Military Review

Hungary through the ages. From salami and Tokay to the hydrogen bomb and the Rubik's cube. Part of 2

65
Tortured by the enemy, in captivity,
Our eternal brother slept with sleep.

Rejoices foe, seeing in the field
Only a series of timeless graves.

But the cause of valor is harsh
With a fighter dead will not die
And the new knight with the power of the new
In place of the singer will come.
(“The grave of a fighter”. Sandor Petofi)


In 1848 – 1849, under the impression of the revolutionary events in European countries in Hungary, a bourgeois revolution and a national liberation war also began. After all, what was the Austrian Empire at that time? A united state, consisting of many lands and peoples, that wanted independence above all. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the revolution in Hungary won very quickly and spread throughout the country. Democratic reforms were carried out, the first national Hungarian government headed by Lajos Battyany was formed, and in March 1848, the personal dependence of the peasants and all feudal duties with ransom at the expense of the state were eliminated, a general Hungarian parliament was also created. Emperor Ferdinand I was forced to admit all these decisions of the Hungarian government. Then the National Assembly of Hungary decided to create its own army and at the same time refused the Austrian emperor to provide Hungarian troops for the war in Italy. It is clear that all these actions were considered in Vienna, where street battles between revolutionaries and government forces had just ended, as a real disaster, in the fight against which all means were good. First they attacked the Hungarians of the Croats, who wished to secede from Hungary, after which the Croatian troops launched an offensive against Pest from the south. A call for help was sent to the royal government in Russia. And the reaction of Emperor Nicholas followed immediately. Frightened by revolutionary actions throughout Europe, he sent Russian troops to suppress the Hungarian revolution. It did not reach him that it’s better to have as neighbors many small independent and, we add, in any case weak, states than one big, even if a “patchwork” empire. Peter I was much more far-sighted in this regard when he entered into a secret agreement on assistance with Ferenc Rakoczy, the leader of the rebel Kurucians. True, because of the invasion of Charles XII, he did not render this assistance to him, but if he hadn’t happened then the Hungarians would have had every chance to win and then later no Austro-Hungarian party would simply exist, and therefore wouldn’t Russia on its western borders and the enemy №2, since the first after its unification "iron and blood" immediately became Germany.

Hungary through the ages. From salami and Tokay to the hydrogen bomb and the Rubik's cube. Part of 2

Opening of the Hungarian parliament in 1848. Painting by August von Pettenkofen (1822 – 1889).

But being the emperor himself, Nicholas was condescending towards “people of a kind and tribe” and could not allow the overthrow of the monarchy in Hungary. Moreover, her example could seem contagious to the Poles, which he also didn’t want. The very idea of ​​Poland’s independence would probably have seemed heretical, although if he had done this, the Poles would have blessed him for centuries. In a similar way would apply to Russia and Hungary, it was enough for Nicholas only to “wash his hands” diplomatically. But the role of "gendarme of Europe" was more to his liking. Therefore, on May 21, the Austrian empire hurried to sign the Warsaw Pact with Russia (Nikolay I personally arrived in Warsaw for a meeting with the Emperor Franz Joseph), and the Austrians had to supply the 100-thousandth Russian army with transportation, food and ammunition, and if for some reason it would be impossible, to compensate all expenses incurred by Russia with money. Soon the troops of the Russian imperial army under the command of Field Marshal Paskevich invaded Hungary. Its attack from the east was supported by the new attack of the Austrians from the west. As a result, the Hungarian troops everywhere were defeated.


Field Marshal Count Ivan Paskevich, Prince of Warsaw. Unknown author.

It is interesting, however, that the imperial troops met the Slavic population of the “patchwork empire” with enthusiasm. "It was rumored that the Russian army moved on the Hungarians, and no one doubted anymore that they had come to an end ... They told me what these Russian are big, strong and terrible, and that they do not need guns, and they go to the assault with huge multi-core whips, and whom they will get, he will not rise. ”


Map of hostilities.

23 June was the first successful battle for the Russian army with the five-thousandth detachment of General Vysotsky near the town of Shamosh. A participant in this campaign, someone Likhutin, wrote about this event in the following way: “Our troops, who had overtaken the enemy for the first time, clung to it with bitterness; Immediately melee fight ensued. From the units that followed behind, which probably became already at the camps, the Cossacks and those who could have jumped forward alone and rushed into battle. They said that in single battles opponents, having broken weapon, they were torturing each other with their hands and teeth ... Although the matter was small, his impression on the Hungarians, apparently, was very strong. I myself happened to hear in Kashau the day after the Samos affair the Magyars; “What are you fighting with us with such ferocity? What have we done to you?” ”Then, to seize the bridge over the Tissu, Paskevich moved the 4 body to the Tokai wine-making center.


Death of Petoff. Laszlo Hegedyush 1850. In the years of the revolution 1848 -1849. famous poet Shandor Petofi wrote songs that raised the morale of the Hungarian soldiers. Finally, he personally went to the army and died in battle. The exact circumstances of the death of the poet and the national hero of the Hungarian people are still unknown. According to common opinion, Petefi died in a skirmish with the Cossacks of the royal army of Paskevich in the Battle of Shegeswar in Transylvania 31 in July 1849, but it is based on the diary entry of only one Russian field doctor. No other data. It is believed that he was buried in a mass grave, but in what is unknown.

