Nicholas Romanov, an inadequate leader lacking knowledge, ability, and empathy, played a vital role in sparking the revolution in Tsarist Russia. Despite being a tragic figure that exemplified the dilemma of being an unfit leader during this era, there was no action he could have taken to halt the overwhelming forces of change.
The collapse of autocracy in Russia can be ascribed to multiple factors, including the indecisiveness and susceptibility to external influence of Nicholas Romanov. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that his personal traits were not the only cause for the revolution. Although he faced a challenging period, his leadership could have had a more significant effect if he had forged stronger connections with the Russian people while in power.
Russia was the largest country under a single empire before 1917, but it experienced economic and political challenges due to its delayed industrialization and transition from feudalism. Moreover, there was an absence of legal political parties or a centrally elected government.
Under the rule of Nicholas II in the Romanov empire, Russia witnessed a period where his father, Alexander III, neglected to educate him in state affairs due to an assumption that his son would lack interest. Furthermore, it is possible that Nicholas’ inadequate leadership in Russia was influenced by his father’s untimely death at the age of 49.
Following the death of Alexander in 1894, Russia experienced a significant societal shift away from tsarist rule. Nicholas II, who was just 26 years old at the time of his father’s passing, assumed the role as the new ruler. He subsequently wed Alix of Hess, a German princess and Queen Victoria’s granddaughter.
Nicholas and Alexander III were both ill-prepared to govern such a vast country. Although Alexander was not significantly superior to his son in terms of character or abilities, there were hopes that he would have lived longer to extend the monarchy. However, there is some evidence suggesting that if Alexander had ruled for 22 years instead of 13, he would have faced the same challenges of wars and revolution as his son, and displayed the same deficiencies in character and intellect that close observers had already noticed in their leader. Therefore, Nicholas inherited many of his flaws from his father, implying that another tsar from the Romanov empire may not have been able to prevent the forthcoming revolutions.
Despite his lack of preparation for the role of Tsar, Nicholas had a limited understanding of worldly matters, politics, and governance. His training only made him suitable for a constitutional monarch’s position. However, he remained steadfast in his belief in the moral righteousness of autocracy and had unwavering faith that God would provide guidance to him. He perceived all his actions as being inspired by divine intervention.
The Russian economy experienced a depression in the early 20th century, resulting in unrest among both urban and rural populations. This discontent influenced the government’s choice to engage in war with Japan, which subsequently triggered a series of revolutionary events lasting until 1907.
The January 9, 1905 protest, commonly referred to as Bloody Sunday, marked the true beginning of revolutionary actions. A significant crowd, carrying icons and images of the tsar, advanced towards the winter palace in St Petersburg. Their intention was to present the tsar with a petition denouncing the mistreatment of the people by capitalist factory owners and requesting specific measures to enhance workers’ conditions and rectify the injustices they had endured.
The petition had a loyal tone, asking the tsar to address their problems. It displayed unwavering confidence in the tsar’s authority and ability to take action. However, this confidence was short-lived, as the response to the protest involved the troops firing on the crowds. Despite the tsar not being present in the winter palace and not giving the order to fire, the popular perception of the tsar and the tsarist regime was negatively impacted.
The violent nature of demonstrations and strikes in towns and the countryside was a direct result of Bloody Sunday, which sparked widespread unrest. As a result, workers organizations and trade unions began to emerge spontaneously.
Tsar Nicholas II attempted to gain support from the intelligentsia and professional sectors of Russian society by making concessions. In 1905, he issued the October Manifesto to address the people’s demands. The manifesto ensured civil liberties such as personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly, and association. It also proposed establishing a state Duma that would be indirectly elected by certain segments of the population. Additionally, during this time, Nicholas’ wife Alexandra gave birth to their long-awaited son Alexei—an important moment for the Romanov family who had previously welcomed four daughters.
Shortly after Alexei’s birth, it was discovered that he had haemophilia – a condition that affects blood clotting and can result in internal bleeding and potential fatality. Haemophilia is inherited from the mother, and Alexandra’s feelings of disgrace over this may have influenced her attraction towards Gregory Rasputin, an unsophisticated religious figure. Rasputin managed to convince Alexandra that he possessed the power to alleviate Alexei’s pain.
Due to her strong belief in Rasputin’s power, Alexandra became completely dependent on him. Despite his failure to cure Alexei, Rasputin managed to uplift the young prince’s spirits alongside his parents. His contribution to Alexei’s well-being was greatly appreciated by his parents, particularly his mother. Rasputin also discovered that his close association with the royal court provided him with various prospects in the church, society, and potentially even the government.
Rasputin’s name quickly became associated with intrigue and sinister influences in high-ranking circles. He insinuated that he had a closer relationship with the tsar and tsarina than he actually did, leveraging this connection to gain favors for his friends and live an extravagant lifestyle. Alexandra, who married Nicholas II at the age of 22, was a formidable and strict woman. Even before their wedding, she had already begun to badger Nicholas at his father’s deathbed. Additionally, she attempted to isolate the family in an eternal tea party at the tsar’s royal retreat. She harbored deep mistrust towards anyone who offered advice to her husband, assuming the worst of their intentions.
The relationship between Alexandra and Nicholas was a crucial one during a pivotal moment in history. Though not an imbecile, Nicholas was weak and indecisive, while Alexandra, though not an imbecile either, lacked political and social knowledge. She dominated him and, as their lives neared the end, compelled him to make chaotic choices.
Throughout most of their marriage, her political interest was minimal. Nonetheless, towards the end of their reign, she assumed control of Russia while Nicholas went to the war front to aid his generals. On behalf of Rasputin, she discharged ministers and advisors. The absence of Nicholas from St. Petersburg led to widespread rumors about scandals within the royal family. Even after Rasputin’s assassination in 1916, the perception that the tsar and tsarist rule were inept and influenced by religious mysticism became firmly established within society.
Ultimately, the revolution was primarily caused by the swift industrialization and consequences of the First World War. The process of industrialization inevitably burdened Russian society, specifically peasants and factory workers who had to endure the expenses associated with industrial growth.
The Russian economy, like that of any other country, was affected by the war. However, due to its economic underdevelopment, the impact on Russian society was even more severe. The tsar and his government appeared disconnected from the people, leading to minimal attempts to address their demands. This lack of response included the creation of the state Duma. Nonetheless, it was not just Nicholas II or the war itself that sparked the revolution; they were contributing factors that led up to it.
< p > < strong > Bibliography
- Acton, E., Rethinking the Russian Revolution, London, Edward Arnold, 1992.
- Crankshaw, Edward., The Shadow of the Winter Palace: The drift to revolution 1825-1917, Penguin books, 1983.
- Deery, Philip., Lecture notes for European History, 1998., Footscray, Victoria University of Technology, 1998.
- Gilbert, Felix., The End of the European Era 1890 to the Present, London, 1984.
- Gill, Graeme., Twentieth Century Russia The Search for Power and Authority, Melbourne, Nelson, 1989.
- Kochan, Lionel., Russian Revolution 1890-1918, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1983.
- Rogger, H., Russia in the Age of Modernisation and Revolution 1881-1917, Longman, 1983.
