Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The collapse of the tsarist regime
Tsars and the downfall
The collapse of the tsarist regime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The collapse of the tsarist regime
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. Firstly, the breakdown of social order was instigated by the leadership of Nicholas II. The Emperor’s archaic policy’s
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.
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elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century.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,
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
Nicholas was considered a selfish ruler with no love for his very own people. Nicholas was forced to give up his throne by a strike that broke out in Petrograd on March 1917(Kindersley). After Nicholas getting forced out of his throne a party called The Mensheviks formed a govern-ment made up of revolutionary’s but failed. The Bolsheviks came right after seeking to enforce Marxism and gain power. The Czar Family were arrested and all killed after a year,
The Romanov dynasty was an absolute monarchy in Russia starting from 1613 to 1917, and the Tsars continued to take political power away from the nobles.4 In order to centralize authority in Russia, the Tsars either simply took power away from the nobility or compensated their decrease of political power with increased power over their lands. Because of this, the Tsarist regime had an almost autocratic rule over the nobility which they had gained through serfdom.5 By the long nineteenth century, these relationships were under attack. In the 1825 Decembrist Revolution, military officers tried to push for constitutional monarchy but to no avail.4 Although Alexander II abolished serfdom, the condition of the peasantry remained almost the same.5
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
One plundered Pleshchev’s house; the other the house of State Chancellor Nazarii Ivanovich Chistii…They dragged him from the secret hold or store room, and immediately without pity or mercy they killed him with oak clubs.” Rebellions were not the only form of violence within a political rule, violence was seen amongst the high ranking officials, nobles and tsar. In order to get what they wanted, they stop any who would oppose them. Ivan the Terrible would be a prime example of violence brought to the state and its people through political rule. “Wishing to destroy the old feudal system of Russia, by which the princes were practically independent rulers of their appanages, Ivan IV began a systematic purge of aristocracy in the late 1550’s and many nobles died on the scaffold.” These political states of violence would influence the development of early Russia through the centuries. Not only would Russia be at a state of violence for centuries politically, but culturally as
This essay examines the role of tzar within the fall of the Romanov dynasty. Tsar Nicholas II roles had contributed in the decline and fall of the Romanov Dynasty. He wasn’t the main reason for the decline of the romanov dynasty, but he was a part of it.
Tsar Nicholas II never had the chance to educate himself about economics or military. He did not know anything about leading armies or different strategies for war. Comparing the Tsar Nicholas II's qualities as a leader to previous leaders allowed the two to differentiate, in which the latter is the better leader: “Unlike his ancestor Peter I (the Great), who had patiently educated himself in the arts of war and based all promotions and assignments - including his own - on strict meritocracy, the unprepared Nicholas merely appointed himself to the Supreme Command” (Ruffley). Peter I actually prepared himself so that he could become a good military leader, whereas Nicholas II just placed himself in a position he knew nothing about. Peter I contributed to being a good leader because he worked hard for his position while there were harsh “meritocracy.” That means Peter I was appointed Supreme Command because of his own capabilities and talents. Therefore, Nicholas II's unqualified skills as a military leader eventually led to the downfall of many of his
out of touch with his people. 'He heard of the blood and tears of the
However, with new political realities also new challenges arose. The Bourbon Restoration was not enough, and anxiety about political instability in Europe and further possible revolutions against European monarchies made the Russian Empire assume the role of what was later dubbed gendarme of Europe. This anxiety had a solid ground: in the coming years liberal revolutions occurred in Spain and Portugal. July revolution in France, uprisings in German states and Poland (the part of Russian Empire) reminded Nicholas I, Alexander’s successor, of the Decembrist revolt and the fact that his was not immune to the strengthening of liberal sentiment. His legitimacy being based largely on allegiance of the nobility, he found himself in a precarious position. Therefore, he had to simultaneously manage two tasks: hold Russian revolutionary movement at bay and maintain status quo in Europe, both its political and ideological aspects contributing to stability at home.
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
The Russian Revolution took place during difficult time in Russia. These troubles began before World War I and lasted up until 1930's. Russia's population was made up of mostly poor, starving peasants. A small working and middle class began to rise to help industrialize Russia. But a corrupt government made it difficult for Russia to advance. This added to the turmoil. World War I placed a serious hurt on Russia. Although at first it raised national pride and enthusiasm, it quickly drained resources and poorly trained peasants quickly found themselves fighting with no weapons. This war sent over 2 million Russians to their death in 1915 alone. Turning points for the Russian revolution were the March Revolution, the November Revolution and Stalin coming to power.
In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.
The Nature of Tsarism and the Policies of Nicholas II as the Cause for the Revolution of February in Russia 1917