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 noble families staged an uprising in Russia with the aim of overthrowing the autocratic 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, which excluded the common people, Russia left the era of reform behind and entered a period of utter darkness under the reign (1825–1855) of Nicholas I (1796–1855), the younger brother of Alexander I who ascended the throne.
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 by divine providence to save the world from the terrors of atheism, liberalism, and revolution; he not only carried out ruthless suppression of internal enemies but 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 acutely aware of the nation’s backward state 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, clearly signaled 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 Concept 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 illuminate 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 protagonist, Pyotr Lavazov—who returns from exile in 1856 and goes home with his wife and two children—was Prince Sergei Volkonsky (1788–1865). A distant relative on Tolstoy’s mother’s side, Sergei Volkonsky was the most famous of the Decembrists sentenced to exile in Siberia. A close confidant of Alexander I and a war hero who defeated Napoleon, he rejected Nicholas I’s attempts to win him over after the Decembrist Uprising, renounced his privileges and property, and departed for Siberia. There, he shared the hardships of the peasants, dedicating his youth to their cause and earning respect as the “Peasant Prince.” 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 the revolutionary’s path of suffering.
Tolstoy sought to view Russian society, 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 success 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 initially focused on the Decembrist Revolution of 1825, but finding no answers to his questions about the characters there, he 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 “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, while the Decembrist Revolution of 1825 was the result of the aristocratic intelligentsia—awakened by 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 state of the army’s morale?’ I replied: ‘Your Majesty! From the commanders down to every individual soldier, all are prepared to give their lives to defend the Fatherland and Your Majesty.’ He asked again: ‘What is the state of the people’s morale?’ 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 said to him, ‘Your Majesty! I am ashamed to be a nobleman. They talk a lot, but they do nothing.’ 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.”
The shame felt by this awakened nobleman toward his own class was the starting point of the 19th-century social reform movement. 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 enjoying the fruits of the Enlightenment and the oppressed masses. The nobility, who had long disregarded the roots of their national culture, discovered the common people through the War of 1812, and subsequently, the aristocratic intelligentsia became painfully aware of their parasitic privileges and hypocrisy. The nobility’s repentance for their historical sins and the 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 depict the protagonist’s entire life, he expanded his scope to even earlier periods. Realizing that “it would be shameful to write about our victories in the war against Bonaparte’s France without describing our failures and humiliations,” he broadened his historical perspective 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 honeymoon period 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 unfinished novel about the Decembrists that he had originally intended to write. In line with this grand vision, Tolstoy settled on the provisional title ‘Three Periods’ and began writing. Structured as a trilogy corresponding to these three periods, the work aimed to cover three distinct eras of Russian history. Part One was to depict the early 19th century—specifically the period of 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 recreate major historical events of the 1850s, such as the Crimean War, the death of Nicholas I, and the return of the pardoned Decembrists, to depict the landscape of an era in which the long-awaited changes were finally arriving in Russian politics.

Background and Writing Process

Such a grand vision, requiring the depiction of a vast 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 temporal scope and focus on the early period. Thus, he covered the history spanning approximately 15 years, from 1805 to 1820, placing particular emphasis on the national and historical-philosophical significance of the War of 1812 as 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 of the manuscript.
Bearing the weight of his immense responsibility toward the work and the pressure of its grave subject matter, 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 digressions 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 unfold intertwined 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 into Volume I (1805), Volume II (1806–1811), Volume III (1812), Volume IV (1812–1813), and the Epilogue (1820). True to its title, the work 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 details the customs of Russian high society and the evolution of family histories. These two parts are closely intertwined, bringing to the forefront the characters’ fates and the spiritual transformation and maturation of the main characters.
“War and Peace” can be divided not only into sections of war and peace but also into “fictional” chapters and “philosophical” chapters. It can be argued that removing either of these would cause the work to disintegrate. During the editing of the manuscript, Tolstoy faced criticism regarding the philosophical sections, leading him to delete and later restore those passages. One of his major innovations was the integration of fictional narrative with historical and philosophical discourse.
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 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, he essentially employs verbose digressions—as an artist—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 most subtle intellectual and emotional movements, delving into human psychology with delicacy and sharpness. 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 no less vividly than 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 he holds dear, thereby exposing their weaknesses.
This work transcends 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 ethical problems of life, and, at the same time, a family chronicle depicting the transformation of the family community. The outstanding analysis of the flow of human psychology and the inner world also allows the work 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 into a specific 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 aligns with what the author 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, major historical events became the foundation of the plot, and 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—sometimes through a cosmic lens, sometimes through 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 misconceptions regarding the past. He confessed that he discovered not only that the past was unknown, but also that what was known was 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—encompassing 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 side truly reflected reality 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, and during the creative process, he sought answers to questions about history—specifically, the fundamental driving forces of history and the individual’s role within it. To this end, he explored numerous memoirs, records, studies, articles, and letters regarding the War of 1812, and even visited the battlefield at Borodino in person. However, the more he researched, the more conflicting assessments he encountered, leading to confusion; ultimately, he decided to reflect his own evaluation 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 himself.

