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

How far do you agree that a study of Russia in the period from 1855 to 1917 suggests that change was always imposed from above?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far do you agree that a study of Russia in the period from 1855 to 1917 suggests that change was always imposed from above? As Russia adopted an autocratic regime, change was primarily always imposed from above; however, these changes were influenced and driven by the people below. Therefore I agree that change was imposed from the Tsar, as this was the nature of the regime, the divine right would implement change however I believe the people of Russia drove the changes to take place. Change was always imposed from above due to the nature of the government and the belief that the Tsar was chosen by God. The vast backward empire adopted an undemocratic political system with absolute monarchy, with the Tsar being the supreme autocrat ruler. His power was unquestionable, as it was alleged that God had given him the divine right to rule as desired. The Tsar exercised his power through a great bureaucracy, an army sworn to loyalty to the tsar and oppressive political policies. ...read more.

Middle

The humiliation and defeat of the Crimean war influenced change in which was inherited by Russia however these changes were imposed by the Tsar. However the October Manifesto was a changing point which suggests that not all change was imposed from above. Nicholas II was forced to appoint Russia's first Prime Minister, Count Witte, and announce his October Manifesto due to mass revolts; peasants were throwing the gentry out of their land and burning their homes and their was a great strike in the cities. This was something Nicholas had not genuinely wanted to do, however he was forced to by mass opposition to his reign, and the peasant revolts. Furthermore, his abdication in 1917 is a clear example of change not from above, but instigated by the people themselves. Nicholas II believed in absolute monarchy, however he was still forced to resign. During WW1, from 1915 onwards Nicholas II left for the front leaving Russia in chaos, and though the Duma formed a Provisional Government to try to restore order it was impossible to turn the tide of revolutionary change. ...read more.

Conclusion

Alexander III's strict treatment of the people is often attributed to his mentor the holy Synod Pobedonostsev, who was a firm believer in the absolute authority of the monarch. It's clear that Alexander III was not led by the public, by his refusal to sign the constitution his father had been forced to. Under Alexander II and Nicholas I the people did have considerable influence in how Russia was led, however under Alexander III this was not the case. The Provisional Government was also led by the people, because they lacked the authority to pass any laws. They were utterly undermined by the Bolsheviks, who organised the masses which countered them, and their inability to organise elections meant they were eventually run out of power. Overall, under Alexander II, Nicholas I, and The Provisional Government, the people of Russia did have considerable leverage over the change they saw in their country. Under Alexander III this was not so much the case, however it's clear that the statement 'change was always implemented from above' is true however the people had a massive amount of influence. ...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. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    Never mind the quality, meet the target! * Workers would move from job to job to get higher wages, managers would do anything to ensure they met the target, and of course public announcements showed that targets had not only been met, but had been exceeded. * The Second and Third Five Year Plans had more realistic targets, which were usually met.

  2. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    However, this led to further resentment of the Tsar since the peasants were in debt to the autocrat. Nicholas II inherited Russia post emancipation of the serfs. Consequently, this made the peasants 'land hungry' because the land they were given was uncultivable and this meant they would starve, and so needed more land.

  1. How far does a study of the period 1855 to 1956 suggest that, following ...

    to create his totalitarian dictatorship - through several moderate changes to the system he had been allowed a very wide scope of power to use when he took power. Under the Tsars, great leaders such as Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great saw themselves as leaders who were enforcing

  2. Trotsky described war as the 'locomotive of history'. Can it be argued that change ...

    War had showed up Russia's need to speed up the process and affected domestic policy in order to make sure this was a realistic target. Stalin's speech in 1931 acknowledged that Russia was '100 years behind the West', Nicholas II's Russia received increased foreign loans from the Entente in order

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

    Stalin saw the peasants as a threat, and wished to break their spirit. During the famine of 1932-34[19] he prevented the movement of peasants from the countryside by blocking their access to trains ? OGPU officials checked the trains heading for the cities;[20] in affect entrapping the starving peasants.

  2. How far do you agree that WW1 was mainly responsible for the February Revolution ...

    The huge death toll and military failures also undermined domestic support for the war, this lead to a lack of supplies on the front line which encouraged mass desertion within the army by Christmas 1916. The faith that the Russian soldiers lost in the Tsar was a major element of

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

    However, it must not be forgotten that serfdom was a barrier to the industrialisation of the country, and emancipation was the largest step towards improving agriculture (which was neglected under Alexander III's reign, and during Witte's 11 years as Minister of finance)

  2. What were the mains reasons for the emancipation of Serfs in Russia?

    In fact, they themselves talked more freely of it. Indeed, the number of local peasant riots had notably increased since the 1840?s. These peasant riots were used as argument for reform by independent persons like Koshelyov, Samarin, or the historian K.D.

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