The national monarchy and its brokers. A study of advisers to Nicholas II.
Item
-
Title
-
The national monarchy and its brokers. A study of advisers to Nicholas II.
-
Identifier
-
AAI3187475
-
identifier
-
3187475
-
Creator
-
Solovyova, Sophia.
-
Contributor
-
Adviser: Cynthia Hyla Whittaker
-
Date
-
2005
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
History, European | History, Modern | Biography
-
Abstract
-
Historians and contemporaries have traditionally portrayed Nicholas II as a weak and incompetent ruler who vacillated between advisers and relied on others for making political decisions for him. Especially pervasive has been the notion that persons without official designation exerted much influence on the tsar. Some of the most frequently mentioned were his wife, Alexandra Fedorovna, Grigorii Rasputin, Vladimir Meshcherskii, Aleksandr Bezobrazov, and Mikhail Andronikov.;In this dissertation I examine the personality, philosophy, and manner of rule of Nicholas II, as mirrored in his relationships with advisers outside the administration. I also investigate the role of Nicholas II's unofficial advisers in helping the tsar to make decisions and providing him with political opinions.;One of the main arguments in this dissertation is that the role of unofficial advisers and their ability to influence the tsar have been exaggerated. Nicholas II had well-developed, firm beliefs and was never easily influenced by anyone's advice. In fact, advisers remained "influential" only as long as they shared the tsar's opinions. If their opinions differed, they often suffered rejection and the loss of favor. In other words, the tsar allowed those around him to echo his opinions, but never direct them.;Nicholas II used unofficial advisers to promote his already set convictions, to boost his confidence, and provide spiritual, political and psychological support. In addition, the tsar's use of unofficial advisers reflected his attempt to overcome the contradiction between the theory and practice of autocracy. In theory, it was a system of government based on personal rule; in reality, Nicholas's authority and initiative were constrained by bureaucratic institutions and practices.;Historical interpretations that Nicholas II's political failures resulted from his susceptibility to unofficial advisers diminish the role and responsibility of the tsar in contributing to the crisis of 1917. The tsar's relationships with unofficial advisers, which allowed individuals without official responsibilities to function as illegitimate centers of power and to inject ambivalence and insecurity into the work of the ministers through political salons, intrigue, and slanderous press campaigns, constituted the most important negative factor in late imperial Russia's political environment. Most important, unofficial advisers reinforced Nicholas II's resistance to political change and inspired exaggerated rumors, ultimately contributing to the monarch's damaged reputation, belated and inadequate responses to political crises, and Russia's collapse in the Revolution of 1917.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
PQT Legacy CUNY.xlsx
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
