Alexander II questions Flashcards
Social structure of Russia in 1850s
Backwards social structure by European standards. In England, the situation of feudalism effectively ended with the Peasants Revolt in 1348, but serfdom still existed in Russia 500 years later.
Tsar, bureaucracy, religious leaders, nobility, urban workers/ serfs (83% of population were serfs). Society was on unstable foundations.
Almost every year there was an outbreak of peasant violence due to shortages/ crowded living conditions.
Structure was determined by God.
94% of Russian people lived in small, isolated villages. This restricted the development of industry.
Ratio of villagers to townspeople in the 1840s:
2:1 in Britain, 5:1 in France, 11:1 in Russia
Why was there little incentive to invest in machinery/ develop industry?
Reliance on plentiful serf labour (no need to reduce labour costs)
Lack of meritocracy stifled economic growth (individuals were unable to move up the social structure, limiting innovating)
Economic condition of Russia in 1850s
Pre-industrial, agrarian economy. England had the industrial revolution in 1750.
Resources were a long way from the centres of population and the cost of transporting goods in the huge empire was high.
Transport was slow - in 1850 Russia had 1049 km of railway, whereas GB had roughly 11,700 km of railway.
Russia fell behind in production in comparison with the western powers.
1850 - GB was producing almost 5,100,000 tonnes of coal, whereas Russia was producing only 300,000 tonnes.
Political condition of Russia in 1850s
Three pillars of Tsarism:
Autocracy - Absolute monarch, belief in the divine right of Kings, supreme will, accountable to no one but God
An outdated belief that King Charles I was executed for in England in 1649.
Nationalism - 170 different ethnic groups in Russia. Slavic Russians at the top of the hierarchy and other groups persecuted by ‘Russification’ policies
Orthodoxy - The Russian orthodox church supported the Tsar.
A symbol of Russia’s backwardness/ isolation
Ritualistic and superstitious
Russia’s geography 1850s
Russia couldn’t make use of its natural resources of iron ore, coal and oil due to a lack of equipment.
The Empire was of limited productive use due to its geography and climate. Tundra/ taiga (infertile land), deserts and mountainous regions could sustain little human activity.
Limited amount of exports due to being land-locked.
Short growing season of 5-6 months instead of 8-9
Alexander’s preparation for his role as Tsar
Extremely well prepared
Well rounded education including history, science and languages
Completed a 7 month tour to 30 Russian provinces, followed by a 16 month tour to the countries of western Europe
Had sat on the Council of State and Committee of Ministers, as well as being recognised as Nicholas’s deputy during his absence
Chairman of the committee responsible for building the St-Petersburg- Moscow railway
Alexander’s strengths and weaknesses as a reformer
A sound and practical mind combined with a duty to improve the well being of his people
Recognised the necessity of freeing the serfs, promoting economic growth and modernising the armed forces/ govt.
Lacked a firm commitment to reform
Accepted his traditional role as maintaining an autocratic govt, like his father
Refused to even consider the possibility of a Russian constitution for 25 years (wanted to preserve his autocratic authority)
Firm belief in the three pillars of Tsarism
Reasons for abolishing serfdom - Tsar liberator argument
He was seriously aware of the weakness of the Russian state
His recognition of the necessity to introduce reforms was crucial in an autocracy where the Tsar held ultimate power to overrule opposition from others.
No sympathy for radical/ liberal ideas, but recognised that concessions were necessary to preserve his autocratic govt - “better to abolish from above rather than below” and “any further delay could be disastrous to the state”
Speech to the Council of State Jan 1861 “basis of the whole work must be the improvement of the lives of the peasatns.. not in words alone but in actual fact”
Took a leading role in/ was often the main driving force behind the reforms in 1860s
Appointed liberal-minded reformers to carry out his instructions. (the leading liberal Milyutin was appointed Minister of the Interior in 1859).
Reasons for abolishing serfdom - the Crimean War
Treaty of Paris reduced Russian influence in the Black Sea, returned land in the Danube, forced to give up Sevastopol. Not allowed to have a navy in the Black Sea.
