From the November 2017 IBDP Paper 3 History exam
“The reforms of Alexander II were mainly aimed at preserving Russian autocracy.” Discuss.
Students Example I:
On his deathbed in 1855, Tzar Nicholas I told his son, Alexander II, to “hold onto everything” and preserve the state of the Russian monarchy, yet Alexander would go on to implement major social and political reforms, ultimately earning him the nickname of the “tzar liberator”. Nevertheless, at the time, there was still major opposition against Alexander for not having done enough to reform the Russian autocracy and move towards a democracy. This opposition would eventually culminate into his assassination on March 13, 1881 by the ‘people’s will’. This essay will argue against this belief that he tried to preserve the Russian autocracy through his reforms and actually significantly weakened it, even if it remained an authoritarian system.
Firstly, whilst many of Alexander's reforms appeared to decentralised decision-making and promote liberty, the state still held complete executive power in nearly all decision-making. One such example of a reform which is often misinterpreted as weakening the Russian autocracy and granting liberty is the emancipation of the serfs. The emancipation edict, which was published in 1861, abolished serfdom and gave every peasant their own piece of land. On the surface, this appears to weaken the influence of the autocracy by no longer binding peasants to the land of the nobles and by extent the monarchy, yet this does not take into account financial control which the state still held over the peasants. Peasants were forced to pay redemption payments to the nobility for up to 49 years, and only after having paid off their land did they legally own it. Before this, they were tied to local governments called mir from which they required permission to even only leave the village temporarily. These mir were however still under the authority of the tzar, and he had the ability to override any decisions that they made.
Additionally, the creation of zemstva to allow more local decision-making did not undermine the autocratic power that Alexander held. Whilst zemstva could make decisions about local issues such as infrastructure and education, the tzar could still veto any decision, and decide which governors to appoint in each zemstvo. This is crucial as it did not mean that Alexander held less power, instead simply that some decisions were effectively outsourced. Moreover, he would go on to limit the influence of the zemstva on regional education later into his reign, further restricting their responsibility. Lastly, Alexander still employed a secret police called the third section to repress any revolutionaries or opposition to his power. Any dissident which were caught would then be tried in rigged show trials, as Alexander held executive power over all judicial decisions, even after all of his justice reforms. Whilst the third section was shut down in 1880, this was largely due to their inefficiency, instead of Alexander wanting to disband them. Once again, this illustrates how Alexander ensured that even after all of his seemingly liberal reforms, he still had final say in all social and political matters.
Conversely, Alexander also introduced a variety of reforms, mainly educational and political, which did not preserve his autocratic rule, and only worked to undermine it. Alexander II worked to introduce sweeping education reforms, such as the new “university regulation” introduced in 1863. This regulation ensured that all universities would be able to import books and publications from foreign countries, and that these imports would not be controlled by censors. The importance of this reform gets highlighted by Lesley Chamberlain who, although not a historian, provide the unique perspective of a philosopher, as she argues that Alexander II effectively created a new Russian enlightenment through this opening up to western ideas. Chamberlain compares key Russian philosophers at the time, for example Chernyshevsky and Helegen Herzen to contemporary western thinkers such as Adam Smith and Nietzsche respectively. These imported ideas of western individuality and liberalism directly contradicted the current autocratic model, instigating opposition towards Alexander II and cutting his support. An example of this opposition which originated from this liberal education can be seen 1866 assassination attempt by the former student from Kazan Univeristy, Dmitry Karakozov, of Alexander. After this attempt on his life, Alexander would go on to reintroduce some of the previous regulations on Universities, yet this was still significantly more liberal than under Nicholas I. This demonstrates the disastrous impact that Alexander's educational reforms had on the autocracy, as more people began to question and oppose the tzars rule with many even resorting to terror. Moreover, it is vital to note that despite the assassination attempts due to his education reforms, Alexander still believed in liberalizing education, even if it weakened his autocracy. Additionally, on the very day that he was assassinated, Alexander signed the so-called Loris-Melikov's constitution, which Alexander II himself described as “the first step towards a constitution”. Admittedly, the word “constitiuation” is highly misleading, as it was far from creating any sort of constitutional monarchy, yet signified the direction in which Alexander wanted to lead the country, had its implementation not been later prevented by Alexander III. Therefore, one can clearly see how Alexander implemented a variety of reforms despite them undermining his autocracy for the sake of Russian modernisation.
