“Family happiness has never yet saved a dynasty”- J.N.Westwood
When Nicholas II abdicated in March 1917 the Romanov Dynasty, which had ruled Russia since 1613, came to an end. Nicholas was the last of the Romanov’s, and it is often asked whether he was to blame for the end of the era, or whether revolution simply happened on his watch. He certainly had a troubled reign, and on his ascension to the throne in 1894 Russia was in a troubled state. In this essay I am going to argue that it was Nicholas II’s own weaknesses which were the most serious challenge that he faced when he became Tsar, and that although there were other important factors such as the Russian economy, the problem of reform in Russia, opposition to the Tsarist system and Russia’s social structure, the reason why Nicholas was doomed from the start was that he simply was not fit to rule an autocratic state such as Russia.
Nicholas grew up under the rule of his father, Alexander III, who felt that he possessed no qualities of leadership, and therefore felt no reason to educate him in the matters of ruling. He was also considered a weakling by his father, and called ‘Nicky’ into his twenties by his Mother. This hardly seemed like a good upbringing for someone that would one day become leader of the Russian Empire. To add to this, his tutor, a Mr Heath, had no university education and knew very little about Russia, and even less about how to rule a country of its size. This meant that when he came to the throne he had little idea of how to run his dictatorship, and this showed in the way he ruled. When he heard his father was dying he was heard to exclaim; “I am not prepared to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling.” Nicholas was a reclusive child who preferred to write in his diary and collect stamps than learn about his future destiny, and he lacked the charisma of his father. This led to him being easy to manipulate, not at all the type of strong leader that was needed to steer Russia through this tricky stage. His five foot seven frame did nothing to help this, and Viktor Chernov described him as “not a man, but a poor copy of one.” His weaknesses where well known in the cities, and a famous saying in the pubs of St. Petersburg was “the most powerful man in Russia is the last man to have spoken to the Tsar.”
Nicholas had impeccable manners, and was unerringly polite and charming. However this led to him being submissive, and later he would have no concept of how to rule. He manipulated and mistrusted his ministers, agreeing with all of them in person and none of them in practice. He devoted himself to menial tasks such as peasants surnames and small town budgets. He would refuse to hire a secretary and instead perform all administrative tasks himself. His upbringing as a royal led him to be a likeable, hard working man, but he was not fit to rule a country autocratically. He had no interest in Politics, and no interest in ruling. He would have made a fantastic constitutional monarch, whose duties would not extend beyond being a likeable and charming man, but the reality is that he had to rule, and he was not conditioned to do it.
Nicholas was not clever, and this led to questions over his fitness to rule. On the day of his coronation thousands of people died celebrating in a stampede, and yet he did not want to upset his dinner guests and so went on ahead with the plans as normal, only attending to the problem later. This is an example of how woefully inept Nicholas was at managing a country, and the people in it. His concept of priorities was seemingly warped. Overall Nicholas was simply incapable of ruling, both due to his innate personality, for example his dislike of politics and his distrust, and his fathers treatment of him as a child, not seeing it fit to educate him to be a ruler. In reality, Nicholas’s personality was the most serious challenge he faced upon his ascension to the throne, as a dynasty that has been ruling for three hundred years does not simply become disliked over night, as can be shown by the continuing reign of the Royal Family of China, which has lasted much longer. Nicholas simply gave people reasons to dislike the system and angered people that with a bit of tact could have been kept sufficiently dormant, such as the intelligentsia and the Liberalists.
The social structure of Russia was also a large problem for Nicholas II when he came to power in 1894. Russia was a huge expanse of 8.5 Million square miles, with a population undergoing rapid growth: in 1815 it was 40 Million and in 1914 it had grown to 170 Million. Controlling such an area as an autocratic leader, maintaining political authority and keeping people happy, would have been hard for an effective ruler, and Nicholas was far from an effective ruler. Therefore Nicholas’s inability to rule enhanced this problem greatly.
There was an issue with the geography of Russia, and in particular the great divide between the Westerners, based in European Russia, and the Slavophiles, based in Asiatic Russia. Geographically the two sections of Russia were separated roughly down the centre of the Ural mountains, but culturally the difference was vast. The population, and the industry, were concentrated in European Russia, where the two largest cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg, were situated. Much of Russia was uninhabitable, with tundra, desert and mountains dominating. In ‘Russia of the Tsars’ by Smith, Tsarist Russia is described as a “hard land, whose overpowering landscape reduced men and their works to insignificance.” Trying to keep two groups happy is hard, however the fact of the matter is that with Russia there were multitudes of different nationalities. Minority groups such as the Mongols, the Jews and the Cossacks all inhabited part of the Russian Empire, and in a census carried out in 1897 it was revealed that only 55.6 Million of the population were Russians by mother tongue. The sheer amount of minority groups meant that pleasing each community was a tough task, and the concept of an empire at this time seemed dated. Many of these individual nationalities wanted independence, but Russia, like Britain, wanted to keep hold of her empire.