Destroyed the image of Russian power after the 1812 defeat of Napoleon. First major military defeat.
Rocked the 3 pillars of Tsarism. Russians expected victory over the ‘racially inferior’ Muslims
Exposed the social and economic weaknesses. The army of serf conscripts was shown as inadequate compared to the West. The inability of the Russian economy to produce weapons highlighted its backwards pre-industrial state.
Milyutin warned that reform of the army was impossible whilst serfdom survived as they couldn’t shorten the term of service or increase the number of serfs on indefinite leave to reduce the number of troops on hand.
Inadequacy of Russia’s communications (especially railways needed for fast movement of troops and grain) was exposed. Improved transport meant increased mobility and migration of people to expanding areas of production.
Seen in an increase in size of the industrial workforce after emancipation
Reasons for abolishing serfdom - moral arguments
In 1842 Nikolas I declared to the council of state that ‘serfdom is an evil’ and ‘cannot last forever’
Landowners had extensive powers with few legal controls. They controlled the lives of the serfs and could control marriage, sale and the distribution of land and also had unrestricted powers to punish serfs.
The minority of landowners who supported emancipation were mostly concerned by the economic deficiencies of serfdom, but also by a concern for the welfare of the peasants. It was wrong for a landowner to own human beings and it demoralised the landowner.
Reasons for abolishing serfdom - economic reasons
Wage labour was seen as more productive than forced serf labour as peasants would have an incentive to work.
Serfdom was blamed for the rising debt contracted by nobles to finance their extravagant western lifestyles.
By 1859 landlords mortgaged 66% of their serfs as security for loans from the State Loan Bank.
By 1855 the government was 54 million roubles in debt
Russia couldn’t modernise/ industrialise without getting rid of serfdom, as all other systems were linked to serfdom. Kavelin said that “serfdom is the stumbling block to all development in Russia”.
Serfdom can be seen as a Gordian knot in that it was an intricate problem requiring a decisive action to solve
Lack of rural-urban drift was preventing industrialisation. Russia fell behind in production in comparison with the western powers.
1850 - GB was producing almost 5,100,000 tonnes of coal, whereas Russia was producing only 300,000 tonnes.
Reasons for abolishing serfdom - state security and peasant disturbances
Number of peasant disturbances increased from 348 in 1845-54 up to 1859 in 1861.
The Third Section reported that ‘they expect a liberator…who will sweep nobles away’
By 1859 the country faced the prospect of a peasant war
Especially dangerous as the army itself consisted of peasants
1858 disturbances broke out in Estonia causing members of the pro-reform committee to warn that ‘if we deprive the peasants of the land we will set Russia alight’
Implementation of Emancipation
Feb 1961
Discussed by the Secret Committee set up in Jan 1857
Alexander II achieved a monumentous reform challenging the traditional structure of Russian society without bloodshed
80/20 system:
Serfs granted personal freedom over a period of 2 years
Serfs would be able to purchase the land from the landowner if they could pay a 20% up front deposit to the landlord (if not they had to work unpaid for the landlord for 2 years)
The government paid the other 80% to the landlord in the form of government bonds
To recoup its losses, the government charged the peasants redemption payments in regular intervals over 49 years
Was Alexander II only concerned with the interests of the nobility?
In 1857 Alexander II rejected a proposal from General Nazimov (of the landowners of Lithuania) to free their serfs without land.
(Not out of genuine concern for the livelihood of peasants). He wanted to maintain stability by keeping the peasants closely bound to the land and prevent the emergence of a restless landless proletariat.
While the statue was taking place the nobles were able to reduce the quantity and quality of land in peasants’ hands
Alexander II was aware that the emancipation would provoke peasant hostility and took suitable precautions (the military was on full alert)
Peasant gains from emancipation
23 million serfs are given legal freedom to marry, travel etc.
In some cases peasants were able to increase the size of their landholdings, for example in Poland land holdings increased on average by 40% after emancipation.
Freed from fear of having to do military service
Peasant losses from emancipation
Burden of redemption payments for 49 years. Fell into arrears (1876-80 Northern Russia = 46%, Southern Russia = 33%)
Mir replaced the role of the gentry in controlling the lives of the peasants by reallocating land, controlling which crops could be grown and restricting movement by withholding passports.
Peasants were disillusioned and riots broke out.
1945-54 = 348 peasant disturbances.
1861 = 1859 peasant disturbances. Required the army to restore order on 337 estates.
Peasants lost security with the removal of landlord protection
Decline in the size of peasant’s agricultural holdings (on average 4% and up to 30% in the more fertile region of Ukraine) shows there was an inefficient supply of fertile land for distribution
Emancipation delayed economic development due to the introduction of internal passports to regulate the movement of peasants in their district
Prevented the development of a mobile labour force
Some peasants felt that the land was rightfully theirs and that they shouldn’t have to pay for it
Nobility losses from emancipation
Majority of gentry remained conservative and resentful of change
Some nobles land ownership declined, in some cases up to a third
Petition to Alexander II from the Tula Gentry in December 1861 described the legislation as ‘unsatisfactory’
Detriment to the prosperity of the gentry as money paid to the gentry by the govt. as part of the 80/20 system was not enough and didn’t correspond to the amount of land lost
Gentry didn’t receive income from their land as there was no more free labour
Nobility gains from emancipation
Compensated for loss of rights over serfs with increased administrative powers in the zemstva.
80/20 system managed to appease nobles, whilst still finding a way for peasants to buy land
Industrialisation statistics
Rural-urban drift is a prerequisite for industrialisation.
Serfs could become urban workers
Decline of labour services encouraged the spread of businesslike initiatives.
Amount of track and traffic grew, boosting the fuel, metallurgy and engineering industries along with grain producers
1866 - 3000 miles of track - 3 million tonnes of freight traffic
1883 - 14,700 miles of track - 24 million tonnes of freight traffic
Led to increase in transportation of grain:
1861-65 = 76 million poods of grain
1876-80 = 257 million poods of grain
Tons of oil - 1865 = 8912 tonnes, 1887 = 244,000 tonnes
What were the zemstva?
Abolition of the legal and judicial control of the landowners over the peasants required a new system of local government.
Elected rural local councils
Nobility dominated the zemstva to preserve their local authority (as compensation for their loss of power in 1861)
Limited powers to approve local community projects (such as roads, prisons, public health, poor relief education or construction)
Significance of zemstvas
In an autocracy, they were the first sign of decentralisation/ devolving power from the Tsar
Development of pluralism - different ideas and debate were spread. Significant in an autocracy.
Liberal ideas of freedom/ democracy started to spread.
Legitimised dissent - some members became critical of the regime as they became more involved in local affairs (especially education and welfare)
Successes of zemstvas
Westwood observed that their local knowledge allowed them to do a good job where a St Petersburg official would have failed
Limitations of zemtvas
Spread slowly, by 1914 only 43 out of 70 Russian provinces had adopted them
Dominated by the nobility (could run local affairs to their advantage)
In 1865-67 nobles accounted for 74% of the provincial zemstva institutions, whereas peasants only accounted for 10.5%.
Most nobles were not interested in their responsibilities, especially as provincial governors could reverse decisions that they deemed ‘contrary to the laws and general welfare of the state’
Why did Alexander II refuse to grant reformers’ demands for an elective assembly?
Refused to surrender autocratic control
Supported by reactionary landowners who feared the loss of their social privileges/ high officials who wanted to preserve their power
Also by progressives who feared that a National Assembly would be unfairly dominated by the landowners and block social progress. Prepared to stay with autocracy until the masses were educated enough to participate in the assembly.
Failure to follow up on these reforms with a widening of public participation in the central government meant that there was no real effort to make success of the new institutions.
