In the chapter “In the Wake of Emancipation”, David Saunders explains the reforms of the 1860s. These include the military, church, education, courts, and the press. According to Saunders, the probable reasons for the Tsar halting the process of such reforms were most likely the grief over the death of his eldest son in 1865 followed by the assassination attempt in 1866, as well as his focus of “changing balance of power in Europe” due to Prussia’s victory over Austria in battle (Saunders 263-64). Further, Saunders states that while there is a possibility that Alexander could have been satisfied enough to cease his reformations, there could also be evidence that he “was not much of an innovator in the first place” (264). The argument against the tsar is something I find interesting, since according to Saunders, Alexander is also known as the “Tsar Liberator.” With this in mind, as well as what we as historians know to be the future of Russia, could it be possible that some of these views of the tsar only occurred after the end of the monarchy in Russia? While there were no doubt supporters as well as those who did not offer their support, could the latter have been brought about more after the fact? Or do you think that many of such opinions on these reforms as well as the leader that made them were of the times? Why or why not?