This website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Learn more

Tsar Nicholas Ii Downfall Essay

1872 words - 8 pages

Asses the extent to which Tsar Nicholas II can be held personally responsible for the collapse of the Russian monarchy.

‘What weakened the Tsarist regime in the period before 1917 was not its tyranny but its incompetence’.

A small portion of Tsar Nicholas II’s downfall can be seen as his own accountability; however his autocratic ruling style, mixed with the inevitable disasters that were to come his way was a recipe for failure. Due to his natural ruling style inherited from his father Alexander, Nicholas Tsar was unwilling to reform to a nation urgent to modernise. One would say he is simply not a natural ruler, in a time where Russia depended greatly on one.

With an understanding ...view middle of the document...

Nicholas was not staying in his Winter palace. As the marchers approached the palace, they were fired on and charged at by cavalry. Approximately 200 marchers were killed. Immediately mayhem erupted around Russia, with peasants seizing property and questions were now starting to be raised about Nicholas’ treatment of mother Russia. Instantly after the bitter Bloody Sunday occurance, the people of Russia’s depiction as Tsar Nicholas being ‘the little father’ was tainted. This was a problem that didn’t have to happen if Nicholas didn’t take such a repressive approach leading up to this avoidable commencement of panic in the Tsarist Government.

Two of the most important and influential characters in the Tsarist government began to think and act wisely, giving Russia some direction that it lacked in previous years. Sergei Witte and Peter Stolypin were loyal to the tsarist regime, however looked to the development of modernisation. Sergei Witte regained composure within the government by dividing the opposition parties during a time of severe crisis in 1905. Witte advised Nicholas to grant concessions to the liberals, wipe out all money owed by peasants, and physically override the rebelling industrial workers. It was also Witte who intended on constructing a strong railway system in Russia to try and modernise and industrialise the nation. One would argue that Witte was a mastermind in the development of Russia, especially during crisis. However, in 1906, Nicholas Tsar unexpectedly dismissed Sergei Witte from his position of chairman, and was never to play an important position in the Tsarist Government. There was no lagitament reason why the Tsar felt the need to replace Witte, therefore is a reflection of Nicholas’ poor choices, lack of strong leadership, and retrospectively speaking, could have contributed enormously to his downfall, seeings Sergei Witte held Russia together.

Peter Stolypin was, similarly to Witte, in favour of economic advancement, however felt he needed to first suppress, then reform. In 1905, Stolypin under-went a long-term turnover revolving the peasants land. He aimed to conserve the peasants land, and it eventually proved to hold possible success until in 1911 he was assassinated, long before his process was complete. If Stolypin wasn’t killed, the state of peasantry in Russia may have progressed to a much stronger and healthier state, so it is easy to question the impact that Stolypin’s death had on the downfall of the Tsar’s moncarhy in terms of unhappiness and rebellions within the country.

The people of Russia expected a bit more than concessions, proceeding the catastrophe of 1905. The Octobrists group were granted a legislative duma in the parliament. In a way, they represented the people’s views. The duma was not granted any reasonable amount of power, and Nicholas made sure of this with his re-introduction of the fundamental laws in 1906. During the first duma, 200 people gathered in Vyborg pleading the...

Other Essays Like Tsar Nicholas Ii Downfall

ww1 responsible for downfall of Tsarist regime

1150 words - 5 pages It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with

problems faced by the Tsar Essay

1148 words - 5 pages How far was Nicolas ll personally responsible for the problems of the Tsarist regime in Russia? It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with

February Revolution

2896 words - 12 pages after was this presented as a voluntary resignation. Nicholas II had not stepped down in the first days of the revolution when he had still intended to drown the unarmed people in blood with the help from troops from the front. The tsar abdicated when the reliability of these units became manifest when the revolution had spread to Moscow and other cities, when the tsar’s cause had failed and all options had closed. The insurgent people had

Why was there a revolution in Russia in 1905?

374 words - 2 pages Revolution of 1905 began in St. Petersburg on Jan. 22 when troops fired on a defenseless crowd of worker, who, led by a priest, where marching to the Winter Palace to petition Tsar Nicholas II. This "bloody Sunday" was followed in succeeding months by a series of strikes, riots assassinations, naval mutinies, and peasant outbreaks.

Evaluation of Stolypin's Reforms

2281 words - 10 pages in 1905" Stolypin's reforms could "have changed the face of politics and society, yet they left the unreformed autocracy to face the onslaught of the First World War and it's attendant social and economic strains". Despite the latter, it seems erroneous to attribute total failure to Stolypin's reforms. After the devastating actions of Bloody Sunday in 1905, the Tsar Nicholas II had been given two choices, which was to repress or reform. To

how far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of the Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905?