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 placed within a specific individual,” and adds, “The artist, on the contrary…” From his perspective, the artist sees what the historian cannot reach.
The image of history depicted 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 merely the result of a few “decisive events”—such as wars or political crises. For example, from a historian’s perspective, the significant events of 1808 might appear to be the meeting between Napoleon and Alexander I at Erfurt or Russia’s political reforms, but the author points out:
“Meanwhile, life—the real lives of people who had their own important concerns regarding health and illness, labor and rest, and 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 things.”
Tolstoy, reminiscent of the Annales School’s focus on microhistory, views each individual life as meaningful. He believes that the overall panorama of life—and what we later call “history”—is formed from countless minute elements: the actions, impulses, and destinies 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 assessments made afterward, 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 presents Nikolai Rostov as experiencing natural fear, but later, when Nikolai recounts the battle to his comrades, he unconsciously embellishes the actual facts. Tolstoy demonstrates 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 picture, 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 since historical phenomena are the result of an infinite chain of preceding causes, it is impossible to fully grasp the meaning of 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 chess, Andrei rejects the analogy, citing the paradox of war where various contingencies intervene.
Tolstoy expresses dissatisfaction with historiography that reveals only a hollow chain of unexplained events. He points out that while the factors defining human life are diverse, historians 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 views that, due to the limitations of human reason, we are unable to grasp the complexity of primary causes and the 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 do not consider the fact that every event is the realization of one possibility among many. While countless alternative outcomes are inherent in every moment of life, historians deal only with the realized outcome, laying out the rich and complex diversity of life as 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. Disconnected 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, and 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 until they 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, and 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 ordinary people who constitute the true essence of history—and that their actual influence on history weakens accordingly.
To Tolstoy, a “great man” is merely an ignorant and vain ordinary person 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 the scenes of 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 the homeland and the community. Conversely, those who strive to understand the overall course of events and participate in history, or who engage in unbelievable self-sacrifice or heroic acts, are often portrayed 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 by everyone together, and each individual point, in contact with its neighbors, moves the whole. 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 mortar battery in the Battle of Schongraben episode illustrate this idea. Command had forgotten the existence of Tushin’s battery, and Tushin himself had no inkling that his unit was performing a crucial task; yet it was precisely his battery that carried out the most pivotal mission of the Battle of Schongraben.

