The Imperial Russian Soldier

Last weekend I had a browse through an Osprey book about the Imperial Russian army in the 1800s.

What amazed me was that throughout history, soldiers had always been motivated by material or social-status gains; or otherwise by the necessity to defend the state that protected his legal rights. Throughout histories, most nations and empires had seduced citizens to the soldiering career with pay or special priveliges.

The impression I get is that the Russian Imperial Army was one in which most soldiers were peasant levies who had little interest in defending the state, who exploited them more than protected them. Many were retained in service for years or decades receiving very low pay and modest discharge benefits. Service conditions were usually harsh, and they were poorly armed compared to other European armies at the time.

Yet surprisingly, the Russian army performed relatively well on the battlefield from the late 1700s and the 1800s. Russian soldiers were tough warriors in hand-to-hand combat and managed to defeat several European empires in pitched battles.

Obviously, they fought for something... but what motivated the average Russian soldier to fight?
Why weren't there any serious munities prior to the WWI?

Yes, but we also shouldn't forget that in the 1700th and early 1800th Russian soldiers were facing European armies with the similar type of organization where people were forcibly conscripted to the army for decades.

I thought Austria had a lifetime conscription system until 1802.

I believe volunteers formed only a part of the army, another part consisted of the conscripts that served for a life time before 1802 and ten years aftewards.

I can't say that the military service was very popular cause it complitely took Russian peasants away from their families and native villages virtually for the whole life, it cut effectively all their connections with their relatives. and made them people without roots.  Usually those who were destined to serve were chosen by lot and would be considered unlucky. In fact, those recruits instead of being serfs of a particular noble were becoming serfs of the state. Conditions in the army were tough.  Depending on a period different areas of the empire were free of recruit duty. Often, introduction of the recruit duties to a particular area leaded to rebellions like for example in the Ukraine.

To what extent did the Imperial Russian army depend of the mobilization of "free Cossacks" or warlike nomad tribesmen? Were these units better fighters than to common infantryman?

Originally posted by Sarmat Also, unfortunately, a lot of Western publications about the Russian military history are very biased. In fact, many famous Russian commanders tried to create the best conditions for their soldiers and were loved by them almost like "fathers" that relates to Suvorov, Kutuzov, Bagration and later Nakhimov, Kornilov and Skobelev and also a number of other commanders.

Wouldn't Potemkin deserve a mention here? I have been told his care for the common soldier was exceptional, but I'm not sure how reliable that information was.

Originally posted by calvo Were Russian serfs generally willing to serve, or was military service very unpopular? Did life in the army have any material and social attractions for the average serf? Would you say that the transformation from the Imperal to Soviet army saw an improvement or decadance in the quality of the Russian soldier?

i wouldn't say there was any big difference between Imperial and Soviet soldier, the difference lies in the officer corps mostly.

Originally posted by calvo I'm not really sure what do you mean here. Stalin repressions?   For example, in the famous battle of Stalingrad, and the subsequent executions of the officers who failed to detain the German advance.