…Fight club.
The plan is for an online History debate between Little Heath and Sir Henry Floyd. It will be done through posting comments to this post.
The aim is to get you really thinking about how to construct analytical and powerful arguments in as few words as possible.
The rules.
Obviously the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule is also that you do not talk about fight club. However the third rule is that each school will get two posts of no more than 200 words. Credit will be given for the power of your arguments and evidence deployed (you should aim to interact with it where it is appropriate).
The timeline will be as follows.
30th September – The title is released (Little Heath will argue for the motion and Sir Henry Floyd against it).
The week starting the 1st October – Little Heath have a week to make their first post in favour of the motion.
The week starting the 15th October – Sir Henry Floyd have a week to put their first post against the motion.
The week starting the 22nd October – both schools have a week to post a rebuttal of the other school’s argument.
Over half term – Judging to take place.
Enjoy…
Mr Kydd
DEBATE TITLE
To what extent is it correct to suggest that Alexander II deserves his reputation as the Tsar Liberator ?
LHS winning post – for the motion
Abul, James, Luke and Luke…
It was Count Tolstoy who first coined the term ‘tsar liberator’ to toast Alexander II. As a liberator is someone who aims to free his people from a great repression it is an appropriate title.
In 1861, over 85% of the Russian population were serfs. The economic, social and political repression they faced was dreadful. In 1856, KD Kavelin, described serfdom as the “knot which ties together all our afflictions.” Indeed, even Alexander II’s own father, Nicholas I, stated “ there is no question that serfdom… is an evil, palpable and obvious to everyone”. Serfs were the objects tied to the land owned by their landlords. They could be forced into marriage, forced into the army, also they could be bought and sold. The worst suffering came in absentee estates, as correctly portrayed by Dore’s work the “gambling of souls”.
The edict ended all this. It transferred land to the ex-serfs, as shown by the 41% decrease in nobility land ownership in 1861. It also meant that they had freedom of movement, and marriage. As Westwood argues “…no ruler of Russia bought so much relief to so many of his people as Alexander”. The lateral reforms that followed also meant that the ex-serfs were now equal before the law and had some voting rights. Furthermore the army selection process was made fairer and the length of service decrease.
Henry Floyd winning post – against the motion.
Jem, Jono, Liz and Archie.
By 1855, Russia’s feudal society lagged behind leading European powers, forcing Alexander II into a policy of reformation. Due to this, the Tsar gained an undeserving title, ‘Tsar Liberator’, for ‘reformations’ that only worked in theory.
The 1861 edict aimed to liberate Serfs and eliminate anarchist movement, “…better to abolish…from above than… from below.” Alexander felt if peasants were appeased they’d no longer pose threats to autocracy, however, within four months of emancipation there were 647 revolts. A ‘reformed’ society was non-existent.
The reformations were not only futile, but jeopardous. Before 1861, 75% of Serfs had been self-sufficient, by Alexander’s death only 50% were; within 20 years standards of life had deteriorated. The people’s lives hadn’t been ‘liberated’, simply revamped.
Intentions of the reformations were intangible. Serfs were legally ‘freed’, but redemption taxes spanning across 49 years, caught peasants within financial entrapment. Immigration was restricted by Mirs and 15% of peasants remained ‘temporarily obligated’ to landlords until 1881; It’d therefore be unfair to credit the Tsar with having ‘liberated’ the people.
Though Alexander intended to reform Russia, aims to ‘free’ the people were really attempts to placate them, to retain (a somewhat contradictory) autocratic rule and realistically, was unattainable. By 1881, the lives of Serfs were unchanged and arguably worse than in years prior to emancipation. Perhaps a more appropriate name for Alexander would be ‘Tsar Modifier’.
In reply to the Henry Floyd post, whilst Alexander’s motives are uncertain, a number of points should be made about the realities of the edict.
1. To describe the emancipation as “a revamp” sells the reform short. It does not acknowledge the horrors of serfdom before 1861, such as serf sales.
2. In addition the liberated serfs gained greatly from the lateral reforms. For example, the army reforms of Mylutin improved standards of living and reduced conscription length, whilst trial by jury was a big step forward in human rights for the ex-serfs.
3. Finally, it is important to note that the Tsar should not be held responsible for the reactionary behaviour of the Mir elders after 1861.
SHFGS rebuttal
The proposition talks of the “horrors of serfdom”, but how could these “horrors” really be compared to the harsh burden of independence? All security provided by the landowner had vanished to be replaced by Obrok, redemption payments and the challenge of declining living conditions. Many serfs were forced into poverty by the so called ‘liberation’ of financial instability.
It is imperative that the lateral reforms must be looked upon as a ‘quick fix’ to the long-term discontent that surrounded Russian society. It should also be noted that the judicial reforms still held elements of the autocratic regime within it. Alexander II eventually bypassed the jury system when it failed to work in his favour by manipulating the military courts to instil repression. Furthermore, although the military reforms seemed successful on the surface very little actually changed. The nobility were still able to escape conscription through bribery causing the army to remain based on conscripted, not liberated, serfs.
