Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:02:10.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mir and the Military Draft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Rodney D. Bohac
Rodney D. Bohac*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Brigham Young University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Early nineteenth century military drafts severely tested the cohesiveness of Russia’s peasant communities. Because a conscript served for twenty-five years, he rarely returned to his community. His household lost a family member, a worker, and often part of its land allotment. The threat of such losses heightened the potential for abuse of community rules determining the selection of conscripts. A serf owner observed this problem when visiting his new estate in 1837: “The draft duties were determined by some sort of calculation, that, in spite of all my desire and mental exercises, I could not master. I only knew that it worked to the profit of the village head and to the loss of the peasants”.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , Winter 1988 , pp. 652 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to thank IREX, the NEH Travel to Collections program, the University of Illinois Summer Research Laboratory, and the Brigham Young University College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences for their assistance. An earlier version of this article was prepared for the Conference on the Peasantry of European Russia, 1800-1917, Boston, 19-22 August 1986.

1. Orzhitskii, “Ob ustroistve obrochnogo imeniia,” Zhurnal zemlevladtsy, no. 2 (1858): 34.

2. The most detailed analyses of lists of candidates for conscription are by Aleksandrov, V. A., Sel'skaia obshchina v Rossii (Moscow, 1978), pp. 248–271 Google Scholar; Hoch, Steven L., Serfdom and Social Control in Russia: Petrovoskoe, a Village in Tambov (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), pp. 152–156 Google Scholar; and Prokof'eva, L. S., Krest'ianskaia obshchina v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII—pervoi polovine XIX v (namaterialikh votchin Sheremetevykh) (Leningrad, 1981), pp. 152–155 Google Scholar. The best survey of different principlesused to select conscripts in Aleksandrov, Sel'skaia obshchina, pp. 245–292. Potential sources of abuse and descriptions of selection principles are also found in Blum, Jerome, Lord and Peasant in Russia (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp. 465–467 Google Scholar; Genkin, L. B., Pomeshchich'i krest'iane Iaroslavskoii Kostromskoi guberniipered reformoi i vo vremia reformy 1861 g., (Iaroslavl', 1947), pp. 92–95 Google Scholar; Keep, John L., Soldiers of the Tsar: Army and Society in Russia, 1462–1874 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, pp. 144–152 Google Scholar; Elise Kimerling, “A Social History of the Lower Ranks in the Russian Army, 1796–1855” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1983), pp. 41, 60–61; and Semevskii, V. I., Krest'iane vtsarstvovanie Ekateriny II, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1903), pp. 148–150, 303–309Google Scholar. Other examples of abuseare cited in Indova, E. I., Krepostnoe khoziaistvo v nachale XIX veka. Po materialym votchinnogo arkhivaVorontsovykh (Moscow, 1955), pp. 93, 98, 179Google Scholar, and Ryndziunskii, P. G., “Rassloenie krest'ianstva i klassovaiabor'ba v krepostnoi votchine v 20-kh godakh XIX v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski 4 (1938): 152.Google Scholar

3. Gagarin family papers, Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov, fond 1, 262, opis’ 2, 1861 register, delo 7, 338. All Gagarin documents are from the same archives, fond, and opis', and these will not be cited in further notes.

4. Petition from Domna Fedoseev, 27 October 1813, d. 7, 197, 1. 11.

5. For a more detailed examination of the Manuilovskoe household structure see Rodney D. Bohac, “Family, Property, and Socioeconomic Mobility: Russian Peasants on Manuilovskoe Estate, 1810–1861 “ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1982), pp. 88–132.

6. Age requirements changed often during the first half of the nineteenth century but generally ranged from 20 to 35 years old. Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov series 2, vol. 5 (1830), no. 3, 829. Hereafter referred to asPSZ.

7. Gagarin directive, 29 November 1824, d. 7, 218, 1. 1.

8. Prokof'eva, Krest'ianskaia obshchina, p. 153, describes a similar system on Molodotudskoe estatein Tver’ province as selection by generation. Her chart and use of the term rod, however, indicates that thecommunity used sibling groups.

9. The government directed all state peasants to use a variation of this method. See Kimerling, “SocialHistory,” pp. 18–21; Druzhinin, N. M., Gosudarstvennye krest'iane i reforma P.D. Kiseleva (Moscow, 1958), pp. 52–53 Google Scholar. Aleksandrov argues that communes were moving away from this system (Sel'skaiaobshchina, pp. 247–271) and getting all households to participate by paying a designated sum for each specified number of souls in the household. Manuilovskoe moved in this direction in the 1830s by havingsmall households pay 100 rubles over a long period. Aleksandrov provides examples of this trend, but just asmany examples of communities that did not establish this system could probably be provided. Aleksandrov also claims that the shift to payments resulted from the growth of a money commodity market but neverfirmly establishes its presence in the estates he describes. Aleksandrov also mentions another system in which villages took turns providing conscripts (Sel'skaia obshchina, pp. 249, 270). Village membership did not play a role on the Manuilovskoe estate.

