• 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

    The Second Five Year Plan 1933-1937 The Third Five Year Plan 1938-1941 aborted by the German invasion of Russia in 1941 * The NEP had been built on centralised state planning - the chief industries were state owned and controlled.

  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 ...

    Moreover, the 1921 ban on Factions limited the ability of lower down members in the party to challenge decisions made by the leadership. The fact that Lenin was too ill to enforce his wishes on diluting the power of the leadership illustrates that this was all set up for Stalin

  2. How far do you agree that a study of Russian government in the period ...

    This became very similar to the autocracy that was under the Tsar's rule. In comparison to the previous difference this 'higher' communist elite group completely backfires on Lenin's ideologies of equality and is a sign towards him just being a 'Red Tsar' hiding beneath a communist mask.

  1. How far did the reforms during the period 1826-39 contribute to the eventual fall ...

    They were becoming a law unto themselves and were now even unable to fight; they were less soldiers, and more private citizens who just so happened to be on the military payroll. My argument is strengthened by R. G. Grant, who agrees that 'the Janissaries, once so admired, became a

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

    It also decided how much a farm could keep for its subsistence and the amount of money to be given as payment to collective famers: often very little leaving most farmers worse off than before serfdom.[18] This attack on the living standards of the peasantry goes to show the extent

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

    the February Revolution because the government was not able to call on the army to suppress an inevitable uprising. Without the disastrous First World War that undermined the country?s leadership, the government would still have had the support of the army like in 1905.

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

    until 1903, and the start Peter Stolypin's agricultural reforms. Here, once again, there was mixed success. On the one hand, in 1911, 90 per cent of households were still strip farming, and the repartitioning of arable land failed to catch on in the central regions where land hunger and overpopulation were at their worst.

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