scholarly journals Administrative and management systems in territories of tatars living at the end of XVIII - the beginning of the XX centuries

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-102
Author(s):  
Sergey Valentinovich Lyubichankovskiy
Keyword(s):  
Volga Region ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Local Management ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Central Russia ◽  
Administrative Practice ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Administrative Unit ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Set Up

This article deals with the administrative and management systems which were used in the territory where Tatars lived (Ural-Volga region) in the Russian Empire. It is established that the living of the Tatar people wasn't considered as the main feature of the region. Thus, until 1917 there was no plan to set up a separate administrative unit covering the area of the prevailing Tatar population (unlike, for example, the Bashkir and Kazakhs). The then administrative system reflected the imperial character of the Russian state. It manifested itself in the formation of a vertical power structure supported by the local elite and taking into account local management traditions, but controlling all key institutes and positions. The hypothesis is proved that evolution of the Russian government in the territory of the Ural-Volga region was based on the process of gradually pulling up suburban territories to the standards of local management in central Russia. These standards didn't consider national traditions of management, were based on the unified principles of rationalization and bureaucratization of management with the priority of state interests in administrative practice.

Muslims in Russia and the Successor States

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
North Caucasus ◽  
The North ◽  
Central Russia ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Muslim Majority ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Muslim Communities

The history of Muslim populations in Russia and other former republics of the Soviet Union is long and varied. In a Pew–Templeton poll conducted in Russia in 2010, 10 percent of respondents stated that their religion was Islam, while Muslims also make up a majority of the population in six post-Soviet republics: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Muslims have long lived in regions across Russia, with far-flung communities ranging from distant outposts of Siberia to western cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were more Muslims in the Russian Empire than there were in Iran or the Ottoman Empire, the two largest independent Muslim-majority states in the world at the time. Historically, the Muslim communities of Russia have been concentrated in four main regions: the Volga–Ural region in central Russia, the Crimea, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. While Muslim communities across former Soviet space share both differences and similarities with one another with regard to language and religious practices, their respective relations with the various Russian states that have existed over the years have varied. Moreover, Russian and Soviet policymaking toward all of these communities has shifted considerably from one era, and one ruler, to another. Throughout the imperial and Soviet eras, and extending into the post-Soviet era up to the present day, therefore, the existence of variations with regard to both era and region remains one of the most enduring legacies of Muslim–state interactions. Muslims in Russia vary by traditions, language, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and practices, and with respect to their historical interactions with the Russian state. The four historically Muslim-inhabited regions were incorporated into the Russian state at different points during its imperial history, often under quite sharply contrasting sets of conditions. Today most, but not all, Muslims in Russia and the rest of the former USSR are Sunni, although the manner and degree to which religion is practiced varies greatly among both communities and individuals. With respect to language, Muslim communities in Russia have traditionally been dominated demographically by Turkic speakers, although it should be noted that most Turkic languages are not mutually comprehensible in spoken form. In the North Caucasus and Tajikistan, the most widely spoken indigenous languages are not Turkic, although in these areas there are Turkic-speaking minorities. Another important feature of Muslim–state interactions in Russia is their connection to Muslims and Muslim-majority states beyond Russia’s borders. Throughout the imperial era, Russia’s foreign policymaking vis-à-vis the Ottoman Empire and Iran was often intimately connected to domestic policymaking toward Muslim communities inside Russia. While this was a less pronounced feature of Moscow’s foreign policymaking during the Soviet era, in the post-Soviet era, policymaking toward Muslims domestically has once again become more closely linked to Russia’s foreign policy goals.

THE SARATOV VOLGA REGION AND THE FAR EAST: THREE CENTURIES OF RELATIONS

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (3/1) ◽  
pp. 93-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. G. PETROVICH ◽  
S. I. SAMSONOV
Keyword(s):  
Far East ◽  
Main Tool ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
Volga Region ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
The Far East ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Far Eastern

