A history of Alexander II, the liberator tsar, reveals a ruler whose reforms reshaped Russian society as profoundly as the great reforms of Peter the Great and Catherine the Second. Despite his intentions, he faced eight assassination attempts, a record for the Romanov dynasty. The final attempt, on March 13, 1881, proved fatal for him.
Those who supported him did not want to return to the old ways. They sought greater freedoms, and many saw the sovereign emperor as the obstacle to progress. He was killed for being perceived as an incompetent savior who stood in the way of reform.
Soviet historians would later describe his reforms as inconsistent and sometimes halfhearted, with setbacks along the way. Yet Alexander never claimed to be a revolutionary. He aimed to modernize society after the Crimean War and in the face of what he believed were Western pressures that restrained Russia from evolving on its own terms. He sought changes that would benefit the state and the aristocracy alike. Trust was a constant question. Could the people, especially the illiterate peasants, be trusted with power? Populism, in its different moods, had already surfaced in those debates about national destiny.
The Social Democrats would later argue that abolishing serfdom did not resolve the land question in Russia, and that criticism held some truth. Still, the agrarian policies were moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. When paired with Stolypin’s reforms in the early twentieth century, they held the potential to reshape land ownership and economic life.
Alexander II introduced a series of reforms that laid the groundwork for rapid capitalist development in Russia. By the end of the nineteenth century, these reforms had transformed many aspects of society. During the First World War, Russia appeared poised for further industrial growth, and the nation’s trajectory could have supported accelerated modernization without relying on coercive five-year plans or heavy human losses. Reforms touched many domains: military settlements were abolished, fiscal and zemstvo systems were reorganized, judicial reforms introduced jury trials, military service was redefined, and local self-government was rebuilt. In education and culture, medicine and public health received a boost, accelerating progress in provincial Russia.
Higher and secondary education underwent deep restructuring. This shift reshaped social mobility and the paths available to many families. It is a reminder that reforms often carry unintended consequences as they alter social dynamics.
The first two assassination attempts had modest origins. Dmitry Karakozov, expelled from Moscow University for taking part in unrest, shot at Alexander during a parade in the Summer Garden on April 4, 1866, allegedly seeking vengeance for perceived wrongdoing against common people. A second attempt occurred in Paris in June 1867, as Alexander returned from a military parade with Napoleon III; the shot was fired by Anton Berezovsky, a reflection of anger following a Polish uprising’s suppression.
Subsequent years saw a pattern of repeated violence. On April 4, 1879, the teacher Alexander Solovyov, influenced by socialist ideas, fired at the tsar, though the monarch survived. The Narodnaya Volya organization soon emerged, attempting to disrupt the royal train and targeting the Winter Palace. Stepan Khalturin and others laid mines during repairs that would supposedly strike the royal dining room. In one instance, the attempt faltered because the guards were harmed instead of the emperor.
On March 13, 1881, under the leadership of Sophia Perovskaya, a pair of bombs finally struck. Nikolai Rysakov detonated his device first and failed; Ignacy Grinevitsky followed, succeeding in killing the tsar as he stepped from a carriage. The conspirators, mostly members of the intelligentsia who had moved through the universities in the 1860s and 1870s, saw themselves as agents of progress. They debated how to uplift the oppressed Russian people and often clashed in literature and journalism over the best path forward. Some believed education and agitation could spark change, while others warned against violent methods.
The reform era triggered a wave of educational expansion. The liberal university charter of 1863 opened new universities, academies, and public schools, enabling more people to pursue higher education. Yet this era also produced a new breed of restless minds who sought freedom through thought and action. The phenomenon of constant intellectual wandering—students roaming between institutions—became a notable feature of the period. In this atmosphere, populist movements emerged, advocating for direct action to awaken the peasantry and challenge the state. Some campaigns involved dramatic demonstrations in rural areas, while others placed organizers among peasants as teachers or doctors to sustain agitation over time.
These efforts included acts of civil disobedience, such as tax resistance, as groups pushed to undermine the foundations of landlord rule and the authority of the sovereign. However, the general population did not fully embrace revolt and often continued to show loyalty to the crown. In many cases, agitators were handed over to authorities, and only a fraction faced severe penalties. The period offered a harsh lesson in the limits of reform and the risks associated with radical upheaval.
When the Bolsheviks later rose to power, they took lessons from these earlier chapters. They addressed anti-regime rhetoric and stricter security measures around prominent figures, while also revising university statutes to reflect a new political order. The era demonstrated that neglecting the ruler and relying on luck was not a viable strategy for safeguarding a country, yet it also highlighted the pitfalls of excessive repression as a means to secure control.
The Narodnaya Volya’s shift toward terror reflected disappointment among educated reformists who believed progress must be tested by the state’s response and by visible achievements. They argued that a powerful example of progress could inspire a broader popular awakening. The tension between authority and reform, between intellect and action, is captured in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons, where the paradox of leading with a firm hand is explored as a metaphor for social transformation.
Ultimately, the period culminated in a controversial moment: Alexander II’s assassination overshadowed the constitutional reforms he had proposed, including plans to engage more advisory bodies in governance. The reform spirit faced a countercurrent that postponed or redirected those changes. The tragedy of March 13, 1881, reverberated through the empire, shaping debates on leadership, modernization, and the balance between liberty and order. The narrative continues to provoke reflection on how a society navigates between reform and resistance, and how the memory of reforming rulers informs later generations.