How would I answer: "To what extent was the revolution of February/ March 1917, in Russia, due to the nature of Tsarism and the policies of Nicholas II (1894-1917)?"

The first step to nailing this question is to understand what it is asking of you. “To what extent was…due to” is calling for you to argue a point, and that does not mean you need to agree with the factor given in the question. However, if you go about this question explaining how Tsarism led to the revolution, you will not break past a 5, no matter how many names you spell right or statistics you add.

So the first real question: what do YOU think caused the revolution of February/March 1917? Yes, your own opinion. Think of one overarching reason, one point, one argument that states a clear point you can argue in more detail. Once you have that, think of three of four reasons your point is correct. Those will be your sub-arguments.

Now, the nuance of this question is why the revolution did happen when it happened, not earlier, not later. Think about long-term and short-term causes. If you are arguing it was Tsarism, what particularly irked the masses around 1917? If you think maybe Lenin’s individual willpower was more important, you can argue that: Nicholas II was around for both the 1905 and 1917 revolution, the difference? Lenin. You would need to ensure you explain why this was more important and influential in leading the revolution than Tsarism. The two can complement each other, but your argument needs to be “The revolution of February/March 1917 was caused primarily by X”, not “by X, Y and a bit of Z”.

Once you have a point and sub-points to argue, you need to incorporate sub-PEA: sub-points, evidence, and analysis. If you are arguing that yes, Nicholas II’s policies led to the revolution, what policies in particular? A point would be “Nicolas II’s half-hearted attempt to give power to the people left them frustrated with his leadership and seeing no alternative but to abandon Tsarism and revolt”, the evidence could include the failures of the Dumas, and analysis is saying WHY this in particular led to revolution, AKA, linking it to your main thesis. Reciting evidence will not get you marks, but your ability to relate it to your point and justify your argument will.

Finally, structure. You need an introduction, three or four detailed PEA (for paper 3) and a conclusion. Your introduction is a flight-plan: it should state your interpretation of the question (i.e. what does Tsarism mean in your essay?) your argument/thesis, then say what points you will look at in the essay. Each PEA can have historiography built in or mention alternative views, but should start and end with your sub-argument. Finally, the conclusion summarises what you have just argued, repeats your thesis, and perhaps draws upon a nuance you have not fully stated yet (but do NOT include new evidence in the conclusion!)

You may have noticed this answer does not have detailed information about the revolution itself. That is because mastering the ability to understand a question, draw out its nuances, pick a strong argument and structure your essay is the true battle of paper 3. You could be Wikipedia, but if you do not know how to write an essay, it’s useless. Evidence compliments argument in the exam.