Summary: Romanov Dynasty
Essay Question: Discuss the economic, social and political grievances in Russia at the turn of the C20th and their contribution to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, had neither the qualities nor the desire to rule imperial Russia. Born in Tsarskoye Selo in 1868, Nicholas was the eldest son of Alexander III, the fearsome tsar who had reimposed autocracy and oppression on the Russian empire after the murder of Alexander II. Those who met the young tsarevich, described him as pleasant and likeable, but otherwise unremarkable – hardly the traits of a man ordained by God to rule Russia. Nicholas famously expressed reluctance about taking the throne, declaring that he “never wanted to rule”. But tradition …show more content…
“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 …show more content…
This was a disastrous move as it left Alexandra in control back in the cities. She had become increasingly under the influence of the one man who seemingly had the power to help her son, Alexis, afflicted by haemophilia. Alexandra believed that Rasputin was a man of God and referred to him as “Our Friend”. Others, appalled at his influence over the tsarina, called him the “Mad Monk” – though not in public unless they wanted to incur the wrath of Alexandra. Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s. His womanising was well known and he was considered by many to be debauched. Rasputin was a great believer in the maintenance of autocracy. 'The growing influence of Gregory Rasputin over the Romanov’s did a great deal to damage the royal family ' - Historian Chris Trueman. Ironically, with the devastation that World War One was to cause in Russia, it was Rasputin who advised Nicholas not to go to war as he had predicted that Russia would be defeated. As his prophecies seemed to be more and more accurate, his influence within Russia increased. Rasputin had always clashed with the Duma. They saw his position within the monarchy as a direct threat to their position. Alexandra responded to their complaints about Rasputin’s power by introducing legislation that further limited their power. 'Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s ' - Historian Chris Trueman.
Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, had neither the qualities nor the desire to rule imperial Russia. Born in Tsarskoye Selo in 1868, Nicholas was the eldest son of Alexander III, the fearsome tsar who had reimposed autocracy and oppression on the Russian empire after the murder of Alexander II. Those who met the young tsarevich, described him as pleasant and likeable, but otherwise unremarkable – hardly the traits of a man ordained by God to rule Russia. Nicholas famously expressed reluctance about taking the throne, declaring that he “never wanted to rule”. But tradition …show more content…
“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 …show more content…
This was a disastrous move as it left Alexandra in control back in the cities. She had become increasingly under the influence of the one man who seemingly had the power to help her son, Alexis, afflicted by haemophilia. Alexandra believed that Rasputin was a man of God and referred to him as “Our Friend”. Others, appalled at his influence over the tsarina, called him the “Mad Monk” – though not in public unless they wanted to incur the wrath of Alexandra. Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s. His womanising was well known and he was considered by many to be debauched. Rasputin was a great believer in the maintenance of autocracy. 'The growing influence of Gregory Rasputin over the Romanov’s did a great deal to damage the royal family ' - Historian Chris Trueman. Ironically, with the devastation that World War One was to cause in Russia, it was Rasputin who advised Nicholas not to go to war as he had predicted that Russia would be defeated. As his prophecies seemed to be more and more accurate, his influence within Russia increased. Rasputin had always clashed with the Duma. They saw his position within the monarchy as a direct threat to their position. Alexandra responded to their complaints about Rasputin’s power by introducing legislation that further limited their power. 'Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s ' - Historian Chris Trueman.