The reign of Nicholas 1 1825 1855. The Romanovs: Nicholas I and his children. (1) Daughters. Relations with other countries

Doctor of Historical Sciences M. RAKHMATULLIN

In February 1913, just a few years before the collapse of tsarist Russia, the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty was solemnly celebrated. In countless churches of the boundless empire, "many years" of the reigning family were proclaimed, in meetings of the nobility, corks from champagne bottles flew up to the ceiling to joyful exclamations, and all over Russia millions of people sang: "Strong, sovereign ... reign over us ... reign to the fear of the enemy." In the past three centuries, the Russian throne was occupied by various tsars: Peter I and Catherine II, endowed with remarkable intelligence and statesmanship; not very distinguished by these qualities, Paul I, Alexander III; Catherine I, Anna Ioannovna and Nicholas II, who were completely devoid of a state mind. Among them were cruel, like Peter I, Anna Ioannovna and Nicholas I, and relatively mild, like Alexander I and his nephew Alexander II. But they all had in common the fact that each of them was an unlimited autocrat, to whom the ministers, the police and all subjects obeyed without question ... What were these all-powerful rulers, from one casually thrown word of which much, if not all, depended? the journal "Science and Life" begins publishing articles on the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, who went down in Russian history mainly by the fact that he began his reign by hanging five Decembrists and ended it with the blood of thousands and thousands of soldiers and sailors in the shamefully lost Crimean War, unleashed , in particular, and due to the exorbitant imperial ambitions of the king.

Palace Embankment at the Winter Palace from the side of Vasilyevsky Island. Watercolor by Swedish artist Benjamin Petersen. Beginning of the 19th century.

Mikhailovsky Castle - view from the Fontanka embankment. Early 19th century watercolor by Benjamin Petersen.

Pavel I. From an engraving of 1798.

Empress Dowager and mother of the future Emperor Nicholas I Maria Feodorovna after the death of Paul I. From an early 19th century engraving.

Emperor Alexander I. Early 20s of the XIX century.

Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich in childhood.

Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich.

Petersburg. Uprising on the Senate Square on December 14, 1825. Watercolor by artist K. I. Kolman.

Science and life // Illustrations

Emperor Nicholas I and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Portraits of the first third of the XIX century.

Count M. A. Miloradovich.

During the uprising on Senate Square, Pyotr Kakhovsky mortally wounded the military governor-general of St. Petersburg Miloradovich.

The personality and deeds of the fifteenth Russian autocrat from the Romanov dynasty were already ambiguously assessed by his contemporaries. Persons from his inner circle, who communicated with him in an informal setting or in a narrow family circle, as a rule, spoke of the king with enthusiasm: "eternal worker on the throne", "dauntless knight", "knight of the spirit" ... For a significant part of society, the name The king was associated with the nicknames "bloody", "executioner", "Nikolai Palkin". Moreover, the last definition, as it were, reasserted itself in public opinion after 1917, when for the first time in a Russian edition a small pamphlet by L. N. Tolstoy appeared under the same name. The basis for its writing (in 1886) was the story of a 95-year-old former Nikolaev soldier about how the lower ranks who were guilty of something were driven through the ranks, for which Nicholas I was nicknamed Palkin by the people. The very same picture of "legitimate" punishment with gauntlets, terrifying in its inhumanity, is depicted with amazing force by the writer in the famous story "After the Ball".

Many negative assessments of the personality of Nicholas I and his activities come from A. I. Herzen, who did not forgive the monarch for his reprisal against the Decembrists and especially the execution of five of them, when everyone was hoping for a pardon. What happened was all the more terrible for society because after the public execution of Pugachev and his associates, the people had already forgotten about the death penalty. Nicholas I is so unloved by Herzen that he, usually an accurate and subtle observer, places accents with obvious prejudice even when describing his appearance: “He was handsome, but his beauty was cold; there is no face that would so mercilessly expose a person’s character as his face. The forehead, quickly running back, the lower jaw, developed at the expense of the skull, expressed an unbending will and a weak thought, more cruelty than sensuality. But the main thing is the eyes, without any warmth, without any mercy, winter eyes.

This portrait contradicts the testimonies of many other contemporaries. For example, Baron Shtokman, the life physician of Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, described Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich as follows: unusually handsome, attractive, well-built, like a young pine tree, regular features, a beautiful open forehead, arched eyebrows, a small mouth, an elegantly outlined chin, character very lively, manners easy and graceful. One of the noble ladies of the court, Mrs. Kemble, who was distinguished by a particularly strict judgment about men, exclaims endlessly in delight from him: "What a charm! What a beauty! This will be the first handsome man in Europe!" The English Queen Victoria, the wife of the English envoy Bloomfield, other titled persons and "simple" contemporaries spoke equally flatteringly about the appearance of Nicholas.

THE FIRST YEARS OF LIFE

Ten days later, the grandmother-empress tells Grimm the details of the first days of her grandson’s life: “Knight Nikolai has been eating porridge for three days, because he constantly asks for food. I believe that an eight-day-old child has never enjoyed such a treat, this is unheard of ... He looks at all in all eyes, holds his head straight and turns no worse than mine. Catherine II predicts the fate of the newborn: the third grandson "by his extraordinary strength, it seems to me, is also destined to reign, although he has two older brothers." Alexander was in his twentieth year at that time, Konstantin was 17 years old.

The newborn, according to the established rule, after the rite of baptism was transferred to the care of the grandmother. But her unexpected death on November 6, 1796 "unfavorably" affected the upbringing of Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich. True, the grandmother managed to make a good choice of a nanny for Nikolai. It was a Scottish woman Evgenia Vasilievna Layon, the daughter of a stucco master, invited to Russia by Catherine II, among other artists. She remained the only caregiver for the first seven years of the boy's life and is considered to have had a strong influence on the formation of his personality. The owner of a bold, resolute, direct and noble character herself, Evgenia Lion tried to inspire Nikolai with the highest concepts of duty, honor, fidelity to a given word.

On January 28, 1798, another son, Mikhail, was born in the family of Emperor Paul I. Paul, deprived by the will of his mother, Empress Catherine II, of the opportunity to raise his two eldest sons himself, transferred all his fatherly love to the younger ones, giving a clear preference to Nicholas. Their sister Anna Pavlovna, the future Queen of the Netherlands, writes that their father "caressed them very tenderly, which our mother never did."

According to the established rules, Nikolai was enrolled in military service from the cradle: at the age of four, he was appointed chief of the Life Guards of the Horse Regiment. The boy's first toy was a wooden gun, then swords appeared, also wooden. In April 1799, he was put on the first military uniform - "crimson garus", and in the sixth year of his life, Nikolai saddled a riding horse for the first time. From the earliest years, the future emperor absorbs the spirit of the military environment.

In 1802, studies began. From that time on, a special journal was kept, in which the educators (“cavaliers”) record literally every step of the boy, describing in detail his behavior and actions.

The main supervision of education was entrusted to General Matvei Ivanovich Lamsdorf. It would be difficult to make a more awkward choice. According to contemporaries, Lamsdorf "not only did not possess any of the abilities necessary for educating a person of a royal house, called upon to have an influence on the fate of his compatriots and on the history of his people, but he was even a stranger to everything that is needed for a person who devotes himself education of the private individual. He was an ardent supporter of the system of education generally accepted at that time, based on orders, reprimands and punishments that amounted to cruelty. Nikolai did not avoid frequent "acquaintance" with the ruler, ramrods and rods. With the consent of his mother, Lamsdorf zealously tried to change the character of the pupil, going against all his inclinations and abilities.

As often happens in such cases, the result was the opposite. Subsequently, Nikolai Pavlovich wrote about himself and his brother Mikhail: “Count Lamsdorf was able to instill in us one feeling - fear, and such fear and assurance of his omnipotence that mother’s face was second to us in terms of the importance of concepts. This order completely deprived us of the happiness of filial trust in the parent, to whom we were rarely allowed alone, and then never otherwise, as if on a sentence. it was necessary and, it must be confessed, not without success... Count Lamsdorf and others, imitating him, used severity with vehemence, which robbed us of our sense of guilt, leaving only vexation for rough treatment, and often undeserved. "Fear and the search for how to avoid punishment occupied my mind most of all. In teaching, I saw one coercion, and I studied without a desire."

