The Tsar 's Role As A Family Man

The instant consequences to the emancipation of the serfs left Russia crippled, ironic, when alleged that it intended to advance Russia’s status. Many historians argue that despite abolishing serfdom, the means in which it was carried out didn’t coincide with reality. Subsequently, there were many riots which caused a rise of political groups such as Narodnik movement whose existence proves that Russian society was changing. Disorder spread with calls for change within Russia like In May 1862 where a number of pamphlets were issued including the radical Young Russia. Such propaganda aimed to gain support and create challenging individuals which would pressure the Tsar to make further changes. One could argue that as a result this led to the 1905 revolution and the end of Tsardom.

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,

1914 was a devastating year for many countries of the world, as world war one began to take full effect. But as world war one shook the world; it began to question Nicholas II’s ability to rule Russia. In this essay i will discuss the extent of world war one’s responsibility in Nicholas II’s downfall, and the extent of other contributing factors. I will argue that Nicholas II’s own traits as a leader were the main reason for his downfall.

Russia struggled to provide food for its populations. Citizens took control into their own hands, Ludovic Naudeau wrote in October 1917, “One morning recently I was awakened by the cries of my neighbor in the next room. His boots had been stolen. The same day the manager of a newspaper office told me that he had been robbed six of pairs of pantaloons, … “Four hundred thefts every night!” he cried; that is the average for the last two weeks,”(One Aspect of Bolshevist Liberty). Russia could not even uphold itself because the economy was not successful compared to other countries. This led people to desire a change in the government; therefore this led to the Russian Revolution. People went to different maters to get what they wanted such as stealing since they were not getting the aid that they needed and they needed financial support. This caused them to protest against their government because many people from the lower class could not take care of their families. This cause led to a greater impact compared to Tsarist weak authority.

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

Nicholas II was known, not only for being the Emperor of Russia but also for his character and personality which undoubtably led him to his own downfall. Nicholas was often referred to as not being ready to become Tsar as well as being a weak leader. Firstly, Nicholas II himself, amongst a very large proportion of Russian society, believed that he was not prepared to be coronated Emperor. Nicholas himself stated “What is going to happen to me and all of Russia? I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling.”. (Russian Revolution Quotations 2015). Nicholas was aware of what he was getting himself into and that he was not prepared for such a role. This is further corroborated by the

“The power still has to be snatched from the hands of the old rulers and handed over to the revolution. That is the fundamental task. A general strike only creates the necessary preconditions; it is quite inadequate for achieving the task itself”(Trotsky). The ineffectiveness of the strikes can be found in the fact that in nearly every occasion the soldiers were ordered to shoot on the crowd, stopping the revolts and leaving the tsar as obnoxious to the situation as before. Also the peasants in the countryside suffered land-hunger due to the growth of population caused by the decreased of mortality rates. Backwardness was also caused by the “open field system”, which didn’t motivate the peasants to improve their machinery or seeding methods since their land would be taken away from them and redistributed when a member of the community died. Nicholas II was a weak, indecisive and obstinate ruler who, being very conservative and reactionary, used extensively the secret police (“Third Section”) and the army to suppress uprisings and political enemies. He alienated the intelligentsia and angered the liberals with his lack of political participation and exaggerated reliance on the Fundamental laws, which said that the tsar was appointed by god and was rightfully in charge of the country. As a response, the liberals initiated a banquet campaign that started in November 1904, and ended in January 1905 with the aim of making the tsar give

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

The lower class of Russia, which was composed of the working people felt misrepresented- or not represented at all.Nicholas II was the son of Alexander III of Russia, who was also the Emperor of Russia, before Nicholas. He was the heir of approximately 200 years of Czarist rule in Russia.Coming from a very rich family, Nicholas could hardly relate to the lower class. He had inherited Russia’s rule from his dad, and was not elected, which meant he was not necessarily qualified to correctly rule Russia, as he later proved through his actions.After he had angered the working class by slaughtering their own people, losing major battles in the war with Japan as well as in WWI, there was no way for him to amend for the mistakes he had made. Therefore, had the people been given the choice of taking down the Czar, they would have not hesitated.Their anger was represented through Lenin, with whom they felt they could connect to.Due to their dislike for the Czar, not many were dissatisfied when he was overthrown, and lated ordered to be executed by

Firstly, the opposition groups of the Tsar were known as the Populists, the Liberals and the Marxists. Each group had its own ideas on what was needed for Russia and each group wanted change, however, there were many problems within the groups and none of them were willing to work with each other. The Populists who were mainly concentrated on establishing a democratic government used violent

To keep the people content, power should be used conscientiously to appease the needs of the people and not the ruler or their family. Alexandra’s and Rasputin’s constant interference in Nicholas’ power weakens it to the point of collapse. They estrange him from his country and his people’s needs. Near the end of Nicholas’ rule, his wife, with Rasputin dead, ostensibly seizes control of the government, with Nicholas only watching her with uninterest. When Nicholas’ friend and cousin, Sandro, attempts to warn Nicholas of forthcoming doom, Alexandra interrupts and dismisses Sandro’s advice. Fleming says: “The only way to end “the nation’s wrath” was to immediately

Various aspects of Nicholas II’s political decisions reflected his clear unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and these decisions form a preliminary basis for both his own legacy of incompetency & the eventual undoing of the Romanovs. In comparison to rulers preceding, Nicholas was ill-prepared for the role: his father, Alexander III, failed to adequately develop his son’s understanding of civil & state responsibilities before his death in 1894, under the guise that he would live long enough to teach Nicholas of these affairs. Upon his consecration as Tsar, Nicholas spoke in his diary of his apprehensiveness

On the 20th October 1894 Nicholas II ascended the throne as tsar of Russia. He idolised the concept of continuing to rule Russia under the autocratic system, in the same way his father and predecessor Alexander III had done so. However, Nicholas lacked the qualities and characters of the autocratic style of leadership. The

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 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