The beginning of the people's war

The manifestations of the people's war against Napoleon’s Great Army can be seen from the very beginning of the 1812 campaign of the year. Already in the territory of Lithuania and Belarus, peasants attacked the invaders. These attacks were the response of the population to occupiers policy. Capturing Lithuania and Belarus, Napoleon Bonaparte was counting on the separatist aspirations of a significant part of the local nobility. The French provided Lithuania with a kind of self-government, but instead demanded people and food. In addition, Napoleon did not hold progressive events, which he introduced in a number of European countries. Thus, serfdom remained intact. As a result, the pressure on the peasantry was not only not relieved, but even intensified. The peasants were supposed to take food and livestock for the Great Army, pay new taxes and fulfill duties in favor of the invaders. Soon the peasants began to oppose the occupiers, and against the nobility, who collaborated with the French.

6 (18) July “Provisional rule of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” demanded that all the peasants who left their homes when the French troops appeared, returned and began to perform agricultural work and duties. The next day, the Provisional Government and the spiritual authorities appealed to the nobility to gather peasants and persuade them to return to their previous activities. In Kurland, it was stated that no changes in the structure of this province and the relationship between the gentlemen and his subjects are expected. A similar statement was made after the capture of Smolensk.

The plundering and violence of the invaders, the growth of requisitions, the strengthening of landlord oppression — all this made the peasants take up weapon. And do not think that all the peasants moved only patriotic impulses. People were forced to protect themselves and loved ones. Others found the situation convenient for settling accounts with landlords. Peasants smashed homesteads, offices, killed nobles. Facts riots noted in the Smolensk province, the peasants of Dorogobuzh, Sychevsky and Vyazemsky districts killed landowners and divided noble lands among themselves.

Many nobles turned to the French for help. Davou in Mogilev declared that he would use military force to keep peasants in obedience to landowners. Vitebsk Governor Charpentier sent several punitive detachments to suppress peasant uprisings. In Smolensk, on the orders of Napoleon, a mobile convoy was organized in 200 by a soldier with a court martial who issued death sentences for revolts against landowners.

One of the main reasons for the growing resistance of the population was looting, violence and murder. Various types of crime against the local population were commonplace for a mixed tribe of invaders. They robbed, raped and killed everything - the French, Italians, Poles, and all sorts of Germans. Robberies and murders took place even in Vilna itself. So, almost all the houses were looted in the suburbs. Therefore, the peasants tried to go into the woods, taking the livestock with them and hiding food.

Residents of the village of Smolevichi of the Borisov district, the village of Trestyan of the Igumen district, the village of Zhartsy of the Polotsk district and a number of other rural settlements organized groups for self-defense and attacked the invaders. The population actively helped the Russian troops. So, to the garrison appointed to protect Mogilyov, citizens joined. They took part in the defense of the city. A detachment from the village Zhartsy took part in the Battle of Polotsk. The peasants attacked small enemy garrisons and fodder teams. As a result, to protect the rear, Napoleon was forced to leave about 50 thousand soldiers in Lithuania and Belarus.

Invaders could feel more or less calm only in cities. Here, under their protection, local noblemen fled. Shlyakhta waited for victorious news and handouts from Napoleon. However, as soon as news of the victories of the Russian army came, alarming rumors began to spread among the nobility. The defeat of part of the Saxon corps Rainier near Kobrin caused a real panic in Lithuania and Warsaw. They even wanted to start collecting militia to protect the capital of the Duchy of Warsaw. The news of the defeat of the Udino corps in the battle of Klyastitsy led to the fact that many Kurland landowners refused to surrender money, food and fodder to the French. Contribution has not been collected. In addition, the Lithuanian nobility now was in no hurry to create armed units for the Great Army.

It should be noted that the peasant revolts against the landowners alarmed the Russian government. In St. Petersburg, they did not forget about the sad experience of the Pugachev region. Alexander I orders the commander of the troops to use military force to quell riots. The commander of the 2 th reserve corps, F. F. Ertel, suppressed a peasant uprising in Ovruch. The commander of the 1 Infantry Corps, P.H. Wittgenstein, used force at Verro. After the French troops approached Dvina and occupied Vitebsk, the peasants of Surozhsky, Nevelsky and other povets drove out their landlords. Unrest began in the Polotsk district. Wittgenstein had to send troops to restore order. By decision of the court-martial, the leaders of the rebellion were sentenced to death. The actions of the central and military authorities were quite logical. During the invasion of the enemy army it was impossible to prevent the outbreak of a peasant war, this could lead to the death of Russian statehood. The very first shoots of riots were brutally suppressed.

