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

11111 UUU<.:tlUfl

features of this form of government (for example, paternalism, informality)

were beneficent; and it is likewise true that it commanded a high degree of

acceptance (paradoxically, in view of the popular rebelliousness), since few

were able to envisage any practical alternative. Not until the twentieth century

was the regime's legitimacy widely called in question. Russia produced a fair

crop of rulers with a tyrannical disposition-Ivan IV, Peter I, Peter Ill, Paul I,

Nicholas I-but much more is involved here than the personality of the auto-

crat. In their efforts to conceptualize this problem institutionally and socio-

logically, sophisticated modern scholars should not overlook the insights of

contemporary observers such as the nineteenth-century Polish officer who

maintained, with reference to what he called unambiguously 'le despotisme

d'un seul', that:

Since Peter I all the emperors have taken particular care of the army, which is the object

of their continual solicitude ... The army is in fact the preponderant element in the

state, for upon it rests the Sovereign's power; and it is through it that civilization spreads

within the empire. s

Was pre-reform Russia also militaristic? Of the eight features which students
of the phenomenon have identified as characteristic, Russia manifested all but
one. It cannot be shown that the military, as a distinct interest group, intervened
overtly or covertly in the process of political decision-making, in the manner
of the Prussian general staff-although a sceptic might say that it had no need
to since it received very generous resource allocations. The other features,
listed in ascending order of importance, are:

(i) a heavy emphasis on military ceremonial;

(ii) an ideology supportive of military ideals;

(iii) the regular inculcation of these values through the educational system;

(iv) heavy state expenditure on military projects;

(v) a willingness to incur high casualty tolls in warfare;

(vi) a readiness to commit the armed forces in foreign and domestic con-

flicts;

(vii) extensive controls over the life of society for military ends.^6

in Problems of Communism 33 (1984), 1, pp. 68-72. An interesting discussion on the nature of

Russian absolutism was staged by Soviet scholars in 1968-71. From the ample semi-popular

literature T. Szamuely, The Russian Tradition (London, 1974) deserves to be singled out. In our

view none of these works appreciates sufficiently the military component in the tsarist power structure.

s Tanski, Tableau, p. 3.

(^6) This list is based on L. I. Radway, 'Militarism', in D. L. Sills (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, New York, 1968, pp." 300-4; H. F. Reading, A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, London
and Boston, 1977, p. 131. Both these definitions rest upon the pioneering work of S. Andreski,
M. JanQwitz, S. P. Huntington, J. van Doorn, F. Vagts, and others. For the whole controversy
see now V. R. Berghahn, Militarism: the History of an International Debate, 1861-1979,
Leamington Spa, 1981, and for the Russian case my 'Origins of Russian Militarism' (forthcoming
in CMRS).