Character study from sources - Part A
Which of the sources could you use to support the following statements about Nicholas.
- Nicholas did not want to be Tsar
- Nicholas was not a suitable person to be Tsar
- Nicholas did not like dealing with his ministers
- Nicholas has a happy family life
Character study from sources – Part B
- Name three sources which agree about the character of Nicholas. What does each one say and why would they be reliable? Remember to look at the perspective.
- Form your own opinion on Nicholas. How do all of the sources above suggest that Nicholas was not a suitable person to rule over Russia?
13 responses so far ↓
1. Source A can tell us that Nicholas was not suited to rule and did not want to rule, this is an extract from Nicholas’s own diary.
2. Source C tells us that Nicholas was not suited to be Tsar; it tells us that Nicholas found the process of ruling very boring. This was from a member of the Russian parliament in 1917.
3. Source B tell us that Nicholas did not enjoy dealing with his ministers. It shows that Nicholas did not enjoy confrontation. This was from the prime minister from Russia who was sacked in 1917.
4. Source E was an historians opinion that Nicholas was a very good family man and that Nicholas was a good father. This historian wrote a book on the history of Russia.
1. Source C, source D, and source F all agreed that Nicholas was not a good ruler. These were all from reputable sources and all had the same opinions. Although the perspective was all from people who were either disappointed with the tsar or who were on the other side than the tsar.
2. All the sources tell me that Nicholas was not an adequate leader for Russia at this time. Nicholas was “soft” and a ruler more suited to a normal, more stable time in Russia’s history. This backs up my opinion of Nicholas as a ruler.
Source A
You could use source D to support the following statements about Nicholas.
Nicholas did not want to be Tsar
Nicholas was not a suitable person to be Tsar
Nicholas did not like dealing with his ministers
Nicholas has a happy family life
1. Nicholas did not want to be Tsar: Source A: An extract from Nicholas’ diary written in 1894:
“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’.
2. Nicholas was not a suitable person to be Tsar: Source D: An Historians opinion of Nicholas
“ . . . 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”.
3. Nicholas did not like dealing with his ministers: Source C: Written by Alexander Kerensky, a member of the Russian parliament before the revolution in 1917 in his memoirs.
“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”
4. Nicholas has a happy family life: Source E: An Historian’s opinion
Historians seeking to say something good about Nicholas sometimes point out that he was a good husband. This he was, but family happiness has never yet saved a dynasty”.
Part B
1. Name three sources, which agree about the character of Nicholas. What does each one say and why would they be reliable? Remember to look at the perspective.
Source a, source c, source e
Each source is saying how Nicholas II was not fit to rule Russia and didn’t have a clue about what he had to do. And some say that he found his daily duties boring and he did not weary his attention with too much business. Plus some also say that he did not even want to become the tsar and that he knows nothing of the business of ruling. They would be reliable because source a is an extract from Nicholas’s diary and because it was also published into the famous book war and revolution. Source c would be reliable because it was written by a member of parliament before the revolution in 1917 in his memoirs and source e would be probably not be reliable because it is only a historians opinion on the matter which would leave it open to any form of bias.
2.Form your own opinion on Nicholas. How do all of the sources above suggest that Nicholas was not a suitable person to rule over Russia?
Because first of all he didn’t believe he could rule Russia and that he didn’t even want to be the tsar and he says he knows nothing of the business of ruling and that he doesn’t even know how to talk to a minister. He found his duties terribly boring and couldn’t stand listening to important information about Russia when his minister told them to him and he did not weary his attention with too much business. He wasn’t as strong in character as his father was and did not have the intellect like his father and his dislike in the government business prevented him from understanding the complexity of problems within the bureaucracy. But there are some sources that say he was a good father but still being a good father doesn’t help Russia. So I found Nicholas to be weak willed and a very bad ruler he did little to help Russia in his time of being the tsar.
Nicholas II
Which of the sources could you use to support the following statements about Nicholas.
0. Nicholas did not want to be Tsar
0. Nicholas was not a suitable person to be Tsar
0. Nicholas did not like dealing with his ministers
0. Nicholas has a happy family life
In source A it identifies Nicholas as not wanting to become Tsar, as he knew nothing of the business of ruling.
In source D it says that Nicholas didn’t inherit the intellect or strong character of his father that is crucial to being a Tsar. He also disliked the understanding of complex business ideas and he didn’t trust his ministers and advisors.
Source C says that Nicholas found the daily work of a ruler extremely boring and could not stand listening to or reading ministers reports. He only liked the ministers that could tell an amusing story.
