How was Nicolas II bad at being a ruler?

Answer 1

Nicholas II was a poor leader for quite a lot of reasons. He did not go on tours, so the information about what was going on in Russia was given to him from a small number of people who were happy to lie to him. He employed friends and family in top positions to courts, he made a huge fortune from bribes and he believed elections would lead to the downfall of Russia.

Source Various History Textbooks for a GCSE Essay. Hoped This Helped

Answer 2

As with most Russian Tsars in the 19th Century; they weren't Russian. Nicolas II was Danish & Prussian; Catherine the Great was Prussian. Russia had a reputation of being ruled by foreigners. Even their Navy was operated by foreigners; our own Revolutionary War Hero, JOHN PAUL JONES ("I have not yet begun to fight!") left the United States (13 Colonies) and SERVED IN THE RUSSIAN NAVY! Had Nicolas II been a Russian; bred hard, living hard, and fighting hard; he might have been abit more tougher...which makes "military men" more understanding of MILITARY MEN! It takes a man to understand a man; and in order to LEAD men, he must first learn to FOLLOW. Both Napoleon and Hitler had served as ENLISTED MEN in WAR. Both had been Corporals. They learned how to follow orders, then knew how to give them! Because they understood MEN (Soldiers). Nicolas II did not understand "Fighting Men", he had never been one.

Answer 3

Because he kept most of population on the land

Answer 4

Yes. He ignored the needs and wishes of his people and cost hundreds of thousands of them their lives for refusing to pull Russia out of the war.