Thread by @kamilkazani

Interpreting Russian political dynamics through the concept of assabiyah may not be widely-established but is quite well-known tradition in Russia

Some distinguish 3 political regimes with 3 different assabiyahs

1698 - 1825 Praetorians
1825 - 1917 Monarchy
1917 - now Party

Praetorian regime originated in the toy army of Peter I. Peter was formally coronated as a Tsar in 1682 at the age of 10 together with his elder but feeble-minded brother Ivan. However, in practice his sister Sofya ruled as a regent. To please Peter they gave him the toy army

Initially the entire toy army consisted of only 50 boys living in the Preobrazhenskoye village. Peter was to train him both to have fun ("потешные" = for fun) and to learn how to lead the army. With the time passing the toy army grew and part of it was relocated to Semenovskoye

Very soon this toy army was armed, clothed and trained in a Western style. Near Preobrazhenskoye they built a toy fortress 'Pressburg' and learnt how to assault it with bayonets and artillery. Artillery used only wooden balls, but they still inflicted casualties. Many kids died

Peter was growing up and his toy army was growing up. Pretty quickly he commanded a very well-trained army of young lads loyal to him personally

The contest of power with Sofya ended in 1698 with him imprisoning his sister in a monastery and exterminating her supporters. It's called the suppression of Streltsy Revolt, but alternative point of view is that it was Peter who revolted and labeled his opponents as mutineers

In a battle of Narva, 1700, Russian army was completely routed by the Swedes. Only the former toy regiments stood their ground and kept fighting. As a result they were lavishly promoted and decorated

They became two first and most prestigious regiment of the Imperial Life Guard - Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky, after the villages where they initially quartered. For their sacrifice by Narva where they fought 'with the blood up to their knees' they would now wear red socks

One of particular features of a new regime was the limitless faith of Peter I in a guard officer. They were the only men he trusted fully. They fought in battles, guarded the Tsar and were constantly use to check and control others, including civilian administration

Life Guard was given the full authority over other institutions including new Western-styled ones. Their power was arbitrary and unchecked. Let me give you several cases of Peter I era regarding relations of the military with the civil magistrates (Peter himself devised)

Merchants of Kostroma built a new city council, where the Bürgermeister (the mayor) could sit. But in 1719 a colonel Tatarinov expropriated it for his private residence, so now the city council had to dwell in tiny rooms of the local monastery

"Ober-ofizier Volkon sent dragoons to seize Bürgermeister Bocharnikov. He ordered dragoons beat him by hands, by sticks, the sword hilts and whips to death. So now Boacharnikov is dying' Many such cases with military and guard harassing any other administration and well, everyone

In 1725 Peter I dies. He killed his eldest son Alexey to cleanse the way for a younger son from a beloved wife. But he dies in childhood. Peter made a law that the Tsar can appoint anyone as an heir. But he died appointing no yone. He just wrote 'Give everything to ... ' [dies]

Three lessons from this story. FIrst, as Plato told, there's nothing more important than games, especially childish games. Children will grow up and then apply the ways acquired during their childhood - that's how the world changes. That's how the toy army became the ruling elite

Secondly, modernisation of Russia had both real and fake aspects.Everything military like army, navy, industry, was real. But everything civilian was BS. Peter borrowed Burgermeisters, Rathäuser etc - but they were shallow institutions with no status or authority

I would even suggest that future modernisations of Russia were mostly very similar. Policies that increased military power arewerereal, policies not aimed to that goal or contradicting it are fake. However, they will be still launched - partially to make a positive public image

And finally - the regime will instinctively concentrate power and centralise, usurping more and more power and authority. But that creates a single point of failure. Especially during the transfer of power. If Peter kept old laws, his grandson would naturally became the next Tsar

But Peter 1) usurped the right to appoint successor 2) didn't name him. So Russia entered the era of palace coups. Between 1725 and 1801 Russia had six successful coups d'etat. Legitimate succession didn't happen often - in most cases power changed as a result of the coup

And who did all these coups? The Imperial Guard did. The Guard was to decide who of the ruling Romanovs us a legitimate successor and who's an usurper. After each successful coup guards were lavishly rewarded with titles, lands, serfs

