For Romania and Russia is characteristic a belated socio-political development, a relatively late entry on the path of capitalism, the moderate character of agrarian reform of 1861 in Russia and 1864 in Romania. The holding of the power by the nobility (“boyars”) – up to 1878 in Romania, up to 1917 in Russia – contributed to the preservation of the remnants of feudal caste. There were also significant differences. In Romania there was no autocratic tradition, while in Russia autocracy had a strong power. In the nineteenth century a bourgeois opposition to the tsarist government simply did not exist. The Constitution of 1866, in Romania, bore the stamp of borrowing from the best Western models and did not correspond to the social, public, political and legal realities prevailing in the country. In Russia, the idea of autocracy prevailed over the supreme power. Only a general strike in the autumn of 1905 forced Nicholas II to publish a manifesto that established the State Duma, but he rejected until the end the very idea of a constitutional monarchy. In Romania, the monarchy proved to be quite a flexible and capable of evolution institution of the state system, in which an important role was played by personal factor.