...collapse of autocracy in Russia? Nicholas Romanov was an indecisive man who was easily influenced by others. Although it was not his character that was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution. He may have been a leader at the wrong time but if he had related better for the time he was in power. Russia before 1917 was the largest country under one empire. In economic terms it was backward as it was late industrialising and late to emerge from feudalism. In political terms it was also backward as there was no legal political parties nor was there any centrally elected government Russia at this time was under tsarist rule by Nicholas II of the Romanov empire. Nicholas II was brought up by his father Alexander III who didn't believe that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything and therefore did not educate him in the business of state . The fact that his father who died at age 49 thought that he had many more years ahead of him may also be another factor behind Nicholas' poor leadership of Russia . Alexander who died in 1894 had left Russia with a society no longer controlled by tsarist rule and when Nicholas took the throne after his father's death Russian society was not prepared to turn on it's heels and return to how it use to be . Nicholas II was 26 when his father died and was soon to marry the German princess, Alix of Hess, Granddaughter of Queen Victoria . The relationship between Alexandra and Nicholas was a 'critical relationship at a...
Words: 1327 - Pages: 6
...Nicholas II (Russian: Николай II Nikolay Vtoroy; 18 May [O.S. 6 May] 1868 – 17 July 1918) was the last tsar of Russia, ruling from 1 November 1894 until his forced abdication on 15 March 1917.[1] His reign saw the fall of Imperial Russia from being one of the foremost great powers of the world to economic and military collapse. Due to the Khodynka Tragedy, anti-Semitic pogroms, Bloody Sunday, the violent suppression of the 1905 Revolution, the execution of political opponents and his perceived responsibility for the Russo-Japanese War, he was given the nickname Nicholas the Bloody by his political enemies.[2][3] Russia suffered a decisive defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, which saw the annihilation of the Russian Baltic Fleet at the Battle of Tsushima, loss of Russian influence over Manchuria and Korea, and the Japanese annexation of South Sakhalin. The Anglo-Russian Entente, designed to counter German attempts to gain influence in the Middle East, ended the Great Game between Russia and the United Kingdom. As head of state, Nicholas approved the Russian mobilization in late July 1914, which led to Germany declaring war on Russia on 1 August. It is estimated that around 3.3 million Russians were killed in World War I.[4] The Imperial Army's severe losses and the High Command's incompetent management of the war efforts, along with the lack of food and other supplies on the Home Front, were the leading causes of the fall of the Romanov dynasty. Following the February Revolution...
Words: 370 - Pages: 2
...described as “an advisor whose one word was enough to place an unknown person as a minister at court.” While Nicholas II was away on the front, the Russian people watched horrified and hopelessly as Alexandra dismissed competent officers and replaced them with worthless nominees...
Words: 960 - Pages: 4
...AS Level History Russia 1855 – 1917 Alternative F Revision Guide Contents 1. Alexander II 2. Alexander III 3. Nicholas II 4. Stability of the Tsarist Regime 1905 - 14 5. Political Opposition 6. February / March Revolution 1917 7. October Revolution 1917 Tsar Alexander II To what extent does Tsar Alexander II deserve to be viewed as the Tsar Liberator? Think BALANCE!! Alexander II 1855-81 ▪ Came to the throne during the Crimean War (1855) ▪ Initiated a wide range of reforms (social, economic, administrative and legal) ▪ Earned the title ‘Liberator’ for giving freedom to the peasants BUT did not wish to share political power ▪ Assassinated by the People’s Will in 1881 Answering the key question |Introduction |Use this chart to answer any question on Alex II | | |All questions (whether relating to ‘Liberator’ or not) will require BALANCE | | |Precision of knowledge – “Detail is King!” | | |Yes |No | |Emancipation |Emancipation Committees set up |Redemption Payments...
