Military Review

Don Quixote autocracy

67
Don Quixote autocracy



During the reign of Nicholas I, Russia again ceased to be Europe

The reign of Nicholas I, which lasted almost three decades, is often called the apogee of autocracy: Russia, saving European thrones from revolutions, systematizing its own laws for the first time and giving management a kind of clear system, seemed to be an exemplary state - proof that the monarchy can do without constitution. But behind the brilliant façade was a number of unresolved problems that would cost dearly to both Nicholas and his heirs - the question of abolishing serfdom, the growing economic and technological backwardness of Russia from Europe, the absence of civil liberties. As is known, the result of the reign of Nicholas was the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War. Contrary to the bravura statements, in which the tsar himself quite sincerely believed: “Where the Russian flag is raised, it should not descend there,” ultimately, the Russian Empire showed its weakness in the area that the emperor considered one of the most important . What did contemporaries think about the Nicholas era and the emperor himself?

Not a humanist


Nicholas I is known for his desire to enter into the smallest details of public affairs - the personality of the emperor, his ideas and common sense could not help but reflect on the course by which the state moved. “When people talk about Russia, they talk about Emperor Nicholas,” the Austrian Chancellor Metternich once remarked in one of the letters to the Austrian envoy in St. Petersburg, Count Fikelmon. That is why, in order to understand his epoch and the state system created by him, one must first get an idea of ​​the personality of the emperor himself.

Nicholas should not be considered a soulless, limited man, as he was often tried to be represented in Soviet times. His letters indicate that he was genuinely grieving that his rule began with the suppression of the Decembrist uprising. “Your will is done: I am the emperor, but at what price, my God! At the price of the blood of my subjects! ”- the monarch writes to his brother Konstantin Pavlovich. However, Nicholas can not be considered a deep, spiritual man. Known unfriendly descriptions of the emperor, made by many of his contemporaries, - they often emphasize the cruel, cold and arrogant expression of the face of the sovereign. “He was beautiful, but the beauty of it doused with cold; there is no face that so ruthlessly exposed the character of a man as his face. The forehead, rapidly running backward, the lower jaw, developed at the expense of the skull, expressed inflexible will and weak thought, more cruelty than sensuality. But the main thing - the eyes, without any warmth, without any mercy, winter eyes, "- wrote about the appearance of Nicholas Herzen. At the same time, Nikolay is characterized from a good side by a number of features that his closest associates testified to: he was an excellent father of the family, a good and faithful spouse. The emperor was pious, in the morning and in the evening he always prayed on his knees for a long time.

The emperor who loved military orders adhered to Spartan customs in his life. Thus, Baroness Maria Fredericks recalled: “To himself Emperor Nicholas I was extremely strict, led the most abstinent life, he ate significantly little, mostly vegetables, drank nothing but water, sometimes a glass of wine and that, I do not know when this happened; at dinner I ate every evening a plate of the same soup of mashed potatoes, never smoked, but did not like others to smoke. He walked twice a day on foot, necessarily — early in the morning before breakfast and after lunch and at noon, he never rested in the afternoon. ” If the emperor was not feeling well, which, incidentally, happened very rarely, he would put on an old overcoat and sleep like a soldier — on a thin mattress full of hay. At work, the emperor spent 18 hours a day.

A major drawback of this statesman was that, unlike the brothers, Nicholas did not receive education and a systematic education, befitting a real emperor. As the king himself confessed, he "saw only compulsion in the teaching and studied without hunting." According to his own intellectual inclinations, he was not a humanist, as they would say today: he valued technical and military sciences above other sciences. For the statesman of this baggage was obviously not enough. Some practical knowledge about his country and life abroad could give two trips that he made at 20-year-old: driving through a number of Russian provinces, Nikolay saw many of the troubles of his country with his own eyes, and in the UK he became acquainted with the fruits of civilization, created in the most advanced state at that time.

Nikolay himself recognized his lack of education and even tried to fill this gap - however, he was not created for office classes. This feature of his personality was not a secret for European monarchs either: for example, Queen Victoria wrote about the Russian Tsar: “His mind was not processed, his education was careless.” This lack of education and a certain narrowness of outlook will further play their sad role.

Vanity


It should be noted that the first steps of the new emperor aroused enthusiasm in society: Pushkin was returned from exile, Vasily Zhukovsky, a supporter of liberal views, was appointed mentor to the heir - the future Alexander II. Apparently, initially Nikolai was determined to rule in the spirit of the late Alexander Pavlovich. “He came to the throne with a very modest supply of political ideas, which his elder brother brought so much here,” historian Vasily Klyuchevsky will rightly write about Nicholas. For example, Nikolai was inclined to think about the need to abolish serfdom - this idea he learned from the lectures of Academician Storch, who taught him political economy; of course, he was aware of his brother’s intention to destroy this archaic institution. In addition, the process of the Decembrists showed him that one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction with the autocracy is the inability of the tsarist government to carry out the liberation of the peasants.


Portrait of the Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky (1844-1911)

However, Nikolay had even less ideas about how to do this than his brother. Despite the fact that the new emperor took some steps to discuss the problem - for example, in 1839 he set up a secret committee to deal with changing the life of serfs, over the years the emperor lost interest in this problem, probably not seeing a way to solve it without to shake the foundations of the state. Soon it became clear the difference between the characters of the two brothers - Nikolay, by inertia, was pursuing a course of reform, but did not have any definite plan how to carry them out.

