Military Reforms - Alex II - Causes and effects table in A Level and IB History

Created by: Fern
Created on: 07-04-14 16:53


	Military Reforms - Alex II
	Causes The failures of the Crimean war had been a serious embarrassment to Russia - the Russian armed forces had proved incapable of preventing the occupation of both the Crimea itself and their main base at Sevastapol. This brought to attention the inadequacies of Russia's army. Individual soldiers had acted heroically - but the army could not achieve victory as it did not have the technology of their opponents. Major shortages of weapons and armaments existed - what there was was also hampered by the lack of an infrastructure allowing men and materials to be transported. This could only be resolved by major industrial change. Even more embarrassing - the defeat was by the western nations most Russians had deemed inferior! They realized, reluctantly, that some aspects of Western civilization would have a positive impact. Conscripting from the peasantry only meant the recruits were badly educated, in bad physical health due to poverty, and lacked skill. Membership of the army leadership was determined by being a member of the upper class, not by skill or competence. As such - they were useless.	Effects Major reforms of the army introduced in 1865. The empire was divided into 15 districts - each with a commander who had sole charge of the supply and recruitment of the armed forces in this area. A general staff was established to oversee further changes. This improved administration and organisation within the army. Conscription was made universal - it had previously only applied to peasants, but now the upper classes were involved. However, many in the upper classes paid members of the peasantry to take their place - and as such the army remained mainly of a low-educated and unhealthy nature. Slight improvement. The opportunity for peasants to enter the army leadership through shows of competence was introduced.- but in reality the upper class were reluctant to let this happen and the occasions this actually took place were minimal. Nonetheless, it can be said the increased equality motivated the lower classes and that competence was increased VERY minimally. Improvement was limited by the reluctance and traditionalism of the army command in general - it took until WW1 for them to give up their misguided belief in the usefulness of the bayonet. New weaponry and technology was introduced - very slowly. For example, the "breech-loading" rifle took 20 years to reach a point where it was really utilized. Weaponry organisation was still not great. The different units often ended up with different rifles and ammunition - creating hostility and jealousy that often rose to open mutiny. Education in the army was attempted through literacy programmes - but it still remained low, even with the improvements this provided.
	Overall summary The Russian army improved, but all the changes made were of a "too little, too late" nature. All the improvements had a minimal effect due to reluctance and a general lack of competence in their integration, which often was incomplete and fragmented, with some units receiving new weaponry and technology quicker than others - causing tension. The upper class army leadership was especially opposed to change. The Russian army was still far inferior to most others of the time, especially those of Western Europe.

Military Reforms - Alex II

Causes

The failures of the Crimean war had been a serious embarrassment to Russia - the Russian armed forces had proved incapable of preventing the occupation of both the Crimea itself and their main base at Sevastapol. This brought to attention the inadequacies of Russia's army.
Individual soldiers had acted heroically - but the army could not achieve victory as it did not have the technology of their opponents.
Major shortages of weapons and armaments existed - what there was was also hampered by the lack of an infrastructure allowing men and materials to be transported. This could only be resolved by major industrial change.
Even more embarrassing - the defeat was by the western nations most Russians had deemed inferior! They realized, reluctantly, that some aspects of Western civilization would have a positive impact.
Conscripting from the peasantry only meant the recruits were badly educated, in bad physical health due to poverty, and lacked skill.
Membership of the army leadership was determined by being a member of the upper class, not by skill or competence. As such - they were useless.

Effects

Major reforms of the army introduced in 1865.
The empire was divided into 15 districts - each with a commander who had sole charge of the supply and recruitment of the armed forces in this area. A general staff was established to oversee further changes. This improved administration and organisation within the army.
Conscription was made universal - it had previously only applied to peasants, but now the upper classes were involved. However, many in the upper classes paid members of the peasantry to take their place - and as such the army remained mainly of a low-educated and unhealthy nature. Slight improvement.
The opportunity for peasants to enter the army leadership through shows of competence was introduced.- but in reality the upper class were reluctant to let this happen and the occasions this actually took place were minimal. Nonetheless, it can be said the increased equality motivated the lower classes and that competence was increased VERY minimally.
Improvement was limited by the reluctance and traditionalism of the army command in general - it took until WW1 for them to give up their misguided belief in the usefulness of the bayonet.
New weaponry and technology was introduced - very slowly. For example, the "breech-loading" rifle took 20 years to reach a point where it was really utilized.
Weaponry organisation was still not great. The different units often ended up with different rifles and ammunition - creating hostility and jealousy that often rose to open mutiny.
Education in the army was attempted through literacy programmes - but it still remained low, even with the improvements this provided.

Overall summary

The Russian army improved, but all the changes made were of a "too little, too late" nature. All the improvements had a minimal effect due to reluctance and a general lack of competence in their integration, which often was incomplete and fragmented, with some units receiving new weaponry and technology quicker than others - causing tension. The upper class army leadership was especially opposed to change. The Russian army was still far inferior to most others of the time, especially those of Western Europe.

Get Revising

Military Reforms - Alex II