How far was the February Revolution of 1917 due to Nicholas II’s own weaknesses?

Nicholas II was, as Dominic Lieven argues in his assessment of the Russian tsar, an ideal candidate for a British-style constitutional monarchy, but was crucially inept in regards to fulfilling the role of strong Russian autocrat. He was personally culpable for the February Revolution of 1917 because the Tsarist system relied on the person of the Tsar, both as the head of government and as the icon of the myth of the Little Father. Nicholas’ reign would be a watershed because his grandfather, Alexander II, had encouraged hope for reform by abolishing serfdom in 1861, and these hopes had been dashed by Alexander III’s counter reforms. Nicholas’ training under the ultra-conservative Pobedonostsev instilled in him the traditional Tsarist obsession with repression, autocracy and militarism, which became significant as Nicholas led Russia into war against Japan in 1905 (which resulted in a revolution and in the concessionary creation of the Duma) and into World War One (which ended in the toppling of the Tsarist regime in 1917 after embarrassing defeat and a huge decline in living standards). Nicholas’ reactionary policies disillusioned an already angry populace, in particular the crackdown against peaceful petitioners in the Bloody Sunday tragedy of 22nd January 1905 and the subsequent mass arrests and executions of members of the intelligentsia alienated the regime from general society. Moreover, the Tsar’s decision to disband the First Duma in 1906 and the creation of the Fundamental Laws which undermined the whole Duma system by reaffirming autocratic power, showed how unreceptive Nicholas was to the feeling on the streets. Nicholas continued, even after the 1905 Revolution, to play the role of hapless reactionary whose militarism again dragged the unprepared country into a war it could not win, provoking disaffection and then revolution.

Further complications involving Nicholas’ family undermined his position as Tsar and the popular image of the royal family. Nicholas’ wife, Alexander, became unpopular due to her disinterest in court life, German heritage and religious fanaticism, which led to damaging relations with peasant-mystic Rasputin. To complicate matters further, the Tsarevich Alexis suffered from haemophilia, meaning that he might not live long enough to succeed his father and that, in the short term, his condition distracted his parents from the responsibilities of ruling Russia and necessitated (in the eyes of Alexandra at least) association with Rasputin. Alexandra’s role as Tsarina was further complicated during World War One when her stresses over her son were matched with additional political responsibilities. Nicholas’ decision to take on the role of Commander-in-Chief set the royal family up for further disgrace as defeat would damage Nicholas’ reputation as a leader. Significantly, Nicholas’ absence from the capital left Alexandra in charge, whose political ineptitude, favouring of inadequate ministers, and unfortunate German ethnicity further undermined the image of the royal family.

Overall, Nicholas was inadequate for the role of Tsar from 1894-1917 due to both the circumstances of the period and to his own personal weaknesses. Perhaps Nicholas would have been better suited to the role of a constitutional monarch, the opportunity for which arose in 1905. However, Nicholas’ own personal belief in autocracy prevented him from taking on this more apt role. The way he swung between reform and reaction in response to radical action on the streets raised hopes and quickly dashed them, only furthering the growth of radicalism which would topple his regime in 1917. His fateful decision to command the Russian army during World War One only cemented his political decline.