Military Review

The pacification of Hungary

45
Hungarian trekking Russia in the 1849 year saved its mortal enemy. Russian blood was saved the Habsburg empire. It is obvious that St. Petersburg did not have to interfere in the completely natural collapse of the Austrian “patchwork” empire. On the contrary, it was necessary to extract political benefits from this event.



The Battle of Temesváre. Austrian artist V. Katsler


The rout and surrender of the Hungarians


The main forces of Gergei slipped away again. The Hungarian commander-in-chief of the rapid marches moved to Banat, on the way he strengthened part of Bema's forces from Transylvania. The Hungarians entered Oradea (Grosvardein) on July 27 (August 8). Gergey planned to combine his forces with the army of Dembinsky, but he retreated to the north, instead of joining the main army.

Meanwhile, after the departure of the main army of the Hungarians from Comorna, the Austrians began to move and 12 (24) July occupied Pest. The Hungarian government fled to Segedin. The Austrian army of Gainau also moved south to free Temeshvar from the siege and join up with Yelačić’s forces. July 23 (August 3) The Austrians occupied Segedin and July 25 (August 5) defeated the Southern Army of Dembinsky under it. Hungarians retreated to Temeshvar.

In place of Dembinsky, Behm was urgently called in from Transylvania. Also, the Hungarian army was reinforced by the division of Kmet, who came from the south. The Hungarian army numbered about 50 thousand people with 120 guns, the Austrian - about 90 thousand people with 350 guns. However, a significant part of the Austrian army defended Arad in order to prevent Bemu from uniting with the Gergei army. Therefore, the Austrians did not have a numerical advantage, but their troops were better in quality than the Hungarians (mainly the militia). July 29 (August 9) Bema's army was crushed. Panyutin's division played a decisive role in this battle. The losses of the Austro-Russian troops - about 5 thousand people, Hungarians - about 10,5 thousand people and almost all the artillery. In the following days, thousands of Hungarian rebels from the scattered Southern Army surrendered. The remnants of the Hungarian army fled to Transylvania or to the Turkish possessions.

Thus, the army of Gergei was in a bind. Hungarians were defeated near Debrychin, they were pursued by Russian troops. It turned out a huge superiority of Russian, which caused the decomposition of the Hungarian troops. The militia began to run home. At Arad, where Gergey hoped to join forces with Bem, Schlik's Austrian corps stood, blocking the road to Temeshwar. The southern army was crushed and scattered. Gergey decided that further resistance was meaningless, and decided to surrender to the Russians. The Hungarians despised the Austrians; moreover, they knew that they would be treated as traitors. 1 (13) of August under Vilagoshe the Hungarian army - more than 30 thousand people with 60 flags and standards and 144 guns led by Gergei surrendered to General Reediger.


Capitulation in Vilagosh. Istvan Klinovsky


The suppression of the rebellion in Transylvania


The army of Polish General Bem was located in Transylvania - 32 thousand people with 110 guns. These were mainly militia from the Hungarian tribe of the Sekler (Skei). The rebels controlled the whole country, only the Austrians sat in the fortress of Karlsburg. The weak Austrian corps of Count Clamg-Galas retreated beyond the border line into West Wallachia.

Transylvania from the rebels had to clear the 5 Corps of Leaders - 35 thousand people. Russian troops were divided into groups. The northern group, led by General Grotengelma, part of the 10 and 13 infantry divisions (10,5 thousand people with 24 guns), was concentrated in Bukovina near Dorn-Vatra and was to advance in the general direction from the north-east to the south-west. . The southern group of Liders itself - 14-I and 15-I infantry divisions (25 thousand people, 56 guns), was located in Wallachia at Predel and had to strike from south to north, to force the main ridge of the Transylvanian Carpathians. Both Russian groups had to enter Transylvania, to unite. The Austrian corps of Clam-Galas (about 10 thousand people), which made up the left flank of the southern group, was subordinated to Liders.

6 (18) June 1849 The Liders troops were concentrated on the border of Transylvania at Predeal. It was decided to deliver the main blow through the Temeshsky gorge to Kronstadt (Brasov). 7 (19) June Liders personally led the troops, shot down the enemy barrier, 8-th with the battle overcame the Temeshsky gorge and took Kronstadt. The strong Hungarian position has fallen. Hungarians lost 550 people killed and captured, 1 banner and 5 guns. Our losses are 126 people.

The pacification of Hungary

The commander of the 5 Corps, Alexander Nikolaevich Liders



Commander of the Transylvanian Army Jozef Bem


After finding out the situation and giving rest to the troops, Liders continued the offensive and on June 23 (July 2) defeated the Hungarian corps Gal Shandora and Georgi on Chik Sereda. 1 (13) July Engelhardt vanguard with a sudden attack seized the fortress of Fogarash. It was taken to 800 prisoners and 4 guns. Having defeated the opposing forces of the enemy, the corps of Liders 9 (21) of July took Sibiu (Hermanstadt). Meanwhile, the Northern Group of General Grotengelm 7 (19) June began a slow movement from Dorno Vatra. 15 (27) June Russian troops attacked Bema's corps, which was located on the Bukovina direction. The Hungarian attack was repelled. Bem did not dare to a new attack and retreated. The northern group passed Bystritsa, occupied Sas Regen. Energetic Bem, having put up barriers against the detachment of Grotengelm and Liders, at that time made a foray into Moldova, in order to raise a rebellion in the rear of the Russian army. However, his hopes were not justified, the locals did not even think of rebelling. Bemu had to return to Transylvania.