Consider Grigori Orlov. A captain of the Guard organised coup of 1762 when Peter III was deposed and killed and his wife Catherine became empress Catherine II. The captain Orlov became a general-major, Kamerherr, he and his conspirator-brothers became counts

Ofc his received lands, serfs, cash. And also his son with Catherine could inherit neither his nor Catherin's title, he still became a count in his own right - that's how Bobrinsky family originated

If a captain Orlov was a mastermind behind 1762, an NCO Potemkin was just a minor, regular conspirator. Not even an officer. He still became a second lieutenant, salaried Kamer-Junker, was awarded 400 serfs and 10 000 roubles, became deputy head of the Orthodox Church

Ofc later when he became a new lover (and co-ruler) Catherine he rose much higher. Commander of the guard, minister of war, governor of Novorossiya, including conquered Crimea. To illustrate his position I'll quote how princess Zagryazhskaya got her lands in Crimea

Once Potemkin asked her:

- Natalya Kirillovna, wanna some land?
- Why would I take your land, for what reason?
- Ofc the empress will grant, I'll just tell her

She took it and gave it to Count Kochubei as a dowry for her daughter. They later brought 50 000 roubles rent

Why did I tell it? To show that a relatively young assabiyah is a great *social lift*. Just participate in a coup, even as NCO and you are rich for life. 150 serfs were considered as an average noble estate and an NCO got 400 + cash + additional court sinecure with salary

In the 18th c the guard could decide who'a a true emperor and who's an usurper. Indeed, Russian monarchy was labeled as a 'despotism limited by the regicide'. And who did regicide? Well, the guards. And after each successful coup they were rewarded enormously

And yet, all of this distribution relied on the constant inflow of lands and peasants to be redistributed. Most of new grants during the Catherine's reign were possible because of partition of Poland. A lot of land, a lot of serfs to distribute

The boundary between two regimes is vague. Usually there is some transitionary period. In Russia it started in the short reign of Paul I - 1796-1801. He did two things. First he imposed very harsh discipline on the Guard. Secondly, he excluded women from succession

Previously an emperor could appoint anyone as his hair. That theoretically increased the, but in practice made power transition shady. Why would this guy become an emperor? Because testament? It's a fake testament we've better one. So the Guards decided which testament is correct

Paul established new and very clear order of succession. An eldest son of the emperor gonna be new emperor and that's it. Theoretically it limited the emperor's powers. In practice however it made them more stable. Now rules were predicable and legitimacy of an heir stronger.

As a result later emperors didn't rely on Guards as much. Yes, Alexander agreed to murder his father and became the emperor. But what followed next was unusual. He didn't punish his fathers murderes, but didn't reward him either. Many of them were fired and banished to villages

He now treated the guards differently. Sons of Paul - Pavlovich were (just as their dad) proponents of extremely harsh discipline and training so contrasting with previously relaxed rules of Catherine's age. The service became very very burdensome

Moreover, it became less lucrative. Under Alexander, land grants to noblemen decreased dramatically. Though owing his power to the guard he didn't really award it. Which makes sense. Under the new order as the eldest son, a clear and legitimate successor, he didn't owe them much

He also treated them much harsher. After the Napoleonic Wars the victorious military became too exhilarated. So in 1821 he sends all the Imperial Guard to 'breath fresh air' in Lithuania for 15 months. For more than a year there were no guards in St Petersburg - and they obeyed

After the death of Alexander much of the Guard rebelled. As we remember in systems like Russian power transit is always a potential point of failure. Few guard regiments went to Senatskaya Square where they were slaughtered by Nicholas I artillery

It's difficult to reconstruct what happened. Ofc there were interrogation protocols. But interestingly enough there was no trial. Rebels were simply led to court and declared their sentences. Some objected 'but we were not even tried!'. Nicholas didn't allow any trial however

It seems that some rebels were secretly killed in prison. May be Nicholas didn't want them to tell their version of events even to interrogators. After all, Nicholas was an unlikely successor. He wasn't even the eldest living Romanov

