a

Between the years 1825 and 1917, Russia advanced greatly, both
politically, and socially. A large portion of this can be accredited to the
developments in and around the military. Ranging from the introduction of
western literature during events such as the Crimean war and against
Napoleon to the requirement for a more capable army being partially
responsible for the abolishment of serfdom and finally the First World War
acting as a tipping point.
Military leaders and political leaders do not get on, and never have. It is
true all over the world, and, to a Marxist historian, this is easy to explain;
different leaders will try to outdo each other to improve their social standing
and power. From a broader point of view however, this is less the case, the
real issue being that a military leader will always want to increase the size
of the military, and a political leader will always try to shrink the size of the
military. There are many reasons, but primarily should a military grow too
strong, it will threaten the stability of the Ruling body, and further to this, the
larger the military, the larger the cost both economic and social as
soldiers arent workers. This is the case in 19th-20th century Russia, and
this significant and insuperable issue would remain as a point of friction
from the first days of Tsarist Russia, until its last.
A significant issue with regard to the collapse of Tsardom in Russia is the
condition of Russia in 1914, in such that how significant was opposition to
the Tsar, and was there a situation under which the revolution would have
occurred. In addition to this, it is also important to look at the possibilities of
a reformed and modernised Russia, rather than a revolutionary Russia, in
that could Russia have remained as a tsarist state with western influence
pushing it towards reform, had it not become involved in wars between
1825 and 1917.
In the confusion of leadership in 1825, the Decembrist revolt unfolded and
there was an attempted coup which Nicholas responded to with excessive
violence, with all that took part being killed or captured. This brutality was
signified the beginning of a divide between the tsar and the military
generals. Had the either the Tsar or the Military Leadership been more
compromising and forgiving, then it is possible that tensions could have
reduced and the military survived and worked together for a little longer.
The Tsar however pushed the military to the point that cooperation was too
hard to achieve. With so many short but taxing wars taking place in the
early 19th Century, such as the Finnish War (1808-09) the fifth, sixth and
seventh wars of the coalition. This was overarched by the continuous
fighting in the Caucasian War, which took place for over forty years (1817-
1864). With approx. 96,000 casualties, it was hard to develop a functioning
army as element were in continuous use. This meant that Russia could
2|Page
develop neither a peacetime, not operational structure leading to the
Russian military being disjointed for 47 years. This reduced their battlefield
efficiency and thus led to a more brutal conflict as well as greater losses in
other wars. It also created fractured doctrine, as much of the Caucasian
war was fought a counter-insurgency, meaning there was very little actual
soldering meaning that the soft skills that the Russian army had were lost
as a result of the evolution of the military. This meant that were the military
to become the powerful and feared force, that could rival the British and the
French, like they wanted to, then they would need to evolve or more
accurately devolve further back into a pitched army, working on the basis
of strong regimental identity and efficient battlefield coordination.
The best example of this is the fractured fighting style demonstrated in the
Crimean, where fighting was centred on the actions of small units. An
excellent example of this is the development of the Platoon from being a
subsection of a company, to an efficient force of its own. And the growth of
the importance of the Junior Officer. Poruchik or Lieutenant - became not
a replacement officer as the name would suggest; but rather they acted
as commanders of their own small teams. This is a result of the evolution
seen due to extended periods of low intensity fighting interspersed with
short, high intensity conflicts. When larger and more significant wars came
around, such as the Crimean War, these Small Forces were quickly
brushed aside by the larger and thus more capable and diverse forces of
the British Empire, as the war Progressed, it became clear to the military
needed to be able to react to the forces it was fighting, and it was only later
in the war that the Russians were able to find some success, such as the
Infamous charge of the light brigade. This created a reactive culture in the
Russian Military, rather than an Adaptive they accepted that they would
start on the back foot and need to change to counter it, rather than change
before their opponent had acted. This change to opposition action in a
short period of time became a defining quality of the Russian Army, and
stayed around even until as late as 1991.
The Tsar pushed the military to the point that cooperation between the
military and the government was too hard to achieve; with so many short
but taxing wars taking place in the early 19th Century, such as the Finnish
War (1808-09) and the fifth, sixth and seventh wars of the coalition. This
was overarched by the continuous fighting in the Caucasian War, which
took place for over forty years (1817-1864). With approx. 96,000 casualties,
as a result of this, a functioning army was hard to develop, as element were
in continuous use. This meant that Russia could develop neither a
peacetime, not operational structure leading to the Russian military being
disjointed for 47 years, and as such spending a large amount of time
fighting as an outdated army, with inefficient equipment.