Main abuses in the judicial system in 1861
Judicial system inherited by Alexander II was chaotic and overly cruel
Different courts for separate classes (lower the class the more difficult to achieve justice)
Years of delay
Unqualified and illiterate judges
Briberies and abuse of power were common due to low salaries for police and judges
Accused had no opportunity to challenge the evidence
Savage punishments and sentences
Judicial reforms
Ended the system of separate courts for separate classes
Flogging reduced
Introduction of lower volost courts to replace the serf owner as local magistrate.
Separating courts from the governenment for a more independent judiciary
Judges better trained
Trial by jury for criminal cases
Trial of petty cases by Justices of the Peace
Benefits of judicial reforms
Fairer, less corrupt system
Promoted a climate based on the rule of law
Court of the Justices of the Peace was one of the most valuable new institutions
A free legal system with controls on power made an autocracy harder to justify
Limitations of judicial reforms
Shortage of trained lawyers
Lawyers still influenced by government who controlled their promotion aspects
Bureaucracy continued to intervene so trial by jury was not universally enforced (excluded in Poland, the Caucus and the western Provinces)
Separate volost courts for peasantry kept them outside the judicial system (emphasises them as a separate group and prevents equality before the law)
Revolutionaries continued to be harassed by Secret Police
Why reform the military?
Necessary due to defeat in the Crimean War and the end of serf based conscription.
Dmitri Milyutin (Minister of War 1861-1881) aimed to remove abuses that had become apparent during the Crimean War
In what respect did Milyutin’s reforms end class privilege in the army?
Officer corps given proper training with the introduction of military colleges admitting non-noble recruits
Promotion more open to make leadership more effective (privates could rise to officer rank on the grounds of merit alone)
Extended liability to military service to all classes including nobles
Benefits of military reforms
Modern weapons (such as rifles and steamships) were introduced to make Russia more competitive with the West
Construction of strategic railways to improve transport and medical care of troops
Milyutin criticised serf based conscription and pushed for the 1861 abolition. Created a smaller, less expensive army by:
Reducing size of annual conscription to 100
Reducing term of service to 15 years active service and 10 years leave in a trained ‘reserve’ army that could be mobilised when needed.
This was cheaper than keeping a large standing army of a million men during peacetime. In the 1846 Budget, the army and navy had accounted for 45% of spending (a significant saving).
Benefits of reforms evidenced in the victory in the Russo-Turkish War in 1877.
Incentives to encourage a more educated recruit helped the spread of literacy (2-3 million soldiers educated in the 1870s-90s)
Limitations of military reforms
Reforms opposed by nobility who disliked prospect of service in the ranks
Officers remained heavily aristocratic
Army still based on peasant conscripts (high levels of illiteracy made training ineffective)
Should have won the Russo-Turkish war anyway and this only happened after months of bitter fighting. In the long term the army still suffers defeat, for example in the Russo-Japanese war.
Benefits of educational reforms
Schools declared open to all classes
Number of primary schools in the countryside grew from 8000 in 1856 to 23000 in 1880
Secondary schools grew to include women (1864)
Doubling of numbers in secondary schools to 800,000 during 1860s
Curriculum extended to include the classics, sciences, history and languages
Universities given greater independence in 1863
Lessened restrictions on university entrance so a broader social range of students could attend. University numbers grew from 3600 to 100,000
Crucial for the development of a modern society/ educated workforce
Drawbacks of educational reforms
Increased number of educated = increased revolutionary activity. Left wing ideas started to spread - people opposing the Tsar could now read and write.
Revolutionary disturbances in the 1870s led to the reintroduction of state supervision in universities
Government retained the right to veto university appointments and to ban student organisations
1861 many universities were closed and students were prosecuted for criticising the regime
Alexander II blamed the education system for encouraging the spread of seditious ideas
Main features of censorship reforms
1863 Publication codes were reduced. Resulted in publication of liberal ideas.
1865 - Press was allowed to discuss government policy.
Editors given greater freedom over what they could publish.
