Monarch Profile: Czar Nicholas I of Russia
One of the more controversial monarchs Russia has had, both in his own
time and today, is Czar Nicholas I. For being ready, willing and able to
stamp out threats to traditional authority across the continent, he was
known in his own time as the “Gendarme of Europe”, the policeman
walking the beat on watch for revolutionary republicans. Later he would
also be nicknamed, “the Iron Czar” and more recently he is often
referred to, slanderously by those who I think are showing their
political bias, as the ‘Stalin of Imperial Russia’. This, needless to
say, is absurd as the two men were absolutely nothing alike in terms of
character, background, worldview or their policies. It is said, I think,
for the simplistic reason that both made use of secret police forces,
both were intolerant of dissent and that is about where the similarities
end. The same, of course, could be said about the vast majority of
leaders of countries throughout history and even today. Personally, I
think the comparison is more often due to a desire to ‘normalize’ Joseph
Stalin in an effort to deny the truth which is that he was the most
vicious, sadistic, incompetent and murderous ruler the Russian people
have ever had to endure and no one comes close to him in comparison.
Czar Nicholas I, however, did not murder tens of millions of his
subjects, he did not stamp out talent wherever he could find it, he did
not encourage rebellion and terrorism around the world nor did he have
any desire to dominate the planet. He was an autocrat and he was, thus,
autocratic but the Czar himself would not have considered this an
insulting or derogatory term. He believed to his last breath that it was
his duty to God to be autocratic and that his autocracy was exercised
in the service of his people as an obligation from God. Czar Nicholas I
was a man of deep faith, a man who passionately believed in Russian
Orthodox Christianity, in Christian monarchy, traditional authority and
in the “Divine Right of Kings” to use a rather outdated term. Czar
Nicholas I was also very much a nationalist. His greatest affection was
for the Russian people, he believed that Russia was for the Russian
people and should be as Russian as humanly possibly. Secondarily, he
also had great affection for the Slavic peoples of Europe and felt that
it was his duty, after safeguarding the Russian people, to safeguard or
liberate to the extent possible other Slavic peoples. His views and
priorities could be best illustrated by the slogan for his reign which
was, “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality”. Those are the things he valued
most, in that order and each being derived from the former.
Nicholas Pavlovich Romanov was born at Gatchina on June 25, 1796 to Czar
Paul and his wife Czarina Maria Feodorovna (Dorothea of Wurttemberg).
He did not lead a pampered childhood at all, as was common in Russia
despite what people think of royalty in general. He was made to sleep on
an army bed, a habit he kept up for the rest of his life (just as
Kaiser Franz Joseph of Austria would) and kept to a very strict routine
of study and exercise overseen by General Count Lamsdorf. He was not
fond of study but very early on came to love the army and military life.
He also had instilled in him a very strong and sincere Orthodox
Christian faith, which he also tended to view in military terms. God was
his supreme commander, he would be His general and lead people on the
path to salvation. He joined the Imperial Russian Army in 1814 but, to
his deep regret, did not see action in the battles against the French
that made Russia famous.
In 1815 he visited Berlin where, as a military man, he was awed by the
discipline and professionalism of the Prussian army. He was also very
much taken by the daughter of King Friedrich Wilhelm III, Princess
Charlotte and he was decisive in his choice of wife. In 1817 the two
were married, beginning many years of marital bliss as the two were
deeply attached to each other. Taking the Russian name of Alexandra
Feodorovna, she gave birth to their first child, the future Czar
Alexander II, a year later in 1818. With his army life and his Prussian
bride, he was as happy and contented as he could be. Despite his
appearance, being a strict and no-nonsense military man, he was a very
passionate individual and could become quite emotional at times. One
such occasion, when he burst into tears, was when he was told that his
brother Constantine had no desire to be Emperor of Russia and that the
duty would likely fall on him. His life was just as he wanted it and he
did not aspire to the imperial throne. However, as a man of duty, he
would do as duty required even if it was a sacrifice for him.
The problem was that there were deep divisions in the upper echelons of
the Imperial Russian Army at the time of the death of Czar Alexander I
in 1825. During the wars against Napoleon, many Russian officers had
picked up a great deal of French thinking and wanted to import these
ideas to Russia. Many also disliked Nicholas because he was so strict as
a commander and expected everyone to obey army regulations to the
letter, regardless of how lofty their rank. Because of this, and because
Constantine did not wish to be Czar but refused to make a public
statement to that affect, Nicholas was caught in an awkward position.
Taking advantage of Constantine’s obstinacy, the liberal army officers
began plotting a military coup, thinking they could overthrow Nicholas
and have Constantine, a man who had no wish to rule, as a puppet Czar
who would do nothing while they made Russia more like Napoleonic France.
Some, like Colonel Pavel Pestel, of the Southern Society, even wanted
to overthrow the monarchy and establish a republic. Fortunately for
Nicholas, someone informed him about what these secret societies were up
to.
On December 14, 1825 Nicholas was proclaimed Emperor and Autocrat of all
the Russias and only hours later a group of these army dissidents,
known as Decembrists, gathered in Senate Square in St Petersburg,
demanding a constitution for Russia, emancipation of the serfs and
pledging themselves loyal to Constantine. Nicholas was ready for them
and soon came out with his loyal troops to surround them. There was a
period of tension as Nicholas demanded that these men return to duty as
he wished to avoid spilling Russian blood if at all possible. However,
there would be no stepping down for the Decembrists and, as much as he
disliked doing so, Czar Nicholas I would not shirk his duty and he
ordered the artillery to open fire on them. The attempted uprising was
crushed at the outset and 56 men were killed. The new Czar spent the
first night of his reign at the Winter Palace interrogating the
dissidents and, in the end, 253 were punished with various terms of
imprisonment or exile, 31 were sent to spend the rest of their lives in
hard labor in Siberia but only 5 were executed.
There would certainly be no constitution and no emancipation of the
serfs for the Russian Empire under Nicholas I and this incident on the
very first day of his reign only convinced him that revolutionary
republicanism was a disease that was easily spread and he would have to
be all the more strict and all the more on guard that it never be
allowed to take root in Russia. He would be a very ‘hands-on’ ruler,
toured the country extensively, had studies taken of the situation and
would enact any needed changes gradually and carefully. In domestic
policy, his focus was on stability. In foreign policy, he was certainly
no warmonger, fearing that wars cause stress that could be exploited by
revolutionaries. However, war was not long in coming to his door due to
the traditional enemies of Russia in Persia and Turkey. In 1826 the
Persians (Iranians) arrested the Russian ambassador and launched a war
to regain provinces in the Caucasus lost to Russia in a previous
conflict. Czar Nicholas responded swiftly and forcefully.
From the spring of 1826 to 1828 the Russians and Persians fought for
control of the Caucasus. In the end, Russia was again victorious and
Armenia, Azerbaijan and what is now Igdir Province were ceded to Russia
and Russia was able to have a fleet on the Caspian Sea. This was the
last of the official Russo-Persian Wars but they still resonate today.
Russia, which aids and has helped to arm and strengthen modern-day Iran,
mostly does not remember these conflicts but the Iranians certainly do
and still consider all of these areas, as well as parts of what is today
southern Russia, to rightfully belong to them and they still intend to
take it all back someday. That Russia would assist in strengthening Iran
is a notion that Czar Nicholas I would have considered too ridiculous
to even be entertained for a moment. The Turkish Ottoman Empire was also
a regime that the Czar never trusted for a moment, yet it was a more
difficult issue. He detested the fact that the Caliph of Islam continued
to rule over large populations of Orthodox Christians in the Balkans,
yet he also believed in traditional authority and that, as the
legitimate monarch, all of the subjects of the Ottoman Sultan had a duty
to submit to him.
The Persian conflict had been one of self-defense, forced on him by the
Persians. However, as long as the Turkish Sultan did not attack Russia,
he could take no action. Again, he knew how easily revolution can spread
and just as the Turkish Sultan would not want his Christian subjects to
rebel, the Czar would not wish the Catholic, Lutheran or Muslim
subjects of the Russian Empire to rebel against him. Instead, he
cooperated with the British and French to push for the Greeks to be
given autonomy within the Ottoman Empire and for Russian merchant ships
to have access to the Straits to reach the Mediterranean. However, the
Sultan refused to grant autonomy to the Greeks and after signing an
agreement granting Russian ships access to the Straits, the Sultan then
closed the Straits, and this finally induced the Czar to declare war on
the Turks in 1828. Once again, the Imperial Russian Army was everywhere
victorious on both the Balkan and Caucasian fronts. When Russian troops
captured Adrianople in August of 1829, moving toward Constantinople, the
Turkish Sultan decided to sue for peace. The resulting treaty gave
autonomy and Russia the right to occupy Moldavia and Wallachia until the
Turks completed their war reparations payments and gave autonomy to
Serbia. It also gave Turkish recognition to Russian sovereignty over
Armenia and Georgia and granted autonomy to Greece which, by 1830, the
major powers of Europe agreed to advance to complete independence for a
Greek kingdom.
The early years of the reign of Nicholas I had been ones of calm at home
and glorious victories over Russia’s enemies abroad. Things were going
very well. However, in 1830, the Czar was alarmed when revolution broke
out in France in July and in Belgium (then part of the United
Netherlands) in August. The situation in France ended fairly quickly but
the Czar was slow to recognize the new regime of King Louis Philippe,
however, he did finally do so as he soon had his own problems to deal
with. As he was always eager to help any brother monarch threatened by
revolution, when the Belgians rose in revolt, he quickly messaged King
Willem I of the Netherlands with an offer of a Russian and Polish army
to help him crush the Belgians. This, however, set off an uprising in
Poland as the Poles had no desire to do such a thing, particularly
considering that they were Catholics living under an Orthodox monarch
and could sympathize with the Catholic Belgians who were subjects of a
Protestant monarch. The Polish uprising of November 1830 was very
serious indeed. Many Poles had never been happy ever since the Habsburg,
Hohenzollern and Romanov monarchs had partitioned their country out of
existence and suppressing them would take a fair amount of time and
energy. It was not until September of 1831 that Russian Imperial troops
were able to regain control of Warsaw.
In the aftermath of this rebellion, Czar Nicholas I was convinced that
previous Russian monarchs had been far too lenient on the Poles. He
considered Poland vital to the status of Russia as a power in Europe,
placing it within reach of the western powers and he would not tolerate
any dissent there. He closed down Polish universities, abolished the
Polish parliament and the separate Polish army. Poland would be ruled
more directly from St Petersburg and he also began forcing the Poles to
speak Russian. The Czar who believed in, “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and
Nationality” wanted to suppress disunity in his empire and one way was
to have everyone be conversant in the same language. He placed similar
requirements on Belorussia and Ukraine in what has since been called a
campaign of ‘Russification’. To the extent possible, he wanted to make
Russia an empire of one people, with one faith under one monarch.
Obviously, there would be differences among his subjects but he wanted
to at least apply pressure toward greater unity in language and
religion.
Despite what many have said since, the Russian economy grew during the
reign of Czar Nicholas I, though certainly not as quickly as occurred in
some other countries. The Czar was not a fan of modernization and
feared that railroads would ‘weaken the moral fiber of Russian society’.
However, if it could help in suppressing revolution, he could be
persuaded. When he saw how quickly the British were able to dispatch
their redcoats from Manchester to Liverpool to respond to a rebellion in
Ireland, he thought he might give railroads a chance and so the first
Russian rail line, running from Tsarskoe Selo to St Petersburg, was
opened in 1837. Russia still lagged behind the other great powers but
things were certainly not stagnant as they are often portrayed. Wars,
which the Czar did not start but had forced upon him, did tend to cause
inflation but it did not get out of control and exports of wheat
increased and the cotton industry grew.
When it came to serfdom, which the Decembrists had wanted to abolish,
Czar Nicholas I was, again, quite different from how he is often
portrayed. The Czar did not like serfdom, indeed, he strongly opposed
it. Yet, the Czar did not feel it would be right to impose emancipation
on the nobility who depended on serfdom. To do so would doubtless
inflame the nobility against the monarchy and it could cause immense
social unrest by raising expectations, not only among the emancipated
serfs, but the rest of the Russian populace as well. Instead, true to
character, Czar Nicholas tried to lead by example. The Crown Estates of
Russia covered vast tracts of the country and were home to a huge number
of serfs. The Czar ordered the general in charge of these lands to
enact changes to improve the lives of the serfs who lived and worked on
these imperial properties. Poorer serfs were allotted more land, schools
were built for their children and new model farms were established.
Nicholas hoped that the rest of the nobility would follow his example in
this regard and do similar things to improve the lives of their own
serfs. Some noble Russian aristocrats did exactly this but,
unfortunately, most did not.
Another internal matter for which Nicholas I is often attacked is in the
area of education. Modern historians tend to associate the reign of
Nicholas I with censorship and excessive use of the secret police.
However, the Czar increased spending on education and opened a number of
new technical and vocational schools. The Czar was certainly not
opposed to education or thought it of no value, he simply insisted that
the education teach things of practical value (imagine that) and teach
students to be loyal, patriotic and pious Russians. He would not
tolerate the dissemination of revolutionary ideas and these things did
tend to circulate most heavily among the educated class which is why the
Czar tended to distrust them. What is also often overlooked is that the
Third Section, tasked with hunting down subversive elements, was also
tasked with finding and eliminating corruption within the government,
dishonest and incompetent officials which is something that is almost
always overlooked. It is also worth noting that despite this intolerant
atmosphere of censorship that liberal historians moan about, newspaper
circulation increased under Nicholas I and Russian literature
flourished. Nicholas I was also very interested in architecture and
patronized a number of building projects throughout his reign.
The one area at home in which Nicholas could be faulted somewhat was in
his private life. Unlike Alexander III or Nicholas II, Czar Nicholas I
did have a mistress, one Vervara Nelidova, one of his wife’s
ladies-in-waiting. However, I am more inclined to be forgiving of the
Czar on this score than I would be with most other monarchs because of
the circumstances. As stated previously, Nicholas and his wife truly
loved each other and that never changed. They were extremely close, very
affectionate and very familiar with each other. She called him “Nicks”
and he called her “Mouffy”. Unfortunately, the Czarina began to suffer
from increasingly poor health and was eventually diagnosed with a heart
condition. She became increasingly frail and finally the doctors advised
that she cease from performing her marital duties. It was only at that
point that Nicholas began his affair with Nelidova. He never lost any of
his respect or affection for his wife and would have preferred
restricting his affections to her but, as her condition did not allow
this, the Czar found that while the spirit indeed was willing, his flesh
was weak. He would not endanger the health of his beloved wife so he
would satisfy his physical desires with Nelidova. It was a purely sexual
relationship and the Czarina always remained his most beloved and his
most trusted confidant. Unfortunately, gossip of such things does tend
to spread and when, due to his own health problems, the Czar began to
show his age, his enemies spread lurid tales that greatly exaggerated
his extramarital escapades. Whispers grew to the effect that Nelidova
was wearing him out and things of that nature. It was not true of course
but it arose from the one blot on an otherwise spotless record of moral
fortitude.
As the Czar of Russia, Nicholas of course had many obligations to
distract him from such things and one subject that remained a constant
problem was the Turks. Nicholas worried a great deal about the state of
the many Orthodox Christians living under Turkish rule, yet he showed
more astute judgment than many Twentieth Century politicians would in
that he understood that the collapse of the Ottoman Empire would lead to
chaos. By supporting the Turks against the Egyptians he gained a
favorable agreement regarding the Straits and he also agreed with the
King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria that the Ottoman Empire
should be maintained and to oppose the French in their efforts to
increase their influence by undermining the Turks. The three monarchs
agreed that, if the Ottoman Empire should begin to dissolve, they would
work together to see to it this would be done in an orderly way,
particularly in the Balkans, under their cooperative guidance.
Privately, Nicholas thought that the Ottoman Empire was doomed but he
was convinced that it would require all of the great powers working
together to handle this when the time came. Unfortunately for him, while
Nicholas thought that the British were on the same page as he was, the
British did not think he was being sincere and with their liberal press
full of stories portraying Nicholas as a harsh, authoritarian tyrant,
they were convinced that he intended to expand Russian territory at the
expense of Turkey and that they should, therefore, support the Turks.
This would have very disastrous consequences in the years to come.
The Turkish situation soon faded to the background when the worst thing
possible in the mind of Nicholas I occurred in 1848 when revolutions
began breaking out all across Europe. Whereas, in 1830, the Czar had
been quick to offer help to any imperiled monarch, this time he was
slower to respond, fearing trouble at home as the unrest spread so far,
so quickly. He did not want to have his army far away in a foreign
country if a major rebellion suddenly broke out in the Russian Empire
itself. However, the threat of revolution on the doorstep of Russia was
another matter. He stamped down calls for a constitution in Moldavia and
Wallachia but the real crisis arose when revolution broke out in the
Austrian Empire. The Hungarians rebelled and the Polish areas under the
Habsburg Crown rose up as well to support them. This greatly alarmed the
Czar as he feared the bulk of the Polish population, under the Romanov
Crown, might follow their example. However, there were uprisings in
almost all parts of the Austrian Empire, even in Vienna itself but most
seriously in Italy and Hungary and the Austrians simply could not cope
with them all. Czar Nicholas I decided to intervene and sent the
Imperial Russian Army into Hungary to crush the rebellion there in
support of the new Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph. A fair-minded man, he
also intervened in Germany to prevent Prussian aggression against
Denmark, resulting in an agreement by 1850.
Although there had been no serious unrest in Russia itself, the
revolutions of 1848 caused Nicholas to redouble his efforts to guard
against any hint of unrest or dissent and not unreasonably so. He was
more vigilant than ever, yet, the next great crisis would be the most
serious of his reign and it would come from without rather than within.
It all started in the Holy Land where the French, under Napoleon III,
demanded privileges from the Ottoman Sultan for the local Catholic
population which had previously been given to the Orthodox Christians.
Czar Nicholas, quite understandably, objected to this and intervened
with the Sultan on behalf of the Orthodox Christians, seeing himself as
their protector. He also did not want to see French influence spread in
the region and assumed that, as in the past, the British and Austrians
would be in agreement with him, particularly as he had just pulled
Austria’s chestnuts out of the fire in Hungary. However, they did not
and, backed by the French and British, the Turks were defiant and soon
Russia broke off diplomatic relations and sent an army to the
Russo-Turkish border in the Balkans.
The British media worked the public into a furor on the issue and the
politicians made harsh denunciations of Russia that they could not back
down from, accusing Russia of preparing for a war of conquest against
the Turks. The Czar wanted no such thing and tried to settle the issue
by compromise but, emboldened by the French and British showing support,
the Turkish Sultan refused to budge and furthermore demanded that the
Russians withdraw from Moldavia and Wallachia. In October of 1853 Russia
and Turkey began what became known as the Crimean War. Britain and
France soon joined in on the side of Turkey, the Italian Kingdom of
Piedmont-Sardinia would later as well. This was all bad enough, but the
most infuriating thing of all was when the Emperor of Austria demanded
that Russia evacuate Moldavia and Wallachia as well, threatening to join
the war on the allied side otherwise. Nicholas thus had no choice but
to comply but he was positively enraged that the Habsburg monarch, of
all people, would do such a thing, having so recently come to his rescue
when the Habsburg monarchy was in real danger of total collapse. It was
a slight that the Russians would not forget.
As the war went, the initial battles with the Turks had been Russian
victories. However, as the British and French landed expeditionary
forces on the Crimean Peninsula, things began to go badly. The shortage
of railroads meant that the Russian generals could not get troops and
supplies where they were needed quickly enough. The Russians were not as
well equipped as the French and British, and whereas they could focus
on the Crimean front, Russia had to maintain troops there, in the
Balkans and in the Caucasus against the Turks. The war devolved into a
bloody stalemate and siege warfare, focused around Sevastopol in a way
that would look very familiar to observers of the last year of the
American Civil War or most of World War I. More than half a million
Russians would die in the conflict and it would end in defeat, a bitter
blow for the nation which had previously known victories over the
pan-European army of Napoleon, the Shah of Persia and the Ottoman
Sultan. Many believed that Czar Nicholas I would have sooner killed
himself than agree to the peace Russia was eventually forced to make but
he did not live long enough to see the end. He caught pneumonia after a
military parade and died on February 18, 1855.
As the length of this profile probably indicates, I will admit to being
very partial to Czar Nicholas I and likely all the more so because he
tends to be so often and unjustly criticized. In his own time, his
fellow monarchs almost invariably had a low opinion of him which seems
like a disgusting level of ingratitude for the man who was ever ready to
rush to the defense of any one of them in their time of crisis. He was a
very monarchist monarch, a man of principle and integrity. He was a man
of faith and a ruler who took his duties to God and his nation very
seriously. He was a man of good character and a much more capable and
successful ruler than most are willing to give him credit for. Modern
liberal historians describe him only in terms of a reactionary who
oppressed everyone and enforced stagnation on his country. Not true.
Literature and architecture flourished under his reign, the economy
expanded and he ruled over a Russian Empire that was larger than it had
ever been before or ever would be again. True, other powers advanced
more quickly in technology and industry but given the fact that Nicholas
was confronted by one crisis after another, from his very first day on
the throne, it is entirely understandable that he would make security
and stability his top priorities. He was a great man and a great
monarch. Russia was fortunate to have such a man at such a difficult
time.
