Russia Alexander II interpretation essay 4
Question
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing about the consequences of Alexander II's Great Reforms
Response (2018 paper)
Both passages agree that Alexander II’s Great Reforms included changes to the nature of
government in Russia and that the Zemstva at least had the potential to fully emancipate the
peasants. However, they differ significantly in their views as to what extent Alexander II really
reformed Russia, with passage B arguing strongly that the term ‘Great Reforms’ is an exaggeration
and that in reality, the interests of the ruling social classes were simply perpetuated by Alexander II’s
policies. Although this is perhaps an excessively cynical approach, it is more convincing than the
claims of passage A, which ignores the fact that the autocracy was unchanged by the Great Reforms
and how subsequently, the social fabric of Russia witnessed little, if any, change at all.
Passage A is in many respects a traditional account of the consequences of Alexander II’s
Great Reforms, supporting the sympathetic view of him as the ‘Tsar Liberator’ who ‘changed the
social fabric profoundly’. This is supported by the fact that the Emancipation Edict of 1861 brought
about significant change to the structure of Russian society, with the abolition of serfdom depriving
the nobility of a political role. It could be argued, therefore, that the peasants were at least legally
liberated by the Edict and free to own private plots of land, a freedom that they had never enjoyed
prior to 1861. Evtuhov correctly makes the link between how the emancipation of the serfs
facilitated both urbanisation and industrialisation in Russia by highlighting that ‘railroads began
slowly to bridge the vast distances of European Russia’. The Crimean War had emphasised Russia’s
inferior industrial capacity relative to western European rivals, and it is to Alexander’s credit that he
put the needs of industry before those of the ruling social classes by abolishing serfdom, which
would in turn enable the migration of the peasants to urban areas. The increase in the amount of rail
track in Russia was again a personal success of the tsar in the sense that he used Russia’s defeat in
the Crimean War to develop the economy; the amount of track went from 2,200 to 14,200 over the
course of the reign. Such a dramatic expansion was undoubtedly a commendable consequence of
the Great Reforms which brought about considerable economic growth and urbanisation, in that
food could now be moved more effectively from rural areas to the cities. The passage’s central
concern is the establishment of the Zemstva, which Evtuhov regards as ‘the cornerstone of a
distinctive and original political culture’. This view is supported by the fact that members of the
Zemstva were chosen by 3 electoral colleges which represented all areas of Russian society. They
took direct control of crucial sectors of government including agriculture, public services and
infrastructure. It is consequently a viable interpretation that the Zemstva changed the nature of
Russian society by introducing an element of democracy within the Empire for the first time, for
which Alexander deserves considerable praise. From this perspective, passage A is relatively
convincing, given that many of its claims can be corroborated by historical truths. It gains further
credibility when we consider that Evtuhov recognises that changes came about ‘in a manner that the
legislators had not planned’. This is a very convincing claim as it puts the reforms into the context in
which they were made; Alexander is not presented as a benevolent reformer who wanted to
improve the lives of the Russian peoples, which he was not. Instead, it is correctly recognised here
that the tsar’s Great Reforms were intended to allow Russia to catch up with the west, which was
critical after the Crimean War. Increased freedoms to the Russian peoples was subsequently an
inadvertent by-product of the Great Reforms. Because the passage understands that Alexander was
Question
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing about the consequences of Alexander II's Great Reforms
Response (2018 paper)
Both passages agree that Alexander II’s Great Reforms included changes to the nature of
government in Russia and that the Zemstva at least had the potential to fully emancipate the
peasants. However, they differ significantly in their views as to what extent Alexander II really
reformed Russia, with passage B arguing strongly that the term ‘Great Reforms’ is an exaggeration
and that in reality, the interests of the ruling social classes were simply perpetuated by Alexander II’s
policies. Although this is perhaps an excessively cynical approach, it is more convincing than the
claims of passage A, which ignores the fact that the autocracy was unchanged by the Great Reforms
and how subsequently, the social fabric of Russia witnessed little, if any, change at all.
Passage A is in many respects a traditional account of the consequences of Alexander II’s
Great Reforms, supporting the sympathetic view of him as the ‘Tsar Liberator’ who ‘changed the
social fabric profoundly’. This is supported by the fact that the Emancipation Edict of 1861 brought
about significant change to the structure of Russian society, with the abolition of serfdom depriving
the nobility of a political role. It could be argued, therefore, that the peasants were at least legally
liberated by the Edict and free to own private plots of land, a freedom that they had never enjoyed
prior to 1861. Evtuhov correctly makes the link between how the emancipation of the serfs
facilitated both urbanisation and industrialisation in Russia by highlighting that ‘railroads began
slowly to bridge the vast distances of European Russia’. The Crimean War had emphasised Russia’s
inferior industrial capacity relative to western European rivals, and it is to Alexander’s credit that he
put the needs of industry before those of the ruling social classes by abolishing serfdom, which
would in turn enable the migration of the peasants to urban areas. The increase in the amount of rail
track in Russia was again a personal success of the tsar in the sense that he used Russia’s defeat in
the Crimean War to develop the economy; the amount of track went from 2,200 to 14,200 over the
course of the reign. Such a dramatic expansion was undoubtedly a commendable consequence of
the Great Reforms which brought about considerable economic growth and urbanisation, in that
food could now be moved more effectively from rural areas to the cities. The passage’s central
concern is the establishment of the Zemstva, which Evtuhov regards as ‘the cornerstone of a
distinctive and original political culture’. This view is supported by the fact that members of the
Zemstva were chosen by 3 electoral colleges which represented all areas of Russian society. They
took direct control of crucial sectors of government including agriculture, public services and
infrastructure. It is consequently a viable interpretation that the Zemstva changed the nature of
Russian society by introducing an element of democracy within the Empire for the first time, for
which Alexander deserves considerable praise. From this perspective, passage A is relatively
convincing, given that many of its claims can be corroborated by historical truths. It gains further
credibility when we consider that Evtuhov recognises that changes came about ‘in a manner that the
legislators had not planned’. This is a very convincing claim as it puts the reforms into the context in
which they were made; Alexander is not presented as a benevolent reformer who wanted to
improve the lives of the Russian peoples, which he was not. Instead, it is correctly recognised here
that the tsar’s Great Reforms were intended to allow Russia to catch up with the west, which was
critical after the Crimean War. Increased freedoms to the Russian peoples was subsequently an
inadvertent by-product of the Great Reforms. Because the passage understands that Alexander was
