In this blog post, we examine how the Decembrists’ return home, the Crimean War, and the reign of Nicholas I influenced Tolstoy’s motivation to write and the expansion of the narrative in ‘War and Peace’.

The Decembrists Return

On December 14, 1825, a group of young officers from distinguished aristocratic families in Russia staged an uprising with the aim of overthrowing the absolute monarchy and establishing a modern constitutional state. This was the Decembrist Revolution—the prelude to the Russian Revolution and a watershed moment in early 19th-century Russian history. With the failure of this “top-down” revolution—one that excluded the common people—Russia left the era of reform behind and entered a pitch-black dark age under the reign (1825–1855) of Nicholas I (1796–1855), who ascended the throne as the younger brother of Alexander I.
The revolution that Nicholas I faced on his first day of rule turned him into a conservative reactionary tormented by an obsession with the liberal movement. He believed himself to be the one destined, through divine providence, to save the world from the terrors of atheism, liberalism, and revolution; not only did he carry out ruthless suppression of internal enemies, but he also sought to defend the order he viewed as the antithesis of freedom and enlightenment in Europe. While he instilled fear and hatred in European liberals, Russia remained mired in backwardness for a long time, with all reform movements at a standstill.
It was the Crimean War (1853–1856) that awakened Russia from this deep slumber. The shock of defeat made the Russian aristocracy realize the true state of the nation’s backwardness and fostered a consensus on the inevitability of reform. Thus, after a period of hushed stillness lasting about 30 years since 1825, Russian society once again faced the winds of change.
At the point when defeat in the war became certain, the return of the Decembrists—coinciding with the death of Nicholas I—served as a clear harbinger of the changing times. After the isolated revolution ended in a hollow failure and five of its leaders were executed, approximately 120 Decembrists were sentenced to exile in Siberia; a small number of those who survived the 30-year exile were pardoned with the dawn of a new era and returned to the heart of Russian society in 1856.

Tolstoy and the Conception of ‘War and Peace’

The novel ‘War and Peace’, which depicts early 19th-century Russian society like an encyclopedia, originated from Tolstoy’s plan to write a story about those very Decembrists who had returned. Tolstoy imagined that if the uprising thirty years earlier had succeeded, Russia might have evolved into a prosperous constitutional state grounded in Enlightenment values. Through the fate of the returning Decembrists, he sought to critically examine the superficial nature of Russian society—which had been holding its breath under oppression—suddenly coming to life following the death of a dictator. The work he originally envisioned was a much simpler novel. That unfinished novel began under the title ‘The Decembrists’ (1860).
The real-life figure who served as the model for the novel’s protagonist, Pyotr Rabazov—who returns home in 1856 after surviving exile, bringing his wife and two children with him—was Prince Sergei Volkonsky (1788–1865). A distant relative on Tolstoy’s mother’s side, Sergei Volkonsky was the most famous of the Decembrists exiled to Siberia. A close confidant of Alexander I and a war hero who had defeated Napoleon, he rejected Nicholas I’s attempts to win him over after the “Decembrist Uprising,” renounced his privileges and wealth, and departed for Siberia. There, he shared in the joys and sorrows of the peasants, dedicating his youth to their cause and earning respect as the “Peasant Duke.” His wife, Maria Volkonskaya (1805–1863), was one of the eleven “Decembrist wives” who rejected offers to retain their noble titles on the condition of divorce and instead chose to share in the revolutionary’s hardships.