Relaxation of censorship encouraged a growth in the number of books/ political journalism.
No. of books published grew from 1020 in 1855 to 10691 by 1894 (equal to the combined British and American output).
Public opinion became more educated.
Restrictions on foreign travel were relaxed, allowing the circulation of more foreign/ Russian publications by political exiles.
Limitations of censorship reforms
The growth in criticism provoked a counter reaction in the 1870s
Tight censorship returned
Assessment of reforms - Tsar liberator
As Russia was an autocracy and sole power lay in the hands of the Tsar, Alexander II takes direct responsibility for the reforms that occurred.
His response to the Crimean War was to listen to reformers (less of a disciplinarian than Nikolas I).
Alexander II had to execute one of the hardest tasks of reforming the whole of Russia and his intentions were good. The reforms transformed society and had a far reaching impact.
Milyutin stressed the beneficial impacts of Alexander’s reforms on the army.
Assessment of reforms - Traditional autocrat
His reforms were radical in comparison with previous Tsars but did not go far enough
The reforms were hampered by a need to protect the interests of the nobility. This approach alienated the intelligentsia and undermined the stability of the regime.
Progressives became impatient
The Russian intelligentsia formed the Populist movement ‘going to the people’ in 1874, aimed at sparking a revolution in Russia
His reforms were more motivated by a desire to strengthen autocracy rather than to replace it.
A ‘disappointing liberal’ and an ‘inefficient autocrat’. He refused to abandon autocracy and tried to find a compromise between reform and autocracy (pleasing no one)
Emancipation became known as the ‘Great Disappointment’
Why was 1865-66 a turning point?
Eldest son died and wife was seriously unwell
11 assassination attempts leading up to his assassination in 1881
Close liberal members of his family (brother Grand Duke Constantine and his aunt Grand Duchess Helen) who had encouraged him to pursue a programme of reform lost influence
His interest and commitment to reform declined as he became exhausted by criticism from all sides (the liberals wanted a general assembly of elected representatives and the conservatives wanted a break on further reform)
Significance of 1863 Polish Revolt
Showed that when faced with opposition, Alexander II always responded with repression
Dealt with protesters with extreme force (commitment to autocracy, reactionary, authoritarian approach)
Public executions, deportations to Siberia, heavy prison sentences
Alexander II crushed all Polish nationalism by incorporating Polish territory into the Russian empire
Emphasised Russification (erasing the Polish language and culture)
What was the Shuvalov era?
Alexander replaced liberal reforming ministers with Conservatives including Count Peter Shuvalov (made chief of police in charge of the Third Section). He had a military/ police background and opposed Alexander’s earlier reforms.
Signalled a reactionary u-turn to a conservative atmosphere and a policy of repression
He brought other reactionary conservatives into office who supported the use of rule by decree, use of military courts to try cases of political violence and a tightening of censorship.
Milyutin and other liberal ministers held less influence.
An entry from Milyutin’s diary in 1873 described Shuvalov as having “terrified the emperor with his reports about frightful dangers to which allegedly the state and the sovereign are exposed”. “Everything was striving forwards; now everything was pulling backwards”. The Tsar had “lost confidence in everything”.
Main features of repression 1865-80
Count Tolstoy (the reactionary Minister of Education) blamed the uni curriculum for the spread of revolutionary ideas
Subjects encouraging independent thought (history, science and modern languages) were replaced with Mathematics, Latin, Greek and Church history.
A few extreme left publications were closed down
1871 = formal division made between gimnaziya and ‘real schools’, preventing the working class from receiving the best education and being exposed to liberal ideas
Leading academics expelled from universities
Some students studying abroad were recalled home as part of the regime’s Russification policy and some were expelled from universities for revolutionary activities.
Revolutionary activity increased between 1873 and 1877 leading to the arrest of 1611 Populists.