Still would. As the biographer of Nicholas I, Baron M. A. Korf, writes, “the grand dukes were constantly, as it were, in a vice. every step was stopped, corrected, made comments, persecuted by morality or threats. In this way, in vain, as time has shown, they tried to correct the as independent as the obstinate, quick-tempered character of Nicholas. Even Baron Korf, one of the biographers most disposed to him, is forced to note that the usually uncommunicative and self-contained Nikolai seemed to be reborn during the games, and the self-willed principles contained in him, disapproved of by those around him, manifested themselves in their entirety. The magazines of the "cavaliers" for the years 1802-1809 are full of entries about the unbridledness of Nikolai during games with peers. “Whatever happened to him, whether he fell, or hurt himself, or considered his desires unfulfilled, and himself offended, he immediately uttered swear words ... he chopped a drum, toys with his hatchet, broke them, beat his comrades with a stick or whatever their games." In moments of temper he could spit on his sister Anna. Once he hit a friend of his games, Adlerberg, with such force with the butt of a child's gun that he was left with a scar for life.

The rude manners of both Grand Dukes, especially during military games, were explained by the idea (not without the influence of Lamsdorf) that was firmly established in their boyish minds, that rudeness is a mandatory feature of all military men. However, the educators notice, even outside the military games, Nikolai Pavlovich's manners "remained no less rude, arrogant and arrogant." Hence the clearly expressed desire to excel in all games, to command, to be the boss or to represent the emperor. And this despite the fact that, according to the same educators, Nikolai "possesses very limited abilities," although he had, according to them, "the most excellent, loving heart" and was distinguished by "excessive sensitivity."

Another trait that also remained for the rest of his life - Nikolai Pavlovich "did not tolerate any joke that seemed to him an insult, did not want to endure the slightest displeasure ... he seemed to constantly consider himself both higher and more significant than everyone else." Hence his persistent habit of admitting his mistakes only under strong duress.

So, only military games remained the favorite pastime of the brothers Nikolai and Mikhail. They had at their disposal a large set of tin and porcelain soldiers, guns, halberds, wooden horses, drums, pipes and even charging boxes. All attempts by the late mother to turn them away from this attraction were unsuccessful. As Nikolai himself later wrote, "some military sciences occupied me passionately, in them alone I found consolation and a pleasant occupation, similar to the disposition of my spirit." In fact, it was primarily a passion for paradomania, for frunt, which from Peter III, according to the biographer of the royal family, N.K. Schilder, "took deep and strong roots in the royal family." "He loved exercises, reviews, parades and divorces invariably to death and made them even in winter," one of his contemporaries writes about Nikolai. Nikolai and Mikhail even came up with a "family" term to express the pleasure that they experienced when the review of the grenadier regiments went off without a hitch - "infantry delight."

TEACHERS AND PUPILS

From the age of six, Nikolai began to be introduced to the Russian and French languages, the Law of God, Russian history, and geography. This is followed by arithmetic, German and English - as a result, Nikolai was fluent in four languages. Latin and Greek were not given to him. (Subsequently, he excluded them from the program of teaching his children, because "he can not stand Latin since the time when he was tormented over it in his youth.") From 1802, Nikolai was taught drawing and music. Having learned to play the trumpet (cornet-piston) quite well, after two or three auditions, he, naturally gifted with a good ear and musical memory, could perform quite complex works at home concerts without notes. Nikolai Pavlovich retained his love for church singing all his life, he knew all the church services by heart and willingly sang along with the choristers on the kliros with his sonorous and pleasant voice. He drew well (in pencil and watercolor) and even learned the art of engraving, which requires great patience, a true eye and a steady hand.

In 1809, it was decided to expand the education of Nikolai and Mikhail to university programs. But the idea to send them to the University of Leipzig, as well as the idea to send them to the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, disappeared due to the outbreak of the Patriotic War of 1812. As a result, they continued home education. Well-known then professors were attracted to classes with the Grand Dukes: the economist A. K. Shtorkh, the jurist M. A. Balugyansky, the historian F. P. Adelung and others. But the first two disciplines did not captivate Nikolai. He later expressed his attitude towards them in the instruction of M.A. Korf, who was appointed by him to teach law to his son Konstantin: I remember how we were tormented over this by two people, very kind, maybe very smart, but both insufferable pedants: the late Balugyansky and Kukolnik [father of the famous playwright. - M. R.]... At the lessons of these gentlemen, we either dozed off or drew some kind of nonsense, sometimes our own caricature portraits of them, and then for the exams we learned something in slurring, without fruit and benefit for the future. In my opinion, the best theory of law is good morality, and it should be in the heart, regardless of these abstractions, and have religion as its foundation.

Nikolai Pavlovich very early showed interest in construction and especially engineering. “Mathematics, then artillery, and especially engineering and tactics,” he writes in his notes, “attracted me exclusively; I made special progress in this part, and then I got a desire to serve in the engineering department.” And this is no empty boast. According to Lieutenant General E. A. Yegorov, a man of rare honesty and disinterestedness, Nikolai Pavlovich "always had a special attraction to the engineering and architectural arts ... love for the construction business did not leave him until the end of his life and, I must say the truth, he understood a lot about it ... He always entered into all the technical details of the production of work and amazed everyone with the accuracy of his remarks and the fidelity of his eye.

At the age of 17, Nikolai's compulsory studies are almost over. From now on, he regularly attends divorces, parades, exercises, that is, he completely indulges in what was previously not encouraged. At the beginning of 1814, the desire of the Grand Dukes to go to the Army in the field was finally realized. They stayed abroad for about a year. On this trip, Nicholas met his future wife, Princess Charlotte, daughter of the Prussian king. The choice of the bride was not made by chance, but also answered the aspirations of Paul I to strengthen relations between Russia and Prussia by a dynastic marriage.

In 1815, the brothers were again in the active army, but, as in the first case, they did not take part in hostilities. On the way back, the official engagement to Princess Charlotte took place in Berlin. Enchanted by her, a 19-year-old young man, upon his return to St. Petersburg, writes a letter of significant content: “Farewell, my angel, my friend, my only consolation, my only true happiness, think of me as often as I think of you, and love if you can, the one who is and will be your faithful Nikolai for the rest of your life." Charlotte's reciprocal feeling is just as strong, and on July 1 (13), 1817, on her birthday, a magnificent wedding took place. With the adoption of Orthodoxy, the princess was named Alexandra Feodorovna.

Before the marriage, two study trips of Nikolai took place - to several provinces of Russia and to England. After marriage, he was appointed inspector general for engineering and chief of the Life Guards of the Sapper Battalion, which fully corresponded to his inclinations and desires. His indefatigability and service zeal amazed everyone: early in the morning he appeared at the line and rifle exercises of a sapper, at 12 o’clock he left for Peterhof, and at 4 o’clock in the afternoon he mounted a horse and again galloped 12 versts to the camp, where he remained until the evening dawn, personally leading work on the construction of training field fortifications, digging trenches, laying mines, land mines ... Nikolai had an extraordinary memory for faces and remembered the names of all the lower ranks of "his" battalion. According to colleagues, "who knew his business to perfection," Nikolai fanatically demanded the same from others and severely punished for any mistakes. So much so that the soldiers punished by his order were often carried away on a stretcher to the infirmary. Nikolai, of course, did not feel remorse, because he only strictly followed the paragraphs of the military regulations, which provided for the merciless punishment of soldiers with sticks, rods, gauntlets for any offenses.

In July 1818, he was appointed commander of a brigade of the 1st Guards Division (while retaining the position of inspector general). He was in his 22nd year, and he sincerely rejoiced at this appointment, for he received a real opportunity to command the troops himself, to appoint exercises and reviews himself.

In this position, Nikolai Pavlovich was taught the first real lessons in proper behavior for an officer, which laid the foundation for the later legend of the "emperor-knight".

Somehow, during the next exercise, he made a rude and unfair reprimand in front of the front of the regiment to K. I. Bistrom, a military general, commander of the Jaeger regiment, who had many awards and wounds. The enraged general came to the commander of the Separate Guards Corps I.V. Vasilchikov and asked him to convey to Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich his demand for a formal apology. Only the threat to bring to the attention of the sovereign about what had happened made Nikolai apologize to Bistrom, which he did in the presence of the officers of the regiment. But this lesson did not go to the future. Some time later, for minor violations in the ranks, he gave an insulting dressing to the company commander V.S. Norov, concluding it with the phrase: "I will bend you into a ram's horn!" The officers of the regiment demanded that Nikolai Pavlovich "give satisfaction to Norov." Since a duel with a member of the royal family is, by definition, impossible, the officers resigned. The conflict was difficult to resolve.

But nothing could dampen the service zeal of Nikolai Pavlovich. Following the rules of the military regulations "firmly poured" into his mind, he spent all his energy on the drill of the units under his command. “I began to exact,” he later recalled, “but I exacted alone, because what I defamed as a duty of conscience was allowed everywhere, even by my superiors. The situation was the most difficult; to act otherwise was contrary to my conscience and duty; bosses and subordinates against themselves, especially since they didn’t know me, and many either didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand.”