Tolstoy sought to view Russian society, which was facing upheaval, through the eyes of an aging Decembrist; however, to portray the protagonist with depth, he had to delve deeply into the motivations that led him to abandon a comfortable life and the path to social advancement in favor of the revolutionary’s thorny path. To do so, the experiences of his youth and the ideals he harbored within had to be vividly revealed, and naturally, the author’s gaze turned to the past. Tolstoy first turned his attention to the Decembrist Revolution of 1825, but even there he could not find answers to his questions about the characters and thus went further back in time. To show how the Decembrists arrived at their patriotic resolve—and what drove them to oppose the Tsar—he had to shed light on earlier historical events that had sparked patriotic movements and civic consciousness in Russia.
The Decembrists called themselves “the children of 1812.” The War of 1812 was both a war of the fatherland against Napoleon’s invasion and the origin of a political movement for the social freedom of the people; the Decembrist Revolution of 1825 was the result of the aristocratic intelligentsia—awakened by the events of 1812—realizing their historical responsibility toward the people. Sergei Volkonsky recalled a conversation he had with Alexander I during the War of 1812 as follows: “〔……〕 The monarch asked me this question: ‘What is the morale of the army like?’ I replied, ‘Your Majesty! From the commanders down to every individual soldier, everyone is prepared to lay down their lives to defend the Fatherland and Your Majesty.’ He asked again, ‘What is the morale of the people like?’ To that question, I answered, ‘Your Majesty! You should take pride in the people. Every single peasant is a hero devoted to the motherland and to Your Majesty.’ The monarch asked again, ‘And the nobility?’ I told him, ‘Your Majesty! I am ashamed to be a nobleman. They talk a lot, but they take no action.’ At that moment, the monarch took my hand and said, ‘I am glad to see such feelings within you. Thank you, thank you very much.”
Thus, the sense of shame felt by this awakened nobleman toward his own class served as the starting point for the social reform movements of the 19th century. At the root of the historical guilt felt by the Russian nobility lay the internal rift created by Peter the Great’s modernization—namely, the conflict between the privileged class, which enjoyed the fruits of the Enlightenment, and the oppressed masses. The nobility, which had long disregarded the roots of national culture, discovered the common people through the War of 1812; subsequently, the noble intelligentsia came to a painful realization of their parasitic privileges and hypocrisy. The nobility’s repentance for its historical transgressions and an ethic of self-sacrifice for the common people raised the curtain on the social reform movements that permeated the 19th century.
Since the Decembrist Revolution arose as a result of 1812, to write the story of the Decembrists, one first had to write about the War of 1812. However, Tolstoy did not stop there; to portray the protagonist’s entire life, he expanded his perspective to even earlier periods. Realizing that “it would be shameful to write about our victories in the war against Bonaparte’s France without depicting our failures and humiliations,” he broadened his historical scope to include the events of 1805 that had led to the tribulations of 1812. He had to depict everything from the awakening of patriotism and national consciousness in 1812 to the formation of civic consciousness, as well as the failures suffered by the Russian army and the shortcomings exposed by aristocratic society during the Third Coalition against France and the brief period of harmony with Napoleon.
Within this gradually expanding and deepening vision, the work took on the contours of a grand national epic spanning from 1805 to the 1850s, transforming to the point where it bore almost no resemblance to the originally planned, unfinished novel about the Decembrists. In line with this grand vision, Tolstoy settled on the provisional title ‘Three Periods’ (‘Tri pory’) and began writing. Structured as a trilogy corresponding to these three periods, the work sought to cover three distinct eras of Russian history. Part One was to depict the early 19th century—specifically the War of 1812—when the young Decembrists were raised; Part Two was to directly describe the 1820s, when the Decembrists’ civic consciousness was formed and expressed, as well as the entire course of the revolution; and Part Three was to reenact key historical events of the 1850s—such as the Crimean War, the death of Nicholas I, the return home of the pardoned Decembrists, and was intended to depict the landscape of an era in which the long-awaited changes in Russian politics were finally taking hold.

