Was Nicholas II a good ruler for Russia?

Authors Avatar by owaranai14 (student)

Was Nicholas II a good ruler for Russia?

In some ways Nicholas II had some of the qualities necessary to be a successful Tsar. For instance, he had characteristics that could have benefitted him such as his loyalty and intelligence, shown in source 12, “Nicholas was not a stupid man …Nicholas loved his country and served it loyally and to the best of his ability…The situation would probably have destroyed any man who sat on the throne.”(From Nicholas II, Emperor of All the Russians by Dominic Lieven, 1994.) This source is somewhat reliable because although history books are based on indisputable facts, this fact may have been used in a way that sides with the author’s point of view. The quote also suggests that he did not deserve the extensive criticism that he faced during his reign and was not a particularly terrible leader. Furthermore,  source 5 shows that Nicholas was enthusiastic, kind hearted and committed to his work, “Nicholas was “kind to those around him and deeply religious…He believed wholeheartedly in autocracy. …He genuinely wanted to bring happiness and prosperity to his people.” (From a modern GCSE school textbook.) This source is also somewhat reliable because it was a British GCSE textbook, which means that it may have been oversimplified or manipulated to fit Britain’s view of Russia’s approaches.

Join now!

On the other hand, he also displayed some worrying tendencies. For example his faults caused some people of Russia to believe less in his ability to rule, shown in source 3 -  “Nicholas was not fit to run a post office,” said by an unknown cabinet minister. Although this source was from during his time in power, it is unreliable as it’s an opinion, not factual and the identity of the person who said it was unknown. One other source that shows the scepticism of some Russians toward his leadership is source 4, “He never had an opinion of his ...

This is a preview of the whole essay