The Russian Empire under the rule of the Romanov Dynasty for almost 300 years grew and cemented itself as a major global power, equalling its Western European counterparts. Through massive technological change, the kindling of international relations, and social and economic crises alike, imperial Russia was piloted by tsars and tsarinas to rise as a modern empire. From its ambiguous beginnings in 1613, the Romanov dynasty was born from the boyar nobles of feudal Russia, bearing historically significant figures like Ivan the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and Catherine the Great; these characters formed a foundation that Russia would stand on for centuries to come. With economic, social, and political evolution, Russia saw the continuity
…show more content…
The tsar had ultimate power, they ruled by ‘the divine right of kings’ and thus had ultimate decision over the direction of the country. In considering the fall of the Romanovs and the reasons for such a sudden collapse, it is important to acknowledge the centuries long framework of absolute – and typically highly concentrated – power to the monarchy that was facilitated by the dynastic, autocratic rule of the Romanovs. Almost in a cyclical pattern, the tsars of 19th century Russia implemented positive reform as starts to their reign and concluded with oppressive reversals. This pattern saw continuity throughout the entire reign of the Romanov family; Alexander III relaxed censorship and instated State Councils under the ideas of liberalism yet ended his rule with conservative and reactionary views of post-Napoleonic Europe; Nicholas I saw the Decembrist Revolt as a sign for reform yet fostered the regressive Nicholas System by the end of his time as tsar; Alexander II even, despite the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, military, judicial, and political reform, concluded his reign with oppression in the face of change. In each of these cases, the Romanov leaders shunned change, pushed away the fact that society was evolving to desire freedoms and liberties hitherto absent in the Russian Empire. It is this that historians and the public alike can note to be a long term factor affecting the fall of the Romanov dynasty. Refusal to see change and adapt, the tsars did not acknowledge a Russia confined by the date autocracy. With the reign of Alexander III, we can see how these issues were amplified. Massive divides of power and a straining, rigid class system were only cemented under his hand,
The tsar had ultimate power, they ruled by ‘the divine right of kings’ and thus had ultimate decision over the direction of the country. In considering the fall of the Romanovs and the reasons for such a sudden collapse, it is important to acknowledge the centuries long framework of absolute – and typically highly concentrated – power to the monarchy that was facilitated by the dynastic, autocratic rule of the Romanovs. Almost in a cyclical pattern, the tsars of 19th century Russia implemented positive reform as starts to their reign and concluded with oppressive reversals. This pattern saw continuity throughout the entire reign of the Romanov family; Alexander III relaxed censorship and instated State Councils under the ideas of liberalism yet ended his rule with conservative and reactionary views of post-Napoleonic Europe; Nicholas I saw the Decembrist Revolt as a sign for reform yet fostered the regressive Nicholas System by the end of his time as tsar; Alexander II even, despite the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, military, judicial, and political reform, concluded his reign with oppression in the face of change. In each of these cases, the Romanov leaders shunned change, pushed away the fact that society was evolving to desire freedoms and liberties hitherto absent in the Russian Empire. It is this that historians and the public alike can note to be a long term factor affecting the fall of the Romanov dynasty. Refusal to see change and adapt, the tsars did not acknowledge a Russia confined by the date autocracy. With the reign of Alexander III, we can see how these issues were amplified. Massive divides of power and a straining, rigid class system were only cemented under his hand,