Alexander II - reforms

All Types of reform

- Judicial

- Educational

- Political - local government (zemstva)

- Emancipation of the Serfs

- Military

Crimean War as a cause of reform

- Russia's defeat in the Crimean War prompted a national re-evaluation.

- All eyes turned to the reasons behind the logistical disasters suffered in the course of the war: e.g the unwieldy chains of command and public corruption to name a few. Citizens and bureaucrats alike agreed this was unsustainable.

- For this reason, post-war Russia proved very fertile breeding ground for reform. The war had discredited the existing political system.

Crimean War as a cause of reform - facts

- Russia still heavily lost despite spending 40% of its annual GDP

- Russia lost 450,000 men - more than any other nation

- Backwards Military - untrained officers, 1 weapon between 2

When was the Emancipation of the Serfs?

Feb 1861

What was the Emancipation Edict/of the Serfs?

Emancipation signed by Tsar Alexander II saying peasants were now free to own property and marry as they chose. Land distribution was not favorable to them, landowners kept the best lands

It extended basic rights to millions of Russian citizens and earned Alexander the name ‘Tsar Liberator’

All possible causes of Emancipation Edict

1. Liberal influence on AII + Moral argument - LIBERATOR

2. Economic argument

4. Maintain Tsarist autocracy + reduce revolts -

5. Crimean War - free serfs to improve army

6. Modernise Russia

Causes of the Emancipation Edict: Liberal influence on AII

Possibly due to those who had an influence on him and his experiences:

- Vasily Zhukofvsky - His romantic poet tutor

- Travels around empire during father's reign

- 'Party of St Petersburg Progress' - political circle of progressive nobles who came to prominence in his court

- Brother (Grand Duke Constantine) and Aunt (grand Duchess Klena of Paulona) had been commited to ablishing serferdom for quite some time

- Father wished it

Causes of the Emancipation Edict: Moral argument

LIBERAL - - It was morally wrong for a landowner to own other human beings like possessions and that such ownership demoralized the landowner

Causes of the Emancipation Edict: Economic argument

- It was economically inefficient- the lack of free labour discouraged peasants from being motivated to produce more

- Economy needed to progress - couldnt because of immobile workforce (stuck on land) + argiculture

- Needed people to move to cities and work in industry

Causes of the Emancipation Edict: Crimean War

Crimean War - free serfs to improve army

Causes of the Emancipation Edict: Modernise Russia - Keep up with rest of world

In a number of respects serfdom was not dissimilar to the feudalism that had operated in many parts of pre-modern Europe. However, long before the 19th century, the feudal system had been abandoned in western Europe as it moved into the commercial and industrial age. Imperial Russia underwent no such transition. It remained economically and socially backward. Nearly all Russians acknowledged this. Some, known as slavophiles, rejoiced, claiming that holy Russia was a unique God-inspired nation that had nothing to learn from the corrupt nations to the west. But many Russians, of all ranks and classes, had come to accept that reform of some kind was unavoidable if their nation was to progress.

Causes of the Emancipation Edict: Maintain Tsarist autocracy + reduce revolts

- Abolish serfdom through his power as opposed to it being abolished through an uprising

- Peasent rebellions - increasing since 1840s- didn't want a revolution

- The reforms aimed at serfs were motivated by Alexander's fear of revolution and started with the Emancipation Act

- It should not be forgotten that Alexander's childhood readings in history had firmly embedded his belief in his own autocratic powers as tsar.

- In support of this view there is Alexander's comment to the nobles in 1856 that it "is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below." Rather than any liberal desire to emancipate the serfs, this suggests a pragmatic concern with maintaining the powers of the tsarist state in a time of complex challenges.

AIM of the Emancipation Edict

- Aim: improve the social conditions of peasants and to spur an improvement in the Russian economy

- They were revolutionary and such changes never had place in Russia.

What were the key terms of the Emancipation Edict?

