4 Answers | Add Yours
While Rasputin in himself was not truly a cause of the Russian Revolution, he was a catalyst which helped ignite the revolution. Despite the povery of the peasants and the problems facing Russia, Nicholas II could have probably held onto his throne if it were not for two facts: The advent of World War I and the hemophaelia of his son and heir, Alexis. The royal family felt that to maintain their power they had to keep Alexis' condition a secret. this was most likely a mistake. Many of the Russian people had resented Alexandra at the beginning of the marriage and the resentment continued as she frequently did not attend important state functions and seemed to shun the people at court. She seemed to have little concern for her country. This was not true, but because she was the main care giver for a sick child, he was first in her priorities. If the people had known they may have been sympathetic and Rasputin would not have been a problem. Most Russians assumed Rasputin had some hold on the Empress and controlled state decisions, but really he was there because he somehow helped Alexis. He became a lightening rod for the resentment of the people against Alexandra. The other main catalyst which sparked the Revolution was the devastation and death as well as the losses sustained by Russia in World War I. The underlying economic and social causes were there, but these two factors sparked the flame.
Rasputin may have contributed to the anger of the people, which fueled the Russian Revolution, but he is not the main reason for the fall of the Romanov dynasty. The people had been growing more and more upset by the czar's oppressive rule.
It was not a good thing to be a peasant in Russia under the csars. They had few rights and barely kept their families alive. We ooh and ahh over the fabulous Faberge eggs that were created for the csar's pleasure, but forget that those eggs were paid for by the back-breaking work of the peasants. The csars had their yachts and their palaces and their toys, while the people had very little to eat. Alexandra's dependence on Rasputin was not approved of, but he did not cause the revolution. He was just another example of the monarchy's excesses.
The event that started the revolution is called Bloody Sunday. On January 9, 1905, thousands of peasants marched into the square in St. Petersburg to give the csar a petition for relief. Instead of listening to their pleas, Nicholas II ordered that the crowd be dispersed, which meant sending soldiers out to break up the crowd by shooting at them. The peasants were massacred; some say thousands were killed. No matter how people felt about Rasputin, it was Bloody Sunday that really started the revolution.
Although Rasputin didn't play any significiant part , during the Russia Revolution, he was the main trigger that brought about widespread revolt before it and brought much pain and suffering. The other contributing factors are the start of the World War one, and the disease, Hemophilia, that had struck Tsar Nicholas II's son.
The disease was actually passed down to his son, by his wife Alexendra. The couple choose not to divulge the secret behing the son's condition, fearing serious complications if the truth was known. She turned to many Russian doctors and physicians but all their treatment failed, so she had to resort to desparate measures, turn to mystics and the holy men, and soon chanced upon Rasputin, who later healed her son.
The Russian people had already feel resentful about Alexendria as she never at all care about state matters, let at all attend any imporrtant functions, and usually shun the media and the public, always indoors, so people start having thoughts that Rasputin is controlling her life, making her neglect about the country's affairs, but in real life, she was at home attending to her sick kid, and Rasputin was actually the healer of the kid, so many laid the blame on Rasputin for politcally influencing her, thus leading to the collapse of the Tsar regime.
The other factor is the WWI. It lead to millions of dead and wounded, and cause hidden vegenance to break out among people, who condemned the Tsar for not surrendering earlier.
Well what i think is that they both kinda contributed to the fall of tsarism but like i would say rasputin didnt contribute because nicholas || had way more reasons then rasputin did. Like i have to write an essay on that subject too but like i dont know a direct answer for that. And now im still looking for a direct answer for that question too. This wasnt much help but i just wanted say what i though.
We’ve answered 319,199 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question