What were the problems facing Alexander the III in 1881

Alexander used a secret police force known as the Okhrama, to help him to govern Russia and give terror to those who opposed him. Over 5000 people were exiled or sentenced to hard labour by 1894, and by this, opposition was reduced. This

The eventual growth of extreme dislike toward the Romanov dynasty was stimulated by Tsar Alexander II and his

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”.

When he came into power (Probably also with the help and guidance of Pobedonostev) he got rid of and restricted a lot of power that the zemstva had. He kept them so it made the people think that they had some form of power and influence but they didn’t really have that influence they thought they had. He knew that this was kind of working because the people didn’t coplain as much, they knew that they had the opportunity to do something about it and so decided that they were happy with what they had as it was a giant leap up from nothing anyway. He made Land Captains (as they were known) the most important members of each zemstva area and these people had the most power and say as they reported directly to the minister of the interior. They made sure that nothing went over the top or in any way threatened the Tsar. This is proof that the Zemstva lost power to what Alexander II had gave them so that the Tsar was stronger all due to Alexander III reversing the reform, to a reasonable extent.

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.

Throughout the period 1855 to 1954, opposition to Russian governments was a common occurrence due to dissatisfaction of many civilians’ lives and the lack of development seen throughout Russia. However, as much as there were some successful movements throughout 1905 such as the Bolsheviks gaining support and eventually gaining power, there were also several failed attempts due to intense use of violence, terror and censorship by the state. It is arguable that whether opposition was successful, merely came down to the strength of the opposition group or the weakness of the government in power.

In order to actually understand how Alexander the Great came to power, we must first explore into his background. He was born around 356 B.C.E in July within the capital city of Macedonia. When he was just a small child, he spent his time observing his father, Phillip the II, who during that time was the current leader of Macedonia. His father was a force to be reckoned with, and scholars like to link this to Alexander’s future success within the empire. Along with watching his father, little Alexander at the age of 13, eventually gained a very smart and intelligent tutor by the name of Aristotle. Of which, was a very successful philosopher that taught him literature and rhetoric. It would later serve a purpose in increasing Alexander’s interest in many subjects such as science, medicine and philosophy. This process of his training would continue on until he reached the age of 16. Later

Thirdly, the Tsar had the benefit of controlling the army and the secret police force, the Okhrana. The Tsar was the commander and chief of the Russian army, he had total control of it and they had been loyal to the Tsar for many years (Nicholas I had an input in creating the Okhrana). The army and the Okhrana were used very efficiently by the Tsars. If anybody opposed the Tsar with violent protests or demonstrations, the army would be called in and many of the protesters would be shot and trampled on by horses. As well as removing current threats to the Tsar, the armies input effected possible opponents, as they knew what their own fate would be if they also tried to oppose the ‘Dear father’. The Okhrana was also very effective, it was known for infiltrating opposition groups and dividing them even further. If an opposition group member was caught, they would be exiled to Siberia to die a cold and

It is particularly difficult to assess Alexander as a statesman, for his views as a statesman were in a state of flux when he died. His political creations were still in a developmental stage and had as yet take definite shape, but Alexander did display political wisdom by separating financial, civil and military power. One of his great achievements was his financial measure in reforming the coinage and bringing into line with each other the decimal currency of Persia with the duodecimal system of Macedonia. This was not only a great contribution to economic prosperity throughout the empire, but also impeded Athens as competition and involved her as a trading partner instead. Alexander also entertained a grandiose plan for uniting the East and the West in a world empire of racial equality. Unfortunately, this did not succeed as he planned. Nevertheless, the King's conquest and findings of

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

Alexander the Great was a king and conqueror. He is commonly referred to as “the most powerful leader of all time.” What is it that makes him such a powerful leader? What has he accomplished that has made him so significant? Were his accomplishments positive or negative? These are all questions that when combined as one create a debate that has been going on for decades. There are those who admire Alexander’s military achievements and ability to carve out the largest empire the world has seen. Then there are those who perceive him as a selfish, cruel madman with drinking problems. This paper will outline the different sides taken on Alexander and the question as to what his significance/influence was and whether it

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.