Essay about Modern History - Decline and Fall of the 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.

Chalking up the fall of the Roman Republic to a decline in traditional Roman morality, while not false, sells the events and changes that were the causes for the fall of the Republic short. At the end of The Third Punic War with Carthage we arguably see the Republic at its height. However in only a decade things begin to change, we see events that send Rome as a Republic past a point that Rome could not recover. Gaius Marius’s military reforms, specifically that of allowing for the captive cencsi, men who owned no property, and the creation of professional soldiers is the true catalyst for the downfall of the Republic. By enacting these reforms Marius opened up military duty to Rome’s largest group of citizens, however it created unforeseen issues, such as what to do with these men once they returned from battle. These reforms opened the door for military generals like Sulla and Caesar to gain the unquestioned support of their troops, in many instances gaining more respect from the soldiers then they had for the Roman state itself. These military reforms are a constant through line through the fall of the Republic, touching large political issues such as the conflicts between the Populares and the Optimates, or the rise of The First Triumvirate; socioeconomic issues such as the rise of Roman aristocracy, development of a slave based agriculture system to the profits from war. The complexity in which these reforms help lead to this immoral Roman state is complex and has been

The October Manifesto 1905 gained the Tsar back some of his support by promising reform; however the Tsar failed to abide by his promises and did not satisfactorily address the problems of Russia. To ensure his long-term survival the Tsar needed to address the problems that had caused the 1905 revolution. The action of Nicholas II to introduce reform saved his position in the throne s, though not for long as he took the wrong approach and chose to please some groups in Russian society and ignored the demands of others. Some changes were made that did temporarily satisfy his people such as the creation of a duma and the cancellation of the redemption payments. The creation of a duma meant the Tsar now had to delegate authority to parliament and could no longer consider himself an autocrat, however although it may of appeared that the Tsar now did not have ‘absolute’ power he didn’t really give the duma much power at all and he restricted their influence on the Russian government.

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

The expansion of Rome, the ruling of Julius Caesar and his death, and the civil war that followed his death all led to the collapse of the Roman Republic.

During the 1900’s the Russian Government made it extremely hard for the Bolsheviks to progress which made them revolt against the government making this a prime matter for the start of the Revolution. The Czarist government was ostracized by the common people of Russia so Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown by the Provisional Government, whom later on were overthrown by Lenin and shortly after the Bolsheviks took control over Russia. Russia was hard to develop because of the major leaders who had control; Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky. Almost overnight an entire society was destroyed and replaced with one of the most radical social experiments ever seen. Poverty, crime, privileged and class-divisions were to be eliminated, a new era of socialism

About 300 people were killed, and hundreds more were wounded. As the news of "Bloody Sunday" spread, the Russian people were horrified. They responded by striking, mutinying, and fighting in peasant uprisings. The Russian Revolution of 1905 had begun” (Passage 1). He took no action when all of this was happening, but he did “after several months of chaos” (Passage 1). Czar Nicholas came up with a policy that did in fact end the Russian Revolution. He came up with the “October Manifesto,” which said that they were granted “individual right and created a Duma, or Parliament” (Passage 1). This was convincing to the Russian people and it ended the 1905 Russian Revolution. Czar Nicholas was still the absolute leader of Russia. Many people were not excited to hear this news, because he was not a great leader. He listened to the advice of his German wife that no one trusted. He also had another close companion “the

The Roman Empire was or could be one of the greatest empires to have ever existed to this day. Just like many empires the Roman Empire fell to betrayal, religion, and war. Lasting from 27BC to 1453 the Roman Empire to me is the most interesting empire to talk about. When you take any history class that explores times outside the US, you hear about the Roman Empire being involved some way or somehow. The Roman Empire history can go on for days. I will pack most of the history into a small 5 page essay and if you don’t know anything about the Roman Empire, You will have a better understanding and will more than likely see why I believe the Roman Empire was one of the greatest of all time.

The Russian revolution was a monumental change for Russia they went from a government of ordocrasy to communism, with evidence it will show that this truly was a change Russia needed. Yet many argue that the death and outcome was not what the people had imagined when agreeing to communism.

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.

The law of gravity explains that what goes up, must come down. As humans living on Earth we comply to this law that at times can be dissimilar from objects such as the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in year 476 AD. Rome was a massive, heavily populated, and rich empire that controlled Mediterranean trade, which makes the collapse a big deal in history (Grant). Rome still existed after the year 476 AD, however it was no longer a superpower in the Western world just a power amongst many predominately in the East. The collapse of Western Rome was gradual where there was no finite cause, yet a series of events.

Many anthropologists and historians have speculated about the different causes and effects of the fall of the Roman Empire. Some have even stated that Rome did not fall but instead, was merely transformed. However, there were many causes that did end this prodigious empire. Many seemingly small decisions made by powerful emperors over the course of just over a century lead to its destruction. In this paper it will be established that the Roman emperors, in an effort to save their political power, made adjustments to warfare/treaty practices and made political changes which over time lead to the inevitable collapse of the realm, this caused a drastic regression in the living standards of the Roman citizens, implying that the Empire did indeed collapse and not transform.

The 1905 revolution can be considered as the pinnacle event that accelerated the downward spiral of Tsar Nicholas’s rule and Russia’s adherence to their “little father”. From this point onwards Nicholas was referred to by the people as not their “little father” but “Nicholas the Bloody”. "The present ruler has lost absolutely the affection of the Russian people, and whatever the future may have in store for the dynasty, the present tsar will never again be safe in the midst of his people." (The American consul in Odessa). This revolution was an uprising of people from all levels of society and was not an uprising organised by any group in particular. The Bolsheviks played a minimal role in the 1905 revolution as most of their leaders were living in exile and their impact and influence on the workers in that year was weak as well as having no Duma faction. This demonstrates that the Bolsheviks had a minor role in the pinnacle events that led to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty but rather gained support after Nicholas’ abdication.

The Russian Revolution is a widely studied and seemingly well understood time in modern, European history, boasting a vast wealth of texts and information from those of the likes of Robert Service, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Allan Bullock, Robert Conquest and Jonathan Reed, to name a few, but none is so widely sourced and so heavily relied upon than that of the account of Leon Trotsky, his book “History of the Russian Revolution” a somewhat firsthand account of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Trotsky’s book, among others, has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the events of The Revolution; but have his personal predilections altered how he portrayed such paramount