Union of Hope December 14, 1825


Why did the Decembrists lose? But really, why? After all, the attempted armed coup made by the liberal conspirators seemed to have every chance of success, and no worse than a quarter century before.


Fake News Against the Truth


So, first of all, the situation of interregnum worked for the rebels after the death of Alexander I. The general tension in the Russian elite was especially aggravated after the inexplicable majority of inhabitants of the empire renounced the right to the throne of the elder brother of the late tsar Konstantin Pavlovich. Many of the subjects had already sworn allegiance to him as a legitimate sovereign.


A situation has formed in the country, which today would be called an information vacuum. Not only the “mob”, but also a significant part of the nobility and even court circles were ignorant of the motives of the candidates for the throne and the future monarchy. Rumors and the most incredible guesses fueled the imagination of the subjects left without higher care.

Truth often looks far less convincing than a lie. At one time, reliable information from the government of Boris Godunov about Grishka Otrepiev could not stand the competition with an entertaining legend about the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dimitri.

Here is the official version of the emperor’s refusal of the right to the throne and the need for a new oath to his brother, although it corresponded to the true state of affairs, but in the eyes of the average man it looked like an impudent deception. At the same time, all kinds of “fakes”, for example, that Tsar Konstantin was going from Warsaw to the capital to protect his throne, or even hidden in the Senate building, on the contrary, were unconditionally accepted on faith.

This greatly facilitated the task of agitation among the soldiers of the guard regiments, whom the officers involved in the plot urged not to swear allegiance to the "usurper" Nikolai, but to defend the true sovereign. In this regard, the usual definition of the rebellion of 1825 as an anti-monarchist speech should be considered at least conditional, because only the top of the Decembrists considered it as such.

Often, the masses were involved in political movements by deception, promises, false or falsely understood slogans, or baseless expectations of the participants themselves. Often, the interests of various forces involved in the movement coincided only partly for a while, but the case when the goals of leaders and their supporters were directly opposed at first should be recognized as unique not only in the domestic, but, perhaps, in the world stories.

If the instigators of the coup set the task of changing the political system, scrapping the existing political system, then for the personnel of the rebel regiments the motive was precisely the restoration of the rule of law, which was threatened by the insidious "thief of the throne" Nikolai. So did the townspeople.

Union of Hope December 14, 1825

It is for this reason that the Petersburgers gathered around the rebel горяч s heartfelt sympathy for them, and the following calls came from the crowd to the newly minted autocrat: “Come here, impostor, we will show you how to take away someone else's!” When Metropolitan Seraphim approached the rebels, convincing them that Konstantin was in Warsaw, they did not believe him: “No, he’s not in Warsaw, but at the last station in chains ... Pass him here! .. Cheers, Konstantin!”


Shouting "Hooray, Constantine!" that day many were ready

What can we say about the lower ranks of the guard regiments or the townsfolk, even if some officers, the Decembrists, saw what was happening as a statement in support of the legitimate sovereign. For example, Prince Dmitry Shchepin-Rostovsky, whose scrutiny was taken to the Moscow regiment, did not think about any restriction of the monarchy, but went to defend the right to the throne of the legitimate emperor Constantine.

The uprising on Senate Square was a military coup, taking the form of suppressing an imaginary coup, a rebellion under the guise of curbing the rebels.

Novels and Emptiness


In this regard, the question arises: how, in the light of all these circumstances, the Decembrists would be able to maintain power if successful. But, as they say, this is a completely different story, but we will try not to go beyond the events of December 14th. And on this day, we repeat, the chances of the conspirators to win were very high.

Despite organizational friability and flaws in planning (which we will talk about in more detail later), the Decembrists nevertheless rather consistently prepared for the coup. Although Nikolai was warned about the conspiracy, in spite of common wisdom, he was not at all “armed” because he had no one to arm. Accordingly, the grand duke did not even have and could not have any even the most approximate plan of action or counter-actions.

The real power in the capital belonged to Governor-General Mikhail Miloradovich, who was subordinate to the troops and the secret police. Miloradovich openly supported Konstantin and prevented the accession to the throne of his younger brother. Nicholas, of course, remembered that the head of the conspiracy against Paul I, Count Peter Palen, on the fateful days of March 1801, also served as the St. Petersburg military governor, and this analogy could not but worry him.


Governor-General of St. Petersburg Mikhail Miloradovich

With information on the anti-government intentions of the main conspirators and direct indications on their account, Governor-General Miloradovich was almost demonstratively inactive. He was inactive even on December 13, when the head of the Southern Society, Colonel Pavel Pestel, was arrested at the headquarters of the 2nd Army in Tulchin (now the Vinnytsia region of Ukraine).

At this time, in the capital of the empire, with the full connivance of the police, the head of the Northern Society Kondraty Ryleyev was completing preparations for the uprising. However, the author does not share the version that Miloradovich almost stood behind the coup. Mikhail Andreevich felt too much power for himself to exchange for conspiratorial games with figures like Ryleyev and his insignificant associates. He knew about the maturing conspiracy and was not averse to using it in his interests - nothing more.

But if, unlike Miloradovich, other generals and dignitaries did not dare to openly front up against Nicholas, this did not mean that the future emperor could rely on them. And this is another argument in favor of the success of the uprising: the conspirators clearly lacked “thick epaulettes” in their ranks, but they at least firmly relied on the “company commanders” and most of them already confirmed their resolve during the speech.

Nikolai did not have this either. A vacuum formed around him: any of the officers or generals surrounding him could be a traitor. “The day after tomorrow, in the morning, I am either a sovereign or without breathing,” the Grand Duke admitted in a letter.

In this regard, the position of the guards infantry commander Karl Bistrom, then still only Lieutenant General, with all his merits and long service, is noteworthy. Both adjutants of General Evgeny Obolensky and Yakov Rostovtsev were among the conspirators, Karl Ivanovich himself declared that he would not swear to anyone but Konstantin.


General Karl Bistrom

Bistrom, sharing the political preferences of his boss Miloradovich, was obviously afraid that the southern temperament and self-confidence of the military governor would harm him and the cause of the ill-wishers of Nikolai. We can not ignore that Bistrom had a personal reserve in the form of a regiment of guards rangers, whom he commanded for several years. At the decisive moment, the general was ready to throw his trump card on the table.

On December 14, Bistrom laid down the oath of the rangers and, taking a truly Mkhatov pause, he waited in which direction the scales would lean. Ostzey’s composure did not disappoint Karl Ivanovich, and although the emperor himself did not conceal that Bistrom’s behavior on the day of the coup seemed at least strange, no one made specific claims to the general, and his subsequent career was quite successful.

In light of the foregoing, we can assume that the oath to Nikolai, scheduled for December 14, resulted in an experiment, the result of which for all of its participants seemed unpredictable. Only the process of oath could show who is who. Nikolai was left with the worst - to wait. He did everything possible: he approached the date of the oath, promised promises for officers in the event of a successful outcome, but the opposite side, if successful, could offer them their bonuses.

All initiative was in the hands of opponents of the monarchy. Unlike Nikolai, by the morning of December 14, the putschists had fairly complete information about what was happening in the garrison, the mood of the lower ranks and officers, and had the opportunity to coordinate their efforts.

