LECTURE#12

Why is the Decembrists uprising so important (1825)? What was the rule of Nicolas I about? Decembrists: who were they? The apogee of the autocracy? Codification of Russian laws 1832. «Orthodoxy, autocracy & patriotism» principle. The Third section of His Majesty’s Personal Chancellery. Nicolas I – «Gendarme in Europe». The Crimean War (1853 – 1856). Censorship & a strict systematic campaign of thought control. Russian intelligentsia. P. Chaadayev as a philosopher of Russian history.

The Decembrists and The Russian Intelligentsia

Larisa Ayrapetova
The West: Enlightenment to Present
HSRU 1000/Spring 1998
Professor Halsall

The history of Russia encompasses a vast range of revolutionary activity, aimed at the overthrow of the autocracy, from the unsuccessful uprising of Stenka Razin to the bloody upheaval of 1917. For the most part, the early revolts were provoked by the common folk who lacked functional knowledge of politics and economics to implement concrete reforms had they succeeded. In the early19th century, however, the tide changed direction as revolutionary ideas began to permeate the minds of young noblemen who, having witnessed the benefits delivered by the constitutional government to the countries of Western Europe, were prompted to release their motherland from the manacles of autocratic oppression. Appropriately named after the unsuccessful uprising of December 14, 1825, these men entered the pages of history as the Decembrists. Although the Decembrist insurrection completely failed, it was nonetheless the first attempt in modern Russian history to overthrow the absolutist regime whose leaders pursued specific political goals: reorganization of the government and abolition of serfdom. For the first time in the history of Russia, there existed an influential group of society that held conception of Russian state as distinct and separate from the ruler and administrative institutions. Intoxicated with the progressive ideas of Western Enlightenment, these young men undertook an onerous task of eradicating the absolutist regime and backwardness of their country.

Socially, nineteenth century Russia developed along the lines very different from those of Western Europe. General backwardness of the Russian society, particularly evident in the dominance of agriculture and enslavement of the peasantry, contrasts sharply with the rise of modern urban capitalistic state in the countries of Western Europe. The impact of the delayed progress was not as poignantly perceived until the War of 1812 and subsequent exposure to the Western culture saturated with sentiments of individual rights and freedoms and fashioned in the manner of a contemporary industrial state. During the victorious march of the troops across Europe, many of the latter-day Decembrists became acquainted with ideas of Enlightenment as well as a lifestyle devoid of autocratic repression and degrading institution of serfdom. Upon their return, however, they were thrust into the asphyxiatingly totalitarian Russia. A wave of indignation and humiliation billowed over the troops in response to the squelching treatment of the people at the hands of Alexander I, who earlier summoned his subjects to repulse "Napoleonic despotism yet imposed a regime more tyrannical than Napoleon had been." [Zetlin 35] Mikhail Fonvizin reflects on the powerful impression produced by the Western culture on the minds of his cohorts and the successive desire to transform Russian into a liberal, progressive state:

"During the campaigns through Germany and France our young men became acquainted with European civilization, which produced upon them the strongest impression. They were able to compare all that they had seen abroad with what confronted them at every step at home: slavery of the majority of Russians, cruel treatment of subordinates by superiors, all sorts of government abuses, and general tyranny. All this stirred intelligent Russians and provoked patriotic sentiment." [Mazour 55]

Politically, Russia was pushed to the backfront due to its staunch adherence to autocratic government structure long abolished in the modernized, constitutional European countries. While the progressive ideas of Enlightenment were dramatically changing socio-political composition of European society, Russia remained firmly entrenched in the archaic principles of absolutism partly due to tradition and partly due to alienation of the intellectual strata from the state affairs. Under the traditionally domineering Russian monarchs, the nobles were victimized by the arbitrary display of monarchical power as much as the peasants since their socio-economic well-being depends on the whimsical benevolence of the czar who controls the economic status of the nobility through regulation of their estates. As members of nobility began to claim their independence from the czar, a schism developed between the state and the aristocracy [Raeff, Origins 78]. Failure of the monarchy to take nobility into its confidence resulted in estrangement of the latter from state affairs producing an irremediable cleavage between the czar and the nobles. However, the widening gap between the monarchical and the aristocratic stratum allowed for the birth of a new social group within the Russian society known as intelligentsia. Comprised of the most intellectually advanced people of the time, intelligentsia issued its the first challenge to the absolutist authority in the form of the Decembrist uprising.

Masonic lodges served as a springboard for many Decembrists into a deeper pool of political action. Although many of them joined the lodges seeking a place to vent their liberalism, their interest in the establishments quickly soured as Masonry proved too narrow a field for the politically ambitious young men. Dissatisfied with philanthropic formulae of the Masons, Alexander Muraviev organized the Union of Welfare that attracted the most prominent figures of the movement--Pavel Pestel, Sergei Trubetskoi and Nikita Muraviev. Denial of freedom of speech as well as the perpetual suspicion with which the state viewed any efforts of nobility to consolidate necessitated establishment of the Union as a secret organization for whereas the government tolerated mild activities of the Masons, it would not permit an openly operating political party. The chief goals of the Union consisted of political reorganization of the government and abolition of serfdom. However, the difficulty to establish organizational and programmatic continuity within the Union resulted in cripplingly underdeveloped platforms that are rooted more in political theory than reality of Russian society and lead to the Union''s dissolution in 1820, followed by establishment of separate political camps in the North and in the South. Unlike, their French and English revolutionary counterparts, who basked in the political tradition of participation in the government through assemblies of the Estates General and Parliamentary meetings, the Decembsrists were terribly removed from the political arena and thus lacked the practical knowledge of political campaigning to implement their proposals effectively. The Northern Society situated in St. Petersburg consisted of moderate reformists who lean toward establishment of the constitutional monarchy, modeled after the English version, and was headed by Sergei Trubetskoi and Nikita Muraviev. By contrast, the Southern Society instituted by Pavel Pestel in Tulchin gathered under its wings the more radical members of the movement who demanded complete eradication of the existing system and establishment of a republic upon its ruins.

In terms of political development, the Northern Society followed the pattern of nineteenth century liberalism as its members sought to protect the person and property of individual citizens by imposing limitations on the hitherto arbitrary power of the monarch. As a reflection of the views of mild reformists desiring to preserve the traditional framework of the Russian society with monarch and aristocracy in tact, Trubetskoi and Muraviev''s Constitution rests on the principles of equality before law rather than equality among classes. Even though Muraviev designates people as "the source of sovereign power" [Schapiro 89], he does not imply a democratic composition of the society since in order to receive franchise, an individual has to satisfy eligibility requirements consisting of high property qualifications. Essentially, this proposal limits participation in the government to wealthy landowners as with aristocracy preserved, Russian peasant cannot hope to accrue the wealth required to subsidize his participation in the election process. Composed primarily of men of ancient noble origin, who rarely contacted with the populace, the members of the Northern Society were mostly concerned with the aristocratic elite and improvement of its social status hence neglecting the lower class, leaving it dependent on the wealthy proprietors as under the czarist regime. In its attempt to augment nobility''s influence in the affairs of the state, the Northern Society is striving to compress the gap of political alienation created by centuries of autocratic rule. Removed from the political arena for a significant portion of its existence, the nobility was now essaying to establish itself as the dominant ruling force consequently subjugating the monarch to its will, as it had previously been subordinated to his rule. The composition of the government outlined by Muraviev in the document is distinctly influenced by Montesquieu''s political theory of division of powers as it introduces the system of bicameral legislation and checks-and-balances [Agnew 223]. The sentiment of nobility''s dominance over the monarch is clearly established through the system of checks-and-balances whereby the veto of the executive power may be overridden by sufficient vote of the legislative branch. Reversal of the roles is unmistakable for nobility ceases to be a plaything of the whimsical ruler and assumes the domineering part itself stripping the monarch of his powers and reducing him to a game piece in the hands of victorious gentility. The blatant naivete of the Northerners is depicted in their sincere belief that the traditionally absolute monarch would willfully acquiesce to the limitations on his power introduced by the Constitution. Although the Northerners desired to eliminate autocracy, they nonetheless harbored a belief in the benevolence and broadmindness of their monarch. Muraviev, as did his adherents, sincerely credited Alexander with submission to constitutional government once he became acquainted with its enlightened principles.

The members of the Southern Society, led by the "Russian Jacobin" Pavel Pestel, perceived the political situation more clearly and less naively that their Northern counterparts. Composed primarily of impoverished nobility with the exclusion of Pestel and Muraviev-Apostol, the Southerners discarded the rose-tinted view of the benevolent czar, sheltered by Trubetskoi and Muraviev, pointing to the despotic rule of Alexander I as the source of wide spread decadence and misery. Therefore, Pestel''s constitution offers a less liberal and more radical method for eviction of autocratic rule--physical extermination of the royal family. Cooperation with the tyrant as well as the concept of constitutional monarchy appalled Pestel who insisted it to be a clever means to "deceive and lull people into obedience" [Zilliacus 112] through democratic masquerade of equality in the parliament. Pestel''s argument bears significant weight when considering Muraviev''s proposal for property franchise which would launch the wealthy elite on the path to becoming the ruling clique of the state, working exclusively toward its own social and economic betterment, while allowing the peasantry to remain in political obscurity. However, although Pestel extended universal male suffrage to all men exceeding age 21, there was no equality in Pestel''s Russia due to his intention to establish authoritarian government. Whereas Muraviev advocates government rule through people yet restricts franchise to the wealthy aristocracy, Pestel in extending unrestricted male suffrage proposes a government that governs in the name of the people but is not controlled by their votes. In actuality, both platforms fall considerably short of their high-soaring aspirations as notions of freedom and equality become nebulous and are transformed into a privilege or are obliterated altogether.

Locke''s theory of social contract, consisting of a pact between the government and the people, figures prominently in Pestel''s envisionment of the government structure and his division of society into two distinct groups: those who command and those who obey. Says Pestel in his testimony, "This distinction is unavoidable, for it is derived from human nature and consequently exists and should exist everywhere. The former is the government, the latter are people. Government''s role is to secure the welfare of people and for this reason it has the right to demand obedience from the people. People have the duty to obey the government and the right to demand it serves them without fail." [Raeff, Decembrist Movement 125]

Furthermore, Pestel''s entire constitution is strongly permeated with socialistic spirit apparent in the proposals for a classless society, total annihilation of aristocracy and the merchant guilds as well as partial nationalization of land. According to Nechkina, Pestel''s political doctrine is somewhat reminiscent of Lenin''s political ideals and methods [Nechkina 175]. Both men exhibit a striking degree of similarity in the approach to reconstruction of the government through regicide, attainment of the equality in society by liquidation of the class system and subsequent establishment of a classless society and introduction of a dictatorial government that would insure a smooth transition from one political system into another. Whereas the naivete of the Northerners resided in their belief in a benevolent czar, the blindness of the Southerners is located in the conviction that dictatorship is capable of instituting equality in the society. Such political ambition proved to be of chimerical quality when in 1917 Lenin''s Provisional Government became the ruling clique of Russia and merely replaced one form of empire with another. Lenin, however, takes into notice the cardinal miscue of Decembrists - failure to cooperate with the masses. Writes Lenin, "...we see three generations, three classes at work in the Russian revolution. First come the gentry and landowners, the Decembrists. The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow. They are terribly far from the people." [Yarmolinsky 102]

The partial source of the Decembrists'' failure is to be located precisely in their removal from the populace whose alleviation they were campaigning. Although the Decembrists sincerely desired allayment of the yoke of serfdom from the necks of the peasantry, the idea of cooperation with the mob was repugnant even to the most liberal Decembrists. As they confined themselves to the intellectual circle, the Decembrists developed erroneous perceptions of what freedom means to the Russian peasant. Although they have lived side by side with the serfs from childhood, none of the Decembrists truly understands the mind of the peasant. Consequently, inability to identify with him, vividly illustrated by the emancipation projects, and involve him into the revolutionary process results in the absence of popular support to produce a successful large scale revolution.

Nurtured by the lofty ideals of natural freedom that deem any infringement on individual''s inalienable rights as degrading, Muraviev proposed emancipation from serfdom without allocation of land to the liberated peasants. Liberty itself is to be their greatest reward, according to Trubetskoi [Andreeva 110]. Lack of familiarity with the economic concepts and the traditional ties of Russian peasants to the land are clearly perceived in the ethereal foundation of this platform. Implementation of such proposal would yield mass pauperization as their was no industry in Russia large enough to absorb the excess rural population. Under the liberal laissez-faire economy, the emancipated peasants would either perish from famine or forced to hire themselves out on miserable wages to their former masters. In either circumstance, the economic condition of the peasant remains as impecunious as under the czarist regime. Furthermore, liberated without land, the peasants would inevitably revolted against the government that robbed them of their most precious attachment. Land represented a life elixir for the Russian peasant who was not able to picture himself apart from it and hence could not submit to the system that deprived him of it.

Pestel''s emancipation project is equally unbalanced as pays more heed to the economic status of the peasant than his social freedom While Pestel allocates a plot of land to the liberated serf, he at the same time traps him within the fences of a centralized economy whereby the farmer is subjected to the rigid rules of production and is prohibited from obtaining profit. Both these types of emancipation have one thing in common: neither gives the serf complete freedom One offers him personal freedom but limited means to procure living, the other seeks to secure his economic status but denies personal freedom.

Lack of agreement and coordination between the Northern Society and the Southern Society as well as paralyzing underdevelopment of the emancipation projects and governmental schemes revealed itself in the hopeless failure of the uprising on the December 14, 1825. Even though the political confusion within the Russian state, created by Alexander''s death and ensuing dispute pertaining to succession, generated a favorable atmosphere for a rebellion, the Decembrists were not able to seize the opportunity due to these very reasons. As a result the only regiment that lend its support to the insurgents was easily disbanded by a few shots from the tsarist troops followed by the arrest of the leaders. The revolt in the South, which took place two weeks later, is just as easily suppressed, its leaders being arrested as well.

The Decembrist revolt marked a turning point in the history of Russian revolutionary movement due to its introduction of influential and intellectually advanced individuals into the battle against autocracy. Unlike their predecessors, who lacked functional knowledge of politics and economics to implement concrete reforms upon victory, Decembrists devised definitive platforms outlining the future course of the Russian state. Although for the most part these platforms were underdeveloped and conflicting in content, their significance lies in their being first concrete political documents in Russian history proposing a specific form of government and composition of society. The failure of the uprising to eliminate absolutism, however, does not constitute withering of the revolutionary seed planted by the Decembrists. The Decembrists, in fact, came to be regarded as the forefathers of the Russian revolutionary movement by the future insurgents, including Herzen, Petraschevsky and Lenin who looked to the Decembrists as an inspiration in their fight against the autocracy. [Ulam 27]

Bibliography

Agnew, Krista. "The French revolutionary influence on the Russian Decembrists." Consortium on Revolutionary Europe 22 (1993).

Andreeva, Tat''iana "Russkoe Obshchevsto I 14 Dekabria 1825 Goda", Otechestvennaia Istoriia 3 (1993).

Mazour, Anatole. The First Russian Revolution: 1825, The Decembrists Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965.

Nechkina, M.V. Russia in the 19th Century Michigan: Edwards Brothers, 1953.

Raeff, Marc. Origins of Russian Intelligensia. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966

Raeff, Marc. The Decembrist Movement Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966

Schapiro, Leonard. Rationalism and Nationalism in Russian 19th Century Political Thought. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1967.

Ulam, Adam. Russia''s Failed Revolutionaries: From the Decembrists to the Dissidents, New York: Basic Book, 1981.

Yarmolinsky Avrahm. Road to Revolution: a century of Russian Radicalism New York: Collier Books, 1962.

Zetlin, Mikhail. The Decembrists. New York: International Universities Press, 1958.

Zilliacus, Konni. The Russian Revolutionary Movement. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1905.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/ayrapetova-dec.html

also see :
http://www.bestofrussia.ca/decembrists.html
http://www.irkutsk.org/fed/dec.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Nicholas I Pavlovich, July 6 (June 25, Old Style), 1796 - March 2 (February 18, Old Style), 1855) was the Tsar of Russia from 1825 until his death in 1855.

Principles
Nicholas completely lacked his brother''s spiritual and intellectual breadth; he saw his role simply as one paternal autocrat ruling his people by whatever means were necessary. Having experienced the trauma of the Decembrist Revolt, Nicholas I was determined to restrain Russian society. A secret police, the so-called Third Section, ran a huge network of spies and informers. The government exercised censorship and other controls over education, publishing, and all manifestations of public life. In 1833 the minister of education, Sergey Uvarov, devised a program of "autocracy, Orthodoxy, and nationality" as the guiding principle of the regime. The people were to show loyalty to the unlimited authority of the tsar, to the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, and, in a vague way, to the Russian nation. These principles did not gain the support of the population but instead led to repression in general and to suppression of non-Russian nationalities and religions in particular. For example, the government suppressed the Uniate Church in Ukraine and Belorussia in 1839. See also Cantonists.

