ALEXANDER II'S DOMESTIC REFORMS

strength of opponents in the crimean war

• success of western powers attributed to many factors

• armies were not serfs as modern warfare needed with its technological advances needed modern soldiers not mass illiterate serfs

• better supplies, equipment and munitions helped british and French victory: rifles bs smoothbore muskets

• artillery and bombardment at siege of Sevastopol exposed their advantages over russia from industrial weapons and supplies

• industrial growth was the basis of technology, communications and modernity in the west to which defeated Russias agricultural society

• the west also had confidence and energy including support from their civilian populations, newspapers, photographs and modern steam powered ships

• seemed to contrast the limitations of the Russian campaign, remoteness of regime and reliance on oppression and not consultation

crimean war: end result for Russias position in the world

• seemed out of date and old-fashioned, lagging behind other countries who had undergone industrialisation

• humiliating defeat; unable to get western forces off own land

• russia had been more successful in conflict with pre-industrialised Turkish forces than against industrialising Britain and france, reinforcing idea that russia was being left behind and needed to catch up and complete with foreign nations that were rapidly modernising

• leadership from untrained noble officers: military reforms required which themselves needed emancipation so veterans at end of shorter military service wouldn’t return to serfdom

• russia successful giants Turkish navy in Sinope

• peace treaty quite lenient on russia

• russia appeared to be losing its natural advantage and superiority of size and geography over the west

• increased criticism of autocracy and serfdom

• around 50000 casualties compared to 250000 allied deaths: relying on mass serf armies no longer worked in modern, industrialised war

crimean war: position of tsarist autocracy

• unable to defeat less charismatic opponents than Napoleon

• tsar Nicholas I had chosen to take russia into a war of expansion, not a threat of destruction as Napoleon had been increasing the undermining of tsarist authority

• tsar Nicholas I died of pneumonia and replaced by Alexander II, further destabilising the position of the tsar in the war

crimean war: opposition ideas

• tsars regime appeared remote from war, from managing the campaign as well as the interests of the people

• westerniser ideas strengthened by the message that seemed to come from the war that russia needed to industrialise to compete with other powers

• no free press so criticism was limited

• a natural feeling that the thing people had sacrificed liberty and progress had turned out to be an illusion

crimean war: Russias resources and infrastructure

• outdated and inferior to britain

• russian transport to the front was by slow muddy roads with no railways south of Moscow while Britain built a railway from docks to the front line

• problems with supplies as there were no railways in russia south of Moscow so supplies had to be brought by foot while france and britain were supplied by steam powered ships

• supplies had became increasingly important in more industrialised and attritional form of conflicts

• more mobile population would encourage better transport, emancipation would allow industrialisation that would promote railway building

• emancipation would promote growth of factories to produce the faulty and quantity of munitions required and encourage entrepreneurship for future innovation

crimean war: serfdom

• not working

• not giving sufficiently skilled troops, not allowing industrialisation to equip army

• Russian guns captured from Russian soldiers at the battle of alma early in the war were using gates that dated back to 1799

• not able to replace the 2000-3000 daily casualties at the Siege of Sevastopol as they had done after Borodino and eventually, the key port of Sevastopol had to surrender to the british and French

changes brought by the crimean war

• modernisation was sought most notably in the end of serfdom and in the liberalisation of the legal system, educational change and military and government reforms

• however, crimean war was not the only reason for this

• liberals in the ruling class and the Tsar Alexander II more prepared to change and adapt than Nicholas II but war was still a major catalyst

• principle governmental change was the creation of local councils

• zemstvos set up in 1st jan 1864 and the basic unit was the distort council chosen by election and landowners, townsmen’s, peasants voting for representatives

• then these district councils members elected to regional councils

• main role of these councils was in local matters rather than political bodies

• drew attention to the state of the army mostly comprised of peasants, many of whom were serfs

• military reformers thought russia needed a smaller, better trained army with a reserve like those in other European countries

• raised question of loyalty of how long would serfs remain loyal if nothing was being done to improve their conditions and accommodate their aspirations

issues with Russias military

• poor showing of the army provided a strong impetus for military reform

• to remain a world power and be able to defend itself, it had to modernise its army

• however, extremely expensive to maintain an army of its size, taking ip 1/3 of the governments income which could have been spent elsewhere

• it had remained so large as the government had been reluctant to return soldier serfs to their villages where they might use their training to promote discontent so they kept soldiers in service for 25 years

• after emancipation, this was not deemed necessary

• thus, military reforms were to be introduced and were undertaken by Dmitri Milyutin over a twenty year period

military reforms and changes 1861 - 1881: conditions and training

• conditions improved for ordinary soldiers such as they were housed in barracks

• reduction in number of offences that carried corporal punishment and flogging was abolished

• modern rifles and artillery introduced but slow progress and technological progress in weaponry meant some weapons were superseded before they were fully introduced

• officer training radically improved

• military colleges established, admitting recruits who were not nobles and promotions were open to other classes to improve leadership pool; specialised officer schools for the artillery and engineers

• broader education provided and education was required for commission

• staff colleges established with high standards offering accelerated promotion for graduates

military reforms and changes 1861 - 1881: service and size

• universal conscription introduced for all social classes making them liable for military service at 21; generally ¼ would be chosen by lot to serve but could be avoided if medical service was provided or deferred for students to complete their studies

• administration of army reorganised into fifteen military districts with more autonomy to district commanders making it easier to bring in the reserve in time of war

• standard length of military service reduced to fifteen years; six years in active service and nine in the reserve

• from 1862 to 1870 the reserve increased from 210000 to over 550000

consequences of military changes

• despite the genuine attempt to break down class privilege and create an army based on merit the result was a smaller more professional army which was some extent less class ridden

• however still a high proportion of nobility among officers and when Alexander became II became Tsar he restricted entry to officer training mainly to nobility

• tendency to appoint untrained members of the royal family to key military served for which they were unsuited despite a key reason for the loss of the crimean war was incompetent and uncharismatic leadership

• a fully professional army posed a threat to autocracy as it was the main means by which they stayed in control

• significant saving in government expenditure due to the smaller army supported by a trained reserve which could be mobilised

• army still reliable on peasant conscripts who were uneducated and illiterate reducing the effectiveness of their training

• reforms were opposed by the nobility who did not want their offspring mixing with the lower class and preferred the old system were nobility dominated officer corps

• merchants objected as they did not want their sons to do compulsory military service though some were able to find substitutes to replace their sons

emancipation of the serfs in russia timeline

• long and lengthy process

• serfs belonged to the estates of land they lived on, not free to move away from estate and could be traded by noble estate owners

• 59million out of the 65million people in russia in 1855 were serfs or state peasants

• state peasants lived on tsar estates, marginally more rights

• serfs lived on estates of the nobles and belonged to them, less rights and more punishment (corporal, forced marriages to reproduce, families split up, forced conscription, traded or gambled as part of estates)

• although restricted mobility suggest that the peasants economic importance to the country wasn’t an important reason for the emancipation

the moral case of abolishing serfdom

• members of the royal family dating form Catherine the great considered serfdom to be morally and ethically wrong

• Nicholas I called it ‘an evil, palpable and obvious to all’

• romanov rulers uneasy about serfdom for generations

• enlightened nobles and liberal state officials accepted the view it was wrong to own someone like a possession and it was demeaning

• affected by writers such as Turgenev who drew attention to the plight of the serf and the need to improve conditions of peasants

• radical intelligentsia growing to oppose serfdom

• nevertheless, majority of nobles did not accept this position believing abolition of serfdom would damage the Russian state and their own livelihoods

concerns of risk of revolt by the serfs

• many historians have cited concern for social stability as one of the main reasons for emancipation

• serious peasant revolts in the past and disturbances have been increasing since the 1840s with a significant spike in 1857 and 1859

• Alexander told nobles it was better to abolish serfdom form above than wait for it to abolish itself from below

• unsettled by the 1848 revolutions in Europe

• worried enough to order weekly reports on the mood of the peasantry from December 1857

• particularly worried about the army being maid up of mainly peasants so it might be difficult for the government to contain a major peasant uprising

• other historians have maintained the scale of peasant unrest has been exaggerated as main sources of data are unreliable straits police records

