Summary
Summary Alexander II - Russia and its Rulers OCR A-level History
- Course
- Institution
Revision notes on Alexander II for the Russia and its Rulers OCR A-Level History course - achieved A*
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
miahendry
Reviews received
Content preview
Alexander II - became king 1855Why was Russia so difficult to govern? - 6/9/21
Geography, climate and agriculture:
Very large (5,000 miles west to east)
In both Europe and Asia from Poland in the West to the
sea with Alaska in the East
Harsh and varying climates from tundra to deserts - but
means that much of it is uninhabitable and cannot be
farmed on (only 6% largely in the SW suitable for this)
Hot in summer and cold in winter - causing very short
growing seasons in the coldest areas. Unreliable
rainfall and poor soil quality means low yields, crop
failures occurred roughly every 3 years
Social structure:
Pyramid structure with the Tsar at the top and peasants
at the bottom - 85% peasants at the turn of the century
The geo and climate discouraged individual
farmsteads, except in areas like Ukraine. The short
growing seasons (4-6 months) required coordinated
bursts of intense activity so collective farming in
communes (mir/obschina) took place.
Since the mid 18th century strips of land were
distributed in an equitable fashion according to family
size - provided security and self-government. Matters of
common concern were decided by consensus and
custom - in fact the peasantry probably had more
experience of self-government than any other social
class
Peasants largely illiterate, religious, superstitious and
highly conservative - their condition was supposedly a
symbol of Russian backwardness - but illiterate does
nto mean stupid and the belief comes largely from the
Russian intelligentsia (westernisers who want a
constitution) who made little attempt to understand their
culture, peasants therefore grew to resent the educated
noble land owners and townspeople and their western
culture
Their alleged poverty was in fact not widespread, the
younger and more educated started to question
traditional values at the beginning of the century. But
still in the mid 1800s most peasants were serfs with no
personal freedom at all
Educated peasants starting to realise their position in
life and so resent the tsar, middle class resented the
tsar because they didn’t have a say in how the country
as being run despite their economic status
Aristocracy resented the tsar, despite their increased
say, because their economic status was weakening as
1861 serfs are set free so they don’t have free labour
anymore. The defeat in the Crimea shows that the tsars
, status is not what it used to be so they aren’t up for
supporting him as much and can see the autocracy is
starting to crack
The rest of society consisted of landowners, army
officers, government officials, bureaucrats, clergy and
professionals (lawyers, doctors and teachers),
merchants, traders, businessmen and a very small
working class
The nobility and middle class (while small) possessed
most of the wealth - an educated, privileged elite
lording it over the vast majority was characteristic of an
agrarian, pre-industrial society
In addition to social divisions there was also ethnic
ones, Russians only made up 44% of the population of
125 million people - the rest were largely Ukrainian and
other Eastern European countries and over 13 million
Turkic Muslims as well as other smaller groups
Government:
Governed by the Tsar - tradition of Russian autocracy
had sprung from the Byzantium
Russia’s vastness would seem to lead to
decentralisation and self-governing communities. But
as the population had expanded more and more land
had been taken over with the military help of the tsar’s
army. Continuing colonisation over this vast are
required continuing military protection and firm political
authority - later Russia’s power depended on the ability
of the Tsar’s armies to preserve and defend the Empire
The Tsar’s powers were absolute - there was no history
of feudal contracts with the aristocracy and no
consultation - in fact the aristocracy was quite weak
The tsars had ministers who he could hire and fire,
consulting with them individually
He also had two advisory councils - the Senate and the
State Council
The people had no say in government, no parliament,
no political parties, no means of debate. The tsar
claimed his authority from God and the divine right of
monarchy supported by the Church - however it was a
weakness of the system that the Church was not as
influential as it might have been, particularly at a parish
level where it was seen as an arm of bureaucracy
rather than as part of the community
But there was quite a gap between the claim of the tsar
that Russia was his patrimony and his means to
enforce that fact - the difficulties in transportation and
communication over immense distances (and in poor
weather conditions) prevented the growth of a tightly-
organised bureaucratic regime (until the 1860s when
railway and telegraph began to make this possible
His authority was accepted but in practice the bulk of
the country was run by the local gentry, clergy and
bureaucracy
, Land was divided into provinces, districts then villages -
in many ways it was run as a colony
The Ministry of the Interior, the police and ultimately the
army kept order, the Orthodox Church taught
obedience and a better life in the next world
Russian Dilemma - need to industrialise and urbanise to do
this, need to educate to access opportunities, need to
encourage investment and reduce tariffs that protect domestic
producer. Greater freedom of movement so people can access
all of this. The problem with doing all of this is an educated
peasantry who want more and are aware of their mistreatment
and fight back. The middle classes will want a democracy and
a parliament. An Autocracy does not work with a parliament.