3|Page
The Crimean war is an excellent example of this, whereby small unit tactics
became highly important. The use of the rife by the British, Russian and
French troops highlights this, but more significantly, it raised the necessity
of free and trained men who were able to use the rifle. Ultimately, the poor
outcome of the Crimean War prompted Tsar Alexander II, to consider
reforms, particularly the abolition of serfdom. This culminated with the
emancipation of the serfs in 1856, in an attempt not only to increase the
capability of the Russian army, but also in an attempt to increase the
Russian economy, which had been struggling. To Tsar Alexander II, it was a
great opportunity, as giving the serfs some restricted freedom, would, at
least in theory, satisfy their desires for more social and economic freedom,
as well as increasing the quality of troops present in the army, meaning that
it would not be only the guards regiments that were of a high quality. By
bringing an end to this medieval concept, in effect a form of bonded slavery,
Alexander hoped that agricultural production could be modernised and
made more efficient. Furthermore, if diligent work led to a better lifestyle,
then the population would work harder, leading to a surplus of high quality
equipment being produced This would assist the transformation of Russia
from a backward agricultural economy into a modern industrial and
capitalist economy. [5] In theory, this was an excellent idea, and therefore
the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 can be directly credited to the losses
in 1853-56. The idea of bringing an end to serfdom was hardly new. It had
been suggested several times before but was always resisted by the
conservative land-owning nobility, who benefited from the profits and status
generated by serfdom.
The fact that the Army tried to change to fit the situation and had a very
flexible military structure meant that it was a smooth transition to the idea
that if the lower levels of the military could change and adapt to an evolving
world, then it was not unreasonable for them to expect the leadership of the
Russian Military and state as whole to do the same. This rationale was
accepted by many troops and even some Junior Officers following the
Crimean war, and explains clearly why the Military had an issue with the
stubbornness that the Government showed with regard to change they
were all too aware of the dire consequences it had.
From the beginning of the social reform in Russia, the military played a
significant role. As technologies advanced and the idea of extended
campaigning came to prominence, this was first seen with the expansion of
napoleon in 1815. His expansion and Russia Campaign although
ultimately unsuccessful brought around the beginning of a new kind of
war, which lasted up until 1918 with the end of WW1. This development
meant that more time was spent by Russian forces in foreign countries,
most significantly of which was post-revolutionary France. Due to this being
close in time to the French Revolution, copies of Common Sense were in

