Essay on How Much Russia Changed from 1856-1894

The instant consequences to the emancipation of the serfs left Russia crippled, ironic, when alleged that it intended to advance Russia’s status. Many historians argue that despite abolishing serfdom, the means in which it was carried out didn’t coincide with reality. Subsequently, there were many riots which caused a rise of political groups such as Narodnik movement whose existence proves that Russian society was changing. Disorder spread with calls for change within Russia like In May 1862 where a number of pamphlets were issued including the radical Young Russia. Such propaganda aimed to gain support and create challenging individuals which would pressure the Tsar to make further changes. One could argue that as a result this led to the 1905 revolution and the end of Tsardom.

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.

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

The Stability of Russia in 1914 In 1914 Russia's stability was questionable; the Tsar's regime had been under considerable strain due to the unsuccessful uprising in 1905. The Tsar still had the support of the army, which helped to put down many attempts at revolution. However, there was still brewing resentments about the harsh conditions of the Tsar's government that threatened to explode at any time.

Over the period from 1855 to 1964, Russia saw various reforms and policies under the Tsars and the Communist leaders that had great impacts on its economy and society both positive and negative. Lenin definitely implanted polices that changed society and the economy for example with war communism. However whether his policies had the greatest impact is debatable and in this essay I will be assessing the view whether Lenin had the greatest impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other ruler between the period from 1855-1964.

After the 1905 revolution Russia was in need of reforms both economically and politically, to allow it maintain its role of a great power and to prevent another revolution occurring the answer to this was the October Manifesto. However, due to the stubbornness of the Tsar who was determined not to relinquish his autocratic powers, what may have appeared as reforms were largely superficial making little change in particular to the Russian political system.

Compare and contrast the social and economic policies of Alexander II (1855-81) and Alexander III (1881-94) of Russia.

The October 1917 Revolution is undoubtedly a momentous and extremely important event in Russia’s history, one that ousted the centuries-old Tsardom that ruled over the empire, in favour of the radical communist movement in the form of the Bolsheviks, headed by one Vladimir Iliych Lenin. However, did this sudden move from autocracy to a supposedly more progressive democracy actually bring about the modernisation of Russia industrially, agriculturally and culturally, or was it simply a rebranding of a totalitarian state that would continue to oppress the

As the Russian Nation advanced and progressed over time, a change in opinion about the role of the Tsar was inevitable. A changed perception about the Tsar's role by the people in contrast to Nicholas' personal view of his role remaining the same ultimately made for a factor that can be attributed to the decline. Nicholas' personal qualities and attributes can account for the decline of the Romanov Dynasty. Whilst we cannot blame him for this, one of Nicholas' great faults was that he simply did not possess the qualities required to govern Russia.

Occasionally history shows that the world does not have many people that could be entered in the history. And Alexander the Great was one of these people. During his childhood Alexander had great teachers who taught him how to use and how to choose great politics, diplomacy and, how to win the war if that day would come. For many years Alexander the Great studied how to control everything and how to be ready to do anything that might be needed. At the age of sixteen he had to become a king of big kingdom, because his father, Philip, was in the war with Byzantium. Many people believed in Alexander because they knew that he was different from other children in his age, he did not care about bodily pleasures or anything like that, however, he had infinitely ambition which created him a good leader. Alexander strengthened his position in the power, he tamed people that were trying to make a revolution to take power in their hands. To get support from wealthy and other people in Alexander’s kingdom, he canceled taxes, and killed other people that might claim for the king’s position. Alexander was a great leader, and had plans to enter the war not only with some kingdoms, but to capture and control all kingdoms and all lands, to have the great power without a trace.

The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The

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 Industrial Revolution in Russia Russia, which began its industrial revolution at least a half century behind most of the West European countries, had to meet a number of special challenges. Russia moved to industrialisation in stages. An uncertain experimental phase – which Russia had already experienced to an extent before 1870 – included larger reforms that helped free up economic change. This preliminary period was followed by more rapid growth in a society still overwhelming agricultural. Russia had well-developed industrial sectors by the early 20th century, but paused well behind the West.

This is demonstrated through the unrest in Russia, for example, The Lena Goldfields incident, where industrial worker were shot for causing unrest. This is a factor of little importance but shows that the people of Russia were unhappy with the government. In addition, in 1914 there was a major increase in the number of strikes, this highlights the fact that the Russian people were unhappy so therefore wanted to cause unrest in order to get what they wanted. Nicholas took over from his father and stuck in his father’s reactionary ways and ruled Russia as an autocrat. This meant that he had supreme power over Russia. All political parties were made illegal, this meant that the only way to challenge the Tsar’s authority was to cause disruption, such as strikes. It can be argued that this shows that Russia was politically stable as no-one could challenge the tsarist regime however it shows a lack of political stability as many groups of people became political opposition to the Tsar. To compare, it can be said that Russia was becoming politically stable. The most significant factor to show this is the October Manifesto. Concessions such as freedom of speech, the right to form political parties and a formation of a national parliament were formed during the October Manifesto. As a result of the October Manifesto, the Duma was set up. This is an equally significant factor as it shows that Russia had the possibility to become a democratic country,

Alexander II also established trial by jury, relinquishing authority to a judicial system independent of the the autocracy. However, the influence of socialism had spread to St. Petersburg intellectuals from Germany and France, and Constitutionalism was seen as insufficient. The importance of political system became less important, as concerns over social and economic forces moved to the forefront. Socialism seemed appealing to Westernizers due to the application of modern European thought, while traditionalists saw it as a return to the old Russian populist values.