To What Extent Did Alexander II Succeed In His Attempts To Modernise Russia?
Through the examination of the effects of Alexander II’s reforms, it is evident that the Tsar was successful in his attempts to modernise Russia to a remarkably limited extent. This is apparent in the fact that the overall transformation of his country, regardless of substantiation, did not last exceptionally long. It was both his lack of commitment to modernisation and his half-hearted upheaval of long-held traditionalistic principles that eventually led to his demise. The Tsar’s assassination consequently, and somewhat ironically, prompted the reversion back to conservative Russia through his son Alexander III, exemplifying his unsuccessfulness in modernising Russia.
…show more content…
Despite his venal objectives, with Historian Stephenson arguing that “all [Alexander II] did was conservative in intention”, this reform proved to be beneficial to both parties in a wide variety of ways. Former serfs were allowed to marry, to use the courts of law, and to own housing estates and the plots of land surrounding them. Peasant revolts against the rulers died down for an extensive four decades, which was a stark contrast from the colossal 300 serf revolts in 10 years that happened prior to this reform, and it was because of these acts that Alexander II became widely known as the ‘Tsar Liberator.’ In spite of these positive outcomes, however, there were also numerous …show more content…
Despite being a large nation, Russia was behind in comparison to the major powers of the time, such as Japan and India, and Historian Norman Stone clearly explains that “Russia was not advanced enough to stand the strain of war”. In order to overcome this, Alexander II believed a more liberalistic rule would benefit his people, and it was through his unconventional rule and various reforms that Russia was able to recover from the loss of the Crimean War (1853 – 1856) where they were defeated by Turkey and subsequently lost the chance to expand the Russian Empire to the Mediterranean Sea. This defeat had a seemingly incorrigible effect on Russia, so much so that Russian Historian Dmitri Volkgnov states that the “Russian government’s failings in war…led to the self-destruction of the autocracy”, pushing Alexander II to be less conservative during his reign to help Russia overcome this defeat and maintain the autocracy. Through the introduction of the emancipation of the serfs, Alexander II was able to recruit former peasants for the military and improve the soldiers’ quality of education so that their reactions would be enhanced and they would know how to deal with potential catastrophes. Although the soldier aspect of the military was mainly successful, the weapons, while updated, still failed to keep up with the technological advancement of the rest of the
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior to the war is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporarily displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One.
After the assassination of Alexander the Great in 1881 by Russian socialist revolutionaries, Alexander III ascended to the throne and began to develop a reactionary policy that would be used to suppress the power of anti-tsarist rivals (Kort 23). In the late 1800s, Tsar Alexander III was faced with growing insurrection from the populist peasants, who were demanding more freedoms and land under the Tsarist regime. However, he was unwilling to give up his traditional centralized authority for a more democratic system of ruling. Instead, he sought political guidance from his advisor, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, an Orthodox religious conservative and loyal member of the Russian autocracy. Pobedonostsev was quick to hound revolutionaries by means
When recognised as being an ageing superpower by Alexander II it was inevitable that some sort of change would take place in Russia in the hope of modernisation. We can see that the changes were mostly political and economical. During Alexander III’s reign we can see that the changes were suppressive although it ultimately led to further change in the form of revolution in the future.
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
It was due to its great resources and population that Russia was able to compete with the other world powers in war and in commerce. Russia did not have the succession of leaders that supported industrialization like Japan did. Therefore, Russia, with Alexander II as czar, made few reforms to encourage industrialization. It was only through the multiple peasant revolts that Russia began to change. Both of these nations experienced changes in government, an increase in economic strength and transportation, and radical changes in the structure of the social classes.
The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill,
After the crippling defeat in the Crimean War, Alexander II knew that Russia could not be allowed to lag behind the Western world any longer if it was to maintain its independence. The reform of the state had been advisable for a long time, but for Alexander III it was necessary. He knew that before any real changes could be achieved, the main problem had to be solved: the problem of serfdom. However many limits and imperfections his edict of Emancipation carried with it, most importantly it allowed for further modernizing reforms in the legal, government, education and military spheres.
Q8. After a hard loss during the Crimean War, the previous Czar Nicholas I position was taken over by his son Alexander II. This brought new change and hope to the people of Russia. Russians were hoping for change at the time, and that is exactly what the driven new Czar had brought to the table. Alexander II came along with the idea of modernization and social change for Russia. In order to do this, Alexander II created his reforms which he thought would be Russia's best interest in order to compete with other nations powers.
Russia's overthrows and shortage caused revolutionary upheaval and massive inflation, which led to deprived infrastructure. During World War I, Russian society naturally caused great dissatisfaction among the serfs. As the revolution wore on, numerous reform and Tsar Nicholas II, a ruler, tried to change Russia's social structure and government. Among the masses, there was discontentment with Russia's social system and living conditions. Laborers worked and lived in horrendous conditions, which played a crucial role in aggravating the condition of workers and peasants. As a result, peasants starved and Russia’s armies were overpowered on the battlefield because much of its terrain was occupied by enemies. Hence, Imperial Russia was a catastrophe. Some scholars believe that despite the Russian empire's undeveloped economic, social, and political weakness during World War I, Russian empire's economic and social advances occurred decades before World War I, which shows that World War I was not a crucial reason of the Russian Revolution. Although a reason of the Russian Revolution was possibly Tsar's deprived governance because of his misconduct towards inhabitants, the main cause of the Russian Revolution was World War I because The First War demonstrated poor infrastructure in the Russian government politically and economically.
It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia
While reform did create an emancipated peasantry, it also created a false sense of hope for the freed serfs, as they would soon become conscious of. Tsar Alexander freed the serfs with the Emancipation Reform of 1861, a seemingly progressive decision at the time. At this time, as seen in a chart labeled ‘Provinces of European
Alexander II used very little. He had emancipated the serfs, created the zemstva and allowed freedom of religion. Alexander III most resembled Stalin by using the most central controls. He also increased the power of his Predecessors secret police, renaming them the Okrana. The Okrana were similar to Stalin’s secret police (NKVD.) Both were violent against minority groups and Russian’s opposing the state.
Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider. After their defeat in the Crimean war (1853-1856), Russia’s leaders realized they were falling behind much of Europe in terms of modernisation and industrialisation. Alexander II took control of the empire and made the first steps towards radically improving the country’s infrastructure. Transcontinental railways were built and the government strengthened Russia’s economy by promoting industrialisation with the construction of factory complexes throughout rural Russia.... ...
The Conditions for Workers and Peasants Under the Bolsheviks and Under the Tsar's Rule Conditions for workers and peasants were deplorable under the rule of the Tsars, but not to the extent they were under the Bolsheviks. Despite the Bolsheviks claiming their policies were entirely in favour of the proletariat, peasants were forced to face horrific famine and a vast decline in living standards under rule by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. When Alexander II came to power in 1855 he realised that in order to modernise Russia and improve the weakening economy he needed to make dramatic reforms. In 1861 Alexander issued his Emancipation Manifesto, proposing 17 legislative acts that would free the serfs in Russia. Even though this new-found freedom in some ways seemed to place a greater burden on the peasants due to heavy redemption payments on their land and little improvement regarding agricultural methods in Russia, the act made the now-freed serfs feel that progress was being made towards a fairer social system in Russia and gave them some hope for more affirmative reforms in the future.
The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.