Russia between 1855 and 1894 underwent profound political and social changes under two autocratic Tsars, shaped by reform, resistance, and reactionary conservatism.
The State of Russia in 1855
Autocracy
In 1855, Russia was ruled by Tsar Nicholas I, whose regime epitomised absolute autocracy. The Tsar was believed to be divinely appointed, with no legal or institutional constraints on his power. The bureaucracy was rigid and inefficient, and the state apparatus operated through centralised control, reinforced by censorship and surveillance via the Third Section (secret police).
Serfdom
Roughly 80–90% of the Russian population were peasants, and over half were serfs—effectively bound to their landlords and the land. They lacked basic freedoms, owed labour or payments to landowners, and could be bought or sold. This feudal system severely restricted social mobility and agricultural productivity.
Backward Economy
Russia's economy lagged far behind Western Europe:
It lacked industrial infrastructure, relying heavily on agriculture and manual labour.
The state-owned most industries, discouraging private enterprise.
There were limited railways, poor internal trade networks, and little urbanisation.
Impact of the Crimean War
The Crimean War (1853–1856) exposed the weaknesses of the Russian military and state:
Russia’s defeat by Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire was humiliating.
The war revealed outdated weapons, poor logistics, and inadequate leadership.
It highlighted the need for reform in administration, infrastructure, and the military.
Nicholas I died during the war, leaving his son, Alexander II, to inherit a broken state.
Alexander II’s Reforms (1855–1881)
Emancipation of the Serfs (1861)
In 1861, Alexander II issued the Emancipation Edict, freeing over 51 million serfs:
Serfs became legally free to marry, own property, and trade.
However, they were forced to buy land from their landlords, often at inflated prices.
The land was held in the mir (village commune), which distributed strips of land and controlled redistribution and taxation.
Redemption payments were required for 49 years, burdening peasants with debt.
Though freedom was granted, economic and social mobility remained limited.
Local Government Reform (Zemstva, 1864)
To manage local affairs, zemstva were established:
These were elected local councils responsible for education, health, roads, and welfare.
They included representatives from all estates (nobility, townspeople, peasants), but voting was weighted heavily towards the nobility.
Although they allowed for some local autonomy, they lacked national influence and were supervised by provincial governors.
Judicial Reform (1864)
Alexander introduced one of the most progressive judicial reforms in Europe:
Independent courts were created with publicly conducted trials.
A jury system and professionally trained judges were introduced.
The reforms improved fairness but were not extended to all regions and classes.
Educational Reform
Education expanded significantly:
Primary and secondary schools increased in number and enrolment.
Universities gained more autonomy and could appoint their own staff.
However, following radical student unrest, reforms were scaled back in the 1870s.
Military Reform (from 1862)
The military was modernised to address the failures of the Crimean War:
Universal conscription for all classes was introduced in 1874, replacing noble privilege.
The service term was reduced from 25 to 6 years active duty.
Training improved and the army became more professional.
Despite reforms, Russia remained militarily inferior to Western powers.
Limitations of Alexander II’s Reforms
Continued Autocracy
Despite liberalising measures, autocracy remained intact:
The Tsar retained supreme power and could override zemstva and courts.
Political parties and freedom of the press were prohibited.
Censorship was relaxed but not abolished.
Social Discontent
Many nobles resented the loss of serf labour and the zemstva.
Peasants were disappointed by inadequate land and redemption debts.
Radicals criticised the limited nature of reform and began to promote revolution.
Reaction to Opposition
Following a failed assassination attempt in 1866, Alexander grew more conservative:
Education was restricted, and universities lost autonomy.
Police powers were strengthened, and surveillance increased.
Opposition movements such as the Populists and Nihilists grew in response to repression.
In 1881, Alexander II was assassinated by the radical group People’s Will.
Alexander III’s Reign (1881–1894)
Repression and Autocracy
Alexander III reacted to his father’s assassination by adopting a highly repressive regime:
Reversed liberal reforms and strengthened central control.
Expanded powers of the Okhrana (secret police).
Enforced strict censorship and clamped down on dissent.
Emergency powers allowed for arbitrary arrest and military courts.
Rollback of Reforms
Zemstva lost independence and were brought under control of appointed officials.
Judicial reforms were reversed in part; trial by jury was limited.
Education was strictly regulated under the Minister of Education, Ivan Delyanov, who reduced working-class access to schooling.
Orthodoxy, Nationalism, and Russification
Alexander III promoted the idea of 'Official Nationality'—Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality:
The Orthodox Church was used to reinforce loyalty and control.
Policies of Russification imposed the Russian language and culture on national minorities.
National identity was tightly bound to Tsarism and religion.
Non-Russian groups, especially Jews, Poles, and Finns, faced discrimination and coercive assimilation.
Economic Conservatism and Development
While generally conservative, Alexander III did support industrial development under Finance Minister Sergei Witte:
Railways were expanded, especially the Trans-Siberian Railway.
However, economic inequality persisted, and working-class conditions remained poor.
Autocratic Rule under Alexander II and Alexander III
Similarities
Both upheld the principle of absolute monarchy.
Neither allowed for constitutional reform or national political representation.
Censorship, repression, and secret policing remained core tools of governance.
Differences
Alexander II believed in limited reform to preserve autocracy—his reforms were top-down and strategic.
Alexander III rejected reform altogether in favour of authoritarian conservatism.
Nature of Rule
Alexander II is often dubbed the "Tsar Liberator" for emancipating the serfs, though his reforms were cautious and calculated.
Alexander III sought to strengthen the autocracy through ideological control and state-sponsored nationalism.
Both feared revolution and prioritised state stability over democratic progress.
