Popular Resistance to Peter's Reforms (Peter the Great) - Essay Example

Furthermore effect of these measures widened the gap between the peasant masses and propertied classes that had already appeared in the previous century, and would surely lead to the upper classes’ entire isolation and social outburst. Russian society of that time was grounded on the contract of service. Noblemen and the church had right to own the serfs and land. In turn they owed service to the state in the person of the Tsar. Initially there had been two groups of them. The first one comprised those who held their land possessions in perpetuity while those of another group held lands on a service basis.

Nevertheless by the beginning of the eighteenth century hardly all of estates had become hereditary. In 1714 Peter recognized this change legally however required all entitled to serve. (Grey 356) To the propertied classes service meant first of all military service. However they had hated the old-fashion militia from which they used to be dispersed to their homes as soon as a campaign was over, they disliked the new regular army, because in it their duties proved to be much heavier. The only way to from the newly imposed service was injury or old age.

Moreover Peter established the rule that no more than one third of the members of any noble family was allowed to serve in lucrative and relatively quite civil service while the others were compelled to serve either in the navy or in the army. Although many noblemen fit for military service did their best to evade military service, the summary enrollments and service registers were constantly being revised so such evasions were increasingly difficult. Being aware of the propertied classes’ ability to render state service effectively, Peter also paid close attention to the peasantry who bore the greater portion of his fundamental reforms’ burden.

The peasantry provided recruits, paid taxes and the most of the labor. Having subjugated landowners to the military supervision, Peter thus increased their powers making the peasants’ escape more difficult and extending their bondage. In accordance with imperial ukase (edict) of November 26, 1718 the army in addition to its military duties was charged with the policing ones as well. Army officers became responsible thus for supervising local officials, pursuing of vagabonds and robber bands and for catching runaway peasants.

The latter suffered most. They were forbidden to move without approval of army authorities and written permission of their immediate masters. Although the officers acted cruelly ordering executions and knouting for failure to pay there were not too many of peasants who fled or dared revolt against their masters or against the military. As a whole Russian peasantry went on serving and laboring with inconceivable fortitude Hardly the only escape for peasants from hard labour, recruiting and from taxes was flight.

Although tolerant to inhuman oppressive policies Russian peasantry had an instinctive urge to roam and to seek new lands free from oppression. The vast underpopulated expanse of Russia has always offered plenty of opportunities for the wanderer and colonizer yet made the labor force extremely unreliable and successive Russian governments have passed measures tying the peasants to the soil they tilled. It is no wonder that the number of escapes increased dramatically during Petrian reforms. In 1699 over 300 families from Voronezh