Thank you for the post and I couldn’t agree with you more with regards to Nicholas II and as a fellow scientist I appreciate your analogy. As I survive as a historian I keep comparing historical lenses in the same way I use multiple tools in the diagnosis of disease. I think Richard Pipes has summed up the significance of the cultural changes occurring among the revolutionary peasants as a major influence in the military unrest and decaying discipline. I particular enjoyed the Ferro article and how in elucidated the separation between the political and social revolutions that independently collided to form the final events in Russia. I believe it was Nicholas’s inability to address all the revolutionary influences affecting his nation.
One of the reasons Nicholas was overthrown relates to the social grievances Russia faced. In the time of his reign, Nicholas II presided over a society still entrenched in a feudalistic social structure, a system long outdated compared to other European nations. Source B illustrates this hierarchy, with the Tsar at the top followed by the gentry, the bourgeoisie, the proletariat and lastly the peasants. The peasants were by far the biggest social group, making up 80% of the population. Even though they were the largest group, they shared a very small amount of the society’s wealth.
The most famous work about Charlemagne is a book entitled The Two Lives of Charlemagne which consists of two separate biographies published into one book and tells the story of Charlemagne's life as two different people experienced it. Apart from this, there are many other places you can turn to learn more about the life of the king of the Franks, including letters, capitularies, inventories, annals, and more. However, each of these sources seem to paint a different picture of Charlemagne. In one, he seems to be a very average guy; in another, a mythical being, almost god-like; and a strong and firm political leader in yet another. It is because of this of this that we will never really know exactly who Charlemagne was or what he was
The initial issue that Nicholas faced was the many opposition groups that attempted to thwart his rule. Incidentally however, the Mir, which caters for peasant/farmers lives by dividing land and food, had poor menials of maintaining land and improving it so that its people’s food grew better and the land was more easily farmed, allowing peasants to make extra food so that they could go on to sell it instead of making just enough food to maintain their life. However, Nicholas cannot be fully blamed for this through the fact in the north of Russia, there was poor soil originally making it harder to grow crops on and maintain. Additionally, there was a small amount of time of growing season for the peasants meaning
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
Although I have learned some things about Russia and the late 1800’s and early 1900’s this book taught me some new information. When Nicholas’s son was diagnosed with hemophilia ( a disease when the blood doesn’t clot properly) I noticed that they didn’t have a treatment or cure for it. Today, hemophilia still can’t be cured but, the treatments are: help from a specialist, medications, and supportive care. I think it is interesting how our medical world has developed from then to now. Another thing I found interesting was how during the late 1800’s how the government was controlled under the form of autocracy, when one person ( the tsar in this case) holds all power. I couldn’t imagine living under the rules of someone having no power, unlike
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.
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 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.
In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,
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
The extract argues that the First World War was the most important cause in bringing about the February Revolution. According to liberal historian Figes, it was not only World War One that caused the Revolution but argues that “Nicholas was the source of all problems”. His lack of ability to lead Russia to victory during the war was undermined by his incompetence as a monarch, resulting in the abdication of both himself, his heir Alexis and the outbreak of revolution. While Perrie argues that “it was… key figues who persuaded him… to respond to the Revolutionary events”, Figes states that “For twenty-two years he had ignored the lessons of history, as well as the pleading of countless advisors.” Nicholas’ abdication of his own accord rather
In 1905, the social and economic tensions building up within Russia boiled over into Revolution. It was described by Lenin as the “Great Dress Rehearsal” for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and may give us clues as to why the 1917 revolution started. The suggestion that Tsar Nicholas II and his actions were to blame for this revolution is debatable and there are many factors such as the repressive Tsarist system, the growth of opposition from the time of Alexander II and the defeat in the war with Japan to consider. These events can be separated into short and long term effects on the revolution. Bloody Sunday and defeat to Japan would be short term effects whereas the
For three centuries before the revolution, life in Russia was not peaceful. It was cold, hard, and bitter instead. “The end of serfdom was a major event in Russia; yet it just wasn 't enough.”, in 1861. Serfdom, under feudalism, is the the status of peasants in which they are bound to a lord, or master, works on their land, and can be sold like property. Despite serfs being given ‘freedom’, Russia was mostly ruled by the czar and nobles. The average person was, and stayed, poor. Therefore, World War I was not the main cause of the Russian revolution. This outdated feudal class structure, inability to modernize, lack of peace, and czars’ inept leaderships lead to the Russian Revolution.
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
In 1905 and 1917 Russia was tormented by chaotic revolutions. The workers and the intelligentsia had arrived at the point of hating the autocracy because they could no longer endure the suffering, hunger and repression that the tsarist policies brought with them. Years later Lenin referred to the revolution of 1905 as a “dress rehearsal for the October Revolution” of 1917. In 1905 tsardom nearly fell. Nicholas II succeeded in remaining in power, stabilizing the situation, only thanks to various concessions. However, his continuing to rule harshly and unwisely brought him to be forced to abdicate in the February of 1917, signing the end of the Russian monarchy.