Tolstoy’s View of History and Critique of Heroes

To Tolstoy, any claim that one can perceive a scheme that fits a “scientific” formula is entirely false. No human being can control, transform, determine, or adjust history. Therefore, Tolstoy directs severe mockery 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—or the immense variety of human actions. To Tolstoy, anyone who pretends to force these infinite possibilities into their own “scientific” laws is nothing more than a charlatan or a blind leader guiding the blind.
Tolstoy contrasts this elaborate 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 contempt and ridicule. 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 arbiter of history and acts 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-hungry 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 desires. 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 a puppet that is cast aside onto the floor 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 believe such claims ultimately commit grave errors of judgment.
Tolstoy likens great men to sheep fattened by a shepherd for slaughter. All historical figures, including Napoleon and Alexander I, are merely fattened sheep moving within a transcendent purpose. Since no true law has ever been discovered that reveals the true 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 within time, and since every event has countless causes, no single factor can be called decisive. Collective movements determine 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, and his conviction that the world is his plaything, as terrifying.
This exposure of the great man is intertwined with the novel’s narrative and the characters’ evolving perceptions. At the beginning of the work, Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov respect Napoleon as an extraordinary individual. Pierre’s conviction is particularly deep, to the point where he refused to fight 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.
To Andrei, Napoleon was the embodiment of honor, the very foundation of his spiritual life. He worshipped Napoleon as a great commander and yearned to follow him to achieve immortal glory. But the Napoleon Andrei saw on the battlefield of Austerlitz was nothing more than a petty, worthless man lost in self-satisfaction.
Tolstoy portrays Kutuzov as the antithesis of the blind and arrogant hero. Though Kutuzov appears to be a sycophant to a lecherous old man, he is depicted as a symbol of the Russian people, possessing both human flaws and a simple character coupled with intuitive insight. In ‘War and Peace’, Kutuzov is an old man who feels the worry and despair for his soldiers more deeply than the victory of war.
He displays an unmilitary laziness and directness of action, emerging above all as a deeply human figure. Kutuzov is a natural man, a “man of life” rather than a “man of the stage.” He never assumes the role of a “great historical activist.” 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 noted, the belief in a ruthless law that dictates everything humans think and hope for is the suffocating myth of historical determinism. The attitude that asserts, “History does not create man; history creates itself without man’s help,” 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 principles of universal 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 flow 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 birth 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 during his own lifetime. Nevertheless, several perspectives emphasized by Tolstoy align with the progress of historical scholarship. Namely, history is the flow of collective life, and since the collective’s mental state determines the course of history, historians must focus on 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 and humans cannot fully comprehend those laws, we 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. 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 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 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 destinies 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 essentially futile. In particular, he views as hopeless the desire to create 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 the process through which they gain insight into life.

Andrei’s Inner Transformation

Andrei, who had joined the army in pursuit of glory and to find “his own Toulon” while enthusiastic about Napoleon, undergoes an inner transformation at the Battle of Austerlitz, feeling disillusioned with his ideals as he reevaluates Napoleon. Subsequently, he falls into a cynical and pessimistic state, focusing solely on 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 his period of dedication 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 to a free world and the dream of a fulfilling life through domestic happiness, but her betrayal and the breakup of their engagement plunge Andrei into deep anguish. Amid the War of 1812, he dies in the throes of a painful longing for the restoration of justice; in his final moments, filled with compassion for those who caused him suffering and an unwavering love for Natasha, his inner self is revealed in all its brightness. Yet his life, marked by failure and disillusionment, ultimately leaves behind a sense of futility that transcends even the most heart-wrenching tragedy. In 1812, Andrei meets his death without even having the chance to join the battle.