Russian cavalry broke into the city and, one might say, swept through it, but then it was under fire by enemy artillery located on the opposite bank of the river, and with losses had to retreat. And then a few shots came from private houses. Again, Likhutin tells about what happened next as follows: “At the first shots from the windows, the soldiers, of course, rushed to the houses from which they shot, broke down doors and gates, scattered small barricades arranged in the hallway and the gate, and burst inside the houses. Some residents, including one woman, were captured with guns still smoking from shots, they all died; the massacre was swift and strangled the people's war, if it was possible, at the very beginning ... ”


By order of Nicholas I of 22 January 1850, in memory of participation in the suppression of the Hungarian uprising, all combatants were awarded a medal minted from silver with a diameter of 29 mm. The participants included generals, officers, soldiers, as well as regimental priests, doctors and medical officials and employees. A total of 213 593 medals were minted. Presented to 212 330. Obverse medals.


Her reverse.

Interestingly, the same Likhutin does not cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Russian popular war 1812 of the year, but he writes about the inadmissibility of the same war by the Hungarians as something completely taken for granted. However, this murder of civilians, caught in arms, had a reverse medal, about which this memoirist also wrote. According to him, the lesson went to the future, so throughout the subsequent 1849 campaign of the year: “Our people drove along the roads one by one, on horseback or in carriages and carts, like at home. However, during the whole continuation of the war, no incident or misfortune happened to a single officer; the people everywhere remained calm and even single people were received calmly and hospitably. Accidents happened only with the lower ranks, who were always drunk. ”


“Gyurgey's capitulation” by Istvan Skizzak-Klinovsky, 1850 (1820 –1880)

But the disputes with the Vienna Court in respect of compensation for expenses incurred by Russia then continued for quite some time. It got to the point that Paskevich wrote the following about the Austrians about the Austrians: “In gratitude for their salvation, they are capable of much.” Prince Schwarzenberg put it even more precisely, stating that "Austria will still surprise the world with its ingratitude." And in the end, because it happened. The position taken by Austria during the Eastern War 1853 - 1856 was frankly hostile to Russia, and in the same way the Austro-Hungarian monarchy behaved in subsequent years, right up to the very beginning of the First World War.


In addition to the award medal, the generals and senior staff officers were also awarded a commemorative table medal with a diameter of 70 of silver and a glass of a glass of a glass of a glass of a glass of a glass box and a glass of a glass of a glass of a glass box and a tem of an opt, and an inscription on the obverse: “RUSSIAN POW-TO-HIGH-END-OF-A-WAY HAS BEEN IMPOSSIBLE AND WRITTENED year. " The authors of the medal are Fedor Tolstoy and Alexander Lyalin. Obverse medals.


Her reverse.

The losses of the Russian army during the participation in the Hungarian campaign amounted to 708 killed, 2447 injured, while 10 885 soldiers and officers died from cholera. The cost of the war amounted to about 47,5 million rubles, which Russia demanded to be reimbursed from Austria. The losses of the Austrian army were more significant as the Austrians conducted more active military operations. 16600 was killed and wounded, and 41 one thousand died of disease. The losses of the Hungarian rebels amounted to thousands of people 24.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Hungary through the ages. From salami and Tokay to the hydrogen bomb and the Rubik's cube. Part of 1
65 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Olgovich
    Olgovich 10 August 2018 06: 42
    +3
    . Prince Schwarzenberg put it even more precisely, saying that "Austria will still surprise the world with its ingratitude." And in the end, it turned out that way. The position taken by Austria during the period of the Eastern War of 1853 - 1856 was openly hostile to Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy behaved in the same way in the following years, right up to the start of the First World War.

    And who said that independent Hungary would be more grateful? request
    She became independent in 1919, but did it make her peaceful and non-aggressive? No, in no way: in the Second World War the USSR had a more terrible and consistent enemy after Germany than Hungary.
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 10 August 2018 07: 05
      +10
      Maybe because it didn’t happen, they have been accumulating anger for 100 years.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 10 August 2018 08: 38
        +1
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Maybe because it didn’t happen, they have been accumulating anger for 100 years.

        Some kind of strange "malice": recourse Austria strangled and destroyed Hungary CENTURIES, but no, no malice, on the contrary - friendship, understanding, joint wars in complete fraternity with the "oppressors" in both CFs.
        By the way, Russia only helped to restore order, the Austrians brought it in.
        1. alatanas
          alatanas 10 August 2018 10: 55
          +3
          But, in the end, there was the AUSTRIAN-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE. Because the Hungarians love the Austrians, and the Czechs do not like the Hungarians (reference - Schweik).
          If there was a Russian-Polish empire instead of RI, then the Poles would have loved the Russians more.
          1. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 10 August 2018 11: 44
            +3
            The Poles can hardly stand each other. laughing
          2. Gopnik
            Gopnik 10 August 2018 16: 15
            +2
            So it was, in fact, until 1831. When the Kingdom of Poland and Russia were united only by the figure of a common ruler - the All-Russian Emperor and the King of Poland. As a result, the Poles of the king of the Romanovs were declared deposed and started a war with Russia, putting forward territorial claims.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Cat
          Cat 10 August 2018 08: 46
          +3
          At least by the fact that today being "in one place - the opposite of the heads" do not spit in our backs!
          By the way, the Serbs at the beginning of the last century even declared war on Japan, and after the defeat in it, Russia forgot not to leave. Remember this after almost a century!
          By the way, is Russia to stumble, they will peck us all !!!
          1. Cat
            Cat 10 August 2018 11: 41
            +2
            I wonder for what sins deleted my comment?
            For quoting Finnish professors or for the love of the latter to use the word "z"!
            1. rkkasa xnumx
              rkkasa xnumx 10 August 2018 15: 56
              +2
              Quote: Kotischa
              I wonder for what sins deleted my comment?