10. Aleksandrov, Sel'skaia obshchina, pp. 286–288.

11. Hoch describes a completely different system on a barshchina estate owned by the Gagarins in Tambov province. There in 1831 and 1834 almost all of the conscripts were troublemakers and the few remaining slots were filled by peasants chosen by lot (Serfdom and Social Control, p. 154).

12. Report from estate manager, 16 February 1851, d. 7, 306, 11. 25–26 ob. The estate manager sentmost reports and succeeding notes will simply be cited as report.

13. Examples of draft manifestoes can be found in PSZ, series 2, vol. 20 (1845), no. 19, 423, and vol.50 (1850), no. 24, 310.

14. In 1833, for example, the mir chose its candidates on 23 November and on 5 December reported the names of those drafted. Mir directive, 23 November 1833, 7, 246, 11. 29–30; report, 5 December 1833, d. 7, 246, II. 38–38 ob.

15. Report, 6 April 1812, d. 7, 190, 1. 10; 22 November 1824, d. 7, 220, 1. 82.

16. Druzhinin, Gosudarstvennye krest'iane, p. 336; Kimerling, “Social History,” pp. 50–59.

17. Blum, Lord and Peasant, pp. 466–467; PSZ, series 2, vol. 8 (1843), no. 16, 929; vol. 9 (1844), nos. 17, 676, 18, 308; vol. 25 (1850), no. 23, 834.

18. PSZ, series 2, vol. 4 (1829), no. 3, 082; vol. 29 (1854), no. 28, 149.

19. The data describing persons drafted come from the 1816 revision, d. 7, 203; 1834 revision, d.7, 247; 1850 revision, d. 7, 284; and the 1858 revision, d. 7, 324; 1813 household register, d. 7, 192; 1823 register, d. 7, 215; 1826 register, d. 7, 226; 1829 register, d. 7, 240; 1833 register, d. 7, 215; 1840 register, d.7, 256; 1851 register, d. 7, 286; 1856 register, d. 7, 320; 1860 register, d. 7, 335

20. Report, 13 March 1855, d. 7, 312, 11. 31–34.

21. Petition, September 1813, d. 7, 197, 11. 33–33 ob; Mir ledger, November-December 1833, d.7, 246, 1. 44.

22. Draft register, 1 May 1853, d. 7, 306, 11. 39–69

23. Genkin, Pomeshchich'i krest'iane, p. 92.

24. Report, 8 December 1814, d. 7, 199, 1. 34; report, 15 April 1822, d. 7, 214, 1. 76.

25. Petition, 12 October 1810, from Ivan Evdokimov, d. 7, 187, 1. 39; petition, 18 November 1810, from Grigorii Maksimov, d. 7, 187, 1. 44; petition, 18 November 1810, from Fedor Rodionov, d. 7, 187, 1. 51; petition, 18 November 1810, from Abram and Fedor Gavrilov, d. 7, 187, 1. 52; petition, 18 November 1810, from Stepan Osepov, d. 7, 187, 1. 53; petition, 18 November 1810, from Ivan, Stepan, and Aleksei Filipov, d. 7, 187, 1. 53.

26. Report, 3 December 1810, d. 7, 187, 11. 59–59 ob.

27. Report, 2 May 1811, d. 7, 198, 1. 24.

28. Directive, 24 November 1811, from N. S. Gagarin, d. 7, 189, 1. 40.

29. Ibid.

30. Some peasants who moved up the list as a result of Gagarin's intervention focused on a household head, Grigorii Maksimov, whom they claimed was not a contributing member of the community. He hadlived two years off the estate without a passport, and the mir had gone to great expense to bring him back. While away Maksimov had also purchased an outsider to be his son's wife and had allowed his Manuilovskoe farm to deteriorate. Maksimov countered by pointing out that at the same time he purchased an outsider forhis elder son, a younger son had taken a wife “in his own votchina in his own village.” Petition, 8 December1811, from Mikhail Sergeev, Nikolai Ivanov, Boris Gavrilov, Andrei Pavlov, Grigorii Prokof'ev, and PetrIvanov, d. 7, 189, 11. 64–64 ob.; petition, December 1811, from Grigorii Maksimov, d. 7, 189, 1. 66.

31. Petition, 28 November 1811, from Fedor Semenov, d. 7, 189, 1. 62; petition, 13 December 1811, from Grigorii Fedorov, d. 7, 189, 11. 69–69 ob. Manuilovskoe peasants often approached Gagarin in a mannersimilar to the peasants’ traditional approach to the tsar.