Pierre’s Growth and Resurrection

Pierre, who first entered high society as a naive young man susceptible to the temptations of pleasure, demonstrates an impressive personal development throughout the novel, culminating in his immersion in secret society activities. Like Andrei, he dreams of great achievements, but due to his passive and contemplative nature, he fails to take the passionate action necessary to realize those aspirations. After an unhappy marriage leaves him feeling cynical about life as a whole, Pierre’s life becomes filled with an exploration of 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 while he was immersed in introspection and writing his diary. Captured as a prisoner after remaining in Moscow, captivated by the naive fantasy of killing Napoleon and saving Russia, Pierre undergoes a decisive transformation upon meeting Platon 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 foundations 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 of the common people as envisioned by the author. For Tikhon Sherbaty, another spokesperson for the character of the common people, war is something to be endured silently, like daily, arduous labor. These fictional characters of peasant origin imbue the Russian people with universal meanings such as meek obedience, indomitable endurance, 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 in the novel as a test of the nation’s character, and believes that the course of history is determined by the way the people’s hearts perceive that the truth of life and moral legitimacy lie with them. The moment when the central character, Pierre, comes into contact with the people is a moment of enlightenment regarding true life, and the depiction of Andrei’s suffering before his death, through its contrast with 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 failed to take the final step toward 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 center of the novel’s philosophical and moral issues. Natasha is a character who unconsciously embodies the perception of popular life; through her constant movement—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 unbearable longing. Her betrayal of Andrei also stems in part from a longing for happiness “here and now.” Though this betrayal leads to a spiritual crisis and progresses to brutal self-punishment, her robust life force allows her to endure through the trials of repentance and the hardships brought by war. Tolstoy called the incident in which Natasha succumbed to Anatol’s seduction and broke off her engagement to Andrei “the turning point of the entire novel.” This episode reveals the tragedy brought about by her naivety in approaching life without understanding the rules of high society, and through characters such as Hélène, Anatol, and Dolokhov, it exposes how evil and artificiality destroy life.
At the same time, unlike Hélène’s calculated scheming or Anatoly’s calculated physical desire, Natasha’s impulse is irrational, and this irrationality confirms her true nature, which is 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 Humanity 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 that it is the environment and corrupt civilization that ruin them, finding an escape from ethical skepticism in the untainted human heart and simple brotherhood. Tolstoy views the attitude of civilized 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,” rejecting a civilization tainted by falsehood, hypocrisy, and vanity. He says that we are merely part of some vast plan far broader than we can comprehend, and that we possess wisdom only to the extent that we harmonize with that design. Tolstoy believes that “primordial wisdom”—the wisdom of the natural man—resides in the simple people, including the peasants. Once one begins to recognize the countless web of cause and effect woven into the flow of life, one humbly submits 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 masters of the world but an organic part of it—it is precisely then that 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 sight that stands in stark contrast to all the ambitions harbored by the figures on the battlefield. This is the moment when the truth of life, or the “new light,” is revealed to him. Confronted by the sky’s great and eternal peace, he realizes his own insignificance. Herein lies the philosophy of life to which Tolstoy repeatedly returns.
People fight over worthless things, devote their lives to chasing illusions, and kill and wound one another without ever deeply reflecting on the fact that they are human. Only occasionally do moments arrive when truth is faintly grasped, like a revelation. Humans, steeped in pretense and vanity, only begin to see life in a different light when they face death or the infinite.
For Tolstoy, life and death are always connected. When a person views himself through the eyes of the Other—eternity and death—all his aspirations appear futile and empty. That is why he says: Humans merely encounter one another, shatter, love, and die amidst a chaos where the whole cannot be known from moment to moment. Therefore, do not seek to rule the world; do not attempt to weigh and control life; do not imprison yourself in pretense and vanity; instead, submit to the flow of life, revealing yourself naturally and living in love.
A life open to 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 goodwill rooted in a simple 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 a complete sphere in itself, yet at the same time is merely an atom of a whole so vast that it is beyond human comprehension, so too is the purpose that each individual possesses within themselves, in a sense, for the sake of a greater purpose of the whole that is unknown to humanity.” In the opening of the epilogue, Tolstoy unfolds this reflection on the driving force of history, repeatedly emphasizing 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, devoting himself once again to a “great” undertaking, while introducing a new conflict that could destroy his family. The secret society activities Pierre engages in to advance 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 heavy foreboding looms that the outcome will be far more devastating than before.
Readers familiar with history sense that a great trial is about to befall Pierre’s happy family, and that personally, Pierre himself is likely to face ruin. However, Tolstoy does not state any of this definitively. While he does not explicitly state that Pierre will join the ranks of the Decembrist uprising alongside Andrei’s son, Nikolay, 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 debate between Pierre and Nikolai that unfolds during the family conversation. Tolstoy does not seek to clearly reveal 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 into turmoil and catastrophe. Amid Pierre’s anguish over the imperfections of Russian society and his yearning to actively reengage with social life, and within the soul of the bright child Nikolka, the seeds of future division and war take root.
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 considered for the novel while serializing it in a magazine was “All’s Well That Ends Well.” However, upon signing a contract for its publication as a book, he abandoned that title and chose “War and Peace.” The two titles present different perspectives. If “All’s Well That Ends Well” conveys a sense of pause that emphasizes a happy ending, “War and Peace” is a title intended to show 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 a 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 captures a core 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, and through characters who overcome painful mistakes to find the path to renewal, he reveals the spirit of reconciliation and peace. Natasha’s transformation and recovery exemplify precisely this spirit of peace and reconciliation, and the author’s vision of true life and his aspiration for a peaceful community of love are clearly revealed in her hopes and prayers.
“War and Peace” also asserts that war and peace are the ceaseless flow of life—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 movement of these two axes: 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 a conviction that life moves toward reconciling its own contradictions and restoring harmony.