For this week's post, I would like to offer a review of W. Bruce Lincoln's book,
Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias. The review is not timely as the book has been in print for a number of years (almost 20), but I have just recently read the book and thought I would share my opinions of the work.
Unlike other historians, who portray Nicholas I as an oppressive tyrant, W. Bruce Lincoln portrays the Russian emperor as a man bound by his convictions and love for his subjects. His biography of Nicholas I,
Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, is a somewhat sympathetic study of the emperor who, as Lincoln claims, led Russia through its “Golden Age”. Using more secondary sources than primary ones, Lincoln attempts to validate the reign of Nicholas I and justify the autocracy under which Nicholas reigned. Although he finds some success in his objective, in the end the author fails to fully convince his readers of Nicholas’ sincerity and intentions for Russia. Failure to convince his readers results from two faults in Lincoln’s writing. First, Lincoln uses contradictory statements on occasion, which weaken the author’s credibility. As an example, Lincoln claims that Nicholas was lenient with intellectuals who opposed him, yet at the same time Lincoln illustrates the oppressiveness of the “Nicholas System” against those same intellectuals (chapter 7). Secondly, Lincoln’s repetitive statements and twice-used quotes are distracting and fail to drive the author’s point home. Rather, these statements seem a lack of effort to provide stronger evidence and could account for the author’s failure to achieve complete success. Lincoln would do well to supplement his statements with new information and thus advance his narrative better than he has.
To begin his narrative of Nicholas I, Lincoln presents an extensive look at the reign of Nicholas’ brother and predecessor, Alexander I. This study of Alexander’s reign provides the foundation for the problems Nicholas would face as emperor. While setting the stage for his readers, Lincoln makes several assumptions about the influences of Nicholas’ youth that he cannot support with hard facts. Lincoln’s assumptions are evidenced by his use of words and phrases like “perhaps”, “probably” and “must have”. In making these assumptions, Lincoln draws upon what appear to be logical conclusions, but nevertheless, the assumptions detract from the author’s credibility in Nicholas’ childhood. Later, however, Lincoln shows the breadth of his knowledge and research by supporting his claims with primary sources. Although the author utilizes more secondary sources than primary, he uses the primary sources extensively, providing many direct quotes from the diaries and personal correspondence of Nicholas, his advisors and other world leaders.
After setting the stage for Nicholas’ reign, Lincoln begins a chronological history of the Czar as the supreme ruler and autocrat of all of Russia by explaining the different views of Nicholas I and his predecessor, Alexander I. According to Lincoln, Alexander I saw Russia as a part of Europe and brought European ideas to Russia in hopes of modernizing the mother country. Nicholas, on the other hand, saw Russia separate from Europe and attempted to isolate Russia from the revolutionary ideas of the west. This, according to Lincoln was both the strength and weakness of the “Nicholas System”. By pulling back from Alexander’s European policies and isolating Russia, Lincoln claims that Nicholas strengthened the identity of Russia and led to the birth of Russia’s golden age, particularly in literature and the arts. Russia’s strong identity carried over into government and created an age of Russian noble standing in the world. This view contrasts sharply with the oppressive viewpoints portrayed by other Russian historians. Lincoln acknowledges Nicholas’ reign was oppressive but prefers highlight the positive rather than the negative.
Lincoln also validates Russia’s isolation as a weakness stating Russia had few allies during Nicholas’ reign and was often misunderstood by the European powers because of Nicholas’ isolationist policies. Britain, for instance, believed that Russia wanted to destroy the Ottoman Empire and claim additional territory for the vast empire, despite continued denials of such plans from Nicholas.
Nicholas’ desire to preserve the weak Ottoman Empire is a major point through Lincoln’s account. Lincoln uses this point to illustrate not only the difficulties Nicholas faced, but also the kind of man Nicholas was. To illustrate the difficulties faced by Nicholas, Lincoln presents an example by which Nicholas kept ruinous thoughts to himself and projected an agreeable demeanor in negotiations (page 147). According to Lincoln, Nicholas understood the importance of agreement over personal ideals. Nicholas also understood the importance of keeping peace, for Russia and for Europe. Nicholas’ accommodations in negotiations support Lincoln’s portrayal of Nicholas as a charming individual and brilliant politician. More importantly, however, is Lincoln’s depiction of Nicholas as a candid, straightforward, man of integrity who believed in his divine right to rule Russia. According to the author, Nicholas’ belief in the divine right made him a humble, responsible father of the Russia people who was always tried to do what was right by Russia. The author further portrays Nicholas as being responsible for the transgressions of the Russian people.
Although, Lincoln claims Nicholas was a brilliant politician, he provides a much different view of Nicholas the statesman. Lincoln acknowledges that many of Russia’s problems existed prior to Nicholas’ ascension to the throne, but he squarely places much of the blame for Russia’s failures during the early to mid 19th century on Nicholas’ shoulders. First, Lincoln claims that Nicholas was poorly educated because of the Czar’s interest in military training over learning, despite his mothers continued efforts to remove him from the military’s influence. Nicholas’s military background would not serve him well in the administration of the state as witnessed by the large bureaucracy created under the “Nicholas System.” Lincoln implies that Nicholas may have suffered from some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder in that Nicholas had to know every minute detail of everything that occurred within Russia. Nicholas preferred the hands on approach to the day-to-day operations of the state, often, according to Lincoln, going unannounced into various regions to see Russia’s internal problems first hand. Nicholas, however, did not know the true Russia, despite these trips and a prolonged tour of the empire before the death of Alexander I. Lincoln implies this was the result of the Russian people’s love for their father and not wanting him to see them suffer. Few Russians blamed Nicholas because they believed if he were truly aware of their predicament, he would change it. Instead, the Russian people blame the government bureaucracy under Nicholas, which he had inadvertently, but ironically, created. A large bureaucracy was required to investigate the minute details Nicholas felt he needed to know, which the author asserts was the result of Nicholas’ fear of revolution. Quite possibly, this fear derived from the Decembrist Revolution that opened Nicholas’s reign. The bureaucracy was filled with military personnel due to Nicholas’ friends and closest advisors all being military men. According to Lincoln, these military trained government officials lacked the general understanding of civil service. Lincoln claims that, unlike Nicholas himself, Nicholas’ advisors feared being candid and open with the emperor. Lincoln states that Nicholas’ advisors spoke mostly of what Nicholas wanted to hear and smoothed over the real issues facing Russia. This supports Lincolns claim that the Russian people did not believe Nicholas knew the true condition of their suffering. Filling the bureaucracy with military generals and officers supports Lincoln’s claim that Nicholas desired military discipline in ruling the homeland, even if he had no desire for foreign wars, colonization, or territorial gains.
With a background of military training and a government of military officers, one would think that Nicholas served as an able commander of the Russian forces. Lincoln dispels this myth in his portrayal of Nicholas. Although Russia would eventually force the Ottoman Empire into opening the Straits of the Dardanelles and Bosporus to Russian shipping, Lincoln depicts Nicholas’ command at the beginning of the war as a failure. Furthermore, the author claims that behind the parade-perfect façade, the army was ill trained and ill equipped. Lincoln states that the army spent too much time, energy and resources on appearing disciplined and not enough time on actual training. He continues by implying that the strength behind Russia’s army was the military’s shear numbers.
The chronology of Nicholas’ reign lead Lincoln’s final chapters to be the most important. Although the European revolutions barely reached Russia and its provinces in1848, Lincoln treats this year as the turning point in Nicholas’ reign and the beginning of the collapse of the “Nicholas System”. The author claims that Nicholas became even more oppressive in his attempts to prevent western revolutions from spreading to Russia and illustrates how the increasingly arbitrary, oppressive, and secretive nature of the “Nicholas System” eventually oppressed even Nicholas himself. According to the author, Nicholas’ system and its administration and enforcement took a heavy toll on the emperor, diminishing Nicholas’ strength and contributing to his early aging. The author continues by charging the “Nicholas System” with being responsible for its own collapse.
Lincoln’s
Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias is an easy to read biography that minimally analyzes the reign of Nicholas I critically. Lincoln provides a well-documented bibliography, but chooses to go against conventional history and portray the Nicholas I in a somewhat sympathetic and more positive light. This book is a good source for an undergraduate study of Russian history and Czar Nicholas I, but it is recommended with reservation by this reviewer.