Background and Writing Process

Such an ambitious plan—requiring the depiction of a very broad temporal span filled with significant historical events—demanded immense tension and artistic strength from the author. Realizing that such a grand plan was unfeasible, Tolstoy ultimately decided to significantly narrow the time frame and focus on the early period. Thus, he covered the history spanning from 1805 to 1820—approximately 15 years—and placed the national and historical-philosophical significance of the War of 1812 at the core of the work.
Even though the final artistic vision had taken shape, writing ‘War and Peace’ was no easy task. He frequently abandoned the work only to return to it later, leaving behind over 5,000 pages of drafts and 15 different versions. Bearing the weight of his immense responsibility for the work and the pressure of its gravity, Tolstoy completed the novel over a period of about seven years, from 1863 to 1869. Instead of the Decembrist-themed novel he had originally envisioned, he combined a vast depiction of historical events, social landscapes, and human destinies with his own philosophical musings to create a monumental work of world literature.

This Is Not a Novel

Comprising four volumes, 333 chapters, and a 28-chapter epilogue, this epic narrative features over 500 characters, including both historical and fictional figures. While multiple plotlines intertwine with the flow of historical events, the War of 1812 lies at the heart of the work.
Following a chronological framework, the time periods covered in each volume and the epilogue are roughly divided as follows: Volume I (1805), Volume II (1806–1811), Volume III (1812), Volume IV (1812–1813), and the Epilogue (1820). True to its title, the work as a whole can be divided into a “War” section and a “Peace” section. The “War” section depicts key scenes from the War of 1812, including the 1805 campaign, the fall of Smolensk, the Battle of Borodino, the abandonment of Moscow, partisan warfare, and Napoleon’s retreat. The “Peace” section depicts in detail the customs of Russian high society and the evolution of family histories. These two sections are closely intertwined, bringing to the forefront the characters’ fates and the psychological transformations and maturation of the main characters.
“War and Peace” can be divided not only into sections on war and peace but also into “fictional” chapters and “philosophical” chapters. It could be argued that removing either of these two elements would cause the work to fall apart. During the editing of the first draft, Tolstoy faced criticism regarding the philosophical sections; he deleted those passages only to later restore them. One of his major innovations was the integration of fictional narrative with historical and philosophical treatises.
In the tradition of Russian literature, literature held social significance that transcended mere art, and Tolstoy expanded that tradition into a large-scale practice. Historical figures are not merely characters in the narrative but serve as the foundation for philosophical discourse, functioning as connecting links that integrate the various parts of the work. The philosophical discourse within the work is both scholarly and artistic in nature; while Tolstoy occasionally attempts logical and mathematical arguments, as an artist he essentially employs verbose digressions to maintain the narrative’s grandeur.
Tolstoy is regarded as having presented a model of both the epic novel and the psychological novel through this work. Readers marvel at how the author captures even the slightest intellectual and emotional shifts, delving into human psychology with delicacy and acuity. He succeeded in revealing new dimensions of human psychology by making existing perceptions seem unfamiliar. Another innovation is that historical figures appear as artistic characters on par with fictional ones. Tolstoy rejects the idealization of humanity; he brings his characters to life by ruthlessly analyzing the psychology of both historical figures and the central characters to whom he is emotionally attached, thereby exposing their weaknesses.
This work transcends a mere historical reenactment; it is an epic historical novel and a historical-philosophical treatise that creates artistic forms based on actual history. It is a sharp satire on social customs, an ethical novel that raises questions about the moral issues of life, and, at the same time, a family chronicle depicting the evolution of the family community. The work’s outstanding analysis of the flow of human psychology and the inner world also allows it to be read as a coming-of-age novel. Russian critic Viktor Shklovsky called Tolstoy “a great creator and a great destroyer of old structures.”
Tolstoy himself did not seek to strictly categorize his work by genre. He stated, “This is not a novel. Nor is it an epic, nor is it a historical chronicle,” stating that the work’s form corresponded to what he sought to express. Nevertheless, he sometimes compared his work to Homer’s epics—namely, the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’—implying a kinship with ancient national heroic epics. This reveals that his work shares certain aspects with the epic purpose of depicting the world of the nation.
With the development of the 19th-century historical novel, in which major historical events became the foundation of the plot, the epic shifted from the realm of poetry to that of prose. Tolstoy was a pioneer of this genre innovation and the founder of the grand prose epic. Set against the vast backdrop of a transitional era, the work unfolds as a grand epic spanning Russia and Europe. It illuminates human life—at times with a cosmic perspective, at other times with a microscopic one—and conveys the author’s intended message through the voice of an omniscient narrator. So, what is that message?

What Is History?

As Tolstoy began writing a “book about the past,” he became aware of ignorance and misperceptions regarding the past. He confessed that he discovered not only that the past was unknown but also that what was known had been described in a manner completely opposite to reality. This realization became the starting point for his debate with historians.
Tolstoy’s primary goal in this work was to contrast the fabric of real life—including both individual and communal existence—with the unrealistic landscapes depicted by historians. By comparing actual life with the panoramas conjured by historians, he sought to clearly reveal which was truly reality as it is, and which, though elegantly constructed, was in fact a fictional construct.
He sought to get as close as possible to the historical facts of the early 19th century, the ethical issues of Russian society, and the trends in civic consciousness; throughout the creative process, he sought answers to questions about history—specifically, its fundamental driving forces and the individual’s role in history. To this end, he examined numerous memoirs, records, studies, articles, and letters concerning the War of 1812, and even visited the battlefield at Borodino in person. However, the more sources he examined, the more conflicting assessments he encountered, leading to confusion; ultimately, he decided to reflect his own assessment in the novel rather than rely on the subjective claims of others. The unique form of ‘War and Peace’ is, in a sense, the embodiment of the historical-philosophical answer the author arrived at on his own.