One of the peculiarities of his reign was the “crusade” against corruption: the emperor initiated regular audits of state institutions and even himself participated in some of them. “At first, perhaps, the new emperor was close to the idea of ​​reforms, under the fresh impression of the recently experienced events, but he set himself the immediate task of getting into the situation beforehand and began to diligently study the dirtiest details. He personally audited the nearest capital institutions: he would fly into some state chamber, frighten officials and leave, making everyone feel that he knows not only their affairs, but also their antics, ”he maliciously writes about Nicholas Klyuchevsky. The fight was extremely unsuccessful. “As a result,” Anna Tyutcheva writes, “he only piled up around his uncontrolled power a pile of colossal abuses, all the more pernicious, because they were covered by official legality from the outside, and that neither public opinion nor private initiative had the right to indicate them, opportunities to fight with them. ”

The euphoria about the accession of the new emperor disappeared before our eyes - it became obvious that Nicholas was striving to fight dissent. Among the major measures taken by him for this purpose, we can note the establishment in June of 1826, as part of the imperial office of the Third Division, which became the political police authority. Censorship was another way to fight dissent - he granted freedom of action to Conservative Alexander Shishkov, minister of public education, who developed a new censorship charter, which the society called “cast-iron”. Being too voluminous and confusing, the document was soon revised, however, the next charter was extremely tough. Moreover, over time, the number of institutions that could censor literary works and journal articles increased.

The fight against freethinking was not accidental in the politics of Nicholas - it stemmed from his views on the Russian state as not needing fundamental reforms, which over the years it only strengthened. “Nicholas set himself the task of not changing anything, not introducing anything new in the grounds, but only maintaining the existing order, filling in the gaps, repairing the dilapidated ones with practical legislation and doing all this without any public participation, even with the suppression of social independence, by government means alone; but he did not remove from the queue those pressing questions that were raised in the previous reign, and he seemed to understand their urgency even more than his predecessor. So, a conservative and bureaucratic mode of action is a characteristic of the new reign; to support the existing ones with the help of officials - this character can still be defined in this way, ”sums up the reign of Nikolai Klyuchevsky.


Conservative Education Minister Alexander Shishkov. Artist George Doe.
Ensign and Peter the Great

Many of those who believed in the good undertakings of Nicholas very soon became disillusioned with him. "There is a lot of ensign and a bit of Peter the Great in him," wrote Pushkin about Emperor Pushkin in the year 1834. That year, the emperor restricted the departure of the inhabitants of the empire abroad, and after 10 years completely banned young people younger than 25 from traveling to Europe - so that they would not pick up on revolutionary ideas. “What is there to learn? Asked the king, with surprise. “Our imperfection is in many ways better than their perfection.” In the same spirit were his judgments about European culture. “Goethe! This vile philosophy of yours, your vile Goethe, who is not a believer in anything, is the cause of the misfortunes of Germany! The emperor exclaimed, speaking of German literature. “These are your domestic heads — Schiller, Goethe and similar scoundrels who have prepared the present mess.”

The general conservatism of the Nicholas era was also manifested in the country's economy. The economic development of Russia in the Nikolayev era went extremely slowly. If in England over the years 30, iron production increased by 30 times, then in Russia - only in 2. Economist Nikolai Bunge, who will become Finance Minister under Alexander III, explained the reasons for Russia's industrial backwardness from Europe by the fact that the Nicholas government created unfavorable conditions for private capital activity: “The government was reluctant to allow public initiative in industry and commerce, ". At the end of the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, there were only 30 joint stock companies.

Under Nicholas, the deficit was constantly growing - in 1850, it exceeded 38 million rubles with a budget of 200 million. A significant part of the budget (up to 42%) was spent not on developing the country's economy, but on military needs. At the same time, the armament at the time of the beginning of the Crimean War was archaic: the fleet consisted mainly of sailing ships, while the British and French already had steam. In the reign of Nicholas 963 was built a mile and a half of the railways, but for such a huge country it was not much - for example, in the United States, which in the middle of the 19th century was not an advanced power, their total length was almost nine times larger. With the beginning of the Crimean War, the deficit began to grow even faster.

Terrible blow Nikolaev era struck on education. “Everything went back, the blood rushed to the heart, the activity hidden outside, began to boil, hiding inside, - not sparing the colors, Herzen describes the state of affairs in culture. - Moscow University survived and began to cut out the first because of the general fog. Sovereign hated him from Polezhayevskaya stories. He ... ordered the students to put on their uniform sertuks, ordered them to wear a sword, then forbade them to wear a sword; gave Polezhaev soldiers for poems, Kostenetsky and his comrades for prose, destroyed the Cretan for the bust, sent us into exile for Saint-Simonism, put Prince Sergei Mikhailovich Golitsyn as a trustee and did not deal more with "this hotbed of debauchery", piously advising young people who had completed the course in the lyceum and in the school of jurisprudence, do not join it. " In Herzen’s words about the emperor there is a certain amount of prejudice - the publisher of Kolokol was inclined to demonize this, by his expression, “broken-up jellyfish”. But one should not assume that only those who were inclined to the liberal or Westernist point of view adhered to a similar opinion about the Nicholas era - a year before the king’s death, Slavophile Alexey Khomyakov wrote about his country:

In the courts of black false black

And the yoke of the slavery of the brand;

Godless flattery, pernicious lies,

And laziness is dead and shameful,

And every abomination is full.


Portrait of Nicholas I Photo: wikipedia.org

Despite all this, it should be noted that the emperor was not a cruel man: for example, the execution of five Decembrists was the only penalty for all 30 years of Nikolai’s reign. "Deeply sincere in his convictions, often heroic and great in his devotion to the cause in which he saw the mission entrusted to him by providence, we can say that Nicholas I was a quixel of autocracy, a quixel terrible and malicious, because he had the omnipotence that allowed him subordinate everything to his fanatical and outdated theory and trample down the most legitimate aspirations and rights of his age, ”wrote Tyutcheva.

The end of the "Kalmyk demigod"

Without exaggeration, the death of the emperor caused a sigh of relief from the intelligentsia. So, historian Konstantin Kavelin, in a letter to his colleague, Professor Timofey Granovsky, could not hide his joy: “Kalmyk demigod, past a hurricane, a sword, and a skating rink, and a string on the Russian state during 30 years, cut out the faces of a thought, destroyed thousands of characters and minds who spent dissolutely on the trinkets of autocracy and vanity more money than all previous reigns, beginning with Peter I - this is the fiend of uniform education and the nasal side of Russian nature - it died at last, and this is the real truth. " The letter passed from hand to hand and provoked universal sympathy.

