Military Review

In Defense of Emperor Paul I

44
In Russian storiesrather, in its coverage there is a whole set of stamps and, as a rule, no one tries to challenge these stamps. They are perceived as an axiom, as something that does not require proof. Especially a lot of cliches in the evaluation of the activities of the Russian tsars and emperors. For example, Peter I is an extremely positive person, Anna Ivanovna is negative, Catherine II is positive, and so on.

Pavel I, Maria Fedorovna and their children. Artist Gergardt Kügelgen


The reign of Emperor Paul I is drawn with especially black paint. The entire description of the period of his reign (6.11.1796-12.3.1801) boils down to two points:

1) He was a petty tyrant, a scoundrel, mocked people, punished for minor offenses or for nothing; everything in his reign was bad;
2) Thank God that the Russian patriots killed him and he did not have time to cause a lot of misfortune to the Russian people.

But what is alarming:

1. He took the throne at the age of 42, i.e. sufficiently lived and knowledgeable person.

2. Almost the first emperor who legally occupied the Russian throne.

3. Not a single law, not a single provision established by Paul I was repealed by his son Alexander I, and most of the laws developed by Paul and introduced by him existed until the 1917 year.

This is the third point of my doubts that prompted me to study more closely the era of Paul I. And here is what I discovered.

Evaluation of the Russian army by a British general who served in the Russian army during the reign of Catherine the Great:

"The army of Empress Catherine II is a more irregular crowd than a properly arranged army. A lot of abuses flourish in all branches of troop control. Most senior generals live in the capital permanently, leaving troops to their headquarters. Many officers live on their estates, giving it back his salary to his commanders.

Soldiers who know the craft constantly live and work in the estates of their superiors. I counted up to 50 thousands of such missing soldiers. The Life Guards Preobrazhensky Regiment consisted of 8 colonels, 26 lieutenant colonels and 6 thousands of noncommissioned officers of the nobles on 3 and a half thousand privates. But every day in the regiment I see only one major, several clerks. "
Why no one pays any attention to the custom established under Catherine II to record newborn noble sons with soldiers in the guard regiments. These nedorosli, not serving a single day in the ranks, to the 16-17 years received the rank of Guards lieutenants?

What changed Paul I in the army?

Is everything that he did to the detriment of the army and Russia? Here are just a few indisputable facts that say otherwise.

1. Paul introduced the real disciplinary and criminal liability of officers for the preservation of life and health of soldiers.

2. Introduced the concept of "immaculate service" for the lower ranks. For the immaculate 20 years of service, the lower ranks were forever exempt from corporal punishment.

3. He regulated the corporal punishments of the lower ranks, emphasizing that "... they should be allowed in extreme cases, bearing in mind that they serve to correct negligent soldiers, and by no means for their mutilation."

4. For the first time in Europe, he introduced the award of the lower ranks with the insignia of the orders of “St. Anna” and “Donat of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem”.

5. He dismissed from the service all the lower ranks of the nobility, who were listed on the shelves, but who were on long vacations.

6. He ordered that all newly opening officer vacancies be occupied only by graduates of military schools or experienced noncommissioned officers from nobles who had passed literacy examinations and knowledge of the statute.

7. He forbade officers and generals to leave more than one month a year.

8. Introduced holidays to the lower ranks on 28 days a year.
9. For the lower ranks, he introduced a woolen overcoat with sleeves for winter and cold time for the lower ranks (until that time, the soldiers had only a uniform for all seasons, under which they would hook who could). Soldiers wear this piece of military clothing to this day!

10. Introduced for winter time for sentry guard sheepskin coats and felt boots, and in the guardroom, felt boots should be as much as required for each change of sentry clothes to wear dry felt boots. This rule of guard duty exists today !!

11. He fired an officer from the 333 service and an 2261 officer who failed to answer elementary simple questions about military affairs.

12. He ordered that only those who passed the medicinal exam at the Medical College were allowed to join the regiment by doctors.

13. Under the penalty of hard labor, he forbade him to make deductions from the soldiers 'wages and, on pain of death, not issuing soldiers' salaries.

14. Established hospitals with each regiment.

15. He introduced retired soldiers who left the service because of injuries or soldiers who had served more than 25 for years with the maintenance of such soldiers in mobile or garrison disabled companies.

16. He ordered the dead and dead soldiers to bury with military honors, to hand over the graves for the care of the disabled garrison companies.

17. He banned the production of non-commissioned officers illiterate.

18. He forbade the use of soldiers as a labor force in officers 'or generals' estates.

Who left us the written evidence of the era of Paul I, on the basis of which we are today the Emperor, who has done so much for ordinary soldiers and ordinary people? Are not those - generals and nobles, of which Paul was out of service because of unsuitability? Paul, like Peter I, demanded the nobles of serving their state. Could the king survive, encroach on the freedom of the nobility, put all the military service on the fragile shoulders of the noble children?

I just want to wish everyone who studies military history not to believe the authorities, but to get to the primary sources. Then the most interesting things open up, many historical moments appear in a different light. Only it is very painful to part with illusions, it is very difficult to think. After all, everything was so simple and clear. I memorized from the textbook - it’s white, it’s black, it’s ours, it’sn’t ours and you don’t need to think. And you begin to understand, to think, and history appears in such a chaos of colors that it becomes somehow uncomfortable, the firmament begins to falter.
Author:
Originator:
http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/pavel_1.shtml
44 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. upasika1918
    upasika1918 23 September 2012 07: 51
    +9
    The information is very helpful. The purification of the name and deeds of Paul the First is necessary. The publications of Y. Veremeyev on military history are very interesting. Thanks to the author.
    1. Deniska999
      Deniska999 23 September 2012 11: 08
      +11
      Foreign policy of Paul went against the interests of Great Britain. England probably subsidized the conspirators. His alliance with Napoleon scared everyone. That's what he paid for, and if he had lived about 20 years, it is not known how history would have gone ...
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 23 September 2012 19: 55
        +6
        Quote: Deniska999
        His alliance with Napoleon scared everyone. That's what he paid for, and if he had lived 20 for years, it is not known how history would have gone ...
        Yes, the union of Russia and France did not bode well for England, I support your comment, a similar opinion. In the conspiracy against Paul I, the cunning and deceitful Britons could not do, England is a historical ill-wisher of Russia. Whatever Europe would be in our alliance with Napoleon, now you can only fantasize.
      2. slav4ikus
        slav4ikus 23 September 2012 20: 51
        +2
        Britain has always done everything to its advantage
      3. mongoose
        mongoose 24 September 2012 09: 38
        -1
        not only, joining the blockade deprived the Russian nobility of income from grain trade, without giving them anything in return, the result is known
    2. Ross
      Ross 23 September 2012 20: 17
      +4
      upasika1918
      The purification of the name and deeds of Paul the First is necessary.

      If the father of Paul the First was killed because of power, as well as many rulers before him, then Paul the First died, undoubtedly, not because of power - not because someone passionately wanted to seize power in Russia, but because of his new “perestroika” policy. At the same time, this time “perestroika” was in many ways rare - positive. And this causes interest in the personality of Pavel Petrovich, which is not easy to study because, as B. Bashilov noted:

      “Exposing this complex, intricate system of myths about Paul the First is incomparably more difficult than exposing the myths about the wise“ empress-philosopher ”and“ Golden Age of Catherine ”.”

      “Having collected all the jokes, you will think that all this is some kind of motley and rather incoherent fairy tale; meanwhile, the basis of the government policy (Emperor Paul) of foreign and domestic, lay serious thoughts and principles that deserve our full sympathy, ”noted the famous historian Klyuchevsky.

      “Paul knew perfectly the languages: Slavic, Russian, French, German, had some knowledge in Latin, was well acquainted with history and mathematics,” Sablukov testified in his memoirs.