4|Page
circulation as they had been brought back by French troops during their
fighting in the American War of Independence. In this regard, the military
succeeded in bringing western literature into Russia, even though imports
of these were strongly controlled and the civilian population had little
access to them. Furthermore, the emerging middle class provided many
military officers, this led to the new-money intellectuals having access to
books such as common sense.
Later, in 1856, Russia suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the
British with the Crimean War. As it came to a close, it became evident that
Russian equipment such as the firearms and artillery were more outdated
than records were showing, highlighting both corruption within the Russian
Military and an urgent need to update the military as a whole. This led
directly to the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. To Tsar Alexander II, it was
a great opportunity, as giving the serfs some restricted freedom, would, at
least in theory, satisfy their desires for more social and economic freedom,
as well as increasing the quality of troops present in the army, meaning that
it would not be only the guards regiments that were of a high quality.
Furthermore, if diligent work led to a better lifestyle, then the population
would work harder, leading to a surplus of high quality equipment being
produced. In theory, this was an excellent idea, and therefore the
emancipation of the serfs in 1861 can be directly credited to the losses in
1853-56.
Furthermore the large logistical requirements of the military also led to a
push for development in other areas, such railway lines and the use of coal.
This can be seen most clearly through the fact that the consumption of coal
increased by 1200% between 1860 and 1869. Further to this, the railways
laid between the years 1855 and 1880, was exclusively built to connect
outlying colonies in eastern Russia, as well as providing a vital link to
eastern Europe, in order to allow the quick movement of troops Russia so
desired. The expansion of the Russian rail can therefore be attributed to
Russias need to update its army. The rail did however serve other
purposes, and, in periods of peace made the movement of people and
goods, both domestically and internationally, a much more viable. This
meant that the middle class that Russia lacked now appeared as
Merchants and Traders. It was this newly founded and literate section of
society that was so predominant in what would be the later revolutions.
Also, their trading links allowed them insight into the more democratic
Western Europe and therefore truly revealed the oppression and tyranny
that the Tsar represented.
Further to this instabilities were seen for the first time in decades at the end
of the Crimean war. The war occurred over many reasons, but primarily
over right of the Holy Land and control of its territories. Russia was
confronted by three powerful empires: France, Britain and the Ottomans
5|Page
and overall was a disaster for the Russians, most significantly on the
Homefront. Russia put almost 750,000 men into the field and more than
200,000 of them were lost. As well as this, Russias lack of industrial and
technological development in comparison to her enemies was revealed,
and showed the economic weakness of the country. Lacking railway
infrastructure, improved weaponry and other developments like the electric
telegraph, the Russian military could not match the British or French in a
major conflict.

The act was finally passed in 1861, with Alexander II signing a decree that
officially ended serfdom. After this, a system of land redistribution was then
put into practice, although the main issue with this was that the system was
carried out by those whose intentions lay with retaining serfdom, the
process was therefore slow, difficult and costly. As a consequence of this,
the reallocation of land in Russia was hardly fair. Former serfs were now
free peasants but they were given a stark choice: they could either leave
their land or commit to a 49-year state mortgage. They had in effect been
freed from slavery to be stopped by crippling debt, thus still keeping the
lower classes of society as subservient to the upper classes, this became
key in the later revolution when they would then demand that all would be
equal. Whilst this was going on, Alexander was making further concessions
and allowing for further reforms to take place. Most significant amongst
these was the creation of the Zemstva, to act as a representative body,
which was, in effect a form of local government in the small local and rural
areas, they were given authority to take control if the education system,
relief for those that needed it, and other localised issues. After this,
alexander also ordered the reformation of the army and navy, and the
implementation of new legal processes within them to charge disorderly
troops previously and more leniently than before, and an overhaul of the
penal code.
Following the turn of the century, the most significant blow that the Russian
military suffered (other than the First World War) was their humiliating loss
in the Russo-Japanese war, more specifically, the Battle of Mukden,
leading to 51,438 casualties, and 8,705 killed. [1] This exceptionally high
figure was hugely detrimental to the morale of the country, the people and
the soldiers fighting in the war. That individual battle can arguably be held
responsible for the main cause of Russia losing its desire, and ability to win
the Russo-Japanese war. The losses suffered in this war largely reduced
the status Russia had as an unconquerable state.
Following the events of the Russo-Japanese Sunday was an event
nicknamed Bloody Sunday which was a short term cause to the 1905
Revolution, but also created long term strains on the Russian social
structure and can be seen as a way in which Russia showed signs of being
on the edge of a revolution from before the outbreak of the first world war. It
6|Page
occurred as a result of 100,000 people marching on the winter palace in St.
Petersburg with a petition addressed to the tsar asking for improved
working conditions. It was led by a priest known as Father Gapon, who was
in fact a double agent working for the Okhrana (Russian Secret Police) and
the Tsar feared he might have switched sides. The tsar therefore ordered
the members of the army, who were stationed at his palace to open fire
upon the protestors. As a result of this, about 200 were killed, including
women and children. It was a massacre and led to huge public discontent
over the fact that such a peaceful and kindly protest could have turned so
violent. After the massacre, many of those involved in the protestors were
banished from the city: Thus causing further public discontent and
damaging the reputation of the Tsar. He was no longer trusted and thought
of as a Little Father.

