This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear. The 49 year redemption payments were a huge limiting factor in allowing peasants economic freedom to then have social freedom, and class was still a major issue even if it had been reduced. The highly inflated land prices that ensued meant that very few peasants could afford land, and Alexander II did nothing to resolve this. It does lend to the idea of his ‘radical’ reforms being fairly reluctant as he did not go further with them. Alexander III took an even more conservative view during his reign, repealing many of Alexander II’s social
These other causes are all political social and economical factors which helped to free the serfs. And had the Tsar taken a more liberal view on his rule the emancipation may never have happened. Firstly there are many political causes for the emancipation of the serfs. The bankruptcy of nobles who were the tsar’s main supporters was, caused because of the inefficiency of using serfs to farm lands, which meant most nobles were losing money and by 1860 over 60% of serfs were mortgaged to the government meaning they were “unofficially” no longer tied to their land. This meant serfdom was already coming to its own natural end, and for Alexander II to support his nobles he had to emancipate the serfs so they could go start increasing their wealth and get out of debt.
During the revolution, members of the imperial parliament gained control of the country.The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. It is argued that the social and economic factors were the most important catalyst and the main cause of the revolution. Others may argue that the military factors were the downfall and breaking point of the country. Although the military factors were important and did play a huge role, the social and economic factors were perhaps the more important reason. The military issues perhaps would not have escalated the way they did if it was not for existing social and economic problems at home.
The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many things. The combination of Henry's isolation from European affairs and the fact that his attempts to raise tax were ultimately unpopular failures, meant that he had no way to impose himself upon Europe. Even when he did manage to scrape together the finances needed for a strong foreign policy his reliance on his allies led to disaster. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country.
On the other hand, the growth in population compared with national output shows less production per head, and therefore less efficient production. His policies did little for agriculture considering 80% of the population were rural peasants. It is thought he focused too much on heavy industry, neglecting others like light engineering. Finally, Russia became overly dependent on foreign loans (never good if a financial crisis were to occur and foreign loans have to be repaid). Tariffs making goods scarce and heavy taxation meant prices for Russian consumers increased, whilst their wages stayed low.
That agricultural industry in the South was so corrupt that farmers gained no profit from their livestock and crops, therefore was inefficient and moving backwards. Communication between the North and South was very difficult, almost as if the North and South were two different countries, the Liberal government didn’t do a very good job in controlling the two divisions. Cavour said “To harmonise the north with the south is more difficult than to fight Austria or struggle with Rome.” In 1896 Italy tried to gain back their empire, in doing so they tried to take Adowa back in Africa, but suffered a humiliating defeat, and stunted their right to being called ‘a Great Nation’. Due to the fact that Liberal Italy found it hard to communicate across the two divisions, Liberal Italy was therefore unstable and not very secure. The new
This is demonstrated in documents 4, 5, and 6. Henry Haskell states that “The government undertook such far-reaching responsibility in affairs that the fiber of the citizens weakened” (Document 4) This shows that the decline of the empire was due to heavy taxation that couldn’t support the government. If the taxes couldn’t sustain the government then it wouldn’t be able to control the people. According to Montanelli “The military crisis was the result of… proud old aristocracy’s… shortage of children” (Document 5) This means that many children weren’t old enough to go into the military which caused the decrease of soldiers. With the lack of soldiers, it would be easier to invade Rome, which could’ve led to the decline of the Empire.
Life of the peasants was uniformly bleak. How far do you agree with this view of the period 1855-1964? When assessing the view that the lives of the peasants was uniformly bleak throughout the period of 1855-1964, several main factors must be taken into consideration. These include their living and working conditions, reforms towards peasants, the educational opportunities available to them and the political representation they had under the Tsar or the Commissar. Once all the main factors are evaluated, it becomes clear that the life of the peasants did not improve so it remained uniformly bleak throughout the period of 1855-1964.
Was Alexander II using reform for the good of the people or for the good of himself? Alexander II, also known as the Tsar liberator was famous for his reforms which included his most famous, the emancipation of the Russian serfs in 1861. From Source one, which is a primary source it shows Alexander II wanted to free the serfs but he also didn’t want the landowners which the serfs occupied to massively suffer from this reform. ‘It has been understood that the landlords would not be deprived of rights legally acquired, except for a fit and sufficient indemnity’ this shows that Alexander II gave the opportunity for serfs to buy the land of their landowners and do with it as they please. However it did not always work out well as the government would loan the serfs this money and then have them pay it back over 49 years.
Henry was exposed to the pull of the factions but a new aristocratic approach to the government strengthened the conservative faction however with the arrest of Duke of Norfolk (1547) and the dismissal of Gardiner from the Privy Chamber the reformists gained the much needed advantage . This shows that there was a threat to the stability of the government as Henrys most trusted councillors seemed to become more radically involved in the faction rivalry during the last 8 years of Henrys reign. This may have added pressure on Henry and his deteriorating health thus he may have not been able