However after Karakazov attempts to assassinate the Tsar in 1866, he becomes much more autocratic, revealing that he had no intention of significantly developing politics, his use of the Zemstvas were in fact to help sustain autocracy, through making local administration more efficient. It can be suggested from this that Alexander II had put the Zemstva Act in place to appease the nobles angered by the Emancipation Act. Alexander III was much more of a successful autocrat. His reactionary attitude led to the reversal of many of his father’s liberal reforms, and was in some cases angered by them. Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror.
The increase of central control through the introduction of Land Captains establishes his power rather than benefiting the people of Russia, therefore making Alexander III a reactionary. Contrastingly, Alexander III did scrap plans to destroy the zemstva completely, consequently giving some power to the people. The zemstva was an elective form of local government, initially in rural towns but was extended to towns and cities, which had responsibility for elementary education. Despite the
However as the war progressed and more issues became apparent, the divide between the rich and the poor and the left and the right wing became vaster. Before the war had commenced liberals and socialists were aggravated with German democracy. Germany portrayed itself as a democratic state, however all the power belonged to the elite. Kaiser Wilhelm II even boasted that he had never read the constitution. Therefore Liberals wanted constitutional reform and more power to be given to the Reichstag.
To what extent did Alexander III reverse the Reforms of his Predecessor Alexander II? (30) Like his father, Alexander III was intent on preserving Russia’s status as a major European Power. As a result he wanted to see Russia develop its industrial potential. In other ways, though, Alexander III was an ultra-conservative. He pursued a policy of what has been called ‘counter reform’.
Louis XIV takes over after Mazarin’s death in 1661 The revolts alarmed the young king into believing that only a country with absolute monarchy could prevent civil war. Louis believed that his power came from God and no one should question it. This was known as "divine right". After Mazarin's death in 1661, Louis XIV ruled as an absolute monarchy However, many obstacles stood in the way of absolutism in France: Nobles had the means to raise private armies and build fortifications. The king did not have the means to raise and keep an army himself and had to rely on these nobles to defend the nation; The Huguenots, who since the 1598 Edict of Nantes by Henry IV, held the rights to bear arms and to build fortifications in certain locations.
[11] He aimed to earn the love of his people by reinstating the parlements. While none doubted Louis's intellectual ability to rule France, it was quite clear that, although raised as the Dauphin since 1765, he lacked firmness and decisiveness. In spite of his indecisiveness, Louis was determined to be a good king, stating that he "must always consult public opinion; it is never wrong. "[12] Louis therefore appointed an experienced advisor, Jean-Frédéric Phélypeaux, comte de Maurepas who, until his death in 1781, would take charge of many important ministerial functions. Radical financial reforms by Turgot and Malesherbes angered the nobles and were blocked by the parlements who insisted that the King did not have the legal right to levy new taxes.
The people of Russia desired to leave World War I as smoothly and as quickly as possible (Wade 29). The price of supplies were growing, as well as their young men were dying in a world war; but the Russian Provisional Government denied their wishes for peace in the war, angering its citizens. The Provisional Government took power after Tsar Nicholas II gave power to his brother, but his brother refused to accept imperial power. The Provisional Government was then created to determine the structure of the next government.
The term “reaction” refers to the idea of opposition to the ideals of reform; it refers to the idea of a backwards change, usually a change towards more traditional views and in the case of Alexander III it can be argued to whether his reign was completely reactionary or reformist or to whether only some parts where. When Alexander III took the position of Tsar from his father in 1881; his father Alexander II had started to reform the country of Russia both politically and socially through policies such as the Zemstva Reform in 1864 and the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 but this during Alexander III’s reign this all began to change, which is why his reign is famously known as “The reaction”. When Alexander first became Tsar in 1881 he announced that he wanted autocracy to be upheld and that any proposal of a constitutional government would be rejected; Alexander III appeared to be asserting his power of the country to stabilise it after the assignation of his father. Alexander III made it clear that he was to reverse his father’s reforms; he reversed the zemstva reform which had enabled Russia to have their first elective government, he decreased the power they held in 1890 by placing them under the disciplinary control of the ministry of the interior whilst also decreasing the peasant representation in the court. The 1890 Zemstva Act showed Alexander III as a reactionary by reducing the power people had and upholding the idea of autocracy.
Nicholas II attempted to rule Russia as an autocrat as he believed that autocracy was the only was to save Russia from anarchy. As historian Orland Figes noted, “instead of embracing reform, [Nicholas] adhered rigidly to his own archaic vision of autocracy.” He had ascended to the throne in 1894 after his father Alexander III died suddenly. He had not been prepared for life as a ruler as his father had not briefed him in matters of the state, believing Nicholas to be unintelligent and weak. And Alexander was probably right. Nicholas turned out to be inflexible in his views and politically naive.
His reform included different aspect; such as political, social and economic. He also appointed Peter Stolypin as the prime minister to stabilize the country. Nicholas II had tried his best to regain people’s support and stop the revolution tide through the reforms however resentment of his wife and her involvement with the mystical Rasputin was widespread and did little to regain the peoples trust. Also the state of the country during World War One left a lot to be desired and created a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the Russian people. The personality of Nicholas II contributed to his downfall in 1917.