History Cause Essay
Russian Revolution
Introduction:
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a major turning point in history, ending over 300 years of Romanov rule and establishing the world's first communist state. It is significant because it not only transformed Russia’s political system but also had long-lasting global impacts. Long-term causes included deep social inequality, autocratic rule, and lack of political freedom. Short-term causes such as the pressures of World War 1, economic collapse, and Tsar Nicholas Ⅱ’s poor leadership accelerated the crisis. The Revolution's short-term consequence was the Tsar’s abdication, while long-term consequences included the rise of the Soviet Union and global ideological tensions that shaped the 20th century.
Cause 1:
The conditions of the Tsarist autocracy were a long-term, political, social, and economic cause of the 1905 Revolution. While not an immediate trigger, they created growing dissatisfaction that exploded into open protest when sparked by events like Bloody Sunday.
In rural areas, this political repression was intensified by deep economic and social inequality. Around 85% of the population were impoverished peasants, and although serfdom was officially abolished in 1861, its legacy endured through high taxes, land shortages, and continued food insecurity. In an attempt to address rural unrest, Prime Minister Stolypin introduced land reforms between 1906 and 1911 aimed at creating a loyal class of small, independent landowners. These reforms led to some progress: peasant land ownership rose from 20% in 1905 to 50% by 1915, and redemption payments were terminated. This impact was uneven, as 61% of peasants still chose not to take up individual land ownership, as many lacked the resources to sustain farms. The majority remained in poverty, with little improvement to their living standards.
At the same time, Stolypin’s government intensified political repression. He targeted revolutionary groups such as the Social Revolutionaries and other left-wing opponents, using mass arrests, exile, and over 3,000 executions between 1906 and 1909. This brutal crackdown earned the hangman’s noose the nickname “Stolypin’s necktie.” His dual approach of limited reform and harsh repression further alienated the population and deepened mistrust of the regime. Rather than solving rural discontent, Stolypin’s policies reinforced the belief that peaceful change was impossible under Tsarist rule, contributing to the revolutionary mood. However, they faced poor working conditions, characterised by low wages, long hours, and unsafe environments. Alongside this, they struggled with high taxes, rising living costs, and unemployment. Their living conditions were also harsh, as they were forced to endure overcrowded and unhygienic housing, leading to the spread of disease. Meanwhile, rural peasants who remained in the countryside were oppressed by land shortages, high taxes, and restricted social advancement. They were trapped by the legacy of serfdom, a system in which peasants were legally bound to the land and controlled by landlords. Although serfdom was abolished in 1861, its effects persisted under the firm rule of the tsarist autocracy. The ongoing poverty and lack of land ownership caused by serfdom were major drivers of urban migration, as peasants sought better opportunities in the cities despite the harsh industrial conditions they would face there. These unbearable social and economic pressures gradually built into a volatile mix of growing rebellion and mass discontent across both urban and rural populations. The Putilov Strike erupted in St. Petersburg in early 1905, organised by factory workers. Protestors defied the government’s strict ban on unions and strikes to demand better wages and working conditions, demonstrating an increasing willingness to challenge the regime. The situation further escalated with Bloody Sunday in January 1905, when a peaceful protest by workers and their families, led by Father Gapon, marched to present a petition to the Tsar, but were met with gunfire from the Imperial Guard. Hundreds were killed or wounded, destroying the long-held image of Nicholas II as the ‘Little Father’ and intensifying public anger. The Russians’ belief that the Tsar would protect them was shattered. Nicholas II became known as “Bloody Nicholas,” a symbol of betrayal and violence. In the months that followed, rebellion spread across the empire: mass worker strikes defied government bans, and rural peasants looted and burned over 3,000 gentry manors. The 1905 Revolution was a direct reflection of the immense poverty and powerlessness felt by Russians in general, permanently damaging the Tsar’s reputation and authority.
The failure of the Tsarist autocracy to deliver meaningful reform, such as addressing land inequality, improving working conditions, or sharing political power, combined with its harsh repression, led to deepening exasperation among Russia’s peasants and workers. The events of 1905 reflected not only the widespread suffering but also Nicholas II’s short-sighted leadership. His stubborn resistance to political modernisation, social liberalisation, and broad economic reform meant that his regime failed to adapt to a rapidly changing society—this refusal to modernise left revolution as the only path for change.
