Medieval Russia
The SLAVS probably came from southern Poland and the Baltic shore and
settled in the region of mixed forest and meadowlands north of the fertile
but unprotected steppe lands of the south. The Slavs engaged in
agriculture, hunting, and fishing and gathered products of the forest.
They settled beside the rivers and lakes along the water route that was
used by VIKING warrior-traders (the Varangians) to reach Constantinople.
Using their superior military and organizational skills, the Varangians
exacted tribute from the Slavs and to this end consolidated their rule in
key points on the route to Constantinople. About 862 a group of Varangians
led by RURIK took control of NOVGOROD. From there Rurik moved south and
established (879) his authority in KIEV, strategically located above the
Dnepr rapids where the open steppe met with the belt of Slavic settlements
in the forest-meadow region.
Kievan Russia
Under Rurik's successor, Oleg (d. c.912), Kiev became the center of a
federation of strong points controlled by Varangian "dukes" who soon
became Slavicized in language and culture. Attempts by Duke SVYATOSLAV I (r.
945-72) to create an "empire" in the region between the Dnepr and Danube
failed, but Kiev was effectively protected from nomads in the east by the
Khazar state on the Volga. With the conversion (c.988) of Duke VLADIMIR I
to Eastern Christianity, Kiev developed into a major cultural center, with
splendid architecture, richly adorned churches, and monasteries that
spread Byzantine civilization.
The political and cultural apogee of Kievan Rus' was reached under
YAROSLAV the Wise, who ruled from 1019 to 1054. Politically, Kiev was the
center of a federation of principalities tied together by their rulers who
claimed to be descendants of Rurik. The unity of Kievan Rus' was more of
an ideal than a reality (many internal feuds existed), but it served as an
inspiration to later generations. The socioeconomic base of this polity
has been a subject of controversy; liberal historians have singled out the
trading role of the princes and their retinues (druzhina), whereas Soviets
historians insisted on the primacy of agriculture and artisanal production.
Probably trade was the mainstay of political power, and agriculture (complemented
by hunting and fishing) was the major occupation of the population.
Culturally, Kiev served as the agent of transmission for Byzantine
civilization--Orthodox Christianity and its art (music, architecture, and
mosaics); it also developed, however, into the creative center of a high-level
indigenous culture represented, in literature, by the sermons of Hilarion
(d. after 1055) and Vladimir Monomakh (d. 1125); in historiography, by the
early-12th-century Primary Chronicle; in law, by Yaroslav's codification,
Pravda; and in monastic life, by Kiev's 11th-century cave monastery (Lavra).
This culture served as the common foundation for the later Ukrainian,
Belorussian, and Great Russian civilizations.
The decline of Kievan Rus' (starting in the late 11th century) was brought
about by internecine feuds, by a change in Byzantine trade patterns--which
made the old river route obsolete--and by the depopulation resulting from
slaughter by nomadic invaders from the east. The end, however, came
swiftly when the MONGOLS, surging forth from Central Asia, overran the
South Russian plain. Kiev was sacked in 1240, and the Mongol khans of the
GOLDEN HORDE at Sarai on the Volga established their control over most of
European Russia for about two centuries.
Under Rurik's successor, Oleg (d. c.912), Kiev became the center of a
federation of strong points controlled by Varangian "dukes" who soon
became Slavicized in language and culture. Attempts by Duke SVYATOSLAV I (r.
945-72) to create an "empire" in the region between the Dnepr and Danube
failed, but Kiev was effectively protected from nomads in the east by the
Khazar state on the Volga. With the conversion (c.988) of Duke VLADIMIR I
to Eastern Christianity, Kiev developed into a major cultural center, with
splendid architecture, richly adorned churches, and monasteries that
spread Byzantine civilization.
The political and cultural apogee of Kievan Rus' was reached under
YAROSLAV the Wise, who ruled from 1019 to 1054. Politically, Kiev was the
center of a federation of principalities tied together by their rulers who
claimed to be descendants of Rurik. The unity of Kievan Rus' was more of
an ideal than a reality (many internal feuds existed), but it served as an
inspiration to later generations. The socioeconomic base of this polity
has been a subject of controversy; liberal historians have singled out the
trading role of the princes and their retinues (druzhina), whereas Soviets
historians insisted on the primacy of agriculture and artisanal production.
Probably trade was the mainstay of political power, and agriculture (complemented
by hunting and fishing) was the major occupation of the population.
Culturally, Kiev served as the agent of transmission for Byzantine
civilization--Orthodox Christianity and its art (music, architecture, and
mosaics); it also developed, however, into the creative center of a high-level
indigenous culture represented, in literature, by the sermons of Hilarion
(d. after 1055) and Vladimir Monomakh (d. 1125); in historiography, by the
early-12th-century Primary Chronicle; in law, by Yaroslav's codification,
Pravda; and in monastic life, by Kiev's 11th-century cave monastery (Lavra).
This culture served as the common foundation for the later Ukrainian,
Belorussian, and Great Russian civilizations.
The decline of Kievan Rus' (starting in the late 11th century) was brought
about by internecine feuds, by a change in Byzantine trade patterns--which
made the old river route obsolete--and by the depopulation resulting from
slaughter by nomadic invaders from the east. The end, however, came
swiftly when the MONGOLS, surging forth from Central Asia, overran the
South Russian plain. Kiev was sacked in 1240, and the Mongol khans of the
GOLDEN HORDE at Sarai on the Volga established their control over most of
European Russia for about two centuries.
Mongol Rule
The overlordship of the Mongols proved costly in economic terms, because
the initial conquest and subsequent raids to maintain the Russians in
obedience were destructive of urban life and severely depleted the
population. Equally costly--even to cities that escaped conquest, such as
Novgorod--were the tribute payments in silver. Politically the yoke was
not burdensome, for the Mongols ruled indirectly through local princes,
and the church was even shown respect and exempted from tribute (enabling
it to assume a cultural and national leadership role). The most
deleterious long-lasting effect of Mongol rule was isolation from
Byzantium and western Europe, which led to a turning inward that produced
an aggressive inferiority complex. The exceptions were the free cities of
Novgorod and PSKOV, ruled by oligarchies of merchants (the princes, such
as ALEXANDER NEVSKY, were merely hired military leaders) in active contact
with the HANSEATIC LEAGUE.
