Alexander II was known as a reformer. He recognized that the spirit of Russia was changing and realized that changes must be made if the monarchy were to survive.
He abolished capital punshiment and abolished slavery; relazed laws on censorship; developed a new penal code. He seemed to sense that revolution was on the horizon and work towards keeping it at bay. Some scholars have suggested that Alexander II was on a path of Westernization and had that path continued, Russia might have established a Constitutional monarchy instead of an autocracy.
The assassination of this Reformer Tsar left his son, Alexander III ruler of all Russia. Alexander III lacked the temperament of his father and did not share his ideas of reform. He wasn't prepared to take the throne. His brother, Nicholas, was the heir apparent until in his death in 1865. Nicholas's death came as a blow to Alexander II who lost heart and was lacked the energy needed to education his second son. Therefore, the relationship between the two was strained.
When Alexander III became tsar, he did away with many of the reforms made by his father and returned to more of an autocratic rule. His rule could be described as "anti-reform."
After all of that here is the question, do you think Alexander II would have continued in his father's footsteps had his father devoted more time to his education? Was Alexander II's reaction to reform based on fear having seen his own father killed? His autocratic ways set the stage for the next tsar, who would be the last tsar of Russia.
Lexi
He abolished capital punshiment and abolished slavery; relazed laws on censorship; developed a new penal code. He seemed to sense that revolution was on the horizon and work towards keeping it at bay. Some scholars have suggested that Alexander II was on a path of Westernization and had that path continued, Russia might have established a Constitutional monarchy instead of an autocracy.
The assassination of this Reformer Tsar left his son, Alexander III ruler of all Russia. Alexander III lacked the temperament of his father and did not share his ideas of reform. He wasn't prepared to take the throne. His brother, Nicholas, was the heir apparent until in his death in 1865. Nicholas's death came as a blow to Alexander II who lost heart and was lacked the energy needed to education his second son. Therefore, the relationship between the two was strained.
When Alexander III became tsar, he did away with many of the reforms made by his father and returned to more of an autocratic rule. His rule could be described as "anti-reform."
After all of that here is the question, do you think Alexander II would have continued in his father's footsteps had his father devoted more time to his education? Was Alexander II's reaction to reform based on fear having seen his own father killed? His autocratic ways set the stage for the next tsar, who would be the last tsar of Russia.
Lexi