- Serfs legally free to marry

- Land allocated to Serfs - house and plot plus share of strips in village fields

- Freed serfs still required to pay 'redemption payment' to the government for 49 years

- Land handed over to village (mir) to allocate to the peasants

- Volosts (administrative areas of c 200 - 3000 ppl) were set up to supervise the mirs and from 1863 ran their own law courts

- Landowners were compensated by the government

- Landowners kept meadows, pasture, woodland and a personal holding

- A 2-year period of temporary obligation was instated whilst allocations were sorted out

Emancipation Edict: What replaced the Lord's authority?

It was decided to replace the lord’s authority with that of the village commune and the volost (an amalgam of several villages),which were given new powers as the basic unit of local government.

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - overview

The result was a complex of measures which arguably satisfied nobody and left behind damaging anomalies and grievances

Plans to provide peasants with credit to reform the passport and tax system so that they enjoyed greater mobility and suffered a lighter debt burden were postponed for decades

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Peasents - CONS

- social unrest

- Lost land + had to pay for land they were given.

- Upset at being robbed for the benefit of someone who was no longer their protector.

- God's land was being made an object of monetary exchange - emancipation violated God's law

- created great hardship for many peasants - given inadequate plots of land to farm, generally smaller than before emancipation - also unfair allocation

- With a growing population, this caused increasing land shortages leaving some Russians helpless without shelter during the harsh winters.

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Peasents - CONS - evidence of social unrest

- There were riots - Village of Bezdna in Kazan Province - several peasents were killled

- 4 months of increased violence after emancipation - 647 incidents

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Peasents - CONS - VIOLENCE/PROTESTS

- There were riots - Village of Bezdna in Kazan Province - 70 peasents were killled

- 4 months of increased violence after emancipation - 647 incidents

- Landowners resentment evidence: Student protests and riots in ST Petersberg, Moscow and Kazan

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Peasents - CONS - long term

In the long term, the reforms did not meet the needs of ordinary Russians, still far poorer on average than their western European counterparts. This created conditions for revolutionary activity that would gain ground at an increasing rate.

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Peasents - CONS - redemption payments

- Moreover, the redemption taxes created a crippling burden for peasants, meaning that they were laiden with poll tax arrears worth more than the land they owned, indepting them for decades.

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Peasents - PROS

- FREEDOM

- Serfs happier - work for themselves, freedom. They cherished expectations that they would recieve land that they felt was theirs by "God given right".

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Peasents - LIMITATIONS

- redemption payment

- 2 year temporary obligation

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - POLITICAL IMPACT - Peasents - PROS

The one positive outcome of this phenomenon was the redistribution of land into the hands into a new, richer class of peasant- KULAKS

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - ECONOMIC IMPACT - Peasents - PROS

- Some peasants, the kulaks, did well out of the land allocations. They bought up extra land so they could produce surplus grain for export. Others who sold up their allocation, or obtained a passport to leave the mir, raised their living standard by finding work in the industrialising cities. Similarly, some landowners used the compensation offered to get out of debt, and enterprising individuals made profits through investment in industry.

- M. E. Falkus, however, suggested that because internal passports were issued in large numbers and, further, there were between 2 and 3 million peasants who did not have any land after Emancipation, there was a pool of available labour

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - ECONOMIC IMPACT - Peasents - CONS

- emancipation provided scant incentive for farming reform. Because surplus crops were partly shared amongst the villagers according to the system laid out by the village council (mir), individuals had little economic motive to farm more efficiently.

- Peasents - Redemption payments for 25 years and 2 year temporary obligation

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - GENERAL ECONOMIC IMPACT

- The abolition of serfdom, as noted above, failed to stimulate the Russian economy on a great scale

- There has been some controversy among historians over the economic effects of these restrictions.

- Alexander Gerschenkron, for example, argued that it contributed towards the retardation of Russian economic development by preventing the emergence of a freely mobile labour force.

