modern history

10 responses so far ↓

•   Jarrod H // Mar 14th 2007 at 10:33 am

  Nicholas did not possess the qualities to be a good ruler on the brink of the twentieth century in Russia. Russia needed a leader who would “take the bull by the horns” and lead Russia through into a new and important century. Russia needed a strong leader, a strong leader Nicholas was not.
  Nicholas was thrust into the throne when he was only 26, probably not ready to lead. Nicholas was determined to rule as an autocrat and had an unwavering belief that there was no need to change the way the country was being run. He ruled much like other autocrats, with strong support from the military and the Russian orthodox church.
  Russia desperately needed widespread social and political reforms. Including a strong industrialisation to keep up with other European countries and a move towards democracy, which was the new idea of the time. With these reformed Russia could have become a constitutional monarchy much like England.

•   Aaron S // Mar 14th 2007 at 2:59 pm

  no nicholas did not posess the qualities to be a good ruler of russia because he did have the confidence in himself, he did not even want to be the tsar, he wasn’t as intelligent or had as strong a character as his father, he did not take any pride in his work and did not really like his ministers or pay much attention to any thing that he was told by them, he only really concentrated about his familt making him a good father instead of a good ruler.

•   Cam B // Mar 19th 2007 at 10:01 am

  Overall, Nicholas II did not possess the qualities to rule Russia as it neared the twentieth century. He lacked the skills of his father and the other Tsars before him. Nicholas II lacked skills of constitutional, economic and social value, giving him problems in his understanding of ruling Russia. His character was weak and he did not have a commanding personality like his father. He was more concerned for his family and did not give enough attention to controlling his country. He disliked having to rule Russia, as he found it a boring task. He enjoyed having his family around, making Nicholas II a good husband and father, but also making him a poor ruler of the Russian empire.

•   Jessen O // Mar 19th 2007 at 3:17 pm

  Near the end of the 20th century Nicholas did not quieteposses the qualities of a good leader. Russia really needed a stroger leader and to lead Russia into a new century. Nicholas had no qaulities of a strong leader.
  Nicolas was forced to throne when he was 26, Nicholas was no were near ready to rule Russia. Nicholas way of rule was autocracy, like most Autocrats Nicholas ruled with strong milatary support and the orthodox church. Russia really needed social and political reforms and a stronger Industry.

•   THE TIMONATER // Mar 21st 2007 at 10:23 am

  Overall, did Nicholas possess the qualities to be a good ruler of a country on the brink of the twentieth century? Explain your answer.

  I dont think that Nicholas possed the qualities needed to save Russia. He was a shy man who was more interested with his romance with his wife than rulling the country. He did not want to become Tsar, he was pressured into it. When he becameTsar Nicholas, or Nicky as his wife called him, decided to rule as an autocrat and not make social or political reforms. This is excactly what Russia didn’t need, it needed change and reforms. What Russia needed was a strong leader who could take the steps required to turn Russia into constItutional monarchy.

•   Harry smartest man alive // Mar 21st 2007 at 10:37 am

  From source studies and background information on Nicholas II my opinion matches much of the sources. I feel he was more of a quiet family man than a dominant and capable leader. He certainly didn’t have the abilities to maintain autocratic power over Russia. He did not posses the Qualities to be a formiddable ruler of Russia on the brink of the 20th century. Nicholas was thrown into the ruler when he was only 26, without the experience and mindset needed to maintain Russia. Russia desperately needed widespread social and political reforms.

•   brent // Mar 21st 2007 at 2:20 pm

  Nicholas II did not have the qualities of a good ruler on the brink of the twentieth century. He did not have the strong leadership quality of his father and did not even want the job of the tsar. He was small and rather shy and preferred the family life to the anxiety of government. When his father died suddenly he was not ready for the responsibility of the tsar but took it as his god given duty. I believe these sources sums up why he wasn’t a suitable ruler, A”What is going to happen to me, to all Russia? I am not prepared to be the Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling. I have no idea of even how to talk to minister’.
  D”The Daily work of a ruler he found terribly boring. He could not stand listening long or seriously to minister’s reports, or reading reports. He liked those ministers as could tell an amusing story and did not weary his attention with too much business”.
  E “. . . unlike his father Nicholas was weak in character and intellect, and politically naïve. . . He did not trust his ministers and preferred to rely on advisers of dubious ability and reputation. His dislike of government business prevented him from understanding the complexity of problems and his poor knowledge and understanding of affairs of state encouraged intrigue (scheming) within the bureaucracy”. Philip Cummins, Russia 1800 – 1914, published Sydney 1996

•   Jono // Mar 25th 2007 at 6:38 pm

  From what I have read about Nicholas II I have come to the conclusion that he did not have the personal qualities to rule the vast Russian country. Nicholas II was a very shy man and did not want to rule the nation, he had no confidence within him to be Tsar. He was not a smart man and had a weak character therefore did not possess the characteristics to be leader in my view.

•   Alex // Mar 26th 2007 at 4:32 pm

  Nicholas was far from the ideal Tsar to take Russia into the 20th century. He did have the qualities required to lead Russia at the time, nor to protect the Romanov dynasty from falling. In fact, it can be found in his diaries that he did not want the role of Tsar, and wished the job were someone else’s.
  Nicholas’ II namesake Nicholas I is remembered for his system or brutal and merciless repression of dissidents, and Nicholas II’s father, Alexander III was said tho have been a very strong man, able to bend iron bars. Nicholas did not have the pysical capacity of his father or the political strength of his namesake, and would have much rather spent his life with his family. He seemed shy, sensitive and generally too weak to rule Russia during a turbulent period of reform, revolution and World War.

•   Oscar // Apr 3rd 2007 at 12:54 pm

  nicholas wasnt a born leader he was shy and didnt like to recive help from other people who were trying to help him make russia a better country. he didnt like to be a tsar but he liked the rules that came with it. he was too young when he started to rule i dont think he had enough experience which lead to all of his disaters that occured. he wasnt a smart man but youy wouldnt call him dumb he just didnt have the strength to be a leader.

Leave a Comment