Contemplating the Legacy of Czar Nicholas

 

Nicholas, Emperor of Russia

There is no figure so entrenched in the history and collective consciousness of Russia as the austere image of Czar Nicholas. Historically, autocrats have wielded power by evoking fear and respect, and Nicholas was no exception. With his steely gaze immortalized in portraits scattered across Russia's public spaces, his silent rule personified the unqualified despotism prevalent during his reign. From the cozy parlour of a merchant to a bustling coffee house, his look — always turned somewhat proudly aside — was ever present. As the Russian burgher reflected, the Czar's countenance displayed "something of an iron dignity," (source text).

While the exterior remains fixed in people’s mind, understanding the man behind the stern facade requires delving into his history, exploring his reign, and interpreting the tapestry of events woven during his rule. Born in 1796, Nicholas was the third son of Emperor Paul, whose eccentric nature and tragic end still titillate historians. Originally, the odds of his ascending the throne seemed slim with his elder brothers, Alexander and Constantine, naturally ahead in the line of succession. However, in a twist of fate that reverberated throughout Europe, he succeeded to the throne on Alexander’s death, bypassing Constantine owing to a calculated move condoned by the latter, veering from traditional laws of succession.

Examining Nicholas’s rule necessitates understanding Russia's social dynamics of that time. The nation was a diverse composition, an intermingling of varied races and semi-barbarous tribes. Administering such diverse groups required a reign of comprehensive power and control. The efficiency and scale of command displayed by Nicholas bear testament to his character as a ruler who possessed a "will which commands 70 millions of souls," (source text). His reign bore the mark of a militarized power, evident in his efforts towards honing the efficiency of the Russian army. The nation, under his rule, became a colossal camp, with social life operating like a "drilled mechanism," displaying the exactitude of a soldier's march (source text).

Despite channelizing the strength of mass conformity, Nicholas's reign had its weakness – it was inert and lacked spontaneity. This peculiarity in his rule became prominent during his campaigns to extend the boundaries of Russia. His strategies to gain a foothold in Turkey, for example, reveal a disturbing pattern of deceit, with the Czar stirring internal discord while carefully planning larger, more decisive action.

At the core, Czar Nicholas was a man whose rule revolved around iron will and determination. However, his strategies were often steeped in subterfuge and manipulation, extending Russian influence like a gangrene creeping across the continent. The paradox that a man seen as the defender of legitimacy should gain his crown via unconventional succession is another layer in the complexity of Nicholas's regime.

Contemplating Nicholas’s reign illustrates the layered and complex dynamics of historic autocracy, providing valuable insights into the historical shaping of Russia's social dynamics, military prowess, and territorial expansion. Memory of Czar Nicholas, therefore, is more than that of a stern countenance — it is a vision of a man whose reign acted as an intricate puzzle piece fitting into the grand chronicles of Russia's past.

Past does shape the present. Once we understand this, we're better equipped to comprehend phenomena that mystify us, such as understanding Russia’s love for autocratic leaders. Nicholas's stern and unyielding depiction brings into focus a salient personality feature many Russian leaders have inherited — a propensity towards strong, iron-fisted rule. His portrait, therefore, serves not merely as a window into the past, but also, subtly, as a mirror reflecting today’s leadership trends in Russia.

Looking back at the past helps us to re-interpret the present and anticipate the future. As we contemplate the face and legacy of Czar Nicholas, we can ascertain the deeper attitudes and prejudices that shape Russian society today, understand its resilience, and perhaps predict its future trajectory. History, with all its triumphs and trespasses, remains our most reliable guide. And in the harsh countenance of one Czar Nicholas, we find a rich tapestry of lessons about leadership, nationhood, and the inescapable shadow cast by history.

**Citation**:
- Trinity Journal, [Nicholas, Emperior of Russia, 1854-12-23]
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/


Original Article:

In Petersburg there is a likeness—the likeness of a man, from which, do what you will, you can never escape. Go where you please, you see those features, In the bright and particoloured parlour of the Russian burgher, not far from the eternal lamp which lights up the mummy-like faces of the saints cast in silver, you see those features at least in some poor lithograph. The petty retailer preserves them in gaudy colours in the very small sitting-room which joins on to his shop. In the merchant's parlour that countenance salutes you in all the dignity of an oil-painted bust. And the same portrait, those very eyes, that nose, that contour of face, looks on you in all the coffee houses, tea saloons, spirit-vaults, in all the public rooms, libraries, common halls, workshops, repositories, that you enter. Always the same harsh countenance —without love, without hate— turned somewhat proudly aside, fixed above the stiff collar of a General's uniform in green, the left breast covered with orders, a great part of which are hidden by the broad band of the order of Alexander Newskyor. The countenance has something in it of an iron dignity; you can hardly keep from shivering if you look long on those features, especially if you fix your gaze on the eyes, whose looks you can scarcely catch. That is the Czar Nicholas—feature for feature, the very man, with some diversities from age, but still the man as exactly as if daguererotyped. Yet look—look steadily—do you discern there any trace of a human pulsation? Is it the portrait of a living creature or of a wax figure? The man is sunk in the autocrat. Never did a countenance so well symbolise the silent rule of an unqualified despotism. Yes; so should look he who commands myriads of living machines, mere automata in soldiers livery, who advance, charge, retire—who bend the knee and raise the arm when they are bid, and as they are bid, and no longer than they are bid, sinking into a quiescence as absolute as the quiescence of that Imperial face, and as stolid as that of any mandarin. Inwardly, however, a will bears rule, an iron will—a will too long unrestrained not now to be wilful, and too much accustomed to have its own way to be any longer passionless. Yes, beneath that dry, hard skin is a will which commands 70 millions of souls, but cannot command itself. Nicholas, the present Emperor of Russia, was born in the year 1796, and is consequently now in the 58th year of his age. He is the third son of the Emperor Paul, whose eccentricities and tragical death by strangulation are now matters of history. In the earlier period of his life the prospects of his life the prospects of his ascending the throne were extremely remote—indeed, highly improbable. Alexander, his elder brother, occupied the sovereignty, and Constantine was the next in the natural order of succession. As in the case of most of the younger branches of sovereign houses in Europe, a considerable portion of the earlier period of Nicholas's life was spent in travelling from Court to Court, varied by attention to the duties of a military command, in which he distinguished himself by the improvements he effected in the efficiency of the Rusian army. In 1825 Alexander died, not without suspicious circumstances attendant on his death, which were probably strengthened by the somewhat anomalous fact that the succession devolved not upon Constantine, but but Nicholas. The will of the deceased Em peror was brought forward in vindication of this abrupt breach of the laws of legitimacy ; and then, to the astonishment of all Europe, a further justification of the act was found in the announcement that it was done with the consent of Constantine. The conduct of Constantine was in harmony with this declaration, for he himself was among the first to offer allegiance to his younger brother. It was not without difficulty that Nicholas obtained possession of supreme power. A formidable and widely-extended insurrection was set on foot, which the stern determination of Nicholas speedily put down. He became the Czar, and held the reins of power with an iron grasp, which retains in subjection the semi-barbarous tribes and varied races which constitute the population of the Russian Empire. It is a curious fact the Prince who is now regarded as par excellence, the representative and support of legitimacy, should own his Crown to a violation of the highest law of descent. We have already seen that the Czar is a soldier of small dimensions, but “every inch” a soldier. This soldier-ship, which before his time had struck its roots deep in the country, Nicholas has nationalised. Russia is a huge camp, and the Court is its headquarters, Social life is a piece of drilled mechanism, passively obedient to the mov ing power, and going on with exactitude and constancy till the pressure is removed. — Hence, at once, the strength and weakness of the Czar's empire:—its strength, for the whole moves as one mass ; the weakness, for the mass is inert, passive—it has little life, and no spontaneity. Aware of his inability to support his intrigues by armaments and expeditions, the Czar has constantly endeavoured to extend the boundaries of Russia. The endeavour has been only too successful. His despotism has crept forward like a gangrene over the surface of Europe. Its aim and tendency cannot he mistaken ; for no sooner is a new territory gained than it is converted into a point of support and attack for making other acquisitions. Take, for example, his conduct towards Turkey. How has he got a footing in the house which be is now wasting and robbing? By duplicity the most consummate, and by contrivances the most disreputable. Among the members of the family he has industriously, secretly, and treacherously sowed discontent. The disaffection hence arising he has fomented. By that disaffection, when grown to a head, he has profited, in order to get into one of the out-buildings of the edifice. The moment he found himself there, he began to act not the less stealthily, but with more decision, and on a larger scale. So did he, by degrees, succeed in alienating one member of the family after another, and in getting possession even of a whole side of the abode, until recently he found himself in a condition to throw off the mask, and give the proprietor notice to quit, on pain of instant and forcible expulsion. SHOT AT SIR CHARLES NAPLER.— The London Diogenes says, “Since the race is not to the swift,” &c., why wonder at the tardiness of the Fleet.