Tsar Nicholas II was responsible for the downfall of the Romanov

Dynasty in the March 1917 Revolution

To what extent is this statement accurate?
Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas IIs personality undoubtedly contributed to the
fall and dismantling of the Romanov Dynasty; the personal attributes that
Nicholas II retained were qualities we would associate with incompetent
leadership. Nicholas II was characterized by his naivety and much like his
precedents; Nicholas was known as an obstinate believer in the Autocracy.
Nicholas II held fast to out-dated, autocratic policies and brutally supresses
reform of any kind which would jeopardise his power. His inept handling of
military matters and indifference to the needs of his people was a predominant
factor for instigating the 1917 Russian Revolution. With that said the fall of
the Russian Empire was not at all entirely a result of Nicholas' incompetence and
poor leadership qualities, but also attributed to a plethora of other issues. At the
turn of the twentieth century, Russia was undergoing significant socio-economic
changes, Poor military and domestic decisions, as well as the outbreak WW1.
These events were undeniably influential in the downfall of the Romanov
Dynasty. These circumstances would be hard for any government to manage. If
anything Nicholas only hastened the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty, as the
concept of a monarchy was fast becoming an out-dated concept of government
in an era of intellectual prosperity. These events in conjunction with Nicholas's
poor decision making on some occasions were the reason that he is remembered
in history as Bloody Nicholas.

Tsar Nicholas II was often perceived as an inept leader, as he retained qualities that we would
associate with poor leadership. In his early manhood Nicholas lived the life of an idle
socialite uninterested in the political affairs of Russia, he found government meetings 'boring'
and uninteresting. As he had never taken a liking to political affairs he was underprepared to
take the throne, this fact in conjunction with his stubborn belief in autocracy, accounts for his
political naivet in many of the difficult situations he faced. Nicholas II was brought up by
his father Alexander III who doubted that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything
and therefore did not educate him in the business of state. Nicholas had a distain for authority
figures The fact that his father who died at age 49 thought that he had many more years ahead
of him may also be another factor behind Nicholas' poor leadership of Russia. In 1894 the
Tsar entered an arranged marriage with Alexandra, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and a
German princess. She came to be despised by the Russian people because of the way she
meddled in government and later because of her devotion to the disreputable monk Rasputin.
During the First World War she was widely regarded as a German spy and often referred to as
"that German woman".

Alexandra was a domineering woman and Nicholas apparently an easy victim of this. She
constantly urged him to play the part of the autocrat using phrases such as "The Russians love
their whip" and " Russia is the Tsar, the Tsar is Russia."

Nicholas was indifferent to change in Russia. Nicholas was known as an obstinate

believer in the Autocracy. Nicholas II held fast to out-dated, autocratic policies
and brutally supresses reform of any kind which would jeopardise his power.

His inept handling of military matters and indifference to the needs of his people
was a predominant factor for instigating the 1917 Russian Revolution

Alexander who died in 1894 had left Russia with a society no longer controlled by
tsarist rule and when Nicholas took the throne after his father's death Russian
society was not prepared to turn 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 . Nicholas was very
subjectable to influence in his political decisions
The relationship between Alexandra and Nicholas was a 'critical relationship at a
turning point in history' . He was weak and indecisive but he wasn't an imbecile,
Alexandra, if not an imbecile was politically and socially illiterate, dominating him
and towards the end of their lives forced him to make chaotic decisions.
Throughout his rule as discontent rose Nicholas still believed that he still had the
support of all his people save for a couple of 'undesirables'. In a sense he was
living in an alternate political reality. An example of his political naivete was the
1905 revolution that nearly toppled the regime. Before this there had been
enormous changes to the composition of the upper-class; the nobles-traditional
upper-class- had lost a lot of their power and influence. The new upper-class of
bankers, merchants and intelligentsia wanted reform to the system of
government, the creation of a parliament (Duma). But Nicholas, blind to the
threat of a united elite and lower class-they were already protesting over
shocking working conditions- wanting reform refused demands, as a result
Nicholas' government nearly fell and if not for the shrewd political maneuvering
of Minister Segius Witte certainly would have. The October Manifesto gave basic

civil liberties and a Duma with limited powers. This example illustrates that
Nicholas was not of weak character but was politically nave.
Tsar Nicholas

http://genius.com/Mr-briggs-tsar-nicholas-iis-incompetence-annotated
Arguments

Nicholass personality
Socio-economic changes
Military and domestic decisions
WWII