- Gerschenkron also observed that the economy was affected by the diminution of peasant purchasing power as a result of the redemption payments.

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Nobles

- RESENTED LOSS OF INFLUENCE

Social PRO - a substantial minority of landowners, often those with medium and small holdings, managed to modernize their agricultural methods and/or to diversify into food processing, industry, or commerce.

- They did not abandon the inherited sense of being the backbone of the Russian state structure.

- When they organized themselves to defend their own interests after 1905, they still called themselves nobles rather than landowners: that is, they saw themselves as an honoured and responsible status group rather than an economic interest, a soslovie (social estate) rather than a class."

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - ECONOMIC IMPACT - Nobles - CONS

Economic - NEGATIVE - period of decline for the landed nobility - Over the period 1862-1905, their landholdings fell from 87 million to 50 million desiatinas, and the losses accelerated thereafter.

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - ECONOMIC IMPACT - Nobles - PROS

a substantial minority of landowners, often those with medium and small holdings, managed to modernize their agricultural methods and/or to diversify into food processing, industry, or commerce.

Emancipation Edict: Assessment - POLITICAL IMPACT - Nobles - Cons

- emancipation also caused discontent amongst the land-owning class.

- Nobles still dominated heavily

- The redemption tax paid by ex-serfs to their ex-lords did not ease the debt crisis of the gentry.

- Before emancipation, two-thirds of the gentry were already mortgaged to banks, and the redemption money simply went towards attempting to pay these debts.

- This continuing crisis meant that between 1861 and 1905 landowners had sold off 40 percent of their land.

Overall assessment of the impacts of the Emancipation Edict

Economic - FAIL

Social - FAIL

Political FAIL

Looking at the social, economic and political impacts of the emancipation, it is clear that it created negative social, economic and political conditions in Russia, with few tangible positive outcomes. However, these failures did not prompt Alexander II to change political course; by the early 1860s almost all of the conservatives in the Tsar's government had been replaced by liberals.

When were the local government reforms?

1864

What was Local government Reform?

In 1864, local elected councils (zemstva) appeared in most parts of European Russia. They were in two levels - district councils and the more powerful provincial councils. This clear organisational structure was useful in order to improve the administration of local government and resolving of local issues

Causes of Local government reforms?

The abolition of the patriarchal authority of the gentry in 1861 required that a new local government system be implemented. This was to occasion some of the greatest constitutional hopes of the nineteenth century, which were unsurprisingly dashed by the autocratic regime. A Commission, appointed to investigate the reorganisation of local government, decided upon a system of district and provincial zemstva (local assemblies)

What were the key terms of the local government reforms?

- Self Government in provincial and district areas

- Assemblies (Zemstva) or councils were to be elected by nobles, town dwellers and peasants - favoured nobles to make up for their loss of authority

- Only introduced to provinces made up of mainly Russians

- Council responsibilities: health, education, Infastructure maintanence and local economic affairs

- Could levy a small tax to pay for responsibilities

- Elected for 3 years

- Each Zemstva elected a governing board from members

- Employed professionals e.g Doctors, lawyers - 'Third Element' - increasingly important role

- Zemstva = town council

Local Government reforms (zemstva): GENERAL Assessment - PROS

- The zemstvo brought improvements to the areas in which they operated - building better roads, health facilities and primary schools, and developing areas like transport, street lighting, drainage, and water supply. For instance, the hospitals and roads they built were of lasting benefit.

- The nobles and others running the councils gained political experience in managing their own affairs and many wanted to see this taken through to a national level.

- Members of the professional third element developed self-esteem and began to make demands for social reform and improvements in living conditions.

- Many became hostile to or frustrated with the state. Geoffrey Hosking as they 'believed themselves to constitute a kind of "alternative establishment, more truly representative of the Russian nation and more genuinely able to serve it than the regime was.

