Preview

Assess the Role of the Tsar in the Fall of the Tsarist Regime

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
931 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Assess the Role of the Tsar in the Fall of the Tsarist Regime
Assess the role of the Tsar in the fall of the Tsarist Regime.
In Russia, Tsarism had been the system of government since 1547, the country being ruled as an autocracy. For many years the Tsars had been powerful, strong and had the qualities needed to be a great leader, though in 1917, the Tsarist regime came to an end, with Nicholas Romanov II as the country’s current monarch. Tsar Nicholas played a great role in the fall of Tsarism; his incompetency and lack of leadership skills lead to downfall and created a communist Russia. Nicholas made many mistakes which triggered the collapse, which include failure to make the duma work and address the October Manifesto, his role in World War 1 and his decline in authority and support.
Another point to consider was the Tsars’ decline in authority; this was a major factor which influenced the role of the Tsar in the regime. After Bloody Sunday Nicholas’ reputation had been damaged and his hold over the Russian public was starting to wane. Since becoming the Tsar in 1894, Nicholas had failed to embody any attributes of a strong leader. The Tsar had no interest in politics and ruling, as well as no knowledge as to how to rule a country; he did not understand his people especially the peasants whom suffered the most and were the majority of his people. This ultimately led to the fall of the Tsarist Regime as he did not know how to run the country in the first place.
One of the first ways that Nicholas II brought on the fall of the Tsarist regime was his failure to address the problems that had arisen before and during the 1905 revolution. The citizens of Russia had disagreed with the way that he had been governing the country, and in result the people rebelled. The peasants who were made up the majority of the population had suffered years without recognition or support in their day to day lives. They took to the streets in an attempt to present their issues to their beloved Tsar, and the originally peaceful protest was

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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

    Tsarism thrived for hundreds of years but as Russians became more educated they decided that communism and a dictatorship was too harsh and after a few revolutions Tsarism was a thing from the past. In the years 1881 to 1905 many things changed in Russia for the better and for the worse.…

    • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Good Essays

    The events of “Bloody Sunday” also played a dramatic role in the collapse of Tsardom. “Bloody Sunday” which was originally meant to be a peaceful protest by disgruntled steel workers in St. Petersburg took a twisted turn of events which forever tarnished the name of Tsar Nicholas II. Angered by the poor working conditions and the on-going war with Japan, thousands marched towards the Winter Palace to plead with the Tsar for reform. As the Tsar was not present at the time, panicky soldiers gunned down workers on the streets. The mass killings of dissident civilians possibly frightened the rest of the population into silent obedience, but would not have changed the fact that…

    • 366 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
  • Good Essays

    When Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 he wasn’t facing any single issue left by a single Tsar he was facing the culmination of the three previous rulers’ mistakes that they had left behind or inherited and made worse. However the biggest problems had arguably been left by Russia’s most “liberal” Tsar, Alexander I.…

    • 958 Words
    • 4 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
  • Better Essays

    Tsar Nicholas soon decided (or knew no other way) that he would rule the same as his father, and all the Romanov generations before him ruled, with absolute power. He decided to rule this way because he saw no need for change - 'it's worked for nearly 300 years, why change now?' the tsar was once quoted saying. What the Tsar didn't realize is that he is ruling with a 17th Century mind-set, and it was now the 20th century.…

    • 1855 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better 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

    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

    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