Moreover, as the “dictator” of the uprising, Prince Sergey Trubetskoy, writes in his notes, the conspirators were well informed of all the actions of the Grand Duke and the entire military authorities. Under these conditions, the Decembrists could only lose to themselves. Which they did.

Do you have a plan, Mr. Fix?


In school textbooks, the actions of the rebels on December 14 look like a mysterious standing on Senate Square in anticipation of the gathering of government troops and as a result of their defeat. Just as M.V. Nechkina once did, so today Y. A. Gordin is trying to refute the established opinion about the inaction of the rebels.

So, Nechkina noted that it was “not standing, but the process of collecting parts”, which, in our opinion, does not fundamentally change anything in the picture of events. Gordin adds emotion, emphasizing that the rebel units fought their way to the square, but this again adds nothing to the essence of the matter.


In the book “Decembrists and Their Time”, V. A. Fedorov adheres to the “school” version, indicating that the Decembrists had every opportunity to capture the Winter Palace, the Peter and Paul Fortress, the Arsenal and even arrest Nikolai and his family. But they limited themselves to active defense and, not daring to go on the offensive, took a waiting position, which allowed Nicholas I to gather the necessary military forces.

The researcher notes a number of other tactical errors, in particular, "an order to assemble in Senate Square, but without an exact indication of what to do next." But in this case, who exactly made tactical mistakes, who specifically gave the order to gather for the Senate?

Fedorov reports that the first plan of the uprising was developed by Trubetskoy: its general meaning was to bring the regiments out of the city even before Konstantin renounced, and, relying on armed force, demand from the government to introduce a constitution and representative government. The historian, noting the feasibility of this plan, indicates that he was rejected, and the plan of Ryleyev and Pushchin was adopted, according to which, with the beginning of the oath, the indignant units were brought to Senate Square in order to force the Senate to declare the Manifesto to destroy the old government.

Gordin’s Ryleyev-Pushchin’s plan becomes ... Trubetskoy’s plan, more precisely, a “combat plan”, apparently, in contrast to the previous version of the military demonstration presented by the prince. This plan of Trubetskoy allegedly consisted of two main components: the first - the capture of the palace by an attack group and the arrest of Nikolai with his family and generals, the second - the concentration of all other forces in the Senate, the establishment of control over the Senate building, the subsequent strikes in the right directions - the seizure of the fortress, the arsenal.

“With this plan in mind, Trubetskoy went to Ryleyev in the evening of December 12,” Gordin reports.

Not having the opportunity to "get into the head" of Trubetskoy, let us give the floor to the prince himself. During the investigation, the dictator showed the following: “Regarding the routine made about the actions of December 14, I did not change anything under my previous assumption; that is, that the Naval crew go to the Izmailovsky regiment, this one to the Moscow, but the Leib-Grenadier and Finland should go directly to Senate Square, where the others would come. ”

However, this is a completely different plan! And Gordin mentions him, though as a preliminary and without naming the author. It was based on the following system of actions: the first units that refused to swear take a certain route from the barracks to the barracks and take others by their example, and then follow to Senate Square. “But this plan, because of its bulkiness, slowness and uncertainty, did not suit Ryleev at all,” Gordin emphasizes, “Trubetskoy accepted him for want of a better one ...”

But what is cumbersome, indefinite and slow in this regard? On the contrary, the approach of the rebel forces would have a decisive effect on doubters from other regiments and would speed up and intensify the concentration of rebel forces many times over. In this embodiment, the gathering of troops instead of passive waiting in the square implied vigorous action.


Petersburg, December 14, 1825

From the starting point of the movement, the Naval crew, to the Izmailovsky barracks, about fifteen minutes walk, and from there along the Fontanka from half an hour from the force to the Moscow regiment. Trubetskoy completes the presentation of the plan with the addition of the Moscow Regiment and, for obvious reasons, says nothing about the plans for the Winter Palace.

However, it is obvious that parts of the rebels along Gorokhovaya Street went to the Admiralty, but from there they could turn left to the Senate, and they could turn right to the Winter Palace. As for the Senate, the units located away from this route were supposed to advance there: the Finnish regiment was located on Vasilievsky Island, and the Life Guards on the Petersburg side.

It is understood that these are only outline of the plan, but its logic is quite clear. Meanwhile, they want to assure us that, in the absence of another, Trubetskoy accepted the unknown version, which came from somewhere. However, the prince not only does not hide his authorship, moreover, from his words it follows that this tactic was proposed to him before, and he continued to insist on it.

Senate Factor


It is generally accepted that the rebels intended to force the Senate to abandon the oath to Nicholas and proclaim the Manifesto they had prepared, but the Grand Duke ahead of them, reassigning the date of the oath to an earlier time. Given the fact that the leaders of the uprising knew about the oath being transferred and had the opportunity to respond to the changing situation, standing in the square in front of the empty Senate seems absurd. It turns out that the Decembrists, not having prepared the plan “B”, continued to act according to the plan “A”, realizing that it was not feasible ?!

Gordin is trying to resolve this collision, noting that the Decembrists did not expect to catch the Senate oath with the soldiers on the square.

“The leaders of the secret society had no doubt that if they succeeded in making a coup, arresting the imperial family and taking control of the Senate building, it would not be difficult to gather senators with the help of Senate couriers. Whether they will find senators in the Senate or not, they did not care at all. ”

Is it so? Nechkina, relying on the numerous testimonies of the coup participants, points out that the Decembrists intended to force the Senate to take their side, which, of course, does not mean sending couriers, but forcefully seizing the building along with dignitaries sitting there and directly affecting them.


The new building of the Governing Senate (pictured) appeared after the Decembrists' speech, and earlier there was the house of the merchant Kusovnikova

The refusal of the oath of the Senate could serve as a powerful catalyst for the uprising and determine the position of the hesitant among the lower ranks, and among the highest dignitaries and generals. But as soon as difficulties arose that required adjustment of actions, Ryleyev and his entourage somehow very easily rejected this promising option, giving the senators the opportunity to swear allegiance to Nikolai, which made it very difficult to achieve their goals.

The presence of a Senate courier service is, of course, wonderful, but what would prevent the senators, who had just sworn allegiance to Emperor Nicholas, from ordering these couriers to be sent down the stairs? Even the seizure of the Winter Palace and the arrest of the king would not change much in the situation. Only one circumstance could radically affect the position of the Senate and the entire balance of power - the death of the sovereign.

Gordin believes that the “Ryleyev-Trubetskoy group” was not going to leave Nikolai in power at all: “No wonder the secret element of the tactical plan was regicide, the physical elimination of Nikolai.” But in another place, the historian indicates that for Ryleyev the regicide should have preceded the capture of the palace or coincided with it in time, however, Trubetskoy learned about this plan only during the investigation.

Then what is this “Trubetskoy's plan”, the author of which did not know about its most important element, and what kind of group is “Ryleyev-Trubetskoy”, one of whose members is hiding his plan from the other? It is known that Trubetskoy considered it necessary to conduct a trial of Nicholas, but this implied the realization of the original intention - to force the Senate to side with the putschists. Ryleyev hoped to "deal" with Nikolai in haste without trial or investigation. With this turn of events, the oath of senators became a secondary factor that could be ignored.

According to Gordin, the most important role in the rebellion was assigned to the dragoon captain Alexander Yakubovich, who undertook to lead the Guards crew and go to the palace, but allegedly refused because of jealousy for the supremacy of Trubetskoy. The historian has repeatedly emphasized that it was the irresponsible behavior of Yakubovich and Colonel Alexander Bulatov, who was to lead the grenadier regiment well known to him, that caused the failure of the coup.