14 (26) July Liders continued the offensive and launched from Sibiu (Germanstadt) on Segeshwar. In Sibiu, a detachment of General Gasford was left - 4 thousand people with 12 guns. 19 (31) July, the battle of Segeshwar took place. Bem attacked the corps of Liders, but was crushed. Russian losses - 258 man, Hungarian - 1700 man, 8 guns. On July 22 (August 3), the Liders forces established contact with the Northern Group of the Grotengelm. Learning about the departure of Liders with most of the forces, the Hungarian Stein Corps (3,5 thousand) tried to recapture Sibiu. On July 20, the Hungarians were defeated by Gasford at Koelneck. Hungarians have lost 1200 people, mostly prisoners, 2 flags and 2 guns. Our losses are 64 man.

Broken Bem has not yet lost hope of success. He led another squad and rushed to Sibiu (Germanstadt) to smash Gasford's squad. Learning about Bema’s march on Sibiu, he rushed to the aid of his rear unit. Our troops marched in a forced march for three days 150 versts along mountain paths and scorching heat conditions and were on time. July 25 (August 6) Sibiu had the last decisive battle. Gasford, cramped by the wagons of the entire 5 corps, lasted a whole day - July 24. On this day, our troops lost 351 man. The next day, on July 25, the Liders squad entered the battle. Hungarians were defeated, losing only prisoners 1 thousand people and 14 guns. July 30 (August 11) Liders at Mullenbach dispersed the last remaining 8-th of the Hungarians Stein's body. Hungarian losses - over 2,2 thousand people and 13 guns. Our losses are minor - 39 people.

Thus, Behma's Transylvanian army ceased to exist. Her remnants laid down weaponwhen we received news of the Vyagosha capitulation of the army of Gergei. Bem himself was summoned to Hungary to lead the Southern Army, suffered a new defeat at Temesvár and fled to the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, Bem accepted Islam and worked on the modernization of the Ottoman army. After the capitulation of the rebels in Transylvania, the main forces of the Liders corps returned to Wallachia.

After the news of the defeat and surrender of the Hungarian armies, the garrison of Comornos under the command of Klapki, who had been very successful in restraining the Austrians, capitulated on September 21 — 23 on honorable terms. This was the end of the Hungarian uprising.


The battle of Segeshwar. Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org


Hike value


About 170 thousand Russian soldiers and officers took part in the Hungarian campaign. Combat losses were insignificant - over 3 thousand people, about 11 - 13 thousand people died from diseases (and the incidence was half the army - 85 thousand people). Material expenses amounted to 47,5 million rubles.

The Hungarians showed themselves as brave warriors, but on the whole they were the militia, not regular troops. They were able to beat the bewildered Austrians, but could not withstand the Russian military machine. The Hungarian command made a number of mistakes, having failed to establish relations between the northern and southern theaters, to apply a maneuver along the internal operational lines. The situation was worsened by the conflict between the Hungarian dictator Kossuth and the army commander Gergey. The problems were in the command of the Hungarian army. So, prominent positions were taken by former Polish generals, leaders of the 1830 uprising of the year. Bem proved himself an energetic commander in Transylvania. Gyorgei was also a talented commander. His flank march from Weizen to Debrechin was a brilliant, exemplary way out of the trap.

Paskevich in this campaign proved to be not the best way. In the wars with the Persians and the Turks, he fought much better. The Hungarian campaign was carried out mediocre. Being in charge of 100-th. the army, having a quantitative and qualitative superiority, the prince of Warsaw could not overtake and defeat the enemy. Paskevich overestimated the forces of the enemy, was late, did not use powerful cavalry. The Russian army could not give a single general battle. The best qualities of Russian military leaders showed Reediger, Liders and Panyutin.

In general, the Hungarian campaign showed the decay that had begun, the lag of the Russian army, which by inertia was the best in the world. With each new war - in the Crimea, in the Balkans, in Manchuria, these problems will become more and more pronounced. And everything will end in a catastrophe of the First World War. In particular, initiative, independence, and the Suvorov offensive spirit were expelled from the army. Among the generals in the first place were careerists, sycophants. These combat commanders were ousted, did not give the road. Window dressing reigned in the training of troops, which had nothing to do with real combat operations. As a result, the army, which defeated the "invincible" Napoleon, gradually lost the ability to fight, and did not prepare for war, resting on old laurels. The results will be sad - Russian wash their hands with blood in Sevastopol, during the liberation of Bulgaria, the Japanese campaign.

In general, the army completed its task - Hungary was pacified in the shortest possible time. But the lessons from the campaign did not. And in the military-strategic sense, the Hungarian campaign was not only useless, but erroneous. The Hungarians hated Russia and carried this hatred before the First World War, when the Magyar regiments clashed with the Russians again. During the life of Nicholas I, Russia experienced the “Austrian gratitude”. The hostile position of Vienna, which was ready to start a war with Russia, led to the defeat in the Crimean War. The position of Austria did not allow Russia to get all the fruits of the victory over the Ottoman Empire in 1878 year. Austria-Hungary prevented Russia from dominating the Balkans and became our enemy in 1914.

Thus, Russia in the 1849 year saved its mortal enemy. Russian blood was saved the Habsburg empire. It is obvious that St. Petersburg did not have to interfere in the completely natural collapse of the Austrian “patchwork” empire. On the contrary, it was necessary to extract political benefits from this event. So, it was possible to get the neighboring friendly Hungary, whose existence would depend on the goodwill of Russia. To establish control over the Slavic regions of the Habsburg Empire. Return the indigenous Russian lands - Galicia, Carpathian Rus (these tasks were set only in the First World War).
Author:
Articles from this series:
Hungarian trekking How the Russians saved the Habsburg Empire
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Olgovich
    Olgovich 24 July 2019 06: 25 New
    +5
    regular collapse of the Austrian "patchwork" empire.

    Wow "logical": why didn’t it fall apart during next 70 years and it took a whole world war and the military defeat of A-Hungary to destroy it? And the Austrians and the Hungarians fought together in touching unity and friendship.

