Nicholas Is Foreign Policy Essay Example For Students

Nicholas Is Foreign Policy Essay Maintaining OrderThe Reign of Nicholas I has been marked with war. He grew up in a time when war was the accepted norm ofRussia. As a child he saw his brother fight against the evil, which was Napoleon. With war being part ofNicholas everyday life he quickly became infatuated with it. He always remained an army man, a junior officer atheart, devoted to his troops, to military exercises, to the parade ground, down to the last button on a soldiersuniform (Riasanovsky, 323) Nicholas time growing up in Russia had an immense influence on him. Heobserved strategys like those of Prince Michael Kutuzov, and learned only with proper order can one fullyachieve military dominance. Three major conflicts accurately describe how Nicholas I used his military. ThePolish uprising illustrate his demand for proper order throughout Europe. The Crimean War displayed his lovefor the Christian faith, and what he would do to protect Orthodoxy. Lastly, the conflict between Greece andTurkey described how Nich olas I would act when a culmination of his ideas, conflicted with one another. Investigating how Nicholas I inherited the throne will give one an explanation on why he was so frightened byliberal thought. Nicholas I was basically forced to inherit the throne because, Constantine declared it was not inthe best interest of Russia for him to succeed to the throne. On the day Nicholas I was to be inaugurated apeasant uprising manifested. This rebellion named the Decemberists put much more than a damper onNicholas I afternoon. The revolt caused Nicholas I to never fully trust peasants throughout his reign. No doubt italso contributed to the emperors mistrust of the gentry, and indeed of independence and initiative on the part ofany subjects (Rias, 324). From that day froward the Emperor would put down a law by the name of OfficialNationality (Rias, 324). To fully comprehend how and why Nicholas I chose to run his foreign policy the way he did, one must delve intohow his Empire was run a t home. Nicholas I was influenced heavily by Christianity. Christianity drove him tobelieve that Official Nationality was the path towards Russian salvation, and only under this system could Russiamaintain order. Official Nationality was a conservative system, which consisted of three principals; Orthodoxy,autocracy, and nationality. Orthodoxy referred to the official church and its important role in Russia, but also tothe ultimate source of ethics and ideals that gave meaning to human life and society (Rias, 324). This meantnobody under his reign could steer from these principles, and anybody who was caught would be severelyreprimanded. Police held Russia under a microscope, in a coup like state. Committees like the Third Section,and a Statute on Censorship also assisted Nicholas in knowing exactly what his people were doing (Nicholas,51). Nicholas I fear of liberal thought drove him to not have a reign of reform, but rather one that would merelymaintain order. Even issues like ser fdom, which he knew was morally wrong, Nicholass did not enact reformbecause of his fear of losing autocracy. A single stroke of the sovereign Emperors pen can turn serfs into freemen; but no foresight can predict the consequences of such a sudden change, and no powers will be sufficientto restore order and security amidst general anarchy (Reader, 66).Nicholas I foreign affairs were run like a carbon copy of how he ran his nation. Alexander influenced him heavilyby signing what was called the Holy Alliance. Signed on September 26, 1815, by Russia, Austria, and Prussia,and subsequently by the great majority of European powers, the alliance simply appealed to Christian rulers tolive as brothers and preserve peace in Europe (Rias., 314). Nicholas felt that it was his duty to preserveeverything that this treaty stood for. He was going to police Europe. Nicholas I did not work alone whenrepresenting Russian views. Count Karl Nesselrode helped him police any wrong doings throughout theco ntinent. Nicholas I would have two standards in which he would defend a country. First, he would defend acountry if Christian Orthodoxy was being questioned. Secondly, he would defend a country if revolutionarieswere trying to break the bondage of conservatism. Both of these issues represented the newfound order inEurope, and Nicholas I would defend this at any cost. Nicholas I was determined to maintain and defend theexisting order in Europe, just as he considered it his sacred duty to preserve the archaic system in his owncountry (Rias., 330). An excellent example of a country that was in disarray, due to revolutionary uprisings, was the debacle with thePolish State. In 1815 under Alexanders rule the Poles were stripped of many of their civil liberties. By the early1830s the Poles were absolutely sick of the tyranny, which had governed them for the last 15 years. A revolutionbegan. This rebellion actually worked and the Poles were free for a short amount of time. Before long theRu ssian Empire reconquered the nation, and Poland became an invisible part of the Russian Empire. Nicholas Iknew that simply conquering Poland was not enough to keep their aggression at bay. He tricked Poland byenacting the Organic Statute of 1832, which made the Poles believe they had some sort of democracy in theirNation. (Rias., 332) The Statute itself, with its promises of civil liberties, separate systems of law and localgovernment, and widespread use of the Polish language, remained in abeyance while Poland was administeredin a brutal and authoritarian manner by its conqueror, the new Prince of Warsaw and Nicholass ViceroyPaskevich (Rias., 332). Poland would be under Nicholas I watchful eye for many years. Order would bemaintained. .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a , .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .postImageUrl , .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a , .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a:hover , .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a:visited , .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a:active { border:0!important; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a:active , .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u8a832584deb70bf7539b514bc112643a:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: 12 Angry Men Essay No other war better exemplifies Nicholas I infatuation with Orthodoxy than the Crimean War. This war, whicheventually brought the downfall of Russian international relations, was fought on the Crimean peninsula between1853 and 1856. The war arose from the conflict of great powers in the Middle East and was more directlycaused by Russian demands to exercise protection over the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman sultan. Anothermajor factor was the dispute between Russia and France over the privileges of the Russian Orthodox andRoman Catholic churches in the holy places in Palestine. Nicholas I really had no idea what he was getting intowhen he first began the campaign against the Turks. Nicholas I felt the English would support him because ofdiscussions they had previous to the invasions. England took these discussions as simply conversationsbetween two nations, and felt there was no binding agreement. Nicholas I and his associates considered it tobe a firm arrangement of fundamental imp ortance, the British apparently thought of it more as a secret exchangeof opinions not binding on the subsequent premiers and foreign ministers of Her Majestys government (Rias.,336). As the Crimean dispute began to unfold, England joined many other nations in the fight against theRussians. The resulting Treaty of Paris, signed on March 30, 1856, guaranteed the integrity of Ottoman Turkeyand obliged Russia to surrender southern Bessarabia, at the mouth of the Danube. The Black Sea wasneutralized, and the Danube River was opened to the shipping of all nations. Nicholas I faith caused his countryover 250,000 men (Britannica). Nicholas I was blind towards the outcome of a war that was virtually notwinnable. His obsession with faith caused a near downfall of a nation that was the most powerful empire in theworld. If Nicholas I would not have imposed his religious intolerance on other nations than Russia would havebeen able to maintain power for a longer period of time. In 1821 Nicholas I entered a conflict that had both religious and revolutionary significance. This conflict betweenthe Orthodox Greeks and the Turks eventually led to the aforementioned Crimean War. Nicholas I had a difficultdecision on his hand because he would either have to side with the Orthodox Greeks or the Turks, which werethe status quo at the time. One could see what Nicholas I valued more, religion or order. Nicholas I decided toside with the Greeks, making the Ottomans sign the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829 (Rias.,330). Nicholas I rule reflected in a striking manner both his character and his principles. The new regime becamepreeminently one of militarism and bureaucracy. The entire machinery of government came to be permeated bythe military spirit of direct orders,Absolute obedience, and precision. Nicholas I ideals are what kept him from fulfilling the expectation people hadof him. His main goals were to conserve autocracy and religious certainty, which Alexander had mani festedyears before. Nicholas I policy abroad hurt his Empire tremendously. His ignorance towards the possibility ofmaintaining order without Orthodoxy led his country into complete dissaray, and eventually his death.