Military Review

Reaction or rebirth?

The spread of art is a matter of national importance.
Emperor Alexander III

Historical the withdrawal that began in Russia in the 60s of the XIX century with the abolition of serfdom was accompanied by impending social, technical, ideological and moral coups that were unprecedented in scope. Dostoevsky wrote in those years: "In that society, an extraordinary economic and moral upheaval prevailed ... The former world, the former order departed irrevocably ... Everything is transitional, everything is shaky."

The reign of Alexander III began a new stage in the history of Russia: for some, the “period of reaction", for others, the "era of rebirth." Supporters of the politics of Alexander III, in the ranks of which were well-known scientists, public and political figures, writers, artists, musicians, approved the emperor’s course “to pacify Russia” and its cultural development.

“The people who lived through His reign,” wrote Mendeleev in “The Covenant Thoughts,” clearly realized that a certain degree of restrained concentration and gathering of forces, directed towards simple ordinary peaceful inner activity, had come then ... ”According to the scientist,“ ... all types and forms progress and everything, as a state improvement (as well as deterioration) is not only imaginable, but also carried out both at monarchist and republican warehouses ... ”

The adjustment of 60 – 70’s transformations was accompanied by a number of, if not as effective as “Great Reforms”, but extremely important social, economic transformations that contributed to the adaptation of Russian society to the now irreversible process of its capitalist evolution.

Alexander III began, in Dostoevsky's phrase, "from the healing of the roots." He marked the beginning of the "moral gathering of Russia." The policy of Alexander III was limited to the preservation and development of Russian foundations, traditions and ideals. In the years of the reign of Alexander III, that spiritual originality was awakened, without which the cultural and historical life of any great people is impossible.

“Russian life has awakened from a long moral and mental hibernation, has begun to see clearly,” wrote Repin in his memoirs, “the first thing she wanted to do was to wash, to clean herself from useless garbage, from routine elements that had outlived their time. The power of fresh Russian thought reigned everywhere, merrily, cheerfully went ahead and broke without regret everything that they found outdated, unnecessary ... "

The years of Alexander III’s rule were marked by significant successes in strengthening the power of Russia, as well as outstanding achievements in the development of national culture and science, to which he personally contributed a lot.

According to Dygilev, “Alexander III can be counted among the best Russian tsars. For Russian culture, he was perhaps the best of all Russian monarchs. It began the flourishing of Russian literature, painting, music, and ballet. Everything that later glorified Russia began under Alexander III. ”

During the reign of Alexander III, with his direct participation in Russia, the Russian opera and the Russian Museum were created, and the Russian Imperial Historical Society was active, headed by the emperor himself. The creation of a Russian national theater headed by the playwright Ostrovsky was prepared, the opening of the Imperial Historical Museum was held, the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society was established ...

In his cultural policy, Alexander III sought to follow Dostoevsky’s precepts set forth in the Writer's Diary, which he personally sent to the emperor in 1878: “Society is based on moral principles ... On meat, on the economic idea, on turning stones into bread - nothing it is based ... Nations live not only by concern for the price of the ruble and exchange speculation, but by great feeling and great unity and all illuminating thought, union with the people ... National strength is born when the people unwittingly recognize hnih people with them at the same time. "

Among the prominent representatives of Russian culture of that time were people of different nationalities and religions who came to Russia and remained here forever. All their life they worked for Russia, its people, loved this country and valued its culture. One of them was the famous sculptor Mark Matveevich Antokolsky (1843 – 1902). Alexander III treated the works of Antokolsky with great respect and love and did much to keep his sculptural works forever in the treasuries of the Russian state. Critic Stasov wrote in one of the letters to Antokolsky: “The Sovereign always loved and favored you, always put you above others, always gave you orders — yes, all of them! The most important and strong - so will be ahead. "

Antokolsky, in turn, felt a deep belonging to Russia. “All my soul,” he wrote, “belongs to the country where I was born and which I got used to ... That's why everything I did would be the result of those intimate impressions that Mother Russia nurtured me ...” He considered the stories and The themes from Russian history are central to their work: “My dream, in my old age, to devote my last years to the glorification of the great people of Russian history, the main thing is epic.”

Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich purchased from Antokolsky for the future of the Russian Museum many of his works: “Christ before the People’s Court”, “Peter I”, “Nestor the Chronicler”, “Ermak”, “Yaroslav the Wise”.

Well aware of the significance for Russia of a calm and stable development, he sharply criticized the forces that were shaking the country and calling for a revolution: a false prophet speaking in the name of the people, and on those on whose conscience hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths lie. ”

Extensive church construction, which was launched throughout the country in the post-reform period, required the involvement of the most talented architects who understood the requirements of the era.

One of the founders of the so-called Russian style in architecture was the outstanding Russian architect David Ivanovich Grimm (1823 – 1898), a German by origin, a Lutheran religion.

According to the designs of David Ivanovich, a significant number of architectural monuments were built on the territory of Russia, including the Vladimir Cathedral in Chersonese, the Alexander Nevsky Church in Tiflis, the Church of St. Nicholas in the Brest Fortress, the Church of the Intercession of the Holy Virgin in Egerskaya Sloboda in Gatchina, the Church of St. Olga near Strelna in Peterhof and others.

The emperor met with the architect more than once, and discussed with him projects for the creation of church buildings. Paying special attention to the revival of historical national traditions, Alexander III believed that the glorification of Russia's victories in past wars and battles is a necessary condition for educating the people in respect for the country's historical past. During his reign, dozens of memorials and historical monuments were erected throughout the country. “Knowledge of the great feats of military valor, images of great people and glorious deeds for each historical event is the engine of moral influence,” said the emperor.

A prominent representative of Russian architectural art of the late 19th century was an artist and sculptor, architectural theorist, academician Vladimir Osipovich Sherwood (1833 – 1897), the author of the project of the Historical Museum on Red Square and the monument to the Heroes of Pleven in the square near the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow.

An Englishman by birth, whose grandfather came to Russia among foreign specialists, Vladimir Osipovich became a truly outstanding Russian sculptor, who exalted the past of our Fatherland. After staying for five years in the homeland of his ancestors in England, Sherwood returns to Russia. “Life and the animating idea of ​​Russia so engulfed my whole being that I was careless and unworthy indifferent to my English past,” he wrote in his diary.

Russia is becoming his real homeland. Philosophical searches lead him to the conviction that the most important type of Russian art is architecture. "I would like to do in architecture what Glinka did in music - take all his works, romances, dances, choirs, quartets and, finally, opera, you will see Glinka everywhere and Russian music everywhere ... This is a feature that you can to trace in all the works of Glinka, that is, the way to express, - and makes up the style ".

It was during the reign of Alexander III on the territory of the Russian state that a number of unique monuments were created, the author of which was the famous architect Ivan Nikolaevich Schröder (1835 – 1908), one of the authors of the Millennium of Russia monument erected in Veliky Novgorod in 1862.

In 1881, by order of the emperor, Schroeder created a monument to Catherine II for Tsarskoye Selo.

Great was the role of the emperor in the formation and establishment in Russia of the art of Carl Faberge. In 1885, Emperor Alexander III appointed Faberge as a court jeweler. “He would have remained known as a wonderful master and a wonderful artist,” wrote the English researcher Buf, “while his appointment to such a position gave him (Faberge) the opportunity to become legendary.” Being a Frenchman by birth, Faberge, ardently loving Russia, absorbed the Russian spirit so much that, as he said himself, he felt like a Russian person. According to Bufa, “first of all he was Russian, and Russian culture touched him as much as all the artists who worked in Russia, including foreigners who came here ...”

With Faberge, a new era began in jewelry art - the era of imperial Easter eggs, which lasted more than thirty years.

In his works, Faberge, who was given complete freedom in the choice of plot and execution of the order, responded to the most important events in the life of Russia. One of the most impressive works was the Easter egg “The Great Siberian Way”. By order of the emperor, an Easter egg “Memory of Azov” was made, dedicated to the journey to the East of the royal sons.

Faberge left his descendants and another creation dedicated to the emperor - a model of the remarkable monument to Trubetskoy, erected on Znamenskaya Square in 1910 year. The egg was made of rock crystal, on top of platinum. Inside was placed in gold equestrian statue of Alexander III.

The emperor strongly supported the performing and composing activities of Anton Rubinstein. “It is pleasant to think that this artist, dominating in his own way, belongs to Russia,” wrote the chief procurator of the Synod of Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. “By his birth, by his upbringing, by family and social relations and relationships, by habits and lifestyle - Anton Rubinstein is Russian, and remains in Russia, despite the brilliant suggestions that have been made to him more than once abroad ...”

