The Role Of Nicholas II In The Downfall Of The Romanov Dynasty

Assess the role of Nicholas II in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917.

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
to this day.

Nicholas’ weak characteristics and his unsuitability for the role of Tsar was one of Nicholas’ key contributions to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty. The role of Russian Tsar required a man, who was decisive and stern, and able to deal with the problems of revolutionary violence, such as Nicholas’ strong predecessors. However being contrastingly indecisive and easily impressionable, Nicholas was quite evidently inadequately equipped for the demands of his exalted role as Tsar. Caring little for politics or public life, Nicholas prioritized his family and wife, Alexandra. By dedicating his life to his family, Nicholas separated and isolated himself from the Russian public. Nicholas was left unaware and ignorant of the increasingly growing issues in Russia, including mass poverty, with peasants making up over 85% of the population. His lack of understanding and inability to address the stark realities the Russian people faced, led to a huge decline in the Tsar’s authority. This decline was furthered by Alexandra’s disastrous influence over Nicholas, who urged the Tsar to preserve autocracy ruthlessly. Alexandra’s terrible reputation amongst Russia became particularly detrimental to Nicholas’ regime, when she sought the advice of Gregory Rasputin, a Siberian healer, notorious for his alcoholism. Alexandra’s influence over Nicholas, combined with his weak and indecisive nature, made Nicholas II terribly unsuitable for the role of Tsar.

Despite possessing none of the qualities required of an autocrat, Nicholas held a strong commitment to autocracy, throughout his reign.
Like his father, Nicholas was prepared by his tutor Constantine Pobedonostsev, an extreme nationalist, who instilled in Nicholas a stubborn belief in the divine right of kings and absolute power. Many historians such as George F. Kennan, argue that it was this wholehearted belief and upholding of autocracy, which was in fact, the main reason for the March Revolution in 1917. By 1905, the changing needs of the rapidly industrialized Russia were disregarded by Nicholas, who instead ruthlessly repressed any opposition to the government and its’ autocratic system. Nicholas’ heavy censorship and policing developed a huge level of oppression and discontent amongst the Russian public. Protest was met with relentless violence such as the Bloody Sunday incident on the 22ND January 1905. With over 1000 civilians killed by Nicholas’ army, the massacre which came to be known as “Bloody Sunday” highlighted the regime’s brutal approach and the Tsar’s autocratic unwillingness to address the issues of the Russian population. The incident caused a significant decline in the Tsar’s authority, destroying Nicholas’ image as the people’s benevolent father. Bloody Sunday also triggered widespread protest and revolt, which led to the 1905 revolution. The growing resentment towards Nicholas was furthered after his failure to accept the Duma which he promised in
his October Manifesto. Nicholas’ dissolution of four Dumas’ and his issuing of The Fundamental Laws in 1906, demonstrates Nicholas’ stubborn and absolute commitment to autocracy, and his reluctance to address the issues existent in Russia. These events led to the increasing hostility of the Russian people and a declining respect for the Tsar which brought about the downfall of the Romanov dynasty. After Nicholas II failed to meet the promises outlined in the October Manifesto, Nicholas also lost the trust and respect of not just the peasantry, but also the middle and upper classes. Furthermore, Russia also recognised the progression of other nations surrounding them, which had developed from autocratic countries to constitutional monarchs. This furthered the discontent in Russia particularly amongst the peasantry who demanded political and social reform. The build-up of such resentment in the Russian population was a huge contribution in the downfall of the Romanov dynasty, and could have been avoided if Nicholas had progressed autocracy and adapted to Russia’s need for a democratic parliament.

Finally, the social and economic instability which Nicholas’ autocracy brought about was exacerbated by the regime’s series of humiliating failures at war. Nicholas’ choice to involve Russia in war against Japan in 1904, was in the hopes of a “short victory” which would reaffirm faith in the Tsar. However, after a staggering and humiliating defeat by their small Asian neighbour, the fundamental failures of the autocracy were highlighted, including limited resources and transport, out-dated communication, and inefficient military and political leadership. The consequences in Russia were immense, with a huge shortage of food, increased unemployment and rapid inflation. In addition to this, the series of military disasters increased Russia’s discontent dramatically, with consolidated opposition towards the government. Indefinitely, the Russo-Japanese War was extremely detrimental to the Tsarist regime, precipitating the 1905 revolution. However, when World War I broke out, Nicholas’ popularity increased dramatically, with Russia uniting under a wave of patriotism. WWI was initially successful in distracting Russia from the numerous internal problems which existed. However, after crushing military defeats in 1915, Nicholas decided to take personal command of the army, despite the warnings and advice of the allied governments, the Duma and the Council of Ministers. Nicholas II 's decision to place himself as the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, highlights the Tsar’s stubborn and inflexible ruling. His decision also directly linked any of the army’s failures to the Tsar himself, whilst leaving the governing of Russia, to his wife, Alexandra. The enthusiasm for war quickly weakened when Russia began to bear the burden of the effects of war, which was now blamed solely on Nicholas II. Similar to the Russo-Japanese War, the failures of Russia in WWI consolidated opposition towards the government, accelerating an evident and imminent revolutionary movement. Whilst Nicholas faced horrific military defeats, Alexandra worsened support for the Tsar through her inefficient ruling and her newly coined reputation as a spy, due to her German heritage. Finally, the most fundamental contributor to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty, was Nicholas’ loss of the army’s support in 1917. The loss of the army’s support was hugely significant as it signalled the breakdown of the autocracy’s authority, and further consolidated the disjointed and relatively spontaneous revolution in March 1917. Though World War I initially united Russia behind the Tsar, Nicholas’ military and political failures only helped to aggravate the revolutionary movement which had been developing throughout Nicholas’ reign. World War I played a crucial role in highlighting the fundamental flaws in Nicholas’ imperial regime, which led to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in 1917.

In conclusion, it was Nicholas II’s stubborn commitment to autocracy and his unsuitability for the role of Tsar, which led to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Nicholas’ autocratic method of ruling blinded him from the growing needs of Russia, and enforced a level of oppression which only heightened the discontent which led to the March Revolution in 1917. The diplomatic and military failures at war highlighted and showcased these flaws in Nicholas’s autocracy. If Nicholas had been more willing and able to adapt and reform, he could have ensured a gradual transition from an autocratic nation to a constitutional democratic nation, where the Romanov dynasty still existed to this
day.

Bibliography
Adams, A 1960, The Russian Revolution and Bolshevik Victory: Causes and Processes, D.C. HEALTH AND COMPANY, London
Allan, T 1946, “The Russian Revolution”, Heinemann Library, Great Britain
Bucklow M Russell G, 1976, “Russia: Why Revolution?”, Longman Cheshire, Australia
Fuhrmann, Joseph T. 2012, “Nicholas II”, World Book, viewed 19 May 2012
Nicholas II 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Retrieved 18 May 2012, fromhttp://school.eb.com.au/eb/article-5261
Romanov Dynasty 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Retrieved 18 May 2012, fromhttp://school.eb.com.au/eb/article-9083832
Simpkin, J 2010, Events and Issues in Russia: 1860-1914, Spartacus Educational, London, United Kindom, Viewed 20th May 2012,
Thomas, D and Mc Andrew, M 1999, Russia Soviet Union 1917–1945, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Victoria, Australia