The demography of Russia was also a problem for the newly crowned Nicholas. 84.9% of the population was made up of peasants, either landlord’s serfs or state peasants, whilst the educated, non productive classes made up only 11.4% of the population. As most of the peasants were illiterate, only a small proportion of the population contributed to the development of the state, leaving it backward, anachronistic even, in its industrial and cultural development. The sheer amount of workers meant that there was always the chance of a revolution, if the educated intelligentsia could manage to make it happen. Karl Marx showed this by famously saying; “workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.” Some industries were growing however, and new industrial areas were popping up, leading to the development of a class of bourgeoisie, or factory owners, who as a group angered the workers and contributed to ideologies such as Marxism.
Overall, Mother Russia was a country of a harsh climate and varying landscape, with an unjustly weighted social structure and a scattering of different nationalities. It had caused many problems to previous Tsars, and was an accelerated problem by the time Nicholas came to power in 1894. However I think this is a less important factor than Nicholas’s weaknesses as other Tsars had managed to cope with Russia’s structure, however Nicholas was a poor leader, and therefore had an even tougher challenge in maintaining the balances that previous Tsars had managed to maintain.
The Russian economy at this point was overwhelmingly agricultural, and was mainly serf-based and therefore ineffectual. Long winters meant that farming had a large off-season, and peasants had to look to handicrafts to maintain their keep. The development of many small scale industries was a hindrance to major expansion, helping to cause Russia’s economic backwardness. However there were some larger industries such as silk, leather and iron: in fact Ural was the world’s leading iron producer in the early 19th century. The low number of urban workers showed that Russia had not achieved major industrial growth like other major countries such as Germany and Britain. The main feature of this slow economical development was the huge gap between the rich minority and the poor peasant majority. The fact is the sheer size and undeveloped transport of Russia made it hard for industrial expansion to occur.
Russia found it hard to raise capital, and was not good at borrowing and lending money. Tsarism encourages autarky, rather than trade with other countries, however this borrowing of money was a key reason why other countries found it easier to expand economically. This financial ideology discouraged the rise of entrepreneurialism which was what stimulated industrial revolution in Britain. As Nicholas felt it his duty to keep everything the same, part of the reaction against the assassination of his grandfather that sparked a shutdown on reform, this was not likely to change. This was a problem when Nicholas came to the throne as Russia was lagging behind other European countries, and their system was crying out to be reformed.
I do not believe that the economy of Russia was a very serious challenge Nicholas faced when he came to the throne in 1894, as I believe that the problem was solvable with reform, but that Nicholas was not prepared to overcome his natural instincts to tend towards reactionism and that therefore it was Nicholas’s weaknesses that prevented him from overcoming this hurdle. Instead, his lack of willingness to change led Russia’s economy to become a larger problem. The best thing to do when Nicholas came to the throne would have been to address the problem with reform, accepting that some features of traditional Tsarism needed to be changed for the good of the country.
Even if Nicholas had planned on countering Russia’s backwardness with reform however, there were many problems associated with reform in Russia at this time, based on a century of failed attempts by Tsars. It was generally accepted that reform was needed to overcome the problem of Russia’s social and economic backwardness; however there was a conflict of identity in Russia: the two distinct groups, Slavophiles and Westerners, both wanted to be represented in Russia’s culture. The two groups often disagreed: Westerners thought that Russia needed to adopt features of other Western political and economic systems to remain a great power, whereas Slavophiles thought of Western values as corrupt, not good enough for Russia the great power.
This was a problem for Nicholas when he came to power, and as a shy man who disliked angering people, he was not willing to offend either group, therefore ended up doing nothing and offending both. As Nicholas was an autocratic leader he had absolute power, and therefore could do what he liked. As he felt that he had a God-given right to rule over all the Russias unchallenged, it was also unlikely that he would bring in reform, however needed it was, that may have lead to devolution of power from himself. The Russian Orthodox Church was used to reinforce this message, preaching that the Tsar was anointed by God to be in control of all the Russias. As Tsar’s changed frequently, and each Tsar had their own ideas about reform, no ideas were ever implemented for a long period of time, and no programmes of change could be expected to progressively introduce reform in Russia either.