The Contrast Between History and Art

The author of ‘War and Peace’ contrasts the historian with the artist. Tolstoy contrasts the historian, stating, “The historian must sometimes bend the truth and arrange all the actions of historical figures under a single ideal that he has ascribed to a particular individual,” and adds, “The artist, on the contrary…” From his perspective, the artist sees what the historian cannot.
The portrayal of history in the novel emerges through what the author considers the “movement of life.” Tolstoy refutes the historian’s notion that the course of history is determined solely by a few “decisive events”—such as wars or political crises. For example, from a historian’s perspective, the significant events of 1808 might be seen as the meeting between Napoleon and Alexander I in Erfurt or Russia’s political reforms, but the author points out: “Meanwhile, life—the true life of people who had their own important concerns regarding health and illness, work and rest, as well as their own interests in thought, scholarship, poetry, music, love, friendship, jealousy, and passion—was flowing on as usual… outside of any political affinity or hostility toward Napoleon Bonaparte… and independent of such matters.”
Tolstoy, in a manner reminiscent of the Annales School’s focus on microhistory, views each individual’s life as meaningful in its own right. He believes that the overall panorama of life—and what we later call “history”—is formed from countless minute elements: the actions, impulses, and fates of individual human beings.
Furthermore, Tolstoy criticizes historians for distorting the truth by describing “dead” events from a vantage point detached from their own era. He repeatedly highlights the contrast between what actually happened and the official retrospective assessment, and he includes scenes where characters distort reality as they recall their memories. For example, in the episode of the Battle of Schongraben, a soldier who participated in the first battle describes Nikolai Rostov experiencing natural fear, but later, when recounting the battle to his comrades, Nikolai unconsciously embellishes the actual facts. Tolstoy shows how every event passes through subjective perception and solidifies into a standardized framework within that process. Historians, in turn, add their own distortions based on such eyewitness accounts; thus, while claiming to present an objective view, they ultimately produce narratives that border on falsehood.
Historians also attempt to define the causes, beginnings, and ends of historical phenomena, yet each phenomenon has countless causes. Tolstoy believes that because historical phenomena are the result of an infinite chain of preceding causes, it is impossible to fully comprehend the meaning inherent in an event. The conversation between Andrei and Pierre just before the Battle of Borodino is an example of this point projected into the novel. When Pierre compares war to a game of chess, Andrei rejects the analogy, citing the paradox of war, in which various coincidences intervene.
Tolstoy expresses dissatisfaction with historiography that reveals only a hollow chain of unexplained events. He points out that while there are many factors that shape human life, historians often select only a few elements—such as political and economic aspects—and present them as if they were the primary causes driving social change. Since some of the identified causes may in fact be mere coincidences, the very effort to identify causes can sometimes be meaningless. That said, Tolstoy does not claim that “chance” alone drives history. He believes that a chain of causality and the laws of history exist, but he maintains that, due to the limitations of human reason, we are unable to grasp the complexity of primary causes and their extremely minute ultimate units. This is because we lack the capacity to sufficiently observe, hear, remember, and organize the necessary data. Therefore, he states that what contemporary historiography expresses “amounts to no more than 0.001 percent of the elements that constitute the actual history of humanity.”
Furthermore, historians fail to consider that every event is the realization of one possibility among many. While countless alternative outcomes are inherent at every juncture of life, historians deal only with the realized outcomes, thereby unfolding the rich and complex diversity of life into a linear narrative. As a result, the ceaseless flow of reality is presented in a disjointed manner.
As an artist, Tolstoy sought to recognize and reveal what historians—guided by facts, logic, and reason—fail to capture. He strives to capture the flow of life as a whole and the vibrant life that holds the seeds of all alternative possibilities. The disjointed individual episodes gain continuity through the flow of the narrative, while the linearity of the plot is offset by the mosaic-like weaving of diverse episodes. Thus, Tolstoy felt he needed a vast body of artistic material, countless characters, and events; he seems to strive to find a place for everything, as if trying to leave almost nothing out. When the narrator shifts from one plot to another, time does not stop for the events left behind; life within them continues, only to reappear under the narrator’s spotlight.
‘War and Peace’ is a narrative based not only on individual destinies but also on groups, such as the Russian and French armies, the residents of Moscow, and prisoners of war. He depicts the life of the human community within an infinite and eternal world; as a result, the novel takes on characteristics reminiscent of ancient epic poetry. This is precisely why his contemporaries called this work “Russia’s ‘Iliad’ and ‘Odyssey’,” and why it is referred to today as “a novel and an epic.”

There Are No Great Men

In Tolstoy’s view of history, there is no place for “great men” within the flow of life, whose ultimate causes remain unknown. He delights in revealing paradoxes in his work: he believes that soldiers or politicians who climb to the top of the pyramid of power gradually distance themselves from the base—composed of the ordinary people who constitute the true essence of history—and, as a result, their actual influence on history weakens accordingly.
To Tolstoy, “great men” are merely ignorant and vain ordinary people who are willing to shoulder responsibility for social reality. Rather than acknowledging their own insignificance and powerlessness within the flow of life—which proceeds regardless of their will or ideals—they are people who willingly take upon themselves the blame for the cruelty, injustice, and misery justified in their name.
Through scenes from Moscow in 1812, Tolstoy argues that those absorbed in their personal concerns—those who quietly go about their daily lives without heroic sentiment—are the true protagonists of history, and that they are the ones most useful to their homeland and community. Conversely, those who strive to understand the entire course of events and participate in history, or who engage in unbelievable self-sacrifice or heroic acts, are often depicted as the most useless. According to Tolstoy, it is the people who create history.
His metaphor emphasizes that history is a living organism. History is created collectively by everyone, and each individual point, in contact with its neighbors, sets the whole in motion. In Tolstoy’s view, the worst kind of people are the loudmouths who constantly slander one another over matters for which no one can be held responsible.
“Only unconscious actions bear fruit, and an individual who plays a role in a historical event never realizes the significance of that event. If he were to try to understand it, he would be greatly astonished to find that his understanding is woefully inadequate.” The activities of the suicide battery in the episode of the Battle of Schongraben illustrate this idea. Command had forgotten the existence of Tushin’s battery, and Tushin himself had no inkling that his battery was performing a crucial task; yet it was precisely his battery that carried out the most pivotal mission in the Battle of Schongraben.

