Essay on comparing alexander II and alexander III

Over the period from 1855 to 1964, Russia saw various reforms and policies under the Tsars and the Communist leaders that had great impacts on its economy and society both positive and negative. Lenin definitely implanted polices that changed society and the economy for example with war communism. However whether his policies had the greatest impact is debatable and in this essay I will be assessing the view whether Lenin had the greatest impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other ruler between the period from 1855-1964.

Alexander The Great Alexander The Great no doubt left his mark on history like the many kings before him. One thing he was known for was his hatred for representative government and the belief that zeal for Orthodoxy should be cultivated by every tsar. By the end of his reign Alexander III had also amassed a large amount of territory from him conquests of Persia and Egypt, his kingdom ranging from the Mediterranean to the border of India. Alexander

Alexander the Great is a great war general and lead his arm to many victories. Alexander died and made the largest kingdom that lasted about 3,000 years. King Henry VII killed a lot of his people and only cared for himself. Even though they are very different they are similar in some way Alexander the Great did a lot for his kingdom. He was ruthless but had mercy for people he respected in war.

By his own account, Alexander felt that he should issue his Imperial Decree for two reasons - The first being Divine Providence (or according to God’s guidance/direction) and the second being because of his obligations as Emperor of Russia. In his decree, Alexander makes it apparent that he is acting according to his selfless desire and duty to make sure that all citizens, regardless of their social status, should be surrounded “with our affection and our Imperial solicitude.” In other words, each and every person should be cared for. However, according to an article on markedbyteachers.com, Alexander’s motives might

Alexander III, known as Alexander the Great, is a name that the majority of people have come across, even thousands of years after his death. He was given the name “Alexander the Great” because of all his contributions in making the Persian empire veer in a completely different direction in such a short amount of time. Great amounts of people believe that he was deserving the that title. I, however, think that he should not have been awarded that title. I believe that he was not deserving of “the great” because he was cruel, his empire didn’t last, and all his actions were very extra and unnecessary.

Taking control of autocratic Russia in 1855, Alexander II was the successor to his father Tsar Nicolas I having been trained his entire life to take on the role. During his reign as Tsar, Alexander passed many reforms all of which varied in political, social and economic stance. His most famous reform was deemed to be that of the emancipation of the Serfs, gaining him the title ‘Tsar Liberator’ as many believed that his effort to free those who had be bound by slavery, made him a hero. However some question whether he truly deserved this title as many reforms became reactional and many initially liberating reforms were revoked in order to ensure the security of the autocracy. As

In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had. He was referred to as a reactionary, unlike his father Alexander II who was known as a reformer. He managed to please the people with his Russian figure and attitude, he changed their attitude and he made tsarism look all the better, all in a short period of time. Despite their different policies, they had the same goals/ambitions inside their head in the long run, and that was to strengthen Autocracy in the Russian empire but Alexander III did this by reversing what his father had done as he felt he knew

In conclusion, Alexander was great as a general, not great as a person, and therefore, is a little bit of both. He could keep his troops going in times of trial and hold grudges with the best of them. However, he can't be defined by just one thing. When writing about Alexander the Great, the Basileus of Macedonia, the Hegemon of the Hellenic League, you have to look at all sides of

Tsar Alexander II and III while father and son had very different ambitions as Tsar and different view for the future of the empire. Alexander III succeeded to his father’s throne in 1894. His reign is looked upon by most historians as a time of repression that saw the undoing of many of the reforms carried out by his father. Certainly that was a time of great economic and social change but these had led, in the West of the nation, great pressure on political system. However Alexander was deeply suspicious of the direction in which his father had taken Russia and the internal reforms that he instituted were designed to correct what he saw as the too-liberal tendencies of his father's reign.

Alexander III was the Tsar of Russia from 1881 to 1894 and during his reign, Russia became somewhat stable, and Alexander himself opposed his father’s reforms and stamped out any opposition to his rule.

Alexander the Great was the son of Phillip II, which was the king of Macedon and was a successful king and leader, setting up his son to be a successful leader in both the military aspect, as well in the political aspect as a king (Mark). Phillip III became known as Alexander the Great because the people that loved him and the success that he brought to his name, the people everywhere thought he was the greatest thing at the time, and since then that is the famous name that fills the history books (Mark). Alexander the Great spent his time, when not in battle, spreading the Greek background, language, and culture throughout his allies

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority” (Acton Institute 1). Alexander the Great was and absolute ruler that had both influence and authority; he abused both which is why many of his subjects followed him out of fear and not loyalty. Rulers are defined by how they use their power, the decisions’ they make; and how those decisions will affect the people. In my essay, I will analyze two viewpoints’ made by two professors and their viewpoints about Alexander III and whether or not he was deserving of the title “The Great”.

Alexander III of Macedon, widely known as Alexander the Great, is opinioned by some people to have been a ruthless man who only had a thirst for conquest , but according to others he was a man of intellect and “statesmanlike vision” (Hammond Preface). In N.G.L. Hammond’s book The Genius of Alexander the Great, as stated in the preface, he tries to refrain from writing based on his own opinion of Alexander, and instead analyzes the few surviving narratives on Alexander’s achievements in an unbiased manner. He portrays the conquests, struggles, and greatest achievements of Alexander’s career, such as the building of his empire that stretched from the eastern Mediterranean coast through Asia Minor and the

Born Late July 356 BC in Pella, Macedonia Died June,10 323 BC in The Palace of Nabukodonossor, Babylon

Although they were father and son, the reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III took off in completely different directions. Alexander II was committed to his empire by vowing to reform Russia, making it more in line with nineteenth-century western society. His son, on the other hand, was the unprepared tsar, whose actions were literally reactions to his father’s unexpected assassination. Consequently, Alexander II went down in history as much more productive in the field of domestic policy; in dealing with revolutionaries; and in his foreign policy than his son Alex III would ever be.