Rise of Moscow
In the shadow of Mongol overlordship and in the harsh environment of
central Russia, to which the population had fled from the south, the
society and polity of MOSCOW, or Muscovy, developed. Members of the ruling
family of Kievan Rus' had seized free lands in the northeast and colonized
them with peasants to whom they offered protection in return for payments
in money and kind. Each one of these princes was full master of his domain,
which he administered and defended with the help of his retainers (BOYARS).
A semblance of family unity was maintained by the claim of common descent
from Rurik and of a "national" consciousness based on the Kievan cultural
heritage.
Taking advantage of genealogy, Mongol favor, church support, geographic
situation, and wealth, some of the local princes--for example, those of
VLADIMIR, YAROSLAVL, Moscow, Suzdal, and Tver--became dominant in their
region and gradually forced the weaker rulers (along with their boyars)
into their own service. Of these principalities Moscow gradually emerged
as the most powerful. Its ruler Ivan I (Ivan Kalita; r. 1328-41) was
granted the title grand duke of Vladimir by the khanate as well as the
right to collect tribute for the Mongols from neighboring principalities.
His grandson DIMITRY DONSKOI won the first major Russian victory over the
Mongols at Kulikovo (1380). Finally, after victory in a fierce civil war,
the elimination of a main rival at Tver (1485), and the winning over of
most small independent princes, IVAN III, grand duke of Moscow (r.
1462-1505), emerged as the sole ruler in central Russia. The Golden Horde
had regained control after Kulikovo, but a century later it was seriously
weakened by internal strife. In 1480, therefore, Ivan III successfully
challenged Mongol overlordship by refusing the tribute.
Moscow's triumph was not complete, however, because another putative heir
to Kiev remained--the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, to whose rule many of the
independent princes of the southwest and the large boyar retainers of
Belorussia had gravitated. To the south and east the Muslim successors of
the Golden Horde, the khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan, and the Crimea, were
serious threats to Muscovy's security.
Although Moscow's annexation of Novgorod (1478) and Pskov (1510) gave it
access to the profitable Baltic trade and control over the far-flung
colonial lands of the northeast, it also opened the gates to religious and
cultural challenges to the spiritual and artistic self-sufficiency and
provincialism of central Russia. A conflict arose between church and state
as well as between cultural nativism and innovation; it ended, in the
second quarter of the 16th century, in a compromise that reaffirmed and
strengthened the political values of Moscow (autocracy) while respecting
the economic power and position of the church and liberalizing its
cultural life to admit the influences from the Balkans and western Europe.
Yet the strain between those who wanted a spiritualistic church, divested
of worldly wealth (the nonpossessors, or Volga Elders), and the possessors,
followers of Joseph of Volokolamsk (d. 1515), who wished to retain the
church's wealth and institutional power, continued to affect Muscovite
cultural life.
In the shadow of Mongol overlordship and in the harsh environment of
central Russia, to which the population had fled from the south, the
society and polity of MOSCOW, or Muscovy, developed. Members of the ruling
family of Kievan Rus' had seized free lands in the northeast and colonized
them with peasants to whom they offered protection in return for payments
in money and kind. Each one of these princes was full master of his domain,
which he administered and defended with the help of his retainers (BOYARS).
A semblance of family unity was maintained by the claim of common descent
from Rurik and of a "national" consciousness based on the Kievan cultural
heritage.
Taking advantage of genealogy, Mongol favor, church support, geographic
situation, and wealth, some of the local princes--for example, those of
VLADIMIR, YAROSLAVL, Moscow, Suzdal, and Tver--became dominant in their
region and gradually forced the weaker rulers (along with their boyars)
into their own service. Of these principalities Moscow gradually emerged
as the most powerful. Its ruler Ivan I (Ivan Kalita; r. 1328-41) was
granted the title grand duke of Vladimir by the khanate as well as the
right to collect tribute for the Mongols from neighboring principalities.
His grandson DIMITRY DONSKOI won the first major Russian victory over the
Mongols at Kulikovo (1380). Finally, after victory in a fierce civil war,
the elimination of a main rival at Tver (1485), and the winning over of
most small independent princes, IVAN III, grand duke of Moscow (r.
1462-1505), emerged as the sole ruler in central Russia. The Golden Horde
had regained control after Kulikovo, but a century later it was seriously
weakened by internal strife. In 1480, therefore, Ivan III successfully
challenged Mongol overlordship by refusing the tribute.
Moscow's triumph was not complete, however, because another putative heir
to Kiev remained--the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, to whose rule many of the
independent princes of the southwest and the large boyar retainers of
Belorussia had gravitated. To the south and east the Muslim successors of
the Golden Horde, the khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan, and the Crimea, were
serious threats to Muscovy's security.
Although Moscow's annexation of Novgorod (1478) and Pskov (1510) gave it
access to the profitable Baltic trade and control over the far-flung
colonial lands of the northeast, it also opened the gates to religious and
cultural challenges to the spiritual and artistic self-sufficiency and
provincialism of central Russia. A conflict arose between church and state
as well as between cultural nativism and innovation; it ended, in the
second quarter of the 16th century, in a compromise that reaffirmed and
strengthened the political values of Moscow (autocracy) while respecting
the economic power and position of the church and liberalizing its
cultural life to admit the influences from the Balkans and western Europe.
Yet the strain between those who wanted a spiritualistic church, divested
of worldly wealth (the nonpossessors, or Volga Elders), and the possessors,
followers of Joseph of Volokolamsk (d. 1515), who wished to retain the
church's wealth and institutional power, continued to affect Muscovite
cultural life.
Organization of the Muscovite State
The main political task of the grand dukes of Moscow was the absorption of
formerly independent princes and their servitors into the service
hierarchy of Moscow. This absorption was achieved by expanding the
membership of the boyar council (duma) to include the newcomers. A system
of precedence (mestnichestvo) based on both family status and service
position kept the boyar class divided. In addition, from the late 15th
century on, the grand duke created a class of military servitors (dvorianstvo)
entirely subordinated to him by grants of land on a temporary basis,
subject to performance of service. The peasantry remained outside this
system, with village communes taking care of local fiscal and police
matters. Towns were under the direct rule of the grand duke's
representatives and enjoyed no municipal freedoms.
The culmination of absolutism was dramatically symbolized by the grandson
of Ivan III, IVAN IV (r. 1533-84). Assuming (1547) the title of tsar, he
underlined his claim to the succession of both Byzantium and the Golden
Horde. The conquests of the khanates of Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1556)
followed, putting the entire course of the Volga under Russian control.