“The aspiration of the monarch,” wrote the philosopher Ilyin, “was aimed not only at the material and cultural support of his subjects, but also at facilitating their attainment of the highest spiritual and religious ideal.” The latter was all the more important because this higher spiritual and religious ideal was at the same time a source of higher cultural and creative values ​​that justify and rejoice at human life on earth, the very life which, due to the fallen state of human nature, too often tends to turn into hell "

Russia was in no way a prison of nations, as some Soviet historians tried to convince us, and it was a melting pot for people of different nationalities and religions, which the imperial power greatly contributed to. For a common cultural space could really unite Russia. Many prominent figures of Russian culture were not Russian by blood, but they remained in the memory of their descendants as the brightest representatives of Russian culture of the 19th century.

Understanding the tremendous importance of the role of culture in a multi-ethnic state, Emperor Alexander III believed that "the spread of art is a matter of national importance." Tchaikovsky wrote to Alexander III in June 1887 from Borjomi: “In Tiflis, an excellent, stately theater is being built for state sums ... In order for the theater to be arranged and open, the 235 sum of thousands of rubles in silver is needed ...” And the emperor ordered the allocation of necessary funds for the speedy completion of the construction of the Tiflis theater, which later received the name of Zakharia Paliashvili.

Yes, Alexander III followed the policy of Russification of the country, because the Russian people gave a talk of general state life, the emperor did not sympathize with the extreme chauvinists, because he understood that they were discrediting the government and the Russian people. This is evidenced by his phrase: “It is easy for them with their balaban patriotism, when they are not responsible for anything. I will not give offense to Russia. " They do not stand up to criticism of a number of historical publishers that Alexander III was an anti-Semite. Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn in his book “Two hundred years together (1795 – 1995)” responded to this accusation:

“... After 1917, a group of researchers carefully searched for evidence on all opened state archives - and found only the opposite, starting with the fact that Alexander III himself demanded a vigorous investigation (facts of pogroms in Russia after 1881 of the year - Yu.K.). But someone nameless invented and sent poisonous slander around the world: Alexander III — it is not known to anyone, it is not known when and under what circumstances — he said: “And I, I confess, I am glad when they beat the Jews!” And - it was published in emigre liberation pamphlets entered liberal folklore, and even now in 100 years, until now, it emerges in publications as historical authenticity ... "

Departing from life, the king told his son, the future Emperor Nicholas II: “Your grandfather from the height of the throne carried out many important reforms aimed at the benefit of the Russian people. As a reward for all this, he received a bomb and death from the “Russian revolutionaries” ... On that tragic day, I was confronted with a question: what is the way to go? Whether it was the so-called “advanced society” that infected me with the liberal ideas of the West, or the one that my own conviction told me, my supreme sacred duty of the Sovereign and my conscience. I have chosen my path. Liberals dubbed it reactionary. I was interested only in the good of my people and the greatness of Russia. I tried to give the inner and outer world so that the state could develop freely and calmly, grow stronger, grow rich and prosper ”.

The greatest works of Russian culture during the reign of Alexander III are a national treasure of our country to this day.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dmitry 2246
    Dmitry 2246 25 January 2014 08: 33
    I respect Alexander III and the answer to fishing.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 25 January 2014 11: 12
      In the photo in the article itself, Alexandre 2 Alexander's father 3.

