Well, if you want to discuss the seed/root of the revolution you are going to have to go back farther than Nicholas I.
- Start with the landscape.
- The climate and conditions.
- The religious leaders.
- The nobilty (or what ever term you prefer to use.
- Fifth, the Tsars/Czars.
- "Reforms"
- What was happening in other European countries and the supposed Europeanization of Russia.
- Finally, the most important of all: The people/peasents.
You want my opinion on the root of it:
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Tsar of Russia ruled over an immense dominion that spread from the European plains to the Pacific Ocean. In 1725, at the end of the reign of Peter the Great, the population within Russian boundaries was approximately thirteen million. By the end of the eighteenth century, due in part to foreign land acquisitions, the empire numbered over thirty-six million inhabitants. By the end of the nineteenth century, natural increase and land expansion, 130 million people were subjects of the Tsar. The Tsars ruled over all these people in an autocratic government.
The Tsar was the personal government of Russia. His power was absolute, and was considered to come directly from God. From the Tsar, power flowed downward through an army of ministers, governors, policemen, tax collectors, and bureaucrats, all of whom operated in the name of the Tsar. The people had no say in their government.
Throughout this period, the vast majority of the population lived in isolation, scattered over the plains and steppes, scratching subsistence from agriculture and pastoral activities. They were forced to pay taxes from which they received little or no benefit, and they had to pay rent or work-service to landowners. If they grumbled too much, they were flogged. Despite this misery, the Tsar enjoyed great popularity with the common people. They blamed their troubles on landlords, bureaucrats, policemen, and local governors, but never on the Tsar. He was their father, and if he knew how they suffered he would help them.
The first half of the nineteenth century produced glory for Russia, as well as a widening rift between the opposing principals of autocracy and liberalism. The apogee of glory came with the defeat of Napoleon in 1812, during the reign of Alexander I. Russia became considered to be a military giant and a world power. The people responded with national pride, and Russian literature and the arts continued the "golden age initiated in Catherine the Great’s reign. At the same time, however, an enlightened, more sophisticated population pressured for reforms. Personal freedom in Russia had always been severely restricted; there were heavy restrictions on travel abroad and on the entry of foreigners. The government outlawed foreign books and periodicals, and permitted only government-sponsored publishing. The government censored all literature and prose. And, of course, "the key issues to be faced included serfdom and autocracy, together with the general backwardness of the country and the inadequacy and corruption of its administrative apparatus." (Riasanovsky and Steinberg,263). Alexander started reforms, but backed away at any sign of dissatisfaction; in fact, he reversed many reforms, to the great dissatisfaction of the populace, whose expectations had been raised. He did succeed in greatly expanding secondary and post-secondary education for both the gentry and the emerging middle class, which helped in time to establish a corps of experts in technology and teaching.
The educated Russian population, including the military caste, went underground to organize an effort to inject liberal ideals into Russian society. Many groups formed Secret Societies to communicate their ideas for reform and even revolution. In 1825, Alexander I abolished all secret societies, but later in the year, at the tie of his unexpected death, the Decembrists attempted a coup. This unsuccessful effort horrified Nicholas I: "He was especially dismayed by the way in which sedition has broken out among the landed nobility, on which the state relied to rule most of the empire."(Hoskins, 264) Nicholas approach to reforms reflected the autocratic idea that the Tsar is the father of his subjects, and in fact the peasant fairy tales that all would be well if Tsar knew of the peoples’ troubles. His would be a personal kind of government that would not replace but override the current system. The first of his "departments" was a kind of civil service inspection agency. The second department, and most ambitious was to organize and codify the totally unorganized and often contradictory laws and rules then in existence. The third department was a sort of political police/judicial system designed to "uncover sedition, correct injustice or protect the weak… [it] was to be an instrument of vigilant and ubiquitous monarchial benevolence, reviving the moral and personal approach to government…" (Ibid, 265) This department, with its rich opportunities for abuse, was most hated by the people, who continued to work underground for improvements.
As with prior tsars, Nicholas I expanded education. He founded an Imperial School of Jurisprudence, which produced legal experts that greatly benefited the courts. An unintended effect for Nicholas, however, was that this excellent education grounded the students in liberal philosophy, which was anathema to him and succeeding tsars. It
was also in future years a gathering place for radical revolutionaries – Lenin was a student. Nonetheless, the majority of the population, full of civic and military pride, seemed to support autocracy; the Tsar was still seen as the just and benevolent ruler.
The second half of the nineteenth century produced humiliation for Russia. Russia’s loss of the Crimean War in 1855 laid bare the reality that Russia’s military and industry were inadequate for the conduct of a war. Russia dropped from a world power to a second rate power. Worst of all, political instability in the army and among the serfs threatened public order. In response, Alexander II initiated a series of reforms intended to strengthen Russian institutions. The reforms included emancipation of the serfs, reform of local civic administration and establishment of local representative government, including elected town councils. The Russian judicial system and military conscription was to be completely overhauled. There would be reduced government control of universities and curtailment of censorship. In general, the reforms yielded mixed results. The emancipation of the serfs was so watered-down that no one was satisfied. The continued reforms in education and censorship gave the population a taste of Western-style freedom and the tools to organize and communicate, thus creating greater tension between the despotic government and the populace, culminating in Alexander II’s assassination in 1881. His successor, Alexander III, reacted to the assassination by ruling as a despot. He hated all aspects of liberal tendencies, although it was revolutionaries, not liberal, who murdered his father. Russian society became more repressive, with a corresponding increase in underground revolutionary activities. However, the Imperial Court remained oblivious to the stirrings of revolution.
As I said in another thread, upon the premature death of his father, Nicholas II, weak, naïve, and ill prepared for the role he inherited, was crowned in 1894. At the feasts for his coronation, a panic broke out and many people were trampled to death. Nicholas went on with the coronation festivities. The word swept around the country – "Papa Tsar" – did not protect and did not care about his children. The stage was set for the convulsions of the twentieth century.
Voilà. There you have it. Standard. Basic. Easy to understand. Discuss.