It must be admitted that his strictness as a brigade commander was partly justified by the fact that in the officer corps at that time "the order, already shaken by a three-year campaign, completely collapsed ... Subordination disappeared and was preserved only in the front; respect for superiors disappeared completely .. ... there were no rules, no order, and everything was done completely arbitrarily. It got to the point that many officers came to the exercises in tailcoats, throwing an overcoat over their shoulders and putting on a uniform hat. What was it like to put up with this to the marrow of the bones to the serviceman Nikolai? He did not put up, which caused not always justified condemnation of his contemporaries. The memoirist F.F. Vigel, known for his poisonous pen, wrote that Grand Duke Nikolai "was uncommunicative and cold, all devoted to his sense of duty; in his performance, he was too strict with himself and others. In the correct features of his white, pale face, there was some kind of immobility, some kind of unaccountable severity. Let's tell the truth: he was not loved at all.

The testimonies of other contemporaries relating to the same time are sustained in the same vein: “The usual expression of his face has something strict and even unfriendly in it. His smile is a smile of condescension, and not the result of a cheerful mood or passion. creature to the point that you do not notice in him any compulsion, nothing out of place, nothing memorized, and yet all his words, like all his movements, are measured, as if musical notes lie in front of him.There is something unusual in the Grand Duke: he speaks vividly, simply, by the way, everything he says is clever, not a single vulgar joke, not a single funny or obscene word, there is nothing in the tone of his voice, nor in the composition of his speech, that would reveal pride or secrecy. you feel that his heart is closed, that the barrier is inaccessible and that it would be foolish to hope to penetrate into the depths of his thought or have complete confidence.

In the service, Nikolai Pavlovich was in constant tension, he was buttoned up with all the buttons of his uniform, and only at home, in the family, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna recalled those days, "he felt quite happy, however, like me." In the notes of V.A. Zhukovsky we read that "nothing could be more touching to see the Grand Duke in his home life. As soon as he crossed his threshold, gloominess suddenly disappeared, giving way not to smiles, but to loud, joyful laughter, frank speeches and the most affectionate manner with those around him ... A happy young man ... with a kind, faithful and beautiful girlfriend, with whom he lived soul to soul, having occupations consistent with his inclinations, without worries, without responsibility, without ambitious thoughts, with a clear conscience, which is not did he get enough on the ground?"

THE WAY TO THE THRONE

Suddenly, overnight, everything changed. In the summer of 1819, Alexander I unexpectedly informs Nicholas and his wife of their intentions to renounce the throne in favor of their younger brother. “Nothing like this had ever occurred to me even in a dream,” emphasizes Alexandra Fedorovna. “We were struck like thunder; the future seemed gloomy and inaccessible to happiness.” Nikolai himself compares his feelings and his wife’s feelings with the feeling of a calmly walking man, when he “suddenly opens up an abyss under his feet, into which an irresistible force plunges him, not allowing him to retreat or return. Here is a perfect image of our terrible situation.” And he did not dissemble, realizing how heavy the cross of fate looming on the horizon - the royal crown would be for him.

But these are just words, while Alexander I does not make any attempts to involve his brother in state affairs, although a manifesto has already been drawn up (albeit secretly even from the inner circle of the court) on the renunciation of the throne of Constantine and its transfer to Nicholas. The latter is still busy, as he himself wrote, "by daily waiting in the anterooms or the secretary's room, where ... gathered daily ... noble persons who had access to the sovereign. In this noisy meeting we spent an hour, sometimes more. .. This time was a waste of time, but also a precious practice for the knowledge of people and faces, and I took advantage of this."

This is the whole school of preparing Nicholas for governing the state, which, it should be noted, he did not aspire to at all and to which, as he himself admitted, "my inclination and desires led me so little; a degree for which I never prepared and, on the contrary, I always looked with fear, looking at the burden of the burden that lay on my benefactor "(Emperor Alexander I. - M. R.). In February 1825, Nikolai was appointed commander of the 1st Guards Division, but this did not change anything in essence. He could have become a member of the State Council, but did not. Why? The answer to the question is partly given by the Decembrist V.I. Shteingeil in his Notes on the Uprising. Regarding the rumors about the abdication of Konstantin and the appointment of Nikolai as heir, he cites the words of the professor of Moscow University A.F. Merzlyakov: “When this rumor spread around Moscow, I happened to be Zhukovsky; I asked him:“ Tell me, perhaps, you are a close person should we expect from this change?" - "Judge for yourself," replied Vasily Andreevich, "I have never seen a book in [his] hands; the only occupation is the front and the soldiers."

The unexpected news that Alexander I was dying came from Taganrog to St. Petersburg on November 25. (Alexander was on a trip to the south of Russia, he intended to travel through the entire Crimea.) Nikolai invited the chairman of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers, Prince P.V. Lopukhin, the Prosecutor General, Prince A.B. Kurakin, the commander of the Guards Corps, A.L. Governor-General of St. Petersburg, Count M. A. Miloradovich, endowed with special powers in connection with the departure of the emperor from the capital, and declared to them his rights to the throne, apparently considering this a purely formal act. But, as the former adjutant of Tsarevich Konstantin F. P. Opochinin testifies, Count Miloradovich "answered flatly that Grand Duke Nikolai could not and should not hope to succeed his brother Alexander in the event of his death; that the laws of the empire did not allow the sovereign to dispose of testament; that, moreover, Alexander's will is known only to certain persons and unknown to the people; that Constantine's abdication is also implicit and remained unpublished; that Alexander, if he wanted Nicholas to succeed him to the throne, had to make public his will during his lifetime and Constantine's consent to it ; that neither the people nor the army will understand the renunciation and will attribute everything to treason, especially since neither the sovereign himself nor the heir by birthright is in the capital, but both were absent; that, finally, the guard will resolutely refuse to take the oath to Nicholas in such circumstances , and then the inevitable consequence will be indignation ... The Grand Duke proved his rights, but Count Miloradovich did not want to recognize them and refused his assistance. On that they parted."

On the morning of November 27, the courier brought the news of the death of Alexander I, and Nikolai, shaken by Miloradovich's arguments and not paying attention to the absence of the Manifesto on the accession to the throne of the new monarch, which is mandatory in such cases, was the first to swear allegiance to the "lawful Emperor Constantine". The others did the same after him. From that day on, a political crisis provoked by a narrow family clan of the reigning family begins - a 17-day interregnum. Between St. Petersburg and Warsaw, where Constantine was, couriers scurry about - the brothers persuade each other to take the remaining idle throne.

A situation unprecedented for Russia arose. If earlier in its history there was a fierce struggle for the throne, often reaching deaths, now the brothers seem to be competing in renouncing the rights to supreme power. But in the behavior of Konstantin there is a certain ambiguity, indecision. Instead of immediately arriving in the capital, as the situation required, he limited himself to letters to his mother and brother. Members of the royal house, writes the French ambassador Count Laferrone, "play with the crown of Russia, throwing it like a ball, one to another."

On December 12, a package was delivered from Taganrog addressed to "Emperor Konstantin" from the Chief of the General Staff, I. I. Dibich. After some hesitation, Grand Duke Nikolai opened it. “Let them depict for themselves what was to happen in me,” he later recalled, “when, casting their eyes on the included (in the package. - M. R.) a letter from General Dibich, I saw that it was about an existing and just discovered extensive conspiracy, whose branches spread through the entire Empire from St. Petersburg to Moscow and to the Second Army in Bessarabia. It was only then that I fully felt the full burden of my fate and remembered with horror the position in which I was. It was necessary to act without wasting a minute, with full authority, with experience, with determination.

Nikolai did not exaggerate: according to the words of the adjutant of the infantry commander of the Guards Corps K. I. Bistrom, Ya. We had to hurry to act.

On the night of December 13, Nikolai Pavlovich appeared before the State Council. The first phrase he uttered: "I am doing the will of brother Konstantin Pavlovich" - was supposed to convince the members of the Council of the compulsion of his actions. Then Nikolai in a "loud voice" read out in its final form the Manifesto polished by M. M. Speransky on his accession to the throne. “Everyone listened in deep silence,” Nikolai notes in his notes. This was a natural reaction - the tsar was by no means desired by everyone (S. P. Trubetskoy expressed the opinion of many when he wrote that "the young grand dukes are tired"). However, the roots of slavish obedience to autocratic power are so strong that the members of the Soviet accepted the unexpected change calmly. At the end of the reading of the Manifesto, they "bowed deeply" to the new emperor.

Early in the morning, Nikolai Pavlovich turned to specially assembled guards generals and colonels. He read them the Manifesto on his accession to the throne, the testament of Alexander I and documents on the abdication of Tsarevich Konstantin. The answer was the unanimous recognition of him as the rightful monarch. Then the commanders went to the General Headquarters to take the oath, and from there to their units to conduct the corresponding ritual.

On this critical day for him, Nikolai was outwardly calm. But his true state of mind is revealed by the words he then said to A. Kh. About the same he wrote to P. M. Volkonsky: "On the fourteenth I will be sovereign or dead."

By eight o'clock the oath ceremony in the Senate and the Synod was completed, the first news of the oath came from the guards regiments. Everything seemed to go well. However, the members of secret societies who were in the capital, as the Decembrist M. S. Lunin wrote, "came up with the idea that the decisive hour had come" and that they should "recourse to the force of arms." But this situation, favorable for action, came as a complete surprise to the conspirators. Even the sophisticated K. F. Ryleev "was struck by the inadvertence of the case" and was forced to admit: "This circumstance gives us a clear idea of ​​our impotence. I myself was deceived, we do not have an established plan, no measures have been taken ..."

In the camp of the conspirators, disputes are constantly on the verge of hysteria, and yet in the end it was decided to speak out: "It is better to be taken on the square," N. Bestuzhev argued, "than on the bed." The conspirators are unanimous in defining the basic setting of the speech - "fidelity to the oath to Konstantin and unwillingness to swear allegiance to Nicholas." The Decembrists deliberately deceived, convincing the soldiers that the rights of the legitimate heir to the throne, Tsarevich Konstantin, should be protected from the unauthorized encroachments of Nicholas.

And on a gloomy, windy day on December 14, 1825, about three thousand soldiers gathered on Senate Square, "standing for Konstantin", with three dozen officers, their commanders. For various reasons, far from all the regiments that the leaders of the conspirators counted on showed up. Those assembled had neither artillery nor cavalry. S. P. Trubetskoy, the other dictator, was scared and did not appear on the square. The languorous, almost five-hour standing in uniforms in the cold, without a specific goal, of any combat mission, had a depressing effect on the soldiers, who patiently waited, as V. I. Steingeil writes, "the denouement from fate." Fate appeared in the form of buckshot, instantly dispersing their ranks.

The command to fire live ammunition was not given immediately. Nicholas I, who, despite his general confusion, decisively took the suppression of the rebellion into his own hands, still hoped to do "without bloodshed," even after, he recalls, "they fired a volley at me, the bullets whistled through my head." All that day, Nikolai was in full view, ahead of the 1st Battalion of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, and his powerful figure on horseback was an excellent target. "The most amazing thing," he will say later, "is that I was not killed that day." And Nicholas firmly believed that God's hand was directing his fate.

The fearless behavior of Nicholas on December 14 is explained by his personal courage and bravery. He himself thought otherwise. One of the state ladies of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna later testified that when one of the close ones, out of a desire to flatter, began to tell Nicholas I about his “heroic deed” on December 14, about his extraordinary courage, the sovereign interrupted the interlocutor, saying: “You are mistaken; I was not as brave as you think. But a sense of duty forced me to overcome myself." The confession is honest. And afterwards he always said that on that day he "was only doing his duty."

December 14, 1825 determined the fate of not only Nikolai Pavlovich, but in many ways - the country. If, according to the author of the famous book "Russia in 1839" Marquis Astolphe de Custine, on that day Nikolai "from the silent, melancholic, as he was in the days of his youth, turned into a hero", then Russia for a long time lost the opportunity to hold any kind of there was a liberal reform, which she so badly needed. This was obvious even to the most insightful contemporaries. December 14 gave the further course of the historical process "a completely different direction," Count D. N. Tolstoy notes. Another contemporary clarifies it: "December 14, 1825 ... should be attributed to that dislike for any liberal movement, which was constantly noticed in the orders of Emperor Nicholas."

Meanwhile, the uprising could not have happened at all under only two conditions. The Decembrist A.E. Rosen clearly speaks of the first in his Notes. Noting that after receiving the news of the death of Alexander I, “all classes and ages were stricken with unfeigned sadness” and that it was with “such a mood of spirit” that the troops swore allegiance to Constantine, Rosen adds: “... a feeling of grief prevailed over all other feelings - and commanders and troops would have sworn allegiance to Nicholas just as sadly and calmly if the will of Alexander I had been communicated to them by law. Many people spoke about the second condition, but Nicholas I himself stated it most clearly on December 20, 1825 in a conversation with the French ambassador: terrifying scene... and the danger it plunged us into for several hours." As you can see, a coincidence of circumstances largely determined the further course of events.

Arrests began, interrogations of persons involved in the indignation and members of secret societies. And here the 29-year-old emperor behaved to such an extent cunningly, prudently and artistically that those under investigation, believing in his sincerity, made confessions that were unthinkable in frankness even by the most condescending standards. “Without rest, without sleep, he interrogated ... those arrested,” writes the famous historian P.E. Shchegolev, “forced confessions ... picking up masks, each time new for a new face. loyal subject, for others - the same citizen of the fatherland as the arrested person who stood before him; for still others - an old soldier suffering for the honor of his uniform; for the fourth - a monarch ready to pronounce constitutional covenants; for the fifth - a Russian, weeping over the disasters of the fatherland and passionately thirsting for the correction of all evils." Pretending to be almost like-minded, he "managed to inspire them with confidence that he is the ruler who will realize their dreams and benefit Russia." It is precisely the subtle hypocrisy of the tsar-investigator that explains the continuous series of confessions, repentance, and mutual slander of those under investigation.

The explanations of P. E. Shchegolev are supplemented by the Decembrist A. S. Gangeblov: “One cannot help but be amazed at the tirelessness and patience of Nikolai Pavlovich. The success of these attempts, of course, was greatly helped by the very appearance of the sovereign, his majestic posture, antique features, especially his look: when Nikolai Pavlovich was in a calm, gracious mood, his eyes expressed charming kindness and tenderness ; but when he was angry, those same eyes flashed lightning."

Nicholas I, notes de Custine, "apparently knows how to subjugate the souls of people ... some kind of mysterious influence comes from him." As many other facts show, Nicholas I "always knew how to deceive observers who innocently believed in his sincerity, nobility, courage, but he was only playing. And Pushkin, the great Pushkin, was defeated by his game. He thought in the simplicity of his soul that the tsar honored inspiration in him, that the sovereign spirit is not cruel ... But for Nikolai Pavlovich Pushkin was just a varmint, requiring supervision. The manifestation of the mercy of the monarch to the poet was dictated solely by the desire to derive the greatest possible benefit from this.

(To be continued.)

The poet V. A. Zhukovsky since 1814 was brought closer to the court by the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna.

Nicholas I is not one of the favorites of Russian history. They said about this emperor: "He has a lot from the ensign and a little from Peter the Great." Under Nicholas I, the industrial revolution took place in the country, and Russia in the West began to be called the "prison of peoples."

"Executioner of the Decembrists"

On the day of the coronation of Nicholas - December 14, 1825 - an uprising of the Decembrists broke out in St. Petersburg. After the announcement of the manifesto on the ascension of the monarch to the throne, the will of Alexander and the letter of Constantine confirming the abdication, Nicholas said: “After that, you answer me with your head for the calmness of the capital, and as for me, if I am emperor for at least one hour, I will show that I was worthy of it."

By evening, the new emperor had to make, perhaps, one of the most difficult decisions in his life: after negotiations and unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter peacefully, Nikolai decided on an extreme measure - buckshot. He tried to prevent the tragedy and motivated the refusal to use force with the question: “What do you want me to stain with blood on my subjects on the first day of my reign?” He was answered: "Yes, if it is necessary to save the Empire."
Even those who disliked the new emperor could not but admit that “on December 14, he showed himself to be a ruler, acting on the crowd with personal courage and a halo of power.”

Industry reformer

If before 1831 the emperor still intended to carry out a number of transformations to strengthen the position of the autocracy, then the subsequent course of government, which ended in the "gloomy seven years", was marked by the spirit of extreme conservatism. After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, Nikolai vowed that the revolution, which stood on the threshold of Russia, would not penetrate the country "as long as the breath of life remains in me." And he did everything to suppress the slightest manifestation of free thought, including tightening censorship and strengthening state control over the educational system (School Charter of 1828 and University Charter of 1835).

The Nikolaev era also marked positive developments. The new emperor inherited industry, the state of which was the worst in the entire imperial history. Strikingly, but true: he managed to turn it into a competitive industry through the automation of production and the large-scale use of civilian labor, paying special attention to these issues. From 1825 to 1860, 70% of paved roads were built, in 1843 the construction of the Nikolaev railway began.

Censor

A new censorship charter, which forbade the publication of any materials that undermined the authority of the existing monarchical system, was promulgated in 1826. It was popularly called "cast iron", probably because it was impossible to find "loopholes" in it. Not only fiction, but also textbooks were subjected to strict censorship.

An absurd case is widely known when an arithmetic textbook was banned for printing, in one of the tasks of which a “suspicious” three dots between numbers were revealed. Not only contemporary authors fell under the knife of censors. The presiding censor Baturlin, for example, suggested excluding the following lines from the akathist of the Intercession of the Mother of God: "Rejoice, invisible taming of cruel and beast-like rulers." Two years later, a slightly more loyal version of the "cast iron" charter was issued, which limited the subjectivity of the censors, but, in fact, did not differ from its predecessor.

Auditor

Another thing in the life of Nikolai Pavlovich was the fight against the eternal Russian problem - corruption. For the first time under him, audits began to be carried out at all levels. As Klyuchevsky wrote, the emperor himself often acted as an auditor: “He used to fly into some kind of state chamber, scare the officials and leave, making everyone feel that he knows not only their affairs, but also their tricks.”

The fight against theft of state property and abuses was carried out both by the Ministry of Finance, headed by Yegor Kankrin, and the Ministry of Justice, which at the legislative level monitored how zealously the governors put things in order on the ground. Once, on behalf of the emperor, a list of governors was compiled for him who did not take bribes. In densely populated Russia, there were only two such people: the governor of Kovno Radishchev and Kiev Fundukley, to which the emperor remarked: “That Fundukli does not take bribes is understandable, because he is very rich, but if Radishchev does not take them, then he is too honest ". According to contemporaries, Nikolai Pavlovich "often turned a blind eye" to petty bribery, which had long been established and widespread. But for serious "tricks" the emperor punished to the fullest extent: in 1853, more than two and a half thousand officials appeared before the court.

Peasant question

The so-called "peasant question" also required radical measures - the emperor understood that the people expected a "better life" from him. Delay could lead to the fact that the “powder magazine under the state” would “explode”. The emperor did a lot to make life easier for the peasants, strengthening the stability of the empire. A ban was established on the sale of peasants without land and with "fragmentation of the family", and the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia was also limited. The decree on indebted peasants subsequently became the basis for the reform to abolish serfdom. Historians Rozhkov, Blum and Klyuchevsky pointed out that for the first time the number of serfs was reduced, the share of which was reduced, according to various estimates, to 35-45%. The life of the so-called state peasants also improved, who received their own land plots, as well as assistance in case of crop failure from auxiliary cash desks and bread shops opened everywhere. The growth in the welfare of the peasants made it possible to increase the revenues of the treasury by 20%. For the first time, a program of mass education of the peasantry was implemented: by 1856, almost 2,000 new schools were opened, and the number of students from one and a half thousand people in 1838 grew to 111 thousand. According to the historian Zayonchkovsky, the subjects of Emperor Nicholas I could have had the impression that "an era of reforms has begun in Russia."

Legislator

Even Alexander I drew attention to the fact that the law is the same for everyone: “As soon as I allow myself to violate the laws, who then considers it a duty to observe them?” However, by the beginning of the 19th century, there was complete confusion in the legislation, which often led to unrest and judicial abuse. Following his own directive not to change the existing order, Nikolai instructs Speransky to carry out the codification of Russian laws: to systematize and consolidate the legislative framework, while not making changes to its content. Attempts to unify legislation were made even before Nicholas, but the only collection that covered all Russian law remained the Cathedral Code of 1649. As a result of painstaking work, the Complete Collection of Laws was compiled, then the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was published, which included all the current legislative acts. However, the direct codification that Speransky planned to carry out at the third stage of work, namely, the creation of the Code, in which the old norms would be supplemented by new ones, did not find support from the emperor.

Nicholas I was perhaps the first ruler of Russia who had a monstrous reputation in Europe. It was during his reign that the Russian Empire “earned” such epithets as “prison of peoples”, “gendarme of Europe”, which stuck to our country for many decades. The reason for this was the active participation of Nicholas in European politics. The years 1830-1840 were the time of revolutions in Europe, the monarch considered it his duty to resist the "rebellious chaos".

In 1830, Nicholas decided to send Polish troops as part of the Russian corps to suppress the revolution in France, which caused an uprising in Poland itself, part of which was part of the Russian Empire. The rebels outlawed the Romanov dynasty, formed a provisional government and self-defense forces. The uprising was supported by many European countries: the leading British and French newspapers began to persecute Nicholas and Russia itself. However, the emperor severely suppressed the uprising. In 1848 he sent troops to Hungary to help Austria suppress the Hungarian national liberation movement.

The emperor was forced to continue the protracted war in the Caucasus and enter into a new one - the Crimean one, which would pretty much "pat" the treasury (the deficit would be made up only 14 years after the end of the war). Under the terms of the peace treaty in the Crimean War, Russia lost the Black Sea Fleet, however, Sevastopol, Balaklava and a number of other Crimean cities were returned in exchange for the fortress of Kars. The war gave impetus to economic and military reforms carried out after Nicholas I.
The emperor, previously distinguished by excellent health, at the beginning of 1855 suddenly caught a cold. He subordinated his life and the way of the “mechanism” entrusted to him to a simple regulation: “Order, strict, unconditional legality, no omniscience and contradiction, everything follows from one another; no one commands until he himself has learned to obey; no one without legal justification does not become ahead of the other; everyone is subject to one specific goal, everything has its own purpose. He died with the words: "I hand over my team, unfortunately, not in the order I wanted, leaving a lot of trouble and worries."

Russia is a mighty and happy power in itself; it must never be a threat either to other neighboring states or to Europe. But it must occupy an imposing defensive position capable of making any attack on it impossible.
Where once the Russian flag is raised, it should not be lowered there.
Emperor Nicholas I

220 years ago, on July 6, 1796, Russian Emperor Nicholas I Pavlovich was born. Nicholas I, along with his father, Emperor Paul I, is one of the most maligned Russian tsars. The Russian tsar, most hated by the liberals both of that time and of our day. What is the reason for such stubborn hatred and such fierce slander, which has not subsided until our time?

Firstly, Nicholas is hated for suppressing the conspiracy of the Decembrists, conspirators who were part of the system of Western Freemasonry. The uprising of the so-called "Decembrists" was supposed to destroy the Russian Empire, lead to the emergence of weak, semi-colonial state formations dependent on the West. And Nikolai Pavlovich crushed the rebellion and preserved Russia as a world power.

Secondly, Nicholas cannot be forgiven for the prohibition of Freemasonry in Russia. That is, the Russian emperor banned the then “fifth column”, which worked for the masters of the West.

Thirdly, the tsar is "guilty" of firm views, where there was no place for Masonic and semi-Masonic (liberal) views. Nicholas clearly stood on the positions of autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality, defended Russian national interests in the world.

Fourthly, Nicholas fought against the revolutionary movements organized by the Freemasons (Illuminati) in the monarchical states of Europe. For this, Nikolaev Russia was nicknamed "the gendarme of Europe." Nicholas understood that revolutions do not lead to the triumph of "freedom, equality and fraternity", but to the "liberalization" of man, his "liberation" from the "fetters" of morality and conscience. We see what this leads to on the example of modern tolerant Europe, where sodomists, bestialists, Satanists and other savage evil spirits are considered the "elite" of society. And the “lowering” of a person in the field of morality to the level of a primitive animal leads to its complete degradation and total slavery. That is, Freemasons and the Illuminati, provoking revolutions, simply brought closer the victory of the New World Order - the global slave-owning civilization led by the "chosen ones". Nicholas opposed this evil.

Fifthly, Nicholas wanted to put an end to the passions of the Russian nobility for Europe and the West. He planned to stop further Europeanization, Westernization of Russia. The tsar intended to be at the head, as A. S. Pushkin put it, "the organization of the counter-revolution of the revolution of Peter." Nicholas wanted to return to the political and social precepts of Muscovite Rus', which found its expression in the formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality."

Thus, the myths about the extraordinary despotism and terrible cruelty of Nicholas I were created because he prevented the revolutionary liberal forces from seizing power in Russia and Europe. “He considered himself called upon to suppress the revolution, he pursued it always and in all forms. And, indeed, this is the historical vocation of the Orthodox Tsar, ”the maid of honor Tyutcheva noted in her diary.

Hence the pathological hatred of Nicholas, accusations of the "bad" personal qualities of the emperor. Liberal historiography of the 19th - early 20th centuries, Soviet, where "tsarism" was presented mainly from a negative point of view, then modern liberal journalism branded Nikolai a "despot and tyrant", "Nikolai Palkin", for the fact that from the first day of his reign , from the moment the then "fifth column" - the "Decembrists" was suppressed, and until the last day (the Crimean War organized by the masters of the West), he spent in a continuous struggle with Russian and European Freemasons and the revolutionary societies they created. At the same time, in domestic and foreign policy, Nikolai tried to adhere to Russian national interests, without bending to the wishes of Western "partners".

It is clear that such a person was hated and even during his lifetime they created a number of stable “black myths”: that “the Decembrists fought for the freedom of the people, and the bloody tyrant shot and executed them”; that "Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and lack of rights for the peasants"; that “Nicholas I was generally a stupid martinet, a narrow-minded, poorly educated person, alien to any progress”; that Russia under Nicholas was a "backward state", which led to the defeat in the Crimean War, etc.

The myth of the Decembrists - "knights without fear and reproach"

The accession to the throne of Nicholas I was overshadowed by an attempt by a secret Masonic society of the so-called "Decembrists" to seize power over Russia ( ). Later, through the efforts of Western liberals, social democrats, and then Soviet historiography, the myth of “knights without fear and reproach” was created, who decided to destroy “royal tyranny” and build a society on the principles of freedom, equality and brotherhood. In modern Russia, it is also customary to talk about the Decembrists from a positive point of view. Like, the best part of Russian society, the nobility, challenged the "tsarist tyranny", tried to destroy "Russian slavery" (serfdom), but was defeated.

However, in reality, the truth is that the so-called. "Decembrists", hiding behind completely humane and understandable to most slogans, objectively worked for the then "world community" (the West). In fact, these were the forerunners of the “Februaryists” of the 1917 model, who destroyed the autocracy and the Russian Empire. They planned the complete physical destruction of the Romanov dynasty of Russian monarchs, their families and even distant relatives. And their plans in the field of state and national construction were guaranteed to lead to great turmoil and the collapse of the state.

It is clear that part of the noble youth simply did not know what they were doing. Young people dreamed of destroying "various injustices and oppressions" and bringing the estates together for the growth of social prosperity in Russia. Examples of the dominance of foreigners in the highest administration (suffice it to recall the entourage of Tsar Alexander), extortion, violation of legal proceedings, inhuman treatment of soldiers and sailors in the army and navy, and serf trade excited noble minds, who were inspired by the patriotic upsurge of 1812-1814. The problem was that the “great truths” of freedom, equality and fraternity, allegedly necessary for the good of Russia, were associated in their minds only with European republican institutions and social forms, which they mechanically transferred to Russian soil in theory.

That is, the Decembrists sought to "transplant France into Russia." How later the Russian Westerners of the early 20th century would dream of remaking Russia into a republican France or a constitutional English monarchy, which would lead to the geopolitical catastrophe of 1917. The abstractness and frivolity of such a transfer consisted in the fact that it was carried out without understanding the historical past and national traditions, spiritual values ​​that had been formed for centuries, the psychological and everyday way of Russian civilization. The youth of the nobility, brought up on the ideals of Western culture, was infinitely far from the people. As historical experience shows, in the Russian Empire, Soviet Russia and the Russian Federation, all borrowings from the West in the field of socio-political structure, spiritual and intellectual sphere, even the most useful ones, are eventually distorted on Russian soil, leading to degradation and destruction.

The Decembrists, like the later Westernizers, did not understand this. They thought that if they transplanted the advanced experience of the Western powers in Russia, give the people "freedom", then the country would rise and prosper. As a result, the sincere hopes of the Decembrists for an accelerated change in the existing system, for the legal order, as a panacea for all ills, led to confusion and the destruction of the Russian Empire. It turned out that the Decembrists objectively, by default, worked in the interests of the masters of the West.

In addition, in the program documents of the Decembrists one can find a variety of attitudes and wishes. There was no unity in their ranks, their secret societies were more like debating clubs of sophisticated intellectuals who vigorously discussed pressing political issues. In this respect, they are similar to Western liberals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. and the Februaryists of 1917, as well as modern Russian liberals, who cannot find a common point of view on almost any important issue. They are ready to endlessly “rebuild” and reform, in fact, destroy the heritage of their ancestors, and the people will have to bear the burden of their management decisions.

Some Decembrists proposed to create a republic, others - to establish a constitutional monarchy, with the possibility of introducing a republic. Russia, according to the plan of N. Muravyov, was proposed to be de facto divided into 13 powers and 2 regions, creating a federation out of them. At the same time, the powers received the right to secession (self-determination). The manifesto of Prince Sergei Trubetskoy (Prince Trubetskoy was elected dictator before the uprising) proposed to liquidate the "former government" and replace it with a temporary one, until the elections of the Constituent Assembly. That is, the Decembrists planned to create a Provisional Government.

The head of the Southern Society of Decembrists, Colonel and Freemason Pavel Pestel wrote one of the program documents - "Russian Truth". Pestel planned to abolish serfdom by transferring half of the arable land fund to the peasants, the other half was supposed to be left in the ownership of the landowners, which was supposed to contribute to the bourgeois development of the country. The landlords had to lease the land to farmers - the "capitalists of the agricultural class", which should have led to the organization of large commodity farms in the country with the widespread involvement of hired labor. Russkaya Pravda abolished not only estates, but also national borders - they planned to unite all the tribes and nationalities living in Russia into a single Russian people. Thus, Pestel planned, following the example of America, to create a kind of "melting pot" in Russia. To speed up this process, it was proposed that de facto national segregation with the division of the Russian population into groups.

Muravyov was a supporter of the preservation of the landed estates of the landowners. The liberated peasants received only 2 acres of land, that is, only a personal plot. This plot, with the then low level of agricultural technology, could not feed a large peasant family. The peasants were forced to bow to the landowners, the landlords, who had all the land, meadows and forests, turned into dependent laborers, as in Latin America.

Thus, the Decembrists did not have a single, clear program, which, if they won, could lead to an internal conflict. The victory of the Decembrists guaranteed to lead to the collapse of the state, the army, chaos, conflict of estates and different peoples. For example, the mechanism of the great land redistribution was not described in detail, which led to a conflict between the many millions of peasants and the then landowners. In the context of a radical breakdown of the state system, the transfer of the capital (it was planned to move it to Nizhny Novgorod), it is obvious that such a “perestroika” led to a civil war and a new turmoil. In the field of state building, the plans of the Decembrists are very clearly correlated with the plans of the separatists at the beginning of the 20th century or 1990-2000. As well as the plans of Western politicians and ideologists who dream of dividing Great Russia into a number of weak and "independent" states. That is, the actions of the Decembrists led to confusion and civil war, to the collapse of the powerful Russian Empire. The Decembrists were the forerunners of the Februaryists, who were able to destroy Russian statehood in 1917.

Therefore, Nikolai is being poured with mud in every possible way. After all, he was able to stop the first major attempt to “perestroika” Russia, which led to confusion and civil confrontation to the delight of our Western “parterres”.

At the same time, Nikolai is accused of inhuman treatment of the Decembrists. However, the ruler of the Russian Empire, Nikolai, who was recorded in history as "Palkin", showed amazing mercy and philanthropy towards the rebels. In any European country, for such a rebellion, many hundreds or thousands of people would be executed in the most cruel way, so that others would be repulsed. And the military for the rebellion were subject to the death penalty. Would have opened all the underground, many have lost their posts. In Russia, everything was different: out of 579 people arrested in the case of the Decembrists, almost 300 were acquitted. Only the leaders (and not all of them) were executed - Pestel, Muravyov-Apostol, Ryleev, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, and the murderer of the commander of the Life Guards Grenadier Regiment Stürler and Governor Miloradovich-Kakhovsky. 88 people were exiled to hard labor, 18 to a settlement, 15 were demoted to soldiers. The rebel soldiers were subjected to corporal punishment and sent to the Caucasus. The "dictator" of the rebels, Prince Trubetskoy, did not appear at Senate Square at all, he got cold feet, sat out with the Austrian ambassador, where he was tied up. At first he denied everything, then he confessed and asked for forgiveness from the sovereign. And Nicholas I forgave him!

Tsar Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and lack of rights for peasants

It is known that Nicholas I was a consistent supporter of the abolition of serfdom. It was under him that the reform of the state peasants was carried out with the introduction of self-government in the countryside and the “decree on obligated peasants” was signed, which became the foundation for the abolition of serfdom. The position of the state peasants improved significantly (by the second half of the 1850s, their number reached about 50% of the population), which was associated with the reforms of P. D. Kiselev. Under him, the state peasants were allocated their own allotments of land and forest plots, and auxiliary cash desks and bread shops were established everywhere, which provided assistance to the peasants with cash loans and grain in case of crop failure. As a result of these measures, not only the welfare of the peasants increased, but also the treasury income from them increased by 15-20%, tax arrears were halved, and by the mid-1850s there were practically no landless laborers who eked out a beggarly and dependent existence, all received land from the state.

