Nicholas Romanovs Role in the Russian Revolution :: Russian Russia History

Nicholas Romanovs Role in the Russian RevolutionNicholas Romanov was an ignorant, incompetent and insensitive drawing card. His character was the decisive cipher in take on the revolution The last Tsar of Russia was a sad figure a classic case of being a leader in the wrong place at the wrong age. Nothing at bottom his power could have prevented the forces of change from overtaking Tsarist Russia.To what extent do you agree with these explanations of the collapse of autocracy in Russia?Nicholas Romanov was an indecisive man who was easily influenced by others. Although it was not his character that was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution. He may have been a leader at the wrong time but if he had related better for the time he was in power.Russia before 1917 was the largest country under one empire. In economic terms it was backward as it was late industrialising and late to erupt from feudalism. In political terms it was also backward as on that point was no leg al political parties nor was there any centrally choose government Russia at this time was under tsarist rule by Nicholas II of the Romanov empire. Nicholas II was brought up by his bring Alexander three who didnt believe that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything and indeed did not educate him in the business of state . The fact that his founder who died at age 49 thought that he had many more(prenominal) years ahead of him may also be another factor behind Nicholas poor leadership of Russia .Alexander who died in 1894 had left Russia with a society no longer controlled by tsarist rule and when Nicholas took the thunder mug after his fathers death Russian society was not prepared to winding on its heels and return to how it use to be . Nicholas II was 26 when his father died and was soon to marry the German princess, Alix of Hess, Granddaughter of Queen Victoria .The relationship amidst Alexandra and Nicholas was a critical relationship at a turning point in history . He was weak and indecisive but he wasnt an changeling, Alexandra, if not an imbecile was politically and socially illiterate, dominating him and towards the end of their lives forced him to make higgledy-piggledy decisions.Nicholas nor Alexander III were well trained for the job of ruling this Brobdingnagian country. Alexander was not so much superior to the son in character of abilities to justify admirers hopes that he lived longer, so the monarchy would have.