Russia and the new nineteenth century

89
Russia and the new nineteenth century
Drills of Paul I according to the Prussian model in Gatchina. Hood. G. Schwartz


The article talks about what happened in stories Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. It continues the series of articles about the stages of the country’s development associated with formations.



The Russian feudal class, the nobles, received at the beginning of the 18th century. modern technologies, both in control and in weapons, were able to prove themselves on the battlefield.

The other side of the coin was the attitude of the feudal officers towards the peasant soldiers, most often as serfs with all the feudal disdain for the mob, losses in the war and their exploitation as serfs. With rare exceptions, as under Suvorov with his “miracle heroes” who selflessly believed in their leader, this situation persisted in the army for the entire remaining feudal and post-feudal period.


Suvorov's crossing of the Paniks ridge 1799 Hood. A. Kotzebue

Russian feudal lords at war


Work on the compliance of the Russian military system with external challenges, begun under Peter I, did not stop: until the 50s. it was the influence of the imperial, Austrian military system, from the 50s - Prussian, and from the end of the XNUMXth century. - French. The rational approach, rational thinking, necessary for the formation of a modern army, was in conflict with the feudal mentality.

Rational thinking was a product of developments associated with science and technology, primarily in Western Europe. The rationalism of the ancient Greeks and Romans, including in military affairs, was completely forgotten and revived during the Renaissance, which marked the beginning of the end of feudalism and the agrarian thinking associated with it.

This process took place throughout Europe, where the strength of feudal relations based on the dominance of agricultural production played an even more important role. Neither the peasant who cultivates the land using the “technologies” of his ancestors, nor the knight who performs feats in war, in tournaments and against dragons, needs rational thinking, and there is nowhere for it to come from.

Rationalism in feudal Europe arose with the development of cities, as the antipodes of the countryside, in the 1767th century. This was a similar situation in Russia, but in the 1768th century. The rational approach primarily covers the upper stratum of the nobility, because the teaching of sciences has already taken place here for more than one generation. It is significant that in one of the orders of the period of the Statutory Commission of XNUMX-XNUMX. nobles of Belevsky district wrote:

“The most necessary sciences [should be] fortification, engineering, artillery, architecture.”

Even after the reforms of Tsar Peter, the Russian army needed European officers and specialists, for example, Prussians to train the army in new tactics, or foreign military engineers who retired in their homeland (Decree of 1730). The creation of the first military school - the Land Noble Cadet Corps in 1731 took place under the leadership of Prussian officers and non-commissioned officers, who were sent by the “soldier king” Friedrich Wilhelm I (1688–1740).


Prussian infantry attack 1745 Hood. K. Reichling

A. A. Arakcheev reformed the Russian artillery, an equestrian park, created artillery schools by order of Alexander I and... under the influence of the military genius and artilleryman Napoleon, however, as elsewhere in Europe. Despite enormous efforts to maintain technology, Russian small arms were inferior to European models, and the supply of the army, for example with fabrics, left much to be desired.

The firmness and courage of the Russian troops was associated not with the mythical “eternal fortitude of the Russians,” but with the class of feudal warriors, multiplied by modern borrowed technologies.


Bonaparte on the Arcole Bridge November 17, 1796 Hood. Antoine-Jean Gros

“Or maybe a knock on the door?”


In the wars with Turkey and its allies, in the fight against Polish and other rebels, nomads of Siberia, and even with Sweden after 1721, the result was achieved thanks to the leadership and organizational talents of Russian military commanders, among whom P. S. Saltykov, P. A. stood out. Rumyantsev, G. A. Potemkin, and, of course, A. V. Suvorov. The autonomy of such “heroes”, who acted contrary to the charters and regulations, was welcomed in the “golden age of the nobility” and was completely natural in the conditions of the feudal mentality of “decentralized balance”.

But the martinet emperor Pavel, possessed by the “demon of the parade ground,” like both of his reigning sons, on the one hand, could not discern this important quality acquired by the Russian army during past wars. But, on the other hand, his concerns about the problems with such an army conducting combat operations in Europe were not in vain. Management problems were compensated by the courage and resilience of soldiers and officers: the feudal mentality came into conflict with rational management systems that were gaining strength. Simply put, Suvorov’s ability to fight against any enemy could not be cloned and scaled to all troops, because it was not a combat system created by Suvorov, but the personal skills of a military genius. Who, by the way, was a fan of the “Prussian system”, but not the “Prussians”. And this is always the key difference between a system and personal skill.


Paul I in the vestments of the Grand Master of the Order of St. John. Hood. V. Borovikovsky

Feudal Russia met the new pan-European threat created by the Great French Bourgeois Revolution (1789-1799) with the Tsar-Knight Pavel Petrovich at its head. Which is very symbolic for the stage of development of the country, where feudalism was in full bloom and did not even reach its culmination, as in Europe, relatively speaking, in the XNUMXth or XNUMXth centuries. Pavel, who had read a lot of knightly novels, built a castle painted in the color of the glove of his beautiful lady, Anna Lopukhina-Gagarina, and designed “knightly” ceremonies and rules of knightly behavior that were appropriate in the Middle Ages, and not in the XNUMXth century.


Order of St. John, Maltese cross

The Tsar Knight and the Feudal Freemen


In the face of new external threats, the patron king of the knightly order of St. John of Jerusalem decided to bring into shape his, in fact, feudal army, which, in his opinion, had become loose from the “good life” under Catherine II. He could only do this using foreign patterns and samples, in his case Prussian ones. But because of his personal psychological qualities, formalism and psychopathy, solutions to these problems acquired caricatured forms, which the “feudal freemen”, alien to change, took advantage of:

No, Pavlusha, don’t compete,
You are with Frederick the Second,
Manage as you wish,
Don Quixote is just in front of him!

Paul demanded that the nobility change their attitude towards military discipline; in fact, he restored compulsory military service for everyone, fought against drunkenness and card games, abolished the practice of enrolling in regiments from the cradle, and achieved uniformity in uniforms and commands for all troops:

“...created a kind of discipline,” the Prussian agent reports, “a regular organization, military training for the Russian army, which Catherine II neglected.”

The emperor brought order to the guard: 1541 fictitious officers were expelled from the horse guard alone. Up to 50 thousand soldiers were “dispersed” to work on the estates of feudal commanders. He reduced the army from 500 thousand to 335 thousand, but increased the payment of salaries. This was finally demanded by his mother’s upset military enterprises and the country’s finances, which needed to be put in order in the face of new threats. It is significant that in 1808 A. A. Arakcheev, also a Maltese cavalier, and after him Barclay de Tolly in 1811 under Alexander I, again had to use harsh methods to restore discipline among the noble officers.


Officer and grenadiers of the Primorye Grenadier Regiment, 1790s. gg.

But all this was just the outer shell. Europeanized and modernized for modern warfare, the Russian nobility considered the hardships of service natural, and serving the monarch was their moral and Christian duty, as in any country of “classical” feudalism:

I love the bloody fight
I was born for royal service!
Saber, vodka, hussar’s horse,
I have a golden age with you!


Denis Davydov, the author of these lines, was a vivid personification of “knightly” prowess, although he dressed in the fashion of the 19th century. Denis Davydov. Hood. A. Orlovsky

But the “strange” actions of the emperor in relation to their “baptized property” caused concern among the nobles. Although Paul's goal was an attempt to “normalize” the economic activities of the nobles, as he understood it. And not the abolition of the “serf system” by the king, who distributed 550 thousand serfs. But the swearing in of peasants, the reduction of the period of conscription, the transfer of arrears of peasants to their nobles (!), the prohibition of the sale of servants and peasants without land, the Manifesto of 1797, which defined corvée in three days, led to the fact that he, through the hands of high-ranking conspirators , was “balloted” and brutally killed. The nobles, who remained “caring” serf owners towards the peasants, did not allow tyranny on the part of their monarch.

Mission is impossible?


And here we must return to the historical mission associated with the emergence of feudalism in Rus'/Rus in the 1761th century. This military organization of an agrarian society was intended to protect the country from external threats. And it was primarily about the fight against the nomads, and secondly, against the western neighbor, who had seized the southern and western lands of the former Ancient Rus'. And this mission of the feudal military organization, of course - very conditionally, was completed by the end of the 1762th century. Peter III, looking ahead, even allowed the nobles not to serve already in 1785, which was confirmed by Catherine II in XNUMX, and just in case - in the Charter of the Nobles of XNUMX. In fact, the procedure for leaving service was practically impossible. But that’s not the point, it’s that the system was coming to its logical end. And as V. O. Klyuchevsky wittily noted:

“The Manifesto of February 18 [1762 – V.E.], removing compulsory service from the nobility, does not say a word about noble serfdom, which flowed from it as its source. According to the requirements of historical logic or social justice, the next day, February 19, should have followed the abolition of serfdom; it followed the next day, only 99 years later.”

As we see, the question of freeing the peasants from serfdom, which by this time had turned them into the personal property of the nobles, and not, as was the case at the initial stage, attached to the land property of the servant, became the subject of reforms starting with the accession to the throne of Alexander I and the beginning of work The secret committee since 1801. It so happened that historical justice demanded “freedom” for the peasants, and the tsar was a sincere opponent of serfdom. But... the example of his recently murdered father, who did not even think about any liberation, held him back. Therefore, in the spirit of the times, with the hope of the consciousness of the noble class, a “non-binding” Decree on free cultivators was issued on February 20, 1803. From 1803 to 1825, 47 male souls were freed under this law: of these, 153 were released by one owner, prince and favorite of the tsar A. N. Golitsyn, who received a ransom from the treasury.

System and control


And management, in conditions of a possible weakening of the police power of the landowners, required a different structure and different training for managers. In Prussia, which was significantly inferior to Russia both in area and in population, in 1763 the number of officials was slightly less than in Russia, and their quality was much higher. At the beginning of the 5th century. in Russia there was actually only one university in Moscow, only 1825% of the total population received primary and secondary education, when in 13,14 this figure was already XNUMX%. Under Alexander and his younger brother, a huge number of higher institutions and gymnasiums were opened, which were supposed to produce competent officials for management. And the reform entrusted to M. M. Speransky, the same book-reading bureaucrat like Arakcheev, but without his cruelty, was supposed to lead to a new “modernization” of Russia. A European country, in the opinion of the reformer, but due to its administrative uniqueness, it had a certain backwardness, which was planned to be eliminated through a formal reorganization of the state system. management, which was based on the ideas of the Enlightenment during the French absolute monarchy, because

“In the present situation, it is impossible even to successfully impose any tax,” wrote Speransky, “which is necessary to correct finances: for every burden of the people is attributed solely to autocracy.”

But in a “classical” feudal country it couldn’t have been any other way! And the point here is not in Russian specifics, but in the stage of development of society.

What remained from the speculative reform dedicated to the separation of powers and the strong power of the monarch, not connected with the realities of the feudal country, were ministries as organic structures of the management system in areas of activity in the conditions of increasingly complex connections in society and... another “Duma under the Tsar,” the State Council.


Coat of arms of Russia under Paul I

The idea of ​​liberating the peasants, associated with the restructuring of government, was in blatant contradiction with the desire and vision of the ruling class, the nobles. Alexander I was loved by the guards and the army, but his “liberal” ideas, inspired by the Enlightenment, in a feudal country were good as salon conversations, “without hesitation in conversation, lightly touch on everything,” but not for implementation.

He himself remained an example of a Russian landowner, courteous with foreign guests and subjects, and a tyrant with his subordinates.

And harsh reality forced the Russian feudal state to directly participate in the fight against the “Jacobin threat” of Bonaparte.

With the fall of the Bastille, the “golden age of the nobility” ended both in Russia and throughout Europe; new times were coming, creating new challenges, regardless of individuals and rulers.

To be continued ...
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    April 2 2024 05: 25
    Quote: Vashchenko Eduard
    The rationalism of the ancient Greeks and Romans, including in military affairs, was completely forgotten and revived during the Renaissance
    I always believed that Rationalism came to Europe along with Protestantism. And it was not characteristic of the ancient Romans and Greeks, nor of feudal Europe, nor of Russia
    1. +2
      April 2 2024 08: 28
      I always believed that Rationalism came to Europe along with Protestantism. And it was not characteristic of the ancient Romans and Greeks, nor of feudal Europe, nor of Russia

      You were wrong.
      1. +1
        April 2 2024 08: 30
        You were wrong
        Yah? And what?
        1. +6
          April 2 2024 12: 43
          Yah? And what?

