Imperial Russian in 1815 Introduction 19 th century

Imperial Russian in 1815

Introduction � 19 th century Russia- what made her different? �Often seen as one of a number of European states; as misleading as saying Russia is part of western Europe today �Geography, social and political structures, trade, industry and economy

Different from Europe � Did not share the same intellectual traditions (entrenched enlightenment ideals) � Russian Orthodox Church � No tradition of the Tsar ever sharing power with any social group � Russian alphabet � Eastern/Asian � Size, cultural mix held together only by the autocratic power of the Tsar rather than by any natural bond between people

Russian Geography

Russian Geography

Russian Geography � 1815 - Russia covered 1/6 th of the total surface of the world �Diversity of the regions and the diversity of the climate placed severe limitations on Russia’s development and growth �Tundra in the north, great forest zone, the steppe and the semi-desert of Central Asia

Russian Geography � Eastern Siberia has the same latitude as England but is impossible to cultivate � Only in the steppes and southern forest zone is there a ‘growing season’- very short � The North of European Russia (the old Russian state) has frozen ground for 8 months � One harvest in three would not support the population

Russian Geography �Result of these conditions- the peasantry were poor – 1: 3 (three grains gathered for every one planted), Europe averaged 1: 5 �Russian peasants had very little surplus to meet the needs of a bad year, to eat, to sell or to feed animals in the winter

Russian Geography �Western Europe- growth of trade and cities went hand in hand with improvements in agriculture- incentive for increased production �In Russia that incentive was lacking due to the social structure…

Social Structure � 96%- rural population �Social unit was based on the extended family group- 50 people or more �Mir- village commune- a concept more than a term �Mir- made up of a number of smaller families- fewer than 500 inhabitants

Peasants • - village communes - insufficient land to support families • - low technology; inefficient farming • - bad diet - high mortality rate; vodka • - incessant labor • - superstitious, fatalistic, ignorant, and illiterate • - therefore, Tsar viewed as “little Father”

Mir �Heads of families made decisionsnobility/landlords agreed with this �Landlords did not administrating- Mir did all that �Communal nature suited the situationshort growing season demanded intense coordinated activity

Peasants � Serfs- privately owned- bought and sold (not the same as slaves in America) � State peasants- lived on land that was not owned privately but owned by the state � Both peasants were allowed to keep the profits of their labour, above the demands of the landlord or state � But due to the harsh conditions and the inefficiency of the system, prevented impossible demands

Peasants Serfdom existed in Russia until 1861 - most of Europe abolished serfs starting in the 13 th century Even Austria had abolished it by the late 1700 s In Russia it remained as a block to individual innovation and enterprise 83% of Russian population were peasants What of the rest? Productive and Unproductive members of society (see handout)

Class Structure - Meshchanin- middle class- a variety of poorer town dwellers such as labourers, artisans and shopkeepers - Movement between classes was possible theoretically but the lower down you went the harder it was to move - Raznochintsy- well educated, non noble, Russian Intelligentsia (no real place) - Everything was linked to the nature and form of the Russian autocracyeveryone had a place and station in life, and it was very difficult to alter that place and situation - natually this stifles ambition, enterprise and initiative

The Autocracy �Totally and willing submission of Russian subjects �- “Father figure”, “Little Father”, loved all his ‘children’- punish when necessary and keep order �Protect the fatherland from external threats (therefore success is attributed to the individual performance) �- Never shared power with any groups- and Russians believed this was normal- sharing of power would lead to corruption and growth of privileged groups (evil) �- Not even the biggest critics of the regimes never questioned the idea of autocracy but rather focused on inefficient landlords and officials

The Autocracy �Hard to defend borders, with multiple nationalities requires strong centralized leadership �Communication very (VERY) slow- therefore Tsar’s representatives often received the blame- the Tsar was remote �Orthodox Church saw the Tsar as a divine emperor and supported him �Orthodox church were part of the autocracy- supported financially by the state and chosen from the upper class- Main emphasis on ritual and the next world �Did not take an active part in politics (this world doesn’t matter) �The ‘opiate of the masses’- in Russia for sure �Bureaucratic nature of the autocracy (created by Peter the Great 1700 s)

Trade, Industry and Economy �Russian economy was not backward or underdeveloped- it was slow developing and minimally diversified � 1800 Russian production was roughly the equivalent of England- by 1850 England produced 12 times as much �Investment and modernization did not take place in Russia as it did elsewhereprotectionism, use of serf labour- no perceived need to change �Cotton industry was expansive (thanks to Napoleon) but it was never as intense as England �The relative stagnation was due to the Russian state’s organization: traditional markets, royal appointment monopolies, no competitive business �Money was scarce (lack of investment) �The freedom and infrastructure in Europe, which encouraged economic growth in the West and America did not exist in Russia and there was no thrusting middle class to push modernization forward