After studying Russia for the past 2 years, what you said is very far from the truth. Alexander ll, was a very reactionary monarch. His primary aim was to uphold autocracy. Look at his emancipation edict. It did not liberate his people, it only added another finical burden on them.
After 1 year of biochem I would contest that (jk) He emancipated the serfs and instituted a better local self-government system. Also increased Finnish autonomy from Russia (was a bit of a jerk to other eastern European countries though). And last of all he was close to drafting the duma... so how was he autocratic?
Did he desolve or release any of his power? No therefore autocratic. But that is an incredible snapshot of his rule. You talk of emancipation but you forget the "redemption payments". The serfs who then became peasents where now actually more restricted. Use of the third section and the show trials show his use of oppression. Finland, or under tsar Alexander ll's rule (informally called the favorite child) where already treat better than any other part of the empire. He however also was the one who declined their appeal for national freedom. What he was drafting was not his idea and he was being "forced" into like he was emancipation. His advisor advised it. As in act from above rather than be overthrown from below. Please continue, I'll ace the next essay on Tsar Alexander ll, liberator or tyrant.
Can't be bothered to quote cuz there's too much at this point From what I know, emancipation lead to the zemsvto (local governments/councils) who had more power than the former rural self-government system. It included a group of elected peasants/serfs. The peasants/serfs could also now buy land. The local government didn't have much power over this new market. True this ended up pretty badly for the peasants and famine soon struck the country but some ended up as land owners so it wasn't all bad for them. Also the state owned serfs were actually given a better deal then the privately owned ones 5 years later ... Main thing is, it promoted free trade I'll be honest... this bit of history is kinda boring...
Your knowledge is patchy at best. Not until Nicholas ll could peasents buy land, none of them could afford in Alexander's as the redemption payments were expensive. Zemstvas (rural governments) made no real impact and did not encourage democracy, Alexander picked who he wanted on these councils. And free trade in Russia???? That's never been the case at all in its 400 year history
I said it promoted the idea of free trade, not that it happened The zemstvo members were elected, its just rhat the nobles had more power than the peasants...Also the zemsvto did have a lot of power at the start, looked at health, taxes, certain resources etc... It's only later that the power of the zemsvto was undermined by the power of governors under the rule of Alexander ii I Do you study specifically the Romanovs or the entirety of russian history?
Alexander ll although did some "liberating" acts, these acts where reactionary. His entire emancipation edict was to avoid being overthrown from below. Although he was less oppressive than other rulers, it did not make him any less autocratic
Since Alexander ii got rid of censorship, a populist movement was formed and he may have been threatened by the more radical groups like "land and hope"(I think that's what it's called
Being oppressive and being autocratic are not the same thing. There is more to being autocratic than just oppressive
RA RA RASPUTIN Lover of the Russian queen There was a cat that really was gone RA RA RASPUTIN Russia's greatest love machine It was a shame how he carried on