OCR Specification focus:
‘position of peasants; St Petersburg St Petersburg’
Introduction
The reign of Peter the Great (1698–1725) reshaped Russian society and governance, with the position of peasants and the construction of St Petersburg central to his reforms.
The Position of Peasants under Peter the Great
The Legal and Social Framework of Serfdom
Peter inherited a deeply entrenched system of serfdom, which had been legally codified in the Ulozhenie of 1649 under Tsar Alexis. Serfdom bound peasants to their landlords, restricting movement and enforcing hereditary labour obligations.
Serfdom: A system in which peasants were legally tied to landowners, providing labour and dues, with limited or no personal freedom.
Peter did not fundamentally reform or alleviate the burdens of serfdom. Instead, he relied heavily upon it to fund his reforms and military expansion. Peasants formed the majority of the Russian population, and their subjugation was considered essential for maintaining control over the countryside and extracting resources.
Fiscal Burdens and Military Demands
Peasants faced increasing demands due to Peter’s drive to modernise Russia and engage in prolonged wars, particularly the Great Northern War (1700–1721) against Sweden.
Taxation: In 1718–1719 Peter introduced the poll tax, which replaced the household tax.
Every male peasant, regardless of household size, paid individually.
This significantly increased state revenue but deepened peasant hardship.
Military Conscription: Peter introduced compulsory service obligations, requiring peasants to provide recruits for the expanding army and navy.
Conscription was lifelong in many cases.
Families often lost able-bodied men permanently, weakening agricultural productivity.
Administration and Surveillance of Peasants
Peter’s reforms sought to make taxation and conscription more efficient:
The 1719 census was conducted to catalogue households and enforce poll taxation.
A two-page revision list from 1763 records names, ages, and household relations for tax liability. It exemplifies the census system Peter first instituted to enforce the poll tax. Source
State officials gained greater oversight, although in practice landlords often acted as intermediaries, tightening their grip over serfs.
This strengthened the bond between the state and the nobility while further diminishing the freedom of peasants.
The Social Consequences of Burdened Peasantry
Peasants experienced worsening living conditions due to the combined weight of taxes, conscription, and labour obligations.
Frequent uprisings erupted, though most were localised and brutally suppressed.
Many peasants fled to frontier regions, such as the Don and Volga, to escape obligations.
Despite their suffering, peasants remained the backbone of Russia’s agrarian economy, producing the food and surplus necessary to sustain Peter’s ambitious reforms.
St Petersburg: A Symbol of Peter’s Vision
Founding of the City
In 1703, during the war with Sweden, Peter ordered the construction of a new city on the marshy delta of the River Neva. This settlement became St Petersburg, his “window to the West.”
St Petersburg: A city founded in 1703 by Peter the Great to symbolise Russia’s new European orientation, later becoming the imperial capital.
It was strategically located near the Baltic Sea, asserting Russian control over conquered territories and facilitating trade with Europe.
Caption: Johann Baptist Homann’s plan (1716–1717) depicts the early layout of St Petersburg, showing the Peter and Paul Fortress and Admiralty. It highlights maritime positioning and geometric city planning. Source
The Role of Peasant Labour in Construction
The city was built through immense human sacrifice, particularly by peasants and conscripted labourers.
Thousands of peasants were forcibly mobilised each year to work on canals, fortifications, and buildings.
Harsh conditions, poor supplies, and rampant disease caused extremely high mortality.
Estimates suggest tens of thousands of peasants died during the city’s early years.
The suffering endured in St Petersburg epitomised the exploitative nature of Peter’s modernisation.
Symbolism and Westernisation
St Petersburg represented Peter’s determination to reorient Russia towards Europe:
Its architecture followed Western European styles, employing foreign architects and craftsmen.
Alexey Zubov’s 1716 panorama depicts St Petersburg’s fortress, shipyards, and waterfront buildings in Baroque style. It shows Western architectural influence and maritime identity, though some features reflect projected works. Source
Nobles were required to move there and build stone houses, reinforcing Peter’s centralised authority.
The city became the capital of Russia in 1712, displacing Moscow as the political centre.
For the peasantry, however, St Petersburg embodied exploitation: a project built on their labour and lives with little benefit to their communities.
St Petersburg as an Economic and Military Hub
Beyond symbolism, the city served practical purposes:
It provided Russia with a major Baltic port, crucial for trade and naval operations.
The Admiralty became a centre for naval construction.
The city’s development encouraged limited commercial activity, but this was largely controlled by the state and urban elites, offering little improvement for peasants.
Integration of Peasants into Peter’s Urban Vision
Although peasants were central to its construction, few benefitted from St Petersburg’s prosperity. Most remained in rural servitude, while those brought into the city often worked as forced labourers, builders, or servants for the nobility.
Peasants were excluded from the new urban culture, which catered to nobles, merchants, and foreign experts. This stark division reinforced the hierarchical social order central to Peter’s Russia.
Wider Implications of Peasant Position and St Petersburg
Reinforcement of Autocracy
By burdening peasants and binding them ever more tightly to the land, Peter strengthened the autocracy and its alliance with the nobility. The state’s reliance on peasant labour underscored their subjugated position.
Tensions in Russian Society
The harsh exploitation of peasants laid the foundations for recurring unrest in later decades.
St Petersburg became a powerful symbol of modernisation but also of inequality and coercion.
The position of the peasants and the construction of St Petersburg thus reveal the dual nature of Peter’s reign: visionary modernisation imposed through extreme social cost.
FAQ
Peter chose the Neva delta because of its strategic location on the Baltic Sea, providing direct access to Europe and newly conquered Swedish territory.
The swampy and flood-prone land was difficult to build on, but Peter valued its position as a gateway for trade and diplomacy with Western powers. The choice symbolised his determination to assert Russia’s presence in Europe, regardless of practical obstacles.
Peasants were conscripted in large numbers through quotas imposed on villages and estates. Local officials or landlords had to provide set contingents each year.
They were marched or ferried long distances to the site.
Conditions were brutal: minimal tools, poor shelter, and inadequate food.
Many peasants died en route before even beginning work.
This illustrates the coercive nature of Peter’s state mobilisation.
Peter invited European architects and engineers, particularly from Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands. They introduced Baroque and neoclassical styles, canals, and grid-planned streets.
This reliance on foreign expertise was both practical and symbolic: it projected Russia’s European orientation and demonstrated Peter’s rejection of traditional Muscovite wooden architecture. Russian craftsmen and peasants supplied the labour, but the design vision was largely Western.
Moscow lost its status as capital in 1712, weakening the traditional Muscovite elite. Nobles were compelled to relocate to St Petersburg and build stone houses, often at great expense.
This policy disrupted old networks of power centred in Moscow and forced the boyars into closer proximity with the Tsar, consolidating Peter’s authority. For many nobles, the shift was resented but unavoidable.
Direct benefits were minimal. Most peasants experienced only suffering through forced labour and taxation.
However, a few indirect gains occurred:
Some skilled peasants trained in crafts or construction acquired new techniques.
Urban demand for food and materials created limited markets for surplus produce in nearby regions.
These were small exceptions, as the overwhelming impact remained exploitative and destructive.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
In what year did St Petersburg officially become the capital of Russia under Peter the Great?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for correct year: 1712.
No partial marks awarded for incorrect dates.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two ways in which Peter the Great’s policies affected the position of the Russian peasantry.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 3 marks per explained factor. Maximum 6 marks.
Poll Tax (up to 3 marks):
1 mark for identifying that Peter introduced a poll tax in 1718–1719.
1 additional mark for describing that each male peasant was taxed individually.
1 further mark for explaining its impact, e.g. it increased revenue but deepened peasant hardship.
Conscription (up to 3 marks):
1 mark for identifying that peasants were required to provide recruits for the army and navy.
1 additional mark for noting that service was often lifelong.
1 further mark for explaining its impact, e.g. families lost able-bodied workers, damaging agricultural productivity.
Other valid points may include: intensification of serfdom, role of peasants in St Petersburg’s construction, or peasant flight and uprisings. Marks should be awarded where explanations are relevant, developed, and clearly linked to the question.