• some nobles feared major reform might provoke serious revolt by peasants and it could be seen as a sign of weakness or might be disappointed by the reform

economic arguments for the emancipation of the serfs

• many enlightened government official and intellectuals convinced it was necessary to abolish serfdom if the economy was to advance

• expressed clearly by milyutin, an official in the ministry of internal affairs

• some accepted arguments of economists like Adam smith that free labour was more productive than forced labour; forced labour impoverished the population and stopped the growth of domestic demand which was essential for economic growth

• believed you needed a free labour market where peasants could move around yo where they could be most productive whether in agriculture or industry

• some disagreements among historians whether this was the most decisive factor, some arguing poor transport systems were more significant in preventing economic development

• point out immediately after emancipation, there was a move on the part of the government to restrict the movement of peasants by introducing internal passports suggesting free labour to allow capitalist growth was no the governments priority

emancipation statues of 19th February 1961

• took thousands of officials and numerous committees to draft plans

• an editing commission created in 1859 to turn recommendations into legislation resulting in the emancipation statutes

• Alexander insisted on three principles in the emancipation process

• serfs must be freed with land to prevent them a becoming property less mass

• operation must be peaceful

• serfs must be guaranteed full personal freedom

key provisions of emancipation: land

• domestic serfs not given an land

• not enough land allocated to the peasants

• peasants lost rights to wood from forest and use of common land for animals; these were declared as the lords property

• gentry kept 50% of land; size of plot available to peasants decided by commissioners

• peasants had to buy land they previously fared and considered to be theirs; on average, lost 20% of their farming land as cut offs

key provisions of emancipation: personal

• 2 year delay between the announcement of emancipation and it coming into force for privately owned serfs

• state owned serfs had to wait until 1886 for their freedom

• peasants no longer owned by landlords

• free to marry, work, trade as they pleased

• no longer forced to work for the landlords

• internal passports restricted mobility however

key provisions of emancipation: compensation

• landlords compensated for the loss of their land by the government; often overvalued so the peasants paid high prices for land

• peasants compelled to buy the right to farm the land with a 49 year mortgage form the landowners; would only for the legal right to the land on completion of the final payment (redemption payments)

• 
  

key provisions of emancipation: mir (village commune)

• powers strengtenned

• mir took over much of the landlord role; tax collection, selecting recruits for army, keeping order in the region

• land was actually owned by the mir and families only had the right to farm the land

• responsible for collection of redemption payments for the government

• peasants had to gain permission from the mir to leave the area

• mir and village elders made decisions about crops and farming methods; enterprising peasants found initiative stifled

emancipation of the serfs: political stability and unrest; positive impacts

• after a wave of peasant uprisings in the early 1860s the situation became calmer and order was restored to the countryside

• governments ability to bring about emancipation showed the power of autocracy; in the usa the amacipavtion of slaves required catastrophic civil war and almost the break up of the nation

emancipation of the serfs: political stability and unrest; negative impacts

• in the fist four months, 647 peasant revolts occurred

• reforms went too far for most nobles and slavophiles while not going far enough for westernisers

• some members of the disillusioned intelligentsia and nobles called for greater role in government of the empire so they would not be let down by autocracy

• troops sent to occupy the region of Kazan in response to sever peasant uprising in 1861 and killed 400

• Alexander II declared: there will be no emancipation except the one I have given you. obey the laws! work and toil! obey the authorities and the landowners

emancipation of the serfs: social effects; positive impacts

• peasants immediately granted basic rights such as no forced marriages, not being forced into the army for 25 years, free to set up their own business, at leats in theory

• in russia, over 20m people became free because of the tsars reforms

emancipation of the serfs: social effects; negative impacts

• peasants continued to have fewer rights than the richer class and be tried in separate courts

• contemporary authors commented little improvement occurred for peasants scubas in A. I. Shingarevs the dying village

• peasant mobility restricted by the need to first pay off the full 49 year term of redemption payments and by internal passports

• peasants continued with serf restrictions, services and dues between 1861 and 1863

• only privately owned serfs were freed in 1861; state peasants had to wait up until 1866 for reforms

emancipation of the serfs: economic effects: positive impacts

• on average peasants were working 25% less land after 1861 than before it

• peasants became more mobile and cities swelled

• by 1890, 2/3 of the population of st Petersburg had been born outside the city

• in 1907, 90% of Moscow print workers were sending wages back to their families in the countryside