The Russo-Japanese War introduced a number of factors that came to

define 20th century politics and warfare. For example, a large amount of
the technological advancements that had occurred as a result of the
reformation of the Russian industrial system during the years 1865-1903
saw use in the Russo-Japanese war. The equipment used by the Russian
Military as more advanced an impressive than had been seen before; the
advancements made within the weaponry, such as artillery pieces capable
of firing at an increased rate and most significantly machine guns, in
addition to the greatly improved use of the now highly accurate rifle-
carbine, thus emphasising the significance of the trained soldier. As well
as this, the improved capability of the Russian Navy became clear during
the fighting. The fighting that had been carried out during the Russo-
Japanese war showed huge advancement in the Russian navy.

The significance of this is that the advanced weaponry led to massive

casualty counts. Neither country imagined the scale of slaughter that could
happen with the new highly capable equipment of newly modernised
countries, but most significantly, neither country had the resources nor
manpower to replace those loses and deal with them easily. This lead to a
changed view of the military from society as whole, especially with the
lower classes, many of whom now saw war, not as a patriotic act, but as
violent and dangerous. The Russo-Japanese war hugely reduced the
romanticisation of war for many of the Russian people and meant that the
public were far less in favour of wars later, and began the process of driving
the people away from the Tsar.

Nicholas II still however had a romantic vison of leading his army, and
therefore spent much time in the First World War, leading the army on the
eastern front. This was a disastrous move as it left Alexandra back in
control in the cities. She had become increasingly under the one man who
seemingly already had the power to help her son, Alexis, afflicted by
haemophilia. Alexandra believe that Rasputin was a man of God and
referred to him as our friend. Others, appalled at his influence over the
7|Page
tsarina, called him the mad monk. Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the
Romanovs. His womanising was well known and he was considered by
many to be debauched. How many of these stories are true and how many
will never be known, because after his death, people felt free enough to tell
their own stories. However, his simple reputation while he was alive was
enough to do immense damage to the Romanovs.
The defeat that Russia suffered during the Russo Japanese war was the
first time in the modern era that a wealthy and powerful European nation
had suffered a defeat at the hands of and Asian country. In general,
Russias defeat came as a huge surprise to the Western Powers, and very
quickly became seen as a much more serious international power with a
modernised industry. As well as loosing much of its international prestige,
Russia lost large chunks of both its military and its navy. The loss of
prestige that Russia suffered was taken into account to a large degree by
Germany, who when in the future where planning for war with France, and
Austria-Hungary's war with Serbia, expected the Russian military to be of
little significant opposition. This is shown most predominantly with the
development of the Schlieffen plan, under which the German military
expected to defeat France in a matter of weeks then move onto Russia to
fight them on a single front. Germany acted in the knowledge that the
Russian Military would take a long time to mobilise, especially due to the
fact that Russia had 1.4million enlisted troops and relied on a further 5
million they would be able call up. The issue however was that Russia only
had 4.6 million rifles, and so could only call on so many of the reserves.

At the beginning of the First World War, there had been large support from
the Russian public for a war with Russia, this popular support soon turned
to discontent after suffering multiple defeats at the hands of the German
forces. As a result of this the Russian public desired change, and began to
threaten the stability of Tsardom. Although this instability was quickly
covered up by the jingoism that occurred in the build up to the First World
War. This is shown clearly by a letter form Empress Alexandra to Nicholas
II in 1915 [2] this suggests that there was general discontent with an
Autocratic system and desired significant reforms to the system. The First
World War therefore, unsurfaced issues that had been rising within the
Russian public since at least their defeat in the Russo-Japanese war.

Whilst chaos ensued at home, the war at the front was going badly, Poland
was lost to the Germans in 1916 and they had advanced to just 200 miles
from Moscow. It became clear that the morale of the ordinary Russian
Soldier was extremely poor, and desertion became a growing problem.
Food supplies were poor and erratic. As the front line got closer to the
home front, it became obvious to many that both fronts were in total chaos.
Trotsky highlighted the power of the onset of war in a letter [3] this
highlights, how the jingoism that had been seen at the start of the war,
naturally began to fade and turn to bitter discontentment as the war
8|Page
dragged on. In this respect, the First World War was largely responsible for
the socio-political discontent and the push for change seen in 1916-17.