957 words - 4 pages political freedom. However the division between them of Octobrists and Kadets changed some of their aims, the Octobrists wanted more preservation of the Russian state while the Kadets wanted more change. Their split was due to the October Manifesto by the Tsar Nicholas II, when he said he was willing to share his political power, which to a group in the Liberals they saw as a breakthrough, becoming known as the Octobrists, believing that it would

Russia Stuff

1901 words - 8 pages Home Learning: Russia and World War 1 Big question – Did World War One bring about the downfall of the Tsar in February 1917? Deadline: Hand this cover sheet in with your Home Learning Date handed in to teacher: Insert date Minimal effort - repeat More effort required for next time Excellent effort Teacher comments if appropriate 1. How well did Russia perform militarily in the war? * Initial patriotism. At the beginning of the war, all

How Far Was the Russo-Japanese War Responsible for the Outbreak of the 1905 Revolution?

1794 words - 8 pages The Russo-Japanese War lasted from 1904 to 1905, and arose from both Japan and Russia’s desire for expansion and dominance in Korea and Manchuria. Russia suffered many great defeats in this war, against a nation that was considered inferior and was not one of the Great Powers. This humiliated the people of Russia, and caused them to lose confidence in Tsar Nicholas II, as well as causing great military, economic, and political problems for

Could Tsarism Have Saved Itself In The Last Decade Of The XIX Century And The First Decade Of The XX Century?

1778 words - 8 pages interest or ability to reign. Tsar Nicholas was not particularly a strong leader and was easily influenced by Rasputin. He was willing to make the least reforms possible and "preserve the principle of autocracy". Did not give the Duma much power. Did not increase freedoms (of speech, religion, movement and language). From Alexander III to Nicholas II, Russia did not have many social reforms.The political, economical and social structure of Russia

Russia Was in Crisis at the Beginning of the 20th Century

1719 words - 7 pages Russia entered the 20th century headed by Tzar Nicholas II, the figurehead of a dynasty that had long since descended into absurdity and a decadent and self-indulgent use of power. This dysfunctional leadership was not only a significant cause of, but also representative of the greater crisis Russia was undergoing on a political, economic and social level as Russia was “An 18th century country living in a 20th century world” . Any historian

Russia During 1900s

854 words - 4 pages the ‘little father’, their special protector Question 4: * Nicholas II * An autocrat (dictator) * Not elected * He believe that he was chosen by god * He could do what he liked without consulting anyone * He had a council of ministers who ran the various government departments * They all reported to Tsar * Made important decisions * Newspaper and books were censored * Stop protests, strike or riots with

Related Papers

Who Was Responsible For The Abdication Of Tsar Nicholas Ii

816 words - 4 pages Many different people and groups have been held responsible for the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, all of which played a significant role. In my opinion it was the working class of Russia at the time that were the cause of Nicholas’ abdication, but they were not guilty as such, as to call them guilty would imply they had done wrong, though the abdication of the Tsar did come about as a result of the actions of the workers. The catalyst of these

To What Extent Was The Impact Of The First World War Responsible For The Downfall Of Tsarism In March 1917?

1720 words - 7 pages regiments are in the grips of rebellion’ This shows the lack of unity in fighting against a common enemy and shows the poor leadership skills of Nicholas II. The loss of the army was a major factor as to the downfall of the Tsar; in 1905 they survived the revolution because they had the power of the armed forces behind them. Another factor that contributed the downfall of the Tsar was the mistakes Nicholas II made in monarchy. In 1915 the

Fall The Tsar 1917 Essay

1468 words - 6 pages Downfall of Tsar 1917 How far do you agree that it was the misjudgments by Nicholas II after 1911 that caused the collapse of tsardom in 1917? [20] Many factors contributed to the fall of the Tsar, which led to the end of the Romanov family, who had ruled for three hundred years. Much of this was because of the tsar’s own misjudgments and his personal failings. However, there were many other factors as well, such as the autocracy, the World

Asses The Nature Of The Opposition To The Tsarist Regime In Russia In The Period 1855 To 1917

1551 words - 7 pages questions such as how successful was the opposition in Russia in carrying out their respective plans? Also I will be looking at how each of the Tsars respectively dealt with the opposition in Russia.In this first paragraph I am going to look at why there was opposition in Russia in 1855 - 1917 and look at those who made up the opposition. In 1855 Russia was under Autocratic rule under Tsar Alexander II and was currently fighting in the Crimean war