              Mine was also deleted. Although there were no words in the "z" there.
              1. Cat
                Cat 10 August 2018 20: 15
                +1
                Alexei! To be honest, I don’t remember anything seditious in your comment ....
                Probably you should have, instead of responding to my post, shout ata-ata Kota atu !!!?
                hi
                1. The comment was deleted.
          2. rkkasa xnumx
            rkkasa xnumx 10 August 2018 15: 54
            +2
            Quote: Kotischa
            At least by the fact that today being "in one place - the opposite of the heads" do not spit in our backs!

            What do not spit in the back now, this is certainly commendable, but you cannot erase words from the song - when after WWII some people had the illusion that eternal peace had come, the "brothers" behaved very proudly and independently towards the USSR.
      2. Curious
        Curious 10 August 2018 08: 52
        +11
        The problem is that in matters of international politics it is impossible to operate with categories of everyday (philistine). Especially bad for foreign policy, if politicians themselves suffer from this approach.
        Events with Hungary are a good example.
        The sending of Russian troops to suppress the Hungarian uprising of 1848-1949, seemingly aimed at maintaining the inviolability of the European monarchies, eventually led to the Crimean War of 1853-1856, in which Russia was forced to fight alone with the largest powers in Europe.
        This is the result of almost forty years of activity as Foreign Minister Nesselrode, an ardent opponent of any revolutionary changes and Metternich’s close friend.
        The basis of the international politics of any state is pragmatism and a clear understanding of the goals and possibilities of achieving them, both internal and external. Everything else - friendship, love, deceit - in favor of the poor. Weak, stupid, lazy eat up mercilessly stronger neighbors.
        There has not been another yet.
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 10 August 2018 10: 25
          +5
          Quote: Curious
          The problem is that in matters of international politics it is impossible to operate with categories of everyday (philistine). Especially bad for foreign policy, if politicians themselves suffer from this approach.

          "Nothing personal just business" smile
          Such an approach can provide with a guarantee only collective management. When swan cancer and pike, as well as a herd of ants joining them, led by their "philistine" aspirations and "selfish" interests, the government, in this case, will draw the government in different directions, the resultant state mercantilism, The clearest example is the policy of the British Empire. Under an absolute monarchy, the personality of the ruler will still show himself, forcing him to make unobvious and paradoxical (at best) decisions.
          Quote: Curious
          The basis of the international policy of any state is pragmatism and a clear understanding of the goals and the possibilities of achieving them, both internal and external.

          I would add that in foreign policy, apart from understanding your own goals, you must also clearly understand the goals of the partners, and this is much more difficult. Ideally, to clearly understand one’s own interests, to correctly represent the interests of others, and if one also succeeds in misleading others as regards one’s own interests, then this is already aerobatics. smile
          Unfortunately, Nicholas I did not possess such skills, was impulsive and short-sighted, which, if he had absolute power, led the country to a catastrophe in the Crimean War.
          1. Curious
            Curious 10 August 2018 12: 56
            +4
            “the resultant will always be directed towards state mercantilism, to which the policy of the British Empire is the clearest example” ...France and Russia.
            In general, mercantilism is the economic doctrine of the state. Foreign policy is, on the one hand, an instrument for servicing the economy, and on the other, economics is the basis for a corresponding foreign policy.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 10 August 2018 18: 33
              +2
              Quote: Curious
              In general, mercantilism is the economic doctrine of the state.

              Ideally.
              In the case of an absolute monarchy, when the main levers of government policy are in the hands of one person, his personal preferences will inevitably affect his decisions. There are examples in history when a ruler acted on his own personal will against the interests of the class he represented. Almost always it ended in tragedy - well, if only his personal.
              1. Curious
                Curious 10 August 2018 21: 09
                +2
                In the same British Empire, mercantelism flourished just after the limitation of absolutism.
      3. Roni
        Roni 10 August 2018 09: 05
        +2
        "And eat this
        Didn’t blink even once
        And behind the tails of horses
        He watched in both eyes!

        The tailed one met the signal,
        He instantly without respite
        He chewed on both cheeks
        Mare’s surplus. "
  2. rkkasa xnumx
    rkkasa xnumx 10 August 2018 07: 13
    +4
    We often like to balabolite that Russia has always been extremely fair and highly spiritual, not like some impudent Saxons. And they completely forget about our trips to Hungary, or China.
    1. Cat
      Cat 10 August 2018 09: 36
      +7
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      We often like to balabolite that Russia has always been extremely fair and highly spiritual, not like some impudent Saxons. And they completely forget about our trips to Hungary, or China.

      But how many of ours know about the campaigns of Hungarians and Chinese to us?
      I have already cited examples from the views of the Finnish professor Teloki. So he bluntly said, “if you took advantage of the moment when the lion tore the bear, and occupied the kitchen in the bungalow in bear lands, this does not mean that the mouse will be delighted to see you after the hospitalus. ......... The Finnish government made the mistake of not giving away the “alien” (talking about Vyborg) right away. It made an even bigger mistake when it decided to kick the mouse when a flock of "ulfs" - wolves - attacked it. I think the “mouse” was not even surprised when the “ulfs” turned into a “lapdog” and by the 44th they already had a “very high jump-jump at the mouse’s ass”. ...... Marenheim was not bad when he remembered what a neighbor from the east was like. He jumped higher than others, whined louder than others and landed the mouse better than others. So we were even left with capitalism, not communism! ...... But the Romanians didn’t jump, they didn’t whine ........ and their "crawl" fled the country. "
      He concluded his seminar with the words "psychological aspects are incorrectly transferred to nations and states, but any empire has always had and will have phantom pains on amputated limbs, as well as amputated limbs phantom pains on the head. In this connection, we Finns will always remind Russia that she let us go on her own. And always say thank you to her, celebrate her freedom with Russia. But we’ll start to jump when Russia “eats its butt and builds up muscle like Schwarnegir’s !!!” And if gold comes from the “mouse’s back”, I’m not surprised that we will be asked to return to the land of the “mouse” as the Grand Duchy of Finland, but with the formula - do not pay and do not serve "! Small countries need to be prudent in front of whom to jump and how to jump high. God forbid my compatriots will remember the story and will no longer represent themselves as wolves! "
      Maybe I misinterpreted somewhere, as I wrote on my notes 20 years ago. But logic is sometimes pragmatic to disgrace.
      1. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 10 August 2018 15: 43
        +4
        Quote: Kotischa
        But how many of ours know about the campaigns of Hungarians and Chinese to us?

