The reforms of the 1860-1870s separated the former, feudal Russia from the "new." On the other hand, they did not lead to a radical gap, but to a cautious and limited modernization of the country, while maintaining many of the previous features of its development: authoritarian power, weakness of public institutions, strict state control over the economy, patrimonial system in the countryside, cultural and economic gap between the elite and the masses. So, were the reforms successful or failed in the long run? Were there any other development options in the middle of the 19th century, and if so, for what reasons did they not materialize? These questions are fundamental for historians dealing with the Russian Empire.