Russia and its Rulers
A level History
OCR
Alexander II, Alexander III, Nicholas II, Provisional Government, Lenin,
Stalin, Khrushchev
KEY THEMES (essay questions):
Who ruled Russia 1855-1964 and what was the nature of these regimes?
What were the causes of change and continuity in this period?
How did each regime effect Russia’s economy and society?
What turning points can be identified?
Social, Economic, Political impacts
Studies in depth (interpretation questions):
Alexander II
The Provisional Government
Khrushchev
,Alexander II
Why was Russia so difficult to govern?
Geography, climate and agriculture:
● Very large (5,000 miles west to east)
● In both Europe and Asia from Poland in the West to the sea with Alaska in the East
● Harsh and varying climates from tundra to deserts - but means that much of it is
uninhabitable and cannot be farmed on (only 6% largely in the SW suitable for this)
● Effectively much of the country is unproductive but the scale of the country also means
things will need to be moved and transported.
● Hot in summer and cold in winter - causing very short growing seasons in the coldest
areas. Unreliable rainfall and poor soil quality means low yields, crop failures occurred
roughly every 3 years
● More and more land was put under cultivation however when there was no virgin land
left that could be used for crops there was land hunger (1900s) that the peasants
increasingly complained about.
● Some positives were that crop yields did increase by 50%between 1860/1910 - peasants
could not only feed themselves as well as the rest of the industrial workforce but there
was also a surplus for export.
Social structure:
● Pyramid structure with the Tsar at the top with a small number of nobility before the
peasants at the bottom - 85% peasants at the turn of the century
● The geo and climate discouraged individual farmstead, except in areas like Ukraine. The
short growing seasons (4-6 months) required coordinated bursts of intense activity so
collective farming in communes (mir/obschina) took place.
● Since the mid 18th century strips of land were distributed in an equitable fashion
according to family size - extremely low productivity in lots of people working smaller
amounts of land - provided security and self-government. There was no incentive to
work hard, they have to work their nobilities land whether they work hard or not, they do
enough for self preservation. Matters of common concern were decided by consensus
and custom - in fact the peasantry probably had more experience of self-government
than any other social class
● Peasants largely illiterate (intended to keep them loyal and obedient), religious,
superstitious and highly conservative - their condition was supposedly a symbol of
Russian backwardness - but illiterate does not mean stupid and the belief comes largely
from the Russian intelligentsia who made little attempt to understand their culture,
peasants therefore grew to resent the educated noble land owners and townspeople and
their western culture
● Their alleged poverty was in fact not widespread, the younger and more educated
started to question traditional values at the beginning of the century. But still in the mid
1800s most peasants were serfs with no personal freedom at all
, ● The rest of society consisted of landowners, army officers, government officials,
bureaucrats, clergy and professionals (lawyers, doctors and teachers), merchants,
traders, businessmen and a very small working class
● The nobility and middle class (while small) possessed most of the wealth - an educated,
privileged elite lording it over the vast majority was characteristic of an agrarian, pre-
industrial society. Self interested and incapable of focusing on anything that isn't within
their privileged class - very far removed from the peasantry they own and neglect the
land and productivity they own. So oblivious and don't see the modern world coming -
the rest of the world is industrialising but they are making no effort to change the way in
which they farm land and continue to use peasantry.
● In addition to social divisions there was also ethnic ones, Russians only made up 44% of
the population of 125 million people - the rest were largely Ukrainian and other Eastern
European and over 13 million Turkic Muslims as well as other smaller groups.
Government:
● Governed by the Tsar - tradition of Russian autocracy had sprung from the Byzantium
● Russia’s vastness would seem to lead to decentralisation and self-governing
communities. But as the population had expanded more and more land had been taken
over with the military help of the tsar’s army. Continuing colonisation over this vast area
required continuing military protection and firm political authority - later Russia’s power
depended on the ability of the Tsar’s armies to preserve and defend the Empire
● The Tsar’s powers were absolute - there was no history of feudal contracts with the
aristocracy and no consultation - in fact the aristocracy was quite weak
● The tsars had ministers who he could hire and fire, consulting with them individually
● He also had two advisory councils - the Senate and the State Council
● The people had no say in government, no parliament, no political parties, no means of
debate. The tsar claimed his authority from God and the divine right of monarchy
supported by the Church - however it was a weakness of the system that the Church
was not as influential as it might have been, particularly at a parish level where it was
seen as an arm of bureaucracy rather than as part of the community
● But there was quite a gap between the claim of the tsar that Russia was his patrimony
and his means to enforce that fact - the difficulties in transportation and communication
over immense distances (and in poor weather conditions) prevented the growth of a
tightly-organised bureaucratic regime (until the 1860s when railway and telegraph began
to make this possible
● His authority was accepted but in practice the bulk of the country was run by the local
gentry, clergy and bureaucracy
● Land was divided into provinces, districts then villages - in many ways it was run as a
colony
● The Ministry of the Interior, the police and ultimately the army kept order, the Orthodox
Church taught obedience and a better life in the next world
Economics problems in Russia Political problems:
Unproductive feudal farming system No representation for the people
, Tiny middle class Reliance on repressive measures
Rapid population growth Reliance on (self-interested)provincial governors
No banks(no stack of money to invest in industry) Rise of terrorism
Poor harvests and recurrent famine Traditional, conservative advisors
Poor communication Autocracy
Reliance on grain as an export
Unproductive land (climate) Social Problems
Limited industrial growth Huge population (russian minority) and inequality
Untapped resources (geog.) Illiterate peasantry and low status for women
Workers lacked education and skills Autocracy self interested
Reliance on serfdom Religion taught obedience and stifled education
Poor diet and life expectancy
Emerging intelligentsia / Middle class - most
frustrated with lack of representation - they
Do get some reform at local level under Alex II
this is where they get the confidence to ask for more
Why did Russia need to modernise economically, socially and militarily?
