Preview

Was Tsar Nicholas Fit to Rule Russia?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
623 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Was Tsar Nicholas Fit to Rule Russia?
When one attempts to answer the question of whether or not “Tsar Nicholas was fit to rule Russia” one must consider three main points, his character, his attitudes, the problems facing Russia at the time and how he dealt with them. Essentially, Tsar didn’t have the emotional stability and desire to rule, that a ruler should possess and his neglecting of his country, would prove to eventually see an end to the Romanov dynasty in 1918.

To be a successful leader one must first posses the desire and emotional stability, two these are all qualities in which Tsar Nicholas ii did not possess. “I am not prepared to become the Tsar. I never wanted to become one” He himself admits that he is incapable of ruling a country and doesn’t posses the qualities that a leader should essentially possess “I know nothing of the business of ruling. I have no idea of even how to talk to ministers” Oct 1894 he states, implying that he is incompetent and unprepared to rule a country. The Romanov dynasty was one that followed an autocratic rule; leadership is as such kept within the family. This matter alone introduces a number of issues, in that although a level of skill and experience can be passed on from father to son, there is no guarantee of leadership and success, as evident in Nicholas’s rule. An autocratic government will not offer much opportunity for change, challenge and the ability to assess performance. While there is ample reason to question the reliability of this source, an extract from Tsar Nicholas ii’ personal writings further reinforce “I had a lot of papers to read which bored me to death because I would so much like to have more time to give to my beloved little soul Alix” from this we can see, that he would put his family before the needs or concerns of his country. He is more in tune with himself and his personal relationships, than in the business of leading. “I had a lot of papers to red which bored me to death” he writes, suggesting that he doesn’t find

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Who Was Anna Anderson?

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Romanovs were very powerful people. They controlled about ten percent of the world's land mass and their net worth was thirty billion dollars, in a time when thirty billion was worth more than it is today. In his time, Tsar Nicholas was the most powerful man on earth and his wealth trumped any of the European royalties. It was most likely this tremendous power that he had, which is what eventually led to his destruction, not only as Tsar or Russia, but also the destruction of his life and family.…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In July 1918, the royal Romanov line was suddenly and brutally ended by the Bolsheviks. The Romanov family had ruled the Russian Empire for over three centuries. The Romanovs reign was one of strict tyranny. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia made one big step toward a more equal Russia by freeing the serfs but because the serfs owned no land they had little to no money still. After WWI when nicholas led Russia to a crushing defeat there was lots of unrest throughout Russia. I think that the main reason the Tsar was forced to abdicate the throne and then was slaughtered is that he made a more equal Russia but in doing so he made the serfs more impoverished than ever, that he had led Russia into multiple wars that had ended badly and that the technology…

    • 151 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Summary: Romanov Dynasty

    • 4116 Words
    • 17 Pages

    Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, had neither the qualities nor the desire to rule imperial Russia. Born in Tsarskoye Selo in 1868, Nicholas was the eldest son of Alexander III, the fearsome tsar who had reimposed autocracy and oppression on the Russian empire after the murder of Alexander II. Those who met the young tsarevich, described him as pleasant and likeable, but otherwise unremarkable – hardly the traits of a man ordained by God to rule Russia. Nicholas famously expressed reluctance about taking the throne, declaring that he “never wanted to rule”. But tradition…

    • 4116 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Czar Nicholas was famous for his autocratic ideas, meaning that he theoretically had total power. His autocratic belief led to an ineffective rule. Nicholas II was the leader of the Russian Empire; however, he was not prepared for the tremendous obligations of administration. The Britannica article, “Nicholas II” claims, “Neither by upbringing nor by temperament was Nicholas fitted for the complex tasks that awaited him as autocratic ruler of a vast empire.” This suggests that Czar Nicholas’s rule was doomed from the start of his czarship. Nicholas’s inexperience explained his ineffectiveness as a ruler. In addition, Czar Nicholas’s absolutist beliefs blinded him from change. Nicholas II’s belief that he had absolute power and stubbornness clouded his view of change. According to Encyclopedia.com’s “Nicholas II,” “[Nicholas] was too stubborn and very slow to recognize the need for change. Nicholas found it…

