Alexander II's Title as Tsar Liberator
Amid the Crimean Warå…‹é‡Œç±³äºžæˆ°çˆ of 1854-56, Alexander II阿æ·å±±å¤§äºŒä¸–
succeededç¹¼ä½ to the throneçš‡ä½ of the Romanov Dynastyç¾…æ›¼è«¾å¤«çš‡æœ of Czarist
Russia. Russia was finally defeated. He saw hopes of Russia's recovery
in reforms. During his reign在ä½æœŸé–“ in 1855-81, Alexander II carried out
a broad reform programme, covering the Emancipation of Serfs解放農奴,
establishment of zemstva地方è°æœƒ, judicialå¸æ³•, educational, economic and
military reforms as well as relaxation放寬 of press censorshipå ±åˆŠæª¢æŸ¥.
Mosse莫斯 named him the "Czar Liberator沙皇解放者". Yet the failure of the
reforms led to revolutionary plots陰謀 and he was even assassinated被暗殺
in 1881.
From the lessons教訓 of Russia's defeat in the Crimean War, Alexander II
concluded that the root of many Russian problems was the outdated
serfdom農奴制度. Both Czars Alexander I 阿æ·å±±å¤§ä¸€ä¸– (1801-25) and Nicholas
Iå°¼å¤æ‹‰ä¸€ä¸– (1825-55) had condemnedè´è²¬ this system. Owing to political
crises (frequent peasant riotsæš´å‹•), humanitarianism人é“主義, liberalism, as
well as needs of military, industrial and agricultural developments,
the "Czar Liberator" issued the Emancipation Edict of Serfs 解放農奴詔令 in
1861.
By the Edict, 34.4% of the Russian population was freed. The
government bought both lands and serfs from landlords. Mirs公社 were set
up to manage the serfs. Yet ex-serfså‰è¾²å¥´ were required to repayå„Ÿé‚„ the
redemption money贖身費 for 49 years with interest. Besides, they needed
to shoulderè‚©è² èµ· the soul taxéˆé‚稅 and pay rents for the lands. Before...
... middle of paper ...
...itæ ¸æ•¸ were improved. After 1862 the budget was made
public.
In a nutshell總而言之, Alexander II's reform programme was not effective
enough to solve Russia's problems but created more. The life of
peasants and workers was not improved. The gentry were angry about the
loss of privileged status and insufficient government compensation.
Mosse says, "The terms of the liberation were a compromise which could
satisfy neither of the main social groups." As discussed above, many
of his "liberal experiment自由實驗" even sowed the seedsæ’下種å of the
Russian Revolutions. He did not deserve值得 the name "Czar Liberator",
either, as he carried out reforms from above. Nevertheless, it was so
brave of him to conduct such a comprehensive reform programme, and he
did make much contribution to Russia's modernization.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
After the assassination of Alexander the Great in 1881 by Russian socialist revolutionaries, Alexander III ascended to the throne and began to develop a reactionary policy that would be used to suppress the power of anti-tsarist rivals (Kort 23). In the late 1800s, Tsar Alexander III was faced with growing insurrection from the populist peasants, who were demanding more freedoms and land under the Tsarist regime. However, he was unwilling to give up his traditional centralized authority for a more democratic system of ruling. Instead, he sought political guidance from his advisor, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, an Orthodox religious conservative and loyal member of the Russian autocracy. Pobedonostsev was quick to hound revolutionaries by means
This meant that Alexander II would need to somehow release the serfs from their owner’s land. Another reason for emancipation was made clear in a quote from Alexander II in March 1856: “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to await the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below”. This shows that emancipation was going to be used as a tool to solve two problems facing Alexander II. However, in order for emancipation to succeed another reform had to occur which was land reforms. However, Alexander II did not want the political system of Russia to change whilst the economic transformation was occurring.
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
While most of Europe had develop strong central governments and weakened the power of the nobles, Russia had lagged behind the times and still had serfs as late as 1861. The economic development that followed the emancipation of peasants in the rest of Europe created strong industrial and tax bases in those nations. Russian monarchs had attempted some level of reforms to address this inequality for almost a century before, and were indeed on their way to “economic maturity” (32) on par with the rest of Europe. But they overextended themselves and the crushing defeats of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the First World War in 1917 lost them the necessary support from their subjects and created “high prices and scarcity” which were by far “the most obvious factors in the general tension”
We’ve all heard of Anastasia, right?, the classical tale of a young girl escaping the brutal execution of her family. Well her father, Czar Nicholas II, was the last Russian emperor and pretty much caused the whole “Anastasia” story to happen in the first place. His story is told more through the book Animal Farm, a novel written by George Orwell. This is an allegorical tale that reflects the events of the Russian Revolution. Animal Farm and Czar Nicholas II is connected to the real life events in the Russian Revolution in that his poor leadership skills affect his rule negatively, Farmer Jones is used to represent him, and his representation is accurate and relatable to readers.
I. A good majority of the Russian people were weary and uncontent with the way the war was going and with the Czar's rule. This uncontent, along with economic hardships, caused riots and demonstrations to break out. The Czar called for the army to put down the revolution, as they did in 1905. But the army joined the revolt and the Czar was kicked out of power soon afterwards.
Alexander II used very little. He had emancipated the serfs, created the zemstva and allowed freedom of religion. Alexander III most resembled Stalin by using the most central controls. He also increased the power of his Predecessors secret police, renaming them the Okrana. The Okrana were similar to Stalin’s secret police (NKVD.) Both were violent against minority groups and Russian’s opposing the state.
This essay asks for the comparison of the three historical monographs, which offer different interpretations of the same or related topic. This essay will focus on writings about the Russian Revolution (1818-1919) particularly concentrating on the October Revolution in 1917 and the leadership of Vladimir Lenin during this period. The goal of this essay is to examine how three historians, from three separate schools of thought, have interpreted these events and how their particular political views, evidence and personal experiences have influenced these interpretations. This will be achieved by analysing the works of Richard Pipes; a western liberal-conservative, Dmitri Volkogonov; a soviet-revisionist and John Reed; a socialist.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
After the emancipation of the Russian Peasantry, land was given to the peasants. This was between 1861 and 1866, but because the nobility had lost their land when the peasants were given land, the peasants had to pay a tax until 1905. As the years passed, the land allotted to each person decreased from 13.8 acres to 7.3 acres as the population increased. Due to this increase in population and decrease in land, a series of famines struck the rural areas. As the peasants mainly occupied the rural areas, they were perceived to be living in poor conditions by the Russian people, and as response to their conditions, peasants started taking a stand, and voicing their opinions; change was proposed in the end when peasants were given more freedom,
Alexander the Great, born in July of the year 356 B.C. was the ruler and king of the Greek Kingdom known as Macedonia. In his early years, Alexander was trained as a fighter by his tutor, Aristotle. He trained with his mentor until the age of 16, when his father Phillip II was assassinated, and he inherited his throne. With a massive army at his hand, Alexander started his conquest to capture the Persian Empire, and "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea.”
...e situation, to portray many different ways in which serf liberation affected the peasant class. Many contemporary writers criticized emancipation adducing it did not bring any change in peasant’s lives. For example, Nikolai Nekrasov’s ‘Who Lives Well In Russia?’ may be considered a critic of the emancipation. This book is about seven peasants who met after the emancipation and ask each other if they are living well. The answers are negative and the villages were they come from have names that reflect their feelings: “Patched”, “Holey”, “Barefoot”, “Shivering”, “Burned”, “Hungry” and “Harvestless”.
In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.
Kort, Michael. "Reform, Reaction, and Revolution in Russia." Facts on File. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.