Another thing that had changed in Alexander III’s reign to make Russia seem unrecognisable in 1894 compared with 1881 was that the idea of reform was strongly opposed by him so Russia appeared to moving backwards instead of forwards in all aspects. Alexander III introduced a Manifesto that stated that the Tsar would be in charge of all political power. It presented a very conservative Russia where political and social stability was to be controlled and supported by autocracy, Russian nationalism and the Russian Orthodox Church. This shows how Russia had changed to become recognisable in 1894 because any idea of a constitution was rejected by the Tsar and represented Conservative ideas in his decision making. Russia…
When Alexander III took power in 1881, he introduced is manifesto in the April of that year stating all of his intention being the Tsar. With the assassination of his father by democrats, he did all in his power to avenge him by introducing laws, which went against democratic views.…
All state leaders across the whole period held qualities that didn’t please the whole of the population in Russia. During the reign of Alex II, the government showed some strength with controlling opposition from the peasantry through the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. It was thought that to prevent revolt from below, this was a key movement that had to be made, and therefore prevented future unrest and opposition. However, the new liberated serfs had to deal with more laws concerning land ownership with led to further unrest and repression in the peasantry by the state. The state moreover, appeased the most vocal critics but in such a way that allowed dissenters to express themselves in the knowledge that Tsar’s decision would be final. Compared to Nicholas II’s reign, this showed a decisive leading technique, as Nicholas’s style was more conservative, and showed weakness, relying on others’ advice to fuel his decisions. A key failure throughout his period was the mixed rule attempt with the Duma introduced from 1906 to 1917, it is arguable that Nicholas II made concessions only to keep opposition temporarily at bay and that his aim was to uphold the principle of autocracy.…
Many of the opposition fled to other European countries where they continued to plot against the Tsar. This shows how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress politically by exiling all of their possible contenders. This allowed the Tsar to have much more control over Russia much like before Alexander ll reign. The persecution of Jews caused many to join radical parties and organisations. This shows us how there was not even the slightest bit of democracy within Russia, and how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress. Another major problem in Russia was the growing population of peasants. This caused famines within Russia in 1892 and 1893. This famine was a cause of many peasants death which shows how Russia did not have the money or resources to keep up with their growing population. This showed a lack in progress as they could not even support their country’s people with…
| * The land given to the peasants was not of good quality, the peasants also had to pay the state long term installments. The peasants were also responsible to the village commune that forced them to pay their installments and not be free of the land. * The local assemblies couldn’t attain much because of the interruption of bureaucrats afraid that it would turn into a self –government. * Alexander’s reform policies led to increasing reform movements that led to a populist group assassinating him, making his son turn against any reform and go back to repression. His reform policies also set the foundation for the fall of Russia’s Monarchy in 1917.…
The defeat in the Crimean war was arguably the main reason why Alexander II made a series of reforms when he came into power. The devastating loss of the war proved the backwardness of Russia in relation to other powers and even though peasant unrest and the criticisms of serfdom were partially responsible for influencing Alexander II, the decision to make changes primarily came from the loss of the Crimean war.…
Alexander ll became Tsar in 1855 after succeeding Tsar Nicholas l and was regarded as a “liberator” throughout his time as Tsar, until an attempted assassination attempt on him in 1866 were he turned more reactionary. Alexander ll was assassinated in March 1881, he was not radical and believed in a slow and progressive change, due to this he gathered much opposition to him and was eventually killed by The Peoples Will, and this kicked off ‘the era of great reforms’ [5].…
An aspect of the Soviet Union that changed between 1801 and 1939 was the shift of the government from a czar ruled totalitarian government to a more distributed communist government. In March of 1801, Paul I was killed and his son Alexander I of Russia was appointed the ruler. Czar Alexander I was not too harsh of a leader. He led a government that was not too strict upon its people unlike his father. But this changed when the next czar came into power, Nicholas I in 1825. Anybody who was leading or supporting the Decembrist Revolt was executed. Nicholas I undid everything that Alexander I did. He censored media, ran secret police, and exiled 150,000 people. Alexander II was the next one in power who was extremely different from Nicholas I. He freed the serfs but did not let them leave. But he did allot power to the people by creating local councils called Zemstvos to give them control of their land and women the right to vote. Alexander III went back into a strict totalitarian government, censoring media and deploying secret police. Alexander III also wanted all Russian minorities to speak Russian and convert to Russian Orthodox. Russian Jews were specifically targeted; they had to live in ghettos and eventually many Jews fled to the United States. The last of the czars in this time period, Nicholas II, came into power in 1894. A decade after his appointment, over three thousand workers grouped outside the czar’s palace asking for reforms. The czar was not home, but he still did not approve the order to fire at the protestors. In order to bring back his name, he enabled a national assembly called Duma that would allow the people of Russia to elect. As one of his reforms, he gave more land to…
Undeniably, Nicholas II had an enormous role in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917. Whilst many historians argue the fall of the Tsarist regime to be the direct response and product of World War I, it is quite evident that it was Nicholas’ inefficient and fatal autocratic ruling which led to the March Revolution of 1917. The effects of Russia’s involvement in numerous wars only heightened and highlighted Nicholas’ unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and his absolute and stubborn belief in autocracy. Had Nicholas’ various choices throughout his reign differed, the Romanov Dynasty could in fact, have existed…
Austria and Prussia did not want to offend Alexander, so they joined their kingdoms to Alexander's creation, agreeing with Alexander that the "sublime truths" of Christianity ought to guide relations between nations and guide the domestic affairs of nations. Strong religious conviction, they held, was necessary for maintaining upright and loyal subjects. The rulers of Russia, Austria and Prussia agreed that challenges to their authoritarian rule by liberalism and revolution ought to remain suppressed. Within Russia, Tsar Alexander I had to reform the state of Russia quite a bit as territories such as Poland and Finland were at risk of being lost due to nationalistic movements within them . Therefore, the Tsar decided to try to unify Poland with Russia, giving them a similar constitution to the one in Russia. Being enlightened by western and philosophical theories, Alexander successfully modernized the highly traditional monarchy in Russia and began the process of creating a constitutional monarchy. It was Alexander who felt that the key to successful constitutional rule was the abolition of serfdom, an institution that dominated Russia for more than 600 years, in order to boost the nation’s economy. A plan to abolish…
Some may argue that Emancipation was an ultimately successful endeavour as it brought about both fundamental and necessary change, and whilst it is true that there were various factors that ensured the development of Russia from a backward thinking and archaic nation that relied very much on what was -in flourishing western countries – a repressive and outdated feudal system, the ill-considered and very evidently selfish way in which this much needed reform was executed meant that despite some factors, from which the development and modernisation of Russia’s class system itself were enabled, for Alexander II were exactly the opposite of what he had been attempting to achieve, in increasing his chances of retaining power by preventing revolution and furthering Russia’s position within the world. For this reason it is difficult to claim Emancipation was a success in terms of what the clearly power-conscious Tsar set out to accomplish, when many of its key aspects were redundant and others provided a catalyst for consideration of concepts of political activism or further revolution, an unwanted and unanticipated advancement,…
The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…
The first person to impact the fall of Imperial Russia was Nicholas II, the last Russian Emperor. In particular, Nicholas’ coronation marked the beginning of a downward spiral for the Romanov family. Tsar Nicholas II was born on May 6, 1868 and was the eldest son of Alexander III (Levykin, 1999). Nicholas II had to assume the throne earlier than the Russian population would have liked. Nicholas’ father fell ill in the spring of 1894 and his health never fully recovered. On October 20th, 1894, Alexander III died of nephritis, forcing Nicholas to become the next Tsar of Russia at a young age (Lincoln, 1976). After the untimely death of his father, Nicholas was in dismay about becoming Tsar of Russia, a position he never really wanted. This is exemplified when Nicholas II refers to being the Tsar as, “the awful job I have feared all my life” (Massie, 1967, p. 59). To further Nicholas’ fears, the Russian people and government believed he didn’t have enough political training to rule Russia effectively (Harcave, 1968).…
The Russian Revolution was one of the most important revolutions in history. Just like the French people, Russians got tired of being treated unfairly by the Higher classes, and so decided to revolt against them. However unlike the French, they could not be satisfied, or entertained for long by a single revolution, reason why they did many revolts. Each time retreating at its middle, until they finally were annoyed and determined enough to overthrow the Government and change their lives as they knew it. Even so, that wasn’t the only cause of the Russian Revolution, along the many revolts came various relevant causes and events, but only few of them stood out, with such importance to today’s history of the causes for the Russian…
Nicholas seemed not to understand the real nature of the problems his nation and his dynasty faced. Firstly, what the tsar’s power showed was how little Russia had advanced politically compared with other European nations. By the beginning of the twentieth century all major western European countries had some form of democratic or representative government. Not Russia, it had remained outside the mainstream of European political thought. There had been reforming tsars (Peter I, Alexander II) but achievements had not included the extension of political rights. In Russia in l894 it was a criminal offence to oppose the tsar or government, political parties had no legal right to exist, there had never been a free press in imperial Russia and government…