Military Review

Prut campaign of Peter I

95
Prut campaign of Peter I

Allegorical image of the Prut campaign: this is how it appeared in the spring of 1711


We do not like to talk about the Prut campaign of 1711. To completely forget about it, of course, does not work: its consequences were too heavy and too high a price had to be paid for it.

Remembering him, every time you feel a feeling of incomprehension and awkwardness: how could this have happened at all? In 1709, Russia won a triumphant victory over the strongest army in Europe at Poltava and without a fight captured its remnants at Perevolochnaya. In 1710, Russian troops again went from victory to victory, capturing seven important Baltic fortresses, including Vyborg, Riga and Revel. The Russian army increased in number and gained combat experience. And suddenly - such a failure in the war with the Turks, whose power was already declining.

In 1683, the Turks were defeated near Vienna, and the commander of their army as a trophy left Jan Sobesky the banner of the Prophet Muhammad.

In 1697, the young Austrian commander Yevgeny of Savoy defeated the Turks at Zenta, forcing Sultan Mustafa II to flee, forgetting about the harem.

In 1699, Turkey signed the Karlovatsk Peace Treaty with the Habsburgs, losing Hungary, Transylvania and most of Slavonia.

And even more: back in 1621, the Polish-Cossack army of Hetman Chodkiewicz found itself in a situation almost similar to that of Prut. Blocked by the superior forces of the Turks near Khotin on the banks of the Dniester, the Poles and Cossacks from September 2 to October 9 fought with superior enemy forces, lost the commander-in-chief, and ate all the horses. And what was the result? The Ottomans were forced to retreat - with shame and heavy losses.

And all of a sudden, the Turks, cramped on all fronts, had such a success in the fleeting war against the gaining strength of Russia.

Let's start our story in order.

On the eve of a new Russian-Turkish war


After an inglorious escape from the field of the Battle of Poltava, the Swedish king Charles XII, wounded in the heel, settled on the territory of the Ottoman Empire, in Bender. He was very well received by the Turkish authorities, who gave him and those accompanying him a generous allowance. The Ottomans hoped that upon recovery, the distinguished guest would immediately go to Sweden to continue the war with Russia. However, Karl was in no hurry to return to his homeland and for some reason did not feel much desire to fight the Russians again. Instead, he desperately intrigued, wanting to draw hospitable hosts into a war with dangerous Muscovites. The Sultan and his officials were no longer happy with such a guest, but all their attempts to honor him from the territory of their country were in vain. It all ended in a real battle between Charles XII and the janissaries who guarded him:


Edouard Armand-Dumaresq. Skirmish in Bender

Three recessed in the ground
And moss overgrown steps
They say about the Swedish king.
The mad hero reflected them
Alone in the crowd of domestic servants
Turkish rat attack noisy
And threw the sword under the bunchuk.

A. S. Pushkin.

But all this was described in detail in the article "Vikings" against the Janissaries. The Incredible Adventures of Charles XII in the Ottoman Empire ", we will not repeat ourselves.

However, in the capital of the Ottoman Empire, Charles found allies. Among them were the Grand Vizier Baltaci Mehmet Pasha, who recently came to power, the mother of Sultan Ahmet III and the French ambassador Desalier. And in the Crimea at that time the slightly over-spent Khan Devlet-Girey II dreamed of another predatory campaign.


Baltaci Mehmet Pasha

For some time their intrigues were successfully resisted by the Russian ambassador P.A.Tolstoy. Seeking compliance with the provisions of the Peace Treaty of Constantinople in 1700, he then had to spend a lot of Swedish gold captured near Poltava.


Tannauer. Portrait of P. A. Tolstoy

The supporters of the war still managed to persuade Sultan Ahmet III of the expediency of starting hostilities. Among the weighty arguments was, by the way, the need to remove the restless janissaries from the capital: in the Ottoman Empire they knew very well how janissary riots usually end. And the moment for the start of hostilities was quite favorable: the main forces of the Russian army were involved in the far north.

On November 9, 1710, the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia, after which P. Tolstoy and all his employees were imprisoned in the Seven Towers Castle (Edikule). The Tsar's ambassador was seated on an old gelding and taken throughout the city, for the amusement of the raging crowd that insulted him.


Seven-tower castle, engraving

The beginning of the Prut campaign


Military operations began in January 1711 with the raids of the Crimean Tatars on the Ukrainian lands subject to Russia.

For the war in the southern direction in the Baltic States, an 80-strong army was formed, at the head of which Peter I put B. Sheremetyev.


Aravitsky V. Portrait of Boris Petrovich Sheremetev in Russian dress

On January 10, 1711, this army set out from Riga. In addition to Field Marshal Sheremetyev, there were seven generals, including Y. Bruce and A. Repnin, who distinguished themselves at Poltava. Following the main forces, the guard, led by the emperor himself, also moved.

What was Peter's plan?

Here we will have to state with regret that the Russian emperor was then noted for obvious dizziness from success. Instead of choosing defensive tactics on the new front, giving the Turks the opportunity to go forward, losing both people and horses, suffering from infectious diseases, hunger and thirst (that is, in fact, repeating the recent military campaign against the Swedes, crowned with tremendous success near Poltava and Perevolnaya) , the emperor suddenly took the path of Charles XII, deciding to defeat the enemy with one valiant blow on his territory.

And even the Russian emperor suddenly found their own Mazepa. These are two rulers: Wallachian Constantin Brankovan (Brynkovianu) and Moldovan Dmitry Cantemir. They promised not only to provide the Russian army with food and fodder, but also to raise an anti-Turkish uprising in their lands. And there, according to Peter, the Bulgarians, as well as the Serbs and the Montenegrins should have pulled themselves together. Peter wrote to Sheremetyev:

"Gentlemen write that as soon as our troops enter their lands, they will immediately unite with them and all their numerous people will induce an uprising against the Turks; looking at this, the Serbs ... also the Bulgarians and other Christian peoples will rise up against the Turks , and some will join our troops, others will raise an uprising against the Turkish regions; in such circumstances, the vizier will not dare to cross the Danube, most of his troops will disperse, and perhaps a riot will rise. "

The level of manilovism just rolls over.

Peter's hopes for the allied rulers were so great that warehouses ("shops") on the border with the Ottoman Empire were not prepared in advance, and food and fodder, according to Russian sources, were taken only for 20 days.

However, the French officer Moro de Brazet, who took part in the Prut campaign as commander of the dragoon brigade, in his book published in 1735, argued that supplies were taken only for 7-8 days:

"It is hard to believe that such a great, powerful sovereign, such as, without a doubt, Tsar Peter Alekseevich, having decided to wage war against a dangerous enemy and who had time to prepare for it during the whole winter, did not think about the food supply of the numerous troops he brought to the Turkish border! And yet this is the absolute truth. The army did not have food supplies for eight days. "

In addition to everything, the Russian army in this campaign was accompanied by a huge number of people who had nothing to do with military service. According to the testimony of the same de Brazet, in the wagon train of the Russian army there were "more than two thousand five hundred carriages, carriages, small and large carts," in which the wives and family members of generals and senior officers were traveling. And part of the transport carriages of the Russian army turned out to be occupied not with "coarse soldiers' supplies" like crackers and cereals (which were not taken enough anyway), but with more refined products and wine for the "noble class".

But with whom was Tsar Peter going to go against the Turks? It turns out that by that time there were not so many veterans of Lesnaya and Poltava in the Russian regiments. Some of them died during the campaign of 1710, especially during the heavy siege of Riga, even more - from various epidemics. There were many sick and wounded. So in the army, which was supposed to go on a difficult campaign, every third soldier turned out to be a recruit of the first year of service. Another important factor in the future failure was the small number of Russian cavalry: taking into account the Tatar horsemen, the superiority of the enemy cavalry was simply depressing: according to this indicator, the Turkish-Tatar troops outnumbered the Russians by about 10 times.

From Kiev, the Russian army moved to the Dniester, intending to further go to the Danube - to Wallachia.


Russian troops beyond the Dniester


On June 12 (23), 1711, the Russian army reached the Dniester. At a military council on June 14 (25), General Ludwig Nikolai von Allart (a Scot in the Russian service) announced the danger of a repetition of the Ukrainian campaign of the Swedish king Charles XII and offered to take up positions on the Dniester, waiting for the Turks at the crossing.


Ludwig Nicholas von Allart

But Peter I, still hoping for the allied rulers, rejected this reasonable proposal.

On June 27 (16), Russian troops crossed the Dniester, on July 14 they reached the Prut River, where at the inspection on July 17, horrifying facts were revealed: without engaging in battles and without firing a single shot, the army lost 19 thousand people on the way, who died from various diseases, hunger and thirst. About 14 thousand soldiers left to guard communications did not reach the Prut either. The hopes for food and fodder, which were to be delivered by the local rulers, did not materialize. Brankovan completely abandoned plans to fight against the Ottomans, which did not save him from execution, which followed after the Ottomans became aware of the negotiations of this ruler with Peter I. Cantemir, due to a severe drought and the invasion of locusts, did not provide the promised supplies of food, but with himself led about 6 thousand ragamuffins (some of them were armed with spears and bows).

In this situation, the army had to simply be saved - taken back, and the sooner the better. Or at least stay in place, putting the troops in order and waiting for the enemy in a prepared position, as General Allart had suggested earlier. Instead, Peter ordered to continue moving towards Wallachia - along the right (northern) bank of the Prut River, while also dividing his forces. General K. Renne, in whose detachment was half of the Russian cavalry, went to the Danube fortress Brailov, which he managed to take - only to surrender it soon under the terms of a humiliating peace treaty.

And on the left bank at that time the superior forces of the Turkish army were already marching towards the Russians.

The beginning of hostilities


Few people know that Charles XII reached such impudence that he demanded from the Sultan no less command over the Turkish army! Here the grand vizier of Baltaji Mehmet Pasha, who, according to his rank, was to lead this campaign, was already outraged. Calling Karl behind the back of his eyes "an arrogant wicked", he offered him only to accompany the Ottoman army - and this offer offended the already proud Swede. Instead of himself, he sent two generals: the Swedish Sparre and the Polish Poniatowski (representative of King S. Leszczynski). By the way, he later regretted this very much, since at the decisive moment of negotiations with the Russians he was too far away and could not influence the vizier's decision. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

So, the Russian army, moving along the right bank of the Prut, was overtaken by the enemy on the march and was locked in a narrow valley of this river. The balance of power at that time was as follows.

Russians have 38 thousand people against 100-120 thousand Turks and 20-30 thousand Tatars. The enemy also had an advantage in artillery: from 255 to 407 (according to various sources) guns in the Ottoman army and 122 guns in the Russian.

The ratio of equestrian units was very sad: for 6,6 thousand Russian cavalry there were more than 60 thousand Turkish and Tatar.

On July 18, the Turkish cavalry, which crossed to the right bank of the Prut, attacked the vanguard of the Russian army. About 6 thousand Russian soldiers, who had 32 guns at their disposal, lined up in a square, in complete encirclement, moved to the main army, with which they managed to unite on the morning of July 19. On the same day, the Turkish cavalry completed the encirclement of the Russian troops, but did not accept the battle, not approaching the Russian positions closer than 200-300 steps.

And only then did Peter I and his generals think about retreating and choosing a suitable position. At 11 o'clock in the evening, Russian troops in six parallel columns moved upstream the Prut, covering themselves from the enemy cavalry with slingshots, which the soldiers carried in their arms.

On the morning of July 20, a gap formed between the left (guards) column and the neighboring division, and the Turks attacked the wagon train between them. Fighting off this attack, the Russian army stopped for several hours. As a result, the janissaries with artillery managed to come to the aid of their cavalrymen, and at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon the Russian army was pressed against the Prut River, on the opposite bank of which the Tatars came out.

On July 20, the Janissaries made three attempts to attack the Russian camp, the first of which turned out to be especially fierce, but were repulsed.


On that day, General Allart was wounded, and Field Marshal Sheremetyev, according to eyewitnesses, coming out from behind the slingshots, personally killed a Turk and captured his horse, which he later presented to Catherine.

Having lost 7 thousand people, the Janissaries refused to continue the offensive. The French agent La Motreuil, who was in the Turkish army at the time, testifies:

"This so frightened the Janissaries that their courage left them."

The Polish general Poniatowski claims that kegaya (deputy commander in chief) told him then:

"We run the risk of being overwhelmed and it will inevitably happen."

British Ambassador Sutton wrote:

"Each time the Turks fled back in disarray. After the third attack, their confusion and frustration was so great that one can certainly assume that if the Russians counterattacked them, they would have fled without any resistance."

The head of the Janissary corps reported to the Sultan about the same:

"If Moscow were advancing, then they (the Janissaries) would never have been able to hold their place ... the Turks in the back began to flee, and if the Muscovites came out of the lagar, then the Turks would have left the guns and ammunition."

However, Peter I, fearing the capture of the convoy by the Turkish cavalry, did not dare to give such an order.Then he canceled the night attack, approved by the military council, which, very likely, would have caused panic in the Ottoman army and could lead to its retreat and even flight.

A new attack on the Russian positions, undertaken by the Turks on the morning of the next day, was also unsuccessful.

The situation was very interesting. The Russian troops were in a desperate situation (mainly due to the lack of food and fodder). But the Turks, not knowing this, were frightened by the fierce resistance of the enemy and the effectiveness of his actions (especially artillery units) and were already beginning to doubt the successful outcome of the upcoming big battle. Proposals for the need to conclude peace were expressed in the camps of both sides.


Ivanov M. Peter I on the Prut River in 1711

In the next article, we will talk about the peace negotiations between the Russians and the Turks and some historical legends associated with them, let us finish the story about the tragic Prut campaign and its sad consequences.
Author:
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 September 2020 05: 12 New
    12
    An excellent essay Valery! Thank!!!
    Regards, Kote!
  2. Korsar4
    Korsar4 9 September 2020 06: 24 New
    +6
    Incorrect assessment of the situation. And the lack of supplies.
    Yes, self-confidence after Poltava was different.

    But every campaign always starts over.
  3. Sentinel-vs
    Sentinel-vs 9 September 2020 07: 33 New
    +9
    However ... No one can ever imagine himself to be Alexander the Great. Peter was about forty years old, but look how successes turned his head, as the youth rushed forward at a gallop without looking around.

    Respect to the author. I don't even know the details of this trip. Somehow we do not really cover it in popular sources.
    1. Edward Vashchenko
      Edward Vashchenko 9 September 2020 07: 39 New
      +5
      I doubt that Peter has turned his head.
      This is the essence of Peter, in which both the creative force and the courage of a knight and, as they say now, a manager were combined.
      What our rulers often miss in Russia, I turn on the current one.
      Yes, yes, yes, he was the son of his time, with all that it implies.
      Could act in the heat, and who does not?
      But most importantly, he was a genius. Russia was lucky with him!
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 September 2020 11: 48 New
        +6
        Quote: Edward Vashchenko
        I doubt that Peter has turned his head.
        This is the essence of Peter, in which both the creative force and the courage of a knight and, as they say now, a manager were combined.
        What our rulers often miss in Russia, I turn on the current one.
        Yes, yes, yes, he was the son of his time, with all that it implies.
        Could act in the heat, and who does not?
        But most importantly, he was a genius. Russia was lucky with him!

        Probably Edward after all, Peter was not a genius, but devilishly talented!
        But here we must understand that he was opposed by the no less talented Charles XII. The latter successfully "drove" Danes, Saxons and Poles across Europe. And the first Narva was not in our favor.
        The result was that despite the defeat in the Prut campaign, we won a victory in the Northern War, and after half a century we returned everything that we lost in 1711! Although the Black Sea issue is not closed for Russia even today !!! At the same time try us, pick us off !!! wink
        1. rich
          rich 9 September 2020 13: 18 New
          +9
          The Russian army was divided into 4 infantry and 2 dragoon divisions:

          1.ninfantry division of General A.A. Weide (in the command were Lieutenant General V. Berkhgolts, Major Generals A.A. Golovin and de Bouck, brigadiers Count Lamberti and du Boa)
          2. infantry division of General A.I. Repnin (in the team: Lieutenant General V.V.Dolgorukov, Major Generals E. Alfedil and G.I.Bon, Brigadiers Bush and Golitsyn)
          3. infantry division of Lieutenant General L. N. Allart (in command: Lieutenant General K.G. Osten, Brigadiers Shtaf and P.P. Lasi)
          4. infantry division N. Entsberg (in the team: Brigadier Remkimg)
          5. guards brigade "M. M. Golitsyn (Preobrazhensky, Semyonovsky, Ingermanland and Astrakhan regiments)
          6. Cavalry General C.E. Rennes's Dragoon Division (Brigadiers G.S. Kropotov and L. S. Chirikov; the division operated separately from the main forces in the Brailov area)
          7. Dragoon Division of Lieutenant General Janus von Eberstedt (in the team: Major Generals I.B. Veisbakh and A.G. Volkonsky, Brigadiers Moro de Brazet and Cherntsov; Major General Widman also remained with this division)
          The artillery consisted of 60 heavy guns (4-12 pounders) and up to a hundred regimental guns (2-3 pounders) [6] in divisions.
          all Russian artillery was commanded by Lieutenant General Ya.V. Bruce (including the artillery regiment of Major General I. Ya.Ginter)
          Irregular cavalry numbered about 100 hundred Cossacks,
          and up to 6 thousand light Moldavian cavalry of Dmitry Cantemir
          In his notes, Brigadier Moro de Brazet counted 79,800 soldiers in the Russian army before the start of the Prut campaign: 4 infantry divisions of 11 soldiers each, 200 separate regiments (including 6 guards and artillerymen) with a total strength of 2 thousand, 18 dragoon divisions of 2 thousand each dragoons, separate dragoon regiment (8 thousand). The staffing of the units is given, which, due to the transitions from Livonia to the Dniester, has significantly decreased.
        2. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 9 September 2020 19: 54 New
          +3
          Although the Black Sea issue is not closed for Russia even today !!!
          In what sense is "not closed"?
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 September 2020 20: 54 New
            +2
            Quote: 3x3zsave
            Although the Black Sea issue is not closed for Russia even today !!!
            In what sense is "not closed"?

            The soft underbelly of Russia.
            1. 3x3zsave
              3x3zsave 9 September 2020 21: 12 New
              +5
              And Kattegat and Skaggerak - "always inflamed tonsils"? laughing
      2. Catfish
        Catfish 9 September 2020 14: 58 New
        +3
        But most importantly, he was a genius. Russia was lucky with him!

        Pushkin noted this in his "Poltava":

        "There was a time of troubles,
        When Russia is young,
        In the struggles of strength,
        Courage with the genius of Peter. "(C)
        smile
      3. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 9 September 2020 19: 56 New
        +7
        You should not idealize Peter, he was still an obsessive.
  4. Captivity
    Captivity 9 September 2020 07: 54 New
    +9
    As old as the world. Success is ascribed to themselves, but allies are to blame for failure.
    Peter 1 was brave. But in this war he was frivolous.
    With such an advantage in the cavalry, it was a miracle that he was not dared. They would peck up to the Dniester.
  5. Olgovich
    Olgovich 9 September 2020 08: 34 New
    12
    And even the Russian emperor suddenly found their own Mazepa. These are two rulers: Wallachian Constantin Brankovan (Brynkovianu) and Moldavian Dmitry Cantemir.

    To call the loyal ally of Russia, who brought the Moldavian principality into Russian citizenship, who served her faithfully until the end of his life, a traitor - "Mazepa" who fell under everyone (Poles, Russians, Swedes) is the height of cynicism.

    The Russian tsar took the sons of Mazepa hostage, as did Istanbul with the children of Cantemir?

    Kantemir CONTINUED the line of his predecessors for an alliance with Russia. Back in 1656, the Moldovan embassy headed by Metropolitan Gideon went to Moscow, where it signed an agreement between Moldova and Russia. Cantermere signed the Treaty similar Lutsk from 1656.

    And suddenly - such a failure in the war with the Turks, whose power was already leaning towards sunset.

    Yeah, it's still rolling in. And it won't go down lol

    And at that time, the Porta still possessed vast territories and forces in Europe, Asia and Africa - the same Greece, the Balkans, the Black Sea region, etc., and so on. And it took a lot of difficult wars during TWO more centuriesto break her power.

    Peter lost there, because he lacked strength both to the North and to the South.

    The time of great interest came very soon and in the South under Catherine, Alexander, Nicholas and Alexander II
    1. VLR
      9 September 2020 09: 06 New
      12
      Cantemir's motives were probably the best, we are talking about the real fulfillment of his obligations and the unexpected blind trust of Peter I. But, of course, at least he tried - unlike Brankovian, who pretended that there was no Peter at all knows, and is loyal only to the beloved Sultan Ahmet III.
      Mazepa, unlike Kantemir, who after the defeat lost everything and went to Russia, absolutely does not deserve respect. He first betrayed Peter, then tried to betray Karl, simultaneously trying to betray the entire Left-Bank Ukraine (negotiations on transferring it to Poland).
      The parallel is different: both Charles XII and Peter I made plans for their campaigns taking into account local aid. And both found themselves in a desperate situation, having not received this help. How Peter I managed to repeat all the mistakes of Charles XII, despite the fact that his own generals warned him, drawing direct analogies, is incomprehensible to the mind.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 9 September 2020 09: 20 New
        +5
        Quote: VlR
        The parallel is different: both Charles XII and Peter I made plans for their campaigns taking into account local aid.

        This is all clear.

        BUT equating (by the common name of "Mazepa") a sincere ally with a traitor to everything and everyone, I think, is inappropriate.

        And yes, Mazepa was simply supported by few people, and all the locals supported Kantemir, just that Kantemir had very little at all.
      2. parusnik
        parusnik 9 September 2020 18: 35 New
        +5
        How Peter I managed to repeat all the mistakes of Charles XII
        ,
        In other words, Peter I stepped on the Swedish rake of Charles XII. Interestingly, in the course of all the Russian-Turkish wars, the Russian governments hoped for the uprisings of the Slavic brothers, in particular the Bulgarians, they say, tortured by Turkish captivity for more than one hundred years, but unfortunately the hopes were not justified ..
        1. VLR
          9 September 2020 19: 51 New
          +7
          I read from one English-speaking author such reasoning: during the Prut campaign, Peter I, contrary to logic, climbed forward to help the rulers of Moldova and Wallachia. And thus he laid the tendency and tradition to sacrifice Russian interests in the name of helping the Balkan Slavs and Orthodox co-religionists. And this policy of self-sacrifice ultimately led to the death of both the Russian Empire and the Romanov dynasty (meaning getting involved in the World War to protect Serbian brothers).
          1. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 9 September 2020 20: 36 New
            +4
            In general, a very correct idea.
        2. Astra wild
          Astra wild 9 September 2020 21: 14 New
          +3
          "they hoped for the uprising of the Slavic brothers, in particular for the Bulgarians", probably you do not remember at all about the "April uprising" in Bulgaria? Bulgarian colleagues should be well aware of this event
      3. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 9 September 2020 20: 20 New
        +2
        incomprehensible to the mind.
        What is there incomprehensible? ChSV, in its purest form! It's like pregnancy or gonorrhea, "whoever hangs with, from that and fly in"!
      4. Astra wild
        Astra wild 9 September 2020 21: 24 New
        +3
        "how Peter 1 managed to repeat all Karl's mistakes12" Peter 1's behavior reminds me of "the first Azov campaign of Peter 1": the same arrogance, but there was still a boy near Azov, and a mature man in the "Prut campaign"
    2. VLR
      9 September 2020 09: 17 New
      +9
      As for the “decline” of the Ottoman Empire, it “rolled back” and collapsed. Modern Turkey is a completely different state based on different principles. Like a new home built on an old foundation.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 9 September 2020 09: 38 New
        +4
        Quote: VlR
        As for the “decline” of the Ottoman Empire, it “rolled back” and collapsed.

        TWO centuries after "sunset" you have
        Quote: VlR
        Like a new home built on an old foundation.

        what a foundation, such a house: you remove the foundation and see what will happen to the house ...
        1. VLR
          9 September 2020 10: 22 New
          +9
          The Ottoman Empire "was beginning to decline" in the original. But the signs of the crisis were already visible, and intensified every decade.
          All processes of ethnogenesis and state formation proceed very slowly and often hardly noticeable. For example, the countries of modern Europe still seem to be prosperous, but the processes launched in them are already irreversible. However, we will not see a sharp fall of France (as in the novel Notre Dame Mosque) or the Netherlands. There will be a very slow evolution and reformatting with the gradual replacement of the indigenous population, ethical principles, and stereotypes of behavior. Even now, France bears little resemblance to the state that existed at the beginning of the 20th century. And for the French, who were born XNUMX years ago, that France with traditional values ​​and imperial ambitions, Christian and absolutely "politically incorrect and intolerant", is already a stranger, they probably simply could not live in it.
          At the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the Ottoman Empire had already begun the processes of disintegration, which would have manifested much earlier if it had not been for the desire of Britain and France to keep it as a Balkan counterweight to Russia. Thanks to this, Turkey has always avoided catastrophic defeats and got out of wars with Russia with the lowest possible losses.
          1. Kronos
            Kronos 9 September 2020 15: 02 New
            -1
            Any state does not look like itself a hundred years ago, but in the modern world 10 years are enough.
          2. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 9 September 2020 18: 20 New
            +4
            we won't see. There will be a very slow evolution and reformatting with the gradual replacement of the indigenous population, ethical principles, and stereotypes of behavior. Even now France bears little resemblance to the state that existed at the beginning of the XNUMXth century.
            Moreover, it bears little resemblance to the state that existed at the end of this very century. So, maybe we'll see, because the historical processes have accelerated significantly.
            Thanks for the article, Valery!
    3. rich
      rich 9 September 2020 13: 05 New
      10
      And even the Russian emperor suddenly found their own Mazepa. These are two rulers: Wallachian Constantin Brankovan (Brynkovianu) and Moldovan Dmitry Cantemir.

      For the role of Mazepa, Cantemir somehow does not fit at all, He, unlike Brankovan, made "grain provisions", he himself joined the Russian army with his troops, and even as P. Shafirov wrote: "He angered the Velma against the Turks with his own Orthodox (black) mountaineers. and balgar and srbov "

      On April 13, 1711, Peter I signed a secret Lutsk treaty with the Orthodox Moldovan ruler Dmitry Cantemir, who came to power with the assistance of the Crimean Khan. Kantemir brought his principality (a vassal of the Ottoman Empire from 1456) into a vassal relationship with the Russian tsar, receiving as a reward the privileged position of Moldova and the opportunity to inherit the throne. Currently, the Prut River is the state border between Romania and Moldova, in the XVII-XVIII centuries. The Moldavian principality included lands on both banks of the Prut with the capital in Yassy. Cantemir annexed to the Russian army six thousandth Moldavian light cavalry, armed with bows and pikes. The Moldovan ruler did not have a strong army, but with his help it was easier to provide food for the Russian army in arid regions. [3]
      The Serbs and Montenegrins, upon hearing of the approach of the Russian army, began to deploy an insurrectionary movement, but their poorly armed and poorly organized units could not provide serious support without the arrival of Russian and Moldovan troops on their lands.
      1. Liam
        Liam 9 September 2020 13: 12 New
        -5
        Quote: Rich
        Serbs and Montenegrins, upon the news of the approach of the Russian army, began to deploy an insurrectionary movement,

        You on the map that would look .. where is Prut and where is Montenegro. And with the Internet, TV and telegraph then it was difficult.
        Sometimes it is worth turning on the head before mindlessly copying and pasting
        1. rich
          rich 9 September 2020 13: 50 New
          +9
          And with the Internet, TV and telegraph it was difficult then.

          Apparently concluding the Lutsk Treaty on April 13, 1711, both Peter and Kantemir somehow missed this important moment from your point of view laughing
          Serbs and Montenegrins, upon the news of the approach of the Russian army, began to deploy an insurrectionary movement

          Is there something wrong? Come on, Liam, turn on your wise head and issue a rebuttal laughing
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 9 September 2020 14: 33 New
          +9
          Probably not worth being rude. We are quite familiar with the "head" of Dmitry, but you, forgive me, have not yet proven yourself worthwhile. Sorry minus.
          1. Liam
            Liam 9 September 2020 14: 47 New
            -3
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Probably not worth being rude

            You definitely shouldn't. The man is outright heresy. The Montenegrins were aware of this adventure, which failed before it began no more than the Indonesians or the red-skinned Americans. News at that time spread with a slightly different speed. If something reached the Montenegrins only many months later from the announcements of local viziers that somewhere far away but not in our area the sultan smashed someone to smithereens.
            If both of you lack the intelligence to understand this elementary thing, this is your problem.


            Quote: Sea Cat
            minus

            What a horror..I will lose sleep
            Quote: Sea Cat
            we know quite well

            Is this to you ... a secret union of sword and shouting? Or are you part of a powerful collective inellect ... aka herd instinct.
            Learn to speak for yourself .. an innocent figure
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 9 September 2020 15: 05 New
              +6
              ... he's a herd instinct. Learn to speak on your own ... internet activist

              If both of you lack the intelligence to understand this elementary thing ...

              In-in, slide down to banal rudeness, an individual intellectual from the same Internet.
              1. Liam
                Liam 9 September 2020 15: 15 New
                -1
                One of the most negative traits of the herd instinct is that a person ceases to adequately assess the situation ...ours are beaten
                In your two posts there is nothing in essence of the topic, but only stupid personal attacks and a courageous kindergarten act in the form of a minus.
                A crowd of minuses / pluses to exhibit, this site is full of such figures in all sections. So in this you are unoriginal
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 9 September 2020 15: 24 New
                  +5
                  Lord, how much expression ... I never expected it. Calm down already, I have nothing personal to you, because I don't see a person point-blank.
                2. 3x3zsave
                  3x3zsave 9 September 2020 20: 45 New
                  +4
                  Hello colleague! Why is this holivar from scratch? It would be fine, they really hacked to death on the topic, otherwise they shit each other in public, without any tsimes ...
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 9 September 2020 20: 54 New
                    -4
                    Hello.
                    Firstly, this is my own business with whom and on what topics I hack.
                    Secondly, try to ask this question to your friend teammate.
                    1. 3x3zsave
                      3x3zsave 9 September 2020 21: 09 New
                      +4
                      1. Undoubtedly, this is your right.
                      2. Are you so bored that you decided to quarrel with me?
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 9 September 2020 21: 24 New
                        +1
                        Exclusively out of respect and good breeding, I will answer for the last time to this kind of your post.
                        I have a discussion with the user Rich. With "hairpins" and pepper, but on the topics of the article. Your post and especially a non-land cat are personal attacks without any relation to the topics of discussion. They do not carry any information and are incorrect (to put it mildly). This is that what you call Holivar and against whom (in words) so against, in which you accuse me.
                        I have already written to your colleague about the disadvantages of the herd instinct, so I will not repeat myself.
                        And let's not litter the branches with these melodramas) hi
                      2. Astra wild
                        Astra wild 9 September 2020 21: 41 New
                        +4
                        Colleague Liam, about the herd instinct "I agree with you, but let me note that Konstantin" cat "is less" like "than you:" out of good breeding "means that all boors? Are you right: there are boors on the" History "branch but they do not "run the show"
                      3. rich
                        rich 9 September 2020 23: 38 New
                        +4
                        Liam (Liam):I have a discussion with the user Rich. With "hairpins" and pepper, but on topics

                        Don't flatter yourself. We have no discussion with you.
                        Discussion implies either agreement with the opponent, or his refutation, and not unfounded, as you always have.
                        Now, in a nutshell about the "conflict" that you provoked here again:
                        I objected to the Author, with whom I discussed, that Cantemir is not at all suitable for the role of Mazepa. As evidence from N.I. Pavlenko cited the text of Pyotr Pavlovich Shafirov, and a line from the wiki.
                        Liam: - "Sometimes it is worth turning on the head before mindlessly copying and pasting. A person carries outright heresy."

                        Well, naturally, Liam is the only specialist here, while Vice-Chancellor Shafirov and Professor Pavlenko, a recognized expert in the field of Peter's history of Russia in the XNUMXthth centuries, are outright heresy. Probably they, as it is in your opinion - "lacks intelligence to understand this elementary thing" smile
                        rich - "What's wrong? Come on, Liam, turn on your wise head and issue a refutation."

                        Well, then, as they say without options, there are no arguments, we begin to be rude. And to everyone who disagrees with you.
                        Liam, understand, your rudeness, or as you call it "pins and peppers" - this is not an argument, and no one is interested here, you got into the conversation, so confirm your words so that later you will not be offended if you are pointed out to incompetence. hi
                      4. Liam
                        Liam 12 September 2020 00: 29 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Rich
                        Vice-Chancellor Shafirov,

                        And what confirms Shafirov's words? How and when did Cantemir raise the Serbs and Montenegrins? Who did he write there and who raised them there?

                        Cantemir is a ruler of the peripheral Moldavian principality without a year. And simply a local temporary baskak set by the Turks to collect taxes. The man lived his whole life in Istanbul, who he is and that he did not really know his own population, not like in other countries thousands of kilometers away. these were installed and changed every few months. Who and what could he raise that? The whole Prut adventure lasted for several months before it really began. The neighboring countries did not have time to hear about it, let alone raise uprisings.
                  2. 3x3zsave
                    3x3zsave 9 September 2020 22: 05 New
                    +4
                    I promise not to bother you with such nonsense again.
                    And, yes, in fulfillment of what I promised earlier, I share my taste impressions from the recipe you proposed. It turned out tasty, unusual and promising for experiments! Thank!
                  3. Liam
                    Liam 9 September 2020 22: 18 New
                    0
                    I am very glad. From the site it happens and the benefit means)
                  4. 3x3zsave
                    3x3zsave 9 September 2020 22: 28 New
                    +1
                    "Whatever is done is for the best." Except for entropy.
  • Catfish
    Catfish 9 September 2020 14: 54 New
    +7
    In 1973, the feature film "Dmitry Cantemir" was shot, just about the unsuccessful Prut campaign of Peter. Kantemir was played by Mihai Volrntir, Peter - Alexander Lazarev. I saw this film and I liked it.

    1. mister-red
      mister-red 11 September 2020 00: 34 New
      +2
      A great movie. It's worth showing on TV
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 9 September 2020 21: 03 New
    +5
    Olgovich, I agree on points: 1) comparing Kantemir and Mazepa is somehow not entirely ethical. Mazepa, a type of street woman, though I have my own opinion about the latter, lay down under everyone, but at the same time imagined that they lay down under him.
    For me, Kantemir is an idialist.
    2) Valery hastened somewhat with the statement: "whose power was tending to decline." In my understanding: the victory of Yevgeny Savoysky is a "warning bell" that the Turks will have defeats.
    R.
    S
    "The port still possessed huge territories" here I agree with you and disagree "huge territories" does not yet guarantee power. Remember the Roman Empire, it was huge, but in the end it fell apart
  • mister-red
    mister-red 11 September 2020 00: 33 New
    0
    I absolutely agree, here the author is not only wrong, but simply lying. In principle, even Brinkovian, ruler of Wallachia, cannot be called Mazepa, he owed nothing to Peter. And to call Kantemir that way is no longer in any frame. And 6 thousand ragamuffins is of course cool.
    I remind you once again that Kantemir followed Peter to Russia. And with him about a thousand boyars.
    And by the way, Peter did not hand him over to the Turks, as they asked.
    And the son of Dmitry Kantemir Antiochus was one of the first Russian poets.
    And Kantemir himself at that time was one of the most educated people of his time, and in Russia there was definitely no one of his level. Peter wanted to make him president of the Academy of Sciences, but Kantemir died early.
  • BAI
    BAI 9 September 2020 11: 43 New
    +2
    And in fact, what are the claims to Peter? The author himself cites the facts that the victory was very likely:
    "This so frightened the janissaries that their courage left them."

    "We run the risk of being overwhelmed and it will inevitably happen."

    "Each time the Turks fled back in disarray. After the third attack, their confusion and frustration was so great that one can certainly assume that if the Russians counterattacked them, they would have fled without any resistance."

    "If Moscow were advancing, then they (the Janissaries) would never have been able to hold their place ... the Turks in the back began to flee, and if the Muscovites had emerged from the lagar, the Turks would have left the guns and ammunition."

    Well, it didn't work out, we missed the victory. But the trip was not hopeless.
    1. VLR
      9 September 2020 12: 00 New
      11
      Peter not only went on an unprepared campaign, and did not stop in time, contrary to the advice of his colleagues. The transition from rosy plans to harsh reality, apparently, turned out to be too abrupt and instead of the reckless courage that the tsar had shown until then, leading the army towards the Turks, suddenly hesitancy came. There are no complaints about the Russian army and even foreign officers, who found themselves on that campaign in the most difficult situation, they acted directly in a Rumyantsev way at first. And they could have anticipated Cahul. But Peter ... Alas, but it was he who blocked the bold initiatives of his generals - he refused to give the order for a promising counterattack by the Janissaries and canceled the night attack planned by the military council. And then..
      However, this is discussed in the next article, be patient.
      1. BAI
        BAI 9 September 2020 12: 14 New
        +4
        Peter not only went on an unprepared campaign, and did not stop in time,

        We then repeated the same thing near Kharkov.
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 9 September 2020 20: 51 New
          +4
          I think, nevertheless, "near Kharkov".
    2. rich
      rich 9 September 2020 13: 22 New
      +8
      Such an unsuccessful military campaign was the reason that Peter I did not renew the contracts of many foreign officers and generals.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 9 September 2020 20: 52 New
        +5
        Because they sang out of tune?
  • Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 9 September 2020 12: 21 New
    +9
    I liked the article. Indeed, this is not a very popular topic in wide circles.
    I am not ready to fully agree with the author regarding the assessment of the prospects for the counterattack of the Turks by the Russians. It is quite possible that such a step could lead to the complete defeat of Peter's army - the blow of numerous cavalry on the battle formations of the Russian army scattered during the battle and in pursuit of the retreating Janissaries is a very real prospect.
    The second question I had is about this quote.
    About 6 thousand Russian soldiers, who had 32 guns, lined up in a square, completely surrounded, moved to the main army, with which they managed to connect on the morning of July 19.

    Again, I'm not completely sure that I'm right, but in my opinion, the first mention of the formation of the Russian infantry in squares we have only already during the seven-year war ... Correct if I'm wrong.
    In the time of Peter, it seems to me, the main battle formation in the offensive were columns, that is, dense deep battle formations in several ranks.
    1. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 9 September 2020 14: 00 New
      +7
      but in my opinion, the first mention of the formation of the Russian infantry in squares we have only already in the course of the seven-year war ...

      Field Marshal Minich would have been surprised at this: he built the entire army in a square and led the steppe.
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 9 September 2020 14: 42 New
        +5
        Quote: Ryazanets87
        he built the whole army in squares and led him across the steppe.

        So is it all? smile
        After all, it really became interesting to me when the square was first used in Russia. With Minich? Great, I don't mind. In order not to be unfounded, please tell me where and when, and from what sources it is known.
        For example, I found only the Seven Years' War offhand. Near Poltava, it seems, there was no question of building a square - there battles were built, in my opinion, in three ranks in several lines.
        1. VLR
          9 September 2020 14: 49 New
          10
          Minich could. In Europe, the square was used as early as the XVII, and Minich was a participant in the War of the Spanish Succession. He fought with the French for several years, was wounded, spent two years in captivity. So I was in the know, but against the Turks and Tatars the square was just an ideal variant of the formation.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 9 September 2020 14: 52 New
            +5
            Quote: VlR
            Minich could.

            I could. That's why it's interesting.
            And you, Valery, where does the information come from that Peter built a square during the Prut campaign? Is there a source?
            I'm really curious.
            1. VLR
              9 September 2020 15: 10 New
              +7
              The indication on the square during the night movement of the avant-garde is quite often encountered by domestic authors, but now I myself am not sure of this, since I cannot find the original source offhand. Maybe I'll look for where it came from.
              1. Ryazan87
                Ryazan87 9 September 2020 17: 28 New
                +5
                Maybe you will also be curious:
                Execution of the Pesha. "Prussian Exercise" 1731. With a clear interpretation.
                ".... At the end of the above-described firing on the spot, teach, when firing with a drum, an offensive and retreating fight with a rank firing, also in square battalions, in the strength of the military regulations, so that they can act against the enemy in the case of defense ... "
                Minich simply drove the entire army of squares both in battle and on a campaign. Because of the weak cavalry, the huge wagons, and the large number of irregulars, I'm afraid they are of little use.
        2. Ryazan87
          Ryazan87 9 September 2020 17: 16 New
          +7
          In order not to be unfounded, please tell me where and when, and from what sources it is known.

          Will Baiov fit?
          For example, a description of the Stavuchansky battle:
          "...Slowly, with all the carts and heavy artillery, the army moved in three squares, "taking the direction to the right." Karl Biron walked ahead with his right wing, hiding behind the artillery fire of Prince Dadian. Karl Biron approached the river and, throwing fascines into the marshlands, built 27 bridges across it, over which he moved his regiments without hindrance. "
          ".... Having crossed the Shulanets river and built up into one common square, inside which was the entire train, the army slowly, with constant stops, moved forward."
          "... A characteristic feature of Minich's strategy is an offensive with a constant search for battle; a feature of tactics is the gradual development of a battle formation and actions against the Turks. At the same time, the linear battle formation is gradually goes into battle formation, consisting of several squares, mutually supporting each other with fire, ... "
          Formally, then:
          "...In 1731, in addition to the Military Regulations of 1716, the "Exercise on foot" was published, explaining in particular detail one section of the charter, namely: the department of "Exercise". In the combat service of the infantry during the reign of Empress Anna, as far as the "exercise on foot" of 1731 can be judged, the following most important features can be noted:
          1) everyone in the company took part in the shooting, and the first rank fired with bayonets attached, kneeling (under Peter the first rank did not fire);
          2) the lines were: a) deployed, b) consisting of a line of columns, platoon and two-platoon, and c) a square, the construction of which was carried out "in accordance with the Military Regulations"; "(the same Baiov).
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 9 September 2020 18: 16 New
            +4
            Yes, interesting, thanks.
            It turns out that the maximum number of squares in the army of Minich is three, but it happened that the whole army was built in one square. and this, not a lot, not a little, 60000 people, so much the minich had near Stauchany ... what
            Rumyantsev was already building each regiment in a separate square, and Suvorov was building the square in battalions and even in lorries. With Alexander Vasilyevich's love for maneuver and onslaught, this is not surprising. A kind of return to the manipulative tactics of the Roman legions of the republican period.
            But it seems that it was Minich who taught our infantry this formation.
            1. Ryazan87
              Ryazan87 9 September 2020 19: 09 New
              +5
              it was Minich who taught our infantry this formation.

              Well, since the exercise of 1731 was semi-officially called "Prussian", it is clear where the legs grow from.
              Minich first formalized the square (later the square will appear already in the Charter of 1755) + he loved this type of formation due to local conditions and distrust of his officers, such a feature is noticeable in him.
              It should be noted that the square "according to the situation" could create relatively small detachments. Here is a description of the battle of Colonel Witten's detachment:
              "... having notified Minich, Witten joined all the reconnaissance detachments together and, to verify the information received, continued to move forward. In total, he had 3800 dragoons and Cossacks at his disposal. On the morning of May 8, Witten's detachment approached the large Tatar camp. ... The Tatar cavalry immediately rushed into the attack.Russian commanders began to quickly build dragoons in squares, and the Zaporozhye and Little Russian Cossacks were ordered to cover the flanks.However, at the first onslaught of the Tatars, Little Russians fled, and all the power of the enemy blow fell on the unfinished square. with exceptional courage, but it was very difficult for them: in a hurry, only one line of soldiers was placed on the back face of the square ... "
              In addition, the field marshal even improvised: "... The next day the Russians were attacked by the Tatars. The square met the enemy with heavy fire. Minich ordered to bring the carts inside the square and place Cossacks on them, who fired from guns over the heads of the soldiers standing in ranks."
          2. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 9 September 2020 21: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Ryazanets87
            (under Peter the first line did not fire);

            Why didn't she shoot? In principle, at first there was no bayonet under Peter. Baginettes, they were inserted into the barrel. But by the time of the Prut campaign, they seemed to have already been rearmed.
            in Russia, bayonets were introduced in the guards in 1702, in the army the transition to them was completed by 1709.
            1. Ryazan87
              Ryazan87 9 September 2020 22: 29 New
              +3
              Why didn't she shoot? In principle, at first there was no bayonet under Peter.

              Let's give the floor to Peter himself:
              "... In the" Establishment for battle "... written by Peter in 1708, the following is said about such a construction:" ...The first rank should never shoot unnecessarily, but, having joined the baguettes to hold the gun, it is also in this, through a person, to be pikemen and teach them to use the pike; three ranks, change, shoot from the shoulder - and not from the guard, which is terribly embarrassing - to watch the officers firmly, so that the third rank at that time can be ordered to fire when the back is already full of course "
              For the most part, there was nothing in the first line to shoot, there were pikemen.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 10 September 2020 21: 57 New
                0
                Quote: Ryazanets87
                three ranks, change, shoot from the shoulder - and not from the guard, which is terribly embarrassing

                "change" is it like a caracol? Was the first rank on the knee? Or how did they shoot through the first row?
                1. Ryazan87
                  Ryazan87 10 September 2020 22: 15 New
                  +2
                  Was the first rank on the knee?
                  Well, for clarity, modern Swedish reenactors are trying to portray:


                  change "is it like a caracol?

                  apparently yes, tk. "... that the officers should look firmly third rank at that time to order to fire when the back is already full of course "those. the first line to shoot back became the rear.
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 September 2020 21: 16 New
      +3
      In the time of Peter, it seems to me, the main battle formation in the offensive were columns, that is, dense deep battle formations in several ranks.

      Fighting in columns, an even later type of formation than a square. For the first time in the Russian army, it was used during the capture of Ochakov, if my memory serves me.
      In the days of Perth, they fought in battles "in a latticework", in half-gongs. The depth of formation rarely exceeded six ranks. This formation formed a line. Basically there were two lines. The columns were originally a marching formation. The French were the first to use the columns in battle formations. Mainly when storming fortresses.
      Rumyantsev on a square, on a rash!
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 9 September 2020 21: 40 New
        +3
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Combat in columns, an even later type of formation

        Yes of course. Wrongly put it. Column and loose formation tactics - a combination of line and light infantry on the battlefield - came about later.
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        The French were the first to use the columns in battle formations.

        Vicki says that ours are Rumyantsev during the assault on Kolberg.
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Rumyantsev on a square, on a rash!

        I thought so too. But Ryazanets87 today cited quotes from Bayov, then I watched the battle at Stavuchany - yes, there is evidence of the use of a square in battle, and this is 1739. True, these were very massive squares - several thousand, or even tens of thousands of people.
        Rumyantsev was the first, apparently, to use a square in the regiment as a tactical unit on the battlefield, capable of maneuvering independently. At the same time, the maneuver was provided with a loose formation of shooters-rangers.
        1. Ryazan87
          Ryazan87 9 September 2020 22: 51 New
          +3
          Vicki says that ours are Rumyantsev during the assault on Kolberg.

          On this occasion, I always recall the description of the battle at Burkersdorf:
          "... Morning caught Russian troops here. This is the flattest, one might say flat sector of the Austrian defense, others are much more rugged ... Friedrich, right in front of the Russian officers, gave a master class for a dispersed attack in separate columns (not yet knowing that he was living in the period of linear tactics). ... After a massive shelling from a 45-gun battery that plowed the Austrian redoubts, columns of generals Vid and Knobloch, who had recently returned from Russian captivity, went into the attack. On the part of the Russians, a group of Manteuffel, who had returned from Swedish captivity, demonstrated activity. With a lively fire, marching back and forth, but not going to a decisive attack, the Russo-Prussians attracted Down's attention in this area ... "
          In principle, the tactics of the European armies were much more flexible than is commonly imagined. Jaegers, loose formation, columns - all this did not surprise anyone, and was often used by all participants of the same Seven Year Plan.
        2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 September 2020 23: 01 New
          +3
          Rumyantsev was the first, apparently, to use a square in the regiment as a tactical unit on the battlefield, capable of maneuvering independently. At the same time, the maneuver was provided with a loose formation of shooters-rangers.

          As far as I remember, as part of divisions or corps (Ryaba Mogila).
          Large "squares" have been practiced since the second half of the 17th century. A similar construction is mentioned during the campaigns to the Crimea, as opposition to the Tatar cavalry. It was additionally surrounded by slingshots and carts. At a glance in the descriptions of the military operations of Ramodanov.
          They could have acted in a similar structure during the Prut campaign, a controversial issue, but why not.
          At the expense of the columns during the storming of the fortresses, the idea of ​​Vauban, if Rumyantsev, then I'm proud of us. In field battles, they are definitely French.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 9 September 2020 12: 27 New
    +9
    Here we will have to state with regret that the Russian emperor was then noted for obvious dizziness from success.
    The level of manilovism just rolls over
    The author is in his own style - easy, entertaining, but superficial.
    If you approach this, then the reign of Peter the Great, who was crowned with the title of Peter the Great, Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All Russia on the one hand and Antichrist on the other - from beginning to end - dizziness with success and outrageous Manilovism.
    The Azov campaigns of 1695 and 1696 are an obvious manilovism, since the capture of Azov in itself did not solve the problem of Russia entering the Black Sea, and there were no resources and a fleet for a full-fledged war with Turkey.
    The proclamation in 1696 of "Sea vessels will be ..." in the amount of as many as 77 in a country where there is no shipbuilding and sailors in principle, and even in the absence of finances - not that manilovism and dizziness - a clear gamble.
    Declaration of war on the Swedes in 1700 is an outrageous level of Manilovism, which was convincingly proved near Narva. And only the dizziness from the successes of Charles XII saved Peter from much larger troubles.
    Moreover, at the beginning of the Northern War, Peter received "his Mazepa" - the Danish king Christian V and the Elector of Saxony and the Polish king Augustus.
    It turns out that Peter the first did not draw any conclusions and in 1711 again struck into Manilovism.
    Moreover, this failure did not teach him anything. In 1717 he organized the Khiva campaign.
    By the level of Manilovism, he far surpasses Prutsky.
    And the attempt to marry his daughter Elizabeth to Louis XV is pure Manilovism.
    Maybe you need to look deeper at the question and start "from the stove"?
    1. VLR
      9 September 2020 12: 54 New
      16
      Well, you can write a separate article about the crazy projects of Peter, which are not particularly advertised (it tells, mainly, about successful undertakings). Madagascar project, Khiva campaign, matchmaking of Elizabeth, etc.
      The first Russian emperor had a "broad nature". The most striking thing is that a lot, in spite of everything, was achieved. In the XX century, this was repeated by the Bolsheviks, who, on the one hand, created almost
      the impossible, having revived the already practically dead Russian Empire, industrializing it and defeating the Hitlerite European Union, on the other hand, they issued a bunch of non-viable projects, spending a lot of money on them. Voloshin wrote about this (in 1924):
      "Great Peter was the first Bolshevik,
      Intending to transfer Russia,
      Inclusions and customs contrary to
      For hundreds of years to its coming distances ".
      And further:
      "He, like us, knew no other ways,
      Sprinkle decree, execution and torture chamber,
      Towards the Realization of Truth on Earth ".
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 9 September 2020 13: 20 New
        +9
        Yes, about Madagascar in the absence of a fleet - I missed it. But that's not what I meant. If you start considering the events a little earlier, not from 1710, but at least 50 years earlier, to make, so to speak, a short historical excursion, then the version about "solving the issue with a valiant swoop" will not look particularly convincing.
        I hope the version of the salvation of the army by Catherine's jewelry will not follow in the sequel?
        1. Liam
          Liam 9 September 2020 13: 33 New
          +4
          That Russia was moving in that direction even before Peter the Great and that it was an objective necessity is a fact.
          That in Peter's performance it was an adventure with a natural defeat is also a fact.
        2. VLR
          9 September 2020 13: 35 New
          +7
          Well, how can one do without mentioning this historical myth in the article about the Putt campaign? About which Pushkin wrote in his notes to the "History of Peter": "All this is nonsense." More reliable versions will also be presented.
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 9 September 2020 13: 53 New
        -9
        Quote: VlR
        In the XX century, this was repeated by the Bolsheviks, who, on the one hand, created almost
        the impossible, having reanimated the already practically dead Russian Empire,

        what's wrong with you?! belay

        Peter "CUT OUT", windows to Europe (the Baltic states, the same Prut campaign), and these illiterate mediocrities CLOSED them, and even at Russian expense.

        The results of the titanic work of Peter, his descendants, the entire Russian people in construction states for two hundred years, go down the drain with the Russian people.

        You at least go to the window, and also find within the borders of Russia, drawn by these in 1917-1940, Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, Kars, Batumi, Verny, Uralsk, Yekaterinoslav, Chisinau, Tiraspol, Vilna, Riga, Revel and otherse 5 million km2 cut off from Russia by these people and from them.
        1. VLR
          9 September 2020 14: 33 New
          12
          A possible answer to this question: it revived the empire and defeated the fascism of the CPSU (b), and destroyed the CPSU.
          In my opinion, these are already different parties with different leaders and different members of ordinary cells.
          The leadership of the CPSU (b) and its party members, with rare exceptions, still believed in the proclaimed ideals, in the CPSU - for the most part, no longer. The leaders of the late CPSU, both in the center and in the republics, betrayed the USSR and their party, the rank-and-file members quietly agreed with this betrayal.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 9 September 2020 15: 28 New
            -9
            Quote: VlR
            A possible answer to this question: it revived the empire and defeated the fascism of the CPSU (b), and destroyed the CPSU.

            For this: "reanimated the empire" - the same VKPB in the 1930s would definitely lean against the wall
            Quote: VlR
            the CPSU (b) defeated fascism, destroyed the CPSU.

            Well settled, yes, but it will not work: the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has NEVER separated itself from the VKPB_ "the indestructible bond of generations of communists" and other such nonsense.

            And yes, separate the Khrushchevs, Brezhnevs, Molotovs, Mikoyans, and so on..... VKPBE and ... KPSS belay no Where will you "make your waist"?

            Sovereign states with the right to exit on the territory of Russia were created precisely by the VKPB.

            The same Belarus, which Minsk did not want to create, remember: the Central Committee decided.

            And as in 1924, AFTER the formation of the USSR, it was ... increased TWO TIMES, passing, like a sack of potatoes, RUSSIAN cities, Mogilev, Orsha, Vitebsk, Polotsk, etc., AGAINST the will of citizens.

            The same thing happened in 1926, the Gomel region was handed over against the will of the citizens.

            Will not wash off white, yes., Black, yes ...
            Quote: VlR
            The leadership of the CPSU (b) and its party members, with rare exceptions, still believed in the proclaimed ideals, in the CPSU - for the most part, no longer. Leaders The CPSU - both in the center and in the republics, betrayed the USSR and their party, ordinary members - quietly agreed to this betrayal.

            Those. party, in your opinion, traitors.

            You said that, yes ...
            1. Liam
              Liam 9 September 2020 15: 45 New
              +3
              Quote: Olgovich

              Sovereign states with the right to exit on the territory of Russia were created precisely by the VKPB

              This somehow did not prevent the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia in 1917/18 along exactly the same borders as in 1991+ Poland, Finland. Do not forget about the Far Eastern Republic.

              The boundaries of the disintegration are national territories, not the name of administrative subjects. It was called a province, a principality or a republic, no difference. To explain the collapse of empires only by this is nonsense, to put it mildly.
              And the collapse of 17 is entirely the merit of the empire, from the tsar to the last official. Their politicians for centuries, otherwise all would not fled at the first opportunity. The Bolsheviks only deftly took advantage of this.
              When a blind man stumbles over a stone and falls, it is foolish to blame the reason on the stone. The real problem is that he is blind.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 9 September 2020 16: 57 New
                -3
                Quote: Liam
                This somehow did not prevent the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia in 1917/18 along exactly the same boundaries as in 1991+ Poland, Finland.

                Nonsense: the Odessa republic recognized the power of the Council of People's Commissars of Petrograd, the DKR themselves recognized themselves as part of the RSFSR (and this is 40% of the territory. "Ukraine"). Poland a third of "Ukraine" considered its own and rightly so. Which are exactly the same? fool

                There was no "Belorussia" at all (the BNR was created by the German invaders).

                Yes, show me, "departed" in 1917-1918 - "Kazakhstan", "tukmeniya", Uzbekistan fool
                Quote: Liam
                The boundaries of the disintegration are national territories, not the name of administrative subjects. It was called a province, a principality or a republic, no difference. To explain the collapse of empires only by this is nonsense, to put it mildly.

                What kind of beast is this "national territory"? WHO identified them? Poland, for example, from Mozha to Mozha. AND?

                What is this? You write in Russian, yes ..
                Quote: Liam
                And the collapse of 17 is entirely the merit of the empire, from the tsar to the last official. Their politicians for centuries, otherwise all would not fled at the first opportunity. The Bolsheviks only deftly took advantage of this.

                Before the thief, there were no "independences, remember, finally."
                Quote: Liam
                When a blind man stumbles over a stone and falls, it is foolish to blame the reason on the stone. The real problem is that he is blind.

                It is foolish to be surprised at the fall of a person if you hit him on the head with a stone.
                1. Liam
                  Liam 9 September 2020 17: 33 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  Which are exactly the same?

                  National: Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Transcaucasia, Kazakhstan, Khorezm, all of them declared their states.
                  The Bolsheviks gathered back. Most were gathered back as part of the civil war. Others later
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  Yes, show me, "departed" in 1917-1918 - "Kazakhstan", "tukmeniya", Uzbekistan

                  The national Kazakh (according to the classification of contemporaries - "Kyrgyz" or "Cossack-Kyrgyz") government of Alash-Orda was formed in December 1917

                  Khiva Khanate.

                  You should at least look at Wikipedia sometimes.
                  Just like it happened in 1991, although they were not republics until 1917, but only provinces and principalities.
                  1. rich
                    rich 9 September 2020 20: 08 New
                    +5
                    [b] Liam (Liam) / b]: National. Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Transcaucasia, Kazakhstan, Khorezm. All of them have declared their states.

                    The national Kazakh (according to the classification of contemporaries - "Kyrgyz" or "Cossack-Kyrgyz") government of Alash-Orda was formed in December 1917

                    About the announcement of "their national state of Kazakhstan", if possible in more detail. And please with links yes : And that already tired of all nonsense to read.
                    Being sure that you, as usual, will not provide them, I bring to your attention that the self-proclaimed national-territorial entity Alash-Orda that existed during the Civil War is not a state, but how they positioned themselves - an autonomous region within Russia (then the RSFSR ) For all comers - the documents of the Second All-Kazakh Congress (the real name is "The Second All-Kirgiz Congress", at which the Alashorda autonomy was proclaimed, in the internet in free access.
                    Moreover, Liam, here is a map of the alleged Alash autonomy, drawn up by the leaders of the Alash party and submitted by them for consideration to the People's Commissariat for National Affairs IV Stalin. Stored in the fund of the State Archives of the Russian Federation in Moscow

                    The answer of the future "father of nations" from September 11, 1919 is also known:
                    "After the Alashorda people switched from diplomatic wagging to a direct alliance with Omsk in order to fight the Soviets. The Council of People's Commissars considers the existence of this" autonomy "not expedient ... We propose, following the example of the Orenburg Cossacks, to stop the useless and disastrous war against the powerful Red Army, the mercy of the Soviet government and open negotiations with us on the basis of the recognition of the authority of the All-Kazakh Military Revolutionary Committee in Orenburg We are ready to distribute the decree of the Council of People's Commissars on amnesty and forgiveness of all Kazakhs who took part in the struggle against Soviet power. This will avoid all the consequences of the civil war on the territory of the region at this responsible and critical moment for a part of the Kazakh people and those measures that we will be forced to carry out "

                    To chew the difference between an independent state and autonomy?
                    [b] Liam (Liam) / b]: You should at least check Wikipedia sometimes.

                    But this is right yes smile
                    1. Liam
                      Liam 9 September 2020 20: 48 New
                      0
                      Quote: Rich
                      correctly

                      I have the impression that you were the sources of inspiration for the author of the unforgettable ...I look in the book, I see a fig

                      Quote: Rich
                      Stored in the fund of the State Archives of the Russian Federation in Moscow

                      Alash autonomy was proclaimed by the "Alash" party and was established by the All-Kirgiz (All-Kazakh) Congress in Orenburg (RF) at the congress held from December 5 to 13, 1917. The idea of ​​the Alashorda was the freedom of the Kazakh people. The ultimate goal of the leaders of Alash was to recreate from the scattered Turkic peoples (Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Karakalpaks, Tatars, Bashkirs and others) a single Turkic state, the great Turkic empire of Turan.



                      The leaders of the Alash-Orda were in contact with both the Soviet government and the Provisional Government. For example, Khalel and Zhansha Dosmukhamedov met with V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin (from Wikipedia). The Alashevites also established contacts with the ataman A. Dutov after his overthrow of Soviet power in Orenburg, with the Committee of the Constituent Assembly in Samara, with the Provisional Siberian Government (Ufa Directory) in Omsk.



                      From Wikipedia: “From contacts and compromises with the Soviet government, the Alashorda residents moved to an alliance with Omsk in order to fight the Soviets. In June 1918, a resolution of Alash-Orda was adopted: “All decrees issued by the Soviet government on the territory of autonomous Alash shall be declared invalid. Chairman of the Alash-Orda A. Bukeikhanov, members M. Tynyshpaev, H. Gabbasov. "


                      The paths to independence of the national fragments of the Russian empire were thorny and varied.

                      And yet ... for the lover of the theory that it was the Bolsheviks who nurtured nationalism:

                      famous Kazakh historian Radik TEMIRGALIEV. He conducted an examination of the material and gave his comments to it - Practically all the figures of "Alash" were formed in the classrooms of Russian universities and teacher's seminaries. The Russian authorities believed that educated, Russified Kazakhs would help strengthen the imperial positions in the region, but in reality it turned out differently. Russia, one might say, has itself nurtured Kazakh national democrats
                  2. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 10 September 2020 07: 37 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Liam
                    National: Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Transcaucasia, Kazakhstan, Khorezm.

                    Do not carry nonsense stupid - what kind of "Ukraine"? fool
                    Shown to you: there was no Ukraine, there was DKR, OR, Poland. and WHAT is left of that "Ukraine, ignoramus?"

                    The BNR was created by the GERMAN invaders, does not it reach you the first time?

                    MDR-within Russia.

                    ALL nezavisomsti, hack to death on the forehead-AFTER the thief and its result. ignoramus.

                    So they "collected" what they destroyed themselves and collected nothing. - see 91.
                    Quote: Liam
                    The national Kazakh (according to the classification of contemporaries - "Kyrgyz" or "Cossack-Kyrgyz") government of Alash-Orda was formed in December 1917

                    Khiva Khanate.

                    You should at least look at Wikipedia sometimes.
                    Just like it happened in 1991, although they were not republics until 1917, but only provinces and principalities.

                    fool
                    To school, ignoramus.

                    Shame ....
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 9 September 2020 18: 29 New
              +5
              Quote: Olgovich
              And yes, separate, the Khrushchevs, Brezhnevs, Molotovs, Mikoyans, and so on ... VKPBE and ... KPSS belay no Where will you "make your waist"?

              It will never be possible to divide Anastas Ivanovich - either it will slip out, or it will be somewhere in the middle. smile
          2. Astra wild
            Astra wild 10 September 2020 14: 00 New
            0
            Valery, in all fairness, the CPSU appeared on the initiative of Stalin, he is an indisputable authority here, which means from the members of the CPSU (b). How it ended is another question.
        2. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 9 September 2020 14: 49 New
          +9
          Not for the sake of it, but just for curiosity.
          It would be interesting to know your opinion, Olgovich, on two issues.
          1. Who do you think is responsible for the collapse of the Russian Empire?
          2. Who do you think is responsible for the collapse of the USSR?
          And, if it doesn't make it difficult, very briefly - why are there communists in both places? smile
          1. VLR
            9 September 2020 15: 27 New
            +9
            By the way, Voloshin has lines:
            "The law of autocracy is as follows:
            The kinder the king, the more blood is shed.
            And Nicholas II was kinder,
            Gaping with obscene emptiness. "
          2. Olgovich
            Olgovich 9 September 2020 15: 57 New
            -3
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            Who do you think is responsible for the collapse of the Russian Empire?

            Russia, as a state, has not collapsed. Yes, there was discord, throwing, waves, but where were they not at the end of the Great War?
            But the country, although weakened, was.

            Even in Little Russia, according to the ukrnationalist historian Savchenko, before the VOR- real power belonged to the VP. Yes, and that Little Russia itself, the autonomy of which was discussed, was already ... unfortunate five regions around Kiev, funny ...

            The collapse of the country (declaration of independence) occurred-exclusively AFTER the thief-on the basis of stupid so-called. decrees "on peace", "declarations" of the rights of peoples, etc.

            Hence, the culprit-thieves who wrote and implemented them
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            ... Who do you think is responsible for the collapse of the USSR?

            Those who have created on the territory of Russia never existed before the so-called. sovereign "states" with the right to exit - "Ukraine", "Belarus", Turkmenia "," Kazakhstans, etc. in 1917-1940, those who forcibly turned Russians into Ukrainians there and, in many ways, succeeded, those who brought up through and through nationalist "intelligentsia and nmenklatura, etc. ...

            The planted time bomb matured for a long time, matured and exploded ...
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 9 September 2020 16: 08 New
              +7
              In general, I understand, thanks. smile
              I continue to give credit to the firmness of your convictions. smile
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 9 September 2020 16: 39 New
                -2
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                In general, I understand, thanks.
                I continue to give credit to the firmness of your convictions.

                These are not beliefs, these are FACTS.

                Which agitation can not beat ...
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 9 September 2020 20: 29 New
    +6
    Valery, I am delighted: they told it vividly and captivatingly.
    Once in my youth I had a fantastic idea: to study the "Prut campaign", why was it not needed? I could read a quarter of a page and that's it: boredom!
    You and Vyacheslav Olegovich know how to tell vividly that you "swallow" stories like a novel.
  • MA3UTA
    MA3UTA 10 September 2020 23: 40 New
    +2
    Peter 1 surrounded by Turks Tatars by the Prut River - 1711.





    http://oldchisinau.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=18