On November 12, at a meeting with Ryleyev, Bulatov and Yakubovich were elected deputy "dictators", and Lieutenant Prince Obolensky was elected chief of staff. Obviously, for the sake of the interests of the case, these characters were required to closely interact with each other. Meanwhile, Trubetskoy testified that he had seen Yakubovich once in his life and would prefer to never see him again.

An even more entertaining story happened with Bulatov. At about 10 a.m. on December 14, according to the testimony of the colonel himself, he came to Ryleyev and saw Obolensky for the first time: "He was terribly happy about my arrival, and when we saw him for the first time, we shook hands, shook hands."


Meeting of the Decembrists. Is it any wonder that the dictator did not know his deputies, and those - the dictator?

So, the uprising has already begun, and the chief of staff for the first time sees the "deputy dictator", while Obolensky is "terribly happy." Just what? After all, Bulatov should lead the Life Guards out of the barracks, and not drive around town! It seems that the chief of staff does not know anything about such an assignment. Moreover, the “deputy dictator” declares to his comrades-in-arms that he will not “dirty himself” if the rebels do not collect enough parts!

That is, instead of bringing troops, the colonel demands this from Ryleyev and Co. We add that Bulatov does not need to bother and cast a shadow over the fence: he himself confessed to the emperor, insisted on his arrest, and subsequently committed suicide in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

So what actually preceded the uprising of December 14 and what predetermined its bizarre move and tragic ending? About this - in the second part of the story.

To be continued ...
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B 4 March 2020 05: 00 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Wow Something smelled like a certain conspiracy of faith ... If the average person really believed that Nicholas was usurping the throne, if things really were like this:
    Here is the official version of the emperor’s refusal of the right to the throne and the need for a new oath to his brother, although it corresponded to the true state of affairs, but in the eyes of the average man looked like an impudent deception. At the same time, all kinds of “fakes”, for example, that Tsar Konstantin was going from Warsaw to the capital to protect his throne, or even hidden in the Senate building, on the contrary, were unconditionally accepted on faith by many
    then what is simpler - even if Grand Duke Konstantin is present at the coronation of Nicholas, let him be the first to take the oath before the eyes of the whole people, and then any layman will be convinced that everything that happens is legal. But Konstantin at that time in Warsaw calmly enjoyed the fruits of his morganatic bonds, and Nikolai's problems somehow worried him little.
    In general, of course, the story with the Decembrists is rather murky. "They were terribly far from the people ..." (c)
    1. Orel 4 March 2020 06: 27 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: Far In
      "They were terribly far from the people ..." (c)
      Reply


      I agree, it was not a revolution, but more like another palace coup it was like only the army was attracted and the Constitution to this, the Senate really did not want to take power, so he didn’t need it, and therefore - only a coup
    2. Bar1 4 March 2020 08: 40 New
      • 2
      • 13
      -11
      Konstantin was a kind of papa, a spilled monkey. Maybe that's why he was not allowed into the kings, too scary.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 4 March 2020 12: 52 New
        • 12
        • 2
        +10
        With all due regard to Konstantin Pavlovich, it must be remembered that as a youth he went from and to the whole Swiss company A.V. Suvorov! According to eyewitnesses - “had no complaints”!
        Would you let your child’s bar go to such an event? I do not know what I would have done in the place of Paul. I seriously thought and was glad that God had mercy and I have a daughter.
        And so, comparing externally and drawing conclusions from the air. First of all, stupid.
        This is not a clave to poke a clumsy finger !!!
        Regards, Kote!
        1. Edward Vashchenko 4 March 2020 13: 13 New
          • 11
          • 0
          +11
          Vladislav,
          I support you completely, Konstantin Pavlovich was a very brave officer, complained about Suvorov, who was holding him.
          Incidentally, many future "stars" of Russian military history took part in the Suvorov campaign.
        2. Bar1 4 March 2020 21: 43 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          the lad went from and to the whole Swiss company A.V. Suvorov! WITH


          Well, it can be a lie. What can be the attitude to the historians who hid the largest country in the world?
        3. Ryazan87 5 March 2020 13: 03 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          For Bassignano Suvorov Konstantin strongly scolded, but he benefited. And yes, I honestly did a campaign, and during the Swiss campaign it was impossible to give him any special preferences either - I walked along with everyone.
      2. AK1972 4 March 2020 13: 02 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Bar1
        Konstantin was a kind of papa, a spilled monkey. Maybe that's why he was not allowed into the kings, too scary.

        And Paul I and Peter III were just cuties !!!
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 4 March 2020 13: 32 New
          • 10
          • 1
          +9
          Quote: AK1972
          Quote: Bar1
          Konstantin was a kind of papa, a spilled monkey. Maybe that's why he was not allowed into the kings, too scary.

          And Paul I and Peter III were just cuties !!!

          Well guys you give, discuss the external data of uncles !!!?
          Let's leave this to the second half of humanity and not in the vastness of VO!
          1. Korsar4 4 March 2020 16: 48 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Instead, by spring, organize the contest "The Best Queen (Queen)". However, if the requirements correspond to the current competitions, the jury (the Inquisition) will send the winners to the stake. And the other participants, probably, too.
          2. Bar1 4 March 2020 21: 42 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Well guys you give, discuss the external data of uncles !!!?
            Let's leave this to the second half of humanity and not in the vastness of VO!


            a form without content is nothing, therefore if certain forms exist, then the content can be predicted in advance.
        2. Bar1 4 March 2020 21: 40 New
          • 0
          • 5
          -5
          Quote: AK1972
          And Paul I and Peter III were just cuties !!!


          yes yes, those who were in the kings / kings at that time are not marked neither by the seal of goodness nor
          Of course, virtues and honesty. Take a real portrait of Peter1, crawling eyes, humpback nose, dark skin, this type does not look like a Russian person at all. So what kind of attitude will this foreigner have to Russian people?

    3. vladcub 4 March 2020 14: 01 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Dalniy, I agree with you: there is a lot of turbidity in the Decembrists' speech.
      1) it is quite possible that one of the noblemen stood behind the Decembrists. Nikolay felt this, but for some reason they “hushed up” the version. Figs knows him, perhaps "betrayal" was in the palace?
      2) a suspicious "coincidence", most of the active participants were Masons.
    4. Sergey S. 8 March 2020 22: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Far In
      In general, of course, the story with the Decembrists is rather murky. "They were terribly far from the people ..." (c)

      I really did not want to speak out, but read the comments ...
      In fact, the smart and strong are always to blame for any troubles.
      Smart - looked,
      Strong - did not stop, or did not disperse ...

      This is me about Alexander I, who knew about the preparations of the noble avant-garde, but did nothing. to prevent violent confrontation.
      In addition, he is also to blame for the fact that during the Napoleonic Wars, his authority fell, as they say now, below the plinth.
      Nobody remembers about Austerlitz in the subject, and in this battle Russia’s losses were much greater than from the Decembrist uprising.
      In addition, Alexander went to the conclusion of a separate peace with Napoleon, recognized him as brother-emperor ... and this was regarded by contemporaries as a betrayal of the monarchy world order.
      By the way, it was then that the European emperor depicted the Russian emperor as a wild bear ...

      At least the English throne declared war on Russia ... The war is somewhat strange, but very offensive for us, as a result of which we lost all of Ushakov’s conquests in the Mediterranean Sea in many ways, and almost the entire most combat-ready fleet - about 20 ships and frigates.

      Thanks to the political restraint and wisdom of Admiral D. Senyavin, there was no shameful surrender, but the squadron in England died.
      And, which is typical, when Senyavin returned to his homeland, he fell into disgrace because he refused to obey the order to quickly obey Napoleon and help him in the conquest of Spain.
      And the death of the ship "Vsevolod", in front of the squadron of Hanykoy captured by two English ships almost on the outer raid of the Baltic port ...
      And the loss of the boat "Experience", captured by an English frigate from the island of Nargen ... The British, realizing that ordinary Russian officers had fallen into a strange situation of war with a good ally, released the prisoners home ... thereby making it clear that they were at war with the Russian emperor.

      Then there will be World War II.
      This war is not a shame today. We used to be proud of the heroes of World War II.
      But if we trace the fate of the Heroes, it will become clear how deeply the spiritual wounds were received due to the endless retreat from the border to Moscow, because of the surrender of Moscow ...
      Suvorov’s student, General Bagration, ended his life after learning about the surrender of Moscow ... - According to legend, he tore off the bandages.

      No less serious test. which had serious consequences not only for Russian society, but for the whole of European civilization, was the invincibility of the Napoleon Guard, the so-called Old Guard.
      The Old Guard retreated in an organized manner, cartoons were not applicable to it. which we like so much.
      Even through the Berezina, the Old Guard crossed in an organized manner, and according to well-known legends, soldiers in places held the bridge on themselves, standing in icy water.
      Those who saw these French soldiers wanted in their Fatherland to see free, educated soldiers. And he wished the people an appropriate life ...

      I will not give an assessment to the rebels. But they had good reason to despise the reigning dynasty. I only note that if the Decembrists won, we would now have a different public attitude towards the leaders of the social process.

      The history summed up the Nikolaev kingdom. The defeat in the Crimean War, the lag in industrial development and education, .... And then everything is clear to everyone ... But, unfortunately, due to political motives, not everyone is openly ready to admit it.
  2. 210ox 4 March 2020 06: 02 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    They did not have a strong leader. And they smacked of treason.
    1. bessmertniy 4 March 2020 08: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The confusion and vacillations in the organization of the coup proved fatal for him.
  3. nikvic46 4 March 2020 07: 00 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The author took the right direction. Now you can hear that the Decembrists were traitors to the state. But if you look at the history, the metropolitan regiments deposed the next monarch and swore allegiance to the next one. Perhaps I will read it again. Very interesting.
  4. Olgovich 4 March 2020 07: 22 New
    • 11
    • 8
    +3
    Good deeds are not done by meanness and deceit.

    Namely, this is what the so-called Decembrists in relation to the soldiers subordinate to them, leading them to the Senate Square.

    There is no excuse for them.
    1. Boris55 4 March 2020 09: 22 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: Olgovich
      There is no excuse for them.

      The war with France has just ended with our victory. 31 myrtle will celebrate (or, as always, no) the day of its surrender ... and here we have Maidan, so that they wouldn’t relax too much ... Their main demand was to give freedom to the people, which in practice meant to drive people out of the land and hire only those who are able to work, and the rest did not fit into the Wishlist of the landlords ... It is a pity that not everyone was hanged.
      1. bober1982 4 March 2020 09: 36 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        Quote: Boris55
        which in practice meant driving people out of the land

        Pestel was going, by the way, to drive away all the Jews somewhere on the reservation, the Lutheran was very bloodthirsty
        The rabble among the Decembrists gathered, who only was not there - adventurers, nationalists, romantics and poets.
        On the day of the uprising, Trubetskoy, the failed dictator, could not be found where he was - they still argue, either hid under his bed under his sister, or at the Austrian ambassador.
      2. vladcub 4 March 2020 14: 29 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        "it’s a pity that not everyone was hanged" there are Yakushkin’s words on this subject
        "That they hung 5, not 300 is a pure coincidence. Pestel is not to blame for this. In any case, he did everything for this."
        1. rich 4 March 2020 18: 01 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote vladcub (Svyatoslav) : "it is a pity that not everyone was hanged" on this occasion there are the words of Yakushkin
          "That they hung 5, not 300 is a pure coincidence. Pestel is not to blame for this. In any case, he did everything for this."

          For the sake of objectivity, the king was not going to hang anyone at all.
          Russian military historians general from the cavalry A.G. Rybalchenko and Prof. B. Esadze indicate that Nicholas I was forced to do so "under great pressure"
          In the memoirs of Grand Duke Friedrich Ludwig of Mecklenburg-Schwerinsky, wife of Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, daughter of Emperor Paul I. it is said that Nicholas I at the end of March 1826 received an almost ultimatum demand from the general Cossack circle "to punish with death a quarter of those responsible for the murder of the ataman of all Russian Cossacks troops of the general from the infantry of all Russian orders and all European powers, cavalier Count Mikhail Andreevich Miloradovich [23]. " This requirement was signed by ALL the army chieftains of the empire, except for the Terts and Kuban, who at that time did not have them. In addition, the Ural and Don Cossacks participating in the suppression of the uprising of the Chernigov regiment Muravyov January 15, 1826 demanded the death penalty by beheading for them.
          The tsar was forced to make concessions. The court established eleven categories, putting five people out of the categories, and sentenced him to death by five quarters, 31 by cutting off his head, 17 to political death, 16 to his life sentence to hard labor, 5 to to the link to hard labor for 10 years, 15 to the link to hard labor for 6 years, 15 to the link to the settlement, 3 to the deprivation of ranks, the nobility and to exile in Siberia, 1 to the deprivation of ranks and the nobility and demining in soldiers to length of service, 8 - to the deprivation of ranks with demotion to soldiers with length of service.
          Emperor Nicholas I decreed on July 10 (22), 1826, commuted the sentence in almost all categories; only in relation to the five sentenced, put out of ranks, the verdict of the court was confirmed (Pestel, Ryleyev, Sergey Muravyov-Apostol, Bestuzhev-Ryumin and Kakhovsky). The court, instead of a painful death penalty, sentenced them to be hanged by a quartering, “in conformity with the Highly merciful mercy, which in this case was a clear mitigation of executions and punishments, for certain other criminals”.
          In the future, Nicholas I made the right conclusion for himself from this "ultimatum." In all the Cossack troops, the military chieftains were abolished, and punishment-appointed by the king were introduced. Only the heir to the throne was appointed the ataman of all Cossack troops of the empire. Only the Kuban and Terek Cossacks were selected at SEIVK.
    2. AK1972 4 March 2020 11: 13 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: Olgovich
      Namely, this is what the so-called Decembrists in relation to the soldiers subordinate to them, leading them to the Senate Square.
      There is no excuse for them.

      Andrey, these are your brilliant officers and generals, nobles of the purest blood. Those who are "For faith, for the king and the Fatherland", the support of the emperor - the emperor. How so?
      1. Olgovich 4 March 2020 11: 48 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        Quote: AK1972
        Andrey, these are your brilliant officers and generals, nobles of the purest blood. Those who are "For faith, for the king and the Fatherland", the support of the emperor - the emperor. How so?