      And the phrase of Alexander 3 - remains for centuries and is relevant to this day - Russia has only two allies: the army and the navy!
      1. nnz226
        nnz226 25 January 2014 18: 52
        Correctly he had the nickname: "Peacemaker"! He sent all of Europe and "soyuznichkov" in 3 letters, not wanting to shed Russian blood. But his son - he was led to the promises of a gay European, here in the basement he ended his life, and brought his whole family to the finish line ...
        1. Maks111
          Maks111 28 January 2014 12: 42
          And here is his son - led on geyropeyskih promises, here in the basement and he himself finished being, and his whole family to the finish line ..
          And your bald fag *** ace in which there was not a drop of Russian blood, who worked for foreign states and drowned Russia in blood the better?
    2. Interface
      Interface 26 January 2014 20: 43
      And the "Golden" decade of Russian industry with the beginning of the industrialization of the Russian Empire, for the new armored fleet, in short, a long story is said in the film, was shown recently.
  2. avt
    avt 25 January 2014 11: 07
    It was not for nothing that this tsar caused and causes simply gag reflexes in liberoids of all stripes - adherents of “universal human values.” “Society is based on moral principles ... Nothing is based on meat, on an economic idea, on the transformation of stones into bread ... Nations live not only concern about the price of the ruble and exchange speculation, but with great feeling and great unifying and illuminating thought, unification with the people ... National power is born when the people involuntarily recognize the upper people with them at the same time. "------- request good You can’t say better than Dostoevsky, and the tsar, judging by his deeds, understood this.
  3. pRofF
    pRofF 25 January 2014 12: 18
    One of the few rulers who really did a lot for the country. If he had lived 20 for years, a lot could have been different. Therefore, his premature death raises certain questions. Indeed, as it was - under pressure from a number of government circles, Alexander III concluded an allied treaty with France - which would later lead to the Entente and the First World War. And after that - after a short time - died.
    And after his death, someone started the rumor that he was a drunken drunk - the famous flask behind his boot. Although this is a rare nonsense. What they say and not biased historians.
    1. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 25 January 2014 16: 25
      The agreement with France is a separate issue, suffice it to say that at the time of the conclusion it was beneficial to Russia. But the fact that Alexander III was poisoned by me is beyond doubt.
      1. smile
        smile 25 January 2014 17: 41
        By the way, when dad lay dying, the hefty horse Kolya 2, being a guards officer, judging by his diary entries, regularly climbed onto the roof of the house in which his father lay, and arranged daily "shootouts" with chestnuts with the teenage prince, if sclerosis was not cheats, Bulgarian .... degradant ...
        1. Veteran Vlad.
          Veteran Vlad. 25 January 2014 22: 58
          Did you Pikul read "Unclean Power"?
          1. anomalocaris
            anomalocaris 26 January 2014 00: 34
            No. This is written in his published diaries. Read, I highly recommend it. Extremely sobering reading.
            1. dv-v
              dv-v 27 January 2014 11: 53
              it’s no longer proper to not know that these diaries are fake.
              1. anomalocaris
                anomalocaris 5 February 2014 17: 08
                Yeah. Everything is fake ...
  4. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 25 January 2014 12: 18
    It's a shame that the right person was not in the right place and on the Russian throne in the era of terrible trials it was not a man like Alexander III but his son, a henpecked rag.
  5. 25 January 2014 13: 53
    Commentary on the equestrian statue of Alexander III, the peacemaker, by Paolo Trubetskoy - "there is a chest of drawers, on a chest of drawers, a hippopotamus, on a hippopotamus -": here is a commentary on the magnificent monument from the predecessors and thinkers of our liberals. And after all, the ONLY STATE, caring for Russia (I ask you not to mention the law "On Cook's Children" in vain, first sort out the heritage of the proletarian culture yourself, then roll it out and present it).
    1. Alex_on
      Alex_on 27 January 2014 07: 33
      Lomonosov M.V. also the legacy of the proletcult?
      1. 27 January 2014 17: 23
        Quote: Alex_on
        Lomonosov M.V. also the legacy of the proletcult?