    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    War broke out in 1914, with Tsar Nicholas becoming commander-in-chief in 1915, meaning he was away from Petrograd. Not only was this poorly thought out by Nicholas because it gave the people an opportunity to plot against him, but as he was away he left Tsarina (also a German princess), Alexandra, in charge during his absence. Due to the war being against Germany, this made the Russian people nervous and skeptical towards the extreme power she had over them during such a crucial time. Not only were they disgruntled by this, but also Alexandra’s close friendship to Rasputin, a Serbian peasant. This particularly angered the aristocracy and middle classes as they believed they were being led by someone of lower demeanor than that of themselves. This weakened support for the autocratic rule and lost the Tsar many of his supporters, which put him in a vulnerable position in the case of revolutionary upturn. This also could have inspired the peasantry to discover greater aspirations and encourage their belief that they could have greater status which in turn could trigger new revolutionary ideas amongst the lower classes. This demonstrates a link between Nicholas being away in order to commandeer army movement for the war, however it is arguable that it was a lack of authority and respect for the Tsarist regime that caused the change of opinions towards the Tsar amongst all classes, lessening his support and leaving him far more vulnerable in the case of a revolution.…

    • 1166 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    All state leaders across the whole period held qualities that didn’t please the whole of the population in Russia. During the reign of Alex II, the government showed some strength with controlling opposition from the peasantry through the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. It was thought that to prevent revolt from below, this was a key movement that had to be made, and therefore prevented future unrest and opposition. However, the new liberated serfs had to deal with more laws concerning land ownership with led to further unrest and repression in the peasantry by the state. The state moreover, appeased the most vocal critics but in such a way that allowed dissenters to express themselves in the knowledge that Tsar’s decision would be final. Compared to Nicholas II’s reign, this showed a decisive leading technique, as Nicholas’s style was more conservative, and showed weakness, relying on others’ advice to fuel his decisions. A key failure throughout his period was the mixed rule attempt with the Duma introduced from 1906 to 1917, it is arguable that Nicholas II made concessions only to keep opposition temporarily at bay and that his aim was to uphold the principle of autocracy.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1894 Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II, inherited the throne when he was unprepared to do so. It is hard to do something when you are not ready. It is like letting a bull out of the chute when you were not ready, so you fall, but in Nicholas’s case a lot of things came down with him.…

    • 247 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II’s lack of military experience and inability to rule the throne all together, additionally contributed to the devastating outcome of WW1 on Russia. “A quick intelligence, a cultivated mind, method and industry in his work, an extraordinary charm that attracted all who came near him- the Emperor Nicholas had not inherited his father’s commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” stated Sir G. Buchanan, British ambassador to Russia in 1910, emphasizes how the urban lower classes were not the only ones unsatisfied with the Tsar Nicholas…

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Undeniably, Nicholas II had an enormous role in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917. Whilst many historians argue the fall of the Tsarist regime to be the direct response and product of World War I, it is quite evident that it was Nicholas’ inefficient and fatal autocratic ruling which led to the March Revolution of 1917. The effects of Russia’s involvement in numerous wars only heightened and highlighted Nicholas’ unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and his absolute and stubborn belief in autocracy. Had Nicholas’ various choices throughout his reign differed, the Romanov Dynasty could in fact, have existed…

