Tzar Nicholas II was the last Russian Tzar for a reason. Of all the monarchs before him, like Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Alexander II, also known as “Alexander The Liberator”, Nicholas II does not rank amongst them. His reign was the last monarchy because of his failed militaristic ambitions as well as his disregard to satisfy the citizen’s demand for change. During the time of his reign, the Russian army was butchered in two significant wars. The first being, the Russo-Japanese War which should have been an easy victory, instead during into a ugly debacle and a loss of military technology. The second war being, World War II, an even costlier war but in the most indispensable currency; human life. However, his military blunders were just embarrassments. The spark that started the revolutionary fire was his myopic and selfish hold on power. He was a foolish ruler to assume that during his time, his citizens would still be subordinate to his unsovereign reign, when in countries all around Russia had adopted democracy. Nicholas II saw democracy in action, and so did many others; and for the rest who couldn’t travel outside of the nation, the Avant-Garde Movement was enough to vicariously experience what social change could bring about. Nicholas II, in a rather false gesture to the public, appointed a Duma in response to the overwhelming unhappiness, but as it consisted of only like-minded individuals who were content as the small percentage of land-owning individuals, there was no representation of the majority. Had Nicholas II shown a fraction more compassion for the majority, even by appointing a real and representative Duma, the revolution of 1917 could have been avoided. However, if the last Tzar had any sort of compassion whatsoever, his rule could have been much different. Instead, he chose myopic self-interest for the people only in the highest class, which is his tragic flaw, for it is not the highest class that needs strong leadership; they will be just fine with or without it, rather it is the lowest class that needs strong and representative leadership, because they are the majority, and more importantly, unhappy.
Prof. Qualls' Course Blogs
Blogging and Teaching, Teaching and Blogging…but always learning!
It is interesting to bring up how, or if, the 1917 revolution could have been avoided. Although the revolution was directly brought about by the rule of Nikolai II, it had been years in the making. Furthermore, no tsar would rationally appoint a representative duma. Why would any tsar want to give up their power? The revolution was far from a “split-second” decision.
It may be going a bit too far to assume that Nikolai had no “sort of compassion whatsoever”. He obviously did not exhibit his compassion in a way that would help the entire nation, but that does not mean he lacked compassion entirely. Nikolai was dealing with multiple outside influences and internal factors. Although I do not support any of his diplomatic/political/military decisions, Nikolai is a result of his upbringing. He had the image and example of his father to live up to, and was certainly influenced, and terrified, by his grandfather’s assassination. Although it is a disturbing thought, I am not entirely sure if you and I would have been able to act any more compassionately towards the entirety of Russia than Nikolai (if put in his same position, with his same upbringing and pressures).