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

To What Extent Were the Reforms of Alexander II Intended to Preserve and Strengthen Autocracy?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Window-dressing by a Tsar whose real intention was to preserve and strengthen autocracy." How far do you agree with this verdict on the reforms of Alexander II? Alexander II was a great reformer as Tsar. Alexander reformed local government, the legal system, the economy, the education system, censorship, the military and abolished serfdom. These massive achievements gave Alexander the deserved title of "Tsar Liberator". However, it is clear that in some respects Alexander was just trying to strengthen the Tsar's autocracy. There is sufficient evidence to show that Alexander was not as much of reformer as his various reforms portrayed. The various flaws in each reform do detract from the "Tsar Liberator" status, but despite this, Alexander II still brought about a great sea change in Russia that saw many aspects of the country vastly improved, autocrat or not. The most significant of reforms that Alexander II implemented during his reign as Tsar was definitely the abolition of serfdom. Alexander II carried on Nicholas I's sympathy towards the first, and sought to remove serfdom from Russian society. A year before setting up a Committee to investigate the issue of Serfdom in 1857, Alexander said, "It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to await the time when its abolition would begin from below without any action on our part." ...read more.

Middle

The reforms were also a genuine move to improve the poor reputation of Russia in terms of human rights and to dispel the image of unjust courts in Russia. Alexander II also chose to meddle very little with the new legal system; once the Tsar appointed new judges it was incredibly difficult to remove them. This aspect was highlighted in the Vera Zasulich case were a women revolutionary attempted to assassinate the mayor of St Petersburg. Zasulich was found not guilty by a jury in case that could have seen the Tsar interfere, but instead Alexander stuck true to his reforms and let the case proceed as usual. This was a sign that Alexander wanted the Russian legal system to move forward and to modernise Russia. However, like all his reforms the legal reforms had their flaws. The serfs and peasants were only allowed to be tried by the Mir courts, so 83% of Russia's population had no trial by jury available to them. This aspect was incredibly unjust from the serfs and detracted from largely liberal reform. A possible reason why serfs were not allowed trail by jury was that if Alexander granted them this, he could risk further angering the nobles who now had to go through for complex legal procedures than before and could not bribe officials as had previous been the case. ...read more.

Conclusion

There were vast reforms in financial control, taxation and new sources of income were exploited. Annual budgets were also published and the economy was definitely starting to get back on its feet. Alexander II did not have much to gain in terms of strengthening his power over Russia, it was clear that Alexander had to reform the economy in order for this many other reforms to function fully. Despite the reform of the economy, inflation worsened and national debt rose due to the Russo-Turkish War. In conclusion, Alexander II was without a doubt a great reformer. His vast reforms, which I have spoken about broke Russia out of a previously archaic system. Alexander II also took huge risks with these reforms. With his education reforms being very liberal he risked coming under fire from the new breed of students that his reforms created, the same was the case with the new breed of lawyers that the legal reforms created. This put Alexander's absolute power at risk, but still he was brave enough to push through the reforms for the benefit of Russia. Alexander II did give the serfs a raw deal in many of his reforms, but he did take the crucial first step in their complete liberation and with it left hi mark on Russian society. Like any Monarch, Alexander II was not perfect, but his reforms completely changed the face of Russia and it society, mostly for the better. ...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

    To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his ...

    5 star(s)

    This shows that Stalinism was built on the foundations of the Leninist state, although it may have taken a shape Lenin would not have approved of. However historians such as Robert Service argue that "the passage from Leninism to the worse horrors of Stalinism was neither smooth nor inevitable"23.

  2. How successful was Alexander II in transforming Russian Society

    The church, as a powerful weapon of the government had to retain the loyalty of the people, especially after the abolition of serfdom. In 1868, reforms meant the most talented and educated priests could be promoted within the church, and furthermore, Russia began to accept Polish Catholicism and relaxed her stance on the Jews and promoted the Finnish language.

  1. Causes of show trials + purges of 1930s.

    against leading party members as well as being a warning to others. Enemy Of The People: This term was used to describe those who were victims of the purges. Although it was a typical; communist phrase, it was a vague term that enabled the government to take action on a range of supposed offensives.

  2. To what extent did Alexander II deserve his title of the Tsar Liberator

    The law reforms were needed after the injustice between the rich and the poor was highlighted by the existing system. The poor were presumed guilty; there were no juries or lawyers; and the judges were heavily influenced by the police.

  1. How significant was Piotr Stolypin in attempting to strengthen Tsarism between 1906 and 1911?

    in the short term, his plan was set over 20 years, but his assassination in 1911 meant only 9 years of the reforms had been taken into effect, and after his death, they were downgraded and minimal further action was taken.

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

    But decrees on free farmers and serfs have been carried out on a limited scale only.[4]? In addition, the historian Bruce Lincoln offered another important interpretive. He said that the emancipation of Serfs was a long process; he argued that The Edict of Emancipation was drafted by a generation of

  1. To What Extent Did Alexander II fundamentally transform Russia?

    The economy was therefore affected, with up to a 23% decline in agricultural holdings in some parts of Russia. Serfs would be tied to a village by the redemption paymentsthat were spread over 49 years. This contradicts Alexander II's invention of expanding people's culture by issuing passports.

  2. Did Alexander II deserve the title Tsar Liberator?

    This reform would not earn Alexander II the title of Tsar Liberator, because although it was a good idea and a step towards liberating the public and letting them have their say, the system put in place was corrupt and was not an accurate representation of the population, therefore it

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