Local Government reforms (zemstva): GENERAL Assessment - Cons

Local Government reforms (zemstva): GENERAL Assessment - CONS/LIMITATIONS

- Small number at first - slow to get going - didnt achieve anything early on

- Restrictions placed on taxation powers + trouble raising taxes

- Dominated by nobles - took control for own interests

- Peasants did not really participate - outnumbered - put off by nobility + resented paying the zemstvo tax which was proportionately higher on their land than on private states.

- Some Zemstvas were better than others - some indolent zemstvas

- The local Marshalls of the Nobility and governors vetoed some of their decisions and hampered them.

- Further Isolated peasants from society - no link between the volost and the rest of the administrative network - other than the police constable appointed by officials of the interior ministry

Local Government reforms- SOCIAL IMPACT general - Pros

- the zemstva provided a valuable addition to local government, not least because they were composed of men who understood the locality and its needs.

Improvements to local regions controlled by Zemstva - better living standards to peasants - can respond to local issues

Local Government reforms- SOCIAL IMPACT general - Cons

- 'Third element' got ego and made demands for social reform and change to living conditions

- However, despite some peasant representation, they were never truly 'people's assemblies.

- They attracted doctors, lawyers, teachers and scientists who, to the dismay of the regime, used meetings as an opportunity to debate political issues and criticise central government.

NOBLES still dominated

Local Government reforms- POLITICAL IMPACT - nobles - pros

- Nobles + council members gained political experience

- loss some control

Local Government reforms- POLITICAL IMPACT - nobles - Cons

- still dominant

- Tsar's intention was to strengthen and maintain autocracy - has less control due to politically smarter nobles

Local Government reforms- POLITICAL IMPACT - peasents- Cons

- lacked representation/ authority

Local Government reforms- POLITICAL IMPACT - peasents- Pros

Had more political influence than before

When were the Judicial reforms?

1864 (reforms introduced 1865)

Causes of Judicial reforms

1. Emancipation of Serfs

2. Problems with old system

What were the problems with the old judicial system? - (CAUSES OF CHANGES)

- There were a huge variety of courts between which cases could be

transferred, taking a very long time, sometimes years.

- Most judges had had no legal training and many were illiterate. This put enormous power in the hands of the court secretaries, especially as all evidence was written. The court secretaries relied on bribes to maintain their lifestyles.

- The judges received a pile of documents on which they had to adjudicate according to certain rules, for instance, in evidence the word of a noble was taken over a peasant, the word of a man over a woman. The defendant never saw the judge so the written evidence, often unreliable, was rarely challenged.

- The police had great power to levy fines and they also were amenable to bribes.

How was the emancipation a cause of Judicial reforms?

Emancipation edict - Land owners dealt with legal issues - now serfs are free, system needs to be reformed - to fill gap

Key terms/changes of judicial reforms

- New system of criminal and civil courts based on western concepts. Each province had its own court

Judges got good salaries and could not be removed from office - more indipendant - could not be removed if did something that displeased government

- Civil + criminal courts were open to public and proceedings reported

- Jury trials introduced for more serious cases.

- Evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had to be given orally and could be tested and challenged in open court. There were now prosecutors and defenders who could summon their own witnesses. Moreover, the voting on the verdict by juries was kept secret to protect them from intimidation.

- A system of Justices of the Peace (JPs) was established - magistrates elected by the district council - dealt with small cases involving minor disputes.

Where offences solely concerned peasants, separate village courts were used. These comprised judges elected and drawn from the peasantry who often

Were illiterate.

Judicial reforms: Assessment - general pros

- Fairer trials - Accused had more protection- public trials- Less corruption

- JPs courts worked quickly, cost nothing to those appearing in them and were perceived as dispensing equitable judgements - respected by people - protected small man against local officials

- 1860s/1870s an independent legal profession came into being to fulfil the roles of prosecutors and defenders, some became parliamentarians or revolutionaries

Judicial reforms: Assessment - general POLITICAL PROS (challenge)

Reform challenged the political authority of the autocracy:

- Independent courts and judges meant that an independent source of authority existed and the regime could not act in the arbitrary way to which it was accustomed. This made its way into the public consciousness — the idea of the rule of law.

