Russia at the turn of the century: territory, population, economic development. By the beginning of the XIX century. Russia has become one of the largest and most powerful states in Europe. For several decades, it has had the status of a sh'lik of a European power.

The borders of Russia stretched from the foothills of the Carpathians to the shores of the Pacific Ocean, from the White Sea and the Arctic Ocean to the Crimea and the Caucasus Mountains.

In terms of population, Russia was in one of the first places in Europe. Nearly 44 million people lived within its new borders. A unique feature of Russia was the multinational composition of the population. Coming from the depths of centuries, to the beginning of the XIX century. it has become even more diverse. The peoples of the Volga region, the Urals, the North, Siberia, the Far East were joined by the inhabitants of the western Russian provinces, as well as foreign, primarily German, colonists resettled in Novorossia and the Volga. At the same time, Russia was increasingly turning into a multi-confessional state in which Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism and paganism coexisted peacefully. All this made the country surprisingly diverse in terms of its economic, spiritual, and cultural characteristics.

Russia was distinguished by large cities with a population of tens of thousands of people. These were St. Petersburg, Moscow, Vilna, Riga, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Tobolsk and others. They, especially the two Russian capitals, differed in scale, beauty of private and public buildings, churches.

St. Petersburg with its granite embankments, magnificent palaces, gardens and canals, with remarkable architectural ensembles both in the city itself and in the suburbs - in Tsarskoe Selo, Pavlovsk, Peterhof, Gatchina, Oranienbaum, became a truly pearl of Europe, did not yield to beauty and splendor to Paris, Vienna, London, famous Italian cities.

By the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. Russia has become one of the largest industrial and trading countries.

As before, the metallurgical, mining Urals, the metallurgical region of Tula remained a powerful industrial center. Large manufactories of various profiles worked in the leading cities of the country. The general contribution to the industrial state of the empire was also made by noble manufactories.

By the beginning of the XIX century. the hired labor of workers and craftsmen, that is, the labor of the free workers most interested in production, on which the industrial progress of the country rested, constituted a significant and inalienable part of Russian industry.

By the beginning of the new century, Russian trade stood on solid European footings. Through the Baltic and Black Sea ports there was an active export of Russian products, imports of foreign goods. The cities that turned their connections to the east - Astrakhan, Orenburg, Tobolsk - played their role in this process.

The transformation of Russia into a huge empire led to the further development of the domestic market in the country. The diversity and economic peculiarity of the regions imperiously demanded an increase in trade exchange between them. New regions were added to the agricultural South and the industrial and commercial North of the country - Novorossia and the Crimea, Siberia and the North Caucasus, and the Baltic states.

Every year the volume of transactions at Russian fairs expanded, among which the Makarievskaya fair moved to Nizhny Novgorod occupied the leading place.

At the beginning of the XIX century. Mariinskaya and Tikhvinskaya water systems with newly built canals and locks started operating in the country. They even more firmly connected the southern regions of the country, the Volga-Oka basin with the North, with the Baltic coast.

State. The power of the state was determined not only by the vastness of the territory, population, economic development, but also by the strength of the state structure, as well as by military force.

By the beginning of the XIX century. The Russian state has acquired a solid absolutist framework. Relying primarily on the nobility, as well as on the rising bourgeoisie - big businessmen and merchants, the monarchy was able to normalize the situation in the country, carry out important reforms of central and local government, and take significant steps in the field of culture and education.

In the management system, in the leadership of the army, a layer of enlightened managers, patriotic-minded commanders, who have been brought to the fore in their lives, put the interests of the Motherland, Russia, developed over decades. By the beginning of the XIX century. behind the shoulders of the Russian army were brilliant victories over the Turks and the Crimea, over the army of the Prussian king Frederick the Great, over the Swedes and the French. It was the army of Saltykov and Rumyantsev Potemkin and Suvorov, the Baltic and Black Sea fleets by this time also did not know defeat and glorified themselves in battles with the Swedes, Turks, French. The names of Spiridov and Ushakov became the pride of the Russian fleet.

But at the beginning of the XIX century. marked the beginning of the New Age. Napoleon's empire grew in the west of Europe. The European world was becoming bipolar, that is, the two most powerful powers in Europe - France and Russia - claimed a dominant position on the continent, and therefore, sooner or later, they had to face

each other.

However, Russia, as a great power at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries, possessed, first of all, only strength and quantitative indicators. But these indicators, as European civilization developed, more and more definitely became the qualities of yesterday. The advanced countries of Europe, and primarily England and France, ensured their status as great powers at the expense of completely different properties.

The economic and military power of these countries was based on the development of civil society, the rights and freedoms of the human person, on modern political, primarily constitutional institutions of parliamentarism. It was its contours that largely determined already at the beginning of the 19th century. greatness of a country.

In Russia, the general structure of life in many respects remained turned not to the future, but to the past. The absolute monarchy remained unshakable. Democratic principle of separation of powers for Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. turned out to be unattainable, although he was well known at the top of Russian society and had his adherents even in the imperial family. So, the heir to the throne, Alexander Pavlovich, seriously thought about this at the time of his youthful passion for the ideals of enlightenment and constitutionalism.

The Russian bureaucracy, formed during the 18th century, had turned into a colossal self-sufficient force by the turn of the new century. And it became a powerful support of absolutist power, thereby determining the civilizational level of Russian statehood. Gogol's characters in The Government Inspector gave a brilliant artistic embodiment of her characteristic features.

The life of the people. In accordance with medieval canons, the estate system continued to exist in Russia. True, its outlines since the time of Peter I have blurred significantly. A middle class was formed, absorbing into its composition representatives of different classes. Just as numerous was the emerging composition of civilian workers.

The nobility, in accordance with the "Table of wounds," noticeably lost its exclusive, isolated features.

And yet, the nobility, and the merchants, and the clergy, and the peasantry were in many respects closed, isolated corporations with their own rights for some and duties (with minimal rights) for others. As before, the nobility, the clergy, to a large extent entrepreneurs, large merchants remained outside the tax press of the state. All state structures were formed from representatives of these estates, the cultural and intellectual elite of society crystallized.

The open competition of minds, talents, representing the people as a whole, remained sealed for Russia. This in no way could characterize Russia as a great power.

The country was still dominated by the serf system. Despite the timid attempts of Paul I to limit serf labor, the nobility of the black earth zone sabotaged the government decree on a three-day corvee per week, the peasants were forced to work in the master's economy up to five days a week. And this meant that the agricultural sector of the country was mainly based on forced labor. And the power of Russian heavy industry rested on the forced labor of bonded and possessive peasants. Noble manufactories, distilleries also used the labor of their serfs.

