Dates / Key Facts / Key Statistics / Key people and things
Part 1, Autocracy, Reform and Revolution: Russia 1855-1917
Section 1: Trying to preserve autocracy 1855-94
Chapter 1: Alexander II, the Tsar Liberator
Russian Society in the middle of the 19th century (p. 2-8)
Russia and its geographical Structure
Tsarist Russia in the mid-nineteenth century occupied a vast area across 2 continents -
Europe and Asia, with large parts either uninhabited or sparsely populated. With its varying,
unpredictable climate - agricultural success proved difficult as irregular rainfall patterns and
droughts led to many failed harvests.
As a result of the size and inhospitable geography of Russia problems arise for its rulers:
communication across this wide area was poor, few paved roads existed except in big cities
and those that were built where with hard packed earth - which turned to mud in heavy rain
and were impossible to trek across during the winter months making it difficult to administer
the empire from the centre.
The people
As a result of the expansion of the Russian Empire throughout the middle of the 19th century
over 100 different nationalities were ruled under the control of the Russian State. The
diversity of culture, religion and language throughout the empire was astonishing, from
sophisticated European Russians living in St Petersburg to nomadic muslim people living in
the desert areas of the south.
The Social Structure of Russia.
The population of Russia in 1859 was around 70 million, with over 90% of the population
being peasants who worked and lived in the countryside.
Nobility: Nobels made up less than 1% of the population. In the 17th century, they had been
given landed estates by the tsars in return for services (such as being officers in the armed
forces). This established a system of military officers and civil servants who had vested
interest in supporting the tsar. Nobles were not only given land but also the people who
would work on that land - ‘serfs’ whose position was little better than the slaves of America.
The nobility had another important role - administration and keeping order. Due to Russia's
large size it would have been impossible for central authority to provide enough state
officials in order to successfully govern the country and so the nobility was turned to act as
the judiciary and administrative offices running the regions in which they lived.
It is also important to note there was a great deal of wealth between members of the Nobility.
The most wealthy (a very small minority) lived lavish lifestyles and extravagant estates. One
example of this was Count Sergei Seremetev who owned over 150,000 serfs as well as
countless amounts of property throughout Moscow. Yet, the vast majority (aprox. ¾) owned
fewer than 100 serfs, meaning the income made through them did not generate enough to
1
,Dates / Key Facts / Key Statistics / Key people and things
support this lavish lifestyle : another clear example of the disparity of wealth, even between
those considered the ‘upper elite’.
Peasants: In the mid-nineteenth century over 90% of the Russian population was peasants,
most of which supported themselves via farming.
Around half of these peasants were serfs who were tied to the landowning nobility mainly
found in central Russia and western provinces. Key features of serfdom include:
- Being bounded to the landed estates of the nobles
- Requirements to provide labour (on the nobles land)
- In return they could use a plot of land for personal use, to grow food to eat or sell
locally
- They had almost no rights as individuals - being sold, traded or forbidden to marry
with no access to the ‘proper’ legal system
State peasants formed the other half - living on state-owned estates, churches of the tsars.
They paid rent to the state for the use of the land they farmed. Legally, they were free
beings, however while still being under control of state administrators - restrictions did still
limit their freedoms.
The Mir (the peasant commune) : Peasants were subject to controls exercised by the
village commune, the mir, an assembly of households. It allocated land, depending on the
size of the household it would provide, even providing periodic distributions as household
size differed as well as ensuring serfs fulfilled their obligations in labour or payments on
private land. Although egalitarian, the allocation and redistribution of land was inefficient and
wasted time.
There were benefits and drawbacks to this system. The commune tended to be dominated
by older peasants, who resisted change and refused to reconsider age-old practices.
Furthermore, they could punish those who did not conform (e.g. they choose the conscripts
for the army). The Mir did act as a model of cooperation and mutual support however it also
served as a source of petty jealousy and rivalry where violence, communal and domestic,
was not uncommon.
Most peasants were poor and illiterate, lived hard and unrelentingly. When harvests were
poor many thousands died of starvation while others lived in squalor, prone to drunkenness
and STD’s.
The Russian Orthodox church: this was the established church in the Russian empire and
was independent of the pope and catholic europe. The Russians believed that they kept the
true faith and this gave them a sense of belief that they were somehow special, hence the
expression ‘Holy Russia’. The Orthodox church was intimately bound up with the autocracy
since the tsar was God's lieutenant on earth.
Around 70% of the population were members of the Russian Orthodox church and it played
a critical role in Russian society - especially within the influence of peasants. Priests lived in
the villages and so were involved in the lives and struggles of peasants. Most peasant huts
(where they lived) contained an icon in one corner of the room - clearly demonstrating the
Russian Orthodox Church' profound influence over those in Russian society.
2
,Dates / Key Facts / Key Statistics / Key people and things
How was Tsarist Russia governed under the tsars?
The tsar was an autocrat, an absolute ruler, who had supreme power over his subjects. As
far as the tsar was concerned they had been appointed by God and rejected any hint that
their power rested on the consent of the people.
The tsar had an Imperial council, made up of nobles to advise him, and a cabinet of
ministers who ran various government departments - yet they were responsible to him alone.
There was a huge bureaucracy of civil servants and officials who ran the empire - with some
of these having liberal reforming tendencies and wanted to bring about changes in the way
Russia was run. The lower ranks were generally badly paid and there was a culture of
corruption where bribery was common. This, together with the arbitrary nature of decision
making undermined respect for the authorities.
The different regions of the Empire were under control of governors who had their own local
bureaucracies. Yet, once again due to the vastness of Russia, communication was poor.
This led to regional governments often made to act like independent rulers in their own
fiefdoms. Furthemore, the government made use of the ‘Third Section’ (the secret police) to
discover people likely to cause trouble. There was a system of surveillance with extensive
networks of agents and strict censorship on published documents. Those who fell to the
regime were subjected to harsh punishments including floggings, exile or imprisonment.
Tsarist Russia was an oppressive regime.
The army
The Russian Army was the largest in Europe and played an important role in its status as a
world power. Ordinary soldiers were conscripts taken from the villages who were required to
serve for 25 years. The government kept peasants for so long as it was worried that on
return home they might use their training to promote discontent. Soldiers had few rights e.g.
they could be flogged and were not allowed to enter most restaurants and cafes. Pay was
extremely poor and most soldiers were forced to grow their own food - living mainly off soup
and bread.
The army was crucial for the survival of the Tsarist regime. As well as protecting Russia's
borders, it was also used to suppress internal disturbances and revolt.
Great Power and Status and the Crimean War
In 1815 Russia was the leading power in Europe. Napoleon's invasion in 1812 had been
repulsed and the Russian army, the most powerful; in the world, had liberated Europe. Thus,
maintaining a great power status was a high priority for the Russians - making the end of the
Crimean war (1853-56) such a shock to the Russian regime. The defeat revealed worrying
deficiencies of the Russian Regime:
- It highlighted Russia's poor communications and inability to deploy human and
military resources effectively
- The army’s rifles and artillery were hopelessly outcasted by the weapons of the
British and French
- Serious questions were raised about the efficiency of the army and quality of its
leadership
3
, Dates / Key Facts / Key Statistics / Key people and things
This was extremely damaging to the Romanov dynasty which was identified with military
power - now seeming ineffective and unable to defend Russia’s own territory. This
demonstrated that Russia did not have the adequate resources to fight a major European
power. Many in the top echelons of the tsarist government were convinced that Russia's
backwardness had caused its defeat. The case for reform looked unanswerable.
More information RE the Crimean war for context -
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NJbm-zKmFtTcW4In6s5PquAJCggRsUYCuqF4Cj-wQ
6s/edit
The reforms of Alexander II (pg. 9-26)
Westernizers and Slavophiles
From the 1840’s there had been a debate amongst intellectuals on the way to move forward
from the Crimean War.
Westerners believed that Russia should adopt certain values and political institutions from
the west, such as introducing individual rights and parliamentary democracy. They believed
that Russia needed to industrialise and urbanise like the West or feared being ‘left behind’.
Conversely, Slavophiles believed that Russia had its own distinctive rich culture and
traditions which were special and superior to those of the West. This culture was contributed
by the orthodox church. Slavophiles rejected western parliamentarism, individualism,
rationalism and atheism. Essentially, they believed in autocracy, and the relationship
between the tsar and the people was essential to Russia's order and stability that was
lacking in Western countries. Some embraced this idea of Oansavism - the notion that that
Slav peoples could be united under the leadership of Russia.
These 2 positions did not represent two opposing groups though. Love of Russia was
common to both, as was the concern of the dominance of Western European countries. Both
though change was necessary, but whereas the westerners thought that a constitution and
and parliament was the best option, Slavphiles wanted the tsar to coneven a consultatie
assembly that represented the different estates (social groups) of Russia to bridge the gao
that had opened up between the imperial elite and ordinary Russians.
