Did Alexander II deserve the title “Tsar Liberator”?
Taking control of autocratic Russia in 1855, Alexander II was the successor to his father Tsar Nicolas I having been trained his entire life to take on the role. During his reign as Tsar, Alexander passed many reforms all of which varied in political, social and economic stance. His most famous reform was deemed to be that of the emancipation of the Serfs, gaining him the title ‘Tsar Liberator’ as many believed that his effort to free those who had be bound by slavery, made him a hero. However some question whether he truly deserved this title as many reforms became reactional and many initially liberating reforms were revoked in order to ensure the security of the autocracy. As
…show more content…
A majority of people that chose to accept freedom believing it would give them better opportunities in life soon realised that life as a free person wasn’t as positive as they initially thought.
Here it is clear that in the space of a year, people were already starting to question the nature of the freedom they had been granted and thus in turn the title that they had given to their leader. Alexander was becoming less of a liberator and more of a subjugator as Serfs had nowhere to go and no choice but to stay under the control of the autocracy.
Other social reforms introduced by Alexander were however more positive, allowing women into schools in 1863 and relaxing censorship in 1865 meant that many more people were getting access to education and information. Socially this was a big change; however the argument still stands as to whether this was liberating the people or simply giving them the impression of a more free society when in fact they had no choice but to conform to the autocratic rules. At this point however the multitude of social reforms that were actually beneficial to people all across Russia seem to outweigh the negative outlook.
Among others, Alexander II also introduced many political reforms resulting in greater
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.
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.
Alexander the Great is widely regarded as the most successful conqueror to ever live. But did he really deserve the title of “great”? This is disputable, considering his dad did a large portion of the work, he was mentally unstable, and just an overall jerk. I do not believe Alexander was deserving of his given legacy.
Intentions of Alexander II and the Failure of the Emancipation of the Serfs In the 19th century it was estimated that about 50 per cent of the 40,000,000 peasants in Russia were serfs, who worked on the land and were owned by the Russian nobility, the Tsar and religious foundations. This had been true for centuries; in 1861, however, this was all changed when Tsar Alexander II emancipated the serfs and gave them freedom from ownership. Alexander's decision was based on many reasons, and did not have the desired consequences, for the serfs at least. Therefore, it is possible to question Alexander's motives for such large reform, which this essay will do and will also look at why the emancipation,
The opportunity of freedom is a base for your life. It puts you in a position and gives you the time to look at yourself, to look at the world and to decide what you will do with your life. Everyone will look at life with a different approach. See life through different glasses. We all have our own approach to life and no matter what handicaps of scientifical fixes people try to do we can never be totally and fully equal to one another. All our differences put together form a community, a city and our
Tsar Nicholas II was one of the central figures to the Russian February Revolution of 1917 and secured the downfall of the Romanov dynasty. Nicholas II continued the regressive reforms of his father Tsar Alexander III, ultimately disenchanting the constituents from the neglect of longstanding grievances; he epitomised the fundamental problem of absolute rule, as years of suffering would eventually lead to revolution. His mismanagement and direct involvement in World War I undermined the already unstable government, causing his subjects to join radical movements to overthrow the tsarist regime.
Yesterday on the 13th of March 1880, the awe-inspiring Tsar of Russia died after going to the military roll call as he does every Sunday. He was 63 when he died. He was riding in a carriage when out of nowhere the carriage exploded into pieces, the Tsar not moving. He was coming out of the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg when it all went down. Alexander was an amazing, extraordinary man who was an astounding leader. One of his most prominent actions was the emancipation of the serfs in 1863. Almost the rest of the world had no more serfs except for Russia. When Alexander came into power, he abolished the law to own a serf and made them have freedom and the rights of any man. In one of his meetings he said,” This is absurd! Why has the rest
The October Manifesto 1905 gained the Tsar back some of his support by promising reform; however the Tsar failed to abide by his promises and did not satisfactorily address the problems of Russia. To ensure his long-term survival the Tsar needed to address the problems that had caused the 1905 revolution. The action of Nicholas II to introduce reform saved his position in the throne s, though not for long as he took the wrong approach and chose to please some groups in Russian society and ignored the demands of others. Some changes were made that did temporarily satisfy his people such as the creation of a duma and the cancellation of the redemption payments. The creation of a duma meant the Tsar now had to delegate authority to parliament and could no longer consider himself an autocrat, however although it may of appeared that the Tsar now did not have ‘absolute’ power he didn’t really give the duma much power at all and he restricted their influence on the Russian government.
