Introduction Russia is generally apportioned the benefit of having introduced a political phenomenon that basically provided an alternative for capitalism; communism. Since this concept was only set in motion at the turn of the 20th century, we can therefore deduce that, to a large extent, Russia is, to most people, synonymous with leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev. This supposition is entirely based on the premise that the Russian revolution of 1914 inherently altered the socio-cultural and socio-political direction of the nation, bringing into birth a never before envisioned era where Russia was not ruled by the Tsars, but by simple men; men who spoke to and articulated the needs of the masses. To this extent, communism, …show more content…
However, to believe that communism, a relatively new concept even in Marx’s consideration, is responsible for Russia’s modernization is to apportion ignorance to history as a whole. According to Abbott (2007), the title of the founder of Russian civilization is largely accorded to Peter the great; the man who according to MacLean (n.d), introduced significant reforms in the practice and policy of every aspect of the Russian society. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to examine why and how Peter the great changed modern Russian, and whether or not he was …show more content…
He inherited an empire that was essentially lagging behind, and transformed it into a mighty name with far-reaching effects. None of the successes of the Tsar comes close to this fact than those brought about by military changes. This is embodied in the subsequent defeats of both the Ottoman Empire and the Swedish Empire, all of which had in previous year’s proven a tough nut to crack. Considering that it is difficult to achieve progressiveness towards modernity without educational and socio-cultural revolution, it is, therefore, necessary to note that Peter’s reforms in these two areas assisted the Russian society to achieve a renaissance of some sorts; essentially, it stimulating knowledge growth and inquiry into other cultural practices. In regards to the economy, the growth of the metallurgical industry and the creation of factories necessitated industrialization, which directly positively affected the living standards of the Russian
Peter did his best to help Russia emerge as a great power, and he
In the historical monograph Nicholas II: Twilight of the Empire, Dominic Lieven revisits the life and times of the last emperor of Russia and the Romanov dynasty—Nicholas II. Lieven analyzes Nicholas II’s life experiences from early childhood to his death during the Bolshevik Revolution. With the conviction that past studies on Nicholas II and the fall of the Russian Empire have been insufficient for better understanding the tsar’s true role in the context of his time. Lieven argues that Nicholas II was not strictly a stupid or incompetent leader, who single handedly brought and end to the Russian autocracy. Instead, Lieven suggests that numerous decisions made by the Russian tsar were in many circumstances reasonable—when considering Russia’s political, social, and economic contexts.
Introduction The Russian had problems with different things like nicholas the second and how weak the leadership is and the starvation of civilians and this caused the revolution of russia and this changed russia. Russia was a vast multinational placed that was controlled by romanov. Body Paragraph One Nicholas the second was one of the problems i think because he made all the laws and policies when he also took control russia was behind on industrial product so he made more industrial product and that increased the urban poor but people in russia still lived on farms. The urban poor worked in factories and they worked for long hours with little pay and the conditions weren't so great.
This is most of the great, cultural achievements of Peter The Great in Russia. Peter The Great was a great role model and military leader. Although Peter impacted Russia negatively and positively through westernization and opening Russia to the West(Riasanovsky 1). Overall Peter had huge impact on
Individuals were key to driving change, though often because of the influence of other factors. Tsar Alexander II instigated one of the biggest changes in Russian society: the Emancipation of the Serfs. Prior to this one third of the Russian population were serfs, thus the Emancipation changed Russian society completely. Lynch argues that Alexander’s training “from an early age” for government instilled in him that autocracy must continue, and Kochan writes that Alexander was “The best prepared heir the Russian throne ever had” . Therefore, both suggest that Alexander’s education and personal aim of protecting Tsardom was key to the Emancipation .
By attempting to cultivate the western European way of life, Peter made Russia diplomatic, military, political, commercial, scholastic, literary, and industrial (“Peter I.” 1). During his reign Peter the Great developed a number of policies, and he dramatically reformed his country. Like any ruler, Peter encountered a few problematic incidents,
Post WWl, Russia was still not industrialized, suffering economically and politically and in no doubt in need of a leader after Lenin’s death. “His successor, Joseph Stalin, a ruthless dictator, seized power and turned Russia into a totalitarian state where the government controls all aspects of private and public life.” Stalin showed these traits by using methods of enforcement, state control of individuals and state control of society. The journey of Stalin begins now.