        I think any of our people who know the story of a little bit, is aware on whose side the Hungarians were in WWII. And what kind of Chinese campaigns are there?
        And yet - who was more aggressive there, who first started, etc. - this is a separate conversation. The point now is that Russia was far from always white and fluffy, and its conscience does not have the most righteous deeds. This does not mean that we are bad, worse than everyone. No. We are about the same as other countries.
        1. Cat
          Cat 10 August 2018 20: 44
          +2
          Alexei - Hungarians (Ugrians) passed the Old Russian state with fire and sword through, even at the dawn of its existence.
          About the Chinese, Alabazin has nothing to inspire you or Daman Island?
          I do not refute your position about "white and fluffy", we are the descendants of those who were and those who are!
          Well, our great-great-great ... grandfathers were not sick with the "burden of a white man" who, having overcome the difficult path to some India, lost his humanity! And only after returning to foggy Albion, he again acquired the polish and skills of a gentleman.
          There were excesses, but ... where in Europe, let the ethnic Tatar Semyon Bekbulatovich, the Grand Duke of Tverskoy, etc.
          The founder of Odessa, damn who still argues about the nationality of de Ribas, Yekaterinburg - Kalmyk Tatishchev and the Dutchman de Genin. In Peter's close associates - arap Ganibal - concurrently great-grandfather of the Russian poet A.S. Pushkin. The first Russian historian is a descendant of the Tatars Karamzin.
          Conqueror of Siberia - Ermak! The scientific historians of the Bashkirs and Tatar argued with me about his nationality! What kind of Timofeevich is there, didn’t it come to physical assault.
          The conclusion is simple. Russia, Russia has always been a multinational state. Moreover, the process of assimilation did not stop for a minute. By the way, it continues today.
          1. rkkasa xnumx
            rkkasa xnumx 10 August 2018 21: 06
            +3
            I don’t really argue with this, but to think of us as some kind of cherubim is also wrong. One must still know the real story, and not fictional, sleek. Something like this approximately.
            1. Cat
              Cat 10 August 2018 22: 15
              0
              I don’t really argue with this, but to think of us as some kind of cherubim is also wrong. One must still know the real story, and not fictional, sleek. Something like this approximately.

              Where Dear Alexei, did you see our story slick?
              For the last quarter of a century, only the lazy has not kicked it! I do not even take the former republics of the USSR, it is enough to take the history textbook of the Kazan Tatars. There, a mustache in bright colors, how Prince Svyatoslav brought down the Khazar Kaganate, how the Vladimir-Suzdal princes went to exile on the peaceful Volga Bulgars, how treacherously Nizhny Novgorod, Novgorod Ukshuniks, the fall of Kazan, etc. Moreover, this is not described in the light of "white - fluffy" Russians, or rather "white and fluffy" there are and they live in 1000 Bulgaria!
              Textbooks of Bashkirs, Yakuts, Tuvans are also stuffed with unpleasant lyuli for a Russian person, somewhere there are more fairy tales, somewhere historical events. But most importantly, the other majority of Russians, regardless of nationality, believe in themselves exactly as "white and fluffy"! Although the same wolf-headed (Bashkirs) were "all", but definitely not "white" and not "fluffy" !!!
          2. Curious
            Curious 10 August 2018 21: 51
            0
            "There were excesses, but ... where in Europe could an ethnic Tatar be seated on the throne for fun ..."
            The ethnic Jew Disraeli was the Prime Minister, the Jew Sir Rufus Isaac, the Viceroy of India, and Sir Solomon, the Lord Mayor of London.
            1. Cat
              Cat 11 August 2018 06: 06
              +1
              Viktor Nikolaevich, since when did an ethnic Jew become an ethnic Tatar!
              Just kidding !!!
              With Britain, everything is simple after its revolutions! Herceg of Orange of the Netherlands was invited to the British throne, and later Germans in general! Just those who modestly call themselves Vizdnaras !!!
          3. Weyland
            Weyland 10 August 2018 23: 05
            +1
            Quote: Kotischa
            let the ethnic Tatar Semyon Bekbulatovich sit on the throne

            If "for fun", it is unlikely that Boris Godunov would have blinded and exiled him - it turns out that he was very afraid that the Russians were Simeon hi put on the kingdom!
          4. Artur adilov
            Artur adilov 13 August 2018 10: 51
            0
            Quote: Kotischa
            Conqueror of Siberia - Ermak! The scientific historians of the Bashkirs and Tatar argued with me about his nationality! What kind of Timofeevich is there, didn’t it come to physical assault.
            Can you calm them downlaughing Not a Bashkir or a Tatar. Obviously from Kerey (Kereit), from non-Kiera - Siberian Tatars. Or, or, as an option, the northern Kazakhs. After the fall of the Siberian Khanate - a significant part of it went to the Kazakhs .. lol
    2. Koshnitsa
      Koshnitsa 10 August 2018 21: 51
      0
      You say so, as if there was something bad about it.
      I mean hiking.
      Are you a pacifist?
      1. Cat
        Cat 11 August 2018 06: 15
        0
        Dear Sergey, I am a romantic!
        But if you mature in the root, then everything should have a price. Any military aggression should be justified once. Two - the guns must speak after all other pressure methods. Three - the life of citizens is an unrenewable resource.
        Alas, in our history there have been Wishlist and domestic wars, it makes no sense to say how they differ.
        Sincerely, Kitty!
  3. Flavius
    Flavius 10 August 2018 09: 37
    +3
    It is interesting that the same Likhutin does not question the legitimacy of the Russian popular war of 1812, but writes about the inadmissibility of the same war by the Hungarians as something completely taken for granted.

    There is no connection between the popular war of 1812 and the Hungarians. The Russians fought against the external enemy, and the Hungarians fought against the legitimate centuries-old power. And against the troops that performed the tasks of a legitimate government.
    I think it was obvious to Likhutin, as well as to our soldiers, who fiercely suppressed this rebellion.
    He didn’t realize that it’s better to have a lot of small independent and, we add, in any case weak states, as your neighbors, than one big, even “patchwork” empire.

    Everything came to him right - the French Revolution gave birth to the Decembrists, the accomplished Hungarian could have produced in Russia even worse. Infection should be jammed in the root.
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 10 August 2018 10: 53
      +5
      Quote: Flavius
      Everything came to him right - the French Revolution gave birth to the Decembrists, the accomplished Hungarian could have produced in Russia even worse. Infection should be jammed in the root.

      The main thing did not reach him - the power rests not on bayonets, but on money, and inevitably goes to whoever has the most money. And if the one who has fewer of them, the power does not give up voluntarily, they take it away from him, buying, among other things, bayonets.
      The tsarist power (absolute) relied on the nobility, which became poorer, because it was not skillful to earn money in the mass, but it also formed the basis of the army. Instead of putting pressure on the contagion on foreign territory, one had to think how to get rid of the nutrient medium for it on one’s own.
      1. Flavius
        Flavius 10 August 2018 11: 19
        +4
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        The main thing did not reach him - power does not rely on bayonets, but on money

        It depends on how much power. Bourgeois - of course.
        But absolute imperial power is based primarily on religion and the Church, which sanctifies this very authority and makes it legitimate in the eyes of the rest of the people. In addition - to the religious and therefore loyal layer of the aristocracy, which is not necessarily prosperous. Children of the boyars were generally quite poor for a long time.
        And when the religiousness of society is shaken (including the revolutions in the neighboring states), the legitimacy of the monarch begins to be put into question by the corrupted subjects and the throne begins to falter.
        Society begins to deteriorate and religion is replaced by money.
        So Nikolay understood everything correctly and tried to preserve relatively patriarchal mores in society.
        Another thing is that the degradation (or what the Bolsheviks called progress) of any society is inevitable and can only be slightly suspended.
        1. Cat
          Cat 10 August 2018 12: 10
          +3
          Interestingly, power essentially always and everywhere remains "the ability and ability of one individual to influence the actions of another."
          So if you look at the root completely no difference, whose power is an absolute monarch, a bourgeois oligarchy or enlightened democracy. It comes from the king, president or pope. To be honest, the whole variety of state devices and types of government are different legal mechanisms of power to support and enrich themselves loved ones. So seeing the deputy "broadcasting" about our good, I have a smirk.
          In fact, any "first person" sleeps and sees not the well-being of his people, but sad for us "only our beloved ones", just the smartest people understand that "you can’t sit down on bayonets" and you just have to share power. Moreover, because of this division and admission, a system of state policy, economics, socio-cultural and other programs arises. By the way, the desire to predict and prevent misfortune in the future gives rise to the "rule of law."
          In general, the state apparatus is a synonym for animals of various aggressiveness, strength and abilities. In this light, various tales about popular monarchies and various legal models of socially justified states are very naive.
          Looking from this bell tower, the most rational form of government is seen as a monarchy, since the desires to "drag everything into the house" and "protect their offspring" are the most ancient and natural. But the lottery with the receiver in which only the Lord God participates is annoying!
          1. Flavius
            Flavius 10 August 2018 12: 31
            +3
            Quote: Kotischa
            Looking from this bell tower, the most rational form of government is seen as a monarchy, since the desires to "drag everything into the house" and "protect their offspring" are the most ancient and natural.

            I totally agree.
            Quote: Kotischa
            But the lottery with the receiver in which only the Lord God participates is annoying!

            The worst lottery exists in democratic and pseudo-democratic countries, when people vote for some reason (someone whom they will palm off on people), focusing solely on the eloquence and kindness of the candidate. Moreover, having no means of control over him.
            To put it bluntly - who controls us do not understand. Under the monarchy, a successor is at least prepared for reign. And there is a poorly prepared elite class whose ancestors had merits before the Motherland.
            Under democracy, liars, talkers and hucksters rule.
          2. bober1982
            bober1982 10 August 2018 12: 37
            +4
            The destruction of the European monarchies took several centuries, very careful work was carried out, first the Renaissance, then the Reformation, the era of French thinkers, which ended with the French Revolution and the execution of Louis XI, by the way, with the hooting of not only the French crowd, but also of the European monarchical courtyards. rapid scientific and technological "progress"
            Christian Europe was almost finished, since this work to destroy it never stopped. And, under such conditions, it was difficult for the Russian Tsar to restore order in a godless Europe, which eventually slipped into the catastrophe of the first world massacre, the European monarchies were destroyed.
          3. rkkasa xnumx
            rkkasa xnumx 10 August 2018 16: 01
            +1
            Quote: Kotischa
            To be honest, the whole variety of state devices and types of government are different legal mechanisms of power to support and enrich themselves loved ones.

