Latest / The Romanov Dynasty: Rise, Power, and Bloody End — Fexingo History / Alexander II and the Great Reforms: Emancipation and Empire
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've spent a lot of time with Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, Paul I — but we haven't yet talked about the tsar who arguably changed Russia more than any of them in the 19th century: Alexander II. Luna: The one they called the Tsar-Liberator, right? For freeing the serfs? Lucas: Exactly. Alexander Nikolaevich — he came to the throne in 1855, right at the tail end of the Crimean War, which Russia had just lost humiliatingly to Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire. That defeat was a wake-up call. The old system — serfdom, a backward army, a corrupt bureaucracy — had failed. And Alexander, unlike his father Nicholas I, was willing to change. Lucas: And honestly, if today was worth a coffee to you, that's the link — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. People like you who step into history with us episode by episode are the reason this stays ad-free, so thanks for that. Luna: Yeah, it really does make a difference. Alright, so where did Alexander start? The serfs, I assume? Lucas: He knew serfdom was the root of Russia's backwardness. But it wasn't a simple moral decision — there were practical reasons too. Serfdom was economically inefficient, agricultural productivity was stagnant, and there had been hundreds of peasant uprisings in the decades before. So in 1856, just a year after becoming tsar, Alexander told the nobility that it was better to abolish serfdom from above than wait for it to be abolished from below. Luna: And the nobility didn't exactly rush to agree. Lucas: No, they dragged their feet. So Alexander set up a secret committee, then a public one, and after years of debate, on March 3, 1861 — February 19 by the old Russian calendar — he signed the Emancipation Edict. It freed 23 million privately owned serfs, giving them personal freedom and, in theory, land. But the terms were complicated. Luna: Complicated how? Lucas: The peasants got land, but they had to pay the government for it over 49 years. And the land was often less than they'd been farming before, and of poorer quality. Plus, the land was granted not to individual peasants but to the village commune — the mir — which controlled redistribution. So they were free, but still tied to the land in practice, and indebted. Lucas: And of course, the nobility were compensated by the state for the land they lost. So nobody was entirely happy. The radicals said it was a sham, the conservatives thought it had gone too far. But it was a monumental step. Luna: Was it just serfdom, or did he reform other areas too? Lucas: Oh, it was a whole package — the Great Reforms. In 1864, he introduced the zemstvo — local elected councils for rural districts. These were a huge deal because they gave some measure of self-government, even if limited. They handled roads, schools, hospitals, and local taxes. They were dominated by the nobility, but peasants and townspeople also had representation. Lucas: Then there was the judicial reform, also in 1864. That was arguably the most progressive. It introduced trial by jury, an independent judiciary, public proceedings, and justices of the peace. Russia had never had anything like it. The new courts were based on Western models — French and English — and they actually worked, mostly. Luna: And the military? The Crimean War showed the old army was broken. Lucas: Exactly. That was the third pillar. War Minister Dmitry Milyutin overhauled the entire system. He introduced universal military service in 1874 — all classes, not just peasants. But it had a lottery system and exemptions for educated men. He reduced the term of service from 25 years to 6, plus reserves. He modernized training, opened military schools, and improved conditions. The army became more professional and less brutal. Lucas: There were also reforms in education, censorship, and the finance system. Alexander opened more universities and gave them more autonomy, relaxed censorship slightly, and modernized the state budget. It was a genuinely ambitious program. Luna: So why is it that we often think of the later tsars as reactionary? Did the reforms backfire? Lucas: In a way, yes. The reforms created new social forces — the zemstvos became platforms for liberals demanding a constitution. The new courts and juries sometimes acquitted radicals, which infuriated the government. And the relaxation of censorship allowed revolutionary ideas to spread. The intelligentsia — the educated class — became more vocal, and some turned to terrorism. Luna: The People's Will — Narodnaya Volya. Lucas: Right. They emerged in the 1870s, a small group of radicals who believed that only the assassination of the tsar could spark revolution. They tried multiple times — they blew up a section of the Winter Palace in 1880, but Alexander survived. They even tried to blow up his train. They were relentless. Lucas: But there was also a national crisis: the Polish January Uprising of 1863. That crushed any liberal tendencies Alexander had left. After Poland, he moved toward Russification, and his reforms slowed. He became more cautious, more conservative. Luna: And then there was the irony that he freed the serfs but was killed by radicals who wanted even more. Lucas: Exactly. On March 13, 1881 — March 1 old style — Alexander was returning to the Winter Palace from a military parade. A bomb was thrown by a member of Narodnaya Volya. It didn't kill him, but his carriage was damaged. He got out to help the wounded, and then a second bomber, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, threw another bomb at his feet. It killed them both. Alexander died hours later. Luna: And his son Alexander III reversed many of his reforms. Lucas: He did. He was a reactionary. He expanded the secret police, reduced zemstvo powers, imposed strict censorship, and pursued aggressive Russification. The promise of a constitution that Alexander II had supposedly been considering on the day of his death never materialized. The window for reform slammed shut. Lucas: So Alexander II is a tragic figure in a way — a genuine reformer whose own reforms created the forces that destroyed him. And yet, he changed Russia forever. The serfs were free, the courts were fairer, the army was modern. It just wasn't enough to satisfy a society that had tasted change and wanted more. Luna: It makes you wonder what would have happened if he'd lived to implement that constitution. Lucas: A counterfactual that haunts Russian history. Maybe a constitutional monarchy could have avoided the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. But we'll never know. What we do know is that Alexander II's reign was the last great attempt to reform Russia from above, and its failure set the stage for the catastrophes of the 20th century.