He publicly proclaimed that his elder brother Konstantin who governed Poland abdicated only on 14 December 1825. And next day the rebel (?) guard regiments went to the square. May be that's why there was no trial, even closed one

Anyway the 1825 marks the end of transition period. Now all emperors succeed each other only according to the clear, precise and published rules of succession. Now the emperor is always succeeded by his eldest son. Therefore no coups. Therefore, power of the guards plummets

He decreased upward mobility. Under Peter I it was very easy to rise up. Private soldiers could be promoted to ensign and thus become hereditary nobles with all the privilege. Time passing it became harder and harder. Nicholas raises this plank first to a major, than to a colonel

In fact since Nicholas we see a new trend - the downward mobility of the noble class. Upper aristocracy lived in St Petersburg - by far the most expensive city in Europe in pair with London. It was far more costly than Paris or Vienna. The financial burden on guards was enormous

Consider Cavalier Guards. They got a nice salary, yes. But all of it went to the obligatory gifts for the Imperial Family on their birthdays, name days, memory dates, etc. They didn't earn anything. Meanwhile their position obliged them to live lavishly

Regimental rules of honour obliged them to buy the most expensive seats in theatres, buy provisions only in the most expensive shops of St Petersburg, live only in very expensive apartments. Meanwhile coups stopped and lands + serfs awards stopped, too

In the 18th c. Guard service led to social elevation and enrichment. In the 19th it led to bankruptcy. Tolstoy in Anna Karenina mentions that his hero needs money cuz he commands one of the most expensive guard regiments. Now it's where you spend cash, lots of it

In a sense that was parallel to what was happening in other countries. For example in the UK where the end of 'old corruption' basically made government service unprofitable. In the 18th c you could have enriched there handsomely, in 19th - not really

This reminds me of C.N. Parkinson. He described British society as a circle, turning clockwise and divided by a vertical line to two halves. In the left part of the circle there are money-seeking elites. They go upward. In the right one - status-seeking ones. They go downward

Parkinson put politics, civil service, media, arts and sciences, etc in the right circle. Ofc some of these people will rise up. But overwhelmingly the descendats of status-seeking ppl become nobody. While descendants of money-seeking ones become new elite and now seek status

If we look at Russia through this lease we'll see that in the 18th c it looked differently. With illegitimate power and massive land redistributions right half had upward mobility. But by the 19th - less and less. In particular, court life led to poverty

There could be two solutions. First, to leave St Petersburg, move to a cheaper place with less consumption obligations. That however could bring Tsar's fury. Perhaps Pushkin sought duels so much because he hoped Tsar would banish him to his estates from the capital

You could also mortgage your land to the state. If you remember the entire plot of the 'Dead Souls' is built on the fact that the state bank assessed the value of an estate based on how many serfs (= souls, души) were registered there - no matter whether they're alive or dead

So with all the downward mobility of Russian nobles who did Nicholas rely on? On Germans. He promoted them so much that by the end of his reign more than half of Russian governors were German. While their influence was hugh in the 18th c, Nicholas era was the peak of their power

Germans were so obnoxious even before that one of noble rebels' projects suggested Russia should be cleansed from the Germans, capital moved inland to a truly Russian Nizhny Novgorod and army uniform returned to the old Muscovite style, instead of Western one

After 1825 their influence only increased. Upon general Yermolov's retirement Nicholas offered him to choose an award for his service. Yermolov reportedly responded:

- Your majesty, make me German

But with few exceptions those German upstarts didn't become rich. Because massive wealth redistribution stopped. Holding enormous power, Baltic barons still were relatively poor with not so many serfs. Also they were less corrupt and embezzled less money than Russians

Why were they promoted so much in the first place? Largely because of their precarious position. In a country which hated them and where some Russian nobles were contemplating their genocide, these guys had no one but Tsar to seek protection from. Their position was frail

So German position was strong but fragile. Meanwhile Russian nobility was quickly impoverishing which was exacerbated by the lack of majorat - land was divided among all the kids. So by mid-19th c net worth of even the highest aristocracy was often negative

But these guys were still influential and their power over the country uncontested by other social classes. Until the Industrial Revolution came to Russia. End of thread to be continued