They used methods such as terrorism and assassination in their attempt to overthrow Russia's Tsarist autocracy. They murdered officials and made several attempts on the Tsar's life before finally assassinating him on March 13 1881. Alexander II did much to liberalize and modernize Russia this included the abolishment of serfdom in 1861. However his authority was challenged by groups such as the People’s Will party, the populist and the intelligentsia. He used repressive actions and he passionately opposed movements for political reform.
The extent of the old orders refusal to accept reform lead to the outbreak of revolution in Russia. It stemmed from the social order in Russia with the emergence of middle classes, the gaining of intelligence among the lower classes and the privilege for so few. The appalling living conditions, coupled with food shortages along economic systems including the collection of taxes and increasing international commitments and pressures lead to the downfall of the Tsarist regime. Tsar Nicholas II faced opposition from philosophers and revolutionaries during his reign; it was a very challenging time to be leader.
The outcomes of the reforms were not considered in as black-and-white terms as previously. Russia: People and Empire by Geoffrey Hosking we might say was a transitional textbook on the topic. Hosking’s book looks at Russian history through the lens of Russia’s failure to develop nationally. Hosking states it was both the conviction that serfdom was immoral and the belief that it was harming Russia economically that caused the tsar and several of the elites to call for reform. This discussion shows the importance that theories concerning the dynamic relationship between the tsar and other elements of society now hold in academia. The reforms, he argues, fell flat in transforming Russian society, but did have positive effects through the zemstvo social programs, judicial reforms, and economic results. This is a pattern of historical analysis continues today. The dynamic relationship of the enlightened bureaucrats and the reforming tsar is one of the most important elements in the modern discussion. As well as the reforms having success in their individual areas (judicial, local government ect), but not transforming Russia and thus being a failure in greater Russian
Alexander the Great is, arguably, the most famous secular figure in history. His magnetism in life was rivaled only by his magnetism in death, and the story of his career has evoked vastly different interpretations in his age and ours. Young romantic hero or megalomaniac villain? Alexander III of Macedon conquered all who stood before him, but usually in order to free the lower class. He did more to spread the Hellenistic culture than anyone before or after him. My credibility comes from much studying of his lifestyle, and analysis of many contradicting biographies. With this speech, I hope to display to you most of his feats and battles, as well as the vast quantity of folklore that surrounds his life.
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority” (Acton Institute 1). Alexander the Great was and absolute ruler that had both influence and authority; he abused both which is why many of his subjects followed him out of fear and not loyalty. Rulers are defined by how they use their power, the decisions’ they make; and how those decisions will affect the people. In my essay, I will analyze two viewpoints’ made by two professors and their viewpoints about Alexander III and whether or not he was deserving of the title “The Great”.
Serfdom, a system of virtual slavery tying the Russian peasants to their landlords, was abolished in 1861 under the imperial demand of Tsar Nicholas II. This change was put in place for many reasons, including military defeat in Crimea, the economy and political system, which all contributed to the backwardness of Russia as a nation, as they prohibited the introduction of other major reforms. In my view, the most important cause of emancipation was the state of the economy, because the nature of serfdom prevented the country from catching up with the west, and the most important consequence was that the military was able to dramatically
Alexander III’s stance on domestic issues came as no surprise. As a youngster, he was tutored by Konstantin Pobodonestev, a conservative, forceful man who strongly opposed Western ideology. Pobodonestev’s ideas and beliefs rubbed off on the young boy, and he blamed his father’s liberal-minded reforms as the cause for his murder. Seeking to strengthen the autocracy, he gave officials the power to declare a state of emergency, and to arrest or fine anyone unreliable. He also cleverly cut off schools by setting up discriminatory admission rules, against women, poor families, and the Jews. He then forced the expansion of Russian culture and language by forcing everyone in the nation to speak, write, and think in Russian; otherwise known as Russification. Alexander III preferred having as much control as possible over his people, something he did not have in common with his father.