The article deals with the dynamics of the development of the Far  East with the help of labor migration in the period from the 1860s to  the present day. The authors analyze the intensity of migration  flows, the reasons for their decline or increase, talk about new settlements founded by immigrants from the Saratov Volga  region in the Amur and Primorye regions of the Russian Empire, and  trace the fate of these settlements to this day. The authors identify  the reasons for the lack of support for the resettlement movement in the Russian Empire by the state until the beginning of the  twentieth century, and the reasons that prompted  the government  to develop an effective resettlement program since 1906. Attention  is paid to the participation of Saratov in the Russian-Japanese war in  the Far East. The extensive statistical material contained in the  official publications following the results of the all-Russian population censuses of 1897, 2002 and 2010 is used. Internet sources,  websites of public organizations, official state bodies, mass media  are attracted. The migration policy of P.A. Stolypin, Prime Minister of  Imperial Russia and former Saratov Governor- General is analyzed.  In comparison with it, the project "far Eastern hectare" is  considered, which the modern Russian government considers as the  main tool for the inflow of population to the vast far Eastern territories. The authors prove the ineffectiveness of the  project due to the small amount of allocated land, their unsuitability  for agriculture or other socially significant activities, remoteness  from communications, the lack of benefits for immigrants on such a scale as it was a century ago. The conclusion to which the  researchers come: only taking into account the experience of  generations of Russians in the development of the Far East, the  traditional connection of the regions of Russia, proved by the  example of the Saratov  Volga region, providing immigrants with all  the necessary and benefits no worse than a century ago, it is  possible to ensure the priority development of the Far East.

scholarly journals Social-political activity of O. Bobrinsky in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

10.33287/1196 ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 58-70
Author(s):  
І. С. Карпань ◽  
Н. С. Чернікова
Keyword(s):  
Russian Empire ◽  
Government Support ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Russian State ◽  
The Russian Empire

The article deals with problems of the noble class in post-reform period in Russia (70–90-ies XIXth cent.) through A. Bobrinsky’s activity as the Leader of the St. Petersburg nobility. The study analyzed his activities towards the Nobility consolidation and involvement their representatives into development of Russian state policy. A. Bobrinsky belonged to the family of large landowners and successful sugar-growers of the Russian Empire. It greatly influenced to the formation of his political worldview and contributed to the growth of the young Count’s authority among the Nobility and Gentry. In the last quarter of the XIXth cent. A. Bobrinsky defended the dominant position of the Nobility as the provincial Governor (the Leader) of the St. Petersburg nobility. A. Bobrinsky’s main efforts were aimed to the consolidation of the Gentry to defend their own rights and privileges and their involvement to the Russian state authorities. He promoted the idea of founding a representative institution – the Duma or Zemsky Sobor – in Russian Empire. However, the purpose of its creation he was seen in the count in the redistribution of executive, judicial and punitive powers between government representatives and elected people from the Nobility. He was convinced that only the Gentry was worthy to represent the interests of Russian society in the state authorities. During this period, the young Bobrinsky attempted to unite the St. Petersburg nobility into the organization of «Svyataya Druzhyna». It was a semi-secret organization which established to protect of the Russian Tsar from possible terrorist acts. The purpose of the organization was rather limited and local, so it disintegrated soon. However, it contributed to the growth of A. Bobrysky’s authority as a loyal to the Tsar and autocracy personality. It had a great importance in the conditions of the economic and political crisis of the noble class. In the 90’s of the XIX cent. A. Bobrinsky took an active part in nobility meetings devoted to problems of the privileged class. Here he defended an idea of preserving the privileges and dominant position of the estate Nobility. He opposed the provision of political rights and state support to the estateless nobles-homeowners and representatives of the bourgeoisie. A. Bobrinsky didn’t reject an idea to create conditions for the nobility replenishment by the new social classes, but he saw it possibility only in the distant future. However, even government support didn’t contribute to consolidation processes and politicization among the nobility class. A. Bobrinsky with sadness stated that the meetings of the noble leaders continued to be only like private talks about preserving the nobility former positions in the social structure. So he had to change strategy and initiated the founding in 1906 a new organization – the United Nobility. During the next decade its existence largely predetermined the main directions of Russian government policy and as a whole.

