Written by Alexei Joukovski
The Russian Revolution began in February 1917 with the fall of Nicholas ll from the imperial throne. This momentous occasion led to the toppling of one of the greatest imperial Houses in modern European History: The House of Romanov. In the following article, I will discuss reasons for and against the argument that the failures of the Tsars Nicholas l, Alexander ll, Alexander lll and Nicholas ll led to the collapse of their own imperial house.
One way the Tsars’ failures led to their downfall was their failure in ending, or at least reforming, the autocracy. In 1825, the Decembrists instigated a failed uprising against Nicholas I. The Historian Derek Offord argues that they aimed for “the establishment of a constitutional monarchy”. Throughout Nicholas l’s reign, criticism of the autocratic nature of government continued, which would influence later revolutionaries. Nicholas not only kept the autocracy, but he also increased it, with Historians Russell Sherman and Robert Pearce claiming that “the latter part of Nicholas’s reign was a stern period of repression”. Indeed, by 1850, there were 12 separate censorship entities.
This was similar for Nichola I’s son, Alexander ll, who also failed to reform the autocracy. Alexander II introduced an elected local council: the zemstvo. However, this was limited to the nobility, and, as Alan Wood argues, he “resolutely refused to […] crown his reforms with a constitution”. It is important to note that this same historian argues that due to the “government’s refusal to alter the political structure of tsarism […] more and more members of the radical intelligentsia were becoming attached to the prospect of popular revolution.”
The trend of a failure to reform the political structures of the state continued under Alexander lll, who in 1881 scrapped the proposed Loris Melikov constitution, which could have led to the creation of a national consultative assembly. This would have been a significant step in reforming the autocracy.
It is true that under Nicholas ll, there was partial reform of the governmental structure. Following the failed 1905 Revolution—linked to the failure of the Russo-Japanese war—worker’s rights and discontent with the autocracy, Nicholas announced his October Manifesto promising the creation of a legislative body with popularly elected members: the Duma. However, as Wood argues, “the power of the autocracy […] remained intact”. This argument proves to be convincing, considering the Fundamental Laws. Laws that were passed by Nicholas ll in 1906 to carry out his promises made in the October Manifesto. These included loopholes such as “Supreme Autocratic Power belongs to the Emperor”; undoubtedly highlighting how the autocracy was not sufficiently reformed.
The autocracy of the Russian Empire was a major point of contention which motivated the revolutionaries to force the Tsars into abdication. Therefore, since 1825, the Tsars effectively failed not only to remove—but to a larger extent even reform—the autocracy. There is a strong argument for the cause of the Tsarist failures led to their own downfall.
There are many other arguments which also propose that Tsarist failures led to the February Revolution. While not directly instigating the Revolution, the Tsars failed to reform the situation of the peasants sufficiently. This is clear for the serfs: unfree peasants under the control of the owner of the land on which they worked. Under Nicholas l, opposition movements, such as the Decembrists, which aimed to emancipate the serfs, directly led to 1467 peasant revolts between 1800 and 1855. While he disliked serfdom, calling it “an evil obvious to all”, he never actually abolished it.
Some may argue that there was reform. One could cite the opening of the fifth section of Nicolas I’s Chancellery in 1836, which is argued to have improved the administration of the state peasants. For example, there was the construction of hospitals, schools, and churches to cater for 200,000 people and the encouragement of new efficient crops such as potatoes. However, an argument based on these facts fails to comprehend the reforms’ failures. Considering the construction of hospitals, schools and churches was for only 200,000 people and 41.5 million serfs, an insignificant fraction reaped the reforms’ rewards. The encouragement of potatoes also failed as it was done under an authoritarian nature, with the potatoes being forced on the serfs who resented this, causing riots between 1841 and 1843.
It is true that the serfs were eventually emancipated, which took place in 1861 under Alexander ll. However, there was a key aspect of the emancipation which led to dissatisfaction with the regime. As part of the emancipation, serfs were forced to pay back redemption taxes for forty-nine years at a 6 per-cent interest rate, with this only being scrapped in 1905. The half-hearted attempt at emancipation angered many and exacerbated revolutionary sentiment. It is important to note that this does not mean the failure of emancipation directly caused the revolution. However, what can be implied is that Tsarist failure fuelled a growing trend of anti-Romanov sentiment and discontent.
