• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'Alexander III was the most successful Tsar in the period 1855-1917'. How far do you agree?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Max P-W 'Alexander III was the most successful Tsar in the period 1855-1917'. How far do you agree? The defeat in the Crimea in 1856 was a major wake up call for Russia and its leaders. Such an appalling military defeat highlighted not only how out-dated their army was, but also served to make clear the fact that the whole country was in desperate need of modernisation. Whilst the three last leaders of the Tsarist autocracy ? Alexander II, Alexander II and Nicholas II - may have had differing priorities, they all in their own way and with their own methods attempted to push for some form of advancement and modernisation in certain areas. Alexander II pursued a bolder and seemingly more liberal policy of reform than had previously been, whilst Alexander III's reacted to this assassination of his father with his aimed to uphold 'Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality' above all else. Nicholas II attempted to emulate the aims of his father; however, his gentle and indecisive nature meant that he lacked the hardened conviction and dedication to autocracy of his father. Given the near feudal state of Russia's economy at the time of Alexander II's ascension clearly a lot of progress did take place in Russia's economy throughout this period. Broadly, all three Tsars were pursuing similar aims in this area. ...read more.

Middle

In contrast, the 1904 Russo-Japanese war (which ultimately proved the catalyst for the 1905 revolution), and Russia's defeat, could be seen as evidence to suggest that perhaps the reforms under Alexander II were not as successful as they first seemed. However, ultimately defeat was largely due to the fact the Nicholas II had never anticipated a war (or the surprise attack at Port Arthur), and that he and the military greatly underestimated Japan and its army as that of a relatively weak emerging power. In fact the military regime that was in control of Japan, meant it was highly efficient and focused on total war, especially when compared to the thinly spread, disorganised, and unprepared troops of the Russian army. Moreover, the fact that next to nothing had been done since Milyutin's reforms to keep the army up to date and abreast of any technological advancements, or any administrative or structural innovation, only compounded the issues. This absence of any maintenance is down not only to Nicholas II however, but also to Alexander III, who was more concerned with consolidating the authority of the autocracy and the newly formed secret police, the Okrana (formerly the Third Section), and defending against interior threats, as opposed to exterior ones. In spite of the humiliating defeat to Japan, and perhaps because of other events (such as the 1905 revolution) ...read more.

Conclusion

As Alexander III was the only Tsar of the three who made the government conform to his wishes in terms of its nature, he must be taken as most successful in this area. Looking broadly at the period, a great deal of progress was made. However, this is not as important in the appraisal of the most successful Tsar, as to what extent they achieved their aims. As such, in spite of the fact that the greatest improvement in the lives of the population as a whole took place under Nicholas II, the fact that often these developments ran against his aims, and were often not completely in his control, highlights his weakness as a leader. Conversely, Alexander II made huge steps towards achieving his aim of modernisation, and whilst there were teething problems, much of the later progress could not have been achieved without the work he did; however, this ultimately clashed with his aim of preserving the superiority of the Aristocracy - something he could not allow. Alexander III's reign on the other hand, showed no such waver at any point in his reign. Whilst he may not have kept the army up to date, his focus was primarily domestic ('autocracy, orthodoxy, nationality'), and he had no aim to expand, or greatly boost Russia's military prowess. Alexander III was indeed the most sucessful Tsar of this period, primarly because he used the Tsarist autocracy to do what it did best ? maintain the nobility, quash any opposition and promote traditional, right wing values. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve ...

    4 star(s)

    In much the same way as the peasantry had been poorly treated under the Land Captains and the Mir, discipline was also severe. Lenin's NEP outlined a tax in kind where a percentage of production was taken, in contrast to the requisitioning of Stalin who forced through Lenin's collectivisation model.

  2. How successful was Alexander II in transforming Russian Society

    Milyutin, the War Minster, recognised the importance of having a smaller, more professional army as opposed to a large and untrained one. Being in the army was no longer a punishment, and for some a career, as nepotism was stopped by military colleges.

  1. How successful was Napoleon III?

    with money to finance their business and so therefore provide the working classes with jobs and wages. This supply of cheap credit was provided by three new banks, most well known of the three was the Credit Mobilier.

  2. Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful ...

    This lack of unity is displayed more prominently under the communists, where opposition failed to unite as they had done in 1917.

  1. How far did the achievements of Stalin's economic modernisation programme justify the costs?

    The forced collectivisation was a political success in spring 1930 with 60% of peasants now on collective farms, this figure rose to 77% in June 1930 and 90% in 1936.12 Soviet propaganda was used to cover up the failure with focusing on the intense hate-campaign against the 'Kulaks'.

  2. Compare and contrast the policies of Alexander II and Alexander III

    economy and realised that a solid foundation lies in the education of the next generation of factory workers, but Alexander III felt that the lower classes? education should not be to a level that would allow them to spread the idea of revolution and the end of autocracy.

  1. How far did government policies change towards agriculture in Russia in the period 1856-1964? ...

    The harvest of 1931 and the subsequent three harvests were poor because of the weather and the heavy procurements demanded by the Communist Government to feed the growing urban population[21]: from 26 million in 1930 to 40 million in 1932.[22] Thus as a result the government left the peasant families

  2. Why did the Tsar lose power in 1917?

    Before 1914 there was already tension in Russia as shown when Stolypin created the Kulaks which were the higher skilled peasants. This made the peasants very angry but it was acceptable because their anger was directed at each other and away from the Tsar.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work