Tolstoy’s View of History and Critique of Heroes

Any claim that Tolstoy perceived a schematic that fits a “scientific” formula is entirely false. No human being can control, transform, determine, or adjust the course of history. That is why Tolstoy directs severe ridicule and biting irony at those who claim to be official experts on human affairs, particularly Western military theorists.
The reason for his stance is simple: no theory can possibly encompass the vast number of causes and effects—so minute as to be imperceptible—and the immense variety of human actions. To Tolstoy, anyone who pretends to force such infinite possibilities into their “scientific” laws is either a charlatan or a blind leader guiding the blind.
Tolstoy contrasts this sophisticated machinery—which seeks to conceal human helplessness, stupidity, and blindness—with the flow of life as understood by ordinary people and observations of the mundane, trivial realities of daily life. He is wary of popular illusions and abstract laws, focusing instead on the complexity and details of actual life.
As the pinnacle of such delusion, Tolstoy criticizes Napoleon with disgust and derision. Napoleon leads others to believe that he understands and controls events through exceptional intellect or flashes of intuition, and then acts on the basis of that self-assurance. He regards himself as the free architect of history and poses as a figure who redraws the map of Europe and dictates the movements of nations.
However, in ‘War and Peace’, Tolstoy argues that the power-seeking individual is, in fact, the most unfree of all. They live lives on a “stage” under the gaze of the public, endlessly playing the roles the public demands. While Napoleon viewed war as a stage for military operations or a game of chess in which he staked his fate, Tolstoy likens him to a child pulling the reins to drive a carriage, or to a puppet that is cast aside once the performance ends.
Napoleon believes the world moves according to his will, but Tolstoy sees him as merely an individual caught up in the flow of life, just like everyone else. While there must be a source to that flow, humans cannot know it. Tolstoy exposes the belief that an individual can independently understand and control the course of events as a colossal delusion, and argues that those who hold such beliefs ultimately commit grievous errors of judgment.
Tolstoy compares great men to sheep that a shepherd fattens up for slaughter. All the great men in history, including Napoleon and Alexander I, are nothing more than fattened sheep moving toward a transcendent goal. Since no true law has ever been discovered that would reveal the nature of history, it is inappropriate to attribute the causes of events to the actions of individuals. He is outraged by claims that a specific great man or ideology plays a dominant role.
For Tolstoy, it is not the will of a single human being that determines the direction of humanity’s movement. Humans are participants in events unfolding over time, and since every event has countless causes, no single factor can be considered decisive. Collective movement determines everything. Therefore, Napoleon’s claim to be the “conductor” of world history—and his “greatness”—are ridiculous. At the same time, Tolstoy views Napoleon’s aggressive and selfish attitude, as well as his conviction that the world is his plaything, as terrifying.
This exposé of such a “great man” intertwines with the novel’s narrative and the characters’ evolving perspectives. At the beginning of the novel, Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov respect Napoleon as an extraordinary individual. Pierre’s conviction, in particular, ran so deep that he refused to go to war against the greatest man in the world. However, in 1812, Pierre comes to see Napoleon as the Antichrist who has plunged all of Europe into misery and realizes he has no choice but to abandon his former idol.
For Andrei, Napoleon was the embodiment of honor, the very foundation of his spiritual life. He idolized Napoleon as a great commander and yearned to follow in his footsteps to achieve immortal glory. However, the Napoleon Andrei witnessed on the battlefield at Austerlitz was nothing more than a self-satisfied, insignificant, and worthless man.
Tolstoy portrays Kutuzov as the antithesis of the blind and arrogant hero. Although Kutuzov appears to be a sycophantic courtier to a seasoned womanizer, he is depicted as a symbol of the Russian people—possessing human flaws alongside a simple character and intuitive insight. In ‘War and Peace’, Kutuzov is an elderly man who feels deeper concern and despair for his soldiers than he does for victory in war.
He exhibits a lack of military discipline and a directness of action, standing out above all for his human qualities. Kutuzov is a natural person—a “man of life,” not a “man of the stage.” He never assumes the role of a “great historical figure.” The greatness Tolstoy saw in Kutuzov lies in his insight into the inevitable course of events and his refusal to artificially interfere with their natural unfolding.
As Isaiah Berlin put it, the belief that there are ruthless laws governing everything humans think and hope for is the suffocating myth of historical determinism. The attitude that asserts, “History does not create human beings; rather, history creates itself without human aid,” and claims that only the unconscious life of the social beehive and the human anthill constitutes true life and value, appears to Tolstoy as ahistorical and dogmatic ethical skepticism.
Tolstoy maintained an orientation toward seeking universal principles of interpretation while observing history. However, the conflict between his belief that only the characteristics of individual human beings are true and his principle that an analysis of those characteristics alone cannot sufficiently explain the course of history remains unresolved. The tension between the attitude of regarding empirical data as the sole truth and the conviction that certain laws of history exist—this intense contradiction gave rise to ‘War and Peace’.

