All you need to know about Nicholas 1. Nicholas I

• Appointment of an heir
• Accession to the throne
• The theory of the official nation
• Third branch
• Censorship and new school charters
• Laws, finance, industry and transportation
• The peasant question and the position of the nobles
• Bureaucracy
• Foreign policy until the early 1850s
• Crimean war and the death of the emperor

1. Appointment of an heir

Aloysius Rokshtul. Portrait of Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich. Miniature from the original of 1806. 1869 year Wikimedia Commons

In a nutshell:Nicholas was the third son of Paul I and was not supposed to inherit the throne. But of all the sons of Paul, only one had a son, and during the reign of Alexander I, the family decided that Nicholas should be the heir.

Nikolai Pavlovich was the third son of Emperor Paul I, and, generally speaking, he was not supposed to reign.

He was never prepared for this. Like most of the great dukes, Nicholas received military education first. In addition, he was fond of natural sciences and engineering, he was very good at drawing, but he was not interested in the humanities. Philosophy and political economy generally passed him by, and from history he knew only the biographies of great rulers and commanders, but had no idea of \u200b\u200bcause-and-effect relationships or historical processes. Therefore, from the point of view of education, he was poorly prepared for state activities.

The family did not take him too seriously from childhood: there was a huge age difference between Niko-lai and his older brothers (he was 19 years older than him, Konstantin was 17), and he was not involved in state affairs.

In the country, Nikolai was practically known only to the Guard (since in 1817 he became the chief inspector of the Corps of Engineers and the chief of the Life Guards Sapper Battalion, and in 1818 - the commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, which included several Guards units ), and knew from the bad side. The fact is that the guards returned from the foreign campaigns of the Russian army, in the opinion of Nikolai himself, loose, out of the habit of drill and listening to freedom-loving conversations, and he began to discipline it. Since he was a harsh and very hot-tempered man, this resulted in two big scandals: first, Nikolai insulted one of the guards captains in front of the formation, and then general, the favorite of the guard, Karl Bistrom, before whom he finally had to publicly apologize.

But none of Paul's sons, except Nicholas, had any sons. Only girls were born to Alexander and Mikhail (the youngest of the brothers), and even they died early, and Konstantin had no children at all - and even if they did, they could not inherit the throne, since in 1820 Constantine entered into morganatic marriage Morganatic marriage - unequal marriage, children from which did not receive inheritance rights. with the Polish Countess Grudzinskaya. And Nikolai's son Alexander was born in 1818, and this largely predetermined the further course of events.

Portrait of Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna with children - Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaevich and Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna. Painting by George Doe. 1826 State Hermitage / Wikimedia Commons

In 1819, Alexander I, in a conversation with Nicholas and his wife Alexandra Fedorov-noy, said that not Konstantin, but Nicholas would be his successor. But Alexander himself still hoped that he would have a son, there was no special decree on this matter, and the change of the heir to the throne remained a family secret.

Even after this conversation, nothing changed in Nikolai's life: as he was a brigadier general and chief engineer of the Russian army, he remained; Alexander did not admit him to any state affairs.

2. Accession to the throne

In a nutshell: In 1825, after the unexpected death of Alexander I, an interregnum began in the country. Almost no one knew what Alexander had called Nikolai Pavlovich's heir, and immediately after Alexander's death, many, including Nikolai himself, brought Konstantin's presence. Meanwhile, Konstantin was not going to rule; Nicholas did not want to see the guards on the throne. As a result, the reign of Nicholas began on December 14 with the mutiny and shedding of blood under-data.

In 1825, Alexander I suddenly died in Taganrog. In St. Petersburg, only members of the imperial family knew that the throne would be inherited not by Constantine, but by Nicholas. Both the leadership of the Guard and the Governor-General of St. Petersburg Mikhail Mi-loradovich did not like Nicholas and wanted to see Constantine on the throne: he was their comrade in arms, with whom they went through the Napoleonic Wars and Foreign campaigns, and they considered him more inclined to reforms (in reality this did not correspond to: Constantine, both externally and internally, was similar to his father Paul, and therefore it was not worth expecting changes from him).

As a result, Nicholas swore allegiance to Constantine. The family did not understand this at all. The Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna reproached her son: “What have you done, Nikolai? Don't you know that there is an act that declares you heir? " Such an act really existed On August 16, 1823, Alexander I, in which it was said that, since the emperor did not have a direct male heir, and Konstantin Pavlovich expressed a desire to renounce his rights to the throne (Constantine wrote to Alexander I about this in a letter at the beginning of 1822), the legacy - Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich is announced to be nobody. This manifesto was not published-do-van: it existed in four copies, which were kept in sealed envelopes in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral, the Holy Synod, the State Council and the Senate. On the envelope from the Assumption Cathedral, Alexander wrote that the envelope should be opened immediately after his death., but was kept secret, and Nikolai did not know its exact content, since no one had acquainted him with it in advance. In addition, this act had no legal force, because, according to the existing Pavlovian law on succession to the throne, power could only be transferred from father to son or from brother to next brother in seniority. In order to make Nicholas the heir, Alexander had to return the law on succession to the throne, adopted by Peter I (according to which the reigning monarch had the right to appoint any successor to himself), but he did not.

Constantine himself was at that time in Warsaw (he was the commander-in-chief of the Polish armies and the de facto viceroy of the emperor in the kingdom of Poland) and flatly refused both to take the throne (he was afraid that in this case he would be killed, like his father), and officially , according to the existing form, renounce it.

Silver ruble depicting Constantine I. 1825 State Hermitage

The negotiations between St. Petersburg and Warsaw lasted for about two weeks, during which there were two emperors in Russia - and at the same time not one. Busts of Constantine began to appear in institutions, and several copies of the ruble with his image were printed.

Nikolai found himself in a very difficult situation, given how he was treated in the guard, but in the end he decided to declare himself the heir to the throne. But since they had already sworn an oath to Constantine, now there was to be a perepry-syaga, and this has never happened in the history of Russia. From the point of view of not so much nobles as of the guards soldiers, this was completely incomprehensible: one soldier said that gentlemen officers can swear if they have two honors, but I, he said, have one honor, and, having sworn once, I am not going to swear the second time. In addition, the two weeks of the interregnum provided an opportunity to gather their forces.

Upon learning of the impending rebellion, Nicholas decided to declare himself emperor and to re-oath on December 14. On the same day, the Decembrists withdrew the guards from the barracks to Senate Square in order to allegedly defend the rights of Constantine, from whom Nicholas was taking the throne.

Through the envoys, Nikolai tried to persuade the rebels to disperse to the barracks, promising to pretend that nothing had happened, but they did not disperse. It was in the evening, in the dark the situation could develop unpredictably, and the performance had to be stopped. This decision for Nikolai was very difficult: firstly, when giving the order to open fire, he did not know whether the artillery soldiers would obey him and how other regiments would react to it; secondly, in this way he ascended the throne, shedding the blood of his subjects - among other things, it was completely incomprehensible how they would look at it in Europe. Nevertheless, in the end he gave the order to shoot the rebels with cannons. The square was swept away by several volleys. Nicholas himself didn’t bother about it - he rode off to the Winter Palace, to his family.

Nicholas I in front of the formation of the Life Guards Sapper Battalion in the courtyard of the Winter Palace on December 14, 1825. Painting by Vasily Maksutov. 1861 State Hermitage

For Nicholas, this was the hardest test, which left a very strong imprint on his entire reign. He considered what happened to be God's providence - and decided that he was called by the Lord to fight the revolutionary infection not only in his own country, but also in Europe in general: he considered the Decembrist conspiracy to be part of the European one.

3. The theory of the official nation

In a nutshell:The basis of the Russian state ideology under Nikolai I was the theory of the official nationality, formulated by the Minister of Public Education Uvarov. Uvarov believed that Russia, only in the 18th century joining the family of European nations, was too young a country to cope with the problems and diseases that affected other European states in the 19th ve-ke, so now it was necessary to delay her development for a while until she grows up. To educate society, he formed a triad, which, in his opinion, described the most important elements of the "people's spirit" - "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." Niko-Lai I perceived this triad as universal and not temporary.

If in the second half of the 18th century, many European monarchs, including Catherine II, were guided by the ideas of the Enlightenment (and the enlightened absolutism that grew on its basis), then by the 1820s both in Europe and in Russia the philosophy of the Enlightenment disappointed many. The ideas formulated by Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schelling, Georg Hegel and other authors, later called German classical philosophy, began to come to the fore. The French enlightenment said that there is one road to progress, laid out by laws, human reason and enlightenment, and all peoples who follow it will eventually come to prosperity. The German classics came to the conclusion that there is no single road: each country has its own road, which is guided by a higher spirit, or higher reason. The knowledge of what kind of road it is (that is, what is the “spirit of the people”, its “historical beginnings”) is revealed not to an individual people, but to a family of peoples linked by a single root. Since all European peoples come from the same root of Greco-Roman antiquity, these truths are revealed to them; these are "historical peoples".

By the beginning of Nikolai's reign, Russia found itself in a rather difficult situation. On the one hand, the ideas of Pro-communication, on the basis of which the government policy and reform projects were previously built, led to the failed transformations of Alexander I and the uprising of the Decembrists. On the other hand, within the framework of German classical philosophy, Russia turned out to be an "unhistorical people", since it did not have any Greco-Roman roots - and this meant that, despite its thousand-year history, it still destined to live on the side of the historic road.