Two major public trails of revolutionaries ‘trial of the 50’ and ‘trial of 193’
Tolstoy’s liberal aspects
Despite his reactionary policies, Tolstoy did show some liberal aspects:
Increased no. of teacher training colleges
Although he disapproved, he accepted Moscow University’s decision to organise lectures for women
Extension in the provision of education is shown by the substantial increase in the number of schools:
Number of primary schools in the countryside grew from 8000 in 1856 to 23000 in 1880.
1863 - 94 gymnaziya.
1881 - 270 gymnaziya.
To what extent was the policy of repression challenged by (x)’s reform proposals?
Shuvalov was appointed ambassador to London in 1874 which removed the main reactionary associated with repression and opened the way for liberals to gain influence.
Conservatives were replaced with more liberal ministers (particularly Loris Melikov) who headed a Supreme Commission in 1880 to consider reform
Loris-Melikov abolished the Third Section and transferred its functions to the police
He also realised that the zemstva needed reform and him and Alexander II were considering setting up a National Assembly or some form of constitutional government
Alexander II was assassinated before the govt’s plans could be published
Growth of the revolutionary movement
Populsits (1850s)
Narodniks (1860s)
Land and Liberty (1870s)
People’s Will (1880s)
With the relaxation in press censorship, liberals/ radical students/ socialists could openly discuss radical political ideas in the 1860s
Displeased with the Tsar’s reforms/ didn’t think they went far enough
In 1862 a group of radical students published the manifesto ‘Young Russia’ in which they argued that revolution was the only solution
Most important of the student revolutionary groups was the Organisation (started in 1863 at Moscow University). Aimed to gain public support for a rebellion.
Populists
Made up of young members of the gentry/ intelligentsia/ students
The populists aimed to achieve their ideal of a perfect society based on the peasant and village communes.
Between 1873-4, 2000-3000 educated Populists from the nobility and intelligentsia decided to ‘Go to the People’. They visited peasant villages to try and get them to rise up in rebellion against the Tsar.
Unable to rouse the peasants to rebel. Peasants were generally apathetic - difficult to bridge the gap between liberal students and the ignorant conservatism of the peasants. Populism died out.
Land and Liberty
Developed a highly organised command including a section dealing with escapes from prison of arrested members (such as freeing Kropotkin, a key opposition figure to Alexander II)
They also demonstrated outside Kazan Cathedral in St Petersburg
Continued the ideas of ‘Going to the People’ by dressing in peasant clothes and going into villages as doctors/ teachers, trying to help organise them to resist Tsarist officials. Became apparent that the peasants would not stage a revolution from below and by 1879 the Land and Liberty movement died out.
Movement ended very quickly after waves of arrests and they were only a very small minority compared to the strength of the state
People’s Will
People’s Will were formed out of Land and Liberty. They believed in political terrorism, seeing that as there were no elections violence was the only option.
Assassinated the Tsar in 1881.
Factor’s encouraging growth of political terrorism in Alexander II’s reign
Support grew as discontent increased with Russia’s involvement in the Russo-Turkish war (1877-78)
Failure of populist campaign ‘Going to the People’
Discontent amongst intelligentsia over the failure of liberal reforms
Repressive u-turn
How were revolutionaries treated?
House of Slow Strangulation - A prison in the capital where political prisoners were kept in solitary confinement.
15,000 sent to exile in Siberia
Hard labour sentences in special mining settlements
Significance of the Russo-Turkish War
1877-78
Difficult start to the war with an initial loss of men
However, Milyutin’s reforms had been successful. Engineering had improved and the Turkish navy fleet was destroyed
Russia captured key cities across the Danube.
At the Congress of Berlin, Britain and Austro-Hungary interfered and forced the Treaty of San-Stefano (that would have granted Russia a ‘big Bulgaria’) to be rewritten.
Instead a ‘small Bulgaria’ was created, as the western states wanted to reduce Russian power
Russia’s gains had been significantly reduced (humiliating)
Made Russia look weak or as if it had backed down
Lead to opposition against the Tsar
Pan-Slavism and Russification increased.
