Tsar Nicholas II

It all began in 1894 when a man named Alexander III (Tsar of Russia), died leaving his son Nicholas II to become the tsar of Russia at the age of 26. In 1894 Nicholas married Alexander the princess of Germany; they had 5 children, 4 girls and a boy. There only son Alexei was born with hemophilia.

I personally believe that Nicholas II was responsible for his own downfall. Although there was definitely contributing factors, his naive attitude and inability to effectively rule a country caused his downfall. Nicholas failed to trust key advisors such as Witte and Stolypin and despite him issuing the October Manifesto; he preserved his own autocratic power through the fundamental laws, which the Russian people didn’t like. He failed to think and plan ahead to create a better future for Russia, he didn’t think like a leader should. Even though the war was already a huge strain

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

His ideas about important issues were independent because nothing really influenced those ideas, he had immaturity and lacked understanding (source I). This affected his ability to govern Russia because he never gained a sense of confidence and self reliance. Nicholas believed he was not good enough to rule Russia. He felt as though he didn’t have the abilities or the experience, and with his lack of political knowledge (source H).His lack of confidence and weakness allowed him to be governed by other individuals.

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

Nicholas the Second was a large contributing cause to his own abdication. Nicholas the Second continued to make countless amounts of unreasonable decisions throughout his reign. His bad decisions drove many of his original supporters away. For example, even on the day of his coronation he managed to start off his reign on a bad foot. This was due to the fact that when many celebratory mugs were being gifted to the people of St Petersburg to celebrate the coronation of the Tsar there was not enough to go around and in an effort to acquire one of these limited mugs many citizens were brutally killed. In the interim, Nicholas showed no consideration or sympathy towards the dead or those affected and continued with the coronation. Consequently

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

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

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 means by which Nicholas II sought to rule as Tsar as well as his intrinsic characteristics played a significant role in the occurrence of Revolution in 1917. Nicholas was conservative by nature. His insufficient leadership tuition, brought about by his unexpected ascendance to power in 1894, forced his unwavering reliance on the systems established by his predecessors. Nicholas was a man of weak fortitude, his poor decisions and miscalculations throughout his reign owe much to his personality.

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

Just such a scenario played itself out when Czar Alexander I died of an unexpected illness in November 1825. Nikolai reportedly did not want the throne and took twenty days after his brother's death before declaring himself Czar of all Russia. The indecision only worsened matters, as a group of army officials who favored his older brother, Constantine, declared allegiance to Constantine, despite the formal abdication.

Tsar Nicholas II was one of the central figures to the Russian February Revolution of 1917 and secured the downfall of the Romanov dynasty. Nicholas II continued the regressive reforms of his father Tsar Alexander III, ultimately disenchanting the constituents from the neglect of longstanding grievances; he epitomised the fundamental problem of absolute rule, as years of suffering would eventually lead to revolution. His mismanagement and direct involvement in World War I undermined the already unstable government, causing his subjects to join radical movements to overthrow the tsarist regime.

He is just a good, religious, simple-minded Russian. –Tsar Nicholas II (Russian). Grigori Rasputin was that and more. Rasputin was a lot of different things to a lot of people. To the Tsarina Alexandra, Rasputin was a healer and a dear friend. To some of the nobles, he was a threat and should be killed. Despite having different opinions of Rasputin, everyone agreed that he could work miracles. The Czar’s son, Alexei, is proof of one these miracles. Besides preforming healing miracles, he also had influence in the court of the Tsar (Grigory). Rasputin