Alexander II Research Paper

By 1881, Alexander destroyed the proposals of reform that his father had created. He forced the reforming ministers to resign and made it very clear that his rule was one of autocracy. Met by many with dislike, however, Alexander did crush any hope of a peaceful reform by the Russian people and by doing so made it less likely that there would be opposition to him, as the people were unwilling to use violence for their cause.

With over a century of military and civil discontent the Romanov Dynasty was bound to fall sooner or later. The fall of the Romanov Dynasty was a result of long-term causes including Tsar Alexander’s inability to satisfy his people and Tsar Nicholas II’s inability to rule to throne all together. The collapse was also an outcome of immediate causes; the effects of World War One on Russia and the 1917 revolution. All long-term and immediate cause played a crucial role in stirring the nation until Russia was clearly overdue to be overthrown.

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

Does that not seem to you like betrayal and rejection of his own people? Alexander could never have had it both ways. As the conquerors we will never accept the customs of the conquered. Political move it may have been, but it was the wrong one. At the trial of the royal pages conspiracy, it was stated to Alexander that he abhorred the customs of his own country. Thus it was the king of Persians, not of the Macedonians that they wanted to kill13. Alexander has simply become so far removed from his own people that some do not even see him as their own king. The plot against his life was to pursue him as a deserter in accordance with the conventions of war14. When a sailor rescued Alexander’s crown from the sea and placed it on his own head to keep it dry and out of harm’s way, he was rewarded handsomely for the rescue. When it was pointed out by another to Alexander that the crown had been on another’s head, regardless of the situation he had the same man promptly executed on the belief that it was a bad omen. With the adoption of Persian luxury came outright abuse of power and skewed

Alexander the Great was the king of Macedonia, conqueror of the Persian Empire, and one of the greatest military geniuses of all times. Even at an early age, Alexander had the promise to become a great leader. Through all his victories and conquests, he has become a great hero and has had a large impact on history. That is why I chose he book Alexander the Great, by J.R. Hamilton for my review. Hamilton does a very good job with the story of Alexander the Great.

Despite all the work Alexander II did toward reforming Russia, the “Era of Great Reforms” left one crucial aspect unaltered: the power of the emperor. The intentional neglect of this was what kept the reforms from realizing their true potential. This led to dissatisfaction, which encouraged repression, terror, and most importantly: revolution. The first was the Polish Rebellion, caused by the failure of Russian authorities to suppress Polish nationalism. Although the Poles failed, other minorities sprung up for their voice

Alexander the Great was a king and conqueror. He is commonly referred to as “the most powerful leader of all time.” What is it that makes him such a powerful leader? What has he accomplished that has made him so significant? Were his accomplishments positive or negative? These are all questions that when combined as one create a debate that has been going on for decades. There are those who admire Alexander’s military achievements and ability to carve out the largest empire the world has seen. Then there are those who perceive him as a selfish, cruel madman with drinking problems. This paper will outline the different sides taken on Alexander and the question as to what his significance/influence was and whether it

Alexander Thomas Augusta was born in Norfolk, Virginia in 1825. To free African American blacks. Alexander had a go childhood, he didn’t go to school until college. Sometimes Alexander got bullied for being a free black boy. While he was a teenager he was a barber, he lived in Norfolk, Virginia at this time. Alexander got his medical degree at Trinity College of the University of Toronto.

Tsar Alexander II and III while father and son had very different ambitions as Tsar and different view for the future of the empire. Alexander III succeeded to his father’s throne in 1894. His reign is looked upon by most historians as a time of repression that saw the undoing of many of the reforms carried out by his father. Certainly that was a time of great economic and social change but these had led, in the West of the nation, great pressure on political system. However Alexander was deeply suspicious of the direction in which his father had taken Russia and the internal reforms that he instituted were designed to correct what he saw as the too-liberal tendencies of his father's reign.

The death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC marks the beginning of the Hellenistic Period and covers 300 years to the invasion of Egypt by the Romans. The word Hellenic refers only to the Greeks, but the term Hellenistic refers to `the Greek-influenced societies that arose in the wake of Alexander's conquest' (Sacks, 105). The Hellenistic world extended from Greece all the way to Afghanistan and resulted in the beginning of the mass spreading of Greek culture. Its central characteristics were the mass empires created by Alexander and his successors, the mingling of Greek and other cultures and the diffusion of religions

#1. In the late 1980s, Soviet Union had brought its glasnost (openness) era. Soviet president Mikhail G. introduced the revolutionary idea of Perestroika, which refers to “economic restructuring.” Gradually, Soviet’s culture and business began to grow. The political parties began to spring up, and farmers began to sell their products on the open market. In 1987, the Kremlin passed a new law on the joint ventures, easing restrictions on the importation of foreign capital, technology, and expertise.

Roisman’s book, Alexander the Great: Ancient and Modern Perspectives, is a biography compiled of historical documents and essays written by scholar educated in the history of Alexander’s empire and timeline. The main intention of this book is to tell the story of Alexander through biographical aspects as well as modern interpretations of historical information. Roisman hopes this strategy will be useful in attempting to “introduce readers to diverse interpretations” and “encourage them to form their own opinions and stimulate class discussion.” He provides information within the book from reliable sources, such as Harvard and Cambridge University and documents that have been used to discover more about Alexander’s reign, to spell out the background information of Alexander the Great, his timeline, and his relationships throughout his life.

When Mikhail Gorbachev took the helm of the Soviet Union in March of 1985, he began the process of introducing reforms such as glasnost, perestroika, and democratization into the Soviet system. Glasnost, or openness, encouraged the free flow of ideas and information, but this flow came at the price of many people losing their fear of the Communist party. Perestroika, or economic restructuring, was designed to jumpstart the sagging Soviet economy by injecting a small amount of capitalism into the Soviet command economy; however, that small drop only served to destabilize the economy and create more stagnation. Finally, democratization pushed the U.S.S.R. in a more democratic direction by allowing for multi-candidate elections, but this

The repressive Tsarist system in place in 1905 was arguably one of the most significant factors in the 1905 revolution, as much of the discontent in Russia was due to anger at Nicholas ' autocratic Tsarist government. It could be argued that the repressive Tsarist system was not the fault of Nicholas II, but instead a problem that had been in existence for decades before his reign began. For example, Nicholas ' predecessor Alexander III was also committed to the preservation of the autocracy, and arguably took steps towards repression, through Russification and censorship, in addition to the introduction of the Okhrana. Therefore, it could be argued that Nicholas was not to blame for the repressive Tsarist system or its consequences, due to the fact that it had been in existence before his reign began.

Alexander III of Macedon, widely known as Alexander the Great, is opinioned by some people to have been a ruthless man who only had a thirst for conquest , but according to others he was a man of intellect and “statesmanlike vision” (Hammond Preface). In N.G.L. Hammond’s book The Genius of Alexander the Great, as stated in the preface, he tries to refrain from writing based on his own opinion of Alexander, and instead analyzes the few surviving narratives on Alexander’s achievements in an unbiased manner. He portrays the conquests, struggles, and greatest achievements of Alexander’s career, such as the building of his empire that stretched from the eastern Mediterranean coast through Asia Minor and the