Cause 2:
The poor leadership and decision-making of Tsar Nicholas Ⅱ were another long-term political cause of the Russian Revolution, with short-term triggers that contributed directly to the outbreak of the February 1917 Revolution. Unlike the temporary crisis, this cause reflects the deep-rooted failure of the Tsar to adapt to a modernising society and respond to deteriorating social and economic conditions in Russia. Nicholas’s inability to lead effectively isolated the monarchy from the key pillars of support, such as the army, elites, and the state bureaucracy, on which the monarchy depended to survive.
Nicholas Ⅱ was not suited to rule a vast empire. He lacked the charisma, confidence, and decisiveness expected of a leader, and he had limited political training and little interest in governance. Even Nicholas himself admitted, “I am not prepared to be a Tsar, I never wanted to become one, I know nothing of the business of ruling.” Sergeu Witte, the Russian Minister and later Prime Minister under Nicholas Ⅱ observed, “His outstanding weakness is a lack of willpower.” Nicholas’s staunch commitment to maintaining absolute monarchy, grounded in his deeply held belief that god granted his authority and that opposing it constituted both a political and spiritual offence, became a fatal flaw at a time when Russia desperately needed strong, adaptable leadership.
Nicholas II was not suited to rule a vast and unstable empire. He lacked the charisma, confidence, and decisiveness expected of a leader and had limited political training or interest in governance. Even he admitted he “knew nothing of the business of ruling,” and his cousin, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, remarked, “He never had an opinion of his own … always agreeing with the judgement of the last person he spoke to.” This reveals Nicholas’s weak-willed nature and tendency to be easily manipulated by stronger figures around him, such as Alexandra and Rasputin. Despite his clear unsuitability, Nicholas clung to autocracy and rejected reform, seeing it as a threat to his divine right to rule. In a time when Russia urgently needed strong, adaptable leadership, his indecisiveness and inflexibility contributed significantly to the growing revolutionary crisis.
His poor leadership capacity influenced his decision-making, which contributed to the growing instability in Russia. One cause of rising public anger was his ill-advised foreign policy. Nicholas’s militaristic expansionist ambitions led to the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), which ended in a humiliating defeat for Russia, exposing the empire’s military and industrial weaknesses. This failure created economic strain, damaged national pride, and fueled widespread discontent, and was a contributing cause of the 1905 Revolution. Under pressure from strikes and public dissatisfaction, Nicholas issued the October Manifesto, promising civil liberties and a national parliament, the State Duma. However, his ideological commitment to autocracy meant these reforms were superficial. Between 1906 and 1917, he dissolved two Dumas and attempted to dissolve the fourth Duma whenever they attempted to introduce meaningful change, reflecting his resistance to reform and limiting his power. This refusal only intensified frustration across all levels of society and reinforced the view that peaceful political change was impossible under Tsarist rule.
Instead of pursuing genuine reform, Nicholas relied heavily on repression to maintain control. Under Prime Minister Stolypin, the government implemented land reforms aimed at creating a class of stable, loyal peasant landowners. While these reforms had some economic benefit, they mostly helped wealthier peasants and did not reach the rural poor. At the same time, Stolypin oversaw a harsh crackdown on political dissent: over 3,000 people were executed by hanging - “Stolypin’s necktie.” The Okhrana, Nicholas’s secret police, expanded surveillance and arrests, fuelling fear and resentment rather than stability. Nicholas’s choice to back repression over reform only deepened social divisions and public anger.
Nicholas’s most damaging decision was during World War 1, when in 1915, he took personal command of the Russian army, despite having no military experience. This directly tied the fate of the monarchy to the failing war effort. Russia suffered severe casualties and supply shortages from their defeats. Nicholas became personally blamed for the disaster. By absenting himself from political leadership, he left the government in the hands of his German-born wife, Tsarina Alexandra, who was already mistrusted amidst the war against Germany. Alexandra placed her trust in the mystic Rasputin, whose growing influence over state appointments and decisions sparked scandal and widespread rumours of corruption and immorality. Rasputin’s presence in court severely damaged the monarchy’s reputation, and Nicholas’s lack of intervention further set him against the political elite. The economic consequences of World War I critically undermined the Tsarist regime. Severe shortages of food and fuel, rampant inflation, and industrial strikes in major cities like Petrograd eroded public confidence and intensified unrest. Nicholas’s political disengagement during this crisis, despite urgent warnings from advisors and Duma members, deepened the perception of an unresponsive and incompetent ruler. In February 1917, his ongoing misjudgments proved fatal when the Petrograd garrison mutinied, refusing to suppress protests. This marked the loss of military support that had previously protected the regime in 1905. At the same time, the political elite turned against him, and even close allies and aristocrats urged his abdication. Without support from the army, the nobility, workers, or peasants, Nicholas was left politically isolated and powerless.
