In 1833, Tsar Nicholas I embraced an ideological triad of nationalism proposed by the Minister of Education in Russia, Sergey Uvarov. Nicholas, successfully suppressing the Decemberists and assuming the throne, was elated as the conditions were now set for the invention of Official Nationalism. It was an idea that would penetrate every aspect of Russian society during the nineteenth century and beyond. This "Russification" however, was not purely invented through isolated developments. Official Nationalism itself did not occur in the vacuum of Russia's intelligentsia, but rather grew out of a stream of reactionary thoughts left in the wake of previous European conflicts.
Uvarov, an influential force behind this new national endeavor, states
…show more content…
that his formula for nationalism was influenced by "the sight of grievous phenomena." A closer examination of the historical context leading up to the adoption of this national doctrine, including important events and figures influencing the Russian Empire at the time, reveal the complexity of this particular invention. However, the Official Nationalism that reinvented Russia was a reaction enforced not only by Uvarov and other officials, but also by the decisions and personality of Nicholas I, as well as his reactions to political turmoil. The Patriotic War of 1812 had marked the end of Napoleon's conquest of Russia, and, as expected, the victory bolstered the nation's sense of world-wide accomplishment. However, there was an even deeper value to their military achievement. Napoleon was a product of the French Revolution, an event that Nicholas himself had greatly detested. As well, the monarchal governments throughout Europe displayed a unanimous contention for the French revolutionaries. The Russian Empire, being no exception, as well as being the nation that drove Napoleon out of Moscow (initiating his eventual demise), was instilled with a thorough sense of patriotism that remains captured in Russian culture; a triumphant statue of General Bagration still stands in Moscow to this day. Yet it was not the Napoleonic invasion of Russia alone, nor contention for revolutionaries, that triggered the sudden adoption of nationalism in Russia (regardless of the parades marched to commemorate the colossal triumph). It was the tsar who sought to ensure that the long-standing autocratic legacy was not ruptured by the spread of liberal radicalism in Europe. In this, Nicolas's adoption of Uvarov's model for Official Nationalism was an ideal solution for a new Russian distinctiveness; one that could bring Russians together under a unique identity. This particular ideology, in the words of Uvarov, is best encapsulated in the expression "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality." Though in each aspect of this formula was invested a particular quality, it would seem that at the center of Uvarov's motive, was the ultimate defense of the autocracy itself.
It was the rulers of Russia who were at the pinnacle of the empire's top-down administration, and so it was fitting that these rulers took credit for the accomplishments of the nation. Famous period journalist Mikhail Pogodin, also a supporter of the national movement, asserted that the nation owed its greatness to the Romanovs, particularly Peter the Great. The reasoning behind this was that Peter the Great had turned Russia into an enlightened, and civilized, world power. Without him, the Russians could have never hoped to achieve advancements comparable to their European …show more content…
neighbors. It also stands to mention, in relation to this emphasis, that the theme of Nicholas' coronation ceremony deeply symbolized the victory of monarchy over revolution in a world that was now questioning the authority of absolute rulers. His ascension to the throne in Russia paralleled that of the French Restoration, especially when compared to the coronation of Charles X. Nicholas had been opposed by revolutionaries, and defeated them before he could assume the throne as an undisputed ruler. This entrance to the throne was a spectacle of success for the Romanov dynasty, an ancestry that would continue to be flattered by contemporaries of the period (as part of this nationalization process). Part of this glorification, which included the veneration of important Russian historical figures by journalists like Pogodin and Grech, was geared towards a validation of the tsar's power.
In a way, this reflected a sort of Rankean approach, which placed individuals of authority, foremost the emperor and his officials, in the seat of ultimate precedence; sacrifices for tsar and country were fervently supported by the circular logic of Uvarov's formula. What could be more important than the dynasty that transformed Russia into a modern civilization? Pogodin would argue that it was Peter the Great, and his contributions to Russia, that made Napoleon's defeat possible. This praise was passed onto his lineage. Embedded in the ideology of Official Nationalism, it was a suitable rationalization of Nicholas' claim to absolute authority. Loyalty to the tsar, the autocratic component of Uvarov's formula, was the very premise of the tsar's national
ceremonies. While the "national spirit" of this movement can be partially accredited to a shift in consciousness of the Russian people in the nineteenth century (which was influenced by turmoil in Europe), it is equally to important to acknowledge that at the center of the autocracy was an individual: Nicholas. Uvarov did provide a medium for nationalism to thrive upon, and journalists continually fueled the public interest, but it is Nicholas that was ultimately the driving force behind the movement. His personality, as well as his past experience, greatly influenced his position. Official Nationalism seems as much a product of his own life and accolades, as it was the ideological basis of others' beliefs. As a child, Nicholas had displayed the behavioral patterns of an individual who desired absolute control over his surroundings; some of these same attributes are later used to paint the tsar as despotic. This behavior extended into his schooling, as a youth, which had made him a relatively poor student. However, eyewitness accounts from both Russians and Europeans, depict an individual not necessarily tyrannical, but unquestionably regal and authoritative. Therefore, questions of Nicholas' personality appear to be, in this case, much more complicated than often explained. Nicholas Riasanovsky, a professor at the University of California, asserts that Nicholas I was as fearful in his position as he was confident, and that much of his authoritative stance may have been a complex front for his own insecurities. Nicholas had seen the effects of revolution in Europe and the Decemberist revolt in his own country. These experiences could make Riasanovky's perspective accurate. From a certain point of view, one could suggest that Official Nationalism in Russia may have been, in part, an act of desperation on behalf of Nicholas; one that was bent on preventing revolution from ever occurring again. While Nicholas' personal experiences may have shaped his views on the limits of his own authority, it is also quite possible that his experience as a student under Lambsdorff influenced his decision to permit a reformation of education during his reign; Lambsdorff's overly-strict approach to teaching seemed incompatible with Nicholas and his personality. The ideology of Official Nationalism clearly embedded the promotion of nationalism and patriotism in schools in order to encourage commitment to the tsar. Though he may have found his mind challenged as a youth, Nicholas' spirit was under no such stress; he was unquestionably committed to the Eastern Orthodox faith. Christianity, and the divine providence of God, was an infallible justification for the rights of monarchs, and likewise for Nicholas. His own religious beliefs corresponded with those of Uvarov, who not only viewed the Eastern Orthodox Church as a uniquely Russian establishment, but also as a calling for citizens to a moral lifestyle. At this time, science had intruded into morality, and liberal thought from Europe had made its way into Russia.
I believe that there was so much attention given to Peter the Great because of his extensive reforms. Peter brought both social and economic changes to his country. He wanted to make Russia big. Peter transformed the culture; he wanted his people to wear the western European fashion. Many of the people were not thrilled with the change because they did not like the ways of the western European societies. He made his navy stronger, he reformed his army to meet the western standards, and he gained control over the church.
Peter the Great, the Russian Czar, inherited his absolutist power from his brother, Ivan V. Born in aristocracy, Peter’s dad was the Czar, and later his brother, and after his brother’s death, him. He was a firm believer in the possible benefits from the control of a single leader to make decisions for the people, and he exercised this divine right to create many renouned institutions. At the beginning of Peter’s reign, Russia was in a poor condition: many rejected modernization from the Renaissance, and large spending from his brother’s reign caused economic droughts. He took advantage of his absolutist power to help ameliorate Russia’s situation and first decided to minimalize power from the other aristocrats. The subduction of the rich allowed
In conclusion, though the goals and outcomes were different in many ways, Louis XIV and Peter the Great both sought to do great things. Louis XIV died unpopular in his country, having had the spotlight on him for years in Europe. He hadn’t made the huge leaps that he had hoped as far as land goes, but he had made small gains of land, and had gained the crown for his grandson, Phillip V of Spain. He also built fortresses around the country and reshaped the French economy. Peter the Great succeeded in modernizing and westernizing Russia. By his death, Russia was considered much more of a leading state in Europe than ever before. He modernized the army, created a navy, and succeeded in centralizing the government.
The main driving force behind Peter I’s consolidation of power and reformation of Russia was the goal of ultimately enhancing military efficiency, allowing Russia to become a world power. Throughout his reign, war raged on and became a huge part of daily life. Compulsory lifetime military
“Nationalism(n.) - loyalty or devotion to a nation, especially an attitude, feeling, or belief characterize by a sense of national consciousness” (The War of 1812 and the Rise of Nationalism 1). Nationalism was a crucial part of America’s success during the War of 1812; nationalism was reflected in the post-war period through increased national pride, emphasis on national issues, increase in power and scope of the national government, and a growing sense of American identity (The War of 1812 and the Rise of Nationalism 1). The first to arise which was the driving force behind American victories against the British was nationalism. This nationalism was expressed in four ways; patriotism, political, economical and cultural. American patriotism
The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill,
Peter the Great had many goals during the time he ruled. One of his biggest goals was to modernize and westernize Russia. The main reason Peter the Great modernized Russia was because he did not want the country he ruled to be left vulnerable to expansionist powers in Europe. The powers were constantly at war, fighting to take over each other’...
The age of exploration and discovery in Europe was a time of various absolute rulers. An absolute monarch is a ruler who has unlimited power and controls every aspect of life. Many rulers were great examples of absolute monarchs, but none of them even compared to the absolute monarch Peter the Great of Russia. Peter I, more commonly known as Peter the Great, was born June 9, 1672. At ten years of age, Peter took over the throne, but other people helped him make decisions. He was obliged to rule with his mentally challenged half-brother, Ivan (Beck, 609). It wasn’t until after Ivan died that he gained complete control and was the sole ruler of Russia. During his own reign, he was able to change the way Russia operated. He was aware that his country was behind the rest of his world in many things, such as culture and technology. He was determined to change Russia for the better. With his determination and love for Russia, he was able to conquer his ideas and was able to do what he wanted with his nation. His ruling is known as the period of transformation because, thanks to him, he was able to lead Russia in the right direction and modernize it. Peter the Great was an absolute monarch; he changed Russia’s culture, created new cities, and reformed the church.
Nationalism is a type of ism, which is associated with the French and German. It all started in the later 19th century. The people were starting to become more aware of the heritage and identities as being part of a nation. Stravinsky is a composer of nationalism. In following the genre he composed folk songs based on national understanding and pride.
Nicholas 2's firm and obstinant belief of his commitment to autocracy can be clearly seen in a letter of reply he sent to a liberal zemstvo head before his coronation. "I shall maintain the principal of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father (Alexandra 3)"(Nicholas & Alexandra, Robert K. Massie). His ultra-conservative political outlook was influenced greatly when a child Tsar Nicholas was educated by the reactionary tutor Konstantin Pobenonstev, enemy of all reform. If there were any doubts about Nicholas' belief in autocracy they would have been put to rest. Pobenonstev was once called "The Highest Priest of Social Stagnation". He once declared, "Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of sovereignty of the people".
Russian society before Peter’s rule was in a problematic situation because, their army was failing as well as their economy. When Peter the Great came to rule Russia, he used absolutism as a way to increase his country and his own power. During his reign, Peter was building a strong army, expanding his territory and Westernizing Russia. In an effort to Westernize Russia, Peter adapted new ideas from Europe. As a result, Peter had an overall positive impact on Russia.
Nationalism has a long history although most scholarly research on Nationalism only began in the mid-twentieth century. Some scholars point to the French Revolution of 1789 as the birth of Nationalism. The French Revolution is seen...
Having more than one ruler governing over a nation has strengthened many nations over the course of history. Absolutism kept from the nation becoming stronger because of the power going to one specific leaders head. Peter the Great did make great changes for Russia, while focusing on scientific and technological advancements. He also made industry and commerce increased bringing population to the country. However, even with his good intentions, he began to rule unfairly by not sharing
Nationalism is way of thinking both political and socially to create a community united by: history, ethnicity, religions, common culture, and language. Numerous effects occurred while establishing a Nationalist community, some effects were a long term impact on Nationalism, and other was short term impacts on Nationalism.
Nationalism is the idea that a people who have much in common, such as language, culture and geographic proximity ought to organize in such a way that it creates a stable and enduring state. Nationalism is tied to patriotism, and it is the driving force behind the identity of a culture. Nationalism had many effects in Europe from 1815, The Congress of Vienna and beyond. In the following essay I will describe many of the consequences of nationalism on European identity, as well as some of the conflicts that it created.