Cynthia Whittaker's The Reforming Tsar

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

Both Peter the Great and Catherine the Great were the former Emperors of Russia. They were the Russians ruler before the 17th century and also they were followers of Ivan IV. They used mysteries, dishonesty, etc for the foundation of their time, and they never thought that the Russia will have modernization. Mostly, the change came when Peter the Great and Catherine the Great came to power. Also, She expanded the territory of the Russian Empire and had improved as time pass by, and policy was following from the Westernization.

Ivan IV, also known as “Ivan the Terrible,” lived from 1530 to 1584 and was the first Tsar of Russia. He officially reigned from the age of three; however, he did not have any real power until he crowned himself “Tsar” of Russia in 1547. He went on to conquer vast amounts of neighboring territories, eventually controlling the largest empire in the world at the time. In addition to increasing the Russian Tsardom’s size, he also completely restructured the political system. He took away all power from the noble boyar elite, and became an absolute monarch. This was good because the boyars at the time had been corrupt, and more interested in their personal interests than the interests of the state (Ivan the Terrible).

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.

Peter the Great made it his ambition to pursue military growth in Russia. What started out as a defenseless country, ended as an army of 210,000 men. “At his (assumption of the throne) Russia had no armed forces except for the inefficient and untrustworthy Streltsy (hereditary military units).”- Document F. Peter the Great had many accomplishments. His greatest was the army, he formed in Russia. With all the power concentrated in his hands, Peter the Great was able to get things done efficiently and effectively. It took less time because, under the rule of absolutism, no one could question Peter’s work or capabilities. He built a professional army of 210,0000 men, created a navy and fleet of forty-eight ships and smaller vessels. Rather than being an insignificant vulnerable country, Russia was made into a dominant country. The amount of power that Russia had acquired was feared by other countries. Absolutism prevented many rebellions because of a new found fear. Many countries and people were afraid of Russia’s potential to become a dominate country. However, this was beneficial for absolutist leaders because no one would question or rebel against their actions. Many historians argue that Peter the Great’s method of absolutism was an excuse for tyranny. However, his achievements for the country of Russia outweigh the costs of inequality and unshared wealth. If Peter the

The first of these tsars, Ivan III, also known as “Ivan the Great”, defied Mongol control and declared the autonomy of Moscow. Ivan III was soon followed by Ivan IV, also known as “Ivan the Terrible”, who declared his power by pushing aside his advisors, crowning himself tsar and crushing boyars, who were Russian nobles. At first, Ivan’s reign was successful as he added vast new territories to the Russian empire. Later, after his wife’s death, Ivan’s power and prosperity declined because he started persecuting those whom he believed opposed him. This resulted in the execution of many nobles and their families, friends, servants and peasants, in which he replaced with a new service nobility, whose loyalty was “guaranteed by their dependent on the state for land and titles.” [1] Ivan the Terrible nor Ivan III were never absolute rulers- their ways of ruling just helped lay the foundation for Russian absolutism. After Ivan IV and his successor died, Russia entered a “Time of Troubles”, which lasted from 1598-1613, in which the peasant warrior bands known as Cossacks, rebelled against their nobles who fought back and defeated the Cossacks. Ivan’s grand-nephew, Michael Romanov, was soon elected by the Zensky Sober- a body of nobles, and placed efforts toward state-building. He was succeeded by “Peter the Great”, the Russian king that truly consolidated Russian

Philip II of Spain (1527-1598) and Peter the Great of Russia (1672-1725) are both historic leaders that had a tremendous influence over the fate of each of their nations. Although from two different time periods, the impact of their decision making, and temperaments directly dictated and impacted the historical events of their individual countries. Being that both led during a time where the desire for power and absolutism in one’s country and throughout Europe was at a high, each ruler used his own methods to increase their strength. Due to the exorbitant amount of power put upon all leaders, it is clear that a nation’s fate is determined by its ruler, and how that ruler chooses to utilize

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

Peter the Great’s reforms had a profound impact on Russia, it introduced an era of change that he became known for. From Peter’s childhood he became known for his infatuation with ideas about the military and navy, enjoying pastimes like shipbuilding and sailing, as well as mock battles with toy armies. This strong influence left a lasting impression throughout Peter’s life, exemplified through his reforms and relations with Europe. This impacted Russia as Peter’s keen interest in Europe was a key inspiration for his reforms as his desire for knowledge and advancement was reflected in his personality and his rule. Peter’s interest in Europe also impacted Russia as it corresponded with a growing westernisation of typical Russian values and

One resource used for this investigation was Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie, which describes the reign of Nicholas II. This source was published in 1967 in the United States, thus the book is a secondary source. Massie is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian whose work focuses on the Russian Romanovs. Massie’s alma mater includes Yale and Oxford University. The source is highly valuable in its extremely detailed and comprehensive research of nearly 600 pages, providing the thoughts of those in positions of power and interesting, insightful perspectives to the situation at the time. An analysis on connecting causes and effects are thorough and

Peter was a tall and powerful figure but it was his political and social reforms, in particular the building up of the Russian navy as well as westernising Russia that made him memorable. This essay will look at the reasons as to why Peter the Great was so preoccupied in making Russia into a naval power. The essay will also evaluate whether he

Russian society before Peter’s rule was in a problematic situation because, their army was failing as well as their economy. When Peter the Great came to rule in Russia, he used absolutism as a way to increase his country and his own power. During his reign, Peter was building a strong army, expanding his territory and Westernizing Russia. In an effort to Westernize Russia, Peter adapted new ideas from Europe. As a result, Peter had an overall positive impact in Russia.

In Russia Peter the Great, as he came to be called, took control of the government in 1689. Preceding his reign, was the “Time of Troubles” a period of foreign invasions and disorder. Peter

Peter the Great was a descendant of the Romanov family who started his co-rule with his brother since he was ten years old. When his brother died in 1896, only then did Peter become the sole tsar of Russia. However, at the time, Russia did not have a developed military, government, or technology as that of the other countries in Europe. At the start of the Peter’s reign as tsar, he had taken part in the conquest against the Ottoman Empire in an effort to gain land in order to secure a Russian port in the coast of the Black Sea. In Compared to Europe, Russia was much less advanced.

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