How Successfully Did Alexander Iii Suppress Opposition? Essay

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.

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

In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had. He was referred to as a reactionary, unlike his father Alexander II who was known as a reformer. He managed to please the people with his Russian figure and attitude, he changed their attitude and he made tsarism look all the better, all in a short period of time. Despite their different policies, they had the same goals/ambitions inside their head in the long run, and that was to strengthen Autocracy in the Russian empire but Alexander III did this by reversing what his father had done as he felt he knew

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges facing Alexander III was political violence. Not only his predecessor, Alexander II, but also other leading political figures across Russia during the 1870s had been assassinated. People’s Will was a terrorist organisation that hoped to bring political change to Russia through revolutionary violence. They attacked leading members of local and national government. The assassination of Alexander II was merely the culmination of a nationwide campaign of violence.

He cared for all of his citizens and he did not believe he was of a higher power than them. In document D, the scene is set in the desert with his army very dehydrated. His soldiers found water and brought a very small amount back for him, which he symbolically turns to his men and pours the water out onto the floor. It was as if he said, if not all, then none. Alexander indeed cared for his citizens just as much, if not more, then he did himself. Through his powerful actions, he has proven himself not only through achieving remarkable feats, but also being a very kind and concerned

Alexander The Great Alexander The Great no doubt left his mark on history like the many kings before him. One thing he was known for was his hatred for representative government and the belief that zeal for Orthodoxy should be cultivated by every tsar. By the end of his reign Alexander III had also amassed a large amount of territory from him conquests of Persia and Egypt, his kingdom ranging from the Mediterranean to the border of India. Alexander

Alexander cared about his army and there needs. According to document D, “The army was crossing a desert of sand and the sun was already blazing down on them. They were in need of water. As they went on a party of light infantry which had gone looking for water. They found some and poured it into a helmet. They brought it back to Alexander, Alexander took the helmet and in full view of his troops poured it on the ground,”(Arrianus Doc D). This shows that Alexander the great was truly great because he showed concern for others. When he poured the water on the ground he showed brotherhood. Brotherhood meaning if he was not going to drink the water the army would not either. This trait is good to have so that one can be caring for others and it makes one a good leader so they will be able to succeed in life. Next, Alexander was aware of others. According to document C, “When the last organized resistance was broken, Alexander and his army went on a wild search. Alexander had ordered that all except those who took safety in the temple were to be put to death,”(Green Doc C). This shows that Alexander the great was really great because he showed concern for others by honoring those who took safety in the temple he saved their lives. When one does this they are saving many lives and am being very honorable just like Alexander was. This trait is important to have in life so they can succeed in life by honoring others and their choices. In summary, Alexander the great was truly great because he showed concern for

Alexander II and Alexander III were both Tsars of Russia and they both believed in the divine will to rule the people. However Alexander II is said to be more liberal than Alexander III though they were both conservative in one way or the other in their social and economic policies because they both wanted to remain with the power over the people. Alexander II was more relaxed in his polices ‘’Great Reformer’’ and Alexander III was more strict ‘’great reactionary’’. After the defeat in the Crimean defeat Alexander II introduced very many reforms in Russia because he had seen how backward Russia was and how all the other

Those who see Alexander in a negative manner obviously have quite strong opinions about it. They see him as more of a madman than the most powerful leader. It is easy to see where they get their assumptions from for they look at the bloodshed part of Alexander’s reign. Instead of focusing on the rare ability he had to conquer so

By his own account, Alexander felt that he should issue his Imperial Decree for two reasons - The first being Divine Providence (or according to God’s guidance/direction) and the second being because of his obligations as Emperor of Russia. In his decree, Alexander makes it apparent that he is acting according to his selfless desire and duty to make sure that all citizens, regardless of their social status, should be surrounded “with our affection and our Imperial solicitude.” In other words, each and every person should be cared for. However, according to an article on markedbyteachers.com, Alexander’s motives might

The people were devastated and afraid that they had lost him. The two ideas are relevant to each other and support the author’s idea; that Alexander was perceived as a God to his people. However, the switch in time periods makes the book more difficult to understand than if it was explained chronologically.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia, unlike other European countries, was still being ruled by an absolute monarch known as a czar. In Czarist Russia, these rulers had complete authority over their country and often denied lower class citizens equal rights and say in political matters. Czar Nicholas II, however, who ruled Russia in the early 1900s, attempted to appease the peasants by establishing certain reforms, including the formation of the Duma, a political legislature that claimed to represent the people. Nevertheless, Nicholas II eventually restricted voting rights in the Duma to the upper class, giving landowners and nobles a greater voice. Dissatisfied with their limited political influence and poor living conditions,

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,

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.

Alexander II, was a good hearted, unselfish leader who wanted even the poor peasants and serfs of Russia to have a grand life. Tsar Alexander II freed serfs, with a sign of his name on the Emancipation Manifesto. Further, he expanded the railroad system which created a boost in the economic life in a hitherto predominantly feudal agricultural society (Mosse); this helped Russia establish and gain more territory. The great Russian tsar, an innovator; during his reign, which began in 1855 he abolished serfdom, expanded the rail system, reformed the aged judicial system, and liberated Bulgaria. Tsar Alexander II of Russia assassinated (Mosse) in St. Petersburg in 1881.