      “At the heart of his character was grandeur and nobility - a magnanimous enemy, a wonderful friend, he knew how to forgive with greatness, and he corrected his guilt or injustice with great sincerity,” said Princess Leven.

      In his memoirs, the generosity and nobility of Emperor Paul was noted by many of his contemporaries.

      “Until the 42 years, Paul the First lived on the ambiguous position of the legitimate heir to the throne, with no hope of ever gaining this throne legally. First, his mother stood in his way, then stood the son whom she wanted to make emperor, ”B. Bashilov noted.
      1. Ross
        Ross 23 September 2012 20: 29
        +5
        After the death of Paul, the soldiers remembered him for a long time with a kind word, because during his reign they were always fed, in new uniforms, they were regularly taken to baths, the barracks were exemplary clean, officers did not allow themselves to mock the soldiers. For the mistreatment of soldiers, Emperor Pavel personally ripped off shoulder straps from officers and generals and sent them to Siberia. In a certain part of the senior officers, these actions aroused hostility, especially since Pavel A. Arakcheev made the savvy and diligent lieutenant general and made him the closest assistant.

        Emperor Pavel the First took significant steps towards the liberation of Russian peasants from slavery: he introduced a three-day corvee, allowed to file complaints against the landowners, canceled the next recruiting set of peasants as soldiers; forbade the sale of peasants without land, forbade the landlords to force peasants to work on holidays, and during the working week the landowner could use the peasants in the corvee for only three days. It is clear that with these good deeds Paul brought upon himself the discontent of the landowners.

        A “difficult” relationship developed between Paul I and the Masons. With the accession of Paul I, the Freemasons hoped that at last their people came to power in Russia - a Freemason, a “Masonic Tsar," because he had been a member of a Masonic organization for many years. And the beginning was encouraging for them - the new emperor freed many Masons, returned N. Novikov and A. Radishchev to the capital of the former, with his mother, in disgrace in the “Masonic affair”. But then, according to the Masons, he began to do strange things.

        Arriving in Moscow for coronation, Pavel, through the master of the Masonic lodge of the “three swords”, Professor Mattei, gathered the Masons and delivered a speech in which he tried to convince them that, given the events in France, they should have ceased their activities.

        “We have a number of foreign certificates (they all belong to the 1797 year) about the prohibition by Paul I of Masonic lodges in Russia. The modern researcher Vsevolod Sakharov also unambiguously adheres to this opinion, although they call another date for the prohibition of Masonic lodges Paul the First - 1799 year ... It can be assumed that this circumstance fundamentally complicated the relations of Paul I with the Masons. Hence the attempt of a number of authors to link the assassination of the emperor 11 of March 1801 with the Masonic conspiracy against him. ”
    3. mongoose
      mongoose 24 September 2012 09: 37
      0
      but there was a huge minus, he forbade non-nobles to become officers, violated the social elevator, which existed both in the local cavalry and on the Petra table, the nobles were able to become officers only after the reform of the 1870s
  2. apro
    apro 23 September 2012 07: 53
    +3
    The more you learn from those who are denigrated and whoop, the more you are convinced that this leader acted correctly by force imposing order, following his interests and after death of guidance didn’t give rest. Paul 1 knew what he wanted and did, served the state and people, in spite of any interests the interests of the service are above all. About the ruler is judged by his close associates and the Arakcheev genius of artillery is an example of this. Pavel was supposed to die because he began to pursue a policy in the interests of Russia and it is like a sickle to .....
    1. iulai
      iulai 23 September 2012 08: 07
      +2
      Arakcheyev, Prince Vorontsov and many other heroes of Russia, cried drunkard, gambler, womanizer, A, C, Pushkin.
  3. tarks
    tarks 23 September 2012 07: 59
    +5
    13. Under the penalty of hard labor, he forbade him to make deductions from the soldiers 'wages and, on pain of death, not issuing soldiers' salaries.
  4. iulai
    iulai 23 September 2012 08: 01
    +4
    they forgot to say when the first pavel came to the throne, the guard has not taken part in wars for 200 years. and spent time in feasts, and for privileges helped to occupy the throne to villains! and the fault of Peter the Great is enormous in that he abolished the pre-succession, which is why the Germans occupied the Russian trance and rewrote the history of Russia for themselves. Russia still does not have a clear history, but there is a historiography.
    1. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 23 September 2012 19: 31
      +6
      At that time, Guadia was barely 100 years old!
    2. Ross
      Ross 23 September 2012 20: 35
      +1
      Peter I imposed bureaucratic control in Russia and Germanized the army and the state, replacing traditional Russian traditions.
    3. slav4ikus
      slav4ikus 23 September 2012 20: 53
      0
      guard avenged Paul
  5. oper66
    oper66 23 September 2012 08: 03
    +5
    All assessments of the reigning persons in Russia were made on the basis of foreigners — if they were pleasing to the West then they were good — not bad, our history has long required a review, a rigorous revision during which there is a need to throw all the censure against Russia and its people into the dump, junked on tablets by the Jesuits papal scouts, on the basis of which, until now, there is an insult to Russia and the belittling of its people
    1. Kaa
      Kaa 23 September 2012 11: 16
      +2
      Quote: oper66
      All estimates of the reigning persons in Russia are made on the basis of foreigners-

