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

In the same year as the emancipation act, 1861, a new Minister of War, Dmitri Milyutin, was appointed by Alexander II, for the purpose of overseeing a major overhaul in Russia's military. His aim was to shape the army into a more meritocratic body, where the officer class was far less elitist – military colleges were allowed to accept non-noble recruits, promotion became more open, and privates were enabled to rise to an officer rank on merit alone - combined with Emancipation (which Milyutin pushed for), this meant that more of the population than ever where eligible to become officers. As well as this, new and better equipment was introduced (for example rifles, and ironclad steam-ships), as well as better transport (in the form of strategic railways) for troops, provisions and medical care for soldiers. In addition to this, administration and structure were updated, as was conscription (which from 1875 did not apply to convicts but did apply to men of all classes over the age of 21), flogging was abolished and the number of offences punishable by capital punishment were reduced (to improve morale). He also ended militaty colonies, reduced the size of annual conscription and the length of service – all in order to create a smaller, more effective (and professional), and less expensive army (and in spite of great opposition by the nobility all his reforms were passed and successful. In addition, the victory against the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, only served to show that there had been progress; however given that the Ottoman empire was in decline, it cannot necessarily be taken as proof that the Russian army was particularly powerful. In contrast, the 1904 Russo-Japanese war (which ultimately proved the catalyst for the 1905 revolution), and Russia's defeat, could be seen as evidence to suggest that perhaps the reforms under Alexander II were not as successful as they first seemed. However, ultimately defeat was largely due to the fact the Nicholas II had never anticipated a war (or the surprise attack at Port Arthur), and that he and the military greatly underestimated Japan and its army as that of a relatively weak emerging power. In fact the military regime that was in control of Japan, meant it was highly efficient and focused on total war, especially when compared to the thinly spread, disorganised, and unprepared troops of the Russian army. Moreover, the fact that next to nothing had been done since Milyutin's reforms to keep the army up to date and abreast of any technological advancements, or any administrative or structural innovation, only compounded the issues. This absence of any maintenance is down not only to Nicholas II however, but also to Alexander III, who was more concerned with consolidating the authority of the autocracy and the newly formed secret police, the Okrana (formerly the Third Section), and defending against interior threats, as opposed to exterior ones. In spite of the humiliating defeat to Japan, and perhaps because of other events (such as the 1905 revolution) which drew attention away from the issue, very little was done subsequent to the war, in order to rectify the obvious issues with the army. Whilst the war did help to rally the population to the Tsar in support of the war effort for a short time, this very quickly died down as the problems with equipment, administration, and morale (there were some mutinies early on) were highlighted. Moreover, the Nicholas's brave yet foolish decision to take charge of the war effort in 1915 meant that he was left wide open for criticism when the inevitable military defeats came - ultimately of course, this was one of the largest contributory factors that led to the collapse of the Tsarist regime. On balance then, given that Nicholas II failed to lead Russia to victory on two occasions and failed to do anything to improve the army, and given that Alexander II, although he never lead Russia to defeat (or victory), did little more than him in terms of improving the army, Alexander II must obviously be taken as most successful in the area of ensuring his country was prepared to war. Not just was he the only out of the 3 to be victorious in a war, but when he had been defeated, he learnt from it and ensured that improvements were made.

Whilst the formation of the Okrana marked a lull in military policy, it simultaneously was a  manifestation of how the nature and attitude of the government altered under Alexander III. His approach took a much harder line than his fathers, largely due to Alexander II's assassination, but also because during his upbringing (and his time as leader), he had been heavily influenced by his very conservative tutor, Pobedonestov (who also went on to hold a similar sway over the earlier years of Nicholas II's ministry). Evidence of this can be seen in his counter-reforms, where he reversed his father's education reforms (such as allowing female students into universities), shelved the Loris Melikov plan (which would have brought the country a step closer to popular government and a constitutional democracy) and tightens censorship (however he kept post-publication censorship, as the hassle of reversing it entirely would be monumental). As well as this, he clamped down exceedingly heavily on revolutionary groups and any opposition to the government, extending the power and reach of the Okrana, implementing secret justice courts (which had no Jury, and only the most conservative judges, and which were reserved for political prisoners), and reducing the power of the Zemstvos (he was worried that they could potentially be too liberal or even revolutionary, and he greatly disliked the mixing of social groups). As such, he centralised them and implemented district governors (from the nobility), in order to consolidate the control of the upper class, and reduce what he saw as the potentially harmful influence the middle classes might be having on peasants. Alexander III also banned all student groups in his clamp down on revolutionary groups; however, as opposed to this being a reversal of his father's policy, in fact it served more as a continuation, as toward the end of his reign he started to draw away from his more liberal reforms, and back into a more traditional conservatism. Indeed, this can be seen as early on 1866, and the introduction of the very orthodox and conservative Dimitri Tolstoy, as Minister of Education (who not only cut back on university intakes, but also implemented inspections to ensure that syllabuses were to the liking of the government). Conversely to Alexander II's move away from more liberal ideas, Nicholas II started out his reign with the wish to follow in his father's footsteps, and so continued attempted to continue repression of the Zemstvos, heavier censorship, and dealing harshly with any opposition (as he said subsequent to his coronation, in his eyes his duty was 'to maintain the principle of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father'). However, in the reverse of Alexander II, this soon died away, largely due to his apparent deficiency in leadership qualities, but also due to the events of 1905 and the new voice of the (slightly) lower sections of society (as made manifest by the creation of the Duma). Speaking frankly then, it is clear that Nicholas II's reign was something of a disaster in terms of keeping the nature of government in line with his own aims. Whilst Alexander II did indeed mould his government (and the country) toward his slightly more liberal leanings (and his more general goal of modernising the nation), the fact that he pulled back from this later on, shows a lack of faith in his own reforms to maintain the authority of the nobility (which was still a cornerstone of his beliefs). As Alexander III was the only Tsar of the three who made the government conform to his wishes in terms of its nature, he must be taken as most successful in this area.

Looking broadly at the period, a great deal of progress was made. However, this is not as important in the appraisal of the most successful Tsar, as to what extent they achieved their aims. As such, in spite of the fact that the greatest improvement in the lives of the population as a whole took place under Nicholas II, the fact that often these developments ran against his aims, and were often not completely in his control, highlights his weakness as a leader. Conversely, Alexander II made huge steps towards achieving his aim of modernisation, and whilst there were teething problems, much of the later progress could not have been achieved without the work he did; however, this ultimately clashed with his aim of preserving the superiority of the Aristocracy - something he could not allow. Alexander III's reign on the other hand, showed no such waver at any point in his reign. Whilst he may not have kept the army up to date, his focus was primarily domestic ('autocracy, orthodoxy, nationality'), and he had no aim to expand, or greatly boost Russia's military prowess. Alexander III was indeed the most sucessful Tsar of this period, primarly because he used the Tsarist autocracy to do what it did best – maintain the nobility, quash any opposition and promote traditional, right wing values.