In October 1916, rail workers in Petrograd went on strike in protest about

their working conditions. Soldiers were sent from the front to coerce the
strikers back to work. They joined the men. Sturmer, having recalled the
Duma, was alarmed by this development but he also seriously
misunderstood the implications of what had happened [4] The Duma met
on November 14th 1916, Milykov, leader of the progressives made an
attack on the government, asking at the end of each comment he made
about the government is this folly or treason? far more disturbing for the
government was when the conservative Shulgin and the reactionary leader
Purishkavitch made attacks on the government. Milykov had been
expected but not the other two. Sturmer wanted Milykov arrested, but in a
rare example of decisiveness, Nicholas dismissed him on December 23rd
1916. He was replaced as premier by Trepov, who was a less than
competent conservative. Alexandra also remarked the he is no friend of
our friend Trepov lasted only until January 9th 1917, when he was allowed
to resign. By this point, the government was on the verge of a complete
breakdown, and the failings of the army to deal with the uprising in the rail
works in Petrograd a year prior had led to a near total breakdown of
government.
On February 27th, the Duma met for the first time after closing over
December and February. It met during a period of unrest in Petrograd.
There was a general strike in the city at the time, which had been called as
a result of the arrest of the public representative of the Public Munitions
Committee, as a result of failing to keep up the demands of ammunitions
during an intense period of fighting towards the end of the war, as the
Germans closed in on Moscow. By this point, the German Army was within
200 miles of the City, and there was a general consensus that either Russia
would hold Moscow, or loose the war trying, as those in Moscow dug in for
a lengthy conflict, the situation in Petrograd deteriorated, the city had no
transport system, so the food stored in the city, and nearby towns had no
way of being moved, food shortages and food queues brought even more
people out onto the streets. This lack of vehicles to move food was as a
result of vehicles being repurposed for moving troops and equipment
around on the front lines. By March 12th, protests had become widespread.
But in an effort to restore order, Police fired on protestors. By this point,
c.100.000 people were on strike and wandered the streets, they quickly
rallied to the support of the protestors. As a result of this, General Hablov of
the Volhynian Regiment and his subordinates were sent to restore order,
upon entering the city however, they sided with the protestors, and used
their considerable force to disarm the Police, they then proceeded to break
open the armouries and arsenals, arming the rioters, and then opening the
prisons to release the inmates held there. By the 13th March, the city was

9|Page
deemed to be lost. Further troops that were sent in, returned to the
barracks, intimidated by the scale or rioting.
Following the turn of the century, the most significant blow that the Russian
military suffered (other than the First World War) was their humiliating loss
in the Russo-Japanese war, more specifically, the battle of Mukden, leading
to 51,438 casualties, and 8,705 killed. This exceptionally high figure was
hugely detrimental to the morale of the country, the people and the soldiers
fighting in the war. That individual battle can be held responsible for the
main cause of Russia losing its desire, and ability to win the Russo-
Japanese war
Development of equipment had been an issue that had effected Russia
from very early on, following the losses suffered in wars in the 19th century,
Nicholas II was determined to update and improve, demanding rifles of
reduced calibre and cartridges with smokeless powder. In response to this,
the M-1891 Mosin-Nagant was developed, though it had initial problems, by
1905, the Mosin as it became called, was an incredibly effective rifle, with
a muzzle velocity approaching 2,000 fps, the rifle had an effective firing
range of up to 800m. By the start of the war, this had been improved on,
and the muzzle velocity was approaching 2,800fps, with an effective range
in excess of a kilometre. The most significant change came in 1916, with
the introduction of the M83 carbine, a cut down version of the rifle for
fighting in built up areas, with an impressive 8.7 inches removed, it was an
excellent assault rifle; however, the fighting the Russian army was
experiencing was fought at an increasingly long range. The Tula Arms Plant
revealed later that the carbine version (M83) was designed in the
knowledge that a close in and bloody revolution would take place. This
clearly demonstrated that the Russian Military could see a revolution was
coming, and were preparing for it from as early as 1916.
The most significant war, was the First World War, in many respects. It is
true, that a war makes a country works at its best, and it is true that in
1914-17, Russia developed a lot, with large scientific and technological
advancements being made in many areas, that Great War did a lot of good
for Russia. However, the problems raised by this, such as the spread on
extremist ideologies within the troops and officers. Furthermore the
devaluation of life caused by the losses in WW1 made a violent revolution
seem more plausible. This all occurred as the war dragged on, as Trotsky
illustrated Hopes of revolutionary movement are utterly groundless at the
outset of war, clearly showing that the social revolutionaries or at least
some of them understood that a revolution could not be achieved in the
early stages of the war, as Russia was doing quite well, it was not losing
much land and as such, that population were fairly content to support their
country.