• although total grain yields remained poor by 1909-1914, 60m tons of grains were being produced annually compared to 26m in 1861-1866

• aided by the formation of the peasants land back in 1883, more prosperous and enterprising peasants were able to buy land

• in 877 peasants held 6m hectares of land and by 1905, this was 21.6m

emancipation of the serfs: economic effects: negative impacts

• with less land available and rapidly growing population, peasants over-used soil leading to a drop in productivity which partly caused a famine in 1890-91 which killed 500,000

• in seeking to compensate the nobles for loss of their labour, the redemption payments were set too high so the government had to cut the repayment figure by 25%

• although on average, peasants could farm less land afterwards and in the black earth region this was particularly severe, in less fertile northern russia peasants farmed substantially more land

lateral reforms: local government (zemstva)

• government introduced measures of self government and provincial and district levels

• elected councils or assemblies (zemstva) to run aspects of local government such as roads, health, schools in rural areas empowered to levy a small tax to pay for these

• electoral system favoured nobles who made up 40% of the district zemstva and over 70% of provincial councils; in part to allow them to keep control over local areas and compensate them over the loss as a result of emancipation

• only introduced in provinces where Russians formed the ruling elites and the majority of the population (started at 19, 37/70 by 1914)

• appointed professionals such as teachers and doctors

• extended to take in town councils

• ‘third element’: educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, teachers) who wanted to be involved in the government and wanted greater reform

lateral reforms: local government (zemstva): consequences

• brought improvements in areas in which they operated such as building better roads, health facilities and schools and developing transport, street lights, water supply

• nobles and others running the council gained political experience in managing affairs and many anted this taken to an national level

• members of professional third element developed self esteem and began to make demands for social reform and improvements in living conditions

• many become hostile to or frustrated with the state

lateral reforms: local government (zemstva): weaknesses and limitations

• only introduced in a limited number of provinces and slow to get going and did not achieve much early on

• restrictions placed on their powers of taxation and they had troubled raising taxes

• denominated by the nobility and many did not take their responsibility seriously and took advantage of the situation to run affairs in their own interest

• patchy results: enterprising zemstva pushed ahead with work but also indolent zemstva

• peasants did not really participate, put off by the nobility, and resented paying the zemstva tac which was proportionately higher on their land than on private estates

• designed to establish some participative self government but whittled down in the interests of the landed nobility but some goof liberal zemtsvo men like Prince Lvov for improving local conditions

• uneasy relationship between the zemstva and government over the following Yeats

lateral reforms: judicial: the problem

• huge variety of courts between which cases could be transferred, taking a very long time and sometimes years

• Russian courts notorious for corruption, delay and inefficiency

• most judges illiterate with no legal training butting enormous power in the hands of court secretaries especially as all evidence was written who relied on bribes to maintain their lifestyle

• police had great power to levy fines and amenable to bribes

• defendant never saw the judge so written evidence, often unreliable, was rarely challenged

• judges received a pile of documents which they had to adjudicate according to certain rules such as the evidence of the word of a noble was taken over a peasants and man over women

lateral reforms: judicial

• simplified court system with fewer courts and lower court cases could only be transferred to one/two other courts

• each province had its own court

• good salaried judges who could not be removed from office allowing more independence, could not be dismissed by the government

• civil and criminal courts open to press and public

• JPs (system of justices of the peace) established for smaller cases

• volosts: courts for peasants where they ddi not benefit from the same legal rights and processes

• separate village courts for offences solely concerned with peasants compromising of judges elected and drawn from the peasantry and often illiterate

• trial by jury for more serious criminal cases and evidence given orally and could be tested and challenged; prosecutors and defenders could summon own witnesses

• voting on the verdict by juries kept secret to protect from intimidation

lateral reforms: judicial: level of success

• Russians could get a fairer trial and greater access to justice

• defendant had much more protection since court proceedings public through preliminary investigations kept secret

• less corruption and fewer attempts to pervert the course of justice

• JPs court worked quickly, cost nothing to those appearing to them and perceived as dispensing equitable judgements and respected by humble workers and peasants since they protected the small man against local officials