      Well, and Paul I, especially so. It was because of his plans (not even plans, but the campaign that had begun) under the leadership of Platov to Central Asia, and further to the "pearl of the British crown" - to India. This was not forgiven him then and is not forgiven now, they ridicule the failure ... though. in the second half of the 19th century, the same troops reached Afghanistan ... the British had to urgently agree on the division of spheres of influence in this region.
  6. lotus04
    lotus04 23 September 2012 08: 09
    +6
    17. He banned the production of non-commissioned officers illiterate.

    18. He forbade the use of soldiers as a labor force in officers 'or generals' estates.


    "Dear" dad Carlo Serdyukov! It would not hurt to teach you history.
    1. iulai
      iulai 23 September 2012 08: 18
      +3
      Dear Iotus, what a story, they are all lawyers. if they knew history and its laws, then they would not have stepped on the same rake. under the dry law of Gorbachev, drugs bloomed in lush color. these idiots in the Duma again demand to raise the price of vodka, the cheapest 300 rubles. and that will be ? death again from a surrogate, dope. they don’t remember yesterday. but Putin does not pull on Paul the first, even a pale shadow.
      1. lotus04
        lotus04 23 September 2012 08: 33
        +4
        Quote: iulai
        these idiots in the Duma again demand to raise the price of vodka, the cheapest 300 rubles. and that will be ? death again from a surrogate, dope. they don't remember yesterday


        These "assholes" sitting overseas, and those who shout about it here, only their puppets.
    2. Fox 070
      Fox 070 23 September 2012 15: 58
      +4
      Quote: lotus04
      "Dear" dad Carlo Serdyukov! It would not hurt to teach you history.

      And it would be nice to return many provisions from his decrees to the modern army, otherwise you read the article and it seems that these are points for a new presidential decree on the eradication of corruption in the army.
  7. taseka
    taseka 23 September 2012 08: 26
    +2
    In general, well done! But such positive deeds can be found in every Russian Tsar, as well as a bunch of negative and nasty deeds !!!
  8. iulai
    iulai 23 September 2012 08: 36
    +2
    moreover, the current combatant step in the army, also introduced the first pavel.
  9. rocketman
    rocketman 23 September 2012 09: 27
    +2
    Aren't they the generals and nobles whom Paul expelled from service due to their inappropriateness? Paul, like Peter I, demanded that the nobility serve his state. Could the king survive, encroaching on the liberties of the nobility, putting all the hardships of the army service on the fragile shoulders of the noble children? Naturally, these same officers and the guards that were forced to serve him were soaked. Plus, there is still evidence that Paul 1 was preparing a liberation reform.

    Aren't they the generals and nobles whom Paul expelled from service due to their inappropriateness? Paul, like Peter I, demanded that the nobility serve his state. Could the king survive, encroaching on the liberties of the nobility, putting all the hardships of the army service on the fragile shoulders of the noble children? Naturally, these same officers and the guards that were forced to serve him were soaked. Plus, there is still evidence that Paul 1 was preparing a liberation reform.

    Aren't they the generals and nobles whom Paul expelled from service due to their inappropriateness? Paul, like Peter I, demanded that the nobility serve his state. Could the king survive, encroaching on the liberties of the nobility, putting all the hardships of the army service on the fragile shoulders of the noble children? Naturally, these same officers and the guards that were forced to serve him were soaked. Plus, there is still evidence that Paul 1 was preparing a liberation reform.

    Aren't they the generals and nobles whom Paul expelled from service due to their inappropriateness? Paul, like Peter I, demanded that the nobility serve his state. Could the king survive, encroaching on the liberties of the nobility, putting all the hardships of the army service on the fragile shoulders of the noble children? Naturally, these same officers and the guards that were forced to serve him were soaked. Plus, there is still evidence that Paul 1 was preparing a liberation reform.
  10. I-16M
    I-16M 23 September 2012 09: 36
    +4
    Thanks to the author!
  11. bairat
    bairat 23 September 2012 09: 38
    +5
    maybe "stooltkinu" will also be praised over time?
    Why was the order of the Minister of Defense N 205 so frightening Moscow military leaders, which launched this year a large-scale planned replacement of the personnel of the Armed Forces? Unlike lieutenants with captains, they are not sent to distant garrisons. The minimum that threatened the capital's colonels and generals was a command post in a large military unit or association. The maximum is an equivalent, if not a higher position at the headquarters of a district or fleet.
    The answer to this question was given by the Chief of the General Staff Nikolai Makarov, by the way, who himself served for many years in the provinces. According to him, over the past fifteen years, a whole cohort of officers has formed in the Armed Forces, who, without leaving the capital, have grown from lieutenant to general. They do not know the troops, do not know how to organize exercises, but they have taken root so deeply in Moscow that it is difficult to "uproot" them from there.
    Makarov recalled that when the question arose of transferring the officers of the headquarters of the metropolitan area to Siberia, 80 percent of the colonels and generals of one of the offices of the Moscow Military District immediately put the dismissal reports on the table of the commander. They did not want to leave the capital under any circumstances. And they were even ready to part with shoulder straps. Which, in general, happened
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 23 September 2012 10: 31
      +2
      That's just about what you noted no one remembers, because this is such a trifle against the rest! Let these horseradish continue to let the roots out of the ass into their chairs, but do not do the rest! They didn’t destroy the education system, didn’t cut the established systems for life - and practically everything else they do ...
    2. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 23 September 2012 13: 44
      +3
      It’s interesting, but who else do you designate for praise, dear bairat? .. Chubais? .. Burbulis? .. Gracheva? .. Or do you have your own candidates? ..

      There is a very good way to check whether this or that person in the army, or in the military environment, is worthy of respect. To ask a question - will they go into battle for her? .. So they would go for Pavel ... And for Suvorov and Kutuzov too ...
      If we take modernity, then such figures were or are Rokhlin (unfortunately already deceased) and Shamans. But will they go for the current Minister of Defense? .. I doubt it ...

      As for my personal opinion on this matter, let Anatoly even put a full-height equestrian monument of pure gold, if only they would soon move the mixer under the ass from the post of head of the Russian Defense Ministry ...
      1. Alexey Prikazchikov
        Alexey Prikazchikov 23 September 2012 14: 32
        +6
        Chubais and Burbulis are traitors. Pasha Mercedes just gn ... yes
        1. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 23 September 2012 22: 19
          +1
          I agree. Mr. ... yes ... But about the dead either good or nothing ...
          1. kvs45
            kvs45 10 May 2015 01: 11
            0
            no, let everyone be rewarded according to his deeds. If a person was a nit during his life, he will remain a nit after death
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 23 September 2012 17: 05
        -3
        Shamans figure is extremely controversial.

        First, he did not fly away for using the company of special forces to protect the factory of his son-in-law, but in vain. Received only a severe reprimand.

        Secondly, I still won’t talk about actions in Chechnya. I note that only the same Troshnev noted excessive impatience, impulsiveness, which was expressed in the heavy losses of the soldiers.
        1. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 23 September 2012 22: 32
          +1
          Controversial is not controversial, but the soldier will follow him. For one simple reason - this is his general ... And what is there a company of special forces, but a son-in-law ... We have half of the State Duma, former or active bandits, but chronic mediocrity. And nothing. Fine...

          But with regards to Troshev ... Against the background of the popularity of Shamanov in the army, and in particular during the Second Chechen War, Troshev himself looked pale and gray. But he wrote a book ...
          Yes, and while Shamanov crushed the illegal armed group for real, Troshev fought in the gums with the former field commanders, who supposedly realized everything and embarked on the path of correction, and gathered a political dividend ...
          Over the years, few people in the army will remember a good word about Troshev. And they will remember Shamanov ...
    3. Alexey Prikazchikov
      Alexey Prikazchikov 23 September 2012 14: 30
      0
      Bayrat plus you from me.
  12. Horde
    Horde 23 September 2012 11: 56
    0
    In general, it was noticed that if the Tsar ruler is pleasing to the West, if the reviews of the Tsar from the West are positive, then all curtsies to the West are to the detriment of the Russian people.
    -Aleksey Mikhailovich (the strange form of the name for the tsars is not like Ivan4, or Vasily3, but as what kind of boyar) Aleksey Mikhailovich was nicknamed the Quietest, during his reign church reform (schism) was carried out when all Russian church customs were replaced by fictional Greek rites. For example, the fact that now Russian people are called not in Russian is Peter, Pavel, Alexander, Anatoly, Eugene, Anas
  13. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 23 September 2012 13: 24
    +3
    I completely agree with the author ... And I’ll already notice from myself - a negative assessment of the reign of Pavel Petrovich did not appear immediately and not suddenly. And not even in Soviet times. It arose and entrenched even before the revolution. Moreover, in the first quarter of the nineteenth century ...
    He was friends with Napoleon against England. He planned a trip to India ... So he was worthless to the masters from the shores of Misty Albion. And here, in my opinion, lies the main reason for this negativity. Although it is not too global, but it is original ...
    And yet, importantly, this negativity for the most part was artificial and vaccinated. I would even say imported from outside and cultivated. As they say today - a classic PR campaign ... And it’s unlikely that there would be no English comrades here ... Their interest in spoiling the person of their political adversary is clearly visible in the eyes of his compatriots and their descendants. Why not revenge? .. But revenge in pursuit. Moreover, one that makes it clear that during the life of Paul, the British elite was a little afraid of him. And she was seriously afraid ...
    1. kush62
      kush62 23 September 2012 16: 29
      0
      He was friends with Napoleon against England. And why did Napoleon popper after a while to conquer Russia?
      Stalin "made friends" with Hitler and he flooded on us. Well, you can't be friends with anyone in this world. They immediately begin to think that we are weak.
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 23 September 2012 22: 17
        +3
        Napoleon invaded Russia when Paul was no longer a good ten years old, and when Petersburg curtsied in the direction of London ...
        A Buannoparty against England could make friends. Yes, and you need ... But alas, ah ...
  14. Kaetani
    Kaetani 23 September 2012 14: 58
    +2
    Thanks to the author. Aroused interest.
  15. mechanic11
    mechanic11 23 September 2012 15: 01
    0
    That's why the king to prevent conspiracies (secret police, intelligence, etc.) Such a job. Could do-well done-no-to the gallows (like the Decembrists) England nasty-if it has the opportunity, muddies. Let Russia and muddles, for example in Colombia -Will push the MANPADS to the Marxists there, something else. Weak? Let the states have a headache, or else you will preempt what the Anglo-Saxons conceived, but you must be the first.
  16. wax
    wax 23 September 2012 17: 06
    +1
    It is interesting that the "disorderly crowd" of Catherine II plunged everyone into suck, and there were no more people like Potemkin and Suvorov in Russia.
  17. omsbon
    omsbon 23 September 2012 17: 29
    +1
    It is necessary that paragraphs No. 13 and No. 18 hang in beautiful general slogans in every general’s office !!!
  18. iulai
    iulai 23 September 2012 19: 15
    0
    Now would be such a president of Russia!
  19. 77bor1973
    77bor1973 23 September 2012 19: 40
    +1
    By the way, he originally acted with the noble children enrolled in the guard, - appointed a combat review of the entire list of the guards regiments with the obligatory appearance of these on the show, who did not appear to be fired! And one must think that all the dismissed generals and officers are not of the best opinion about him.
  20. mechanic11
    mechanic11 23 September 2012 20: 34
    0
    I looked at Discovery for a selection of green berets, the guy shook his leg, but the instructors eliminated it, although he wanted to continue, a loser. And why a loser? History does not know the expression, so that it would be if ...
  21. mechanic11
    mechanic11 23 September 2012 21: 27
    +1
    If you wanted to maintain power and strangle objectionable nobles, you had to introduce a detachment of guardsmen — and strangle objectionable — to have an apparatus for suppressing objectionable. To build a new army, you must have iron fists and teeth.
    1. nmd_1
      nmd_1 24 September 2012 06: 25
      +2
      Unfortunately, at the present time, decency and goodness, almost everyone is taken for softness and weakness. Yes, probably and not only in the present, "good" should only be with fists.
  22. omsbon
    omsbon 24 September 2012 00: 14
    0
    [qaaaauote] [/ quote] [quote] [/ quote] aaaa
  23. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 24 September 2012 06: 55
    0
    thanks to the author, enlightened on some issues ... yes, we know a bad, disgusting story, this is from the area that Catherine 2 sold Alaska, in fact it wasn’t ...
  24. Alekseev
    Alekseev 24 September 2012 10: 53
    0
    "I just want to wish everyone who studies military history not to trust the authorities, but to get to the primary sources. Then the most curious things open up, many historical moments appear in a different light." good
    This is the main thing, because propaganda is ferocious, and what kind of "highly artistic" films on historical themes appeared, just like mushrooms this year.
    Well, before evaluating Paul, his transformations in the army and state, comparing Catherine's army with the crowd (the presence of such a crowd led to a situation in which, according to Chancellor Bezborodko, "not a single gun in Europe fired without our consent"), then there is no doubt , all sides of the coin must be taken into account. He probably wanted "what's best, but what happened ..
    The question is complex and multifaceted ... It is enough to recall the story of Suvorov
  25. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 24 September 2012 18: 41
    0
    He looked straight into the soul - what is there in the soul? And the fact that they soared from school that one monarch was worse than another, and the other was not quite worse than the third, and the other was completely insane. So it was suggested that only foreign Varangians were smarter and more cultured than their own, Slavic blood of emperors. And so, and the subjects should have a sense of humiliation in front of all overseas. Many of the sovereign servants were not to please, especially if they demanded that subordinates be pleased and diligent in public service. To the author and article - baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa or There would be more such articles and studies ..
  26. hjvtp1966
    hjvtp1966 9 December 2018 19: 45
    0
    The author has achieved his! Sowed into my soul doubts and a desire to understand.