Tsar Alexander Ii

Being self-centered is not how someone great would act. In document A it shows a map with how many cities he ruled. 11, which were all named after himself. This shows that he is conceded, and very much self centered. Also in document D it gives a story told by ancient biographers of Alexander. In “The Legend of the Hat Band” it tells a tale of Alexander’s hat being blown into the water so one of his men retrieved it for him and placed on his head so it would not get wet. At first Alexander gave him a talent but then ordered his head to be cut off because the prophets had explained “ he should not allow the head that had worn the royal headband to be safe.” This is wrong, selfish, and cruel. The man did a generous and kind thing for Alexander. Alexander killed an innocent man because he believed the man was not worthy to live because he had worn his headband. You should not be called great if you injure and are violent towards the people you lead and rule because you are too self

In this essay, I will explore the reforms of peter the great through historical authors and determine whether Peter I of Russia was successful in evolving of the Tsardom of Russia into a contemporary European empire. On top of this I will be looking to see if his attempts at modernization in Russia had a lasting affect on Russian politics. In my analysis, I have gained understanding of the political climate of Russia during Peters youth, his military reforms, and his education reforms. Some contemporaries believe that the reign of Peter the Great was one of the great turning points in Russian history, and indeed of European history as well . Before Peter’s reign, Russia was a mostly forgotten state, that was largely looked upon as a barbaric

In 1700 in Eastern Europe, the Russia tsar Peter the Great was the head figure in the government, and this continued up until Russia’s last tsar Nicholas II. In the 1700s, the tsars of Russia practiced absolutism, claiming divine right and having complete authority over their subjects. However, by the 1850s after the embarrassing losses in the Crimean War, due to the fact that Russia was far behind the West in technology, opposition against the tsar began to grow. In the 1860s, when

Alexander had been taught many things from a very young age such as academic subjects, politics, sports, and warfare which made him think very highly of himself. His father Philip of Macedonia made an extremely strong army and took over many Greek polises and wanted to take over the Persian Empire. This struck Alexander’s aspiration to take over the Persian Empire as well. Alexander then inherited his father’s kingdom at the age of 18 after his father

For many decades, Russia was isolated from other part of the world politically and geographically. During the First World War, Russia’s industrialization was progressing fairly, as they implemented an education reform program to promote literacy among people. The program would have been successful if it was continued without obstacles. They also implemented a program named Stolypin in order to modernize the agriculture, which was bringing successful changes to the country; however, the Stolypin program was not completed because of problems such as War, the absent of a proper parliament institutions ,the corruption and excess of power among the secret police. Ethnicity in Russia groups was also among the problems as the Russian empire was becoming anarchical and it was getting difficult to maintain it due to pressure form the population who felt that their basic need were not being responded while the monarchy was having an extravagant lifestyle (Kennan,1). By 1917, most Russian were now convinced about the fact that Czar Nicholas II was not good enough to help revive the economy in Russia. Also, Corruption in the government was still untouched and the king had already dissolved the Duma because they did not agree to his will. The economy was still backward, without jobs, frustrated people were tired of the conditions that they lived

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.

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,

Nicholas II, the last of the Romanov Tsars, was a man with good intentions for his country, however, he lacked many of the crucial attributes necessary in being a proficient ruler. He was a weak and indecisive leader; too gentle and too uneducated to take on the role of an autocrat. Moreover, Nicholas was heavily influenced by his wife, Tsarina Alexandra, to follow in his father’s footsteps and preserve autocracy, leading to the downfall of the 304-year reign of the Romanov family. The Tsar refused to move on with the times and his inability to rule effectively was compounded by the burdensome events that occurred during his reign.

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

“I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign…He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it is from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his

At court, reactionary ministers hinted that the tsars reforming instincts had gone too far. Weakening the props which the impartial monarchy relied on, the church and the nobility. They argued that the state needed to be purged of the foreign influences which were undermining it, both the dangerous and uncontrollable western ideas which were spreading through the liberal universities and being discussed in the press, more literally the ethnic minorities and their religion which were seen as diluting Russian strength. The conservatives were not against all the changes that Alexander II had initiated. Therefore the reason why Tsar Alexander II was assassinated was because of reactions to

Alexander II is affectionately termed the “Great Reformer,” but the policies of his reign from 1855 to 1881 attempted to modernize society while maintaining the tsarist authority. Although Alexander II was forced to implement reforms to accommodate Russia’s loss in the Crimean War, the impediments of serfdom, and challenges to the autocracy, his reforms ultimately attempted to expand the tsar’s power.

Various aspects of Nicholas II’s political decisions reflected his clear unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and these decisions form a preliminary basis for both his own legacy of incompetency & the eventual undoing of the Romanovs. In comparison to rulers preceding, Nicholas was ill-prepared for the role: his father, Alexander III, failed to adequately develop his son’s understanding of civil & state responsibilities before his death in 1894, under the guise that he would live long enough to teach Nicholas of these affairs. Upon his consecration as Tsar, Nicholas spoke in his diary of his apprehensiveness

What the Tsarist administration did herald was a more direct form of governance and its related oppression. Tsar Alexander III was especially tight fisted. His policies directed a forced cultural assimilation that eliminated Georgian language instruction in schools and discouraged traditional cultural practices. The aristocracy and the ambitious among the middle class were effectively Russified. Strict limits were instituted on political organization and what nascent nationalist efforts

Alexander III’s stance on domestic issues came as no surprise. As a youngster, he was tutored by Konstantin Pobodonestev, a conservative, forceful man who strongly opposed Western ideology. Pobodonestev’s ideas and beliefs rubbed off on the young boy, and he blamed his father’s liberal-minded reforms as the cause for his murder. Seeking to strengthen the autocracy, he gave officials the power to declare a state of emergency, and to arrest or fine anyone unreliable. He also cleverly cut off schools by setting up discriminatory admission rules, against women, poor families, and the Jews. He then forced the expansion of Russian culture and language by forcing everyone in the nation to speak, write, and think in Russian; otherwise known as Russification. Alexander III preferred having as much control as possible over his people, something he did not have in common with his father.