Source E says that whenever they complimented Nicholas they always referred to him being a husband and a good family man.
Character study from sources – Part B
0. Name three sources which agree about the character of Nicholas. What does each one say and why would they be reliable? Remember to look at the perspective.
Form your own opinion on Nicholas. How do all of the sources above suggest that Nicholas was not a suitable person to rule over Russia?
In source A, an extract from Nicholas’s diary, it says how he is really not prepared and afraid that he would let the Russian empire down. In source D, a historian’s view, it says how Nicholas lacks his father’s strong personality and strong character, which is essential for a strong Tsar leader. It also said how he did not trust his ministers and advisers making him a self-power man. In source E, a historian view. Said that he was a very family orientated man who was deeply involved with his family. From all the sources about Nicholas I believe that Nicholas was a incompetent leader who had little genuine interest in the good of the Russian empire. As he was more interested in his family then thinking about the empires needs. In the end when was the last time family happiness saved a dynasty?
Character study from sources – Part A_Which of the sources could you use to support the following statements about Nicholas.
Nicholas did not want to be Tsar
Source A shows he was not ready for tsar as it is taken from his diary and is worried how he is going to do his job
Source E
Nicholas was not a suitable person to be Tsar
Source D written by a fellow parliamentarian of how he took no interest in the business of his role
Nicholas did not like dealing with his ministers
Source D
Source H
Nicholas has a happy family life
Source G
Character study from sources – Part B
Name three sources which agree about the character of Nicholas. What does each one say and why would they be reliable? Remember to look at the perspective.
Source I, D, E
All these sources say that Nicholas was foolish man and one that was not capable of the position that he was in. these sources would be reliable because two are from Russian leaders a politician and a revolutionary leader of around the same time. The other is a historian from the same time frame.
Form your own opinion on Nicholas. How do all of the sources above suggest that Nicholas was not a suitable person to rule over Russia?
They say he was both intellectually and not of a suitable character for the job. They suggest he was naïve in politics and unstable.
Nicholas II Source Study 1
Qu1) Source A reflects Nicholas’ unwillingness to become Tsar.
Qu2) Source D indicates that Nicholas was not a suitable person to rule.
Qu3) The idea that Nicholas preferred not to deal with his ministers is supported in Source C.
Qu4) Source E reflects the impression that Nicholas was a happy family man.
Source Study 2
Qu1) Three sources which indicate that Nicholas was an unfit ruler are source A, D and E. Each of these sources was from reputable sources all of which had some contact with or was associated with the Tsar. Each source indicates that Nicholas was unfit to rule and shows different aspects of his personality to prove their point.
Qu2) From source studies and background information on Nicholas II I have formed a similar opinion about him as the authors of the sources have. 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.
Source B
An extracct from Nicholas’s diary from source A say how Nicholas was affraid that he would let the russian empire down and that he wasn’t really prepared. Source D says how Nicholas lacked his fathers strong character, which was an essential for a strrong Tsar, and that Nicholas didn’t trust his ministers and advisers,
Part A
1. Source A: Nicholas did not want to be Tsar.
An extract from Nicholas’ diary written in 1894:
“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’.
2. Source D: Nicholas was not a suitable person to be Tsar.
An Historians opinion of Nicholas
“. . . 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”.
3. Source C: Nicholas did not like dealing with his ministers.
Written by Alexander Kerensky, a member of the Russian parliament before the revolution in 1917 in his memoirs.
“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”.
4. Source E: Nicholas had a happy family life
An Historian’s opinion
Historians seeking to say something good about Nicholas sometimes point out that he was a good husband. This he was, but family happiness has never yet saved a dynasty”.
Part B
1. Name three sources which agree about the character of Nicholas. What does each one say and why would they be reliable? Remember to look at the perspective.
Source A states that Nicholas did not want to become Tsar because he knew nothing of the business of ruling.
Source D looks at the intellect and strong character that Nicholas’ father possessed. Nicholas failed to inherit these attributes which were crucial to become a Tsar. Nicholas also didn’t trust his ministers or advisors.
Source F explains that Nicholas felt only at ease among brainless people and couldn’t handle the tough situations where he would have to make tough decisions.
2.Form your own opinion on Nicholas. How do all of the sources above suggest that Nicholas was not a suitable person to rule over Russia?
Looking at all the above sources, it suggests to me that Nicholas was not ready to become a Russian leader. Just because he was the son of a man who had the right credentials to be Tsar doesn’t mean Nicholas did.
