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

How far was the death of Alexander II a turning point in the development of modern Russia?

Extracts from this document...


How far was the death of Alexander II a turning point in the development of modern Russia? Alexander II, the son and the successor of Nicholas I, succeeded the throne to become emperor of Russia after his father's death in 1855. During his reign as being the Emperor of Russia, Alexander II gained the name, Alexander the Liberator or was also known as being the 'Tsar Liberator'. Alexander II is well known for being the 'Tsar Liberator' after a range of reforms, which were introduced under influence after the humiliating defeat for Russia in the Crimean War, and Russia was left in a state of bribe taking, theft and corruption everywhere to be found. Whilst his reign, the Tsar Liberator brought in the most modernising change to Russia, during 1861 Alexander II abolished serfdom with the emancipation of the serfs, which was a turning point for Russia. In addition, Alexander II played a key role in helping to improve and to modernise the communication over the large continent of Russia itself by introducing a system of railways. Overall Alexander II's reign would help to reflect the hard work and effort that Alexander II adapted whilst adopting the idea of change to modernise Russia and to impose the idea of Russification. The reforms of Alexander II however, whilst they seemed to have outraged many reactionaries, were still regarded as being too moderate by the liberals and the radicals. ...read more.


In addition whilst the Emancipation of the Serfs was introduced as being the freedom of the Serfs, Alexander III still placed restrictions on this reform and therefore the Peasant independence was reduced. Restrictions were placed on Peasantry freedom in fear, to avoid the happenings of any revolts by the Peasants due to their freedom. To modernise Russia, the modern standards of the power of the Repression was not seen as being an overwhelming element, however instead the restrictions which were placed across the state were considered as being widespread. Writer, teachers, local councillors, peasants, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Finns, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Estonians, reformers, editors and students were all apart of the growing state control under Alexander III. These groups of people were seen as a disturbance towards the idea of Russification, and thus further the Bureaucracy, police and the army were to be dedicated to enforce religious, racial and national orthodoxy whilst Russia was an Orthodox country. To introduce the idea of Russification further, Alexander III introduced change towards the educational system. The idea of Russification, Alexander III's political ideal of a nation, which contained only one nationality, one language, one religion and only one form of administration, was successfully created. This was done by, imposing the Russian language as well as the Russian Schools on the German, Polish and all other nationalities present in Russia at the time who were not Russian. ...read more.


In addition to this, in conclusion, I believe that the Crimea War can be seen as being more significant towards the development of Russia, because it brought about different change, and the change which was reflected from the defeat and humilation that was suffered by Russia. Even though the changes which were brought about by the Crimea war by Alexander II, only lasted a short period of time before being slightly reveresed by Alexander III, they were more effective upon Russia, than the death of Alexander II, the reforms enforcer himself. Crimea had done reflect the weakness of Russia, especially the miliarty which was made up of peasants, which led to the Emancipation of the Serfs, even though thereafter this didn't help to improve the conditions of the peasants."These reforms improved the army, which was Alexander's goal, yet they failed to solve domestic problems. The emancipation didn't bring on any significant change in the condition of the peasants. In some regions it took peasants nearly 20 years to obtain their land. As Russia became more industrialised, larger, and far more complicated, the inadequacies of autocratic Tsarist rule became increasingly apparent". Overall Crimea War has more of an effect on the modernisation of Russia, than the death of Alexander II, because after the death of Alexander II, the modernisation reforms and strategies were reversed by his son Alexander III. ...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 International History, 1945-1991 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 International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    Since 1921 they had farmed their own plots and many had become increasingly wealthy. They had achieved their age-old aim. Change in agriculture was fundamental to economic growth. * Under the NEP food production rapidly returned to pre-World War One levels, with the emergence of some richer peasants, or Kulaks as they were known, who employed others.

  2. To What Extent Were the Reforms of Alexander II Intended to Preserve and Strengthen ...

    Primary education was brought to Mir villages and towns and implemented by the Zemstva and Duma respectively. This reform was a great success and between 1861-1881 the number of children receiving primary education quadrupled. In 1863 Golvonin implemented the secularisation of education from the church, and incredible reform seeing as

  1. How far did government policies change towards agriculture in Russia in the period 1856-1964? ...

    the peasants.[55] The Zemstvo led the way ? Prince Lvov organising famine relief in his province of Tula.[56] From the intelligentsia: Tolstoy, the famous writer, and the playwright Chekhov organised soup canteens and treatment for cholera victims respectively.[57] However, had the Tsarist government not taxed consumer goods so heavily, the

  2. How far can the impact of the depression be seen as a key turning ...

    treaty help regain the support of the Allies, but he felt that trying to fulfil the treaty's terms was the only way Germany could demonstrate that the reparations bill was truly beyond its capacity, and this approach paid off with the creation of the Dawes Plan, a system aimed to

  1. Was Alexander II more successful than Alexander III in coping with the problems ...

    The Zemstovs allowed people to have more representation at a local level, they were places where people could go to express opinions. The development of education and legal reforms also appeared as though the regime was becoming more liberal and to a certain extent this was true as people enjoyed

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

    (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)

  1. How far did Alexander III successfully solve the problems he faced in 1881, by ...

    his empire to make it more like Western and central Europe - how they have an elective parliament and reformed autocracy, he overcome this problem by ordering Okhrana to censor all the foreign books and newspapers to prevent dangerous foreign ideas such as democracy and parliamentary government to reach to the mind of Russian people?s mind.

  2. How far could the fall of the Tsars be considered the most significant turning ...

    which had belonged to the state, the church, nobility and gentry, showing that they were no longer under autocratic rule and were in a better position socially. This Romanov success is reinforced by Christopher Hill[4], who wrote, ?Lenin deserves great credit in leading the oppressed of Russia?.

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