Many feared the actions of Napoleon, aimed at enticing the peasantry to his side. So, N. N. Rajewski wrote from Nesvizh 28 June: “I am afraid of proclamations, so that Napoleon would not give liberties to the people, I am afraid in our land of internal turmoil”. F. F. Rostopchin wrote to the emperor about the readiness of people to "follow in the footsteps of Robespierre and Santer." Sovereign Alexander even ordered the governors to withdraw weapons from the rural population. Many nobles were afraid to arm the peasants to fight the French.

In July, the state tried to control the spontaneously initiated popular movement. 6 (18) July 1812, Alexander issued a Manifesto on the creation of a national militia and an appeal to the inhabitants of the “First Throne Capital of Moscow,” calling for the initiators of this “popular armament”. At the same time, it was emphasized that at the end of the war everyone would return to their former state and duties.

Two main factors became the basis of the people's war against the invaders. Firstly, Napoleon did not take active measures to “liberalize” the position of the peasantry. Secondly, it is the actions of the occupiers against the local population (robbery, murder and violence). For the people, representatives of the French army were clearly enemies, predators. Therefore, the peasant war did not start, as well as any significant uprisings in Belarus or Smolensk.

Alexander I's manifesto on the collection within the Zemstvo militia state. 6 (18) July 1812

Why did not Napoleon free the Russian peasants from serfdom?

In 1773-1775 Russia was shaken by a peasant war. Tens of thousands of people joined the uprising. At the disposal of Pugachev was a large artillery park, almost all of the Ural gun and rifle factories. Cossacks and peasants seized dozens of cities and towns, several large cities were under siege. The landowners were mercilessly killed, panic reigned in the noble estates of Central Russia. The uprising could drown in blood. However, the problem remained, there were still two worlds in Russia: a huge peasant Russia and a Westernized elite. For the fire was needed only a significant reason.

In the very first days of the 1812 war, a rumor was born among the peasantry that Napoleon came to Russia in order to free the peasants. It was even rumored that the Russian tsar himself specifically invited the “angry peasant” (as the peasants called the French emperor) to give free rein to the peasants, since Alexander himself is not given this by generals and nobles. Rumors were reinforced by riots directed primarily against landlords.

In Vitebsk, where the Great Army was delayed for eighteen days (the French emperor thought to stop the offensive and continue it during the 1813 campaign of the year), peasant walkers came to Napoleon and waited for him to give them free rein. The empire could embrace a large-scale peasant war.

General Eugene Beauharnais even prepared a draft decree on the liberation of the Russian peasantry from serfdom, following the model of the documents that were published by Napoleon in the European feudal countries that were seized by the French army. Eugene Beauharnais was fully confident that Napoleon would immediately sign this decree, and thereby win this campaign. However, Napoleon did not.

Why? He himself explained his deed in December 1812, in a speech before the French Senate. According to him, he had to abandon this measure, as she would have condemned the death of thousands of families. Subsequently, already in exile on St. Helena, Napoleon spoke in the spirit that, as a monarch, he could not undermine the power over the subjects of another monarch.

Comments

[Leisure]

The article is very instructive, with an eye in our time.

[Brother Sarych]

The article really deals with a rather interesting question, which is usually not accepted to touch upon ...
The topic covers a much larger article ...

[vezunchik]

Yes, Napoleon represented the Republic, so they expected this from him. But he focally betrayed her, becoming a dictator and emperor.

[Nuar]

double standards, however.

Napoleon spoke in the spirit that, as a monarch, he could not undermine power over the subjects of another monarch.

although nothing had bothered him before:

prepared a draft decree on the liberation of the Russian peasantry from serfdom on the model of those documents that were published by Napoleon in the European feudal countries that the French army captured.

Or, on the contrary, in "European feudal countries" the monarchs were unequal to the monarch Napoleon?