    • 1391 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    When Alexander III became the tsar, Russia was in a crisis following the assassination of Alexander II. The problems that Tsar was facing were that many different groups wanted to change the political system, as not everyone agreed with the autocracy system of government in Russia. To solve this he had to get rid of all political parties and political opposition. Also he had to get rid of anyone who had or wanted political control. Alexander II’s liberals ministers, M,T. Loris-Melikov and N.P. Lgnatiev left the office, and were replaced with Alexandra III own mistiers, Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod of the Russia Orthodox Church. Also he had to make sure that all power was given only to the Tsar, so he had to restrict the Zemstvas power, because the Zemstva meant that all power of the tsar was spread out to cities and towns. Furthermore, the organisation, the ‘Peoples Will’ needed to be destroyed as it was a threat to Tsar’s power, so immediately he destroyed the ‘Peoples Will’. He then introduced the Statute of State Security. This allowed the government to arrest and trial any political opponent without a jury. This gave the Tsar complete power. In addition, Russia was a huge multi-racial empire with 55% Russian and the rest Ukrainians, Polish, Jews and more. Because of these races Alexander III wanted to make sure that Russia remained Russian. He did this by a policy of ‘Russification’. This policy made Russian the official language. This meant all documents were in Russia. However this policy affected many people including the Jews. Finally, Russia’s main problem was financially. Russia was physically the largest in size and population, but was almost the most economically underdeveloped. Alexandra III had to increase its economic wealth in order to maintain its armed forces and to maintain its position as a Great Power. He did this by his finance…

    • 2108 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The Decline of Imperial Russia, 1964, p.108) What caused or defined the decline and eventual fall of the Romanov dynasty cannot concluded by one influencing factor but an amalgamation of Tsar’s leadership, certain events that impacted on Russia and Revolutionary groups that aided this process. From these it is evident though that Tsar Nicholas’ role, to a major extent, was the key factor in the end of the 300-year reigning Romanov rule and subsequent execution. In exploring Russia in the early 20th Century, the revolutionary groups, mainly including the Bolsheviks, can be seen as having a minor role in that actual reason for the decline of the Romanov dynasty but rather a larger role in the events after the fall, in regards to the execution itself and shaping Russia’s future afterwards.…

    • 2102 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    - Concerned with frontiers and borders, protect territory; (surrounded by Turkey, Iran, China, NK) – brought into conflict with other nations.…

    • 1142 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Alexei, who puzzled the people - they didn’t know about his condition - and was seen as spoiled and unloveable by politicians, was reasonably killed. He followed his father’s way of life, one that the people of Russia greatly disliked. It also made sense that Alexandra, the tsarina, was killed, as the people mistrusted her and Rasputin. Wherever Alexandra went, Rasputin went too. On the other hand, Nicholas’s brother, Grand Duke Michael, was asked to take the throne. (He later on refused) Eventually though, as history tells, most of the Romanov family was led to their deaths. OTMA, on the other hand, were possibly murdered due to the fact that their parentage led people to believe the children would turn out like Nicholas II and Alexandra. Nicholas was actually an uneducated man. “He had few intellectual pretensions” and instead preferred to leave the politics and papers to others. His parents did not bother educating him well either; Nicholas was tutored by average and undesirable people. The upbringing of the tsar helped Nicholas rule the way he did, and look at other people the way he did. The tsar was not very smart, so he sent away all ministers that he thought were more intelligent than him due to superiority belief. The people might have thought that OTMA and Alexei would turn out the same way - as Alexei showed he…

    • 1127 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Last of the Romanovs

    • 3074 Words
    • 13 Pages

    The first person to impact the fall of Imperial Russia was Nicholas II, the last Russian Emperor. In particular, Nicholas’ coronation marked the beginning of a downward spiral for the Romanov family. Tsar Nicholas II was born on May 6, 1868 and was the eldest son of Alexander III (Levykin, 1999). Nicholas II had to assume the throne earlier than the Russian population would have liked. Nicholas’ father fell ill in the spring of 1894 and his health never fully recovered. On October 20th, 1894, Alexander III died of nephritis, forcing Nicholas to become the next Tsar of Russia at a young age (Lincoln, 1976). After the untimely death of his father, Nicholas was in dismay about becoming Tsar of Russia, a position he never really wanted. This is exemplified when Nicholas II refers to being the Tsar as, “the awful job I have feared all my life” (Massie, 1967, p. 59). To further Nicholas’ fears, the Russian people and government believed he didn’t have enough political training to rule Russia effectively (Harcave, 1968).…

    • 3074 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays