Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationalism: Russia under Tsar Nicholas I (1826-1852)

Russia in 1825 was at a crossroads facing a choice of liberalization or of maintaining the established order.  This troubling choice faced Alexander I during his reign and his approach to it changed with time.  He began as a reformer, but ended up as a reactionary.  The situation only became more difficult with his death in 1825 when a dynastic crisis emerged over which of his brothers Constantine or Nicholas would succeed him.  Grand Duke Constantine had already refused the throne in a written statement, but it was kept secret and not published.  The result was that military officers swore allegiance to him only to have to swear allegiance to his brother Nicolas as the matter was made public.  This naturally had an unsettling effect on many in the nation.

A group of liberal army officers felt that the confused situation would be the proper time to force the new Tsar to accept more liberal reforms such as a constitution.  They hastily gathered men from their regiments and marched on the palace to make their demands known.  Tsar Nicolas attempted to reason with them, but they would not back down from their position, so he finally ordered action against them.  A salvo of cannon fire rapidly ended what is now known as the Decembrist Uprising and Russia's chance for reform.

As minor as the event was in the grand scheme of things, it helped set the tone of Tsar Nicolas’ reign.  Never an advocate of reform, the event would cause him to become a lifelong enemy of liberalism and revolution.  His reign would be symbolized by a strong desire to maintain the existing order of legitimate monarchies in Europe and Asia.

His doctrine was first put to the test during the late 1820’s during a war with the Ottoman Empire over the Greek War of Independence and another with the Persian Empire over earlier Russian territorial gains in the Caucasus.  Russia emerged victorious in both wars, but proved to be generous victors in that neither defeated government was conquered or destroyed, but allowed to remain intact.  This was due to Nicolas’ view that they were legitimate monarchs and it was not his place to dethrone them.

It was this same desire to maintain the status quo that led him to mass an army under General Paskevich in Poland to march to the aid of the French monarch in 1830.  The army was instead used to brutally crush Polish rebels during the November Uprising which led to the loss of the Polish Constitution and its full incorporation into the Russian empire.  Rebels in Hungary in 1848 met a similar fate when they rose up against the government in Vienna.  Smaller scale peasant uprisings within Russia would be similarly crushed throughout his reign.

His domestic policy was equally reactionary as he felt the need to insulate Russian society against the threat of revolution.  Another factor that drove his home affairs was his love of the Army and the order it represented.  He sought to apply that order to every area of the Russian state.  It was to be taught in Russian schools and enforced by his army of gendarmes.  He also felt that as the symbolic father of the Russian people his hand was required in virtually every affair, and often conducted surprise inspections on both military and civil institutions.

This tendency towards organization and personal intervention would lead him to establish new government departments to oversee new projects, but he would often set up secret committees of trusted advisors to work around these new bureaucracies when they were moving too slowly or not achieving the desired results.  One example of this deals with the issue of Serfdom.  Officially he established nine different committees to look into the institution and while many small changes were made, nothing substantive was achieved.

His hand also extended into the realm of education which he saw as a means of bringing order and instilling a sense of patriotism to the people.  To this end the Deputy Minister of Education Count Sergei Uvurov would establish his doctrine of Official Nationality which promoted traditional Russian values of ‘Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality.’ 

Viewpoints that did not reflect the doctrine were heavily censored by government authorities.  This caused great difficulties amongst Russian scholars and philosophers who were debating what ideas had made Russia great.  These thinkers fell into one of two groups.  The first embraced Western ideals while the second credited Russia’s greatness with traditional Slavic values. 

It was also the golden age of Russian literature which flourished even amid the heavy government censorship.  Writers such as Gogol, Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, and others would publish many of their great works during this period.  Before this time no Russian writer had gained the notice or the praise of European literary establishment.

Under this stern but well meaning hand the situation in Russia remained stable until the year 1848 when a wave of revolutions swept across Europe.  They began in France and quickly spread to Prussia, Austria, and Hungary.  Fearful of losing the established European order that he and his counterparts in Prussia and Austria had worked so long for, Tsar Nicolas quickly dispatched troops to crush the rebellion in Hungary.  The following year the Russian army would also restore order to Moldova and Walachia.

Even though order was restored the simple fact that things had gotten as far out of hand as they did led to a typically reactionary response as the Tsar worked even harder to stamp out the threat of revolution at home and in Europe.  Government censorship was increased, students were forbidden to travel abroad, and less capable but more reactionary ministers were placed in positions of authority.

In the end the Tsar’s obsession with military review lost its purpose and became the end itself.  Only appearance mattered at imperial parades.  Innovation, especially by the officer class which led the revolt against him at the beginning of his reign, was discouraged.  Drill and ceremony were practiced at the expense of battlefield tactics.  Things that would ultimately lead to the ruin of the very institution that Tsar Nicolas valued so highly during the Crimean War.