Alexander II, 1818-81
● Assumed power in February 1855
● He was well prepared for his role as tsar in the years leading up to his succession,
with his father Nichlos I instilling the value of duty and obedience from a young age
● In 1837, his father went on a tour of 29 Russian provinces which took him to places
no other members of the imperial family visited - such as siberia where he
encountered prisoner exiles - a tour which would come to be a massive success
● This affected Alexander as he became the first tsar to consider that the people's
approval was an important part of autocratic rule
● He also made Alexander to sit as a member of many committees (e.g. peasant
reforms and the development of the railways)
4
Part 1, Autocracy, Reform and Revolution: Russia 1855-1917
Section 1: Trying to preserve autocracy 1855-94
Chapter 1: Alexander II, the Tsar Liberator
Russian Society in the middle of the 19th century (p. 2-8)
Russia and its geographical Structure
Tsarist Russia in the mid-nineteenth century occupied a vast area across 2 continents -
Europe and Asia, with large parts either uninhabited or sparsely populated. With its varying,
unpredictable climate - agricultural success proved difficult as irregular rainfall patterns and
droughts led to many failed harvests.
As a result of the size and inhospitable geography of Russia problems arise for its rulers:
communication across this wide area was poor, few paved roads existed except in big cities
and those that were built where with hard packed earth - which turned to mud in heavy rain
and were impossible to trek across during the winter months making it difficult to administer
the empire from the centre.
The people
As a result of the expansion of the Russian Empire throughout the middle of the 19th century
over 100 different nationalities were ruled under the control of the Russian State. The
diversity of culture, religion and language throughout the empire was astonishing, from
sophisticated European Russians living in St Petersburg to nomadic muslim people living in
the desert areas of the south.
The Social Structure of Russia.
The population of Russia in 1859 was around 70 million, with over 90% of the population
being peasants who worked and lived in the countryside.
Nobility: Nobels made up less than 1% of the population. In the 17th century, they had been
given landed estates by the tsars in return for services (such as being officers in the armed
forces). This established a system of military officers and civil servants who had vested
interest in supporting the tsar. Nobles were not only given land but also the people who
would work on that land - ‘serfs’ whose position was little better than the slaves of America.
The nobility had another important role - administration and keeping order. Due to Russia's
large size it would have been impossible for central authority to provide enough state
officials in order to successfully govern the country and so the nobility was turned to act as
the judiciary and administrative offices running the regions in which they lived.
It is also important to note there was a great deal of wealth between members of the Nobility.
The most wealthy (a very small minority) lived lavish lifestyles and extravagant estates. One
example of this was Count Sergei Seremetev who owned over 150,000 serfs as well as
countless amounts of property throughout Moscow. Yet, the vast majority (aprox. ¾) owned
fewer than 100 serfs, meaning the income made through them did not generate enough to
1
,Dates / Key Facts / Key Statistics / Key people and things
support this lavish lifestyle : another clear example of the disparity of wealth, even between
those considered the ‘upper elite’.
Peasants: In the mid-nineteenth century over 90% of the Russian population was peasants,
most of which supported themselves via farming.
Around half of these peasants were serfs who were tied to the landowning nobility mainly
found in central Russia and western provinces. Key features of serfdom include:
- Being bounded to the landed estates of the nobles
- Requirements to provide labour (on the nobles land)
- In return they could use a plot of land for personal use, to grow food to eat or sell
locally
- They had almost no rights as individuals - being sold, traded or forbidden to marry
with no access to the ‘proper’ legal system
State peasants formed the other half - living on state-owned estates, churches of the tsars.
They paid rent to the state for the use of the land they farmed. Legally, they were free
beings, however while still being under control of state administrators - restrictions did still
limit their freedoms.
The Mir (the peasant commune) : Peasants were subject to controls exercised by the
village commune, the mir, an assembly of households. It allocated land, depending on the
size of the household it would provide, even providing periodic distributions as household
size differed as well as ensuring serfs fulfilled their obligations in labour or payments on
private land. Although egalitarian, the allocation and redistribution of land was inefficient and
wasted time.
There were benefits and drawbacks to this system. The commune tended to be dominated
by older peasants, who resisted change and refused to reconsider age-old practices.
Furthermore, they could punish those who did not conform (e.g. they choose the conscripts
for the army). The Mir did act as a model of cooperation and mutual support however it also
served as a source of petty jealousy and rivalry where violence, communal and domestic,
was not uncommon.
Most peasants were poor and illiterate, lived hard and unrelentingly. When harvests were
poor many thousands died of starvation while others lived in squalor, prone to drunkenness
and STD’s.
The Russian Orthodox church: this was the established church in the Russian empire and
was independent of the pope and catholic europe. The Russians believed that they kept the
true faith and this gave them a sense of belief that they were somehow special, hence the
expression ‘Holy Russia’. The Orthodox church was intimately bound up with the autocracy
since the tsar was God's lieutenant on earth.
Around 70% of the population were members of the Russian Orthodox church and it played
a critical role in Russian society - especially within the influence of peasants. Priests lived in
the villages and so were involved in the lives and struggles of peasants. Most peasant huts
(where they lived) contained an icon in one corner of the room - clearly demonstrating the
Russian Orthodox Church' profound influence over those in Russian society.
