History Essay

Due 24th November

With reference to these extracts and your understanding of the historical context, which
of these two extracts provide the more convincing interpretation of the reforms of
Alexander II between 1855 and 1881?
Extract A which was adapted from Edvard Radzinsky, is describing the reforms by
Alexander II to be extraordinary and has even gone to the length of describing Alexander
II to be the greatest reformer tsar since Peter the Great. This shows that the source can
be extremely biased, since the entirety of the source is describing the Tsars reforms to
be a great act and period of Russian History the reader can assume the interpretation of
the reforms between 1855 and 1881 is biased and is Edvard Radzinsky own opinion
and view since there is not negativity to Alexander. However, Radzinsky does say that
like all reformers before him he failed to understand that starting reforms is extremely
dangerous as it's incredibly dangerous to stop them. This sentence can indicate that
extract A could be relied upon as an interpretation, but only to a certain degree.
Extract A talks about the reforms to the military and the justice system being changed in
an positive aspect, seeming making the point that the reforms were positive with no
negative aspects, however this wasnt the case. Before the reforms, the legal system
consisted of the accused found guilty until proven innocent, there were no juries and
often the judges were bribed and there were often cases of injustice. After the reforms
there were juries and the legal system was based off of Britain and France. There was
still major flaws in the legal system. The first being that the police had unlimited power to
detain anyone who was considered a threat to the state, this lead to those who were
arrested to bypass the court and be imprisoned or worse. This itself was a flaw, but a
greater flaw was the fact that the new legal system was extended to all peasants
meaning that a large number or the population never saw the new legal system.
A second flaw in reforms which extract A doesnt mention is that of the military. The
military was considered a laughing stock after the crimean war and the humiliating
defeat. As a result of this education was introduced into the army, as well as this more
funding was placed in the military. This changed the image of the army to the people of
Russia, conscription ages were changed and the amount of time meaning many people
no longer saw the army as punishment and many decided to join. The downside to the
reforms was that Russia became increasingly involved in international politics and in the
Russo-Japanese war, it showed just how weak the Russian army was after the reforms.
Finally, extract A states that Alexander II reform of emancipating the serfs was a definite
push to the west. Yet, it doesnt explain how it actually left the liberated serfs worse off.
The land they worked on was sold back to them, often giving them the smallest and
worse off land. But, not only this it left the serfs in 39 years of debt and they often
couldnt even support themselves on the land they brought.

Therefore,extract A doesnt provide an convincing interpretation of the reforms by

Alexander II through 1855 to 1881. Extract A does however show headlines of the
newspapers of the time which shows how people did rejoice over the reforms, as well as
this Radzinsky does show the positives of some of the reforms but also shows the
consequence of Alexanders reforms, his death.
Extract B which was adapted from Alan Wood can be seen as more reliable and give a
more realistic interpretation of Alexander's reform. The reason for this is the extract
shows the reason the reforms were introduced in the first place, the crimean war. The
crimean war was such a humiliating and devastating loss for Russia it forced the tsar to
act, the first reform being the emancipation of the serfs. The emancipation of the serfs
was meant to be a great reform, however it only left the serfs worse off and lead to them
being in more poverty to what they were already in. Hence what was said in extract B,
there was no plan behind the reforms. This can be seen due to no all results were
considered meaning there was often disastrous results.
Secondly, the reforms Alexander made were very limiting in the sense they were strictly
controlled or taken back. There was no censorship, however Alexander soon reinstated
censorship after leaflets were quickly distributed. Although, the reforms were made in
order to liberate Russia, the problem was Alexander also ruled an autocracy. As a result
of this it can be argued that Alexander never wanted to reform, but since as the concept
of the people liberating themselves from below was very fresh it meant that Alexander
simply created the reforms in an
attempt to maintain order and not be over run.
This would support extract B, and provide a more convincing interpretation of the
reformation by Alexander II. Extract B could however still be bias due to the underlying
tone of hate towards Alexander, but generally speaking since the reforms did come
about due to the crimean war, which consequently gave the Tsar the motivation to create
the reforms, the extract is more reliable.
Then again, Alan Wood states that the Tsar reluctantly tried to face up to the challenges
of the modern world by beginning a caution process of change, the first reform was the
emancipation of the serfs. This in itself shows that Alexander thoroughly wanted to
liberate Russia and wasnt reluctant by doing so, if the tsar was reluctant then the
reforms wouldnt have been as huge as they were and would have been on a smaller
scale compared to the great scale that took place. Furthermore, if Alexander really
wanted his autocracy to remain and his unyielding power to remain he wouldnt of
started to give others power, such as the legal system. By giving few more power than
others and introducing an early stage of representative democracy it shows that extract
B wasnt as convincing of an interpretation.
Overall, extract B is more reliable due to the historical context being more accurate, such
as the Crimean War being the motivation for the reforms. As well as this, the fact that
many people such as the revolutionaries disliking the reforms was true. This in itself
showed that the source is in fact reliable (though it is slightly bias), and is an convincing

interpretation of the reforms in 1855 to 1881. On the other hand, Extract A was also a
convincing interpretation to a certain degree as it showed the positive aspects of the
reform in areas such as the military and the judicial system. But, doesnt show the
negative aspects of the reforms only the positive showing the source to be significantly
bias. Therefore, extract B is more valid and provides a fuller perspective on Alexanders
reforms in 1855-1881.