In addition, under Nicholas I, the practice of distributing peasants with lands as a reward was completely stopped, as well as the rights of landlords in relation to peasants were seriously curtailed and the rights of serfs were increased. In particular, it was forbidden to sell peasants without land, it was also forbidden to send peasants to hard labor, since serious crimes were removed from the competence of the landowner; serfs received the right to own land, conduct business activities and received relative freedom of movement. For the first time, the state began to systematically monitor that the rights of the peasants were not violated by the landowners (this was one of the functions of the Third Section), and to punish the landowners for these violations. As a result of the application of punishments in relation to the landlords, by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, about 200 landowners' estates were under arrest, which greatly affected the position of the peasants and the landowner's psychology. As the historian V. Klyuchevsky noted, two completely new conclusions followed from the laws adopted under Nicholas I: first, that the peasants are not the property of the landowner, but, first of all, subjects of the state, which protects their rights; secondly, that the personality of the peasant is not the private property of the landowner, that they are bound together by their relationship to the landlords' land, from which the peasants cannot be driven away.

Developed, but, unfortunately, were not carried out at that time and reforms to completely abolish serfdom, however, the total proportion of serfs in Russian society during his reign has seriously decreased. Thus, their share in the population of Russia, according to various estimates, decreased from 57-58% in 1811-1817. up to 35-45% in 1857-1858. and they ceased to constitute the majority of the population of the empire.

Also under Nicholas, education developed rapidly. For the first time, a program of mass peasant education was launched. The number of peasant schools in the country increased from 60 schools with 1,500 students in 1838 to 2,551 schools with 111,000 students in 1856. In the same period, many technical schools and universities were opened - in essence, a system of professional primary and secondary education of the country was created.

The myth of Nicholas - "Tsar-martinet"

It is believed that the king was a "soldafone", that is, he was only interested in military affairs. Indeed, Nikolai from early childhood had a special passion for military affairs. This passion was instilled in the children by their father, Pavel. Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich received an education at home, but the prince did not show much zeal for studies. He did not recognize the humanities, but he was well versed in the art of war, was fond of fortification, and was well acquainted with engineering. It is known that Nikolai Pavlovich was fond of painting, which he studied in childhood under the guidance of the painter I. A. Akimov and Professor V. K. Shebuev.

Having received a good engineering education in his youth, Nicholas I showed considerable knowledge in the field of construction, including military construction. He himself, like Peter I, did not hesitate to personally participate in the design and construction, focusing his attention on the fortresses, which later literally saved the country from much more sad consequences during the Crimean War. At the same time, under Nicholas, a powerful line of fortresses was created, covering the western strategic direction.

In Russia, the introduction of new technologies was actively going on. As the historian P. A. Zaionchkovsky wrote, during the reign of Nicholas I, “contemporaries had the idea that an era of reforms had begun in Russia.” Nicholas I actively introduced innovations in the country - for example, the Tsarskoye Selo railway opened in 1837 became only the 6th public railway in the world, despite the fact that the first such road was opened shortly before that in 1830. Under Nicholas, a railway was built between St. Petersburg and Moscow - at that time the longest in the world, and it should be attributed to the personal merits of the tsar that it was built almost in a straight line, which was still an innovation in those days. In fact, Nicholas was a technocratic emperor.

The myth of the failed foreign policy of Nicholas

On the whole, Nicholas's foreign policy was successful and reflected Russia's national interests. Russia has strengthened its position in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, in the Balkans and in the Far East. Russo-Persian War 1826-1828 ended with a brilliant victory for the Russian Empire. The policy of Britain, which set Persia against Russia, with the aim of ousting Russia from the Caucasus and preventing further advancement of Russians in Transcaucasia, Central Asia and the Near and Middle East, failed. According to the Turkmanchay peace treaty, the territories of the Erivan (on both sides of the Araks River) and Nakhichevan khanates ceded to Russia. The Persian government undertook not to interfere with the resettlement of Armenians in the Russian borders (Armenians supported the Russian army during the war). An indemnity of 20 million rubles was imposed on Iran. Iran confirmed the freedom of navigation in the Caspian Sea for Russian merchant ships and the exclusive right of Russia to have a navy here. That is, the Caspian moved into the sphere of influence of Russia. Russia was given a number of advantages in trade relations with Persia.

Russo-Turkish War 1828-1829 ended with a complete victory for Russia. According to the Adrianople peace treaty, the mouth of the Danube with the islands, the entire Caucasian coast of the Black Sea from the mouth of the Kuban River to the northern border of Adjara, as well as the fortresses of Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikhe with adjacent areas, went to the Russian Empire. Turkey recognized the accession to Russia of Georgia, Imeretia, Megrelia and Guria, as well as the khanates of Erivan and Nakhichevan, which had passed from Iran under the Turkmenchay Treaty. The right of Russian subjects to conduct free trade throughout the territory of the Ottoman Empire was confirmed, which granted the right to Russian and foreign merchant ships to freely pass through the Bosphorus and the Dardenelles. Russian subjects on Turkish territory were beyond the jurisdiction of the Turkish authorities. Turkey pledged to pay Russia an indemnity in the amount of 1.5 million Dutch chervonets within 1.5 years. Peace ensured the autonomy of the Danubian principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia). Russia took upon itself the guarantee of the autonomy of the principalities, which were completely out of the power of the Porte, paying her only an annual tribute. The Turks also confirmed their obligations to respect the autonomy of Serbia. Thus, the Peace of Adrianople created favorable conditions for the development of the Black Sea trade and completed the annexation of the main territories of Transcaucasia to Russia. Russia increased its influence in the Balkans, which became a factor that accelerated the process of liberation of Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, Serbia from the Ottoman yoke.

At the request of Russia, which declared itself the patroness of all Christian subjects of the Sultan, the Sultan was forced to recognize the freedom and independence of Greece and the broad autonomy of Serbia (1830). Amur expedition 1849-1855 Thanks to the decisive attitude of Nicholas I personally, it ended with the actual annexation of the entire left bank of the Amur to Russia, which was already documented under Alexander II. Successfully Russian troops advanced in the North Caucasus (Caucasian War). Russia included Balkaria, Karachay region, Shamil's uprising was not successful, the forces of the highlanders, thanks to the methodical pressure of the Russian forces, were undermined. Victory in the Caucasian War was approaching and became inevitable.

The strategic mistakes of the government of Nicholas include the participation of Russian troops in the suppression of the Hungarian uprising, which led to the preservation of the unity of the Austrian Empire, as well as the defeat in the Eastern War. However, the defeat in the Crimean War should not be exaggerated. Russia was forced to confront a whole coalition of opponents, the leading powers of that time - England and France. Austria took an extremely hostile stance. Our enemies planned to dismember Russia, throw it away from the Baltic and the Black Sea, seize huge territories - Finland, the Baltic States, the Kingdom of Poland, Crimea, lands in the Caucasus. But all these plans failed due to the heroic resistance of Russian soldiers and sailors in Sevastopol. In general, the war ended with minimal losses for Russia. England, France and Turkey were unable to destroy the main achievements of Russia in the Caucasus, the Black Sea region and the Baltic. Russia survived. She still remained the main opponent of the West on the planet.

Nicholas 1 was the third son of the emperor and Maria Feodorovna, so he should not have taken the throne. This determined the direction of his betrothal and upbringing. From a young age, Nikolai was interested in military affairs and was preparing for a career as a military man. In 1819, Emperor Alexander 1 announced the abdication of their brother Constantine from the throne. Therefore, in 1825, after the sudden death of Alexander 1, power passed to Nicholas. Years of government: 1825 - 1855.

Domestic politics

Its main directions were "tightening the screws" for freethinkers on the one hand and cautious but progressive reforms on the other. The beginning of the reign of Nicholas 1 was marked in 1825, which was defeated. After that, the emperor stepped up the repressive measures. Several Decembrists were executed, hundreds were exiled to the Caucasus and Siberia.

Under Nicholas 1, the period of "enlightened absolutism" ended. There comes a reduction in the economic and socio-political powers of the nobility in order to strengthen the autocracy. Reduced participation of nobles in meetings. Discipline has been strengthened among civil servants.

The Third Branch of the Emperor's Office was created under the leadership (later headed by Orlov), which opposed dissent, and also supervised the press, foreign citizens, analyzed the claims of serfs against landowners, etc. Correspondence was opened. After the Decembrist uprising, the emperor panicked about any manifestation of activity in society.

