Abuse Of Power In The Family Romanov

The cause of the fall of the Romanov dynasty in 1917 was impacted by many; these people and events include: Nicholas himself (Tsar), Alexander, Rasputin, WWI and the Russian revolution.

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

The Grand Duchess Olga wrote in her journal: “…and he was wholly ignorant about governmental matters. Nicky had been trained as a soldier”. (Fiehn, T. 1996). Nicholas’ sister suggests that he was not ready due to his lack of training. Margot Tracey, daughter of a Russian industrialist declared in 1917, after Nicholas’ abdication “Everybody was fed up with the Tsar because they thought he was weak. When he abdicated there was great rejoicing everywhere. My parents opened champagne bottles and celebrated with friends.”.(White 1994 p.14) Margot shows her understanding of what was going on at the time and that Nicholas was very weak leader, although still a tyrant. Margot’s statement supports the hypothesis as it plainly says that the people did not like Nicholas as a leader due to how weak he was. Margot’s statement is further corroborated by Sergei Witte, a Russian Minister during Nicholas II rule “I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign. What did he inherit and what will he leave? He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his defects as a ruler, especially an autocratic and absolute ruler.” (Russian Revolution Quotations 2015). These sources work together to support the fact that Nicholas II was responsible for his own downfall due to his weak character and that he was not properly prepared for the role. This caused

Whilst St Petersburg was growing and thriving around him, it seemed as though the Tsar turned his back on the requirements that come with large crowds of people such as, resources, food supplies, housing, etcetera. Due to his closed mindedness the overpopulation of factories, shortages of income and lack of basic necessities became a huge issue. The people stuck in this great poverty began to lose faith in the Tsar and once again sought for a new source of power. Another factor that adds to this cause is the fact that when the Russian society came up with the idea of a government, to help guide the Tsar towards helping his people and modernizing his laws and mindset, he refused to let the people have a say. Nicholas ultimately took away all power from what little government they did set up, called a ‘duma,’ when he set the ‘Fundamental Laws.’ These laws meant that he would overrule all of the duma’s decisions or suggestions. For example, the first law stated, “To the emperor of all the Russias belongs supreme autocratic power.” Then in 1907, the Tsar changed to voting laws to make sure that revolutionaries could not be elected. This meant that all the elected candidates were politicians that were great followers of Nicholas, meaning he got what he wanted. Consequently leaving no way of communication between Nicholas and the lower class of Russia, causing the tragic conditions to continue. As the poor became progressively poorer, malnourished and uncared for the Tsars inaction and lack of sympathy caused a radical

Power is something that is often used carelessly, even with its great importance. In the Family Romanov by Candace Fleming, power is used carelessly. In the Family Romanov, the tsar of Imperial Russia, Nicholas refused to give the people the rights and things they wanted and deserved. His refusal to do so eventually ended with Nicholas and the imperial family’s assassination. His inability to make just decisions without the “help” of his wife Alexandra and the “holy man” Rasputin resulted in his death. Nicholas stayed “blissfully” ignorant to all his subject’s sufferings and eventually paid the price for it. Fleming’s argument about power is that power is not a child’s toy, as power should be in use by someone fit to rule the proletariat fairly and it should be something to be used with responsibility and caution.

In a burgeoning climate of autocracy, the Romanov dynasty was firmly established in the societal framework of early 20th-century Russia. Having been in varying degrees of absolute political control over an approximate time period of four hundred years, their eventual undoing marked a power shift polarising the imperial regime laid out by countless Tsars beforehand. Nicholas II, the last Emperor of Russia, is recognised to have a degree of personal responsibility for the downfall of the Romanovs, yet the extent to which his decision-making skills can be held accountable is questioned by some historians. Despite this, multiple political, social, and military facets of Nicholas II’s reign were handled with instability, and his perceived lack of legitimacy due to this poor decision-making ultimately was a major causative factor to the downfall of his family’s vast dynasty.