        Where is ... "for the king"? belay

        There have always been criminals.

        Another thing is that there were units, even really forgot how to hang: two heroes had to hang twice ....
        1. bober1982 4 March 2020 12: 13 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          Another thing is that there were units

          I do not agree here, the topic is of interest, so I wedge myself into your dialogue.
          After long overseas campaigns, the army was corrupted, speaking in modern language - morally decomposed, that is, if we did not go into details briefly, the Russian nobility degraded even under Catherine II
          The king, when he got acquainted with the materials of the investigation, was simply stunned by the scale of this entire infection. These were, not at all, units.
          1. AK1972 4 March 2020 12: 50 New
            • 8
            • 2
            +6
            I completely agree with you, Vladimir. I don’t understand how the Romanovs with such a loyal noble contingent lasted for more than 300 years? And it was not the Bolsheviks who threw off Nicholas the latter, but these are just such loyal subjects.
            1. bober1982 4 March 2020 13: 07 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Quote: AK1972
              I don’t understand how the Romanovs with such a loyal noble contingent lasted for more than 300 years?

              Nicholas I did not trust the Russians throughout his reign, he remembered the rebellion for his whole life and never forgot, it was with him that there was the so-called "German" dominance in power, although there were many "Germans" before him. As administrators they were good, efficient, reliable and pedantic, but they did not know Russia. Hence the final result of the reign of the dynasty.
            2. Sertorius 4 March 2020 15: 34 New
              • 6
              • 2
              +4
              I don’t understand how the Romanovs with such a loyal noble contingent lasted for more than 300 years?

              The king, when he got acquainted with the materials of the investigation, was simply stunned by the scale of this entire infection.
              .
              The Decembrists in no way expressed the aspirations of the upper class or even any part of it. The loyalty of the nobility is based on the observance of its interests by the autocrat. What did the Decembrists offer the nobles in the "Russian Truth":
              1. Along with other classes to pay taxes.
              2. The abolition of the noble monopoly on the occupation of public service posts.
              3. Nobles can again be subjected to corporal punishment! (What are the "progressive" Senate guys !!)
              4. On an equal basis with others, bear recruiting duties.
              5. Prohibit them to own "souls."
              Only a handful of “romantics” who lost touch with their estate and with reality were capable of giving up these privileges.
              Not so long ago, I, like everyone raised in the USSR, perceived them as romantics and heroes.
              From the height of the past years, in my worldview they gradually transformed, becoming a bunch of renegades who tricked their soldiers into slaughter for the sake of their ghostly dreams. People who had before their eyes an example of the bloody French Revolution, ready to plunge the fatherland into the abyss of civil war.
              Without any doubt, they were the first to shed blood on the Senate, in cold blood, killing the honored military general, the Suvorov disciple, the favorite of the entire army of Miloradovich. And if you recall the collective attempt to kill Colonel Goebel of Chernigov, it seems that our "romantics" were simply thirsty for blood.
              On their conscience, like Nicholas (who had no particular choice), several hundred dead guardsmen and soldiers of the Chernigov regiment.

              I remembered one episode. Montesquieu and Voltaire, one of the “romantics”, pretending to be in front of the commission of inquiry, in response to the chairman of the commission, General Tatishchev, heard: “You, gentlemen, read everything - Destutt-Tracy, Benjamin Constant, and Bentame - and that's where you got to, and I all my life I read only scripture, and look what you deserve - pointing to two rows of stars illuminating his chest. ”
              So here. The old honored general, not particularly brilliant in education, is prettier to me than these young titled idealists - conspirators, murderers, and some even cowards.
              1. Pane Kohanku 5 March 2020 11: 03 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                And if you recall the collective attempt to kill Colonel Goebel of Chernigov, it seems that our "romantics" were simply thirsty for blood.

                And somehow they clumsily thirsty, inflicted a bunch of blows with knives, and so they didn’t kill. Either Goebel was a terminator, or it was applied ineptly. no and then so the alcoholic trip started ... fellow An interesting topic for the article, panov! I would like the theme of the Chernihiv regiment to be developed. hi
          2. Olgovich 5 March 2020 07: 23 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Quote: bober1982
            These were, not at all, units.

            It was (see above) about recognized CRIMINALS.
            And these are ONE.
            Quote: bober1982
            the army was corrupted, in modern terms - morally decomposed

            Thinking is .. "decomposition"? belay
            1. bober1982 5 March 2020 07: 41 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Quote: Olgovich
              Thinking is .. "decomposition"?

              They thought, apparently, in French, and their thoughts were very confused, some before the execution asked to bring the Bible in French - and these are Russian people who were disdainful of Russians.
              .
              Quote: Olgovich
              And these are ONE.

              Units - hanged, many were sent to distant Siberia, many were forgiven.
              1. Olgovich 5 March 2020 07: 56 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: bober1982
                many sent to distant Siberia, many were forgiven.

                Units sent - 0,01% of the nobles ...

                It's nothing.
                1. bober1982 5 March 2020 08: 02 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Andrei, we will not argue, it was necessary to send much more to Siberia, of course, physical labor and difficulties re-educate and work miracles.
                  Our great F.M. Dostoevsky was cured in this way; he came out of a Siberian prison as a healthy person.
                  1. Olgovich 5 March 2020 08: 13 New
                    • 3
                    • 4
                    -1
                    Quote: bober1982
                    Andrei, we will not argue, it was necessary to send much more to Siberia, of course, physical labor and difficulties re-educate and work miracles.
                    Our great F.M. Dostoevsky was cured in this way; he came out of a Siberian prison as a healthy person.

                    Totally agreehi
                    1. bober1982 5 March 2020 08: 17 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      And, my respect for you, and endurance in the difficult task of repelling attacks.
        2. AK1972 4 March 2020 12: 17 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          Another thing is that there were units

          Units? Google to help you. 120 people, most of them possessing real military power, but lacking the will and courage to bring the plan to an end. Now tell me please, how do you think they are better than the Bolsheviks?
          1. bober1982 4 March 2020 12: 22 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Quote: AK1972
            Now tell me please, how do you think they are better than the Bolsheviks?

            I apologize of course, but as I said, the topic was interesting.
            The fact of the matter is that the Decembrists were called Bolsheviks (evil languages)
            The first Bolshevik was Peter I
            The second Bolsheviks were - as said (not, I) - the mentioned Decembrists
            Well, Ilyich closes the three.
            1. Korsar4 4 March 2020 16: 53 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Berdyaev, as I understand it, represented about the same.

              And in the Great Schism, who is closer to the Bolshevik essence?
              1. bober1982 4 March 2020 17: 37 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Korsar4
                And in the Great Schism, who is closer to the Bolshevik essence?

                A difficult question, and the answer should be delicate - maybe both sides are to blame. This is a terrible tragedy, unlike the Decembrist uprising, which was just a bloody theatrical performance.
              2. vladcub 5 March 2020 12: 54 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Probably Avakum: the same maximalist
                1. Korsar4 5 March 2020 15: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Hardly. Protopop Avakum did not approve of changes and repartitions.

                  And the degree of fury cannot be one criterion.
          2. Olgovich 5 March 2020 07: 16 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: AK1972
            Units? Google to help you. 120 people

            An attempt to think to help you: hanged already ... five people, exiled already ... 120.