10 | P a g e
One of the most significant issues that WW1 created was not an issue that
affected the educated or the literate, rather it was that the poor, and the
oppressed, the bottom rung of society that it had an impact on, which was
that with growth of the military, came the growth of the troops,
impoverished peasants who were in a bad place socially, politically and
economically as a result of the actions of their tsar, with fatalities reaching
the nearly two million, and total casualties standing at around 3,370,000, of
which roughly 700,000 were as a result of malnourishment, it was hard for
the fighting population to empathise with the Tsar. The issue that this
raised was that the working class, the social rung that had the biggest
problems with the tsar, were now armed and trained, making them an
efficient fighting force that would be able to depose of the ruling classes.
Prior to WW1, books and supplies were hard for the people to get their
hands on, let alone firearms and training. This therefore put the proletariat
in a unique position in capability. As with every country at the end of WW1
there was a backlash against the state in the form of war poetry and
peaceful protest many of the troops were weary of war, and did not want
a violent revolution.
Some troops were willing to spill blood in a coup, others wanted to
peacefully ask for a chance in regime, but all the military, Army and Navy,
officer and troop, all wanted changes to be made, as many had lost so
much during the fighting, and very little support was given to them. The
training they had received, the equipment they were issued and the
attitudes they had developed created a potent fighting force.
The tenacity the Russian troops with rivalled that of even the most feared
regiments of the German Army. Their fearless spirt and courage became
the stuff of legend; the reality however, was much darker, and much more
brutal. One large cause of this was the size of Russia. The sheer scale
meant that the human cost of war for Russia was belittled by the scale of its
manpower. Although the individual cost was tragic, and many families lost
so much, from a military perspective as well as an economic one
Russia could afford to throw troops and equipment at the First World War.
Politically however, the Russian Government could not, the upset and
anger that came as a reaction to the reckless and wasteful actions of the
Military cost them the one commodity Russia struggled to hold on to
loyalty.
War itself acts as a catalyst, and small wars, such as the Crimean War
shown above often are not significant enough to bring around large
political change on their own. They may lead to some smaller changes, be
that militarily or socially, but more often than not, it fails to bring around
large scale political change the national structure and identity remains the
same. This is why therefore, the First World War brought about so much
change. Historically, large wars have been much more frequent, and thus
11 | P a g e
changes that were needed came around in a short period of time. There
had not been a significant international war regarding more than two
countries since the Second Egyptian-Ottoman war ending in 1841 over
sixty years prior. This meant that all the changes the Russian People
wanted could not become a reality, and therefore, when the opportunity
arose, the opportunity was taken, and the Russian people pushed for the
change they so desperately desired.
Another cause of this sudden change of heart is the gradual loss of a sense
of national identity and patriotism, as the war dragged on, this began to
fade, and was replaced with something much more sinister a feeling of
disappointment and betrayal towards to ruling body, the losses suffered by
the people were thrown in the face of the tsar, who stood as the protector of
Russia. The failings were blamed on him and this caused people to want
change.
Overall, the Russian Military Played a large role in the build up to, and
action in, the Russian revolution, from the very beginning the Military and
state had been divided, on a variety of issues, and the way the military
acted in such a stubborn and un-cooperating way, meant that a
compromise could not be achieved, leading ultimately to them supporting
the revolution. Finally, had the Russian Troops been treated better, and
seen not as a resource, but rather a force, as people, then they would have
treated their leadership the same way, and would have treated them as an
authority. This is one of the main reasons that communism appealed to the
Russian people. Firstly the wealth gap was so significant, and the idea that
there would be not truly poor, was highly appealing, but secondly, and most
significantly; everyone would be equal, there wouldnt be a ruling elite, or a
working class, the classless ideas put forward to Marx, appealed to those
that suffered as a result of the division between leadership and workforce,
this was true not just of the army but also of the entire working population.
Marx suggests that all history is driven by the endless class struggle, which
clearly explains why those without power, would seek to be equal to those
with it. The opposition put against them is understandable as were the poor
to gain wealth and power, then the rich would lose their relative power. This
fear explains the irrational opposition towards the poor as well.
The Military, as with all people sought to gain as much power as possible,
the government were not willing to give it up and thus found themselves on
opposing sides, as to whether the Military caused the Revolution in itself,
there are definitive arguments for both sides, but it seems evident that, as
with all large scale events, on factor or cause cannot be identified, the
military definitely played a significant and commanding role, but were not
solely responsible for the revolution.