How to Live

In contrast to the widespread recognition of Tolstoy’s genius as a writer, his philosophy of history was already the subject of fierce criticism and disparagement among his contemporaries. Nevertheless, several of the perspectives Tolstoy emphasized align with the progress of historical scholarship. Namely, history is the flow of collective life, and since the direction of history is determined by the collective’s mental state, historians must pay attention to the broad currents of life and consider chance as an essential attribute of history.
For Tolstoy, the object of his greatest interest in history was the concrete life of human beings. The passage he wrote in his diary—“To write the true history of Europe today is to shed concrete light on the life of a single individual”—clearly reveals his humanistic attitude. For Tolstoy, the study of history was a philosophy of life and was inseparably linked to questions of human ethics.
The fundamental questions he explored were as follows: What should we do? How should we live? Why are we here? What kind of beings should we be? Through history, Tolstoy sought empirical answers to these questions. In ‘War and Peace’, as a thinker and a “teacher of life,” his answers emerge from the contradiction between historical determinism and agnosticism.
The question of ethics presupposes free will. But if everything is subject to the laws of history, how is the problem of freedom resolved? The problem of freedom is central to Tolstoy’s philosophy of history. This is because if history is determined by natural law—a law that humans cannot fully comprehend—one must conclude that humans are not free in their actions.
Nevertheless, according to Tolstoy, human actions are carried out according to free will. Freedom of will is possible precisely because the laws of history are not known to us. “Fortunately,” humans do not perceive the reality of historical laws and live a “life of blissful ignorance.” Human life is neither controlled by reason nor fully comprehended by it. Life is a chaotic flow, and it is precisely that flow that makes humans human.
Tolstoy summarizes this point in the epilogue by stating, “If we think that reason can govern human life, the possibility of life itself will vanish.” His belief that “a human being without freedom is nothing but a human being who has lost life” leads to the perspective that, even if history is predetermined, humans—who are unaware of it—can still live as free beings.
Andrei and Pierre, the two central characters of ‘War and Peace’, are precisely those who stand on the path to finding the meaning and calling of such a life. The fates of these two young nobles—close friends endowed with high culture and outstanding human qualities—form the core of the work. Their spiritual quests unfold in parallel, revealing a yearning to achieve something great in their lives for the sake of their homeland.
However, through these characters, Tolstoy conveys to the reader that the arrogant individual’s efforts and hopes to accomplish some great feat are inherently futile. In particular, he views as hopeless the aspiration to shape history or to single-handedly influence the course of large-scale events. The change in the two characters’ perceptions of Napoleon is ultimately part of their process of gaining insight into life.

Andrei’s Inner Transformation

Andrei, who had joined the army in pursuit of honor and enthusiasm for Napoleon, seeking “his own Toulon,” undergoes an inner transformation on the battlefield of Austerlitz, feeling disillusioned with his ideals as he reassesses Napoleon. Subsequently, he falls into a cynical and pessimistic state, preoccupied solely with his own life and refraining from interfering in the lives of others. His encounter with Natasha serves as a catalyst to bring him back into social life, but during the period when he devoted himself to the national reform movement led by Speransky, he once again experiences disillusionment with the insular world detached from reality. His love for Natasha offered an escape into a world of freedom and the dream of a fulfilling life through domestic happiness, but her betrayal and the breakup of their engagement plunge Andrei into deep anguish. In the midst of the War of 1812, he dies amid an agonizing longing for the restoration of justice; in his final moments, filled with compassion for those who had caused him suffering and unwavering love for Natasha, his true inner self is vividly revealed. However, his life—marked by failure and disillusionment—ultimately leaves behind not just a heart-wrenching tragedy, but a sense of futility. In 1812, Andrei meets his death without even having the chance to join the battle.

Pierre’s Growth and Rebirth

Pierre, who first entered high society as a naive young man vulnerable to the temptations of pleasure, demonstrates a striking personal development throughout the novel, culminating in his immersion in the activities of a secret society. Like Andrei, he dreams of great achievements, but due to his passive and contemplative nature, he is unable to take the passionate action necessary to realize those aspirations. After an unhappy marriage leads him to question the meaning of life itself, Pierre’s life becomes filled with a search for himself and God, as well as attempts to discern his calling. When his efforts on behalf of the peasants yield little result due to his lack of ability and sluggishness, and even his attempt to reform the Freemasons fails, he falls into deep disillusionment. Ironically, it was Napoleon’s invasion that helped him rebuild his inner world as he withdrew into himself, writing in his diary and engaging in self-analysis. Captured as a prisoner after remaining in Moscow, captivated by the naive fantasy of killing Napoleon and saving Russia, Pierre experiences a decisive turning point upon meeting Plato Karataev, a man of humble origins. Having come to appreciate the joy of small pleasures, Pierre eventually marries Natasha, the fiancée of his deceased friend, and builds a happy family life.