Methods of Control
Surveillance and police powers were used extensively under both Tsars.
The Church and education system were employed to foster obedience and suppress radical ideas.
Russification and repression of minorities were central under Alexander III.
In conclusion, while Alexander II experimented with reform as a tool for preserving the monarchy, Alexander III’s reign marked a return to rigid autocracy and repression, revealing the Tsars’ shared commitment to maintaining their absolute rule amidst mounting social and political pressures.
FAQ
Alexander II emancipated the serfs in 1861 due to a combination of economic, political, and military pressures that had become too urgent to ignore. The Crimean War had revealed Russia’s military inefficiency, which was partly due to an untrained peasant conscript army rooted in serfdom. Industrial and agricultural stagnation further emphasised the inefficiency of a labour system based on bondage. There was also rising unrest among the peasantry and nobility, which could erupt into violence if left unchecked. Influenced by liberal advisors and his own awareness of Russia's backwardness, Alexander feared that delay would provoke revolution, famously declaring that it was “better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it begins to abolish itself from below.” The timing reflected a delicate balance: he wanted to modernise while maintaining control. Earlier abolition may have lacked elite support, while further delay risked destabilising the empire. Hence, 1861 was the most politically viable moment.
After emancipation, the mir (village commune) played a central role in managing land and maintaining social order in rural Russia. Serfs were granted land not individually but collectively through the mir, which then redistributed strips of land to peasant households. This body was responsible for organising communal farming, collecting taxes, and administering redemption payments to the state. While the mir ensured some level of local governance and preserved communal traditions, it also restricted individual freedom. Peasants could not leave their village without permission, and land redistribution discouraged innovation, as hard work did not guarantee land security. The mir helped the state control the rural population but also contributed to agricultural inefficiency and reinforced poverty. Its rigid structure hindered the emergence of a class of independent, profit-driven farmers, thereby limiting rural economic development. The significance of the mir lies in its dual function as a stabilising force and a major obstacle to modernisation.
The Russian nobility experienced both gains and losses as a result of Alexander II’s reforms. Emancipation reduced their traditional control over serfs and the guaranteed labour they had relied on for centuries. Many nobles were compensated with state bonds, but this income was often less reliable than serf dues, leading to a decline in their financial stability. The zemstva reforms, however, provided them with a new role in local governance, albeit one that some nobles found beneath their previous status as landowners. Judicial reforms also introduced equality before the law, which many aristocrats viewed as a threat to their privileged position. Reactions varied—some progressive nobles supported the reforms and even participated in voluntary efforts to improve peasant welfare, but a significant conservative faction deeply resented the perceived erosion of their power. Over time, many nobles became disillusioned, contributing to the later backlash and support for the reactionary policies under Alexander III.
Under Alexander II, censorship was moderately relaxed as part of his broader reform agenda. Newspapers and periodicals enjoyed greater freedom, and there was an increase in the number of publications and open discussion on reform and social issues. However, this liberalisation remained under close state supervision, and publications deemed too radical or subversive were still banned. As opposition grew in the 1860s and especially after the attempted assassination in 1866, censorship tightened once more. Under Alexander III, censorship was strictly enforced as part of his broader strategy to maintain autocracy and suppress dissent. The state controlled not only printed materials but also theatre, education, and public lectures. New censorship laws in the 1880s restricted what could be published without prior approval, and editors could be prosecuted for violations. The press became a tool for promoting autocratic values, Orthodoxy, and nationalism. This shift severely limited intellectual freedom and intensified the divide between reformist thinkers and the regime.
Alexander III utilised the Russian Orthodox Church as a critical instrument of state power to promote loyalty, obedience, and national unity. He believed that Orthodoxy was inseparable from autocracy and actively reinforced this bond throughout his reign. The Church was deeply involved in education; religious instruction was prioritised in schools, and ecclesiastical control over the curriculum increased. Priests were expected to act as agents of the state, reporting seditious behaviour and promoting Tsarist ideals. The clergy’s role expanded beyond the spiritual into the administrative, particularly in rural communities, where they reinforced the Tsar’s divine authority. Religious conformity was emphasised, and conversion to Orthodoxy was encouraged among minorities, especially Jews, Muslims, and Catholics, as part of broader Russification efforts. Church attendance and adherence to Orthodox rituals were seen as civic duties. By fusing religion with nationalism and loyalty to the Tsar, Alexander III deepened the ideological foundation of autocratic rule and further marginalised dissent.
Practice Questions
To what extent did Alexander II’s reforms improve the lives of the Russian people?
Alexander II’s reforms offered significant legal and structural changes, most notably the 1861 emancipation of the serfs, which ended legal serfdom. However, peasants remained burdened by redemption payments and limited land. Judicial, military, and educational reforms modernised parts of Russian society, yet the autocratic state remained dominant. Local government via zemstva brought some local participation, but power rested with the nobility. Ultimately, while the reforms improved specific aspects of life, particularly for the educated and urban classes, they largely failed to transform the lived reality for most peasants or challenge the foundations of autocratic rule.
How far did Alexander III’s policies represent a rejection of his father’s reforms?
Alexander III’s reign marked a decisive shift towards reactionary autocracy, rejecting many of his father’s liberalising reforms. He curtailed the power of the zemstva, reversed judicial independence, and reinforced censorship and surveillance. Education was restricted, with access for lower classes limited. However, some continuity existed, particularly in state-led economic development and infrastructure expansion, such as the Trans-Siberian Railway. While Alexander III retained certain administrative frameworks introduced by Alexander II, his overall approach—focused on repression, Russification, and ideological control—reflected a strong rejection of his father’s vision of cautious modernisation and limited reform.
