Was Nicholas II a good ruler for Russia?
Nicholas was not considerably a good ruler for Russia however this was not entirely his fault as he had not been sufficiently prepared for his position of power, nor had he any motivation for the role. Nicholas although a well-educated man, was ill-educated on the state of the Russian people as source 10 states ‘his information about what was going on came from a small number of people, who were quite happy to protect him from the realities of life in Russia.
Nicholas was naïve to his role as Tsar of Russia and at a time of major changes to Russia’s political and social elements, Nicholas did not wish to reform his Autocratic ways. This is showed in source 10; ‘Nicholas believed wholeheartedly in autocracy, he thought that democracy with elections and parliament would lead to the collapse of Russia’. It was for these reasons that Nicholas resented giving a voice to his people and allowing them the power to make decisions. He had no knowledge of the hardship they were going through and truly thought that the country would be better as an autocracy following tradition and the way Russia had grown to be so dominant.
Nicholas had no interest in his role as Tsar, and because of his ill training and indifference to the position this made him a poor ruler for Russia. Although he did made many bad decisions, he was genuinely a good person who merely ‘had a deep affection to his family; he was devoted to his wife Alexandra, his son and four daughters’ as source 7 indicates. This evokes the affect the position of Tsar being forced upon him had since he did not want any part of the autocracy and was quite young to be brought into the position. This is also demonstrated in source 8; ‘ Nicholas would sooner spend time with his family than deal with the government affairs’. In this way Nicholas