The Symbolism of the Common People and Their Role in the Work

In ‘War and Peace’, the common people embody the principles of an ideal life and serve as the source of enlightenment regarding history and life. Among the characters Tolstoy created to express the nature of the common people, Platon Karataev instills in Pierre a conviction in the unshakable foundation of the world. He represents the common people, who accept their given lives with obedience and live as an organic part of nature, finding joy in simplicity. His round, unassuming appearance and inner character are an expression of the moral perfection the author ascribed to the common people. For Tikhon Sherbaty, another representative of the common people’s character, war is something to be endured silently, like daily, arduous labor; such fictional characters of common-people origin imbue the Russian people with universal values such as meek obedience, indomitable patience, and the simple joy of living as part of nature. The juxtaposition of historical figures and commoners leads one to interpret the War of 1812 as a struggle for a common national cause and as an event that demonstrated the power of the common people’s spirit. Tolstoy views the historical turning point depicted in the novel as a test of the nation’s character, and believes that the course of history is determined in a way that reflects the common people’s intuition—namely, that the truths of life and moral legitimacy lie with the people. The moment when the central character, Pierre, comes into contact with the common people is a moment of enlightenment regarding true life, and the depiction of Andrei’s suffering before his death, contrasted with that of Karataev, reveals why the author led him to an early death. Andrei understood and forgave those who had wronged him and shared in the fervor of patriotism, but he was unable to take the final step toward a communal life, and his spiritual pursuits ultimately remained confined to the personal and intellectual spheres.

Natasha’s Centrality and the Dynamics of Love

As the figure who unites the scattered plot and at whose point the fates of the two central characters intersect, Natasha Rostova stands at the heart of the novel’s philosophical and moral issues. Natasha is a character who unconsciously embodies the perception of the common people’s life; through her constant evolution—from a thirteen-year-old girl to a mature woman and a tenacious mother—she embodies life itself and the joy of living. Her world, brimming with a longing for joy and happiness, is one where everything is in the process of becoming, where everything is unfamiliar and fresh. Natasha’s charm and strength stem from the openness of her soul and her capacity to love people, nature, family, and life itself. For her, life is not an object of logical judgment but a realm of impulses, emotions, and desires—an object of unconscious acceptance and irresistible longing. Her betrayal of Andrei also stems, in part, from her yearning for happiness “right now, immediately.” Although that betrayal leads to a mental crisis and progresses to brutal self-punishment, her robust life force allows her to persevere through the period of suffering brought on by repentance and the war. Tolstoy referred to the incident in which Natasha succumbed to Anatol’s seduction and broke off her engagement to Andrei as “the turning point of the entire novel.” This episode illustrates the tragedy brought about by her naivety—her ignorance of the rules of high society and her innocent approach to life—and reveals, through characters such as Hélène, Anatol, and Dolokhov, how evil and artificiality destroy life. At the same time, unlike Hélène’s calculated scheming or Anatol’s calculated physical desire, Natasha’s impulsiveness is irrational, and this irrationality confirms her true nature—one open to the chaos of life. Pierre sees precisely this truth, falls in love with Natasha, and reaches out to her as she falls into the abyss.

Tolstoy’s Philosophy: A Rousseauist View of Human Nature and a Return to Nature

The Tolstoy of ‘War and Peace’ is a writer with Rousseauist leanings. He sympathizes with Rousseau’s assertion that humans are born good and are corrupted by their environment and a decadent civilization, finding an escape from ethical skepticism in the untainted human heart and simple brotherhood. Tolstoy views the attitude of civilization-tainted humans—who approach life calculatively and believe they can rationally control it—as the product of arrogant ignorance. Therefore, he is skeptical of political reform and social engineering, and calls for a “return to nature” by rejecting a civilization tainted by lies, hypocrisy, and vanity. He states that we are merely part of some vast plan far beyond the scope of our understanding, and that our wisdom lies only in the extent to which we are in harmony with that plan. Tolstoy believes that “primordial wisdom”—that is, the wisdom of the natural man—resides in the simple common people, including farmers. Once one begins to recognize the countless web of cause and effect woven into the flow of life, one comes to humbly submit to inevitable fate. Tolstoy depicts that the moment a person realizes their own insignificance and becomes humble—the moment they understand that they are not the rulers of the world but an organic part of it—that is precisely when they grasp the truth of their condition.
Lying on the field of Austerlitz and losing consciousness, Andrei feels a strange sense of peace as he gazes upon the beautiful, peaceful, and infinite sky—a stark contrast to all the ambitions harbored by the figures on the battlefield. This is the moment when the truth of life—that is, the “new light”—is revealed to him. Confronted by the sky’s majestic and eternal peace, he realizes his own insignificance. Herein lies the philosophy of life to which Tolstoy repeatedly returns.
Without deeply reflecting on what it means to be human, people fight over trivial matters, devote their lives to chasing illusions, and kill and wound one another. Only occasionally do moments arrive when truth is faintly grasped, as if in a revelation. Humans, immersed in pretense and vanity, only begin to see life in a different light when confronted with death or the infinite.
For Tolstoy, life and death are always interconnected. When a person views themselves through the eyes of the Other—eternity and death—all their aspirations appear futile and hollow. That is why he says: Humans merely encounter one another, break apart, love, and die moment by moment amid a chaos they cannot fully comprehend. Therefore, do not seek to rule the world; do not try to weigh and control life; do not imprison yourself in pretense and vanity; instead, submit to the flow of life, revealing your true self naturally and living in love.
A life open to a variety of unpredictable possibilities is a matter of faith, not calculation. Be humble and gentle, become a harmonious part of the whole, and love one another. The belief that history stands on the side of truth and goodness rooted in a simple, pure heart permeates this entire work. Thus, ‘War and Peace’ is a novel imbued with the humanistic spirit of goodness and brotherhood.

“War” and “Peace”

“Just as each atom of the sun and the ether is, in itself, a complete sphere, yet at the same time, due to its immense size, is merely an atom of a whole that humans cannot grasp, so too is the purpose that each individual’s self holds within itself, in a sense, also for the purpose of a whole that is unknown to humans.” In the opening of the epilogue, Tolstoy unfolds this reflection on the driving force of history, reiterating the idea that the private destinies of individuals participate in the overall course of history.
The final chapters of the epilogue are filled with a premonition of the new historical upheaval that will arise from the convergence of these private destinies. Tolstoy depicts Pierre, now the head of a household, once again devoting himself to a “great” cause, while introducing new conflicts that could destroy his family. Pierre’s secret society activities in pursuit of his vision for national reform clearly allude to the Decembrist movement. The Pierre of the epilogue recalls his days of Freemason reform activities and Andrei’s constitutional activism, but this time, a strong foreboding looms that the outcome will be far more devastating than before.
Readers familiar with history sense that a great trial is soon to befall Pierre’s happy family and that, personally, Pierre himself is likely to face ruin. However, Tolstoy does not definitively state any of this. While he does not explicitly state that Pierre will join the ranks of the Decembrist uprising alongside Andrei’s son, Nikolenka, in 1825, he casts a deep shadow of foreboding over their fate. The novel concludes with peaceful conversations between the two families gathered at the Volkonsky estate, leaving what is known as an open ending. What did the author intend to convey with this open ending?
It is impossible to gauge the author’s stance based solely on the argument between Pierre and Nikolai that takes place during the family conversation. Tolstoy does not seek to clearly establish which character is right or wrong. His purpose is to outline the contours of a new social conflict—one that, though its time has not yet come, will plunge the private lives of many people into turmoil and catastrophe. The seeds of future division and war take root in Pierre’s yearning to actively reengage in social life—a yearning born of his anguish over the imperfections of Russian society—and in the soul of the bright young boy, Nikolka.
Yet at the same time, the author shows that the seeds of future peace, harmony, and love are also growing within the souls of these children. Tolstoy’s literary stance is to present, simultaneously, the possibility of conflict and catastrophe on the one hand, and the possibility of reconciliation and love on the other.
One of the titles Tolstoy had initially considered for the novel, which he serialized in a magazine, was “All’s Well That Ends Well.” However, upon signing a contract for the book’s publication, he abandoned that title and chose “War and Peace.” The two titles present different perspectives. While “All’s Well That Ends Well” conveys a sense of resolution that emphasizes a happy ending, “War and Peace” is a title intended to illustrate the two axes of history’s ceaseless movement and the continuity of life.
For Tolstoy, “war” does not simply mean a clash between armies. It is the generalization of hostility, signifying not only the battlefield but also the discord among people in peaceful life and everything that destroys the peace of the soul. Conversely, “Peace” signifies harmony with oneself, harmony among people through social equality, and unity through brotherhood and family love. By placing these two words side by side, Tolstoy conveys a fundamental understanding of the essence of human existence.
Throughout the novel, Tolstoy explores the fundamental contradictions of human existence. Like Dostoevsky, he passes artistic judgment on the destructive and hostile principles within human nature, while revealing the spirit of reconciliation and peace through characters who find the path to renewal by overcoming their painful mistakes. Natasha’s transformation and recovery exemplify precisely this spirit of peace and reconciliation, and the author’s vision of true life—along with his aspiration for a peaceful community of love—is clearly revealed in her hopes and prayers.
“War and Peace” also asserts that war and peace are the ceaseless flow of life—that is, the very essence of history. Instead of a temporary conclusion implied by a title like “All’s Well That Ends Well,” Tolstoy chose a title that reflects the continuous interplay between the two poles of war and peace. He observed that death cannot completely halt life, nor can evil halt good, nor can war halt peace; he presented the belief that beauty, goodness, and truth form the foundation of life, while evil is secondary and distorted. It is the conviction that life moves in the direction of resolving its own contradictions and restoring harmony.