Ultimately, the challenge in answering the question stems from the definition of “preserve”. Alexander most certainly did not “hold onto everything” as his father had asked him to, but his appeasement of the Russian population by weakening the autocracy definitely increased it lifespan. Yet, just as Winston Churchill described the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930’s as “feeding a crocodile hoping that it will eat you last”, the Russian population would continue to feel hungry for reform and liberation, eventually culminating in the overthrowing of the autocracy in 1917.
My grade and comments:
As I mentioned in class, I thought your writing was fine and was very impressed with your introduction. But I didn't think you were focused on the question, instead writing more about the consequences rather than the motivations for Alex II's reforms. Certainly you addressed the extent to which his reforms aimed to preserve Russian autocracy. But your argument lacked consistency and focus in some sections. For instance, whilst you began with how Alexander weakened the autocracy, you later acknowledges his efforts to preserve it.
The examples you gave are relevant and generally accurate, showing familiarity with Alexander’s policies and their impact on Russian society but needed more of the motivations behind the reforms, particularly the extent to which they were influenced by autocratic intentions versus genuine liberalisation. For example, you write about the role of the secret police and judicial reforms but never explain if they contributed to preserving or weakening autocracy. A comparison with other countries could have helped provide insight into whether Alexander’s policies were inherently autocratic or aligned with broader trends in 19th-century governance. Again, your reliance on Chamberlain, whilst interesting, lacks substantial historical backing, as Chamberlain doesn't really align with a historiographical analysis.
Overall I think your essay fits within Markband 7-9 as it demonstrates a moderate understanding of Alexander II’s reforms and provides relevant examples but lacks the depth and coherence required for a higher mark band. Analysis is adequate but not fully developed, particularly in relation to the motivations behind Alexander’s policies and the broader impact of his reforms on the longevity of the Russian autocracy.
1. Always link back to the question
2. In this case focus on the motivations behind key reforms, examining both the immediate and long-term impact on Russian autocracy.
4. Finally, I really think you should avoid rhetorical devices that don'tt directly support the core argument.
STUDENT EXAMPLE II
Alexander II could be described as more reactionary than revolutionary, responding to threats against autocracy with progressive measures rather than genuinely seeking to revolutionise Russia. An argument that could be rebounded about many reforms, such as his emancipation of Russian serfs being a reaction to the growing unrest, and his zemstvos being a reaction to regain the support of his nobility.
Tsar Alexander II’s act of emancipating the serfs was more to mitigate revolution from below and maintain autocracy, than liberating or providing rights for the serfs. Throughout the early to mid 19th century before the emancipation edict in 1861, frequent uprisings by peasants in rural areas would periodically break out all throughout Russia; and further pressure from the middle classes who were being increasingly critical of Russia's political and economic ‘backwardness.’ This caused unrest within Alexander II, claiming that “The present position cannot last, and it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait till it begins to be abolished from below.” These words from the Tsar himself indicate a narrative that he merely feared a revolution that could threaten his autocracy, rather than the desire to provide freedom to 34% of Russia’s population at the time. Illustrating that Alexander was more a reactionary then a revolutionary in regards to his reforms, as his emancipation of serfs was merely to avoid an uprising against Tsardom. He was more scared of a revolution from ‘below’ that could potentially threaten his leadership in order for the serfs to abolish their own entrapment and provide themselves freedom, to the extent he decided to grant them their freedom himself in order to protect the Russian autocracy. This is strengthened by the fact that while Alexander did grant the serfs their freedom, he still economically chained them to their land through the redemption repayment that placed them within debt for 49 years. This demonstrates his lack of care in his decision to emancipate the serfs, and supports the argument it was merely a decision to halt any revolts or revolutions that could have developed due to the serfs demand of freedom. By emancipating the serfs he could still maintain control over them by chaining them to the land, while still attempting to settle the unrest amongst them and prevent a revolution.
