Preview

Tsar Nicholas II Research Paper

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1347 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Tsar Nicholas II Research Paper
To what extent was the Tsar to blame for his downfall in March 1917?

Tsar Nicholas II was rightfully blamed for his downfall in March 1917. His revolting actions resulting in detrimental impacts on Russia made him solely to blame for his abdication. Politically, socially and through War, Nicholas was to great extent his own reason of causing his downfall.

There were numerous political challenges Tsar Nicholas encountered through his reign as ruler, with the majority a direct consequence of shear incompetence and several errors made on his part. In particular, his inability and ignorance to cooperate with the newly created Duma after 1905.

In the October Manifesto, Nicholas finally agreed on the existence of a Parliament, with the
…show more content…
To be a leader or a ruler, it’s immensely vital that you are a man of true decision-making and a strong character. Nicholas was a complete contrast to that and therefore lacked the personal qualities to succeed in the top job which greatly undermined his popularity. Tsar Nicholas was a man who couldn’t make the tough choices and decisions, which consequentially left his advisors authorizing all the judgments. Bloody Sunday was another event, which proved as a vital factor in his abdication and resulted in a gruesome episode of Russia’s History. The Tsar was portrayed as the ‘little father’ by the church who could act as a guide, however after this episode in Russia’s history he was condemned as ‘Bloody Nicholas’. Under the Tsar’s orders, soldiers fired ruthlessly on innocent people who were simply protesting in order to achieve basic human rights. Of course, his popularity decreased dramatically and was an immense reason that his abdication came about. Sir Charles Hardinge, the British ambassador in St Petersburg, reported on the events of January 9, 1995. “What could not fail to strike a disinterested onlooker…was…the absence of any Government at all.” The report clearly stated that the Tsar was well aware and had every intention to persecute, therefore, reiterating the idea that he was every reason to blame for his own abdication. …show more content…
The 1904/5 Russo-Japanese war defeat was the Tsar’s fault but World War I left the Tsar in all sorts of tatters. The war against Japan proved as a costly mistake for the Tsar which ultimately was his own fault that and consequentially led to his abdication. It was the first victory of an Asian power over a European power which would have caused severe embarrassment for Tsar Nicholas. The incredible evidence of Russia’s military weakness was compounded by the fact that their was an increase in people discontent and demands for reform. World War I was considered the penultimate reason for the Tsar’s abdication and he was evidently responsible for all the detrimental impacts on Russia caused from it. The economical effects of the war were severe which led to numerous problems based entirely as a result of the Tsar’s actions. Due to the fact over 15 million people joined the army, farms and factories were without workers causing severe shortages of food and materials. Their was a poor railway system which consequentially resulted in food shortages in the town and inadequate supplies to the front. This caused severe discontent towards the Tsar as it was too full extent his responsibility to maintain adequate living standards. The social effects were just as worse and led to widespread misery. Hunger and discontent was a detrimental impact due to food shortages and price rises especially

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    Summary: Romanov Dynasty

    • 4116 Words
    • 17 Pages

    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…

    • 4116 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Powerful 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

    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
  • Good Essays

    In 1894 Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II, inherited the throne when he was unprepared to do so. It is hard to do something when you are not ready. It is like letting a bull out of the chute when you were not ready, so you fall, but in Nicholas’s case a lot of things came down with him.…

    • 247 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II’s lack of military experience and inability to rule the throne all together, additionally contributed to the devastating outcome of WW1 on Russia. “A quick intelligence, a cultivated mind, method and industry in his work, an extraordinary charm that attracted all who came near him- the Emperor Nicholas had not inherited his father’s commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” stated Sir G. Buchanan, British ambassador to Russia in 1910, emphasizes how the urban lower classes were not the only ones unsatisfied with the Tsar Nicholas…

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas II was the last czar of Russia. He was born on the 6th of May 1868 and this day, ominously, turned out to be the Orthodox feast day of St. Job the Sufferer. This seemed to foretell the dangerous and troublesome life that Nicholas had ahead of him (“Czar”). Unlike his father Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov, a giant and intimidating leader, Nicholas was merely 5’6” and had a gentle personality. He was one of the best educated monarchs in Europe because his parents foresaw the obstacles of the 20th century and prepared him for every challenge that he might face. Terrorism constantly threatened the royal family. Nicholas was always surrounded by guards and grew up being very isolated from the outside world. After joining the military, which was expected of him, he enjoyed his carefree life by drinking and attending parties (Hunsucker). Irresponsibility, negligence, and separation from his people kept him from being a successful leader.…

    • 473 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Undeniably, Nicholas II had an enormous role in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917. Whilst many historians argue the fall of the Tsarist regime to be the direct response and product of World War I, it is quite evident that it was Nicholas’ inefficient and fatal autocratic ruling which led to the March Revolution of 1917. The effects of Russia’s involvement in numerous wars only heightened and highlighted Nicholas’ unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and his absolute and stubborn belief in autocracy. Had Nicholas’ various choices throughout his reign differed, the Romanov Dynasty could in fact, have existed…

    • 1391 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The early years plunging Russia into the 20th century brought humiliation and prevalent discontent and resentment towards Tsar Nicholas. The decision to push Russia into a war with Japan unprepared and overconfident was the first fatal mistake Tsar Nicholas made. The humiliating blow of the disastrous war with Japan was felt nation-wide and led the people to lose faith in their “little father” and “divine ruler”. “Russia was humiliated in the eyes of…

    • 2102 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Czar Nicholas turned to the army to restore order. When it could not, he decided to return to the capital to deal with the crisis. However, the Duma knew what had to be done. Duma members met the czar’s train as it neared the city. They told Nicholas that the only way to restore order was for him to step down as czar. He tried to abdicate, or formally give up power, in favor of his brother, Mikhail.When Mikhail refused to take the throne, Russia’s monarchy came to an end.…

    • 4038 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas Romanov

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Nicholas II was the last of the Romanov dynasty rule as the Czar of Russia. His rule began on 1st of November and finished on the 15th of 1917. During the time of Nicholas’s reign Russia saw him go from the great and powerful “little father” to a much more dishonorable and weak “bloody Nicholas”. Nicholas II was unsuccessful and the reason behind all of Russia’s many downfalls such as WW1 and the Russo-Japanese war. Bloody Sunday, The October Manifesto and the Russo-Japanese war were all events that support how unsuccessful he was as Czar and prove that he was the worst ruler of his time.…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Alexei, who puzzled the people - they didn’t know about his condition - and was seen as spoiled and unloveable by politicians, was reasonably killed. He followed his father’s way of life, one that the people of Russia greatly disliked. It also made sense that Alexandra, the tsarina, was killed, as the people mistrusted her and Rasputin. Wherever Alexandra went, Rasputin went too. On the other hand, Nicholas’s brother, Grand Duke Michael, was asked to take the throne. (He later on refused) Eventually though, as history tells, most of the Romanov family was led to their deaths. OTMA, on the other hand, were possibly murdered due to the fact that their parentage led people to believe the children would turn out like Nicholas II and Alexandra. Nicholas was actually an uneducated man. “He had few intellectual pretensions” and instead preferred to leave the politics and papers to others. His parents did not bother educating him well either; Nicholas was tutored by average and undesirable people. The upbringing of the tsar helped Nicholas rule the way he did, and look at other people the way he did. The tsar was not very smart, so he sent away all ministers that he thought were more intelligent than him due to superiority belief. The people might have thought that OTMA and Alexei would turn out the same way - as Alexei showed he…

    • 1127 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good 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
  • Good Essays

    Soon after becoming Tsar he would ask Alix for support instead of trusting the “bureaucrats and sycophants” (Atchison). Nicholis would shy away and find himself lonely throughout his reign (Atchison). Nicholas II knew that his time as Tsar would be short lived and his people had grown tired and angry with him. He believed the only reason Russia was still holding “at the seams” was because of the monarchy (Atchison). This led to the Revolution in February of 1917 which was an “uproar” (Biography).…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Last of the Romanovs

    • 3074 Words
    • 13 Pages

    The first person to impact the fall of Imperial Russia was Nicholas II, the last Russian Emperor. In particular, Nicholas’ coronation marked the beginning of a downward spiral for the Romanov family. Tsar Nicholas II was born on May 6, 1868 and was the eldest son of Alexander III (Levykin, 1999). Nicholas II had to assume the throne earlier than the Russian population would have liked. Nicholas’ father fell ill in the spring of 1894 and his health never fully recovered. On October 20th, 1894, Alexander III died of nephritis, forcing Nicholas to become the next Tsar of Russia at a young age (Lincoln, 1976). After the untimely death of his father, Nicholas was in dismay about becoming Tsar of Russia, a position he never really wanted. This is exemplified when Nicholas II refers to being the Tsar as, “the awful job I have feared all my life” (Massie, 1967, p. 59). To further Nicholas’ fears, the Russian people and government believed he didn’t have enough political training to rule Russia effectively (Harcave, 1968).…

    • 3074 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    History

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages

    There were many reasons why the Romanov rule fell in the year 1917. I personally believe that the war was a major reason which led to the Tsar to abdicate but I also believe there are many other reasons which led to the Tsar to abdicate.…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays