How Did Alexander II Be Criticised For His Reforms
History Essay
“Considering the difficulties he inherited, Alexander II of Russia should be praised not criticised for his reforms.” To what extent do you agree with this judgement? After the death of Nicolas I, the Tsar’s heir, Alexander II, rose to power in 1855 and led Russia to an era of changes. Considering the difficulties he inherited, Alexander II should be praised and not criticised for his social, judiciary, and military reforms as he successfully abolished serfdom overnight, implemented a more modern judiciary system, and enhanced the military system. In contrary to his father, Nicolas I’s conservatism, Alexander II was a lot more open-minded. Alexander II realized “the existing order of serfdom cannot remain unchanged. It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to …show more content…
The war not only proved how behind Russia was with technology and weapons, it also showed how poorly trained and motivated the army was. Men served less time in the army due to changes to conscription, and the chances of non-nobles becoming officers increased as more broad education was introduced. Officers were selected by their own abilities, not their social status they were born into. The reform made circumstances fair and equal since nobility were obligated to serve in the army as well. Instead of serving in the army for as long as twenty five years, men were able to serve for fewer years and spend less time in the forces as they were only called up when needed. This contributed to a stock of soldiers available which cost nothing to keep. Lastly, newer and more updated weapons replaced old ones used in the Crimean War. Not only did these major changes help Russia develop greater social equality, it also was successful in enhancing military power as the victory in the Russo-Turkish war proved its
“Considering the difficulties he inherited, Alexander II of Russia should be praised not criticised for his reforms.” To what extent do you agree with this judgement? After the death of Nicolas I, the Tsar’s heir, Alexander II, rose to power in 1855 and led Russia to an era of changes. Considering the difficulties he inherited, Alexander II should be praised and not criticised for his social, judiciary, and military reforms as he successfully abolished serfdom overnight, implemented a more modern judiciary system, and enhanced the military system. In contrary to his father, Nicolas I’s conservatism, Alexander II was a lot more open-minded. Alexander II realized “the existing order of serfdom cannot remain unchanged. It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to …show more content…
The war not only proved how behind Russia was with technology and weapons, it also showed how poorly trained and motivated the army was. Men served less time in the army due to changes to conscription, and the chances of non-nobles becoming officers increased as more broad education was introduced. Officers were selected by their own abilities, not their social status they were born into. The reform made circumstances fair and equal since nobility were obligated to serve in the army as well. Instead of serving in the army for as long as twenty five years, men were able to serve for fewer years and spend less time in the forces as they were only called up when needed. This contributed to a stock of soldiers available which cost nothing to keep. Lastly, newer and more updated weapons replaced old ones used in the Crimean War. Not only did these major changes help Russia develop greater social equality, it also was successful in enhancing military power as the victory in the Russo-Turkish war proved its