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

' Did Alexander II deserve the title Tsar Liberator

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

' Did Alexander II deserve the title Tsar Liberator? ' Justify your view. In the 19th Century, Russia had no zemstva, very little education, industry and railway building, a biased judicial system and very few freed peasants. Czar Alexander II, who succeeded Nicolas I in 1855, went some ways to remedying these deficiencies through a series of reforms. Alexander II became the great modernizer of Russia, walking a delicate line between preserving Russia's Slavic identity and enabling its people to benefit from Western advancements. For this reason he was known to some as the ' Czar Liberator'. However, indeed he was a liberator in name only. Alexander II initiated substantial reforms in education, the government, the judiciary and the military. In 1861, he proclaimed the emancipation of about 20 million privately held serfs. It has been described as "the greatest social movement since the French Revolution" and constituted a major step in the freeing of labour in Russia. Yet at the same time, it helped to undermine the already shaken economic foundations of Russia's landowning class. The Czar abolished a Russia tradition, the serfdom, which symbolizing class struggle and feudalism. ...read more.

Middle

But this was an attempt towards a parliamentary government. Superficially, Czar Alexander II seemed to be so liberate from his series of reform. Yet, notwithstanding these measures, it would be wrong, as is sometimes done, to describe Alexander II as a liberal. He was in fact a firm upholder of autocratic principles, sincerely convinced both of his duty to maintain the God-given autocratic power he had inherited and of Russia's unreadiness for constitutional or representative government. For the emancipation of serfs, it was actually essential more than out of the Czar's willingness. The bulk of the Russian population, about 80%, were the peasants and serfs. Alexander II recognised that emancipation was vital. Freed men would work better than serfs, freed men would not rebel against the Czar. Alexander II believed that, unless the serfs were freed, there would be a serf rebellion that threatened the Czar position, which was the nightmare of the Czar. So, the Czar would create revolution and freed the serfs - 'Better from the above than from below.' And in fact, the serfs did not really get freedom. ...read more.

Conclusion

The government, after 1862, had reacted increasingly with repressive police measures. A climax was reached in the spring of 1866, when a young revolutionary, attempted to kill the Emperor. This and the other demands and rebellions had persuaded the Czar that the time had come to call a halt to reform. Therefore, Czar Alexander II returned to reactionary later on. Reaction took the usual obvious steps: censorship of the press, restriction of Zemstva powers, and more government supervision of the universities, increased activity of the Third Section i.e. the secret police set up by Nicolas I, with more arrests, imprisonment and exile to Siberia. Czar Alexander II became even more conservative. To conclude, the keynote of these reforms - and there were many lesser ones affecting various aspects of Russian life - was the modernization of Russia, its release from feudalism, and acceptance of Western culture and technology. Their aim and results were the reduction of class privilege, humanitarian progress, and economic development. However, Alexander II was not a whole-hearted reformer. He used the reforms to consolidate the Czardom, instead of catering the needs of people, this could be clearly revealed by the abolition of serfdom, returned of the reactionary rule and no any further serious reform. Therefore, Alexander II could hardly called 'Czar Liberator'. Reference ...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 British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

5 star(s)

This is a very strong response that demonstrates real understanding of the strengths and limitations of Alexander II's reforms, reaching a clear judgment. On occasion, first sentences of paragraphs could be clearer but it answers the question well. 5 out of 5 stars.

Marked by teacher Natalya Luck 26/07/2013

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 British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    How serious a threat did the Puritans pose to Elizabeth I and her Church?

    4 star(s)

    Lockyer explains how 'this was a clear invasion of the Queen's prerogative...but they were up against men who would let nothing stand in the way of religious truth' and argues that it showed 'how the puritans were shifting their attack from matters of detail - adiaphora- to the central question

  2. Describe how Cavour, Garibaldi, Mazzini and Victor Emmanuel II helped to bring about the ...

    He was a guerrilla leader (Thousand red shirt) who provided Italy with the necessary military force. He led the 'Red Shirts' to conquered Sicily in August and invaded Naples. Soon, they took the Southern Italy. In the situation, Italy was divided into Northern Italy and Southern Italy. So Cavour persuaded Victor Emmanuel II to send troops to stop Garibaldi from taking states.

  1. How effective was Henry VII’s government?

    Due to his situation, Henry faced some challenges to his throne earlier in his reign, when his government was still developing. In 1497 he demanded extra taxes needed to raise revenue with which to pay for a projected invasion of Scotland.

  2. Causes of the French Revolution

    Montesquieu said that parliament should make the laws of a country, not the king. Locke said that kings should share power. King Louis had sent an army to America to help them overthrow their king. This cost a fortune and Louis was running out of money.

  1. Intertextuality in John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman.

    This can be found thematically in his description of every major character in the novel. With his twentieth-century hindsight, the narrator is able to note that each character possesses some traits of a past culture while exhibiting new traits, which may or may not be selected for existence.

  2. Why was the Death penalty abolished in the 1960s?

    the death penalty for five years, with the amendment 'that abolition would expire in five years unless it was directly implemented again by both houses to keep it permanent', in the House of Commons on December 1964 for the third time it was passed by an outstanding vote of '200 votes to 98', as shown by Uschanov.

  1. Constitutional Nationalism succeeded in achieving its aims whereas revolutionary nationalism failed and cultural nationalism ...

    However, although the rebellion itself seemed to be a dismal failure it is important to consider the success that Emmet achieved in the aftermath of his rebellion and even in his death. The legacy of Emmet and his rebellion on Irish history has had arguably greater impact than the rebellion.

  2. To what extent was Mary I successful in her attempt to re-impose Catholicism in ...

    However the papal headship didn't have complete control, e.g. in 1557, the new and anti-Spanish Pope (Paul IV) stripped Pole of his legateship and demanded that he returned to Rome which he faced charges of heresy. But Pole ignored this and when the Pope sent a new legate to England

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