The Russian Empire in the Western Caspian Region in 1722—1735: Management Experience

Istoriya ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (10 (108)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Sharafetdin Magaramov
Keyword(s):  
Local Population ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
Caspian Region ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
The Caspian Sea ◽  
Administrative Practice ◽  
Reliable Communications ◽  
Management Experience ◽  
State Archives ◽  
The Russian Empire

Based on documentary data from the funds of federal and state archives and taking into account the modern achievements of Russian historiography, the article examines the experience of the administrative practice of the Russian Empire in the Western Caspian region in 1722—1735. The activity of the commanders-in-chief of the Grassroots Corps of Generals M. A. Matyushkin and V. V. Dolgorukov on the organization of a management system for the southwestern shores of the Caspian Sea, ensuring the security of communications and the loyalty of Caucasian and Persian societies. Strengthening the position of the Russian government included a whole range of measures: punitive expeditions against rebellious rulers, appeals and appeals to the population not to follow the “rioters”, payment of remuneration and the provision of royal favor to loyal rulers, the introduction of the institution of amanity (hostage taking), collection of information with the help of spies , merchants, etc. The unhealthy climate, ethnopolitical disunity of the region, the reluctance of the local population to submit to “alien” power, the confrontation between the Persian and Turkish authorities created serious difficulties in the management of the region. The remoteness of the Western Caspian region from the main part of the Russian Empire, the unprofitability of the presence of imperial troops in the region, large losses among troops from diseases, the lack of reliable communications for replenishing the personnel of the garrisons and their food supply, as well as the radically changed foreign policy situation around the region ultimately led to the return of the Western Caspian region under the Rasht treaty of 1732 and the Ganja treaty of 1735 to Persia.

scholarly journals Documents of the Vyazniki Investigation (1665–66) on the Ideal Basis of Anti-Church Beliefs and Actions of the Raskolniki in the Central Uezds of Russia

2020 ◽  
pp. 971-982
Author(s):  
Alexander S. Madzharov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Religious Movement ◽  
Russian Orthodox ◽  
State Archive ◽  
Russian Orthodox Church ◽  
Old Believers ◽  
Central Russia ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Religious Ideal ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
The Ideal

The controversial issue of balance between ideal and material causes of the religious Raskol in the Russian Orthodox Church remains significant from its emergence to present day. Some definitions of developed Soviet historiography are also controversial, in particular, the thesis of the Schism being an “external religious shell” that hides its secular core. The article examines the religious (ideal) content of the protest. It draws on published documents of the Vyazniki Investigation Office of the Secret Chancery (Prikaz tainykh del) stored in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA) (fond of State Archive of the Russian Empire in the XXVII Category). Reliability of the data has been established by comparing of independent sources and interrelated messages. The dossier includes 106 documents: accusations (Izvety), petitions (Chelobitnye), edicts (Ukaznye gramoty), orders (Nakaznye stat'i) of the Secret Chancery, extracts from the Secret Chancery books (Iz zapisnoi knigi Tainogo prikaza), interrogations (Doprosy), torture evidence (Pytochnye rechi), law confrontations (Ochnye stavki), reports (Otpiski), etc. They testify that the religious (ideal) “beliefs” of the Raskolniki laid the basis of their religious movement and were the reason for introduction of protest “norms of behavior” in the Vladimir, Suzdal, and Gorokhovets uezds of Central Russia in 1665–66. Totality of documentary data proves that Schism teachers and “ordinary” dissenters unanimously explained their protest by religious (ideal) motives. They refused to go to “the Lord’s church" for office read from “new books,” to sign themselves “with three fingers,” “to be baptized,” to confess, to receive communion. Religious dissidents believed the word of their teachers that the “change of the Holy Scripture” should result in the appearance of the “forerunner and Antichrist.” Some Raskolniki joined in the “blasphemies” on the tsar and Patriarch Nikon pronounced by teacher Vavila. For “salvation of their souls” from the “Antichrist,” the old believers implemented medieval “norms of behavior”: they withdraw to deserts, they were guided by the Raskol teachers, fasted, and prayed before their own icons. The ideal and material forms of protest sprang from the ideal nature of the Raskol.

scholarly journals РИСИ СУСПІЛЬНО-ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЙ У МОСКОВСЬКІЙ ДЕРЖАВІ В XVII СТ.