Part A
1) Source A, as it is an extract from Nicholas II diary.
2) Source D, as it is a historians opinion that is backed up by many other sources we have read.
3) Source C, as it is another primary source, written by a member of the Russian parliment before the revolution.
4) Source E, as it is a historians opinion that is backed up by many other sources, both primary and secondary.
Part B
1) Source A, D and F all agree about the character of Nicholas. Source A states he knew nothing about ruling an empire, source D states that Nicholas did not have the qualities, such as strong character, that his father had. These qualities were crutial to ruling the Russian empire. Source F states that Nicholas felt more confortable with brainless people than the intellectual people of the empire, as he was simple minded himself.
2) Looking at all these sources, it seems an almost unanimous decision that Nicholas II was not ready to rule the empire he inherited. His father was capable, but Nicholas did not possess the same character and qualities of his father.
source a comes from Nicholas’s dairy and it describes how he does not want to rule russia
In source d it describes how Nicholas lacked the nessary traits to become tsair such as, strong character, interlect and methods to deal with complex social, economic and political problems that faced Russia. He did not inherit these important traits from his father.
Source c sates that Nicholas did not like to deal with his ministers.
Source says that nicholas was a good father and family man.
Source c, d and f all state the Nicholas was not a good ruler and futher more not in the right time frame to rule Russia. All of the authours of these sources mostly have the same opinoins of Nicholas so it can be fair to say that from these sources Nicholas was not a good tsair.
Nicholas was more of a family man than an autocratic iron fisted ruler of Russia as such. He did not obtain the nessarcy finesse to rule over Russia in such a time in Russian history. He was a in adaqutate and outdated tsair more suited to previous regins rather than a unstable time of Russian history.
1. Nicholas did not want to be Tsar: Source A: An extract from Nicholas’ diary written in 1894:
“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’.
2. Nicholas was not a suitable person to be Tsar: Source D: An Historians opinion of Nicholas
“ . . . 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”.
3. Nicholas did not like dealing with his ministers: Source C: Written by Alexander Kerensky, a member of the Russian parliament before the revolution in 1917 in his memoirs.
“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”
4. Nicholas has a happy family life: Source E: An Historian’s opinion
Historians seeking to say something good about Nicholas sometimes point out that he was a good husband. This he was, but family happiness has never yet saved a dynasty”.
Part B
Three sources which indicate that Nicholas was an unfit ruler are source A, D and E. Each of these sources was from reputable sources all of which had some contact with or was associated with the Tsar. Each source indicates that Nicholas was unfit to rule and shows different aspects of his personality to prove their point.
From source studies and background information on Nicholas II I have formed a similar opinion about him as the authors of the sources have. 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.
Character study from sources – Part A
Which of the sources could you use to support the following statements about Nicholas.
Nicholas did not want to be Tsar–Source A Nicholas’ diary. He writes ‘I am not prepared to be the Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling.’
Nicholas was not a suitable person to be Tsar–Again from source A Nicholas writes about himself: ‘ I know nothing of the business of ruling. I have no idea of even how to talk to minister’. Also from source C: “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”. And from source D: “. . . unlike his father Nicholas was weak in character and intellect, and politically naïve”.
Nicholas did not like dealing with his ministers–Both Source A & C talk about his attitude to his ministers (see above) and from source D: “He did not trust his ministers and preferred to rely on advisers of dubious ability and reputation”.
Nicholas has a happy family life–Source E: Historians seeking to say something good about Nicholas sometimes point out that he was a good husband. This he was, but family happiness has never yet saved a dynasty”.
Character study from sources – Part B
Name three sources which agree about the character of Nicholas. What does each one say and why would they be reliable? Remember to look at the perspective.
Source A, Source D and Source F all talk about Nicholas’ lack of pollitical know how.
Source A is taken from Nicholas’ own diary: ‘I know nothing of the business of ruling. I have no idea of even how to talk to minister’.
Source D is an historian’s view on Nicholas. It is his opinion so there for it is bias:’”. . . unlike his father Nicholas was weak in character and intellect, and politically naïve.”
Source F is Leon Trotsky’s view on Nicholas. Tortsky was one of the key figures in the 1917 revolution. so his view will be very one sided: “He felt at east only among completely mediocre and brainless people. . . His ancestors did not bequeath him one quality which would have made him capable of governing an empire”.
All the sources except E tell us that he was not suitable to rule over anything let alone a empire on the brink of disaster.
Leave a Comment