Nicholas II: The Breakdown Of Social Order In Russia
Firstly, the breakdown of social order was instigated by the leadership of Nicholas II. The Tsars’ archaic policy’s led to the persecution of racial minorities and oppression of the working class, which held Russia’s population majority and contributed to over half the nations’ income. Nicolas II was very easily influenced, which led to him being easily persuaded by his advisors and wife. His wife, Tsarina Alexander was a very strong believer of the autocratic system and believed that power should not be shared. The Tsarina was very politically strong-minded, however she was ill-informed. The Tsar often relied on his advisors to help make decisions, as he himself had not been exposed to the harsh reality of life in Russia. His lack of determination and his political naiveté led him into his decision to be the front command for the Russian troops in WWI, which would eventually prove fatal, as behind him, he left his ill-equip wife to lead with the highly influential Rasputin with her. The support from Nobles and army generals began to diminish, as they saw
…show more content…
the Tsar leaving two incompetent people to run the government. Eventually, the Tsar became estranged from his traditional upper class supporters. This lead to a want for a reform, but with Nicholas II underestimating the magnitude of the situation, he refused. This shows an example of his political naiveté, as had a kept the upper class united, the 1917 revolution could have been avoided. His ultra-conservative outlook prevented what could have been a stable middle class, as well as a liberal type government.
Secondly, the Tsarist autocratic system, in which Nicholas II upheld, was a leading factor in the widespread tension in imperialist Russia.
In the ‘Fundamental Laws of the Empire’, it Is written that “all must bow to the supreme power, not only out of fear but also out of conscience.” This sends a clear message to all that communication with the Tsar is irrefutable and repressive. The social construct of the autocratic system saw the intense disparity of peasants, which made up 82% of the population, and the working class (4%). The Tsarist autocracy gave power to the tsar not only to control all power and wealth, but also control the distribution of it, meaning people were not endorsed by merit. For example, the army’s authority was not assigned based on proficiency or skill, rather on what could be sold or bought. Autocratic Russia was not interested in the improvement of social equity or economic
innovation.
Finally, although the leadership of Nicholas II and the whole system of autocracy was destructive to the Russian Empire, a central leader was detrimental for some unity. The 1987 census displayed 82 nationalities branched out over 20 million square kilometres, therefore it was vital that there was some centralised leadership, in order for the geographical and the diverse cultures to remain unified.
the Tsar leaving two incompetent people to run the government. Eventually, the Tsar became estranged from his traditional upper class supporters. This lead to a want for a reform, but with Nicholas II underestimating the magnitude of the situation, he refused. This shows an example of his political naiveté, as had a kept the upper class united, the 1917 revolution could have been avoided. His ultra-conservative outlook prevented what could have been a stable middle class, as well as a liberal type government.
Secondly, the Tsarist autocratic system, in which Nicholas II upheld, was a leading factor in the widespread tension in imperialist Russia.
In the ‘Fundamental Laws of the Empire’, it Is written that “all must bow to the supreme power, not only out of fear but also out of conscience.” This sends a clear message to all that communication with the Tsar is irrefutable and repressive. The social construct of the autocratic system saw the intense disparity of peasants, which made up 82% of the population, and the working class (4%). The Tsarist autocracy gave power to the tsar not only to control all power and wealth, but also control the distribution of it, meaning people were not endorsed by merit. For example, the army’s authority was not assigned based on proficiency or skill, rather on what could be sold or bought. Autocratic Russia was not interested in the improvement of social equity or economic
innovation.
Finally, although the leadership of Nicholas II and the whole system of autocracy was destructive to the Russian Empire, a central leader was detrimental for some unity. The 1987 census displayed 82 nationalities branched out over 20 million square kilometres, therefore it was vital that there was some centralised leadership, in order for the geographical and the diverse cultures to remain unified.