Factors That Influence Tsarina Alexandra Had On Tsar Nicholas II

The Duma also refused orders to dissolve, and 12 of its members formed a committee that planned to take over Russia; the called themselves ‘The Provisional Government’. The soviets also issued ‘Order number 1’ which demanded that all officers in the army be elected by their men, proving that the Tsar had lost all of his power. Therefore, there were many factors involved in the Tsar’s downfall, such as the political opposition, strikes and the disloyalty of the army and the Duma. Once people started to support the other political parties, they lost all loyalty for the ‘God appointed’ Tsar. The strikes highlighted the weaknesses of the Tsar’s leadership skills and proved that he couldn’t no longer control and rule Russia. The disloyalty of the army and the Duma completely removed all of his power, meaning that Nicholas could no longer be Tsar.

Some may argue Tsar Nicholas weak leadership help contributes to the Russian Revolution but World War I was be the primary cause. Tsar Nicholas was not the best leader but that did not have a big enough impact to cause the Russia Revolution because his actions did not lead to as many problems that World War I had caused. World War I had a greater impact because it led to many problems within Russia that caused the citizens to be furious.

Tsar Nicholas II was a poor leader. It seems that he does not want to be the Tsar (71). When the Tsar received the telegram of the destruction of the Russian fleet a Tsushima, he simply placed into his pocket. He shows no interest in being a leader. A normal would have quickly reacted to that situation but the Tsar did not. During his reign (Nicholas II), Russia was in disaster (72). Forcing someone to do something, that person does not want to do will lead to disaster. He such a "leader" that Kaiser Wilhelm II patronizes him of "only fit to live in a country house and grow turnips." (9). The man has no strength, his is everything but strength. There are many holes in the government of Russia and in his leadership. The holes could have been filled up if he had picked up the slack and pushed himself to be leader. The resulting consequences of his poor leadership could have also been

The tsars were no longer able to satisfy the desires of the people. The people had high expectations of the dynasty that Nicolas was just not able to deliver. Conferring to the text “The tsar’s government had lost touch with the people-not the 120 million peasants -but with the few thousand in the immediate entourage of the dynasty and the essential bureaucrats” (). To be quite specific it was members of the duma who were dissatisfied with the way things were being handled. They were an advisory body who sought great changes in the Russian empire.

With over a century of military and civil discontent the Romanov Dynasty was bound to fall sooner or later. The fall of the Romanov Dynasty was a result of long-term causes including Tsar Alexander’s inability to satisfy his people and Tsar Nicholas II’s inability to rule to throne all together. The collapse was also an outcome of immediate causes; the effects of World War One on Russia and the 1917 revolution. All long-term and immediate cause played a crucial role in stirring the nation until Russia was clearly overdue to be overthrown.

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

The fall of the Romanov Dynasty in 1914 proved that the Tsar could not handle the problems of Russia. Ironically, he would have been ideal as a constitutional monarch, but was adamant against the idea. As the First World War started Russia’s problems arises, from short-term and long-term causes. The war brought back inflation which led to “demonstrations over food shortages combined with workers’ grievances,” (Hosking, 2012, p. 91) thus this destroyed Nicholas’s image as Father of Russia. Military became ineffective as the transport system was not adequate, thus leading to food supplies decreasing in key cities such as Petrograd. Historians believe the impacts of the First World War led to Russian society becoming unstable and was ultimately the main reason of the downfall of the Tsar. However other factors, such as the Tsarina placing large amounts of trust into Rasputin who was notorious for his reputation as an alcoholic and a womanizer (Westwood, 2002, p. 215) and the role of the revolutionaries due to Lenin promising peace, land and bread, eventually leading to the growth of the Bolsheviks Party. Although, it can most rightfully be deemed that the impact of the war was the main reason for the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.

The Romanov dynasty began in 1613, however 1917 saw an abrupt end to the Romanov’s with the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. Demonstrations and strikes gripped the Russian people and with anti-governmental soldiers taking control, the Tsar had no alternative but to abdicate. Historians such as Michael Lynch1 and John Daborn2 state that in Russia’s great need of strength and power came a Tsar of weakness and limited outlook. However historians such as Ray Pearson believe that in aggressive opposition groups and with the help of the working class aimed to bring down the Tsardom at all costs.

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

Thirdly, the Tsar had the benefit of controlling the army and the secret police force, the Okhrana. The Tsar was the commander and chief of the Russian army, he had total control of it and they had been loyal to the Tsar for many years (Nicholas I had an input in creating the Okhrana). The army and the Okhrana were used very efficiently by the Tsars. If anybody opposed the Tsar with violent protests or demonstrations, the army would be called in and many of the protesters would be shot and trampled on by horses. As well as removing current threats to the Tsar, the armies input effected possible opponents, as they knew what their own fate would be if they also tried to oppose the ‘Dear father’. The Okhrana was also very effective, it was known for infiltrating opposition groups and dividing them even further. If an opposition group member was caught, they would be exiled to Siberia to die a cold and

the people’” but many others disagreed . They felt that he was manipulating the family. This only added to the discontent and secrecy surrounding the family. Many people did not like how isolated the family was, not only from everyday Russians, but also the aristocracy. This made Nicholas an incapable leader because he separated himself to a large extent from Russian society. His shyness added to the list of reasons why he was a bad leader for Russia which lead to the end of the Old Regime.

The mess that causes the Russian Revolution The three cause of the Russian revolution was a long-term cause, short-term cause, and one in the middle. The long term cause was that the people of Russian were overwhelmed because of the population of the poor peasants. ‘'( between 1649-1861) the majority of those peasants were enserfed. They lived like slaves on land owned by noblemen.''

As the Russian Nation advanced and progressed over time, a change in opinion about the role of the Tsar was inevitable. A changed perception about the Tsar's role by the people in contrast to Nicholas' personal view of his role remaining the same ultimately made for a factor that can be attributed to the decline. Nicholas' personal qualities and attributes can account for the decline of the Romanov Dynasty. Whilst we cannot blame him for this, one of Nicholas' great faults was that he simply did not possess the qualities required to govern Russia.

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

Therefore, morale in Russia was not a reason why there was an outbreak of revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, the few military successes could not make up for the shocking casualty list revealed later on in wartime. Also, when the economic and military problems arose they could have been tolerable for the general public if they were encouraged by the people at the top such as the Tsar but no leadership was shown. Though this was a problem in Russia the morale in Russia was not too bad although people did begin to focus more on taking care of themselves because of the effects of the war on everyday life. On the other hand, the fact that central leadership was not being provided to the Russian public, criticisms began to be pointed directly at the Tsar. Nicholas failed in being commander-in-chief of the Russian armed services. He did not encourage war effort and did not prove to be the appropriate representative for the Russian people. In addition, the fact that he took on this important role meant that he was responsible for the wars consequences and the survival of Tsardom depended on military success. Due to the lack of success, Nicholas II was blamed and not his generals. This was a reason for the revolution in February 1917 to happen as it appeared to the citizens of Russia that they did not have a strong leader, also the tsarist system’s claim to the loyalty of the Russian people had been forfeited thus