• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Was the 1905 revolution a result of poor leadership?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Was the 1905 revoltion a result of poor leadership? The 1905 revolution happened for many reasons. These include the leadership qualities of Tsar Nicholas II, the decisions he made, the conditions in Russia at the time, and the Russo-Japanese war. When Tsar Alexander III died unexpectedly in 1894, his son Nicholas was to become the new leader of Russia. Nicholas was always a very sociable character but lacked interest in his tutor's lessons. He had no interest in political matters and would rather see his friends in cafes. As the new Tsar of Russia, he was much unprepared and even asked his cousin, "What am i to do? I am not prepared to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling." Excited at the thought of a new ruler, the peasants and workers went to Winter Palace to ask for constitutional reforms. He went on to call it a 'senseless dream' much to the publics' horror. ...read more.

Middle

This urbanisation resulted in the overcrowdment of cities, leading to diseases and unhappiness. Up to ten people could fit in a room. The factories were not a nice place to be with poor health and safety regualtions, harsh dicipline, long hours and low pay. The workers had reached a level of overall discontent, and they felt that the Tsar was not helping the situation. Georgi Gapon thus formed a union of Russian workers, which was very popular. Russia as a country was very backward compared to its western neighbours. There were poor communications links and the farmers were self-sufficient, relying on their own produce. This means that should there be a poor harvest; the farmers would starve, resulting in extreme discontent towards the Tsar. This happened in1897, 1898 and 1901. One could argue that Tsar Nicholas II had become the leader of an already problematic country, that was geographicaly huge and therefore it was hard to communicate, thus not being his fault. ...read more.

Conclusion

He then decided to keep the old regimes that seemed to be working, much to the horror of the public. His marriage and family life played a big part in his imperial role. Alix of Hesse advised him to keep autocracy, and she was the only person Nicholas listened to. He devoted more time to his family than political matters. Urbanisation caused upset in living conditions, and working conditions. The pubic felt that the Tsar didn't help them, and thought they were being harshly treated. The famines of 1897, 1898 and 1901 caused discontent towards the Tsar for not doing anything about it, and they started to look for faults.The Russo-Japenese war affected the overall morale and the military pride Russia once had. Nicholas mismanaged the war, and people questioned his military leadership skills. 'Bloody Sunday' was a short term cause of the revolution. The way the leader of Russia dealt with this angered the pubic, The Tsar unjustly crushed the petitioners, by which time, the Tsar was a hated figure in Russia. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate History section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate History essays

  1. Was the Russian Revolution due more to tsars inadequacy as a ruler of the ...

    so he has to draw his sources from other people or sources himself. This entails that the information in this paper that is drawn from his book is indirect and not a primary source. This limits the information on the views of the people during the revolution.

  2. Napoleon: Son or Enemy of the Revolution

    In order to fulfill Napoleon's desire for control, France's territorial limits were increasing at a fast rate. Economically speaking Napoleon evidently altered the system. For instance, in order to make sure that there would not be a financial reproduction of the "Bourbon era", he abundantly used the more constructive policies.

  1. Russia 1905 revolution

    These people were called liberals or "Cadets". Two other groups were more violently opposed to the Tsar. They believed that revolution was the answer to the people's troubles. The Socialist Revolutionaries were a radical movement. Their main aim was to carve up the huge estates of the nobility and hand them over to the peasants.

  2. French Revolution: Success or Failure?

    In addition, French citizens were allowed to have "voting rights" under this new constitution, "the Legislative Assembly would be made up of representatives elected by Electors" Truly, this historical event gave critical impacts on French society. Not only it gave French people to have voting rights but also symbolizes the France was not the autocratic country.

  1. Was the Tsar to blame for his own downfall?

    Food shortages in the cities increased during the war as railways were used to transport ammunitions and war supplies as well as soldiers which made it impossible for peasants to send food to the cities. As well, the full scale mobilisation took over 15 million men from the countryside that before would have provided food for the Russians.

  2. IB History HL, Extended Notes: Russia, the Tsars, the Provisional Govenment and the Revolution.

    Other powers (levying taxes, appointing officials, maintaining law and order) remained in the hands of the governors appointed by the Tsar. 5. Similar councils were introduced in cities in 1870 called Dumy. 6. Liberals hoped that these reforms would lead to a national assembly but Alexander refused to surrender autocratic control.

  1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Alexander II of Russia's reforms.

    But the peasantry were still not liberated. It just moved from a system which could be compared to American slavery to a system of oppressive rule. It was successful in changing Russia?s backward image. Western Europe would have viewed it as a new modern Russia.

  2. Answers to Questions on Russia and the 1905 Revolution

    Also, because it seemed the regime was working for the benefit of the people. I suppose the reason the regime stayed in power so long was because it appeared to be doing a good job of controlling the situations that arose, and because people were afraid of change.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work