These conquests initiated further expansion (1581) into Siberia, whose
western regions were conquered by the Cossack leader YERMAK TIMOFEYEVICH,
sponsored by the Novgorod family of salt merchants, the Stroganovs.
Relying on his absolute power and increased military potential, Ivan IV
attempted to eliminate the competition of Lithuania and gain a port on the
Baltic. The 25-year war (1558-83) against Poland-Lithuania, Livonia, and
Sweden--accompanied by several devastating raids of Crimean Tatars against
Moscow (for example, in 1571)--ended in failure and seriously debilitated
the country. To mobilize all resources and cope with internal opposition,
Ivan IV set up his own personal guard and territorial administration (oprichnina,
1565-72), whose exactions and oppression did great damage to both the
economy and the social stability of the realm. The combined needs of the
military servitor class for labor and of the government for tax-paying
peasants led to legislation limiting the mobility of peasants. The edicts
of Ivan's successors (Fyodor I, r. 1584-98, and BORIS GODUNOV, r.
1598-1605) initiated a process that culminated in the complete enserfment
of the Russian peasantry (Code of 1649).
The main political task of the grand dukes of Moscow was the absorption of
formerly independent princes and their servitors into the service
hierarchy of Moscow. This absorption was achieved by expanding the
membership of the boyar council (duma) to include the newcomers. A system
of precedence (mestnichestvo) based on both family status and service
position kept the boyar class divided. In addition, from the late 15th
century on, the grand duke created a class of military servitors (dvorianstvo)
entirely subordinated to him by grants of land on a temporary basis,
subject to performance of service. The peasantry remained outside this
system, with village communes taking care of local fiscal and police
matters. Towns were under the direct rule of the grand duke's
representatives and enjoyed no municipal freedoms.
The culmination of absolutism was dramatically symbolized by the grandson
of Ivan III, IVAN IV (r. 1533-84). Assuming (1547) the title of tsar, he
underlined his claim to the succession of both Byzantium and the Golden
Horde. The conquests of the khanates of Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1556)
followed, putting the entire course of the Volga under Russian control.
These conquests initiated further expansion (1581) into Siberia, whose
western regions were conquered by the Cossack leader YERMAK TIMOFEYEVICH,
sponsored by the Novgorod family of salt merchants, the Stroganovs.
Relying on his absolute power and increased military potential, Ivan IV
attempted to eliminate the competition of Lithuania and gain a port on the
Baltic. The 25-year war (1558-83) against Poland-Lithuania, Livonia, and
Sweden--accompanied by several devastating raids of Crimean Tatars against
Moscow (for example, in 1571)--ended in failure and seriously debilitated
the country. To mobilize all resources and cope with internal opposition,
Ivan IV set up his own personal guard and territorial administration
(oprichnina, 1565-72), whose exactions and oppression did great damage to
both the economy and the social stability of the realm. The combined needs
of the military servitor class for labor and of the government for
tax-paying peasants led to legislation limiting the mobility of peasants.
The edicts of Ivan's successors (Fyodor I, r. 1584-98, and BORIS GODUNOV,
r. 1598-1605) initiated a process that culminated in the complete
enserfment of the Russian peasantry (Code of 1649).
UP
THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES
The Muscovite dynasty ended in 1598 with the death of Ivan IV's son Fyodor
I. Real power during Fyodor's reign had been exercised by his
brother-in-law Boris Godunov, who was chosen to succeed him. Although
Boris was a strong ruler, he was regarded by many as a usurper. The
exhausted country was, therefore, precipitated into turmoil marked by the
appearance of a series of pretenders to the throne and provoking invasions
by Poland, Sweden, and the Crimean Tatars ( 1598-1613). Disgruntled boyar
families, enserfed peasants, COSSACKS, and lower clergy tried in turn to
take advantage of the anarchy, but none succeeded. Eventually, a militia
of noble servitors (dvoriane) and townspeople of the northeast, based in
Nizhni Novgorod, expelled the Poles from Moscow, drove back the Swedes and
Cossacks, and elected young MICHAEL Romanov as tsar in 1613. The ROMANOV
dynasty was to rule Russia until 1917.
The Muscovite dynasty ended in 1598 with the death of Ivan IV's son Fyodor
I. Real power during Fyodor's reign had been exercised by his
brother-in-law Boris Godunov, who was chosen to succeed him. Although
Boris was a strong ruler, he was regarded by many as a usurper. The
exhausted country was, therefore, precipitated into turmoil marked by the
appearance of a series of pretenders to the throne and provoking invasions
by Poland, Sweden, and the Crimean Tatars ( 1598-1613). Disgruntled boyar
families, enserfed peasants, COSSACKS, and lower clergy tried in turn to
take advantage of the anarchy, but none succeeded. Eventually, a militia
of noble servitors (dvoriane) and townspeople of the northeast, based in
Nizhni Novgorod, expelled the Poles from Moscow, drove back the Swedes and
Cossacks, and elected young MICHAEL Romanov as tsar in 1613. The ROMANOV
dynasty was to rule Russia until 1917.
An Era of Conflict
Beneath a veneer of traditional forms and static structures profound
changes took place in the course of the 17th century, changes that
resulted in religious, cultural, political, and socioeconomic disarray.
Efforts at reforming the church structure and at modernizing the ritual
along Byzantine and Ukrainian lines, led by NIKON (patriarch from 1652 to
1666), were resisted in the name of earlier spiritualist traditions by
large segments of the population (led by monks and parish priests). These
OLD BELIEVERS, about 25 percent of the population, were persecuted by the
state and virtually split away from official culture and civil society. In
suppressing the Old Believers the church lost much of its moral authority
and autonomy vis-a-vis the state.
The cultural gap between the elites and the people was deepened by
political, social, and economic conflicts: urban strife at times
threatened the stability of the regime itself (for example, the salt riots
of Moscow, 1648, and revolts in Pskov and Novgorod, 1650). The military
servitors' struggle to establish full control (legalized by the Code of
1649) over their peasants led to numerous revolts. In 1670-71 dissatisfied
Cossacks, persecuted Old Believers, escaped serfs, and disgruntled urban
elements joined forces under Stenka RAZIN in a revolt that swept the
entire Volga valley and threatened Moscow itself.
