Preview

How effectively did Nicholas II deal with the problems facing Russia in the period 1894 – 1905?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
821 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How effectively did Nicholas II deal with the problems facing Russia in the period 1894 – 1905?
How effectively did Nicholas II deal with the problems facing Russia in the period 1894 – 1905?
It is one of the ironies of Russian history that, at a time when the nation most needed a tsar of strength and imagination, it was a man of weakness and limited outlook who came to the throne. Nicholas II was the eldest son of Tsar Alexander III. When he succeeded his father in 1894, he had very little experience of government. There are two main aspects to Nicholas’ II’s reign; firstly the problems he faced as a tsar at a particularly critical stage in Russian history, secondly the growth of opposition in Russia to the tsarist system. Would the new Tsar Nicholas II be a reformer or a reactionary? There is no doubt as to what the answer is. Reform had a bad name by the time Nicholas became Tsar. Also his upbringing and education made him cautious of change so it is no surprise that he continued the repressive policies he had inherited from his father. This further angered the intelligentsia and the critics of the tsarist regime; they began to prepare to challenge tsardom. I will be exploring the problems Nicholas II faced and how effectively he dealt with them in the period of Russian history from 1894 – 1905.
Nicholas seemed not to understand the real nature of the problems his nation and his dynasty faced. Firstly, what the tsar’s power showed was how little Russia had advanced politically compared with other European nations. By the beginning of the twentieth century all major western European countries had some form of democratic or representative government. Not Russia, it had remained outside the mainstream of European political thought. There had been reforming tsars (Peter I, Alexander II) but achievements had not included the extension of political rights. In Russia in l894 it was a criminal offence to oppose the tsar or government, political parties had no legal right to exist, there had never been a free press in imperial Russia and government

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

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

    • 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

    Alexander ll became Tsar in 1855 after succeeding Tsar Nicholas l and was regarded as a “liberator” throughout his time as Tsar, until an attempted assassination attempt on him in 1866 were he turned more reactionary. Alexander ll was assassinated in March 1881, he was not radical and believed in a slow and progressive change, due to this he gathered much opposition to him and was eventually killed by The Peoples Will, and this kicked off ‘the era of great reforms’ [5].…

    • 3481 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

    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
  • 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

    Perhaps the revolution all started with the Tsarist system of rule. Sergei Witte and Konstantin Pobedonostev were important figures in influencing Nicholas. Witte recommended Nicholas to arrange an elected parliament whilst Pobedonestev wanted to preserve an older, almost peasant-ridden Russia. Nicholas did the same as his father and Grandfather and remained conservative by not changing Russia backward ways. This may make it seem as though Nicholas could have had Russia take a course change and throw out autocracy, and so may have to take responsibility regarding Russia’s current system of rule during the revolution. It could be said that Tsar Nicholas II never wanted to take on the responsibilities of being the Tsar as he was never prepared to be Tsar in the first place so may not have had the incentive to make the necessary change.…

    • 1051 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    He worried that what he had worked so hard to accomplish would be destroyed by his son who had no lessons in how to rule a country. Nicholas II, as a child, was sheltered from his parents; and the Russian people’s point of views, or beliefs, and he developed an outlook toward his future with “honor, service and tradition” (Atchison). Nicholas enjoyed the military field and had an “excellent education and was perhaps the best educated European monarch of his time.” Nicholas II wanted to please…

    • 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
  • Powerful Essays

    russia revision guide

    • 7465 Words
    • 24 Pages

    How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to 1881? (24 marks)…

    • 7465 Words
    • 24 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The reason why Russia had problems is because he had very little experience with government. Since he was a very weak Tsar he took, really, any advice; weather it’d be bad or good. Which brings up a man named Grigori Rasputin. He was a man who helped the Tsar’s son, Alexei, get better from a disease called hemophilia. The Tsarina, Alexandra, thought he was a miracle and welcomed him to the royal family. That’s when he started giving bad advice to Tsar Nicolas.…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Tsarist system of government underwent many changes throughout the years of 1881-1914. Both Alexander III and Nicholas II created several modifications, being both good and bad, to the government during these years. Alexander III created mostly negative changes, due to him being seen as a reactionary, whereas Nicholas II created mainly positive changes to the government as a result of the 1905 revolution. These changes can be categorised into political, economic and social modifications.…

    • 1624 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays