• 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

    Lenin famously said 'Socialism was state power plus electrification'. * Gosplan produced figures and targets for industrial production from 1924 onwards. It was in 1928 that the first Five Year Plan was announced. * An army of state planners, about 500,000 in Moscow, tried to plan increases down to the last detail.

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

    weakness through their political intriguing and their conservatism, which obstructed military reform'.xiv Although Grant is correct, the Janissaries did obstruct military reform, they helped to defend the empire's citizens against the Sultan's excesses, as Maksudoglu argues, '[after 1826] top officials lived a luxurious and corrupt life, while the government borrowed

  1. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    From 1850 to 1875, the coal production in Russia more than quintupled from 300,000 tonnes to 1,700,000 tonnes. Although this seems like huge progress, Nicholas II had come to power when Russia needed more resources than the other Great Powers, since the Russian Empire was huge but undeveloped, especially in comparison to Britain.

  2. 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.

  1. 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

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

    So, there was a favorable environment despite the disagreement of land owners. It is possible to see that there was a favorable environment for the emancipation because, during the last years before the edict of emancipation, the conscious desire of the serfs themselves for liberation had grown stronger.

  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. British dominance was unrivalled during the period of 1850-1929. How far do you agree ...

    As a nation, it also managed to create an influence in the newly found banking and financial system based in London, unearthing prosperity and uniqueness for the country, as well as the rest of the world. Despite its size, Britain managed to become the workshop of the world and the world?s banking house by 1870.

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