By February 1917, Tsar Nicholas Ⅱ had lost the support of every major sector of Russian society. His indecisiveness, stubborn refusal to reform, and catastrophic wartime choices shattered the legitimacy of the autocracy. Facing mass unrest, mutiny, and political abandonment, he was to sign the abdication manifesto. Bringing an end to over 300 years of Romanov rule and confirming the complete collapse of the Tsarist regime.
Event:
The February Revolution of 1917 broke out due to a combination of long-term discontent and immediate triggers. Years of hardship, exacerbated by World War 1, led to severe food shortages and growing exasperation among the Russian people. On March 8th (February 23rd, Old Style), women in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) led an International Women’s Day protest demanding bread, which escalated into mass demonstrations. When strikes and protests spread, and the Tsar ordered troops to suppress them, many soldiers instead mutinied and joined the uprising. Nicholas Ⅱ, unaware of the severity of public discontent, returned from the war front too late to regain authority. Led by civilians in a way that echoed the 1905 Revolution, the revolution marked a significant turning point in Russian history. Primarily, it forced Tsar Nicholas Ⅱ to abdicate, ending the 300-year rule of the Romanov Dynasty and centuries of autocracy, ushering in a new era for Russia.
Prioritisation:
When evaluating the two causes of the Russian revolution, the poor leadership and decision-making of Tsar Nicholas Ⅱ stand out as the most significant cause. While the harsh conditions of the Tsarist autocracy created a foundation of widespread dissatisfaction, it was Nicholas's failures as ruler that intensified these tensions into revolutionary upheaval. The justification for prioritising poor leadership lies in how it shaped and intensified every other cause, directly influencing the timing and severity of the revolution.
Firstly, the conditions under the Tsarist autocracy, including political repression, economic inequality, and social hardship, had existed since the mid-19th century, particularly following the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. These long-term structural problems were deeply entrenched, but alone might not have caused a revolution without a leadership crisis. Refusal to address these issues was inextricably linked to Nicholas’s rigid commitment to absolute monarchy and his resistance to reform. Therefore, the peasants were trapped in cycles of poverty and exploitation without any peaceful means of change, due to Nicholas’s failure to adapt or share power.
Secondly, Nicholas’s leadership mistakes created multiple immediate crises that were direct triggers for revolution. The catastrophic defeat in the Russo-Japanese War damaged national pride and revealed the empire’s weaknesses, triggering the 1905 Revolution. Nicholas’s poor decisions during World War 1 - taking personal command of the army with no military experience, handing over governmental control to Tsarina Alexandra, who was heavily influenced by Rasputin, further destabilising it, and failing to address food shortages and strikes- rapidly eroded public support for the monarchy. These decisions severely destabilised the regime faster than the long-standing social inequalities alone could have.
Lastly, Nicholas’s poor leadership alienated the military, political elite, and the people, leaving the monarchy isolated at the moment of crisis. His abdication was the final confirmation of how his failures dismantled centuries of Romanov rule.
Ultimately, while the oppressive conditions of the Tsarist autocracy laid the foundation, it was the weak and stubborn leadership of Nicholas Ⅱ that was the key factor that turned dissatisfaction into revolution. Without his poor decisions and resistance to reform, the Russian Empire might have found a way to survive or reform peacefully. Therefore, poor leadership is the most significant cause of the Russian Revolution.
Conclusion:
The abdication of Tsar Nicholas Ⅱ marked the collapse of centuries of Romanov rule and the end of autocracy in Russia. Driven by both long-term structural weaknesses and Nicholas’s short-term failures in leadership, the February Revolution was the inevitable result of the deepening unrest. As Nicholas himself stated at the moment of his fall, "We have thought it right to renounce the throne of the Russian state and to lay down the supreme power.” His words reflected the final unravelling of imperial authority, a moment that would transform Russia and the world forever.