The whole life of both serfs and state, as well as other categories of peasants, was regulated by the rules, traditions, customs of the peasant community, which came down from ancient times and almost disappeared in Western countries. In the presence of fully consistent with the general political and economic level of Russia, was an integral and integral part of Russian life. The communal beginnings stretched like tentacles to the cities, to manufactories and factories, together with the otkhodniks who came here, creating here a village-communal background.

Under such conditions, the Russian economy was doomed to lag behind countries that had gone over to the bourgeois system. Thus, in this area of ​​the country's life, the greatness and signs of a great power were very problematic for Russia.

The situation with the territorial characteristics of Russia was also difficult. One of the indicators of the civilizational development of the country is the population density. In Russia, it was the lowest in Europe. If in the central provinces it was 8 people per 1 sq. verst (in Europe this figure reached 40 - 50 people), then in most provinces of the south, northeast and east it was 7 people per 1 sq. km. a mile or even less. The vast territories of Siberia and the Far East were generally sparsely populated.

The entry into Russia of the territories of the North Caucasus, Kazakhstan, the nomadic spaces of the Lower Volga region, Siberia (in contrast to the highly developed regions of the Baltic States, Western Ukraine and Western Belarus for that time) not only did not contribute to the general civilizational development of the country, but, on the contrary, threw Russia back, since most of the inhabitants of these spaces lived at the level of tribal relations, and the main occupation of many of them was hunting or nomadic cattle breeding.

The outstanding civilizing role of Russia in these areas turned out to be huge losses for the country, despite the increase in territories, population, increase in taxes in the form of yasak and the appearance of paramilitary cavalry units of a number of Eastern and North Caucasian peoples in the Russian army. Due to this, the Eurasian axis of Russia deviated more and more to the east.

The same applies to the development of newly annexed territories in the south. The construction of new cities and ports here, the creation of the Black Sea Fleet required huge costs and strain on the state's forces.

The development of new Russian territories was fundamentally different from outwardly similar processes in the West. There, the capture of the colonies and their development by England, France, Holland proceeded outside the territory of the mother countries. In Russia, such territories were not colonies: they became an organic part of the country with all the pluses and minuses of such a state. All this did not contribute to the prosperity of the country by the beginning of the 19th century.

Changes are also observed in foreign policy: Paul refuses to participate in the fight against revolutionary France and in November 1798 joins the coalition against Napoleon (because before that Paul joins the Order of Malta, and Napoleon captures Malta). In 1799, Suvorov returned from disgrace, he was sent to war in Italy.

However, in 1800, when the British captured Malta, they refused to return to Paul the share he was entitled to under the agreement. Paul withdraws from the coalition and forms an alliance with Napoleon.

The nobility did not approve of Paul's policy, and in 1801 he was killed as a result of a conspiracy aimed at placing his son, the future Emperor Alexander I, on the throne. 1). Territory of Russia.

• 2). The population of Russia: a). multinational
• b). multi-religious
• in). Class division of the population
• G). Class division of the population
• 3). The political structure of Russia in the late 18th - early 19th centuries.

III. Kuban at the turn of the XVIII - XIX centuries.

The first point of our plan requires work with the map. Pay attention to the question (Slide No. 4 of the Appendix) and on the map (Slide No. 5 of the Appendix) determine the geographical position of Russia at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries. ( Russia is located in Europe and Asia. The border between European and Asian Russia runs through the Ural Mountains.

Russia's land border with Sweden, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Iran, Afghanistan, India, China.

Only the sea border is with Japan and the USA.

Land and sea border between Russia and the Ottoman Empire).

Correctly. We turn to the characteristics of the second paragraph of the plan.

• one). The territory of Russia at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries was 18 million km (increased due to the annexation of the Caucasus, Finland, Bessarabia). (Slide number 6 of the Application)
• 2). "The population of Russia at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries".

According to its national composition, the population of Russia was very heterogeneous.

a). multinational- more than 200 peoples and nationalities lived on the territory of Russia.

Let us turn to the map "The Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century."

Let's determine what peoples lived on the territory of Russia at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries? - (Slide number 7 of the application)

Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians lived in the south and west of the European part of the country.

In the Baltics - Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Germans.

In the north of European Russia and in the Volga region - Mordovians, Mari, Udmurts, Karelians, Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvashs, Kalmyks ...

In Siberia and the Far East - Tatars, Yakuts, Evens, Yukagirs, Buryats, Chukchi, Nanais...

The basis of the population of Russia were Russians. ( Slide #8 Applications )

b). Multi-religious - the peoples of Russia professed almost all major world religions.

The state religion was Orthodoxy, which was followed by Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, representatives of other peoples (87% of the population in total). Slide #9 Applications )

In the western regions, Catholicism (Lithuanians, Poles) and Protestantism (Latvians, Estonians, Germans) were widespread. - ( Slide number 10 Appendix)

Turkic-speaking peoples (Tatars, Bashkirs) professed Islam. - ( Slide #11 Applications )

Kalmyks and Buryats - Buddhism. - ( Slide #12 Applications )

Jews - Judaism. - ( Slide #13 Applications)

The peoples of Siberia, the Far North retained pagan beliefs (Mordovians, Mari ...)- (Slide No. 14 of the Application)

in). Class division of the population.

Estates are large groups of people with certain rights and duties that are inherited. ( Elizaveta Saiko will give a brief description of the class division of the country).

The main estates of the country were:

Nobility - up to 400 thousand people, large landowners.

The nobility, clergy and merchants were a privileged class - they were not subjected to corporal punishment, they did not pay tax in favor of the state. - (Slide No. 16, 17, 18 of the Appendix)

Unprivileged classes:

Philistinism - up to 4% of the population.

Peasantry - more than 90% of the population.

Cossacks - 1.5 million people.

The bourgeoisie, the peasantry, the Cossacks carried military service, paid taxes in favor of the state. - (Slide No. 19, 20 Applications)

We will characterize the position of the main strata of society in more detail later, when studying individual topics, and today I propose that you solve several cognitive tasks.

Political and socio-economic development of Russia at the beginning of the XIX century.

By the beginning of the XIX century. Russia was a world power that played a prominent role in the European arena. It occupied an area of ​​17.4 million square meters. km; in this territory, according to the census of 1795, 37.4 million people lived. About 90% of the total population were peasants: approximately 2% were nobles. The leading agricultural production in the country's economy tended to grow, and there were shifts in industry. However, in the words of the modern researcher B. G. Litvak, Russia-troika "did not race, but barely dragged along the bumpy road of history." First half of the 19th century brought a lot of change. Not without reason, historians emphasize that with the beginning of this century, Russia entered a new stage in its development. Many experts were interested, in particular, in the question of the causes and essence of the transformative activity of Alexander I, who occupied the Russian throne from March 1801 to November 1825, and they solve it differently. Thus, the authors of multi-volume works about Alexander I and his time, Generals M. I. Bogdanovich and N. K. Schilder, developed the idea of ​​the tsar’s desire for legality as the main motive for his transformations. Hating despotism, Alexander I, as Bogdanovich argued, sought to "forever protect the rights of everyone and everyone from arbitrariness."

The forcible removal of Paul I in 1801 and the accession of his son Alexander I not only did not cause shocks in the country, but aroused expectations of reforms, greater freedom, and a constitution. The manifesto on the coronation of Alexander I contained liberal ideas: the basic rights of subjects introduced by Catherine II were confirmed, the introduction of laws was promised that would ensure the inviolability of the person and private property, the mitigation of criminal law, the restrictions imposed by Pact I (corporal punishment, censorship) were abolished. Alexander I ruled for almost a quarter of a century: 1801-1825. The most contradictory testimonies of contemporaries remained about him and his views. He expressed directly opposite views, took the same actions. This feature gave contemporaries the impression of insincerity of the emperor. Napoleon's statement is known: "Alexander is smart, pleasant, but he cannot be trusted"; he is insincere: he is a true Byzantine ..., subtle, feigned, cunning. The French writer F. Chateaubriand was more brief: "Quirky as a Greek." "Northern Talma" - so often called Alexander I in European salons, hinting at his artistic abilities. It is obvious that in his views the emperor was a moderate liberal. He was brought up in the spirit of enlightened absolutism, was intelligent and could not help but take into account the spirit of the times, especially the influence of the French Revolution. According to contemporaries, he had great political talent, but many believed that this talent manifested itself more in the military field and foreign policy than in domestic.

The first stage of the reign of Alexander I, from 1801 to 1815, is called the period of enlightened absolutism. If the enlightened absolutism of Catherine II was associated with the French enlightenment, colored by the ideas of Voltaire, Montesquieu, then the enlightened absolutism of the nineteenth century. was fueled by the ideas of the French Revolution and those processes in Europe that took place under its influence. Around the king there was a circle of friends, which was called the "Unspoken Committee". It included young aristocrats: Counts P. A. Sgroganov and V. D. Kochubey, N. D. Dovosiltsev, Prince A. D. Czartorysky. Conservative circles of society dubbed this committee the "Jacobin gang." He sat from 1801 to 1803. and discussed projects of state reforms, the abolition of serfdom, etc. But gradually his activities came to naught, the matter of reforms was transferred into the hands of the state bureaucracy. M. M. Speransky played an important role in the preparation of transformations in the field of state structure. The son of a poor village priest, he possessed brilliant abilities, made a rapid career and in 1807 became secretary of state and closest adviser to the emperor. In 1809, M. M. Speransky outlined the project for the reform of the socio-political structure of Russia in a document called "Introduction to the Code of State Laws." It was proposed:

1. Introduce the concepts of political and civil rights into the law, but not for everyone. Serfs (landlords), hired workers, domestic servants were not supposed to be granted civil rights. It must be borne in mind that in the West at that time there was still no talk of universality in civil rights, but in the USA slavery existed. It is important that in this case it became possible to influence the system of power, not only for the aristocracy, but also for the middle strata.

2. Ensure the separation of powers and the involvement of a society with civil rights in governance. The judiciary was recognized as completely independent and subordinated to the Senate. Legislative power was to be represented by elected local dumas and the central State Duma. The executive branch was subordinate to the legislative branch. It was represented by ministries in the center and local governments at the bottom. The emperor was the center of all power.

3. The rule of law was proclaimed: the law rules, not the people.

4. It was supposed to introduce the election of officials, and this meant their responsibility to society.

The entire system of state administration, according to the project of M. M. Speransky, was built from the bottom up. It was envisaged that the population would elect local dumas. Meeting once every three years, they, in turn, must elect members of the board who were invited to run the local economy until the next meeting, as well as representatives to higher dumas (volost - to the district, district - to the provincial, provincial - to the central). Justifying the need for such a reform, M. M. Speransky argued that Russia was moving towards an inevitable social catastrophe, as evidenced by the decline in the prestige of power among the people. At the same time, it should be noted that M. M. Speransky did not provide for the abolition of serfdom, however, the relationship between peasants and the landowner was supposed to be regulated by law, and it was proposed to give the landlord peasants the right to acquire movable and immovable property; but the project remained on paper.

The tsar was forced to maneuver between the more active conservative forces and those social forces that demanded changes. The plans of M. M. Speransky aroused resistance in the upper strata of society, and Alexander I himself lost interest in liberal ideas. But still, some of the liberal undertakings were implemented. There was a separation and organizational design according to the European type of executive power. In 1802 the Committee of Ministers was established as the highest administrative institution. The boards created by Peter I, as branch bodies of state administration, finally became a thing of the past, were replaced by ministries. Initially, the Committee of Ministers also had legislative powers on all issues of public administration and did not have executive power (the implementation of decisions was entrusted to the relevant ministers). In essence, the Committee never became a body uniting and directing the activities of various ministries. It was the meeting place of the emperor with the most trusted senior officials. The structure and functions of the executive power were more clearly defined in 1811. This completed the organizational design of the executive branch of power. With the introduction of ministries, unity of command in state administration was strengthened. These transformations affected the position of the Senate. He became a body supervising the correct execution of laws in the state.

In 1810, the State Council was created - a legislative advisory body under the tsar. The chairman and his members were appointed by the king. "No law can be submitted for the approval of the emperor other than the State Council," the imperial decree read. He centralized legislative activity, streamlined the introduction of new legal norms. It was argued that the Council of State "was established in order to give a new mark of constancy and uniformity to the power of the legislature, hitherto dispersed and scattered." Literally, the very first years of the activity of the State Council showed that the autocracy was not able to follow even the order that it itself sanctioned. The accepted general idea of ​​introducing a legal order in Russia in practice came into conflict with the much more deeply rooted traditional arbitrariness of Russian absolutism. Many important bills began to be approved by the tsar, bypassing the State Council, according to the reports of the chairman of the Committee of Ministers, chairmen of various councils and committees. Over time, the sphere of competence of the State Council in general began to lose any clear outline.

As a result of the reforms, despite the negative aspects, the power structure organizationally and functionally approached the European one. Along with the separation of the judiciary, which took place under Catherine II, now the executive branch has taken shape and the germ of the future legislative branch has appeared. Although the entire system of state administration was closed to the emperor, and the legislative power as an independent sphere of political activity did not yet exist, Russia took a new step towards the separation of powers. However, society still did not have any channels of influence on the system of power and was entirely dependent on the bureaucracy. The reform activities of M. M. Speransky, the possibility of a real introduction of the separation of powers caused dissatisfaction with the bureaucracy and the nobility. He was removed from state activity and exiled to Nizhny Novgorod, and then to Perm.