- To keep up with the Western world - you can't compete on the world stage if your
country is centuries behind the rest of the world.
- If Russia wanted to maintain its vast power and status in the territories it has conquered
it would need to be strong enough to keep them. “Great powers that weakened went to
the wall - disintegration and conquest were a real possibility”
- By the 19th century great power and status is no longer simply determined by how large
your country or population is you have to modernise.
What political problems would that create for the government?
- If Russia were to modernise it would mean disturbing the political foundations upon
which it has stood for hundreds of years. A country which is autocratic implies a rejection
of even the smallest encroachment upon it so modernising and changing the politics of
the country would not only change who was in power but it would bring the entire
ordered structure crashing down with it.
- Modernisation would undermine internal social and political stability
- There is no easy solution to the problems Russia is facing.
- The minute you encroach on the absolute power of the Tsar people begin to realise they
aren't all knowing and there are people more knowledgeable. Russia has run for
hundreds of years with one powerful leader who forces control. They now might have to
give up some of that power and how do you control so many people when there isn't one
person forcing absolute power. They then want a say and a vote and you are no longer
an autocratic leader.
Autocracy means that there is no representation for the people within power - when they have
grievances and they definitely have the right to have them there is no one for them to turn to.
They then take anger out on the one person in power - only option is all or nothing.
A level History
OCR
Alexander II, Alexander III, Nicholas II, Provisional Government, Lenin,
Stalin, Khrushchev
KEY THEMES (essay questions):
Who ruled Russia 1855-1964 and what was the nature of these regimes?
What were the causes of change and continuity in this period?
How did each regime effect Russia’s economy and society?
What turning points can be identified?
Social, Economic, Political impacts
Studies in depth (interpretation questions):
Alexander II
The Provisional Government
Khrushchev
,Alexander II
Why was Russia so difficult to govern?
Geography, climate and agriculture:
● Very large (5,000 miles west to east)
● In both Europe and Asia from Poland in the West to the sea with Alaska in the East
● Harsh and varying climates from tundra to deserts - but means that much of it is
uninhabitable and cannot be farmed on (only 6% largely in the SW suitable for this)
● Effectively much of the country is unproductive but the scale of the country also means
things will need to be moved and transported.
● Hot in summer and cold in winter - causing very short growing seasons in the coldest
areas. Unreliable rainfall and poor soil quality means low yields, crop failures occurred
roughly every 3 years
● More and more land was put under cultivation however when there was no virgin land
left that could be used for crops there was land hunger (1900s) that the peasants
increasingly complained about.
● Some positives were that crop yields did increase by 50%between 1860/1910 - peasants
could not only feed themselves as well as the rest of the industrial workforce but there
was also a surplus for export.
Social structure:
● Pyramid structure with the Tsar at the top with a small number of nobility before the
peasants at the bottom - 85% peasants at the turn of the century
● The geo and climate discouraged individual farmstead, except in areas like Ukraine. The
short growing seasons (4-6 months) required coordinated bursts of intense activity so
collective farming in communes (mir/obschina) took place.