But if they don’t modernise Russia will fall behind other
nations, the tsar will lose prestige and there is the threat of
invasion from other countries. Nicholas II doesn’t want to be
the person to end the 300 year Empire of the Romanovs but
doesn’t have a choice.
Over the course of the ‘long 19th century’ Europe became a
liberal and industrial society. The dilemma facing russian
autocrats was whether to adapt to changing circumstances
and seek a compromise with other more popular (with the
people) forms of authority, or to remain steadfast and hope
their diminishing power was enough to maintain their position
Threats to Russia if the Empire collapses:
Economy, need the people in the other countries to
work the land and their actual farm land e.g. Ukraine
where most of the fertile land is
Military, need people for the army
Security, no natural defences so need the block
themselves in with other countries to protect
themselves
What kind of country did Alexander II inherit in 1855? - 7/9/21
Nicholas I - background
No interest in liberalism or constitutionalism, feared
revolution due to Decemberist revolt that occurred in
the gap, Nicholas’ brother was meant to be king but he
abdicated - the army didn’t like this as Nicholas was not
liked by the army due to his military drill and discipline
while he became king and they tried to overthrow him
along with the people calling for Constantine and a
constitution
Heavy punishment for ideas that spread authority for
the tsar, spies - 3rd Department. He also wasn’t
popular with the rest of Europe because he helped
suppressed their uprisings
1853 he tried to spread authority, in response Anglo-
French fought back resulting in the Crimean War which
, they lost - meant the russian fleet was not aloud to
station itself on the black sea which they needed to
export grain all year round die to weather
Dies 1855 and hands it to his son Alexander II saying
that he was handing him control of a country ‘in a very
poor state’
Chapman’s view that Russia went through a particularly bleak
period under Nicholas I:
Supports Rejects
- Absolute power needed to control such a vast country so
crimes punished cruelly and the huge army crushed rebellions
Not much scope for reform given poor economy -
generated little taxable income since most people were
uneducated peasants
Didnt think would be king so was in the army adopting
an ethos of brutality and corporal punishment
Shot, exiled or imprisoned the leaders and partakers of
the decemberist revolt
Set up his own imperial chancery chancery, due to
distrust of the nobles, with a set of close personal
advisers - the First Section - they were important but
Nicholas had the final say
The Second Section (1826) was charged with enacting
laws under the direction of the reformer Speransky, this
apparently liberal move shores up Nicholas’ authority
as the Tsar’s legal powers were clarified
The Third Section (1826) was a secret police, headed
by Benckendorff and later Orlov - task was to find
rebels or subversive influences before they had a
chance to act. About 2000 individuals were placed
under surveillance
The role of the 3rd section evolved to cooperate with
the 4th (1828) which dealt with education under Uvarov
- their meeting point was censorship, especially in
higher education. The quality of education declines and
independent thought was discouraged, it was based on
religious truths connected with theology
By early 1850s most foreign fiction was banned and the
few newspapers there was featured little foreign news
Nicholas made examples of suspected conspirators
e.g. Petrashevsky Circle in 1849 - 21 sentenced to
death ( later reprieved) just for being a part of a
discussion group
The 5th Section (1836) was led by Kiselev and oversaw
the condition of state peasants as opposed to private
serfs. They attempted to make farming more efficient
by setting an example for landlords to follow. 200.000
forcible resettles in villages with schools, hospitals and
churches. New crops introduced e.g. potatoes during
the 40s
But the efforts were not enough 1830-60 pop grow by
13 mil and not enough food caused revolts. Backward
practices for crops remained widespread
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller miahendry. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.29. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
78861 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now