The religious crisis exacerbated the cultural conflict over the extent and
character of Westernization. Trade contacts, especially with England and
the Dutch, brought foreigners to Russia, and diplomatic exchanges grew
more frequent as Russia became involved in European military and
diplomatic events. The importation of Western technological innovations
for military purposes brought in their wake foreign fashions and cultural
goods.
The trend was reinforced following the incorporation of eastern Ukraine
(1654). The ecclesiastical academy in Kiev (founded in 1637 by the
Ukrainian churchman Peter Mohyla) educated future clergy (and some laymen)
according to contemporary European neoscholastic philosophical and
juridical curricula; its graduates often continued their studies at
central and western European universities. Better trained and more learned
than the native Muscovite clerics, the graduates of the Kievan academy
were welcomed in Moscow. They were the first to organize regular schools
there (for example, the Greco-Latin Slavonic Academy), and they brought
Western political and juridical works and belles-lettres to the Kremlin
court. The winds of culture and art blowing from the west also helped
change Muscovite tastes in architecture, icon painting, church music, and
poetry--changes in style that are usually labeled Moscow baroque. These
foreign and innovative influences helped smooth the path for the forceful
Europeanization that followed under Peter I.
The government, especially under Tsar ALEXIS (r. 1645-76), tried to cope
with the difficulties by centralizing the local administrations (prikazy,
or departments) under direct supervision of the boyar duma and the tsar,
assisted by professional hereditary clerks (diaki). Naturally, the fiscal
burden grew in proportion to centralization. To ensure domestic control
and to carry on an active foreign policy (for example, the annexation of
the Ukraine in 1654 and wars with Poland leading to a "perpetual peace" in
1686), a professional army of streltsy (musketeers) and foreign
mercenaries and modernized technology were introduced. Although absolutism
was retained intact, factionalism and palace coups became more frequent
and made pursuing coherent policies difficult. When Tsar Fyodor III died
in 1682 the situation was ripe for the energetic intervention of a genuine
leader. After the brief but tumultuous regency of SOPHIA, 1682-89,
Fyodor's half brother Peter grasped the opportunity.
The Reforms of Peter the Great
By dint of his driving energy and ruthlessness, PETER I (r. 1682-1725)
transformed Russia and brought it into the concert of European nations. A
struggle of almost 20 years with CHARLES XII of Sweden (1700-21; ) and
wars with Ottoman Turkey (1710-11) and Persia (1722-23) radically changed
Russia's international position (symbolized by Peter's assumption of the
new title of emperor in 1721). By the Treaty of Nystad (1721) with Sweden,
Russia acquired the Baltic province of LIVONIA (including Estonia and most
of Latvia), giving it a firm foothold on the Baltic Sea and a direct
relationship with western Europe. In the south gains were modest, but they
marked the beginning of a Russian imperial offensive on the Black and
Caspian seas.
These territorial gains, requiring much effort and great expenditures of
labor and resources, forced Peter to transform the institutional framework
of the state and to attempt a restructuring of society as well. The
central administration was streamlined along functional lines: a set of
colleges on the European model displaced the prikazy, and a senate of
appointed officials replaced the boyar duma; the church was put under
direct state administration with the abolition of the patriarchate and the
establishment of a Holy Synod (1721) of appointed ecclesiastical members
supervised by a lay official. A navy was created, and the army was
reorganized along professional Western lines, the peasantry furnishing the
recruits and nobility the officers. The local administration, however,
remained a weak link in the institutional chain, although it maintained
the vast empire in obedience. The peasantry was subjected to compulsory
labor (as in the building of the new capital, SAINT PETERSBURG, begun in
1703) and to military service, and every individual adult male peasant was
assessed with a head, or poll, tax. By these measures the state severed
the last legal ties of the peasants to the land and transformed them into
personal serfs, virtually chattel, who could be moved and sold at will.
Other classes of society were not immune from state service either.
Compulsory, lifelong service was imposed on the nobility, and their status
was made dependent on ranks earned in military or administrative office
(the Table of Ranks of 1722 also provided for automatic ennoblement of
commoners through service). State service required education, and Peter
introduced compulsory secular, Westernized schooling for the Russian
nobleman. While resistance to compulsory service gradually forced its
relaxation, education became an internalized value for most nobles who
were culturally Westernized by the mid-18th century.
Peter failed to reshape the merchants into a Western bourgeoisie, however,
and his efforts at modernizing the economy had mixed results. The clergy
turned into a closed castelike estate, losing its spiritual and cultural
influence. The limitations of Peter's reforming drive were due to the
inherent paradox of his policy and approach: he aimed at liberating the
creative forces of Russian society, but he expected to accomplish this
liberation only at his command and through compulsion, at a pace that
precluded an adaptation of traditional patterns and values. He succeeded
in transforming the upper class but failed to change the common people;
the deep cultural gulf in the long run undermined the regime.
The Imperial Succession
Peter's impetuousness did not allow the new structure and patterns to
congeal, and after his death (1725) instability plagued the new
institutional setup. Having had his son, Alexis, tortured to death for
alleged treason, Peter abolished the traditional practice of succession,
declaring (1722) that the emperor could choose his successor. For the next
half-century the throne was exposed to a series of palace coups instigated
by cliques of favorites and dignitaries with the support of the Guards
regiments. After the reign (1725-27) of Peter's widow, CATHERINE I, Peter
II (r. 1727-30), ANNA (r. 1730-40), Ivan VI (r. 1740-41), ELIZABETH (r.
1741-62), and CATHERINE II (r. 1762-96), who supplanted her husband, PETER
III, all came to the throne in this manner. The only serious attempt at
limiting the power of the throne (1730), however, failed because of
divisions among the nobility and their continued dependence on state
service. The autocracy managed to keep the nobility in subordination by
promoting the economic status of that class through salaries, gifts, and
the extension of its legal rights over the serfs, particularly following
the traumatic experience of the great peasant uprising (1773-75) under
Yemelian PUGACHEV.
The government proved unable to regularize its structure and practices
through a code of laws because it was feared that such a code would
delegate power to impersonal institutions. Personalized authority was
favored by most subjects, however, as a protection against abuses of
officials and as a source of rewards.
The tension between a rational and automatic rule of law and a
personalized authority was never resolved in imperial Russia.
