Historians: Imperial Russia 1853-1917

Alfred Reiber

(Military Argument): Argued that serfdom had to be abolished in preparation for reforming the Russian army, along the western lines.

Suggested that the emancipation and reform process was actually motivated solely by military considerations, with developing a strong and efficient army.

Alexei Levhin (assistant minister of internal affairs)

(Steps to Emancipation): Believed the composition of the committee was unfortunate "for the first half year it only gazed at the beast that was shown it and walked around it, not knowing which side to approach it.".

Terence Emmons

(Emancipation Edict): Emmons called this reform; "the greatest single piece of state

Professor John Grenville

(Emancipation Edict): Described the Emancipation Edict as nothing more than 'a cruel joke'

John Westwood

(Emancipation Edict): He wrote that 'Alexander did little for the serfs'.

(Local government reforms): Westwood observed that their local knowledge 'enabled them to do a good job' (in reference to the zemstvas & dumas).

Westwood referred to the zemstva as 'seedbeds of liberalism'

Edward Crankshaw

(Emancipation Edict): Commented that; 'Nobody was satisfied.'

(Alexander II): During his 25 years as Tsar, he was to display an alternation between enthusiasm and apathy, stubbornness and defeatism, vision and myopia.

Alan Wood

(Local Government Reforms): Alan Wood believed that, 'It was this gradual intellectual osmosis, as much as the propaganda amd agitation of professional revolutionaries, that encouraged the process of social and political fermentation which built up such an explosive head in the revolutionary events of 1905'

Clive Trebilcock

(Financial and Economic Developments): Clive Trebilcock referred to this as Reutern creating;"The first state managed exercise in industrial advance".

Vladimir Lenin

(Historiography): Proposed the idea of a "revolutionary situation" which forced Alexander II to make concessions through reform to quell peasant revolts and prevent a larger uprising.

Militsa Nechkina

(Historiography): Writing in the Soviet Union (1960), Nechkina develops on Lenin's theory and asserts that Alexander II's reform was born of self

Vladimir Solovyov

(Historiography): Solovyov was a philosopher and historian who often critiqued the monarchy's policies. He saw Alexander II as a ruler who initiated significant reforms but lacked the courage to push for deeper societal changes, which could have addressed the root causes of Russia's problems.

Richard Pipes

(Reaction to Opposition): According to Richard Pipes; 'The Emperor faced the solid opposition of the rank and file of the bureaucracy as well as that of this son and heir

"Historians" general arguments/beliefs

(Why was it considered necessary to emancipate the serfs?): Some historians have argued that Russian peasants were better of than free peasants/agricultural labourers elsewhere in Europe, because of the support they received from their communes and because landlords took some responsibility for their serfs. (If a landlord neglected their serfs they would become unproductive or he might lose them altogether)

(Results of the edict): Many historians consider it courageous and admirable that he followed through on the emancipation measure. However, other historians would contend that the Edict did not change much and was more for show.

(Results of the edict): Until the 1970s, the standard view of Western and soviet historians was that the reforms left peasants with heavy burdens (including 'land hunger'), which made worsen by the growing population.

(Legal reforms): Some historians argue that the new legal system struggled to function properly because its principles clashed with Russia's existing administrative, political, and social structures

(Reaction to Opposition): In 1866, Dmitry Karakozov, a radical nihilist, attempted to assassinate Alexander II, some historians argue that this is the turing point in his rule, from reform to reaction.

Harry Hearder

(Reaction to Opposition): Alexander II was finally successfully assassinated on the 13th of March, in 1881. According to Harry Hearder, 'his reign which had started in high hope ended futile tragedy.'

Hugh Seton-Watson

Alexander II): Described Alexander as being at the crossroads between autocracy and modern liberal constitution. Judged him as a failure for seeking an unrealistic compromise + refusing to ban autocracy.

(Alexander III): According to Hugh Seton-Watson, he imposed 'an overall attitude of nostalgia, obscurantist and narrowly bureaucratic paternalism' onto Alexander III's government.

Werner Mosse

(Alexander II): Wrote that "Alexander proved himself a disappointing liberal and inefficient autocrat" .

David Christian

(Alexander II): Identified that there was a striking parallel between the great reforms and Perestroika in the late 1980s

Boris Chicherin

(Alexander II): A contemporary, he brought up the idea that "Alexander set out to remodel completely the enormous state which had been entrusted to his care". Most historians, following him, accepted this view

Richard Charques

(Land owners being allowed to remove village elders) : Richard Charques believed that, 'no single act of government in the reign of Alexander II stirred the Russian peasant to more bitter resentment.'

(The re-establishment of noble influence): suggested that this measure, in effect, created a state of 'semi-serfdom' in the countryside by reinstating the dominance of the nobility and removing some of the autonomy the peasants had enjoyed since emancipation.

E.A.Lutsky

(The re-establishment of noble influence): suggested that this measure, in effect, created a state of 'semi-serfdom' in the countryside by reinstating the dominance of the nobility and removing some of the autonomy the peasants had enjoyed since emancipation.