Czar, also written in Latin characters as Tsar, is a Russian title that translates as "Emperor." Ultimately, it derives from the Latin name turned title, Caesar, which came to mean Emperor during the time of the Roman Empire.
nicholas 2
this question has alreday been answered.
Nicholas II, Czar of Russia, was an Absolute Monarch: Ministers were appointed and removed at his whim; the parliament was nothing more than a tool for his own purposes. In short Nicholas II was inflexible, autocratic, and intolerant of the opinions of others. There were a number of factors that brought the Czarist regime to an end. We can mention only some of them 1. the 1905 defeat at the hands of Japan. The first time an Asian power had smashed a European one. This revealed a) Russian military power was vulnerable b) that cracks had begun to appear in the system 2. the massacre of peaceful petitioners on 'BLOODY SUNDAY' 1905 outside the Winter Palace. This group of people led by Father Gapon attempted to present a petition to the Czar regarding social injustices. They were fired on by the Czarist Guards. Around 96 people were killed. The EFFECT was to undermine once more, confidence in the monarchy throughout Russia. 3. A series of STRIKES took place in 1904. These were highly significant because they were in the major factories which produced arms for the forthcoming war with Japan. Again this was a measure of the growing discontent. There were other factors such as the role of Rasputin, the suspicion that the Tsar's wife was a German spy and so on. In short cracks were appearing in the regime before the FINAL CURTAIN. The most significant event was THE ENTRY OF RUSSIA INTO WORLD WAR ONE. The army was undersupplied and incompetently led. They suffered one catastrophe after another. Once the Czar had assumed absolute command of the Russian forces, and they were smashed to pieces, the veneration of the Czar as God's annointed evaporated. Now he was blamed for every failure. The rise of Bolshevism and the victory over the supporters of the Czar ensured that Czarism in Russia was finished. Some scholars, however, feel that Mr Putin is a Czar in modern guise.
It depends which society you are talking about. In Europe, most definitely church and nobility. "The 17th century was torn by witch-hunts and wars of religion and imperial conquest. Protestants and Catholics denounced each other as followers of Satan, and people could be imprisoned for attending the wrong church, or for not attending any. All publications, whether pamphlets or scholarly volumes, were subject to prior censorship by both church and state, often working hand in hand. Slavery was widely practiced, especially in the colonial plantations of the Western Hemisphere, and its cruelties frequently defended by leading religious figures. The despotism of monarchs exercising far greater powers than any medieval king was supported by the doctrine of the "divine right of kings," and scripture quoted to show that revolution was detested by God. Speakers of sedition or blasphemy quickly found themselves imprisoned, or even executed. Organizations which tried to challenge the twin authorities of church and state were banned. There had been plenty of intolerance and dogma to go around in the Middle Ages, but the emergence of the modern state made its tyranny much more efficient and powerful." In the American colonies, it wasn't far off - even though they were so far removed from King and country. Replacing the nobility was the colonies' leadership, replacing the ecclesiastical splendor of Europe was the same hard-fisted parsons. In the 1600s, China was a feudal state led by an Emperor. First under the Ming Dynasty, then the Qing Dynasty. Under feudalism, landowners or feudal lords, ruled over the terroritory. In Japan, the Emperor, then shoguns, and warriors. Japan was also feudal, and local people looked to the daimyo - who would be the most powerful landowner in their region. In Russia, power was ruled by the Czar and the aristrocracy. For most of the 1600s - that was the Romanov family. The Romanov family brought church and state even closer together. In Africa, two of the main kingdoms were the Kalonga and Butua. The Portuguese and French were consistently trying to annex and dominate the area. Portugal in particular developed colonies in Africa, most likely dominated by whoever was in charge of the business venture on hand (captain of the ship, merchants, etc..). The Dutch founded Cape Town in South Africa, and the Dutch at home had quite different views on the extremism of upper class - lower class. At the time, they had a booming professional class.
stalin
Joseph Stalin lenin
You are gonna have to be a little more specific. Czars were the Russian leaders, such as Mikhail Gorbachev and Joseph Stalin.
It was an empire ruled by a czar or tsar which is the Russian equivalent of a King. There was large differences in social class, with the czar living in grand palaces while the peasants starved. This led to the revolution led by Lenin. When Lenin died, Stalin seized control. Stalin was a fiercer dictator even though both Stalin and Lenin ruled as Supreme DictatorsANs 2 -The above answer is about Lenin, Stalin came later.
Czar Nicholas III
I would have to say that Stalin was WAY worse than Czar Nicholas 2, although they were both bad.
Czar Nicholas II
The opposing of the Russian Czar led to the Russian Revolution, the death of the Russian monarchy, and the establishment of the Russian Communist State. The French had nothing to do with the Russian Revolution.
Czar Nicholas II
czar
Czar
CZAR