Protests in early Russia seem to follow a similar trend of poor organization and consequently utter failure.The revolt against Nicholas I in December of 1825 follows this same doctrine despite it being organized by army officers and soldiers. The Monarchy handled the rebellion quite quickly and it quickly lost support. Despite this, I believe that the message behind the revolt did carry some weight.<\/p>\n
Although the autocracy continued to rule for some time to come, Nicholas undoubtedly was forced to realize the issues within the empire. Mikhail Speransky, a close advisor of Alexander and after for Nicholas, started to devise a new code of Russian laws. The uprising exemplified a shift of ideas towards a more progressive state. A big reason that this is such a unique rebellion is the fact that there were many nobles involved. It was a breach between the government and a reformist noble class. Solely because of the social class involved, I believe the ideas had great influence. After the revolt, a committee was set up to modernize socio-economic systems in Russia. This eventually led to reforms in serfdom and efforts to improve the life of the peasant class.<\/p>\n
The power struggle exemplified by the Decembrist Revolution brought the need for change in Russia’s government. The need for reform from the conservative ruler Nicholas became apparent and I believe he took note of this.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Protests in early Russia seem to follow a similar trend of poor organization and consequently utter failure.The revolt against Nicholas I in December of 1825 follows this same doctrine despite it being organized by army officers and soldiers. The Monarchy … Continue reading