Alexander II then established Zemstvos as a reaction of faltering support from novels after the emancipation edict since those nobles and landowners relied on the serfs to work their lands. Zemstvos are institutions with the power to governmentally rule local to the area they were established within. These Zemstvos aimed to further develop and liberate the Russian people, however were allowed to be ruled primarily by the nobility. This provided nobility with power and control in exchange for the control they had lost over their serfs. This was once again a reaction from Alexander II due to a threat being posed against his autocracy, his fear that he would lose the support of his nobility lead him to establish the local zemstvos and provide them with power. Strengthening the idea that Alexander II merely reacted to the opinions and events of those around him, he did not wish to lose the support of the nobles and so constructed an institution to grant them local control. In addition, due to the establishment of Zemstvos and Alexander II allowing them to be led primarily by nobles, many of the regulations were to benefit the nobles rather than the peasants within Russia. Since many of the nobles did support autocracy any anti-autocracy movements or reforms proposed would most likely not be implemented. This affected the reforms the Zemstvos would implement in favour of autocracy, aiding Alexander II in maintaining his autocracy also. As well, these Zemstvos had minimal power due to being limited to the local area and their rights. And while the Zemstvo did bring significant revolutionary ideas into Russia such as building schools, hospitals, and constructing roads; the Zemstvo only contained state power. This kept the tsarist regime as the centralised government that oversought more powerful legislative decisions. Alexander II refused to institute any constitution or parliament, demonstrating his fear of losing his autoracy by giving too much to the people. Indicating the Zemstvos were implemented and continued to be carried out with the aim of benefitting and preserving autocracy.
In conclusion, while many of Alexander II's reforms did liberate and progress Russia. It seems his motives were merely reactionary to his fear of revolution or a lack of support against his autocracy. His emancipation of serfs seemed to only aim to end any chances of revolution from below, as it economically benefited Alexander II and still chained the serfs to the land. While the Zemstvos aimed to uphold the support from nobles after it began to falter, indicating his reforms were primarily in an attempt to maintain his autocracy.
My grade/comments:
10/15
Promising effort, helped by your topic sentences that showed an understanding of the demands of the question as we remarked in class. Through your structure you considered the emancipation of the serfs and the establishment of the Zemstvos to make a reasonable conclusion. Although whilst your argument is mostly clear, I felt that there was a need to explicitly link these reforms back to the question's focus about the aim of preserving autocracy. This occasional lack of clarity affects the coherence of the response in certain parts.
I liked your use of the quote on abolishing serfdom “from above rather than below,” which supported the argument that his decision was motivated by fear of revolution rather than genuine liberation. As for your points about the zemstvos’ limited power and their favouring of the nobility, I'd challenge you to go further into their economic and social impact. For example, if you'd considered the serfs’ emancipation in terms of the redemption payments and how they burdened the peasants economically, you'd have recognised how they effectively maintained control over them. The markbands call for links and comparisons; you could have compared Russia to reforms in autocratic or semi-autocratic states like Austria-Hungary or even earlier Russian reforms. That way too you'd have been clearer in linking the reforms to autocracy rather than simply describing them.
Finally, I want to see a greater engagement with historiographical perspectives. I gave a few examples in class via my PPT; I'd emphasise the importance of at least referring to Marxist view, or even of Kennan.