    PS This year marks much more significant anniversaries in the history of the country, amazing in the execution and significance of the battles of Suvorov at Ramnik and Focsani.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 24 July 2019 09: 19 New
      0
      Thus, in 1849, Russia saved its mortal enemy. Russian blood was saved by the Habsburg empire. Obviously, Petersburg did not have to intervene
      History has not taught anything, and now we are reaping its terrible fruits.
    2. naidas
      naidas 28 July 2019 22: 38 New
      -1
      Quote: Olgovich
      why didn’t it fall apart over the next 70 years

      1.In 1850, a law came into force according to which duties on goods from other parts of the state were abolished within the country
      2. in 1862 they paid compensation for the suppression of the uprising
      3. Since 1866, Austria and Hungary become almost equal territories in the empire. June 21, 1867 on the day of the coronation of Emperor Franz Joseph by the King of Hungary. Istvan Deak with the company did not begin to destroy the empire.
      4. The percentage of their budget is allocated to the needs of the empire.
      For example, in 1868 it was decided that the Austrians would invest 70%, and the Hungarians 30% in the total budget.
      5.From March 15, 1867, Hungarians and Austrians had different citizenships
      6.Italian and German national issues now virtually ceased to be an internal factor in its existence.
      7. Protection from oppression by the Hungarian authorities, leaders of other nations, as in the old days, sought in Vienna. (Memorandum-process "in 1881 of the National Party of the Romanians and in 1895 the Congress of Nationalities in Budapest), then Austro-Slavism was followed by the Neo-Slavists.
      8. The tradition of feudal times, tried to distance itself from interethnic conflicts, to maintain the position and status of "supranational power."
      8. In Hungary, the term “empire” has ceased to be used in official documents
      9. The largest consumer of Hungarian products was Austria. Hungary supplied 76% of its products to Austria, and Austria 37% of its products to Hungary.
      10.Since 1915, the double-headed eagle coat of arms was used only as a symbol of the Austrian part of the state.

      empire crisis began with language between Czechs and Germans in the 1890s and the Jewish question
      In 1882, when the All-German Union congress was held in Linz, the first political program aimed at breaking up the Habsburg empire.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 29 July 2019 10: 25 New
        0
        Quote: naidas
        Quote: Olgovich
        why didn’t it fall apart over the next 70 years

        1.In 1850, a law came into force according to which duties on goods from other parts of the state were abolished within the country
        2. in 1862 they paid compensation for the suppression of the uprising
        3. Since 1866, Austria and Hungary become almost equal territories in the empire. June 21, 1867 on the day of the coronation of Emperor Franz Joseph by the King of Hungary. Istvan Deak with the company did not begin to destroy the empire.
        4. The percentage of their budget is allocated to the needs of the empire.
        For example, in 1868 it was decided that the Austrians would invest 70%, and the Hungarians 30% in the total budget.
        5.From March 15, 1867, Hungarians and Austrians had different citizenships
        6.Italian and German national issues now virtually ceased to be an internal factor in its existence.
        7. Protection from oppression by the Hungarian authorities, leaders of other nations, as in the old days, sought in Vienna. (Memorandum-process "in 1881 of the National Party of the Romanians and in 1895 the Congress of Nationalities in Budapest), then Austro-Slavism was followed by the Neo-Slavists.
        8. The tradition of feudal times, tried to distance itself from interethnic conflicts, to maintain the position and status of "supranational power."
        8. In Hungary, the term “empire” has ceased to be used in official documents
        9. The largest consumer of Hungarian products was Austria. Hungary supplied 76% of its products to Austria, and Austria 37% of its products to Hungary.
        10.Since 1915, the double-headed eagle coat of arms was used only as a symbol of the Austrian part of the state.

        empire crisis began with language between Czechs and Germans in the 1890s and the Jewish question
        In 1882, when the All-German Union congress was held in Linz, the first political program aimed at breaking up the Habsburg empire.

        And? belay
        1. naidas
          naidas 29 July 2019 21: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Olgovich
          And?

          10 points: while the Austrians were imperials, there was an empire (Hungary was slowly moving towards independence (it could still take a lot of time), the rest towards the federation (memorandum process)).
          As soon as the Austrians became Germans, problems started.
  2. Cartalon
    Cartalon 24 July 2019 06: 27 New
    0
    Austria is a mortal enemy, it’s not obscene to even answer, if Samsonov knows what will happen after 150 years, then Nicholas is the first historical ally, he must be considered a mortal enemy
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 24 July 2019 10: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: Cartalon
      Austria is a mortal enemy, it’s not obscene to even answer, if Samsonov knows what will happen after 150 years, then Nicholas is the first historical ally, he must be considered a mortal enemy

      Yes, here you are right - no one knew how everything would turn in 50 years. But on the other hand, maintaining neutrality would probably be more profitable.
  3. bober1982
    bober1982 24 July 2019 07: 28 New
    -2
    One can agree with the author that the Russian army was lagging behind in its development (and when did we not have this lag?), But there was no decomposition and could not be under Nicholas I
    After the death of the king, it followed, namely, the decomposition of the army — worthless liberal military reform, idle chatter, General Dragomirov, the revival of the Suvorov spirit (demagogy), this is well stated in Denikin’s memoirs
  4. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 24 July 2019 08: 22 New
    +5
    Strange journalism about military-historical subjects. Such a feeling (in the words of the author about "about the QUIPPLE empire") that the article itself is QUIPPLE, and therefore tedious - uninteresting. It seems that the author simply "pulled paragraphs" from Wikipedia, without bothering to find more interesting material about those events. The meaning of the article is that the Russians “FOREVER climb” with their “ETERNALLY rotting” army where they are not needed))) Or maybe I'm wrong?
  5. andrewkor
    andrewkor 24 July 2019 08: 49 New
    +1
    Conclusion from the cycle of the respected Avtora - the Russian bear should sit quietly in its den not stick out anywhere, not influence anything, suck its paw, otherwise it will be worse!
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 24 July 2019 10: 31 New
      0
      Quote: andrewkor
      Conclusion from the cycle of the respected Avtora - the Russian bear should sit quietly in its den not stick out anywhere, not influence anything, suck its paw, otherwise it will be worse!