● Since the mid 18th century strips of land were distributed in an equitable fashion
according to family size - extremely low productivity in lots of people working smaller
amounts of land - provided security and self-government. There was no incentive to
work hard, they have to work their nobilities land whether they work hard or not, they do
enough for self preservation. Matters of common concern were decided by consensus
and custom - in fact the peasantry probably had more experience of self-government
than any other social class
● Peasants largely illiterate (intended to keep them loyal and obedient), religious,
superstitious and highly conservative - their condition was supposedly a symbol of
Russian backwardness - but illiterate does not mean stupid and the belief comes largely
from the Russian intelligentsia who made little attempt to understand their culture,
peasants therefore grew to resent the educated noble land owners and townspeople and
their western culture
● Their alleged poverty was in fact not widespread, the younger and more educated
started to question traditional values at the beginning of the century. But still in the mid
1800s most peasants were serfs with no personal freedom at all
, ● The rest of society consisted of landowners, army officers, government officials,
bureaucrats, clergy and professionals (lawyers, doctors and teachers), merchants,
traders, businessmen and a very small working class
● The nobility and middle class (while small) possessed most of the wealth - an educated,
privileged elite lording it over the vast majority was characteristic of an agrarian, pre-
industrial society. Self interested and incapable of focusing on anything that isn't within
their privileged class - very far removed from the peasantry they own and neglect the
land and productivity they own. So oblivious and don't see the modern world coming -
the rest of the world is industrialising but they are making no effort to change the way in
which they farm land and continue to use peasantry.
● In addition to social divisions there was also ethnic ones, Russians only made up 44% of
the population of 125 million people - the rest were largely Ukrainian and other Eastern
European and over 13 million Turkic Muslims as well as other smaller groups.
Government:
● Governed by the Tsar - tradition of Russian autocracy had sprung from the Byzantium
● Russia’s vastness would seem to lead to decentralisation and self-governing
communities. But as the population had expanded more and more land had been taken
over with the military help of the tsar’s army. Continuing colonisation over this vast area
required continuing military protection and firm political authority - later Russia’s power
depended on the ability of the Tsar’s armies to preserve and defend the Empire
● The Tsar’s powers were absolute - there was no history of feudal contracts with the
aristocracy and no consultation - in fact the aristocracy was quite weak
● The tsars had ministers who he could hire and fire, consulting with them individually
● He also had two advisory councils - the Senate and the State Council
● The people had no say in government, no parliament, no political parties, no means of
debate. The tsar claimed his authority from God and the divine right of monarchy
supported by the Church - however it was a weakness of the system that the Church
was not as influential as it might have been, particularly at a parish level where it was
seen as an arm of bureaucracy rather than as part of the community
● But there was quite a gap between the claim of the tsar that Russia was his patrimony
and his means to enforce that fact - the difficulties in transportation and communication
over immense distances (and in poor weather conditions) prevented the growth of a
tightly-organised bureaucratic regime (until the 1860s when railway and telegraph began
to make this possible
● His authority was accepted but in practice the bulk of the country was run by the local
gentry, clergy and bureaucracy
● Land was divided into provinces, districts then villages - in many ways it was run as a
colony
● The Ministry of the Interior, the police and ultimately the army kept order, the Orthodox
Church taught obedience and a better life in the next world
Economics problems in Russia Political problems:
Unproductive feudal farming system No representation for the people
, Tiny middle class Reliance on repressive measures
Rapid population growth Reliance on (self-interested)provincial governors
No banks(no stack of money to invest in industry) Rise of terrorism
Poor harvests and recurrent famine Traditional, conservative advisors
Poor communication Autocracy
Reliance on grain as an export
Unproductive land (climate) Social Problems
Limited industrial growth Huge population (russian minority) and inequality
Untapped resources (geog.) Illiterate peasantry and low status for women
Workers lacked education and skills Autocracy self interested
Reliance on serfdom Religion taught obedience and stifled education
Poor diet and life expectancy
Emerging intelligentsia / Middle class - most
frustrated with lack of representation - they
Do get some reform at local level under Alex II
this is where they get the confidence to ask for more
Why did Russia need to modernise economically, socially and militarily?
- To keep up with the Western world - you can't compete on the world stage if your
country is centuries behind the rest of the world.
- If Russia wanted to maintain its vast power and status in the territories it has conquered
it would need to be strong enough to keep them. “Great powers that weakened went to
the wall - disintegration and conquest were a real possibility”
- By the 19th century great power and status is no longer simply determined by how large
your country or population is you have to modernise.
What political problems would that create for the government?
- If Russia were to modernise it would mean disturbing the political foundations upon
which it has stood for hundreds of years. A country which is autocratic implies a rejection
of even the smallest encroachment upon it so modernising and changing the politics of
the country would not only change who was in power but it would bring the entire
ordered structure crashing down with it.
- Modernisation would undermine internal social and political stability
- There is no easy solution to the problems Russia is facing.
- The minute you encroach on the absolute power of the Tsar people begin to realise they
aren't all knowing and there are people more knowledgeable. Russia has run for
hundreds of years with one powerful leader who forces control. They now might have to
give up some of that power and how do you control so many people when there isn't one
person forcing absolute power. They then want a say and a vote and you are no longer
an autocratic leader.
Autocracy means that there is no representation for the people within power - when they have
grievances and they definitely have the right to have them there is no one for them to turn to.
They then take anger out on the one person in power - only option is all or nothing.