The lack of freedom, the passed edge of a reasonable protective policy of the emperor were condemned even by opposite-minded members of the public. Vera Aksakova, who is close to the Slavophile circles, wrote: “Everyone talks about sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich not only without irritation, but even with participation, wishing even to excuse him in many ways. But meanwhile everyone involuntarily feels that some kind of stone, some kind of press has been removed from each, somehow it has become easier to breathe; unprecedented hopes were suddenly revived, a hopeless situation, to the consciousness of which almost with despair at last everything came, suddenly seemed accessible to change. ”

The reign of Nicholas, which at first aroused vague hopes in society, toward its end turned into an example of “how not to be.” The emperor's son and successor, Alexander II, had to dig up the rubble of unsolved problems.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/society/donkihot-samoderjaviya-19656.html
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Shveps
    Shveps 21 November 2015 06: 34 New
    +8
    Quote from the article: "The death of the emperor, without exaggeration, caused a sigh of relief among the intelligentsia."

    "Strong monarch’s power is required, set by God himself, able to restrain and tame the impulses of human passions, and to establish obedience, harmony, peace and order in the state. Such power is precisely the Tsar’s power established by God Himself, not the strength of the crowd, not wealth and influence.” best "people - this is the power indicated above." Saint John of Kronstadt

    As a man with a severed head is no longer a man, but a stinking corpse, so Russia without the Tsar is a corpse stinking. "Elder Anthony (Potapov)

    These thoughts concern only Russians and those who consider themselves Russian. Jews, Chechens, etc., and so feel great.

    F.M.Dostoevsky: "A Russian man without God is rubbish, not a man"

    Paraphrase of the stanza "Belshazzar" Heine - the inscriptions on the wall in the room of the brutal murder of the Russian Tsar by foreigners and Gentiles:
    "And after that night when the King was ritually murdered
    There was no dawn on this country. "
    1. War and Peace
      War and Peace 21 November 2015 09: 03 New
      -3
      This article is nothing new, all this we have known since school. But what exactly was forbidden by the same censorship would be curious to know. For example, in a previous article, it became known that Alexander1 gave freedom to Polish and Finnish peasants, and the Russians did not, respectively, and so apparently this was the reason for the indignation in society and resulted in December speeches. What specific freedoms did the kings of that time strangle? they don’t tell us about it, but even if they say it’s the same thing. And all this is not casual in the world a lot of things happened Great Britain, the USA, France divided the world as they wanted, established their rules, and Russia remained on the sidelines and the reason for this was the king is strange. The Ottoman-Ataman empire changed its essence in 1826 there was a suppression of the Janissary speech and a country where Russian was as freely used as the Turkic language was all changed, the USA destroyed Indians and bison-MILLIONS, in India suppressed the sepoys and other popular indignation, Austria it destroyed and colonized the South Slavs with all its might, France crushed the ancient Mameluk state in Egypt, some processes were going on in Poland that we weren’t told about, and it was a total planting of Catholicism and the creation of its own language so unlike the old Slavic, which in fact was RUSSIAN.Russian the people were essentially removed from all world processes and clogged by tsarism, like a barrel lid.
      But in the world there were a lot of interesting things. Catherine defeated a state such as Great Tartaria, but this state also shared in the second half of the 19th century, for example, SEA FLAGS of different countries published in the USA in 1865, so the flags of Great Tartaria are visible on it, the image is not attached
      http://www.kramola.info/vesti/letopisi-proshlogo/flag-i-gerb-tartarii




      1. alexej123
        alexej123 22 November 2015 01: 54 New
        +1
        What school did you study in, Soviet? They did not give such facts for Nikolai 1. There was one thing - the strangler of freedom, the Decembrists, Pushkin, etc. The article is definitely PLUS. The author gives various facts and allows the reader to make an assessment, unlike others - well, for example, for booking ships, aircraft carriers, etc.
  2. blizart
    blizart 21 November 2015 07: 08 New
    +4
    With all the shortcomings of the monarchy - as a system, then at least it was clear who was responsible for everything, at least to history.
  3. rkkasa xnumx
    rkkasa xnumx 21 November 2015 07: 19 New
    +2
    Probably the main mistake of Nicholas I was that he failed to assess the importance of railways in time.
    1. venaya
      venaya 21 November 2015 10: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      Probably the main mistake of Nicholas I was that he failed to assess the importance of railways in time.

      Under Nicholas I, the construction of railways began, in honor of him the railway Moscow - S.-Pb. called Nikolaevskaya, now renamed October. His son built the road Arkhangelsk - Sevastopol through Moscow, which connected the three seas, and his grandson Alexander III built a transib to Dalniy and Vladivostok.
      1. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 21 November 2015 11: 08 New
        +5
        Quote: venaya
        Under Nicholas I began the construction of railways

        That's exactly what has just begun. And nothing more.
        In total, up to 1860, approximately 100 thousand km of railways were built, of which almost 50 thousand in the USA, 16,8 thousand in the UK, 11,6 thousand in Germany and 9,5 thousand km in France.
        By 1860, the railway network of Russia had a length of about 1590 km.

        For an example, how important the railway transport could play - V. A. Kokorev in the article “Economic failures” indicated:
        If the road from Moscow to the Black Sea was started by construction in 1841, then Russia would not have felt the impossibility of repulsing an enemy that landed near Sevastopol in the amount of 70 thousand with a million of the best in the world. However, the landing itself could not have happened when if Europe knew that our troops by rail, without any fatigue, could appear on the shores of the Black Sea in a few days.
      2. ANTI.KORR.
        ANTI.KORR. 21 November 2015 14: 17 New
        +3
        Quote: venaya
        His son built the road Arkhangelsk - Sevastopol, through Moscow, which connected the three seas

        Where do you get this data?
        You will soon begin to write that the development of "Satan" began under Nicholas 2, and with these missiles he was going to export an overabundance of grain and other abundance, achieved by 1913, to Yusiya! good
        But the evil Bolsheviks, who were led by the "bloody" Lenin (do not forget to mention that they were eating children), prevented the plans of the white-fluffy seven of the Romanovs from coming true! laughing
        Insanity grows stronger ..... belay
  4. Patriot C
    Patriot C 21 November 2015 07: 50 New
    -3
    Nicholas 1 became the main culprit in the disaster that befell the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century. He was obliged to abolish serfdom at the beginning of his reign + to carry out effective land reform, but this was not carried out, time was lost. As a result, the country lagged further and further from the advanced states. The climax was the complete defeat in the Crimean War, the loss of the Black Sea Fleet and Crimea itself.
    1. Self-willed
      Self-willed 21 November 2015 07: 53 New
      +7
      Quote: PatriotC
      Crimea itself.