Russian public figures succeeded in proposing a solution, including the Minister of Public Education Sergei Uvarov, who, being a man of Alexander's time and a Westerner, shared the basic tenets of German classical philosophy. He believed that until the 18th century Russia was indeed an unhistorical country, but, starting with Peter I, it joins the European family of peoples and thus enters the general historical path. Thus, Russia turned out to be a “young” country, which by leaps and bounds is catching up with the European states that had gone ahead.

Portrait of Count Sergei Uvarov. Painting by Wilhelm August Golicke. 1833 year State Historical Museum / Wikimedia Commons

In the early 1830s, looking at the next, Belgian revolution Belgian revolution (1830) - the uprising of the southern (mainly Catholic) provinces of the Netherlands kingdom against the dominant northern (Protestant) ones, which led to the emergence of the Belgian kingdom. And, Uvarov decided that if Russia follows the European path, then it will inevitably have to face European problems. And since it is not yet ready for its youth to overcome them, now it is necessary to make sure that Russia does not step on this disastrous path until it is able to withstand the disease. Therefore, Uvarov considered the first task of the Ministry of Education to "freeze Russia": that is, not to completely stop its development, but to delay it for a while, until the Russians learned some guidelines that would allow to further avoid "bloody worries".

To this end, in 1832-1834, Uvarov formulated the so-called theory of the official nationality. The theory was based on the triad "Orthodoxy, self-sovereignty, nationality" (a paraphrase of the military slogan "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland" that took shape at the beginning of the 19th century), that is, three concepts, which, as he believed, constituted the basis of the "national spirit ".

According to Uvarov, the diseases of Western society stemmed from the fact that European Christianity split into Catholicism and Protestantism: there is too much rational, individualistic, separating people in Protestantism, and Catholicism, being overly doctrinaire, cannot resist revolutionary ideas. The only tradition that has managed to maintain loyalty to real Christianity and ensure the unity of the people is Russian Orthodoxy.

It is clear that autocracy is the only form of government that can slowly and carefully manage the development of Russia, keeping it from fatal mistakes, especially since the Russian people did not know any other government, except monarchical, in any case. Therefore, autocracy is at the center of the formula: on the one hand, it is supported by the authority of the Orthodox Church, and on the other, by the traditions of the people.

But what nationality is, Uvarov did not deliberately explain. He himself believed that if this concept is left ambiguous, on its basis a variety of social forces will be able to unite - the authorities and the enlightened elite will be able to find the best solution to modern problems in folk traditions. It is interesting that if for Uvarov the concept of "nationality" in no way meant the participation of the people in the very management of the state, then the Slavophiles, who generally accepted the formula he proposed, emphasized differently: by stressing the word "Nationality", they began to say that if Orthodoxy and autocracy do not meet the people's aspirations, then they must change. Therefore, it was the Slavophiles, and not the Westernizers, who very soon became the main enemies for the Winter Palace: the Westernizers fought in another field - no one understood them anyway. The same forces that accepted the "theory of official nationality", but undertook to interpret it differently, were perceived as much more dangerous..

But if Uvarov himself considered this triad to be temporary, then Nicholas I perceived it as universal, since it was capacious, understandable and fully corresponded to his ideas about how the empire that fell in his hands should develop.

4. Third section

In a nutshell: The main tool with which Nicholas I had to control everything that happened in different strata of society was the Third Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellor.

So, Nicholas I found himself on the throne, being absolutely convinced that autocracy was the only form of government that could lead Russia to development and avoid upheavals. The last years of his elder brother's reign seemed to him too flabby and unintelligible; government management, from his point of view, was loose, and therefore, first of all, he had to take all matters into his own hands.

For this, the emperor needed a tool that would allow him to know exactly how the country lives and to control everything that happens in it. Such an instrument, a kind of eyes and hands of the monarch, became His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery - and first of all its Third Division, which was headed by the general of the cavalry, a participant in the 1812 war, Alexander Benckendorff.

Portrait of Alexander Benckendorff. Painting by George Doe. 1822 year State Hermitage

Initially, only 16 people worked in the Third Department, and by the end of the reign of Nicholas, their number did not increase much. This small number of people was involved in many cases. They controlled the work of state institutions, places of exile and imprisonment; conducted cases related to official and most dangerous criminal offenses (which included forgery of state documents and counterfeiting); engaged in charity work (mainly among the families of killed or maimed officers); observed the mood in all strata of society; censored literature and journalism and followed everyone who could be suspected of being unreliable, including Old Believers and foreigners. For this, a corps of gendarmes was issued to the Third Department, who prepared reports to the emperor (and very truthful ones) about the mood of minds in different classes and about the state of affairs in the provinces. The third department also represented a kind of secret police, whose main task was to combat "subversive activities" (which was understood rather broadly). We do not know the exact number of secret agents, since their lists never existed, but the fear that existed in society that the Third Section sees, hears and knows everything suggests that there were a lot of them.

5. Censorship and new school charters

In a nutshell: To educate beneficiaries and loyalty to the throne in sub-data, Niko-Lai I significantly increased censorship, made it difficult for children from non-privileged classes to enter universities and severely limited university freedoms.

Another important direction of Nicholas' activity was the education of trustworthiness and loyalty to the throne.

For this, the emperor immediately undertook. In 1826, a new censorship charter was adopted, which is called "cast iron": it contained 230 prohibitive articles, and it turned out to be very difficult to follow it, because it was not clear what, in principle, could now be written about. Therefore, two years later, a new censorship charter was adopted - this time quite liberal, but it soon began to grow overgrown with explanations and additions, and as a result, from a very decent one, it turned into a document that again prohibited too much of journalists and writers.

If initially censorship was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education and the Supreme Censorship Committee added by Nikolai (which included the ministers of public education, internal and foreign affairs), then over time all ministries, the Holy Synod, the Free Economic Society received censorship rights. , as well as the Second and Third branches of the office. Each author had to take into account all the comments that censors from all these organizations wished to make. The third department, among other things, began to censor all plays intended for staging on the stage: the special one has been known since the 18th century.

School teacher. Painting by Andrey Popov. 1854 year State Tretyakov Gallery

In order to educate a new generation of Russians in the late 1820s and early 1830s, the statutes of the lower and secondary schools were adopted. The system created under Alexander I was preserved: one-class parish and three-class district schools continued to exist, in which children of non-privileged classes could study, as well as gymnasiums that prepared students for entering universities. But if earlier it was possible to enter a gymnasium from the district school, now the connection between them was broken and it was forbidden to accept serf children in the gymnasium. Thus, education became even more class-based: for non-noble children, admission to universities was difficult, and for serfs, in principle, closed. The children of nobles were ordered to study in Russia until the age of eighteen - otherwise they were forbidden to enter public service.

Later, Nikolai took up the universities: their autonomy was limited and much stricter regulations were introduced; the number of students who could study at a time at each university was limited to three hundred. True, several branch institutes were opened at the same time (Technological, Mining, Agricultural, Forestry and Technological schools in Moscow), where graduates of district schools could enter. At that time, this was quite a lot, and yet by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, 2,900 students studied in all Russian universities - about the same number at that time were enrolled in one Leipzig University.

6. Laws, finance, industry and transport

In a nutshell: Under Nicholas I, the government did a lot of useful things: it systematized legislation, reformed the financial system, and carried out a transport revolution. In addition, industry developed in Russia with the support of the government.

Since, until 1825, Nikolai Pavlovich was not allowed to rule the state, he ascended the throne without his own political team and without sufficient preparation to develop his own program of action. Paradoxical as it may seem, he borrowed a lot - at least at first - from the Decembrists. The fact is that during the investigation they spoke a lot and frankly about Russian troubles and offered their own solutions to pressing problems. By order of Nikolai, Alexander Borovkov, secretary of the investigation commission, compiled a set of recommendations from their testimony. It was an interesting document, in which all the problems of the state were discussed according to the points: "Laws", "Trade", "Management System" and so on. Until 1830-1831, this document was constantly used by both Nicholas I himself and the Chairman of the State Council Viktor Kochubei.

Nicholas I awards Speransky for compiling a set of laws. Painting by Alexei Kivshenko. 1880 year DIOMEDIA

One of the tasks formulated by the Decembrists, which Nicholas I tried to solve at the very beginning of his reign, was the systematization of legislation. The fact is that by 1825 the Soborno Code of 1649 remained the only code of Russian laws. All laws adopted later (including a huge body of laws from the times of Peter I and Catherine II) were published in scattered multivolume editions of the Senate and were kept in archives of various departments. Moreover, many laws have disappeared altogether - about 70% have survived, and the rest have disappeared due to various circumstances, such as fires or careless storage. It was absolutely impossible to use all this in real court proceedings; laws had to be collected and ordered. This was entrusted to the Second Department of the Imperial Chancellery, which was formally headed by the jurist Mikhail Balugiansky, and in fact by Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky, assistant to Alexander I, ideologist and inspirer of his reforms. As a result, a huge amount of work was done in just three years, and in 1830 Speransky reported to the monarch that 45 volumes of the Complete Laws of the Russian Empire were ready. Two years later, 15 volumes of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire were prepared: laws that were subsequently canceled were removed from the Complete Collection, and contradictions and repetitions were eliminated. This was also not enough: Speransky proposed to create new codes of laws, but the emperor said that he would leave this to his heir.