• 1860s/70s, independent and articulate legal profession came into being to fulfil roles of prosecutors and defenders, trained in skills of argument and persuasion: many became accomplished advocates of reform, parliamentarians in the Duma, revolutionaries

lateral reforms: judicial: challenges

• challenged political authority of the autocracy

• independent courts and judgments meant that independent sources of authority existed and regime could not act in the arbitral way to which it was accustomed: made its way to public consciousness and the idea of the rule of law

• new freedoms for lawyers meant courtroom became a space for challenge stop the government

• courtroom the one place in russia where there was genuine free speech

• many of the accused in some way a victim of government action or officials, defence lawyers would be critical of the regime in presenting the case and some defendants made speeches reported by newspapers

• new juries showed themselves to be independent and would acquit people whom the regime would have liked to see given long sentences such as Vera Zasulich

• deemed as more successful by some historians despite drawbacks as they backfired on the regime by introducing the notion of the rule of law and an independent judiciary which challenged the authority of autocracy and careened a group of people, lawyers, who were to become active in reform movement

lateral reforms: judicial: weaknesses

• separate court for peasants, vast majority of the population, meant that as a class they were largely outside the mainstream judicial system, emphasising their lower status

• some courts remained outside the system such as church courts (handled divorce cases) and military courts

• government officials could not be tried within the system

• revolutionaries tried by special courts in the 1870s

• bureaucracy did sill intervene sp trial by jury could not always be guaranteed

• reforms had most impacted large cities (st Petersburg, Moscow) where the most controversial trials took place

lateral reforms: education

• zemstva took over responsibility for running many rural schools including employment of professional teachers: quality of teaching rose

• first decade of his reign, number of pupils roughly doubled

• primary schools between 1856 and 1878 increased from 8000 to 25000 with 1 million pupils in attendance

• secondary school opened to all classes and numbers doubled

• secondary schools could focus on classical or modern subjects such as maths, science and languages

• universities given much greater freedom over intake, courses, professors, curriculum and discipline

• radical change in professors: 50% left posts from 1854 to 1862

• enlightened, more liberal thinking, professors appointed such as Nicholas pirogov

• students drawn form wider social groups: sons of peasants, low ranking townspeople

• women could attend courses but not take degrees

• after 1866, ministry of eduction took some control of schools away from zemstva and restrictions and crackdown in universities

lateral reforms: education: level of success

• huge impact in later years as more literate peasant population took on new aspirations

• regime needed students trained to high standards to build a modern state but did not want them to question the regime but higher education tended to foster an independent spirit and critical mind

• students began to take a significant part in society

• many students relied on state financial help and were poor and undernourished and formed mutual aid groups organising communal kittens and libraries

• students reacted against poor teaching, strict regulations, heavy handed action of authorities and police

• students formed study circles discussing radical ideas and injustices of the tsarist system leading to protests, disturbances and arrests

• as a result, many became radicalised and joined the growing ranks of revolutionaries

• reform resulted in people questioning political authority of regime

lateral reforms: censorship

• in the 1860s, censorship relaxed: newspapers, books and periodicals did not have to be submitted for prior censorship

• newspapers could report government policy and jury trials

• ministry of the Interior could still withdraw any publication it seemed dangerous and fine and did close down some periodicals andpunished delinquent editors

lateral reforms: censorship: level of success

• relaxed atmosphere led to a huge growth in the number of books and periodicals published

• growing literate readership to buy a story

• bolder editors prepared to push boundaries of what was deemed dangerous

• others more moderate by being critical of the government when reporting cases

• some reported social problems which the government might not welcome reporting but would scarcely prohibit: crime, alcoholism, suffering groups, peasants

• public opinion being more informed but not necessarily anti-government but autocratic regime does not generally appreciate free flow of information

why did Alexander ii turn from reform to reaction after 1866

• in 1866, karakazov attempted to assassinate the tsar and this was evidence that no one was pleased with his reforms and that he needed to halt and reverse them

• reforms/relaxations had led to disruption and increasing demands that he was not prepared to meet

• prepared to rein back on earlier measures and bring in more reactionary policies

changes led by count Peter shuvalov which led the country in a reactionary turn

• head of the third section (secret police department) and brought in an air of fear and mistrust which permeated the court