      Yah? belay
    2. kashtak
      kashtak 21 November 2015 12: 52 New
      +6
      Quote: PatriotC
      The apogee was a complete defeat in the Crimean War

      let's count 1Britania 2 France 3 Turkey 4 Kingdom of Sardin plus troops brought to the border (probably for a picnic) Austrian troops. the coalition is no weaker than the anti-French era of Napoleon. three years of war compare results. captured half a town and three villages on the border. it is in the Crimea. in Turkey, Russian troops took several cities and quite successfully recaptured the landing forces in several places of the empire, and what about the French in 1812-14? What do you call total defeat?
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 21 November 2015 14: 26 New
        +2
        The defeat in the Crimean War was primarily socio-economic and foreign policy, Russia was left without allies and with a weak economy. Despite the defense of Sevastopol, the battles in the Crimea - Alminskoye, Inkermanskoye, on the Black River were lost due to the technical backwardness of weapons.
        1. kashtak
          kashtak 21 November 2015 15: 11 New
          +4
          Quote: Rastas
          battles in Crimea - Alminskoye, Inkermanskoye, on the Black River were lost due to the technical backwardness of weapons
          specify in what? I’ll say right away that the Anglo-French rifles at 1000 m could not shoot. a maximum of 200m can at 250m like domestic by the way. artillery was no worse than this is confirmed by the results of attempts to shell from the sea. armadillos, but about the mines of Jacobi heard armored battery rafts? so where is the backwardness?
          Quote: Rastas
          The defeat in the Crimean War was primarily socio-economic and foreign policy, Russia was left without allies

          without allies, Russia remained before the war. as a result of the conflict of interests in the Balkans, which were seen by European countries as a corridor to the new colonies in central Asia and the Middle East.
          Quote: Rastas
          with a weak economy

          Yes, factories were few, it had a very clear economic justification. but they were by no means retarded. and even more so, it has nothing to do with the war. Russia has preserved the entire territory. demilitarization of the black sea? yes, but the same was true for Turkey. and the anti-Russian coalition collapsed immediately after the war, and the British attempts to develop success failed miserably. so what is the defeat?
          1. Rastas
            Rastas 21 November 2015 16: 05 New
            +2
            Read Eugene Tarle's Crimean War - there are all the answers. You have to write too much.
            1. kashtak
              kashtak 21 November 2015 17: 11 New
              +2
              I will not read Rezun either. and I do not advise you.
              1. Rastas
                Rastas 21 November 2015 18: 05 New
                +1
                Do you compare Tarle with Rezun? Sorry, I thought you were adequate, I was wrong.
                1. kashtak
                  kashtak 21 November 2015 18: 29 New
                  +2
                  I do not compare, did not read. but judging by what we have to answer here, it is entirely possible to assume the content. apparently read something similar repeatedly. defeat (sometimes even shameful) because Russia had few steamers, steam locomotives, and rifles could even shoot at artillery. and the tactics were certainly outdated, right? and what were the steam engines then? how could they especially help? I already wrote about rifles here. and artillery then stood almost ahead of the infantry. and tactics on both sides were comparable. if I am mistaken, write in what? however agree agitated apologize.
                  1. Rastas
                    Rastas 21 November 2015 22: 18 New
                    -1
                    A. I did not read, but I condemn. It’s familiar.
                    1. kashtak
                      kashtak 21 November 2015 22: 38 New
                      +1
                      Quote: kashtak
                      if I am mistaken, write in what?

                      Quote: Rastas
                      I have not read it, but I condemn it. It’s familiar.

                      that is, in essence, the assumptions are true or close to that? I judge by the lack of constructive claims. write if I'm wrong then I always admit it.
                      1. Rastas
                        Rastas 21 November 2015 23: 00 New
                        0
                        Tarle is a historian, unlike Rezun, and also a historian recognized throughout the world. His biography of Napoleon, written in the mid-30s, became a bestseller in the USSR, was translated into many languages. What kind of patriot are you, if you don’t even know such people, haven’t you read?
                      2. kashtak
                        kashtak 22 November 2015 07: 57 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Rastas
                        Tarle is a historian, unlike Rezun, and also a historian recognized throughout the world. His biography of Napoleon, written in the mid-30s, became a bestseller in the USSR, was translated into many languages. What kind of patriot are you, if you don’t even know such people, haven’t you read?

                        Of course I know who Tarle is. although to be honest at first it was a sin on 2 entries. you know the proverb "out of my head", but I'm not a historian. Then I wanted to wait for your opinion. It seems I can’t wait. and I treat the historians who wrote before 50 g. if you follow the entire chain of footnotes to the primary sources of information, you will often come to English newspapers of the 19th century. Of these, data were often taken to analyze the classics. and the rest are behind them. the mind is powerful and the source material is doubtful. you think their opinion is absolute, but I do not. hence the discrepancy.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Morrrow
          Morrrow 21 November 2015 16: 17 New
          -2
          so what is the defeat?
          Russia ceased to be a great power
          1. kashtak
            kashtak 21 November 2015 16: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: Morrrow
            so what is the defeat?
            Russia ceased to be a great power

            yah!? and what is it expressed in? maybe in Skobelev’s campaigns? or the works of Mendeleev? or maybe in the gold medals that the "backward" industry of Russia received at international exhibitions? or in the enthusiastic stories about Russia by A. Dumas? read if not read.
            1. Morrrow
              Morrrow 21 November 2015 18: 01 New
              -3
              It is expressed in the complete loss of the German allies, in the inability to dictate their will to Europe.
              1. kashtak
                kashtak 21 November 2015 18: 53 New
                +2
                Quote: Morrrow
                It is expressed in the complete loss of the German allies, in the inability to dictate their will to Europe.

                the break with the Germans occurred much later for other reasons.
                1. Morrrow
                  Morrrow 21 November 2015 21: 25 New
                  -2
                  No, already then the Austrians made it clear that we were not your helpers. And the Prussians generally threw Nicholas. First, with the title of Louis, they stuck it, and then in general they pretended that they were not friends with the Russians and owed them their vile kingdom
      2. alexej123
        alexej123 22 November 2015 01: 57 New
        +3
        The defeat was more moral, especially the abandonment of the navy in the Black Sea.
    3. Morrrow
      Morrrow 21 November 2015 16: 13 New
      -1
      Russia went to the conditions of Napoleon 3. This is a defeat. By then, Russia had pursued a 40-year anti-French policy.
      1. kashtak
        kashtak 21 November 2015 16: 25 New
        +1
        Russia agreed to the terms of Napoleon 3 or the anti-Russian coalition was forced to offer acceptable conditions. Is it a defeat or a victory? given the difference in strength is more likely a victory.
        1. Rastas
          Rastas 21 November 2015 17: 08 New
          +1
          If you familiarize yourself with the conditions of the Paris world in 1856, namely: the rejection of the fortifications of the Aland Islands; consent to freedom of navigation on the Danube; abandonment of the protectorate over Wallachia, Moldova and Serbia, cession of possessions at the mouth of the Danube and part of Southern Bessarabia, according to Art. III return of Turkey Kars along with the fortresses of Bayazet, Ardahan, Kagizman, Olty and a position 5,5 km from Erzurum; according to Art. XI on the neutralization of the Black Sea - a ban on having a navy in the Black Sea; Art. XIII prohibition to create naval arsenals and fortresses on the coast. This, as it were, clearly does not speak of victory, but rather of defeat, in which there was nothing terrible.
          1. kashtak
            kashtak 21 November 2015 17: 25 New
            0
            in other words, Russia returned "to its original" without gaining but without losing. there could be no complete victory with such enemies, miracles do not happen. no one could achieve more. Bonaparte could not. that's where the defeat was. and the Black Sea Fleet was restored a few years later. most importantly, Russia did not allow itself to defeat.
            1. Morrrow
              Morrrow 21 November 2015 17: 57 New
              -3
              So Napoleon 3 did this. Read his letter to Nikolai. You can win without taking the capital. You can take the capital, but lose the war. Napoleon 3 defeated the Russian fleet and defended the Turks and regained the prestige of France.
              1. kashtak
                kashtak 21 November 2015 18: 49 New
                +1
                Quote: Morrrow
                Read his letter to Nikolai. You can win without taking the capital. You can take the capital, but lose the war. Napoleon 3 defeated the Russian fleet and defended the Turks and regained the prestige of France.

                Thanks for the advice I will look. that's just a little hard to believe that the Turks worried France.
                1. Morrrow
                  Morrrow 21 November 2015 19: 21 New
                  -1
                  He was worried about the prestige of France and the Bonapartists in the country.
                  1. kashtak
                    kashtak 21 November 2015 19: 27 New
                    +1
                    here I completely agree. but he also worried about Britain.
                    1. Morrrow
                      Morrrow 21 November 2015 21: 12 New
                      -1
                      And Nicholas, with his anti-French policy, brought the French to white heat. For the French, a fight with the Russians was a matter of honor. Therefore, Napoleon and concluded an alliance with the British, so that they intimidated the German allies of Russia. But in general, the British had far-reaching plans: they wanted to reduce the territory of Russia by a quarter, mainly in the West, in contrast to the French, who simply wanted to fill the Russian face to strengthen their prestige.
                      In general, Nikolay himself asked for it - he taught the French all his life how to live. Starting from theatrical productions ending with titles and state structure. The reign of Louis of Orleans, he called it - "an abomination on the throne." Who will like it?
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Pissarro
                Pissarro 21 November 2015 20: 12 New
                +3
                In order not to pass for zviz.dab.olom can tell us in what battle the Russian fleet was defeated. Or at least the name of the Russian ship sunk by the French?
                He regained his prestige, fought for three years for the sake of a zero result. Then, by the way, the Fritz drained it near Sedan with the full approval of Russia.
                1. Morrrow
                  Morrrow 21 November 2015 21: 16 New
                  -2
                  Why battle? Enough of the demonstration. He regained prestige and leadership for the whole 15 years. This is a lot. With that anti-French policy of Nicholas, he had a lot of choice. Or do you also think that the Russian emperor should determine how the French live?
                  1. kashtak
                    kashtak 21 November 2015 22: 02 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Morrrow
                    Or do you also think that the Russian emperor should determine how the French live?

                    how to live the French is the business of the French, how to live the Russian is the business of Russians. Do not forget about the French policy towards Russia. one sponsorship of riots in Poland is worth it. Do you think about Nicholas in France only expressed correctly? so what did you want? as they say, the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                2. Aleksander
                  Aleksander 21 November 2015 21: 53 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Pissarro
                  Then, by the way, the Fritz leaked it near Sedan with the full approval of Russia.

                  You got ahead of me ... Yes, despite all the cries of France for help, Russia silently supported Prussia in 1870, as a result of which France was crushed FOREVER. I mean her wild (terribly) fear of Germany all subsequent years, including the Great War, 2 and still..... yes
                  By the way, “offended” France (the main force of war) was the only country that did not receive NOTHING (except for tens of thousands of corpses and sevastopol avenu) in this war, truly idiots!
                  1. Morrrow
                    Morrrow 21 November 2015 22: 42 New
                    -1
                    But how is it nothing? He gained the popularity of Bonapartists against Republicans. In 1870 did not understand, it happens. France was not afraid of the Germans. In the great war, the French adhered to attacking tactics - “Elan”. The war between them could have already arisen in the early 80s, then the military reform of Napoleon 3, which began in 1868, was completed. But the Russian government and the British threatened France with isolation.
                    1. Pissarro
                      Pissarro 22 November 2015 13: 00 New
                      0
                      popularity is a corrupt girl. To wage a war for the sake of popularity alone, this is an excuse for idiocy smile
                    2. Morrrow
                      Morrrow 22 November 2015 16: 08 New
                      0
                      In another way, Republicans cannot be besieged. Better to fight with the Russians than with them. De Persigny explained this to him.
          2. alexej123
            alexej123 22 November 2015 02: 03 New
            -2
            One may ask how many years later the Black Sea Navy was restored? If I am not mistaken, Russia (Chancellor Gorchakov) canceled the provisions on the ban on the navy in the Black Sea already in 1870.
            1. Pissarro
              Pissarro 22 November 2015 13: 10 New
              0
              according to the world results, each of the Black Sea powers could have six steam vessels with a length of up to 50 meters along the waterline and a displacement of up to 800 tons, and also four light steam or sailing vessels with a displacement of up to 200 tons for the coastal service. But Russia did not even have this, the first three ships arrived in 1957, the second three in 1958.
              And yet, the ban on large ships was simply circumvented. There was officially no fleet, in fact, Nikolaev shipyards worked. For example, the Warrior corvette was built in 1957, which does not fall under the conditions of the world. Because this corvette was considered a transport, and in 1971 after the disposal of the imposed conditions of the world again became a corvette and was until 1894. Because in real life it was difficult to verify what the Russians had there on the Black Sea
            2. alexej123
              alexej123 22 November 2015 15: 04 New
              0
              When there is nothing to answer, “MINUS” - “historians” damn it. I asked a question, do not agree - argue. nothing to argue, then be silent.
            3. alexej123
              alexej123 22 November 2015 15: 04 New
              0
              When there is nothing to answer, “MINUS” - “historians” damn it. I asked a question, do not agree - argue. nothing to argue, then be silent.
              1. Pissarro
                Pissarro 22 November 2015 21: 08 New
                +1
                Usually they minus one, but others answer. This is normal, reconcile, some regard posts as agree / disagree with pluses and minuses smile
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Aleksander
          Aleksander 21 November 2015 21: 35 New
          +2
          Quote: Rastas
          abandonment of the fortifications of the Åland Islands; consent to freedom of navigation on the Danube; abandonment of the protectorate over Wallachia, Moldova and Serbia, cession of possessions at the mouth of the Danube and part of Southern Bessarabia, according to Art. III return of Turkey Kars along with the fortresses of Bayazet, Ardahan, Kagizman, Olty and positions in 5,5 km from Erzurum; according to Art. XI on the neutralization of the Black Sea - a ban on having a navy in the Black Sea; Art. XIII prohibition to create naval arsenals and fortresses on the coast.

          -Aland Islands in Finland is less than nothing
          -Bessarabia-SAVED, that is, saved foothold in the Balkans and the impact on them see 1877-1878 years,
          - The fleet was banned not only in Russia, but also TURKEY ALSO (In the "winner!" belay ),
          - fortresses and shipyards on the Black Sea (Nikolaev, Kherson, Odessa, etc.) -SAVEDalthough England demanded their complete destruction.
          Everything was almost NORMAL!
          1. Pissarro
            Pissarro 22 November 2015 13: 19 New
            0
            A curious story, when England demanded the destruction of the Nikolaev shipyards according to the terms of the contract, she was told that the shipyards were not on the Black Sea, but on the Southern Bug and did not fall under the terms of the contract. What didn’t prevent the shipyards from building ships for 15 years afterwards, it only hinder to enter their officially in the fleet
      2. Morrrow
        Morrrow 21 November 2015 17: 57 New
        -1
        Do you know the conditions of Napoleon 3?
    4. The comment was deleted.
  5. nnz226
    nnz226 26 November 2015 18: 06 New
    0
    It is not territorial losses that are important here, but the fact itself: DEFEAT !!! In 1812, too, the whole of Europe rushed to us (without the British) and rained in full. And here - yes, Sevastopol went down in world history with the 349-day defense. But the blow to the royal pride was a whip! LOSED! They gave Sevastopol, although in the Baltic, Pacific Ocean, White Sea, ours drove the Anglo-French as they could. But Sevastopol fell, which allowed the Anglo-French to boast of victory! And call the boulevards, bridges and squares Crimean names of their victories.
  • Pissarro
    Pissarro 21 November 2015 14: 29 New
    +2
    A complete defeat is when they took the capital from you and occupied everything around, and not after taking a long siege of one fortress on the outskirts of the empire.
  • ANTI.KORR.
    ANTI.KORR. 21 November 2015 14: 29 New
    +4
    Quote: PatriotC
    loss of the Crimea itself.

    An alternative story drives fool
    1. kashtak
      kashtak 21 November 2015 16: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: ANTI.KORR.
      Quote: PatriotC
      loss of the Crimea itself.

      An alternative story drives fool

      an alternative story is usually one of two things. analysis of options or propaganda. but about the loss of the Crimea is just illiteracy.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 21 November 2015 08: 02 New
    +3
    The unflattering estimates of Nicholas given by Russophobe Herzen, who existed and wrote with the money of the English government and Cavelin (Westerner and liberal) speak more likely in his favor.
    1. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx 21 November 2015 08: 23 New
      +6
      Quote: Aleksander
      Unflattering estimates of Nicholas, data Russophobe Herzen

      About Herzen, it may be true, only here a man writes about him, who himself is an ardent Russophobe laughing

      "disenfranchised herds of wordless SLAVES, who were forcibly driven into collective farms, to camps at construction sites, to barracks, took away the land and forced to know and love only one thing — a combination — without leaving them the slightest right to a separate opinion and action.
      The result of the activities of the Communists - in just 70 years of their power - the fastest growing and developing people in the world - Russian - was already dying by the end of their reign. "
      (C) Aleksander

      Anti-Soviet = Russophobe. Is always.