In 1839-1841, Finance Minister Yegor Kankrin carried out a very important financial reform. The fact is that there was no firmly established relationship between the different money circulating in Russia: silver rubles, paper notes, as well as gold and copper coins plus coins minted in Europe called "efimki" were exchanged for each other-- hectares on rather arbitrary courses, the number of which reached six. In addition, by the 1830s, the value of bank notes had dropped dramatically. Kankrin recognized the silver ruble as the main monetary unit and rigidly tied bank notes to it: now 1 silver ruble could be obtained for exactly 3 rubles 50 kopecks in bank notes. The population rushed to buy silver, and in the end the banknotes were completely replaced with new banknotes, partially backed by silver. Thus, a fairly stable money circulation has been established in Russia.

Under Nikolai, the number of industrial enterprises increased significantly. Of course, this was connected not so much with the actions of the government as with the beginning of the industrial revolution, but without the permission of the government in Russia, in any case, it was impossible to open a factory, a plant, or a workshop. Under Nicholas, 18% of enterprises were equipped with steam engines - and they produced almost half of all industrial products. In addition, during this period, the first (albeit very vague) laws appeared, regulating relations between workers and entrepreneurs. Russia also became the first country in the world to adopt a decree on the formation of joint-stock companies.

Railway employees at the Tver station. From the album "Views of the Nikolaev Railway". Between 1855 and 1864

Railroad bridge. From the album "Views of the Nikolaev Railway". Between 1855 and 1864 DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University

Bologoye station. From the album "Views of the Nikolaev Railway". Between 1855 and 1864 DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University

Wagons on the tracks. From the album "Views of the Nikolaev Railway". Between 1855 and 1864 DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University

Khimka station. From the album "Views of the Nikolaev Railway". Between 1855 and 1864 DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University

Depot. From the album "Views of the Nikolaev Railway". Between 1855 and 1864 DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University

Finally, Nicholas I actually made a transport revolution in Russia. Since he tried to control everything that was happening, he was forced to constantly travel around the country, and thanks to this, the highways (which began to be laid even under Alexander I) began to form into a road network. In addition, it was through the efforts of Nikolai that the first railways in Russia were built. For this, the emperor had to overcome serious resistance: the Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, and Kankrin, and many others were against the new type of transport for Russia. They feared that all the forests would burn up in the locomotive furnaces, that in winter the rails would be covered with ice and the trains would not be able to take even small climbs, that the railway would lead to an increase in vagrancy - and, finally, undermine the most social foundations of the empire, since the nobles , merchants and peasants will travel, albeit in different cars, but in the same train. And nevertheless, in 1837, a movement was opened from St. Petersburg to Tsarskoe Selo, and in 1851 Nikolai arrived by train from St. Petersburg to Moscow - to celebrate the 25th anniversary of his coronation.

7. The peasant question and the position of the nobles

In a nutshell: The position of the nobility and the peasantry was extremely difficult: the landlords were ruined, discontent ripened in the peasant environment, serfdom hindered the development of the economy. Niko-Lai I understood this and tried to take measures, but did not dare to abolish serfdom.

Like his predecessors, Nicholas I was seriously concerned about the state of the two main pillars of the throne and the main Russian social forces - the nobility and the peasantry. The situation for both of them was extremely difficult. The third department annually gave reports, beginning with reports about the landowners killed during the year, about refusals to go out to corvee, about the felling of landowners' forests, about complaints from peasants against the landowners - and, most importantly, about the rumors spreading about freedom, which made the situation explosive. Nikolai (however, like his predecessors) saw that the problem was becoming more and more acute, and realized that if a social explosion was possible in Russia at all, then it was the Krest-Yang, and not the urban one. At the same time, in the 1830s, two-thirds of the noble estates were founded: the landowners were ruined, and this proved that Russian agricultural production could no longer be based on their farms. Finally, serfdom hindered the development of industry, trade and other sectors of the economy. On the other hand, Nicholas feared the discontent of the nobles, and indeed he was not at all sure that a one-time abolition of the cross-law would be useful for Russia at that moment.

Peasant family before dinner. Painting by Fyodor Solntsev. 1824 year State Tretyakov Gallery / DIOMEDIA

From 1826 to 1849, nine secret committees worked on the peasant business, and more than 550 various decrees were adopted concerning the relations between landowners and nobles - for example, it was forbidden to sell peasants without land, and peasants from estates put up for auction were allowed before the end of the auction, redeem at will. Nikolai could not abolish serfdom, but, firstly, by making such decisions, the Winter Palace pushed society to discuss an acute problem, and secondly, secret committees collected a lot of material that came in handy later, in the second half 1850s, when the Winter Palace turned to a concrete discussion of the abolition of serfdom.

In order to slow down the ruin of the nobles, in 1845 Nicholas allowed the creation of entitlements - that is, indivisible estates that were transferred only to the eldest son, and were not split between the heirs. But by 1861, only 17 of them were introduced, and this did not save the situation: in Russia, the majority of landlords remained small-scale, that is, they owned 16-18 serfs.

In addition, he tried to slow down the erosion of the old nobility by issuing a decree according to which hereditary nobility could be obtained by reaching the fifth grade of the Table of Ranks, and not eighth, as before. Getting hereditary nobility has become much more difficult.

8. Bureaucracy

In a nutshell: The desire of Nicholas I to keep all government of the country in his own hands led to the fact that management was formalized, the number of officials increased and society was forbidden to evaluate the work of officials. As a result, the entire management system stalled, and the scale of treasury-theft and bribery became enormous.

Portrait of Emperor Nicholas I. Painting by Horace Verne. 1830s Wikimedia Commons

So, Nicholas I tried to do everything necessary to gradually lead society to prosperity with his own hands, without shocks. Since he perceived the state as a family, where the emperor is the father of the nation, senior officials and officers are senior relatives, and all the rest are unreasonable children who need constant supervision, he was not ready to accept any help from society at all ... Management was to be exclusively under the jurisdiction of the emperor and his ministers, who acted through officials who flawlessly fulfill the monarch's will. This led to the formalization of government and a sharp increase in the number of officials; The basis of the empire's management was the movement of papers: orders went from top to bottom, reports from bottom to top. By the 1840s, the governor signed about 270 documents a day and spent up to five hours on it - even skimming the papers.

The most serious mistake of Nicholas I was that he forbade society to evaluate the work of the bureaucracy. Nobody, except the immediate superiors, could not only criticize, but even praise the officials.

As a result, the bureaucracy itself became a powerful socio-political force, turned into a kind of third estate - and began to defend its own interests. Since the well-being of a bureaucrat depends on whether his bosses are willing, wonderful reports went up from the bottom, starting from the clerks, upward: everything is good, everything is done, the achievements are enormous. With each step, these reports only became more radiant, and papers came up that had very little in common with reality. This led to the fact that the entire administration of the empire stalled: already in the early 1840s, the Minister of Justice reported to Nicholas I that 33 million cases, set out on at least 33 million sheets of paper, had not been resolved in Russia. And, of course, in this way the situation was developing not only in justice.

The country began a terrible embezzlement and. The loudest case was the case of the disabled fund, from which 1,200,000 rubles were stolen in silver over several years; they brought 150 thousand rubles to the chairman of one of the boards of the deanery to put them in the safe, but he took the money for himself, and put the newspapers in the safe; one county treasurer stole 80 thousand rubles, leaving a note that in this way he decided to reward himself for twenty years of innocent service. And such things happened on the ground all the time.

The emperor tried to personally monitor everything, passed the most stringent laws and made the most detailed orders, but officials of absolutely all levels found ways to bypass them.

9. Foreign policy before the early 1850s

In a nutshell: Until the early 1850s, the foreign policy of Nicholas I was quite successful: the government managed to protect the borders from the Persians and Turks and prevent the revolution from entering Russia.

In foreign policy, Nicholas I had two main tasks. First, he had to protect the borders of the Russian Empire in the Caucasus, Crimea and Bessarabia from the most belligerent neighbors, that is, the Persians and Turks. To this end, two wars were fought - the Russian-Persian wars of 1826-1828 In 1829, after the end of the Russian-Persian war, in Tehran, there was an attack on the Russian mission, during which all employees of the embassy, \u200b\u200bexcept for the secretary, were killed - including the plenipotentiary ambassador of Russia, Alexander Gri-boyedov, who played a great role in the peace negotiations with the Shah, which ended in a treaty beneficial for Russia. and the Russian-Turkish of 1828-1829, and both of them led to remarkable results: Russia not only strengthened its borders, but also noticeably increased its influence in the Balkans. Moreover, for some time (albeit for a short time - from 1833 to 1841), the Unkar-Iskelesi treaty between Russia and Turkey was in force, according to which the latter had, if necessary, to close the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits (that is, the passage from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black) for the warships of the opponents of Russia, which made the Black Sea, in fact, the internal sea of \u200b\u200bRussia and the Ottoman Empire.

