Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alex II and III Essay Plan
Alex II and III Essay Plan
Alex II and III Essay Plan
Introduction
- Who is Alexander II (the great reformer) and III (reactionary) and how are they traditionally
known
- Transition between Alex II and III: Alex II on the verge of announcing a more democratic
constitution for Russia, promptly cancelled by III, who took brutal revenge on his father’s
killers.
- Both Tsars followed the same policies, even possible to argue that Alex III is a greater
reformer than his father.
- Reform rather than reaction still best way forward for Russia at the time
Main body
Agriculture:
Alex II:
Nickname tsar liberator “Emancipation of the serfs” (1861), serfdom abolished, peasants given the
right to own their land
Alex III:
More reactionary attitude than his father.
Land Captains introduction (Tsarist officials who could overrule the Zemtsva and impose fines and
imprisonment on peasants without trial.)
Massive export of grain to fund industrialization. Vyshnygradsky (minister of finance) “We will go
hungry, but must export” 1891 famine, up to 2 million deaths
Local governments:
Alex II:
Introduction of Zemstva (countryside), and Dumas, (cities) political representation for ordinary
people.
Alex III:
Restriction of the voting system, handing power to the Ministry of Interior (through Land Captains)
Military:
Alex II:
Minister of War, Milyutin, educed conscription 25-10, military service extended to all classes
Alex III:
Continued on same reforming path, respected all reforms, allowed Russian army to gain strength by
keeping it out of foreign wars for the duration of his reign.
Conclusion
- In conclusion… Alexander III at least as great as his father
- Looking at socio and political terms, Alex III broadly reactionary, similar to his father who had
become disillusioned with reform throughout his reign.
- Maybe reaction rather than reforms was the best way forward for Russia at the time
- However, uncomfortable ideas for 21st century sensibilities
- Pobedonostevs: “democracy of the west either served to dilute quality of the decision-making
process or was used to give legitimacy to an established ruling elite, whilst education for the
working class raised hopes which Russian society at the time would not be able to fulfill.”