Preview

Tsar Nicholas II Research Paper

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
958 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Tsar Nicholas II Research Paper
Which of the previous Tsars were most to blame for the problems inherited by Nicholas II when he ascended to the throne in 1894?

When Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 he wasn’t facing any single issue left by a single Tsar he was facing the culmination of the three previous rulers’ mistakes that they had left behind or inherited and made worse. However the biggest problems had arguably been left by Russia’s most “liberal” Tsar, Alexander I.

Nicholas I faced a multitude of problems when he ascended to the throne in 1825, first and foremost of all these was the Decembrist Revolution by Russian officers. Second was Russia’s crippling economic backwardness, and the slowly crumbling social systems of the old autocracy. Due to Nicholas the I Slavophil outlook on economics he had all but refused to modernise the Russian economy instead leaving it to sit stagnant whilst Western economies of Britain and France thundered ahead. This neglect of industry was keenly felt during the Crimean War where the allied forces of Britain and France thoroughly defeated and embarrassed the Tsars armies. The Russian army was terribly equipped, only capable of supplying 50%
…show more content…
Not only this but there was terrible famines during the early 1890s, anti-Jewish pogroms and savage repression of other constituent nationalities cultures, most notably in Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic states. Whilst Alexander III was successful in keeping Russia out of any wars during his time in power he sowed the seeds for a future one by entwining his nation’s fate with that of the Allied powers. And despite his obsession with the military, as Tsar he never managed to bridge the technological and material gap between the Russian military and the militaries of the Western and central European

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The Crimean war had highlighted the inadequacies in the Russian military. An example of this would be the lack of war materiel, such as rifles. The Crimean conflict had gone from bad to worse for the Russian military. The largely serf conscript army of the Empire, was poorly trained and poorly disciplined, this led to a number of mass desertions from the battle grounds, with almost The siege of Sevastopol was a sad and crippling defeat for the Russian empire, losing more than a 5th of its forces in the region. Alexander saw this as a triumph for the free troops of Britain and France, and a humiliating defeat for his conscripted and enslaved army. The Crimean war had also led to the eventual realisation that technological inferiority on the side of the Russians led to their defeat, The minister, Dmitri Milyutin, is described as stating quite bluntly, that “Russia must modernise, and it must build railways”. This is also a reference to the multitude of supply problems endured by the military, due to the lack of sufficient infrastructure such as railways. This makes the Crimean war a contributing factor to the Emancipation of the serfs, which defined Alexander II as a reformer.…

    • 1073 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One thing that had changed in Russia from when Alexander had come into power in 1881 was that there was increased repression regarding politics. The Statue of State Security was introduced which brought government-controlled courts into the country and could now put on trial political opponents and they could also be arrested too without the need of a jury. This shows change as a lot harsher punishments were introduced that could be imposed on opponents of the government such as being sent to and exiled in Siberia and being hunted down by the Okhrana – Russia’s secret police. Although there was repression of political opponents before Alexander III’s reign, the punishment wasn’t as harsh and the violence that was encouraged by extremist groups was a lot more widespread and happened regularly compared to when Alexander III had introduced the Statue of State Security where attacks were something that didn’t happen as often. Therefore, it contributes to the idea that Russia was unrecognisable in 1894 compared with 1881.…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Good Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II’s lack of military experience and inability to rule the throne all together, additionally contributed to the devastating outcome of WW1 on Russia. “A quick intelligence, a cultivated mind, method and industry in his work, an extraordinary charm that attracted all who came near him- the Emperor Nicholas had not inherited his father’s commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” stated Sir G. Buchanan, British ambassador to Russia in 1910, emphasizes how the urban lower classes were not the only ones unsatisfied with the Tsar Nicholas…

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1894 Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II, inherited the throne when he was unprepared to do so. It is hard to do something when you are not ready. It is like letting a bull out of the chute when you were not ready, so you fall, but in Nicholas’s case a lot of things came down with him.…

    • 247 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good 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

    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
  • Powerful Essays

    Nicholas II Research

    • 3161 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Source 11: Nicholas was “even more poorly prepared than his father for the burdens of kingship. Nicholas had no knowledge of the world of men, of politics or government to help him make the weighty decisions that in the Russian system the Tsar alone must make.” From H. Rogger, Russia in the Age of Modernisation and Revolution, 1983…

    • 3161 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful 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
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas II would be the Tsar that Russia would ever have, the Romanov dynasty would wiped out along with Nicholas II and his family. The Tsar was a caring father and a dutiful husband which could ultimately be the reason he abdicated, to protect his family but ended the way in he and his family would die. Because of his abdication. Russia was facing a series of problems when Nicholas II came to the throne; he had a series of poor harvest in 1891, 1892, 1898 and 1901. To complement this situation there was a serious rise in population. In 1796 the rural population was 35 million and this represented 96.4% of the population, whereas in 1897 the…

    • 1556 Words
    • 4 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