      Well, of course, it’s better to scatter your soldiers in unnecessary conflicts, spend money on military adventures - this is “wise”.
  6. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 24 July 2019 09: 13 New
    0
    Nikolay 1 did absolutely right at that time. Firstly, Hungary, as a potentially young underdeveloped state and exorbitant ambitions, could become a constant headache for Russia. And secondly, Nikolai could certainly hope for further support of AB in solving Balkan problems, and then THEN Franz Joseph acted like the last skunk, so there you can do it. It was like this with each of us - you helped him, and then he spat in your face.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 24 July 2019 09: 26 New
      0
      Not for nothing that Nikolai Pavlovich was called the last knight of the autocracywho had such qualities as decency, a sense of duty and honor.
      1. Edward Vashchenko
        Edward Vashchenko 24 July 2019 11: 13 New
        +2
        I will repeat my quote from the comments of the previous text:
        As Nicholas I self-critically said to the Adjutant General Count Rzhevussky:
        “I will tell you that the most stupid Polish king was Jan Sobieski, because he freed Vienna from the Turks. And the most stupid of the Russian sovereigns, ”added His Majesty,“ I, because I helped the Austrians suppress the Hungarian rebellion. "

        On the other hand, to talk about the actions of Nicholas I only from the perspective of the current situation, to modernize the past is a gross mistake.
        The actions of the emperor Nicholas I should and should be considered based on the situation of the 40 of the XIX century, comparing with other "leaders", and the tsar’s approach to the development of Russian society and nothing else.
        It is difficult to disagree with the assessment that Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich was
        the last knight
        , "autocracy" intentionally omit.
        But he, alas, by the end of his reign became a “knight of a very sad image”.
        However, this was a problem for most of the monarchical houses in Europe and was associated with the problem of changing the "management system", the victims of which, in the end, were individual monarchs and entire monarchies personally.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 24 July 2019 11: 56 New
          -1
          Quote: Edward Vashchenko
          However, most of the monarchical houses in Europe had this problem and was associated with the problem of changing the "control system"

          The so-called French Revolution drove the last nail into the monarchical Houses of Europe, hence the problems of the management system.
        2. Prometey
          Prometey 25 July 2019 08: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Edward Vashchenko
          But he, alas, by the end of his reign became a “knight of a very sad image”.
          However, this was a problem for most of the monarchical houses in Europe and was associated with the problem of changing the "management system", the victims of which, in the end, were individual monarchs and entire monarchies personally.

          Better not say.
  7. wolf20032
    wolf20032 24 July 2019 09: 45 New
    +1
    "... And it all ends in the catastrophe of the First World War ...."
    What does this gentleman know about WWI? Where is the disaster? The catastrophe just befell the "advanced" German armies. And the Russian army fought brilliantly. I remind this gentleman that it was the Russian army that was able to accomplish what no one succeeded - a breakthrough of the front. Who was able to do this from allies and opponents? The army did not lose the war; it was betrayed and cowardly.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 24 July 2019 11: 04 New
      0
      Quote: wolf20032
      What does this gentleman know about WWI? Where is the disaster? The catastrophe just befell the "advanced" German armies.

      In East Prussia in 1914, too, was a disaster for the German army?
      Quote: wolf20032
      I remind this gentleman that it was the Russian army that was able to accomplish what no one succeeded - a breakthrough of the front. Who was able to do this from allies and opponents?

      Gorlitsky breakthrough on the Eastern Front, breakthrough and collapse of the Italian front at Caporetto in 1917.
      1. Edward Vashchenko
        Edward Vashchenko 24 July 2019 11: 19 New
        +2
        The army is part of the structure and system.
        The individual exploits of soldiers and officers, the personal ability of individual military leaders to defeat and use the "best" of the best units and rare best technologies, does not compensate for the general lag of the state system, which began under Emperor Nicholas I, in the conditions of the Industrial Revolutions, and ended in defeats for the army and the whole system in PMV.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 24 July 2019 12: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Edward Vashchenko
          general lag of the state system, which began under Emperor Nicholas I

          under Alexander (Paul, etc.), it turns out, an advanced system yes
          Quote: Edward Vashchenko
          ended in defeats for the army and the entire system in WWI.

          Entente, which included Russia, won WWII and there was no "defeat" of the Russian armies.

          The defeat in the WWI suffered new the so-called "state system" (Brest).
          1. Edward Vashchenko
            Edward Vashchenko 24 July 2019 13: 54 New
            +3
            Under Alexander and Paul, the Industrial Revolution had just begun, and the “acceleration” given by Peter I still continued to operate.
            Nikolai Pavlovich, struggling with political revolutions, missed the industrial one, and then misfortunes rolled.
            Before the beginning of the 50's, Russia was militarily - the number one country in Europe, but in the economic one, the lag sharply began, which was leveled only in the 30's of the XX century.
            The defeat in the PMR, Brest and the occupation of a huge part of the country are all the result of complete chaos and loss of control of Emperor Nicholas II, as part of the complete collapse of the System.
            Russia simply could not stand this war - it exploded.
            The Bolsheviks took power when everything rolled into tartarar and no one wanted to take responsibility for it.
            No one could and did not want to. Fight for the privileges of power - were ready, for the creation and creation of the System - dismiss.
            Let’s hold the Constituent Assembly - there we’ll see.
            So, the transfer of guilt from an unfulfilled autocracy (system) to a new system is from a sore point to a healthy one.

            And the last, I repeat, but the commanders of the PMR, even with the support, albeit insufficient, at first of the Germans and then of the Entente, could not win the Civil War. Yes, most of the country was not on their side, etc. But here is an assessment of how they knew how to fight.
            1. Ryazan87
              Ryazan87 24 July 2019 14: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              and the “acceleration” given by Peter I still continued to operate.

              Rather, Catherine. Of the Petrovsky manufactories, by the 80s of the 18th century, 1/10 remained. And they had a very distant relation to the industrial revolution. Peter's industry as the Peter's fleet - were created forcibly for a specific task and came to desolation almost instantly upon its achievement. But Peter's methods, yes, they played a very harmful role.
              Nikolai Pavlovich, struggling with political revolutions, missed the industrial

              Yeah right? Even in Soviet times, on a more or less serious level, they did not dare to affirm this (at least take Strumilin). The problem was not at all in the tsar's yawn, but in a few more serious things.
              but in the economic, the lag sharply began
              - Yes, there was no sharp start to the lag. And before that, if we take the qualitative characteristics, then everything was about the same. Moreover, the textile industry (for example), created under Nicholas I, turned out to be much more viable than Peter's crafts.
              Defeat in the PMR
              - I do not lose hope to find out the decoding of this mysterious abbreviation.
              The Bolsheviks took power when everything rolled into tartarar and no one wanted to take responsibility for it.
              - An old song about the saviors of Russian statehood. They’ve come up with something more interesting than the nazbol nonsense.
              I repeat, but the commanders of the PMR, even with the support, albeit insufficient, at first of the Germans and then of the Entente, could not win the Civil War.
              - Do not repeat, but rather learn something about the composition of the military leadership of the Red Army. At least from the book "Military Specialists in the Service of the Republic of Soviets 1917-1920." A.G. Kavtoradze
              R.S. maybe better about the Khazars?
              1. Edward Vashchenko
                Edward Vashchenko 24 July 2019 15: 36 New
                +3
                Dear Nikita,
                PMR - sorry, eyepiece, PMV.
                You settled in insignificant details, getting confused in them.
                What more significant reasons, besides the lag due to the "yawn" of the Industrial Revolution and the existence of a "enslaved" (not all literally) estate, could be? What else?
                Building a control system capable of only "hold and not let go."
                S.G. Strumilin “concluded” in 1966, all the same, it is worth taking into account the periods and features of work in the 60 of the XX century, and the meaning of his research (in the framework of our question) is that in Russia, of course, there was a “point-like” development of certain capitalist relations, in some areas, "since ancient times." And the meaning of the Industrial Revolution is a sharp qualitative leap in the economy, which has been overlooked in the epoch of Nikolai Pavlovich.
                They would not have missed — they had not surrendered Sevastopol. Not missed - would take Istanbul in 1878, etc.
                The same can be said about the work of Kavtoradze, at the beginning of 90's, this is possible "explained everything" when everyone ran and resented: well, how could these stupid Bolsheviks defeat the noble lieutenant Golitsyn and Cornet Obolensky? How? but not in 2019
                By the way, I did not write about the entire personnel of the White armies and the Red Army, but only about generals - generals. And how many Red generals have here, not just corps and staff commanders, but prominent PMV military commanders who led, say, entire Red fronts? Answer: not at all, eight generals to various degrees commanded the fronts, but none of them was a prominent commander of the WWI, the whole "color" of the "victors of the Germans" was in the White movement.
                Yours!
                Are you ready about the Khazars? Sure? wink
                1. Ryazan87
                  Ryazan87 24 July 2019 17: 17 New
                  0
                  You settled in insignificant details, getting confused in them.
                  What more significant reasons, besides the lag due to the "yawn" of the Industrial Revolution and the existence of a "enslaved" (not all literally) estate, could be? What else?