        Are you kidding? I will answer. There was such an organization in Russia in the 20s of the last century for implanting "proletarian culture" into the masses, which declared all previously existing culture to be politically harmful. Adepts were A.V. Lunacharsky (did you read anything useful for yourself and your family?), Director V. Meerhold (he seemed to want to insert a REAL execution into some performance!).
        Do not touch MV Lomonosov, read better M.V. Lomonosov. "Ancient Russian history from the beginning of the Russian people to the death of Grand Duke Yaroslav the first or until 1054."
  6. saygon66
    saygon66 25 January 2014 14: 18
    - Yes ... The tsar was serious, and he knew his business tightly. He "steered" the Empire overseas without looking back, did not curry favor with anyone, but he did not threaten anyone either ... and after all, they listened to Russia, and respected, and feared, as probably never before ...
  7. Galinanp
    Galinanp 25 January 2014 19: 29
    "Alexander III drove all the Russian liberal rubbish into the cauldron and tightly sealed its lid. His heir unsealed and opened this lid, which ultimately led to the death of the Empire and himself and his family."
    Unfortunately I do not remember the author of these lines.
  8. Sour
    Sour 25 January 2014 20: 30
    In principle, San Sanych did almost everything right.
    1) Carried out a competent industrial and customs policy. The Russian economy did not know such growth rates either before or after it. Over 10 years, from 1887 to 1997, industrial production in Russia doubled. Each year 3-5 thousand kilometers of railways were built. The financial situation was generally exemplary. Gold circulation was introduced, the ruble was the hardest currency in the world.
    2) Foreign policy was also competent. Russia did not have any significant wars under Alexander III.
    3) Extremist and terrorist movements such as "Narodnaya Volya" were harshly suppressed. The liberals were made clear that their business was to chat in the kitchen, not to run the state.
    However, there were also disadvantages:
    1) Nothing was done to improve the situation of the peasantry. Reforms of the Stolypin type could have been carried out 25 years earlier, without any problems. But Alexander did not have his Stolypin. And in 1906, these reforms were very late.
    2) Little was done for the rearmament of the army and navy, which affected the Russo-Japanese War. The fleet did not develop properly. And the army retained an outdated training system for officers and soldiers. The production of ammunition was not enough.
    Well, he died early. But he could not bring up a good successor.
    1. 26 January 2014 11: 33
      Well, from your comment, as a result, a ma-a-scarlet plus sign, very similar to the minus for Alexander III - "Peacemaker". And somehow you are familiar with Him (San Sanych ??) Yes, it was just that he was a normal, adequate leader who "sent" the lovely Geyropa to a well-known place and tried to do something useful for Russia (at least grow a beard). Among the novels, there are only two adequate tsars - Nicholas I (Pavlovich) and Alexander III (Peacemaker).
      1. Sour
        Sour 26 January 2014 15: 27
        I am expressing my position here, and not chasing the pluses. San Sanych is not familiarity, but respect. And I do not agree with your assessment of Nicholas the 1st. It was a key time for Russia. And not only for Russia. Then all over the world, new technologies developed at an unprecedented pace, the most advanced at that time - steam engines, electricity, open-hearth furnaces and converters, hydraulic machines, rolling mills, telegraphs, mechanical looms, railways, and chemical plants. But in Russia there was complete stagnation, and the emperor did not even do anything to abolish serfdom, which was long overdue. The technological backwardness of Russia from the West was outlined precisely then. The era of Nicholas 1 - the time of missed opportunities for Russia. And not one of the emperors of Russia is guilty of the collapse of the empire to the same extent as Nicholas I. All his rule (and this is the 1 most important, from the point of view of science and technology, years) has been wasted for Russia. For three decades, the country was ruled by the emperor, who was most keen on drill training.
        If you put someone from the Romanovs on a pedestal, then Alexander the 1st. With all its cons, he won the World War. The war of 1812-1815 was the World War, and nothing else. And the balance of power in 1812 was even worse for us than in 1941.
 27 January 2014 17: 08
          Strange, you presented yourself to me as a patriot ... but for some reason you paint the image of Nicholas I in the manners chosen by the democrats. Well, I have my opinion.
          Many thanks to Nicholas I (Aleksandrovich) for not flinching at a difficult moment and dispersed the then "Maidan" with grapeshot. He was humane, he pulled up only five, but he could have been more (in the aggregate of the accomplished). Read by A. Bushkov how the bar exiled to "hard labor" behaved, read and compare with the image of the Frenchwoman Polina Gebl-Annenkova, sung in V. Motyl's film "The Star of Captivating Happiness" (according to her behavior A. Bushkov noticed that if remove the letter "G" in her last name ... in a word you will not find a better characteristic).
          He understood correctly: "The Englishwoman is crap!" Yes, only in European politics he followed the policy of the "Holy Alliance" prescribed by papa, whose conductor was his Foreign Minister Karl Nesselrode (imagine, in those days, "Nikolai Palkin" - and at the head of the Ministry of Industry was a pure cosmopolitan!). However, the Kingdom of Poland was kept within the boundaries of the empire, otherwise it would have been boshes, taking into account 1915. would have squeezed out Russian troops approximately to Smolensk.
          Yes, and the Caucasus did not give Turkey, Persia "built". And as for science, this is not a tsarist business ... Although here is the Pulkovo Observatory in 1839, the first railway St. Petersburg - Tsarskoe Selo in 1937 (before the opening of the Warsaw-Vienna railway in 1840, it was the only one in the country, the 6th in the world).
          My opinion: he honestly deserved a monument on St. Isaac's Square!
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 27 January 2014 10: 10
      Quote: Sour
      The fleet did not develop properly.

