Preview

How firmly was the Tsar in control of Russia before 1905?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1597 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How firmly was the Tsar in control of Russia before 1905?
“How firmly was the Tsar in control of Russia before 1905?”

Russia was an Autocracy before 1905 and the Tsar was Nicholas 2nd. Many people dispute over whether he was in control or not, the main factors being: The Tsar’s leadership, Opposition to the Tsar, Social and Economic conditions and finally means of control. It can be argued that some factors are more important than others, but they are all significant in how I believe the Tsar was losing control.

The Tsar’s flaws as a leader were an extremely important reason as to why he was losing control of his country. Russia was an autocracy- this meant that the Tsar had full control of the country and had the final say in every decision. This could have been positive, but I think it was a negative thing. He was not a very decisive person, and he would not delegate to others (An example of this being, how he interfered in the appointments of local midwives.) While he was busy doing the wrong jobs he needed employees that were capable of the best. Another flaw of Nicholas’ was that he was extremely suspicious of those cleverer than him and fired many of his best workers (Count Witte) and preferred to hire only family and friends. This helped to weaken his control on Russia because not only did he lose respect from his people, but also he was not doing his job and as the only ruler of the country, Russia did not have a focused authority figure.

The Tsar had a lot of opponents within Russia and he did not deal with them to the best of his abilities. This meant he was not firmly in control of Russia at all. The 4 main opposing groups were: The Liberals (Cadets), The Social Revolutionaries (SRs) and The Social Democratic Party (Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks) Although the different groups were all angry at different things, the one thing they had in common was that they were all unhappy about Russia’s Social and Economic Situation. In my opinion the Bolsheviks were the most dangerous group towards Tsar and the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Nicholas II being the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty that lasted for over 300 years, is accountable for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917, however, there are various other reasons too that involved in the ultimate fall of tsarism in Russia in February 1917. While Nicholas’s indecisiveness played a major role in portraying his negligence, the other factors that involved the fall of tsarism were, the declining economic standards and the growth of political opposition along with Nicholas II’s penultimate absence when he was most needed in his country, due to the involvement in the first world war, which was another mistake made by the tsar.…

    • 313 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In July 1918, the royal Romanov line was suddenly and brutally ended by the Bolsheviks. The Romanov family had ruled the Russian Empire for over three centuries. The Romanovs reign was one of strict tyranny. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia made one big step toward a more equal Russia by freeing the serfs but because the serfs owned no land they had little to no money still. After WWI when nicholas led Russia to a crushing defeat there was lots of unrest throughout Russia. I think that the main reason the Tsar was forced to abdicate the throne and then was slaughtered is that he made a more equal Russia but in doing so he made the serfs more impoverished than ever, that he had led Russia into multiple wars that had ended badly and that the technology…

    • 151 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Summary: Romanov Dynasty

    • 4116 Words
    • 17 Pages

    “The daily work of a monarch he found intolerably boring”-Kerensky. In a tsarist autocracy, all power and wealth is controlled and distributed by the tsar. The center of the tsarist autocracy was the person of the tsar himself, a sovereign with absolute authority. The rights of state power in their entire extent belonged to the tsar. Power was further entrusted by him to persons and institutions, acting in his name, by his orders, and within the limits laid down for them by law. The purpose of the system was to supposedly benefit the entire country of Russia. “Autocracy is a superannuated form of government that may suit the needs of a Central African tribe, but not those of the Russian people, who are increasingly assimilating the culture of the rest of the world. That is why it is impossible to maintain this form of government except by violence.” -Nicolai Tolstoy. Unlike western monarchies who were subjugated in religious matters to the Pope, the Tsar of the Russian Empire was the supreme authority on religious. Another key feature was related to patrimonialism. In Russia the tsar owned a much higher proportion of the state (lands, enterprises, etc.) than did Western monarchs. The tsarist autocracy had many supporters within Russia. “Be more autocratic than Peter the Great and sterner than Ivan the Terrible.” -Tsarina…

    • 4116 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The question is focused on the challenges mounted to Tsarist rule in the given period, and the extent to which divisions among opposition groups contributed to their failure. Answers may consider the four main strands of opposition, their internal divisions and their intolerance of each other. A tradition of revolutionary activity was established by the Populists and their appeal to the peasants, though they were weakened by the assassination of Alexander II and the repression established by Alexander III. The Social Revolutionaries tried to gain support among both peasants and townspeople, but were divided between anarchists and revolutionaries. The Social Democrats split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at the 1903 Congress, while the Liberals did not establish distinctive parties until after the 1905 Revolution. A simple description of some of the revolutionary parties will be marked within Levels 1 and 2, and progression will depend on the range and depth of relevant material.…

    • 555 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Czar Nicholas was famous for his autocratic ideas, meaning that he theoretically had total power. His autocratic belief led to an ineffective rule. Nicholas II was the leader of the Russian Empire; however, he was not prepared for the tremendous obligations of administration. The Britannica article, “Nicholas II” claims, “Neither by upbringing nor by temperament was Nicholas fitted for the complex tasks that awaited him as autocratic ruler of a vast empire.” This suggests that Czar Nicholas’s rule was doomed from the start of his czarship. Nicholas’s inexperience explained his ineffectiveness as a ruler. In addition, Czar Nicholas’s absolutist beliefs blinded him from change. Nicholas II’s belief that he had absolute power and stubbornness clouded his view of change. According to Encyclopedia.com’s “Nicholas II,” “[Nicholas] was too stubborn and very slow to recognize the need for change. Nicholas found it…

    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    War broke out in 1914, with Tsar Nicholas becoming commander-in-chief in 1915, meaning he was away from Petrograd. Not only was this poorly thought out by Nicholas because it gave the people an opportunity to plot against him, but as he was away he left Tsarina (also a German princess), Alexandra, in charge during his absence. Due to the war being against Germany, this made the Russian people nervous and skeptical towards the extreme power she had over them during such a crucial time. Not only were they disgruntled by this, but also Alexandra’s close friendship to Rasputin, a Serbian peasant. This particularly angered the aristocracy and middle classes as they believed they were being led by someone of lower demeanor than that of themselves. This weakened support for the autocratic rule and lost the Tsar many of his supporters, which put him in a vulnerable position in the case of revolutionary upturn. This also could have inspired the peasantry to discover greater aspirations and encourage their belief that they could have greater status which in turn could trigger new revolutionary ideas amongst the lower classes. This demonstrates a link between Nicholas being away in order to commandeer army movement for the war, however it is arguable that it was a lack of authority and respect for the Tsarist regime that caused the change of opinions towards the Tsar amongst all classes, lessening his support and leaving him far more vulnerable in the case of a revolution.…

    • 1166 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Firstly, the repressive policies of the Tsar was partly responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule as the Tsar made it very difficult for there to be any sort of opposition. This was because the Tsar implemented the Okraha (secret police) to exile anyone who opposed him. This created fear in opposition groups so they started operated from outside Russia. In addition to this, the Statute of State Security meant that the government opponents were tried so could not operate. This, with the help of Okhrana barred any opposition.…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    All state leaders across the whole period held qualities that didn’t please the whole of the population in Russia. During the reign of Alex II, the government showed some strength with controlling opposition from the peasantry through the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. It was thought that to prevent revolt from below, this was a key movement that had to be made, and therefore prevented future unrest and opposition. However, the new liberated serfs had to deal with more laws concerning land ownership with led to further unrest and repression in the peasantry by the state. The state moreover, appeased the most vocal critics but in such a way that allowed dissenters to express themselves in the knowledge that Tsar’s decision would be final. Compared to Nicholas II’s reign, this showed a decisive leading technique, as Nicholas’s style was more conservative, and showed weakness, relying on others’ advice to fuel his decisions. A key failure throughout his period was the mixed rule attempt with the Duma introduced from 1906 to 1917, it is arguable that Nicholas II made concessions only to keep opposition temporarily at bay and that his aim was to uphold the principle of autocracy.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905?…