2021 ◽  
pp. 63-81
Author(s):  
Олег Марченко
Keyword(s):  
Old Regime ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
New Beginning ◽  
Russian State ◽  
History Of ◽  
Time Of Troubles ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Boris Godunov

Ключові слова: Московська держава в XVII ст., династія Романових, самодержавство, абсолютизм, станово-представницька монархія. Анотація На основі новітніх історичних досліджень поданий неупереджений погляд на розвиток Московської держави в XVII ст. через призму соціокультурного, проблемного підходу до суперечливих в історіографії питань, що турбують сьогоднішніх істориків, політиків, звичайних людей України, Росії, інших країн світу і стають предметом численних спекуляцій та маніпуляцій. У результаті проведеного дослідження висвітлено основні риси суспільно-політичних трансформацій у Московській державі в XVII ст., акцентовано увагу на спростування радянських та сучасних російських міфів щодо розвитку централізованої самодержавної моделі Московії, визначаються можливості цивілізаційного вибору Московської держави XVII ст. між станово-представницькою та абсолютистською моделями розвитку. Посилання Andreev, 2003 – Andreev I.L. Aleksey Mihaylovich [Alexey Mikhailovich]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2003. 638 s. [in Russian] Ahiezer, 2013 – Ahiezer A., Klyamkin I., Yakovenko I. Istoriya Rossii: konets ili novoe nachalo? [History of Russia: end or new beginning?] / 3-e izd., ispr. i dop. Moskva: Novoe izdatelstvo, 2013. 496 s. [in Russian] Bogdanov, 2009 – Bogdanov A.P. Nesostoyavshiysya imperator Fedor Alekseevich [Failed Emperor Fyodor Alekseevich]. Moskva: Veche, 2009. 320 s. [in Russian] Volodihin, 2013 – Volodihin D.M. Tsar Fedor Alekseevich, ili Bednyiy otrok [Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, or Poor youth]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2013. 267 s. [in Russian] Danilov, 2007 – Danilov A.G. Alternativyi v istorii Rossii: mif ili realnost (XIV–ХІХ vv.) [Alternatives in the history of Russia: myth or reality (XIV – XIX centuries)]. Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks, 2007. 303 s. [in Russian] Zarezin, 2018 – Zarezin M.I. V puchine Russkoy Smutyi. Nevyiuchennyiy uroki istorii [In the abyss of the Russian Troubles. Unlearned history lessons]. Moskva: Veche, 2018. 400 s. [in Russian] Istoriia Rosii, 2013 – Istoriia Rosii (z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia XVIII st.) [History of Russia (from ancient times to the end of the XVIII century)]: navch. posib. /avtor-uklad. V.M. Mordvintsev. Kyiv: Znannia, 2013. 346 s. [in Ukrainian] Kozlyakov, 2004 – Kozlyakov V.N. Mihail Fedorovich [Mikhail Fedorovich]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2004. 352 s. [in Russian] Kozlyakov, 2017 – Kozlyakov V.N. Boris Godunov. Tragediya o dobrom tsare [Boris Godunov. The tragedy of the good king]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2017. 330 s. [in Russian] Lobachev, 2003 – Lobachev S.V. Patriarh Nikon [Patriarch Nikon]. Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo-SPb, 2003. 416 s. [in Russian] Lukin, 2000 – Lukin P.V. Narodnyie predstavleniya o gosudarstvennoy vlasti v Rossii XVII v. [Popular ideas about state power in Russia in the XVII century].Moskva: Nauka, 2000. 296 s. [in Russian] Marchenko, 2015 – Marchenko O.M. Istoriia slovianskykh narodiv. Chastyna persha. Istoriia Rusi, Moskovskoi derzhavy, Rosiiskoi imperii do kintsia XVIII st. Kurs lektsii dlia studentiv vyshchykh navchalnykh zakladiv: Navchalnyi posibnyk [History of Slavic peoples. Part one. History of Russia, the Moscow State, the Russian Empire until the end of the XVIII century. Course of lectures for students of higher educational institutions: Textbook]. Druhe vydannia, pereroblene y dopovnene. Kirovohrad, POLIMED-Servis, 2015. 385 s. [in Ukrainian] Narysy istorii, 2007 – Narysy istorii Rosii [Essays on the history of Russia]: per. z ros. /B.V. Ananich, I.L. Andreiev, Ye.V. Anisimov ta in.; Za zah. red. O.O. Chubariana. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr, 2007. 800 s. [in Ukrainian] Nefedov, 2004 – Nefedov S.A. Pervyie shagi po puti modernizatsii Rossii: reformyi seredinyi XVII v. [First steps towards modernization of Russia: reforms of the middle of the XVII century] // Voprosyi istorii. 2004. №4. – S. 33–52. [in Russian] Payps, 2012 – Payps R.E. Rossiya pri starom rezhime [Russia under the old regime]. M.: Zakharov. 2012. 480 s. [in Russian] Pisarkova, 2007 – Pisarkova L.F. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie Rossii s kontsa XVII do kontsa XVIII veka. Evolyutsiya byurokraticheskoy sistemyi [Russian government from the end of the XVII to the end of the XVIII century: the evolution of the bureaucratic system]. Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2007. 743 s. [in Russian] Svetova, 2013 – Svetova E.A. Dvor Alekseya Mihaylovicha v kontekste absolyutizatsii tsarskoy vlasti [The courtyard of Alexei Mikhailovich in the context of the absolutization of the tsarist power]. Moskva: MGU, 2013. 212 s. [in Russian] Sedov, 2006 – Sedov P.V. Zakat Moskovskogo tsarstva: Tsarskiy dvor kontsa XVII veka [The decline of the Moscow kingdom: the royal court at the end of the XVII century]. Sankt-Peterburg: Dmitriy Bulanin, 2006. 604 s. [in Russian] Skryinnikov, 1988 – Skryinnikov R.G. Rossiya v nachale XVII v. Smuta [Russia at the beginning of the XVII century. Troubles]. Moskva: Myisl, 1988. 283 s. [in Russian] Stanislavskiy, 1990 – Stanislavskiy A.L. Grazhdanskaya voyna v Rossii XVII v. [The Civil War in Russia in the XVII century]. Moskva: Myisl, 1990. 270 s. [in Russian] Talina, 1996 – Talina G.V. Tsar Aleksey Mihaylovich: lichnost, myislitel, gosudarstvennyiy deyatel [Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: personality, thinker, statesman]. Moskva: Magistr, 1996. 144 s. [in Russian] Ulyanovskiy, 2006 – Ulyanovskiy V.I. Smutnoe vremya [Time of Troubles]. Moskva: Evropa, 2006. 448 s. [in Russian] Cherepnin, 1978 – Cherepnin L.V. Zemskie soboryi Russkogo gosudarstva v XVI – XVII vv. [Zemsky Cathedrals of the Russian State in the XVI – XVII centuries]. / Moskva: Nauka, 1978. 420 s. [in Russian] Shokarev, 2013 – Shokarev S.Yu. Smutnoe vremya v Moskve [Time of Troubles in Moscow]. Moskva: Veche, 2013. 320 s. [in Russian]

scholarly journals “Pure Nonsense!” War Minister A. N. Kuropatkin about the Proceedings of Japanese Nationalists

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 875-891
Author(s):  
R. S. Avilov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Far East ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
High Level ◽  
Imperial Governance

This article based on a large body of unpublished documents from the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RSMHA). The author analyzes the history of the acquaintance Russian Minister of War A. N. Kuropatkin with publications by the Japanese ultra-nationalist society Kokuryūkai in 1901. Despite weaknesses of Russian intelligence in the Far East before the Russo-Japanese War, the service was been able to obtain a highly valued materials, such as the second volume of Bulletin of Amur River Society. An analysis of this publication reveals that the authors and the journals founder, Uchida Ryōhei, had a high level of knowledge about Russian society. The Japanese discovered all the weak spots of Imperial governance, finance, economy, educational system, and domestic and foreign policies of the Russian Empire. The article shows how the Minister of War read a translation of Japanese edition and noted the authors’ conclusions. We conclude that the Japanese state was able to organize these investigations of Russia using materials from nationalist organizations that sometimes took different positions from those of the Russian government, in Russian. In contrast, Russian officials were not able to do a normal analysis of observations from official channels, And Kuropatkin often did not understand the value of such materials that were passed on to him.

scholarly journals THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF KAZAKHSTAN AGRICULTURAL EVOLUTION AT THE TURN OF THE 19TH–20TH CENTURIES

2020 ◽  
pp. 240-254
Author(s):  
I. V. Deryugina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Economic History ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Livestock Farming ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Cattle Breeding ◽  
Territorial Expansion ◽  
Central Russia ◽  
Livestock Sector ◽  
Arable Farming ◽  
The Russian Empire

The paper explores the evolution of agriculture in Kazakhstan during its accession to the Russian Empire. At this time, two independent sectors were established in the uniform agricultural mechanism of Kazakhstan: The arable farming, which developed due to the colonization policy of the Russian government, and the livestock sector, based on the traditional cattle breeding, originating in Kazakh steppe. The focus of the research is specifically determined by the fact that the agrarian reforms in Kazakhstan in the 21st century are based on the coexistence of these two independent sectors in agriculture. The article thus looks at three main issues. Firstly, according to the sources of the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, the migration policy of the Russian government, initiating a vast territorial expansion of the Russian speaking population, and economic transformations in agriculture on Kazakhstan territory. Secondly, the transformation of the livestock sector in Kazakhstan is analyzed in historical retrospect. The author argues that the classic type of nomadic cattle breeding began to change from the turn of the 18th–19th centuries, but the most noticeable changes in the composition of the herd and the type of nomadism were observed from the beginning of the 20th century. Thirdly, the formation of the arable farming, the impetus for the development of which was given by Russian colonization, is studied. The beginning of arable farming among nomads in the Kazakh steppe dates to the beginning of the 19th century, but it was fully developed at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries due to the allotment of lands to peasants from Central Russia. Arable farming is most widespread in Akmola, Turgay, Semirechensk and Syr Darya regions. Thus, the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, considered in the paper, proved to be the beginning of the Kazakhstan agricultural split into two independent sectors: Arable farming and livestock farming. Simultaneously the ethnic factor came to the fore, manifested in the division of the spheres of activity, where autochthon population was engaged in nomadic cattle breeding, and Russian immigrants were mostly engaged in seminatural agriculture.

scholarly journals The “Kerch Matter” of Bryansk Factory Joint Stock Company (1899–1903)

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 214-229 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Great Influence ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Kerch Peninsula ◽  
Russian State ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Work Done ◽  
Financial Groups ◽  
Imperial State

The tsarist government and foreign businessmen had a great influence on the economic development of the Russian Empire. In the early 20th century, the position of Western capital in Russia became stronger, but how significant was this increase? Could foreign business have been able to take over the functions of managing and regulating the national economy from the Russian government? The author attempts to answer this question by examining it on a specific example: the “Kerch matter” of 1899–1903. This is the name contemporaries gave to the conflict between the Russian government and French capitalists close to the Company of Bryansk Factory, which arose because of metallurgical facilities on the Kerch Peninsula. The analysis of the case and its results is conducted on the basis of published sources and documentary materials from Russian archives. The results of work done have shown that the imperial state machine represented by the then Minister of Finance Sergei Witte managed to emerge victorious from the “Kerch matter”. Having succeeded in stopping production at the Kerch factory and preventing the bankruptcy of the Bryansk Company, the Russian authorities were able to contain the infiltration of financial groups such as the Société Générale into the metallurgical market of the South of Russia, which, in the conditions of the industrial recession of 1900–1903, threatened to cause a massive collapse in prices. The “Kerch matter” was the last attempt of Western European capital to intervene in the issues of control over the economy, which were subordinated to the Russian state.

scholarly journals Gypsies of the Belarusian Provinces and Land Management Policy at the turn of the 1830s-1840s

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 94-112
Author(s):  
Vladimir N. Shaidurov
Keyword(s):  
Local Level ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
Management Policy ◽  
National Politics ◽  
Historical Sources ◽  
Russian State ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Relationship

At the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, the tsarist government in Russia faced the Gypsy question in the context of implementation of the society homogenization policy. There were campaigns initiated to fight with Gypsy vagrancyduring the 1770s-1810s, the primary target of which was to modernize the Gypsies of the Russian Empire and turn them into a constant component of rural or urban societies. However, despite the repressive tools included, these measures did not effect the desired result. The purpose of the present paper is to study the relationship between the Belarusian Gypsies and the authorities when it came to acquisition of land and set up of arable farms in the late 1830s-early 1840s as part of implementation of the subsequent campaign to turn the Gypsies of Russia into a settled population. The basis of the research were archival materials from the fund of the Second Department of the Ministry of State Property of the Russian State Historical Archive (St. Petersburg). Studying of various historical sources revealed the features of implementation of the decree of Nicholas I (1839) in the Belarusian provinces. Despite the willingness of the local gypsy camps to adopt the sedentary life, they faced various forms of latent chauvinism at the local level: officials sabotaged orders from St. Petersburg; peasants did not want to accept Gypsies into their societies. The article is intended for specialists in the history of the Roma and the national politics in the Russian Empire.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document