It can be strongly argued that there was a clear neglected opportunity over the organization of some type of a nationwide representative parliament or assembly, and as such Alexander made a futile attempt at trying to establish a firm base for a modernised autocracy.
It can be argued that the Emancipation of the serfs only happened to prevent the peasantry from uprising against the Tsar and to gain the support of the peasantry.
This meant that 23 million privately owned serfs were no longer tied to the land. Government officials could be offered a type of internal diplomatic immunity and the military courts remained unreformed. Consequently this allows him to wear the title Tsar Liberator because a significant amount of the peasantry could now produce a surplus and they were no longer treated as slaves.
Essay Sample Following the anticlimactic and repressive reign of his father Nicholas, Alexander II came to power as Tsar at what was notably a critical time for the Russian economy.
In spite of an outward appearance of being a drastic reform, deeper consideration of the successes and failures prove the zemstva reforms to merely be a way of the government cheaply maintaining some order in the Mir and in smaller, regional communities.
He has been labelled by some historians as the Tsar Liberator, for freeing the Russian people and moving Russia forward towards a more modern, western state. In Does alexander ii deserve the title, there was no peasant representation in the Zemstva. On the contrary, all that he did was conservative in intention".
It had been recognised, both by the government and people as well as internationally, that Russia was a notoriously corrupt country, with an indisputably sluggish and ineffective judicial system.
This lack of change shows that Alexander did not consider the impact of his reforms and therefore does not deserve the title Tsar Liberator as he did not liberate anyone except the upper class. Added to this the fact that Russia, sincehad been the only European country to still employ a social stratification based on the policy of serfdom, it was clear that any progress Russia needed to make to modernise its economy and military was being hampered by the social immobility caused by serfdom.
This improved education; duringschools were given more funding, were open to more children and secondary education was extended. The decline of the gentry continued and the Mir and its powers were strengthened, both of which were eminently popular and positive effects for the peasants, who had more independence on a local scale.
The reforms Alexander did establish did not bring around complete liberation for the peasants and despite the perceptible need to bring Russia forward socially and economically, the reforms never truly tackled the issues in-depth. The first notable detail of the zemstvos is that they were selected local assemblies, and all classes could vote for zemstva members.
On the surface, the legal reforms of looked to be the most liberating and, at least on paper, successful and effective of all. This meant that the lives of the peasantry did not improve as much as the reforms led people to believe. The Emancipation manifesto can clearly be interpreted as quite weak in terms of setting out clear, focused plans of how the situation was going to be dealt with in the short and long terms, and, like his father Nicholas had been, Alexander shows clear signs that he is focused more on maintaining support of the nobility than engaging in an emancipation that will have the greatest effect on the economy and the serfs themselves.
Include factual evidence to back up your claims. Byhe had handed power from the Orthodox Church to the Zemstva. Again, Alexander cannot be criticised for not being brave in his decisions, as modelling a judicial structure on those established in the West incurred great condemnation and criticism from the Slavophil groups.
However, once more Alexander is shown to have not thought through the reforms properly, as the increasingly free press and ability of them to criticise government naturally led to an increase in tsarist criticism.
However, he also attacked the issue with a motive and intention to remain tightly in control of the autocracy and this impacted on the overall effects of his reforms. The zemstva were still answerable to the police and national government, and in reality had very limited powers. Medical care and education for soldiers was prioritised after the failure of the Crimean war in While it is true that the serfs did not gain as much freedom after the Emancipation edict in and to some extent the reforms did not benefit the peasantry, it is clear that his actions had good intentions.
However, his true motives must be harshly questioned to assess whether he truly does deserve the title of a liberator. The traces left by centuries of oppression cannot be wiped out by Imperial Decree.
Despite whatever motives Alexander had, it was incontrovertible that the emancipation of the serfs would not be a simple process. Also so Alexander could show neighbouring countries that Russia was modernising and treating their lower classes with respect in order to gain allies.
No need to stick to essay writing convention, you can write in a relaxed style, but please try to convince me, through clear argument and evidence. As such, the effects of what were fairly effective reforms were retroceded as he almost took a step back in becoming more repressive to deal with any unpopularity that surfaced.
Due Thursday night please.Alexander II published the Emancipation Edict in Marchand it is at this point which many historians construct the view that he is deserving of the title ‘Tsar Liberator’. However, it would be unfair to ascribe this title to Alexander without analysis of the content of the Emancipation Edict and the overall effects this had on the actual liberation of the.
Alexander II does deserve the title “Tsar Liberator” to a certain extent. One of the major steps to liberating Russia which Alexander bravely took was the choice to issue an emancipation manifesto in February of in which he would allow serfs to be freed and given more rights.
Does Alexander II deserve this title?
RECORDING what Alexander II’s other reforms were Use pages of Evans and your notes from last week to devise a method of: Think about adopting a ‘thematic’ approach to this question.
For Alexander II to deserve the title of Tsar Liberator he would have to have released the Russian people from bondage. In Alexander II passed the Ukase of the emancipation of the serfs, which saw the freeing of 40 million serfs.
Does Alexander II truly deserve the title of liberator? To liberate is to set free (a group or individual) from legal, social or political restrictions. How Far Does Alexander II Deserve The Title Great Reformer? Emancipation of the Serfs The Emancipation of the Serfs in was perhaps Alexander’s II most controversial and progressive reform altering Russia’s social structure earning him the legacy and title of ‘Tsar Liberator’.Download