Reform And Reaction 1855-81 24 Mark Questions Flashcards
How far was Russia truly in need of reform in 1855?
Definition: in order to be truly in need of reform there would have to be a poor economy, social unrest and lack of power/status as a whole country
Line of argument: Russia was truly in need of reform in 1855 as the poor economy and unbalanced social structure enhanced their lack of status as a country
Yes/was in need of reform:
-Poor economy: lack of industrialisation, debt and inefficient agriculture
-Social unrest: serfdom and bad conditions. Exacerbated by military failure of serf army in Crimean war, lack of status
No/was not truly in need of reform:
Although it would be difficult to argue Russia was not in need of any reform, it can be said that the problems were not threatening the country’s function and therefore the need was not that great
-Serfs relatively content with social structure, loyal to tsar as deeply religious
-Still produced grain and cereals. Defeat in Crimea over emphasised, was not enough of a reason to justify full reform
Conclusion/judgement: elements of the country were satisfactory without reform, however, with all problems combined, reform was truly necessary
How far were Alexander II’s reforms driven by the impact of war?
Comparative structure
Line of argument: whilst other issues drove Alexander to reform, the impact of war was most significant as it was both an issue in itself and a factor which highlighted other areas that needed change. It necessitated reform at that particular time
Was war:
-Humilation, lost status
-Army no longer effective
-Desire to maintain autocratic status and redeem/establish position
Was not war:
-Economic failures
-Social unrest
Conclusion:
-Whilst the other factors did drive Alexander’s reforms, their impact was increased by the impact of war, meaning that it was the primary reason Alexander was driven to reform.
How far were Alexander II’s reforms motivated by his own personal desires?
Comparative structure
Line of argument: whilst Alexander was motivated by several factors, the need to maintain tsarist authority through avoiding unrest can be argued as the main motivation for reform and this would have been his own personal desire, thus making the reforms driven by this reason.
Was his own desires:
-Lack of local government meant he was absolute monarch
-Relied on link between church and monarchy
-Needed serf support due to their majority numbers
-Personal beliefs & desire to fulfil these
Other factors:
-Pressure from liberals
-Pressure from reforming influences within his family
-Social and economic problems
Conclusion:
Reformed the social and economic problems in order to maintain own authority and satisfaction from liberals and family- own desires
To what extent was the economic situation in Russia in 1855 the primary catalyst for reform?
Comparative structure
Line of argument: although the economic situation was a very important catalyst for reform, the social problems within Russia were equally as important, therefore economy was not the primary catalyst
Was economy:
-Debt
-Under-utilised natural resources
-Lack of transport & industrialisation
Was not economy:
-Social unrest, serfdom
-Lack of education
-Poor local government regime and corruption in legal system
Conclusion:
Economic situation intensified as a result of social problems and therefore both equally important
To what extent should the emancipation ukase be considered a success?
Definition: in order to be considered a success, the emancipation ukase would have to improve the lives of peasants socially and economically as well as not resulting in tensions with other groups
Line of argument: improved the lives of peasants in some ways, it was not to the extent to which it can be defined as a success because the limitations of the ukase did not allow massive progression and it increased tensions with landowners/nobility
Success:
-Legal rights, released from bondage
-Could buy own land and earn regular wages in urban jobs
-Landowners/nobility benefitted as they still had temporary ownership
Not success:
-Worsened economic situation in many cases
-Social: still had problems with Mir system
-Tensions led to uprisings/revolts
Conclusion:
Overall, cannot be considered a success despite some positive elements
How far were the military, local government and judicial reforms of 1864
-1874 the result of the emancipation of the serfs?
Divide into factors
Line of argument: reforms in these areas were necessary however the emancipation of the serfs increased the need and was therefore an important factor behind the reforms
Were result of emancipation:
-No longer had army of serf conscripts
-Local government needed to implicate new reforms after emancipation and satisfy landowners
-Legal matters arose from emancipation that needed resolving
Was not a result of emancipation:
-In order to regain status
-Necessary for industrialisation
-Motivated by failure of Crimean war, pressure from opposition groups and reforming influences
Conclusion:
Was mainly result of emancipation as the reforms would not have been as necessary without it, however the other factors were also important
How far had Alexander II modernised Russia by 1866?
Definition: Russia being modernised would involve efficient industry, economy and agriculture
Line of argument: Alexander had begun the process of modernisation but it was not fully modernised by 1866
Modernised aspects:
-Industry developed
-Railways
-Emancipation of serfs
Not fully modernised:
-Limited railways for size of country
-Primitive urban conditions
-Agriculture was neglected and remained inefficient
Conclusion:
When considering the reforms, it can be said that Alexander had made progress towards modernisation, however, the limitations of this meant it cannot be argued that he had fully modernised Russia by 1866.
How far were the authoritarian policies of Alexander II after 1866 a direct response to the failed assassination attempt on him?
Line of argument: although other factors caused Alexander II’s response of authoritarian policies, of these, it can be argued that they actually exacerbated the impact of the assassination attempt on him and it was mostly a direct response to this
Was the assassination attempt:
-Shaken and fearful, lost confidence that initially inspired reforms
-Assassin demonstrated the extent to which tsarist rule was being questioned, needed to reassert control
Other factors:
-Personal circumstances
-Influences from the church
Conclusion:
Was the direct result of the attempt on his life, however, the significance of this was increased by the other factors and it provided an excuse for the church to encourage the authoritarian policies
How far did opposition to the tsarist regime achieve its aims by 1881?
Definition: opposition to the tsar being successful would involve both the achievement of their aims and unsuccessful repression of their opposition on behalf of the government
Achieved aims:
-Populists undermined government by assassinating officials
-Black Partition achieved aim of increasing opposition numbers
-Tsar Alexander II was assassinated by The People’s Will
Did not achieve aims:
-Populism failed to attract support from peasants who were deeply religious and loyal to tsar
-Radical materials limited by censorship rules and Black Partition weakened by arrests
-Although they assassinated the tsar, they did not end the dynasty and it was actually detrimental as the next tsar had to be more repressive
Conclusion:
Ultimately achieved aims but did not gain as much support as intended, not fully achieved as the tsar instigated measures to repress opposition
