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

Which Tsar was more autocratic-Alexander III or Nicholas II?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Which Tsar was more autocratic-Alexander III or Nicholas II? Pobedonostsev, who instilled in them strong beliefs in autocracy and nationalism, which were reflected throughout their reign, tutored both Tsars'. When comparing the two Tsars', the impact on the political and social system is significant and hints at which Tsar was more autocratic. Alexander and Nicholas were both autocratic politically, but Alexander was keener to uphold Autocracy. This involved setting up the Okhrana, as well as tightening censorship laws. Nicholas on the other hand made a significant impact on Russian history by introducing democracy to the Russian people, through the October Manifesto. ...read more.

Middle

Yet, a deeper analysis of both regimes can lead one to conclude that it was in fact Nicholas who was more autocratic. By transforming Russia into a modern democratic state, he also made his opposition more active and demanding, especially since they saw the power of the monarch decrease gradually in the western countries. Their protests became more politically motivated and some, such as the Bolsheviks even called for the collapse of Tsarism. Alexander responded to this with further repression, for example, the execution of the Vyborg in 1907. The pessimist school of History agrees that revolution was inevitable since Tsar Nicholas became more counter-productive further into his reign. ...read more.

Conclusion

Nicholas' impressive reforms, such as the national insurance act, Duma and success in economy cannot be paralleled with Alexander's lack of reform. Subsequently, it can be deduced that Alexander was more autocratic than Nicholas. Additionally, Alexander's program of Russification and hostility towards the Jews suggests he was a vicious and despotic leader, who was bound to be overthrown. Historians have described Alexander's period as one of counter-reform and when compared with Nicholas, it suggests that Alexander was more autocratic. In conclusion, Alexander was more autocratic than Nicholas. Interestingly, Alexander announced that he would abolish further reform and maintain autocracy on the day he came to power. Therefore, a reign of ruthlessness and terror, propelled by autocracy was an inevitable consequence. K. Kiani (KofE) ...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. Why and with what results did Alexander II abolish serfdom in Russia?

    Another popular explanation as to why Alexander emancipated the serfs was that he wanted to modernize Russia. Raising the productivity of the Russian economy was one of the main motives for embarking on the emancipation of the serfs. After the 1861 emancipation, he introduced many other reforms in the military,

  2. How successfully did Alexander III extend his authority throughout the Russian Empire?

    The result of this was the life of the peasants worsening greatly; their lives were becoming extremely difficult as they were living in fear of eviction as redemption payments were becoming too expensive to be met. Indirect taxes on items such as tea, sugar and vodka made things even more difficult for the peasants.

  1. The blance sheet for russia.

    In these years, there had been an unprecedented collapse of industry and agriculture. Inflation spiralled out of control. 1921 marked a year of further economic decline. The harvest reached a mere 37.6 million tons, only 43 per cent of the prewar average.

  2. Tsar Nicholas II

    This was also a long term cause of why the Tsar was bad and so it would have also affected any previous tsars as well. Another reason in which made Russia hard to govern is because it was and autocracy.

  1. "Alexander III bequeathed Nicholas II a revolution" (Trotsky) Discuss

    However the implications of this policy were so profound that a large standing army was needed to secure it from possible enemies within. This anger was created by Alexander's political ideal of a nation containing only one nationality, one language, one religion and one form of administration; and he imposed

  2. Reform followed by Reaction is a dangerous strategy for any government to follow and ...

    The people were outraged so in June 1907 there was a second Duma created. Nicholas didn't like that one either so he dissolved it. Finally, later in 1907, there was a third Duma but it was a joke and an illusion to democracy in Russia.

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

    with tax payments, they could stand to loose their land and home to the State. In many cases, the taxes levied was much higher than the value of the land and due to the interest rates of 6%, many peasants found it almost impossible ever to erase the debt.

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

    For example, the nobility, few in numbers, was represented disproportionately highly. It was common for about 40% of the seats on any one zemstva to be occupied by a member of the landed gentry. This somewhat compromised the decision-making power that the zemstva had, because proposals that disadvantaged the nobility could be thrown out quite easily.

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