Russia
1. The Russian Autocracy in 1855
● Political context
○ Russians were taught to show devotion to their Tsar and to accept their conditions on Earth as
the will of God.
○ The Patriarch of Moscow provided spiritual guidance to the Tsar and the Over-Procurator of the
Holy Synod was a government minister appointed by the Tsar to run church affairs
○ All of the Tsar’s ministers and advisors were chosen by him and no-one could do anything
without the Tsar’s approval.
○ There was an army of 1.5 million conscripted serfs, forced into service for 25 years and made to
live in a ‘military colony’. This huge army and much smaller navy absorbed around 45% of
government annual spending.
○ There were also elite regiments of mounted Cossacks with special social privileges. They acted
as a personal bodyguard to the Tsar and as police reinforcements.
○ To maintain autocracy, the country had developed into a police state, preventing freedom of
speech, freedom of the press and travel abroad. Political meetings and strikes were forbidden.
○ Police made sure that censorship exercised by the State and the Church was enforced.
○ The ‘Third Section’ kept a strict surveillance over the population and had unlimited powers to
carry out raids and to arrest and imprison or exile anyone suspected on anti tsarist behaviour
● The economic and social context
○ The economic situation:
■ The russian economic remained mostly rural with a ratio of 11:1 village to town dwellers,
compared with 2:1 in Britain
■ Part of the reason for Russia’s economic backwardness was the fact that much of its
territory was inhabitable. The size and climate of Russia placed severe strains on
economic development
■ Although Russia was Europe’s main exporter of agricultural produce and possessed
cast reserves of timber, coal, oil, gold and other precious metals, much of its potential
remained untapped and communications between different parts of the Empire were
poor.
■ However, the lack of progress was mainly due to Russia’s commitment to serfs. The
landowning aristocracy, the tsarist government and the army were all reliant on the
serfs, inhibiting economic development by limiting the forces that drive change like
wage-earners, market and entrepreneurs.
■ The majority of the serfs just managed to survive on the produce they grew for
themselves on their landlords’ land. ‘Cottage industries’ provided the little extra cash
needed for special purchases and taxes.
■ Markets were growing through business mostly on a small scale. Self-sufficiency meant
few goods were actually purchased and money was not the usual form of payment.
There was no internal market demand.
■ The small landowning elite were generally uninterested in how efficiently their estates
operated. There was little capital accumulation as the rural population growth and the
agricultural changes in western Europe increased the competitiveness and productivity
of European markets.
○ The social context:
, ■ There was an absence of a ‘middle class’. There were a small number of professionals
(doctors, teachers and lawyers) who comprised an educated ‘intelligentsia’ but they
were often the sons of nobles.
■ The serfs paid direct and indirect taxes to the government. The nobility and clergy were
exempt from the payment of any direct monetary taxes.
● The impact of the Crimean War 1853-56
○ The war started after Nicholas I tried to obtain further concessions (land) from Turkey. Russia
also wanted to protect the Orthodox religion of the russian people living in the Ottoman-Turkish
Empire
○ Long term: The war also started as Russia was always seen as the ‘policeman of Europe’,
stopping uprising and rebellions and the Ottoman Empire was seen as the ‘sick man of Europe’.
○ Consequences: there was more demand for change and calls for emancipation. 700,000
Russians died. Liberalism increased, old abuses of peasants lessened and Tsar Alexander was
interested in change.
○ As a result of the war, Milyutin reorganised conscription and it was extended to all, better
training for officers was introduced and there was a new military code.
2. Alexander II, the Tsar Reformer
● The emancipation of the serfs
○ 51 million serfs were emancipated in 1861
○ Historian Terence Emmons argues that it was ‘state-directed’ manipulation of society that aimed
to ‘strengthen social and political stability’ rather than a product of ‘liberal’ thinking from a Tsar
concerned about the welfare of his subjects. He also claims that the outcome produced long
and short term ‘stresses and strains’
○ Motives for reform:
■ His brother the Grand Duke Konstantin, his aunt the Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna
and other ‘enlightened bureaucrats’ had been committed to the abolition of serfdom for
some time. Additionally, there was the Party of St Petersburg Progress which came into
prominence at his court.
■ The humiliations and inefficiency of the Crimean War were the main catalyst for action.
Dmitry Milyutin, Minister of War 1861-81 pleaded for reform in order to ‘strengthen the
State and restore dignity’. He believed that the army needed to be modernised and that
only a ‘free’ population would provide the labour needed for much needed military
improvement.
■ Alexander began his reign by releasing political prisoners and pardoning the
Decmebrists, a group who had been involved in a plot to assassinate his father. He
relaxed controls on censorship, lessened restrictions on foreign travel, cancelled tax
debts and restored some of the rights of Poland and the Catholic Church.
○ The emancipation edict, 1861
■ The 1861 initially only applied to privately owned serfs, with the state owned serfs
receiving their freedom in 1866. It granted them freedom and an allotment of land, while
landowners received government compensation.
■ Freed serfs were required to pay ‘redemption payments’ to the government over 49
years and were to remain within the peasant commune (mir) until these redemption
payments had been made.
■ The mir was made responsible for distributing the allotments, controlling the farming and
collecting and paying the peasants taxes, while volosts were established to supervise
the mirs.
, ■ From 1863, the volosts ran their own courts, replacing the landlords jurisdiction over
serfs.
■ There was a two year period of ‘temporary obligation’ before freedom was granted,
during which allocations were worked out. Landowners kept the meadows, pasture,
woodland and a personal holding, although open fields were given to the mirs.
■ Around 15% of serfs remained ‘temporarily obligated’ to their landlords until 1881, when
redemption was made compulsory.
○ The results of emancipation
■ The kulaks did well out of the land allocations and they brought up extra and so they
could produce surplus grain for export. Others who sold up their allocation or obtained a
passport to leave the mir, raised their living standard by finding work in the industrialising
cities.
■ Some landowners used the compensation offered to get out of debt and enterprising
individuals made profit through investment in industry.
■ The small allotments allowed little opportunity to adopt farming methods and the mir
system proved to be a highly traditional system so technical backwardness persisted
■ In 1878, only 50% of peasants were capable of producing a surplus.
■ There was 647 protests in the four months that followed the decree
■ Resentment of kulaks led to violent outbreaks in the countryside
■ Landowners resented their loss of influence.
● Other domestic reforms
○ Military reforms
■ Conscription was made compulsory for all classes from the age of 21 but the length of
service was reduced from 25 to 15 years of active service and 10 years in the reserves
■ Better provisioning and medical care were established
■ Modern weaponry was introduced and a new command structure was established
■ The better off found substitutes to serve in their place and the officer class remained
largely aristocratic and problems of supply and leadership continued.
○ Local government reforms
■ A system of elected local councils was established, at both district and provincial levels,
known as zemstvo. Voting for these was arranged in a way that allowed the nobility to
dominate.
■ The zemstva were given power to improve public services, develop industrial projects
and administer poor relief. In 1870 this was extended to towns in the form of dumas.
■ The power of the zemstvo was limited; they had no control over state and local taxes.
Provincial government continued to appoint officials, took responsibility for law and order
and could overturn zemstvo decisions.
■ However, the zemstva were valuable as it was composed of men who understood the
locality and its needs. However, despite some peasant representation, they attracted
doctors, lawyers, teachers and scientists who used meetings as an opportunity to
debate political issues and criticise the central government, rather than help the
peasants.
○ Judiciary reforms
■ The accused was now innocent before proven guilty and could employ a lawyer to
defend themselves
■ Judges were appointed by the Tsar and given improved training and pay
■ Criminal cases were heard before barristers and a jury, selected from lists of property
owners