• vetted appointments, made sure conservatives gained posts

• tightened censorship, closed down some periodicals

• tighter control of students and their organisations

• made use of military courts to try more serious political cases as these were not open to reporting and likely to reach the verdicts the government wanted

• increased the use of rule by decree

changes made to education by conservator minister, count Tolstoy, to counteract earlier reforms

• he believed that revolution originated in schools and universities, particularly in the sciences \his ministry took greater control of primary schools, reducing role of 1864 school boards (which were often dominated by liberal zemstvo representatives)

• ministry inspectors responsible for appointing teachers, opening schools and keeping an eye on moral views converted by teachers

• classical subjects (Latin, greek) favoured over modern subjects (history, science, modern languages), even withdrawing science from some schools

• entry to universities restricted to those with classical education, this favoured nobles who tended not to more technical and modern subjects

• crackdown in universities and disciplinary functions transferred to the police and students associated with revolutionary activities or views were expelled

opposition: the nihilists

• young people who were determined to challenge conventional attitudes and values

• blurring gender differences; men growing out their hair and women cutting their hair

• opposing tradition, authority and hypocrisy within society

• ridiculed as nihilists and portrayed in the conservative press as immoral, indent, godless, free loving and subversive

• many sought a better alternative and turned to revolutionary activity

• little to no threat

opposition: narodniks/ populists

• inspired by the writings of Peter Lavrov

• believed in agrarian socialism based around the peasant commune being the route to the good society without the need to go through capitalism and the evils of industrialisation

• decided to go to the people and spread their message

• brave move as many gave up their current lives, possibly families

• several thousand young people dressed up in peasants and workers clothes

• experienced incomprehension and suspicions from peasants and rejected, though not always the case with some young people having something to offer them, such as vera figner (medical advice)

• village elders, priests, local police not keen and reported them to authorities

• several hundred arrested and imported for their good intentions

• two major trials in 1877, trial of 50 and trial of 193

• court impressed by honesty and idealism, large number coming from noble or middle class families, and did not see them as dangerously subversive, but the government did and those who were acquitted were exiled to Siberia

• low threat

opposition: land and liberty

• strong central organisation and commitment to secrecy and discipline

• cells formed in villages and towns aiming to support demonstrations and actions against autocracy

• some very violent, killing informers or despotic officials, arranging escapes for imprisoned members of their group

• caused a severe reaction from authorities and after the vera zasulich case (sympathetic jury acquitted her, ended in a verdict which the government not pleased with), political trials moved to military courts

• this provoked a split in the movement in 1879 into two groups

• moderate threat

opposition: black partition/ black repartition

• led by George plekhanov with vera zasulich

• placing faith in the urban working class

• wanted to promote revolution through peaceful agitation

• no threat

opposition: the peoples will

• determined to use terrorist violence to achieve their revolutionary aims

• destruction of the state and land redistribution

• in particular, focused on killing the tsar as a way to imitate revolution

• 26th august 1879, condemned him to death for crimes against the people

• over the next two Yeats, made several unsuccessful assassination attempts until march 1881 when luck favoured them

• high threat

opposition: the chaikovsky circle

• student circle who resented autocratic restrictions, especially censorship and interference in university education

• aim to educate themselves, spread ideas based by the autocracy, unite students across different Russian cities and spread propaganda leading to an eventual social revolution

• read and published banned literature (Karl Marx, Chernyshevsky and western philosophers like John Stuart mill)

• spread propaganda to the countryside peasants to rebel

• notable individuals: chaikovsky, natanson, alexandrov, seryukov (all studnets in st pertersburg)

• low threat; unlikely their high brow ideas will spread to peasants and no violent methods

Russias most wanted

• mikhail Bakunin: anrahcist leader plotting revolution from abroad

• Alexander herzen: critic of emancipation hoping for socialism in the Mir

• vera zasulich: shot governor trepov of st Petersburg, found not guilty

• nikolai Chernyshevsky: wrote pro revolution what is to be done?

• sergei nechayev: dangerous extreme anarchist inciting assassination

• George plekhanov: black partition leader, peacefully inciting peasant revolution

• Peter lavrov: writing inspiring intellectuals to give with peasants to stir up socialism