants to tend to their needs. Czar Nicholas II was one of the few that was living a life of luxury, which angered the peasants. What also angered the peasants was a man named Rasputin. Rasputin lived with the Romanovs because he claimed that he had magical powers that could cure Nicholas II’s son’s disease: haemophilia. When World War I came along...
...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.