During this period, limited reforms were carried out. Legislation was streamlined, making administrative practice easier. In 1837, headed by Kiselev, it began to be carried out concerning the management of the peasants. They received more land, first-aid posts were built in the settlements and agrotechnical innovations were introduced. The rights of landowners began to be limited: it was forbidden to give peasants for debts and send them to work in the mountains.

From 1839 to 1843, a monetary reform was carried out under the leadership of the Minister of Finance Kankrin. A clear correlation was established between banknotes and the silver ruble.

However, the main issue regarding serfdom was never resolved, as Nicholas feared public unrest.

Foreign policy

In the sphere of foreign policy, there were 2 main issues: Eastern and European. In Europe, Nicholas the First fought against the revolutionary current. In 1830, the emperor sent troops to suppress the Polish national liberation uprising. In 1849, at the request of the Austrian ruler who later betrayed Russia, Russian troops crushed the revolution in Hungary.

The Eastern question touched upon the influence of powerful states on the European regions of the Ottoman Empire, since as a result of a fierce war, Russia received a certain territory on the Black Sea coast.

In the middle of the century, the eastern question escalated, which provoked the Crimean War. The Russian army carried out successful actions aimed at fighting Turkey in the Caucasus, the fleet operated in the Black Sea. Later, France and England entered the war. There was a threat of connecting Prussia, Sweden and Austria. Russia found itself face to face with Europe.

Sevastopol turned out to be the decisive arena of hostilities, the defense of which stretched out for almost a year. As a result, the emperor was defeated in the war, which led to the loss of the right to have a military base on the Black Sea. Thus, the main result of the foreign policy of Nicholas 1 was a quarrel with his own Europe, a quarrel that greatly damaged Russia. However, the tsar's fault was not in this, since he was forced to defend the interests of his country.

Thus, the foreign and domestic policy of Nicholas 1 was quite conservative. But no one doubts that the emperor strove for the well-being of Russia and worked tirelessly for this.

Throughout the great history of our great Motherland, a lot of kings and emperors have reigned. One of these was, who was born on July 6, 1796, and ruled his state for 30 years, from 1825 to 1855. Nicholas was remembered by many as a very cautious emperor, who did not pursue an active domestic policy in his state, which will be discussed later.

In contact with

The main directions of the domestic policy of Nicholas I, briefly

The vector of development of the country, which the emperor chose, was greatly influenced by the Decembrist uprising that took place in the year when the ruler ascended the throne. This event determined that all reforms, changes and, in general, the entire course of the ruler's domestic policy will be aimed at any destruction or prevention of the opposition.

The fight against any dissatisfied - this is what the head of state, who ascended the throne, adhered to throughout his reign. The ruler understood that Russia needed reforms, but his primary goal was the need for the stability of the country and the sustainability of all bills.

Internal policy of Nicholas I

Reforms of Nicholas I

The emperor, realizing the importance and necessity of reforms, tried to put them into practice.

financial reform

This was the first change that the ruler made. The financial reform is also called the reform of Kankrin, the Minister of Finance. The main goal and essence of the change was to restore confidence in paper money.

Nikolai is the first person who attempted not only to improve and create stability in the financial situation of his state, but also to issue a powerful currency that was highly valued in the international arena. With this reform, banknotes were to be replaced by credit marks. The whole process of change was divided into two stages:

1. The state accumulated a metal fund, which later, according to the plan, was supposed to become a security for paper money. To do this, the bank began to accept gold and silver coins with their subsequent exchange for deposit tickets. In parallel with this, the Minister of Finance, Kankrin, fixed the value of the banknote ruble at the same level, and ordered that all state payments be calculated in silver rubles.
2. The second stage was the process of exchanging deposit notes for new credit notes. They could easily be exchanged for metal rubles.

Important! Thus, Kankrin managed to create such a financial situation in the country, in which ordinary paper money was backed by metal and was valued in exactly the same way as metal money.

The main features of Nicholas's domestic policy were actions aimed at improving the life of the peasants. During his entire reign, 9 committees were created to discuss the possibility of improving the life of serfs. It should be noted right away that the emperor failed to solve the peasant question to the end, since he did everything very conservatively.

The great sovereign understood the importance, but the first changes of the ruler were aimed at improving the life of the state peasants, and not all:

• The number of educational institutions and hospitals has increased in state villages, villages and other settlements.
• Special plots of land were allocated, where members of the peasant community could use them in order to prevent a bad harvest and subsequently famine. Potatoes are what these lands were mainly planted with.
• Attempts were made to solve the problem of lack of land. In those settlements where the peasants did not have enough land, state peasants were transferred to the east, where there were a lot of free plots.

These first steps, which Nicholas I took to improve the life of the peasants, greatly alerted the landowners, and even caused them discontent. The reason for this was that the life of the state peasants began to really get better, and consequently, ordinary serfs also began to show discontent.

Later, the government of the state, headed by the emperor, began to develop a plan to create bills that, one way or another, improved the life of ordinary serfs:

• A law was issued that forbade landowners to retail serfs, that is, the sale of any peasant separately from the family was henceforth prohibited.
• The bill, called "On obligated peasants", was that now the landowners had the right to release serfs without land, and also to release them with land. However, for such a gift of freedom, the liberated serfs were obliged to pay certain debts to their former masters.
• From a certain point, serfs were given the right to buy their own land and, therefore, to become free people. In addition, serfs were also entitled to buy property.

ATTENTION! Despite all the reforms of Nicholas I described above, which came into force under this emperor, neither the landlords nor the peasants used them: the former did not want to let the serfs go, while the latter simply did not have the opportunity to redeem themselves. However, all these changes were an important step towards the complete disappearance of serfdom.

Education policy

The ruler of the state decided to single out three types of schools: parish, county and gymnasiums. The first and most important subjects taught in schools were Latin and Greek, and all other disciplines were considered optional. As soon as Nicholas first ascended the throne, there were about 49 gymnasiums in Russia, and by the end of the emperor's reign, their number was 77 throughout the country.

Universities have also changed. Rectors, as well as professors of educational institutions, were now elected by the Ministry of Public Education. The opportunity to study at universities was given only for money. In addition to Moscow University, higher educational institutions were located in St. Petersburg, Kazan, Kharkov and Kiev. In addition, some lyceums could give higher education to people.

The first place in all education was occupied by the “official nationality”, which consisted in the fact that the entire Russian people is the guardian of patriarchal traditions. That is why in all universities, regardless of the faculty, such subjects as ecclesiastical law and theology were taught.

Economic development

The industrial situation that settled down in the state by the time Nicholas came to the throne was the most terrible in the history of Russia. There was no question of any competition in this area with Western and European powers.

All those types of industrial products and materials that were simply necessary for the country were bought and delivered from abroad, and Russia itself supplied only raw materials abroad. However, by the end of the reign of the emperor, the situation changed very noticeably for the better. Nikolay was able to begin the formation of a technically advanced industry, already capable of competition.

The production of clothing, metals, sugar and textiles has received a very strong development. A huge number of products from completely different materials began to be produced in the Russian Empire. Work machines also began to be made at home, and not bought abroad.

According to statistics, for more than 30 years, the turnover of industry in the country has more than tripled in one year. In particular, machine-building products increased their turnover by as much as 33 times, and cotton products - by 31 times.

For the first time in the history of Russia, the construction of paved highways began. Three major routes were built, one of which is Moscow-Warsaw. Under Nicholas I, the construction of railways was also initiated. The rapid growth of industry served to increase the urban population by more than 2 times.

Scheme and characteristics of the domestic policy of Nicholas I

As already mentioned, the main reasons for the tightening of domestic policy under Nicholas I were the Decembrist uprising and new possible protests. Despite the fact that the emperor tried and made the life of the serfs better, he adhered to the foundations of autocracy, suppressed the opposition and developed bureaucracy. This was the internal policy of Nicholas 1. The diagram below describes its main directions.

The results of Nicholas's domestic policy, as well as the general assessment of modern historians, politicians and scientists, are ambiguous. On the one hand, the emperor managed to create financial stability in the state, to "revive" industry, increasing its volume tenfold.

Attempts were even made to improve life, and partially free ordinary peasants, but these attempts were unsuccessful. On the other hand, Nicholas the First did not allow dissent, made it so that religion in people's lives took almost the first place, which, by definition, is not very good for the normal development of the state. The protective function was in principle observed.

Domestic policy of Nicholas I

Domestic policy of Nicholas I. Continued

Conclusion

The result of everything can be formulated as follows: for Nicholas I, the most important aspect during his reign was precisely the stability within his country. He was not indifferent to the life of ordinary citizens, but he could not greatly improve it, primarily because of the autocratic regime, which the emperor fully supported and tried to strengthen in every possible way.