- Advokat (defense lawyer) profession created - Run by Bar council - Lenin

- The new freedoms for lawyers meant the courtroom could become a space for challenges to the government - Free speech in court - defence lawyers would often be critical of the regime in presenting their case.

- The new juries showed themselves to be independent - Sometimes they would acquit people whom the regime would have liked to see given long sentences.

Judicial reforms: Assessment - general POLITICAL CONS (challenge)

- Some courts remained outside the system including Church courts (which handled divorce cases) and military courts. Government officials could not be tried in the system. Revolutionaries were tried by special courts in the 1870s.

- Furthermore, the new juries sometimes acquitted the guilty because they sympathised with their plight. To counter such behaviour, a new decree had to be issued to permit political crimes to be tried by special procedures.

- Trial by jury was never established in Poland, the western provinces and the Caucasus, while ecclesiastical and military courts were excluded from the reforms, and the peasantry in the volost courts were still treated differently from those of higher status,

Judicial reforms: Assessment - general CONS

- The separate courts for peasants (the vast majority of the population) meant that as a class they were largely outside the mainstream judicial system, emphasizing their lower status.

- Some courts remained outside the system including Church courts (which handled divorce cases) and military courts. Government officials could not be tried in the system. Revolutionaries were tried by special courts in the 1870s.

- The bureaucracy did still intervene so trial by jury could not always be guaranteed.

- The reforms had most impact in the large cities, especially St Petersburg and Moscow where the most controversial trials took place.

Judicial reforms: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Pros

- Advokat (defense lawyer) profession created - Run by Bar council - Lenin

- Fairer trials - Accused had more protection- public trials- Less corruption

- JPs courts worked quickly, cost nothing to those appearing in them and were perceived as dispensing equitable judgements - respected by people - protected small man against local officials

- 1860s/1870s an independent legal profession came into being to fulfil the roles of prosecutors and defenders, some became parliamentarians or revolutionaries

- While the new system was fairer and less corrupt, and the public flocked to the open courts

- a new opportunity arose for the articulate lawyers of the intelligentsia to criticise the regime, becoming 'celebrities' in their own right.

Judicial reforms: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - Cons

- There was a shortage of trained lawyers

- Interference from the bureaucracy often prevented the law from being applied universally (there was no trial by jury in Poland, the western provinces or the Caucasus).

- Further, the existence of peasant courts negated the fundamental principle of equality before the law.

- The separate courts for peasants (the vast majority of the population) meant that as a class they were largely outside the mainstream judicial system, emphasising their lower status.

- The bureaucracy did still intervene so trial by jury could not always be guaranteed.

- The reforms had most impact in the large cities, especially St Petersburg and Moscow where the most controversial trials took place.

Judicial reforms: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - nobles - cons

Nobles - lost control of legal system

Judicial reforms: Assessment - SOCIAL IMPACT - nobles - Pros

legal profession was introduced for them

When were the military reforms?

1861-1881

Who was responsible for the military reforms?

Causes of Military reform

- Military reform was encouraged by abolishing serfdom and witnessing the failure of Russian troops in the Crimean War.

- The results of reforms included the modernization of the army, but were also the first attempt at greater equality and an attack on the class warfare.

- Military reform was a priority for Alexander's government, and it was military considerations which had done most to convince the bureaucracy of the need to abolish serfdom.

- General Dimitry Miliutin advised the Tsar that reform of Russia's armed forces was not possible as long as serfdom persisted. Further, it was evidently desirable that the modern soldier should have at least a basic education, equipping him with initiative and intelligence in a military context.

- Only by introducing these measures would the Russian military be able to fight on equal terms with Western forces in any future conflict.

