Ivan IV Vasilyevich, commonly known as Ivan the Terrible, was the Grand Prince of Moscow from 1533 to 1547 and Tsar of All the Russias from 1547 until his death. His long reign saw the conquest of the Khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan, and Siberia, transforming Russia into a multiethnic and multiconfessional state spanning almost one billion acres, approximately . Ivan managed countless changes in the progression from a medieval state to an empire and emerging regional power, and became the first ruler to be crowned as Tsar of All the Russias.
Historic sources present disparate accounts of Ivan's complex personality: he was described as intelligent and devout, yet given to rages and prone to episodic outbreaks of mental illness. In one such outburst he killed his groomed and chosen heir Ivan Ivanovich. This left the Tsardom to be passed to Ivan's younger son, the weak and intellectually disabled Feodor Ivanovich. Ivan's legacy is complex: he was an able diplomat, a patron of arts and trade, founder of Russia's first Print Yard, a leader highly popular among the common people of Russia, b...
Prepubescence is an essential period in a child’s development. A person’s environment can alter their personality and affect them in ways that will remain throughout their lives. With Ivan and Charles, it is evident that the conditions they aged in factored into their frame of mind. Ivan, specifically, experienced multiple challenging incidents in his childhood. For example, when Ivan was three years old his father, Vasilly III, fell ill and passed away on February 4, 1533. His father recognized the futility of having an infant king rule a country, so he left a small council of nobles to rule. Similar to Ivan, Charles also had the inconvenience of inheriting the throne too early. Charles was only twelve years old when he was appointed king in September 1380, but he was not allowed to rule at first. In the early years of his reign his father arranged for his four uncles to rule until he was of age. To be entrusted with so much power at such a young age can be very stressful and the lose of a father figure proved to be traumatic in their later years. After Charles’ coronation, documents ceased to mention him until he finally took the throne around age 20. Ivan, on the other hand, devoted his life to education in his early years allowing him to document his experiences. Five years after his father passed away, Ivan’s mother was poisoned and killed. This left him, and his brother Iuri, in the care of the
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.
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,
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.
After years of turmoil during the reign of Ivan the Terrible the Boyar Duma, ,a council of Russian nobles, appointed the young Peter Alekseyevich Romanovas the next Tsar of Russia. He was better known as Peter the Great. Peter took control of his country and established a dynasty that lasted until World War I.
In order to be able to assess the reasons as to why it was that the
The Romanov Rule in Russia The Romanovs had ruled Russia since 1613. When is the last tsar of all? Nicholas II, was appointed to the throne in 1894, there was no hint of the fate that awaited him. Many among the huge crowds that lined the streets for his coronation celebration saw him as their "little" father.". They believed God had supposedly appointed Nicholas to rule.
It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia
Before the word for the usual brutality of a leader came about, called Communism, Ivan IV was born on August 25,1530. His abnormal behavior started to show after the death of his parents; both deaths occured before he hit the early age of 9. Ivan bore witness to a lot of horrible things like murder and beatings of people who didn't comply to the Boyars requests. He was molested along with his deaf-mute brother, Yuri. Ivan took out his anger on animals by "ripping hair and feathers off, piercing the eyes, and slitting open their bodies. When he became ruler, he sent 100,000 troops to beseige the Tartar and not too long later he launches an attack on Novgorod. His Oprichniki rode around wearing black and on black horses abducting priests and even murdering them in front of their congregation. He turned on his daughter-in-law and attacked her because she was "immodestly dressed" and caused her to miscarry her baby. When his son stood up to protect her, Ivan killed him. His son was the heir to the throne and now Ivan didn't have an heir. Finally his reign of terror ended when he had a heart a attack while waiting to play chess.
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
5. Czar Nicholas and the Romanov Dynasty: Nicholas II of Russia was the last emperor of Russia. He caused the loss of the russo-japansese war, and approved the entrance into ww1 which led to the death of millions. He also was in power during bloody Sunday. Czar Nicholas was in turn the last straw before the start of the march the most significant in Russian history (Beck et al. 701).
This point of the story is indirectly brought out in the very beginning when Ivan's colleagues, and supposedly his friends, learn of his death. The narrator states in paragraph 5:
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.
Before 1917 in Russia there was one supreme ruler with full autocratic power, there were no elected policies by law and the tsar was seen to have been put into his position by god. Between 1894-1917 the tsar came under pressure generally not suffered by any of his predecessors. The opposition came from four main sides;