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

To what extent is the title “Tsar Liberator” a true description of Alex II?

Extracts from this document...


To What Extent is the Title "Tsar Liberator" a True Description of Alex II? In 1855, Alex II came to power. He inherited a country with many problems. Economically Russia was backwards compared to many of the European powers. Socially, his people were isolated, disorganised and poorly educated. Politically his country was coming to a time of upheaval. To solve these problems, the Tsar was to bring in many reforms aimed at 'liberating' the people. This essay will examine to what extent he can truly be described as a Tsar Liberator. Traditionally the leader of Russia was called TSAR. The first Tsar was called Ivan III who came in 1480, and since then all Tsars have been AUTOCRATS. This means they had complete power over Russia and they did not take any consolation from anyone. Therefore, all the decisions made concerning Russia, was decided by only them. The Tsars believed in by having total power over Russia, this would help prevent excessive rich landowners from having too much power and managing the country. They also had a secret police force, called the OKHRANA, which was based in St Petersburg, which spied on everyone. Anyone who disagreed and spoke out against the government was shot or sent to Siberia. The Russian Orthodox Church supported the Tsar, with priests in each town and village educating the Russian people that he was the "Little Father" of them all and that they must follow him. ...read more.


Each serf was granted an allocation according to the area they owned. The serfs that were set free had to pay back to the State redemption taxes for 49 years, including interest at 6 %. Only when they had paid this, they would have full ownership of the land. Although, they were entitled to work on the Lord's land to pay off the redemption of the land. A peasant could only separate from his land from the commune when granted with consent of the mir, until the redemption tax was paid. The State peasants received much better treatment, but they had to wait a few more years until 1866 for their freedom. They were allowed plots of land on average over twice the size of what the private serfs received. The Household serfs received worst treatment; they had received no land but were still allowed freedom. Emancipation was both approved and chastised at the time. The peasants now owned less land than what they had before and on top of it they had to pay a redemption tax higher than the land was really worth. The landowner usually reserved the best land for himself, leaving the peasants with lands in horrible conditions especially in bad climates. Many peasants faced economic difficulties. It was due partly to the increasing amount of redemption and poll tax debts. ...read more.


The people had a lot more freedom because they were allowed to join the army even though they weren't wealthy . With the reforms in force, expectations were raised for the Tsar, which the Tsar would never be able to gratify. Especially the demands for a constitution and a national assembly. These were never granted. In the 1870's, young members of the gentry and the intelligentsia still weren't satisfied with Russia's political system and they were determined to change it. They believed that the future of Russia laid on their backs and it was their duty to fight back against the political system and they planned to do this by rousing the peasants into action. There were plenty of arrests in Moscow and St Petersburg. The movement was over with in a few months. But not all were arrested; few escaped and continued with the revolt by setting up a campaign called "Land and Liberty". The revolutionary opposition remained being taken care of the few that were still revolting until the next century. I believe that the title "Tsar Liberator" is not true because Alexander wasn't a liberator truthfully. He did not liberate the people for their own good, but only for his good so he could remain in power. He treated the people badly and tricked them into believing he was going to unify and liberate their country. Which wasn't true at all. Word Count: 1,776 Gabrielle Siracuse 12 MB History Essay- Standard 05/01/07 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 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 GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Why did Alexander II Emancipate the Serfs in 1861?

    5 star(s)

    by either the selfish conservatism of the land owners or the foolish violence of the revolutionaries is a myth."[11][11] It is this which plausibly suggests that Alexander was never really planning to change anything to any reforming extent, but just wanted to appease all members of society.

  2. Why and with what results did Alexander II abolish serfdom in Russia?

    A revolution would have meant giving up the tsar's unique autonomous control of the country, which was not something Alexander was prepared to do. After extensive tours of Russia, often stopping in desolate little villages, Alexander knew what the situation was like for those swamped by poverty.

  1. To what extent did the emancipation of the serfs in Russiain 1861 improve the ...

    On one hand there is a lot of evidence showing that the serfs lives improved significantly. The peasants would be considered free citizens. They would be free to marry who ever they chose to, own their own property, take legal action, engage in trade or business and, maybe most importantly, could no longer be bought or sold.

  2. "Despite his reputation as the 'Tsar Liberator', Alexander II had failed to satisfy the ...

    He was once again found guilty and sentenced to death. This sentence was then changed and he was passed onto the Russian government who later exiled him to Siberia. He managed to escape from Siberia and went to London where he met Alexander Herzen.

  1. Did the reforms of Alexander the second qualify him as the Tsar Liberator.

    If the Crimean war had not had happened would Alexander have emancipated the serfs? And would all the reforms have happened. A lot of historians believe that Alexander emancipated the serfs and made most of his reforms to autocracy rather than replace it.

  2. 'To What Extent Did Tsar Alexander III's Reign Mark A Major Change From That ...

    Van der Kiste appraises that once the Tsarevich was married that the Tsar had stopped taking an interest in preparing his son for the enormity of the occupation that lay before him. The Tsar, unlike his father had very little preparation for the office of Tsar, and was all the more unprepared due to the suddenness of his death.

  1. To what extent does Alexander II deserve the title

    Alexander the second didn't really get any gratitude from the serfs and lost respects of the nobility. This level of resentment did not, nevertheless, create a strong challenge to the autocracy because of the largely uneducated peasantry.

  2. How valid is the view that the reign of, Alexander II achieved nothing of ...

    Running contrary to the normal authoritarian principles of tsarism, democratically-elected assemblies were formed in the countryside to give ordinary people a limited influence in the administration of their respective area. These assemblies were called zemstva, and were responsible for the conduct of local affairs with relation to education, transport, health, public welfare and the local economy.

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