Words: 7115 - Pages: 29
...Source A is an extract of a letter that was written by the former commander in chief of the Russian Army, Grand Duke Nicolai, and was sent to the Tsar. The Duke writes about his concern over Rasputin’s influence and how it is a problem. The fact that the Duke thinks it is a problem means it is affecting the army as although he was dismissed, he still would have had allegiance to the army and would have felt Rasputin was having a bad influence. In addition to this, the Tsar had become commander in chief and left the Tsarina and Rasputin to run the country which may have also caused the Duke to write this letter. As this is from November 1916, this letter has been written after the tragedies Russia had been through in the war such as the Masurian lakes incident. What this meant was that Rasputin was having influence over the orders the army gets and this was proving to be very detrimental to the Army. By writing a letter to the Tsar, we understand the level of concern the Duke had as he deemed it significantly important that he must write directly to the Tsar. This is extremely important in showing how the Tsar’s reputation was damaged due to the war as even the commander in chief was concerned about how things were being done and the problems they were causing. This ultimately triggered the revolution of 1917 and shows how significant the war was in damaging the Tsar’s reputation. The source also seems to show that the Duke understands that the Tsar can’t totally get rid of Rasputin...
Words: 1195 - Pages: 5
...To what extent did the policies of Sergei Witte address the problems facing Russia at the end of the nineteenth century? Russia faced many problems at the end of the nineteenth century. Under Minister of Finance Ivan Vyshnegradskii there had been famine because of high taxes on consumer goods which had forced peasants to sell more and more grain. The government were slow to act and, although they eventually enforced a ban on grain exports, 350,000 died of starvation or disease. Economically and industrially Russia was also falling far behind many other Western countries at the time, like Britain and Germany. When Count Witte became Minister of Finance in 1893, there was desperate need to decrease inflation, improve infrastructure and encourage foreign investment. This essay will discuss how successful he was at introducing policies that addressed these problems. A great success for Witte was the expansion of heavy industry in Russia. He linked industrial growth with a stronger nation politically and economically, and was inspired by the more developed nations in the west. He invited foreign experts from more industrialised countries like Britain, France and Germany to Russia to advise him on modernisation. He realised that he would have to have policies that would allow individual business people to start factories and encourage metalwork. His policies were successful, because industrial growth increased on average by 8% a year between 1890 and 1899, which was the highest...
Words: 1721 - Pages: 7
...Jessica Genockey DATE \@ "dddd, d MMMM y" Wednesday, 29 October 2014 How far was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall? Tsar Nicholas was to a great extent responsible for his own downfall, the main factor being his decision to take over as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces during World War One. Russia was economically and socially ill-prepared for war and the effects and the outcome of the war had a devastating impact upon the Russian people. There had been a continual build-up of discontent towards the Tsar as a result of Russia’s failure in the Russo-Japanese War, the ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre and the failure of the Duma. However, it was World War One that was the ultimate factor in which the people acted upon their discontent toward the Tsar. Nicholas Romanov was appointed the Tsar of Russia in 1894 after the premature death of his father, Alexander III. Nicholas was thrust into being the Tsar of Russia at an extremely fast pace and was faced with the task of modernising the biggest country in the world to keep pace with the other super powers in the world such as Germany, Britain and the United States. Nicholas did not have the best of relationships with the people of Russia. Russia’s defeats in the Russo-Japanese war damaged the Tsar’s relationship with the people of Russia. ‘Bloody Sunday’ and the 1905 Revolution which followed, the failure of the Dumas, and the relationship that Rasputin had with the Tsar and Tsarina all led to a deteriorating relationship...
Words: 2790 - Pages: 12
...to start Russia was stable and significantly moving towards political reform and then from there eventually to a constitutional monarchy, this is backed by the October Manifesto of 1905 which gave the population a voting and electoral process to set up the State Duma, however this reform was almost cancelled out by the advent of the Fundamental Laws in 1906. The Fundamental Laws were in actuality a regain of any and every control back to the government of the Tsar which was granted previously. Here we discuss another important factor other than the war involving the collapse of the Tsarist regime, and that was Nicholas II’s personality. In 1905 the Tsar had capable and trusted ministers who advised him to make compromises and grant concessions to settle the revolution; however in 1917 the Tsar did not have this asset on his side. Also, what historians know of Nicholas II’s character is that he wanted to be a supreme ruler and autocrat like his father who he...
