How effectively did Alexander II cope with the problems he faced on his succession?

Authors Avatar by beccajohnson (student)

As Alexander ascended the throne in 1855, he inherited a country whose problems were being starkly exposed, through the impending  defeat in the Crimean war .Thus Russians illusion of themselves as a superior nation were being shattered, as the realisation of the countries backwardness in, comparison to the West, was being made painfully clear. The problems that induced this backwardness can be placed into four broad divisions, economic stagnation, outmoded military and an inefficient judicial system all of which were underpinned by the rigid repression of education, with harsh censorship methods.  When judging how effectively Alexander coped with these problems, the changes that occurred throughout his rein in solving the problems will be assessed. Due to the nature of the period after the war, many of Alexanders coping methods were in fact, and had to be, reforms. This need for reform is demonstrated by Alexander admitting the need to “reform from above” rather than wait for the reform to be forced “from below”. Overall, however, it can be concluded that Alexander coped ineffectively with the problems as although he is named the “reforming tsar” many of his reforms were not successful, due to his duality approach with his wish to retain autocratic rule whilst still attempting to modernise the nation. After his attempted assignations in 1866, many of his reforms were tightened, the window of relaxation had, however, formed a hunger for more liberal policies. The fact that Alexander, eventually, was assignation heralds the lack of inefficiency of being able to cope and deal with the problems that he faced.

On his succession Alexander was met with a backward, stagnated economy; essentially modelled on the trading of the serfs.  The serf system was failing on almost all accounts; the serfs themselves lived subsistent lives, whilst still paying taxes, meaning they had a lack of money to spend, and thus bolster the economy. The lords who owned the serfs were also in some difficultly as in 1860 60% of all private serfs being mortgaged to the state.  The serfs, further, came as a part of the land preventing the market of free labour, resulting in a stagnated economy, where it was widely felt even among Slavophil’s that serfdom had run its cause. In an attempt to uplift the economy, and among other factors, Alexander implemented the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. This did not, however, have the desired effect. The emancipation proved difficult, as questions such as who should own the land were inhibiting the policy. Serfs lost land, as they only were able to maintain 80% of and they had previously used, resulting in low productivity. The land they did use, they now had to pay higher taxes upon and had to pay redemption payments to the landowners lasting for 49 years. This huge length of time meant that many serfs were not actually emancipated for 49 years, as they were still under control of the Lords through the payments. Furthermore the landowners, many of who had already been debt lost  wealth, as they lost land, loss ownerships of serfs and the redemption payments were mostly spent paying off old debts. The appointment of Reutern as fiaiance minster did show some promising effects; he focused on increasing railways, which was shown by an increase of tracks by 7 fold from 1862-1878. The ‘break bulk’ of the trains was an attempt to bolster the economy, through transporting heavy industry goods. However, much of the railway projects, were placed in the hands if private contractors, where the government promised to bail them out if contractors came into difficulty. This encouraged corruption, as individual contractors were being bailed out money when it was not needed, resulting in less money for public spending. Furthermore little profit was made on the railways, demonstrating the failure of Alexanders coping mechanisms to bolster and modernise the economy. Reuterns aims were further cut short, by the Turkish war of 1877. Overall, anyone would have struggled to swiftly turn the failing serf system into a modern economy.  The industrial output grew about 6% in some of the years of Reuterns, the economic situation of the masses, as a whole, declined under Alexander, shown by the price of bread actually doubling; demonstrating that the underlying economic issues were not coped with effectively by Alexander. Furthermore the advances made under Reuterns were short term, and still minimal in comparison to the western superpowers economies, the very nations Russia was looking to compete with. The issue of serfs also extended to a military level as well as economic, leading onto the next problem that Alexander faced his outmoded military.

Join now!

Russia’s military had been humiliated and proved unable to cope with modern war fare, the army was made up of conscripted serfs who served a 25 year service period, with harsh often barbaric punishments, such as the ‘running of the gauntlet’. This resulted in an inefficient, unmotivated army who lacked the technical advancements of the industrialised western armies.  The reforms of the army were one of the most successful reforms that Alexander implemented, to cope with the militaries enrooted problems. The partial success was partly due to the fact that Alexander put his full force behind them; as a successful ...

This is a preview of the whole essay