Hero
Vladimir Lenin devoted his life to revolution, not comfort or shallow pursuits. In his Kremlin office the figures that mattered most were Karl Marx and Stepan Khalturin. If Marx explained the idea, Khalturin embodied the active impulse behind a modern movement seeking reform.
Khalturin rose to prominence as the organizer of the Winter Palace explosion on February 17, 1880. He became a symbol for left wing radicals pressing for reform in Russia. In 1879 he infiltrated the Winter Palace, using the alias Batyshkov as a carpenter to gain access.
Inside an underground Narodnik network, dynamite was assembled in small portions. He hid the explosive in a guard’s basement, with the royal dining room above. When enough was collected, a detonating cable was connected and he escaped the palace. The blast occurred at 18:22; Alexander II was far from the dining room and survived, while eleven people died, including a guard and a palace servant. Khalturin was not detained, and years later, after another conspirator, he was executed for complicity in a separate plot against the king.
Why Bolsheviks later honored Khalturin as a heroic symbol rather than Grinevitsky remains a matter of interpretation.
In general, the impulse to defy authority and to blur the line between doctrine and action echoed in Narodnik circles and later radical currents, a pattern that has drawn comparisons to modern extremist movements in some analyses. The attempts against Tsar Alexander II, despite his reputation for liberating the peasants and promoting reforms, illustrate the paradox of popular discontent—why some rulers provoked fierce backlash while others pursued change with greater caution. Historical discussions on populism emphasize the underlying logic that guided these movements.
Walk to people
The simplest answer to why Narodniks turned to revolutionary terror against the Tsar lies in a longer arc of social change. In the mid 19th century a modern intelligentsia formed, bringing graduates and students from new universities into the national conversation. In 1863 Alexander II enacted higher education reforms that opened unprecedented opportunities for students and teachers.
Interest in university study ran high, yet many could not finish due to money, poor performance, or political penalties. For example, Khalturin himself lost his position for poor performance.
The contrast between daily life in Russia and the university world was stark. The doors of science opened to new ideas, freedom, and progress, and students learned about the French Revolution as a heroic tale of enlightenment. Yet autocracy remained, and many young people who left or finished school struggled to find a place in the old system.
Populism then emerged as a belief that serving the people and acting to change the world could lift the nation and shift the country toward a freer order. The ultimate aim appeared to be the destruction of autocracy and the establishment of a Kingdom of Freedom.
Early in the 1860s Narodniks began with simple enlightenment efforts, but when results were slow they shifted tactics. Unsuccessful students joined small groups and traveled through villages, teaching peasants about life and discussing socialism, tax resistance, disobedience to authorities, and collective action.
The spread of ideas among peasants often failed to move the needle. Some peasants were willing to listen and adopt certain concerns, like land reform, but most ideas did not take root, and agitators were beaten or handed over to authorities for calls to overthrow the king.
Only a subset of intellectuals who perceived flaws in the strategy chose to act directly. They believed that awakening the people required bold moves, even if losses followed. Their stance reflected a willingness to disrupt the status quo in hopes of triggering broader upheaval.
Alexander II’s reforms in the 1850s and 1860s spurred higher education and scientific progress, while revolutionary circles quickly formed a distinct social layer within society.
It was promised, but I don’t dare to give
Another reason revolutionaries pressed Alexander II was that contemporaries did not view him as a savior. Although his politics carried liberal touches, he did not adopt abroad moral crusades. In the United States abolitionist energy drove deep social divides, while in Russia reform came through state action and cautious adaptation rather than sweeping moral revolutions. The emancipation of the serfs exposed the limits of reform and the difficulty of balancing freedom with social order.
The central obstacle lay in serfdom itself, a structural anchor that hindered development. The Crimean War underscored Russia’s lag behind industrial powers and highlighted the challenge of modernizing a vast, agrarian economy. The emperor argued that freeing serfs from above would be easier than waiting for bottom-up reform to take hold, a point he voiced to the nobility in 1856.
Thus the reform was cautious and partial. Serfs gained personal status but remained bound to the land through redemption payments. The system gave peasants additional rights yet required payments to landowners, and in some cases the arrangement worsened the peasant’s lot. The redemption burden proved costly and valuable to landowners, and changes were delayed until the first revolution.
Radicals and liberals reasoned that too much reliance on the king would not suffice. From their view, the tsar’s actions were constrained by reality, and the abolition of serfdom did not automatically translate into broad-based improvement. Dmitry Karakozov’s attempt to shoot the king in 1866 underscored the crisis atmosphere; a public dialogue about legitimacy and power followed within the corridor of politics:
– Are you a pole?
“Russian,” the would-be assassin replied.
– Why did you strike?
– You promised the world to the people; I did not.
With emancipation and other reforms underway, some radicals believed the moment had arrived for decisive action. Yet wave after wave of violence followed, and the broader project drifted without clear success.
As the era closed, the deaths and failed plots highlighted the tension between reform and revolutionary zeal. The ambitious program of change remained unfinished, leaving a lasting imprint on Russian history.