Words: 1122 - Pages: 5
...Farm Animals Mr. Jones- The owner of Manor Farm and a drunk. His animals decided to overthrow him in the Rebellion. When he tries to recapture his property, the animals defeat him, steal his gun, and drive him off again. Mr. Jones ended up dying in a home for alcoholics in another part of the country. Old Major- Old Major- A prize Middle White boar, very wise and his appearance is sharp. Major is highly respected among his fellow farm animals. He is twelve years old , which makes him a senior among the other animals and he also claims to have had over four hundred children. He is the one who calls the meetings and discuss his dreams he has in the first chapter. Major claims to “understand the nature of life on this earth as well as any animal now living” (28). Months after his death, the pigs dug up his skull and placed it at the base of the flagpole beside the gun. Mollie- The white mare that draws Mr. Jones’s trap. Her personality is superficial and adolescent. For example, when she arrives at the big meeting in Chapter 1, Orwell writes, “Mollie … Came mincing daintily in, chewing a lump of sugar. She took a place near the front and began flirting her white mane, hoping to draw attention to the red ribbons it was plaited with” (27). Mollie is the only animal not to fight in the Battle of the Cowshed, instead hiding in her stall. She eventually flees the farm and is last seen, bedecked in ribbons, eating sugar and letting her new owner stroke her nose.. Napoleon- One...
Words: 908 - Pages: 4
...Russian Terrorism The devastating defeat of Russian forces in the Crimean War exposed the backwardness of Russia. In response, Tsar Alexander II passed a series of reforms, which were intended to liberalize Russian society. They included the abolition of serfdom, the modernization of the government, the opening of universities to people of all socioeconomic classes, the granting of semi-autonomy to the Russian territory of Poland, and the relaxation of some laws that were punitive to various religious groups (Burleigh 27). While these reforms had good intentions they failed to have the intended effects. The educational reforms did allow more people to be admitted to universities, but they did little to change life conditions for these new people. For example, women left universities with no new societal roles in which they could utilize their education. In addition, educated people of lower classes had few employment opportunities available for them upon graduation (Alexander and His Times). The tough situation for the newly accepted students caused students to rise up and take control of their professors (Burleigh 28). The emancipation of the serfs was also not entirely successful. This is because it left awkward agreements between former serfs and landlords that forced serfs to reimburse their former masters for the financial loss of losing them as unpaid workers. These agreements caused tension and some unrest in rural areas. Even in Poland, the limited self-rule...
Words: 1888 - Pages: 8
...workers to astray themselves from the hardships of the war. * The zemstva established a ‘Union of Zemstva’ to provide the medical facilities which the state seemed to neglect. * Another initiative came from factory owners and businessmen (including representatives from the Duma and of workers) to help co-ordinate production. * In June 1915 existing zemstva and municipal dumas joined together to form the All Russian Union of Zemstva and Cities, known as Zemgor – it was chaired by Prince Lvov and claimed the right to help the tsar’s government in the war effort, but it was never allowed any direct influence and, like the State Duma, soon turned into a liberal focus for discontent. Rather than working with the organisation, Nicholas blamed it for stirring up trouble. * In August 1915 , some of the deputies (Kadets, Octobrists and Progressives) from the 4th Duma, many of them also involved in the Congress of Representatives of Industry and Business , organised themselves into the ‘Progressive bloc’ and demanded that the Tsar change his ministers and establish a ‘government of public...
Words: 694 - Pages: 3
...Annecia Analyse the impact of the Dumas on Russian society The announcement of the Dumas brought hopes that it would bring democracy to Russia, but the reality of it was that of the two chambers the Dumas had only on was elected by the Russian people. This meant that the Russian government still had significantly more say in the way Russia was ruled and they had effectively created a smoke screen hiding the fact that democracy was nowhere near being achieved in Russia. The second chamber was appointed by the Tsar and held a veto over any actions. In addition, the Tsar retained ‘Supreme Autocratic Power’, in effect, the Duma was neutered right from the start. Consequently making it hard for the Dumas to be seen as having a positive and significant impact on Russian Society. The first Duma was dissolved after two months when the government felt that the Duma complained too much and was intractable. For this Duma arguably the only impact they had on Russian society was to show that the Russian government was in no way ready to compromise and create a more democratic Russia. This is again reinforced by the fact that the second Duma only lasted from February to June 1917, and because of the actions of Kadet liberals shortly before, the election was dominated by extremely anti-government factions. Similar to the first, when this Duma opposed Stolypin’s reforms it too was dissolved again showing that in no way did the implementation of Dumas mean the democratisation of Russia. Despite...
