Land reform in Russia in the XIX century

What if Tsar Alexander II decided to make a top-down parceling the lands of the nobility among the peasants ? The impetus for such a step could be the January Uprising triggered by the Polish nobility in the years 1863-1864 . Gradually, one could stretch the reform of the entire area of ​​Russia. Is giving land to the peasants would stop the October Revolution?
 
What if Tsar Alexander II decided to make a top-down parceling the lands of the nobility among the peasants ? The impetus for such a step could be the January Uprising triggered by the Polish nobility in the years 1863-1864 . Gradually, one could stretch the reform of the entire area of ​​Russia. Is giving land to the peasants would stop the October Revolution?

  1. Part of the estates were sold to the serfs cultivating them, with reimbursements on 99 years (waived on 1907-1908); the Czar couldn't afford to anger his main supporters;
  2. The Polish situation was linked to the will to break the power of the szlatcha on White Russians and Ukrainians peasants - this is why, unlike in the rest of the Empire, the house serfs were able to get land;

So the nearest way the land hunger of the peasants could be satiated would be the colonization of Siberia or Central Asia, a wave of emigration or industrialisation.

Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu wrote, in the first part of his Empire of the Tsars and the Russians, (see here) about how serfdom was abolished:
  • Creating landless farmworkers would be bad for social stability
  • Giving them land from their lords without paying for them would destroy one of the foundation of the Imperial power

Thus, selling to the serfs their farmlands, funding the operation with fund loaned by the State, and compensating the lords and other banks was thouht to be a good affair.
 
the Czar couldn't afford to anger his main supporters;

Well, in my opinion, Tsar in the second half of the XIX century based more on the bureaucracy and the army, not the nobility. Polish nobility in the Ukraine, White Russia, Lithuania and Congress Poland was even hostile to him, and the German nobility in Latvia and Estonia was uncertain. Land reform in these areas gave also the possibility of their faster russification, by the colonization of russian peasants.
 
Last edited:
Well, in my opinion, Tsar in the second half of the nineteenth century based more on the bureaucracy and the army, not the nobility. Polish nobility in the Ukraine, White Russia, Lithuania and Congress Poland was even hostile to him, and the German nobility in Latvia and Estonia was uncertain. Land reform in these areas gave also the possibility of their faster Russification, by the colonization of russian peasants.
The bureaucracy and the army were led by nobles. Granted, most of them had little or no land, but there was real class solidarity within the nobility. Besides, the Guards' officers were great landowners almost to a man, and they had a lot of ways to off the Tsar that tried to dispossess them (Tsar Paul died in 1801 after jailing and exiling just a few nobles; Alexander the Second was Paul's grandson and knew that story well).
 
The bureaucracy and the army were led by nobles. Granted, most of them had little or no land, but there was real class solidarity within the nobility. Besides, the Guards' officers were great landowners almost to a man, and they had a lot of ways to off the Tsar that tried to dispossess them (Tsar Paul died in 1801 after jailing and exiling just a few nobles; Alexander the Second was Paul's grandson and knew that story well).

But it's probably the nobility of ethnic Russian, Polish and German nobility of the western governments do not have such a privileged position. Seizures landed properties after the January Uprising were frequent. So, Tsar might as well have them forced breaking up these areas.
 
But it's probably the nobility of ethnic Russian, Polish and German nobility of the western governments do not have such a privileged position. Seizures landed properties after the January Uprising were frequent. So, Tsar might as well have them forced breaking up these areas.
It could have been done in Polish-dominated western provinces of the empire (Baltic German nobles were overrepresented in the Russian elite, so they are probably safe), but most private-owned land in European Russia (its central and southern provinces) was held by loyal ethnic Russian (and a few Ukrainian) nobles and worked by ethnic Russian/Ukrainian peasants. Targeting these nobles would have been suicidal for the Tsar, so they are better left alone. As long as they get to keep their estates (or receive reimbursement for the lands that get transferred to their peasants), it means that the great landowners survive as a class.
 
It could have been done in Polish-dominated western provinces of the empire (Baltic German nobles were overrepresented in the Russian elite, so they are probably safe), but most private-owned land in European Russia (its central and southern provinces) was held by loyal ethnic Russian (and a few Ukrainian) nobles and worked by ethnic Russian/Ukrainian peasants. Targeting these nobles would have been suicidal for the Tsar, so they are better left alone. As long as they get to keep their estates (or receive reimbursement for the lands that get transferred to their peasants), it means that the great landowners survive as a class.

This may mean that the Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian peasants will be richer and economic development of their countries will be higher (faster come out of the Malthusian trap). Radical Socialists there will have much less political influence.
 
Top