Preview

How Far Was Nicholas Ii Responsible for His Own Downfall?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1510 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How Far Was Nicholas Ii Responsible for His Own Downfall?
How far was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?

In 1917 Tsar Nicholas II signed a deliration to abdicate from power; this was due to a number of long term and short term factors; some being of Nicolas II own problems and some being general problems that faced Nicholas II. When Tsar Nicholas II came to power many problems faced him, such as lack of industrial revolution, political problems, economical problems etc… Nicholas II was a very strong believer in autocracy and the belief that he had been made Tsar by God, however Nicholas was a very poor leader to the people of Russia, growing political problems and the war pushed Nicholas II to abdicate.

Tsar Nicholas II was a very poor leader for the people of Russia, he lacked leadership skills. His poor leadership qualities lead too many problems within Russia that were not dealt with efficiently. For example he did not trust the Duma, in 1906 the first Duma was introduced; after 72 days Nicholas dissolved the Duma as he did not believe in their policies and he did not trust them. This angered many people, Nicholas was not giving anyone a chance to speak and help him to change Russia.
Nicholas poor leadership and traditional beliefs meant that there was little change in Russia, outside Russia many countries were thriving on industrialization where as Russia was still lacking behind. The new Western ways built growing political tensions; left wing oppositions were forming against the Tsar and waiting to over throw him. This long – term factor is seen as Nicholas II own problem for his downfall, his lack in leadership skills angered the country and people knew Nicholas could improve his leadership, but would not do so.

Russia was still an autocracy, this meant that the Tsar had complete power and his rules and beliefs could not be challenged. The autocracy system was growing old, people in Russia wanted westernization and democracy, however Nicholas II opposed these beliefs. After the events of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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

    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
  • 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

    Many of the opposition fled to other European countries where they continued to plot against the Tsar. This shows how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress politically by exiling all of their possible contenders. This allowed the Tsar to have much more control over Russia much like before Alexander ll reign. The persecution of Jews caused many to join radical parties and organisations. This shows us how there was not even the slightest bit of democracy within Russia, and how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress. Another major problem in Russia was the growing population of peasants. This caused famines within Russia in 1892 and 1893. This famine was a cause of many peasants death which shows how Russia did not have the money or resources to keep up with their growing population. This showed a lack in progress as they could not even support their country’s people with…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory 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

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Many Russians were infuriated by the government because the Tsar did not take action when the country was deteriorating. In addition, he failed to carry his people during the war. With this catastrophe, the Russians demanded for their voices to be heard and for a change in the government and as a result, war occurred within the country. Selfish people, like Nicholas II who kept all the power to himself, often affect others deeply, or foster terrible consequences. For example, one may take all the credit for working on a group project. Other group members will feel injustice and demand for credit to be given to them since they worked as hard as all the others did. Likewise, the Tsar’s decision to maintain power led to citizens rioting and the fall of his power. People should always think about their actions before executing them, or else the aftermath would be…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    March 14 1917, Nicholas II fell from power, there was lots of reasons but my three main reasons are; The State of the Army and how they weren't ready for war, The Role of the Duma and how they wanted the Tsar out of power, and Rasputin how he had control over Nicholas's wife…

    • 945 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    It can be seen by anybody that Nicholas II indeed played a huge role in his downfall. This downfall portrayed political, social and economical failures. Firstly, Nicholas’ abhorrent autocratic beliefs and his infamous ways of maintaining it contributed to his downfall. Also, the infamous massacre known as “Bloody Sunday” also contributed to his downfall, and finally the decision Nicholas made to fight in the Japanese and First World Wars all led to his own downfall.…

    • 1222 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 1597 Words
    • 7 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
  • Better Essays

    Czar Nicholas II Impact

    • 1570 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Czar Nicholas II, also known as Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov, was born on 18 May 1868. Czar Alexander III, Nicholas’s father, died with kidney diseased at the age of 49, and Nicholas II “succeeded his father in 1894” (NicholasII BBC). Czar Nicholas II was neither trained nor ready to rule Russia. Even though as kid, he had private tutors, his father did not inform or teach him…

    • 1570 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better 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
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas Ii of Russia

    • 723 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Another aspect which made Nicholas a weak ruler was that he agreed to anything his wife would order, and she played a big role in persuading him to resist if democracy would begin in Russia, because he was devoted to his wife. Later problems came to this, because Rasputin cured her son, which meant that she liked Rasputin and therefore caused Nicholas to trust Rasputin even more, furthermore causing problems.…

    • 723 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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