            Quote: Kotischa
            In fact, any "first person" sleeps and sees not the well-being of his people, but how sad for us "only ourselves beloved"

            Soviet leaders greatly enriched?
            1. Weyland
              Weyland 10 August 2018 23: 08
              +1
              Quote: rkkasa 81
              Soviet leaders greatly enriched?

              read at least Bukharin's cynical statements on the topic: "if we are overthrown, it doesn't matter - we have already managed to grab and take out a little more than a dofig!" Well, take an interest in the capital of the Tagged One! And with gold toilets Giorgadze, who grabbed 10 bucks lemons!
        2. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 10 August 2018 13: 49
          +3
          Quote: Flavius
          It depends on how much power. Bourgeois - of course.

          Any power. Absolutely. And depending on the economic model in the state, the ruling class is formed, concentrating in its hands the means of production, which dictates its will to the rest, distributing the surplus product.
          While the economy was based on large estates, the boyars were in power, and the state system was a estate-representative monarchy. With the transition to the local economy, the nobility became the ruling class, and the monarchy became absolute. The industrial revolution gave rise to the bourgeoisie, which seized the lion's share of capital and the means of production, that is, built plants, factories, etc. - The power of monarchs became limited to different constitutions, and in some places even republics began to emerge, the number of which became more and more. As a result, monarchies survived only where the monarch is a purely nominal person. In general, everything is decided by those who have money.
          Quote: Flavius
          But absolute royal power rests primarily on religion and the Church.

          The church is ready to support any authority. If not, what happens in the USSR happens — the replacement of ideology, in the particular case of the cross to the star. Ideology is subject to economics, and not vice versa.
          Quote: Flavius
          religious and therefore loyalist layer of aristocracy
          It is among the aristocracy that most atheists are, by virtue of their education. The most religious segment of the population is the peasants, illiterate and superstitious.
          Quote: Flavius
          And when the religiousness of society is shaken (including the revolutions in the neighboring states), the legitimacy of the monarch begins to be put into question by the corrupted subjects and the throne begins to falter.

          The throne begins to stagger only for economic reasons - when the money is from one and the power from another. In relation to the Russian Empire - the money from the manufacturers, and the power from the landowners, the largest of which was the king. And ideology - just plaster, exterior finish. Now, if the king became the owner of factories and plants, i.e. transferred from the landlord class to the bourgeois class and surrounded himself with the same bourgeois; for a while, while this economic model was in effect, nothing would threaten his power.
          Quote: Flavius
          Society begins to deteriorate and religion is replaced by money.

          You are confusing what should not be confused. Religion is a form of ideology. And money is the equivalent of the cost of goods and services, i.e. the tool is purely economic. Ideology can only be replaced by another ideology. The ruling class imposes to the state the model of the economy, the rule of law and ideology, and not the ideology (or its absence) forms the ruling class and everything else.
          Quote: Flavius
          So Nikolay understood everything correctly and tried to preserve relatively patriarchal mores in society.

          He did not understand anything. He sat on the rotten bitch, who was already bursting and was about to break down and tried to hold on to it more firmly and not to move, so as not to fall, instead of looking for a bitch thicker and fresher. His son Alexander II - he understood. And he did a lot, first to strengthen this father’s bitch, and then move to another - he was going to sign the Constitution, turning, thus voluntarily, the absolute monarchy into constitutional. I could have done it and could have lived with the king right now.
          Such is the lecture in the field of fundamental knowledge. smile
          If not for you, then maybe someone else will be useful. hi
          1. Flavius
            Flavius 10 August 2018 14: 45
            +2
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            Such is the lecture in the field of fundamental knowledge.

            It seems to me that this is a lecture, rather, from the field of the Marxist-Leninist talkery smile In secular society, pragmatists who are not burdened with excessive spirituality believe that money always decides everything.
            But this is not so - the world is moving ideas.
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            His son Alexander II - he understood.

            Alexander entered a slippery slope that led to his death at the hands of "grateful" subjects. He threw the doors to hell wide open, although maybe he had no other choice.
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            I would have succeeded - maybe now we would have lived under the king.

            The Germans had, the Austrians had. So what - they live under the monarchy now?
            No matter what the Russian, German, Austrian monarchs do, whatever reforms are carried out - their end was predetermined, since the monarchy is based on patriarchal, conservative orders in society. And not on money and the constitution.
            The patriarchal manners in society are destroyed, as a result, the king is dumped and a completely different gimmick begins.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 10 August 2018 16: 21
              +3
              Quote: Flavius
              But this is not so - the world is moving ideas.

              I wish it were so. Unfortunately, ideas that are not supported by the material base are doomed to die. There are many examples where someone who was ahead of his time was ruthlessly destroyed. Only those ideas that correspond to their time can move the world, and this correspondence is ultimately determined, unfortunately, by economics.
              Quote: Flavius
              The Germans had, the Austrians had. So what - they live under the monarchy now?

              I said maybe, not necessarily. What do you think the "Germans and Austrians" had time for? Besides, in order to proclaim something, there is still much to be done. And with this they just had difficulties.
              Quote: Flavius
              Alexander entered a slippery slope that led to his death at the hands of the "grateful"

              Alexander, being the brightest representative of his class, began to act contrary to his interests, for which, in the end, he paid. By the way, a vivid example of how ideas, the time of which has not come, destroy their creators. He could have died before, if he had let the peasants go free with the land, and he had such a thought ...
              Once again.
              Any state system rests on economic relations and the stronger, the more it corresponds to these relations. Ideas - only design, exterior decoration of the economic basis.
              However, if you consciously affirm the primacy of an idea over an economy, clearly imagining what you are saying is your right, I have nothing to say to you, except that you are an idealist. smile
              You know, those who are driven by greed, lust for power, restrained pride - this is only half the problem, they at least have remorse. But there is nothing worse than a clear-eyed idealist who has decided to do much good
              humanity: such a whole world will flood knee-deep in blood and will not frown. BUT
              more than anything these guys adore the saying "There are things more important than peace and more terrible than war."
              (c) Kirill Eskov, Last Koltsenosets.
    2. Artur adilov
      Artur adilov 13 August 2018 10: 59
      0
      Quote: Flavius
      Hungarians writes as something completely taken for granted.
      There is no connection between the popular war of 1812 and the Hungarians. The Russians fought against the external enemy, and the Hungarians fought against the legitimate centuries-old power. And against the troops that performed the tasks of a legitimate government.
      Шта belay?! This is then obtained when the Russians opposed the Golden Horde, which means fought against the legal (khan) centuries-old power. And against the (Horde) troops that performed the tasks of a legitimate government. bully
      Quote: Flavius
      Hungarian could produce even worse in Russia. The infection must be suppressed in the bud.
      This recipientrecourse Tohtamysh was right when he burned the White Stoneam It’s bad that Edyge just didn’t do it in Russia, what the Russian troops did in Hungary. Not drowned out at the root of the infection in Moscow ulusangry, which led to the betrayal of the Horde by the ungrateful Rusich ..
      1. Flavius
        Flavius 13 August 2018 22: 12
        +1
        Quote: Artur Adilov
        when the Russians opposed the Golden Horde, it means they fought against the legal (Khan) centuries-old power

        And there is. The Golden Horde khans were legal power in Russia. And they were prayed for in Russian churches. But Mamai was a usurper, not a legitimate ruler.
        Quote: Artur Adilov
        It’s bad that Edyge just didn’t do it in Russia, what the Russian troops did in Hungary. They did not stifle the infection in the Moscow ulus at the root, which led to the treachery of the Horde by ungrateful Russians ..

        Someone may feel bad. But here the one whose fangs were longer is right.
  4. bober1982
    bober1982 10 August 2018 10: 06
    +4
    Emperor Nicholas I and Russia during his reign were objects of hatred and fear in the eyes of Europe, but it is necessary to clarify to the liberal public.
    The most curious thing is that it was Nicholas I who strictly adhered to all the decisions of the Vienna Congress, all the obligations and treaties of the Holy Union, that is, the inviolability of the territorial European borders, and the tsar’s actions were legal. Moreover, he was the only one of all the “allies” who he sought precisely for the good of Europe - the suppression of European riots, unrest. It is difficult to say whether this was the king’s mistake (suppression of external uprisings), or maybe it was necessary to focus on internal problems. Europe was mired in chaos, and no sending troops could save the situation.
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 10 August 2018 10: 41
      +4
      So I perceive. Emperor Nicholas I understood his duty.

      Assessment is very difficult in this case.
      But here the hunters to rake the heat with our hands were always there.
      1. Cat
        Cat 10 August 2018 12: 26
        +5
        Emperor Nicholas I and Russia during his reign were objects of hatred and fear in the eyes of Europe, but it is necessary to clarify to the liberal public.

        But how subtly played in the arena of international politics his grandmother - Catherine the Great.
        Nikolai Pavlovich, a man of his time and era. Someone from the classics called him the last knight of Europe. You can love or hate it, or at the same time love and hate - no intermediate state is given.
        Seriously, he Nikolai is sympathetic to me as a person, but not like me as a politician. But there is no second and third bottom in his actions, political cunning and tricks to achieve the goal. Straight, honest, simple, sometimes ironic. Just a saying to A. Kostyun who the Russians are is worth perpetuating in the memory of descendants. And about corruption, he knew how to express himself so that tears from his eyes! Nicholas was able not to brow, but to the eye. He knew how to recognize mistakes, the last most terrible he did not forgive himself .....
        I have the honor, Vlad Kotische!
        1. Okolotochny
          Okolotochny 10 August 2018 12: 56
          +2
          And about corruption, he knew how to express himself so that tears from his eyes!

          The ringleaders rule Russia! And now relevant.
        2. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 10 August 2018 21: 35
          +1
          Ahead of the description :)
        3. Flavius
          Flavius 10 August 2018 22: 16
          +3
          Quote: Kotischa
          Just saying to A. Kostyun who the Russians are is worth perpetuating in the memory of descendants

          If this is the same saying that circulates on the Internet, like "... they are all Russian", then this is a XNUMX% lie, which for some reason is repeated a hundred times by people who have not read the book. It’s not like that at all. smile
    2. Rastas
      Rastas 10 August 2018 22: 42
      0
      The foreign policy of Russia under Nicholas I was driven ... by the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs and, in combination, Chancellor Metternich through the Russian Minister Neselrode. What Metternich told Neselrode to do, he did it. And it was in the interests of Russia or not, the Austrians did not care.
  5. Molot1979
    Molot1979 10 August 2018 11: 13
    +6
    A rare case is when the author is telling a lie. No one set the Croats on the Hungarians. It’s just that, since ancient times, a naturally Nazi regime was established in Hungary, under which only Hungarians had all the rights. And all sorts of Slovaks and Croats there are third-class people, and maybe not people at all. The revolution began - the Slavs began to demand independence, or at least autonomy. But as you know, revolution is who the revolution is. The Slavic villages were hit by artillery, because it is for the Hungarians to demand independence. And if the Croats demand the same, then this is a counter-revolution and a conspiracy. Therefore, and only therefore, the Slavs sided with the Habsburgs. The Hungarians themselves dug their own grave, and so they need it.
    1. Cat
      Cat 10 August 2018 12: 27
      +2
      The Hungarians dug the grave themselves ...

