‘Alexander II left the tsarist autocracy in a weaker position at the time of his death

than it had been on his accession to the throne.’ Assess the validity of this view

To begin with, Alexander II left the tsarist regime economically weakened. In terms of
the economy, one may say that the reforms failed because the movement of free labour,
which was required for the economy to thrive, was restricted by the requirement for
internal passports for any peasant moving more than 20 miles. Nevertheless, the fact
that 2 to 3 million of these were issued to peasants without land implies that there was a
labour pool available. The redemption payments, it can be argued, were a worse failure
of the reforms because they left peasants without an income with which to buy
commodities and therefore promote the internal market. Similarly, the financial situation
improved little because, despite economic reform, much of the cash gained was utilised
to service loans rather than invest in economic development. However, there were
some triumphs in modernising Russia, most notably Industrial development which
benefited particularly strongly from the abolition of serfdom. In the thirty years following
the reforms, the number of hired workers increased five-fold and the number of
industrial enterprises doubled.Russia also had some success in recovering from the
Crimean War, and victory, although somewhat slow, in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877
suggested that progress had been made, and Russia's attendance at the Congress of
Berlin, despite being a diplomatic failure, was still a sign that the country was regarded
as a major power. Given these achievements, Russia had failed to truly modernise its
economy, with Russia achieving slower economic progress than some of Europe's other
great nations. As a result of the ostracised intelligentsia, whose opinions and thoughts
were not supported by Alexander II, this undoubtedly paved the way for the emergence
of opposition and the long-term weakening of the tsarist autocracy, since Alexander II
was more concerned with defending the interests of the ruling social elite.

During his rule, however, the Tsar enraged numerous sections of people, especially the
nobles. Emancipation increased the decline of many nobles who would have been
inherent supporters of the Tsar, weakening the autocracy socially. Alexander II had
significantly underestimated the essential relevance of the nobles social system in
retaining power. Not only had the tsar betrayed the informal trust that served as the
foundation for autocratic rule, but he had completely betrayed it. Despite the fact that
members of the nobility were first asked on how emancipation should be conducted, the
actual legislation was written and passed without any consultation between the tsar and
the first nobility.The nobles' rejection of the tsar, a reasonable reaction to the tsar's
liberation of their serfs, left the autocracy without a link to the people. However, it can be
argued the changes benefitted and won some support of the nobles. They received
significant compensation as a result of the Emancipation Act and were able to secure
better land. They were also able to maintain their local authority by establishing the
zemstvos, which they eventually came to dominate. Nevertheless, it might be suggested
that Alexander’s success in this area is limited. Since many nobility were in so much
debt before the Emancipation Act, they had to use their money to pay off debts and
were therefore unable to invest in agriculture or industry, limiting Russia's progress.
They also lost some of their privileges as a result of the army reforms, proving that the
changes did nothing to improve it. As a result, the autocracy became even more
defensive and removed, the nobles angrier and more alienated by the allegedly callous
tsar, and the peasants enraged over landless emancipation led to a weakening of the
tsarist autocracy.
The reforms were successful in maintaining the autocracy and reducing unrest in the
short term, but the formation of groups such as the populists suggests that Alexander
had not succeeded in suppressing unrest. He was able to pass legislation that was
far-reaching and more radical than anything before it, yet it did not go far enough to
modernise the state. It alienated people who desired greater progress and had the
opposite impact desired, as shown in the formation of social revolutionaries, the
descendants of populists (the people's will). Despite the assassination of Alexander II in
1881, most terrorist or other opposition did not appear to constitute a serious threat to
the regime. Opposition to Alexander II was mostly based on serf and peasant
resentment that had been simmering before he came to power. Since the turn of the
century, for example, there were 1468 serf uprisings. Politically, some of the reforms
had a favourable impact on the tsarist regime, for example, the zemstva and municipal
councils enhanced local and regional government. However, It is clear that opposition to
the tsarist autocracy had weakened it. Achieving the aims of social stability and
modernity proved nearly impossible, making a stronger tsarist regime virtually
unachievable.
Overall, Alexander left the country in a weaker situation at the time of his death. There
were political, social, and economic issues that eroded the autocracy's legitimacy. It
may be argued that his changes caused the fall of autocracy in 1917 by subverting
many people's expectations. It would also be reasonable to suggest that they failed to
generate the popular support that he would have hoped. Regardless of the reforms,
there was rebellion in Poland in 1863, and the tsar's life was repeatedly threatened until
he was assassinated in 1881. It could also be said that the reforms failed to appease
the country's slavophiles or westerners. Slavophiles thought his rejection of Russian
values went too far, while westerners considered his reforms insufficient to modernise
the country. In the short term, Alexander's reforms appear to be successful since he
was able to prevent a revolution from below and reduce what was seen to be a
significant challenge to the autocratic system from the peasantry. His reforms
contributed to a decrease in peasant unrest, which had been on the rise under his
predecessors' reigns. He was also able to use the changes to tighten control over the
countryside, solidifying the autocracy even further. However, by the time of his death,
the Emancipation of the Serfs had not achieved its goal of completely resolving peasant
dissatisfaction with land ownership and improving other conditions. In effect, Alexander
II's strategy of emancipating the serfs had unknowingly brought his nation to Revolution
when social conflict erupted in 1905 and later in 1917. In another tragic twist of fate, the
terrorist group The people's will assassinated Alexander II just days before he was to
sign the first Russian Constitution protecting individual rights (Duma). The tsar wouldn't
live to witness the unfavourable final results on the tsarist autocracy of his reign.