His contributions to the 1917 Bolshevik revolution can be conspicuously seen in his role in foreign affairs, the recruiting, outfitting and disciplining the Bolshevik Red Guard and his belligerence in the Russia’s civil wars, in which he achieved communist victory. It was a tumultuous time in Russia before the dawn of 1917. Citizens had grown weary of the aristocracy of Czar Nicholas II. During this period the Russian government was fraught with corruption, and the economy was regressive. However, despite the tempestuous climate of Russia due to Czar Nicholas II rule, the most immediate cause of the revolution can be traced to Russia’s ruinous involvement in World War I
Another implementation was the pushing of Russian Elite to imitate European fashions to conform to western styles. And to out an end to the seclusion of higher class Russian women, Peter required officials to have their wives accompany them to social gatherings at the capital, as well as directing nobles to educate their children. The difference of the modernization of Russia and Europe came with the rise of Peter the Great. Russia was no longer vied as a backward nation suck in medieval times, but as a dominant player in the balance of power in Europe. Peter buried himself into learning and acquiring skills in blacksmithing, shipbuilding, and war arts, which assisted in the building of Russia’s first Navy, which modernized the field of Naval power.
The nature of Russian society is characterized by a sense of idealism. Russia’s beliefs of the potential for an ideal future have been pervasive throughout history. In 1920, Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote the short story “The Cave” during the midst of the Russian Civil War, a time when nationalism was at an all time low and people were hoping for a brighter future. In contrast to the goals that sparked the revolution, Zamyatin argues that the Russian Civil War will result in a primitive and decimated society that is ultimately worse off than the society that existed prior to the rebellion.
Nicholas II’s inability to respond to or embrace change was the determining factor in the decline of the Romanov Dynasty. To what extent is this statement accurate? Introduction: The inability of Tsar Nicholas 11 to respond to or embrace political and social change during a time of crisis contributed significantly to the collapse of the Romanov rule over Russia.
As the first eras consisted of just relatively sufficient systems and could be diminished easily by the following figures, after a specific analysis, this paper states, that Peter the Great had the major actions and innovations to shape the state of Russia as it is known today. He emerged a foundation of strength, protection and competition, which withstood foreign dangers and oppressions inside the state. His military and social reforms resembled the innovations of European states, which are most definitely considered modern states already, seen in Robert’s
I covered how Putin’s visionary leadership traits ignored key aspects of diversimilarity and show how he was methodical in planning and executing is objectives. I also demonstrated how his drive for success and a lack of open-mindedness made him an unethical leader. Finally, I reflected on my own leadership as it pertains to these lesson principles, and my pursuit to continue growing as a self-aware leader. Perhaps there would be no Russia, as we currently know it, without Putin”, certainly he has shaped his country and has effected countless lives and treasure. Influential Russian author, Fyodor Dostoevsky might have foreshadowed such a leader as Putin in his book The Brothers Karamazov: “He understood very well that for the meek soul of a simple Russian, exhausted by grief and hardship and, above all, by constant injustice and sin, there was no stronger need than to find a holy shrine or a saint to prostrate himself before to worship”.
The Russian Revolution, which was started by Lenin and his followers, was a rebellion that occurred in 1917 which forced higher powers to act to the needs of the lower class. For instance, many citizens were worried for their protection in consequence to the lack of survival necessities due to an early drought. Furthermore, their current czar during the time was incapable for his position as a czar and made horrendous decisions as czar. For example, when the czar, Nicholas, entered in World War I, he sent untrained troops into countless battles of failure which costed in mass amounts of lost life (paragraph 23).
In Natasha 's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia (2002), Orlando Figes sweeps us up with enormous assurance but a very light touch to whirl us round and round through the last 300 years of Russia 's cultural history. Unlike two earlier general surveys, W. Bruce Lincoln 's Between Heaven and Hell (1998) and James H. Billington 's The Icon and the Axe (1966), Natasha 's Dance doesn 't begin with the conversion to Christianity of Prince Vladimir of Kiev and then trudge chronologically through the intervening thousand years to the present. Instead, Figes examines what he considers to be certain defining themes in Russian culture. His book opens when Peter the Great founds his new capital, St. Petersburg, in 1703, the moment, according to Figes,