Military Review

Alone against a coalition of European powers: the reasons for the defeat of the Russian Empire in the Crimean War

216
Alone against a coalition of European powers: the reasons for the defeat of the Russian Empire in the Crimean War

In Russian historiography regarding the Eastern (Crimean) War, a lot has been written directly about the defense of Sevastopol and the fighting in the Crimea, however история Russian military planning, until recently, did not stand out as an independent issue. Meanwhile, the problem of strategic planning requires an integrated approach that will reveal the close interconnection of Russia's domestic, foreign, and military policy.


In 2019, a book by the historian Alexei Krivopalov was published, in which he revealed this topic in sufficient detail, and also examined the role of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich in the Eastern Crisis and the Russian foreign policy strategy in the final seven years of the reign of Nicholas I. The factual material of Krivopalov’s work “Field Marshal I. F Paskevich and Russian strategy in 1848–1856. contributed to the writing of this material and will be cited frequently in what follows.

If the revolutionary crisis of 1848-1849, thanks to the efforts of the participants in the "European concert", did not cause a pan-European war, then the conflict in the Middle East in 1851-1852. rapidly got out of control and turned into a confrontation between an isolated Russia and a powerful Western European coalition along almost the entire perimeter of the western and southern borders of the empire [1].

In this material, we will try to answer the questions - what events led to the Eastern Crisis of 1853-1856? Was the Russian strategy in the final seven years of the reign of Nicholas I a failure, discrediting all the results of military construction in the 1830s-1840s? To what extent is Field Marshal Paskevich responsible for the outcome of the Crimean War?

The Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire in the 1830s–1850s


Emperor Nicholas I
Emperor Nicholas I

In the second quarter of the 1830th century, two problems arose in the foreign policy of the Russian Empire and other European powers - the revolutionary danger and the Eastern question. At this time, Europe experienced two revolutionary crises in 1831-1848 and in 1850-XNUMX.

The main content of Russian foreign policy in Europe in the 1830s–1840s. was the preservation of the European status quo, which had developed on the continent by 1815 as a result of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. This policy assumed the strengthening of allied relations with the conservative monarchies of Austria and Prussia, as well as the constant readiness to suppress the revanchist aspirations of France, including with the help of military force [2].

In the 1830s Russia's relations with Austria were not as warm as relations with Prussia. King Friedrich Wilhelm III was the father-in-law of Nicholas I. Frederick William IV, who ascended the throne in 1840, was the brother-in-law of the Russian emperor. Prussia directly bordered France along the Rhine and counted on Russian military assistance in the event of a threat from its restless western neighbor.

Cooperation between the two armies was exceptionally close. For example, the future Minister of War of Prussia, General I. von Rauch, "combined the inspection of Russian fortresses with similar activities in Prussia." In 1835, joint military maneuvers took place near the city of Kalisz in the presence of Nicholas I and Frederick William III. The most secret information, including military plans, was confidentially communicated to Nicholas I by decision of the king [1].

Some historians do not just say that the Germans had a fairly strong influence on the royal court: this was partly true, given that Nicholas I considered the Prussian king Frederick the Great the ideal of a monarch.

The ideological views of Emperor Nicholas I on the state system were based on Prussian patriarchal monarchism, combined with exemplary military discipline and religious and moral principles, expressed in the idea of ​​duty and devotion to traditionalism [3].

The protective policy of Nicholas I was aimed at building a strong police state capable of overcoming destabilizing factors in the form of the spread of liberal trends, which came down to supporting revolutionary theories and terrorist methods of fighting the autocratic government. The emperor achieved this during his 30-year reign, enlisting the support of all sectors of society.

The society had to rally in trust in the state represented by the government under the influence not of fear, but of patriotic feelings, the support of which was laid down in the national conservative program of Nicholas I, expressed in the triad of the Minister of Public Education Count S. S. Uvarov: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality [3].

From this point of view, Nicholas I considered the revolutionary events in the Danubian principalities and Hungary as a direct threat to the Russian autocracy and for this reason willingly responded to the request of the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph for help in suppressing the Hungarian revolution.

The successful Hungarian campaign of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich secured Russia's status as the "gendarme of Europe" - this is how many historians describe the role played by the Russian Empire in European politics in the period 1815-1854, this is how the European press called Nicholas I after he suppressed the uprising in Hungary.

Traditionally, in the national historiography of the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, the so-called gloomy seven years of 1848–1855 were the most criticized, which in domestic politics was accompanied by a chaotic tightening of censorship and the onset of an era of government reaction, and in foreign policy was associated with two successive international crises.

European Crisis 1848–1850 threatened to develop into a full-scale war on the continent and therefore was accompanied by a full mobilization deployment of the Russian land army on the western border. However, the collective efforts of the great powers, in which Russia played an almost decisive role, stopped the spontaneous expansion of local military conflicts in Hungary, Denmark and Northern Italy to the scale of a pan-European war. The fighting of the Russian army was limited to the fleeting Hungarian campaign in the summer of 1849. [one].

Despite the successful resolution of the crisis, which took place largely due to the decisive actions of the government of Nicholas I, subsequent events in the Middle East and the lost Crimean War actually devalued, in the eyes of researchers, the positive results of Russia's foreign policy in 1848–1850. [one]

Russian imperial army and military reforms in the 1840s


Between 1801 and 1825, the empire's armed forces more than doubled from 457 to 000 men. Russia, despite the victorious end of the Napoleonic Wars, due to the need to ensure Russia's position as the supreme arbiter in Europe and the disunity of potential theaters of hostilities, was forced to maintain an army that greatly outnumbered the armed forces of its neighbors.

The understanding of the fact that military power is in fact the only guarantor of the great power status of the empire forced Alexander I to maintain the so-called two-power standard after 1815. The need for a two-power standard, that is, some numerical superiority of the Russian ground forces over the armies of Austria and Prussia taken together, after 1815, Emperor Alexander I mentioned in a conversation with P. D. Kiselev [1]. But maintaining it was associated with enormous financial strain. The cost of maintaining the land army in the period 1827-1841. never fell below 33% of the nationwide.

The quantitative growth of the army entailed a heavy burden on the demographic resources of the empire, since Russia did not have superiority in population compared to its European neighbors.

In the 1830s–1840s Emperor Nicholas I gradually changed the nature of the recruitment system of the Russian army. With the formal preservation of the former name, recruitment duty actually acquired many features characteristic of the Western European concept, which assumed the existence of a general queue, as well as a selection procedure of lots and a wide system of benefits, deferrals and substitutions [1].

The wars of the early XNUMXth century showed the danger of bleeding regiments in the course of hostilities. The lack of trained reserves in the Russian army made it difficult to restore the combat capability of the formations that had suffered losses, while recruiting kits could only provide completely untrained replacements, which took at least nine months to get into service.

For this reason, in 1834, the term of service in the army was reduced from 25 to 20 years, in the guard - from 22 to 20 years. On August 30, 1834, the "Regulations on indefinite leave" were adopted. Soldiers who served without penalties for 20 years, after this period, were dismissed for 5 years (in the guard - for 2 years) on indefinite leave.

Field Marshal Paskevich's large active army consisted of I, II, III and IV infantry corps. The army headquarters was located in Warsaw. Field Marshal F.V. Osten-Sacken’s combat department of the First Army, which was previously in Kyiv, was disbanded in 1835 [1].

The Large Active Army became the largest association of field troops in the empire. She played a key role in the military policy of Nicholas I. In the army, the permanent commander of which in 1831-1855. was Prince Paskevich, assigned a complex of the most important interrelated tasks.

Firstly, on the basis of the Active Army, in the event of a serious war in Europe, the combat deployment of the Russian military ground forces was supposed.

Secondly, the Active Army was directly responsible for internal security in the Kingdom of Poland and carried out garrison service on its territory.

Thirdly, the active army, having received reinforcements in the form of infantry and reserve cavalry corps of the second line, was to become the main striking force in the theater of war [1].

A flexible combination of centralization and decentralization became a distinctive feature of the approach to military command under Nicholas I. The command of troops on the ground was in the hands of organizationally independent army headquarters, which ensured efficiency, significant financial savings and accelerated decision-making.

The gradual accumulation of a cadre of trained reservists gave the government a flexible tool for bringing troops into martial law without such extraordinary measures as recruiting. Mortality among the troops was significantly reduced, although it continued to be relatively high. Approximately 37 people per year died from diseases. out of 1 people list composition.

The number of deaths in the Russian army in peacetime was twice the number of deaths in European armies. However, even among the civilian population of Russia, mortality from diseases was on average a quarter higher than in Europe [1]. Desertion was also not a mass phenomenon.

The structures of the highest military administration - the War Ministry and the General Staff - in the 1830s. have also been reorganized. F. Kagan, in his monographic study, examined in detail the prerequisites for this reform and the process of its implementation under the leadership of Count A. I. Chernyshev [5].

In the course of the transformation of the central apparatus of the military department, the functions of command and control of troops from the General Staff, abolished in peacetime, were transferred to the War Ministry. Administrative and economic functions were concentrated in the collegiate Military Council chaired by the Minister of War [1].

For 25 years, a complete rearmament of the ground forces was carried out. At the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I, the army was still armed with various variants of the smooth-bore flintlock musket of the 1808 model, which, in turn, was a version of the famous French Charleville musket of 1777.

Diversity and Diversity weapons negatively affected the fire performance of the Russian infantry during the Napoleonic wars. On the Borodino field there were regiments that used guns of up to 20 different types and calibers. The problem of standardization and unification of small arms in the first years of the reign of Nicholas continued to be unresolved [1].

The final standardization of flintlock guns was carried out only in 1839, but soon a massive conversion of flintlock guns into percussion capsule guns was launched, which became known as the “1844 model”. Since the alteration of flintlock guns did not satisfy the army's need for modern rapid-fire smoothbore weapons, the production of a new primer gun was launched already in 1845.

The Russian rifle of the 1845 model with a caliber of 7,1 lines was created on the basis of the French one and was one of the most successful against the background of contemporary European primer guns. It fully corresponded to the tactical ideas generally accepted in Europe at that time about the use of line infantry in maneuver warfare, which proclaimed the priority of the rate of fire of a gun over its range [1].

If we talk about the total number of troops that Russia, after the completion of the combat deployment of the Army in the field, could put in the field at the first stage of a possible war in the west, then the figure by the standards of that time turned out to be impressive - about 400 people [000].

The fact that Russia kept more than 800 people under arms in peacetime was not a secret for Europe, although it caused certain doubts in it. For example, the Austrians, from their own experience, did not quite reasonably assume a significant shortage in the Russian ranks. In February 000, the ambassador in Vienna, D.P. Tatishchev, reported to St. Petersburg about estimates of the number of Russian ground forces that existed among the Austrian generals. Then the Austrians counted 1828 people in the Russian army. according to the lists, but only 838 people. – in service [981].

The Eastern Crisis of 1853–1854 and its causes


During the gradually aggravated Eastern crisis of 1851-1853. on the part of Russia, a number of dangerous foreign policy miscalculations were made, the direct consequence of which was the almost complete isolation of the empire in the war that began in the fall of 1853. Nicholas I and Prince Varshavsky (Paskevich) personally bear a significant share of the responsibility for these mistakes, although the historical unprecedentedness of the events that unfolded then can partly justify them [2].

The main reason for the Crimean War was the clash of interests in the Balkans and the Middle East of such powers as Austria, France, England and Russia. The pretext for the Crimean War was the dispute over the Holy Places in Palestine, which began as early as 1850 between the Orthodox and Catholic clergy, who were under the patronage of France. In 1851, Turkey, incited by France, gives the keys to the shrines to the Catholics.

To resolve the issue, Emperor Nicholas I sent an extraordinary envoy, Prince Alexander Menshikov, to Constantinople in 1853, who demanded that the Porte confirm the protectorate of Russia over the entire Orthodox population of the Turkish Empire, established by previous treaties, and also resolve the issue concerning the Holy places.

It is worth noting that the Russian emperors acted as defenders of the Orthodox faith, from which it follows that the All-Russian autocrats were the spiritual patrons of the Slavic peoples who were not part of the state. In the course of the struggle for independence, the "brothers in faith" - the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, often turned to Russia for help, which in turn provided them with all kinds of support.

It is worth remembering that on the eve of the First World War, the Russian Empire acted as the defender of Serbia, which was a Slavic state, which once again emphasizes the phenomenon that Russia provided all possible assistance to the Slavic peoples.

The Turks agreed to consider the question of the Holy Places without infringing on the rights of the Orthodox, but officially refused to recognize Russia as the patroness of the Orthodox on the territory of the Ottoman Empire, similar to the Turkish-French agreement of 1740 [6].

Menshikov received oral instructions from Nicholas I and written instructions from Chancellor K. V. Nesselrode and followed them. These instructions reserved for the Russian emissary the right, if necessary, to influence the Turkish government by threatening to recognize the independence of the Danubian principalities. The proposals made by Menshikov Porte went far beyond the dispute over the status of the Holy Places. It was about adding to the treatise of 1774 a special clause concerning formal guarantees of the rights and privileges of the Sultan's Orthodox subjects in exchange for concluding a military alliance against France [1].

The demand for a broad interpretation of the articles of the Kyuchuk-Kaynarji Treaty of 1774, related to the right of Russian patronage of the Orthodox subjects of the Sultan, caused serious opposition from the British and French. Paskevich in his notes considered the demands stated by Menshikov to be excessive [7]. In the immediate environment of the monarch, there was a serious difference of views on this issue.

Against the backdrop of diplomatic negotiations, the situation began to gradually worsen. Colonel H. G. Rose, the British charge d'affaires in Constantinople, and his French colleague, Count V. Benedetti, demanded that their governments send fleets to the Aegean Sea with the aim of diplomatic pressure on Russia [1].

Military preparations were gaining momentum in Russia as well. At the end of 1852, Nicholas I ordered the troops of the 10th Infantry Corps stationed in the Crimea and Novorossia to be put on martial law. From February 1853, XNUMX, measures were taken to deploy the IV Infantry Corps, which moved south to join the V Corps.

On June 21, 1853, Russian troops under the command of Adjutant General M. D. Gorchakov crossed the Prut and occupied the Danubian principalities.

“After crossing the Prut,” the French observer admitted, “the war became a matter of decision” [1].

At this stage, Field Marshal Paskevich (and he was not alone in this) still relied on assistance from Austria and Greece in the event of a war. However, these hopes were not destined to come true.

Crimean War 1853–1856 and military miscalculations of Field Marshal Paskevich


Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich
Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich

The Crimean (Eastern) War can be divided into two stages - the first stage lasted from October 1853 to April 1854, this period was characterized by the confrontation between the Russian Empire and Turkey. The fighting unfolded on the Danube and Caucasian fronts. In the process of confrontation, Russia was able to achieve considerable success, which, it seemed, contributed to the successful completion of the war. The culmination of this stage was the Battle of Sinop, during which the Russian fleet under the command of Vice Admiral Nakhimov destroyed the Turkish squadron.

This battle served as the official reason for the entry into the war of England and France. Nicholas I and Field Marshal I. Paskevich did not believe that this alliance would be sustainable, and believed that the Russian Empire would be supported by Austria and Prussia, which in fact almost went to war against Russia, which was an unpleasant surprise for the Russian political and military leadership .

After the entry of France and England into the war, the second stage of the Crimean War begins, which lasted from April 1854 to February 1856 and is characterized by attacks on remote territories of the Russian Empire and the landing of the Anglo-French Expeditionary Force in the Crimea.

On February 15, 1854, the allies issued an ultimatum, demanding that Russia clear the Danubian principalities. Nicholas I did not answer, and a declaration of war followed on March 27–28. Prussia, following Austria, also refused to sign a neutrality treaty with Russia. At the same time, both powers also refused the Anglo-French proposal to join their alliance, but nevertheless, together with the maritime powers, they agreed to sign a protocol confirming the integrity of the possessions of the Turkish Sultan and recognition of the rights of Christians.

In fact, this meant the accession of both German powers to the ultimatum of the allies, as well as the general desire to neutralize the influence of Russia within the Ottoman Empire [1].

As historian Vladimir Degoev noted,

“The establishment of a blockade of the Russian Black Sea ports was presented to Petersburg as a defensive action. Nicholas I, who did not understand such logic, had every reason to come to the conclusion that an open challenge was thrown to him, to which he simply could not help answering.
Even in this situation, the Russian emperor makes a last attempt to keep the peace with England and France, which was more like a gesture of desperation. Overcoming a feeling of indignation, Nicholas I notified London and Paris of his readiness to refrain from interpreting their action as an actual entry into the war on the side of Turkey.
He suggested that the British and French officially declare that their actions are aimed at neutralizing the Black Sea and therefore equally serve as a warning to both Russia and Turkey.
It was an unprecedented humiliation for the ruler of the Russian Empire in general and for a man like Nicholas I in particular. One can only guess what such a step cost him.
The negative response of England and France was tantamount to a slap on the hand extended for reconciliation. The tsar was denied the smallest thing - the opportunity to save face.

The problem of protecting the Black Sea coast in 1854–1855. turned out to be inseparable from the problem of Austrian mobilization in the west. In the conditions of confrontation with almost all the great powers, Russia could not provide a reliable defense of its long borders. Field Marshal Paskevich understood this very well when, on February 8, 1854, he wrote in a report to Nicholas I:

“... if there was a separate war only on the shores of the Black Sea, then nothing would prevent us from gathering as many troops as possible. But this is not our position now. We need to find all the means by reducing the number of troops where necessary, to direct them to where they are really needed” [2].

And these troops were needed primarily in the west. There were already signs of Austrian military preparations. Two and a half infantry divisions with reserves and a cavalry brigade remained in the Crimea and Odessa to protect the coast from landing.

In February 1854, this was considered quite sufficient. In addition, the intelligence data received by Paskevich spoke in favor of the low probability of a landing on the Crimean Peninsula. Therefore, the field marshal considered it possible not to increase, but, on the contrary, to reduce the forces here by one division [2].

Characteristically, the draft note drawn up by Paskevich in February contained the outlines of the most general action plans for the near future. And among the twenty-one scenarios under consideration, the option of landing an enemy in the Crimea was completely absent. This was a serious miscalculation of Paskevich.

Considering Russia's position in the Crimea quite reliable, Paskevich was not alone. In September 1853, the commander of the 20th Corps, Adjutant General A.N. Liders, estimated the possible number of troops on the Crimean Peninsula at 30-XNUMX thousand people. At the same time, Leaders considered the Evpatoria raid one of the least likely points of such a landing. Only Prince A. S. Menshikov, who commanded the Russian forces in the Crimea, experienced growing anxiety. He considered the Allied landings to be a difficult but doable undertaking.

In September 1854, 62 Anglo-French-Turkish troops landed in the Crimea. To repel an expedition of such magnitude, Menshikov's forces were clearly not enough. Nevertheless, on September 8, 1854, the commander took the battle on the river. Alma, in which he was defeated. Since the autumn of 1854, the struggle in the Crimea began to rapidly absorb those reserves that Paskevich considered necessary to keep in the western strategic direction [2].

Paskevich clearly misunderstood the complexity of the situation in the Crimea. And he simply did not have time to delve into the study of the situation in this theater of war. He partly admitted this in a letter to G. V. (A. A.) Jomini. The recommendations of the field marshal regarding the construction of advanced defensive structures in order to flank the enemy's siege work were implemented in February 1855. But the enemy, equipped with numerous siege artillery and constantly receiving reinforcements, methodically brought his trenches to the bastions [2].

The relatively weak profile of earth fortifications and the small area of ​​the defended perimeter did not allow the reserves to be echeloned in depth. As a result, during the bombardment, the garrison of Sevastopol suffered losses that significantly exceeded the damage of the enemy. Arriving reserves basically only covered the losses.

Prince Varshavsky clearly exaggerated the defensive capabilities of Sevastopol and made a number of serious mistakes. However, the Russian strategy, by clearly dividing the potential theaters of military operations into main and secondary ones, reduced the damage in the initially hopeless war to a minimum [2].

Results of the Crimean War (as a conclusion)


During the Crimean (Eastern) War, Russia opposed a powerful coalition of Western powers, having no allies. Neither Emperor Nicholas I nor Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich were prepared for such a turn of events.

Prince Varshavsky understood the impossibility of winning such a confrontation, so his plan was to drag out the war and to strive to reduce the final result to the least losses for the Russian Empire. During the years of the Eastern War, the actions of the Russian army actually pursued the goal of achieving such peace conditions under which Russia, despite not being defeated, would retain its place among the great European powers [1].

The Crimean (Eastern) War ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty, which in Russia, not without reason, was considered shameful. The international prestige of the empire was seriously damaged. However, the Russian Empire practically did not suffer territorial damage - Russia lost its territorial acquisitions in the Danube and the Caucasus, and also, following the points on the neutralization of the Black Sea (like Turkey), was deprived of the right to keep a navy in the Black Sea.

The Crimean War revealed a number of problems within the country, which led to military failure. After the Eastern War, the series of military victories of the Russian Empire was interrupted, which forced the future emperor, Alexander II, to begin a whole range of reforms.

Many historians consider one of the main reasons for the defeat of the Russian Empire in the Crimean War to be the technical backwardness of the army. This problem really took place - despite the reforms, it was not possible to achieve a complete rearmament of the Russian Imperial Army, but this was not the main reason for the defeat.

The reason for the defeat was the hopeless position of Russia, which found itself alone against a powerful coalition of European powers. In such a strategic situation, it was almost impossible to achieve victory.

Использованная литература:
[1] Krivopalov A.A. Field Marshal I.F. Paskevich and Russian strategy in 1848–1856. - M .: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science. 2019.
[2] Krivopalov A. A. Sevastopol in the strategic plans of Field Marshal I. F. Paskevich in 1853–1855. // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 8. History. 2013. No. 3. S. 58–69.
[3] Dubov A. Protective ideology of the Russian state under Nicholas I // Power. - 2012. - No. 11.
[4] Daly J. C. K. Russian seapower and "The Eastern question" (1827-1841). Annapolis, 1991. P. 191.
[5] Kagan F. I. The military reforms of Nicholas I. The origins of the modern Russian army. NY, 1999. P. 164–171.
[6] Besov A. G. On the causes and results of the Crimean War of 1853–1856 // Eastern Archive. 2006. No. 14–15.
[7] Shcherbatov A.P. Field Marshal Prince Paskevich, his life and work: in 7 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1904. T. 7. S. 59–61.
[8] Degoev VV The Caucasus and the Great Powers. M., 2009. S. 187.
Author:
216 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. The comment was deleted.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 16 November 2022 06: 09
      +2
      Quote: Wildcat
      Photo "Soldiers and officers of the 8th Hussars of the Russian Imperial Army" - IMHO, this is 8, but the Royal Irish Hussars ... I mean, a regiment of the British Army, part of that same Light Brigade.

      hi It also seems to me that these are not Russians, but it seems to me that they are French. request
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 16 November 2022 06: 39
        +5
        hi
        IMHO, of course, but the faces are definitely not ours, I agree.

        Did some more digging:
        The French, IMHO, had other hats, such as caps. And "facial hair" was a little different, "under Louis Napoleon."
        The British IMHO had such strange caps (?) With micro-visors that even the eyebrows were not always covered.

        I dug around and dug up a couple more links to this photo, again - 8 Irish ....
        1. Civil
          Civil 16 November 2022 08: 24
          +6
          "The Crimean War showed the rottenness and impotence of serf Russia" (Lenin V.I)
          It's better not to say ...
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 21 November 2022 10: 37
            -1
            Quote: Civil
            "The Crimean War showed the rottenness and impotence of serf Russia" (Lenin V.I)
            It's better not to say ...

            And now there is something to say? Lenin drowned all his life for the defeat of Russia in the wars. That was such a patriot
        2. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 16 November 2022 14: 21
          0
          Quote: Wildcat
          I dug around and dug up a couple more links to this photo, again - 8 Irish ..
          hi Rummaged, and I agree, the usual English faces. Lounging in black with a watch chain looks like Dickens. request
        3. Albert Brecht
          Albert Brecht 16 November 2022 15: 47
          +1
          And the balaclava? -Already contributing to history! Application range-0+: you can take a walk in the park of a milk-drinker, or you can walk yourself, beloved on the slopes of Courchevel- Ha-Ha... And the latest collections of Lagerfeld? - Each Clave - a balaclava!
      2. novel66
        novel66 16 November 2022 11: 09
        +2
        Well, that's exactly where the British thinned them out the color of the nation!
        1. Alexander Salenko
          Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 14: 29
          0
          To put it mildly, this is not entirely true. I don’t understand the reasons for this myth, inflated by the British, there is a version that the post could not be so brave, but according to the apt expression of Chennick, a war researcher, often the horses there were more thoroughbred than their riders.
          And the fact that they pushed the British cavalrymen was just a nice cherry on the cake, the result of the battle was the cutting of the Vorontsov road, which led from Balaklava to Sapun Mountain, from the British base to their siege corps, and therefore the Angles had to make an 11-km detour through the mud.
      3. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 16 November 2022 13: 06
        +8
        It's funny, but history actually repeats itself "one-on-one", even the place is practically the same and the enemy's "guns" shoot further and more accurately ..
        1. Alexander Salenko
          Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 14: 36
          0
          The same myth as the execution of the aristocracy near Balaklava, as mentioned above. For your information, only the British switched to rifles completely by the last assault on Sevastopol. This is a convenient explanation. that they fired further and, more precisely, that in reality it was not quite so. The same scouts did their sniper work perfectly, but the recruited infantry had to be taught to shoot from what they had. There is a lot of evidence that it will either fire with a ramrod, or fill it with several cartridges, or the cartridge bag is full, but shot all the primers.
          I briefly described the Chernorechensk battle below, and so there was an unrealistic case when the Russian regiment was upset by French artillery fire, fled, gathered and went on the attack again, it would seem that there should be demoralization. There are no problems with stamina, but it would be nice to hone skills for this psychological state.
      4. Wildcat
        Wildcat 16 November 2022 16: 06
        +4
        hi
        My message, it turns out, "Trolling is provocation and incitement - that is, deliberate deceit, slander, inciting quarrels and strife, a call to unseemly actions." request

        Turns out I have 4 warnings. feel

        I'll go to samoban. soldier
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 16 November 2022 17: 47
          +2
          Quote: Wildcat
          Turns out I have 4 warnings.

          I'll go to samoban.

          4 warnings - at a time? And samoban - "willpower + character. Well done!" (Vysotsky) Probably, they did not sew on respect for the "writer", it happens ... request
    2. parusnik
      parusnik 16 November 2022 06: 24
      +7
      But the author at least tried, worked with sources
      Samsonov, on the next branch, with Kresnovsky "History of the Russian Army", has been working for some time. smile
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 16 November 2022 06: 41
        +7
        hi
        Thanks for the warning!
        And then, like in a minefield ... you click on the article - and there Samsonov ...
    3. Fat
      Fat 16 November 2022 06: 45
      +6
      hi As for the photo, you are absolutely right. This photo was taken by Roger Fenton.
      This group of officers and master sergeants of the 8th Regiment was captured by Fenton while they were encamped near Sevastopol in 1855. To the left of the photo is Regimental Sergeant Major Harding, wearing a warm coat over his uniform and a peaked cap. Next to him sits Quartermaster Lane in a sheepskin coat, an officer's cap with a visor, and knee-high boots.
      A man in civilian clothes and a French cap is Duberly's treasurer. Leaning towards him, according to Murray's regimental history, is Sergeant Major Harrison in a light uniform. He's wearing an officer's cap with a visor, which makes me wonder if he was correctly identified. The mounted officer is Captain Lord Killeen, wearing a coat with a fur collar and cuffs.
      The group on the other side has two sergeants standing behind them on high ground. This is Sergeant Major Clark and Sergeant O'Meara, who are shown in another photo. They are dressed in stable clothes and caps, with walking sticks under their arms. An officer in a tailcoat and cap reading a newspaper is named Lieutenant Phillips. Another photo shows him as Captain Phillips. He has a cane and wears loose trousers with yellow fabric instead of a gold patch.
      Dr. Anderson is standing next to Phillips. The seated figures in the middle of this group are Staff Sergeant Williams, on the left, wearing a cape that has three rows of buttons, compared to Lt. Phillips's five rows. Before him is cornet William Mussenden, who rose to the rank of commander in 1874.
      Half hidden, next to Mussenden is Lt. C. W. Heneage, who won the VC in the Indian Mutiny. Captain Tomkinson is standing next to him.

      https://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armyunits/britishcavalry/8thhussarscrimea1.htm
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 16 November 2022 11: 17
        +1
        Borisych, good day. Are you a photography expert? Bu know who to contact.
        1. Fat
          Fat 16 November 2022 11: 33
          +2
          hi Hi Slav. No, not an expert. Finding an image in i-no using browser tools is a breeze. The author either did not take advantage of this opportunity, or consciously took an illustration from a dubious "source", or was in a hurry to saturate the text from the set of "bukuff" with at least some pictures. smile
          1. vladcub
            vladcub 16 November 2022 14: 44
            +1
            As for the illustrations, I agree: Valery, V. O and Eduard know how to select illustrations, but here it’s “dim”
    4. vladcub
      vladcub 16 November 2022 09: 23
      +1
      Widcat, I agree: the form is not Russian, or rather I can’t define it. There is no such knowledge.
      As soon as I read the title, my first thought was: "the Samsonov brothers", but then I say to myself: "two materials from one" creative team "- too much."
  2. Korsar4
    Korsar4 16 November 2022 06: 19
    +4
    They kept troops in the west. Can not argue.

    Everyone sees life differently. Someone from Malakhov Kurgan. And for some, the overall picture on the chessboard. Only the rules are more complicated than chess.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 16 November 2022 06: 22
    +6
    I read the first paragraph, I thought: Biryukov, I read further, my conviction grew stronger, I read it to the end. Exactly!
    Factual material of Krivopalov's work "Field Marshal I. F. Paskevich and Russian strategy in 1848–1856." helped in writing this article
    Thanks to the author for the source, it will be necessary to read it.
  4. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 07: 19
    +8
    The command of the troops in the field was in the hands of organizationally independent army headquarters, which ensured efficiency, significant financial savings and accelerated decision-making.

    It is not entirely clear what kind of efficiency "this" provided?
    And how can one "save substantially" when the command on the ground was in the hands of "independent army headquarters"? In conditions of continuous theft and embezzlement?
    Save on payrolls? fine them for everything?
    And why this saving, due to what it is achieved? and for what purpose?
    What a mess hi
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 16 November 2022 07: 57
      +5
      I wonder - in what century did embezzlement begin?

      Or since the creation of mankind?

      And Kipling is right in his famous

      People lie, people lie
      People steal and steal...
      1. Edward Vashchenko
        Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 08: 42
        +4
        Hello Serey!
        As soon as management and regulation systems (prototypes of state administration) began to emerge, it immediately began.
        In a tribal society, to whom to give messages? father to son or vice versa?
        hi
        1. Korsar4
          Korsar4 16 November 2022 09: 04
          +4
          Good afternoon, Edward!

          No wonder Kipling mentioned the pharaoh.

          Then why be surprised. Unless the earth, where these abilities especially flourish.
          1. Edward Vashchenko
            Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 09: 12
            +10
            To paraphrase a famous quote by Gleb Zhiglov:
            the work of the state is judged not by the presence of corrupt officials in the country, but by the ability of the state to level them.
            Although corruption is predetermined by the stage at which society stands.
            1. Korsar4
              Korsar4 16 November 2022 09: 18
              +2
              Yes. The phrase is good.

              And the watershed of opinions passes - whether any methods are suitable for this.
              1. Edward Vashchenko
                Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 09: 30
                +9
                And the watershed of opinions passes - whether any methods are suitable for this.

                A very, very long time ago, when I first became a director, I had a giant oversorting in my warehouse when assembling orders. From here there are scandals from clients, such as small ones like M Video and Eldorado.
                I turned to a wise logistician friend and he recommended setting the highest possible fine for regrading, then it was $ 50. In a month, regrading turned into a mathematical error and it never happened again, even when the company grew 300 times. True, all this was done systematically!
                Everything can be solved, the question is in the will, system and ... resources. hi
                1. Korsar4
                  Korsar4 16 November 2022 09: 58
                  +4
                  I agree. Systematic is very important. As well as the designation of the rules of the game.
                2. vladcub
                  vladcub 16 November 2022 11: 34
                  +1
                  "became the director" Eduard, you fooled me, I thought: Eduard is a historian and sensible, but he turned out to be: "both a Swiss and a reaper and a player on the pipe"
                  1. Edward Vashchenko
                    Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 13: 29
                    +2
                    Svyatoslav,
                    hello, haven't heard from you for a long time.
                    It is somehow clearer and more intelligible to look at problems from two positions, and know how to solve them laughing
                    Yes, and I can also cross-stitch ... well, or something like that hi
                    1. vladcub
                      vladcub 16 November 2022 14: 29
                      0
                      Edward, you "crushed" me to the end.
                      Probably, "Matroskin" enjoys your attention?
                      I agree, he, "Leopold, come out the vile coward," "Prodigal parrot" and "Well, wait a minute" cartoons from those that are hard to forget
                      1. Edward Vashchenko
                        Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 14: 31
                        0
                        You crushed me to the end.

                        I never set such a goal, never drinks
                        I just watched as a child ... nothing more ... laughing
                      2. vladcub
                        vladcub 16 November 2022 14: 53
                        0
                        I thought that Edward was really embroidering
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. Edward Vashchenko
                        Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 15: 22
                        0
                        I thought that Edward was really embroidering

                        And this is probably the topic. although ... oh, sorry for the time and the truth is not enough. That's even for articles on VO. laughing
          2. Catfish
            Catfish 16 November 2022 10: 36
            +6
            Good morning, Sergey! smile
            Then why be surprised. Unless the earth, where these abilities especially flourish.

            Here it is clear what country we are talking about.
            1. Korsar4
              Korsar4 16 November 2022 11: 21
              +3
              Good morning Konstantin! "The history of one city" is quite possible to re-read.
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 16 November 2022 12: 08
                +3
                You don't have to read it, just look out the window. laughing

                "And I eat an apple and look out the window" (c)
                1. Korsar4
                  Korsar4 16 November 2022 12: 47
                  +1
                  Pantalone with a window and an apple was hiding from life. And you can't hide from her.
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 16 November 2022 13: 24
                    +4
                    As they say, she "beats with the key and everything on the head." laughing

                    1. Korsar4
                      Korsar4 16 November 2022 13: 41
                      +2
                      Universal. You can do without a set of wrenches.

                      We only have hardening.
                      1. Catfish
                        Catfish 16 November 2022 14: 35
                        +5
                        We only have hardening.


                        That's right, starting with Ostrovsky. laughing



                        The machine gun in the picture is awesome wassat , therefore I inserted an illustration for the book, and not a photo from the film.
                      2. Korsar4
                        Korsar4 16 November 2022 19: 19
                        +1
                        I gave the book to my second daughter when she moved to Severstal to work.
                      3. Catfish
                        Catfish 16 November 2022 21: 11
                        +1
                        And I don’t even remember whether my children read this book or not, it seemed to be in the school curriculum, although by the mid-nineties they could have canceled it. smile
                      4. Alexander Salenko
                        Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 14: 45
                        +1
                        They canceled me, I was released in 1996, though then Ukrainian citizenship, Ostrovsky was no longer there.
                      5. Alexander Salenko
                        Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 14: 45
                        +2
                        Everything is fine there in this picture, the horse rearing up and the rider will invest his strength together with the strength of this very horse. And the reaction of the white, he does not know how to defend himself, first stood up. and then I realized that in vain, because it falls on the ass. The author knew what to write in the picture clearly.
                      6. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 15: 09
                        0
                        Everything is perfect in this picture.


                        Outside the machine gun. In the figure, as in the text, any "crap" raises doubts about the material presented. request
                      7. Alexander Salenko
                        Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 16: 06
                        +1
                        I have a doubt there, not so much a machine gun, but the very fact of a horseman jumping to him, but his blow and the behavior of the white are spelled out exactly.
                        We don’t find fault with Chapaev that there is a BA-27 with a tower, where they inserted maxims with a smooth casing? Which by the way is true, but Chapai has the same.
                        The author of the picture could not see the machine gun. the goods are very piece, but some retiree could tell him everything in colors. We recently started talking about soldiers here. remember there were red horsemen? There, only one confuses me that it shoots with one hand from a rifle, but how to swing a saber is shown there normally.
                      8. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 16: 27
                        +1
                        The author of the picture could not see the machine gun.

                        Everything here depends on the artist's approach, since childhood I remember my first book about Chapaev, so there "Maxim" was depicted in such a way that it was possible to teach military affairs on it. smile
                        And the cinema ... well, what can you do if there is no technology left of that time about which the film is being shot, and there is no computer graphics yet. Although, everything depends on the budget, otherwise I still smile when I remember what laughter was in the cinema when showing the attack of German tanks on the Kursk Bulge - T-62 with infrared searchlights for night vision sights. laughing However, it didn't matter to women at all.
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 16 November 2022 19: 20
              0
              Did he relate himself to everyone at once?
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 16 November 2022 21: 20
                +1
                Did he relate himself to everyone at once?


                And you? laughing
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 16 November 2022 22: 10
                  0
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  And you?

                  So you're saying that these are my words?
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 16 November 2022 22: 19
                    +3

                    So you're saying that these are my words?

                    Where do you see here at least a hint of some kind of statement? It is hardly possible to take you for Saltykov-Shchedrin, even with all the desire, if it were. laughing But it's not there, please don't be fooled.
                    I'm just wondering which category of the two you classify yourself in, the first, the second, or still both at once?
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 17 November 2022 19: 29
                      0
                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      Where do you see here at least a hint of some kind of statement?

                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      And you?

                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      I'm just wondering which category of the two you place yourself in.

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      So you're saying that these are my words?
                      1. Catfish
                        Catfish 17 November 2022 19: 45
                        +2
                        Awesome! A car of your own thoughts! laughing
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 17 November 2022 20: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Terrific!

                        That is, there is nothing to say.
                      3. Catfish
                        Catfish 17 November 2022 20: 25
                        +2
                        That is, there is nothing to say.


                        As I understand it, you are talking about yourself, good, because the only thing you do is that you post my phrases. Well, what are you talking about? I don't see the point. request
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 17 November 2022 22: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        As I understand

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        That is, there is nothing to say.
                      5. Catfish
                        Catfish 17 November 2022 22: 11
                        +1
                        That is, there is nothing to say.


                        But you speak incessantly, you will listen. laughing
                      6. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 18 November 2022 18: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        But you speak incessantly, you will listen.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        That is, there is nothing to say.
                      7. Catfish
                        Catfish 18 November 2022 19: 04
                        +1
                        Congratulations on a well-deserved award! Keep it up, dear friend! drinks
                      8. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 18 November 2022 20: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        That is, there is nothing to say.
                      9. Catfish
                        Catfish 18 November 2022 20: 49
                        +1
                        I have already said everything a long time ago, re-read it, it is in Russian.
                      10. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 18 November 2022 22: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        I have already said everything

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        So you're saying that these are my words?
                      11. Catfish
                        Catfish 18 November 2022 23: 21
                        +1
                        So you're saying that these are my words?


                        Aren't you tired of chasing the same phrase back and forth? Come up with something new.

                        Take a stopar, maybe it will feel better. smile drinks
                      12. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 November 2022 07: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Aren't you tired of chasing the same phrase back and forth?

                        So the answer will be or not?
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Did he relate himself to everyone at once?
                      13. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 11: 37
                        0
                        I'm tired of crushing water in a mortar, I've already said everything a long time ago.
                        What question are you waiting for an answer to?
                        Or is your adapter just stuck?
                      14. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 November 2022 13: 07
                        -1
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        What question are you waiting for an answer to?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Did he relate himself to everyone at once?

                        so what?
                      15. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 13: 13
                        +1
                        so what?


                        What-what-what? Do you have a favorite bird, perhaps a woodpecker? laughing
                      16. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 November 2022 13: 49
                        -1
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        What-what-what?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Did he relate himself to everyone at once?
                      17. Pane Kohanku
                        Pane Kohanku 19 November 2022 20: 05
                        +1
                        What-what-what? Do you have a favorite bird, perhaps a woodpecker?

                        Uncle Kostya, don't get involved. Well him. The conversation is unpromising. hi
                      18. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 20: 29
                        +1
                        Yes, I still have nothing to do. He left the snow, peeled the potatoes, talked to his wife, scratched the cat and that's it. Winter, village and boredom. (Just kidding)))) drinks
                      19. Pane Kohanku
                        Pane Kohanku 19 November 2022 20: 39
                        +1
                        Winter, village and boredom.

                        Stopisat grams and Soviet films!
                        I watched a bunch of good films yesterday in the evening or night - "Road Check", "Zhenya, Zhenya and Katyusha", "Train Out of Schedule". They just followed each other through some channel. Pleasures - through the roof! good drinks
                      20. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 21: 00
                        +1
                        I have a bunch of films in the "commemoration" here, so I'm not in the mood yet. smile drinks
                        I have seen all these films, of course, and they are all good, each in its own way. And the story, according to which the "Train Out of Schedule" was staged, was read, of course, long before the release of the film, in "Youth", it seems. smile
                      21. Pane Kohanku
                        Pane Kohanku 19 November 2022 21: 02
                        0
                        I have a bunch of films in the "commemoration" here, so I'm not in the mood yet.

                        And yesterday I downloaded an addition to the first "Blitzkrieg" on the theme of the Soviet-Finnish war. You have to cut it, right? laughing
            3. Vsevolod136
              Vsevolod136 25 November 2022 11: 59
              -1
              M. Saltykov-Shchedrin did not say this Russophobic nonsense.
              Minus me for spreading lies. wink
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 25 November 2022 12: 26
                0
                Alaverdy, dear, I'm talking about a minus. As for the rest, unfounded statements are worth nothing, prove it and I will give myself a minus. hi
                1. ArchiPhil
                  ArchiPhil 25 November 2022 12: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  prove

                  Alas, my friend, alas! But this phrase went for a walk from Zoshchenko's Blue Notebook. recourse
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 25 November 2022 14: 11
                    +1
                    Seryozha, hi! smile
                    Well, what can you do, another confirmation of how much you can trust the Internet. Although now you can’t prove anything, those who said it, or didn’t say it, have long been gone. Although, of course, the phrase is not in the eyebrow, but in the eye, especially about "they steal." laughing
                2. Vsevolod136
                  Vsevolod136 25 November 2022 14: 13
                  0
                  Do you know about "Russell's teapot"? You multiply the false Russophobic lies from Rosenbaum, and you have to prove
                  your ignorance.
                  I launched a bot on the archive of the works of M. Saltykov-Shchedrin - there is no such statement.
                  Name the work of M. Saltykov-Shchedrin where this statement is - I will give you a plus. laughing
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 25 November 2022 14: 18
                    +1
                    Do you know about "Russell's teapot"?

                    And I'm not saying anything, you're doing it. request
                    - I'll give you a plus

                    I am interested in "plus" from you in the same way as your opinion. Those. no way.
                    Calm down and breathe more evenly.
                    1. Vsevolod136
                      Vsevolod136 26 November 2022 10: 40
                      0
                      Your advice is very important to me, do not hysteria laughing
                      Which does not negate the fact of your ignorance and the spread of lies about the "statement" of M. Saltykov-Shchedrin
                      1. Catfish
                        Catfish 26 November 2022 13: 37
                        +1
                        , do not hysteria


                        Fu ... I really did not expect banal rudeness.

                        You multiply false Russophobic lies


                        How do you all like to stick labels to everything that somehow does not suit you. You are not capable of objectively recognizing some features of your own ethnic group, and hence your rejection of any other opinion, and often rudeness in response. I mean not only you, but also other representatives of your subclass of "cheers-patriots". hi
                      2. Vsevolod136
                        Vsevolod136 26 November 2022 19: 00
                        0
                        “Calm down and breathe more evenly” is your boorish wish, you don’t need to pull your shortcomings on normal people.
                        And ArchiPhil has already poked you with your nose at your ignorance and lies, you should calm down and flow around in silence. hi
                        Well, about the "features of their own ethnic group", this is a test, they were revealed in full. smile
                      3. Catfish
                        Catfish 26 November 2022 19: 54
                        0
                        You are progressing, from a kitchen boor you are sliding down to a tram. laughing
                        I understand that such a character as you will not open his mouth on the street, fearing for the safety of his physiognomy, so here you are frolicking, since "paper will endure everything."
                        As for Seryoga Phil, he is my friend and who poked whom and where, we will figure it out without uninvited intermediaries.
                        about the "features of their own ethnic group", this is a test, they were revealed in full.

                        So I still guessed that you have recently coded and are now sensitive to any mention of alcohol. smile hi
                  2. ArchiPhil
                    ArchiPhil 25 November 2022 14: 28
                    +2
                    Quote: Vsevolod136
                    lying Russophobic lies

                    If we abstract from the problem of authorship, what is Russophobic in this phrase? Steal? Yes. Drink? Yes. But you can also notice that they drink and steal everywhere. Wherever a person lives. Let's be more tolerant of each other. hi
        2. vladcub
          vladcub 16 November 2022 11: 28
          +2
          Edward, hello. "in a tribal society" they reminded our teacher: "Petyunya" (all the teachers were aged, and he was the only young one), he was crazy about the "archaic society" and echoes of paganism.
          I brought a sprig of chicory and said the popular nickname - "Petrov batog" with what it is connected. And "automatic" two 5
    2. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 16 November 2022 16: 40
      +1
      It is not entirely clear what kind of efficiency "this"
      provided?

      It is impossible to centrally manage the entire volume of purchases for the supply of troops from St. Petersburg. At least for technical reasons. It's obvious.
      And how can you save a lot?
      - with good will, it is possible and very significant. Using the resources of local suppliers and saving on transportation, for example. The troops themselves did a lot for their own supply (this tradition perfectly migrated to the Soviet army, only in a much less useful form for the rank and file).
      In conditions of continuous theft and embezzlement?
      blah blah.
      Save on payrolls? fine them for everything?

      (with curiosity) can you imagine how the supply of the Russian army was built in principle at that time? Based on the questions, no.
      And why this saving, due to what it is achieved? and for what purpose?
      what are regimental sums, savings, company farms - you don’t know, obviously. The goals there were the most obvious.
      Well, you can start directly with fiction, Lev Nikolaevich:
      "... In those days in the Caucasus, each company managed itself through its elected representatives of the entire economy. It received money from the treasury at six rubles and fifty kopecks per person and provided for itself: planted cabbage, mowed hay, kept its carts, flaunted well-fed company horses "But the company money was in a box, the keys to which were with the company commander, and it often happened that the company commander borrowed from the company box. So it was now, and the soldiers were talking about this. The gloomy soldier Nikitin wanted to demand an account from company commander".
      1. Alexander Salenko
        Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 14: 59
        0
        In the Caucasus, when you are in the garrison, it is certainly possible, but General Soimonov arrives in the Crimea with his troops, for example, all the gardens remained somewhere there and in the Crimea prices skyrocketed, merchants always take advantage of such opportunities.
        This truth also concerned the allies. But for example, they had canned food, I saw both from under the stew and from under the green peas.
        And Soimonov, for example, has a Yekaterinburg regiment, are you wondering what he needs, well, at least to go through the north of Crimea, and what will they find there from the Tatars? Well, some donations from local communities, for example, residents of Simferopol chipped in for cloth for scouts to sew pants for them.
        They wore overcoats in the heat to cover shameful places. They were looked at in Sevastopol as eccentrics, who are these ragamuffins, though they showed themselves brilliantly in combat work, but why didn’t the state see that this part of the Cossacks had no means for the normal conduct of the war?
        We have a military cemetery in Simferopol, for about 20 thousand souls, no one can say for sure, part of it is built up, and it was not cholera that mowed them down. how to mow down allies.
  5. Alexander Kuksin
    Alexander Kuksin 16 November 2022 07: 39
    +2
    Personally, I have my own opinion on the results of the Eastern War. I do not consider it lost in the military sense. Here I agree with Kersnovsky's conclusions. What did the Anglo-French coalition ultimately achieve? Did you frolic in Crimea? The defeat of Russia was brought by diplomats, as it has always been in all the lost wars of Russia, the ruling elite and parquet generals. According to all the canons, the "advanced countries" and their Turkish satellites should have easily defeated "backward Russia". Did not work out! Nowhere! Not in the North, not in the East, not in the South! Only Crimea, where they washed themselves with blood. The defeat was brought by diplomats, pushed by the Westernizing elite. As it was later in the Russo-Japanese War. And how does today's diplomatic corps operate. I do not want to find fault with the sources cited, I have not read it. But I am more inclined to believe the work of Alexander Tyurin "The Truth about Nicholas I the Blamed Emperor" and his conclusions.
    Yes, and those reforms that Alexander the Liberator carried out in their foundations were laid by Nicholas the First, but they were not given to him to carry out. The elite wouldn't.
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 08: 12
      +8
      Alexander Vladimirovich Tyurin (born January 20, 1962, Odessa) is a Russian writer working in the genres of science fiction and popular science literature. Member of the Union of Russian Writers.
      Biography
      In 1967 he moved to Leningrad. In 1983 he graduated from the Leningrad Higher Marine Engineering School. Worked in the navy.
      Since 1985, he has been a participant in a seminar for young science fiction writers led by Boris Strugatsky.
      Since 1996 lives in Germany.
      Wikipedia

      As a child, I read the story of this author "Cage for the violent" in the magazine "Bonfire" or "Sparkle", I don't remember now. At the level of a thirteen-fourteen-year-old kid, it’s quite okay. True, I liked the story "Keeper of the Planet" by Alexander Zhitinsky more.
      Of course, it is up to you to decide who is the authority for you when studying history - professional historians or a science fiction writer who decided to try himself in the science pop, but the conclusions that you voiced to us here:
      Quote: Alexander Kuksin
      The defeat of Russia was brought by diplomats, as it always was in all the lost wars of Russia

      really give away terry Samsonism. The only thing missing is Vatican agents and/or Jews.
      1. Alexander Kuksin
        Alexander Kuksin 16 November 2022 08: 32
        -2
        This work differs little from the conclusions of Kersnovsky or other historians, they are more systematized and presented in literary language. And as for the science fiction writers... So, listening to some of the experts from Solovyov... Those still dreamers hung with their own works... Sometimes I can’t understand whether they studied with Kara-Murza or he studied with them.
        I expressed my opinion, but I did not impose it on anyone.
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 09: 19
          +6
          Quote: Alexander Kuksin
          I expressed my opinion, but I did not impose it on anyone.

          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Of course, it is up to you to decide who is your authority when studying history.

          hi
          It's just that the conclusions that you voiced are too, shall we say, radical. Over its centuries-old history, Russia has lost more than one war, but what you said about the Russo-Japanese war, here I simply have no words. Tell me, how else do you need to get cabbage soup in order to admit your military defeat?
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 16 November 2022 10: 33
            +4
            Hi Michael! smile
            but what you said about the Russo-Japanese war, here I simply have no words.

            Yes, there is one word, if we specifically talk about Tsushima, then it’s just POGROM, you can not continue further either Port Arthur or about the army, the Tsushima pogrom is in itself quite indicative.
            1. Alexander Kuksin
              Alexander Kuksin 16 November 2022 11: 20
              +1
              If we consider each element of the war separately, then yes ... But by the beginning of peace negotiations, the Russian army had already embarked on the rails of war. The supply of troops and materiel reached its maximum. While Japan was economically approaching the crisis. And at this time, Witte got into negotiations.
              Christopher Martin in his book "The Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905" writes: It was more of a forced peace than a victory for one of the parties .... and they could win on land if they lost at sea.
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 16 November 2022 12: 15
                +1
                could win on land if they already lost at sea.


                Japan is a sea power, without defeating it at sea, it is impossible to do this on land. The Japanese fleet will always ensure the delivery of everything necessary much faster than Russia can do by rail. Read the "Imjin War" here, where the author painted everything quite clearly. Yes, and the finale of World War II says exactly the same thing, the army remained quite combat-ready, but without a fleet, it immediately fell into a complete skiff.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 16 November 2022 19: 22
                  +1
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  japan maritime power,

                  So what? The war was going on on the mainland, so the defeat of the fleet did not mean defeat in the war.
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 16 November 2022 21: 18
                    +1
                    So what? The war was going on on the mainland, so the defeat of the fleet did not mean defeat in the war.

                    What war are you talking about? There were many. laughing Although, it does not matter, in two of the listed wars, Japan was defeated only after the defeat of its own fleet. And she won the Russian-Japanese, precisely because the Russian fleet was defeated. And in none of the three cases, hostilities on the mainland decided anything, no matter how you fight. request
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 16 November 2022 22: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      What war are you talking about?

                      Do you remember what you are writing about?
                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      Japan was defeated only after the defeat of its own fleet.

                      What, what? Japan capitulated after the USSR declared war on it, if you are talking about WWII.
                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      fighting on the mainland did not solve anything, no matter how you fight

                      Well, what would a fleet do without a land army?
                      1. Catfish
                        Catfish 16 November 2022 22: 25
                        -1
                        Do you remember what you are writing about?

                        I remember, but you are specifically trying to pull an owl on a globe.
                        What, what? Japan capitulated after the USSR declared war on it, if you are talking about WWII.

                        Nothing. The USSR entered the war with Japan when its fate had already been decided. I wonder how you would have landed on the Japanese islands if the Americans had not destroyed the Japanese fleet by the year XNUMX? I'm already silent about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
                        In short, I'm tired of grinding water in a mortar, stay to yourself, heroic conqueror of the Japanese empire. laughing
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 17 November 2022 19: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        I do remember
                        then what are you asking?
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        The USSR entered the war with Japan when its fate had already been decided.
                        But the United States did not know about this, otherwise they would not have asked the USSR to enter the war.
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        I wonder how you would have landed on the Japanese islands if the Americans had not destroyed the Japanese fleet by the year XNUMX?
                        And on what? Without resources from the mainland, their industry would stupidly be bent.
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        In short, I'm fed up
                        talk nonsense.
                      3. Catfish
                        Catfish 17 November 2022 19: 47
                        +1
                        I do remember
                        then what are you asking?

                        And I didn’t ask you anything, because you won’t be able to say anything worthwhile.
                        talk nonsense.

                        Rather listen to her. hi
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 17 November 2022 20: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        And I didn't ask you anything.

                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        What war are you talking about?

                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Rather listen to her.

                        This is what I do.
                      5. Catfish
                        Catfish 17 November 2022 20: 22
                        0
                        This is what I do.


                        I managed to notice, i.e. carry a full gil. wassat
                      6. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 17 November 2022 22: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        I managed to notice

                        That you are self-critical.
                      7. Catfish
                        Catfish 17 November 2022 22: 10
                        0
                        I managed to notice

                        That you are self-critical.


                        Out of respect for you. laughing
                      8. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 18 November 2022 18: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        out of respect for you

                        At least they learned something.
                      9. Catfish
                        Catfish 18 November 2022 19: 01
                        0
                        It is impossible to learn anything from you, there is such a bird - a woodpecker, so you remind me of it. smile
                      10. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 18 November 2022 20: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        You can't learn anything

                        Well, there are hopeless students.
                      11. Catfish
                        Catfish 18 November 2022 20: 45
                        0
                        Exactly, here you are just in this category. They taught you, taught, but all in vain. request
                      12. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 18 November 2022 22: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Exactly, here you are just in this category

                        I teach, I teach, but it's all in vain.
                      13. Catfish
                        Catfish 18 November 2022 23: 09
                        0
                        I teach, I teach, but it's all in vain.


                        I'm sorry. request
                      14. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 November 2022 07: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        I'm sorry.

                        Self-critical.
                      15. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 11: 39
                        0
                        Do you think that it is already useless for you to sympathize, you can’t treat it? laughing
                      16. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 November 2022 13: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        it is not treated

                        Self-critical
                      17. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 13: 12
                        0
                        Do you have other words in reserve, or did you finish your education on this word at school? laughing
                      18. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 November 2022 13: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Do you have other words in stock?

                        What is the interlocutor, so I say.
                      19. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 15: 05
                        0
                        What is the interlocutor, so I say.


                        Look in the mirror less often. wink
                      20. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 November 2022 19: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Look in the mirror less often.

                        Are you my reflection?
                      21. Catfish
                        Catfish 19 November 2022 19: 30
                        0
                        You have a painful conceit and unrealized megalomania.
                        Drink bromine, maybe it will help ... yes
                      22. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 November 2022 20: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Drink bromine, maybe it will help

                        Didn't help you.
              2. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 12: 52
                +6
                Quote: Alexander Kuksin
                While Japan was economically approaching the crisis.

                This Japan beat us so much that it got tired. And at this time we were only gaining strength. And finally they got it, but the traitor Witte appeared and made peace. And then we would give them ... smile
                No, the normal point of view.
                I had one victim in my practice. He came, the poor fellow, to a married woman and ran into her husband-brother, who returned at the wrong time "from work". An unfaithful spouse immediately calls the police, and, well, an ambulance to the heap, she understands what it smells like. The brother drags his lover out into the street and starts to beat, he yells, the people gathered. First, the police officers arrived, but they were in no hurry to intervene - the husband was a healthy man, then the ambulance. And only when the husband got tired, out of breath, the policemen approached him and offered to drive to the department. He looked not at the cops, at the bloody body at his feet and like, "okay, take it," he got into a bobbik and left. The ambulance took the victim.
                So, I came to him in the hospital to interrogate him, well, I had to show him the decision to recognize him as a victim against signature. As soon as he saw this decision, he jumped up, almost into a fight at me: “Who is the victim? I am the victim? Yes, I almost killed him!
                Exactly the story of the Russo-Japanese War in your performance. laughing
                No, dear. As General Lebed said, "it is difficult to pick up broken teeth with broken hands." Russia lost that war outright and got off relatively lightly in the negotiations.
                1. Alexander Kuksin
                  Alexander Kuksin 16 November 2022 13: 39
                  +1
                  By the beginning of the negotiations, the Russians had brought the numerical strength of the front line to 446000 people, and the Japanese to 360000 people. The Russians were ready to fight on. were better prepared and better equipped than at the beginning of the war. The defeat of Japan was inevitable, because. the Japanese have already exhausted their human and material resources. The human losses of the Japanese were catastrophic and in some places they had already begun to surrender to the Russians in small groups. And the fleet could do little to help in transportation. It's just that the Russians and the Japanese didn't want to fight anymore.
                  Of course, everyone is free to believe that the Crimean and Russo-Japanese wars were lost. Like the fact that Kutuzov lost the Battle of Borodino. But I think that everything is much more complicated. Wars are started by politicians and diplomats, but they are also ended by politicians and diplomats. And the army is always to blame, for some reason.
                  1. Trilobite Master
                    Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 14: 40
                    +5
                    I am not a great specialist in the Russo-Japanese War, but the main events and facts are known to me.
                    I don’t know where you get your numbers from, whether you checked them, etc., but I remember that the losses in that war on both sides were about the same. For 1904-05. the total mortality in Japan increased by less than 2/1000 people, while the positive dynamics of population growth remained, that is, the mobilization resource did not suffer significant damage. Shoulder delivery from Japan and Russia to the theater - consider for yourself. As well as the possibilities of communication. There were calculations, I don’t remember just where, which showed that the Japanese could deliver reinforcements and cargo to the front forty (!) Times faster than the Russians. At the same time, technically, the Japanese army was better equipped on average, the command staff was of better quality. It's on dry land. At sea, everything was even sadder.
                    God forbid, I don’t understand how and where you can see the inevitable victory coming.
                    1. Foul skeptic
                      Foul skeptic 16 November 2022 15: 39
                      0
                      God forbid, I don’t understand how and where you can see the inevitable victory coming.

                      It is very easy to get an answer to this question - read Alexander's latest publication and a lot will become clear for you.
                    2. Alexander Kuksin
                      Alexander Kuksin 16 November 2022 16: 22
                      +1
                      A.I. Denikin in "The Way of the Russian Officer" writes:
                      Was it possible to defeat the Japanese.
                      "This question, both then and for a number of subsequent years, worried the Russian public, especially the military, caused heated debate in the press and at meetings, but remained unresolved. For the human intellect is characterized by intuition, but not providence.
                      Let us turn to purely objective data.
                      By the time peace was concluded, the Russian armies in the Sipingai positions had 446200 thousand fighters (near Mukden - 300000); the troops were not located in a line, as before, but echeloned in depth, having more than half of their composition in the general and army reserve, which protected against accidents and promised great active opportunities: the flanks of the army were reliably covered by the corps of generals Rennenkampf and Mishchenko; the army replenished and rejuvenated its composition and significantly strengthened technically - howitzer batteries, machine guns (374 instead of 36), the composition of field railways, wireless telegraph, etc.; communication with Russia was no longer maintained by three pairs of trains, as at the beginning of the war, but by 12 pairs. Finally, the spirit of the Manchurian armies was not broken, and the echelons of reinforcements went to Russia from Russia in a good and cheerful mood.
                      The Japanese army facing us had 32% fewer fighters. The country was exhausted. Among the prisoners there were old people and children. The former rise in it was no longer observed. The fact that after we were defeated near Mukden, the Japanese could not go on the offensive for 6 months, testified at least to their lack of self-confidence ...
                      As for me personally, I accept everything, "for" and "against", without closing my eyes to our shortcomings, I answer the question - "what would await us if we went on the offensive from the Sinigai positions?" - I answer then and now: Victory! "
                      1. Trilobite Master
                        Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 16: 54
                        +1
                        I'm not sure that Denikin's opinion in this case is somethingоmore than just an opinion.
                        And even if they won in one battle, what I doubt that this could decide?
                        I liked this:
                        Quote: Alexander Kuksin
                        the flanks of the army were reliably covered by the corps of the generals of Rennenkampf

                        Samsonov also thought so in 1914, no?
                        In short, "what would happen if ..." - not my path. For me, the military defeat of Russia in that war (as well as in the Crimean and Livonian and several others) is quite obvious. Everything else is pseudo-historical speculation.
                      2. Wukong86
                        Wukong86 16 November 2022 17: 11
                        +4
                        I agree. The results of the Portsmouth peace can hardly be called our success. As for the military component, the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 is unique in that Russia did not win a single victory. Even in the Crimean they were. So it is impossible to challenge the military defeat of Russia in the war with Japan with all the desire.
                      3. Alexander Kuksin
                        Alexander Kuksin 16 November 2022 17: 59
                        +1
                        So no one disputes! There is no topic for dispute here. Different views on historical events.
                      4. vladcub
                        vladcub 16 November 2022 20: 01
                        +1
                        "did not win more than one victory" because Kuropatkin or Linevich were COMPLETELY unsuitable for independent roles, they could be good performers, but not commanders.
                        This is the misfortune of the then system that it was necessary to put a "full general" in the role of commander, and more strong-willed commanders could not "compete" them, they were not in such a rank
                      5. Alexander Kuksin
                        Alexander Kuksin 16 November 2022 17: 55
                        0
                        Not! Samsonov had nothing to do with it ... Everything was completely different there, as Soviet historians had put it. Rennenkampf was an excellent general.
                      6. vladcub
                        vladcub 16 November 2022 20: 20
                        +2
                        "Samsonov also thought so" in general, "Samson's drama" is a complex topic, there used to be an author: Oleinev, it seems that he had material on this topic?
                        I doubt that Rennenkamaf was a traitor, Vic Nick "the twelfth" also denied this, there is another reason. Ignatiev writes that in the Russian army, there was no habit of mutual assistance. I think here: fear of initiative. Syndrome of the "performer": ANY system likes the performer, and the proactive one - extra "smuts". Worrying people are not needed by anyone
                      7. Alexander Salenko
                        Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 15: 21
                        0
                        Have you read Denikin, or pulled out a quote? I read it, it’s more difficult for me to talk about the REV, although, like many of those present here, I also know it in general and sometimes detailed terms. As I understand it, you decided to justify everything, instead of drawing conclusions. And as a historian, for example, in the Crimean War, I am outraged by the defeat on the Black River, not because we lost there. but the fact that it is forgotten.
                        Of course, it’s easier to write about victories, but the Russian soldier shed his blood for the Fatherland there too, he may have said very pathetically, but from the heart. And the experience of defeat will help to avoid them in the future more if this experience is explored.
                    3. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 16 November 2022 19: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      There were calculations, I don’t remember just where, which showed that the Japanese could deliver reinforcements and cargo to the front forty (!) Times faster than the Russians.

                      Where would they take them from?
                      1. Trilobite Master
                        Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 20: 00
                        +1
                        The length and bandwidth of communications in one direction and the other. You can count, there are methods for this.
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 16 November 2022 20: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: Trilobite Master
                        Length and bandwidth of communications

                        Where would they take reserves and resources.
                        On April 2, 1905, Genro Inoue said to Hare Takashi of the Seiyukai:
                        "The chief of staff of the Manchurian army secretly returned to Tokyo and informed the government that further advance of the army was impossible."
                        ("The Japanese Oligarchy in the Russo-Japanese War" by Shumpei Okamoto)
                    4. Pilat2009
                      Pilat2009 21 November 2022 11: 00
                      0
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      I am not a great specialist in the Russo-Japanese War, but the main events and facts are known to me.
                      I don’t know where you get your numbers from, whether you checked them, etc., but I remember that the losses in that war on both sides were about the same. For 1904-05. the total mortality in Japan increased by less than 2/1000 people, while the positive dynamics of population growth remained, that is, the mobilization resource did not suffer significant damage. Shoulder delivery from Japan and Russia to the theater - consider for yourself. As well as the possibilities of communication. There were calculations, I don’t remember just where, which showed that the Japanese could deliver reinforcements and cargo to the front forty (!) Times faster than the Russians. At the same time, technically, the Japanese army was better equipped on average, the command staff was of better quality. It's on dry land. At sea, everything was even sadder.
                      God forbid, I don’t understand how and where you can see the inevitable victory coming.

                      In a war on land, the fleet plays a secondary role. Could the Japanese fleet blockade Russia, as the British did in WWII? In fact, their fleet was engaged in the protection of transports. But since Russia had a route for bringing reinforcements by land, the Japanese fleet could not cut off the supply. Russia had other problems that hurried up the conclusion of peace - the revolution, and this problem demanded the conclusion of peace at any cost
                2. vladcub
                  vladcub 16 November 2022 19: 48
                  +1
                  Mish, about the REV, you are both right and not quite right. The Russian army could still "butt" with the Japs and it is not known how it would have developed further. This explains the "liberal" terms of the "Portsmouth Agreement"
                  1. Trilobite Master
                    Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 20: 02
                    0
                    My opinion - if they could win, they would win. smile
                    1. vladcub
                      vladcub 16 November 2022 20: 31
                      +2
                      If Kuropaikin had been a strong-willed commander, everything would have been different
                  2. Alexander Salenko
                    Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 15: 24
                    0
                    There is only one moment. that there in Japan our people knew little, but everyone knew that we had a revolution.
              3. Alexander Salenko
                Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 15: 16
                0
                Have you tried reading Denikin? He also participated there. So, before the RYAV, when he was still studying at the Academy of the General Staff, they were given one lecture on the war with the Turks in 1877-78. and there surfaced unpleasant information from the still living figures of that war and it was forbidden to study it, the most modern experience for 1871.
                1. vladcub
                  vladcub 22 November 2022 08: 39
                  0
                  Imagine reading Denikin
                  Ignatiev "Fifty years in the ranks"
                  1. Alexander Salenko
                    Alexander Salenko 22 November 2022 17: 05
                    +1
                    "Essays on Russian Troubles"? These are not his only memoirs.
                    1. vladcub
                      vladcub 22 November 2022 17: 42
                      +1
                      "Notes of a Russian OFFICER"
                      PS, he had a literary talent: light style and more interesting to read than Ignatieff. That one had a harder style
      2. vladcub
        vladcub 16 November 2022 15: 00
        +2
        Mish, greetings, do not remember the "Samsonov brothers", otherwise someone from the hamster tribe will come running
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 15: 37
          +2
          Hello, Glory.
          Why would they come here if the article by Samsonov himself lies nearby? They are sure to frolic there as they want. smile
          1. vladcub
            vladcub 16 November 2022 20: 32
            +2
            So the "feed base" needs to be expanded
    2. Alexander Salenko
      Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 15: 12
      0
      You can have your own opinion, but it has nothing to do with science. The allies washed themselves with blood, and even more of them died from diseases, but so did we, and if you think that the ban on keeping a fleet on the Black Sea is bullshit, then I, having my own opinion. I don't think yours is correct.
      Diplomats, of course, interfered at the beginning of the war, I was talking about landing on the Bosphorus, and there was such a plan. and then we suffered a military defeat, so don't compose. And economic, too, because the financial system was upset in the trash.
      And your reasoning:
      Did not work out! Nowhere! Not in the North, not in the East, not in the South! Only Crimea, where they washed themselves with blood.
      I can parry like this, they didn’t stuff my face, my arms and legs weren’t broken, they just hit me in the liver.
      Let's start with the fact that Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky was surrendered in the end, they didn't take Solovki, so they plundered the coast, they didn't grow together in the Baltic, and they took Kars in the Caucasus, but they forced them to leave the Danube, and if it wasn't bruised, what was it then?
      The Allied landing in Crimea itself is the first such operation from the original supply bases against a peer.
      But I am more inclined to believe the work of Alexander Tyurin "The Truth about Nicholas I the Blamed Emperor" and his conclusions.

      You can believe in anything, but the intention of the allies was originally to defeat Russia on a single sector of the front. After Napoleon's army was buried in Russia, no one was going to invade with widespread aggression.
      Of course, their blitzkrieg was frustrated, they did not plan to sit in the Crimea for so long, but few people know the meaning of the flooding of ships - this is the failure of the first assault on Sevastopol. But in the end, after suffering hardships, they took it. And your position is captivating, as, by the way, the author of the article, Paskevich is to blame for everything.
  6. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 07: 46
    +5
    Meanwhile, the problem of strategic planning requires an integrated approach.

    It's hard to argue with that.
    Only Nikolai Palkin is not about strategic planning,
    as they say, its horizon is no further than "patching up the dilapidated hut of Russian feudalism" with the help of formalistic actions: a form, an article and a stick system, literally and figuratively.
    Strategically, with all the miscalculations, shortcomings, perversions in the armies of France and England, these were already structurally armies built on other principles corresponding to their period - capitalism.
    The Russian army, with all the heroism of the soldiers, courage, etc., structurally remained the army of the beginning of the XNUMXth century, i.e. bygone era.
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 08: 30
      +6
      Greetings, Edward.
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      Nikolai Palkin is not about strategic planning,

      From the word "absolutely", in my radical opinion. smile But at least he was a determined man, in contrast to the rag of his great-grandson.
      But even Pavel Petrovich, with his foolish exaltation and hysterical inconsistency, it seems to me, was a more far-sighted and capable ruler.
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      to patch up the dilapidated hut of Russian feudalism

      Whose quote is this? Very accurate, in my opinion. smile
      1. Edward Vashchenko
        Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 08: 39
        +6
        Good morning Michael!!!

        to patch up the dilapidated hut of Russian feudalism

        Whose quote is this? Very accurate, in my opinion.

        My))))
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 09: 21
          +3
          Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
          My))))

          Congratulations, I think it's a very good expression. good You just put it in quotation marks, and I thought it was a quote. And wonderfully said. smile
          1. Edward Vashchenko
            Edward Vashchenko 16 November 2022 09: 31
            +4
            And wonderfully said.

            I fell in love with myself)))
            I am writing chapters on the 17th century for a book right now, I am choosing phrases laughing
      2. Korsar4
        Korsar4 16 November 2022 09: 08
        +2
        Decisiveness is worth a lot.

        Which of the autocrats had "strategic planning"?

        Alexander II? Far from sure.

        When the Potemkins, Suvorovs, Bezborodko stand next to the throne, then success.

        Although, for example, Valery may not agree.
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 09: 27
          +4
          Quote: Korsar4
          Which of the autocrats had "strategic planning"?

          Peter the Great, Catherine the Second, Alexander the First - they all knew how to look into the future and plan their events for years to come. Including the military. Did they do it themselves or simply knew how to choose the most optimal solutions from those proposed to them - the question is not so important.
          1. Korsar4
            Korsar4 16 November 2022 09: 55
            +3
            The reign of Peter l of Russia cost dearly.

            Another thing is that indeed he was in many ways a founding father for the country.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 16 November 2022 12: 58
              +2
              Quote: Korsar4
              The reign of Peter l of Russia cost dearly

              No more expensive than Nicholas II or Yeltsin.
              Great deeds require great efforts, and great efforts require great sacrifices. Not for myself. For posterity.
              1. Korsar4
                Korsar4 16 November 2022 13: 39
                +1
                I agree. The Brest peace and the Belovezhskaya collusion are clear evidence of this.
          2. Ryazan87
            Ryazan87 16 November 2022 16: 18
            +3
            ...Alexander the First - they all knew how to look into the future and plan their events for years to come

            Well, Alexander I demonstrated the wonders of negative planning. Straight ahead for decades. A unique person of his kind.
            I agree, sometimes it really seems that he looked into the future and chose the worst (for Russia) of the options. One Poland is worth something.
    2. Cartalon
      Cartalon 16 November 2022 10: 11
      +1
      Of course, I apologize, but only the Prussian ito Roon and Moltke could be considered the army of the next era at that time, it was necessary to work with it well, so that it would be useful.
    3. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 16 November 2022 16: 27
      0
      (with interest): And on what principles, corresponding to capitalism, was the British army built in 1853? What, so to speak, is the structural advantage over the Russian army?
    4. Alexander Salenko
      Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 15: 52
      0
      Well, you don’t need to go too far either, by the beginning of the 18th century the Russian regular army had not yet taken shape, it began to take shape before Peter and ended after him. Or do you want to say that savages fought with Napoleon?
      I have said a lot of criticism of the Crimean War here, but the defense of Sevastopol was not based on heroism alone. For example, it was Russian military thought in the person of Totleben that pushed the defense of the fortress outside the city for the first time in history, he was not a great theorist, but turned out to be an excellent practitioner. And if those heights to which Totleben pointed his finger had not been occupied in a timely manner, then no heroism would have helped, you look at the map of Sevastopol of that time. Enemy. having begun the siege of the southern part of the city, he had the opportunity to cut our defenses, because, pardon the tautology, the South Bay divides the South side into two unequal parts, the Ship and the city, and due to the fact that it is wide and deep, it was extremely difficult for the besieged garrison to maneuver not easy.
      And in the underground mine war, we did not leave a single chance to the enemy. and when the engineer Niel came to the French, who showed that it was not the fourth bastion that needed to be beaten, although you could not refuse logic in this direction, but Malakhov Kurgan, a daring sortie of Istomin’s soldiers and sailors through Killen Bay managed to secure it, and this was not only heroism, but knowledge of what the garrison is doing. The Volyn and Selenginsky redoubts and the Kamchatka lunette were laid there, and the allies just went nuts from such our greyhound, I wanted to say another word.
      It was such a pain in the ass, because of which the allies had to spin a lot like a snake in a frying pan, and without taking these fortifications, one could not even dream of storming Malakhov Kurgan. They didn't dream.
  7. Illanatol
    Illanatol 16 November 2022 08: 23
    +3
    Quote: Alexander Kuksin
    What did the Anglo-French coalition ultimately achieve? Did you frolic in Crimea?


    She thwarted the plans of the Russian Emperor Nicholas to seize the straits (Bosporus, Dardanelles) and Constantinople, which would lead the Ottoman Empire to collapse.
    Russia's control over the straits would provide the Russian fleet with unhindered access to operational space in the Mediterranean. This would completely change the overall balance of power. Russia could directly threaten the southern coast of France (not surprisingly, Napoleon 3 was furious and sent the most soldiers), as well as the colonial possessions of England (Egypt, the Middle East). Our "Western partners" could not allow this, and therefore unleashed a war, coming to the aid of Turkey (which played the role of a watchdog for them).
  8. north 2
    north 2 16 November 2022 08: 53
    +2
    The Crimean War was surrounded in time by the recent Decembrist riot and a riot in Poland and another riot in Poland, in fact, immediately after the Crimean War. And the Crimean War ended when Gorchakov led the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Empire. So it would be naive to think that the Crimean War is squeezed in time during the period of exporting liberal "values" to Russia and destructive harm to the Empire and the Autocracy, will not show results not in favor of the Russian Empire. Not only the problems of saving the Orthodox Slavs from the outside, but also of saving Russia itself from the inside, were piled on Nicholas the First, hanging and sending liberal leaders to hard labor. And therefore, today the Polish Embassy in Russia should be located on the street. named after Paskevich with a monument to Paskevich in front of the embassy, ​​and the Lithuanian embassy in Russia should be located on the street. named after Muravyov, with a monument to Muravyov in front of the embassy. Well, the British Embassy in Russia should be located on the square. Balaclavas. Moreover, in Russia there should not be a single street or square bearing the name of the Decembrists, just as there should not be a single monument to Gorchakov. But there are clearly few monuments to Nicholas the First .. Well, so that no one gets lost in memory ...
    1. Grossvater
      Grossvater 16 November 2022 10: 46
      +2
      Peace of Paris - March 1856, Gorchakov headed the Foreign Ministry in April. So sh...
    2. kor1vet1974
      kor1vet1974 16 November 2022 12: 56
      +2
      The Crimean War was surrounded in time by the recent Decembrist riot and the riot in Poland and another riot in Poland, in fact, immediately after the Crimean War
      Figase, not a long-standing riot, 30 years ago. 1830-31 uprising in Poland, a difference of 25 years, the second uprising, 5 years later, after the end of the Crimean ..
  9. ee2100
    ee2100 16 November 2022 09: 10
    +5
    I have long been surprised by the name of the war "Crimean".
    But what about successful operations in the Baltic, the White Sea and the Far East?
    Here we see, but there it went to mind?
    1. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat 16 November 2022 13: 34
      +1
      "Alternatives" in their "films" on YouTube pay attention to the desert landscape and the empty, whitish sky, without the presence of even a single cloud, which are displayed in photographs of the Crimean War. And also the absence of any vegetation on them.
      1. ee2100
        ee2100 16 November 2022 14: 25
        +1
        I read the version that Aivazovsky's first wife, an Englishwoman, was a spy.
        It's true about vegetation.
        1. Albert Brecht
          Albert Brecht 16 November 2022 16: 29
          -1
          And the tale of the fisherman and the fish? German father, court physician, Russian mother. Aivazovsky was a good match, and his marriage to the governess of the intended bride can be explained by the "disarray of feelings" from a recent affair. A ballet shoe was left as a memory, it was burned by the second wife in the first minutes after the death of the marine painter. Everyone can be understood, a brilliant artist and an outstanding marketer lived a happy and fruitful life, was loved and treated kindly by everyone: an apron, women, rulers ... A bouquet of lilies of the valley that appeared on the grave from a beloved woman is a confirmation of this. He still appears there: once a year, but always ...
  10. kor1vet1974
    kor1vet1974 16 November 2022 09: 18
    +2
    The reason for the defeat was the hopeless position of Russia, which found itself alone against a powerful coalition of European powers.
    And who in Europe would agree to fight for the interests of the Russian Empire?
  11. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 16 November 2022 09: 39
    -2
    If Alexander 3 were king, they would have won.
    1. Grossvater
      Grossvater 16 November 2022 10: 49
      0
      Without Nikolai Pavlovich, there would have been neither the liberation of the peasants and the reform of Alexander Nikolayevich nor the policy of peaceful strengthening of San Sanych's Russia. For it was Nikolai Pavlovich who created the state machine of the Russian Empire, without which, no matter what the liberals squeak, no state can exist, much less develop.
  12. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 16 November 2022 09: 53
    +4
    However, the collective efforts of the great powers, in which Russia played an almost decisive role, stopped the spontaneous expansion of local military conflicts in Hungary.

    Only thanks to the body of I.F. Paskevich, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Habsburgs did not occur, but what did they receive in gratitude from the fields in 1853? As always, if not an enemy, then just "let's see who wins", the same thing is now with "friends" from the former Soviet Union.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 16 November 2022 12: 48
      +1
      "with" friends "by and large, and in the Union, they mainly relied on themselves, and not on the help of" uncle ".
      "Russia has only two reliable allies: the army and the navy. The rest are afraid or jealous of our hugeness" (c)
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 16 November 2022 12: 52
      +2
      "there was no collapse" later Nicholas 1 understood what Franz Joseph's "gratitude" was
      Now I don’t remember the words of Nicholas 1, but the essence: I was stupid that I helped
  13. Luminman
    Luminman 16 November 2022 10: 00
    0

    He's badly injured! catch up!
    English caricature of a double-headed eagle after Sevastopol (1855)...
  14. Cartalon
    Cartalon 16 November 2022 10: 06
    +2
    It could be mentioned that Nikolai quarreled with Prussia during the Danish-Prussian war and the Olmutsky incident.
  15. Seal
    Seal 16 November 2022 10: 26
    +2
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    Peter the Great, Catherine the Second, Alexander the First - they all knew how to look into the future and plan their events for years to come. including the military
    With regard to Alexander I, a huge question. Our defeat in the Crimean War .... yes, not only the defeat, but the Crimean War itself was the result of Alexandrov's planning of his events "for years to come."
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 16 November 2022 13: 04
      0
      Quote: Seal
      With regard to Alexander I, a huge question. Our defeat in the Crimean War .... yes, not only the defeat, but the Crimean War itself was the result of Alexandrov's planning of his events "for years to come."


      In 1855, Alexander II ascended the throne, succeeding his father Nicholas I, who ruled for thirty years. It is worth noting that his legacy was not simple; acute problems have long been brewing in the country that require immediate resolution. The already difficult situation was aggravated by the lost Crimean War. The treasury was empty.
      1. Fat
        Fat 16 November 2022 14: 28
        +2
        hi Greetings, Vlad.
        the famous British historian George Macaulay Trevelyan called the Crimean War "a stupid expedition to the Black Sea, undertaken without sufficient justification, simply because the English people were bored with the world."
        The main achievements of the anti-Russian coalition were the prohibition of Russia to have a fleet on the Black Sea (which it achieved a revision 15 years later) and the reduction of its influence in the Balkans, which, however, increased again in 1878, after the victorious end of the Russo-Turkish war.
        It should be noted that the Ottoman Empire was also forbidden to have a Black Sea fleet, which Turkey was completely indifferent to, given the presence of fleets in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas (the straits remained "neutral" only in peacetime)
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 16 November 2022 16: 16
          +2
          Quote: Thick
          George Macaulay Trevelyan called the Crimean War "a stupid expedition to the Black Sea,

          Good day, Andrey.
          He is right about the "stupid expedition", and about the "bored world".
          But something gnaws at me with doubts when the shavers poke their nose somewhere.
          They think things through for decades to come. And the Crimean War was also the first "pawn move", but intentional. Then, immediately after the Crimean War, in 1860, the British and French occupied Beijing, the opium wars, the Chinese empire was blown away and this is on the border of Russia, then the Russo-Japanese War and then the WWII at the suggestion of Britain, but they did not stop there, having received WWII.
          And now the British seem to be "bored with the world." The chain is built in a line.
  16. Grossvater
    Grossvater 16 November 2022 10: 40
    +3
    The Eastern War, probably the first high-tech war in the New Age, for its time, of course, was a war. It was the catastrophic lag of Russia in the technical field that caused the defeat.
    Steam fleet, infantry rifled weapons. Russia could do nothing to oppose this.
    And if you remember that in Prussia already at the beginning of the 40s the Dreyse needle breech-loading rifle was adopted, the situation becomes even sadder.
    The reason for this is the tragic ultra-conservatism of Nikolai Pavlovich, shocked to the core by the Decembrists' revolt.
    In the same line lies such a bast as poor transport support for the theater of operations. The times when the army was not enough of the largest supply of lead and gunpowder by that time had passed.
    In situations where technical superiority turned out to be on the side of Russia - a mine war in the Baltic, or neither side had such superiority - Kamchatka and the North, the actions of the Allies were frankly helpless.
    Yes, and near Sevastopol, there were no special successes for the arrogant French troops. The departure of the Russian troops, after a year-long siege by much superior enemy forces, is difficult to consider as a great success for this very enemy. Rather, it was the resolution of a classic collision with a caught bear.
    In general, despite the exceptional role of Nikolai Pavlovich in the history of our state, it should be recognized that this great sovereign lacked quite a bit of flexibility and practicality.
    It's a pity!
    1. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 16 November 2022 17: 13
      +1
      Quote: Grossvater
      despite the exceptional role of Nikolai Pavlovich in the history of our state

      Given this
      the tragic ultraconservatism of Nikolai Pavlovich

      What exactly was the exceptional role?
  17. Seal
    Seal 16 November 2022 11: 04
    +2
    Quote: Illanatol
    She thwarted the plans of the Russian Emperor Nicholas to seize the straits (Bosporus, Dardanelles) and Constantinople, which would lead the Ottoman Empire to collapse.

    Nicholas I had no plans to capture Constantinople. And of course, there were no plans to destroy the Ottoman Empire. On the contrary, Nicholas I considered the Ottoman Empire an important element of the European balance. When many say that Nicholas I called Turkey "the sick man of Europe", for some reason they always omit the second part ... "But I would like the death of this sick man less than anyone else."
    Constantinople itself fell into the hands of Nicholas I in 1833, when the army of the Egyptian Muhammad Ali Pasha, who rebelled against the Sultan of Egypt, headed by his son Ibrahim Pasha, was advancing on the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The Egyptians, thanks in large part to the advice of our veteran of the Napoleonic wars, Count Alexander Ivanovich Osterman-Tolstoy, who was with Ibrahim Pasha.
    In the autumn of 1831, Egyptian troops under the command of Muhammad Ali's adopted son Ibrahim Pasha (İbrahim Paşa, 1789–1848) invaded Syria. A year later, they took possession of Cilicia (in the southeast of Asia Minor), the mountain passes of the Taurus, and entered Anatolia (a region coinciding with the territory of modern Turkey). On December 9 (21), 1832, in the battle of Konya, the Turkish troops were defeated, and the commander, Grand Vizier Rashid, was taken prisoner. After this victory, the Egyptian army began to march on Istanbul. In mid-January 1833, the Egyptian fleet approached the Dardanelles, and the troops of Ibrahim Pasha occupied Smyrna (Izmir).
    In Constantinople, only the police and the guards of the Sultan's palace remained. Nicholas I could have occupied Constantinople with one regiment. Yes, he, Nicholas I, could even do nothing at all. The main thing that the Egyptian Pasha asked our Emperor for was not to help the Sultan. In this case, the Egyptian Pasha himself offered our Emperor Constantinople and the strait zone after his "victory" over the Sultan as a "gift" so to speak.
    But Nicholas I chose to save the Ottoman Empire and gave the order to send our Black Sea squadron and expeditionary force, which landed on the shores of the Bosphorus, to save Constantinople. And he instructed to bring his displeasure to Alexander Ivanovich Osterman-Tolstoy, which resulted in Osterman-Tolstov leaving the army of Ibrahim Pasha, who by that time, in fact, no longer needed his advice, since he received an order from Muhammad Ali to return to Egypt.
  18. north 2
    north 2 16 November 2022 11: 11
    0
    Quote: Grossvater
    Peace of Paris - March 1856, Gorchakov headed the Foreign Ministry in April. So sh...

    even under Nesselrod, at the end of his tenure as Chancellor of the Russian Empire, the diplomatic isolation of Russia during the Crimean War was ensured by the Russian ambassador to Austria, Gorchakov. Nesselrode himself during the Crimean War more
    was engaged in the Far East, in particular Japan, but Gorchakov already had a strong influence on the European theater, as well as on the final document of the Paris Peace. Therefore, immediately after the death of Nicholas I, Nesselrode was removed, and Gorchakov was appointed minister. In gratitude, Gorchakov did everything so that Russia would sell Alaska to the States of North America for nothing
    1. Alexander Kuksin
      Alexander Kuksin 20 November 2022 09: 48
      0
      Hm! Can anyone tell me when the territory of Alaska became part of the Russian Empire? Who was the official governor of Alaska? Where was the border? When was the people of Alaska sworn in to the Sovereign? To sell something, you must have something! It was not Alaska that was sold, but Russian companies and their real estate. There were proposals to include Alaska within the borders of the Russian Empire, but at the same time the Far East was being developed. Russia would not pull both at the same time. Therefore, they preferred the Far East.
  19. vladcub
    vladcub 16 November 2022 12: 01
    +1
    "to overcome the destabilizing factors of liberal tiring" comrades, if you think about it: Nicholas 1 was, in general, an intelligent man. He understood that he was a threat to the integrity of the state and his reforms were dosed.
    The Nikolaev understanding was not enough: Gorbach, reforms were necessary, but "the reins had to be held, but he did not do it. And the horses subtly feel when the driver is not in control of the situation.
    If the coachman misses the reins and instead of picking them up, he starts to panic and quarrel, the situation will only get worse.
    Comrades, call for such an analogy. I’m just rural and I’m closer and more understandable to such an analogy
    1. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 16 November 2022 17: 11
      +1
      Nicholas 1 was actually an intelligent man

      By "reforms", as I understand it, you must understand his (Nicholas 1st) desire to preserve at all costs the form of government in the form of tyrannical despotism ("autocracy"), and with it the system of actual slavery of a significant part of the population (the so-called " serfdom")?
  20. denplot
    denplot 16 November 2022 12: 09
    +3
    Regarding isolation: Soviet Russia fought off 14 states and internal counter-revolution. She had no allies at that time.
  21. Tests
    Tests 16 November 2022 13: 57
    0
    Grossvater (Alexey), dear, I do not agree with you: "In those situations where technical superiority turned out to be on the side of Russia - a mine war in the Baltic, or neither side had such superiority - Kamchatka and the North, the actions of the Allies were frankly helpless." In 1854, the only battle where the Russian army took part was the battle on July 04, when English boats launched from ships were fired from cannons that were trying to find a fairway from Mudyug Island to Arkhangelsk. The British were not allowed even to the current outport of Savings in Arkhangelsk. The British recognize 1 killed. ... Prior to that, on the island of Sosnowiec, the British created a base for their 3 ships. And then they robbed passing ships and burned villages on the coast, in principle, with impunity. Defense of the Solovetsky Monastery - 2 servicemen and an invalid team. It seems like they hit one of the British ships from a Russian cannon. Several tens of nuclei were fired at the monastery .... The battle at Pushlakhta - the landed troops of the interventionists lose 5 people killed and several wounded from the rifle fire of the militias, but they were driven into the forest by fire and Pushlakhta was burned. And before that, on Kiy-Island, the British plundered the Onega port customs and the monastery. Kandalaksha, Keret, Kovda - robbed houses and gardens, plundered state-owned wine and salt barns, and then burned them. 09 August battle at Kola. One officer of the Russian fleet and volunteers fought off the landing of the British - the British do not recognize losses. But the city - almost the whole burned down, there were no victims among the inhabitants of Kola ...
    In 1855, 7 British and French ships came to the White Sea. The battle of June 27-28 at Lyamtsa - volunteers repulse the enemy's landing. Neither the interventionists nor the volunteers have had any casualties. The monument of unexploded cannonballs is still in Lyamtse today...July 06, the battle near Kandalaksha. 1 officer and volunteers repelled an attempt to land troops. The interventionists recognize 4 killed, the village was almost completely burned by artillery fire ... The interventionists approached the Solovetsky Islands several times, landed on Bolshoi Zayatsky Island, beat the monastery sheep and goats with guns. The monastery itself on Bolshoy Solovetsky Island, unlike in 1854, was not shelled. Everything..
    Regular pirate raids. For 2 years - 1 battle where the regular Russian army participated. What the allies wanted, they did in the White Sea ...
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 16 November 2022 15: 43
      +3
      Send an expensive navy during the war to rob barns and gardens, shoot goats and sheep with guns ....
      Straight pinnacle of military thought laughing
  22. Eug
    Eug 16 November 2022 15: 04
    0
    As for the purely military aspects of the defense of Sevastopol in the Crimean War, as for me, if the defense had been built in advance along the chain of dominant heights around the city, then the territory that was in no way shelled by the enemy would have been more than. Minus - communications were significantly stretched, which would be a problem if there were not enough convoys. But no one prepared the defense of Sevastopol from land - almost like in the Great Patriotic War ....
  23. Terran ghost
    Terran ghost 16 November 2022 15: 38
    -1
    with the support of all sectors of society

    Famously, somehow you recorded the landlords and the big financial bourgeoisie in "all strata of society"
    The society had to rally in trust in the state represented by the government under the influence not of fear, but of patriotic feelings, the support of which was laid down in the national conservative program of Nicholas I, expressed in the triad of the Minister of Public Education Count S. S. Uvarov: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality

    True, for a significant part of the society of the then (1825-1856) tsarist Russia, the so-called. "Uvarov's triad" meant attempts to preserve for an eternal period the most literal slavery (the so-called "serfdom"), and for the majority - one or another degree of lack of rights.
    The Russian rifle of the 1845 model with a caliber of 7,1 lines was created on the basis of the French one and was one of the most successful against the background of contemporary European primer guns. It fully met the tactical ideas generally accepted in Europe at that time about the use of line infantry in a maneuver war, which proclaimed the priority of the rate of fire of a gun over its range.

    There were just two moments. In 1847-1849, the Minié bullet made its debut, marking the beginning of the era of mass rifled weapons. This is the first.
    And secondly, for the effective use of weapons, soldiers had to be trained to use them. And when the emphasis is purely on "parade ground stepping" with the then-rooted practice of allocating 10 rifle cartridges per soldier per year for training that same "line infantry" ... the deplorable results, alas, were not long in coming ...
  24. Seal
    Seal 16 November 2022 15: 45
    +1
    Quote: Grossvater
    In general, despite the exceptional role of Nikolai Pavlovich in the history of our state, it should be recognized that this great sovereign lacked quite a bit of flexibility and practicality.
    Even the Emperors listen to their surroundings, to the theorists of military thought. And theorists may, alas, have thoughts that are not entirely sound.
    Here, albeit a little from a later time, but nonetheless.
    Let us take the thoughts of the head of the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Imperial Army - from 1878 to 1889, General Dragomirov.
    General Dragomirov was not only an opponent of machine guns, he was the most violent opponent of rapid fire in general. And he consistently published his opinion in almost all military, near-military and non-military publications. And very talented: it got to the point that the general clothed his objections in a very metaphorical form of a "dream", in which he shot at a bear from some "excellent store" (magic rifle),

    "and cartridges are pushing in the air, trying to get into the chamber. As soon as I had time to release one cartridge, another one climbed into its place by itself."

    Naturally, neither the "magazine" nor the cartridges climbing into the chamber saved the "hunter": the bear, at which he fired "with frenzy", ran up to him, "opened his terrible mouth and spoke in a contemptuously mocking, human voice:
    “Well, what next? you ! You should play grandmas, and not shoot from a gun! Didn't they tell you from a young age that wealth is no help to a stupid son! That's what happened."

    According to M. Dragomirov, he had this dream in 1883, and it was published in the Scout magazine in 1894.
    He treated machine guns even more negatively, and, with undisguised sarcasm, wrote
    "if the same person had to be killed several times, then it would be a wonderful weapon, since with 600 rounds per minute there are 10 of them in one second. Unfortunately for fans of such a rapid release of bullets, a person is quite shoot him once, and then shoot him, in pursuit, while he falls, there is no need, as far as I know.

    The general also had other objections to machine guns:
    “Any quick-shooter, whether to call it a shotgun or the newly invented beautiful word machine gun (and save us from the crafty and metaphor!), is still nothing more than an automatic shooter, that is, it does not give an independent type of defeat; and if you give it a choice a person who is not obsessed with prejudices that obscure common sense, then, of course, he will prefer a live shooter to an automatic one, if only for the fact that he does not have a gun carriage, he does not need horses, he also does not need cover and can be used for any soldier's work ".
    The conclusion made by M. Dragomirov was simple:
    "I consider machine guns absurd in a field army of normal composition."

    And machine guns, according to the military theorist, will be useful on the walls and in small expeditions against the natives.
    He published this opinion in the same Scout, but in 1891.
  25. BAI
    BAI 16 November 2022 16: 39
    +1
    were dismissed for 5 years (in the guard - for 2 years) on indefinite leave.

    So for 5 years or indefinitely? 5 years is not forever.
    1. Fat
      Fat 16 November 2022 17: 07
      +1
      hi Compiling such an article is quite difficult. IMHO the author was in a hurry somewhere. Therefore, there are "blunders" and "misunderstandings"
      Indefinite leave was established in Russian. army and navy in the 30s of this century, when there were still very long terms of service for the lower ranks (22 years for the guards and 25 years for the army). The purpose of this institution was: 1) to reduce the available number of officers under arms in order to facilitate public spending, without upsetting the basic composition of the army in wartime; 2) in order to shorten the period of active service of soldiers, to give them the opportunity to return to their homeland in their years, not yet declining, and to be useful in their families. Vacation lower ranks, if necessary, could be again called up for service to replenish troops to military states. time. Officers could also use indefinite leave on the basis of special rules. The statutes on B.O. were subjected to various modifications in accordance with changes in the organization of the army and the newly emerging requirements of the time. With the introduction in 1874 of general military service, B. and temporary leave were left on the same basis only for those who entered through recruitment; the lower ranks, accepted for service under the Charter on military service, are instead transferred to the reserve (see this [/following). For officers B.O. was completely canceled in 1865. See the Code of Military Regulations; Bogdanovich, "Historical sketch of the activities of the military ministry for 1855-1880.").
      Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. St. Petersburg, 1890 — 1907
  26. Maks1995
    Maks1995 16 November 2022 20: 50
    0
    I read excerpts from diplomatic correspondence - the French persuaded me not to go to Turkey, promising to assist in Romania.
    It is clear why - this is the crossroads of Europe, and it is beneficial to all countries of no one, relatively neutral and weak, so as not to interfere with trading born capitalism. Especially for those who were late with the division of the colonies and rushed to Africa and the Arabs .. (remember the Monte Cristo novel?)
    And here on you! someone dreams of taking the straits and lands for themselves !!!!
    Zealous hearts could not stand it, could not stand it .....
  27. Michael
    Michael 16 November 2022 20: 57
    0
    Change dates and surnames, nothing will change. Snickering nonsense, ideological sabotage and outright betrayal.
    "What has been is what will be. What has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." (c)
  28. Vlad world
    Vlad world 16 November 2022 21: 55
    -2
    Militarily, neither the Crimean War nor the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 were lost. How many provinces were occupied and cities. But in Diplomatic they were lost. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 80 percent were immigrants from Poland and the Baltic states. And how they treated the Russian people, I think you know. Yes, and Western liberals were very strong. Here they are (Westerners and Bolsheviks) and are still making every effort to slander and lie. Mixing round with square.
  29. Tests
    Tests 17 November 2022 09: 26
    +1
    Pissarro (Sergey Sherotsky), dear, I was talking about something else. The quote was about technical superiority or the equality of the belligerents. In the White Sea, the pirate operation of the British and French for two navigations paralyzed foreign and domestic trade by sea. Moreover, I have never seen copies of documents about the goals of the allies in the North. Somehow our historians were not interested in this issue ...
    The Russian army fought 2 (one) battle in 1 years. For the entire White and Barents Seas, Russia had 1 (one) warship for the guard at the Lapominskaya harbor and the Novodvinsk fortress, 26 m long, 8 wide, with a draft of 1,7 meters and 16 guns on board. And where is the technical equality of the parties for 3 interventionist ships in 1854 and for 7 ships in 1855?
  30. Illanatol
    Illanatol 17 November 2022 09: 29
    +1
    Quote: Seal
    Nicholas I had no plans to capture Constantinople. And of course, there were no plans to destroy the Ottoman Empire. On the contrary, Nicholas I considered the Ottoman Empire an important element of the European balance. When many say that Nicholas I called Turkey "the sick man of Europe", for some reason they always omit the second part ... "But I would like the death of this sick man less than anyone else."


    Language is given to politicians to hide their thoughts.
    Perhaps Nicholas the First really did not want the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But control over the straits objectively corresponded to the imperial interests of Russia, since it strengthened its position in relation to the Western powers. Perhaps Nicholas simply wanted to weaken Turkey and take it out of the control of the British and French, increasing his own influence on this power.
    For a powerful empire, balance is only an intermediate stage. Any empire seeks to spread its influence and power, including at the expense of its neighbors.
    And did Nakhimov's victories help to maintain balance in the region, or did they shift the balance towards Russia?
    1. Alexander Kuksin
      Alexander Kuksin 20 November 2022 10: 01
      +1
      How do you feel about this control? This is not only the occupation of the strait ... This is the maintenance of the entire infrastructure, defense, population, etc. Could Russia pull it?
      1. HattinGokbori88
        HattinGokbori88 20 November 2022 21: 22
        0
        Russia would simply expel the majority of Muslims, as always, so population is not such an issue. The country would slowly be filled with our Orthodox Slav brothers.
      2. Illanatol
        Illanatol 21 November 2022 08: 48
        0
        Quote: Alexander Kuksin
        How do you feel about this control? This is not only the occupation of the strait ... This is the maintenance of the entire infrastructure, defense, population, etc. Could Russia pull it?


        Most of the costs and troubles could be thrown on the allied Greeks. Fortunately, Constantinople is their former city, as the heirs of Byzantium.
        I am sure that even modern Greece would not refuse such a gift.
  31. Seal
    Seal 17 November 2022 12: 37
    0
    Quote: Max1995
    And here on you! someone dreams of taking the straits and lands for themselves !!!!
    And who is this "someone"? I only ask you, if you want to name Nicholas I, first read my comment posted here on the topic of Nicholas I's attitude to Turkey.
  32. Seal
    Seal 17 November 2022 13: 15
    +1
    Quote: Illanatol
    But control over the straits objectively corresponded to the imperial interests of Russia, since it strengthened its position in relation to the Western powers.

    Nicholas I was often mistaken, but in this matter he looked at things soberly. And he understood that he would not be allowed to take the straits anyway. Nicholas I also believed that his position in relation to Europe was already quite strong. So why else "strengthen" them, thereby causing the displeasure of England, with which Nicholas I, as he believed, entered into a gentlemen's agreement during his visit to England in 1844.
    The capture of Constantinople, in addition to the emergence of international problems, threatened us with great internal problems. Some of them were noted by the Kochubey Commission.
    Firstly, if you now defeat Turkey and take it completely, then instead of one weak enemy, 3 strongest opponents of those times will appear - France, Britain and Austria;
    Secondly, there will already be a third capital (in addition to St. Petersburg and Moscow) - Constantinople, and it will become more and more difficult to coordinate actions on the far outskirts of the empire;
    Thirdly, it will be possible to split the empire, like the Roman one (only there the Western and Eastern), and here - the Southern and Northern Russian Empire.

    Therefore, the Kochubey Commission submitted to the Emperor a conclusion that it was better to leave Turkey as a weak, but one enemy ...
    I'll add another religious question. In Russia, for almost 150 years there was no patriarch, but there was the Holy Synod. Church lands and a number of other immovable property of the Russian Orthodox Church were secularized by Catherine II. Well, imagine that we took Constantinople and .... got ourselves a Greek patriarch, who, in terms of his church status, is higher (or, let's say, not lower) than our Synod. In addition, he owns both land and real estate. Well, what do we do with it? Why do we need this headache?
    Quote: Illanatol
    Perhaps Nicholas simply wanted to weaken Turkey and take it out of the control of the British and French, increasing his own influence on this power.

    To withdraw Turkey from the control of the British and French, to strengthen his own influence on this power, Pan Ataman (Nicholas I) needed a gold reserve. And just Nicholas I didn’t have it. In fact, Europe was in charge of Turkey's finances at that time, and first of all, France, which financed Turkey more than all European countries. And we, Russia, ourselves were in European debt, like in silks. The Dutch debt has hung on us since the time of Catherine II.
    Quote: Illanatol
    For a powerful empire, balance is only an intermediate stage. Any empire seeks to spread its influence and power, including at the expense of its neighbors.
    Dubious thesis. In any case, this is just your personal opinion.
    Quote: Illanatol
    And did Nakhimov's victories help to maintain balance in the region, or did they shift the balance towards Russia?
    Not victory, but victory. It happened already AFTER the declaration of war by Turkey - Russia because of the refusal of Nicholas I to withdraw our troops from the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. In which we introduced our troops in order for the Sultan to think better about our ultimatum.
  33. Illanatol
    Illanatol 18 November 2022 09: 39
    +1
    Quote: Seal
    Nicholas I was often mistaken, but in this matter he looked at things soberly. And he understood that he would not be allowed to take the straits anyway. Nicholas I also believed that his position in relation to Europe was already quite strong. So why else "strengthen" them, thereby causing the displeasure of England, with which Nicholas I, as he believed, entered into a gentlemen's agreement during his visit to England in 1844.


    Well, I'm not a telepath, so I don't know what Nikolai really thought there ...
    Are you well aware of the terms of this "gentleman's agreement"?
    Or, perhaps, Nikolai himself did not quite correctly interpret these agreements.

    Quote: Seal
    I'll add another religious question. In Russia, for almost 150 years there was no patriarch, but there was the Holy Synod. Church lands and a number of other immovable property of the Russian Orthodox Church were secularized by Catherine II. Well, imagine that we took Constantinople and .... got ourselves a Greek patriarch, who, in terms of his church status, is higher (or, let's say, not lower) than our Synod. In addition, he owns both land and real estate. Well, what do we do with it? Why do we need this headache?


    The capture of Constantinople, if it took place, would not necessarily mean its inclusion in the Republic of Ingushetia. Rather, the formation of an independent Greece from the Turks would have taken place, to which this city would have been transferred. Of course, on extremely favorable terms for Russia (including joint control over the straits).
    The Greek Patriarch was already an authority for the Russian Orthodox Church. On the contrary, if at the same time he found himself more materially dependent on the emperor of Russia (this "Ecumenical" (declaratively) and Phanagorean (actually) had little land and real estate), this would only benefit the Russian Orthodox Church.
    Imagine that the current patriarch of Constantinople suddenly became a citizen of the Russian Federation ... his ambition would decrease and Ukrainians would only dream of "autocephaly".

    Quote: Seal
    To withdraw Turkey from the control of the British and French, to strengthen his own influence on this power, Pan Ataman (Nicholas I) needed a gold reserve. And just Nicholas I didn’t have it. In fact, Europe was in charge of Turkey's finances at that time, and first of all, France, which financed Turkey more than all European countries.


    Financial leverage is not the only one. There is a gingerbread, but there is also a whip.

    Quote: Seal
    Dubious thesis. In any case, this is just your personal opinion.


    My personal opinion is confirmed by the practice of interstate relations.
    Where did you see "balance" there? In relations between strong powers?
    Either you eat someone, or they eat you. "So says the law of the jungle."
    Or do you think that the United States seeks to maintain a certain balance and does not at all seek to expand its "sphere of influence"?
    Oh well... laughing

    "Peace is only a respite between wars, which should be used to prepare for the next war."
  34. Alexander Salenko
    Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 13: 57
    0
    The diversity and diversity of weapons had a negative effect on the fire performance of the Russian infantry during the years of the Napoleonic Wars. On the Borodino field there were regiments that used guns of up to 20 different types and calibers.

    This is of course true, but the bullets were cast in the shelves, this was not the problem, but the fact that the Russian industry could not supply its own guns.
    Considering Russia's position in the Crimea quite reliable, Paskevich was not alone. In September 1853, the commander of the 20th Corps, Adjutant General A.N. Liders, estimated the possible number of troops on the Crimean Peninsula at 30-XNUMX thousand people. At the same time, Leaders considered the Evpatoria raid one of the least likely points of such a landing. Only Prince A. S. Menshikov, who commanded the Russian forces in the Crimea, experienced growing anxiety. He considered the Allied landings to be a difficult but doable undertaking.

    But the allies themselves also thought about where to land, either in the Caucasus, felts near Odessa, they chose the Crimea, but here 3 options were considered, and in addition to Evpatoria, in fact, between Evpatoria and Saki, in the area where the Belbek River flows into the Black Sea, this near Sevastopol, which caused concern, and in the Feodosia region, which was far away, so it was futile to guess where they would hit.
    But the enemy, equipped with numerous siege artillery and constantly receiving reinforcements, methodically brought his trenches to the bastions.

    At the initial stage, the enemy had a problem with siege artillery, which is logical, he could not transport everything at once, as Hibbert said, for example, he complains very much about Russian artillery. True, he has a strange phrase that the Russian troops did not like the bayonet fight, but let's leave it on his conscience. The defeat near Inkerman, among other conditions, was caused by the fact that the Russians did not reach the bayonet and the British, retreating, again shot our columns. To be continued.
  35. Alexander Salenko
    Alexander Salenko 19 November 2022 14: 23
    0
    The relatively weak profile of earth fortifications and the small area of ​​the defended perimeter did not allow the reserves to be echeloned in depth. As a result, during the bombardment, the garrison of Sevastopol suffered losses that significantly exceeded the damage of the enemy. Arriving reserves basically only covered the losses.

    And the fact that the money was allocated for stone bastions, the author does not want to say? At the same time, a single tower was built on the Malakhov Kurgan, and so successfully that it had to be covered with a glacis so that the adversaries would not destroy it, you can see all this right in Sevastopol, and several stone barracks, but where can we go?
    Totleben, having arrived in Sevastopol, where the suspicious Menshikov sent him, was horrified, well, he tried to fix everything as best he could, only in Sevastopol there was a shortage of entrenching tools, everything was prepared so perfectly, and what does Paskevich have to do with it? Subsequently, during the siege, sorties were made for trench tools. Most of the shovels were wooden, in order to understand correctly, the blade was bound there, they were not completely wooden, but knowing what Crimean soil is from excavations, there is nothing to do there without a pickaxe. There was even a shortage of sacks, the women carried earth in their skirts, which is especially touching if they did not have underwear.
    And this is not the only problem of only Sevastopol, for example, in the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov there was a lot of grain in the Mariupol region, you need to feed something, but there were not enough mills to grind it into flour.
    The allies also had enough trouble, but then we lost.
    Prince Varshavsky clearly exaggerated the defensive capabilities of Sevastopol and made a number of serious mistakes. However, the Russian strategy, by clearly dividing the potential theaters of military operations into main and secondary ones, reduced the damage in an initially hopeless war to a minimum.

    The author, doesn’t it bother you that we started the war? History, of course, does not tolerate the subjunctive mood, but in war it is always interesting what would happen, if only. So, what would happen if both Crimean divisions were landed on the Bosphorus? For example, such a researcher of the Crimean War as Sergei Chennyk is sure that politicians messed up here. And about Austria, your colleague Ryzhov, for example, believes that the sluggish actions on the Danube indicate that Paskevich was just afraid of the Austrians. Whether he is right or not, I don’t know, I didn’t dig his biography, but I visited all the places of major battles of the Crimean War on the Crimean land and, of course, I was interested in what was happening with them and how, with the battles.
    Regarding the minimum that was reduced, I disagree tightly, this is a defeat in the brain in the first place, we frankly kicked our ass, which affected, for example. on the worldview of Leo Tolstoy. and this is a military officer, who received the rank of lieutenant ahead of schedule for endurance and diligence.
    During the years of the Eastern War, the actions of the Russian army actually pursued the goal of achieving such peace conditions under which Russia, despite not being defeated, would retain its place among the great European powers.

    Then why didn’t the society shut up when, after repelling the assault on Sevastopol on June 6, 1855, it, the society, began to put pressure on General Gorchakov to throw the adversary into the sea? The result was a crushing defeat in the battle on the Chernaya River on August 4, 1855, this defeat is unfortunate, because look at the map there and everything will become clear and having no superior strength to attack such a position is a crime, and here it’s not only Gorchakov’s fault in him, but also those who incited what he would bring.
    If earlier the allied troops were divided into two corps, siege and observation, now they, after the defeat of our army, gathered their efforts into a fist and took Sevastopol.
    Do not tell me why it was to give this battle? The enemy had just gotten into a tight fit and he had to look for something there in order to rehabilitate himself, well, he would have looked for it, there was something to fend off, and not attack the Fedyukhins and the Gasfort Heights.
  36. HattinGokbori88
    HattinGokbori88 20 November 2022 21: 01
    0
    The reason for the defeat was the hopeless position of Russia, which found itself alone against a powerful coalition of European powers. In such a strategic situation, it was almost impossible to achieve victory.

    The Turks single-handedly fought countless battles against the larger "coalition of European powers", but still prevailed. Strategy and morale are very important.
  37. squid
    squid 22 November 2022 17: 35
    +1
    The reason for the defeat was the hopeless position of Russia, which found itself alone against a powerful coalition of European powers. In such a strategic situation, it was almost impossible to achieve victory.


    what are you implying?
  38. the same doctor
    the same doctor 23 November 2022 11: 03
    +1
    One reason is not voiced: the fall of the initiative of the command and the people. As in 1941, the army was so packed that it was afraid to move. Even the Cossacks were frankly cowardly and did not want to fight.
    .
    Nikolai built his own vertical of power, but the vertical turned out to be unsuitable for war.
  39. Dmitry Karabanov
    Dmitry Karabanov 24 November 2022 18: 07
    0
    And once again, this shows the evil and harm from the movement of Russia to the West. As soon as our country begins to fit into Europe, it's a disaster!
  40. Vsevolod136
    Vsevolod136 25 November 2022 11: 55
    0
    Quote: Sea Cat
    Good morning, Sergey! smile
    Then why be surprised. Unless the earth, where these abilities especially flourish.

    Here it is clear what country we are talking about.

    belay
    M. Saltykov - Shchedrin did not say this nonsense.
    This is the offspring of a bald-headed Russophobe bard from the city of Leningrad who gave an interview to a small-town yellow publication after Budun. laughing
    Yes, when the bald orderly was convicted of slander, he began to spin like a snake, and gave birth to another author. hi