Therefore, it is clear that Alexander II wasn’t a liberator. In fact, his reforms were actually methods of repression and control, disguised as liberation.
As ever the quality of both the arguments put forward by both schools here was very high and your points are well argued and backed up. Both posts show a very clear sense of the importance and nature of this debate and argue their point of view strongly, traits which you would do well to apply later to your exams. Although this is in part an inevitable consequence of the manner of the debate, it is essential that you do not lose the evidence and informed opinions that back up your arguments in your attempts to win an audience over to your corner of the argument.
Little Heath Winning post
This post is very strong on the benefits of emancipation, however slight or substantial they may have been. The army and lateral reforms are all too often left out of the discussion. If you had the space and time that are a few areas you might consider further. You might look at why Count Tolstoy would have toasted Alexander II “Tsar liberator” and how far historians have been too quick to take on his judgement. You make clear that Nicholas I despised the practice, but to not say why he nothing about it. This could have led onto a discussion of why it is Alexander II did act and the context of Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War would work well here. Westwood’s quote on Alexander II may be making more of a point about the rest of Russia’s rulers than Alexander II himself and here comparisons with other reforming figures of your exam would also be interesting.
Henry Floyd Winning Post
Very strongly argued post that cuts through Count Tolstoy’s quote and distinguishes between the theory of the reforms and their actual social and economic impact. Again your assertion that Alexander was “forced” into a policy of reformation, leads back to this question of motivation and you may like to state more strongly whether you are using the criteria of motivation or impact as your deciding factor. Although you shouldn’t confuse anarchists with peasants revolts, your point about the continuity of peasant opposition before and after emancipation is important and well made. The main argument of the post would seem to indicate that the serfs were freed technically but in fact their social and economic condition worsened and here you could discuss the relative importance of “freedom” if it brings such results. Although you are correct to underline strongly t hazardous nature of these reforms, it might be a good idea to acknowledge some of emanicpation’s benefits even if you then refute their importance and discuss what you regard as the more decisive consequences.
Little Heath’s rebuttal
I think you are correct to state that there is a danger in selling the reforms short, though you should back up your example of serf sales with more description and even some statistics. The second point is better in its more detailed examples whilst your point aboit the role of the Mir elders in all this is an original one, which reminds us of the vast scale of these reforms and the role of countless individuals within them, all below Alexander II.
Henry’s Floyd’s rebuttal
A strongly argued rebuttal here that makes very clear your position on the insecurity brought about by emancipation and its relative importance compared to the “horrors of serfdom”. I like the point that these judicial reforms still held elements of autocracy within them (although you should state more clearly whether you think this was inevitable given the overarching structure and ideology of Tsarist rule). Your detail on the army reforms and point that the nobility was still able to escape conscription is also important and the depth of analysis here is clearly very in depth and one you should seek to replicate in your other work this year.
Final verdict and thoughts
This is an extremely difficult debate to judge. You have both made extremely well argued cases backed up by a great deal of evidence. You should also remember that one of the great strengths of your A Level History course is that you are engaging in debates amongst historians that are still undecided and that as your posts make clear, good arguments can be made for both sides. Whilst the differences between you are therefore slight, I have judged Little Heath to be the winner in this debate. You make good and nuanced arguments on the benefits of emancipation in your first post and in your rebuttal, although there is room for improvement, the points are for the most part very detailed and your point about the Mir elders is particularly is an interesting one. Henry Floyd’s winning post is also extremely well argued, detailed, takes a long view up to 1881 and finishes by suggesting a more appropriate title. Whilst your rebuttal is also well argued, it might be wise to be somewhat more cautious in your conclusion. Your point about financial insecurity is key but a discussion of where you stand on conditions before 1861 would have engaged you more closely with the arguments of the opposition. Equally to describe his reforms as methods of repression and control, under a disguise needs to be very well backed up indeed, if it is to be substantiated. Although I therefore declare Little Heath the winner of this round, the differences between you were slight and a rematch is almost certainly in order.
On a final note there are a few areas which both sides might like to consider in more depth (although I of course recognise your word limits in the above debate)
• You engage more closely with this idea of motivation, how far you think it matters to historians or the peasantry themselves compared to its economic and social impact and where you think it came from, be it Alexander’s personal liberalism (if any) or the context of the Crimean War
• A stronger argument or indeed a stronger essay, not only deals with the points in favour of your argument but also admits the strength of the opposition’s argument and attempts to deal with it head on
• The constraints and freedom of action Alexander II had in attempting reform is an interesting point to ponder and one which invites comparison with the other Russian reformers in your paper and their lack of success. This in turn may lead you to argue that whatever Alexander II’s personal motivation, his task was a very difficult one coming up against a number of vested interests and failing to satisfy anyone, as his later fate on the steps of the Winter Palace might suggest…
• The question of your debate you should also recognise, does not confine itself to issues over the emancipation. You might draw conclusions about Alexander’s personal commitment to liberation, from his later drift to reaction after 1866, which in the context of an assassination attempt may be understandable
This could also be useful. This links to an episode of In Our Time, with the topic of Alexander II’s assassination discussed by several historians (apologies if this has already been posted to the site)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003k9b2