Tsar Nicholas II
History coursework Was size the most important reason in making the Russian Empire of Tsar Nicholas II so difficult to rule in the years before the outbreak of the First World War? Russia was, and still is a very large country and this would affect the way that the country was governed, it would affect the communication of the ruler of the country, Tsar Nicholas II, and also the law and order, but there are also many other factors that would affect how well this large empire would be governed such as the competency of the leader and the attitude of the people that live in the country. So it is not just size that affects how difficult Russia was to govern but there were many other factors that affected the rule of this country. One way in which Russia was made difficult to govern was just the shear size of the country. In 1900 the Russian Empire stretched over 600km which is about 60 times the size of Great Britain, and it took 13 days to travel from one side of the country to the other on the Trans - Siberian railway. This meant that communication between Russia's people was very poor and that it was hard to enforce law and order. This made it hard to govern as Tsar Nicholas II just simply could not help all of his people at once since there was such a large gap between the people, and so communities became impatient and began to revolt, this is why the law and order was so
Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited
History Essay "Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited" "I am not yet ready to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling" - Tsar Nicholas II On the 1st of November 1894, Tsar Alexander III of Russia died of nephritis. Upon his death, his son Nicholas assumed the throne, becoming the Tsar of the Russian people being known as Nicholas II. He ascended at the age of 26 and had little political or imperial experience in how to run a nation; he had spent much of his father's reign performing administrative role while his father had run policy, Alexander III felt Nicholas was unsuited to power and declined to train him. This meant that Nicholas II had little practical knowledge of the country he now ruled. Russia was divided politically with ideological opposition to the government growing due to political repression, struggling economically due to failure to modernise Russia's economy and increasing debt levels due to Russia's reliance on borrowing money from other countries. Also, the social structure was on the verge of collapse due to a surging peasant population and discontent with the way that the nobility controlled much of the land despite not contributing significantly to production & agriculture. Finally, Russia's large land mass made it difficult for communication and travel resulting in delays in enterprise and modernisation. Alexander III had
Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited
Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne of Russia in 1894, in which he effectively inherited a string of revolutions and wars which ultimately cost him his abdication. As Trotsky quoted, he "inherited not only a giant empire, but also a revolution." Nicholas II ascended on the throne believing that he was ruling by God's divine right, succeeding the concept that the autocracy and religion were inexplicably linked. "It is impossible for the Christians to have a Church but not to have an Emperor" - Ivan III. This suggests that one autocrat needed to be God's representative on Earth, and this role was fulfilled by Nicholas II, who believed he was the 14th apostle of God. The Orthodox Church was used as a weapon for conquering the people - especially those who had reservations about the Tsarist rule. Religion was considered by some revolutionaries to be "the opium of people" - Lenin, implying that faith was used as a method of sedating the people in a passive way, to make them obsolete from the Tsar's motives and actions. The Church would teach what the Tsar ordered it to teach the population of Russia, meaning it could make justifications for what seemed like outlandish behaviour (for example when people were shot), and maintain respect for the Tsar. The Orthodox Church played an important role in that those who were not
Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution?
Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution The Russian revolution of 1905 (hereafter referred to as "the revolution") was a protest against the Tsar's refusal to make political concessions, and that once the concessions were given; the revolution was doomed to failure. The opposition was disorganized and not united in its objectives, and that generally the people of Russia still revered the Tsar, despite his faults. A notable feature of the revolution is how little a part the revolutionaries actually played. Hardly any of them were either in St Petersburg or Moscow. It could be said that the revolution happened in spite of rather than because, of them. With the exception of Trotsky, none of the revolutionaries actually played a significant part, which has led historians to doubt the notion of 1905 as a revolution. One of the most significant reasons why Nicholas II survived the revolution being the lack of leadership, organisation and unity at the time the revolution took place. Despite the failure of Russia in the war against Japan, the Tsarist regime survived the revolution remarkable unscathed. There are a number of reasons for this. A significant reason is that since Nicholas II had enough manpower by way of his military to deal with the revolution, he could crush pockets of resistance wherever there was opposition to the Tsarist regime. The end of a collective
Was Nicholas II a good ruler for Russia?
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. On the other hand, he also
Why did Tsar Nicholas II Abdicate in 1917?