            This is UNITS-0,01% of the nobility and 0,000 .. of the population
            Quote: AK1972
            Now tell me please, how do you think they are better than the Bolsheviks?

            Nothing.
            And?
  5. Ros 56 4 March 2020 07: 50 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    Well, which of us knows all the ins and outs of those days and those people? And if there is no information, then what to discuss?
    1. Trilobite Master 4 March 2020 12: 04 New
      • 16
      • 3
      +13
      Quote: Ros 56
      Well, which of us knows all the ins and outs of those days and those people? And if there is no information, then what to discuss?

      And let's generally close the "History" section nafig. Who knows the "whole background" of Yaroslav the Wise, Ivan Kalita, Ivan III, Peter I, and, colleagues, admit it? None? Well, so what to discuss? We all quickly dispersed, there’s nothing to shake our tongues here, we need to do business. wassat laughing
      Well, seriously, I have the following to say about the article.
      Personally, my reading of it caused a sense of amateurism of the author. As if the author had formed his opinion about the events described on the basis of some superficial research, replete with internal contradictions and semantic gaps, this study itself did not fully understand everything and is now trying to explain something to us.
      In fact, the answer to the question why the Decembrists during the uprising, or, if you like, the coup (although this is not a coup), acted so passively, fragmented and indecisively can be found and this point is partially mentioned in the article. Look, study the programs of all these "societies." It will not be difficult to make sure that they are all different and very different from each other. In fact, they have only one thing in common - the abolition of serfdom, all the rest - as to whom God will put a soul to his soul. And they knew very well about these cardinal differences in their programs. Was it possible in such a situation to create an effective headquarters with a strong-willed and decisive commander, to whom all participants of the "event" would unconditionally obey? The question is rhetorical. "Wagon with luggage" - serfdom - everyone saw it, but everyone began to pull it in their own direction, while constantly looking at ... partners? .. competitors? .. opponents? ... It’s not surprising that the results of the event " cart "was where he was at the beginning.
      Further, I urge my colleagues to recall that by that time Russia had a very extensive and rich experience in terms of a violent change of power. But this experience was very specific - exclusively palace coups, the purpose of which was not political transformation, but the change of one ruler to another, and all participants in the coup knew who they were and acted in his interests. There were no other methods; they had to be developed “from scratch”. No one has thought of capturing stations, bridges, post offices, or telegraphs.
      But the paradox of the situation was also that the methods remained the same, the epochs of palace coups, and the conspirators set new goals for themselves - political ones, completely inconsistent with these methods. Even if they managed to come to an agreement, create an effective headquarters, nominate a decisive and authoritative commander from their midst (impossible, but let's say), they managed to capture the Senate and the imperial family as a whole, complete success - then what? Which of them was going to plow like Savrask for the good of the Fatherland in ministries and departments, colleges and chancelles? Yes, no one. They were going to "force" someone to "sign" something, some rescripts or decrees, and were happy to disperse on their estates to write memoirs "About how I liberated and saved Russia."
      The tyrannical romantics, that’s all about them. To rise in anger, incinerate a tyrant or fall in the fight against him, for freedom (whom and from what?) - that’s the task, no, that’s the mission of the real hero. And what will happen next? Well, universal glee, of course. Then the celebration of the hero. Then prosperity. Without a tyrant, what else could there be if not prosperity? Who will build this prosperity? What's question? Why build it, it will come, do not hesitate.
      In the article, you can analyze who said what (could not say, nothing would have changed from this), who thought what (or maybe didn’t think smile ), but first you need to see the whole picture, as they say, from a bird's eye view. Not "event X happened because someone A said B," but "for some reason, someone A said B, as a result of which event X happened." Something like this.
      smile
      1. Ros 56 4 March 2020 13: 06 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        My dear, always and everywhere the history section for the next generations is written taking into account the interests of those living today. And the most striking example for you, the history of Russia in the presentation of Russophobes who lived 300-400 years ago, but the most obvious example of rewriting history, is the attempt that is taking place right now before our eyes to rewrite the situation associated with the WWII and the Second World War, where everyone starts to turn upside down the head.
        1. Trilobite Master 4 March 2020 14: 03 New
          • 8
          • 4
          +4
          Quote: Ros 56
          My dear, always and everywhere the history section for the next generations is written taking into account the interests of those living today

          Already tired of explaining to people one simple thing. History is a science. And the results of historical research depend on the political situation no more than in any other science. It develops, changes, just like any other science, new concepts appear, in the light of new discoveries (yes, imagine, there are discoveries in history too), the vision and assessment of certain events change. And this is absolutely normal, so in any science.
          And you continue to live with the concepts that were in use 40 or how many years ago when you studied history in the fifth to sixth, at best, in the tenth grade. And also “listen to your TV”, where they tell you exclusively about foreign degenerates who are really trying to grunt something on a historical theme with their filthy snouts. You are not told anything about normal scholars who write and publish their historical works there and where there is nothing like what you are talking about.
          Roughly speaking, as applied, for example, to Ukraine, you read Vyatrovich, or rather, what our media write about Vyatrovich’s “works”, and I read directly Tolochko’s works. Feel the difference?
          And those who are trying to "rewrite", in your opinion, the history of WWII and the Second World War in the West are the same pests to their states as those who are trying to rewrite the history of Russia, like Fomenko, Klesov, etc., including our local Samsonov's genius - pests of Russia. This is a common scum, which, due to its nature and origin, always, as is known, emerges, but, as a rule, does not linger for a long time. And if it is delayed, then this threatens the state with a grave disaster, which also has examples in history.
          1. Ros 56 4 March 2020 14: 20 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Science is mathematics, and even then within relative limits, and history is approximately the same as in that joke about Givi.
            1. Trilobite Master 4 March 2020 14: 26 New
              • 6
              • 4
              +2
              Quote: Ros 56
              Science is mathematics

              And physics? Chemistry? Biology? Psychology? Sociology?
              Okay, I understood what you want to say, I realized that everything that I say to you is simply not available at any level. Learn jokes about Givi, if you like. I wash hands.
              1. Ros 56 4 March 2020 14: 46 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Actually, I almost sprinkled a whole page on you, sent it to me, they write to me Moder forbade me to write comments. Judging by the leftovers, you got only two lines. Hence your reaction.
                I’ve done everything, my opus has sunk into oblivion, this is strange, maybe someone filters our comments.
                1. 3x3zsave 4 March 2020 16: 09 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  In this case, no one is filtering. To adjust your own comment, the program takes up a five-minute interval after its publication. If the commentator does not fit into this period of time, the text remains in its original form, and an attempt to send the corrected text is accompanied by a corresponding pop-up window.
                  I’m surprised that you don’t know.
                  1. Ros 56 4 March 2020 16: 12 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    The fact of the matter is that I did not correct it, just clicked the send button and this screen saver about the ban on writing comments came out. Although maybe I'm wrong, I was very disheveled.
                    1. 3x3zsave 4 March 2020 16: 40 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      But this is really a rare case! I've only had this happen once. And by the way, he also discussed with Mikhail.
                      1. Ros 56 4 March 2020 17: 33 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        This is the second time for me, but the first time the comment has been remembered, and now there are two lines left.
                      2. Aviator_ 4 March 2020 20: 34 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        There is such an effect, I recently felt it for the first time. Moderators frolic, however!
                      3. 3x3zsave 4 March 2020 21: 29 New
                        • 4
                        • 1
                        +3
                        Moderators frolic, however!
                        I don’t think so. Do not demonize moderators. They work, and like any person in the workplace, they try to minimize labor costs. Accordingly, it is much easier to remove the entire comment than to read and annul the pieces. By the way, I doubt that moderator access has such an opportunity. In principle, this is the functionality of the system administrator.
                      4. Aviator_ 5 March 2020 08: 13 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        In principle, this is the functionality of the system administrator.

                        I agree. The system administrator implements the party line.
                      5. 3x3zsave 5 March 2020 08: 30 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        Especially during the Great Leap Forward laughing hi
          2. Trilobite Master 4 March 2020 16: 30 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            In this case, I really could misunderstand you. request
            If so, I apologize for the harshness.
            However, I remain of my opinion that history is a science, objective and strict, with its own specifics, like all other sciences. To know her, you need to study her. And then all these troubles, because of which in the eyes of many people turns into a kind of public girl, will not have any effect on you - neither foreign, nor ours, pooh on them, homegrown.
            1. Aviator_ 4 March 2020 20: 41 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Of course, history is a science. But the class component is too strong in history (sociological, political, interlayer, as you like). In abstract science (mathematics) or in natural (physics, biology, chemistry ...) there are no class components, although not so long ago (midth century), genetics tried to "scientifically" substantiate racial inequality by fulfilling a social class order.
              1. 3x3zsave 4 March 2020 21: 16 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                biology,
                It’s also relative. In China, during the time of the "Great Leap Forward", sparrows were declared harmful birds, brought the population "to zero", and then died of hunger in the hundreds of thousands.
                1. Korsar4 4 March 2020 22: 24 New
                  • 6
                  • 0
                  +6
                  This is not a manifestation of science. Nature does not like to be pushed under her elbow.
                2. 3x3zsave 4 March 2020 22: 34 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Naturally! This is one of the symbols of the ideologization of science.
              2. Aviator_ 5 March 2020 08: 10 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Well, the Chinese experiments have nothing to do with science at all - during the same "big leap" a massive steel smelting was organized in home blast furnaces - this did not bring China too close to industrialized countries.
            2. vladcub 5 March 2020 21: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Are you hinting at People's Academician Lysenko? Ah, how not good. For such hints, someone will pour you
        2. BAI
          BAI 5 March 2020 12: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          they write to me in response Moder forbade me to write comments.

          100 years ago already discussed. RESTORED EDITING komenta is given a strictly defined time. If you started to write and did not meet the specified interval - you get the message shown. The text entered during the editing process disappears.
      2. Korsar4 4 March 2020 16: 59 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Ampere distinguished science of three orders.

        I like the definition of Mendeleev: "Science begins with measurements." And in history they have a place.
  6. Sertorius 5 March 2020 10: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    History is a science.
    , the subject of which is the study of historical patterns that do not exist. So we joked at history department in due time.
    Of course, old Clio would be surprised at how much the attitude of people towards the subject of her protection has changed.
    Not everyone can openly say: “I am a physicist” - they can put us in an awkward position. But almost every second is a historian. What do you think of the second law of thermodynamics? No answer. But ask - what do you think, for example, about the outcome of the Civil War - you will still hear enough.
    My opinion is science, no less important than the same physics or chemistry, because of its powerful impact on the worldview of society. That is why it is actively used by politicians of all degrees. But this does not distinguish it from the same physics. If politicians for myth-making or in other interests need Ohm's law - they use it in the same way as history - to their advantage.
  • Kote Pan Kokhanka 4 March 2020 13: 09 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Ayda Mikhail, ayda well done, straight from the language of abstracts removed !!!
    hi
    From myself I will add.
    But how many of us understand the topic set forth by the Author? I think confidently not many. After reading the article in the morning, I took a timeout before lunch. Too complicated and confusing topic. At the same time striking odiosity, stupidity and utopianism.
    With all our striving to systematize, explain and undress the phenomenon of “Decembrists”! We must begin with the fact that people in these events had different aspirations, aspirations and hopes!
    So I respect the author, in that I swung at this, I personally did not dare.
    Regards, Kote!
    1. Trilobite Master 4 March 2020 13: 32 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      My respect, Vladislav. hi
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      But how many of us understand the topic set forth by the Author?

      Of us, probably a little. smile
      But if there is a desire, the work of specialists is at our service. smile
      Personally, I was never particularly interested in this topic, so I can’t even really recommend something, but in connection with the release of the famous film, there were many videos on YouTube in which literate people explain at an affordable level the basic things about this event. I signed up for Digital History and there Yegor Yakovlev also dealt with this topic.
      By the way, I want to congratulate all my colleagues on what I personally consider to some extent a holiday: the next delusional opus by Samsonov based on Petukhov came out on the “History”, and on “Opinions”. I think this is a very good sign. So, of course, it’s better for everyone: obscurantists, and so occupying that section, enjoy it, the site - clicks in an amount much larger than here, those who are just interested in history, even if they go to this section in the most superficial way, they will not see in it, Samson’s delirium will not expose one’s brain to the danger of becoming infected with folkhistorical stupidity.
    2. 3x3zsave 4 March 2020 23: 10 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Let's just say it! We are all here - a bunch of lovers, and most (like me) are completely amateurs.
      1. AAK
        AAK 5 March 2020 02: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The main thing is that not the enthusiastic idealists, the most dangerous human breed ...
      2. podymych 5 March 2020 10: 00 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Amateurism is not the greatest sin if a person is not afraid to think. And remember that "a professional is like a flux, ..."
        1. BAI
          BAI 5 March 2020 13: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "The specialist is like a flux: its fullness is one-sided."

          In order not to argue about the words:

          In general, the word "specialist" is more understandable to Russian people. Even in dictionaries, it is defined more clearly than the word "professional." Take a look at Ozhegov’s dictionary, for example. And the word "professional" is usually defined by the word "specialist" with the addition of distinctive features. Because this word has not yet taken root in the Russian language. Therefore, while its value is unstable.

          But to summarize.

          Who works better? Both the professional and the specialist work well, only the professional earns much more.

          Who is more competent? In matters of special subtleties, a highly skilled specialist is not inferior to a professional. But in matters of independence at the level of organization of the business process, a professional compares favorably with a specialist.

          Whose opinion is worth more? One who gives more life advice. So, the opinion of a professional.
      3. vladcub 5 March 2020 13: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Anton, voiced my thoughts
  • Edward Vashchenko 4 March 2020 13: 17 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The tyrannical romantics, that’s all about them. To rise in anger, incinerate a tyrant or fall in the fight against him, for freedom (whom and from what?) - that’s the task, no, that’s the mission of the real hero. And what will happen next? Well, universal glee, of course. Then the celebration of the hero. Then prosperity

    Absolutely comprehensive description.
    Michael - that’s it, super!
  • vladcub 5 March 2020 13: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Michael, I agree on something, but not on something.
    I believe that P.I. Pestel or K.F. Ryleyev have already tried on the powers of the head of state.
    Pastel - Roofing, and Ryleyev. What do you think: who is Ryleev?
  • Ryazan87 5 March 2020 13: 18 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Which of them was going to plow like Savrask for the good of the Fatherland in ministries and departments, colleges and chancelles? Yes, no one. They were going to "force" someone to "sign" something, some kind of rescripts

    Pestel suggested very specific things and described in rather detail what he was going to do. Mostly quite sensible.
  • bober1982 4 March 2020 08: 05 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Nikolai Pavlovich defended his legitimate authority, which was opposed by very disorganized people, with all sorts of ridiculous and opposing views, the audience was very mottled. They had no plans.
    The vast majority of former Decembrists subsequently sincerely repented.
    The five Decembrists executed on the night before the execution, spoke of the immortality of the soul, to God - they asked for forgiveness from the Emperor, confessed and communed, Soviet historians never reported this.
  • Astra wild 4 March 2020 08: 21 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Ros 56
    Well, which of us knows all the ins and outs of those days and those people? And if there is no information, then what to discuss?