                  The lag in the industrial revolution is a direct consequence of the unfree state of the overwhelming mass of the able-bodied population involved in the agricultural sector. Plus, illiteracy and a lack of educated managers (it is very informative to find out how the introduction of new technologies at military factories went when the established mechanisms for 10-15 years were not used). Plus the underdevelopment of the domestic market. Money for industrialization, where to get it? Therefore, the industrial revolution Nicholas I began with the weakening of serfdom and the development of light industries (textile, sugar). He understood everything well. What his problem is in delaying the solution of the problem of serfdom (although then it was decided so, which also did not work out very well).
                  S.G. Strumilin "finished" in 1966,
                  - specially took it. It is difficult to suspect that he would begin to praise and embellish the Nikolaev period.
                  They would not have missed — they had not surrendered Sevastopol.
                  - The surrender of Sevastopol is the result of a number of military errors and miscalculations of very specific individuals. Nakhimov, by the way, including. And so it can be decided that the stupid attack on the Black River was unsuccessful due to the lag in the industrial revolution.
                  but not in 2019
                  - And the situation with the assessment of the participation of military experts in the Red Army for the period 1988-2019 has changed dramatically? A number of new studies have appeared, yes. But no revolutions. By the way, I didn’t say that the victory of the Bolsheviks is connected only with the involvement of officers and generals of the imperial army.
                  none of them was a prominent commander of the WWI, the whole "color" of the "victors of the Germans" was in the White movement.
                  - Who are these prominent military leaders?
                  Staffer Alekseev? Died in October 1918 due to old age and disease.
                  Denikin? Throughout the war - from brigade commander to commander, only in the summer of 1917 - comfort.
                  Kornilov? He became the commanding officer only in 1917.
                  Ordinary field commanders, in principle.
                  Well, except that Yudenich, but he did not fight with the Germans at all. And with the Turks he did very well, what claims.
                  1. Edward Vashchenko
                    Edward Vashchenko 24 July 2019 21: 23 New
                    0
                    Dear Nikita,
                    Of course not L.G. Kornilov, as a commander is extremely, extremely weak, if not stronger ...
                    However, you yourself said everything for me: about the reasons from Nicholas to the Civil War, you just don’t want or don’t want to establish a bridge of communication, maybe I’m sorry, there’s simply not enough experience: the mediocre management system of outstanding managers cannot, mediocrity pays mediocrity .
                    And the connection is obvious, otherwise, if we follow our logic: Russia is some kind of strange country, where the “tsars" are all fine fellows, but it’s somehow sausage and sausage.
                    The problem is not in Rurik, Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great, but in the fact that they missed the “challenge” in the nineteenth century - and sailed down the stream - the curve would be taken out, but brought to the revolution.
                    Sincerely.
                    About the Khazars ... laughing
                    Magi would listen, another shield nailed to the gates of Tsaregrad
                2. Ryazan87
                  Ryazan87 24 July 2019 17: 45 New
                  0
                  Are you ready about the Khazars? Sure? wink
                  - I would listen with interest to the Arab-Khazar wars. If it will not be like about PMV wink
            2. Olgovich
              Olgovich 25 July 2019 06: 55 New
              -2
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              Under Alexander and Paul, the Industrial Revolution had just begun, and the “acceleration” given by Peter I still continued to operate.
              Nikolai Pavlovich, struggling with political revolutions, missed the industrial one, and then misfortunes rolled.
              Until the early 50s, Russia was militarily - the number one country in Europe, but economically, the backlog began

              You never said the main thing - under what emperor before Nicholas! was ... an advanced system?
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              The defeat in the PMR, Brest and the occupation of a huge part of the country are all the result of complete chaos and loss of control of Emperor Nicholas II, as part of the complete collapse of the System.

              Losses in WWI of Russia Did not have - Remember this once and for all: there is not a single document recognizing this, but there is a document summing up the PM Versailles, where Russia, like France, is recognized as having the right for all reparations and contributions from the side really Conquered Germany
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              Brest and occupation of a huge part of the country are all the result of complete chaos and loss of control of Emperor Nicholas II,

              Lies: Teach Your Country History:
              1. Brest, as well as the so-called "Sovnarkom" is not recognized by NIKEM (except for the occupiers)
              2. It was Brest that led to the occupation of the actual Russian territories of the country, under Nicholas it was NOT in sight.
              3. The usurpers demobilized the army .... during the war.
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              Russia simply could not stand this war - overstrained.

              Yeah, that's why she fought for another 4 years and even ... “broke”, “torn”, the intervention of 14 powers - have you forgotten already?
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              The Bolsheviks took power when everything rolled into tartarar and no one wanted to take responsibility for it.

              The lie-power was elected by the people (CSS) and captured by the overwhelming minority
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              No one could and did not want to. Fight for the privileges of power - were ready, for the creation and creation of the System - dismiss.

              Empty talking room - who needs it? Is it political information in the 70s of the last century?
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              So, the transfer of guilt from an unfulfilled autocracy (system) to a new system is from a sore point to a healthy one.

              An empty conclusion from empty premises: it was the new government that went bankrupt — with its absolutely stupid peace decree, declarations, etc.
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              And the last one, I repeat, but the commanders of the PMR, even with the support, albeit insufficient, at first of the Germans and then of the Entente, could not win the Civil War. Yes, most of the country was not on their side, etc. But here is an assessment of how they knew how to fight. But here is an assessment of how they knew how to fight.

              They won the fight in the EXTERNAL aggressor, this is the main thing, therefore we exist. This is their main assessment.

              With bandits, liars, dishonest people, rapists, but as if "their own, who captured the arms of the 14 millionth army (while decent people fought at the front), it’s always more difficult to fight. But even in these conditions it’s unarmed (compare with the captured weapons of the Russian army), without industrial centers, thanks to the talents of generals, Russia fought against the invaders (according to Putin, national traitors) for the whole 4 years.
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              Yes, most of the country was not on their side, etc.

              How do you define this, about the majority? Maybe your some ... ELECTIONS won? belay lol
              PS The result of yours is the Russian Cross and the borders of Russia of the 17th century, here it is ... a new ... system. angry
              1. Edward Vashchenko
                Edward Vashchenko 25 July 2019 07: 49 New
                +1
                Andrew,
                It is not in my rules to give advice, but I will not restrain myself:
                besides the “study of history”, it is worth getting acquainted with logic and dialectics, so as not to write, like you, everything is overwhelmed.
                I agree in one thing:
                The result of your-Russian Cross and the borders of Russia 17 century-that's such a ... new ... system.
                - this is exactly the one to Russia, which was returned to us after it was lost by the terrible Bolsheviks, in 1991. True, within the borders not only of the seventeenth century, but in the west, even the sixteenth century. Smolensk is a border fortress!
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 25 July 2019 08: 37 New
                  -3
                  Quote: Edward Vashchenko
                  It is not in my rules to give advice, but I will not restrain myself:
                  besides the “study of history”, it is worth getting acquainted with logic and dialectics, so as not to write, like you, everything is overwhelmed.

                  I cited FACTS in response to your empty rantingnot backed up by any facts.
                  Who told you that they are present .... logic? Her no-such is the view from the side.
                  Quote: Edward Vashchenko
                  this is exactly the Russia that was returned to us after the terrible Bolsheviks lost it, in 1991.