Culture
The official emphasis on Russian nationalism contributed to a debate on Russia''s place in the world, the meaning of Russian history, and the future of Russia. One group, the Westernizers, believed that Russia remained backward and primitive and could progress only through more Europeanization. Another group, the Slavophiles, enthusiastically favored the Slavs and their culture and customs, and had a distaste for westerners and their culture and customs. The Slavophiles viewed Slavic philosophy as a source of wholeness in Russia and looked askance at Western rationalism and materialism. Some of them believed that the Russian peasant commune, or mir, offered an attractive alternative to Western capitalism and could make Russia a potential social and moral savior. The Slavophiles, therefore, represented a form of Russian messianism.
Despite the repressions of this period, Russia experienced a flowering of literature and the arts. Through the works of Aleksandr Pushkin, Nikolai Gogol, Ivan Turgenev, and numerous others, Russian literature gained international stature and recognition. Ballet took root in Russia after its importation from France, and classical music became firmly established with the compositions of Mikhail Glinka (1804-1857).

Foreign Policy
In foreign policy, Nicholas I acted as the protector of ruling legitimism and guardian against revolution. His offers to suppress revolution on the European continent, accepted in some instances, earned him the label of gendarme of Europe. In 1830, after a popular uprising had occurred in France, the Poles in Russian Poland revolted. Nicholas crushed the rebellion, abrogated the Polish constitution, and reduced Poland to the status of a Russian province. In 1848, when a series of revolutions convulsed Europe, Nicholas was in the forefront of reaction. In 1849 he intervened on behalf of the Habsburgs and helped suppress an uprising in Hungary, and he also urged Prussia not to accept a liberal constitution. Having helped conservative forces repel the specter of revolution, Nicholas I seemed to dominate Europe.
Russian dominance proved illusory, however. While Nicholas was attempting to maintain the status quo in Europe, he adopted an aggressive policy toward the Ottoman Empire. Nicholas I was following the traditional Russian policy of resolving the so-called Eastern Question by seeking to partition the Ottoman Empire and establish a protectorate over the Orthodox population of the Balkans, still largely under Ottoman control in the 1820s. Russia fought a successful war with the Ottomans in 1828 and 1829. In 1833 Russia negotiated the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi with the Ottoman Empire. The major European parties mistakenly believed that the treaty contained a secret clause granting Russia the right to send warships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. By the London Straits Convention of 1841, they affirmed Ottoman control over the straits and forbade any power, including Russia, to send warships through the straits. Based on his role in suppressing the revolutions of 1848 and his mistaken belief that he had British diplomatic support, Nicholas moved against the Ottomans, who declared war on Russia in 1853. Fearing the results of an Ottoman defeat by Russia, in 1854 Britain and France joined what became known as the Crimean War on the Ottoman side. Austria offered the Ottomans diplomatic support, and Prussia remained neutral, leaving Russia without allies on the continent. The European allies landed in Crimea and laid siege to the well-fortified Russian base at Sevastopol. After a year''s siege the base fell, exposing Russia''s inability to defend a major fortification on its own soil. Nicholas I died before the fall of Sevastopol'', but he already had recognized the failure of his regime. Russia now faced the choice of initiating major reforms or losing its status as a major European power.

Legacy
From time to time efforts are made to revive Nicholas'' reputation. Nicholas believed in his own oath and in respecting other people''s rights as well as his own; witness Poland before 1831 and Hungary in 1849. He hated serfdom at heart and would have liked to destroy it, as well as detesting the tyranny of the Baltic squires over their ''emancipated'' peasantry. . . He must not be judged by the panic period of 1848-1855. . . we must not forget that his Minister of Public Education was Uvarov. . . who did an immense amount to spread education through the Empire at all levels. (Igor Vinogradoff)
The Marquis de Custine was open to the possibility that, inside, Nicholas was a good person, and only behaved as he did because he believed he had to. "If the Emperor, has no more of mercy in his heart than he reveals in his policies, then I pity Russia; if, on the other hand, his true sentiments are really superior to his acts, then I pity the Emperor."

This article incorporates public domain text from the Library of Congress Country Studies.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Nicholas_I_of_Russia

_____________________________________________________________________________________

NICHOLAS THE COP

Official patriotism was the phrase that characterized the ideological and educational policy of Nicholas I. His minister of education, Uvarov, broke this down into three important components: orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality. The orthodoxy of the Russian church was a pillar of the secular power. Church and state could not have been in closer harmony than they were under Nicholas. The chief procurator of the church, Colonel Protasov (1836-1855), being a military officer, militarized the administration of the church. Yet he could not make the church uniform, no matter how much he tried. There were some 8 million dissenters, ranging from flagellants to dukhobors. In the church and in education what the government pushed was official glorification of Russia''s past and present. The practical manifestations of this policy were stagnation at home and arrogance abroad.

In education this policy meant preserving the existing social order and eliminating liberal and therefore "subversive" influences. Students were discouraged from studies above their station. There was to be no social mobility. The government controlled all of the intellectual resources of the nation. The school reforms of the 1803 had attempted to bring about social integration, but Nicholas wanted the opposite of that. So each social group got its own distinctive educational program. The graduates of the gymnasium possessed haphazard and largely useless information, but they were also ill-prepared for the university. It was no wonder then that higher education under Nicholas declined noticeably.

Generally humanitarian subjects were dropped from the curriculum. There were special boarding schools for noble children, but still the class principle could not be enforced on the whole school system. University autonomy as greatly reduced in 1835, while church history, theology and law were made compulsory. The curator ran the university and its subordinate schools. Many professors went along with the policy and mouthed Uvarov''s "principles" orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality.

The French Revolution of 1848 had repercussions in Russia. Foreign travel for teachers was forbidden so that they would not be infected with revolutionary germs. When Uvarov was replaced with Shiriusky-Shikhmatov at this time the university lost all of their autonomy. Lectures were monitored by government spies. Philosophy and western constitutional law disappeared from the curriculum entirely. Psychology was taught by theologians. Clearly Nicholas was fighting revolution in the classroom, not only the plains of Hungary, where he sent troops the crush the revolution of 1848.

There was only one bright spot in this dreary education picture. A shortage of professors forced Nicholas eventually to send students to the West. They came back and maintained high standards in the system. In fact they created the cultural tradition of the Russian universities. Soloviev, the founder of Russian historiography, is one such shining example. But still it was education only for the few. The University of Moscow had about 1000 students; St. Petersburg had only 400. Primary schools were in the hands of the Holy Synod, the government church agency. Standards were very low in the primary system. Heartless formalism and crass stupidity all too frequently were the order of the day. The peasants, of course, remained largely illiterate.

The Polish Insurrection of 1830-1831

Revolt had been stirring in Poland for some time. Members of the Patriotic Society, which was anti-Russian and pro-Polish, were arrested in 1822. This stimulated unrest. Alexander I''s infringement of the Polish constitution did not help either. It is also clear that there was a Polish link to the Russian Southern Society which became oft he Decembrist Revolt of 1825. After 1826 a special court of Polish senators tried several Poles and handed out mild sentences. There was in Poland a substantial network of underground clubs promoting independence from Russia. The most important of these organizations was the one led by Peter Wysocki, a lieutenant in the guards. another important resister was the popular historian, professor Level at the University of Vilna. There was considerable worry that the Lithuanian provinces were integrated too closely with the Russian Empire and would never become a part of Poland.

Since Nicholas thought of himself as the anti-revolutionary policeman of Europe it is no surprise to discover that he was ready to intervene against Belgian and French revolutionaries in 1830. He intended use a Polish Army as a spearhead for this counter-revolutionary action. This idea of course was very unpopular with the Poles. To prevent Nicholas from using the army to uphold legitimacy and reaction, the conspirators decided to move. On November 29, 1830 military cadets and students invaded the Belvedere Palace, residence of Constantine, the Russian governor of Poland. Wysocki attacked the Russian cavalry barracks at the same time. Some Polish officials and generals were killed.

But the revolution soon passed into the hands of conservative elements and this fact encouraged Constantine to withdraw. Prince Lubecki summoned an Executive Council, reinforced by Czartarisky and other mildly patriotic Polish intellectuals who had been working with the Russians. These conservatives wanted to prevent a social revolution and war with Russia while restoring the more liberal constitution of 1815. At this point a Polish general, Chlopicki, became a kind of "dictator." Meanwhile, the Patriotic Society led by Professor Lelewel sponsored a more radical program in opposition to the Council and to general Chlopicki. This split in the Polish forces of revolt doomed the revolution.

A Provisional government under Czartarisky soon replace the Executive Council. Then negotiations began with Constantine, who promised amnesty but refused to incorporate the Lithuanian provinces in a new Poland. Constantine then withdrew again - beyond the border this time, but his boss, tsar Nicholas refused to budge from his policy of repression.

The Polish diet, or parliament, was in a mood to break loose. It dethroned Nicholas and said it was ready to fight for independence and also for the liberation of the Lithuanian provinces. The diet then formed a national government under Czartarisky, including professor Lelewel. At this point Chlopicki resigned. But there was inner dissension in Poland. The peasants were not won over to the revolt because the Polish nobility refused to consider any kind of land reform. Tsar Nicholas seized on this opportunity to lighten the burden of the peasantry in areas under Russian control. Friedrich Engels thought this particular move was a conservative revolution. There was clearly a lot of sympathy for the Poles in the West, but no direct aid came from that quarter.

In February 1831 General Dibich and 120,000 Russian troops cross the border to crush the Polish revolt. The Poles had about 100,000 troops to meet him but few experienced officers, artillery pieces, arms, or ammunition. After some minor victories, the Poles suffered a serious defeat at Grochow. The Russians found this battle quite costly as well: Dibich lost 10,000 men. There were some uprisings among the peasants in areas controlled by the Russians, but not enough of them to really hinder the Russian army. The Russian armies then converged on Warsaw. The Polish campaign in Lithuania failed, which did not help matters. At the last minute there was a radical uprising in Warsaw which threw out Czartarisky. But nothing stopped the Russians. They occupied Warsaw on September 8, 1831

The results were what one could have expected at that time. The estates of rebel Polish noblemen were confiscated on a huge scale. At least 10 percent of Polish noble land was taken over by the Russian government. The Organic Statute of 1832 then replaced the relatively liberal constitution of 1815. Poland was annexed directly to the Russian Empire by virtue of the Organic Statute, although Poland retained some control over civil liberties, criminal law codes and local government. Poland now had a separate administration with an executive council and a state council, and a hierarchy of local boards and officials. But in general there was much more direct control by the Russian administration.

Paskevich became the new viceroy of Poland and turned himself into a virtual dictator of Poland between 1832 and 1856. Gradually a process of Russification took place. The provincial government was organized on the Russian model; the Polish supreme court came under the control of the Russian Senate in 1841; and the criminal code was Russified in 1846. A program of Russification also occurred in the schools and the church. The University of Vilna was closed in 1832. The Russian language became official even in secondary schools. The Russian censor was everywhere. The Russian Orthodox Diocese of Warsaw was established in 1838 and church estates were secularized soon thereafter. A campaign to reunite the Uniats to the Orthodox Church followed.

In short, the Polish insurrection of 1830 simply strengthened the centralization and reaction of Nicholas'' regime in foreign and domestic policy - both at home and abroad.

The Autocracy of Nicholas

Nicholas believed that "reform" if it had to be should come from above. It should be done by secret committees in order to prevent unnecessary rumor and false expectations. Thus the social structure experienced no significant change despite many proposals and projects. The governmental machine continued to function as before, but with a marked tendency toward centralization, bureaucratism and oppressive police control.

There was the so-called "Committee of December 6, 1826" which was supposed to come up with some reform ideas. Kochubey, Speransky and Dibich, who served on that committee, spent most of the time engaging in verbal gymnastics, framing warm general principles, and mostly reasons why almost all of their good ideas were applicable to Russia. All the Committee did was make suggestions for some minor innocuous changes. The State Council under Nicholas had little influence on actual legislation and the Senate was warmly detested by the tsar. So all major issues were decided by the tsar himself and the ministers merely executed his will.

Nicholas, however, introduced one major administrative innovation. He created "His Majesty''s Own Chancery." This government agency took over most of the work formerly done by the ministries. Section III of this agency became infamous because it housed the notorious secret police. It is clear that Nicholas distrusted bureaucracy as much as he distrusted public opinion. So he put the government into the hands of agencies under his quasi-personal control. He took particularly strong personal interest in Section III. The result was that a pervading secrecy suffused the entire government. Provincial administration to a large degree slipped into the hands of corrupt bureaucrats. We see brilliant illustrations of this in Gogol''s novels, "The Inspector-General" and "Dead Souls"

The security police, with new vast powers, was the core of the regime. It was organized soon after Nicholas came to the throne, in 1826, under Benckendorff. So it was in a way a direct reaction to the Decembrist Revolt. Section III contained both the so-called higher police and an agency for the "collection of information" - in other words spies. Section III became a dreaded institution and for good reasons. It was a Gestapo before its time. All to frequently the secret police played a decisive role in the judiciary process. It became a law unto itself. It came close to establishing a system of thought control in Russia. There were two sets of police agents: the gendarmerie and the secret informers. These agents frequently decided upon draconian verdicts on the spot and without appeal.

If there was a bright spot in Nicholas regime, it must be the codification of laws which Speransky accomplished within Section II of "His Majesty''s Own Chancery." A "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire" was assembled in 51 volumes. They also put together a smaller "Code of Laws" for legislation enacted during Nicholas'' reign. This Code was applied uniformly and thoroughly to the recently acquired provinces of the southwest. It was part of the Russification policy.
Crown, Nobility, and Peasants

In spite of mutual animosity and suspicion, the crown and the landed nobility were forced into a necessary partnership. Common fear of the massed drove them together. Because of the Decembrist Revolt, Nicholas was suspicious and vindictive. The liberal dvoriane (landed nobility) reciprocated.

The policy of the government was to fully integrate the corporate self-government of the nobility and to raise the social status of the nobility. A statute of 1831 redefined the function of the provincial and district assemblies of the nobility. It set up procedures for the election of officials and brought the whole structure more directly under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior. Property qualifications for participating in the corporate activities of the nobility were raised. The idea was to enhance the prestige of the noble corporations by excluding impoverished dvoriane. But all this did not bring new life into the moribund corporate institution of the nobility.

Many landowners argued against the automatic ennoblement of the civil service and the army officer corps once they reached a specific level on the Table of Ranks. This famous Table was something Peter the Great had introduced and was now abused to some degree. Ennoblement, according to the landowners should mark a distinct imperial favor. A compromise was finally reached on this issue by agreement that ennoblement came with rank 5, not 8 as before. The dvoriane also got preference in promotions within the army officer corps. Impoverished nobles were settled on government lands conquered in war or by diplomacy. But the old Charter of 1785 was infringed by limiting foreign residence of the dvoriane to 5 years in 1834 and then 3 years in 1851. This had to do with curtailing the Russian nobility''s eager desire to live abroad where Russian nobles were a curiosity and frequently played the role of celebrity.

But the real issue, as everyone knew, was serfdom. Count Uvarov, the famous education minister, argued that serfdom was an essential part of the Russian autocratic system and could not be done away without destroying Russia. Nicholas actually thought it was a flagrant evil, but he believed the time was not ripe for emancipation. So there was much talk about liberation but little action. The Law of 1842 on "obligated peasants" was similar to the l802 law on "free farmers." It provided for land allotments to be transferred to peasants in exchange for suitable compensation. Title to the land, however, remained with the noble. Yet the nobility was uneasy about this phoney measure since they believed it to be a forerunner of emancipation. So the law remained a dead letter. Only 24,000 serfs were affected by it.

In 1833 and 1841 laws were enacted which said that serfs could not be sold at public auction or without land. Serfs could also buy their freedom if their estates were sold at auction (1847). But with the revolutions of 1848 all over Western Europe even these paltry measures petered out. #In the western provinces a new idea emerged that should some promise. "Inventories" were introduced, that is, regulations determining the mutual rights and obligations between peasant and noble. It was part of the Russification campaign and question of emancipation was raised. Inventories were not applied to Russia proper because they would have interfered with the rights of the nobility. These inventories created a stir among the serfs and the nobles, but historians to this day still cannot agree if they were beneficial to the serfs or not.

Many landowners came to see that serfdom was incompatible with economic progress and their own interests. The alternative to emancipation and improved agricultural techniques was more thorough exploitation of servile labor. This was the solution the majority of landowners chose. There was steady encroachment on allotments to serfs. There was an increase in landless household serfs. And there was an increase in payments, both obrok and barshchina. In fact the distinction between payments in work and payments in product gradually eroded. Obrok (work on landowners property) is increased as much as 50 percent in some areas. So exploitation of the peasants is increased while more and more of them descend into poverty. There is also an increase in the size of the state peasantry with large arrears in payment.

Kiselev, who is in charge of Section V of His Majesty''s own Chancery tried to create self-governing rural freemen with which emancipated serfs were eventually to merge. The project, however, was applied only to state peasants. He is a bureaucrat to the core and little changed in actuality. He did try to equalize allotments and provide some welfare, medical assistance, and education to the peasants. Some minor advances were made in education, but that was about all. Discontent was therefore rife and riots followed the potato famine.

Progress in the Russian Economy

The influence of Count Kankrin, the minister of finance (18231844), was strong. He disliked piling up the national debt, especially foreign debt and resisted the pressure to use the printing press. He wanted to maintain the current volume of paper currency, but Nicholas forced him to retire the assignates and finally into retiring. But the regime of inconvertible paper money staid on until the gold standard was adopted in 1897.