32. Draft list, 24 November 1811, d. 7, 188; report, 24 December 1811, d. 7, 189, 1. 74. All but one ofthese men were bachelors living with their mothers. Gagarin suggested the mir take care of these women. Heplaced the sole married man at the bottom of the list, because, if he were drafted, the man's wife wouldbecome a soldatka.

33. Report, 6 April 1812, d. 7, 190, 1. 10.

34. Report, 25 October 1813, d. 7, 197, 11. 38 ob.-39.

35. During both the Napoleonic invasion and the Crimean War the peasants did not distinguish between the regular army and the militia. Both were to be avoided. Petition, October 1813, from Ivan Evdokimov, d. 7, 197, 1. 12; petition, 23 October 1813, from Varvara Gavrilova, d. 7, 197, 1. 47; petition, 23 October 1813, from Maria Anafreva, d. 7, 197, 1. 48; petition, 27 October 1813, from Domna Fedoseev, d. 7, 197, 1. 11.

36. Petition, September 1813, from Ivan Zakharov, Afonasei Mikhailov, Zahkar Ivanov, and Trifan Alekseev, d. 7, 197, 11. 33–33 ob.; petition, October 1813, from Ivan Evdokimov, d. 7, 197, 1. 12.

37. Petition, 27 October 1813, from five households, d. 7, 197, 1. 45.

38. Report, 20 February 1813, d. 7, 197, 1. 1.

39. Report, 16 January 1817, d. 7, 206, 1. 67.

40. Draft register, 18 November 1820, d. 7, 213, 11. 25–48. In 1824 the mir placed at the top of thelist, three troublemakers, all of whom were accused of theft. All three men would have probably been on thelist anyway, but now they were at the top instead of the bottom: report, 22 November 1824, d. 7, 220, I. 82;Gagarin directive, 29 November 1824, d. 7, 218, 1. 1.

41. Report, 23 October 1827, d. 7, 232, 11. 62–62 ob.

42. Report, 28 October 1828, d. 7, 237, 11. 194–200.

43. Mir directive, 17 October 1829, d. 7, 235, 11. 31–32; report, 31 October 1830, d. 7, 242, 11. 11–11ob.; report, 6 March 1831, d. 7, 242, 11. 42–42 ob.; report, November 1831, d. 7, 243, 1. 25; report, 9 December 1831, d. 7, 243, 11. 44–44 ob.; mir directive, November 1833, d. 7, 246, 11. 29–30.

44. Petition, November 1831, from Grigorii Evdokimov, Egor Afonasev, and Grigorii Konstantinov, d. 7, 243, II. 35–35 ob. The ability to appeal to the Gagarins probably did not increase the level of dissatis factionbut allowed the peasants to express their grievance and gave them a potential ally.

45. Petition, 19 November 1833, from Egor Afonasev, d. 7, 246, 11. 34–35.

46. Petition, 19 November 1833, from Mikhail Ivanov, d. 7, 246, 1. 35.

47. Register of conscripts, 17 October 1829, d. 7, 235, 11. 31–32; register of conscripts, 19 March 1831, d. 7, 242, II. 49–50; report, 18 November 1831, d. 7, 243, 11. 25–25 ob.; mir directive, November 1833, d. 7, 246, 11. 29–30; mir directive, November 1835, d. 7, 250, 11. 9–10 ob.

48. Mir directive, 18 November 1835, d. 7, 250, 11. 13–18; mir directive, 16 November 1836, d.7, 251, 11. 37–37 ob.; report, 17 November 1838, d. 7, 254, 11. 16–17; mir directive, 18 November 1839, d.7, 255, 1. 15.

49. PSZ, series 2, vol. 28 (1853), no. 27, 431.

50. Draft register, May 1853, d. 7, 306, 11. 39–69.

51. Report, 16 February 1854, d. 7, 306, 11. 25–26ob.; report, 16 June 1854, d. 7, 306, 11. 31–31 ob

52. Petition, 10 February 1854, from Terentei Moseev, d. 7, 306, 11. 16–17 ob.; petition, 10 February 1854, from Kondratei Semenov, d. 7, 306, 11. 14–15 ob.; petition, 11 February 1854, from Parfenii Vasilev, d. 7, 306, 11. 13–13 ob.; petition, 11 February 1853, from Konstantin Ignatev, d. 7, 306, 11. 23–24; petition, 16 February 1854, from Mikhail Andreev, d. 7, 306, 11. 22–22 ob.

53. Petition, 8 February 1854, from Iakov Vasil'ev, d. 7, 306, 11. 20–21.

54. Report, 13 March 1855, d. 7, 309, 11. 31–34.