UP
Expansion and Westernization
Two important processes dominated the 18th century. The first was imperial
expansion southward and westward. The southern steppe lands were gradually
settled by Russians, and the autonomous local social groupings--especially
the Cossacks (whose hetmanate in the Ukraine was abolished in 1764)--lost
their status and were assimilated into Russian serf society. The process
was formally completed by the Treaty of Kucuk Kainarji (1774), ending the
first major RUSSO-TURKISH WAR, by which Russia secured the northern shore
of the Black Sea, and by the annexation (1783) of the Crimea, which put an
end to the nomadic threats from the southeast. By extending (1783) serfdom
to the Ukraine the economic integration of that area with Russia was
achieved, and its large, prosperous estates were soon able to feed a
growing urban population and to export grain abroad.
The empire's expansion westward was the result of the Partitions of Poland
(1772, 1792, 1795; ), which awarded Russia most of the eastern and central
regions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This expansion enhanced
Russia's economic potential and brought it closer to western Europe, but
it also burdened the empire with unsolvable national and religious
problems and saddled it with onerous diplomatic, military, and police
tasks.
In the past, apart from the incorporation of small Finnish and Siberian
tribes, Muscovy had known only one major territorial conquest involving
non-Russian and non-Christian peoples--that of the Tatars of the Volga in
the 16th century. Their elites were quite successfully incorporated into
the tsar's service nobility (most eventually became Christians); as for
the common folk, they were subject to a special tribute (iassak), but
their internal tribal affairs were left to the care of traditional elders
and chieftains. The imperial acquisitions of the 18th century, however,
brought a number of new nationalities under Russian rule: Ukrainians,
Poles, Crimean Tatars, Jews, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Baltic
Germans. Wherever workable, these nationalities' elites were recruited
into the military and civil establishments. The common people continued to
be allowed their own traditional institutions, provided they paid their
taxes. The Russian church was discouraged from proselytizing. Legal
disputes were resolved according to native customary law if no Russians
were involved; otherwise Russian law took precedence. Before the birth of
modern nationalism in the 19th century this approach worked well enough so
that the imperial administration and the Russian elites were able to
ignore the multiethnic character of the empire.
The second process shaping 18th-century Russia is best characterized as
the cultural Westernization of the Russian elites. It was furthered by the
establishment of new educational institutions (the Academy of Sciences,
1725; the University of Moscow, 1755; and military and private schools),
the creation of a modern national literature along Western lines
(exemplified in the work of Mikhail LOMONOSOV and Aleksandr SUMAROKOV),
and the beginnings of scientific research and discoveries (Lomonosov).
Increased sophistication heightened yearnings for free expression and
implementation of enlightened Western moral and social values. It led to a
conflict between state control and educated society's demand for creative
freedom and to the emergence of an oppositionist intelligentsia. In 1790,
for example, Aleksandr RADISHCHEV denounced the moral evils of serfdom in
A Journey from Saint Petersburg to Moscow.
Imperial expansion and cultural Westernization were accompanied by
economic modernization. Russia became a notable producer of iron, lumber,
and naval stores (pine products) and witnessed the expansion of
urbanization and social amenities. Catherine II intensified these
developments and reaped their benefits. In February 1762 the nobles had
been freed from compulsory state service by Peter III and had been given
the right to travel abroad. But their corporate status, security of person
and property, and local administrative function had not been clarified.
This was even truer of the other free classes. In order to obtain reliable
and comprehensive information on conditions in the empire (and to bolster
her own legitimacy) Catherine convoked (1767) an assembly of elected
delegates from the free estates of the realm. The deputies were expected
to draft and bring to the assembly "instructions" (nakazy) listing the
conditions and needs of their electors. This "Legislative Commission" was
soon disbanded, but the instructions and debates gave Catherine ample
material for a picture of what the various free classes of the population
expected from her. In response she decided that Russian society should
contribute more directly to economic activity.
To this end she fostered security of property and person, at least for
members of the upper classes. In implementing this goal she followed two
paths. First, by the Statute on the Provinces (1775) she concentrated the
administration of the empire by breaking up its territory into manageable
units (guberniia) under appointed governors responsible to the sovereign
and accountable to the senate. Governors were to be assisted by boards of
officials organized according to function and, on the district level, by
police officers elected by, and from among, the local nobility or wealthy
urban population. Second, the empress planned to promote the formation of
a civil society by granting the three principal estates of the realm the
right to form corporations. These would serve to register their members,
and to protect group interests, as well as each individual member's person
and property. The Charter to the Nobility (1785) put local resident nobles
in charge of district police, some judicial matters, and the protection
and supervision of orphans, widows, and incapacitated persons. The Charter
to the Towns (1785) similarly gave an active administrative role to urban
elites, while reserving paramount authority to governors and appointed
officials. A third charter giving state peasants a degree of
self-government on the village level was drafted but never implemented.
Though the practice fell far short of the intention, Catherine II did lay
the foundations for the emergence of a provincial civic and cultural
life--a prerequisite for the modernization of Russia in the 19th century.
Two important processes dominated the 18th century. The first was imperial
expansion southward and westward. The southern steppe lands were gradually
settled by Russians, and the autonomous local social groupings--especially
the Cossacks (whose hetmanate in the Ukraine was abolished in 1764)--lost
their status and were assimilated into Russian serf society. The process
was formally completed by the Treaty of Kucuk Kainarji (1774), ending the
first major RUSSO-TURKISH WAR, by which Russia secured the northern shore
of the Black Sea, and by the annexation (1783) of the Crimea, which put an
end to the nomadic threats from the southeast. By extending (1783) serfdom
to the Ukraine the economic integration of that area with Russia was
achieved, and its large, prosperous estates were soon able to feed a
growing urban population and to export grain abroad.
The empire's expansion westward was the result of the Partitions of Poland
(1772, 1792, 1795; ), which awarded Russia most of the eastern and central
regions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This expansion enhanced
Russia's economic potential and brought it closer to western Europe, but
it also burdened the empire with unsolvable national and religious
problems and saddled it with onerous diplomatic, military, and police
tasks.
