Strategic Transformation Of Alexander I And The Napoleonic Revolution

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

Great men have lived on the face of the earth and left marks of their prowess and legacy that men of the present and even the future find it hard to emulate; a good example of such men is Alexander the Great. This paper seeks to explain further Alexander’s military genius and its positive impact on military impact over the past centuries. The paper also gives a well thought analysis why Alexander was so much successful in his wars and conquests. His big empire spread all the way from Gibraltar to the Punjab and in his leadership made Greek the lingua franca of his new World (Cary, M, 1932).

“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

During the Napoleonic Era, from 1799 to 1815, France became a military power gaining and controlling land throughout Europe. While some historians believe Napoleon Bonaparte was a ruthless dictator, his military accomplishments far outweigh any atrocities he committed. He helped France gain stability after the French Revolution and he also abolished the Feudal contract. Napoleon was a brilliant strategist using military tactics to cause fear and to defeat whatever enemies stood in his way. Throughout his rule, Napoleon continually gained ground, and by the end of his reign, his empire encompassed all of Spain, Italy, and a small portion of land by Russia and Austria. (see map) He is one of

During his reign he strived to reestablish French aristocracy, which was eliminated in the French revolution. He began this by putting his family and loyal friends into power giving those titles of the nobility. His power continued to expand across much of western and central continental Europe. It wasn’t until Russia left the continental system that the French would engage in a full scale battle. This battle lead to the downfall of Napoleon rule. With the invasion of Moscow, his army suffered heavy casualties which would then be considered the Battle of Borodino. Russians set fire to the city, forcing Napoleons army to starve, due to harsh weather freeze, and die off. This action became the defeat and end of the Napoleonic Wars.

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.

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

Napoleon won battles in Italy and Austria early in his rule, but eventually, the French Emperor attempted to conquer other major powers in Europe. Napoleon lost major battles in Russia and Britain, and the French people’s perception of their king began to change. Document 5 shows a painting of Napoleon in 1812, during the French invasion of Russia. Napoleon is depicted very negatively: he appears to be short, almost small, overweight, and certainly not the heroic image he carried early in his rule. In Document 7, Napoleon is controlled at the hands of the Duke of Wellington, dancing like a puppet. The painting was published in 1815, the year Napoleon was officially removed from power. As Napoleon’s initial success faded, so did his

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.

Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia was a major factor in his downfall. In 1812, Napoleon, whose alliance with Alexander I had disintegrated, launched an invasion into Russia that ended in a disastrous retreat from Moscow. Thereafter, all of Europe, including his own allies, Austria and Prussia, united against him. Although he continued to fight, the odds he faced were impossible. In April 1814, Napoleon’s own marshals refused to continue the struggle and stepped down from their positions. During the actual Russian campaign, there were many key factors that greatly impacted his downfall.

Everyone knows that Napoleon was a great leader and commander but it is not as cut and dry as popular history makes it out to be. His great victory at Austerlitz cemented him as one of the greatest commanders in history. This battle is was a tactical masterpiece up there with Gaugamela and Cannae. However, there is more to analyze here than just the battle itself. Many aspects of war include mobilization, supply, training, moral, army structure etc. and all play a part in Napoleon’s victories and the creation of the French Empire. Another variable to consider is the quality of the armies led by Tsar Alexander I of Russia and the Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II of Austria. The focus here is to look at how these aspects played a role in

In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting the different reforms implemented by both Alexander II and Alexander III. Also looking at how it effected Russia in general