As an enlightened despot, it was common for rulers to change every law and policy possible in order to make life better for their people as according to enlightenment ideals. The ruler was seen as being in charge only to serve the people (Document 3). The ruler was to put the needs of his people before the needs of himself, and could not do anything that would harm them (Document 4). In Russia, this was prominent amongst rulers. Peter the Great believed and acted on these ideas. He offered rights to the serfs in order to help them and made it so that anyone, no matter of their social standing, would suffer the same consequences for breaking the laws (Document 10, 6). According to Document 3, “the ruler and the ruled can be happy only if they are firmly united.” This shows how the people expected their rulers in this time to meet their needs to make them happy and to help them flourish as a

After the revolution there were several impacts, both positive and negative. Nicholas II abdicated which ended the Romanov dynasty after 300 years. He and his family were assassinated on 17 July 1918. Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik leader became the permanent ruler. He created free education throughout Russia (though children learned communist ideas, they were still being education about the world) and made an eight-hour working day, improving working conditions. Churches were burned down and religious leaders were killed. Russia backed out of the World War I on December 15 when Russia signed an armistice with Germany and Austria, pending a formal peace treaty. Lenin was desperate to end the war, as the Germans were threatening to

The Romanov Dynasty reigned over the nation of Russia from the year 1613 until its inevitable fall in 1917. Outlined below includes a few of the significant factors which contributed to decline and the eventual fall of this 300 year dynasty. These momentous factors range from tsar Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia’s autocratic rule, his refusal to meet the demands for reform, and above all his incompetency as a leader.

Despite all the work Alexander II did toward reforming Russia, the “Era of Great Reforms” left one crucial aspect unaltered: the power of the emperor. The intentional neglect of this was what kept the reforms from realizing their true potential. This led to dissatisfaction, which encouraged repression, terror, and most importantly: revolution. The first was the Polish Rebellion, caused by the failure of Russian authorities to suppress Polish nationalism. Although the Poles failed, other minorities sprung up for their voice

Review Guide- Chapter 18: Timeline- 1533-1584: Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) 1604-1613: Time of Troubles 1613-1917: Romanov dynasty 1689-1725: Peter the Great 1703: Founding of St. Petersburg 1762-1796:

This is shown in many places throughout history and recreated in fiction. Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night gives an example of abuse of power when Franek, the foreman of the depot Wiesel worked in, used his authority to bully Wiesel into giving him his gold crown by attacking his father. “This went on for two weeks. It was untenable. We had to give in. That day, Franek burst into savage laughter.” (pg 56) Franek knew that he could target Wiesel’s father without getting in trouble, so he was able to get what he wanted by the use of his power. Lord of the Flies by William Golding also shows how power corrupts people. When Jack became the chief of his own group, he and his accomplice, Roger, gained almost complete power over the boys on the island. They were able to do what they pleased, including hurting other people. “The chief snatched one of the few spears that were left and poked Sam in the ribs… The prodding became rhythmic. Sam yelled… Roger edged past the chief, only just avoiding pushing him with his shoulder. The yelling ceased, and Samneric lay looking up in quiet terror. Roger advanced upon them as one wielding a nameless authority.” (pg 182) Jack and Roger used their power over other boys to scare SamnEric into joining their “tribe”. Similarly to Franek, Jack and Roger inflict physical harm upon others to get their way, proving that those in power become abusive of their lack of

The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The

This is directly reflected in our world today, especially in governments around the world. Most of these infringements are out of self-interests or personal beliefs, and show blatant disregard for others on both small and large scales. As seen with Creon’s abuse of power ending with the deaths of those close to him, the abuses by today’s authorities will certainly only lead to a path of

In recent times, no one can take total power by force alone; you must offer something favorable to the people in order to obtain support. Unfortunately, there are some countries that follow a dictatorship system, which is a form of government that includes social and political power to ensure that the individual’s capability remains strong. Vladimir Putin is a contemporary dictator of Russia. His rebelliousness as a child has led him to his leadership. His cold-heartedness to his rivals and invasion towards countries has led to an opposition towards him. Vladimir Putin’s experience as a street thug led him to his leadership, which easily rose him to power: Not only has he committed crimes against humanity, but he has made groups of people and countries oppose him.