In What Ways and with What Successes Did Alexander Ii Attempt to Modernise Russia and Preserve Imperial Power?

Society was extensively transformed. Indeed, there were many negative results, yet many reforms proved to be positive such as the development of education; in 1862 schools were placed under the jurisdiction of the state, rather than the church. The university regulations of 1863 allowed freedom for universities and as a result women's education flourished; by 1881 2,000 women were leaving their stereotypical roles behind and studying in universities, something that the west hadn’t yet done, showing that Russia was ahead of

This was achieved with the emancipation of the serfs. Still without a middle class, the government played a strong role in the early decisions with industrialization. The tsar during this time, Alexander II, had a great railroad network created that allowed for more efficient use of Russia’s plentiful natural resources.

This meant that he had full power of Russia, and any ideas or reforms that were to be made had to be put to him to decide upon. This meant that the opposition to his rule were ignored, and he had full control of his country and the people in it. He hated Alexander II’s idea of westernising Russia, as he believed that this was not what the peasants would want, and believed that he held a bond with the peasants. By this, the peasants felt like for once, someone was prepared to listen to their views and do what was best for them, and seen as a huge percentage of Russians were peasants; this was extremely popular and reduced the chances of a peasant revolt. Instead, Alexander wanted to modernise Russia and turn it into a great power.

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 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

“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”.

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

Throughout his life, he conquered many places, including the empire of Persia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. He went on and on conquering many lands along with his troops. In fact, he travelled with builders, engineers, poets, scientists, etc. These specialized workers were one of the reasons he was successful in battles. Alexander brought them along for entertainment, and they also supported the army with carriages, supplies, built camps, and support for wounded soldiers. When attacking, his army led battles from the front which define their courage, and he ensured that his men were well-fed and rewarded them so that they were motivated. Alexander may be cruel at times. For instance, he killed lots and lots of men who were traitors in his army. Along with that, he treated his adversaries with respect while conquered people were freed when he’s generous, but killed when he’s disrespected. Alexander the Great defeated the powerful empire of Persia and extended his empire from Greece to India, making it the largest empire of the ancient

The reforms Stolypin introduced did have an immediate impact. 15% of the peasantry took on new opportunities. In fact by 1914 10% had consolidated their holdings and 25% had left the communes However after their initial rush, the significance and success decreased quite considerably. Moreover black earth regions were still very backward. As well, it made the Marxist unhappy. Making the Peasant content meant no revolution. Subsequently there was only a certain extent that Russia could be stable to.

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.

For centuries, Alexander the Great has held an eminent place in history. Arguably one of the greatest men the world has ever known, the Macedonian King accomplished many great feats in his short, but glorious life. During his reign, Alexander played several roles in the process of conquering the Persian empire, and in the assessment of his character, aspects of Alexander's capabilities of both strengths and weaknesses must be explored in him as a person, a statesman and a leader.

On the 20th October 1894 Nicholas II ascended the throne as tsar of Russia. He idolised the concept of continuing to rule Russia under the autocratic system, in the same way his father and predecessor Alexander III had done so. However, Nicholas lacked the qualities and characters of the autocratic style of leadership. The

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

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.