The Occurrence of the 1905 Revolution and the Ineptitude of Tsar Nicholas II

Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication in February 1917 was an event that both he could have prevented, however a number of factors meant it was out of his control. A revolution in Russia was inevitable and Nicolas was hapless to have been crowed a time of liberation; however his personality traits and actions lead to abdication in February 1917. Nicholas’ lack of political understanding was a constant delimitative factor throughout his rule, especially regarding Russia revolutionary stance, the Russo-Japanese…

1905 Revolution "These days we call anything a revolution…"[1] To decide whether or not any event is a revolution I must first set some parameters to define my personal idea of what a revolution is. I believe a revolution to be a radical change of anything, not just political. I believe this as from history labelling the Renaissance as a revolution, yet it lacked political change. In my opinion hindsight is very important to whether or not something is a revolution…

How did the Tsar survive the 1905 Revolution? Introduction Controversy surrounds whether or not the revolution was a “dress rehearsal” for the 1917 revolution or a missed opportunity for Tsar Nicholas II to consolidate a constitutional monarchy. This dissertation will focus on the survival of the Tsar, as it is ultimately an open question whether he would have saved the monarchy. The dissertation will also reveal that in the Tsar’s heart was more in reaction than reform. This coursework will show…

Tsar After 1905 It would be true to say that the Tsar remained unscathed after 1905, as he remained on the throne until 1917. However, it would also be true to say that the Tsar was permanently damaged by the 1905 revolution. Before 1905, there was much unrest and discontent. Famines in 1897, 1898 and 1901, made the already struggling countryside even worse, and the usually loyal peasantry held uprisings in two provinces in 1902. The Russo-Japanese war caused…

in bringing about the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 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…

Russia was a rural country that once had regime. The majority of Russia was profoundly poor and the few that were rich were extremely wealthy. Their last ruler had been Tsar Nicholas II who was not a natural leader; in fact most people could describe him as a reluctant and feeble monarch. Russia suffered numerous revolutions and defeats in wars under the regime. As a result their country was damaged, economically and socially. Russia was poverty stricken particularly in the countryside where the…

Tsar Nicholas II and 1905 Revolution The Tsar (Nicholas II) survived the 1905 revolution. However, the revolution in 1917 did remove him from power. When asking why Nicholas II survived 1905 there are numerous factors to examine. Both revolutions had extremely similar conditions. Levels of dissatisfaction, strikes and the country moving towards a wartime economy are all examples. It is also important to see small differences which gave the two events such contrasting…

Causes of the 1905 Revolution In 1905 was a vast but backward country. Compared to Britain, Russia's industry were undeveloped, also its people were poor and uneducated. It was ruled by A Tsar who had complete power over the country. In Britain it is a totally a different story, most of the people were well off, not rich and not poor. Also the industry was the driving force of the country. The vast majority of the country population (80%) were Peasants who lived in…

extent was the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II the key turning point in Russia’s political development 1856-1964? From 1856 onwards the aim of turning Russia from a once agrarian, illiterate and backwards country and into a political superpower was set. A multitude of developments began with Nicholas II being a catalyst of change for the Russian people. Writers of Marxist Russia such as Joan Hasler1 however believe that the Tsars abdication merely prevented revolution happening for a few years. The…

Was Tsar Nicholas II mainly to blame for the 1905 Revolution? 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…