Saunders’ assessment of Romanov Russia as a ‘static society’, a notion familiar to many Russian historical scholars, is perhaps narrow at best. Whilst the view of Russian society as slow and gradual cannot be ignored, the blatant transformation over the long term is evident if one compares many components of this Russian society between the fourteenth and nineteenth centuries. This essay seeks to define first what is meant by Russia’s status as a ‘static society’, and assess to what extent it fulfils such criterion. Nikolai Karamazin looks towards the autocracy and nobility as the forces for static, such that, if changed, they will “shake the stability of Russia itself” . If one is to place such a contemporary view at the forefront of this …show more content…
Saunders’ description of Romanov Russia as a ‘static society’ should not be assessed without first an assessment of what it means for a society to be static. If, as discussed, one is to look at the long term, Romanov Russia of the fourteenth century can be seen to be of little resemblance to the Romanov Russia of the later nineteenth century. However, if short term evidence is necessitated, Romanov Russia had few, true, structural changes throughout Romanov rule- with many practical elements remaining, at least in part, whole. The society of Romanov Russia can certainly be seen as static to a point, with little integral, major change occurring at least until the Nineteenth Century under Tsar Alexander II with a sudden major fluctuation with the burst of state education reforms and greater travel of the Russian elite to the …show more content…
Russia’s sheer size meant that, in practicality, any change was difficult, if not impossible, to apply universally. In turn, thus, any universal progress was arduous, and frequently failed to come to fruition. The intermingling factors behind the physical size of Russia- that of the diversity of ethnicity, religion, and culture- served only to further the impossibility of Romanov Russia ever evolving from its role as a ‘static society’ on a national scale, rather than local. Miller and Longworth define absolutism as being “commonly associated with the codification of laws applicable to the entire realm” . In Russia’s case, to institute any such codification of laws meant to reform and modernise was hindered hugely by the geography of Russia in its sheer size and resultant vast ethnic and religious diversity. Indeed, a common witticism on Russian reform is that any law brought out by the Tsar would take weeks, if not months, to reach the peasantry of the outer-regions. Such difficulties in truly applying universal progress must be considered when critiquing Russia as a ‘static society’, as change implemented in perhaps a smaller country would have come to fruition far easier than in one of Russia’s vast size. In consideration of this, one must look to Saint Petersburg and Moscow as the true centres for
Historically, Russia has always been a country of perplexing dualities. The reality of Dual Russia, the separation of the official culture from that of the common people, persisted after the Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War. The Czarist Russia was at once modernized and backward: St. Petersburg and Moscow stood as the highly developed industrial centers of the country and two of the capitals of Europe, yet the overwhelming majority of the population were subsistent farms who lived on mir; French was the official language and the elites were highly literate, yet 82% of the populati...
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior to the war is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporarily displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One.
When recognised as being an ageing superpower by Alexander II it was inevitable that some sort of change would take place in Russia in the hope of modernisation. We can see that the changes were mostly political and economical. During Alexander III’s reign we can see that the changes were suppressive although it ultimately led to further change in the form of revolution in the future.
New York, Replika Press Pvt. Ltd. Deutscher, Isaac, Ed 1967. The Unfinished Revolution Russia1917-1967. U.S.A. Oxford University Press. Fitzpatrick, Sheila, Ed 1982.The Russian Revolution.
The Russian Revolution occured in two stages/times, February nd October of 1917. As cited in document 1, "Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown and a liberal democratic government came to power." What lead to the Febraury Revolution was the peasant agriculture to the Russian population, autocracy, and the outbreak of WW1. A long-term cause was the peasant agriculture to the Russian population. As said in document 1, "For all of its history before the 20th cwntury, 80-95% of the population were poor pasants, farmers just barely scratching a living form the land. For most of that history (between 1694-1861) the majority of these peasants were enserfed." to enserf means to be aprovd of liberty and personal rights. Before 1917 peasants recieved sympathy from
While most of Europe had develop strong central governments and weakened the power of the nobles, Russia had lagged behind the times and still had serfs as late as 1861. The economic development that followed the emancipation of peasants in the rest of Europe created strong industrial and tax bases in those nations. Russian monarchs had attempted some level of reforms to address this inequality for almost a century before, and were indeed on their way to “economic maturity” (32) on par with the rest of Europe. But they overextended themselves and the crushing defeats of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the First World War in 1917 lost them the necessary support from their subjects and created “high prices and scarcity” which were by far “the most obvious factors in the general tension”
Mosse, Werner E., “Alexander II and the modernization of Russia”. London, English Universities Press ltd. 1958.
The Romanov Rule in Russia The Romanovs had ruled Russia since 1613. When the last tsar of all,
Misunderstandings happen in our everyday lives, but when is one misunderstanding one too many that can ultimately leave a country in ruins? The Family Romanov written by Candace Fleming is a nonfiction piece set in the time span of 1903 to 1918 filled with the experience of life in the Russian autocracy under the Romanov rule as a peasant, royal and rebel. This story tells us about the downfall of the once greatly praised Russian autocracy, Fleming takes the reader on a journey featuring the rise, but more so the downfall of their rule. After centuries of reign, the Romanov line has a final ruler, Nicholas II, decisions are made and blood is spilled. But, how far would the people of Russia go for a fair government and how oblivious is not
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
7) Vernadsky, George. A History of Russia: Fourth Edition, Completely Revised. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954.
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford, 2005. Print.
Exploring the October revolution and the establishment of communism, Richard Pipes concludes that the origin of communism can be traced back to the distant past in Russia’s history. Pipes states that Russia had entered a period of crisis after the governments of the 19th century undertook a limited attempt at capitalisation, not trying to change the underlying patrimonial structures of Russian society. (Pipes, 1964)
"From Autocracy to Oligarchy." The Structure of Soviet History: Essays and Documents. Ed. Ronald Grigor. Suny. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 340-50. Print.
8Sites Richard, ‘The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, 1900-1945’, in Michael Howard and William Roger Louis, The Oxford history of the twentieth century, New York, 1998, p. 117-27.