This trend of Tsarist failure motivating a long-term revolutionary movement is again apparent during the 1891-92 famine. The famine did have natural origins. However, it was exacerbated by government policy. For example, the government heavily taxed consumer goods, forcing peasants to sell more and more grain, leaving them with no reserves of seed corn for them to use in a bad year. Additionally, they also postponed a ban on grain exports until the situation was acute in August 1891. Orlando Figes argues that “Russian society was politicised by the famine” and therefore, while not directly instigating the February Revolution, one can draw a link between Tsarist failure and an increase in anti-Tsarist sentiment.
One possible counterargument is that Tsarist failure did not cause the revolution as the opposition was necessarily against the Tsar. Revolutionary opposition groups, such as the Narodniks—agrarian socialists—fundamentally opposed Tsardom. While they dissipated following Alexander lll’s failed assassination attempt in 1887 and a subsequent crackdown, their ideology re-emerged in the form of the Socialist Revolutionaries, who became the largest revolutionary group in 1917. There were also the Social Democrats who—influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx—argued for a revolution of the proletariat (workers) over the bourgeoisie (capitalists). These groups were vital in overthrowing the Tsar and wanted a revolution. Therefore, no amount of Tsarist success could stop them.
However, this view is limited when considering the liberals, the other denomination of opposition groups. The liberals did not fundamentally oppose the Tsar. Instead, they wanted the formation of a constitutional monarchy. One large liberal group were the Kadets, who, as Michael Lynch argues, played “a significant role in the […] February Revolution”. Liberals supported revolution only because of the October Manifesto’s failures. Therefore, Tsarist failures caused more passive groups to become revolutionary. Furthermore, even the revolutionaries who were fundamentally opposed to Tsardom had their popularity exacerbated in virtue of Tsarist failures, such as in the wake of the famine of 1891-92.
Another counterpoint concerns World War One. The war caused dire economic consequences in Russia, including inflation, whereby between 1914 and 1916, the price of food and fuel quadrupled. This led to an increased amount of hostility against the government and is often thought of as a direct cause of the February Revolution. Entering the war was not a Tsarist failure. When Nicholas ll chose to declare war, he had the support of his subjects. When appearing on the Winter Palace’s balcony, people fell to their knees singing “God bless the Tsar” and only twenty-two members of the Duma refused to support the Tsar. Therefore, one could infer that the collapse of the House of Romanov was more caused by World War One than Tsarist failure.
However, this argument glances over the fact that it was Nicholas ll’s financial policy which led to the economic crisis, not necessarily World War One. To finance his war, government spending increased by 650 percent. Nicholas, therefore, abandoned the Gold Standard, restraining him from printing money. This led to acute inflammation, causing public discontent. Even if the railway system’s collapse was due to the war, its effects were dramatically exacerbated by inflation.
Therefore, what one can see is a constant trend of long-term Tsarist failure, which not only led to a long-term increase in revolutionary sentiment but also directly triggered the February Revolution. Thus, one can infer that the failure of the Tsars was, to a large extent, the main reason for the downfall of their own imperial House.
Bibliography
Figes, Orlando. 2014. Revolutionary Russia 1891-1991. London: Pelican.
Lynch, Michael. 2005. Reaction and Revolution: Russia 1894-1924. London: Hodder Murray.
Offord, Derek. 1999. Nineteenth-Century Russia: Opposition to Autocracy. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Oxley, Peter. 2001. Russia 1855-1991 From Tsars to Commissars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saunders, David. 1992. Russia in the Age of Reaction and Reform 1801-1881. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Sebag-Montefiore, Simon. 2016. The Romanovs. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Seton-Watson, Hugh. 1967. The Russian Empire 1801-1917. London: Oxford University Press.
Sherman, Russell, and Pearce, Robert. 2002. Russia 1815-81. London: Hodder Education.
Wood, Alan. 1993. The Origins of the Russian Revolution 1861-1917. London: Routledge.
Feature Image Credit: Unknown author, English: It Is of Tsar Nicholas II and His Family Inspecting the Troops in Russia in about 1916.Original Description: The Emperor and His Children with Cossack Officers of the Konvoy (Grabbe, Their Commandant Is Seen between Anastasia and Olga) at GHQ Moginav (Mogilev)., October 4, 1916, October 4, 1916, Romanov Family Album 3, Page 7, Image No. 2 Getty Images, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nicholas_II_and_children_with_Cossacks_of_the_Guard,_cropped.jpg.
Retrospect Journal 
