Responsibility of Alexander II for the Tsardom’s Collapse

Alexander II ascended to the throne with immediate problems from the Crimean War 1853 to 1856, it proposed that the lack of ability to seize territory would lead to economic strains as modernization would be difficult to achieve especially in the First World War as there would not be enough time to modernize. The secondary operations in the Caucasus in the Black Sea resulted in the Russian fleet being destroyed, suggesting the economy was struggling since the Treaty of Paris signed March 30, 1856, meant that Russia had lost land. The defeat of the Russian empire in the Caucasus, emphasized army incompetence as they struggled to modernize efficiently to improve military industry in the economy. Consequently, this became a long-term modernization issue evidenced by the administrative and logistical weaknesses in the war against Turkey in 1877-78, which would be reflected in the first world war since they still struggled to overcome rearmament issues. However, Russia’s interests in the Balkan policies in the 1880s were considered to have hegemony, as it reflected patterns which were part of long-term historical development which emphasizes that the failure of successful modernization, contributed to the outbreak of the First World War. The Russo-Japanese War in May 1905 further demonstrates the military impacts the economy caused. The destruction of the Russian fleet at the battle of Tsushima shows this distress which became heightened by the war. Furthermore, it exasperated Tsardom’s powers as long-term economic issues created panic to modernize quickly. It resulted in an incomplete and weak economy, inevitably creating the fall of Tsardom.

On the other hand, historians argue that Russia recognized its incompetence as Alexander II set out to break Russia’s backwardness with the ‘great reforms’. A minister of war, Dmitry Milyutin became responsible for reforms in Russia’s military in the 1860s and 1870s which would also improve the economy. In 1861 Milyutin helped reorganize the system of military education for officers and regular troops. His measures included compulsory military service in 1874 whilst also improving soldier’s lives and increasing efficiency by reducing active service to help reduce the possibility of opposing Tsardom. The reforms would also improve the economy as it would reduce the amount of finance used to pay and feed the soldiers. The result of the changes is evident in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 to 1878, as victory illustrated the benefits of these reforms as the engineer’s execution in the initial crossing of the Danube had made the capture of the Turkish stronghold of Plevna possible. It emphasizes the capability of the economy being able to succeed in development for future battles. Therefore, it can be argued that the economy was becoming better organized as the length of the railway increased from 644 miles in 1857 to 2,260 miles in 1867 and to 11,070 miles in 1876. It helped provide transportation and communication that appeased the Tsar’s subjects as life was gaining momentum and becoming slightly more improved. Especially since factory production value grew from 352 million rubles in 1863 to 909 million in 1879 with the number of factory workers nearly doubled from 419,000 to 769,000. An enhanced economy was developing to win war. therefore, it is difficult to argue that Tsardom collapsed from long-term effects on the economy since the improvement of the military led to a larger budget to improve other sectors of the economy. Instead, it is argued that the progress was destroyed by the movement of the First World War which forced Tsardom’s collapse as the Romanov family could not keep up with constant issues in the economy.

For the most part, politics seemed to favor Alexander II as his policies created the Zemstvo to prompt changes in provincial administration whilst marking the start of democratization. It allowed the zemstvos enjoyed limited powers of taxation, which they used to finance meaningful social services, the 1864 law allowed such pleasures of the organization. The institution became responsible for all sectors in the government to provide stability, but it also enabled the Tsar to increasingly tie local self-government to the national political arena. This occurred as a result of the ‘obligatory’ functions that they had power over as well as the 1870 municipal reform with the principle of electing councils to attract more investment by using politics. It proved that the ‘Tsar Liberator’ had provided an efficient political scene as he relied on the old provisional administrations to tackle tax, law, and order. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that the current political situation was causing future problems for Tsardom, but it also suggests that politics were beginning to recover from its former years of complete autocratic government.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

On the other hand, the Tsar’s ability to improve the political government was stimulated when he refused to take the next step and introduce a duma or national parliament. He was unable to uphold democracy which he regarded as ‘senseless dreams’ since he aimed to establish an oligarchy in Asia. Evidenced military involvement in the Balkans in the late 1870s as it created political problems. However, this was not the only source of political opposition since revolutionaries became more common. This is indicated by the 1878 ‘land and freedom’ revolutionary group which in 1879 founded the ‘will of the people’, the Naradnaya Volya, and the black redistribution. Political organizations resented the Tsar’s inefficient policies as they caused instability which is why he was assassinated. Therefore, it is argued that “progression was broken by the First World War in which Russian society and the Russian army devoured each other”, proving that deep-rooted resentment towards the Tsardom was present which became more prominent during the First World War.

Moreover, the most successful outcome of the ‘great reforms’ was the emancipation of the serfs, as it created positive social change. Peasants previously lived on the estates of their employers and after the law was passed, the serfs had been freed immediately from dependency of their owners and were allowed to buy plots of land. It became a huge indicator of reducing Russia’s backwardness so that civilians could experience positive social change. The life of women demonstrates this as they became freer by flouting their conventional gender expectations with smoking and cutting their hair, whilst also in 1858, Alexander II approved a proposal for secondary schools for girls. It helped improve the quality of life for the oppressed and move towards social change. This idea is reinforced by the judicial reforms of 1864 as it prevented certain social aspects from becoming corrupt. This is evidenced when in 1874, the government adopted measures that should have eliminated the illicit practitioners. The social reforms enabled people to gain equal and fair opportunities to succeed economically as well as educationally, for example in 1861, several scientists at the St Peterburg Medical Surgery Academy opened their laboratories to women. It is difficult to argue that long-term positive social change is the reason for the collapse of tsardom since Alexander II improved people’s position in society. Furthermore, social change had provided useful foundations for future social aspects but the First world war interrupted progress and instead the amount of distress and panic that had built up ended up creating Tsardoms collapse.

In contrast, social unrest increased which upset the balance of order and change in the country. Evidenced by the following decade of mass movement which best exemplifies populist aspirations, the ‘going to the people’ of 1873-4. The populist movement involved around 2,000 to 4,000 students going to rural areas of Russia to overthrow the ruling classes. The ongoing power struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat suggested that Alexander was himself as much ‘the great disappointment’ as was his incomplete emancipation of the serfs. This testified to an unfavorable attitude towards the Tsar’s government as they regarded it as corrupt since the Tsar gave power to the nobility over the unfortunate serfs. It created widespread resentment of the monarchy and created clashed views and opinions. Furthermore, it embedded the beginning of the bitterness felt by his subjects which in consequence, meant that the 1861 emancipation of the serfs came to be known as ‘the great disappointment’. Therefore, the negative attitude during Alexander’s reign would inevitably be revived to create Tsardom’s collapse during the First World War.