Hey Revvers, I'd really appreciate your feedback on this essay! The last time I wrote a History essay was probably in year 9, so I'm not yet entirely sure if I know what I'm doing! I was a Lit student so I'm consciously trying to hold back on fanciful interpretations and focus instead on facts, dates and analysis I'm basically fumbling around in the dark here though so please let me know what I could improve on!

NB: Does anybody know where I could read some sample essays? I could only find a few on this board.

Thank you in advance <3

�Nicholas II was a weak leader, but the main problem was that the entire system of autocracy was fundamentally flawed � � provide evidence for your own evaluation of the character of Tsar Nicholas II, the wider Tsarist political system, and the social structure of privilege."

The reign of Nicholas II hastened the demise of Tsardom . His lack of political imagination directly led to the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. However, the system of autocracy in place was equally to blame for Russia�s woes, its ideology fundamentally archaic and oppressive. Formed around  hierarchy, Russian society was inefficient and corrupt, pointing back to the dysfunctional monarchy. However, the problems facing Russia at the turn of the 20th century were ultimately caused by neither the Emperor nor Tsardom itself; rather they lay within the inherent difficulty of governing such a colossal nation of diverse peoples.

Nicholas II�s leadership instigated the breakdown of social order. The Emperor�s policy of Russification during his reign from 1894-1905 led to a more open and vehement persecution of racial minorities, particularly the Jews. More than 600 decrees were imposed upon Jewish communities, restricting them social, politically and economically and pogroms increased markedly.  This deliberate infliction of social destruction was  caused by the Tsar�s direct orders, portaying his leadership as endorsing violence and chaos. Subsequently, the 1890s experienced an increase of Jews into dissident movements and in 1897 the Jews formed their own �Bund� or union, further conveying Russia�s mood of civil disrest. The promotion of anti-Semitism under the Tsar�s hand created an atmosphere of racial and cultural intolerance and the subsequent aborted revolution of 1905.

However, the Tsarist autocratic system which Nicholas II upheld was just as responsible for the widespread tension pervading Imperialist Russia. Article I of the 1832 � Fundamental Laws of the Empire� declared that � all must bow to ( the Emperor�s) supreme power, not only out of fear, but also out of conscience�, communicating the Tsar�s law as irrefutable and repressive. In 1881, it was still a crime to express dissent against the Tsar and there was parliament or free press; this reveals Russia�s lack of modernity in comparison to all other global superpowers, which all had some form of representative government. This lack of free speech and individual rights consequently led to civilians resorting to extremism; in 1881 Alexander II was assassinated by a bomb thrown by a terrorist group � The People�s Will� , conveying  the widespread atmosphere of desperation  which was the direct result of the repressive Tsarist political system.
Furthermore, Russia�s societal construction was one of vast inequity as a result of the attitudes of the Tsar and monarchic rule. The striking disparity in 1847 between the population of peasants, (82%) and the working class (4%) suggests that Russia remained an agrarian society and could not compete with her more economically developed European neighbours. This was caused by a social structure which did not endorse merit. For example, the army�s commissions were bought and sold, rather than appointed based on proficiency or skill. Similarly, the upper class of Russia enjoyed a disproportionately high income in spite of their menial workload. Efficiency was not a priority in Imperialist Russia; in spite of Witte�s economic reforms from 1893-1914, production per capita decreased.  This proved that, under autocratic rule, reform in Russia could only be a limited affair, with no interest in improving social equality or economic modernity. Rather than valuing utility, Russia�s culture promoted privilege through birth, thus hindering the progress of the nation.

Although both the Tsar and Tsardom were responsible for the Russia�s state of disarray in the 1890s, the ruler and the system were not entirely maladapted to the country�s needs. With over 22 different nationalities identified in the 1847 Census and a landmass of over 8 million square miles, the geographic and cultural diversity of Russia demanded a centralised leadership in order to remain one nation; as observed by August von Haxthausen, � Russian society would cease to exist without the Tsar�.  Indeed, this mentality pervaded beyond the existence of feudalism; after Nicholas II�s abdication in 1917, the Provisional Government�s dual authority with the Petrograd Soviet was a precarious balance of power. This lack of strong leadership placed Russia in a vulnerable position. A joint failure to address key issues threatened anarchy and subsequently led to the chaos of the July days . This portrays how, without the Tsar or a central figure, Russia was left with little clear direction. In direct contrast was Imperialist Russia, with all power vested in the monarch;  Tsardom�s absolutist policies of repression kept the power in the hands of one institution, creating relative political stability during the 3 centuries of Romanov dynasty.  It is natural then, that the Bolshevik�s forcible overthrow of the Provisional Government  led once more to centralised leadership and Lenin�s dictatorship. The problems plaguing Russia in the 1890s extended far beyond a flawed system of autocracy or Nicholas II�s poor statesmanship; rather they lay within the Russian mindset of relying on a single leader.

Nicholas II was an ineffective monarch of a dysfunctional autocracy, causing social inequality and political disenfranchisement. However, Russia struggled to exist as one entity without a form of a centralised leadership, implemented by a single institution. The real dilemma of Russia was its sole dependence on one dictator or autocrat as the only way to keep itself unified and free of anarchy. 

I did Revs last year and wrote my essays on China not Russia, but I noticed a few things.
Your opening sentence is good, but it would probably be better with some kind of qualification. I would probably say something like 'Nicholas' lack of political imagination (I really like that term) hastened the demise of tsardom.'
While there's nothing wrong with that opening sentence, it's very standard and probably wouldn't stand out to an examiner - if you're going to use such nuanced language make it as visible as possible.

The first paragraph on the Jewish people in Russia is well written, but I'd be careful when referring to pre-1904 information as the course officially consists of 1904-1924. The last sentence of that paragraph needs work - it's not clear to me how the anti-Semitic policies contributed to the 1905 revolution. This seems to be an original interpretation that I didn't encounter when I studied Russia, but as is it doesn't really contribute to your argument. You need to refer back to the question, essentially.

Second paragraph: again, you're referring to pre-1904 material extensively, which is obviously fine for this essay but is something you need to be careful with in the exam. I think your focus on pre-1904 events weakens your analysis of Nicholas II, also.
It seems to me like you're dropping in dates and statistics in place of actual analysis, and this paragraph doesn't seem to be constructed in a logical way. For instance, try splitting up your points about the Fundamental Laws and Alexander's assassination and the makeup of the classes, otherwise this seems very jumbled. Basically, you have great evidence here but it needs to be arranged more logically and consistently.

Third paragraph is good, but again a bit of a mess. I understand why you've compared the tsarist system with the provisional government/soviet system, but you either need to support this comparison with hard evidence or abandon it. The mention of the July Days seems flippant - you need more evidence and analysis if you're going to mention an important event. You really need to link the July Days with the resulting state of 'little clear direction' for this paragraph to support your argument. Finally, you need to explain how the tsarist system created 'relative political stability' - 'relative' is a weasel word, and this kind of phrasing frames your argument as speculative and flimsy.

Your conclusion is good, but doesn't really support the evidence you've put forward in the second and third paragraph.




On the whole, this is a very good effort considering (I presume) you've done all the reading over the holidays - there's no way I could have written this in January last year. Just try and focus your paragraphs - I usually structured them around a theme, for example with one on politics, one on the economy and one on society. The way you've arranged them here is somewhat confusing, atleast to me. Well done regardless.