Key terms/changes of military reforms

- Universal conscription - liable at 21

Length of military service reduced to 15 years from 25 (life). 6 active, 9 reserve

- Army administration split into 15 districts - more autonomy for district commanders. Easier to bring in reserves

- Officer training improved - military colleges, more classless promotions

- Modern rifles and artillery introduced - slow process + development meant some weapons were superseded before could be introduced

- Abolished flogging + reduced number of corporal punishment offences

- Better soldier conditions - barracks to house them

Assessment of military reforms - GENERAL PROS

- Smaller but more professional army. Less reliant on class + not so brutal. BUT officers still mainly nobility

- Saving in government expenditure - smaller and trained reserve to be mobilised

- Merchants did not want sons doing compulsory military service

- Universal conscription - high classes had to be in army and meant mixing classes - caused concern

Assessment of military reforms - GENERAL CONS

- Officers still mainly nobility

- Opposed by nobility who did not want sons to mix with lower class

- Still relied heavily on peasant conscripts - uneducated, poor training

- Universal conscription - high classes had to be in army and meant mixing classes - caused concern

Assessment of military reforms - SOCIAL CONS

BUT officers still mainly nobility

- Opposed by nobility who did not want sons to mix with lower class

- Merchants did not want sons doing compulsory military service

- Still relied heavily on peasant conscripts - uneducated, poor training

- These were improvements but the better-off found substitutes to serve in their place, while the officer class remained largely aristocratic.

Assessment of military reforms - SOCIAL PROS

Smaller but more professional army. Less reliant on class + not so brutal.

- Universal conscription - high classes had to be in army and meant mixing classes - caused concern

Assessment of military reforms - POLITICAL PROS

The success of these reforms was qualified by Russia's military performance against Turkey in 1877. Although Russia defeated her adversary, it took longer than expected - and the opponent was a decaying Eastern nation, not an industrialised European power. Nevertheless, Russia's participation at the Congress of Berlin (1878) demonstrated that she had successfully recovered her international position

Assessment of military reforms - POLITICAL CONS

- More importantly, problems of supply and leadership continued.

- The army struggled to win in the war against Turkey (1877-78), and, in the longer term, was defeated at the hands of the Japanese in 1904-05 and again by Germany in 1914-17.

Assessment of military reforms - ECONOMIC Pros

Saving in government expenditure - smaller and trained reserve to be mobilised

When were the educational reforms?

Causes of educational reforms?

- Lastly, the reform of education was a great step in modernizing and strengthening Russia. It allowed to improve the standards of living of Russians.

- Elementary education had, for centuries, been controlled largely by the Church, and the standard of teaching was generally poor. After 1864, however, the zemstva became an important agency in the provision of public services.

Key terms/changes of educational reforms

- Zemstva took over running over schools from Church - better quality - better teachers

- Primary schools built + pen to all classes

- Secondary schools opened to all classes - numbers doubled in 1860s

- Higher education over-hauled + constraints relaxed

- Universities gained powers: govern themselves, choose teachers, admit/discipline students, design course etc.

- Uni students drawn from wider social groups

Easier to open primary and secondary schools

Assessment of educational reforms - GENERAL PROS

First decade of Alexanders reign - students doubled in primary schools

Huge impact for primary schools - more literate peasant population with new aspirations

- Students began to play a more critical part in society

- Joined forebidden, banned self-help organisations e.g study circles, mutual aid funds etc. - deepened their repugnance for subordination + heirachy

- Students ran protests and joined revolutionaries - questioned Tsar regime

Assessment of educational reforms - GENERAL CONS

- Social anxiety for students, bar that of nobles, due to entering college causing a sharp rise in social status and transplantation from rural family life to cities.

- Women to stay in family life or try uni?