In the past, apart from the incorporation of small Finnish and Siberian
tribes, Muscovy had known only one major territorial conquest involving
non-Russian and non-Christian peoples--that of the Tatars of the Volga in
the 16th century. Their elites were quite successfully incorporated into
the tsar's service nobility (most eventually became Christians); as for
the common folk, they were subject to a special tribute (iassak), but
their internal tribal affairs were left to the care of traditional elders
and chieftains. The imperial acquisitions of the 18th century, however,
brought a number of new nationalities under Russian rule: Ukrainians,
Poles, Crimean Tatars, Jews, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Baltic
Germans. Wherever workable, these nationalities' elites were recruited
into the military and civil establishments. The common people continued to
be allowed their own traditional institutions, provided they paid their
taxes. The Russian church was discouraged from proselytizing. Legal
disputes were resolved according to native customary law if no Russians
were involved; otherwise Russian law took precedence. Before the birth of
modern nationalism in the 19th century this approach worked well enough so
that the imperial administration and the Russian elites were able to
ignore the multiethnic character of the empire.
The second process shaping 18th-century Russia is best characterized as
the cultural Westernization of the Russian elites. It was furthered by the
establishment of new educational institutions (the Academy of Sciences,
1725; the University of Moscow, 1755; and military and private schools),
the creation of a modern national literature along Western lines
(exemplified in the work of Mikhail LOMONOSOV and Aleksandr SUMAROKOV),
and the beginnings of scientific research and discoveries (Lomonosov).
Increased sophistication heightened yearnings for free expression and
implementation of enlightened Western moral and social values. It led to a
conflict between state control and educated society's demand for creative
freedom and to the emergence of an oppositionist intelligentsia. In 1790,
for example, Aleksandr RADISHCHEV denounced the moral evils of serfdom in
A Journey from Saint Petersburg to Moscow.
Imperial expansion and cultural Westernization were accompanied by
economic modernization. Russia became a notable producer of iron, lumber,
and naval stores (pine products) and witnessed the expansion of
urbanization and social amenities. Catherine II intensified these
developments and reaped their benefits. In February 1762 the nobles had
been freed from compulsory state service by Peter III and had been given
the right to travel abroad. But their corporate status, security of person
and property, and local administrative function had not been clarified.
This was even truer of the other free classes. In order to obtain reliable
and comprehensive information on conditions in the empire (and to bolster
her own legitimacy) Catherine convoked (1767) an assembly of elected
delegates from the free estates of the realm. The deputies were expected
to draft and bring to the assembly "instructions" (nakazy) listing the
conditions and needs of their electors. This "Legislative Commission" was
soon disbanded, but the instructions and debates gave Catherine ample
material for a picture of what the various free classes of the population
expected from her. In response she decided that Russian society should
contribute more directly to economic activity.
To this end she fostered security of property and person, at least for
members of the upper classes. In implementing this goal she followed two
paths. First, by the Statute on the Provinces (1775) she concentrated the
administration of the empire by breaking up its territory into manageable
units (guberniia) under appointed governors responsible to the sovereign
and accountable to the senate. Governors were to be assisted by boards of
officials organized according to function and, on the district level, by
police officers elected by, and from among, the local nobility or wealthy
urban population. Second, the empress planned to promote the formation of
a civil society by granting the three principal estates of the realm the
right to form corporations. These would serve to register their members,
and to protect group interests, as well as each individual member's person
and property. The Charter to the Nobility (1785) put local resident nobles
in charge of district police, some judicial matters, and the protection
and supervision of orphans, widows, and incapacitated persons. The Charter
to the Towns (1785) similarly gave an active administrative role to urban
elites, while reserving paramount authority to governors and appointed
officials. A third charter giving state peasants a degree of
self-government on the village level was drafted but never implemented.
Though the practice fell far short of the intention, Catherine II did lay
the foundations for the emergence of a provincial civic and cultural
life--a prerequisite for the modernization of Russia in the 19th century.
UP
THE 19TH CENTURY
Alexander I
Catherine's grandson ALEXANDER I, who succeeded to the throne after
the brief reign (1796-1801) of his unbalanced father, PAUL I,
intended to give regular institutional form to the results of the
social and cultural evolution of the 18th century. The first years
of Alexander's reign were marked by intensive efforts at reforming
the administration and at expanding the educational facilities.
Although the reforms did not bring about constitutionalism or limit
the autocracy, they did inaugurate rapid bureaucratization with
better trained officials.
Russia's involvement in the NAPOLEONIC WARS proved in some ways an
impediment to the normal evolution of the country. NAPOLEON I's
invasion of Russia in 1812, although ending in his own defeat, was
hardly a victory for Russia. The wars proved costly, and the
ultimate political gains (Finland, penetration into the Caucasus)
were rather slim despite Alexander's diplomatic role after 1815
(notably in the HOLY ALLIANCE). On the other hand, the
reconstruction of devastated territories along the route of the
French invasion and of Moscow (largely destroyed by fire during the
French occupation) gave great impetus to an economic takeoff and
involved entrepreneurial initiatives by peasants and urban
commoners. It resulted in a rapid expansion of textile manufactures
and the building trades, which generated capital and resources for
later Russian industrialization.
During the wars the younger generation of educated society had
acquired self-confidence and a desire to be of use to their country
and people; upon the return of peace they tried to put their ideals
into practice. Unavoidably, this led to a clash with a government
that was loath to give society genuine freedom and that, after 1815,
became more restrictive and obscurantist. Secret societies were
organized under the leadership of progressive officers, and, on the
sudden death of Alexander I in December 1825, they tried to take
over the government. This abortive insurrection of the DECEMBRISTS
traumatized Alexander's successor, his brother NICHOLAS I, into a
policy of reaction and repression.
Nicholas I
Nicholas I's reign, however, was by no means static, and it proved
seminal in many respects. In spite of strict censorship, the golden
age of Russian literature occurred with the work of Aleksandr
PUSHKIN, Nikolai GOGOL, the young Fyodor DOSTOYEVSKY, Leo TOLSTOI,
and Ivan TURGENEV. Accompanying this literary flowering, discussion
circles sprang up in Moscow and Saint Petersburg in which the
intelligentsia debated Russia's identity, its historical path and
role, and its relationship to western Europe (the SLAVOPHILES AND
WESTERNIZERS represented the two main lines of interpretation that
emerged).
