Nicholas II had lacked many of the vital characteristics necessary in a proficient ruler. The Romanov’s empire was doomed to collapse due to various internal and external forces during this turbulent period. To blame solely on the Tsar for the fall of his empire is senseless. Russia was (and still is) a part of a dynamic international community and as such is influenced by many forces internally and externally in nature. The collapse of Tsarism was not to be anticipated; it was made likely by deep political and cultural imperfection which prohibited Nicholas’s regime from adjusting to the cultural and economic increase on the country. Industrialisation had also placed great economic strains on Russian society and placed great pressure on the tsarist autocracy.
After the sudden death of his father Alexander III Nicholas the Second ascended the throne. Tsar Nicholas II had expressed a clear disinterest in the ruling of the Russian nation. The Tsar lacked motivation and expressed personal doubts almost as soon as he ascended the throne. ‘I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling’ (Malone R, 2009)Governing one of the largest empires of the period would have been a demanding task for even the most passionate and talented monarch, regrettably; Nicholas was neither.
Nicholas was raised in a sheltered world and as a result he was out of touch with the needs of the common people. His love for of the past was expressed as unwillingness to face the political and economic reality of Russia’s situation at the turn of the nineteenth century. At the fear of appearing a weak leader, Nicholas II had ruled in an autocratic manner and was not prepared to make any changes to the organisation and structure of the empire. The Tsar was not connected with his people and hadn’t taken advice from either his political associations or the Russian community. Nicholas saw himself to be ‘chosen by God’ to fill the role as the nation’s leader.
Nicholas II was particularly influenced by his wife. She was a dominating figure, impacting on Nicholas’s image as leader. The last Tsar involuntary resorted to repression to preserve his control over the public. Comprehensibly, resistance to the tactic increased, and the Russian people began to support revolutionary groups and call for revolution or reform.
In the early stages of the twentieth century there were many political, economic and social difficulties placed upon the Russian nation. The progression of modernisation placed a heavy burden on the workers and peasantry classes. New economic and social structures developed as industrialisation grew. This had encouraged many to seek political and civil reforms. Peasants required reform to land lords, lower tax and the end of an autocracy ruling. The nobility begrudged the lessening of their estates and power in Russia and desired for a say in the government. The middle class sought a construction and an elected legalisation assembly and workers requested the legalisation of trade unions, political reform and improved conditions.
Nicholas II had acquiesced to the October Manifesto in 1905 because of the immense pressure to circumvent the overthrow of the monarchy and revolution. However, later the Tsar destabilized the reforms contained in the Manifesto. The agricultural reforms that were in place had been instigated unequally and slowly. The nation’s government also sustained to repress workers.
In the Tsar’s government, there were few men who had courage, vision or talent essential to deliver successfully Russian from these issues. The public was bleak with the condition of things and disconnected with their Tsar. Strikes became increasingly popular in 1914.
During the First World War, the poor governmental organisation led to crisis. The army of Russia was constantly suffered and defeated heavy losses. There were numerous problems with the supply of goods, storages of food and fuel and transport all over Russia. High inflation led to the increase of prices, more so than wages. This meant that there was a lowering in the standard of living. Nicholas leaving St Petersburg hadn’t helped for the war front; he had left the ruling of the nation in the hands of Rasputin and the Tsar’s largely inept ministry. Rasputin was an unpopular figure in that period.
Many people who once supported the autocracy ruling were unsuccessful to provide their support to their Tsar. The privileged and elite believed that Nicholas must renounce his dictatorship to save Russia from destruction and revolution. The court as well as the army also withdrew their support. As such, Nicholas II, the last existing Tsar of Russia, relinquished the throne on behalf of himself and his heir and put an end to the three-hundred tradition of the Romanov Dynasty.
To simply blame the collapse of Romanov Dynasty on one particular individual would be reducing a complex problem down to one simple solution. Focusing on internal and external matters in that turbulent period, it is clear to suggest that the Romanov Dynasty did not collapse as a result of Nicholas II’s incompetence alone.
Reality Tanner 