      True tagged - Hammer !!!
    2. Rastas
      Rastas 10 August 2018 22: 45
      +1
      The Hungarians had a big trouble that they did not enlist the support of the Slovaks and Croats, who were subordinate to them, although the latter were ready to support the revolution. But the words of Kossuth: "For me there is no such nation as Croats," very soon became known in Croatia and they chose the lesser of two evils.
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 24 August 2018 23: 10
        0
        Moreover, a significant part of the Hungarian nationalists were from among the Magyarons-assimilated, Omadyar Slovaks, Croats, etc.
  6. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 10 August 2018 18: 49
    +6
    And the reaction of Emperor Nicholas followed immediately. Frightened by revolutionary actions throughout Europe, he sent Russian troops to suppress the Hungarian revolution. He didn’t realize that it’s better to have a lot of small independent and, we add, in any case weak states, as your neighbors, than one big, even “patchwork” empire.

    I would stand up for Nikolai Pavlovich. When the Patriotic War of 1812 was on, he was 16. And he perfectly remembered this war, and that it began not with some obscure business, but with the Great French Revolution. Then, too, first Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, and then hop ... and Dr. Guillotin's invention worked to its fullest. Then the French brought freedom to Europe, and at the very moment when their freedom ended, it was possible to stop this bloody bacchanalia, which heaped the hecatombs of corpses, with great difficulty, and it was for us.
    In general, our emperor had reason to do just that. As for the Crimean War ... who knows. The Austrian Empire (Austria-Hungary was actually formed in the 1868 year, but this is so, by the way) occupied albeit hostile, but neutrality. But independent Hungary would be left aside, another big question!
  7. Koshnitsa
    Koshnitsa 10 August 2018 20: 18
    0
    On the other hand, troops always need practice.
    A non-combatant officer is actually nonsense.
    Therefore, Paskevich’s campaign must be considered in this vein, like training troops.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 10 August 2018 22: 47
      +4
      Logic, like that of Second Lieutenant Dub in The Adventures of the Gallant Soldier Schweik.
      1. Koshnitsa
        Koshnitsa 10 August 2018 23: 19
        +1
        Yes, yes, let there always be sunshine, and faster retirement, the army should actually fight, so as not to turn into this greasy-belly outrage, like the SA in its 40 years without a war.
  8. Koshnitsa
    Koshnitsa 10 August 2018 20: 29
    +1
    Thanks to the author for the wonderful bright material.
    The wild people who came from Asia and suddenly in the center of Europe surrounded by the strongest neighbors built their own civilization, albeit hostile to Slavs and Russians! Amazing
    Mr. Shpakovsky, a small clarification question, all the same Petefi-Petrovich fell in battle with the Odessa Lancers, and not with the Cossacks. Even in the picture, the pennants of the peak, piercing the chest of the unfortunate singer of Magyar freedom, and by origin generally the lame-cropped Croat Petrovich of this particular regiment.
    Sincerely.
    1. Cat
      Cat 10 August 2018 22: 24
      +2
      Why hostile to the Slavs and Russians?
      In my opinion, there was no more faithful ally than the Hungarians of our prince Svyatoslav, the one who went to - you.
      When Hungary represented itself, our Russian princes got married, gave their daughters in marriage, reconciled and scolded.
      Today also shows that interests are interests, history is history!
      1. Koshnitsa
        Koshnitsa 10 August 2018 23: 14
        0
        Svyatoslav, the times are more legendary than historical.
        But the Hungarians are really enemies of the Slavs and especially the Russians.
        Faced them on the issue of military graves.
        I will say this, we Gypsies and West Indians are closer than this Asian tribe.
        Russophobia is there in the blood.
        1. Cat
          Cat 11 August 2018 06: 29
          0
          I will not be categorical, but with the departure of the Ugrians (Hungarians) in the Urals, the dry residue of the tribal union, which is still part of Russia, remained. Yes, it's me about the Bashkirs (volkolovyh) of one of the best wars and allies of Bulgaria, the Big, Golden Horde. And since the time of Ivan the Terrible and Russia.
          So in a sense, we have our own stubborn and unstoppable ones.
          1. Koshnitsa
            Koshnitsa 11 August 2018 15: 19
            0
            It is difficult to say, maybe some kind of blood lobes have in common, but the continuity is very relative.
            Just the Bashkirs live on the land where the Magyars lived.
  9. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 10 August 2018 21: 33
    +1
    Nicholas I was a chivalrous romantic, and in geopolitics this is the most harmful quality. No need to follow the example of my grandmother (Koya did not intervene in a showdown with revolutionary France, but calmly pursued an expansion policy)
  10. Weyland
    Weyland 10 August 2018 22: 54
    +4
    if it didn’t happen then, the Hungarians would have every chance of winning and then subsequently no Austria-Hungary would simply exist, which means Russia would not have had enemy No. 2 on its western borders, since the first after its unification was “iron and blood ”immediately became Germany.
    Vyacheslav Olegovich, do you not admit that if no Austria-Hungary simply did not exist, "enemy number 1" through the efforts of the same Bismarck would gobble up all these small states and turn out to be much larger and stronger?
    1. Gopnik
      Gopnik 13 August 2018 15: 38
      0
      That would be so - Austria would become part of Germany, and independent Hungary would be an even more hostile state to the southern Slavs than Austria-Hungary and much more polonophilic. Actually, they were suppressed in order to prevent another Polish uprising in Russia, because Poles supported the Hungarian revolution.