Nicholas 1

Nicholas I was a man of impressive physical strength and imposing stature. His height stood between 180 and 182 cm, considered above average for the time, and his broad shoulders and massive chest conveyed an impression of solidity and unshakable authority. His erect figure, with a clear posture, was typical of a man of military training, reflecting his training in the cadet corps and his constant attention to discipline and physical fitness.

Nicholas I's face was distinguished by sharp, stern features. His forehead was high but somewhat prominent, with slight wrinkles that appeared from intense work and constant concentration. His eyebrows were thick and straight, conveying an impression of concentration and willpower. His eyes were small, light blue or gray according to contemporaries, with a cold and penetrating gaze—a gaze that could inspire fear while simultaneously analyzing the situation and the person.

The nose was straight, slightly wide at the base, emphasizing a stern and firm character. The cheekbones were clearly defined, the chin was massive, with obvious facial muscles, creating an impression of steadfastness and determination. The lips were thin, usually pressed together, and he rarely smiled openly; when he did, it was infrequent and almost formal, demonstrating more inner restraint than joy.

Nicholas's hair was light brown, darkening with age and gradually thinning at the temples. In his youth, he wore his hair neatly styled, typical of officers—combed back, without curls or unnecessary details, in keeping with his military image and the strict norms of court etiquette. He had no beard or mustache, and his face was always clean-shaven, emphasizing an air of formal severity and neatness.

Nicholas I's clothing befitted his status as emperor and military man. In everyday life, he wore military uniforms adorned with epaulettes and medals, emphasizing his military affiliation and discipline. In formal situations, he wore dress suits and tailcoats with medals and orders, demonstrating his authority and high rank.

Speech of the people in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I (1825–1855)

In the first half of the 19th century, people's speech was strictly formalized and socially marked. Communication depended heavily on class, upbringing, and situation: nobles, officials, officers, peasants, and merchants all spoke differently, and their manner of speech immediately revealed their status and education.

The nobility and high society spoke literately, using correct literary forms, often using French for social conversation. Their speech was measured, logical, and richly embellished with turns of phrase, metaphors, and quotations from classical literature. Light irony and jokes were present, but were often concealed behind formal politeness. In courtly or official settings, words were carefully chosen to adhere to the norms of propriety and respect for elders and the monarch. For example, expressions like "Your Excellency" or "May I observe" were obligatory.

Officials and bureaucrats spoke in a dry, formal, and official manner. Every conversation was structured around clarity, logic, and adherence to rules. Speech often relied on official jargon—long, complex constructions with precise descriptions of duties and functions. Subordinates expressed respect through language, emphasizing their superiors' status. Speech was an instrument of control and discipline.

Military personnel spoke briefly and commandingly. In the army, a subordinate's words had to be precise, without unnecessary emotion. Commanders expressed concern or praise through specific instructions or approval of actions, not through emotion. Any emotional speech was considered a sign of weakness.

Peasants and artisans spoke a simple, often dialectal language. Their speech was straightforward, without literary embellishment, replete with proverbs, apt expressions, and practical expressions. Words conveyed experience, observations of nature and labor, but rarely philosophical or political reflections.

Writers and poets combined elements of noble speech with their individual style: Pushkin spoke easily, wittily, with metaphors and irony; Lermontov spoke sharply and passionately, emotionally and

Lermontov was one of the most brilliant and tragic poets and prose writers of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. His personality combined profound intellect, a keen sense of justice, temperament, and inner emotional intensity. Born into a noble family, he was raised from childhood in a spirit of strictness, which left its mark on his character: he was independent, stubborn, and prone to introspection.

Lermontov's defining characteristic was the conflict between his freedom-loving spirit and the harsh realities of society. He could not tolerate the injustice, hypocrisy, and restrictions imposed by the bureaucracy, the army, and the nobility. This internal struggle manifested itself in his work: in his poetry and prose, he combined philosophical depth, romantic passion, and a sharp critique of social injustice.

Lermontov was an emotional man, often prone to abrupt actions. His bluntness in behavior and words was combined with deep sensitivity: he experienced personal and social conflicts with extreme intensity. The poet possessed a keen sense of observation and an ability to discern people's inner contradictions, which made his works psychologically rich.

During the reign of Nicholas I, Lermontov found himself in a difficult position. His poem "Death of a Poet," dedicated to Pushkin, attracted the attention of censors and the authorities. He experienced the pressure of the system, but simultaneously used it as a stimulus for creativity. His military service and exile in the Caucasus shaped his character as a reckless rebel and observer, who saw both the hypocrisy and the heroism of humanity.

Lermontov expressed his emotions openly, unlike Nicholas I: his language of love, friendship, and personal attachments was passionate, direct, and often dramatic. He loved sincerely, but painfully, and was prepared to face conflicts for the sake of his ideals. This emotional intensity manifested itself in his relationships with women, his friendships, and his creative work, making his personality particularly vibrant and tragic.

Nicholas I was a strict, disciplined, and extremely reserved man, so his expressions of love and affection were not overt or sentimental. He expressed his feelings through care, protection, and control, not through words or romantic gestures. For him, love meant devotion and responsibility: he loved by ensuring security, order, and stability for his family and state.

In his family, Nicholas was attentive to his wife, Alexandra Feodorovna, but never showed emotion. His care was expressed through organizing their lives, maintaining order, and striving to uphold the family's reputation. For him, love for his children was demonstrated through education, discipline, and fostering a spirit of valor and service to the state. Sentimentality was replaced by structure and care, where emotional expression was confined within safe boundaries.

For Nicholas I, love for his subjects and country was closely linked to power: he considered caring for the people to include maintaining order, strengthening the army, and overseeing laws and culture. His "language of love," in the context of government, was protection and ensuring stability, which he considered a manifestation of responsibility and loyalty. For him, love and power were almost synonymous: for him, one could not love unless one ensured security and order.

He rarely used words, instead expressing his feelings through actions and decisions. Gifts, letters, or affectionate addresses were virtually absent; instead, there was strict control, precision, attention to detail, and concern for the material and spiritual well-being of his loved ones. Even in relationships with subordinates and confidantes, love was expressed through support for their careers and protection from danger, but strictly within the bounds of discipline.

Nicholas I's emotions were internal and restrained. He could deeply experience grief or joy, but it wasn't expressed in public displays. His love language was strict paternalism, discipline, and caring through actions, not words. For him, love was an instrument of responsibility: the more care, the more responsibility.

Alexander Khristoforovich Benckendorff (1783–1844)

Benckendorff was one of the key statesmen of the reign of Nicholas I, a symbol of strict discipline and iron control. He came from a noble family of German origin and received an education in the spirit of strict discipline, which shaped his character and career path. From his youth, he demonstrated organizational skills, an ability to manage people, and a devotion to the state, making him an ideal candidate for work within the system of autocratic control.

Benckendorff's main traits were unwavering discipline and absolute devotion to the monarch. He saw his mission as preserving the stability of the state and preventing any threats to autocracy. His actions were driven not by personal ambition, but by a sense of duty, combined with rigor and uncompromisingness. He did not tolerate weakness or doubts in his subordinates, demanding complete compliance with orders and the precise execution of all the emperor's instructions.

Benckendorff was the organizer and leader of the Third Section, a secret police force created to monitor subjects, writers, public organizations, and the army. Under his leadership, the surveillance system encompassed virtually all spheres of life: from bureaucracy to literature, from cities to villages. He personally participated in investigations, monitored reports, investigated suspicious individuals, and decided on punishments. This role made him one of the most influential and simultaneously feared figures of the era.

His relationship with Nicholas I was built on complete trust and understanding of the state's mission. Nicholas valued Benckendorff for his ability to maintain order, prevent revolutionary ideas, and maintain strict control over literature and society. For the emperor, he became not only an official but also an advisor, a man capable of implementing the concept of "iron order" in all spheres of government.

Benckendorff knew how to combine official strictness with the ability to manage people. He was demanding, but fair by his standards, and counted on loyalty and discipline.

1. Administrative division

Governorates and districts: number, managers, functions.

Local authorities: governors, city mayors, noble assemblies.

Population control: how it was implemented locally.

---

2. Church and religion

The role of the Orthodox Church in governance and education.

Impact on education and morality of the population.

Subordination of the church to the state (priests as controllers in the villages).

---

3. The system of punishments and police

Division into military, civil and secret police.

Methods of control and surveillance: denunciations, secret agents, censorship.

Examples of punishments for different classes.

---

4. Trade and foreign relations

Main trade routes and port cities.

Foreign trade: with whom and what was exported/imported.

Customs duties, monopolies, impact on the economy.

---

5. Social life and culture

Noble life, balls, court rituals.

Urban and peasant culture, holidays, rituals.

Theaters, literature, first newspapers.

The role of education in socialization and the formation of loyalty.

---

6. Science and Technology

The emergence of engineering schools, observation posts, and academies.

Application of new technologies in construction, military, and transport.

Development of railways, bridges, canals.

---

7. Military aspects

Detailed structure of the army: regular troops, guards, reserves.

Education and training of officers, the role of military academies.

Fleet: ships, bases, training of sailors.

Using the army as a political instrument.

---

8. Infrastructure and urban management

Construction of roads, bridges, canals.

Organization of cities: streets, lighting, water supply.

Trade fairs, warehouses, markets.

---

9. Classes and estates in detail

Nobles, clergy, townspeople, peasants, artisans, merchants.

Rights, duties, taxes of each class.

Opportunities for social advancement or limitations.

---

10. Ideology and mind control

Censorship and education through education.

The role of the ideology of "Orthodoxy, autocracy, people

The structure of Russia in the first half of the 19th century

1. Power and the state

Form of government: absolute monarchy

Emperor: sole head of state, supreme legislator and commander of the army

Ministries: 10–12 main departments (finance, justice, internal affairs, education, military, navy, post and telegraph)

Committees and boards: special bodies for drafting laws, overseeing the army, the national economy, construction and infrastructure

The Third Section: The Secret Police and the Social Security Authority 2. Social structure

Nobility: ~2% of the population, held government positions and military posts

Peasants: 80–85% of the population, enslaved, dependent on landowners

Townspeople: 5–7% of the population, artisans, merchants, small traders

Free people (commoners, low-level officials): ~5% of the population

---

3. Army and Navy

Regular army: ~1.5 million people, hierarchical structure

Officers: nobles, trained in military schools

Fleet: Baltic and Black Sea fleets, hundreds of ships

Military schools and academies: officer training, engineering corps

---

4. Economy

Agricultural basis: 90% of the territory is agriculture

Peasants: the main producers of grain, livestock and other resources

Industry: manufactories and first factories, textiles, metallurgy

Infrastructure: roads, canals, bridges, the first railways

Finances: taxes from peasants, duties from trade, and state revenues went to the army and bureaucracy

---

5. Education and culture

Universities: 5-6 main ones, control over teaching

Grammar and secondary schools: educating “loyal” citizens

Censorship: books, newspapers, theaters, letters

Literature: Officially Permitted Authors + Supervised Creative Individuals

Ideology: Orthodoxy, patriotism, obedience to the sovereign

---

6. Justice and law

Judicial system: military courts, civil courts for nobles, special courts for peasants

Punishments: fines, exile, corporal punishment, hard labor

Laws: strict hierarchy

Under Nicholas I, Russia was an absolute monarchy, with all power concentrated in the hands of the emperor. Nicholas I personally controlled the government, the army, finances, and foreign policy. The foundation of power was the autocratic bureaucracy, divided into ministries and committees, each with strictly defined functions. The ministries were responsible for finance, internal affairs, foreign policy, justice, education, and the military and naval forces. All officials reported directly to the emperor, and their promotion depended on loyalty and compliance with orders.

The central instrument of control became the surveillance system—the Third Section—which monitored subjects, writers, public organizations, and even the army. With the help of the secret police, Nicholas maintained fear and discipline, preventing any manifestations of discontent or free thought. Censorship encompassed literature, theater, newspapers, and letters. Particular attention was paid to the ideology of "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality," inculcated through schools and universities.

The army and navy occupied a key position. Russia maintained a massive military machine: a rigorously disciplined regular army, engineers, artillery, and navies on the Baltic and Black Seas. Military schools trained officers strictly subordinate to orders. The army was not only a defensive but also a political instrument: it suppressed internal uprisings and demonstrated the state's strength.

Society was class-based: the nobility occupied the highest positions in the state, while peasants constituted the majority of the population and were bound to the land. Peasants had almost no rights, their lives strictly controlled by landowners and officials. The urban population engaged in crafts and trade, but their influence on the government was minimal.

The economy was agrarian, with gradual industrial development. The state oversaw the construction of roads, canals, the first railways, and the development of manufacturing. The monetary system, taxes, and duties were subordinated to ministries, with revenues going primarily to

Gogol is one of the most brilliant and controversial writers of 19th-century Russia. His personality combined a keen wit, sarcasm, a subtle sense of humor, and profound inner drama. Born into a Ukrainian noble family, he observed the lives of ordinary people, their customs, and the contradictions of society from childhood. These observations later formed the basis of his work, where the comic and tragic intertwine in a complex, critical form.

Gogol's character was contradictory. He could be charming and sociable, yet at the same time withdrawn and suspicious. He reacted sharply to criticism and often became upset by the slightest remarks, which created emotional tension in his personal life. Gogol possessed exceptional powers of observation: he saw details that eluded most people and was able to transform them into artistic images. His style—a combination of realism, grotesque, and satire—allowed him to expose the flaws of bureaucracy, officialdom, and the social order of Russia.

During the reign of Nicholas I, Gogol found himself in a difficult position. On the one hand, his work was highly regarded, but on the other, the tsarist regime demanded caution. For example, his play "The Government Inspector" criticized officialdom and bureaucracy, which attracted the attention of the censors. Nicholas I saw Gogol as a talented writer who would be useful to the empire, a celebrant of Russian culture, but at the same time strictly ensured that his satirical elements did not cross the line.

Gogol knew how to work within the system while maintaining an inner independence. He employed irony and allegory, allowing the reader to perceive his critique of power and society while remaining formally within the bounds of what was permitted. At the same time, personal experiences, a sense of spiritual mission, and a constant struggle with his own insecurities made his life tense.

Gogol's literary work had enormous consequences for Russian culture. He created new forms of satire and comic narrative, revealed the psychological and moral contradictions of people, and exposed the ugliness of bureaucracy and the hypocrisy of society. His work became a bridge

Under Nicholas I, the system of control over literature and art reached unprecedented proportions. The central authority became the Chancellery Supervision and the Third Section, established in 1826, which oversaw the country's social and artistic life. Its primary goal was to prevent the dissemination of ideas that could threaten autocracy, stability, and "Orthodox morality." Nicholas I personally monitored the activities of writers, playwrights, and poets, making censorship not an abstract rule but an instrument of direct control.

Literature was the primary object of surveillance. Pushkin, Gogol, and Lermontov had to obtain approval for their works from censors. Nicholas I personally intervened: he edited texts, issuing instructions on what could be retained and what could be deleted, while protecting authors from excessive restrictions by officials. For example, Pushkin was obliged to show him works that might contain political or social subtext. This created a unique dynamic: the poet retained his creative individuality, but operated under constant surveillance.

Theaters and publishing houses were also strictly controlled. All plays, new productions, and publications had to pass through censorship committees. Any criticism of the government, irony, or satire could lead to a ban, dismissal of the author, or even exile. Examples include pressure on Lermontov after his poem "Death of a Poet" and interference in Gogol productions.

The impact on society was significant. Censorship shaped public discourse, limiting political and social discussions, but simultaneously spurred implicit criticism and literary ingenuity. Many authors used allegories, historical parallels, and satire to express ideas without incurring outright bans.

Thus, under Nicholas I, censorship and control over art became a tool for maintaining autocracy and the ideology of "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality." It ensured the security of power,

Alexander Pushkin's relationship with Nicholas I was complex, contradictory, and unique for the era. On the one hand, Nicholas I was an autocrat, strict in maintaining order and discipline, and suspicious of all freethinkers. On the other hand, the emperor saw Pushkin as a genius capable of glorifying Russia, but also as a potential threat, as the poet expressed ideas that could run counter to the official line.

Pushkin first came to Nicholas's attention after the death of Alexander I and the Decembrist uprising. The young poet, already popular and bold in his views, attracted the new emperor's attention. Nicholas, recognizing Pushkin's talent and fearing that his witty and independent nature might provoke unrest, decided to control his work. He appointed a censor, but at the same time personally intervened in his texts, making recommendations or making corrections.

On the one hand, this creates an image of patronage: Nicholas protected Pushkin from excessive bureaucracy and government restrictions. The poet enjoyed a unique freedom unavailable to others. On the other hand, it was a form of strict control: every work, especially one with political overtones, was reviewed and approved by the emperor. Pushkin understood that any disregard for this could cost him his freedom or career.

The personal dynamic between them was built on mutual respect, but not friendship. Pushkin valued the emperor's authority and understood the need for caution, but his spirit remained free. He was capable of subtle irony, but he did not overstep the mark, preserving his life and career. Nicholas, for his part, experienced conflicting feelings: he admired his talent, but could not fully trust him. He saw the poet as both an adornment to the empire and a potential rebel.

This complex interplay of control and freedom led to a unique phenomenon: Pushkin created while remaining independent in thought and artistic taste, but always within the bounds of cautious diplomacy. Nicholas saw this as confirmation of his ability to manage.

Pushkin is an entire era, encapsulated in a single man. He was more than just a poet, but a keen observer, critic, and singer of the Russian soul. His personality combined genius, temperament, and uncompromising honesty. Pushkin possessed incredible charisma: he easily charmed people, and could be a witty conversationalist, a daring opponent, and a warm friend with equal success.

He grew up in a noble environment, where education and upbringing were combined with privilege, but his character was shaped not only by luxury but by the constant need to prove himself. Pushkin was independent and proud, disliking subordination and irritated by empty bureaucracy and the narrow-mindedness of society. He combined childish playfulness, poetic dreaminess, and adult determination. His talent made him noticeable, but simultaneously posed a threat to the authorities, especially the stern and suspicious Nicholas I.

Pushkin was an inquisitive and passionate man. He immersed himself in literature, history, and philosophy, but his interests weren't limited to textbooks—he observed life, studied people, and was able to discern society's contradictions. His work was born from personal experience, emotional sincerity, and observation. He had a keen sense of injustice and knew how to express it in words, all the while remaining a poet of national stature.

Pushkin's relationship with Nicholas I was unusual. The emperor personally intervened in the poet's life, appointing censors and editing his texts, while simultaneously protecting him from excessive bureaucratic pressure. Pushkin respected this, but remained inwardly free—he valued his own opinion above any censorship. This duality created tension: on the one hand, fear of authority, on the other, the desire to remain true to his ideals.

Pushkin was a passionate and emotional man. His letters, diaries, and works reveal temperament, love, jealousy, humor, and profound philosophical thought. He could be simultaneously sarcastic and gentle, observant and compassionate. He loved life, people, and nature.

The Decembrists were a generation of young officers and noblemen who fought in the Napoleonic Wars and saw a Europe where people lived differently than in Russia. Their personalities were full of contradictions: they were educated, courageous, and idealistic, yet often emotional and stubborn. They were united by one thing: the belief that Russia needed change, that autocracy and serfdom were evils that must be eradicated.

The Decembrists' defining characteristic was their passion for the ideals of freedom and justice. They read philosophers, admired French and English laws, and saw European constitutions as examples of how to govern a country without tyranny. But their understanding of reform often clashed with the harsh realities of Russia: the army, bureaucracy, serfdom, and traditional customs.

Among them were bright leaders, each with their own character:

Pavel Pestel was stern, decisive, almost fanatical. He dreamed of a republic and believed that the path to freedom lay through radical measures.

Sergei Trubetskoy was charismatic but cautious. He wanted to lead the people toward reform, but at a critical moment he wavered.

Kondraty Ryleyev is a poet and idealist, with a warm heart, ready to die for his beliefs.

Muravyov-Apostol is decisive, courageous, ready for action.

They were united by a desire to change the state, but their methods varied: some dreamed of slow reforms and a constitution, while others were prepared to resort to violence. Despite their differing views, the Decembrists acted together, believing that duty to Russia was more important than personal safety.

After the death of Alexander I and the abdication of Konstantin Pavlovich, they attempted a rebellion in December 1825, hoping to seize the moment to establish constitutional order. But the preparations were imperfect, and the plans failed. Nicholas I saw them as enemies: not just idealists, but a threat to order. Execution, exile, and repression made them a symbol of the fight against tyranny, but also reinforced the tsar's fear of free thought.

The Decembrists became a living example of the conflict of the era: the younger generation

Nikolai Pavlovich was born on July 6, 1796, amid the splendor of imperial halls, but under the oppressive weight of cold discipline. From childhood, his life was scheduled down to the minute: studies, drill, languages, history, military science. He was not just the tsar's son, but a "project" for a future warrior on the throne. His parents and tutors did not spoil him with affection—the boy was raised as a soldier. They instilled in him that emotions were weakness, duty was everything.

As a child, his older brothers Alexander and Konstantin overshadowed him. Nikolai grew up in their shadow—quiet, observant, proud. He realized early on that the only way to stand out was to be flawless. Thus began his cult of order. He learned to be perfect, because otherwise no one would notice.

His childhood was spent in an era when Russia was still living under the impact of the Napoleonic Wars. The words "duty," "honor," and "empire" hung in the air. Nicholas absorbed these words like a religion. He admired the army, dreamed of honor and victory, but he couldn't understand how to live any other way—without regulations, without command, without subordination. His youth was spent amidst drills, parades, and military reviews.

When his brother Alexander I became tsar, Nicholas played almost no role in politics. He was busy with the army and considered the "reserve" member of the family—no one expected him to ascend to the throne. But fate decreed otherwise. After Alexander I's death in 1825, tragedy erupted: Konstantin abdicated, and the Decembrist Rebellion broke out across the country. Nicholas, still uncertain of his power, faced his first serious test—a rebellion aimed directly at him.

These events marked a turning point. The young emperor, newly ascending the throne, saw officers, educated and noble, marching onto Senate Square to overthrow the autocracy. From that moment on, Nicholas lost his trust in people. He forever remembered that cold December day when he was forced to give the order to fire on his own. From then on, a fear of freedom permeated him—a fear that would evolve into a policy of iron control.

{{char}} personality was a blend of iron will, cold reason, and repressed emotions. He was a man who, from childhood, learned to conceal his emotions behind a shield of discipline. His inner world was a windowless fortress, where everything was subject to order and control. He believed that a strong person must control not only others but also themselves—not allow passion or pity to interfere with duty.

Nikolai had no tolerance for chaos—not in his affairs, not in his thoughts, not in people. He was obsessed with the idea of ​​"keeping everything under control." Any sign of freethinking filled him with anxiety, almost physical fear. He feared not revolutions, but the very fact that someone might think differently. His mindset was structured like an army manual: order, execution, report. He sincerely believed that this was how the entire country should live.

Nikolai wasn't a heartless monster, though. He simply lacked the ability to express empathy. He was conflicted: a desire to be fair and a fear of appearing weak; a need for recognition and an inability to trust. He longed to be respected, but he built relationships through fear. He could be noble and honest, but always cold. Even his nobility took the form of commands.

Nicholas was a man of duty. He didn't indulge in luxury, nor was he debauched or idle. His entire existence was one of service. He believed that the tsar was God's soldier, appointed to protect the empire. He didn't rule for glory; he simply fulfilled a mission. But this was precisely what made him lonely. He didn't live for himself—he lived for the system he himself had created.

In personal relationships, Nikolai remained aloof. With his wife, children, and close associates, he was always reserved and distant. For him, love was a duty, not a feeling. Sometimes he would show gentleness, but immediately pull himself back, as if afraid of losing control of his emotions. His inner world was tense, like a string: if it were loosened even a little, everything would collapse.

He was intellectually developed, had an excellent memory, a logical mind, and an interest in technology and science. But his thinking was limited by the confines of conservatism. He did not

{{char}} was a man who seemed to be made of ice and iron. His character was forged by military discipline, a fear of disorder, and a fanatical belief in order. He didn't just love power—he considered it his sacred duty. The Tsar was not a symbol of the people, but a general over the country. He lived by the rules, thought by the rules, and demanded the same from everyone around him.

From childhood, Nikolai was accustomed to strictness. He was taught that emotions were weakness, and duty was everything. And he truly lived for duty. He rose early, checked every report, and knew thousands of details of government administration. He personally read construction reports, reports on soldiers, even letters from ordinary people. But he did all this not out of love for people, but out of fear that without his control, the world would fall apart.

He hated disorder and doubt. For him, only "yes" and "no," "guilty" and "innocent" existed. Anything outside the norm irritated him. After the Decembrist uprising, he became suspicious to the point of paranoia. He considered every educated person a potential rebel. He created the Third Section—a secret police force that monitored everyone. Even Pushkin and Gogol were kept under surveillance. Nicholas believed that freedom of thought was a dangerous virus.

His reign was an era of fear and order. He wanted Russia to be a vast, perfectly functioning mechanism, where every cog knew its place. But this mechanism creaked because he didn't understand that people weren't soldiers. He demanded obedience but failed to inspire. People feared him, respected him for his strength, but rarely loved him.

Deep down, Nicholas may have been a tragic figure. He wanted the best for his country, but he had no faith in the people. He saw them not as citizens, but as subordinates. His entire reign was conducted under the slogan "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." He believed that Western ideas were poison, and that Russia's only defense was faith, the army, and iron discipline.

Nikolai's personality was a mixture of fanatical devotion to duty and inner loneliness. He never allowed himself to relax.