How Alexander I destroyed the Russian Mediterranean fleet and gave the Archipelago province to the French

44
How Alexander I destroyed the Russian Mediterranean fleet and gave the Archipelago province to the French
A.P. Bogolyubov "Athos Battle of 19 June 1807 of the Year"


The Turkish fleet is trying to lift the blockade


In 1807, Russia waged a bloody war with France on the territory of Prussia. Emperor Alexander Pavlovich believed that it was dangerous to wage two wars at once. He decided to offer the Porte peace and sent Pozzo di Borgo, a Corsican in the Russian service, to Constantinople for negotiations.



However, the negotiations dragged on for a number of reasons. In particular, the Janissaries rebelled in Istanbul. Sultan Selim was deposed and killed. The entourage of the new Sultan Mustafa IV wanted to continue the war.

The Turkish command again decided to try to lift the blockade from the Dardanelles (How Senyavin won a brilliant victory over the Turks at the Mediterranean theater). The Turks were going to recapture the island of Tenedos.

On June 10, 1807, the Turkish squadron of Seyid Ali Pasha left the Dardanelles - 10 battleships, 5 frigates and several small warships. Due to the constant strong northerly winds, the Russian squadron could not approach the enemy and remained near the island of Tenedos. Only on June 12 the wind became more favorable, Senyavin set out with a squadron of 10 ships and 1 frigate. Russian ships did not go directly to the enemy, but began to go around about. Imbros from the west, passing between this island and the island of Samothrace. Apparently, the Russian admiral, as earlier during the Battle of the Dardanelles, wanted to cut off the enemy from the strait.

On June 15, 1807, the Turkish fleet went to Tenedos and found here only the Bogoyavlensk brig and two small ships. Simultaneously with the approach of Turkish ships, Turkish troops began to transfer troops from the Anatolian coast. Turkish naval artillery bombarded the fortifications of Tenedos. On June 16, there were already more than 7 thousand Turkish soldiers on the island. The Russian garrison numbering 600 fighters counterattacked the enemy at the time of the landing, the artillery of the fortress and the brig fired at the enemy.

On June 17, Senyavin's squadron went to the Dardanelles and discovered the enemy, who stood between the mainland and the island of Tenedos. Our ships began approaching. The Turkish fleet did not dare to accept the battle and began to leave. The Turkish admirals wanted to divert the Russian fleet to themselves while the landing force completed the capture of the fortress. Senyavin transferred reinforcements and ammunition to the island. Russian small ships partially destroyed, partially dispersed the Turkish landing flotilla.


Athos battle


On June 18, the Russian naval commander allocated the Venus frigate, a sloop, two Greek corsairs to strengthen the defense of Tenedos, and with the rest of the ships went to search for the enemy. First, the squadron went to Imbros, and then began to descend to Lemnos. On June 19 (July 1), the Turkish fleet was found at anchor between the island of Lemnos and Mount Athos. The Russian squadron was armed with from 728 to 754 guns, the Turkish - from 1 to 138.

Before the battle, Senyavin gave instructions to break the Turkish flagships, since while they are fighting, the rest of the ships will fight hard. Therefore, each Turkish flagship was attacked by two of our ships. The Turkish squadron had four flagships: the 120-gun "Messudiyeh" ("Majesty of the Sultan") - the flagship of Kapudan Pasha Seit-Ali; 84-gun "Ankai-Bahri" ("Majesty of the Sea") - under the flag of Vice Admiral Sheremet-Bey, "Tausu Bahri" ("Sea Bird") - under the pennant of Commander Hussein Bey and "Sedd Al-Bahr" (" Stronghold of the sea") - the captain-bey of Bekir-Bey.

Turkish ships lined up. The second line included frigates, corvettes and small craft. At 7:30, Russian ships moved in pairs to the Turkish line. An hour later, the battle was in full swing. "Raphael" crossed the first enemy line and found himself between Turkish battleships and frigates. The Turkish main flagship tried to board the Raphael. The captain of the "Raphael" Lukin was killed by an enemy core.

At about 9 o'clock, Russian ships, except for the Raphael, were able to build a line and fired artillery with the enemy, concentrating fire on the flagships. At about 10 o'clock, the Ottomans could not stand it and began to retreat to Cape Athos. The battleship of the captain-bey Bekir-bey, on which all the yards and all the sails were shot down, was towed behind the ship and two frigates. As the Russian ships approached, the other Ottoman ships abandoned their flagship and left. The heavily damaged Ottoman flagship Sedd al-Bahr was blocked by Russian ships by 17:45. Turkish Admiral Bekir Bey and his staff surrendered.

On the morning of June 20, it was discovered that the entire Turkish squadron, having caught a fair wind, was moving north to the island of Thassos. And the ship and two frigates, which had previously helped the captain-bey's ship, were cut off at Cape Athos. Senyavin sent a detachment of Greig in pursuit - 3 ships. Seeing the hopelessness of their situation and fearing captivity, the Turkish sailors threw their ships aground and destroyed them. On June 22, a badly damaged battleship and frigate were lost in the retreating Turkish squadron. Two more frigates sank later.

Total losses of the Turkish fleet: 3 ships, 4 frigates, 1 sloop. More than 1 people were killed or taken prisoner. The Ottoman Empire lost a combat-ready fleet. Russian losses: more than 700 people killed and wounded.

Senyavin did not pursue the enemy, he returned to Tenedos. At this time, the Turkish landing occupied almost the entire island, except for the main fortress. After the arrival of Russian ships, the Turkish landing capitulated on the terms of its evacuation to the mainland. This decision of Senyavin was criticized by Chichagov, di Borgo and many officers of the fleet. It was believed that if the Russian fleet began to pursue the enemy, then he could finish him off. Turkish ships at that moment completely lost organization and could not offer serious resistance. The eventual loss of the fortress on Tenedos would have been a tactical failure. The Russian fleet could relatively easily return this point.


The attack of the Turkish fleet by the squadron of Rear Admiral A. Greig - a picture from the book of V. B. Bronevsky "Notes of a Naval Officer"

Tilsit and its consequences in the Mediterranean


After the Battle of Athos, the British offered Senyavin to organize a general operation against Turkey. However, soon Tsar Alexander I signed the Treaty of Tilsit with Napoleon. The mediation of the French emperor in the Russian-Turkish peace negotiations was envisaged.

Russian troops had to leave Moldavia and Wallachia. The Russians gave the area of ​​Kotor to the French. The Ionian Islands, whose inhabitants accepted Russian citizenship, were transferred under the rule of France. Russia was losing its bases in the Mediterranean and had to withdraw from the region. Petersburg recognized the French occupation of southern Italy. That is, Russian victories, efforts and blood were in vain. Tilsit made England an enemy of Russia. This is what the European, pro-German policy of Alexander's government cost Russia.

Alexander I ordered Senyavin to return the ships to Russia: the ships of the Baltic Fleet went to Kronstadt, the Black Sea Fleet - through the straits to Sevastopol. This decree reached the Russian admiral only on August 23, 1807, that is, the Russian fleet had to go on a campaign during autumn and winter storms.

On September 19, Senyavin left Corfu and went to Gibraltar. The squadron had 9 ships and 1 frigate. The Russian admiral hoped to reach Copenhagen without calling at European ports. But after Gibraltar, a strong opposite wind began, which lasted 20 days. Russian ships were forced to enter Lisbon on October 30. The Portuguese authorities greeted the Russians kindly and promised to help with repairs. But at this time the French army invaded Portugal and entered Lisbon in November. The Portuguese government with the treasury boarded the ships and fled to Brazil.

Meanwhile, in October 1807, Alexander declared war on England. The British captured the frigate "Hurry", which was in England and was carrying money to the Senyavin squadron. At first, Alexander, at the request of Napoleon, subordinated Senyavin's squadron to the Russian ambassador in Paris, Tolstoy, and in March 1808 personally to the French emperor. At this time, the British began to push the French in the Iberian Peninsula. The French commander Junot offered Senyavin to oppose the British, but the admiral refused several times.

In September 1808, Junot was defeated and signed a surrender. His troops were evacuated on English transports to France. Under the terms of the surrender, the port of Lisbon remained neutral for the Russian squadron. But the commander of the English squadron blocking Lisbon, Admiral Cotton, refused to recognize this point and demanded the surrender of the Russian ships. The Anglo-Saxons have always traditionally respected only those agreements and treaties that were convenient for them.

Russian ships were stationed on the Tagus River in Lisbon. English forces occupied both banks of the river. There were 15 English ships and 10 frigates at sea. At Senyavin, 7 ships and 1 frigate could go to sea. Two ships could sink at any moment. On August 23, 1808, Cotton signed a special convention with Senyavin. The Russian squadron was to go to England and stay there until the conclusion of peace between England and Russia, and then return to Russia. On August 31, 1808, the Senyavin squadron under the Russian flag left Lisbon and on September 27, 1808 arrived at the Portsmouth raid. In 1809, Russian crews returned to their homeland. In 1813, the British returned two ships, the rest fell into disrepair.

Returning to St. Petersburg, the talented admiral fell into disgrace and was actually demoted: Senyavin acted as commander of the Revel flotilla. In 1813 he was dismissed. Alexander I did not forgive him for his failure in Lisbon.

The remaining ships of the Mediterranean Fleet were also lost to Russia.

Saltanov's squadron (5 ships, 4 frigates, 4 corvettes, 4 brigs, 20 prize ships), which consisted of ships from the Black Sea Fleet, was not allowed through the straits by the Ottomans. Two ships ("Moscow" and "St. Peter") left Corfu and were going to break through Gibraltar to Russia. But they got into a strong storm, lingered near the island of Elba. The French did not let them go further. The ships moved to Toulon and in 1809 were sold to France.

The frigate "Venus" was blocked by the British in Palermo and its captain decided to hand over the ship to the Sicilian king Ferdinand. One old ship and a frigate were sold in 1809 in Corfu. The remaining ships and vessels (4 ships, 2 frigates, 2 corvettes, etc.) were assembled in Trieste, where they were handed over to the French.

So, thanks to the "wise" policy of Alexander, we lost our Mediterranean province in the Mediterranean - the Ionian Islands, a base in Corfu.
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -4
    19 February 2023 05: 08
    but what, frigates are no longer ships, since the author repeats several times that, for example, 15 ships and 10 frigates could go to sea.
    1. +1
      19 February 2023 07: 05
      Most likely, the word "ship" (old ship) means a ship that does not fall under the classification.
      A list of the names of the ships of the Russian fleet for the period from 1698 (when it was officially created) to 1860 (when the sailing fleet actually ceased to exist) made it possible to compile a name structure consisting of groups that combine names that are related in meaning. These names were formed in the era of the sailing fleet, when an unofficial, but quite stable system for naming ships of all ranks was first born. ... After leaving Corfu on December 12, 1807, the squadron of captain-commander I.O. Saltanov "St. Michael "was left in Corfu along with other old ships, his hull was sold for 5000 thalers.

      The frigate "Gregory the Great of Armenia" and the old ship "St. Michael" for dilapidation were sold in 1809 in Corfu. And the rest of the ships and vessels of the Mediterranean Fleet gathered in Trieste, where in September 1809 they were surrendered to the French. Among them were the ships "Asia", "Uriel", "St. Paraskeva”, “Sed-el-Bahri” (former Turkish); frigates "Legky" and "Mikhail"; corvettes "Daring", "Versona" and "Pavel"; brigs "Phoenix", "Bogoyavlensk" and other ships.
    2. +13
      19 February 2023 08: 04
      Yes, frigates are not ships, a ship is a type of warship, it is also a battleship.
      Then they didn’t come up with stupid snobbery that any armed vessel is a ship.
      Then you won’t believe it, they even swam, and didn’t walk like on dry land.
      1. +6
        19 February 2023 09: 49
        Then do not believe it even swam
        of course swam - with the wind, with the current. Those. were directly dependent on weather conditions.
        but did not walk on dry land.
        still yes. Exactly go little dependent on the wind and currents. And, probably, there will be a revelation for you, but judgments are made Transitions - from port A to port B, from the port to the fishing area, for example, in the fishing area, fishing vessels search for fish going along the isobath (search for pollock, for example), by registering with an echo sounder, the cant does forstroke for setting the trawl, setting the trawl is with him along the isobath, etc. The term "transition" is official, and is used when filling out logbooks, that of the ship that of the engine - "12:20 - they chose the anchor. 12:30 they gave a small stroke, headed for output from the bay. At 13:30, the vehicles were switched to heavy fuel. 13:35 - gave full stroke. Started transition to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk in the fishing area..." etc.
        I foresee the question (usually asked with a crooked grin) - "Why, if steamboats go then the captain is called "far swimming"? I will say right away - the answers, I have them! wink Moreover, you can (if you wish) find it yourself in my post)))
        1. +4
          19 February 2023 10: 44
          except for the minus, as I understand it, no arguments (intelligible) are expected? Well, okay .. since there is nothing to say laughing
        2. +4
          19 February 2023 11: 57
          Indeed, what a minus. Examples of professional slang are quite appropriate and correct. In any profession there are well-established terms and definitions. In some cases, they are standardized by special documents. Their appropriate and correct use confirms professionalism.
          1. 0
            19 February 2023 15: 13
            Examples of professional slang are quite appropriate and correct.
            thank you for understanding hi It’s just that often, professionalisms like “walk”, “compAs” and so on by some .. so to speak ... (I won’t say anything) are taken just for some kind of show-off ... But let's not talk about it! As you rightly noted -
            In any profession there are well-established terms and definitions.
            and especially -
            In some cases, they are standardized by special documents.
            and not only)))
            and what about -
            why minus
            .. well, really .. for what?)) Well, at least for the fact that someone dared to object to the "opinion" of "a unique snowflake that knows EVERYTHING and about EVERYTHING" ... something like that)))
        3. +3
          19 February 2023 12: 53
          Quote: Region-25.rus
          Of course they swam - with the wind, with the flow. Those. were directly dependent on weather conditions.
          Well, yes, but if on tacks, against the wind, then they don’t swim, but are they already walking? Float on water, walk on deck. (minus not mine)
          1. +1
            19 February 2023 15: 11
            Well, yes, but if on tacks, against the wind, then they don’t swim, but are they already walking?
            but they still depend on the wind)))) And yes, under sails, too, as now (I don’t know how in past centuries), they say (familiar comrades who went through swimming practice on a sailboat) also go)) "We went under sails." And they don’t “climb” on the shrouds, but “run”)) hi
            1. 0
              20 February 2023 12: 33
              Who threw you a minus there, I don’t know if you are so worried about him.
              Only now, no professional slang does not cancel the Russian language, and therefore a ship is a ship, because it is a type of military ship, and these same ships go on a voyage, and in this very voyage they swim, if not sink.
        4. 0
          19 February 2023 16: 08
          Quote: Region-25.rus
          They walk a little depending on the wind and currents.


          In the days of sailboats, the word "swim" was used by professional sailors and maritime lawyers without fuss.
          In the time of Ferdinand Magellan, it was used.
          For example, in a professional translation of one precise legal document relating to a navigator, the word "set sail" is present.
          https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Spain/XVI/1500-1520/Karl_V/dogovor_magellan_1518_03_21.htm
        5. +5
          19 February 2023 17: 52
          There is no fundamental difference between "swim" and "walk". It's all about the show-offs of "real moremans", who, as a rule, did not swim and did not walk properly. For those who sailed for more than one year, all this does not matter and can only cause a smile.
      2. +1
        19 February 2023 13: 07
        Quote: Cartalon
        Yes, frigates are not ships, a ship is a type of warship, it is also a battleship.

        The ship is a large combat sailboat with strong artillery armament, which had 3 masts with direct sails (there is no dry mast with oblique sails).
        1. mz
          +1
          19 February 2023 14: 12
          A frigate and a ship of the line have the same rig. The difference between them is only in the size and number of guns: a frigate has one or two gun decks, a battleship has two or three.
        2. 0
          19 February 2023 17: 47
          A brig is not a ship in your opinion?
          Quote: carpenter
          The ship is a large combat sailboat with strong artillery armament, which had 3 masts with straight sails
          1. Fat
            +2
            19 February 2023 19: 37
            hi Brigs were more often used as commercial vessels. Definitely calling brigs ships does not work.
            In general, a brig is a type of sailing armament for a 2-masted vessel.
            1. 0
              19 February 2023 19: 56
              Have you heard of the brig "Mercury"? 18 guns, however. Or confused with a schooner. Here they were just built, as a rule, not for use in battle.
              1. Fat
                +1
                19 February 2023 22: 48
                Our messenger ship Mercury was originally, I don’t confuse, comrade, But the Brig Lexington (USS Lexington) from the American States War of Independence, with 16 guns, is a remake of a commercial brig. The brigs are much closer to the brigantine, and the schooner generally carries mainly oblique sailing weapons. The brigs have sailing armament - direct + gaff-trisel on the main mast. The picture shows the auxiliary "ships" of the Continental Congress
      3. 0
        19 February 2023 15: 24
        Then more stupid snobbery
        stupid snobbery .. it's the same snobs! And in the fleet there is a specialization and purpose of ships and vessels.
        that any armed vessel is a ship
        again .. why is there snobbery? - Combat Squad ships (cruiser, destroyer, corvette) accompanied by auxiliary vessels (tanker, supply vessel, tugboats) left the Baltic Sea and headed for the Strait of Gibraltar ".. do you know that auxiliary vessels also carry some kind of weapons? So .. for self-defense. The same legendary transports of the Liberty type" armed with 20-mm "Oerlikons" and 40-m "Bofors" .. or even larger than ... and for some reason no one called them ships ... So what? under the quiet .. in a kryasyatnicheski way? laughing
        and yes .. if it didn’t reach, in the Navy, division into ships и vessels is made from its direct purpose - the implementation of the immediate combat tasks and ensure that this task is carried out bunkering fuel, receiving the wounded, towing damaged ships, etc... I understand.. it's difficult for "experts like you and those who liked you.. but alas (for you and them) it is. Live now with this laughing
        1. 0
          19 February 2023 17: 45
          An interesting question on terms and definitions.
          There was a dispute about the terms even with the involvement of the Spanish language. And what if we turn to our documents? I like to read the laws of Peter the Great, so let's take a look at the Military Naval Charter of January 13, 1720.
          1. We immediately see a table with the staffing table for SHIPS of various ranks. There is no division into linear or frigate (although the term frigate occurs in the text). Those imply that the ships are military. Further in paragraph 11 to the question "Where to stand flippers (the collective name for a variety of small-tonnage watercraft (barges, pontoons) is my insert) and squirting SHIPS"says-"away from Our fleet, and not between MILITARY SHIPS."
          2. I did not find an explicit clarification "to swim" or "to go", maybe there is. But, there is a phrase using the term. In the duties of the Commander - "When he receives the order to GO, then without delaying anything, WALK on his way with the first convenient wind"
          1. 0
            19 February 2023 17: 49
            Quote: balabol
            When he receives the order to GO, then without delaying anything, WALK


            Petrovsky maritime charters are written on the model of the Dutch ones. Apparently the term "go" must be sought in the Dutch old charters.
            1. 0
              19 February 2023 18: 20
              Maybe, but there is another language, although "tracing paper" in translation is possible. But after all, the discus arose around the question: the words "The ship is coming" are show-offs of the sea or a special regulated term.
              Here you are, for example, what do you think? Does the charter of 1720 prove the legitimacy and validity of the use of this term? Moreover, if a non-professional says "floating", then this is an understandable and commonly used norm of the Russian language.
              1. 0
                19 February 2023 19: 11
                These two words are originally terms. Because they are given in formal historical documents - in a legal agreement with Magellan and in the Charter (which are not notes of some private individuals). But their origin is different and they came from different countries and cultures, languages. But now their exact meaning has already been replaced by the newly formed term "goes." Precisely because this is also a term and logs are filled in.
                1. 0
                  19 February 2023 20: 51
                  The controversy was born out of two statements:
                  1. Yes, frigates are not ships, a ship is a type of military vessel, it is also a battleship.
                  Then they didn’t come up with stupid snobbery that any armed vessel is a ship.
                  2. Then you won’t believe it, they even swam, and didn’t walk like dry land [quote = Cartalon]
                  Cartalon (Michael)
                  Today, 08: 04

                  The justification for a different opinion is found in the Charter of 1720.
                  A. Regarding the first statement, there are 9 ranks of ships in the Charter, all of them are military and the youngest does not even have an officer with the rank of captain, the position of commander is performed by a lieutenant commander. And the ranks of officers and other naval servants are 14 people. There are no divisions into linear, frigates, etc.
                  B. Above and below are examples with the terms "go", "walk". Swim - not used.
                  I can’t comment on the information about the treaty with Magellan. I think this argument, firstly, refers to a different time, and secondly, the peculiarities of translation from a foreign (Spanish) language of the 15th century make this argument unconvincing without the expertise of a specialist linguist.
          2. 0
            19 February 2023 18: 16
            I found more points, I think with the documentary justification for the term "the ship is moving" the situation cleared up.
            "About caution in the MOVE"
            "About watching the course of the ship"
            "The fleet must be sailing and at anchor according to a certain order"
      4. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      19 February 2023 18: 48
      Well, kind of yes. The ship is average. Not enough guns. The same as right now, the destroyer is already buzzing, and the frigate is so incomprehensible to itself, you need to look.
    4. +1
      19 February 2023 21: 56
      "Ship" in the 19th century was called a ship of the line for short. That is, it should read "15 battleships and 10 frigates." They were called "linear" ships because they were intended for use in the line during large battles. However, frigates were also often placed in a line. At the battle of Navarino, the French admiral even made the Sirena frigate his flagship, although he had three more powerful ships of the line.
  2. +4
    19 February 2023 06: 02
    Chesma, Athos and Navarino are the three great victories of the Russian fleet, as a result of which the emergence of the Archipelago province became possible. And the beginning was the decision of Catherine the Great to begin practical steps to revive the Byzantine Empire, only now under the name of the Russian Empire ... The fact that on the Greek islands, Russian admirals, with the permission of the enlightened Catherine, introduced the institutions of the republic as part of the empire, they forgot about it today in Greece. In fact, in today's Greece they spit on history and on the fact that the four years of Russia's presence in Greece in the person of the Archipelago province laid the foundations of modern Greek statehood to a large extent.
    I was in the city of Mykonos and it was very disappointing when the guide specially brought us to the city hall building, which used to be the residence of Count Orlov, and translated from Greek into Russian what is written on the board hanging on the wall of this building. And it was written there that from 1770 to 1774 there was "Russian occupation". They say that there was no such board on this building in Mykonos before and it appeared only in the Yeltsin era in Russia...
  3. +2
    19 February 2023 07: 08
    It turns out that there were many idiots among the crowned persons.
    And GB has been spoiling Russia since those times ... Yes, and France did not go far. This is all our Russian generosity ...
  4. +8
    19 February 2023 07: 47
    How Alexander I gave the Archipelago province to the French

    So Alexander I simply did not know the existence of such a province in his empire. That's probably why he gave it up. laughing It's hard to even call it a "blunder". It's some other word.
    The so-called "Archipelagic" province (not officially recognized as such) existed until 1774, while the Orlov-Chesmensky expedition in the Mediterranean was a nightmare for the Turks. This "province" was located in a completely different place - on the islands of Andros, Naxos, Paros and others in the Aegean Sea.
    Alexander I inherited from his father not a province, but a separate subject of international law called the "Republic of the Seven Islands" under the joint protectorate of Turkey and Russia - the islands of Kerkyra, Zakynthos and others in the Ionian Sea.
  5. +7
    19 February 2023 08: 54
    Quote: north 2
    but what, frigates are no longer ships, since the author repeats several times that, for example, 15 ships and 10 frigates could go to sea.


    By ships are meant "battleships", i.e. battleships capable of fighting in lines (the main battle formation). Frigates were considered as auxiliary combat units, of little importance in general battles.
  6. -1
    19 February 2023 13: 15
    Meanwhile, in October 1807, Alexander declared war on England.
    Of all the emperors of the Russian Empire, Alexander I was the most mediocre emperor who did more evil for Russia than good.
    1. +2
      19 February 2023 19: 10
      Quote: carpenter
      Of all the emperors of the Russian Empire, Alexander I was the most mediocre emperor who did more evil for Russia than good.
      I do not agree ...
      There was also an emperor Nicholas 2 so he could destroy the empire itself...
      sad
    2. +1
      19 February 2023 20: 00
      But didn’t Catherine 2 do a huge evil by enslaving the titular nation (in part, there are consequences now) or was Nicholas 1 something better, who overslept the industrial revolution, overslept the need for reforms of the absolute monarchy itself, and the abolition of the terrible (at that time) serfdom , which essentially laid the countdown of the empire.
      1. 0
        19 February 2023 20: 25
        Quote from Fabrizio
        Nicholas 1 was better, who slept through the industrial revolution, slept through the need to reform the absolute monarchy itself, and the abolition of the terrible (at that time) serfdom, which essentially laid the countdown of the empire.


        At the time of N. 1, this problem was unsolvable in a peaceful non-revolutionary framework: it was necessary to take away the source of its existence from the ruling class, but there was nothing to give in return (if only because it would simply take away the alternative, if it were in nature, and would not part and with the old way of managing - that's why he is ruling, in order to row everything for himself). Take a closer look at the French and German revolutions - on someone else's historical material, your own problem will be clearer.
        1. +2
          20 February 2023 00: 04
          Nicholas 1 did not even try to somehow solve these problems, during his reign the country lagged behind technologically (railroads, fleet, production, agriculture), the final was the defeat in the Crimean War, including for logistical reasons. Plus, all these “salvations” of monarchies in Europe led to the fact that Russia also found itself in political isolation, a terrible bureaucracy almost everywhere and mainly in the army, embezzlement.
  7. 0
    19 February 2023 18: 48
    And what were the options after Austerlitz? Throw at least a couple? The Austrians have merged. The Russian army in Europe has been defeated. Here you will go to any conditions to save the fatherland.
    1. +1
      19 February 2023 19: 24
      Quote from leit
      And what were the options after Austerlitz? Throw at least a couple? The Austrians have merged. The Russian army in Europe has been defeated. Here you will go to any conditions to save the fatherland.
      In 1812, leaving Moscow to be torn to pieces by Napoleon 1, they were able to find options to save the Fatherland and win the Patriotic War of 1812, and in 1814 the Russian Imperial Army marched through Paris.
      By the way, in 1812, both the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia sided with Napoleon 1 and provided their troops for the war with Russia - these are Russia's "allies" ...
      It was possible to try at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 "to put the question squarely" and convincingly demand the return of the Ionian Islands to Russia - the main thing was not to forget about the interests of the Russian fleet.
      1. 0
        25 February 2023 19: 23
        It was possible to try at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 to "raise the question point-blank" and convincingly demand the return of the Ionian Islands to Russia - the main thing was not to forget about the interests of the Russian fleet

        The British took Malta, part of the current South Africa and Ceylon, as well as a protectorate over these same Ionian Islands, Austria and Prussia, who fought against us in 1812, also received their pieces, Switzerland and Sweden received something. In short, everything was like in 1945, when the United States and England had already flocked to the ready, and almost all the states allied to Hitler suddenly found themselves in the allied coalition, joyfully robbing and killing Soviet citizens. Alexander was satisfied with another piece of Poland (also an acquisition for me), flattering speeches in the style of praising Mishka Marked, and apparently a promise from the British not to publish documents about his involvement in the death of Emperor Paul "from apoplexy" in close cooperation with the British ambassador.
  8. +1
    28 March 2023 19: 18
    To give something - in the Russian spirit, both then and now, as well as bringing the end of Soviet power closer. It was like getting two fingers wet.
  9. 0
    30 March 2023 14: 17
    Good afternoon! hi
    Traditional thanks for the article! hi
    Let me give you the opinion of A.S. Pushkin about Alexander I:

    The sovereign is weak and crafty,
    Bald dandy, enemy of labor,
    Accidentally warmed up by glory
    Reigned over us then.
    A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"

    Have a nice day! hi
  10. 0
    5 May 2023 11: 23
    Returning to St. Petersburg, the talented admiral fell into disgrace and was actually demoted: Senyavin acted as commander of the Revel flotilla. In 1813 he was dismissed. Alexander I did not forgive him for his failure in Lisbon.

    What is the failure here?
    The author himself wrote above that Senyavin refused to carry out the orders of Emperor Alexander.
    Meanwhile, in October 1807, Alexander declared war on England. The British captured the frigate "Hurry", which was in England and was carrying money to the Senyavin squadron. At first, Alexander, at the request of Napoleon, subordinated Senyavin's squadron to the Russian ambassador in Paris, Tolstoy, and in March 1808 personally to the French emperor. At this time, the British began to push the French in the Iberian Peninsula. The French commander Junot offered Senyavin to oppose the British, but the admiral refused several times.

    And what ? Russia, in alliance with France, is at war with England. Senyavin's squadron is officially subordinate to Napoleon. The British landed on the Iberian Peninsula and began to extinguish the French there. The French offer Senyavin to fulfill his allied obligations and help prevent the defeat of the French army, which was quite realistic if Senyavin came out with a squadron on the side of the French. But Senyavin, who, you see, was an Anglophile, refused. That is, in fact, Senyavin declared a rebellion against Emperor Alexander.
  11. 0
    5 May 2023 11: 38
    Quote: ycuce234-san
    At the time of N. 1, this problem was unsolvable in a peaceful non-revolutionary framework: it was necessary to take away the source of its existence from the ruling class

    In fact, by 1861, the landowners managed to mortgage 2/3 of their possessions against the security of loans taken from the state.
    In fact, one of the goals of the peasant reform of 1861 in Russia was precisely to free the nobility from massive debts to the state.

    On the eve of 1861, there were about one million nobles of both sexes in Russia. A third of this number belonged to the personal nobility, who were prohibited by law from having serfs. The number of hereditary nobles was 610 thousand people, of which more than half (323 thousand people) accounted for the Polish gentry. Of the remaining number, 274 were officially considered Russians (Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians). At the same time, two-thirds of the Russian nobles (184 thousand people) did not have serfs at all.

    In 1831, Nicholas I confirmed by his decree that only the owners of more than 100 peasant souls have the right to vote in the meetings of the nobility. But most nobles owned a much smaller number of peasants: 38 Russian nobles (43,8%) owned fewer than 20 peasants; 30 thousand (35,1%) had from 21 to 100 peasants. There were not so many prosperous Russian serf-owners - 15,7 thousand (18%) owned from 101 to 500 souls, and the richest serf-owners (owned by more than 500 souls) were just over a thousand - 1032 people (1,1%).

    As a result, there were almost no truly large landowners in Russia who could get rich on the products of their possessions. Most of the land was constantly divided into smaller and smaller number of plots.

    A good example of how the nobility went bankrupt is the biography of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. His father in 1830 gave him 200 male souls with families in the village of Kistenevo in the Nizhny Novgorod province. Sergey Lvovich Pushkin himself already had 474 souls in this estate, of which 200 were already pledged for debts - the father gave the remaining souls to his son as a gift for his wedding with Natalya Goncharova. Only after taking possession of these serfs, the poet hastened to pledge them to the Board of Trustees, receiving 38 thousand rubles for them. Of these, Pushkin gave 11 thousand rubles to his mother-in-law, who did not want to marry her daughter without a dowry. The poet lent another 10 thousand rubles to his friend Nashchokin. 17 thousand rubles remained for the arrangement of family life. Pushkin planned to live on them in Moscow for a year, but the money ran out after three months. The poet wrote in a letter to a friend: “I am able to take a wife without a fortune, but I am not able to go into debt for her rags.”
    As a result, after the wedding, Pushkin remained in debt until the end of his life, and his peasants were repeatedly remortgaged.

    So, by 1861, ⅔ noble estates and ⅔ serf souls were laid to secure government loans.
    Most of the peasants could thus sooner or later be freed without state intervention., which would lead to the final impoverishment of the support of the autocracy - the nobility.
    As a result, the long-developed peasant reform of Alexander II provided for redemption payments, thanks to a complex system of which the peasants were endowed with land; the nobility paid their debts, and the state reimbursed the losses incurred in issuing loans to former serfs.
  12. 0
    5 May 2023 11: 49
    Quote: ROSS 42
    Frigate "Gregory the Great of Armenia

    It was built in Kherson as a merchant ship, launched in 1782 under the name "Bee".
    A ship under the command of S. A. Pustoshkin, disguised as a merchant ship, conducted reconnaissance of Mediterranean Turkish ports in 1886.
    In 1788, in Kherson, it was converted by engineer M. L. Faleev into a “newly invented” frigate and included in the Russian Black Sea Fleet under the name “Gregory the Great of Armenia”.
    He took part in the Russian-Turkish war of 1787-1791. In 1788 he became part of the Liman squadron. On May 20 and 21, as part of the detachment, he took part in the pursuit of enemy ships in the Dnieper Estuary. On June 17, as part of the Paul Jones squadron, he participated in battles with the Turkish fleet near Ochakov, in 1789 and 1790 he was on the Ochakov raid as part of a squadron.
    On August 29, 1790, as part of a detachment, he left the Dnieper estuary, and having joined Gadzhibey to the squadron of Rear Admiral F.F. Ushakov, on September 8 he arrived in Sevastopol. During 1791, the frigate carried a guard post on the Sevastopol roadstead and so on.