Moscow Economic School Extended Essay Why did Tsar Nicholas II Abdicate in 1917? History HL Michael Rodzianko cfx756 000904-005 2006 Abstract The abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917 was a profoundly mysterious event in Russian history. This unexpected event caused the Romanov Dynasty, which had ruled for 300 years to collapse in several months. This essay will aim at distinguishing the roles of various figures involved and the reasons for the event itself. This essay will focus mainly on the period leading up to and on 1917, in which the Tsar abdicated in early March. The memoirs of Michael Vladimirovich Rodzianko, the president of the fourth Duma will be used and to in order to get a contrasting view the work of G. Z. Yoffe, a Soviet historian who accessed archives opened in the 1980's will also be used. Along with these the works of renowned western historians will be used to back up much of the historical content. By using sources on the same time period by authors with contradicting points of view the most objective view, which is usually found in between the extremes can be traced out. The essay is structured into three chapters; the first focuses on the role of the Duma with emphasis on its president, Rodzianko; its members, Guchkov and Shulgin, and the parties of which it was comprised. The second chapter considers the Army and World War I, stressing
"Alexander III bequeathed Nicholas II a revolution" (Trotsky) Discuss
"Alexander III bequeathed Nicholas II a revolution" (Trotsky) Discuss Nicholas II had to deal with a Revolution but there is discussion over what caused and who contributed to this long awaited change. The Revolution itself took place in 1917 and some historians believe that it was years of oppression and poor conditions for the lower classes that finally drove them to vent their frustration through violence. The Revolution can be traced back to Alexander II (1858-1881) and much evidence suggests that Alexander's reforms were a major contributing factor to the 1905 revolution," by inevitable increasing the numbers of educated and potentially Critical" (Kemp). Alexander II theory for the reformation of Russia was good but his actions at the end of his reign as Tsar showed how he feared that he had made too many changes. Alexander II gave the Russian people a glimpse of freedom, in reforms such as the emancipation, zemstvo, judicial reforms, military, censorship and potentially the most critical educational reforms. It was in Alexander's reign that the sign of an opposition started to appear, the terrorist group land of liberty were very much against the limitations to the reforms, wanting complete autonomy; as Mc manners suggests, " By dabbling in freedom the autocracy had demonstrated its own obsolescence without being able to adapt itself to the new age."
How far was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?
GCSE History Coursework - "How far was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?" Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894 till 1917 when he abdicated following the revolution in March 1917. Nicholas II inherited Russia when it was in a very bad state, and although there were minor improvements during his reign, compared to many other countries it was very backward, perhaps then it was almost defiantly inevitable that sudden change was going to happen, however not necessarily in the form of revolution. The Tsar was in a difficult situation, but he had opportunities to end some of the problems in Russia, which after the 1905 Revolution it appeared as if he was, and it was due to his mistakes, most notably leaving Petrograd to lead the army in 1915, that the Revolution occurred, so it was definitely partly the Tsar's fault that his downfall came about. The First World War was a very important factor in Nicholas II's downfall, in 1914 it started off well with increased public support for the Tsar, however because it was poorly organized by the Tsar the situation in Russia became worse and worse. Most importantly the army, who had supported the Tsar in the 1905 Revolution and played an important role in ensuring that revolution did not occur in 1905, were now turning against the Tsar meaning they were less and less likely to support him if another revolution broke out, and
Was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?
Was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall? Nicholas II acted as an autocratic monarch rather than a constitutional leader, and this was a factor in his eventual downfall and abdication. Other factors included, him leaving Russia in the incapable hand of his wife, Alexandra, who herself was greatly influenced by Rasputin. The 'Holy Man' Rasputin was becoming more and more popular with Alexandra for helping their only son, Alexis's with his haemophilia, and his strange but powerful brand of spirituality certainly affected both Alexandra and Nicholas. It could be argued that Nicholas was himself responsible for allowing the power of Rasputin to extend so far and to influence his political decisions. Historians are in agreement that Nicholas lacked the necessary skills and qualities to rule a rapidly changing country. There were however factors outside of Nicholas' control, including his son's illness, that he could not be held directly responsible for. Indeed Russia was a huge country which was very hard to govern even for the most competent Tsar. One of the first factors which Nicholas was responsible for was his weak character and the fact that he allowed Alexandra to be so dominant. She encouraged him to hold on to his absolute power when a change in his style of leadership may have been a more politically useful tactic. A very significant contributing
How secure was Nicholas II as Tsar in 1914? Nicholas II was Tsar for many year and managed to survive a revolution
How secure was Nicholas II as Tsar in 1914? Nicholas II was Tsar for many year and managed to survive a revolution, these are some of the reasons that people argue he was in a secure position of control, however his downfall questions this believe, as does the many strikes and problems he suffered. To understand exactly how secure Nicholas was many events and facts must be analysed. Nicholas himself was a deeply religious man, it was clear that the most important thing to him was his family. When he was made Tsar he was the first to admit that he wasn't ready to take on the position. This clearly shows that he wasn't in a secure position from the start of his reign. He was also described as a very untrustworthy man and he changed his mind a lot. An example of this was when he went back on his word about the Dumas and limited their powers, this is explained further below. The fact that the Tsar was untrustworthy meant that he lost the support of the middle class, it also lead to many strikes and the 1905 revolution. This in turn meant Nicholas was in a fragile position by 1914. Witte, a minister of Nicholas' main aim was to uphold Tsarism and autocracy. He did this by creating a number of reforms and most importantly through industrialising by 60%. This greatly helped Nicholas' position as tsar because Russia was seen as catching up with other major countries such as Britain
