Soldiers of the Tsar. Army and Society in Russia, 1462-1874 - John L. Keep

(Wang) #1

148 The Imperial Century, J 725-1825
such settlers enjoyed temporary freedom from the levy-partly because they
had to provide for their own defence anyway and partly because the govern-
ment wanted to build up the population of this remote region.^19
Catherine's long-term aim was to bring about administrative uniformity
throughout her emp1re,^2 u but in practice she permitted various regional par-
ticularities to continue in the system of military recruitment and service. In the
1780s the levy was gradually introduced into the newly annexed region of New
Russia, but with certain modifications necessitated by differences in its social
structure. Many of the farmers here were pioneer settlers. They were given the
right to keep one son in each family at home; like the 'homesteaders' they drew
lots as to who should serve and remained with the colours for a limited term of
15 years. They were in the main cavalrymen who did duty in the south and
formed a local militia rather like the Cossacks. The government also proceeded
carefully in White Russia and Poland (eventually residents of a strip 100 versts
wide along the western border were given a privileged status in regard to the
recruit levy)^21 and in the Baltic provinces, which since their annexation under
Peter I had been allowed to pay for the upkeep of the army through general
taxation instead of a poll tax; their inhabitants, however, also had to supply
the troops stationed in their midst.^22
This meant that the main weight of the levy continued to fall on the peasants
of Great Russia. A hint of regional specialization can be detected in their regard
as well, in that men from certain northern areas were frequently sent to the
11avy rather than the army; but this did, not detract from the general principle.
Each taxpaying community had to provide its share of the quota. Recruits
.vere chosen by the authorities at the lowest level-the rural commune (obsh-
~hina), township (posad), etc.-who generally acted under the supervision of
ocal landowners and/ or district-level officials. Initially the populace worked
)Ut its own rules, and these customary practices gradually acquired legai sanc-
ion as the state took a closer interest in the proceedings. Tradition dictated
.hat the local elders would select men from the largest (and by implication the
nost prosperous) families and from any marginal elements (non-tyaglye, that
s, those who did not work the land or help to bear the community's fiscal
)bligations). This could be a heavy burden: on the Yaroslavl" estate of M. M.
~hcherbatov, a conservative leader prominent in the 1770s, the family of F.
vanov, which had nine male members of working age, lost four of them in as
nany levies.^23 Not unnaturally, those with influence in the community, and
19 PSZ xvi. 11860 ( 11 June 1763), xix. 13475 ( 16 June 1770).
2o De Madariaga, Catherine, pp. 61, 324; Raeff, 'Uniformity', p. 103, mentions a plan (still
inpublished) by R. L. Vorontsov in 1761 which urged the geographical evening out of recruit
1bligations.
21 PSZ xxvi. 20019 (21 Sept. 1801); xxxi. 24773 (16 Sept. 1810). § 16.
22 Maslovsky, Materialy, ii (ii). 17; PSZ xx. 14651, § 7, xxi. 15723, 15846 (Baltic). xxii. 16071
Kursk), xxiii. 17249 (White Russia). Baltic privileges were restricted by Paul in 1797 (xxiv. 17584)
ut later expanded again (xxv. 18823, xxx. 22924, 23163).
23 Aleksandrov, Se/. obshchina, p. 250. This recent study, based on votchinal archives, is the
irst to explore the levy's operation at the local level, and the following passages owe much to this
1ork.

Free download pdf