Some government revenue came from alcoholic beverages. The government had no decent system of taxation. It still used tax farmers. This procedure was a quasi-monopoly and subject to much abuse. In 1854 the farming out system of spirits was abandoned in favor of free distillation and sale of alcoholic beverages, with an excise tax. But this did not become effective until 1863.

A large national debt continued to grow larger due to Russian intervention in European affairs, largely the Hungarian campaign and the Crimean War. There was little progress in building railroads or roads because few funds were made available for this purpose. There a slight increase in foreign trade, but it remained small in total terms. Russia had about a 3.7 percent share in world trade at this time, most of it with England. Most of this foreign trade was in the hands of foreign firms, with Russian firms having a 2 per cent of it. Much of this situation was due to the fact that the merchant class was considered to be socially inferior. Most young people therefore seek other occupations, like government service in order to become nobles. Tariffs remained, which also discouraged any growth in trade and trading occupations. There was some industry, mostly in textiles, sugar and metal goods, but this was despite the tariff walls. The average Russian enterprise at this time employed about 50 workers.

Mining was conducted largely by servile labor. Almost all mines were possessionary ones. There were many violent disturbances since compulsory industrial labor was particularly unmanageable. In 1840 owners were given the right to emancipate their possessionary workers, who could then become town-dwellers or state peasants. Things were beginning to change a bit since the prohibition against the importation of machinery from England was lifted in the 1840s.

What factory legislation there was did little to improve the lot of the factory worker. Workers could not leave their jobs or ask for higher wages until the contract ran out. Owners could dismiss workers, however, at any time. Labor for children under 12 was forbidden in 1845, but the law was never enforced.

by Professor Gerhard Rempel, Western New England College

about Nicolas I see also:
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/bio/nicholas1pavlovitchbio.html
http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron//EastEurope/NicholasI.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Crimean War: an overview

In the years 1854 to 1856, Britain fought its only European war between the ending of the Napoleonic conflict in 1815 and the opening of the Great War in 1914. Although eventually victorious,the British and their French allies pursued the war with little skill and it became a byword for poor generalship and logistical incompetence.

The war began as a quarrel between Russian Orthodox monks and French Catholics over who had precedence at the holy Places in Jerusalem and Nazereth. Tempers frayed, violence resulted and lives were lost. Tsar Nicholas I of Russia demanded the right to protect the Christian shrines in the Holy Land and to back up his claims moved troops into Wallachia and Moldavia (present day Rumania) then part of the Ottoman Turkish empire. His fleet then destroyed a Turkish flotilla off Sinope in the Black Sea. In an early instance of propaganda, British newspaper reports of the action said the Russians had fired at Turkish wounded in the water. Russian domination of Constantinople and the Straits was a perennial nightmare of the British and with the two powers already deeply suspicious of each others intentions in Afghanistan and Central Asia, the British felt unable to accept such Russian moves against the Turks. Louis Napoleon III, emperor of France, eager to emulate the military successes of his uncle Napoleon I and wishing to extend his protection to the French monks in Jerusalem allied himself with Britain. Both countries despatched expeditionary forces to the Balkans. The British was commanded by Lord Raglan, who had last seen action at the Battle of Waterloo; the French by General St. Arnaud and, after his death from cholera, General Canrobert both veterans of France''s Algerian wars.

The war began in March 1854 and by the end of the summer, the Franco-British forces had driven the Russians out of Wallachia and Moldavia. The fighting should have ended there, but it was decided that the great Russian naval base at Sevastopol was a direct threat to the future security of the region and in September 1854 the French and British landed their armies on the Crimean peninsula.

From their landing beaches the allies marched southward to invest Sevastopol. On the way they fought their first major battle. At the River Alma, a Russian army tried unsuccessfully to prevent the Allies crossing the river and scaling the heights beyond. The defeated Russians retreated inland and as the siege of Sevastopol began a regrouped Russian army hovered menacingly on the flank of the British army who were using the inlet of Balaklava as its supply harbour. Sevastopol was invulnerable to any kind of seaborne attack and her landward defences were also formidable. Soon the major strongpoints in the defences, the Redan, the little Redan and the Malakoff bastion, would become household words in Britain.

As the British and French prepared their siegeworks the Russian army on the British right flank struck. They were flung back at this the Battle of Balaklava but only with great loss and the near annihilation of the British light cavalry. A further attempt by the Russians resulted in the Battle of Inkerman, a murderous fistfight fought out in a fog so thick that sometimes the troops could only see a few yards ahead. again the Russians were pushed back. The war settled down to one of spade and artillery as the Allies pushed their trenches nearer the defensive lines of Sevastopol. The winter of 1854-55 brought great misery to the troops, particularly the British as their commisary department was grossly incompetent and for months the men were clothed in rags, cold, hungry and short of everything. The only bright light in this sorry tale of official negligence and stupidity was the work of Florence Nightingale who almost singlehandedly drastically cut mortality rates for the British wounded at the hospital in Scutari.

Finally, in early 1856, Sevastapol fell and the war was brought to a conclusion by the Peace of Paris.

From : http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/crimwar1.htm

Military Operations of the Crimean War
by Michael Hargreave Mawson
OMRS. Publicity & Promotions Officer - Crimean War Research Society

A Brief Summary
A joint invasion force, over 60,000 strong, comprising British, French and Turkish elements landed in Calamita Bay, south of Eupatoria, on the 14th September 1854; on the 19th the three armies marched south along the coast in the direction of Sebastopol, 30 miles away. In their path were a number of small streams, flowing from the interior of the Crimea westwards to the coast. On the heights to the south of one of these, the River Alma, the Russian General Prince Menschikoff had prepared his defences. He had boasted that his troops would be able to hold their positions for at least three weeks, and the ladies of Sebastopol travelled to the Alma to enjoy both a picnic and the spectacle of the repulse of the invaders.

On 20th September 1854 the Allies, under the joint commands of General Lord Raglan, Marshal St. Arnaud and General Omar Pasha, reached the Alma and met the Russians in battle. A somewhat simplistic battle-plan was adopted, with the French being responsible for turning the left (or seaward) flank of the defenders, at which point the British were to make a frontal assault (through a burning village, across a stream and then uphill in the face of withering fire from Russian infantry and artillery). Due to the first of the catalogue of misunderstandings and misapprehensions which characterised this war, the British were forced to assault before the French had fulfilled their objective, with consequent slaughter. Lord Raglan (who was fighting his first battle since Waterloo, when he had been on the Staff of the Duke of Wellington, and had lost an arm) moved so far in advance of his troops that he was actually directing the battle from behind the Russian front line. In approximately three hours, the Russians were completely routed, and fled from the field in indisciplined retreat.

The Alma clasp was not only awarded to those who had fought in the battle, but also to the Cavalry and the 4th Infantry Division who had been in support - indeed one brigade of the 4th Division did not even reach the battlefield until after the battle was over, but still received the clasp.

Lord Raglan wished to pursue the fleeing Russians, but his colleague, Marshal St. Arnaud, refused. The Russian Army was allowed to regain Sebastopol, and a young genius of a military engineer, Lieutenant Colonel Todleben, began to prepare Sebastopol''s defences.

The Allied armies, deciding not to attack Sebastopol from the North, marched South East, skirting the city, towards Balaklava harbour which was captured without bloodshed. The British took Balaklava as their supply base, the French taking the undefended harbour of Kamiesch to the West. Siege weapons and ammunition began to be landed.

The French took the left of the siege lines; the English the right. The Allies opened up their bombardment of Sebastopol on the 17th October 1854, and continued it for the next two days without noticeable success.

On the 25th October 1854, Menschikoff made a major assault on the right of the besieging armies, whose forward defence works were a few half- hearted gun emplacements along the line of the road from Sebastopol to Prince Worontzoff''s hunting lodge, manned by Turkish militia. Although the Turks fought bravely for over two hours, they were driven back as Lord Raglan arrived at his vantage point on the Sapoune Ridge.

The fleeing Turks reformed on either side of the four companies of the 93rd Highlanders under Sir Colin Campbell, which were the only troops between the oncoming Russians and the British base at Balaklava. Shortly afterwards a further two companies of the Highlanders, and a rag-tag of men from the port (including invalids from the hospital) joined this last line of defence, and these men came under Russian artillery fire. Campbell withdrew them a few yards to the comparative safety of the dead ground behind a low bank. A strong force of Russian cavalry moved in their direction. Campbell formed his men into line (not square, which was the accepted way for infantry to face a cavalry charge), and the probing Russian advance was driven off with volleys of musket fire. This action became known as "the thin red line," from the report of W. H. Russell to his readers wherein he described "a thin red streak, tipped with a line of steel."

Another strong force of Russian cavalry was moving towards British forces, this time the Heavy Cavalry Brigade was the focus of its attention. General Sir James Yorke Scarlett led the men of the Heavy Brigade in a gallant uphill charge, and drove the Cossacks off.

Whilst these actions were taking place, the Russians were calmly removing the British guns from the redoubts along the Causeway Heights which had been abandoned by the Turks, and Lord Raglan was desperately sending orders to his Light Cavalry Brigade and to his infantry to take action to prevent this. Finally, one of his orders was acted upon, and the Charge of the Light Brigade (in completely the wrong direction) began.

From Raglan''s viewpoint on the Sapoune Ridge it was possible to watch the vainglorious disaster unfold. Over 650 men charged; well over a hundred of them died within the next few minutes.

As the Light Brigade went in, Raglan''s infantry finally arrived on the battlefield, but their only success was the recapture of the westernmost redoubts on the Causeway Heights. The British had lost possession of a considerable amount of ground, including the majority of their forward defences, as well as the only metalled road in the area.

The Balaklava clasp was awarded to those soldiers who had taken part in any of the actions described above, and to a number of those also present but not engaged (collectors should particularly note that there were far more Balaklava clasps awarded to men of the Light Brigade than there were Chargers). The Balaklava clasp is unique in being the only clasp ever awarded by the British Government for what was technically a defeat.

Ten days later the Russians attacked again, in what came to be known as the Battle of Inkermann, or "the Soldier''s Battle". The battle raged for almost the whole day, and was prosecuted in thick fog, heavy undergrowth, and with little if any generalship being shown on either side. As dusk fell, the British held the field (having received useful, if belated, help from the French). The numbers of the Russian dead left on the field exceeded the numbers of Allied troops that had been attacked.

The Inkermann clasp was awarded to all those who were present on the battlefield, including many who were never engaged. On hearing of the selection criteria for the various clasps, at least one infantry officer railed at the powers that be for granting him a Balaklava clasp, which he felt belonged to the cavalry alone, and granting the cavalry, who never came under fire at Inkermann, the clasp for the latter battle, in which over 17,500 men (mostly infantry, and mostly Russian) were killed or wounded.

After the battle of Inkermann, the weather deteriorated to such an extent that further action in the field was precluded, and the activities of the Allies were restricted to siege operations. During the winter of 1854/55 the shortcomings of the British military supply system were thrown into sharp focus, as thousands of men died from illness, exposure and malnutrition - four times as many died from disease as did from enemy action. One Regiment, nominally over a thousand men strong, was reduced to a total of seven men by January 1855.

With the arrival of Spring came the huts and winter clothing from England; too late to save the lives of the thousands who had died as a result of their absence. Military operations continued to be restricted to trench warfare until 7th June 1855 when the outer defences of Sebastopol were assaulted, with the British capturing the Quarries and the French the Mamelon. A coup de grace was planned for the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, 18th June, as a way of cementing the new friendship between the British and their French allies. The assaults on the Malakoff and the Redan failed, partly due to incompetence on the part of the general officers commanding, and Lord Raglan sank into a decline, dying on the 28th June 1855.

On the 16th August 1855, the Russian army under Prince Gortchakoff attempted to break through the Allied lines at the Traktir Bridge over the River Tchernaya, but was driven off by a combined French/Sardinian force a third its size. The Sardinians had joined the Allies in January 1855. Medals bearing the unofficial clasp "Traktir" or "Tchernaia" are occasionally found; these clasps are believed to have been added to their medals by those French military and naval personnel who were awarded the British medal.

On the 8th September 1855 the Allies again stormed Sebastopol, with the French successful this time at the Malakoff. The British attack on the Redan failed once more. The Malakoff, however, was the key to the town''s defences, and at its loss the Russians evacuated Sebastopol, having made a spirited defence which had kept the best troops in the world at bay for over eleven months. After Sebastopol fell in early 1856, the war in the Crimea was effectively at its end, although hostilities were not suspended until February 1856, and peace was not declared until the end of March.

Chronology of the Events of the Crimean War, 1853 - 1856

1853
March 2, Menshikov arrives in Constantinople with demands on the Porte.
May 21, Menshikov leaves Constantinople, breaking off relations.
May 31, Russian ultimatum to Turkey.
June 8, British fleet approaches the Dardanelles.
July 2, Russian army crosses the Pruth River into Moldavia (Romania).
October 5, Turkey declares war on Russia.
October 28, Turkish army crosses the Danube River at Kalafat (Border with Romania & Bulgaria).
October 30, British fleet enters the Bosphorus.
November 4, Russians defeated by Turks at Oltenitza (Border with Romania & Bulgaria).
November 30, Turkish naval squadron destroyed at Sinope (Asia Minor).

1854
January 4, Allied fleets enter the Black Sea.
January 5, Turks win battle of Citate (Romania).
January 8, Russians invade the Dobruja (Romania).
February 10, British peace deputation sees the Tzar.
February 23, The first British troops sail for Turkey.
March 11, The British Baltic Fleet sails from Spithead.
March 19, French troops sail for Turkey.
March 20, French Baltic Fleet sails.
March 28, France and Great Britain declare war on Russia.
April 5, British troops arrive at Gallipoli.
April 14, Russians besiege Silistra (Bulgaria).
April 18, Turkish victory at Rohova (Border with Romania & Bulgaria).
April 20, Austria and Prussia declare their neutrality.
April 22, The bombardment of Odessa.
May 28, Embarkation of French and British force for Varna (Bulgaria).
June 23, Russians abandon the siege of Silistra.
June 26, French and British fleets arrive off of Kronstadt, near St. Petersburg.
July 7, Russians defeated by the Turks at Giurgevo (Border with Romania & Bulgaria).
July 28, Russians withdraw across the Pruth River (Romania).
July 28, In Asia Minor, the Turks defeat the Russians at Bayezid (Armenia).
August 13, Allies besiege Bomarsund in the Baltic.
August 16, Surrender of Bomarsund.
August 21, Bombardment of Kola, in the White Sea, by the British squadron.
August 30, British naval failure at Petropaulovsk.
September 5, Allies embark at Varna for the Crimea.
September 14, Allies land unopposed at Kalamata Bay, north of Sevastopol.
September 19, Allies encounter Russians at the River Bulganek.
September 20, the Battle of the River Alma.
September 23, Russians scuttle fleet in Sevastopol to block entrance to harbour.
September 24, Flank march by Allies around Sevastopol.
September 26, British enter Balaklava.
September 29, French commander, St. Arnaud, dies.
October 17, First bombardment of Sevastopol.
October 23, Departure from England of Florence Nightingale and 38 nurses.
October 25, Battle of Balaklava, Charge of the Heavy Brigade, Charge of the Light Brigade, the stand of the ''Thin Red Line''.
October 26, Russians attack of ''Little Inkerman''.
November 4, Florence Nightingale arrives in Scutari with 38 nurses.
November 5, The Battle of Inkerman.
November 14, The hurricane in the Crimea.
December 22, Lyons replaces Dundas as commander of the British Fleet in the Crimea.
December 24, Brout succeeds Hamelin as commander of the French Fleet in the Crimea.

1855
January 10, Russians feint attack on Balaklava.
January 17, Russian attack on Eupatoria, north of Kalamata Bay.
January 26, The Kingdom of Piedmont joins the Allies.
January 31, Lord Aberdeen''s government falls.
February 5, Lord Palmerston forms the new government.
February 20, Allied attack across the River Chernaya frustrated by snowstorm.
February 22, Russians seize and fortify the Mamelon, a position outside of the fortress and in front of the French lines.
February 24, French attack on Sevastopol fails.
March 2, Tzar Nicholas I, dies and is succeeded by Alexander II. Menshikov recalled.
March 15, Conference of Vienna opens.
April 4, Second Baltic expedition leaves Spithead.
April 9, Second bombardment of Sevastopol.
April 26, Vienna conference closes, without results.
May 1, Fierce fighting on the French left flank at the Quarantine cemetery.
May 2, First French expedition sails for Kertch, and is recalled by Conrobert.
May 16, Conrobert, French Commander, resigns command, and is replaced by Pélissier.
May 23, Expedition to Kertch sails again (Near the Sea of Azov, west of Sevastopol).
May 25, Kertch and Yenikale captured.
May 26, Allied naval forces enter the Sea of Azov.
June 5, ''Massacre'' of Finnish crew by Russians at Hangö (Finland).
June 6, Third bombardment of Sevastopol. Capture of the Mamelon and the Quarries by the Allies.
June 16, First Russian attack at Kars (Armenia).
June 17, Fourth bombardment of Sevastopol.
June 18, Main assault on the Malakov and Redan defeated, with heavy losses.
June 28, Death of Lord Raglan.
July 1, General Sir James Simpson appointed to command of the British army in the Crimea.
July 14, Conference at which Turkish commander Omar Pasha asks permission to withdraw his troops and concentrate on Asia Minor.
August 7, Second Russian attack at Kars.
August 9, Bombardment of Sveaborg (Finland).
August 16, Russian attack at Battle of the Chernaya River and defeated by French and Kingdom of Piedmont forces (Northeast of Balaklava).
August 17, Fifth bombardment of Sevastopol.
September 5, Sixth bombardment of Sevastopol.
September 6, Omar Pasha leaves for Asia Minor.
September 8, At Sevastopol, the attack on the Malakov by the French is successful. The French fail at Little Redan, and Bastion du Mât. The British fail at the Redan.
September 9, The Russians evacuate the South Side of Sevastopol.
September 29, Russians attack at Kars defeated. Cavalry skirmishes at Eupatoria. Omar Pasha''s troops embark for Asia Minor.
October 3, Omar Pasha''s army lands at Suchum Kaleh, south of the Caucasus Mountains, with an expedition for relief of Kars.
October 7, Kinburn expedition sails for the mouth of the Dnieper River.
October 17, Allied expedition captures forts at Kinburn. Ochakov evacuated by Russians.
October 22, Selim Pasha''s army lands at Trebizond, and marches to Erzerum. (Armenia)
November 6, Omar Pasha defeats the Russians at the River Ingur, south of the Caucasus Mountains.
November 11, Sir James Simpson resigns as British Commander, and is replaced by Sir William Codrington.
November 15, French magazine at Sevastopol explodes.
November 26, Russians accept surrender of the Turkish forces at Kars.
December 8, Omar Pasha''s army forced to withdraw from the River Skeniscal, south of the Caucasus Mountains.
December 16, Count Esterhazy takes Austria''s ultimatum to St. Petersburg.

1856
January 16, Tzar Alexander II accepts the Austrian demands.
January 29, Russian guns bombard Sevastopol.
February 25, The Paris Peace Conference opens.
February 29, The Armistice is signed.
March 30, The Treaty of Paris is signed.
April 27, Ratification of the Treaty of Paris in London formally ends Britain''s participation in the war.

When did the Crimean War take place?
1853-1856. British and French involvement dates from 28th March, 1854, and the formal treaty of peace came into effect 1st April, 1856, hence you will sometimes see the war referred to as "the Crimean War of 1854-56".

Where was the Crimean War fought?
In the Crimea, Asia Minor, the Baltic, the White Sea and on Russia''s Pacific coast.

What were the main battles of the Crimean War?
Alma - 20th September, 1854; Balaklava - 25th October, 1854; Inkerman(n) - 5th November, 1854; Siege of Sebastopol (more correctly, "Sevastopol") - 25th September, 1854 to 8th September, 1855; Battle of Eupatoria, 17th February, 1855; the Siege of Kars, June to 28th November, 1855; Battle of the Tchernaya (aka "Chernaya"; "Traktir Bridge") - 25th August, 1855.

Who were the belligerents in the Crimean War?
Russia, Turkey, Great Britain, France, Piedmont-Sardinia.

Materials taken from : http://www.crimeanwar.org

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Crimean War: 1853-1856

Diplomatic Prelude

As he had on other occasions, Nicholas I tried again in 1853 to get an understanding with England about the position of Turkey and to prevent a rapprochement between England and France. The Russians would not tolerate the establishment of the English in Constantinople, but did not want to annex the city either. Temporary occupation by Russia might, however, be necessary to secure Russia''s aim of finally getting secure outlet from the Black Sea. In discussions with Foreign Minister Russell of Britain Russia suggested an independent Moldavia and Wallachia, a Serbia under Russian protection, and an independent Bulgaria. The English were to get Egypt and Crete. The Austrians could establish themselves on the Adriatic.

Russell rejected the "offer" and said that France would have to be consulted on the matter. Nicholas I, however, was under the erroneous impression that some sort of "new system" existed as a result of Nesselrode''s Memorandum of 1844, which had suggested a arrangement with regard to the Straits. This particular memorandum and the substance of the current diplomatic conversations with British Ambassador Seymour in St. Petersburg were published by Britain and touted as proof that "dark ambitions of a foreign despot" were endangering the peace of Europe.
Immediate Cause

The Franco-Russian dispute over the holy places in Palestine was the immediate cause of the Crimean War. At the time Turkey controlled Palestine, Egypt, and large chunks of the Middle East. The Port (Moslem ruler of Turkey) had given privileges to protect the Christians and their churches in the Holy Land to many nations. That explains why so many different churches and nationals control various holy shrines in Israel to this very day. At the time France and England had gotten more specific commitments from the Port than other nations.

France''s interest in Palestine had been stimulated by a domestic crisis in 1840-1841. Napoleon II pushed it because he relied on the support of militant clerical groups in France. In 1850 Napoleon III requested the restoration to French Catholics of the capitulations of 1740. This meant that the French wanted the key to the Church of the Nativity in the old city of Jerusalem and the right to place a silver star on Christ''s birthplace in Bethlehem. The French threatened military action if the Porte did not give way and the Russians threatened to occupy Moldavia and Wallachia if he did. The weak Porte did the best he could under the circumstances and gave a yes answer to foreign parties. This bit of typical Turkish duplicity was soon discovered. When it was discovered the French send the warship Charlemagne to Constantinople and a squadron of ship the Bay of Tripoli. In December 1852, having no other choice, the Porte gave in to Paris.

In February Nicholas responded by mobilizing two army corps and sending his ambassador, Menshikov, to Constantinople. Menshikov demanded not only the restoration of Greek rights but also a secret alliance and the protection of all orthodox laymen under Turkish rule-that meant some 12 million subject of the Porte. At this point the British got into the act in the person of a very clever diplomatic operator in Constantinople by the name of Stratford de Redcliffe. The latter outfoxed Menshikov who got concessions on the Greek rights issue but non of the other demands. So Meshikov went home.

It seems silly to us today that they argued over the keys to a church, but then it was not just any church. And besides, the religious issue was not the essential factor in the Franco-Russian dispute. France wanted to break down the continental alliance that had paralyzed her for half a century. National interests were involved here. England and France, in particular responded to popular sentiment stirred up by liberal and patriotic groups in their countries. Financial and trading groups, as always, were involved as well. Such pressure is not evident in the case of Russia. The Black Sea trade at this time was still quite insignificant.

When the Menshikov Mission became public knowledge it strengthened the anti-Russian faction in the British cabinet. So the British decided it was worth a war to keep and expand their interest in the Eastern Mediterranean. In June 1853 an Anglo-French naval force entered the Dardanels. In July the Russian army invaded the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (modern day Rumania).

The war could still have been prevented. There were 11 different project for pacification at the end of 1853. But the only important one was the so-called "Vienna Note" to Turkey and Russia by France, Austria, Prussia, and England. The Porte was to promise no change in the status quo without the explicit consent of France and Russia. Russia accepted this condition, but Turkey naturally rejected it. Nicholas I and Francis Joseph of Austria even had a personal summit at Olmütz. Nicholas promised not to intervene in Turkey or to extract some right to protect orthodox Christians under Turkish, like in the famous Treaty of Kuchuck Kainardje. The English, however, turned this deal down.
The War

Then in October 1853 Turkey took action by declaring war on Russia. The Anglo-French fleet now penetrated further into the straits and anchored in the Bosphorus. In November off the coast of Sinope in the Black Sea, meanwhile, the Turkish fleet was defeated by the Russians. Any settlement after this was impossible. The popular press in England and France became violent. In January 1854 the Anglo-French fleet sailed into the Black Sea. France, England and Turkey then made a formal alliance. When the Russian troops crossed the Danube, the Turkish war merged into a war against the European coalition. This was precisely the turn of events Nicholas had tried so hard to avoid.

In 1855 Piedmont joined the war, largely to be present at the peace conference and thus able to argue for her interest in Italian unification. Prussia remained neutral. Austria, although not belligerent had a definitely anti-Russian policy and came to the brink of war twice. Seeking some advantage in the conflict, Prussia and Austria signed a defensive alliance. Then they joined France and England in a diplomatic demarche demanding the withdrawal of Russia from Moldavia and Wallachia. Russia was soon forced to withdraw from those principalities and Austria then proceeded to occupy Moldavia and Wallachia. This forced Russia to keep an army on the Pruth, however.

Meanwhile, the Vienna Conference, in session throughout the war, formulated a peace proposal:
European guarantee for a Russian protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia and Serbia;
freedom of navigation on the Danube River;
revision of the Straits Convention of 1841;
five-power (England, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia) protection of Christians in Turkey instead of only by Russia

Russia did not give in to this program until Austria sent an ultimatum and threatened war. Frederick William IV urged Alexander II (since February 1855) to accept.

Lord Palmerston, the new Prime Minister of England (since February 1855) wanted a partial dismemberment of Russia. Napoleon III and Francis Joseph of Austria were not willing to go that far. Nicholas II had been expecting an uprising of Christian subjects of the Porte, or even been willing to promote it, but he was dissuaded from doing so by his minister Nesselrode. The latter argued that it was contrary to the Russian policy of maintaining the Porte.

While the equipment oft he Allies was clearly superior to that of the Russian, they could not win the war-or at least there was no quick victory. When the Danubian campaign of Gorchakov turned into a disaster, Palmerston suggested the Crimean expedition - an attempt to hit Russia in the soft underbelly, as Churchill might have said. But strong Russian resistance at the Savastopol naval base came as a shock to the Allies. What followed was a surprise to the general public but not those in the know. A storm of indignation broke out in France and England over the failures of the military high command. The famous "charge of the Light Brigade" was only the most blatant example of allied military blundering. Russia did better with the Turks and won the battle of Kars, their only victory.

Total Russian losses in the war, including victims of disease, amount to 600,000. This was a loss the government could hardly sustain. Nicholas and his ultra-conservative policies were held to be responsible for the formation of the anti-Russian coalition which defeated them. The personal ambitions and irresponsible adventures of Nicholas, Napoleon, Palmerston, and Stratford also played a role in the disaster of the war. Unwise decisions at the very top were made consistently throughout the war. For Russia it meant that reforms were now unavoidable.
Treaty of Paris (1856)

The coup de grace was delivered by the Austrian ultimatum, not the fall of Savastopol. Napoleon offered to help Russia secure "peace with honor," but Palmerston vigorously opposed such a move. Napoleon and Walewski supported Russia as much as they could in the Congress of Paris without intimidating and hurting the Anglo-French alliance.

So Savastopol was exchanged for Kars. No big deal. A piece of southern Bessarabia was ceded to Moldavia to insure internal navigation of the Danube. The integrity of the Ottoman Porte was once more guaranteed. All promised not to interfere in Turkey. The Straits remained closed to warships. The Black Sea, in fact, was neutralized. Moldavia and Wallachia were put under Turkish suzerainty. The same fate awaited Serbia, with Ottoman troops allowed to garrison the territory. Russia, meanwhile, was forbidden to station troops on the Aland Islands.

Britain, France, and Austria signed a special treaty to defend the Paris settlement by force, if necessary. There is little doubt that the whole affair had a definite anti-Russian flavor. It is no surprise, therefore, that Russia remained hostile to the settlement--and Britain, to some extent as well. In Russia the Paris Treaty gave rise to the chauvinistic Slavophile movement.

Russian Revisions: Major themes:
to throw off the Black Sea restrictions and regain southern Bessarabia;
friction with England and France over the disposition of Poland;
repercussions over Russian expansion in the Far East and Central Asia;
intensified Russian interest in the Balkans between 1856 and 1878.

Gorchakov, who was Foreign Minister throughout the reign of Alexander II, carried out an elegant diplomacy without substance. From 1856 until 1859 a kind of Franco-Russian friendship existed, although Alexander clearly mistrusted Napoleon III.

Russia and France cooperated in supporting the union of Moldavia and Wallachia (1858-1866), and also on Serbia and Montenegro. Russia, therefore, remained neutral during the Franco-Austrian War of 1859 which began the process of Italian unification. All Russia did was mass troops on the Austrian frontier. The Russian effort to get a diplomatic demarche of the powers with regard to the oppressed Christian subjects of the Porte failed to get French support in 1860. What drew the Eastern powers closer together was the common fear of revolution. France, for instance, continued to support the efforts oft he Polish revolutionaries. The Russo-Prussian Convention of 1863 (the so-called Alvensleben Convention) permitted Russian troops to cross into Prussia in pursuit of the Polish rebels. As you might have expected, there was once more a revolution in Poland in 1863 to through off the Russian yoke.

A quasi-solidarity of European powers developed, but it had no effect on Russia in terms of stopping her from crushing the Poles again. Napoleon III called for a congress, but he could not intervene to help the Poles since he was deeply committed and overextended in his Mexican expedition. Palmerston, typically, refused to intervene on behalf of the Poles. In this situation, Russia was estranged from Europe and France and drew closer to Prussia. This began some thirty years of cooperation between Russia and Prussia.

The succession of the Danish George I in Greece in 1863 came off with reasonable cooperation among Britain, France, and Russia, the protecting powers. The same held true during the crisis of the Crete revolt in 1867-1869, although Russia lost considerable prestige in Athens. Russia objected helplessly to the succession of Charles Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen to the throne of Cuza in Rumania (Moldavia and Wallachia had been united in 1866 to form Rumania).

Russia had pushed hard for a guarantee that Prince Christian of Glücksburg would be the ruler of Schleswig-Holstein-Lauenburg, as part of the Danish crown. This had been settled in the Treaty of London in 1852. The Danish royal charter then annexed Schleswig. Prussia did not like this and sent an ultimatum to the Danes in 1863. The German Confederation (created after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815) sent troops to occupy Holstein. Austria and Prussia sent troops into Schleswig-Holstein-Lauenburg. The Danes were thus forced to cede all three provinces to Austria and Prussia by the virtue of the Gastein Convention in 1865.

But this was merely a stopgap. Bismarck had an alliance with Italy and an understanding with France which would allow for Venice to be ceded to Italy and Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia. So the balance of power changed. Russia facilitated the moves of Bismarck and kept England and France from doing anything. This was, in part, the result of the Alvensleben Convention. Russia only half-heartedly opposed the annexation of Schleswig-Holstein, despite the fact that she was pledged to uphold the 1852 agreement on Glücksburg. Russia in general favored Prussia with some misgivings but with an eye on the revision of the Paris Treaty. Foreign Minister Beust of Austria was pro-French and helped Russia draw closer to Berlin. King William and Alexander met at Bad Ems in 1870 to reach an accord on the Danish matter. Russia even promised to neutralize any move by Austria. Russia, Britain, Italy, and Austria in fact signed a pact to inform each other in case any of them decided to deviate from the general policy of neutrality.

The close understanding Russia had with Prussia led Gorchakov in 1870 to renounce the Black Sea neutrality clause of the Paris Treaty on grounds that the treaty had been violated with the unification of Rumania and was against the security of Russia. The objections of the European powers at this point was mostly because of his procedure, not the fact of it. The British did push for a conference, which was held in London, but did no more than stamp approval on a fait accompli. Russophobia, however, soon rose again in the West and Russia, for that matter, did very little to put a navy in the Black Sea.

When Count Andrassy replaced the Russophobic Beust, Austria became willing to cooperate with Russia in maintaining the Ottoman Porte. Russia for the first time was now willing to renounce her claim tot he exclusive protection of Balkan Christians. The rulers of Russia, Austria, and the newly-formed German Empire, exchanged visits in 1873 and formed the so-called Three Emperors League. Russia and Germany promised military assistance to each other of they are attacked. Austria and Russia did the same at Schönbrunn. So, we have here a revival of the old Holy Alliance to preserve the status quo. The terms of the entente were vague and led to severe strains in 1875 when Gorchakov (hostile to Bismarck) backed France and claimed to have prevented a new Franco-Prussian war.
Note on Alaska

It was during this time that Russia sold Alaska to the United States for some 7.2 million dollars. That is less than a good warplane costs today! Why did they do it?

Well--Russia was eager to complicate American relations with England, her foe in the Crimean War. England was suspected of favoring the Confederacy in the American Civil War. The U.S. refused to take part in the European demarche with regard to Poland in 1863, so she was persona grata in Russia. In fact the Russians sent one of her fleets to the Untied States in 1863 for fear that a war in Europe would destroy the fleet. Besides, the Russian-America Company in Alaska was never very prosperous and the furs she got from Alaska were of inferior quality. The Russians thought that the British attack in Crimea meant that would also attack Alaska. So the Russian-America Company was transferred to the American flag for a while.

Discussion of the proposed sale began in 1854. Bribery was liberally used by the Russian ambassador (Stoeckl) in Washington to sway politicians in favor of a buy. There was still a chance that the American fleet could have gone to the Mediterranean to balance British power in that region. The Russians, of course, were trying to prevent that eventuality. It is amazing today, but at the time there was much criticism of this 7.2 million-dollar deal in both countries. In America they called it "Seward''s folly!"

by Gerhard Rempel, Western New England College.