The Fall of the Russian Empire

Introduction

The Russian Empire existed from 1721 until its fall in 1917 due to an ephemeral revolution in February of the same year. It was one of the largest empires in history in terms of landmass as it stretched over into three continents. Only the British and Mongol Empires were larger. Its rise took place as numerous powers in its vicinities declined including the Swedish, Polish-Lithuanian, Ottoman and Persia empires. There were numerous rulers that are credited for the rise and success of this nation including the House of Romanov (1721-1762) through Peter I and the House of Holstei-Gottorp-Romanov ruling from 1762 where Catherine the Great reigned until 1796 during what is considered the empire’s Golden Age. The empire had stretched over to the Arctic Ocean and the Black Sea in the north and south respectively and from the Baltic Sea to Alaska in the west and east respectively. 

By the 1897 census, the Russian Empire had registered 125.6 million subjects making it the third largest just behind India and Qing China. Its rapid expansion was primarily due to military dominance as it dominated over its rival empires through the Russo-Swedish, Russi-Turkish, Russo-Persian, Polish-Russian, Russo-Japanese, and Russo-Circassian Wars. Tsar Alexander II, was largely successful as the emperor of Russia (1855-1881) as he ensured the emancipation of 23 million serfs resulting in the nickname Alexander the Liberator and the protection of the Orthodox Christians under the Ottoman Empire reign. The latter prompted Nicholas II to participate in the First World War alongside Britain, Serbia and France before his forced abdication in 1917. A series of poor decisions made during his reign led to the collapse of the empire as he was given the sobriquet Nicholas the Bloody. 

Thesis: The fall of the Russian Empire was largely due to military failures, specifically during World War 1.

Social

Nicholas II, the last Emperor of Russia, is credited for undertaking numerous practices that resulted in the fall of the empire from a former great power of the world to economic and military collapse. One of the primary reasons for this demise was the social aspects of his reign among other rulers that existed before him. For hundreds of years, the Russian Empire was led by a group of Czars that consisted mainly of the wealthy individuals of the country (Fitzpatrick, 2008). The rest of the society consisted mainly of peasants and serfs who suffered through the centuries despite the high levels of success in the Empire. The hundreds of years of oppression by this elite group had caused frustration among the members of the lower classes. During the reign of Alexander the Liberator, approximately 23 million of the serfs in the empire had been freed from domination by the wealthy landlords (Burbank, Hagen, & Remnev, 2007). Despite this major reform in the region, more than 100 million men and women continued to serve in this status.

The conditions of working for these individuals was mainly poor whereby, serfdom was a concept used to identify a peasant usually in the rural areas of Russia. The terminology originated from the feudal exploitation practice in Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries. The members of the nobility in the empire would hold land from the royal ruler and rented the land to those who could afford it. Alternatively, the land would be used to host serfs who are the impoverished members of the community, and they would provide their service in tilling it while also providing a share of the produce to the landlord. This homage was enough to receive military protection in exchange (Burbank, Hagen, & Remnev, 2007). The dependence on serfdom was practiced by providing peasants with only two weeks of a break during Yuri’s Day when they had the ability to move from one landlord to another. The farmers who wished to move had to pay a fee identified as the pozhiloye (Burbank, Hagen, & Remnev, 2007). This freedom was later vetoed a century later, and the ‘break-away’ fee significantly increased. Indeed, the lives of the working men and women were experiencing meager conditions prompting them to seek a change in the ways of governance.

Another leading cause of the eventual downfall of the Russian Empire was the devastating quality of life among its citizens. By the time Nicholas II was taking over power, Alexander the II’s policy had already taken effect. He had enforced a foreign policy that would ensure that the Russian Empire would protect Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe at all costs. This system would continue long after his death (Lieven, 2002). This commitment was at a grave cost to the citizens themselves. When the First World War came about, the kingdom gathered nearly 15 million of its most eligible men to participate in the war (Lieven, 2002). The troops did not primarily consist of well-trained personnel rather it was made up of young people who were working in factories and the rural areas. The war resulted in nearly 7 million casualties from the Russian military, and much more were injured in the process. 

The participation in the World War I mainly affected the Empire's production system. The majority of the troops who were workers in factories and farmlands were forced to join the military. In this regard, the country experienced moderate levels of food and fuel production. In a kingdom of more than 125 million individuals, such an occurrence creates panic among the citizens and the leaders alike (Lieven, 2002). Food and fuel are considered two of the most integral factors towards continued development and sustenance of a nation. Through its ongoing production, the empire would be able to provide significant assistance to the troops that were abroad fighting the war. However, its insufficiency accelerated the number of deaths that affected its military ability to participate fully in the war (Lieven, 2002). 

The Russian empire was also experiencing a rapid industrialization of its territory. Previous revolutionary leaders like Catherine the Great and Alexander the Liberator had ensured significant developments were taking place in the empire. During the reign of the former between 1762 and 1796 was considered the Golden Age as she continued in the modernization policy that had been started off by Peter the Great, the Tsar who had laid the foundation for the rise of the Empire into a European superpower (Burbank, Hagen, & Remnev, 2007). The capital of the empire was moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg which engaged in scientific and Europe-oriented developments (Lieven, 2002). However, the concentration on these two areas caused significant problems as it ignored the countryside that received little to no developments. 

The rapid industrialization ensured overcrowding and poor conditions in the urban regions. Over the span of two decades between 1890 and 1910, the population in the capital city doubled from a million to just fewer than two million. This swell in population was drastic and caused many of its citizens to suffer (Lieven, 2002). A survey taken in 1904 identified that the average apartment in the capital housed 16 individuals at a rate of six persons per room. A similar occurrence was observed in Moscow where the majority of the population lacked running water and the waste disposed of by the factories was considered a significant threat to the health of workers and those living nearby (Burbank, Hagen, & Remnev, 2007). The factory workers were getting huge orders for war supplies and long working hours. As a result, they organized riots and strikes that would shake up the state in its time of need. Conscription had played a major role in creating this unrest in urban and rural areas. 

The peasants were considered to be the minority members of the society. Following the 1861 reforms by Alexander the Liberator, nearly 23 million were given freedom from their landlords. However, the government did not make a significant effort to improve their lives (Kappeler, 2001). The elite landowners received a massive compensation from the empire as a means of ensuring the release of these serfs (Lieven, 2002). The freed serfs were dissatisfied by the government’s actions as they were forced to pay redemption fees to the state that was used to reimburse to their landlords (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Serfdom was considered an equivalent of slavery in the European empires hence the reason why the Russians did not incorporate this term (Lieven, 2015). However, the practice was equally immoral and unjust to the minority groups in the nation. The growing unrest of the rural dwellers resulted in riots and full-scale revolts in some cases as these peasants demanded to gain full ownership of the land they owned (Kappeler, 2001). 

Political

The political organization of the Russian empire was that of an autocratic system. All the rulers since 1721 did not face significant oppositions in the decisions they made for the state. The emperor or empress concentrated the supreme power to themselves (Fitzpatrick, 2008). There were no external legal constraints or mechanisms of regularization through popular control. As a result, the fate of the country was dependant on the beliefs and ideologies of the ruler at the time (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Practicing this system of governance always ensured a constant threat to the leadership of a particular emperor. Ivan VI, Peter III, Paul I, and Alexander II are excellent examples of leaders whose reign was cut short by assassination or murder (Lieven, 2015). Individuals from the elite society or royalty were believed to be involved in their deaths. It is possible that these leaders were considered to pose a significant threat to the perpetrators’ ability to hone power in the empire. 

The unrest and growing dissatisfaction by the Russian citizens in the rural areas was inflicting more pressure on the empire. The members felt they had no say in the leadership and the progression taking place in the state. The continued enforcement of the total supremacy leadership did not sit well with the citizens (Kappeler, 2001). After the Napoleon wars, the public demanded significant change in the country take place or risk a revolution by the people. At this time, many of the individual citizens began to participate in riots and revolts (Lieven, 2015). Even soldiers in the military felt that reforms were essential in the transformation of the empire. The citizens acquired some ambition believing the current position of the country could ensure high levels of development that would improve their lives (Burbank, Hagen, & Remnev, 2007). However, under the command of the Tzar, soldiers who were taking part in the revolt were immediately killed and prevented further riots (Lieven, 2015). 

This action by the ruling monarchy indicated clearly that the views or beliefs of the common citizens were not an option in the various efforts made by the country. Nicholas II in his reign cemented this opinion through events like the Bloody Sunday, Kishinev pogroms between 1903 and 1906, Khodynka tragedy and the violent suppression of the 1905 Revolution (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Despite the fact that this Tsar openly confessed that he had never wanted to take over as an emperor and his disinterest in the same, his father’s early demise forced him into taking power (Kappeler, 2001). His wife is believed to have made the majority of the decisions in the running of the government. Nicholas II’s reign was marred by violence and bloodshed. These events began from the day of his coronation on 30 May 1896 (Lieven, 2015). The new ruler had promised to hold festivities for the ordinary citizens that would ensure great celebration for his reign. He built 150 buffets, 20 pubs, and theatres that would be used in the festivities and promised to give gifts to the people. However, more than several thousands of people gathered and rumors began to spread that the gifts were not enough to serve all the people. Nearly 1389 people were killed in a stampede as the 1800 police force could not contain the crowd (Fitzpatrick, 2008). 

The Bloody Sunday is depicted as a highlight of the lack of consideration for the civil liberties. Thousands of unarmed demonstrators led by Father Georgy Gapon marched towards the Winter Palace in 22nd January 1905, in St. Petersburg. The monarchy troops sounded out a warning before firing at the gathering crowd. The officials of the Tsar indicated that the shootings caused only 96 deaths and 333 injuries. However, non-government reports indicated as high as 4000 and as low as 1000 deaths on that day. Many of the people killed were not even part of the organized marches, but citizens were going about their business on a typical Sunday (Burbank, Hagen, & Remnev, 2007). Despite the fact that Tsar Nicholas II expressed his concern and sorrow with the events of the day, many historians identify this day as the point when citizens declared that enough was enough. They promised to take over power from the monarchy and employ a better system of serving the people. 

Ownership of land was also a critical issue in the empire. As mentioned earlier, the Russian Empire’s population was mainly made of peasants, and only a few members were considered a part of the elite group. During the 1897 census, the empire was estimated to have a total population of over 125 million members. These people were spread over a total land mass of 22.8 million square kilometers (Lieven, 2015). However, only 1.5% of these people owned more than 25% of the total land area of the empire. As a result, these landlords concentrated much of the power in the government and left the lower classes with no representation at all. Alexander the Liberator had made efforts to ensure that peasants were represented in government by developing a parliamentary system which was stymied as he was assassinated a day after making this declaration. 

Nicholas II was against such reforms in the monarchy of the Russian Empire. During the 1905 Revolution, citizens were seeking the implementation of a constitution that would ensure the significant changes in the leadership in the state. The peasants who were the majority in number were growing in opposition and organizing themselves into soviets seeking to ensure changes take place. The Tsar issued a ukase with numerous indirect promises following consultations with close advisers (Lieven, 2015). Despite the fact that the previous Russian empires helped neighboring countries like Poland and Finland to establish constitutions, Nicholas II would not have it. He instead created a Manifesto that would bring about the creation of the State Duma to enable the lower classes to have individuals to represent them in government. This action was to ensure an introduction of fundamental civil liberties. The Tsar did not want to relinquish his role as the supreme leader as he established clearly in the 1906 Constitution. 

Economic

Numerous economic factors brought about the decline and ultimate demise of the Russian empire. One of the most distinct reasons is the high level of corruption in the state. Since the medieval times, Russia has experienced numerous cases of bribery and abuse of official leadership positions. With a more centralized government beginning in late 15th Century, the emperors would send out close advisers to act as governors and prevent attacks from rival neighboring communities in their borders (Lieven, 2015). With the vast expanse of the Russian empire, it was impossible for the government to send out food or salaries to these individuals. As a result, there was a state decree known as “kormleine” translated to mean “feeding” where local communities where the governors were located would provide food for these officials (Schuann, 2014). In cases where the locals refused to provide food, they would be extorted by these leaders. The entry of Peter the Great as head of Russian empire brought about significant changes to the practice of corruption through major Senate revisions. Leaders found to engage in bribery were incarcerated immediately (Lieven, 2015). However, his death marked the end of the practice with fewer changes taking place in the empire’s institutions.

Another major problem in the state was the increased gap between the rich and the poor. As mentioned earlier, the empire was growing in a rapid state as it expanded into three continents. By 1914, the estimated population of the country was approximately 170 million which showed an increase of more than 50 million in less than two decades. The majority of the population was overwhelmingly rural with only 15% living in the urban areas (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Fewer people were working in the industrial sector amounting to 17 million individuals. More than 100 million people were classified as peasants who depended on agriculture as a source of livelihood. The state of poverty in the country was astonishingly low such that the earnings of an entire household would barely meeting basic needs (Fitzpatrick, 2008). However, there was a group of people who were beyond rich as they experienced high status in the empire. These elite group members accounted for only 1.5% of the country’s total population and owned more than 25% of the landmass in the state. This occurrence was a clear indicator of the significant gap between rich and the poor. The lower classes identified the elite as a clear sign of the country’s success hence they should have a share of the wealth. 

The disparity between the noble families and the lower classes was a clear indicator of the lack of practical accounting in the state. The majority population was dependent on traditional agricultural practices which were widely inefficient in improving the living conditions of the people (Schuann, 2014). The country was experiencing a rapid growth in its economy through its expanse was centralized into small areas of the country. St. Petersburg and Moscow are some of the areas where modern industries had been created. Furthermore, only a small portion of the revenues received from this high-income manufacturing economies was diverted into the agricultural sector (Schuann, 2014). As a result, the agriculture in Russian Empire was primitive compared to the more advanced measures incorporated by countries like the US and Great Britain. Serfdom was at the center of this backward agrarian economy as it prevented the peasants from undertaking methods of increasing production in the country. Additionally, the rapid swelling of the population made it impossible for the empire to provide food for the communities (Schuann, 2014). These factors acting in sequence led to the occurrence of famine. Tens of millions of people were unable to get access to food causing the everyday citizens to blame the inequality of wealth evident in the country.

As the spurts of industrialization and modernization of key regions in the empire continued, so did the cost of living. Droves of people moved from the rural areas into the urbanized cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg in search of better jobs. They believed the transition to modern industries would be a key factor in the possibility of increasing their wealth. The Finance Minister Sergei Witte was at the center of these accelerated developments (Lieven, 2015). Direct investments and subsidies were imposed to ensure a high level of development in the industrial sector. However, this practice came at a cost with the higher taxes and tariffs directed at the ordinary citizens (Hosking, 1997). Prices for goods were astronomically high making the lower classes struggle to purchase the most basic needs. Protectionism which was the core trade policy during the industrial revolution imposed tariffs of up to 30-38% on the aggregate value of imports significantly increasing prices for goods (Lieven, 2015). 

The productivity of labor in the empire was however very low compared to other advanced countries in Europe. The state was able to achieve a high level of exports to European countries supplying up to ⅓ of all wheat imports in Western Europe and nearly 50% of all other grain imports (Fitzpatrick, 2008). In this sense, the country should have been able to provide its workers with a high level of compensation to improve their skills in the technical industries and develop the agricultural sector (Hosking, 1997). However, a significant portion of this revenue was shared among the elite members of the society while the lower classes received only a small part of it. The horsepower per industrial worker in the Russian empire was considerably less than that of the Western economies like England and the US. Estimates of 1913 showed that it was 40% and 66% lower than that of England and America respectively (Hosking, 1997). This deficient capital endowment per worker in Russia subsequently increased the cost of production. As a result, when the empire finally joined the war, and many of the skilled workers acceded to the army, the production was grounded resulting in a collapse of the economy.

Military

The basic foundation of a stable state is its economic and military capabilities. These factors were a common characteristic of the Russian Empire in its early stages. Peter the Great provided this groundwork with a series of great wars that led to the expansion of an empire that was already massive (Hosking, 1997). This successful conquering of the diminishing rival powers was integral to Russia’s recognition as a European power. Catherine the Great continued the modernization policy and expansion of the vast empire by conquering and colonizing nearby states (Hosking, 1997). This practice brought about immense wealth to the country and made the subsequent leaders feel stronger than before. However, towards the end of the 19th century, the continued unrest among the lower classes and continued occurrence of revolts and riots from within weakened the country’s stance. The public sought for the elimination of the supreme autocracy as it profoundly affected their living standards and created a lack of concern for the ordinary citizen (Fitzpatrick, 2008). 

The Crimean War, in particular, was a humiliating defeat to the country as it highlighted the Empire's inferiority to the coalition of the Ottoman Empire, France, Sardinia and Britain (Hosking, 1997). The war came about due to conflicts of the rights of Christian minorities located in the Holy Land which is synonymous with the biblical land of Israel and Palestine. At the time of the war, this was part of the Ottoman Empire where the Roman Catholics’ rights were supported by the Coalition while Russia sought to enforce those of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Hosking, 1997). The defeat was even more severe as the social climate in the society created more trouble for new leader Alexander the Liberator (Schuann, 2014). There were high cases of crime including theft, bribery and corrupt government officials. The lower classes were fed up with the oppressive nature of the Tsar administration prompting him to make radical reforms to appease the peasant population that was increasing by the day. Some of the changes included selling off the Alaska territory to the US as it was evident the empire could not be able to protect the land area from significant invasion from the UK or its former colony Canada (Hosking, 1997). 

Emancipation was another reform that the tsar enforced as the oppression of the poor members of the society was taking a toll on the state’s economy. The poor people were incapable of providing the necessary labor and production to ensure the continued strength of the nation (Schuann, 2014). Alexander also had to cope with a demanding regime as he was the victim of three major assassination attempts during his reign. The fourth was finally successful in 1881, and Alexander III immediately succeeded him. All reforms that the former had envisioned were immediately repealed retracting back to absolute monarchy rule that angered the lower classes. This growing unrest reached its heights when Nicholas II sought to participate as commander of the army during the First World War (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Despite having no experience in the military and a lacking centralized government to lead the empire while he was away brought about massive losses in the economic sector (Fitzpatrick, 2008). The soldiers who had accompanied him suffered as they lacked the appropriate equipment to keep up with the opposition. They were discontent with the government’s poor accounting and signaled the finale of the Russian empire. Nicholas the II was forced to abdicate the throne before being executed for the crimes committed against the Russian citizens (Fitzpatrick, 2008). 

Conclusion

The fall of the Russian Empire is due in large part to military failures, specifically during World War 1. The last emperor, Nicholas II orchestrated a series of poor decisions that brought about substantial losses during his reign. Beginning from the first day of his coronation the Khodynka Tragedy caused thousands of deaths for the ordinary citizens by a stampede. At this time, he had indicated that he did not have the skills to lead such a massive empire at its most critical times. However, his wife would not allow him to relinquish his power and instead served as his adviser on state matters even though she did not have the experience required. The lack of coordinated economic development efforts brought about the demise of the empire. In this case, the elite and nobility were the big beneficiaries of the acquired wealth in the country. They had control of the major industries in the country and failed to develop agriculture even after numerous protests and riots by the rural farmers. This ignorance culminated into famine, and a decline in the economy as the state could not keep up with production demands. 

References

Burbank, J., Hagen, M. & Remnev, A. (Eds.) (2007). Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930 . Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana Press University.

Fitzpatrick, S. (2008). The Russian Revolution (3rd Ed.) . New York: Oxford University Press, Inc..

Hosking, G. (1997). Russia: People and Empire, 1552-1917 . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Kappeler, A. (2001). The Russian Empire: A Multi-ethnic History . New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Lieven, D. (2002). Empire: The Russian Empire and its Rivals . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lieven, D. (2015). The End of Tsarist Russia. The March to World War I & Revolution . New York, New York. Viking.

Schuann, A. (2014). On the History of Logic in the Russian Empire . Rzeszow, Poland. Retrieved from http://www.ejournals.eu/pliki/art/3424/