Battle of Boelesti on September 26, 1828. German engraving. 1828 year Brown University Library

The second goal that Nicholas I set himself was not to let the revolution pass through the European borders of the Russian Empire. In addition, since 1825, he considered it his sacred duty to fight the revolution in Europe. In 1830, the Russian emperor was ready to send an expedition to suppress the revolution in Belgium, but neither the army nor the treasury were ready for this, and the European powers did not support the intentions of the Winter Palace. In 1831 the Russian army brutally suppressed; Poland became part of the Russian Empire, the Polish constitution was destroyed, and martial law was introduced on its territory, which remained until the end of the reign of Nicholas I. When in 1848 France began again, which soon spread to other countries, Nicholas I was not on the jester is alarmed: he proposed to move the army to the French borders and thought about how to suppress the revolution in Prussia on his own. Finally, Franz Joseph, head of the Austrian imperial house, asked him for help against the rebels. Nicholas I understood that this measure was not very beneficial for Russia, but he saw in the Hungarian revolutionaries "not only enemies of Austria, but enemies of world order and peace ... who must be exterminated for our own peace of mind", and in 1849 the Russian the army joined the Austrian troops and saved the Austrian monarchy from collapse. One way or another, the revolution never crossed the borders of the Russian Empire.

In parallel, since the time of Alexander I, Russia has been at war with the highlanders of the North Caucasus. This war went on with varying success and stretched out for many years.

In general, the foreign policy actions of the government during the reign of Nicholas I can be called rational: it made decisions based on the goals that it set itself for itself, and the real possibilities that the country possessed.

10. Crimean war and the death of the emperor

In a nutshell: In the early 1850s, Nicholas I made a number of catastrophic errors and entered the war with the Ottoman Empire. England and France sided with Turkey, Russia began to suffer defeat. This aggravated many internal problems as well. In 1855, when the situation was already very difficult, Nicholas I unexpectedly died, leaving his heir Aleksandra the country in an extremely difficult situation.

From the beginning of the 1850s, sobriety in assessing their own forces in the Russian upper circles suddenly disappeared. The emperor considered that it was a convenient time to finally do away with the Ottoman Empire (which he called the "sick man of Europe"), dividing its "non-indigenous" possessions (the Balkans, Egypt, the Mediterranean islands) between Russia and other great powers. -we, first of all Great Britain. And here Nikolai made several catastrophic mistakes.

First, he offered Great Britain a deal: Russia, as a result of the partition of the Ottoman Empire, would receive the Orthodox territories of the Balkans that remained under Turkish rule (that is, Moldova, Wallachia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Macedonia), and Egypt and Crete would go to Great Britain. But for England this proposal was completely unacceptable: the strengthening of Russia, which became possible with the seizure of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, would be too dangerous for her, and the British agreed with the Sultan that Egypt and Crete would receive for Turkey's help against Russia ...

France was his second miscalculation. In 1851, it happened there, as a result of which President Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon's nephew) became Emperor Napoleon III. Nicholas I decided that Napoleon was too busy with internal problems to intervene in the war, without thinking at all that the best way to strengthen power was to take part in a small victorious and just war (and the reputation of Russia, the "gendarme of Europe" , was at this moment extremely unsightly). Apart from anything else, it seemed to Nicholas completely impossible an alliance between France and England, old opponents - and in this he again miscalculated.

Finally, the Russian emperor believed that Austria, out of gratitude for her help with Hungary, would side with Russia, or at least remain neutral. But the Habsburgs had their own interests in the Balkans, and a weak Turkey was more profitable for them than a strong Russia.

Siege of Sevastopol. Lithograph by Thomas Sinclair. 1855 year DIOMEDIA

In June 1853, Russia sent troops to the Danube principalities. In October, the Osman Empire officially declared war. At the beginning of 1854, France and Great Britain joined it (on the side of Turkey). The allies began actions in several directions at once, but most importantly, they forced Russia to withdraw its troops from the Danube principalities, after which the Allied Expeditionary Force landed in Crimea: its goal was to take Sevastopol, the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The siege of Sevastopol began in the fall of 1854 and lasted for almost a year.

The Crimean War showed all the problems associated with the control system built by Nicholas I: neither the supply of the army, nor the transport routes worked; the army was short of ammunition. In Sevastopol, the Russian army responded to ten shots from the allies with one artillery shot - because there was no gunpowder. By the end of the Crimean War, only a few dozen guns remained in Russian arsenals.

The military setbacks were followed by internal problems. Russia fell into an absolute diplomatic void: all European countries broke off diplomatic relations with it, except for the Vatican and the Kingdom of Naples, and this meant the end of international trade, without which the Russian Empire could not exist. Public opinion in Russia began to change dramatically: many even conservative people believed that defeat in the war would be more useful for Russia than victory, believing that not so much Russia would be defeated as the Nikolayev regime.

In July 1854, the new Russian ambassador to Vienna, Alexander Gorchakov, found out on what conditions Britain and France were ready to conclude a truce with Russia and begin negotiations, and advised the emperor to accept them. Nikolai hesitated, but in the fall he was forced to agree. In early December, Austria also joined the alliance between England and France. And in January 1855, Nicholas I caught a cold - and on February 18 unexpectedly died.

Nicholas I on his deathbed. Drawing by Vladimir Gau. 1855 year State Hermitage

In St. Petersburg, rumors of suicide began to spread: the emperor allegedly demanded that his doctor give him poison. It is impossible to refute this version, but the evidence supporting it seems doubtful, especially since for a sincere believer, such as Nikolai Pavlovich undoubtedly was, suicide is a terrible sin. Rather, the point was that failures - both in the war and in the state as a whole - seriously undermined his health.

According to legend, talking before his death with his son Alexander, Nicholas I said: "I am handing you over my team, unfortunately, not in the order I wanted, leaving a lot of trouble and worries." These troubles included not only the difficult and humiliating end of the Crimean War, but also the liberation of the Balkan peoples from the Ottoman Empire, the solution of the peasant question and many other problems that Alexander II had to deal with.

Russia is a powerful and happy country in itself; it should never be a threat to other neighboring states or to Europe. But she must occupy an imposing defensive position capable of making any attack on her impossible.
Where the Russian flag is once raised, it should not descend there.
Emperor Nicholas I

220 years ago, on July 6, 1796, the Russian Emperor Nicholas I Pavlovich was born. Nicholas I, along with his father Emperor Paul I, is one of the most maligned Russian tsars. The Russian tsar, the most hated by the liberals of both that time and today. What is the reason for such stubborn hatred and such fierce slander, which has not subsided to our time?

Firstly, Nicholas is hated for suppressing the conspiracy of the Decembrists, conspirators who were part of the system of Western Freemasonry. The uprising of the so-called "Decembrists" was supposed to destroy the Russian Empire, lead to the emergence of weak, semi-colonial state formations, dependent on the West. And Nikolai Pavlovich suppressed the rebellion and preserved Russia as a world power.

Secondly, Nicholas cannot be forgiven for the prohibition of Freemasonry in Russia. That is, the Russian emperor banned the then "fifth column", which worked for the masters of the West.

Thirdly, the tsar is "to blame" for firm views, where there was no place for Masonic and semi-Masonic (liberal) views. Nicholas clearly stood on the positions of autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality, defended Russian national interests in the world.

Fourthly, Nicholas fought against revolutionary movements organized by the Freemasons (Illuminati) in the monarchical states of Europe. For this, Nicholas Russia was nicknamed "the gendarme of Europe." Nicholas understood that revolutions lead not to the triumph of "freedom, equality and brotherhood," but to the "liberalization" of a person, to "liberate" him from the "fetters" of morality and conscience. What this leads to we see on the example of modern tolerant Europe, where sodomy, bastards, Satanists and other devastated evil spirits are considered the "elite" of society. And the “lowering” of a person in the field of morality to the level of a primitive animal leads to his complete degradation and total slavery. That is, the Freemasons and Illuminati, provoking revolutions, simply brought closer the victory of the New World Order - a global slave-owning civilization led by the “chosen ones”. Nikolai resisted this evil.

Fifthly, Nikolai wanted to end the hobbies of the Russian nobility in Europe and the West. He planned to stop further Europeanization and Westernization of Russia. The tsar intended to become the head of, as A. Pushkin put it, "the organization of the counter-revolution of Peter's revolution." Nikolai wanted to return to the political and social precepts of Muscovite Rus, which found expression in the formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality."

Thus, the myths about the extraordinary despotism and terrible cruelty of Nicholas I were created because he prevented the revolutionary liberal forces from seizing power in Russia and Europe. “He considered himself called upon to suppress the revolution - he persecuted it always and in all forms. And, indeed, this is the historical vocation of the Orthodox tsar, ”the lady-in-waiting Tyutcheva noted in her diary.

Hence the pathological hatred of Nicholas, accusations of the "bad" personal qualities of the emperor. Liberal historiography of the 19th - early 20th centuries, Soviet, where "tsarism" was presented mainly from a negative point of view, then modern liberal journalism branded Nikolai "despot and tyrant", "Nikolai Palkin", for the fact that from the first day of his reign , from the moment of suppression of the then "fifth column" - "Decembrists", and until the last day (organized by the masters of the West, the Crimean War), he spent in a continuous struggle against Russian and European Freemasons and the revolutionary societies created by them. At the same time, Nicholas in domestic and foreign policy tried to adhere to Russian national interests, not caving in to the wishes of Western "partners".

It is clear that such a person was hated and even during his lifetime they created a number of persistent "black myths": that "the Decembrists fought for the freedom of the people, and a bloody tyrant shot and executed them"; that "Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and the lack of rights of the peasants"; that “Nicholas I was generally a stupid soldier, a narrow-minded, poorly educated person, alien to any progress”; about the fact that Russia under Nicholas was a "backward state", which led to defeat in the Crimean War, etc.

The myth of the Decembrists - "knights without fear and reproach"

The accession to the throne of Nicholas I was overshadowed by an attempt by a secret Masonic society of the so-called "Decembrists" to seize power over Russia (). Later, through the efforts of Westerners-liberals, social democrats, and then Soviet historiography, a myth was created about "knights without fear and reproach" who decided to destroy the "tsarist tyranny" and build a society on the principles of freedom, equality and brotherhood. In modern Russia, it is also customary to talk about the Decembrists from a positive point of view. They say that the best part of Russian society, the nobility, challenged the "tsarist tyranny", tried to destroy "Russian slavery" (serfdom), but was defeated.

However, in reality, the truth is that the so-called. The "Decembrists", hiding behind slogans that were completely humane and understandable to most, objectively worked for the then "world community" (the West). In fact, these were the forerunners of the "Februaryists" of 1917, who destroyed the autocracy and the Russian Empire. They planned the complete physical destruction of the dynasty of Russian monarchs Romanov, members of their families and up to distant relatives. And their plans in the field of state and nation-building were guaranteed to lead to great confusion and the collapse of the state.

It is clear that some of the noble youth simply did not know what they were doing. Young people dreamed of eliminating "various injustices and oppression" and bringing together the estates for the growth of social welfare in Russia. Examples of the dominance of foreigners in the higher administration (just remember the entourage of Tsar Alexander), extortion, violation of legal proceedings, inhuman treatment of soldiers and sailors in the army and on, trade in serfs worried noble minds who were inspired by the patriotic upsurge of 1812-1814. The problem was that the “great truths” of freedom, equality and brotherhood, supposedly necessary for the good of Russia, were associated in their minds only with European republican institutions and social forms, which in theory they mechanically transferred to Russian soil.

That is, the Decembrists sought to "transplant France to Russia." How later, Russian Westernizers of the early 20th century will dream of remaking Russia into a Republican France or a constitutional English monarchy, which will lead to the geopolitical catastrophe of 1917. The abstraction and frivolity of such a transfer was that it was carried out without understanding the historical past and national traditions, spiritual values, psychological and everyday life of Russian civilization that had been formed for centuries. Young people of nobility, brought up on the ideals of Western culture, were infinitely far from the people. As historical experience shows, in the Russian Empire, Soviet Russia and the Russian Federation, all borrowings from the West in the sphere of the socio-political structure, the spiritual and intellectual sphere, even the most useful ones, are eventually distorted on Russian soil, leading to degradation and destruction.

The Decembrists, like the later Westernizers, did not understand this. They thought that if we transplant the advanced experience of the Western powers in Russia, give the people "freedom", then the country will take off and prosper. As a result, the sincere hopes of the Decembrists for a forced change in the existing system, for a legal order, as a panacea for all troubles, led to confusion and destruction of the Russian Empire. It turned out that the Decembrists objectively, by default, worked in the interests of the masters of the West.

In addition, in the program documents of the Decembrists, you can find a variety of attitudes and wishes. There was no unity in their ranks, their secret societies were more like discussion clubs of sophisticated intellectuals who heatedly discussed pressing political issues. In this respect, they are similar to Westernizers-liberals of the late XIX - early XX centuries. both the Februaryists of 1917 and the modern Russian liberals, who cannot find a common point of view on almost any important issue. They are ready to endlessly "rebuild" and reform ", in fact, destroy the heritage of their ancestors, and the people will have to bear the burden of their managerial decisions.

Some Decembrists proposed to create a republic, others - to establish a constitutional monarchy, with the possibility of introducing a republic. Russia, according to N. Muravyov's plan, was proposed to be de facto divided into 13 powers and 2 regions, creating a federation of them. At the same time, the powers received the right of secession (self-determination). The manifesto of Prince Sergei Trubetskoy (Prince Trubetskoy was elected dictator before the uprising) proposed to liquidate the "former government" and replace it with a temporary one, until the elections to the Constituent Assembly. That is, the Decembrists planned to create a Provisional Government.

The head of the Southern Society of Decembrists, Colonel and Freemason Pavel Pestel wrote one of the program documents - "Russian Truth". Pestel planned to abolish serfdom, transferring half of the arable land to the peasants, the other half was supposed to be left in the ownership of the landowners, which was supposed to contribute to the bourgeois development of the country. The landlords had to lease the land to farmers - "capitalists of the agricultural class", which was supposed to lead to the organization in the country of large commodity farms with a wide involvement of hired labor. “Russkaya Pravda” abolished not only estates, but also national borders - all tribes and nationalities living in Russia planned to unite into a single Russian people. Thus, Pestel planned, following the example of America, to create a kind of "melting pot" in Russia. To speed up this process, a de facto national segregation was proposed with the division of the Russian population into groups.

Muravyov was a supporter of the preservation of land holdings of landowners. The liberated peasants received only 2 tithes of land each, that is, only a personal plot. This site, with the then low level of agricultural technology, could not feed a large peasant family. The peasants were forced to bow to the landowners, the landowners, who had all the land, meadows and forests, turned into dependent farm laborers, as in Latin America.

Thus, the Decembrists did not have a single, clear program, which could lead, if they won, to an internal conflict. The victory of the Decembrists was guaranteed to lead to the collapse of statehood, the army, chaos, conflict between estates and different peoples. For example, the mechanism of the great land redistribution was not described in detail, which led to a conflict between the millions of peasants and the then landowners-landowners. Under the conditions of a radical breakdown of the state structure, the transfer of the capital (it was planned to move it to Nizhny Novgorod), it is obvious that such "restructuring" led to a civil war and a new unrest. In the field of state building, the plans of the Decembrists are very clearly correlated with the plans of the separatists of the early 20th century or 1990-2000. As well as the plans of Western politicians and ideologists who dream of dividing Great Russia into a number of weak and "independent" states. That is, the actions of the Decembrists led to confusion and civil war, to the collapse of the powerful Russian Empire. The Decembrists were the forerunners of the "Februaryists" who were able to destroy the Russian statehood in 1917.

Therefore, Nicholas and pour mud in every possible way. After all, he was able to stop the first major attempt at "perestroika" in Russia, which led to unrest and civil confrontation, to the delight of our western "partners".

At the same time, Nicholas is accused of an inhuman attitude towards the Decembrists. However, the ruler of the Russian Empire Nicholas, who was recorded in history as "Palkin", showed amazing mercy and philanthropy towards the rebels. In any European country, for such a rebellion, many hundreds or thousands of people would be executed in the most cruel way, so that others would be discouraged. And the military for the mutiny was subject to the death penalty. They would have opened the entire underground, many would have lost their posts. In Russia, everything was different: out of 579 people arrested in the case of the Decembrists, almost 300 were acquitted. and Governor Miloradovich - Kakhovsky. 88 people were exiled to hard labor, 18 to a settlement, 15 were demoted to soldiers. Corporal punishment was applied to the insurgent soldiers and sent to the Caucasus. The "dictator" of the rebels, Prince Trubetskoy, did not appear at the Senate Square at all, he chickened out, sat with the Austrian ambassador, where he was tied up. At first he denied everything, then he confessed and asked forgiveness from the sovereign. And Nicholas I forgave him!

Tsar Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and the lack of rights of the peasants

It is known that Nicholas I was a consistent supporter of the abolition of serfdom. It was under him that the reform of the state peasants was carried out with the introduction of self-government in the countryside and the "decree on obliged peasants" was signed, which became the foundation for the abolition of serfdom. The position of the state peasants significantly improved (their number reached about 50% of the population by the second half of the 1850s), which was associated with the reforms of PD Kiselev. Under him, the state peasants were allocated their own allotments of land and plots of forest, and auxiliary cash desks and bread shops were established everywhere, which provided assistance to peasants with cash loans and grain in case of a crop failure. As a result of these measures, not only the well-being of the peasants increased, but also the treasury incomes from them increased by 15-20%, tax arrears were halved, and by the mid-1850s there were practically no landless laborers who eked out a beggarly and dependent existence. received land from the state.

In addition, under Nicholas I, the practice of distributing peasants with land as a reward was completely stopped, and the rights of landowners in relation to the peasants were seriously curtailed and the rights of serfs were increased. In particular, it was forbidden to sell peasants without land, it was also forbidden to send peasants to hard labor, since serious crimes were removed from the competence of the landowner; serfs received the right to own land, conduct business and received a relative freedom of movement. For the first time, the state began to systematically monitor that the rights of the peasants were not violated by the landowners (this was one of the functions of the Third Section), and to punish the landowners for these violations. As a result of the application of punishments to the landowners, by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, about 200 landlord estates were under arrest, which greatly affected the position of the peasants and the landlord's psychology. As noted by the historian V. Klyuchevsky, two completely new conclusions followed from the laws adopted under Nicholas I: first, that the peasants are not the property of the landowner, but, above all, subjects of the state, which protects their rights; secondly, that the personality of the peasant is not the private property of the landowner, that they are bound together by their relationship to the landowners' land, from which the peasants cannot be driven.

Reforms on the complete abolition of serfdom were also developed, but, unfortunately, were not implemented at that time, but the total share of serfs in Russian society during his reign was seriously reduced. So, their share in the population of Russia, according to various estimates, decreased from 57-58% in 1811-1817. up to 35-45% in 1857-1858 and they ceased to constitute the majority of the population of the empire.

Education also developed rapidly under Nicholas. For the first time, a mass peasant education program was launched. The number of peasant schools in the country increased from 60 schools with 1,500 students in 1838 to 2,551 schools with 111,000 students in 1856. During the same period, many technical schools and universities were opened - in fact, a system of vocational primary and secondary education of the country was created.

The myth of Nicholas - "tsar-soldaphon"

It is believed that the tsar was a "soldier", that is, he was only interested in military affairs. Indeed, Nicholas from early childhood had a special predilection for military affairs. This passion was instilled in children by their father, Pavel. Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich received a home education, but the prince did not show much zeal for his studies. He did not recognize the humanities, but he was well versed in the art of war, was fond of fortification, and was well acquainted with engineering. Nikolai Pavlovich's hobby for painting is known, which he studied in childhood under the guidance of the painter I. A. Akimov and professor V. K. Shebuev.

Having received a good engineering education in his youth, Nicholas I showed hefty knowledge in the field of construction, including military. He himself, like Peter I, did not hesitate to personally participate in the design and construction, focusing his attention on the fortresses, which later literally saved the country from much more sad consequences during the Crimean War. At the same time, under Nicholas, a powerful line of fortresses was created, covering the western strategic direction.

New technologies were being actively introduced in Russia. As the historian P. A. Zayonchkovsky wrote, during the reign of Nicholas I, “contemporaries had the idea that an era of reforms had begun in Russia”. Nicholas I actively introduced innovations in the country - for example, the Tsarskoye Selo railway, opened in 1837, became only the 6th public railway in the world, while the first such railway was opened shortly before that in 1830. Under Nicholas, a railway was built between St. Petersburg and Moscow - at that time the longest in the world, and it is to the personal merit of the tsar that it was built almost in a straight line, which was still an innovation in those days. In fact, Nicholas was a technocrat emperor.

The myth of Nikolai's failed foreign policy

On the whole, Nikolai's foreign policy was successful and reflected the national interests of Russia. Russia strengthened its position in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, the Balkans and the Far East. Russian-Persian War of 1826-1828 ended with a brilliant victory for the Russian Empire. The British policy, which pitted Persia against Russia, with the aim of ousting Russia from the Caucasus and preventing the further advance of the Russians in the Transcaucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East, failed. According to the Turkmanchay peace treaty, the territories of the Erivan (on both sides of the Araks river) and the Nakhichevan khanates ceded to Russia. The Persian government pledged not to interfere with the resettlement of Armenians to the Russian borders (the Armenians supported the Russian army during the war). An indemnity of 20 million rubles was imposed on Iran. Iran confirmed the freedom of navigation in the Caspian Sea for Russian merchant ships and the exclusive right of Russia to have a navy here. That is, the Caspian Sea fell into the sphere of influence of Russia. Russia was given a number of advantages in trade relations with Persia.

Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829 ended with the complete victory of Russia. According to the Adrianople Peace Treaty, the estuary of the Danube with the islands, the entire Caucasian coast of the Black Sea from the mouth of the Kuban River to the northern border of Adjara, as well as the fortresses of Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikh with the adjacent areas, retreated to the Russian Empire. Turkey recognized the annexation of Georgia, Imereti, Samegrelo and Guria to Russia, as well as the khanates of Erivan and Nakhichevan, transferred from Iran under the Turkmanchay agreement. The right of Russian subjects to conduct free trade throughout the territory of the Ottoman Empire was confirmed, which granted the right to Russian and foreign merchant ships to pass freely through the Bosphorus and Dardenelles. Russian subjects on Turkish territory were not under the jurisdiction of the Turkish authorities. Turkey undertook to pay Russia an indemnity of 1.5 million Dutch chervonets within 1.5 years. The world ensured the autonomy of the Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia). Russia assumed the guarantee of the autonomy of the principalities, which were completely out of the control of the Porte, paying her only an annual tribute. Also, the Turks reaffirmed their obligations to respect the autonomy of Serbia. Thus, the Adrianople Peace created favorable conditions for the development of the Black Sea trade and completed the annexation of the main territories of the Caucasus to Russia. Russia increased its influence in the Balkans, which became a factor that accelerated the process of liberation of Moldova, Wallachia, Greece, Serbia from the Ottoman yoke.

At the request of Russia, which declared itself the patroness of all Christian subjects of the Sultan, the Sultan was forced to recognize the freedom and independence of Greece and the broad autonomy of Serbia (1830). Amur expedition 1849-1855 thanks to the decisive attitude of Nicholas I personally, it ended in the actual annexation of the entire left bank of the Amur to Russia, which was documented already under Alexander II. Successfully Russian troops advanced in the North Caucasus (Caucasian War). Balkaria and the Karachaevskaya oblast became part of Russia, Shamil's uprising was not successful, the forces of the mountaineers, thanks to the methodical pressure of the Russian forces, were undermined. Victory in the Caucasian War was approaching and became inevitable.

The strategic mistakes of the government of Nicholas include the participation of Russian troops in the suppression of the Hungarian uprising, which led to the preservation of the unity of the Austrian Empire, as well as defeat in the Eastern War. However, the defeat in the Crimean War should not be exaggerated. Russia was forced to confront a whole coalition of opponents, the leading powers of that time - England and France. Austria has taken an extremely hostile position. Our enemies planned to dismember Russia, to throw it away from the Baltic and the Black Sea, to tear away huge territories - Finland, the Baltic States, the Kingdom of Poland, Crimea, and lands in the Caucasus. But all these plans failed thanks to the heroic resistance of Russian soldiers and sailors in Sevastopol. On the whole, the war ended with minimal losses for Russia. England, France and Turkey could not destroy the main achievements of Russia in the Caucasus, the Black Sea region and the Baltic. Russia has resisted. She still remained the main enemy of the West on the planet.

Nicholas I is not one of the favorites of Russian history. They said about this emperor: "In him there is a lot of the ensign and a little of Peter the Great." Under Nicholas I the industrial revolution took place in the country, and Russia in the West began to be called "the prison of peoples".

"Executioner of the Decembrists"

The very day of accession to the throne - December 14, 1825 - did not promise anything good to this monarch - an uprising of the Decembrists broke out in St. Petersburg. After the announcement of the manifesto on the accession to the throne, the will of Alexander and the letter of Constantine confirming the abdication, Nicholas said: “After that you answer me with your head for the peace of the capital, and as for me, if I am emperor for at least one hour, I will show that there was worthy. "

By evening, the new emperor had to take, perhaps, one of the most difficult decisions in his life: after negotiations and unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter peacefully, Nicholas decided on extreme measures - buckshot. He tried to prevent the tragedy to the last, responding to the convictions to use force with the question: "What do you want me to stain my subjects with blood on the first day of my reign?" He was answered: "Yes ... if it is necessary to save the Empire." Almost unanimously, contemporaries noticed that in these difficult moments Nicholas "showed composure and presence of mind", which could not but admire. Even those who disliked the new emperor could not help but admit that "on December 14 he showed himself to be a sovereign, personal courage and a halo of power acting on the crowd."

Industry reformer

If, before 1831, the emperor still intended to carry out a number of transformations to strengthen the positions of the autocracy, then the subsequent course of government, which ended with the "gloomy seven years", was marked by the spirit of extreme conservatism. After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, Nikolai vowed that the revolution that stood on the threshold of Russia would not penetrate the country "as long as the breath of life remained in me." And he did everything to suppress the slightest manifestations of free thought, including tightening censorship and tightening state control over the educational system (School Charter 1828 and University Charter 1835).

At the same time, the Nikolaev era was marked by a number of positive phenomena. The new emperor inherited the industry, the state of which was the worst in the entire imperial history, and managed to turn it into a competitive industry through the automation of production and the large-scale use of civilian labor, paying special attention to these issues. From 1825 to 1860, 70% of paved roads were built, in 1843 the construction of the Nikolaev railway began.

A new censorship charter, prohibiting the publication of any materials that undermined the authority of the existing monarchical system, was promulgated in 1826. It was popularly called "cast iron", probably because it was impossible to find "loopholes" in it. Not only fiction, but also, for example, textbooks was subjected to strict censorship. This is how an absurd case is known when a textbook of arithmetic was banned from publication, in one of the tasks of which a "suspicious" ellipsis between the numbers was revealed. Not only contemporary authors fell under the knife of censors. The presiding censor Baturlin, for example, proposed to exclude the following lines from the akathist of the Intercession of the Theotokos: "Rejoice, invisible taming of the cruel and bestial rulers ...". Two years later, a slightly more loyal version of the "cast-iron" charter was issued, which, among other things, limited the subjectivity of the censors, but, in fact, did not differ from its predecessor.

