What lead to russia falling behind the rest of the west to the point it was at prior to world war 1?

what lead to russia falling behind the rest of the west to the point it was at prior to world war 1?

Actually, after the empancipation of the serfs and general reforms of the mid and late 1800s, Russia was picking up pace and by the 1900-1910, it has some serious industrialisation, urbanisation and general economic growth.

The "falling behind" happened in the prior centuries
Europe experienced an increase in trade (local and global), the advancement of agricultural techniques, the creation of manufacturies and so on and so on. Russia was rather isolated from that by distance, geographic setting, intermediate areas that didn't facillitate travel/commerce/spread of knowledge and ideas, the russian land was much more suited for simpler agriculture and even raw resource gathering (wood, pelts, etc.) than more complex economic activities and many other factors.

it was always behind
they didnt have a written language until the 11th century, no proper form of government or way of trade/commerce with other civilizations, who were speeding past them in science and agriculture (such as rome and china)
basically they were late to the game to begin with and had been playing catch up since. the romanovs really laid the groundwork for them to surge forward in the early 20th century to finally catch up with everyone else

Prior to WWI, Russia's (back then much larger than today) economy had just surpassed the German Empire. Contrary to what is taught in mosty history classes, the latest reforms had the Czar already left pretty much powerless.

their defeat against the japs demoralized them.

Left-wing terrorist acts such as the one that killing modernizing and liberalizing tsar Alexander II led to the government becoming paranoid of reforms, instead choosing to increase its repressive power over society by emphasizing the patrimonialist, ie, traditional and anti-Western character of the Russian monarchy, which only increased left-wing subversion even further.

That's the immediate cause, the long-term cause was the destruction of Novgorod.

Better question would be what allowed Rus to become superpower no.2, when it was a shithole for pretty much all of its history.

communism

>Left-wing terrorist acts such as the one that killing modernizing and liberalizing tsar Alexander II
You mean the man who'd already been deposed by his own parliament?

this guy's dad's hatred of his manlet son
>His father, Alexander III, who deliberately intended to keep his son uneducated in statecraft until the age of thirty, unfortunately miscalculated his own life expectancy, and died when Nicholas was twenty-six. The new Tsar had learned nothing in the interval, and the impression of imperturbability he conveyed was in reality apathy—the indifference of a mind so shallow as to be all surface.

I think you are confusing Nicholas II with Alexander II.

Nicky was a retard who thought he could rule Russia as an 16th century autocrat. Alexander II was the one who emancipated the serfs and began reforming the state, but was murdered by terrorists in 1881.

>Americans in charge of Russian history
You ought to stick to cable television, Cleetus, its the only thing you can truly understand. Prior to World War I, their economy had just surpassed that of the German Empire and before the Treaty of Paris, the one that came in the very aftermath of the Crimean War, they were more powerful than Great Britain. Since the rise of Peter the Great, Russia was regarded as a European power with absolute sway in Northeastern Europe and portions of Eurasia. Matter of fact, during the time of the Rus', they were one of the wealthiest realms in Eurasia, specifically, in the period that came after the rule of Vladimir the Great.

A mayor stop-by and trade mediator on the crossroads of civilizations that had relied heavily on its trade agreements with the Byzantines and the Far East didn't have any commerce or way of trade with other civilizations? Interesting assessment.

Russians like destroying themselves more than they like destroying foreign enemies. Whenever things started looking good they did something incredibly stupid to set it all back. Ivan the Terrible is the purest expression of russian mentality, why progress socially and economically when you can destroy rich towns and sources of income for fun? why fight foreign soldiers when when killing your own people is just as satisfying?

We got written notes from Novgorod during the 9th centuary and the rivers were pretty perfect for trade, good enough for traders based in Scandinavia to use them when traveling to far off places such as the Caspian sea and Byzantine Empire.
what Ivan did can't be said to have been much worse than what the French and Germans were doing against each other at the same time, he just lacked the religious excuse for it.
What Ivan did reall, really bad though was killing the heir that didn't have Down's syndrome.
Peter the great had a slightly similar problem when he messed around with the inhertiance system and a centuary of palace coups followed.

What most people said, Tsarists Russia was on pace to becoming the largest Industrial European power and wealth was growing rapidly. Nicky was a terrible ruler but luckily most the of governing he left alone to others he much preferred to spend his time in government sitting in on meaningless councils with little to none importance and ignoring the serious issues and decisions. Reading about him makes you feel sorry for him honestly.

Russia was actually wealthy and undergoing reforms similar to those experienced by Europe a few decades earlier, ww1 ruined it.

>Americans in charge of Russian history
Try again. This time go easy on that Russian cum, Serf.

>they were more powerful than Great Britain
Nope. They lost the Crimean war, they lost the Great game, they lost to Japs...

>They lost the Crimean war
Subhuman, I've implied so, because I've specifically said that they were more powerful than Britain all up until the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which came in the aftermath of the Crimean War, you have difficulties reading?

>Try again. This time go easy on that Russian cum, Serf.
Fitting, a probably offspring of semi-emancipated peasants who were drafted into cities in the late 19th century giving me lip on class differences.

>you have difficulties reading?
You seem to have, can't blame you, since you are most likely used to Hellenic letters. Why do you think I mentioned the great game, which Ivan lost? There is literally no reason to think Russia was more powerful than UK prior to WW2.

>class differences
Its a wordplay, you dumb balkanigger. Remember how Slavic languages tend to mix b and v and how v often degenerates to f?

There were great posts itt so i wont repeat them, just read up on Stolypin and his reforms, he tried to help the peasants and workers and got killed by the leftists. The leftists killed theman trying to help the lower class, because it didnt suit them to have someone else represent their interests.


>Pyotr Stolypin's reforms produced astounding results within a few years. Between 1906 and 1915, thanks to the efforts of Stolypin's farmers, the productivity of crops nationwide grew by 14 percent, in Siberia by 25 percent. In 1912, Russia's grain exports exceeded by 30 percent those of Argentina, the United States and Canada combined

That would be you, considering you've failed to understand that I've implied that Russia had lost its position to Britain once she had lost the Crimean War.

>Why do you think I mentioned the great game, which Ivan lost?
Because you're a subhuman who has troubles understanding the most commonly used language on the internet, and probably because you have no concept of time and space, hence why you're referring to the Great Game, an event that came some time after the Crimean War, in which Russia had already lost its position to Great Britain? Warping the topic by expanding it with unaffiliated data shan't work in a digitally preserved environment, I hope you're aware of it.

>Its a wordplay, you dumb balkanigger
A subhuman who can't comprehend the English language, one of the easiest languages to learn in our times, has the audacity to call me stupid, the pinnacle of irony. Besides, that statement of mine was rhetorical, not literal, you subhuman.

>Remember how Slavic languages tend to mix b and v and how v often degenerates to f
Remember how you've instantaneously degenerated to the position of a subhuman by failing to comprehend easily discernible statements, and how you've attempted to evade confrontation with your catastrophic blunder by only referring to something that is completely unaffiliated to the original matter at hand?

>There is literally no reason to think Russia was more powerful than UK

There absolutely is, because if Russia had emerged victorious in the Crimean war, your influence in Europe would've diminished heavily, your predecessors knew that, hence why they've done all they could to stop that from happening.

Basically what these guys said. A lot of the historical narrative surrounding the 'delapitated and crumbling' late Imperial Russia is Soviet propaganda. There were still serious issues and they had been repeatedly embarrassed in war, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Germany was willing to go to war in 1914 out of fear of Russia would be unbeatable by 1917.