    I agree with you: we can fantasize as much as we like, but these will be our fantasies, and fantasies and reality are far from each other.
  • Pane Kohanku 4 March 2020 09: 47 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    On December 14, Bistrom laid down the oath of the rangers and, taking a truly Mkhatov pause, he waited in which direction the scales would lean. Ostzey’s composure did not disappoint Karl Ivanovich, and although the emperor himself did not conceal that Bistrom’s behavior on the day of the coup seemed at least strange, no one made specific claims to the general, and his subsequent career was quite successful.

    The most unique grave monument in Russia, the lion of Klodt’s work, was delivered to the Bistrom. And according to his will, he commanded at his own expense to build a house for disabled soldiers. Both objects of architecture have survived to this day. hi
    1. vladcub 4 March 2020 14: 54 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Did not know about it
      1. Pane Kohanku 4 March 2020 15: 59 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        https://topwar.ru/119690-krepost-yam-gorod-kingisepp.html
        there at the end of the photo of this and that. My photos. drinks
  • Kapellan23 4 March 2020 11: 28 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    About the Decembrists. "In legislative and executive relations, all of Russia is divided into 13 Powers, 2 regions and 568 counties or districts."

    This is a complete analogy with the republics of the USSR, which later separated.

    The same problem persists in the constitution of the Russian Federation. True, the constituent entities of the federation do not have the right to secession, but Russian regions are simply subjects, and republics are states within the Russian Federation. That is, you can again crank up the collapse of the federation.

    But it is possible without analogy with the USSR and the Russian Federation. Even easier.

    “The theme of Ukraine in letters and at meetings of the Decembrists surfaced only during the negotiations of the“ southerners ”with Polish colleagues-conspirators, and then on the initiative of the Poles. In 1823, Pestel, warning one of the leaders of the Vasilkovskaya council and close friend of Sergei Muravyov-Apostol, Mikhail Bestuzhev -Ryumina, about the possibility of getting "a few bullets in the face" if he decides to betray, instructed him in the first serious task - to conduct (together with Sergey Muravyov) negotiations with the Polish Patriotic Society on joint actions. estuzhev himself led: they were uninteresting to the ethnic Ukrainian Sergey Muravyov-Apostol. Actually, there was a platform for the unification of societies. According to Russian Truth, Poland gained independence in the event of the victory of the Russian revolution, and the Poles considered independence to be the main goal of their plot. Poland’s independent existence, ”read the program document of the Southern Society. However, in practice, Polish independence meant tearing away a considerable number of, first of all, UKRAINIAN territories from Russia. And many members of Russian secret societies were not ready for this. The same famous general Mikhail Orlov, learning about the negotiations, told Bestuzhev: “You made nonsense and destroyed the last thread of our acquaintance. You're not Russian; Farewell". Bestuzhev-Ryumin did not stop it. It seems that he believed that the independence of Poland was not a very high price for the help of the Poles in the preparation and conduct of the Russian revolution. Nobody was going to ask the Ukrainians themselves.

    Negotiations with the Polish Patriotic Society were successful. Fulfilling the order given to him, Bestuzhev invited the Poles to conclude an oral agreement, the text of which he submitted for final approval to the Directory. According to this agreement, Poland was granted independence, while the Poles could "count on the Grodno province, part of the Vilnius, Minsk and Volyn." The Poles, in turn, were obliged to recognize their subordination to the Southern Directory, start an uprising in Poland simultaneously with the Decembrist uprising, prevent Grand Duke Konstantin from returning to Russia, block Russian troops stationed in Poland. "

    That is, even the Decembrists themselves understood that this was a non-Russian undertaking. But they continued to agree with the Poles on the surrender of the Russian territories of Ukraine to future Poland.

    Of course, such scum will be advertised in the Russian Federation, make films about them and make heroes out of them.

    Imagine the interrogation of an old soldier who was on December 14, 1825 on Senate Square:
    - What did you shout out there?
    - For Constantine and the Constitution!
    “Who did you mean?”
    - It is known to whom, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich ...
    - And what does the constitution have to do with it?
    - What do you mean? A well-known case, the Constitution is the wife of Constantine. And they shouted: for Constantine and his wife his Constitution!

    Here, perhaps, the main thing to remember about a memorable historical event. Officers, "people's love" blindly played their soldiers.
    1. vladcub 4 March 2020 14: 53 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      "popularists" blindly played their soldiers ", and the author claims that many nobles seriously believed that they were in favor of Konstantin.
      By the way, regarding: “for Konstantin and his wife the Constitution”, Anenkov invented this during interrogation in order to shield the soldiers.
  • Konstantin Shevchenko 4 March 2020 11: 48 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The Decembrists were preparing an assassination attempt on Alexander 1? Could Muravyov the Apostle be recruited by the French and not only him? The Decembrists, the snickering golden youth, are essentially repeat offenders, they smoked their plan more precisely.
  • vladcub 4 March 2020 14: 40 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: bober1982
    Quote: Boris55
    which in practice meant driving people out of the land

    Pestel was going, by the way, to drive away all the Jews somewhere on the reservation, the Lutheran was very bloodthirsty
    The rabble among the Decembrists gathered, who only was not there - adventurers, nationalists, romantics and poets.
    On the day of the uprising, Trubetskoy, the failed dictator, could not be found where he was - they still argue, either hid under his bed under his sister, or at the Austrian ambassador.

    The philosopher Trubetskoy (his grandson) said well about Trubetskoy: “three times a traitor: the first time he betrayed his sovereign as a conspirator. The second time he cheated on his comrades without going to Senate Square. The third time he cheated on his idols when he wrote his memoirs.” Quite a flattering statement.
  • parusnik 4 March 2020 16: 57 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The most unsuccessful coup, the era of "palace coups" .... Officially in the 18th century they did not publish how the palace coups of that era happened, but not everyone knew officially .. I think, they knew the Decembrists .. But they did exactly the opposite, than they predecessors .. As they say, nobody teaches history, history does not teach anything ..
    1. Sertorius 6 March 2020 04: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I think the Decembrists also knew

      Of course they did!
      For the links between Pestel and Palen (the main organizer of the coup that brought Alexander I to power), see N. Eidelman, "Edge of Centuries."
    2. vladcub 6 March 2020 21: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Like this
  • smaug78 4 March 2020 20: 09 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Topwar struck another bottom. Faithful go conspiratorians ..
  • Trapperxnumx 6 March 2020 10: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Looking at the behavior of Constantine in this story, as well as his actions during the Polish uprising, we can only rejoice that this man did not become emperor.