Another thing in Nikolai Pavlovich's life was the fight against the eternal Russian problem - corruption. For the first time under him, audits began to be carried out at all levels. As Klyuchevsky wrote, the emperor himself often acted as an auditor: “It used to happen that he would fly into some government chamber, scare the officials and leave, making everyone feel that he knows not only their affairs, but also their tricks.”

The fight against embezzlement of state property and abuses was carried out both by the Ministry of Finance, headed by Yegor Kankrin, and by the Ministry of Justice, which at the legislative level monitored how zealously the governors put things in order at the local level. Once, on behalf of the emperor, a list of governors who did not take bribes was drawn up for him. There are only two of them in the whole of Russia: the Covenian governor Radishchev and the Kiev Fundukley, to which the emperor remarked: “That he does not take bribes for Fundukles is understandable, because he is very rich, but if Radishchev does not take them, then he is too honest ". According to the testimony of contemporaries, Nikolai Pavlovich "often closed his eyes" to petty bribery, which has long been established and widespread. But for serious "tricks" the emperor punished to the fullest extent: in 1853, more than two and a half thousand officials appeared before the court.

The peasant question

The so-called "peasant question" also demanded radical measures - the emperor understood that the people expected a "better life" from him. The delay could lead to the fact that the "powder magazine under the state" "burst". The emperor did a lot to make life easier for the peasants, thereby strengthening the stability of the empire. A ban was imposed on the sale of peasants without land and with the "fragmentation of the family", and also limited the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia. The decree on obliged peasants was subsequently laid as the basis for the reform to abolish serfdom. Historians Rozhkov, Blum and Klyuchevsky pointed out that for the first time the number of serfs was reduced, the share of which, according to various estimates, decreased to 35-45%. The life of the so-called state peasants, who received their own land plots, as well as help in case of crop failure from the subsidiary cash desks and grain shops, opened everywhere, improved. The growing prosperity of the peasants made it possible to increase treasury revenues by 20%. For the first time, a program of mass education of the peasantry was implemented: by 1856, almost 2000 new schools were opened, and the number of students from one and a half thousand people in 1838 increased to 111 thousand. According to the historian Zayonchkovsky, the subjects of Emperor Nicholas I could get the impression that "an era of reforms has begun in Russia."

Legislator

Even Alexander I drew attention to the fact that the law is the same for everyone: "As soon as I allow myself to break the laws, who will then consider it a duty to observe them?" However, by the beginning of the 19th century, the legislation was completely confused, which often led to unrest and judicial abuse. Following his own installation not to change the existing order, Nikolai instructs Speransky to codify Russian laws: to systematize and consolidate the legislative framework, while not making changes to its content. Attempts to unify legislation were made even before Nicholas, but as before, the only collection that covered all Russian law was the Cathedral Code of 1649. As a result of painstaking work, the Complete Collection of Laws was drawn up, and then the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was published, which included all the current legislative acts. However, the codification itself, which Speransky planned to carry out at the third stage of work, namely to create a Code, in which the old norms were supplemented with new ones, did not find support from the emperor.

"Gendarme of Europe"

Nicholas I was perhaps the first ruler of Russia to have a monstrous reputation in Europe. It was during his reign that the Russian Empire "earned" such epithets as "prison of peoples", "gendarme of Europe", which were entrenched in our country for many decades. This was due to Nikolai's active participation in European politics. The years 1830-1840s became the time of revolutions in Europe, and Nikolai considered it his duty to resist the "rebellious chaos".

In 1830, he sent a decision to send Polish troops as part of the Russian corps to suppress the revolution in France, which caused an uprising in Poland itself, part of which was part of the Russian Empire. The rebels outlawed the Romanov dynasty and formed an interim government and self-defense forces. The uprising was supported by many European countries: the leading British and French newspapers began to persecute Nicholas and Russia itself. However, the emperor harshly suppressed the uprising. In 1848, he sent troops to Hungary to help Austria suppress the Hungarian national liberation movement.

Nikolai Pavlovich's rule can also be considered the first conscious attempt by Russia to defend its geopolitical interests. The emperor considered himself the patron saint of the Balkan Slavs and Greeks and supported these peoples in their struggle for independence from Turkey.

The first half of the reign of Nicholas I was marked by a number of major military successes. According to the Turkmanchay agreement, the two-year war with Persia ended with the annexation of the Nakhichevan and Erivan khanates. The result of the Adrianople Peace Treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829 was the inclusion of the eastern coast of the Black Sea into the Russian Empire. The suppression of the Polish uprising in 1831 allowed Poland to be incorporated into the empire and abolished the 1815 constitution. But the emperor was forced to continue the protracted war in the Caucasus and join a new one - the Crimean one, which will pretty much "shake" the treasury (the deficit will be filled only 14 years after the end of the war). Under the terms of the peace treaty in the Crimean War, Russia lost the Black Sea Fleet, however, Sevastopol, Balaklava and a number of other Crimean cities were returned in exchange for the Kars fortress. At the same time, the war gave impetus to economic and military reforms carried out after Nicholas I.
The emperor himself, always distinguished by excellent health, at the beginning of 1855 unexpectedly caught a cold. He subordinated his life and the way of the “mechanism” entrusted to him to simple regulations: “Order, strict, unconditional legality, no omniscience and contradiction, everything follows from one another; no one commands until he learns to obey; no one gets ahead of the other without legal justification; all are subject to one definite goal, everything has its own purpose. " He died with the words: "I hand over my team, unfortunately, not in the order I wanted, leaving a lot of trouble and worries."

In Soviet historiography emperor Nicholas Idepicted in exclusively negative colors. The strangler of freedoms, the gendarme of Europe, the man who killed Pushkin and so on - such was the portrait of a man who had headed Russia for three decades.

It could not be otherwise: Nicholas I suppressed the uprising of the Decembrists revered in the USSR, which already ruled out the possibility of a positive assessment.

It's not that Soviet historians were lying, it's just that the image of the emperor was correctly drawn from only one side. In life, everything was much more complicated.

Third son Paul Iwas born on July 6 (new style), 1796, a few months before his father's accession to the throne. Unlike older brothers Alexandra and Constantine, Nikolai did not manage to get under the care of his grandmother, Catherine the Great, although she had such plans.

Little Nicholas was too far in line for the throne for anyone to seriously think about preparing him for the role of emperor. The boy's nanny became Charlotte Lieven, and in 1800 Emperor Paul assigned to his son general Matvey Lamsdorf with the prescription: "Just do not make a hang out of my son."

General Matvey Lamsdorf. Source: Public Domain

General Lamsdorf's "victim"

Matvey Ivanovich Lamsdorf, an executive campaigner, was least of all suited for teaching work. Nikolai and his younger brother Mikhail were taken into the grip of the strictest discipline. The guardian general believed that the best means for proper education is drill and suppression of any liberties. Much of what would be very displeasing to contemporaries in Nicholas was the result of Lamzdorf's activities.

The coup of 1801, which ended with the death of his father, Nikolai remembered very vaguely, which he honestly admitted in his memoirs. At that time, the future emperor was not thinking about the fight between his father and brother for power, but about his beloved wooden horse.

Lamzdorf's harsh discipline backfired - Nikolai sabotaged homeschooling, resulting in serious gaps in the humanities. But Nikolai was well versed in military affairs and in fortification.

Nikolai Pavlovich knew how to approach himself critically - already in adulthood, when the prospect of taking the Russian throne became real, he tried to educate himself. It turned out, frankly, not very well. Queen Victoria of England, after twenty years of Nicholas's rule, gave him the following characterization: "His mind is not processed, his upbringing was careless."

Subsequently, Nicholas will carefully approach the issue of the education of his own sons, so that they do not find themselves in his position.

Sudden heir to the throne

During World War II and subsequent foreign campaigns, Nikolai was eager to go to the front, but Alexander I kept younger brother out of the battlefield. Instead of military glory at this time, he found a bride - a young daughter of the King of Prussia, Princess Charlotte.

In July 1817, Charlotte of Prussia, who became in Orthodoxy Alexandra Fedorovna, married Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich. The young were happy and did not dream of the throne.

Nicholas I and Alexandra Feodorovna. Source: Commons.wikimedia.org

In 1820, Nicholas was summoned by Emperor Alexander and announced: from now on he becomes heir to the throne. The emperor was childless, Konstantin Pavlovich renounced his rights to the throne, since he was divorced and also had no children.

It is unlikely that Nikolai flirted when, in his notes, he admitted that at that moment he became really scared: “My wife and I were left in a position that I can only compare with the feeling that, I believe, will amaze a person walking calmly along a pleasant road, dotted with flowers and with which the most pleasant views open up everywhere, when suddenly an abyss opens up under his feet, into which an irresistible force plunges him, not allowing him to retreat or return. "

Nikolai did not prepare for the role of the monarch and did not want it for himself, but accepted this fate with the obedience of a soldier, which General Lamsdorf drove into him in childhood.

"I am the emperor, but at what price!"

The question of the heir hung in the air - information about the abdication of Constantine was not disclosed, and in 1825, when Alexander died, uncertainty arose that threatened with grave consequences. Officials and the military began to take the oath to Constantine, the mint began printing rubles with his image. Nicholas, trying to resolve the situation, urged his brother to come to Petersburg from Warsaw, where he was the governor of the Kingdom of Poland.

