Tsar Nicholas II was a leader that possessed no competency to be the ruler of Russia. Unwilling, unprepared and easily influenced, his rule was the catalyst of the decline and fall of the tsarist system. His weak leadership, which was a combination of his upbringing, the ideas of Russia at the time and his ignorance effectively ended not only the Romanov dynasty, but also his life.
The foundation of the factors that brought upon the end of the tsarist system lie in the upbringing of Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas was brought up on the belief that autocracy was what was best for Russia and to be ruler was to be ordained by God, “The Russian Tsars are the masters whom God has willed to bestow on Holy Russia in their boundless immensity.” (Mossolov,
The influences that people had on him such as his wife, Alexandra and Rasputin were detrimental to the end of centuries of imperial rule. Alexandra was a strong believer in autocratic power and urged him to resist demands for political reform and she turned him against few men who could offer him sensible advice. Rasputin would also tell Nicholas that he must not concede any of his powers. By the influence on the Tsar, Rasputin and Alexandra interfered in government matters which further decreased support in Nicholas. “The growing influence of Gregory Rasputin over the Romanov’s did a great deal to damage the royal family” (Historian, Chris Trueman). Rasputin’s reputation, along with his meddling in the government had Nicholas losing the last of the support he had as an autocrat (picture on the right depicts his control/influence over the Tsar and Tsarina). But Nicholas depended on others and their advice because he refused to face the political realities, unfortunately he looked to Rasputin and his wife. This played a huge part in the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. The cumulative effect of the events mentioned before as well as the damaging influences on the Tsar resulted in the revolution that ended tsarist rule in
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.
While the tsar was off defending the country, a strange 'monk' named Rasputin made his way into governmental affairs. Because of his ability to ease the pain of the tsar's sick young prince, Alexandra gave him great political control in the affairs of state. Rasputin had dismissed twenty-one ministers and replaced them with men of great incompetence.
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.
In the years leading up to the fall of the three hundred year old Romanov dynasty there was increasing tension building up in Russia. The failing of Russia in the war, the failings of the tsar and his decisions, and the social and economic situations in Russia all played a part in the fall. Still it is believed that the First World War had played the biggest part in the fall of the 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,
under the autocracy of the Romanovs. Although well intentioned, Nicholas was a weak ruler, out of touch. with his people, easily dominated by others and a firm believer in the autocratic principles taught him by his father. He ruled Russia as an autocrat. Propaganda and the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church encouraged his people to love and respect their tsar and look on him.
In mid-19th century Russia, an oppressive rule is a result of the Romanov monarchy and this in... ... middle of paper ... ... ition to being important in portraying Raskolnikov's changing personality. By making such dissimilarity between the two ways that the two characters affect Raskolnikov, we are able to see his downfall and subsequent rise much more clearly.
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.
While Gregori Rasputin was not the main cause for the Russian revolution and the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty, Rasputin was a determinant that spurred on the eventual downfall of Russia. Rasputin was a factor of the end of Tsarism through; his association with and acceptance into the Romanov family, his outward appearance to be a personal advisor to the Tsar as well as actually having a great deal of influence over the Tsar and the political activities of the time. Gregori Rasputin was a peasant born in Siberia, Russia, in 1869. He had little education but villagers from his area believed that he possessed supernatural powers even in his youth. After his intention of becoming a monk failed; Rasputin married, had three children and travelled the globe. Known as a mystic and faith healer but commonly called the “mad monk”. Arriving in St Petersburg in 1907 he later met the imperial family.
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 damage that the Tsar had done to the country. This was a huge task
Grigori Rasputin and his relationship with the Romanovs: Rasputin was a religious teacher born in 1872, who was known for mystical healing powers and hypnotic abilities. He managed to convince Alexandra and her ailing son, both Romanovs, to allow him to make important political decisions. He opposed reforms and spread corruption throughout the courts. In 1916 a group of aristocrats tied to poison him but to no avail. He was then shot and drowned (Beck et al. 770).
In 1917, Russia was rocked by a series of revolutions, following the end of World War I. The country experienced great economic difficulties and famine, and the people became dissatisfied with the Tsarist rule. Tsar Nicholas II of the Romanov dynasty was abdicated, and on July 17th, he and his family, along with several servants were executed by the Bolsheviks.
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.