          In that
          Rationalism came to Europe along with Protestantism.

          Haven’t tried to read Thomas Aquinas - Ratio est potissima hominis natura-pure rationalism.
          And the ideologists of the Reformation were principled opponents of rationalism. "Reason is the devil's whore" - Luther.
          1. +3
            April 2 2024 15: 06
            Haven’t tried to read Thomas Aquinas - Ratio est potissima hominis natura - pure rationalism
            Ratio est potissima hominis natura, here he is only half right. The other half, the larger half, which he did not deign to mention, is that the mind works only to the limit of its understanding and tries to get to the bottom of what is inaccessible to human senses, for example, the nature of God. This is where rationalism comes to an end. And it’s hard to call it rationalism, because in the Middle Ages people were ruled by pure dogma, a departure from which was very, very fraught for God’s Creation.
            *****"
            Let me remind you that religious dogma established, as it were, its own Berlin Wall for the further development of human knowledge and completely rejected further rationalism. And only later Protestantism (its extreme evangelical form) began to emphasize the importance of using reason
            And the ideologists of the Reformation were principled opponents of rationalism. "Reason is the devil's whore" - Luther
            I would separate the early Protestantism of Luther and Calvin from the Protestantism of the subsequent ones, i.e. its evangelical form. Suffice it to recall the “Great Awakening,” which was a reaction against dogma. Yes, and Newton tried to convince many people in the power of the mind and the need to check all things with the mind
            1. +3
              April 2 2024 19: 23
              I would separate the early Protestantism of Luther and Calvin from the Protestantism of the subsequent ones, i.e. its evangelical form. Suffice it to recall the “Great Awakening,” which was a reaction against dogma.

              You can remember. John Wesley for example.
              Faith is alien to rationalism. It comes like an insight. Having acquired faith, a person ceases to be a child of the devil and becomes a child of God, he receives justification and with him is reborn for a new life.

              As for me, we are trying to cram in the unshoveable. In fact, the main task of rationalism is to justify human domination over the world. Which is a priori incompatible with any religious teachings.
              1. +2
                April 2 2024 19: 36
                incompatible with any religious teachings
                Any religious teaching, to put it in computer language, is an operating system for the brain that determines its further actions. If we turn to the German peoples, their rationalism, coupled with Protestant teachings, gave what we now see in Northern Europe. The barbarian Germans, unlike the ancient Greeks and Romans, determined their actions with their heads, not their hearts. This is once again about rationalism. Long before Christianity
                1. +3
                  April 2 2024 21: 30
                  If we turn to the German peoples, their rationalism, coupled with Protestant teachings, gave what we now see in Northern Europe. The barbarian Germans, unlike the ancient Greeks and Romans, determined their actions with their heads, not their hearts.

                  This is rather not the philosophical rationalism as we understand it today, but the Weberian rationality of action.
                  However, I won’t insist. In philosophical questions, unlike technical ones, one can debate endlessly. And gymnastics is good for the mind.
                  1. +1
                    April 3 2024 05: 22
                    In philosophical questions, unlike technical ones, one can debate endlessly
                    I agree with that
                2. ANB
                  +1
                  April 3 2024 01: 38
                  . If we turn to the Germanic peoples, then their rationalism, coupled with the Protestant teaching

                  Not all of Germany is Protestant. In Bavaria, for example, the majority are Catholics. The Czech Republic (much more rationally) is a Catholic country.
                  1. +1
                    April 3 2024 05: 24
                    The Czech Republic (much more rationally) is a Catholic country
                    The Czech Republic is the most atheistic country in Europe, although it is nominally considered to be Catholic
  2. +7
    April 2 2024 05: 35
    Hello Edward! As a matter of principle, I did not comment on the previous work “on empire.” A lot of things are controversial, but today I couldn’t resist.
    The key in the development of society is not the stage (stage) of its evolution, but the equality of the population before the law.
    Any state faces a complex of various gaping issues; paradoxically, the simplest solutions are the most effective in the short term. About playing the long game...
    Alas, even today it is not uncommon to encounter “people in power” who live by the principle that after us there may be a flood.
    Good day to everyone, success and prosperity!
    1. +5
      April 2 2024 06: 42
      Welcome Vladislav!!!
      Glad to hear that.
      A lot of things are controversial, but today I couldn’t resist.

      That's good: discussion is always the path to understanding.
      hi
    2. +4
      April 2 2024 06: 44
      The simplest solutions are the most effective in the short term. About playing the long game...

      If the manager is not able to make decisions that affect short-term, concrete results, where can we talk about the long-term perspective.
      1. +6
        April 2 2024 08: 34
        If the manager is unable to make decisions

        The whole question here is motivation - why the hell should he do this, take responsibility, expose himself, jump up? When can you calmly write a correct report to your superiors and quietly continue living your normal life?

        He will make decisions only in one case - if his personal well-being and fate directly depend on it.
        1. +2
          April 2 2024 08: 44
          Good afternoon Pavel,
          He will make decisions only in one case - if his personal well-being and fate directly depend on it.

          You can't argue: motivation is the most important factor in this case.
          But there is a more important point: is this or that individual able to simply make a decision, just take it and accept it?
          1. +1
            April 2 2024 08: 47
            And again, this is purely a matter of motivation. Even a complete loser and wimp is capable of a solution if his own tail is very hot. Except of course in clinical cases.
            1. +2
              April 2 2024 08: 50
              Even a complete loser and wimp is capable of a solution if his own tail is very hot.

              Not capable, literally at all, if we are not talking about the choice of chips and beer in the store, or even the color of the car interior!
              Making a decision, for example, for tens of millions of rubles will already lead to a situation of stupor.
              1. +4
                April 2 2024 08: 57
                It’s just that not everyone has the concept of a hot tail directly correlated with generally accepted values. It seems to you that the choice of beer or a million rubles is extremely important, but for a person it can be much more important that his hut with bjols and a boar in the barn not be disturbed.

                He doesn't care about your tens of millions. But try to touch your favorite boar!!
                1. +3
                  April 2 2024 09: 06
                  it is much more important that his little hut with bjols and a boar in the barn not be disturbed

                  then the level of decision-making will be at the “khatynka” level, and at another level higher, no decisions will be made: my hut is on the edge
                  laughing
                  1. +3
                    April 2 2024 09: 17
                    Not necessary. How many emperors have there been in history, for example, who were extremely lousy as rulers, but were, say, patrons of the sciences and arts? Simply because they were simply not interested in fiddling with finances, laws, reports, duties, etc.. Well, all this didn’t bother them.

                    Or, for example, a warrior - who, apart from the massacre, was not shaken by anything at all. Avon - Richard the Lionheart alone was worth it... His decisions were instantaneous and at the highest level. The trouble is that he accepted them exclusively in areas of interest to him.

                    In general, it was not for nothing that Joseph Vissarionovich postulated the reinforced concrete principle - “Personnel decide everything!” It is the correct selection of personnel that is the main task of any ruler.
                    1. AAK
                      +5
                      April 2 2024 11: 30
                      And after the Generalissimo, until now, no one has been sufficiently concerned with personnel (in the best sense of the word) ... here one personnel has been permanent for 20 years and that ... and the rest of his “cadres” in this paradigm and packing...
      2. 0
        April 3 2024 04: 32
        Good morning Edward!
        Unfortunately, domestic and world practice is not replete with specialists in the field of “government of states.” The state is determined by the “system”, and it, even from among the “great boyars”, “highest or secret councils” or “party nomenklatura”, or “olegarzat”, is rarely interested in a strong leader and the prosperity of the country.
        I would say it remains to be seen whether a “natural king” or an “elected president” is more effective. The first one should at least think about his children who will replace him, but with the second it’s more and more difficult.
        1. +1
          April 3 2024 06: 45
          Good morning!!!!!!!
          The state is determined by the “system”

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          Agree to 150%
          The first one should at least think about his children who will replace him, but with the second one it’s more complicated.

          This is an extremely subjective and side factor.
          Remember when Childebert offered Clotilde for her grandchildren, and for his nephews and children of King Clodomer: a sword or scissors. Grandmother chose scissors: no crown - no need for life.
          Well, from our history, Alexander III did not think much about his son Nicholas, pursuing a repressive, obscurantist policy, slowing down the development of the country.
          Best regards,
          hi
    3. +7
      April 2 2024 06: 46
      The key in the development of society is not the stage (stage) of its evolution, but the equality of the population before the law.

      But somehow the ruling class, according to the stage theory, never strived for this: neither slave owners, nor feudal lords. neither capitalists.
      hi
      1. +7
        April 2 2024 07: 57
        And this is understandable - if everyone is equal before the law, then where will the ruling class receive the coveted profit? You can’t really exploit your equals...
      2. +3
        April 2 2024 19: 09
        Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
        The key in the development of society is not the stage (stage) of its evolution, but the equality of the population before the law.

        But somehow the ruling class, according to the stage theory, never strived for this: neither slave owners, nor feudal lords. neither capitalists.

        There was anyway. wink
        His slogan was: “Dictatorship of the proletariat.”
    4. +6
      April 2 2024 07: 59
      The key in the development of society is not the stage (stage) of its evolution, but the equality of the population before the law.

      Nooo.... The main thing is economic relations.. Which provide the material basis for the development of society. But how they relate to equality is still an open question.
  3. +8
    April 2 2024 06: 14
    With the fall of the Bastille, the “golden age of the nobility” ended both in Russia and throughout Europe
    Only the Russian nobility did not realize this, living by inertia in the “golden age”.
    1. +3
      April 2 2024 06: 41
      Only the Russian nobility did not realize this, living by inertia in the “golden age”.

      Good morning Alexey,
      The question remains open: is it possible to realize this?
      hi
      1. +4
        April 2 2024 08: 44
        Certainly. Bearded classics also postulated that beating determines consciousness.. So let’s say the lost Crimean War greatly contributed to the understanding that freebies, in the sense of the golden age of the nobility, are somehow ending..
      2. +1
        April 2 2024 17: 39
        Realized, but not the majority... The revolutionary movement began to take shape among the nobility, in the part that understood that “that’s it, little kids, the dancing is over” (c)
        1. +2
          April 2 2024 18: 41
          "That's it, little ones, the dancing is over" (c)

          good
  4. +3
    April 2 2024 06: 15
    Very good stuff, Edward!
  5. +2
    April 2 2024 07: 17
    Let me note that the “separation of powers” ​​is not at all a speculative reform for the sake of establishing order.

    Power is divided into legislative and, as it were, main elected parliamentary, that is, essentially chattering, and modest executive, assigned - real and strong. Which gives orders and manages money. Approximately the same power as monarchical power.

    There is no contradiction between “separation of powers” ​​and “strong government”. The first was done for the sake of the second. There is a contradiction only between elected and appointed power. But it is easily resolved if the election has no power.
    1. +2
      April 2 2024 08: 39
      Like the separation of powers, it only leads to the fact that all branches finally cease to be responsible for the final result. Passing responsibility onto each other.
    2. +3
      April 2 2024 08: 47
      Ivan good afternoon,
      Let me note that the “separation of powers” ​​is not at all a speculative reform for the sake of establishing order.

      For the 19th century , for the ruling class of nobles, absolutely speculative; the peasants, our ancestors, and other philistines were not affected by this issue at all; they were beyond the scope of decision-making.
      The nobles had their own “Liberty Charter”, why did they need some kind of “division”?
      hi
      1. -2
        April 2 2024 14: 27
        Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
        For the 19th century , for the ruling class of nobles, absolutely speculative...The nobles had their own “Liberty Charter”, why did they need some kind of “division”?

        That's it... But this is not my interpretation, but you wrote about the separation of powers in the Republic of Ingushetia. Although the State Council was only an advisory body, it still existed.
        And under Tsar Grozny there was a zemstvo reform, and later, in 1611, a document was issued affecting the authorities; "The verdict of the Zemsky Sobor" of the first militia. For what ?
        In our time, it is clear that the separation of powers not only delineates powers, but also masks the omnipotence of the executive branch, but then, in the 19th century, why? Indeed, if according to your logic, “why do the nobles need this,” then it is necessary to explain why the abolition of serfdom is necessary for the nobles. After all, there was autocracy both before and after 1861
        1. +1
          April 2 2024 17: 52
          Indeed, if according to your logic, “why do the nobles need this,” then it is necessary to explain why the abolition of serfdom is necessary for the nobles. After all, there was autocracy both before and after 1861

          So while we are still at the beginning of the 1861th century, and 60 is XNUMX years later laughing
          In three articles there will be my answer to your question: step by step.
          Best regards,
          hi
  6. +3
    April 2 2024 08: 04
    A very interesting article, thanks to the Author. Some things are controversial, some I thought of myself or heard somewhere else, and some are new to me.

    “Rationalism in feudal Europe arose with the development of cities, as the antipodes of the countryside, in the 13th century. This was a similar situation in Russia, but in the 18th century.”

    So it turns out that our development lag was then 5 centuries. The idea for today is seditious, but, in my opinion, logical.

    “The rationalism of the ancient Greeks and Romans, including in military affairs, was completely forgotten and revived during the Renaissance, which marked the beginning of the end of feudalism and the agrarian thinking associated with it.”

    A completely new approach for me. I will think this thought :)


    "A. A. Arakcheev reformed the Russian artillery, the equestrian park, created artillery schools by order of Alexander I and ... under the influence of the military genius and artilleryman Napoleon, however, as elsewhere in Europe."

    I would say the Gribeauval system, which Napoleon used. By the way.

    “The firmness and courage of the Russian troops was not associated with the mythical “eternal fortitude of the Russians,” but with the class of feudal warriors, multiplied by modern borrowed technologies.”

    This is a moot point. Our soldiers showed resilience even after feudalism, for example, even according to the memoirs of German military leaders, in the Second World War there were examples that now make no sense to cite. At the same time, often other European armies during feudalism did not always show resilience, despite the resilience of the feudal lords themselves. The reason must be looked for somewhere else, IMHO.
    1. +2
      April 2 2024 08: 41
      Our soldiers showed resilience even after feudalism, for example, even according to the memoirs of German military leaders, in the Second World War there were examples that now make no sense to cite.

      I have not yet gotten to the reasons for persistence in the Second World War... wink
      There are, of course, other reasons: there is something to live for and something to die for, but for the majority of 20-30 year olds there was something for: for their Soviet power, and not for the nobles or capital. My grandfather died near Kharkov, showing such fortitude at the age of 30.
      And in the period under review, relatively speaking, the nobles are a warrior class, and they understand why they should fight for the “fatherland”, large and small, in the form of an estate.
      And recruits - to begin with, sticks, sticks.
      and so throughout semi-feudal Europe in the 18th century, until the French Revolution added new motives. hi
      1. +4
        April 2 2024 08: 53
        and they understand why they fight for the “fatherland”, large and small, in the form of an estate.

        How then can we explain the catastrophic loss of combat effectiveness of noble militias in different countries after a certain period? The destruction of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Poland, the local cavalry in Rus', the feudal Arjerban in the West? Did they still have estates?

        And what about “for the homeland” is a controversial issue. Why, for example, should a feudal lord fight against an enemy if he promises not to touch his possessions and leave everything as it is? Or even cut off the land altogether?
        1. +2
          April 2 2024 09: 04
          Paul,
          I already wrote in articles in this series:
          The destruction of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Poland, the local cavalry in Rus', the feudal Arjerban in the West? Did they still have estates?

          Associated with a change in the concept of combat. Roughly speaking, a feudal lord is an individual knight, galloping “ahead of the horse.” I'm exaggerating very much.
          The “Gunpowder Revolution” abolishes, of course gradually, the individual professional.
          Yes, there were free English riflemen, there were Swiss infantry, landsknechts...
          but it was the “gunpowder revolution” that changed everything.
          Why, for example, should a feudal lord fight against an enemy if he promises not to touch his possessions and leave everything as it is?

          Absolutely right! If you do not take into account the mentality of the feudal lord: honor, loyalty, etc., then if the fievs are left, then they try with it.
          In our case, this happened with the Poles who owned the “fievs” on the right bank of Ukraine; everything was left to them, and no one especially in the Polish uprisings of 1830 and 1862. did not participate, but dominated there (conditionally) until 1918.
          1. +3
            April 2 2024 09: 09
            Associated with a change in the concept of combat.

            On the one hand - yes. But - after all, the nobles at those moments demonstrated just a catastrophic unwillingness to fight!! It's not that they lost to innovation - they just didn't want to. En masse, either not appearing on the battlefield, or leaving it at the first opportunity..

            Precisely because they did not see the slightest point in putting their lives in danger for anything not directly related to their personal well-being... What kind of honor and loyalty is there...
      2. +1
        April 2 2024 10: 49
        This is true, but only partly. For example, the resilience of the mass of soldiers in Russia has always been there, at all times (though inexplicable panic also occurred).

        One can give an example of the tenacity of mercenaries, for example, the Swiss or Landsknechts, who fought for money, but stood until the last. The British "thin red line" against our onslaught. The French Guard... Well, there are many examples, and our soldiers have a place of honor here.

        My point is that it is not the social formation that explains persistence or the lack thereof. Rather, the principle is “for one’s own.”
        1. +1
          April 2 2024 11: 55
          Rather, the principle is “for one’s own.”

          the principle of brothers in arms - one might say for centuries, ethnopsychological characteristics must be taken into account, ...
          but still determines the structure of society:
          Spanish soldier in the 16th century. and in the 19th century,
          Italians in the same 16th century. and in the twentieth century.
          French in the X, XIII, XV -XVIII centuries. and in 1940
          Chinese in the 13th, 17th and 20th centuries. etc.
          However, I’m not writing for the sake of argument.
          hi
  7. 0
    April 2 2024 08: 09
    “Simply put, Suvorov’s ability to fight against any enemy could not be cloned and scaled to all troops, because it was not a combat system created by Suvorov, but the personal skills of a military genius.”

    A very controversial statement, frankly speaking, not generally accepted. In general, the influence of the commander in those days on the battlefield was so great that even an army trained according to an excellent system with a ram at its head could be defeated by military talent at the head of an armed crowd.
    1. +2
      April 2 2024 08: 26
      Good afternoon,
      A very controversial statement, frankly speaking, not generally accepted.

      Suvorov had a lot of future well-known senior commanders take part in the Swiss campaign, for example, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich or Bagration, but they did not receive any skills, while the brilliant Suvorov could use Bagration’s recklessness.
      Because “the bullet is stupid - the bayonet is great” is not a system. This expression did a lot of harm to the Russian army during the period of the emergence of faster-firing small arms.
      And also about the system: what kind of “systemic Suvorov steps” were taken by Russian commanders during the Napoleonic wars?
      Because Suvorov was simply (what a word) a genius.
      1. +3
        April 2 2024 12: 52
        “And one more thing about the system: what kind of “systemic Suvorov steps” were taken by Russian commanders during the Napoleonic wars?”

        The entire Suvorov system is a system for training a professional army for combat and long-distance campaigns, primarily for soldiers. This is a simplification of everything, getting rid of everything unnecessary in a real battle.

        “A soldier should be like this: when he gets up, he’s ready.”

        “The bullet is a fool,” it was said, but “Infantry fires reveal victory” - also from the same place.

        The result of education and training is marches at times that the enemy does not expect. It wasn’t Suvorov who came up with this, but not every army can be driven over long distances without losing combat effectiveness, but only a well-trained one (“the head doesn’t wait for the tail” - this ruined many).

        The result is the transformation of naturally resistant Russian soldiers into an offensive weapon, an onslaught.

        I didn’t notice any special innovations, but this is the system when familiar elements are combined into something of a different quality.

        However, I did not notice this with Napoleon at the tactical level - except for the huge batteries and huge masses. Napoleon is also a genius.
    2. +2
      April 2 2024 08: 33
      In general, the influence of the commander in those days on the battlefield was so great that even an army trained according to an excellent system with a ram at its head could be defeated by military talent at the head of an armed crowd.

      I don’t remember such battles in the period under review: but there was a situation when the old system of combat (linear tactics, etc.) was opposed by a new system (horse artillery and fighting in columns - “well done bayonet”). Everyone who switched to the new system, the Prussians, the Austrians, and us, could more or less resist the French, but here the genius of Napoleon came into play. Where it was not there, there was always parity in the results of battles. The Patriotic War of 1812 is a textbook illustration of such a situation.
      Best regards,
      hi
      1. +1
        April 2 2024 11: 17
        “I don’t remember such battles in the period under review: but there was a situation when the old system of combat (linear tactics, etc.) was opposed by a new system (horse artillery and fighting in columns - “well done bayonet”).”

        I don't quite agree about the "old" and "new" system.

        Linear tactics were and remained the main tactics, based on frequent, unaimed fire from non-rifled weapons. Bayonets are a rarity.

        Columns, according to one version, appeared due to the fact that the French revolutionary troops were poorly trained; it was impossible to control them on the battlefield in a linear formation (and this is a very complex system of formations) columns, in masses it was quite possible.

        The British showed that they could resist the columns - Napoleon never defeated them, Wellington's soldiers in Spain were quite able to cope with the attacks of the columns. But the Prussians did not hold their battle formations - they lacked stamina. The British did not abandon linear tactics at all, even in the Crimean War (“thin red line”).

        As for the illustration of a lion leading rams, the best example is Napoleon, for example, in Italy, when his poorly trained and half-starved troops defeated the well-trained Austrians led by Melas.

        The sad example of Austerlitz is from approximately the same series, although at that time Napoleon already had a seriously prepared army.
        1. +2
          April 2 2024 12: 05
          when his poorly trained and half-starved troops defeated the well-trained Austrians led by Melas.

          There also chance intervened... it happens
        2. +2
          April 2 2024 12: 08
          Wellington's soldiers in Spain coped well with attacks on columns.

          Yes, the British had a different approach, but...they actually didn’t fight with Napoleon, except for Waterloo, of course, otherwise their thin “red” line would have died pointlessly.
          1. +1
            April 2 2024 12: 56
            “Yes, the British had a different approach, but... they actually didn’t fight with Napoleon, except of course at Waterloo, otherwise their thin “red” line would have died pointlessly.”

            Is not a fact. It’s not a fact that they would have stood in the columns. In addition, the English marksmen had rifles.

            Their adherence to linear tactics is most easily explained by the fact that, unlike other countries, they did not lose their well-trained army, so they could use more effective, but difficult to control, tactical formations.
  8. +1
    April 2 2024 08: 17
    The author connects the abolition of serfdom with the end of feudal relations. IMHO, the connection here is not direct. For example, slavery existing in the USA did not make this country feudal; it was already a completely capitalist country.

    “And the point here is not in Russian specifics, but in the stage of development of society.”

    I absolutely agree.

    “In Prussia, which was significantly inferior to Russia both in area and in population, in 1763 the number of officials was slightly less than in Russia, and their quality was much higher.”

    I wonder what the percentages of literate populations were in these two countries. I'm afraid it's very much not in our favor.

    Thanks again to the Author.
    1. +2
      April 2 2024 08: 55
      Sergey, thank you for your kind words.
      I answer a number of questions posed, write it more correctly, I try to answer it, in the following articles, they have already been posted, they are waiting in line.

      Including about education during this period. A number of articles will contain a lot of numbers.
      The author connects the abolition of serfdom with the end of feudal relations.

      If you perceived it this way, it means that perhaps I conveyed the information incorrectly.
      No I do not think so. about the fall of serfdom through 3 articles, which I believe.
      But before that I will summarize gradually.
      Best regards,
      Edward
      1. +1
        April 2 2024 10: 42
        Good afternoon, Edward.

        I guess I misunderstood this, unfortunately, over the years the understanding works worse and worse :)

        I'm looking forward to the continuation, interesting thoughts - there aren't enough of my own :)
    2. +2
      April 2 2024 10: 33
      For example, slavery existing in the USA did not make this country feudal
      The emerging US state was not initially feudal, and slaves were only a means of production; with the development of the industrial revolution in the USA, slaves as a means of production became unprofitable and unprofitable.
  9. +5
    April 2 2024 09: 00
    . there was an attitude of feudal officers towards peasant soldiers, most often as serfs with all the feudal disdain for the mob, losses in the war and their exploitation as serfs.

    In fact, this attitude of noble officers towards soldiers, and indeed towards the lower classes in general, survived until the end of the Civil War already in the 20th century, and then was inherited by Soviet officials - both in the army (not to be confused with subordination), and in citizen. Firmly learned. Mentality. I encountered it in the USSR, and I still see numerous relapses today.
    Edward, thank you! good )))
    I will read the article throughout the day.
    Hello everyone! )))
    1. +2
      April 2 2024 09: 08
      Mentality. I encountered it in the USSR, and I still see numerous relapses today.

      absolutely agree
      Good afternoon, Lyudmila Yakovlevna!

      hi
      1. +3
        April 2 2024 11: 02
        Good day to you too, Eduard! )))
        You know, a lot of things in our country can be explained by the still living feudal mentality. For example, the fact that we have never become an urban civilization in the full sense of the word. "The management knows best!" It's easier to live this way. Fatigue of human souls, leading to fatalism - come what may!
        However, there are no longer any genuine feudal traditions of the horizontal order that unite people, even among the poor...
        Oh, I remember those weddings! In the Kuban village, where the bride, red with embarrassment, with downcast eyes, was introduced into the groom's house, and the entire population of the village in the form of onlookers and invitees was present, they believed that this was obligatory. Involvement, and not simple curiosity... I remember a wedding here, in the Moscow region, when the bride came out of the Khrushchev building to the groom, because she and the groom’s friends were called out by a hired aunt with an insolent, nasty voice, in charge of the ritual. Neighbors crowded around and looked out of their windows, some element of horizontal communication was emerging. but in the conditions of our home it looked terribly pitiful, artificial and inappropriate...
        What now? Nobody calls out to anyone, they get married quietly, the neighbors don’t even know. They also die quietly, the coffin is not taken out of the house, the ritual of universal sympathy has disappeared. Horizontal connections of a feudal nature are disappearing, being replaced by connections filled with a deeper and more effective meaning, for example, volunteering, which is not tied to neighboring residence. But it turns out that the living of a certain number of people in a human settlement does not mean the integration of each person into a long organic molecule, but a set of individual atoms...
        Do you know what else is left? Benches in front of the entrances! wassat )))
        1. +3
          April 2 2024 11: 57
          Oh, I remember those weddings! In the Kuban village...

          And I remember.
          But the main thing at this wedding was sugar cones for us children! good
          1. +5
            April 2 2024 13: 08
            But the main thing at this wedding is for us children,
            Not... a trifle thrown from a tray... you could pick up, if you have time, 15 kopecks, and these are three caramel cockerels on a stick, and sugar cones.. So if you remember, in our village, they made baskets, the sugar ones themselves, but what about there was no sugar rush! About little things, we collected for several years, almost for years... And if you consider that our village is located in decent foothills
        2. +2
          April 2 2024 18: 03
          They sit nice, they sit nice. And just as during the Soviet regime they washed the bones of their neighbors, so under the current one... And no perestroika, no developed Putinism will take them/grandmothers/. And they fight back against the asocial element with the same Komsomol fervor! bully But the *domino players* have not been seen for a long time, at least within walking distance. Have they gone underground?
          1. +4
            April 2 2024 18: 44
            But the *domino players* have not been seen for a long time, at least within walking distance. Have they gone underground?

            They left with the dovecotes.
            hi
            1. +1
              April 2 2024 19: 04
              Greetings Edward!
              Thank you for the article. You won’t believe it, but in our area a couple of dovecotes have been preserved/probably not by a miracle, but thanks to the laziness and poor eyesight of local bureaucrats. They stand and make you happy, and when the pigeons are released...it’s simply magnificent! It flies among the clouds white fluffy miracle. Well, very beautiful. hi
              1. +1
                April 2 2024 21: 31
                Good evening,
                They stand there and make you happy, and when the pigeons are released... it’s simply magnificent! This white fluffy miracle flies among the clouds. Well, very beautiful.

                good
          2. +1
            April 2 2024 19: 43
            . They are sitting nice, they are sitting nice. And just as during the Soviet regime they washed the bones of their neighbors, so under the current one...

            Good evening, Sergey Vladimirovich! Glad to see you!
            As for the shops, they were placed in front of my house just before Covid, and, imagine, they were not empty! And then the grandparents died out, and strangers began to periodically hang out on the benches. And now there are no more young people. And now I’m thinking whether to rejoice or not. At least no one bothers you to sleep at night.
            1. +2
              April 2 2024 20: 05
              Good evening Lyudmila Yakovlevna!
              Benches in front of the entrance are a sacred concept for any Russian city. Slightly matured girls sat, are sitting and will continue to sit and discuss the current problems of humanity.
              Something is wrong with my replies. I can’t select the text of the comment to which I want to respond. Previously, I just clicked on inverted commas and everything was OK. Now this number doesn’t work. Oops? recourse
              1. +2
                April 2 2024 20: 12
                I can’t select the text of the comment which I want to respond to. Previously, I just clicked on the inverted commas and everything was OK.
                Hello, Sergey!
                Do as I do. I had trouble with the quotes at the very beginning, I found another way
                1. +1
                  April 2 2024 20: 22
                  *Do with us, do as we do, do better than us!*
                  Please publish a miraculous method.
                  Good evening Anton! hi
                  1. +2
                    April 2 2024 21: 10
                    You select the desired piece of text, click “copy”, open “comment”, in the text line you press the write button, another control panel appears, click “paste”, select the pasted text, click the italics button.
                    Well, something like this... Perhaps this may seem too complicated, but over the years of practice I have mastered it to the point of automatism. And it works on this resource under any conditions!
                    The only negative is that Lyudmila Yakovlevna is incredibly irritated by italics...
                2. +3
                  April 2 2024 20: 28
                  . found another way

                  Good evening, Anton! )))
                  To be honest, I didn’t plan to appear at VO so often today (I expressed a couple of thoughts, and that’s okay), but here a warm group of people came running and even if they ran away, only nodding slightly to each other as they ran, it’s like missing the moment and not greeting people you know.
                  About your method.
                  You have no idea how italic irritates me. And Sergei Vladimirovich uses an asterisk instead of quotation marks. And Tatyana - bold font. And Boris 55 manages to preface his posts with red slogans and so on...
                  Whose cow would moo - but this is me talking about myself wassat )))
                  1. +4
                    April 2 2024 20: 53
                    About your method.
                    You have no idea how italic irritates me. And Sergei Vladimirovich uses an asterisk instead of quotation marks. And Tatyana - bold font. And Boris 55 manages to preface his posts with red slogans and so on...

                    Hello, Lyudmila Yakovlevna!
                    Well, excuse me, “don’t shoot the pianists, they play as best they can.” Regarding the other two characters you mentioned - “better silent than nothing.”
                    1. +1
                      April 2 2024 22: 35
                      . better silent than nothing

                      You know, each of us has our own characteristics.
                      For example, I never learned how to transfer pictures into comments. Once upon a time, on the old edition of the site, it worked. I went to some outdated topic and posted a flower. The new edition did not leave me a chance, my patience was dealt a blow, I came to terms with the lack of intelligence, and this despite the fact that I have your instructions. It was not for me, but I diligently wrote it down, the result was a fiasco)))
                      There are many people who are not able to master anything. To the point that sometimes tactfulness or, even worse, goodwill is not given at all)))
                      Anyway. I would like to live here.
    2. +1
      April 3 2024 01: 34
      Hello Lyudmila Yakovlevna!
      Let me note that the Soviet official/boss did not experience such lordship/rudeness at every time and not with everyone. It was easy to go on a walking trip. In the army, yes, it was more difficult to defend dignity without consequences. But again it depended on the main decision. I, a conscript sergeant, managed to prevent a drunken flyer and a company political officer from getting his fist in my face. He left and climbed in himself. During the debriefing, the battalion commander decided that “everything was according to the rules” and got off with a bang. And there could not have been a similar time of autocracy in the Union. Our ancestors - soldiers, sailors and peasants - uprooted this infection. Well, let's just say they almost uprooted it. Although the slavish obedience of the “serfs” sometimes really hurts the eyes. And this is there, no doubt about it. Heredity?
  10. +3
    April 2 2024 10: 27
    The nobles, who remained “caring” serf owners towards the peasants, did not allow tyranny on the part of their monarch.
    The parties did not fully understand each other and it turned out the way it turned out. "We wanted the best, but it turned out as always" (c)
  11. +3
    April 2 2024 11: 09
    I love the bloody fight
    I was born for royal service!
    Saber, vodka, hussar’s horse,
    I have a golden age with you!

    I wonder why the “golden age” always occurs at the end of an era? A sort of marker of impending decline?
    Greetings Edward!
  12. +3
    April 2 2024 11: 19
    It seems to me that this is a very important point with officials in Prussia.
    Why could neither Paul nor Alexander abolish serfdom even if they wanted to?
    Yes, because the country was largely locally governed by the landowners, and depriving them of power would also plunge the state into chaos. And only Nicholas I was able to change this, who actually re-created the state with a developed and, no less important, educated bureaucracy, written laws, and so on. This is the only reason why Alexander II was able to push through the Great Reforms.
    In Prussia, too, when the king abolished serfdom in 1807, no one flinched. It’s just that the state is strong and there was no period of palace coups. Although, when a little less than half a century earlier, Frederick the Great tried to abolish serfdom in one of the provinces as an experiment, the Junkers subtly hinted to the king that although they were not Russians (and even paid taxes), they would have snuff boxes...
    1. +1
      April 2 2024 11: 24
      Why could neither Paul nor Alexander abolish serfdom even if they wanted to?

      Could the Decembrists have done it?
      1. +4
        April 2 2024 12: 04
        Hello, Sergey!
        Could the Decembrists have done it?

        In preparing these articles, I dug through a gigantic amount of modern literature on the topic. not Militsa Vasilievna...
        about the Decembrists further.
        I think that no - for most nobles there was a reason to kill Paul, the ideas of the Decembrists were not for them: why?
        I continue to write here, this is not the period of the end of feudalism for Russia, its middle, “classic”, as in France, approximately 14-15 centuries. - there is no need for change; there are not many Jacobins who have read much.
        If it were not for external threats, primarily military ones, the “natural course of things” would not require change: organic development.
        But more on that in the following articles.
        hi
        1. +3
          April 2 2024 12: 12
          about the Decembrists further.

          Okay, let's wait.
      2. +5
        April 2 2024 12: 07
        Were they going to? feel
        My personal opinion is that nothing good could be expected from this military junta.
        To paraphrase Klyuchevsky a little - they knew Russian facts poorly and non-Russian ideas very well
        1. +2
          April 2 2024 12: 11
          Were they going to?

          If you look at their “program documents” - Pestel’s “Russian Truth” and Muravyov’s “Constitution” - then yes.
          And who knows how things would have turned out...
          1. +4
            April 2 2024 12: 18
            Quote: Mihaylov
            If you look at their “program documents” - Pestel’s “Russian Truth” and Muravyov’s “Constitution” - then yes.

            The only trouble is that there are as many members as there are so many “program documents”))
            In practice, only Lunin tried to free his peasants. But he offered such conditions that the men twirled their fingers at their temples and refused.
            As for liberation projects, if my memory serves me right, the most generous was .... Arakcheeva. This figure with a completely deserved reputation as a cannibal proposed giving the peasants three times more land than the Decembrists.
            Quote: Mihaylov
            And who knows how things would have turned out...

            civil war
    2. +1
      April 2 2024 11: 58
      Why could neither Paul nor Alexander abolish serfdom even if they wanted to?
      Yes, because the country was largely locally governed by the landowners, and depriving them of power would also plunge the state into chaos.

      I absolutely agree, about the air in subsequent articles
  13. +1
    April 2 2024 14: 11
    Did the worldview of the Russian aristocracy and nobility change in the 19th century? Did they find themselves at the level of the capitalist era replacing feudalism?
    Yes and no.
    The Russian aristocracy quickly realized the benefits and possibilities of capitalism. In addition to merchants and foreigners, such noble families as the Vorontsovs, Shuvalovs, Stroganovs, Baryatinskys, Yusupovs, Bezborodkos, and Razumovskys were engaged in entrepreneurship in Russia. Lesser nobles are also active. Suffice it to say that out of 305 textile enterprises, 57 were founded by nobles. However, it is doubtful whether there is even an iota of change in the attitude of the feudal nobility towards the forced Russian people. This is not something that changes dramatically due to a change in the production structure. Just as they were serf owners with the narrow thinking of cosmopolitans, they remained so until the very end. And because of this, we were left without a well-born aristocracy, which, by definition, is the guardian of the country.
  14. +2
    April 2 2024 21: 22
    Quote: 3x3zsave
    . And it works on this resource under any conditions!

    Thank you! good
    1. +1
      April 2 2024 21: 47
      Contact us!
      The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.