- Many students relied on state financial help - were poor and malnourished

Assessment of educational reforms - SOCIAL IMPACTS - Pros

- First decade of Alexanders reign - students doubled in primary schools

- Huge impact for primary schools - more literate peasant population with new aspirations

Assessment of educational reforms - POLITICAL IMPACTS - Pros

- Educational provision grew remarkably

Students began to play a more critical part in society

- Joined forebidden, banned self-help organisations e.g study circles, mutual aid funds etc. - deepened their repugnance for subordination + heirachy

Assessment of educational reforms - POLITICAL IMPACTS - CONS

- Students ran protests and joined revolutionaries - questioned Tsar regime but the new independence given to the universities had the effect of increasing the number of radical and militant thinkers.

- Indeed, the education reforms were so 'successful that after 1866, it was deemed necessary to reassert government control.

Assessment of educational reforms - ECONOMIC IMPACTS - CONS

Many students relied on state financial help - were poor and malnourished

Assessment of educational reforms - ECONOMIC IMPACTS - PROS

Educational workforce = more productive

OVERALL IMPACT OF REFORMS

Significant though the reforms of Alexander II were, they failed to create popular support for the Tsarist regime. In 1862, Alexander granted Poland limited autonomy, but the Poles were traditionally hostile to the Russian Empire and in 1863 they rebelled. The Polish Revolt was countered with repression, the orthodox policy of Tsarist autocracy. In 1866, Karakazov, a former student of the University of Kazan, fired a pistol shot at the Tsar. This unsuccessful attempt on Alexander's life resulted in the replacement of Golovnin, the Minister of Education, by the conservative Dimitry Tolstoy, who acted to restrict access to university education. Russian intellectuals interpreted Alexander's reforms as an attempt to perpetuate the existing political system. Historical opinion has for the most part agreed with this assessment. Florinsky, for example, has suggested that the reforms were nothing more than 'halfhearted concessions on the part of those who (with some exceptions) hated to see the disappearance of the old order and tried to save as much of it as circumstances would allow'. The response of the Russian intelligentsia was the Populist 'going to the people' in 1874. When this failed, propaganda gave way to terrorism, which culminated in the assassination of Alexander II in 1881. Although it did not achieve its objective of igniting a revolution in Russia, Populism was nevertheless significant. It made a start in developing the political consciousness of the people and its terrorist actions inspired later insurrectionists. The Social Revolutionaries, descendants of Populism, were the most important insurgent group at the turn of the century

How did AII's reforms lead to an emergence of new opposition?

- Both the hope and disappointment brought by Alexander II's reforms stimulated opposition to the tsarist regime.

- The initial relaxation in censorship encouraged the spread of radical literature, while the relaxation of controls in higher education increased the number of independently minded students.

- The creation of the zemstvo and dumas provided a platform for the educated intellectuals to challenge tsarist policies

- Reform to the judicial system produced professionally trained lawyers skilled in the art of persuasion and ready to question and challenge autocratic practices.

- The more repressive atmosphere which existed in Alexander II's later years, and continued through the reign of Alexander III, only served to reinforce the demands for change.

How did opposition following reform vary?

- These came from many quarters, ranging from the mostly mildly behaved, liberally minded intelligentsia to the more vociferous student radicals and socialist groups.

Examples of opposition following reform?

1. Moderate liberal opposition - Slavophiles/Westerners

2. Radical opposition - Young Russia

3. Populists

Specific examples of extreme radical opposition to the Tsar following reforms -

- In June 1862, a series of fires in St Petersburg destroyed over 2000 shops.

- Young Russia was immediately held responsible and a commission was appointed to investigate, but little came of this.

- In 1863, "The Organisation' was set up by students at Moscow University and more calls for reform were made.

- Student idealism and determination were heightened by the increased repression of the later 1860s and the influence of radical socialist writers.

Specific examples of populists opposition to the Tsar following reforms -

People's will

Violent change - political assassinations

Mikhailov was leader

Planted spy in the Third Section

Aimed to remove the Tsar - 1881 SUCCESSFULLY ASSASINATED HIM