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
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