[Ross]

In total, 37 years have passed since the time of the Pugachev uprising.
Even official historians admit about the "uprising" itself: "The peasant war of 1773-1775 was the most powerful. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in it. The territory covered by it stretched from the Voronezh-Tambov region in the West to Shadrinsk and Tyumen in the east, from the Caspian to south to Nizhny Novgorod and Perm in the north. This peasant war was characterized by a higher degree of organization of the rebels. They copied some of the government bodies of Russia. Under the "emperor" there was a headquarters, a military college with a chancellery. The main army was divided into regiments, communication was maintained, including including sending written orders, reports and other documents. "
So was it just a riot?
A.S. PUSHKIN UNSUCCESSELY TRYED TO GET ACCESS TO ARCHIVES ON THE HISTORY OF THE "PUGACHEV'S WAR".
So, until the end of the XVIII century, there was a very large, that is, THE BIGGEST IN THE WORLD, according to the British Encyclopedia of the 1771 year, and an independent Siberian-American state with the capital in Tobolsk, the biblical Tobol-Fuval. This Russian-Horde state was captured after the victory over Pugachev. Let's see how the war with Pugachev is presented in the Romanov version of Russian history.
Let's start with the fact that the case about Yemelyan Pugachev, according to the testimony of A.S. Pushkin, was considered an IMPORTANT STATE SECRET, and was never printed during the time of A.S. Pushkin, in 1833, when he wrote about it [709], with .661. It is appropriate to recall here that A.S. Pushkin wrote The History of Pugachev. In which, as he writes, "collected everything that was made public by the government about Pugachev, and what seemed to me reliable in foreign writers who spoke about him" [709], p.661. However, materials to A.S. Pushkin were only enough for a relatively small work. His "History of Pugachev" is only 36 pages in edition [709]. At the same time, A.S. Pushkin himself, apparently, realized that his work was very incomplete. Although he tried to find everything possible. A.S. Pushkin writes: "A future historian, who WILL BE ALLOWED TO PRINT THE CASE OF Pugachev, will easily correct and supplement my work" [709], p.661.
The general impression from the history of the Pugachev "revolt" in its Romanov version, in particular from Pushkin's "History of Pugachev", is as follows. The government troops of Catherine II the Great allegedly without much effort smash the disorganized, disorderly gangs of Pugachev. Pugachev rushes to flight, but for some reason his "flight" is directed towards MOSCOW. They write like this: “Only Mikhelson was active against the rebels. He rushed against the Pugachevites into the mountains, defeated them” [183], v.3, p.125. After this "defeat" Pugachev TAKES KAZAN. Further: “Mikhelson was approaching Kazan. Pugachev went to meet him, but FAILED and retreated to Kazan. A new battle took place here, in which the rebels suffered a COMPLETE DEFEAT” [183], v.3, p.125. What does the "utterly defeated" Pugachev do after this? And here's what: "Pugachev crossed the Volga and went to Nizhny Novgorod, meaning to move on to Moscow in the future. The movement of the rebels in this direction FURNISHED not only Nizhny, but Moscow as well. AND RUSSIA. The Empress was dissuaded from this decision ... By this time, the war with Turkey was over, SUVOROV ARRIVED from the front and was appointed the CHIEF OF ALL TROOPS against the rebels "[183], v.3, p.125.
The well-known author of the history of the Don army, E.P. Savelyev, reports that, among others, "14 Don regiments, taken from the active army, fought with Pugachev" [757], p.428.
Thus, even from the distorted and cleaned-up of the Romanov version of Russian history, it is clear that a regular Romanov army was mobilized to counter the "riot". Moreover, it was headed not by someone, but personally by AV SUVOROV, that is, the CHIEF COMMANDER of the Romanov army of that era [183], v.3, p.125. And this is understandable. It was not about suppressing the "peasant revolt". A large-scale CIVIL WAR was raging, with large professional ARMYs deployed on both sides. With artillery and heavy cavalry.
By the way, the Ural factories worked for Pugachev and CAST GUNS FOR HIM. The Romanov version of history convinces us that the Ural workers "rebelled" and joined Pugachev [183], v.3, p.125. But most likely, this was not the case. The Ural factories at that time simply belonged to Moscow Tartary, whose troops were led by Pugachev. Therefore, the arms factories worked for him.
In the Romanov version of history, we are offered to consider that Pugachev unlawfully CALLED HIMSELF Tsar Peter Fedorovich, that is, Peter III Romanov [183], v.3, p.126; [709], p.687. Entering the cities, Pugachev published the Tsar's Manifestos [183], v.3, p.126. It is very significant that when Pugachev took the cities, he was joyfully greeted not only by ordinary people, but by SPIRITUALITY AND WERE. For example, "On July 27, Pugachev entered Saransk. He was greeted not only by the black people, but by the clergy and merchants ... Pugachev approached Penza ... Residents came to meet him with icons and bread and fell on their knees before him." [709], p. 690. Further: "In Saransk ARCHIMANDRIT ALEXANDER RECEIVED PUGACHEV WITH THE CROSS AND THE GOSPEL, and during the prayer at the litany, he mentioned the STATE DOCTRINE PETROVNA" [709], p.690. That is, the archimandrite named the name of ANOTHER QUEEN, not Catherine II! Apparently, it was about the queen of Moscow Tartary.
Based on his research, A.S. Pushkin makes the following conclusion:
"ALL BLACK PEOPLE WERE FOR Pugachev; THE SPIRITUALITY WISHED HIM, NOT ONLY POPS AND MONKS, BUT ARCHIMANDRITES AND ARCHIEREE" [709], p.697.
Most likely, today we do not know the real name of the Tobolsk Tsar-Khan of that time and the real name of the leader of the Russian-Horde troops. The name Pugachev was probably simply invented by Romanov historians. Or a simple Cossack with such a significant name was chosen. After all, one cannot fail to see that "Pugachev" is simply a "scarecrow", "a scarecrow". In exactly the same way, the Romanovs chose a "suitable surname" for Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich. Allegedly, too, an "impostor" as they diligently portrayed it. He was given the "surname" Otrep'ev, that is, simply Otrebye. Like, that's who encroached on the royal power. Thief, rabble, scarecrow. The goal is clear. Develop a negative attitude towards these people. Emphasize the "obviousness" of their "imposture". All this is an understandable psychological device of experienced propagandists.
Meanwhile, A.S. Pushkin reports that the Yaik Cossacks, who fought on the side of Pugachev, argued at that time, "that there really was a certain Pugachev between them, but that with Tsar Peter III (the name of Peter III was added here by A.S. .Pushkin - Author) leading them, HAS NOTHING IN COMMON "[709], p.694. In other words, the Yaik Cossacks did not at all believe that Pugachev, executed by the Romanovs, was their leader. They talked about some kind of KING. Which one - today we will hardly be able to establish, using the Romanov version of these events. Naturally, the Romanovs most of all tried to convince the whole world that there are no other tsars in Russia besides themselves and cannot be.
By the way, Pugachev himself, according to A.S. Pushkin, to Panin's question - how dare he call himself a sovereign? - answered evasively in the sense that IT IS NOT HIM [709], p.694. It's clear what happened. In order to prove to the whole world that the war with Moscow Tartary was simply the suppression of a "peasant revolt", a simple Cossack was executed in Moscow, calling him an impostor tsar. To make it obvious to everyone that this simple Cossack "of course is not a king."

[Brother Sarych]

Yeah, the story is dark there - and, for example, why did Catherine call Pugachev the Marquis?

[rainer]

Can you link to sources? Especially about the scale and "poor oppressed" peasants?

[hrych]

The only, Western European name for Tartary, comes from the Greek Tartarus - the abyss, hell, hell. Those. zapadentsy called our country a chasm because of its vast territory and frightening suspense. Tatar initially had a synonym for a trait that refers to non-Muscovite natives, who migrated through the Orthodox, Greek clergy to Russians and became the general designation of the native population, which had lost its original meaning. Today, some Kazan nationalists (ethnically Volga Bulgarians), calling themselves Tatars (devils), are very proud.

[Ottofonfenhel]

Quote: Ross

Moreover, it was headed not by someone, but personally by AV SUVOROV, that is, the CHIEF COMMANDER of the Romanov army of that era [183], v.3, p.125. And this is understandable. It was not about suppressing the "peasant revolt". A large-scale CIVIL WAR was in full swing, with large professional ARMYs deployed on both sides. With artillery and heavy cavalry.

Suvorov REALLY suppressed the uprising, which is mentioned in his memoirs, historians of the Soviet period are modestly silent about this, so as not to spoil the image of the "people's generalismus" factories, but only those who cast them could shoot from them)) Pugachev had few artillerymen and they rarely survived one or two battles, i.e. Pugachev needed guns insofar as his tactics were based on delivering an unexpected powerful blow to the Tatar-Bashkir cavalry, if the enemy withstood him usually Pugachev retreated, Pugachev easily endured losses, because it was not a problem to recruit new ones (the backbone of his army was made up of fugitive convicts, Cossacks looking for easy money, vatazhniki, Bashkirs and Tatars), everyone did not care at all, Tsar Pugachev, not a tsar, just "love" with him, that's all. I advise everyone to read V. Pikul he has a lot about Pugachev written in his stories , they are all based on archival documents.