      Why? The ships were laid down quite modern. Remember the "Poltava" series. Upon learning about these ships, the British laid a huge series of their "Majestic". After "Rurik" the era of armored cruisers began. According to the fleet development plan from 1882, they were supposed to build approx. 10-12 squadron battleships. With this plan, Japan could just nervously smoke on the sidelines.
      Our battleships were only being built for a long time, and kapets for how long. But this is apparently our misfortune.
    3. dv-v
      dv-v 27 January 2014 11: 59
      among a heap of simply odiously ignorant of domestic history one was found with how many clear arguments ...

      well, try to answer for yourself what witte had to save the Russian economy from, whether from the legacy of daddy nicholas the second?
      and introduce the rudiments of Loris-Melikov’s constitutional reform, or rather, if you had lived the second longer and carried out that reform, would the 1905 happen, and if so, which one? for some reason, I’m sure that October 17th would not have happened unambiguously.
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 27 January 2014 14: 41
        Quote: dv-v
        introduce the rudiments of Loris-Melikov’s constitutional reform, or rather, if you had lived the second longer and carried out that reform, would the 1905 happen, and if so, which one? for some reason I’m sure that October 17 would not have happened unambiguously.

        I'm just wondering - what is your confidence based on? And what is this magic word "Constitution" that protects against revolutionary unrest, discontent and the desire to overthrow the ruling power?
  9. Uhe
    Uhe 25 January 2014 22: 18
    Of the entire galaxy of vile Germans "Romanovs" there were two decent, Russian tsars - Nicholas 1 and Alexander 3. These exceptions only confirm the truth: the tsarism of the Horde-Byzantine style for Russia is evil.
    1. pRofF
      pRofF 26 January 2014 11: 24
      I will make a small amendment, if I may. You forgot about Catherine II. And about her son - Paul I. Paul was just killed because he decided to pursue an independent policy, that is, do not go in the wake of England. He agreed with Napoleon, and as a result, the corps of Massena-Platov set off towards India. And his son, who, Alexander I, after a short time with Napoleon, was dispersed ....., and in the end we got Austerlitz, Friedland and the fire of Moscow 1812 year to heap.
      As for "tsarism" - as you call it - here, in my opinion, you are only partially right. Time has thoroughly proved that the most suitable type of government for our country is one-man government, because Russia (Rus) throughout its history lives and develops in the position of a besieged fortress. And no demagoguery such as a republic, democracy, parliament and other things is unacceptable in such conditions. As for the autocracy, everything depends on the personality of the ruler and the upbringing given to him.
      Sincerely, Egor.
      1. dv-v
        dv-v 27 January 2014 12: 13
        "Moscow time fire", if cho, exclusively ours, Russian, handiwork.

        time has thoroughly proved that authoritarianism, whether under the head of a monomakh or under the shadow of something else, inevitably leads to cataclysms. We are not China, and somehow I am not sure that the safety margin of the system under the name "Russia" will last and withstand the same amount.
  10. Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 25 January 2014 22: 34
    At one of the receptions, the French ambassador comes up to Alexander3 and says: "Your Majesty, is it true that people in your country eat buckwheat?"
    “True, the emperor says.”
    And in our country they only feed cattle with a smile, the ambassador says.
    "Is it true that you eat frogs in France?" the emperor asks in response.
    “True, the ambassador says.”
    And we don’t even feed cattle with them, says Alexander3.
  11. RoTTor
    RoTTor 26 January 2014 20: 05
    He knew how to select personnel: Witte is the best example, railway kings.
    But the Russian officers under him were lowered, like the Soviet officers under the maize: starting from the uniform, ending with money and losing prestige in society.
    His son, as all who knew him indicated, the man was decent, but his upper limit was the regimental commander.
    So, he didn’t prepare the heir to the throne for entry into
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 27 January 2014 10: 14
      Quote: RoTTor
      So, he didn’t prepare the heir to the throne for entry into

      I agree with that. But there was a reason for that. Alex3 Pts He loved his children, was in the prime of life (both physical and mental), so he believed that he should attract the heir to the state. affairs and all secrets still in time. And he died very quickly and as it turned out - did not have time ((((
  12. Cormorants
    Cormorants 27 January 2014 11: 45
    There were people at that time. For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland.
  13. ddd1975
    ddd1975 28 January 2014 11: 08
    Yes, my little son pissed away everything ... He did not do the main thing in his life - he did not bring up the receiver. I won’t understand anything - why canonized Nicholas 2 ???