12 | P a g e
War as a whole leads to change, and therefore though you could say the
first world war acted as a catalyst for the revolution, it could be argued that
if Russia had fought in more significant wars in the previous century, then
change would have been gradual, and not ended up as the violent and
bloody revolution that it was. In conclusion therefore, Wars between 1825
and 1917 acted as a catalyst for change to a large degree, although it was
not solely responsible, the feeling of the people and the dates of the war
coincided and the two pushed each other further along. The violent element
could have been avoided had there been more wars of significance and
thus more gradual change, the change itself would have still occurred.
Evolution was inevitable, Revolution was not.

In conclusion, war acted as a huge catalyst for political change in early 20th
century Russia, with war in fact acting largely as a locomotive for change,
pushing the country forwards with regard to social development to try and
improve the quality of the troop, economic development to try and improve
the weapon he fought with, or political development, to improve the ideals
that he fought for. By 1905, with the crushing defeats suffered in the Russo-
Japanese war, it was obvious that Russia was in need of reform, had this
been allowed to happen, and not held back by the conservative nobility,
then the change could have been much more gradual, and been evolution,
rather than revolution. The intensity of the wars the Russia fought in, such
as the Crimean and the Russo-Japanese meant that Russia was often
outmatched as it fought some of the greatest and strongest armies in the
planet at the time. It is not therefore surprising that they suffered defeats in
them. The issue was that the newly industrialised countries they fought,
such as Great Britain, France and Prussia, were all highly developed
countries with a capable infrastructure. This pushed Russia to try and
develop in an attempt to rival them. Russia would have arguably been
better off had they not become involved in war, and developed at their own
pace. Russia tried to become a country that it was not politically or socially
ready to develop into, and as such, the changes fell through and in the
chaos of the failure, the Russian Revolution occurred.

The decision of Russia to get itself involved in the fighting was what
ultimately led to the revolution and as such it would be fair to say that in the
context of the years 1825 to 1917, war acted as a major catalyst for change
both politically and socially.

13 | P a g e
[1] Dumas, Samuel; Losses of Life Caused By War (1923)

https://archive.org/stream/lossesoflifecaus00samu#page/18/mode/2up

pp57
[2]

[3] Revolution Directs its blows against the established power, War on the contrary, at first strengthens the
state power which, in the chaos engendered by war, appears to be the only firm support and then
undermines it. Hopes of the revolutionatry movement are utterly groundless at the outset of a war. But this
is only a politcald elay, a sort of political moratium

The views of Trotsky on the influence of war.

[4] We can allow these wretches to talk themselves out of existence and draw the sting of unreast and draw
upon loyal troops

Sturmer

[5] Fuller, William; Strategy and Power in Russia 16001914. (1998) p. 273.
Russia had been beaten on the Crimean peninsula, and the military feared that it would
inevitably be beaten again unless steps were taken to surmount its military weakness

14 | P a g e