How Far Was Nicholas Ii Responsible for the Downfall of the Romanovs

1889 Words8 Pages
How far was Nicholas II responsible for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917? The fall of the Romanov dynasty in 1917 was the culmination of many factors. It is perhaps widely noted that Nicholas II was not suited to his role as Tsar, mainly due to his character and personality. Resentment of his wife and her involvement with the mystical Rasputin was also widespread and helped contribute to the collapse of the monarchy. Also the state of the country during World War One left a lot to be desired and created a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the Russian people. Tsar Nicholas II was responsible for the fall of the Romanov dynasty, but to a notable extent, as there were other factors more significant to account for the collapse of the Romanovs. It’s reasonable if one states that Nicholas II was responsible for stardom’s collapse. Many criticized the Tsar as a Monarch whose capacity for hard work and commitment wasn’t matched by outstanding intelligence, and had no clear vision for Russia’s future. Nicholas was not suited to his role as Tsar, and would rather spend his time with his family. As a consequence, he was out of touch with his people and could not see that whilst in theory, autocracy would demand the respect he so desired, in practice, it would do the contrary. Furthermore, whilst Nicholas was more suited to his role as a family man, he was better at ordering repression, probably because it required less charisma and was easier to do, especially as he could hide behind the facade of administration and autocracy. Albeit Nicholas had been born for this role as Tsar, he wasn‟t a born leader and his lack of concern for his people began to be regarded not only as indifference for the welfare of his people, but also for his role. “It is awe inspiring, it is frightening, but we cannot do without a Tsar” ran a Russian proverb, “however, soon enough, his people
Open Document