Nicholas was unfavorably disposed to the humanities and limited
admissions to the universities, but he promoted technical and
professional training. During his reign a number of technical
institutions of higher learning were founded, and state support for
needy students in professional schools was expanded. By the end of
the reign a cadre of well-trained professionals and officials had
been prepared to carry out reforms. Nicholas's government also
brought to a successful conclusion the codification of laws (1833;
the achievement of Mikhail SPERANSKY), which enabled an orderly and
systematic economic development of the country. The building of
railroads was initiated, the currency was stabilized, and protective
tariffs were introduced. As a result private enterprise was
activated, especially in consumer goods (textiles), in which even
peasant capital and skill participated. These developments only
served to underscore the backward nature of an agrarian economy
based on serf labor. Nicholas was well aware of this, but, fearing
political and social disturbances, he did not go beyond discussions
in secret committees and the improvement of the administration of
state peasants.
All the while, however, his government encouraged middle-rank
officials to collect accurate and comprehensive data on Russia's
economic and social condition. The Imperial Geographic society
sponsored expeditions and statistical surveys that eventually
provided the government with information needed to undertake
reforms.
The government's timidity was conditioned not only by fear of a
peasant uprising and a distrust of the nobility but also by its
international policies. Nicholas's reign was for the most part
peaceful, although Russia did participate in securing Greek
independence (1828-29) and in curtailing Turkish power in the Black
Sea. Nicholas also acted as the "gendarme of Europe" when he crushed
the Polish insurrection of 1831-33 and helped Austria subdue the
Hungarians in 1849. The empire further expanded in the Far East (in
the Amur River valley). At the end of his reign Nicholas embroiled
Russia in the CRIMEAN WAR (1853-56). Although the immediate cause of
the war was a dispute over the guardianship of the Holy Places in
Palestine, underlying the conflict was the EASTERN QUESTION, the
prolonged dispute over the disposition of the territories of the
fast-declining Ottoman Empire. The Russians fought on home ground
against British and French troops assisted by Sardinian and Austrian
forces. The course of the war revealed the regime's weaknesses, and
the death (1855) of Nicholas allowed his son, ALEXANDER II, to
conclude a peace (the Treaty of Paris, 1856) that debarred Russian
warships from the Black Sea and Straits.
Alexander II and Emancipation of the Serfs
Russian society now expected and demanded far-reaching reforms, and
Alexander acted accordingly. The crucial reform was the abolition of
serfdom on Mar. 3 (N.S.), 1861. In spite of many shortcomings it was
a great accomplishment that set Russia on the way to becoming a
full-fledged modern society. The main defects of the emancipation
settlement were that cancellation of labor obligations took place
gradually, the peasants were charged for the land they received in
allotment (through a redemption tax), and the allotments proved
inadequate in the long run. The last was a consequence of
demographic pressures due to the administrative provisions of the
act that restricted the mobility of the peasants and tied them to
their village commune, which was held responsible for the payment of
taxes; the former serfs remained second-class citizens and were
denied full access to regular courts. Nevertheless, 20 million
peasants became their own masters, they received land allotments
that preserved them from immediate proletarization, and the
emancipation process was accomplished peacefully.
Three other major reforms followed emancipation. The first was the
introduction (1864) of elected institutions of local government,
zemstvos, which were responsible for matters of education, health,
and welfare; however, the zemstvos had limited powers of taxation,
and they were subjected to close bureaucratic controls. Secondly,
reform of the judiciary introduced jury trials, independent judges,
and a professional class of lawyers. The courts, however, had no
jurisdiction over "political" cases, and the emperor remained judge
of the last resort. Finally, in 1874, the old-fashioned military
recruiting system gave way to universal, compulsory 6-year military
service.
Taken together, the reforms marked the end of the traditional
socioeconomic system based on serfdom, and set Russia fully on the
path to an industrial and capitalist revolution that brought
problems of urbanization, proletarianization, and agrarian crisis in
its wake. In part the difficulties resulted from unpreparedness and
reluctance on the part of landowners (and many among the
intellectual elites) to make necessary adjustments in their economic
practices and social attitudes; but they were also caused by
government policies that hindered the emergence of a genuine
capitalist bourgeoisie and industrial labor force.
The impetus for reform was thwarted and arrested by external and
domestic events. Externally, the Polish rebellion of 1863-64 gave
pause to the government and, by exacerbating nationalistic feelings,
strengthened the conservative opposition to further reforms. The
Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 undermined the financial equilibrium,
and chauvinistic passions were aroused when the Treaty of San
Stefano, which greatly increased Russian influence in the Balkans,
was substantially revised by the Congress of Berlin . At home in the
1860s radical university students and nihilist critics such as
Nikolai CHERNYSHEVSKY voiced dissatisfaction with the pace and
direction of the reforms. Radical associations were formed to
propagandize socialist ideas, and student youth "went to the people"
in 1874-76 to enlighten and revolutionize the peasantry. Repressed
by the government, the young radicals turned to terrorism.
Eventually a group of NARODNIKI (populists) called the People's Will
condemned the emperor to death, and after several dramatic but
unsuccessful attempts they killed him on Mar. 13 (N.S.), 1881.
Alexander III
Alexander II's violent death inaugurated the conservative and
restrictive reign of his son ALEXANDER III. Nonetheless, the process
of social and economic change released by the reforms could not be
arrested. Now society proved more dynamic and took the lead in the
drive for modernization and liberalization; the government, on the
other hand, incapable of giving up its autocratic traditions, acted
as a barrier. The deepening agrarian crisis--dramatized by the
famine of 1891--turned the active elements from criticism to overt
opposition. At the same time, industrialization energetically pushed
by Sergei WITTE, minister of finance (1892-1903), brought in its
wake labor conflict, urban poverty, and business cycles.
Expansion and Russian Nationalism
The acquisition of CAUCASIA, under Nicholas I, had required lengthy
and difficult campaigns against mountain populations using guerrilla
tactics to defend themselves. During the reign of Alexander II,
largely on local military initiative, the independent or autonomous
Muslim principalities of CENTRAL ASIA were brought under Russian
control and turned into virtual colonies for economic exploitation
and peasant settlement.
Paralleling the south and southeastward expansions of the empire,
the governor-general of Siberia, Nikolai N. Muraviev, forced China
to relinquish control over the lower course of the Amur River
(Treaty of Aigun, 1858), opening up the Pacific shore to Russian
penetration and settlement. The Russian Empire thus increased its
territory and developed a genuinely colonial approach to the newly
incorporated lands and peoples. With the possible exception of
Georgia (incorporated early in the 19th century), native leadership
was not absorbed into the Russian nobility or cultural elite, as had
been the case in earlier conquests. New administrative practices
developed in these territories with the help and participation of
the military resulted in the imposition of oppressive rule and
socio-economic discrimination against the native populations.
