The Tsar made many failures as Commander in chief of the army especially at the battle of Tannenburg where the majority of the Russian second army was destroyed which forced the Russian army to retreat. This coupled with other military defeats led to mass desertions towards cities. It also led to many soldiers knowing of the Tsars failures which would have supported the claim for a revolution. The war effort also caused the Zemstva and the Congress of Representatives of Industry and Trade to grow which were used to help stimulate production and provide medical facilities. The government failed to efficiently incorporate these into the war effort which resulted in them becoming a symbol for the shortcomings in the war effort.
This made the Romans prone to injuries and “because they have no armor, think about running and not fighting” (Document B). Because of the loss of troops from the loss of armour, the Roman army’s numbers diminished. No soldiers were drafted since many groups were exempted from joining the army. This lessened the defences and security of Rome, and Rome became weaker. Another primary reason of Rome’s decline was a series of foreign invasions.
As it was them who started the protest which turned into a revolution and also they were the ones behind the mutiny of the troops. However, the military was having many problems such as the war was going horribly wrong with many casualties, poor commanding from officers and limited military resources and equipment. The peasants were doing the fighting and the dying. So this could be a small contributing factor to the fall of the Romanov's on several different reasons. Firstly the tsar did not help the peasants personally, but instead leave the burden to the prime ministers when they cannot rule like a democracy today.
The only reason the military was too large and unsupported was because many of the taxpayers died of the plague. The German barbarians, which were the ones that eventually burned Rome to the ground, didn’t support brothels, public baths, and drank ale made with boiled water. They also lived in more spread out housing This would have made them far less susceptible to plague. When they invaded Rome, they would have been far stronger, whereas the Romans would be weak and small, ripe for the picking. Even though the Gothic tribes were mistreated, doesn’t meant they would have rebelled enough to cause the Fall of Rome.
With the lack of soldiers, it would be easier to invade Rome, which could’ve led to the decline of the Empire. This proves that internal decay was one of the major causes for the end of Rome. Document 6 shows the invasions of Barbarians in 476 on the Roman Empire. This demonstrates that the government and military were becoming weaker to the point where they weren’t strong enough to protect the empire from invasions. The government could not control all these invasions, so this was another component that helped the fall of the Roman Empire.
Also, many experts say that it fell because of the lack of heart the people had to the Empire, the rise of Christianity, it was too immense to govern and protect, the decline of the economy and jobs, the army being made up of mostly foreigners, and outside invaders. Thus, one can say that the Empire collapsed more internally than externally. The first reason why the Western Roman Empire fell was because the people that lived in it had a lack of heart in the Empire. People didn’t believe the Empire was worth saving anymore. As Strayer, Gatzke, and Harbison state in their textbook The Course of Civilization states “The basic trouble was that very few inhabitants of the empire believed that the old civilization was worth saving… the overwhelming majority of the population had been systematically excluded from political responsibilities.
Alexander II recognized that Russia was weak, it could not compete with the British or the French in terms of military might or political power, it had a much weaker economy and an out-dated social structure. Alexander saw that the country needed a dramatic overhaul if it was to regain its reputation as one of the leading powers of the world. The need for a stronger military was shown by the disastrous result of the Crimean war, Russia suffered a humiliating defeat and the rest of the world saw that it was no longer a power to be contended with, as it had been at the time of the fall of Napoleon. During the conflict, the British and French had been able to supply and reinforce their troops with greater ease than the Russians, despite the war being fought on Russian soil; this proved to the autocracy that there was a great need for change. Alexander decided that to improve morale within the armed forces, service in the army could no longer be given as a punishment in a court of law, the term of service was reduced by ten years and punishments within the army were made much less severe.
Having a war caused inflation, government spending rose from 4-30 million, taxation increased, and money became practically worthless and the price of food and fuel quadrupled. This made people angry as they could not afford supplies for themselves and their families, which made them, turn to the Tsar for help but he wasn’t seen to be doing much about the effects of war on the people at home. Furthermore, as well as not being able to
Looking throughout the Tsars reign it is apparent that his many failings encouraged the people to up rise and change the current form of government. His inability to handle the social and economic conditions or his input towards them, brought the blame of many problems some even of external problems. It was predominantly the Tsars poor character and action that lead to his removal as he did not acquire many of the characteristics and knowledge to rule a country and his decisions were poorly made in respect to the public. Revolutionary ideas provided the people with an answer to the their problems; the Tsar. If the Tsar had the capacity to rule, understand and the desire to lead his dynasty would not of ended at all or in such devastating
This is not as hypocritical as it might first appear. The serfdom that had operated in Russia since the middle of the seventeenth century was technically not slavery. The landowner did not own the serf. This contrasted with the system in the USA where the negro slaves were chattels; that is, they were regarded in law as the disposable property of their masters. In Russia the traditional relationship between lord and serf was based on land.