The uprising of the Decembrists shocked Nicholas. The revolt of representatives of noble and distinguished noble families seemed to him an event unthinkable and out of the ordinary.

Nikolai, who himself almost died when he met with the rebels right on a St. Petersburg street, was not delighted with the forceful liquidation of the demonstration. “I am the emperor, but at what price, my God! At the cost of the blood of my subjects, ”he wrote to his brother Konstantin.

In the Soviet period, Emperor Nicholas appeared to be a kind of bloody maniac who delighted in the reprisals against the rioters. In fact, nothing of the kind - the monarch approached the traitors in the most condescending manner. According to the laws in force, an attempt on the life of the sovereign was supposed to be quartered, and for participation in such a conspiracy - hanging.

As a result, Nikolai completely ruled out quartering, and only five of the most active initiators of the uprising were sent to the gallows. But the liberal circles of Russian society considered this a terrible atrocity.

Emperor Nicholas I on Senate Square on December 14, 1825. Source: Public Domain

Administrator on the throne

Nicholas I carefully studied the documents of the Decembrists, especially those related to the analysis of the situation in the country. He saw pain points that required changes, and, in particular, the problem of serfdom.

But he considered radical and revolutionary steps in this area harmful and dangerous.

Nicholas considered the main way to solve problems to centralize power, build its rigid vertical, and administer all sectors of the country's life.

The heyday of the bureaucracy of the times of the Russian Empire fell precisely on the reign of Nicholas I. Russian writers did not spare ironically paints for the depiction of Nikolayev's Russia, which had turned into one large state office.

To carry out the tasks of political investigation in July 1826, a permanent body was created - the Third Branch of the Personal Chancellery - a secret service, which had significant powers. "The third branch", which was headed by count Alexander Benckendorff, became one of the symbols of the reign of Nicholas I.

The emperor loved the army, but he saw the guarantee of its power not in timely rearmament and modernization, but in the establishment of strict discipline. Under Nicholas, most often they began to punish "running through the line" - the guilty was led through the ranks of hundreds of soldiers, each of whom struck the punished with a stick. This punishment was, in fact, a sophisticated form of the death penalty. For his addiction to this type of punishment, the emperor received the nickname Nikolai Palkin.

Under Nicholas I, work was carried out to systematize Russian law and the "Code of Laws of the Russian Empire" was created.

Through the line, drawing by Geoffroy, 1845. Source: Public Domain

How Russia first got off the "raw needle"

Almost throughout the entire reign, the emperor was engaged in solving the "peasant question". A ban was introduced to exile peasants to hard labor, to sell them one by one and without land, the peasants received the right to redeem from the estates being sold. The "decree on obliged peasants" and other measures of the tsarist government allowed under Nicholas I to reduce the proportion of serfs from almost 60 percent of the population to 45 percent. It was far from the solution of the problem as a whole, but progress was evident.

A reform of the management of the state village was carried out, which made it possible to improve the position of state peasants and, at the same time, increase the state's revenues.

Nicholas I took over a country that was 100 percent a raw-material power. The Industrial Revolution in Europe practically did not affect her. During the three decades of Nikolai Pavlovich's reign, output per worker in Russian industry has tripled.

The volume of output of cotton products in Russia increased 30 times, and the volume of engineering products - 33 times.

The share of the urban population under Nicholas I doubled and exceeded 9 percent.

"Only you and me do not steal"

Under Nicholas I, the construction of railways of an all-Russian scale began. To him, we owe a wider gauge of the railway in comparison with the European one, which is preserved to this day. The monarch believed that the unification of Russia was not needed, because there was no need to create conveniences for a potential aggressor in terms of delivering troops to Russian territory.

Success, however, could not allow Russia to catch up with the leading European countries in terms of development. The vertical of power created by Nikolai, while solving certain problems, simultaneously hindered many promising undertakings.

And, of course, the emperor also faced such a phenomenon as corruption. Nikolai made regular audits the norm, and without pity, he sent the thieving officials to court. By the end of his reign, the number of convicted officials was measured annually in the thousands. But, despite the toughness of the monarch, the situation did not improve.

"In Russia, only you and I do not steal," Nikolai said with bitter irony to the heir to the throne, the future emperor Alexander II.

Nicholas I at construction work. 1853 g.

It is difficult for today's conscripts to imagine that in the old days in Russia, the service life was not one, not two or even three years - it was life. Leaving to serve, the soldier said goodbye to his home forever. How they were taken into the army, who could not serve, how Peter I created the army - the answers to these questions can be found in our review.

How Peter I created the army

Before Peter I came to power, the archers carried life-long military service, passing it on by inheritance. Such a concept as resignation existed, but it was quite difficult to retire. There were two options: either a diligent, impeccable service, or an existing applicant who had to be looked for on his own.

Sagittarius received good training and were considered professionals. When there was peace, they lived peacefully on the land, which they were complained of for their good service, worked as fire extinguishers, kept order on the territory, and performed some other duties. When the war began, the archers left their homes and entered the disposal of the military authorities, and with a shortage of military personnel, it was allowed to recruit additional people.

Peter I decided to create a regular army in Russia using European standards. They issued a decree on conscription, which was allowed to call men into service, not only at the time of the war, and which extended the conscription to all classes.

Representatives of the peasantry and bourgeoisie also went to the army, but out of a hundred men of these estates, only one was recruited. The recruit was chosen by the peasant community, for the serfs the decision was made by the master. But the nobles were obliged to serve without exception. True, they immediately became officers.

The population reacted to the new decree with caution, because getting into recruits meant that a man left his home forever. A clear draft age was not established, most often men were taken in their prime, from 20 to 30 years old. The attitude to the recruiting system was also confirmed by constant shoots. It got to the point that a convoy was used to escort the recruits to the assembly point. The recruits spent the nights chained in shackles, and on the palm of their hand they knocked out a tattoo in the form of a cross.

Officers and soldiers captured by the enemy received compensation, the amount of which depended on the country. In the second half of the 18th century, compensations were abolished so that the soldiers did not seek to surrender in order to receive money. Bonuses were paid not only for courageous behavior in battle, but also for victory in general. For example, after the Battle of Poltava, Peter I ordered to reward all participants.

Easing conditions after the death of Peter I

Peter 1 took upon himself the solution of a very difficult task - the creation of a regular army capable of fighting at any moment. The tsar took an active part in many matters, for example, forbade the use of family and friendship ties, followed this, as well as the approval of officer appointments.

During the 18th century, conditions of service gradually became more lenient. Ordinary soldiers could rise to the rank of officers, while receiving a hereditary title of nobility. For the nobles, the term of military service was reduced to 25 years, and one man from the family was given the right not to join the army. This happened after Peter I died. Catherine II freed the nobility from military service, but since she provided a good income, many nobles did not use this right.

It was possible to buy off the service by purchasing a recruitment ticket for money or by finding another recruit to replace him. The clergy and merchants, as well as honorary citizens, were completely exempt from military service.

The life of retirees under Catherine II and Paul

After the abolition of lifelong service, a category of retirees appeared. The soldier had to adapt in the rear. During Peter's time, those who served were used as mentors for recruits or watchmen. The man received a salary and was enlisted in the army. If the soldier was too old or seriously wounded, then he was sent to a monastery, Peter I even issued a decree obliging monasteries to have almshouses for soldiers.

During the reign of Catherine II, according to the Order of Public Charity, the state took care of the oldest soldiers, the soldiers' almshouses at the monasteries ceased to exist. Instead, the state received some money from the church. All disabled people (and at that time it was the name of not only a person with any disability, but any retiree) received pensions. Under Paul, there were even companies for disabled, used to escort convicts, guard prisons, and watch outposts. In 1778, the first invalid home was opened, where retired soldiers lived at full board, who were incapable of independent existence and who received care for the rest of their lives.

Soldiers' wives and their social status

Soldiers could marry, while doing service they had to get permission from their chief. Soldier's wives became free people, even if they were from serfs, and the sons of soldiers were transferred to the jurisdiction of the military department, and were sure to receive an education. For this there were regimental schools.

In the summer, the soldiers settled in field camps, when the cold season came, they moved to apartments. They were hired by ordinary inhabitants of villages and villages - a kind of apartment service. Not all homeowners liked this state of affairs, because conflicts were frequent enough. From the middle of the 18th century, soldiers' settlements began to be created, that is, special areas for a soldier. Sloboda were a kind of small towns, where there were hospitals, churches, baths. Gradually, the soldiers moved to the barracks that arose in large cities in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Appeals in the 19th century

During the 19th century, there was a gradual decline in service life: 20, 15 and 10 years. In 1874, recruitment was abolished and universal conscription was introduced, with a service life for the ground forces of 6 years and for the fleet of 7 years. They were sent to serve according to the results of the drawing of lots: the conscripts pulled out pieces of paper with notes from a closed box, and those who did not get the marked ones were considered militias. They could be mobilized if necessary. The draft age is from 21 to 43 years old. Representatives of all classes were called up, except for the Cossacks and the clergy.

The appeal did not apply to the only sons in the family, the grandchildren of infirm grandparents who did not have other guardians, older brothers in orphan families and university teachers. Students and peasants who moved to new places received a reprieve. For recruiting the regiments, the territorial principle was used, since it was believed that fellow countrymen could better find a common language and be more united at a crucial moment.