Words: 394 - Pages: 2
...The 1905 Revolution in Russia took place under the reign of Nicholas II and was caused by a range of long and short term factors, some of which had a greater impact than others. Reformist groups did have an effect in Russia; however it is debatable whether they were the main cause of the revolution, or whether they were a contributing factor along with other factors such as peasants, the middle class, the urban proletariat and the army/navy. The reformist groups operating in Russia from the years 1881 were the Social Revolutionaries, Social Democrats, Populists and the Liberals (split into the Octoberists and the Kadets). Each of the reformist groups were acting in response to the continuous repressive Tsarist system in which they did not have the right to meet and operate , and were monitored by the Okhrana prior to 1905, however, some parties acted more radically than others. The Social Revolutionaries had the main aim of redistributing land to the peasants. In 1896, they formed the Union of Social Revolutionaries and murdered over 2000 aristocrats and ministers (including the assassination of Minister of the Interior Plehve in 1904) and were supported by the Peasantry. The Social Democrats were a Marxists party which organised strikes in St.Petersburg, in 1900 founded a newspaper called ‘Iskra’ (the Spark), but the two sides of the party meant that they split into the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and the Mensheviks led by Martov in 1903. This split made it difficult for the party...
Words: 1260 - Pages: 6
...How far do you agree that the March Revolution of 1917 was due to the failures of Nicholas 2? The March Revolution of 1917 brought autocracy in Russia to an end, when ministers of the last Duma forced the Tsar Nicholas 2 to abdicate. The Revolution happened due to the Nicholas's 2 failures due his reign, however there was a number of problems which appeared before Nicholas 2 or happened without the will of Nicholas 2. When Nicholas 2 came to power in 1894, his main objective was to keep all power in his hand, in another words, Nicholas wanted to remain as an autocrat and be the only ruler of Russia. On the other hand, Nicholas 2 wasn't as reactionary as his father, because Nicholas was not prepared to be extreme in dealing with the social and political unrest in the same manner as his father. His weak leadership led to the policies which after worked against the Tsar. The first social reform was done by Nicholas 2 in 1897. It was reform which limited the working to 11,5 hours from Monday to Friday and to 10 hours on Saturday. However, these policy didn't change the attitude of workers against the Tsarist regime, because people still wanted more liberal social system and a new government which Nicholas was not intend to change. This unhappiness caused by the lack of changes or reforms led to the strike in Saint Petersburg by factory workers who were led by Father Gapon in 1905. The strike finished really dramatically, because a lot demonstrators were killed by...
Words: 1372 - Pages: 6
...In 1905 Tsar Nicholas II has faced a revolution in 1905 which was caused by the growth of reformist groups, however also other factors such as weak Tsarist regime of repression, Tsar's leadership, poor conditions and Bloody Sunday contributed towards the breakout of 1905 revolution. The growth of opposition is considered to be a significant factor contributing towards the 1905 Revolution because they were developing the desire for moderation which was to be achieved by a revolution. The assassination of Alexander II by people's will, had the consequences of inspiring other opposition groups to form such as Social Revolutionaries and Social Democrats, however the assassination was also the factor deciding upon ruling by repression under Alexander II followers. However lack of freedoms, russification, Ohkrana and heavy taxation all encouraged the opposition groups to form even at a faster rate as the public dissatisfaction was rising. By 1905, those groups were targeting different aspects of society from peasants to workers who formed 80% of the total population. This wide spread of ideas opposing Tsarist rule could be therefore responsible for the 1905 revolution however it has to be underlined that 1905 revolution has started with strikes organised by workers which would mean that there may have been a significant growth in opposition groups however 1905 revolution took place despite them rather than because of them. Additionally, the poor conditions created by great spurt...
Words: 768 - Pages: 4
