Was Tsar Nicholas Responsible For The Fall Of The Romanov Dynasty Essay

Good Essays
To what extent was Tsar Nicholas Responsible for the fall of the Romanov dynasty

Tsar Nicholas was responsible for the fall of the Romanov dynasty and accelerating the russian revolution. Tsar Nicholas was a major cause of the downfall but his wife tsarina and Rasputin also contributed. The tsar left to the war which was already creating uproar in russia as it was weakening the economy, creating worldwide hunger and unhappiness throughout. Unhappiness lead to demonstrations that developed into political action against the tsar. Furthermore the tsar;s leadership and understanding of reality was abysmal during the war. he was associated with all the defeats the poorly equipped russian army had. In his absence he left the trasie alexander ruled,
…show more content…
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.

Due to late industrialisation, the economy of russia was very weak, leading to there being no way for russia to provide for its people, soldiers and even war supplies. The russian army was even left with ridiculous supplies, many soldiers fighting barefoot and without weapons. Rifles were limited to one between three soldiers and artillery commanders were limited to firing three to five shells a day where enemy was firing over two hundred a day. Soldiers and citizens were left with critical food shortages, left to
…show more content…
Nicholas lacked the necessary personal characteristics for autocratic rule. He was changeable and anxious, his abilities were undermines by his diffidence and irresolution. There was already talk of removing Nicholas II at the beginning of 1917. This came from members of the Duma and several of the grand dukes of the imperial family. Nicholas continued to refuse the change from autocracy that had been in power for the past 300 years. After Nicholas didn’t follow through with the October Manifesto which promised to give the parliament more power, it gave the public more reason to distrust him. Nicholas belief in upholding the autocracy, can be seen as a factor which led to the downfall of the Romanov

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II Downfall

    • 842 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Nicholas II played a vital, negative role in contributing to his complete downfall during the early 20th century. His reluctance to become Tsar was a major factor that contributed to his own demise. The release of the October Manifesto in 1905 was one of the key events that led to the end of Tsar Nicholas’s rule over Russia. Tsar Nicholas’s poor leadership in World War 1 as well as his weak-willed personality was also issues that further contributed to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty. These factors and events severely influenced the political, social and economic aspects of his ruling .The use of sources throughout this essay would amplify the idea, in which Nicholas II played a major role in contributing to his own downfall and eventual…

    • 842 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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…

    • 1177 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

    This is a valid argument because indeed the World War I disasters had an effect on how people felt about their society and how they believed it should run. They believe that if the disasters if World War I was avoided, then Russians would not have revolted against their government. But to disagree, the current situation in Russia at the time was already intolerable and was eventually going to get worse with the help of the Tsar. Tsar Nicholas II had no idea on how to run a military, not to mention a country. 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).…

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    His incompetence was characterized by a proud tyranny that damaged his status and provoked both his opponents and supporters. Throughout his reign, Tsar Nicholas II had increasingly lost connection with his people. On his orders, Cossack guards brutally repressed the 1905 revolution, memorialized as ‘Bloody Sunday’, and the 1912 Lena goldfields protests. Suddenly, people discovered that their leader was not the caring idol they had previously idolized, but a ruthless official determined to keep order. His most grave mistake was when he took over full control of the armed forces in August 1915.…

    • 755 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II's reaction to the peaceful protest the workers staged, his inability to meet the demands of his people, and the rising prices and lowering conditions that came with World War I all led to the inevitable- a revolution. "Peasants burned the estates of their landlords, destroying everything they could get their hands on." (As It Was Lived: 4-18) This was an accurate portrayal of the behavior of the peasants after the events of the 1905 revolution, also called ‘Bloody Sunday'. The causes of this were severe food shortages, deteriorating living standards, and the fact that the Tsar did not allow any political involvement of the peasants. Famines and land shortages caused suffering of thousands.…

    • 1198 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

    Their indecisiveness and flawed system showed the world the downfalls of democracy. Furthermore, their lack of good decisions broke down many peace relations during the time. Their economic problems made them fall behind on the reparation payments, which led to hyperinflation. Due to this lack of payment, France and Belgium were, arguably, forced to invade the industrial heartland of Germany (Ruhr). This broke down the peaceful relations they had with other neighboring countries.…

    • 1002 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Byzantines were soundly defeated, and the emperor taken prisoner. [HOFB pg. 255]. Even though Romanos was let go, the new emperor Michael Doukas was confronted with a poor situation in the empire. Faced with recently lost lands, financial distress and enemies on all sides, a civil war broke out in the nation, distracting him from the military needs of the empire.…

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, there are many longer term factors that could be held responsible for the collapse of the Tsarist regime, Russia was also a very backward nation and because of that it suffered many long-term social and economic problem such as extreme poverty and inequality, which led to a rise in opposition to the Tsarist regime and many revolutionary groups. Grigori Rasputin was introduced to Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra in 1907 in hope that he could cure their son Alexei who was suffering from internal bleeding as a result of his haemophilia B. He had been invited to the imperial court because the Tsarina was desperate for a cure for her son and had heard that Rasputin had extraordinary gifts of healing. Rasputin did appear to help Alexei with his condition, but, ‘Rasputin did not, of course, have the magical or devilish powers that the more superstitious claimed for him, but he was a very good amateur psychologist’ 1 (this is a reliable source…

    • 1601 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays