Simviation Forums

After Russias distasterous defeat in the Crimean war and The death of Tzar Nicholas I, Tzar Alexander II realised that Russia seriously needed to modernise if it was ever to be able to fight the west and win again. Since Nicholas I had done very little in the way of modernisation, he made huge bounds in Russias legal system but that was it, Alexander II needed to modernise fast and try to catch up with the west. Which was by 1855 a hopless prospect. After the emancipation of the Serf's in 1861 the way was open to modernisation and westernisation. There were also huge building projects for industrialisation. Also, on the day Alexander II was assassinated he was going to sign a paper to enable a paliament in Russia. All this looks like steps in the right direction. However with the west so far ahead in modernisation I shall turn this debate over to you. Were Alexander II's reforms too little too late? Or were they in fact too much too soon?

I would personally go with way too little. If you look at countries where the leader of the nation didn't get assasinated then they often came out of the tunnel stronger and prouder with similar reforms.
Alas history discussions never really resolve anything, but they make for some great debates. So I'll vote wee bit, and at least quarter past lunch

Mark

Interesting you should say that. We did this debate in history today and me and a friend won it with too much too soon.

An interesting argument - that can be made both ways.  By historically keeping the serfs dominated by a ruling class for so long, it can be argued that the seeds of popular uprising - defined as an uprising led by the non-ruling class - were set.  It is difficult to keep "progressive" ideas from filtering into an opressed class.

However, the Czars/Tzars (choose your spelling) were not, although they appeared to be, all powerful, and absolute rulers.  You had a ruling class that valued a certain stability and order.

Too little too late:  The reforms were not enough and fast enough to satisfy the radical elements that had taken hold (i.e. the Bolsheviks).

Too Much too Soon: the reforms were too much power away from the ruling class and threatened their position and power, which led to a power vacuum into which the Bolsheviks led the people.

Just to be a pain, I vote for too much-too late.

It seems to me that with all the elements of an incipient revolution already in place the promises of more reforms and freedoms were perceived as a sign of weakness and vulnerability.

One group saw the chance to capitalize on the window between the "victory" of new reforms and the realization of better conditions.

Another group saw weakness in dealing with internal affairs and the need to restore a strong government.

The two groups would not normally have co-operated, but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

I infact think that too much too late is the real answer. The groundwork that Alexander II put down in the 1860's should have been done in the reign of Nicholas I and probably even when Alexander I was still in power. But as it was Alexander II needed to modernise on reforms that he himself had put down and too much was done in too short a time.