To What Extent Did Alexander Ii Deserve His Title of the “Tsar Liberator?”

Many historians argue The Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861, to be a key turning point within Russian history. It drastically altered Russia’s economic, political and social stipulation. One could propose the argument that this event lead to the fall of communism in 1990, further more suggesting the extent to which this event affected Russia. Hence this is ‘perhaps the most defining moment in Russian history, with its impact being seen many years after the event itself’. Although historians identify short term effects of this event, the significance to which this event

In the 19th century, Russia was a huge country with millions of extremely poor farming peasants called serfs. They believed that the Tsar was second only to god in power, and that tsar had control over everyone.

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.

Russia's overthrows and shortage caused revolutionary upheaval and massive inflation, which led to deprived infrastructure. During World War I, Russian society naturally caused great dissatisfaction among the serfs. As the revolution wore on, numerous reform and Tsar Nicholas II, a ruler, tried to change Russia's social structure and government. Among the masses, there was discontentment with Russia's social system and living conditions. Laborers worked and lived in horrendous conditions, which played a crucial role in aggravating the condition of workers and peasants. As a result, peasants starved and Russia’s armies were overpowered on the battlefield because much of its terrain was occupied by enemies. Hence, Imperial Russia was a

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

In 1870, Alexander made the reform of having trials that weren’t that bias and allowed Trail by Jury. This made the system fairer and meant that the people wouldn’t complain as much because the jurys consisted or your ‘ordinary’’ Russians. This meant that every trial was fair and easier to make a judgment on because you didn’t have conservative people making the judgment or people that were bias towards the tsar. This was to please the people however Alexander II

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.

Russia was a country rich in raw materials that had been undisturbed by modern extraction and refining techniques until then, however, the majority of the countries resource rich areas were nowhere near any railways, with the bulk of the heavy materials such as steel, iron, coal and copper being in the Urals, almost 1,000km away from the nearest railway system in 1860. Oil, another key ingredient in industrialisation was almost 1,500km away to the south, in the Caucasus area3. This lack of transportation in a period when steam powered machines were producing the goods and steam powered trains were delivering them and leading the industrialisation in other countries like Britain, the USA and a future foe in Germany is an indicator of the distance that Russia was behind its rivals under the leadership of the Tsar. So the Tsar’s Russia was largely an agrarian one, but even in the agricultural sector Russia was lagging far behind the rest of the West in terms of the methods employed by farmers, little fertiliser was used and the labour saving machines used in countries with enormous agricultural output like the US were nowhere near as widespread in Russia. The weaknesses of the Tsar’s management of the agricultural sector were highlighted in 1891 when famine hit. Due to the heavy tax on consumer goods, peasants had been forced to sell more of their

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions of Pyotr Alexeyevich Romanovis was that he was the first to implement reforms in Russia. Before he became Tsar of Russia most of the world view the country as a backwards nation hopelessly stuck in the past. By the end of his reign he would be credited with incorporating westernization and modernization in Russia that brought it on par to the rest of Europe.

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,

In fact in 1859 there were in Russia 23 millions of serfs. Alexander made up his mind to abolish it from above before that it would be done from below, through revolution. In 1861 serfdom was emancipated and this was the most important event in 19th century of Russian history. On the other way Alexander III after his father’s dead regarding the serfdom’s reforms decided to reduce the peasant representation in zemstva and the peasant representatives were appointed and no longer elected. Also the “Peasant Land Bank” was created to buy land from the lords and all the children from the lower-class were banned from secondary education. The Tsar, by a new statute in 1890, gave to the provincial governors ‘supervision over the correctness and legality of zemstvo institutions’. The reforms of the government are connected to the abolition of the serfdom. Russia was an under governed society, having many fewer civil servants than Britain. It was essential that local people, therefore, filled administrative roles. In 1864 Tsar Alexander II introduced new bodies in Russia, called zemstva. Zemstva were local governments located in outside city areas and the people who ran them were elected by the people from the village. The Tsar gave them power for make small reforms because he wanted to maintain his autocratic rule everywhere. The members were chosen by three electoral colleges,

Alexander the great is worthy of his title. The first piece of evidence is, “...aided his father in defeating the athenian and theban armies.” This shows that alexander is worthy of his title because he helped his father defeat other armies. The second piece of evidence is,”.. risking their lives on one military conquest after another for the sake of glory. Yet they were all willing.” This shows that alexander is worthy of his title because he had to have been a great leader to convince all of his soldiers to risk their lives willingly. The last piece of evidence is, “greatly increased contact and trade between the East and West.” This shows that alexander is worthy of his title because his empire is getting a surplus from other places.

For three centuries before the revolution, life in Russia was not peaceful. It was cold, hard, and bitter instead. “The end of serfdom was a major event in Russia; yet it just wasn 't enough.”, in 1861. Serfdom, under feudalism, is the the status of peasants in which they are bound to a lord, or master, works on their land, and can be sold like property. Despite serfs being given ‘freedom’, Russia was mostly ruled by the czar and nobles. The average person was, and stayed, poor. Therefore, World War I was not the main cause of the Russian revolution. This outdated feudal class structure, inability to modernize, lack of peace, and czars’ inept leaderships lead to the Russian Revolution.