Some measures were taken to combat the negative aspects of bureaucratic management, to give civilized principles to management activities. In 1809, by decree of the tsar, an "examination for rank" was introduced. Those officials who graduated from a university in Russia were exempted from it, while the rest were subject to the following requirements: knowledge of the Russian language and one of the foreign ones, knowledge of the basics of natural, Roman, civil and criminal law, knowledge of Russian and world history; mastering the basics of natural science, geography, mathematics, physics. The main goal was the training of "performers, knowledgeable, with a solid and domestic education." The decree was received with displeasure, because. On the exam, it was required to show versatile knowledge. The famous Russian historian N. M. Karamzin, who also did not approve of this innovation, wrote: “Your chairman of the civil chamber is obliged to know Homer and Theocritus, the secretary of the Senate is the property of oxygen and all gases, the vice-governor is the Pythagorean figure, the overseer in the asylum - Roman law, or die collegiate and titular councillors". However, bureaucratic measures to combat red tape could not be effective.

The need to reform the soil structure, especially the abolition of serfdom, was also obvious. The emperor repeatedly stated the need to improve the plight of the serfs. Some steps have been taken in this direction.

Distribution or sale of state peasants into private hands is prohibited. Thus, the increase in the number of serfs was suspended. However, this provision has been implemented inconsistently. In 1810-1817. in connection with the difficult financial situation of the empire, ten thousand male souls were nevertheless sold into private hands; renting out state peasants to private individuals was widely practiced in Belarus and in Right-Bank Ukraine. By the end of the reign of Alexander I, there were 350,000 state peasants on lease.

The sale of peasants is limited: it is forbidden to sell at fairs "at retail", that is, without a family, without land, publish advertisements for the sale, exile peasants to Siberia for insignificant deeds.

The decree of 1803 "On free cultivators" provided for the peasants to go free by mutual agreement with the landowner. However, it was difficult to use this decree, and by 1825, in accordance with it, less than 0.5% of the serfs were freed.

In 1804-1805. the abolition of serfdom began in the Baltic provinces (in Latvia and Estonia). The abolition of serfdom extended to the peasants of the "court owners" (that is, non-communal people). They received complete freedom, but without land, which they had to rent from the landowner for corvée, dues.

Thus, the plague of serfdom persisted. The soil structure was still dominated by corporatism (community, leveling principles). With the introduction of military settlements on state-owned lands in a number of provinces (Petersburg, Novgorod, Mogilev, Kharkov), the position of state peasants worsened. In fact, they lost their personal freedom, they had to live in the same houses, get up on command, go to work and return home. The landowning village was in a particularly difficult situation. The growth of landlords' debts led to the fact that by 1859, 65% of all serfs were mortgaged in state credit institutions.

The Western way of life, in comparison with the "soil", developed dynamically: by 1860 the number of large enterprises had grown to 15,000. In the 30-40s. XIX century the industrial revolution began, the transition from manufactory to factory, from manual labor to machine. Cities turned into industrial centers, the urban population grew. The system of communications improved: steamships appeared, canals were dug, connecting the hinterland with seaports. Albeit slowly, class formation proceeded. The proportion of serf workers at large industrial enterprises decreased (to 18% by 1860). Conditions were created for the expansion of the layer of small owners, including in the countryside: in 1801, merchants, petty bourgeois, state peasants received the right to buy land in private ownership. In 1858, 270,000 householders owned more than one million acres of land in private ownership. Since the serf had no rights to property, he owned the land de facto. (Legally, the property was registered with the landowner.)

Important steps have been taken in the development of education. Universities were created: Kazan, Kharkov, St. Petersburg. In 1804, the Moscow Commercial School was opened, which marked the beginning of a special economic education. By the way, it was under Alexander I that the economic works of Adam Smith were translated into Russian and published, which became fashionable to read in high society. An important innovation was that from now on representatives of all classes could be admitted to educational institutions and at the lower levels education was free (paid from the state budget). The reign of Alexander I was also characterized by unconditional religious tolerance, which was extremely important for multinational Russia.

Russia in the era of Nicholas I

Nicholas I became Emperor of Russia. His political ideal was Peter I, whom he tried to imitate in everything. The image of Peter the Great was always with Nicholas until his death. It would seem that such a choice of ideal meant the pro-Western nature of the emperor. However, it is not. In Peter I, he was attracted by the decisiveness, strength and power of state power. He, like Peter I, believed in the omnipotence of the state and believed that the state mechanism could change the world. He not only did not want to transform Russia according to the Western version, but also dreamed of eradicating what had already been done before him in this direction. In one of the first manifestos after December 14, 1825, Nicholas I set the task of clearing Russia from the infection that had been inflicted on us from the outside. To strengthen state power, it was proposed to plant "domestic, natural, not foreign education."

After the Decembrist uprising, Nicholas I created a secret committee to develop reform projects, brought M. M. Speransky closer, who by that time had abandoned constitutional projects and became a defender of unlimited autocracy. He was instructed to lead the work on the codification of the laws of the Russian state. By 1830 this work was completed. The complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire amounted to 47 volumes. Their first article read: "The Emperor of Russia is an autocratic and unlimited monarch. To obey the supreme power is not only for fear, but also for conscience, God himself commands." There was nothing reformist in the codification and issuance of laws, but it was an important event. Before the publication of the code of laws, no one truly knew what laws existed on what subject. The laws were scattered across archives and departments; they could be searched for and set against each other and, without departing from the formal lawful ground, even flagrant abuses could be justified.

Second quarter of the nineteenth century - the time in Russia when the principle of personal unlimited power of the emperor reached its maximum development. The most important instrument of this power was His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery and a special department, the principles of which are so characterized by the historian of the early 20th century. AD Presnyakov: “Along with the search for “state criminals” (and why didn’t they just sum up this concept!) In the third department, the order of their fate in prison and exile was concentrated; various information about “suspicious persons” was received here - by no means only in political, but also criminal and police in general; from here came unspoken measures of surveillance and expulsion against them; from here everyone who was staying abroad and leaving Russia was monitored; periodical "statements" about all kinds of incidents, about more vivid criminal cases, especially about counterfeiters, innkeepers and smugglers; here they closely followed the peasant unrest, investigated their causes and reasons, took measures to suppress them; here the observation of the behavior of literature intensified.

How to abolish what has become obsolete without causing upheavals? Nicholas I did not know this, but nevertheless did something in this direction. Relying on the strengthening of discipline and centralization, the autocracy strengthened the Russian state system and tried to advance in resolving the peasant question. The peasant question was at the center of the emperor's attention. He used to create secret committees for peasant affairs, but their activities were of little success. Following the example of Alexander I, he began reforms from the western regions, at the end of the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829. Nicholas I declared the peasants in Moldavia and Wallachia personally free. At the same time, their duties in relation to the landowner were precisely determined. In 1837-1841. the reform of the state village was carried out, as a result of which the state peasants received legal rights, the administrative management was reorganized. The reform did not make any serious changes in the situation of the peasants, but improved the system of their management. As a result of the work of the next secret committee, the "Regulations on obligated peasants" of 1842 appeared, in accordance with which the landowners were given the right to conclude voluntary agreements with their peasants on the termination of personal serfdom and on their transfer to the category of obligated peasants. For the allotment of land that remained the property of the landowner, but was in the use of the peasants, the obligated peasants had to either serve a corvée or pay a cash quitrent. At the same time, elements of rural self-government were introduced.