      PS And my minus for what I wrote - "Probably the main mistake of Nicholas I was that he failed to assess the importance of railways in time." - can you justify? Or are you minus only seeing the flag of the USSR? smile
      1. Heimdall48
        Heimdall48 21 November 2015 14: 06 New
        -3
        Anti-Soviet = Russophobe. Is always

        Something you confuse. In fact: a communist / Bolshevik = destroyer of historical Russia = enemy of Christianity = Russophobe. Is always.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. kashtak
        kashtak 21 November 2015 15: 56 New
        +2
        Quote: rkkasa 81
        "Probably the main mistake of Nicholas I was that he failed to assess the importance of railways in time."
        it’s easy to say, but do you know how much money they needed? it is England bursting with gold plundered in the colonies. and distances? population density? when the roads were needed industries built them.
        1. Antropos
          Antropos 21 November 2015 21: 39 New
          +4
          Moreover, the technologies of building the canvas in Naglia and Omerig were not suitable at all for our temperature differences. As they developed, roads began to appear. But these technologies are many times more expensive than those used in areas where the annual difference is greater than zero. And we have -8! The same applies to roads.
      4. The comment was deleted.
  • venaya
    venaya 21 November 2015 08: 09 New
    +4
    Nikolai was inclined to think about the need to abolish serfdom

    I did not understand the article at all. According to my information, it was Nicholas I who began the liberation of the peasants from serfdom, which began under Alexei Mikhailovich (remember - “Here’s your grandmother and St. George’s Day”), Peter I strengthened and reached maximum development under Catherine II. Why does the author miss such important points? But complete the liberation of the peasants began precisely under Nicholas I !!! How can one miss such an important point in describing the activities of his board? After all, his son Alexander II did not want to let the peasants out of fear of revenge on his landowner encirclement, who was losing huge profits on this, and therefore had to make some compromise in these actions. Actually, the state peasants were released by his father long before his death, which surprisingly coincided with the Crimean War organized by Rothschild himself, as it recalls the death of Paul I!
    The article contains a portrait of A.S. Shishkov, my idol, his scientific work as president of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Ingushetia is not only relevant, but especially important for us now.
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 21 November 2015 08: 36 New
    +2
    Under Nikolai, the deficit was constantly growing - in 1850, it exceeded 38 million rubles with a budget of 200 million.

    It didn’t grow, but decreased to 38 million. Nikolai ascended the throne with completely upset finances, the consequences of the terrible ruinous war of the 1812-1814 years affected. Under him, the treasury increased the amount of gold and silver,
    necessary for the smooth exchange of paper money. Then, asignation rubles were gradually replaced by new paper money - credit ticketsexisting until 1918 year.
    If in England over 30 years, iron production increased by 30 times, in Russia - only by 2.

    But in Italy and France did not grow at all. An example of England, a unique country in the world at that time -by the amount of loot from around the worldAbsolutely unsuccessful, Russia didn’t have such enrichment methods and means.
    Serfdom was not abolished, but much was done to facilitate the life of the peasants, preparatory measures for the liberation: peasants received the right to buy land with the permission of the landowners in their personal property; it was forbidden to sell peasants for private collection from their landowners, then peasants, under a special agreement with the landowner, received the right to acquire land for their permanent use for certain duties. The state peasants received the right of independent control through elective peasants in the volosts, the prototype of the life of the peasants after liberation.
    The conservatism of the emperor is largely a blessing, but his words;
    " Our imperfection is much better than their perfection."-proved surprisingly perspicacious and modern to this day ....
  • The comment was deleted.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 21 November 2015 10: 08 New
    +1
    Sancho Panza Nikolai Pavlovich.... The extraordinary favors of Nikolai Pavlovich were enjoyed by Minister of War A.I. Chernyshev, far from brilliantly managing the army, which was discovered during the Crimean campaign by unsatisfactory armament of infantry and a lack of the most necessary military supplies, but meanwhile he received the title Prince, then His Grace Prince, and upon dismissal from office - the treasury house in which he lived, in the property ...
    The special favor of Nikolai Pavlovich was enjoyed by the Minister of Finance, Count Kankrin, who was considered a little genius at his post. It is somehow strange to call the genius of the Minister of Finance, who at the end of his career rejected the benefits and hindered the construction of railways in Russia on the grounds that a six-month toboggan run is quite sufficient for the development of domestic trade and industry, but in the summer there are for this sea and river ...
    Count P.A. Kleinmichel. He watched the construction of the newly approved St. Petersburg-Moscow railway, paying almost no attention to other land and water communications. Highways were built only in small sections in the western region, mainly for a strategic purpose, and water communications were completely launched. Meanwhile, Count Kleinmichel enjoyed the exclusive confidence of Nikolai Pavlovich ..
    Count Nesselrode from December 12, 1823 - Vice Chancellor of the Russian Empire. In 1826 he was appointed to the Supreme Criminal Court in the case of the Decembrists. His policy was to seek rapprochement with Austria. In 1844 (March 17) he became Chancellor of the Russian Empire, and five years later he contributed to Russia's intervention in Austrian affairs, with the goal of pacifying the Hungarian uprising. Responsibility for the diplomatic isolation of Russia in the Crimean War largely falls on Nesselrode. Vice Admiral Putyatin developed a plan for organizing an expedition to the eastern maritime borders of China and Japan. Count Nesselrode opposed him, fearing "the possibility of a break with China, the displeasure of Europe, especially the British." He proposed recognizing the Amur basin as belonging to China and abandoning it forever ..
    When Alexander II didn’t ascend the throne, he dismissed all his father’s ministers. They said they were loyal to the throne and responded to my mother’s indignation .. My dad was a genius and could allow himself to be fools around me .. I’m not a genius, I need smart people ..
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 21 November 2015 10: 18 New
    +4
    The article makes a dual impression.
    Many inaccuracies and controversial points.
    Nikolai had an education. Engineering He knew how to work on machines and even made a musket himself.
    It was under Nicholas that there was a surge in Russian culture, in particular literature. Pushkin, Lermontov ... the listing will take more than one page.
    The defeat in the Crimean War is also very relative. Fighting with the most developed powers in the world, we suffered minimal losses. Mostly fashionable. The losses of the allies were such that they could not continue to fight. They still remember this war. Have you heard about the poem "Attack of the Light Cavalry"? This is from there. We have lost the fleet. So it was still wooden. He still had to be scrapped. How many failures in that war the British had - not to convey. And the most stupid ones. Since the absence of an overcoat, it is unusually cold in winter. The intendants were not delivered. The defense of Sevastopol is, in general, a masterpiece of military art.
    The railway in Russia was built by almost none of the first in the world. Immediately after England.
    Nicholas Russia was not a backward country. Although of course not without problems. So who doesn’t have them.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 21 November 2015 11: 01 New
      +2
      The railway in Russia was built by almost none of the first in the world. Immediately after England. By 1840, the length of railways in the UK amounted to 2390 km. In RI 1837, the Tsarskoye Selo railway was built, connecting the capital with the Tsarskoye Selo, the length of the route is 27 kilometers .... In France, the Saint-Etienne-Lyon line, 58 kilometers long, was built between 1830 and 1832. To develop the railway network, it was decided to build a number of lines connecting the capital with other cities. In 1835, the grand opening of the first German railway took place in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg. About 10 kilometers of paths connected the city of Nuremberg and Fürth. Something does not fit with almost none of the first in the world.
    2. Aleksander
      Aleksander 21 November 2015 12: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      Many inaccuracies and controversial points.

      Much was simply not mentioned, which created the false impression that little was done. A lot has been done and experienced:
      - Famous glorious victories at Sinope and Navarino-were under Nicholas.
      - The hardest bloody war unleashed by Turkey when the Sultan Firman announced gazavat, previously unprecedented in its bitterness, as a result of the victory in which Greece, Serbia gained freedom, power in the Danube principalities passed to the Russian governor, and Russia received Turkish fortresses along the Adrianople peace Akhaltsykh, Anapu and Poti. Along with this, Russia was ceded to Turkey eastern coast of the Black Sea from the mouth of the river. Kuban to the harbor of St. Nicholas.
      -After the war with Persia, Russia liberated Armenians of Erivan and Nakhichevan Khanates.
      -A terrible cholera epidemic (and not one), which claimed tens of thousands of lives. The Emperor PERSONALLY visited patients and organized help.

      Wars, nation-building, epidemics-demanded huge expenditures and efforts of the state and, nevertheless, it was done lots of , the country moved forward and developed ....
    3. Morrrow
      Morrrow 21 November 2015 16: 21 New
      +2
      Nicholas Russia was not a backward country. Although of course not without problems. So who doesn’t have them.

      Russia has ceased to be a great power. She could no longer command everyone and intimidate everyone. Leadership quickly passed to France.
  • Rastas
    Rastas 21 November 2015 14: 22 New
    0
    You didn’t serve God and not Russia,
    He served only his vanity,
    And all your deeds, both good and evil, -
    Everything was a lie in you, all the ghosts were empty:
    You were not a king, but a hypocrite.

    F. I. Tyutchev on the death of Nicholas I, 1855
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander 21 November 2015 20: 59 New
      +4
      Quote: Rastas
      You didn’t serve God and not Russia,
      He served only his vanity,
      And all your deeds, both good and evil, -
      Everything was a lie in you, all the ghosts were empty:
      You were not a king, but a hypocrite.



      Yes, yes ... And now the words Russian poet ALEXANDER PUSHKIN

      No, I'm not a flatterer when the King

      I give free praise:

      I boldly express my feelings

      I speak the language of the heart.

      I just loved him:

      He cheerfully, honestly rules us;

      Russia suddenly he revived

      War, hopes, works.

      Oh no, even though youth is boiling in him,

      But not cruel in him is a sovereign spirit.

      The one who is clearly punished

      He secretly does mercy ...
    2. Aleksander
      Aleksander 21 November 2015 20: 59 New
      0
      Quote: Rastas
      You didn’t serve God and not Russia,
      He served only his vanity,
      And all your deeds, both good and evil, -
      Everything was a lie in you, all the ghosts were empty:
      You were not a king, but a hypocrite.



      Yes, yes ... And now the words Russian poet ALEXANDER PUSHKIN

      No, I'm not a flatterer when the King

      I give free praise:

      I boldly express my feelings

      I speak the language of the heart.

      I just loved him:

      He cheerfully, honestly rules us;

      Russia suddenly he revived

      War, hopes, works.

      Oh no, even though youth is boiling in him,

      But not cruel in him is a sovereign spirit.

      The one who is clearly punished

      He secretly does mercy ...
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 21 November 2015 22: 26 New
        0
        Well, in Pushkin’s poem the most important are the last lines
        Trouble country where the slave and the flatterer
        Some are close to the throne
        A heavenly chosen singer
        Silent, eyes downcast.
        And when was it written? In 1828, after the victory over Persia and Navarin, after the creation of the secret committee on the abolition of serfdom. Those. hopes for transformation were associated with the emperor. Tyutchev, who, by devotion to the monarchy could give 100 points to Pushkin, wrote a verse in 1855, when he could already see the result of the reign of Nicholas.
  • Pissarro
    Pissarro 21 November 2015 14: 35 New
    +4
    The article is full of G.Voy offended intellectHechenia, whom Nikolai supposedly had messed up to live and create. It’s only the era of Nicholas is the golden age of Russian literature, it is Pushkin, Gogol and Lermontov. And for example, the Yeltsin period of complete freedom in cultural terms, for comparison, did not give birth to
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 21 November 2015 16: 03 New
      +2
      The golden age of literature is yes. only by reading the works of the same Lermontov, Gogol or Goncharov, you somehow begin to understand that the state of affairs in the country was not at all perfect.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 21 November 2015 20: 15 New
        +2
        If everything is perfect, then this is not literature. This is a fairy tale, moreover, in the final stage, where they began to live, live and earn good. Literature, on the other hand, should make us think and answer modern questions.
        1. Rastas
          Rastas 21 November 2015 23: 05 New
          0
          But only the works of the above authors not only teach, but also condemn.
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 21 November 2015 20: 06 New
    -1
    A good article title caught my attention. soldier
    Well, it was interesting to read about that time.