Student Example III
The reign of Alexander II from 1855 to 1881 is often mentioned for his "Great Reforms," particularly the emancipation of the serfdom in 1861. While these reforms have been viewed as liberal attempts to modernize the Russian Empire, a closer evaluation suggests that their primary objective was the preservation and strengthening of Russian autocracy. By modernizing institutions while keeping autocratic control over the country, Alexander aimed to avoid potential unrest while maintaining the traditional Russian autocratic order. This essay will evaluate the three pillars of autocracy, and thus the three perspectives of his reforms: the Emancipation of the Serfs, judicial and military reforms, and the reforms of the Church and nobility, ultimately arguing that these reforms were primarily driven by the desire to preserve autocratic rule.
The Emancipation of the Serfs was largely aimed at sustaining Tsar Alexanders II's autocratic rule. On the one hand, when it was signed on March 3, 1861, the reform affected 23 million peasants, making it the largest social reform in 19th-century Russia, thus on the surface, it appeared to have a primarily social and moral aim. However, having read the Emancipation Manifesto of 1861, what cannot be stressed enough is that, while it partially freed these 23 million serfs, the reform was constructed to carefully preserve the social and economic hierarchy to avoid destabilizing the nobility and the autocracy. The serfs were granted limited personal freedoms, but they had to make redemption payments for land, which were spread over 49 years. This system ensured that the peasantry remained economically dependent and tied to their communes through the ’mir’ system, where communal land redistribution kept individual serfs from economic freedom. Similarly, Orlando Figes argues that emancipation, though monumental, was structured to maintain control over the peasantry. According to Figes, "the terms of their emancipation kept [the peasants] economically subservient to the nobility." This system of redemption payments and communal land ownership ensured that the serfs were still bound to the state and the nobility. Although they were legally free, the economic burdens placed on them through inflated land prices and debt ensured that they could not rise socially or economically. The nobility, who had long been one of the pillars of the autocratic state, were compensated by the government for the loss of their labour force through state bonds, which reinforced their loyalty to the Tsar. Alexander himself showed he wanted the preservation of autocracy when he said, “Better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for it to abolish itself from below.” This shows that the reforms were implemented not out of a genuine moral and social desire for liberalization, but rather as a preemptive measure against social unrest, which could threaten autocratic rule. Thus, as Figes argues, the Emancipation was less about liberating the serfs and more about preventing social unrest while preserving the power of the nobility and the autocracy.
In terms of judicial and militaristic reforms, their main aim was to preserve Alexander II's Russian autocracy. In 1864, Alexander II introduced judicial reforms that had a major impact on the modernization of Russia’s legal system. This included the establishment of a unified judicial system with trial by jury, public hearings, and the right to a legal defence. While some argue that these reforms seemed like liberal efforts to strengthen the rule of law, in reality, autocratic control remained central. For example, judges were appointed by the Tsar, and in cases of political dissent, extrajudicial punishment was often preferred, completely ignoring the reforms. Despite the introduction of more modern legal practices, the Tsar retained control over politically sensitive cases, ensuring that the reforms did not challenge his autocratic authority. The military reforms, largely driven by War Minister Dmitry Milyutin, modernized the Russian army, particularly after the disaster of the Crimean War from 1853 to 1856, which exposed the inefficiency of the old feudal conscription system. The new system, introduced in 1874, mandated military conscription for all classes, reducing the length of service and improving military training. However, this reform also ensured that the military remained a key instrument of autocratic control, with the conscription law forcing the peasantry, nobility, and emerging middle class closer to the state and thus closer to Alexanders autocratic rule. The reforms also included the reduction of corporal punishment, but the overall structure of the army ensured that loyalty to the Tsar was crucial. Figes notes that these military reforms were less about democratizing the army and more about “modernizing it to strengthen the state’s ability to maintain control over its people and project power abroad.” While Figes overestimates how far the reforms went to actually modernize the military he still aptly argues that the reforms provided the Tsar with a more efficient fighting force, and also reinforced the state’s capacity to suppress internal dissent, further highlighting the autocratic motivations behind these changes.