    • 2563 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    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 tactics such as terrorism and assassinations, the most famous being the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. However, the Liberals, who also wanted to establish some sort of democracy did not agree on using violent tactics, they preferred to discuss things in meetings and banqueting campaigns. The Liberals were the most moderate of the opposition groups and wanted to keep the Tsar, but remove autocracy and have his current power shared between a democratic government. The Marxists, like the other two groups, also wanted to establish some sort of democracy; however, once again, they did not agree on using violence, they preferred to use propaganda campaigns, as did the Populists and Liberals, but not violence. These divisions meant that each opposition group’s strength alone was not enough to achieve their own specific goals and even though the groups did have some tactics such as propaganda in common, it was not enough. If each group had considered changing their tactics or been slightly more lenient, they may have succeeded.…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Nicholas’ autocratic method of ruling blinded him from the growing needs of Russia, and enforced a level of oppression which only heightened the discontent which led to the March Revolution in 1917. The diplomatic and military failures at war highlighted and showcased these flaws in Nicholas’s autocracy. If Nicholas had been more willing and able to adapt and reform, he could have ensured a gradual transition from an autocratic nation to a constitutional democratic nation, where the Romanov dynasty still existed to this…

    • 1391 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    When Alexander III became the tsar, Russia was in a crisis following the assassination of Alexander II. The problems that Tsar was facing were that many different groups wanted to change the political system, as not everyone agreed with the autocracy system of government in Russia. To solve this he had to get rid of all political parties and political opposition. Also he had to get rid of anyone who had or wanted political control. Alexander II’s liberals ministers, M,T. Loris-Melikov and N.P. Lgnatiev left the office, and were replaced with Alexandra III own mistiers, Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod of the Russia Orthodox Church. Also he had to make sure that all power was given only to the Tsar, so he had to restrict the Zemstvas power, because the Zemstva meant that all power of the tsar was spread out to cities and towns. Furthermore, the organisation, the ‘Peoples Will’ needed to be destroyed as it was a threat to Tsar’s power, so immediately he destroyed the ‘Peoples Will’. He then introduced the Statute of State Security. This allowed the government to arrest and trial any political opponent without a jury. This gave the Tsar complete power. In addition, Russia was a huge multi-racial empire with 55% Russian and the rest Ukrainians, Polish, Jews and more. Because of these races Alexander III wanted to make sure that Russia remained Russian. He did this by a policy of ‘Russification’. This policy made Russian the official language. This meant all documents were in Russia. However this policy affected many people including the Jews. Finally, Russia’s main problem was financially. Russia was physically the largest in size and population, but was almost the most economically underdeveloped. Alexandra III had to increase its economic wealth in order to maintain its armed forces and to maintain its position as a Great Power. He did this by his finance…

    • 2108 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Last of the Romanovs

    • 3074 Words
    • 13 Pages

    The fall of the Romanov Empire changed the face of Russia forever. The royal family, led by Nicholas II, we're imprisoned and eventually assassinated by the Bolsheviks, a political party founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov whose main focus was to eliminate the monarchy and employ their own form of democracy. Tsar Nicholas II, his wife, Alexandra, and their only son, Alexei, heir apparent to the throne, were all integral figures in this historical evolution of Russia and its people.…

    • 3074 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    History

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I believe that one of the main reasons for the Tsar’s abdication and the collapse of the Romanov rule was the poor state which Russia was in. Russia’s economy was at the worst it had ever been. The economy was far worse than other countries in the War. There were millions of peasants in Russia who had very limited amount of money. With such a limited amount of money, many peasants were unable to buy food, and drink to help them to survive. Peasants believed that they weren’t getting rewarded fairly for the work which they were doing. The upper classes’ benefit greatly due to work done by the Peasants. This created a negative atmosphere around Russia and helped fuel the need for a change. Peasants wanted change; they wanted to be rewarded more for their efforts at work. Russia was in an economic crisis. They had borrowed a huge amount of money from capital countries in order to fuel Russia’s war effort. This was a problem for Russia because they simply didn’t have the money to repay these countries. During the war the country had suffered inflation. Prices had risen dramatically for everyday items such as bread. The country was suffering and the Russian people’s families were dyeing in a war which wasn’t being funded. The Russian people were bound to be discontent and they only had one person to blame and that was the Tsar.…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays