4258364
| Question | Answer |
| How would you describe the Tsar's political power? | The Tsar had a lot of power in Russia and whatever he said was done. He wanted to preserve his authority, and when he introduced a program with reforms he made sure that it wouldn't disrupt his authority. He was a strong believer in autocracy and monarchy. |
| What was the "nobility"? Why were they so important to the Tsar? | The nobility included some provincial governors and served the Tsar in all his glory. They followed his example, and were almost as miniature Tsars themselves. They were important to the Tsar because they believed and trusted in him, and if they wouldn't have ad, the Tsar would have lost some of his power. |
| Explain the terms "Slavophiles" and "Westernizers". | * Slavophiles: People that thought that Russia was more superior than Westerners and wanted to preserve the Russian culture and tradition to every extent. * Westernizers: People that thought that Russia should adopt more to the West and thereby develop more as a Western country. |
| What was serfdom? Why did Tsar Nicholas I reject the idea to replace serfdom with something else? | * Serfdom were serfs, personal property of the landowners for whom they worked and on whose estates they lived. * I think that Tsar Nicholas I thought of what the consequences might lead to, when the authority of these serfs held power and taking it all away at once would cause more chaos than taking it away gradually. "The most dangerous time for an autocratic regime is when it begins to reform itself." - Tocqueville. |
| On March 2, 1855, tsar Nicholas I died. He was succeeded by his son Alexander II. It was during the Crimean War (1853-1856), in which Russia was defeated by the Western powers. Why was Russia defeated? | - Allied troops (British, French, Ottoman) laid siege to Sevastopol, Russia's major naval base on the Black Sea. - The French and the Brits had superior armies, who were better equipped and more effectively organized than the Russian (although Russia had the largest army in the world!). - Russian army was incapable compared to the Brits and the French. 4% of Russian troops had the newer, long-range percussion rifles, while the Brits had 50% and French had 33%. - Russia had a weak strategy, no good railway system (it is a vast country), no good industry and the Russians had old weapons, while the Westerners had newer weapons. Russia had the largest standing army in Europe, and Russian soldiers served for 25 years, Westerners didn't serve as much. |
| Why did Alexander II want to abolish serfdom: ECONOMIC REASONS | Russia lacked the industries that western Europe had developed. Considering the vast country of Russia and all its people, if the serfs were freed they, seeing how many they were, could work in industries instead, get them going and thereby also the economy. This would be a step for Russia to become closer to the West, which the slavophiles rejected, as well as the nobility. |
| Why did Alexander II want to abolish serfdom: FEAR OF REVOLUTION FROM BELOW | "Better to abolish serfdom from above, than to wait for the time until it begins to abolish itself from below." - Alexander II. There had been many uprisings and revolts in Russia from the peasants, thus, it is plausible to believe that they would revolt more and abolish serfdom from below and thereby undermine autocracy. This was exactly was Alexander II wanted to prevent. |
| Why did Alexander II want to abolish serfdom: THE POWER OF IDEAS | The power of ideas were growing in Russia. Many famous people had put their freedom at risk in order to speak out about the horrible living conditions the serfs had. The idea of serfdom was inhumane, especially to the Western world that had gotten so well modernized. Alexander II might have looked for popularity among the serfs, that they would like him more than the previous Tsars, as well as globally, for the rest of the world to see "how well he ruled Russia", "russia was modernizing" etc. Another reason, most likely the main reason, is that he wanted to strengthen his power and never to give up the throne. |
| Why did Alexander II want to abolish serfdom: MILITARY REASONS | The Russian soldiers didn't often survive the 25 years in the army and thereby they couldn't contribute to the society. By reducing the years spent in the army, the ex-soldiers could then, afterwards, contribute to the society. Also, the military had to be renewed. By letting the serfs free, they could also serve in the army! |
| Why did Alexander II want to abolish serfdom: TSAR WANTED TO STRENGTHEN TSARDOM | Tsardom could be strengthened by the serfs loving the Tsar more if he emancipated them. The number of serf revolts were continuously increasing in Russia, causing unrest in the society and threatening Tsardom. If it was seen that the Tsar, the man almighty, emancipated the serfs, it would be positive for Tsardom and the number of revolts would hopefully decrease and the threat to Tsardom be reduced. |
| Why did the plans to reform the army affect the institution of serfdom? | The army consisted of worn-out men, and they would want younger and "newer" people coming in to the army. Also, the serfs would join the army and return as free men. However, then two classes would emerge, ex-serfs returned from army and serfs, and this would create instability. Thus, there was no way serfdom would work if the army should be reformed. |
| To emancipate the serfs without giving them land would have been impossible. The problem was that the land was owned by the nobility. How did they solve this problem? | It was hard for the nobility to accept that they had to give the land to the serfs, so the Russian Tsar, Alexander II, made a direct order called the Nazimov Rescript (November, 1857) to them, which stated that the nobility were supposed to give their land to the serfs. |
| Account for the terms of the Emancipation reform. | - Serfs granted a personal freedom over a period of two years. - Serfs had the same legal freedom as other Russians (!). - The freed peasants were granted ownership in the houses they lived, plots around the houses (!). - Peasants could buy some land. - The regime had to compensate the "lost land" of the landlords --> whom they lost to the peasantry. - So, the regime wouldn't go corrupt, the peasants had to pay for "taking the landlords' land" --> for a period of 49 years. - State peasants had freedom for five years. - Domestic serfs who hadn't worked on the land didn't receive it either. - Land was not given to the individual, but to the Mir, the local council. No one could say "this is my land". The Mir distributed the land according to family size. (!) |
| How great a reform was the emancipation? (Assess the reform). | The emancipation was great in some ways, but still, one could see that the power the Tsar and nobility possessed and were completely unwilling to give up. Also, as one main reason behind the emancipation was to strengthen autocracy, it becomes evident that the emancipation reform was no dance on roses for the serfs. |
| Who owned and distributed the land to the peasantry? | The Mir (meaning Peace) owned and distributed the land to the peasantry. The size of the family was very important when land was distributed --> land was distributed according to the size of the family. Sometimes the reform and its' significance to the development of Russia have been described as follows: it just created population growth in rural areas in Russia! |
| Explain the term Zemstvo. Was it an important political change? | - Zemstvo was a type of local government, created to include serfs and to make sure that serf-owning landlords that owned localities were broken forever! The zemstvo consisted of 70% noblemen and 30% peasants. - Yes, it was an important political change. Sometimes, the nobility wanted to exercise their power over the ex-serfs in the Zemstvo, and the Tsar was on their side. |
| How did Alexander react when delegates suggested a "national zemstvo" = a Duma? | Alexander refused to introduce a "national zemstvo", which made a lot of different people angry, especially the liberals, because Alexander had refused their logical conclusion. He reminded them that they didn't have that power nor the money. This was the impasse, the cross-road, and there was no full democracy! |
| Describe the other reforms which Alexander initiated: LEGAL SYSTEM | This was considered to be one of the most successful reforms of Alexander II. The judiciary became an independent branch of government and a single unified system --> Justices of peace were now to be elected by the population. The Jury system meant that everyone was equal in front of the law. The judges were independent from political pressure. |
| Describe the other reforms which Alexander initiated: EDUCATIONAL REFORMS | A statute of 1863 had given universities elected broads of professors and rectors and thus self-administration. The close supervision placed over the universities was replaced with opening of the way for the formation of numerous circles and associations and thereby for greater public activity. Women were allowed to attend universities, the frees were lowered for people to join, Warsaw University re-opened and students could now study European philosophy without it being subjected to censorship. |
| Describe the other reforms which Alexander initiated: ARMY REFORMS | In 1874, a military statute was adopted which put in effect a system of conscription which imposed compulsory military service on the whole of the male population for a period of between six months and six years depending on education. The time of service was reduced from 25 years to 6 years and now people could return as free men. |
| Does the Tsar deserve the title "Tsar Liberator", according to you? | YES: It can be seen as a chain reaction, and it most likely was, but putting that aside, even though the Tsar wanted to maintain his status, he did what the rest of Europe had previously done, and emancipated the serfs, given them all kinds of freedom, although restricted in some fashion, but all cards on the table, the Tsar did a good job, although he couldn't/didn't want to do more! |
| Poor Alexander. He tried to enjoy the best of two worlds: he wanted to reform and modernize Russia and he wanted to strengthen the regime (the autocracy). Consequently, he "became trapped in a crossfire of criticism." Why did conservatives, liberals and peasants criticize him? | CONSERVATIVES: He was too liberal, too influenced by the West and kept changing old Russian traditions, such as serfdom. LIBERALS: He didn't do enough, he could've and should've done more! He still chose Tsardom when he had to choose, rather than a Duma and a constitution. PEASANTS: Thought the land belonged to them, because they had worked on it for generations, but now they had to pay redemption dues that were set far too high for them to pay, and thus, they lost a lot! |
| What was the Polish Revolt in 1863? How was it solved? | The Poles were ruled under Russia but had their own rights. The Poles wanted to re-establish a Polish nationhood, which the Russians refused. Seeing as so many Poles were ready to revolt, they couldn't only be "hushed down". The Tsar's brother became the viceroy and the Russians started the process of "Russification" in Poland. The revolt started when the Russians wanted the Poles to join the Russian army. The Russians were helped by Prussia, as part of the Quadruple Alliance, to "restore order in Poland". |
| The radical opposition is interesting, because it "paved the way for the philosophy of the 1917 revolution." What do we mean by nihilism? | Nihilism means "nothingness" and meant that no one should accept nothing of the existing society without questioning it first. A belief that rejects all political or religious authority and current ideas, in favor of the individual. |
| What did Lavrov's populists (Narodniki) do in the countryside between 1874-1875? | The populists invaded the countryside in order to fuel the peasants with education, so they could revolt against the Tsar and his men. 3000 students went out to educate the peasants, who were awfully suspicious of the students and did not react well to them. |
| Land and Liberty was another very important populist group. After a split in 1879, the People's Will was founded. This group advocated terrorism as the trigger to general revolution. Who was the main target? | Their main target was always the Tsar himself. |
| Why did terrorism, according to our textbook, fail to destroy Tsardom? | 1. By its very nature, it could not mobilize the considerable resources of peasant discontent that constituted the major threat to political stability. 2. It offered no practical alternative (solution), if Tsardom would collapse. 3. Also, the conservative interests in Russia were far too strong! They didn't want to abolish Tsardom, as it benefitted them. |
| In March 1881, Alexander II was assassinated by the "People's Will". What had Alexander and Melikov planned to do just by the time for the assassination? | They planned to create a national assembly, a Duma, partly of nominated members, and partly of elected representatives of the zemstva and the town councils. It was thus a limited body, but a logical and significant step away from total autocracy. |
| Account for the economic development during Alexander II and Alexander III and notice the development in railway building. | Railway building: 1861-65: 443 km constructed 1871-75: 1660 km constructed 1886-90: 914 km constructed The building became better over time. The economic development was better. The Russian economy benefitted from the increase in the railway building and from the policy of low tariffs, which facilitated the import of raw materials. |
| Historiography: What do Soviet Marxist historians think of Alexander II and what does Hugh Seton-Watson think? | Soviet Marxist historians: They think his reforms were bad. Alexander's reforms were just another way of giving more money to the nobility, because of the redemption dues. They believe that serfdom was already on its way out. They believe the reform was nonsense and disagree with the Tsar and see it as a complete failure. They never admit that his reform was done for the serfs and not for the nobility/autocracy. Hugh Seton-Watson: He thought Alexander wanted to enjoy the best of both worlds and could never fully commit to one side, conservative or liberal. This is why he was disliked from all angels and why he ultimately failed in some aspects. |
| Explain the chain reaction theory of Alexander II's reforms. | Most likely, Alexander's reforms can be seen as a chain reaction. If he wanted to reform the army, he had to emancipate the serfs. If he emancipated the serfs, he had to form the zemstvo and to reform the judicial system. So, a profound reformation of the army necessitated that many other institutions were changed. |
| NOTICE! Best of both worlds. | Conservatives resented their loss of influence and power, liberals had expected much more, and radicals tried to assassinate the Tsar. So, the "bitter disillusion" felt by Alexander II at the reaction to his role as the "Tsar Liberator" is understandable. It is interesting to notice that it was quite important to have support "at court" (remember that the "monk factor" = Rasputin, was very important for the support of Nicholas II and the Tsarina before the revolution of 1917). |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.