?How far was the personality of Nicholas II responsible for the instability in Russia in 1904? Nicholas's personality played a large role in contributing to the instability of Russia; however he was not to blame for the instability of Russia. There were many issues with Nicholas's personality which did not help Russia, such as his shyness, his style of leadership and so on. Nicholas's personality was that of a shy nature because of this it increased the instability in Russia. For example in he would often try and cancel or postpone any sort of meetings in which he would have to talk with anyone, especially his officials. This meant that it essentially left the officials in charge of running Russia and it would have most likely lead to the instable Russia. Nicholas's shy personality was an important factor in the instability of Russia as it meant that he would not have a good or any relationship with the Russian people, which was essential to have when ruling. Also it meant that he could be much more easily influenced by officials and by those around him, if a Tsar was not able to make his own decision it shows him as weak and indecisive. He even said to his cousin "I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one" a Tsar who had openly expressed that he was not ready, clearly showed that Nicholas was going to be an issue and a weak leader. Secondly his style of leadership, I think was the most influential factor in furthering the instability in Russia. He had no style of leadership and his only method or way or ruling was his thought that he had to maintain his father's rule and maintain autocracy in Russia. This effectively meant ignoring the disturbances created by the growing working class in the towns who, encouraged by the revolutionary groups that developed in the 1890's began to organise illegal strikes, demanding higher wages, better conditions and a shorter working day. In 1893, the army was called out 19 times, in