Tsar Nicholas II: An Overseer And A Leader

Better Essays
There is a major and distinct difference between being an overseer and a leader. Both are based on supremacy, but an overseer demand obsequious behavior while a leader earn trust through understanding others. During Tsar Nicholas II reign; he was known for being the last Romanov leaders. Tsar’s government held totally power, along with the inability to rule over Russia. Tsar was dethroned and later executed with his family for his poor judgement and Russia being in chaos. Industrialism did not reach Russia until the late 19th century; but majority of Russia was still not industrialized. As other nations expanded and became more advanced; Russian trailed behind. Many people were still pleasant ruled over by nobility. Nicholas II was against …show more content…
During the pre revolutionary Russian revolution was incompetent; Nicholas could not manage Russia’s vast population and stop anyone who oppose or try to help him. He was always suspicious of anyone that might pose a threat to his sovereignty. Additionally, his advisors and top officials were fundamental bases on loyalty than skills. The government was inefficient and corrupted. A historian Richard Pipes argues that,”the revolution was the result not of insufferable conditions but of irreconcilable attitudes of a clash between those who wanted sweeping changes in government and a government whose ruler refused to change anything”(Collapse of Tsarist Russia). Tsar refused to change his government and Russia were based on his own ideas. Tsar Nicholas II try to create a government for the citizens to help them obtain liberty and fairness. Nicholas felt that his ruling was divine rights that he try to striped away or undermine the Duma of their power. He refused to give anyone his power. He wanted to preserve as much autocracy; a system of government by one people with absolute power. He created a group called the Duma; without any political power. Nicholas II repressed opposition by while or executing his foe; the Duma met once before Tsar eliminated them. Russia was constantly changing; many citizens had different opinion about what the government should be; but …show more content…
He was unqualified to govern Russia because he did not allow Russia to be more modernized and they lack industrialization. The citizens suffered and were treated as slave; they decides to revolt against Tsar. Additionally, Tsar’s wanted extreme power. He refused to share that power with anyone also not doing his job correctly. Also, his poor leadership in war led to the Russian revolution. The lesson not learned by Tsar Nicholas II is to listen to others opinion and not be selfish and conceited about the amount of power. The Russian Revolution is one example of a weak leader mistakes because of his reckless, naive and

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    As is states “Unfortunately, the Tsar knew little about the command and organization of large military forces, and the series of defeats and humiliations continued” (The Cause if the Russian Revolution). Politically, the Tsar was unaware of the command tactics. Anything could have gone wrong with the full authority in his hand. As aHe was inexperienced and due to the lack of experience in the field, he continued to lead the military force to disappointment and humiliations. Battle after battle was lost due to the Tsar.…

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Since the early 1600’s Russia had been ruled by the Romanov family. The final Tsars were increasingly ineffective and when Tsar Nicholas II came into power he did not fix the mistakes of the past Tsars and due to his bad leadership he is solely to blame for bringing his country into ruin which in turn led to his downfall, however, the people of Russia were eager for change because of the mistakes of the past Tsars and Nicholas II could not govern the entire country and keep them from wanting a revolution. During the course of Nicholas II reign he made various mistakes that contributed to his downfall. Nicholas II’s father, Alexander II, brought a police of Russification which stated that the non-native people of Russia must give up their…

    • 1333 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II’s poor leadership made the people lose faith in him, and therefore lose faith in the Tsarist regime, resulting in anarchy and revolution. Nicholas was unprepared for the difficult situation he was put in as Tsar, and he was totally unequipped to deal with it. Founder of Spartacus Educational and former history teacher John Simkin states, “Nicholas inherited from his ancestors not only a great empire, nut also a revolution. And they did not bequeath him one quality which would have made him capable of governing an empire. Or even a country" [Simkin, 1997] The system needed reform, but he was unwilling to limit his power at all, for the sole reason that he thought it was his duty to pass on his full and complete autocratic powers…

    • 1329 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For revolutionaries, they were not concerned as to who was sitting on their throne, but they saw the Russian system as one that was by definition headed by a tyrant who was an oppressor of the people. Due to Nicholas II’s personal qualities, he was thought to be unfit to be the ideal monarch. Podbolotov does call attention to the fact that the objective circumstances of the era that ultimately prevented the Tsar from reigning “autocratically” were not taken into account by conservatives. Yet, Monarchists’ attempts to influence Nicholas collided with his lack of indifference and initiative, which were attributes that were deemed unsuitable for an autocrat. Podbolotov also explains that the criticism of the Tsar strengthened from the defeats in the Russo-Japanese War and the Tsar’s “childish desire” to conquer Manchuria.…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He was infuriatingly indecisive, and didn't know how to run the Russian government at all. Unable to manage the continuing strikes that had risen up all over Russia, he pretended that everything was all right and that the peasants were just making a fuss because they were ‘bored'. When the Duma (the Russian people's elected parliament, which had little power) tried to warn him of the seriousness of the situation, he ignored and dissolved them instead. This brewed even more hatred toward the Tsar amongst his people. The Tsar was also influenced very easily by people around him, especially his wife, Tsarina Alexandra.…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Khrushchev's Failures

    • 1557 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Despite trying to reform Russia, the influence of Stalin and his ‘cult of personality’ were far too absolute to rectify by Khrushchev’s proposals alone. Many of Khrushchev’s reforms were similar to Stalinist principles thus successfully ‘De-Stalinising’ Russia was far from reach. Therefore, Khrushchev’s rejection of Stalinism simply posed to present an era of ‘justice’ and ‘legality’ instead of eliminating Stalin’s influence from…

    • 1557 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Tsar Nicholas’ personality had a big impact on his leadership; his unfavourable attitude of being the Tsar of Russia meant that he didn’t really take the title as an honour but more of a burden. Nicholas II’s leadership was passive and not oppressive; he didn’t know how the rule the country nor was he interested in doing it. This is evident in a letter to his brother-in-law in 1894 where he states: “I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling” (Source 1).…

    • 1538 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The people claim that the great loss that the country suffered in the Great War was what led the citizens to rebel since they were unsatisfied with how the country performed and unhappy since they were suffering. This claim can be given merit because if Russia would have never participated in the war, the citizens would have never suffered. However, even if Russia would have never participated in World War I, the country would still be unsatisfied with the Tsar due to his poor leadership skills, which still remained. According to his claim, Thomas Earl Porter said, “In this view, if the disasters of World War I had been avoided, Russia might have followed a peaceful course to a prosperous future” (“Russian Revolutions of 1917”). Although the fact that if the disasters of World War I had been avoided, they would have caused less trouble for the Russian citizens is true, this prevention would have not changed the fact that Nicholas II was still in power and that he had the ability to do with Russia whatever he wanted.…

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It set Russia on a path towards revolution because of his failure to modernise Tsarism and he was the last Tsar that could of. It was in the reforms large failures and unintended consequences that it changed Russia not in the smaller…

    • 1267 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nicholas was charming and intelligent a man who had the welfare of russia at heart. But Nicholas lacked the necessary characteristics for autocratic rule. He was anxious, distrustful of ministers such as Witte and stolypin, who urged reform. his abilities were undermines by his diffidence and irresolution. In the opinion of George Buchanan, British ambassador to St Petersburg from 1910, “The emperor Nicholas was one of the most pathetic figures in history, he was so unfitted for the role and never really governed Russia.” The industrial revolution throughout russia had just been started at the time of the First World War, this is partly to blame for the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.…

    • 1200 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays