Russian History: A Very Short Introduction

The underlying rationale of this synergy between monarchy and nobility was illuminated in 1730, when Peter II (r. 1727–30), grandson of Peter I, suddenly died. With no male heir in view, a privy council dominated by two very well-connected families, the Golitsyns and Dolgorukys, decided to offer the throne to Anna, daughter of Ivan V (see the Chronology), under conditions which would have limited her power and inaugurated an oligarchic regime like that of contemporary Sweden or Britain.

Nobles of lesser rank also managed to present proposals to Anna. These likewise envisaged the monarch consulting noble representatives in some kind of assembly, but imposed no express limitations on her. This was close to the traditional Muscovite conception of monarchy, though articulated in language which reflected contemporary European experience of constitutionalism. Anna accepted the alternative proposals and dramatically tore up the privy council document in public. In this way, she perpetuated the tradition of autocratic rule by agreement with broader elites rather than with an exclusive clique of magnates. She demonstrated her devotion to nobles’ interests by establishing a Cadet Corps exclusively for them: they could be trained there and advance directly to officer status rather than endure a humiliating apprenticeship as private soldiers.

The monarch’s power was still de facto limited, no longer by God’s law, but by a nobility which manipulated patronage and kinship in its own interests, but also cared deeply about the security and prosperity of Russia. They were the principal stakeholders in the empire.

This mutual compact left the nobles free to impose their own arrangements on those subject to them, their serfs, and on the lower orders generally. Historians used to believe that serfdom was scarcely distinguishable from slavery. It is true that pomeshchiki exercised virtually total control over their serfs, including even buying and selling them. Recent research has, however, suggested that Russian peasant society was a good deal more resilient and self-reliant than the term ‘slavery’ implies. Serfdom at least gave most peasants entitlement to land – a benefit denied to US plantation slaves.

Living in a harsh climate and on relatively infertile soils, most Russian peasants strove above all to limit risk, and at this they were remarkably successful. Subsistence crises were relatively rare, though when they struck they were extremely serious.

The strip system of land tenure guaranteed each household arable land of different qualities, while pastures and meadows were held in common. The periodic redistribution of strips ensured that each household had enough resources to feed itself and make its contribution to the village’s dues and obligations. Joint responsibility ensured that peasants had to take decisions in common and had an interest in helping each other through difficulties. They also kept a sharp eye on each other’s behaviour, since the failure of any one household imposed burdens on all the others. If a household was failing chronically, its neighbours could be ruthless in trying to expel it from the village. Wastrels, weaklings, and drunkards were not tolerated indefinitely.

This agrarian system was successful at providing Russia with resources (army recruits, taxes, and other obligations), ensuring the survival and even growth of the rural population, and underwriting the well-being of the nobility. It was the backbone of the empire.

Russia and Europe

Russia was becoming a European power at a time when Europe itself was changing. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) had ended the period when one single power could hope to dominate the continent, and Europe had become a cluster of sovereign states jostling among themselves for power and influence. That process required the gradual codification of international law and the stationing of permanent envoys in each other’s territories to maintain communications. Each state needed to constantly renew its military technology, and to mobilize its natural resources to the maximum, which in turn entailed investing in science and technology. Having robust armed forces and a productive economy required concern for the well-being, education, and training of the population. Statesmen were beginning to concern themselves with the ‘public welfare’ even of their humbler subjects; thinkers were becoming more concerned with the citizen’s input into the political process, the rule of law, and limitations on the ruler’s power.