2
,Dates / Key Facts / Key Statistics / Key people and things
How was Tsarist Russia governed under the tsars?
The tsar was an autocrat, an absolute ruler, who had supreme power over his subjects. As
far as the tsar was concerned they had been appointed by God and rejected any hint that
their power rested on the consent of the people.
The tsar had an Imperial council, made up of nobles to advise him, and a cabinet of
ministers who ran various government departments - yet they were responsible to him alone.
There was a huge bureaucracy of civil servants and officials who ran the empire - with some
of these having liberal reforming tendencies and wanted to bring about changes in the way
Russia was run. The lower ranks were generally badly paid and there was a culture of
corruption where bribery was common. This, together with the arbitrary nature of decision
making undermined respect for the authorities.
The different regions of the Empire were under control of governors who had their own local
bureaucracies. Yet, once again due to the vastness of Russia, communication was poor.
This led to regional governments often made to act like independent rulers in their own
fiefdoms. Furthemore, the government made use of the ‘Third Section’ (the secret police) to
discover people likely to cause trouble. There was a system of surveillance with extensive
networks of agents and strict censorship on published documents. Those who fell to the
regime were subjected to harsh punishments including floggings, exile or imprisonment.
Tsarist Russia was an oppressive regime.
The army
The Russian Army was the largest in Europe and played an important role in its status as a
world power. Ordinary soldiers were conscripts taken from the villages who were required to
serve for 25 years. The government kept peasants for so long as it was worried that on
return home they might use their training to promote discontent. Soldiers had few rights e.g.
they could be flogged and were not allowed to enter most restaurants and cafes. Pay was
extremely poor and most soldiers were forced to grow their own food - living mainly off soup
and bread.
The army was crucial for the survival of the Tsarist regime. As well as protecting Russia's
borders, it was also used to suppress internal disturbances and revolt.
Great Power and Status and the Crimean War
In 1815 Russia was the leading power in Europe. Napoleon's invasion in 1812 had been
repulsed and the Russian army, the most powerful; in the world, had liberated Europe. Thus,
maintaining a great power status was a high priority for the Russians - making the end of the
Crimean war (1853-56) such a shock to the Russian regime. The defeat revealed worrying
deficiencies of the Russian Regime:
- It highlighted Russia's poor communications and inability to deploy human and
military resources effectively
- The army’s rifles and artillery were hopelessly outcasted by the weapons of the
British and French
- Serious questions were raised about the efficiency of the army and quality of its
leadership
3
, Dates / Key Facts / Key Statistics / Key people and things
This was extremely damaging to the Romanov dynasty which was identified with military
power - now seeming ineffective and unable to defend Russia’s own territory. This
demonstrated that Russia did not have the adequate resources to fight a major European
power. Many in the top echelons of the tsarist government were convinced that Russia's
backwardness had caused its defeat. The case for reform looked unanswerable.
More information RE the Crimean war for context -
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NJbm-zKmFtTcW4In6s5PquAJCggRsUYCuqF4Cj-wQ
6s/edit
The reforms of Alexander II (pg. 9-26)
Westernizers and Slavophiles
From the 1840’s there had been a debate amongst intellectuals on the way to move forward
from the Crimean War.
Westerners believed that Russia should adopt certain values and political institutions from
the west, such as introducing individual rights and parliamentary democracy. They believed
that Russia needed to industrialise and urbanise like the West or feared being ‘left behind’.
Conversely, Slavophiles believed that Russia had its own distinctive rich culture and
traditions which were special and superior to those of the West. This culture was contributed
by the orthodox church. Slavophiles rejected western parliamentarism, individualism,
rationalism and atheism. Essentially, they believed in autocracy, and the relationship
between the tsar and the people was essential to Russia's order and stability that was
lacking in Western countries. Some embraced this idea of Oansavism - the notion that that
Slav peoples could be united under the leadership of Russia.
These 2 positions did not represent two opposing groups though. Love of Russia was
common to both, as was the concern of the dominance of Western European countries. Both
though change was necessary, but whereas the westerners thought that a constitution and
and parliament was the best option, Slavphiles wanted the tsar to coneven a consultatie
assembly that represented the different estates (social groups) of Russia to bridge the gao
that had opened up between the imperial elite and ordinary Russians.
Alexander II, 1818-81
● Assumed power in February 1855
● He was well prepared for his role as tsar in the years leading up to his succession,
with his father Nichlos I instilling the value of duty and obedience from a young age
● In 1837, his father went on a tour of 29 Russian provinces which took him to places
no other members of the imperial family visited - such as siberia where he
encountered prisoner exiles - a tour which would come to be a massive success
● This affected Alexander as he became the first tsar to consider that the people's
approval was an important part of autocratic rule
● He also made Alexander to sit as a member of many committees (e.g. peasant
reforms and the development of the railways)
4