                  What is it like?! belay
                  This WHO alone ruled before 1991 and 70 years "successfully" led to this result? Forgot already?
                  Again, the cunning countless enemies of the people hurt the white-furry cherubs?
                  Quote: Edward Vashchenko
                  True, within the borders of not only the XNUMXth century, but in the west, even the XNUMXth century. Smolensk - border fortress

                  Yes, what the Poles could not achieve during the countless wars, the Bolsheviks did, creating, even against the will, even Minsk dwellers, the so-called "Belarusian SSR" in 1922 and increasing it ....twice in 1924, cutting off from Russia and passing it to Smolyan and part of the Smolensk province, like a bag of potatoes ...
                  1. Edward Vashchenko
                    Edward Vashchenko 25 July 2019 11: 51 New
                    +2
                    Andrew,
                    these are not facts, but your delusions generated by cognitive dissonance that hit many in the process of "restructuring" and beyond.
                    Therefore, I consider it unnecessary to respond to your “stream of unconsciousness”.
                    "He who has ears, let him hear!"
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 25 July 2019 12: 11 New
                      -2
                      Quote: Edward Vashchenko
                      Andrew,
                      these are not facts, but your delusions generated by cognitive dissonance that hit many in the process of "restructuring" and beyond.
                      Therefore, I consider it unnecessary to respond to your “stream of unconsciousness”.
                      "He who has ears, let him hear!"

                      Edward,

                      facts cannot be .... a fallacy: they either exist or they do not.

                      You cannot contrast them with anything.

                      Therefore, you do not answer. Which is understandable.

                      In this regard, I would suggest following the "Three" U "" of your guru from Switzerland and learn, however, well-known facts History of Russiaand not 70 years of propaganda and lies about them.

                      For sim hi
  8. sivuch
    sivuch 24 July 2019 10: 26 New
    +1
    The best qualities of Russian military leaders were shown by Ridiger, Leaders and Panyutin.
    And not one of them took a direct part in the Crimean War.
  9. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 24 July 2019 10: 50 New
    +6
    Lord comrades !!! If the author at the beginning of the text mentioned that the years 1848-49 went down in history as the European revolutions or the "Spring of the Peoples" affected many countries of the European continent, and that these revolutions were directed against the power of aristocrats and supported by the nascent bourgeoisie, much article fell into place. There would be a clear picture and the answer is why the Russian sent troops to Hungary, it would have become clear if the military operation is a punitive action with the goal of "preventing bourgeois unrest in Russia." Unfortunately, the author was too lazy or specially missed this moment. And the generals were more “gendarmes” than army men !!! I have already described my reaction to this article. Such "raw" articles only repel readers from VO; there is no "highlight" in them ...
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 24 July 2019 11: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Vitaliy Tsymbal
      The "Spring of the Peoples" was affected by many countries of the European continent, and the fact that these revolutions were directed against the power of aristocrats and supported by the nascent bourgeoisie

      Not quite clear.
      It was a classic "color" revolution of those years.
      1. Vitaly Tsymbal
        Vitaly Tsymbal 24 July 2019 11: 23 New
        +2
        I understood your joke))) Only and "color" - was peaceful in those years - in Denmark.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 24 July 2019 12: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Vitaliy Tsymbal
      Peoples' Spring "affected many countries of the European continent

      In the earth all these springs of peoples, flowers, etc. . The emperor was absolutely right when he sent troops
      1. The comment was deleted.
  10. Prometey
    Prometey 24 July 2019 10: 54 New
    -1
    Among the generals, careerists and slime traders came first. Real combat commanders were ousted, given no way.
    But was it only under Nicholas I? And how were things before him?
    Although it can be argued that Nikolai was a good judge of people, and with him there were many talented people in government and higher military posts whom he appreciated.
    Speransky, Benckendorf, Count Kiselev, Count, and then Prince M.S. Vorontsov is the governor of the Caucasus.
    In the navy and in the army - Paskevich, Baryatinsky, N.N. Raevsky, Admirals Kornilov, Nakhimov.
    In culture and art - Gogol, Pushkin, Monferan and others.
    And by the way, Nicholas I was quite tolerant of a different opinion.
    Yes, by the end of the reign he did not renew the state apparatus and army command, which in many respects played a negative role in the Crimean War. But it was a system - in the Russian Empire, rotation was always weak.
    As a result, the army, which defeated the "invincible" Napoleon, gradually lost the ability to fight, and did not prepare for war, resting on old laurels.
    Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, there was no Russian army there.
    Not getting ready for war? With European countries? And why - after all, before the Crimean War, there were no insoluble contradictions with any country. The main opponents - Turkey and Persia - were very weak. Permanent military operations with the highlanders took place in the Caucasus. Campaigns of 1830 and 1849 - This is also a war. Just the Russian army had a good military experience.
  11. Seal
    Seal 24 July 2019 11: 37 New
    +2
    Quote: Olgovich
    Wow "logical": why didn’t it fall apart over the next 70 years
    In this case, Samsonov is not far from the truth. The collapse of the Austrian Empire was just natural. But after the defeat of the Austrian Empire in the Austro-German war and the exclusion of the Austrian Empire from the German Confederation in 1860, the Austro-Hungarian agreement was concluded the following year (in March 1867), which turned the Austrian empire into Austria-Hungary. The new state was a constitutional dualistic monarchy, divided into Translitania and Tsisleitania. Both parts were led by the former emperor of the Austrian Empire, Franz Joseph I, who ruled Austria-Hungary until 1916.
    In the future, it was planned to create the Triune Monarchy: Austria-Hungary-Czech Republic. The defeat in the First World War prevented.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 24 July 2019 12: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Seal
      The collapse of the Austrian Empire was just natural.

      even defeat the Austrian Empire in the Austro-German war did not lead to a "logical" collapse.
      But it should be ....
  12. Seal
    Seal 24 July 2019 16: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: Olgovich
    But it should be ....

    And so it did. By the collapse of the two states (Austria, Hungary) that created the federation.

    In 1867, a new form of state dualism was established in Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary was declared a real union of two state-in. The Cisleytan law of 1867 defined the competence of the union: foreign affairs, defense, etc. Allied ministries were formed to guide general issues, which constituted the government of the empire. The government was led by the emperor.
    There were two legislative bodies. In Austria - the Reichsrat and in Hungary - the Sejm. And for legislation on general issues, a general imperial representation was envisaged in which the Reichsrat and the Hungarian Sejm delegated their representatives on a proportional basis. Delegations from 2 parts of the empire sat and resolved issues separately. Each could require a joint meeting.

    A feature of dualism was the weakness of the legislature. Weakness in the inevitability of national contradictions. The executive body of the union prevailed in the state mechanism.

    The peculiarity of the Austro-Hungarian dualistic monarchy is its ignorance of the institution of citizenship. Another feature is the lack of a single legal and judicial system. The Austrian Civil Code of 1811 was applied in Hungary only from 1852 (subsidiary). Formally, despite the union, Austria and Hungary were separate states.

    Austria was ruled by an emperor from the Habsburg dynasty. By virtue of the union, he was the king of Hungary. He was the king of Bohemia by virtue of his own right - inheritance. In the field of executive power, the emperor exercised through ministers. The ministers countered the acts of the emperor. The emperor retained the right to pardon. In the field of legislative power, the emperor exercised through a bicameral Reichsrat. He appointed deputies to the upper house (Herrenshaus), and the lower house (Abgeordnetenhaus) was elected by the population according to a complex five-curriculum system for 6 years. In 1906, this system was canceled. The Reichsrat legislated on all matters relating to the conduct of Austria.

    Local governments in the person of their Landtags had great powers.

    Management in Hungary was identical to Austrian. The only difference was that the principle of political responsibility of ministers was more strongly developed here. On some issues, ministers could be fired at the request of the Sejm. The Hungarian Diet of two chambers: the aristocratic Table of magnates and the democratic Table of representatives. The table of magnates was formed by the king. The table of representatives was elected by the population according to a system of censored democracy. The term of the legislature is 5 years.
  13. datur
    datur 25 July 2019 02: 14 New
    0
    MDA- ALL trash hang-who does not agree to shoot !! wink learning from the Germans !!!! drinks drinks
  14. Seal
    Seal 25 July 2019 08: 14 New
    0
    Quote: Edward Vashchenko
    Before the beginning of the 50's, Russia was militarily - the number one country in Europe, but in the economic one, the lag sharply began, which was leveled only in the 30's of the XX century.
    With the fact that such countries as England and France in the middle of the 19th century, and maybe even earlier (France under Napoleon), we began to outstrip us in terms of growth rates and industrial production volume. Well, what about the rest of the country?
    Austrian Empire? It is unlikely that we lagged behind her. Maybe in some ways lagged behind, but in some ways ahead.
    German states? They may also be lagging behind someone, but they are ahead of someone else.
    Holland?
    Belgium?
    Sweden?
    Greece?
    Ottoman Empire ?
    Portugal
    Switzerland ?
    Sardinia
    Kingdom of Naples?
    Papal region?
  15. wolf20032
    wolf20032 26 July 2019 09: 15 New
    0
    Quote: Prometey
    In East Prussia in 1914, too, was a disaster for the German army?

    This is a judgment at the level of the first quarter of the second class. It is strange to judge the outcome of the war, the readiness of the army on the first day. Usually, normal people look who and when signed the act of surrender. Germany and Austria in 18 year lost the war completely, about which they signed the relevant documents. Britain, France and the United States are still listed as winners. The Russian Empire had every right and should have been among the winners. And if Germany held out until November 18, how much would it have fought, had Russia remained in the war? The Russian army won that war, only the betrayal and cowardice of the elite deprived it of a well-deserved victory.
  16. Nadir shah
    Nadir shah 29 August 2019 22: 47 New
    0
    Quote: wolf20032
    Quote: Prometey
    In East Prussia in 1914, too, was a disaster for the German army?

    This is a judgment at the level of the first quarter of the second class. It is strange to judge the outcome of the war, the readiness of the army on the first day. Usually, normal people look who and when signed the act of surrender. Germany and Austria in 18 year lost the war completely, about which they signed the relevant documents. Britain, France and the United States are still listed as winners. The Russian Empire had every right and should have been among the winners. And if Germany held out until November 18, how much would it have fought, had Russia remained in the war? The Russian army won that war, only the betrayal and cowardice of the elite deprived it of a well-deserved victory.

    funny. Americans say the same thing about Vietnam - they say we won, and politicians deprived us of victory. And they are not alone. The reality is that the RI lost the war - it could not, by definition, win, regardless of whether it was on the side of the Entente or the Central Powers, its end was a foregone conclusion. Yes there, even the Germans preparing for it lost the war (the only ones of them, by the way). Nicholas 2 hoped for a small victorious one in order to improve things, not realizing that his empire was already doomed, the explosion at 17m was not that inevitable - he was even a little late, because in 1904-5 the top did not learn anything. As a result, the emperor is completely overthrown by his own, for mediocrity, and then the Bolsheviks come (not from Mars, by the way, but their own ones) and put things in order, because the imperial regime has already fallen for all polymers a long time ago and the war only accelerated its death . Well, what about the zombies?
  17. Spnsr
    Spnsr 2 October 2019 18: 29 New
    0
    Russia then controlled all of Europe, and all these brawls are just the pacification of the Separs. And Austria, the same part of one home of the Romanovs. And only the first world ruined the Russian empire and created a more or less modern map of Europe.