In many ways, Tsar Nicholas I was not only the right man at the right time for Russia, but for the rest of Europe as well. He was not playing the part of a conqueror, but the "gendarme of Europe" who put his forces at the disposal of any brother monarch threatened with revolution. As was becoming usual in these cases, the wave of rebellions that swept Europe originated in France with the July Revolution in 1830 and one of the first places to be influenced was Poland, most of which was under Russian rule. The Polish Congress launched the "November Uprising" against Russia, which was dealt with speedily and severely by Nicholas I. To the surprise of many, Pope Gregory XVI sided with the Orthodox Tsar against the Catholic rebels, on the grounds that it was the duty of all Catholics to obey their legitimate sovereign as long as this did not interfere with the practice of their religion as expressed in Scripture and Christ's command to the Jews to be obedient to Caesar Tiberius. Poland was reduced to the ranks of a Russian province and Nicholas dissolved their previous constitution in response to the rebellion. With the horrors of the French Revolution still fresh in everyone's mind, the traditional authority figures of Europe closed ranks against any and all rebellions.
Nicholas I was also involved when the liberal revolutions swept Europe in 1848, again starting in France and urged on by the newborn ideaology of Communism as published by Karl Marx that same year. As the "Gendarme of Europe" the Tsar was prepared to offer assistance to any of his brother monarchs threatened by leftist rebellions. The Austrian Empire was particularly hard hit and while the Hapsburg army was dealing successfully with revolutionaries in Italy, Hungary rose in revolt. Tsar Nicholas I then stepped in to aid the Austrians and attacked Hungary from the east, suppressing the rebellion with the utmost severity in 1849. He also urged the King of Prussia not to give in to the demands for a liberal constitution and made it clear that he would offer his support to any power in Europe in order to maintain the ruling powers and put down any revolutionary movement. However, he never became so "international" that he stopped thinking about the ambitions of Russia.
This was particularly obvious in the on-going rivalry between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Like many Russian tsars before and after him, Nicholas considered Russia the inheritor of Byzantium and himself as the guardian and legitimate ruler of the Balkans, ruled at the time by the Ottoman Turks. He wanted to see the Ottoman Empire carved up and Russia gaining a warm water port into the Mediterranean, neither of which Great Britain and France were prepared to allow. In 1828 and 1829 Nicholas I fought and defeated the Turks in the Balkans, but the real trouble came about due to the mistaken belief by Western Europe that he had gained access to the Dardanelles for Russian warships. In 1841 several countries met in agreement that Russia should be blocked from the Bosporus straits. Still thinking of himself as the "Gendarme of Europe" and that the other powers would be grateful and thus supportive of him, he moved against the Turks again in 1853.
The following year Britain and France joined the Turks in the Crimean War against Nicholas I. The tsar tried to get the support of Kaiser Franz Joseph of Austria, but the Hapsburg ruler believed that neither side was in the right and refused to become involved. Piedmont-Sardinia joined the side of the Turks, though only in the hope of winning French support for their planned wars to conquer Italy. Russia stood alone as allied forces besieged Sevastopol, but Tsar Nicholas I did not live to see the outcome of the battle. The "Iron Tsar" died on March 2, 1855. After a year of siege Sevastopol fell and Russia was forced to make peace under Nicholas' successor Tsar Alexander II in 1856.
On the whole, history has been very unfair to the memory of Tsar Nicholas I, ignoring what sort of man he really was and obsessing only over his determination to stamp out liberalism, which itself is only a negative thing if one is a liberal revolutionary. Tsar Nicholas I was not a cruel or malicious man. In fact, quite on the contrary, he was a loving father, and extremely devoted husband, a man of firm principle, a man who detested cruelty and oppression (which he often expressed regarding the Balkan countries) and did not approve of serfdom at all. He was also devoutly religious and took such things as an oath to God with the greatest sincerity. From his marriage vows to his coronation oath, Nicholas I was a man who believed in doing his duty no matter what. Having had the crown of Russia thrust upon him, he was determined to be the most committed and zealous Emperor of Russia he could be, and that meant securing Russia from all enemies, foreign and domestic and revolutionary liberalism he regarded as the most dangerous enemy of all. His reign also saw some of the greatest advances in education ever made in Russia, which is often forgotten. So, there was actually much more to Nicholas I than his role as the "Iron Tsar", but for a man as disciplined and committed to Russian Orthodox style monarchy, he would probably not have considered the name an insulting one, but rather a title to be proud of. |