Outwardly, everything was in order in Nikolaev Russia, the army shone at reviews, the bureaucratic mechanism worked perfectly, papers regularly passed from office to office. The number of officials increased, the military and police functions were strengthened due to the weakening of the role of the local nobility with its mortgaged and remortgaged estates, as well as the opposition forces, suppressed by the massacre of the Decembrists. But the world was changing, and Russia only sought to consolidate and strengthen what was. At the same time, the uprising of the Decembrists and its brutal suppression, the reprisal against the participants gave impetus to the differentiation of socio-political interests. The political dominant was the restriction of autocracy, the introduction of separation of powers and elements of parliamentarism, which inevitably required the destruction of corporatism. The Russian intellectual elite, sophisticated and European-educated, waged endless debates about the civilizational landmarks of society, trying to combine the idea of ​​progress with Orthodox spirituality and communal collectivism. The Decembrist uprising, despite its defeat, pushed the socio-political processes in society. The main political currents were outlined, among them a prominent place was occupied by the Slavophiles and the Westernizers, between whom a dispute unfolded about the features of Russia and the ways of its development.

At the same time, the real range of social and political interests was more complex and multicolored. A conservative-protective direction was taking shape. His platform is to prevent further changes in the direction of the Western system, to keep the "soil", the community intact, to assert Orthodoxy, to preserve serfdom, since it is beneficial for the peasants: "the landowner is the father of his own." Conservatives dominated the ranks of the highest state bureaucracy.

Simultaneously with the conservative, a liberal direction is being formed, oriented towards Western models. His platform is the rule of law and civil law is given to all; a constitution affirming the separation of powers and public control over power; the ideal state system was - a constitutional monarchy; peaceful means to achieve the stated goals (reforms). Among the bureaucracy in the 30s and especially in the 40s. began to take shape progressively thinking, intelligent people, united by the ideas of reforming the country. This is the so-called liberal bureaucracy. Ministries were the centers of its formation. It was not cut off from the social forces of the country, it was formed in cooperation with liberal public figures, writers, and scientists. In the mid 40s. this cooperation has been strengthened. Moscow University played an exceptional role in the spiritual formation of the liberal "youth Russia", in opposition to the official doctrine.

According to A. Herzen, Moscow University withstood in difficult times and began to be the first to cut itself out because of the general fog. Every year it became more and more important, talented youth flocked here from all over Russia. Studying at Moscow University left an imprint on their whole life. A brilliant galaxy of liberal teachers has formed here: Kavelin, Solovyov, Granovsky, and many others. They carried liberal ideals to the ranks of the Russian intelligentsia. S. Uvarov took care of Moscow University, eliminated harmful professors, but could not change anything. The university fell out of the official program. It became the center around which Westerners grouped - supporters of European models for Russia: Herzen, Korsh, Satin, Granevsky. People are bright, talented, they decorated the era of Nicholas I with their activities.

The Russian Empire was a huge, complex social system. The unity of enclaves, heterogeneous in civilizational terms, developing at different rates and in different traditions, was ensured due to the dominance of Russians, the inclusion of part of the local aristocracy in the administrative elite, as well as through strict centralization and the use of force. In the Nicholas era, when conservative-protective priorities prevailed in politics, the settlement of constantly arising contradictions in the multinational community was carried out through the use of force or prohibitive and restrictive laws.

The code of laws of the Russian Empire fixed the right of different confessions to freely practice their faith, but this did not apply to all. Thus, measures were taken to strengthen control in the Buddhist enclave in Siberia. If for almost two centuries the authorities encouraged the spread of Lamaism (the Tibetan form of Buddhism) in the Baikal and Transbaikalia, then by the middle of the 19th century. the situation has changed. The influence of the Buddhist clergy was so great that it aroused fear among the authorities. In 1853, the "Regulations on the Lamai clergy in Eastern Siberia" was adopted, which limited the number of spiritual centers (datsans) and the number of lamas (clerics). On the Day of Buryatia, it was allowed to have 34 datsans and 285 llamas. In reality, it was impossible to accurately implement this restriction, but it had a significant effect. The legal norms that regulated the relationship between confessions did not affect lamaists and pagans, who, in accordance with the traditions of Orthodoxy, were considered idolaters, which was considered a terrible sin. The pagans suffered especially. Under Nicholas I, persecution began for the performance of pagan rites.

Speech against the system of a multinational state was brutally suppressed and, as a rule, strengthened the tendency on the part of the authorities to smooth out inter-civilizational differences through unification and Russification. Nicholas I in 1828 without excesses entered the Polish throne. This did not mean at all that Polish society calmly and humbly accepted this fact. In the autumn of 1830, an uprising began here. The Sejm declared the Romanov dynasty deposed and formed a government. Since Poland had its own army with good military personnel, brought up in the spirit of the Napoleonic school, serious military operations were inevitable. However, only very hotheads could dream of a military victory over the Russian army. In the summer of 1831 Warsaw was taken. The constitutional island within Russia did not last long. After the uprising of 1830-1831. the Polish constitution was abolished, the State Council and the Sejm were dissolved, the armed forces were liquidated. The voivodships were renamed into provinces, the povets into counties. Power was concentrated in the hands of the tsar's governor (later - the governor-general).

State administration in national regions was characterized by a merging of civil and military functions, greater independence of governors and governors-general, the involvement of the national elite in separate levels of government and court, the presence of special bodies and traditions associated with the characteristics of the region. So, for example, in the Baltic provinces, the class organizations of the barons played an important role, which had great influence in the local administration, police and courts, in Finland, the local nobility.

Russia in the second half of the XIX century.

Modernization of the second half of the nineteenth century. can rightfully be called "Alexandrovskaya" after the name of Emperor Alexander II, who resolutely pushed Russia towards a progressive type of development. He ascended the throne after the death of his father in February 1855 and undertook large-scale reforms, which meant, in fact, the implementation of a new version of modernization, deeper than that of Peter I. The reforms concerned all spheres of society and rightfully went down in history called "great". The reign of Alexander II coincided with major events in the development of Western civilization, which influenced the nature of Russian transformations.

Alexander II was brought up in the traditions of autocracy and imperial priorities, but he was aware of the need for deep reforms of a liberal nature and carried them out throughout his reign. Immediately after accession to the throne, Alexander II took steps that foreshadowed reforms. The censorship committee introduced by Nicholas I was closed, elements of publicity, which society so needed, began to emerge in the country. The free issuance of foreign passports was allowed, and restrictions on universities were abolished. By the time of the coronation, an amnesty was declared for political prisoners (surviving Decembrists, Petrashevites, participants in the Polish uprising of 1830-1831), 9 thousand people were released from police supervision.

But these were only approaches to profound transformations. The liberal-minded part of the state bureaucracy was aware of the need for reforms. The situation in the country's economy was difficult; budget deficits persisted from year to year. Industry and trade were suffocated by commercial stagnation and lack of capital. One and a half times for 1858-1861. the gold and silver fund of the state treasury decreased.

Thus, the reforms of Alexander II, which implied an in-depth version of modernization, aimed to ensure the unity of society on a European basis and were simultaneously carried out in all areas: socio-political, socio-economic, spiritual and cultural.

The key moment in the reformation of Russia was the fate of the soil structure. Please note that it was not only about the abolition of serfdom (this was obvious), but also about the fate of the soil structure in the flail, since it determined the fate of Russia: either it would leave corporatism, catlektivism and move closer to the European powers, or it would roll back - to the traditions of the Muscovite kingdom. Around Alexander II, supporters of a deep reform of Russia, mainly from among the highest state bureaucracy, united. A prominent role was played by the liberal-minded brother of the tsar, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich.

First of all, the abolition of serfdom was necessary. The Secret Committee on Peasant Affairs worked out the following version of the reform of the countryside: 1) the preservation of large landlord farms; 2) the abolition of serfdom with the transfer of allotment (field) land to peasants in personal ownership for a ransom. In fact, it was supposed to transfer the peasants to the farming path of development, to create a developed layer of many millions of small proprietors.

The first stage in the reform of the soil system was the abolition of serfdom, which decided the fate of 22 million landlord peasants. It should be noted that for this period serfdom had already been abolished in the Baltic provinces, in Moldavia and Bessarabia, land relations among the mountaineers of the Caucasus and the peoples of Central Asia differed from the center of Russia. There was practically no serfdom in Siberia. Before the reform of 18b1, there were 4,000 male serfs here, mostly serfs, employed not in the household, but as servants. Already under Alexander II, a decree was issued (1858) on the right to exit the serfdom of specific (that is, sitting on the land of the royal family) peasants, but without land.

After a long struggle, discussions and numerous adjustments, a Manifesto appeared on February 19, 1861 and a number of "Regulations" that explained the conditions for the liberation of serfs. It was an act of historical significance. Millions of peasants got the opportunity to get out of the serfdom, in the conditions of Russia, almost a slave position. Peasants were declared personally free and became legal entities, i.e. acquired the rights granted by the laws of the empire for the peasant class. The reform abolished the power of the landowner over the personality of the peasant and expanded the scope of communal democracy in the former landowner's village. Peasant self-government was introduced on the scale of a volost (volost society). Led by an elected foreman (usually from wealthy peasants). Within the framework of the volost, the peasants independently solved such issues as the construction of schools, the promotion of agrotechnical knowledge, the organization of fire fighting, the opening of libraries, the improvement of peasant life, assistance and charity for the poor. The law also fixed the primary democratic cell - rural society.

However, the reform of 1861 did not create a layer of owners, since the land was transferred to the community, and not to the peasant personally. Community property could not be alienated (the land was not subject to sale and purchase), i.e. was excluded from the market. The peasant had to redeem the land allotment, of which he was not the owner, from the landowner. Justifying the need for the land to be bought out by the peasants, Alexander II wrote in the Manifesto: “.. Lawfully acquired landlord rights cannot be taken from them without a decent reward or voluntary concession; which would be contrary to any justice to use the land from the landowners and not bear the corresponding duty for this. To alleviate the situation of the peasantry, the state itself paid off the landlords, and the peasants in-law with installments of 49 years gradually returned the debt to the treasury.Ransom was mandatory.If the peasant refused to pay, the authorities forcibly collected redemption payments.By 1881, 85% of the peasants switched to redemption voluntarily , 15% were melted forcibly.Before the payment of redemption payments, the peasants were obliged to perform duties in favor of the landowner as the owner of the land.In order to limit the outflow from the village, to put obstacles in the way of proletarianization, the peasant was not given the right to refuse the allotment.It was assumed that this would be temporary measure extended for a period of 9 years with a gradual subsequent relaxation. However, this position remained until the beginning of the 20th century, i.e. to a new stage in the reform of the Russian countryside, carried out by P. L. Stolypin. For the same purpose, the authorities issued passports to peasants only if they paid all taxes (passports were introduced under Peter I). So much for giving peasants the rights of a legal entity!

The second stage of the "soil" reform began in June 1863, when the "Regulations on the land arrangement of specific peasants" appeared. Based on this document, the land relations of 2 million peasants, who already had the right to personal freedom, were settled. The land they used was transferred under the reform to the ownership of the community for a ransom (i.e., by analogy with the transformations in the landowner's village), but the conditions for the reform in the specific village were more favorable. The size of the allotment here was one and a half times more than that of the landlord peasants. The quitrent tax to the royal family, which was previously paid by specific peasants, was transformed into redemption payments for a period of 49 years.

The third stage of the reform of the soil structure concerned the state peasants (20 million people). They were personally free, lived in communities on state land. A decree on their land management followed in 1866. This issue was not easy and was discussed from 1862. The main difficulty was the conditions under which the peasants should transfer land, which is state property. In the Main Committee for the Arrangement of Rural Conditions, two points of view emerged. First, the land must be handed over to the state peasants on the same terms as to the landlords, i.e. for a ransom to be paid to the state. This point of view was supported by M. I. Myraviev, P. A. Valuev and others. Second: state lands are public property, not private property, therefore they should be transferred to the peasants without redemption. Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, and then the emperor himself, supported this, second, point of view. The case was resolved: the land was transferred to the state peasants without redemption, but they were obliged to make an annual payment to the treasury in the form of a "state quitrent tax" (under Alexander III in 1886, this quitrent tax was practically turned into redemption payments). By decree of 1866, the land also passed into the ownership of the community, and not the peasant personally.

Thus, the peasant reforms carried out in 1861-1866, which concerned the vast majority of the peasantry, did not create a layer of small proprietors, but strengthened the communal structure, transferring the ownership of the land to it. Having freed themselves from serfdom, dependence on the state or the royal family, having supposedly received land, the peasantry found itself in captivity of the community. Only 1/5 of all the land became the personal property of the peasants, and 4/5 belonged to the community, which was responsible for paying taxes, maintaining rural churches, schools, and repairing roads. For peasants who were unable to pay taxes, the community paid (mutual responsibility), but as a punishment, the peasant allotment could be taken away in favor of society. Corporal punishment was also used in the community.

The general provision on peasants who emerged from serfdom, in principle, contained articles that allowed for the transition to household land use, as well as leaving the community with an allotment. However, this was regulated by such a condition that the right was practically unrealizable - it was required to obtain the consent of 2/3 of the members of the society. In fact, the peasant did not have the opportunity to leave the community and become a private owner of the land.

In the era of Alexander II, a number of reforms were undertaken: university, military, judicial, local self-government. The last two, from the point of view of modernization, were of particular importance. The judicial reform of the bull was carried out most consistently. It was based on the following principles: equality of all before the law; separation of judicial and administrative powers; irremovability of judges; an independent organization of the bar; publicity, oral and competitiveness of the trial; establishment of a jury. The classless court with elected magistrates (the lowest instance) formed a new citizenship for Russia. This was especially clearly demonstrated by the jury, in which society was not a listener, but a participant in the process. Characteristically, the composition of the jury as a whole reflected the social structure of society. In 1883, among the jurors were: nobles and officials - 14.9%, petty bourgeois - 18.3%, peasants - 57%. The introduction of a public, non-estate court actually limited the autocracy. This was the first element of separation of powers implemented in Russia.

The introduction of elective local self-government brought Russia:

1. Self-government was the most important element of civil society of the Western type.

2. The corporatism of society broke down, a society of citizens took shape.

3. Partial decentralization took place: part of the power functions were transferred from the state apparatus to self-government bodies, which meant the separation of society from the state.

Self-government bodies were in charge of local affairs, managed the economy, determined the estimate of income and expenses. The elections were not equal. They were attended by landowners who had 200 acres of land or an income of at least six thousand rubles, as well as townspeople with the same income. For the peasants, the property qualification was not determined, but the elections for them were not direct, but multi-stage. Under such a system of elections, the nobility received an advantage. Zemstvo institutions included provincial and district zemstvo assemblies and councils. The uyezd zemstvo assembly consisted of zemstvo councilors elected by: a) uyezd landowners, b) city societies, c) rural societies. Provincial zemstvo assemblies consisted of vowels elected by uyezd zemstvo assemblies for three years. Leaders of the nobility automatically became chairmen of zemstvo assemblies. The inequality of rights was obvious, but at the same time, the all-class representation in local governments was a new important phenomenon.

The reforms required changes in the economic field. Already the first major event of the new Minister of Finance led to a real revolution in budgeting and estimate business. In December 1861, a decision was made to publish from next year the state list of income and expenses. This raised the prestige of Russian finance abroad and strengthened the prestige of the country in the world market. Since 1866, the reports of the State Comptroller began to be published in newspapers. All financial resources of the state were concentrated in the Treasury cash desks, which contributed to the streamlining of Russian finances and the partial mitigation of arbitrariness and wastefulness in spending state funds. However, only partial, since in the post-reform decades the amount of extra-budget expenditures continued to grow.

In general, the economic life of the country has intensified. In a short time, an impressive village of railways was built. If in 1857 its length was only 979 versts, then in 1881 it was 21,900 versts. Construction was carried out exclusively by private joint-stock companies, industry developed. Masses of peasants were drawn to work "to the factory" in the cities.

The military reform pursued a number of goals: to reduce the army, while maintaining and strengthening its combat capability, to reduce military spending in the budget, to reduce the degree of centralization in the military system, to introduce elements of commanders' independence, to provide an opportunity for military personnel to show initiative, etc. In 1874, universal military service was introduced (it did not apply to nomads, natives of Siberia), which formed the core of the reform. The call was subject to the entire male population who had reached

21 years old. The term of service in the army was reduced to 6 years in the ranks and 9 years in the reserve (in the navy - 7 years in the ranks). There were broad benefits associated with the family status, education. The duration of military service varied significantly depending on the level of education (those who had a higher education served in the ranks for only six months). The rearmament of the army began. The level of education of the officer corps increased (in the mid-1960s, half of the officers had no education). In total, the military reform took 15 years.

The changes that have taken place in the country cannot but affect the education system. In 1863, autonomy was returned to the universities, and the election of rectors, deans, and professors was introduced. The University Council began to independently resolve all scientific, educational, administrative and economic issues. The representative of the tsarist administration - the trustee of the educational district - only observed the observance of the statutory provisions and laws. At the same time, while the teaching staff received greater rights, the students were not granted any rights, which caused tension among the students. The system of higher and secondary education became accessible to all classes, and a secondary and higher school for women arose.



Lesson Objectives: characterize the territory and population of the Russian Empire, its economic development and political structure. Show the differences in the development of our country with the development of Western countries. Determine the role of the Ural region in the historical events of this period.

Lesson equipment.

1. Laptops.

2. Atlases “Russia at the beginning of the 19th century”.

3. Map "Russia at the beginning of the 19th century."

4. Portrait of Paul I.

5. Crosswords "The Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century."

6. TV and video projector.

Lesson plan.

1. Territory and population.

2. Political structure.

3. Class system.

4. Transport. Trade. Industry.

During the classes

In past lessons, we studied how various countries of the world developed in the 19th century. Let's remember the history of which countries we studied? (U students answer)

We talked about the rapid development of capitalist relations in Western countries. Let's remember what capitalism is? (U students answer)

Well done, remember a lot. Before moving on to the study of a new topic, I should warn you that at the end of the lesson you will be doing independent work. Therefore, listen carefully, memorize and write down.

Today we are starting to study the history of Russia in the 19th century. We will learn how our country developed, what it was like, who lived on its territory, our economy developed just as well as in Western countries, what amazing writers, poets, artists. Our country gave birth to scientists in the 19th century. What wars our people waged, what reforms took place. We will study all this throughout the second half of the year. And today we will get acquainted with what territory Russia occupied, what peoples inhabited it, what was the political structure, economy. The topic of our lesson is “The Russian Empire at the turn of the XYIII – XIX centuries”. ( Students write the topic of the lesson in their notebooks.

1. In the 19th century, our country was called the Russian Empire. By the beginning of the 19th century, the territory of Russia stretched for thousands of miles from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean. From the Arctic Ocean to the Caspian Sea and the Central Asian deserts. 40 million people lived in this space. Let's trace and show this territory in atlases. (Students show the territory of Russia on the atlas)

The capital of the Russian Empire was the city of St. Petersburg. (shown in atlases)

Russia has always been a multinational country. Different peoples lived side by side, connected by a common historical destiny. (Assignment to students: name the peoples who lived on the territory of Russia. Has something changed today?)

In religious terms, Russia was also heterogeneous. About 87% of the population adhered to the Orthodox faith. A significant group of peoples (Tatars, Bashkirs, some peoples of the Caucasus) adhered to Islam. Kalmyks and Buryats professed Buddhism. A significant part of the northern and Siberian peoples (Chukchi, Eskimos, Evenks) retained pagan beliefs.

2. Now we will talk about the political structure of the Russian Empire. We write down the subtitle in notebooks: Political structure. I will tell you, and you write down the scheme of the political structure in your notebooks.

(On the board: Political structure. Students write in notebooks).

According to its political structure, the Russian Empire was an autocratic monarchy. At the head of the state was the emperor (colloquially he was called the king). The highest legislative and administrative power was concentrated in his hands. At the beginning of the 19th century, Emperor Paul I sat on the throne of our country. Each of you has his portraits on your desks.

The emperor ruled the country with the help of officials. According to the law, they were the executors of the will of the king. All sections of the population suffered from the arbitrariness of officials, from their bureaucracy, who were completely subordinate to the will of the tsar and officials.

(In the course of the story, we draw a diagram:

emperor

officials

No one limited the power of the king. He did whatever he wanted without asking permission. There was no such law to which the emperor was obliged to obey.

(Question: remember what political system was in Western countries?

What was the scheme of power?)

And now I invite here His Imperial Majesty Emperor Paul I.

(Student's presentation with a pre-prepared message).

Thank you, Your Imperial Majesty. Have a seat. And we will summarize. So, the law of succession. To whom and how was the throne passed in the Russian Empire?

(Students answer).

3. What was the estate structure of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century? What strata of the population existed in our society and what steps did they occupy? Who was higher in position and who was lower? I present to you the tablets with the names of the estates. Who will try to place these tablets in the correct order at the blackboard?

(Plates should be arranged as follows:

Do not forget to write down the scheme of the estate system in your notebook while I tell you about the representatives of these estates.

The dominant, richest and most educated class was the nobility. The law assigned them a number of privileges, the most important of which was the right to own serfs. The estates inhabited by "serf souls" were the main source of income for the nobility. The nobles themselves did not work anywhere, lived for their own pleasure, arranged balls, receptions. The title of nobility was hereditary.

What is the clergy? These are the clergy. They stood on the same social ladder with the nobility, had the same rights as the nobles. We will talk more about this class in a separate lesson.

Who are the merchants? These are merchants. They were engaged in external, internal, small-scale urban trade. They had fewer rights than the nobility, but they also had a number of privileges over the burghers and peasants. For example, merchants did not pay taxes to the state.

The philistines are an unprivileged class. Basically, this is the urban population: artisans, hired workers, small traders. The petty bourgeois were heavily taxed, they had to supply recruits to the army, and were subjected to corporal punishment.

The most numerous class was the peasantry. It made up more than 80% of the total population of the country. Almost all peasants were serfs; dependent. The landowners could marry the peasant at their will, sell, donate, lose at cards. The peasants paid the state all the taxes that only existed, they were recruited into the army, they were subjected to corporal punishment. It was the most disenfranchised class.

The Cossacks were a special estate. Cossack troops were created to protect the borders of the state. The Cossacks were free people. The ataman headed the Cossack army. The heir to the imperial throne was considered an ataman. The Cossacks were distinguished by their peculiar way of life, traditions, and language. They were hospitable, industrious, pious, respectful to elders. They tell how one Don Cossack beat her son for an immoral act, who managed to rise to the rank of general. “Have mercy, mother! Remember that I am a general!” cried the offender. “I don’t beat the general, but my son,” answered the old Cossack woman.

Such was the estate system in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century.

4. Now we move on to the next item in the plan. We will talk about how trade, transport and industry developed in our country at the beginning of the 19th century.

In the first half of the 19th century, the main flow of goods within the country was transported along rivers. The ships carried grain, timber, hemp, and iron. In the southern provinces, where there were not a large number of rivers and lakes, as in the north, goods were transported in carts along dirt roads. In spring and autumn the roads were washed away by rains and they became impassable. It was only in the middle of the 19th century that the construction of highways began. And only in 1851, traffic was opened in Russia on the railway connecting St. Petersburg and Moscow. Tell me, do any of you know the inventor of the first steam locomotive in Russia? Where was it invented?

(Students answer. Writing in notebooks: modes of transport: water, land)

Fairs were held at the intersections of trade routes. Every year, a lot of goods, domestic and foreign, from the countries of Europe and the East, right up to China, flocked to the fairs. Various goods were sold and bought here: livestock, wool, leather, furs, handicrafts, grain, fabrics, tea, sugar and much more. Fairs were usually held 1-2 times a year. There were few of them. The largest and most famous fairs were in Nizhny Novgorod, in Rostov the Great, Makariev. The Urals also had its own fair, it was located in the city of Irbit.

(Students look for named cities in atlases)

(Entry in notebooks: types of trade: fairs, ...)

And yet, far from all the commodity surpluses produced in Russia were exported to the fairs. The landowners accumulated unsold stocks of grain for several years.

In addition to fairs, there were shops in the cities where you could buy various goods every day. The shops were specialized. There were butcher shops, manufactories, groceries and others. (Continuation of the entry: shops, ...)

There was another interesting group of small traders. They were called peddlers because they carried huge boxes containing various small goods. It could be souvenirs, ribbons, snuff boxes, scarves and much more. Peddlers walked the streets and offered their goods to all passers-by. So that you can better imagine these peddlers. I suggest you watch a fragment from the film "Midshipmen". (Students watch a movie clip)

(Continued entry in notebooks: peddlers)

Industry in the country developed extremely poorly. The number of plants and factories was insignificant. Try to remember what a factory is?

(Students answer)

In our country at the beginning of the 19th century, manufactories prevailed. Answer, what is a manufactory? (Students answer)

So, we found out that manual non-mechanized labor prevailed in Russia. Steam engines, capable of replacing human labor, were almost never used. Why did this happen? Yes, because serfdom existed in the Russian Empire. All peasants belonged to their landowners or the state. There were no free laborers. And, even if some entrepreneur wanted and could build a factory, put steam engines there, then there would be no one to work at these enterprises. After all, it was not possible to hire a worker. Not a single landowner would let his serf go so that he would get hired at a factory and begin working there for money. The landowner was not at all profitable. And since industry did not develop, cities were not built either. Russia of that time was rural. There were very few cities.

Thus, we conclude: the presence of serfdom in Russia seriously hampered economic development, and ultimately hindered the development of capitalism. Our country was almost two hundred years behind the countries of Western Europe and the USA.

So, today we got acquainted with how our country developed at the beginning of the 19th century. We learned about the territory, population, political and class system, the development of trade, transport and industry. And now it's time to do the independent work that I told you about at the beginning of the lesson. Those who wish can do the work on computers, the rest I will distribute crossword puzzles that will need to be solved. Everyone who was attentive at the lesson today can easily cope with the work. I take 5-6 minutes to complete the task. Get started.

5. Reflection.

1. What new did you learn at the lesson today?

2. Was the material perceived easily or not?

3. Was it interesting?

4. Who was the most active in the lesson? What grade does it deserve?