The final pillar, the nobility and church, benefited from several reforms under Alexander II, showing that the main aim of his reforms was to preserve the autocratic structure of the Russian state. One of these reforms was the creation of the ‘zemstva’ in 1864, these local self-government institutions were established to manage regional affairs such as infrastructure and education. However, crucially, the zemstvos were dominated by the landowning nobility and operated under strict supervision from the Tsar’s appointed governors. Nobles were given greater influence in Zemstvo elections despite being a small minority of the population. While district zemstvos were required to have 40% of their assembly elected by peasants, provincial assemblies were elected from the districts without any such quota, resulting in much lower peasant representation at the provincial level. The zemstvos allowed for some degree of local administration, but the nobility retained their privileged position within the system, ensuring they remained loyal to the autocratic regime. Despite in the early days receiving 20% of Russia's annual state revenue they still had limited political power which meant that the reforms could not challenge the autocratic authority of the Tsar.
The Church, another crucial pillar of Russian autocracy, was left largely untouched by Alexander II’s reforms. The Orthodox Church played an essential role in upholding the ideological foundation of autocratic rule. While some educational and religious reforms were introduced, they were minimal and did not challenge the Church's position out of fear that the Tsar might lose their support. As Figes argues, the absence of significant reform in the Church reveals Alexander II’s intent to preserve its role in maintaining societal stability. The Church’s influence over the peasants was crucial for reinforcing obedience to the Tsar. By avoiding major reform in this area, Alexander ensured that the Church remained a loyal ally to his autocratic state. All this goes to show that, the preservation of the nobility’s role in local governance and the Church’s unchallenged position highlights the limited nature of Alexander’s reforms. Both institutions continued to reinforce the Tsar's autocratic rule, showing that while the state was modernizing to some extent, it was not liberalizing in any meaningful way. The zemstvos, though innovative in some respects, were ultimately tools to maintain the usual class structure the Tsar was aiming to preserve, and the Church’s continued dominance in spiritual and educational affairs ensured that conservative values persisted, showing that Alexander II reforms were largely aimed at preserving Russian autocracy.
In conclusion, Alexander II’s reforms were primarily designed to preserve Russian autocracy rather than to liberalize or democratize the state. The emancipation of the Serfs, though a landmark reform, was structured in such a way that it kept the peasants economically dependent and politically weak, ensuring stability for the nobility and the Tsar. In terms of judicial and military reforms, while they modernized Russia’s institutions, they did not challenge autocratic authority but rather strengthened the state's ability to maintain control over its people. The limited reforms to the nobility and the Church further prove that Alexander’s reforms were intended to preserve autocracy. While some reforms did modernize Russia and brought social benefits, they were carefully implemented so that the Tsar kept his autocratic power. This failure to fully liberalize Russian society and politics set the stage for future unrest, leading to the revolutionary movements of 1905 and 1917 and thus the ultimate end of the Russian autocracy.
My grade/comment
12/15
Based on the markbands, I think it's within the 10–12 markband, considering your structure, argument, and use of evidence. You showed you understood the demands of the question by analysing A2's major reforms, around the thesis that his reforms were fundamentally aimed at preserving autocracy rather than genuine liberalisation. You showed a consistent focus on the preservation of autocratic power which was the biggest concern I had last essay.
You showed more relevant historical knowledge than your classmates; you were for example the only one to name an actual minister. Your use of details, such as the terms of redemption payments and communal land ownership went beyond a superficial understanding of their nature. I was especially impressed by your use of Figes to substantiate claims, enhancing the depth of historical understanding. I would encourage you to broaden your range of perspectives and sources (think Kennan, Marxist interpretations, etc) , although to be honest I thought your engagement with Figes offset that. (But why does Figes "overestimate" the military reforms?) Hopefully another examiner would agree.
In terms of recognising/evaluating different perspectives, you could have offered counterarguments, specifically the view that some of these reforms inadvertently laid the groundwork for modernisation. That's what stopped me from giving you the top markband as such essays typically showcase a wider variety of evidence to support their arguments.
