The Romanov Dynasty
The Russian Empire under the rule of the Romanov Dynasty for almost 300 years grew and cemented itself as a major global power. From its ambiguous beginnings in 1613, the Romanov dynasty was born from the boyar nobles of feudal Russia, evolving to become the historically significant head of a modern empire. Yet, almost as soon as it was born, the Romanov family fell to the rigours of a changing world. Long and short term influences alike converged to topple the ailing autocracy, yet perhaps the most poignant factor that ultimately spelled out the monarchy’s failure was the simple fact that the Romanovs did not heed the winds of change. So much so that when the crown came to Nicholas II it would be the final time the Russian Empire was ruled
…show more content…
When discussing why public opinion of the tsar was so easily pliable in the lead up to revolution in 1917, we must acknowledge that Russia was evolving rapidly. As modern historians and public spectators, it is simple to map out how Russian society became a pressure cooker of discontent and anger. Mass industrialisation made living for a working, urban class almost unbearable, the class divide was still rigid, revolutionary ideas from the West offered a foundation to base claims for the removal of the autocratic system, and the pressures of World War 1 served to unite the people in one cause to end hardship. These factors stoked a population already vying for change and such an environment made revolution in Petrograd (St Petersburg) in the February of 1917 almost inevitable, foreshadowing the end of the …show more content…
A conglomeration of domestic issues – amplified by an incompetent leadership in Nicholas II and the parasitic Rasputin – came together to bring 300 years of autocracy to an end. Russia had been ready for change, and the Romanovs had paid the ultimate price. Sources A, B, and C all display differing perspectives of the causes for the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, each with associated judgements on origin, bias, and motive but hold value to the discussion nonetheless. Thus, the fall of the Romanovs was systematic, abdication for Nicholas II inevitable and the winds of change again can be studied by historians and the public to acknowledge this momentous
When discussing why public opinion of the tsar was so easily pliable in the lead up to revolution in 1917, we must acknowledge that Russia was evolving rapidly. As modern historians and public spectators, it is simple to map out how Russian society became a pressure cooker of discontent and anger. Mass industrialisation made living for a working, urban class almost unbearable, the class divide was still rigid, revolutionary ideas from the West offered a foundation to base claims for the removal of the autocratic system, and the pressures of World War 1 served to unite the people in one cause to end hardship. These factors stoked a population already vying for change and such an environment made revolution in Petrograd (St Petersburg) in the February of 1917 almost inevitable, foreshadowing the end of the …show more content…
A conglomeration of domestic issues – amplified by an incompetent leadership in Nicholas II and the parasitic Rasputin – came together to bring 300 years of autocracy to an end. Russia had been ready for change, and the Romanovs had paid the ultimate price. Sources A, B, and C all display differing perspectives of the causes for the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, each with associated judgements on origin, bias, and motive but hold value to the discussion nonetheless. Thus, the fall of the Romanovs was systematic, abdication for Nicholas II inevitable and the winds of change again can be studied by historians and the public to acknowledge this momentous