The Slavophile-Westernizer debates over the nature of Russian
national identity in the 1830s undoubtedly contributed to a more
aggressive and self-centered sense of Russian nationalism, which
received strident expression during the Polish revolt of 1863 and
the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. It prompted the government to
embark on a consistent policy of Russification and harsh repression
of nationalist movements among the non-Russian peoples of the
empire. Imperial decrees restricted the use of the Ukrainian
language and the privileged status of the Germans in the Baltic
provinces. Paradoxically, the actions against the Baltic Germans
encouraged the growth of nationalist feeling among the Latvians and
Estonians, whom the Germans had dominated. The suppression of the
Polish uprising of 1863 was followed by energetic Russification
measures aimed at eliminating the Polish language and Polish culture
from public life.
Under Alexander III, discriminatory laws against Jews, involving
residential restrictions and limited access to secondary and higher
education, were reinforced and harshly applied. At the same time,
the government did little to control pogroms or anti-Jewish riots.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated to Western Europe and the
United States, and many who aspired to professional education and
cultural assimilation were driven into the arms of radical political
parties.
These policies continued unabated under Alexander's son Nicholas II,
whose government also curtailed Finland's traditional autonomy.
Nicholas II
Nicholas succeeded his father in 1894. The new emperor soon dashed
society's hopes for political and social reform. To deflect
attention from the worsening social situation and to neutralize the
revitalized revolutionary movement, especially among the workers,
the government embarked on imperialist adventures in the Far East,
provoking a war with Japan (1904-05). Russia suffered a humiliating
defeat, although the peace terms (Treaty of Portsmouth, 1905) were
less onerous thanks to the mediation of U.S. president Theodore
ROOSEVELT and Japan's exhaustion.
The war triggered widespread disturbances within Russia, including
rural violence, labor unrest (in Saint Petersburg troops fired on a
large crowd of demonstrating workers; Bloody Sunday, Jan. 22, 1905),
and naval mutinies (most notably, that led by sailors of the
battleship Potemkin in Odessa, June 1905). The turmoil of the
RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OF 1905 culminated in the general strike of
October, which forced Nicholas II to grant a constitution. Russia
received a representative legislative assembly, the DUMA, elected by
indirect suffrage. The executive, however, remained accountable only
to the emperor. Limited as its powers were (the suffrage was further
restricted in 1907), the Duma made the government more responsive to
public opinion. From 1906 to 1911 the government was directed by
Pyotr STOLYPIN, who combined repressive action with land reforms to
improve the position of the peasants.
The new political activity contributed to the remarkable upsurge of
Russia's artistic and intellectual creativity (called the Silver
Age) that lasted until the outbreak of World War I in 1914. The
Silver Age marked Russia's coming of age as a contributing
participant in Western culture. This happened, first of all, because
of the high level of professionalization attained by Russian
scholars, scientists, and artists. The process had been initiated in
the filed of humanities under Alexander I and was confined at first
to the nobility. The reign of Nicholas I marked Russia's take-off in
science and scholarship within the framework of the universities and
the Academy of Sciences. In the 1860s prominent Russian scientists
such as N. I. LOBACHEVSKY and D. I. MENDELEYEV received full
recognition in the West.
After the reforms of Alexander II, the needs of the zemstvos, the
new judicial system, and of the rapidly developing industrial system
produced an exponential increase in the number of technicians and
professionals in such areas as law, medicine, engineering, agronomy,
and statistics. Professional associations aimed at playing an active
role in shaping government and public policies in their fields for
the benefit of society.
By the first decade of the 20th century Russia had moved to the
forefront of scholarly and scientific progress; the contributions of
Russian scientists in such areas as chemistry, aeronautics,
linguistics, history;, archaeology, and statistics were universally
recognized.
Equally significant was the renaissance of religious life, and
growing interest in the question of church involvement in social
problems. Reformist laymen and clergy demanded greater independence
for the church, calling for a national church council to address the
needs and define the character of Russia's ecclesiastical
institutions. Closely allied to the religious renaissance was the
development of the personalist-existentialist school of Russian
philosophy by N. A. BERDYAYEV, N. O. Lossky (1870-1965), L. Shestov
(1866-1938), and others.
Last, but not least, the Silver Age witnessed an extraordinarily
creative outburst in the arts. The composer Igor STRAVINSKY, ballet
impresario Sergei DIAGHILEV, and the painter Wassily KANDINSKY each
had a strong influence on the emergence of avant-garde modernism
before and after World War I. In the same period, CONSTRUCTIVISM and
SUPREMATISM were original Russian contributions to abstract art.
Thus the years 1905-14 were a period of great complexity and
ferment. To many this feverish intellectual creativity, which had
its social and political counterpart in rural unrest, industrial
discontent, revolutionary agitation, and nationalist excesses (for
example, the pogroms against the Jews), proved that the imperial
regime was nearing its inevitable end, which the outbreak of war
only served to delay. On the other side, liberals and moderate
progressives saw in these phenomena harbingers of Russia's decisive
turn to political democracy and social and economic progress, which
was abruptly stopped in 1914.
In any event Russia went to war in August 1914. Determined to
prevent further Austro-Hungarian encroachment in the Balkans, the
Russian government rallied to the support of Serbia when
Austria-Hungary declared war on that Balkan nation. Russia's
alliance with France and Britain and Austria-Hungary's with Germany
helped transform the local Balkan conflict into WORLD WAR I. The
strains of that bloody and disastrous conflict produced a breakdown
of both the political system and the social fabric in Russia. Food
riots in Petrograd (formerly Saint Petersburg) and other cities
toppled the monarchy in March (N.S.; February, O.S.) 1917.
The Russian Revolutions of 1917
Following the abdication of the emperor the Duma established a
provisional government, headed first by Prince Georgy Lvov
(1861-1925) and later by Aleksandr KERENSKY. The government's
authority was challenged, however, by an increasingly radical Soviet
(council) of Soldiers' and Workers' Deputies, and it could not stem
the tide of disintegration. Eventually agrarian unrest, mass
desertions at the front, turmoil in the cities, and disaffection of
the non-Russian nationalities gave the Bolsheviks under Vladimir
Ilich LENIN an opening to seize power in November (N.S.; October,
O.S.) 1917. Thus the second of the two RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS OF 1917
occurred, leading to the establishment of the UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS.
UP