Reformers were wary of Nicholas, who seemed very autocratic. He had been heavily influenced by Konstantin Pobedonostsev during his youth, who had a deep dislike of democracy, and Nicholas was always likely to be a reactionary rather than a reformist. Reformers had been severely let down by previous Tsars, and were losing patience with passive resistance. Nicholas’s grandfather Alexander II introduced rural councils called Zemstvas, and universities with a greater freedom of expression, as well as several legal reforms to avoid corruption, which led to the development of an intelligentsia which would eventually lead to the downfall of the Tsarist system. However he did this only to lessen opposition to his regime, and he abandoned his ideas in the 1870’s after raising the hopes of the reformers. After Alexander was assassinated by the people’s will in 1881, his son Alexander III started ‘The Reaction,’ a period where reforms were constantly stifled. The powers of the Okhrana were increased, and censorship became more evident. The press was controlled more strictly and the Universities became under strict Government control. Anyone in power favouring Liberal ideas was kicked out of their positions, and this led to hatred of the ruling class by Liberal Opposition. Many decided they had waited enough for reform and wanted action.
Nicholas displayed poor judgement in not acting to stop the blatant Anti-Semitism, which he actually encouraged, or the Russification which divided the various Russian nationalities even further. Russification consisted of maintaining Russian values, as well as the language, at the expense of other cultures evident in the empire. This links back to his weaknesses, specifically his lack of ability to rule, and backs up my argument that Nicholas’s own weaknesses were the most serious challenges that he faced when he was crowned in 1894. At this time, with a new Tsar coming to the throne, unity was vital in the empire, and alienating half of the Empire’s population by treating them as inferior was not a good move on Nicholas’s part.
Nicholas contributed to the trouble with reform by continuing on with The Reaction during his reign, and alienating the various minority groups in Russia through Anti-Semitism and Russification. Therefore Nicholas’s weaknesses were more important that the problems of reform themselves, as he amplified these problems thus proving his ineptness at leading.
The last point I am going to look at is opposition to the Tsarist system. The Romanov’s were overthrown by the Social Democrats, who as a group were negligible when Nicholas came to the throne. Much opposition developed under his regime due to various faults of his, such as the lack of reform, and therefore his downfall can be directly linked to his own weaknesses. However there was some resistance when Nicholas came to the throne, which would have been a bit of a problem for him. Populists were the main opposition to the Tsarist regime prior to Nicholas coming to the throne, and the people’s will managed to assassinate Nicholas’s grandfather Alexander II in 1881. Vladimir Lenin (formerly Ulyanov, leader of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917,) had a brother who was executed for attempting to assassinate Alexander III in 1887, and this sowed the seeds of revolution in his head. However populism was in decline by the time Nicholas came to power, as neither propaganda nor terrorism had produced results. It was seen to have no clear ideologies, but it had managed to achieve a violent anti-Tsar tradition, paving the way for later groups to finish off their work.
The Social Revolutionaries grew directly from the Populists, however they only started to revolt through assassinating government officials in the early 20th Century. They were good at their job: between 1902 and 1906 2000 government officials were murdered in the name of the Social Revolutionaries. The Social Democrats were Marxists that split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, and wanted the creation of a communist system with a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The other main threats to Nicholas as he came to power in 1894 were the Liberal Opposition, who wanted reform rather than revolution. The main aims of the reformers were to get a parliament in place, and for the Tsar to become a constitutional monarch. Ironically being a constitutional monarch would have suited Nicholas perfectly, but he felt compelled to suppress change. Liberal ideas were based on the political systems of Western Europe, and therefore Liberalists could bank on the support of the Intelligentsia. A small revolution in 1905 did lead to the Duma (parliament) being set up, but it was too little, too late for Nicholas.
To conclude, when Nicholas II came to power in 1894 he faced a great deal of issues. He had to deal with Russia’s social and economical backwardness, as well as the social structure of Russia and the opposition to the Tsarist system. However he dealt with none of these issues well, and when he heard that he was to become Tsar he knew that he did not have the political knowledge or interest to deal with them well. He seemed resigned to his fate, and although he had a happy family life, and was a polite and charming person, as I quoted at the beginning of my essay: “Family Happiness has never yet saved a dynasty.” Therefore the most serious challenge that Nicholas faced upon his ascension to the throne in 1894 was his own weaknesses.
Essay Grade: A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)