Military Review

Medals of the Elizabethan era

14
We don’t dare to assert that the medals are an indicator of the glory of the reign, but judge for yourself: sixteen years after the death of Peter I and before the ascension to the throne of his daughter Elizabeth in Russia, not a single new award "manet" was made.


Medals of the Elizabethan era

Portrait of Elizabeth Petrovna. Hood Ivan Vishnyakov. 1743 year

And after all, it cannot be said that the award was the same and there is nothing. Just the opposite. During the reign of Anna Ioannovna, the Russian army more than once proved that it has no equal, at least in Eastern Europe. Particularly convincing was the defeat of the Turks at Stavuchans during the Russian-Turkish war of 1735 – 1739, which ended with the fall of the Khotin fortress, whose cyclopean walls are known to most of us from Soviet adventure films about knights and musketeers.

Rumors of a Russian victory quickly scattered, and the “sudden delight” captivated the mind of a certain Russian studiosus, who at that time was in the German Freiberg.

In addition to outstanding abilities to science, studiosus also possessed a considerable poetic gift. According to the apt remark of Vladislav Khodasevich, “the first sound of the Khotyn ode became our first cry of life”. “Us”, that is, Russia, inseparable from its literature, from Russian poetry, which was largely due to this Lomonosov ode on the straight and lasting syllabic-tonic path.

Noise with brooks and dol:
Victory, Russian victory!
But the enemy that left the sword,
Afraid of his own trail.
Then seeing your run,
The moon was ashamed to shame them
And in the gloom face, darkened, hid.
Glory flies in the darkness of the night,
Sounds in all lands by the trumpet,
Kohl Rossky terrible power.

In addition to the “Russian terrible force”, merit in the capture of Khotin belongs to Field Marshal and the oldenburg native Burchard (in the Russian manner - Christopher Antonovich) Minich, now almost forgotten. Invited to Peter the Great by Tsarist ambassador in Warsaw, Grigory Dolgorukov, Minich presented his own plan for the fortifications of Kronstadt, for which he won Peter's indirect praise: "Thanks to Dolgorukov, he delivered me a skilled engineer and general." Christopher Antonovich built the Ladoga Canal and generally proved himself to be a talented hydraulic engineer. In the end, after all, it is precisely to his professional foresight that we owe to the inexhaustible fountains of Peterhof.

Having risen to the highest positions under Peter's successors, Minich made extensive changes in the Russian army. He organized two new Guards regiments, Izmaylovsky and Equestrian, established a new branch of the army - sappers, created hussar regiments, with his participation in 1731, the first Russian cadet corps was opened. Struggling with the dominance of foreigners in the army, the German Minich limited their admission to the Russian service and equalized all the officers in the rights: henceforth, the Russians and foreigners were justly paid the same salary. A major commander, he crushed the Crimean Tatars on their own territory, restored Russia's prestige in the south, for the first time after an unsuccessful Prut campaign, successfully fighting against the Turks, and thus paving the way to Peter Rumyantsev, Alexander Suvorov, Ivan Dibich, Ivan Paskevich, Mikhail Skobelev. And yet it was they who received the punishment with fuchtels from their fellow German compatriots, and in cavalry, with flat sabers. Ratuya for training soldiers in handicrafts, Minich at the same time relegated them to the role of weak-willed cogs in the army mechanism and was the first to introduce boules and scythes, so hated by the Russian soldier.

With such a view of discipline, there was no reward for any soldiers, but simply respect for them was out of the question. Is it any wonder that the Guard rebelled first, taking advantage of the confusion after the death of Anna Ioannovna, literally on her shoulders lifted to the throne the youngest daughter of Peter, who immediately displaced Minikh and sent him to Siberian exile for twenty years.

The descendants formed a contradictory opinion about Elizabeth Petrovna. Speaking of her, the autocrat's passion for masquerades, the notorious “metamorphosis”, is often commemorated, where she liked to appear in a man's dress, which favorably emphasized her seductively curvaceous forms. And the empress’s excessive passion for the opposite sex, manifested in far from maternal custody of the young men, one of whom, the singing Little Russian Cossack Alexei Razumovsky, made her still a semi-opaque princess, and later, after gaining power, showered money and orders, made her a graph and general Field Marshal ... And fifteen thousand dresses and an empty treasury left after her death ...


Medal in honor of the conclusion of the Abos Peace. 1743 year

Less often they remember the piousness of the empress who repeatedly made pilgrimages to the monasteries near Moscow - New Jerusalem on Istra, Savvino-Storozhevsky in Zvenigorod and especially often in Trinity-Sergievsky, it was in her reign that received the status of a laurel and decorated with new buildings, among which still turns to attention of the original look Smolensk Church (architect - Prince Dmitry Ukhtomsky; the tall five-storey Lavra bell tower - his own creation), where, according to a stable legend, Elizabeth secretly married I'm with Razumovsky.

However, even here the empress did not build herself a nun - she did not like to be bored at all. This is how the Polish historian Kazimir Waliszewski, a great connoisseur of many intimate secrets of that era, describes Elizabeth’s pastime: “She willingly left the ball for the matins, gave up the hunt for a pilgrim; but during these times, praying mantis did not prevent her from indulging in worldly and very vain entertainment. She knew how to turn these godly journeys into pleasure trips. ” At the same time, “on a journey on foot, she used weeks and sometimes months to go sixty miles away separating the famous monastery from Moscow. It happened that, tired, she could not walk for three, four miles to the stop, where she ordered to build houses and where she rested for several days. She was then arriving at the house in the carriage, but the next day the carriage drove her to the place where she interrupted her foot walk. In 1748, the pilgrimage took almost the entire summer. ”

Unfairly depressed from the throne after the death of the mother and against her last will, unloved and eternally suspected by the reigning cousin, although not explicitly disgraced, captured and never married (the bridegroom, Karl August Golshtinsky, arrived in Russia, died here after One of the Homeric booties tripled in his honor by Peter), from her childhood, Elizabeth learned to stand aside her passionate nature by nature in modesty (when Anna Ivanovna preferred moderation in everything, even in dress), and a sharp and wide mind s father - hide under the guise of frivolity. She got so well into the role of a pretty fool who “did not know that Britain is an island”, that English Ambassador Edward Finch reported to her bosses in London with impressive confidence: “Elizabeth is too full to be a conspirator”.

Elmaveta Petrovna managed to powder her eyes not only to contemporaries, but also to descendants. One of them, our great satirist Mikhail Yevgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin, captured her very impartially in the form of one of the six self-appointed mayors of the city of Glupova (which of them Elizaveta is difficult to figure out, but Catherine II is definitely Amalya Karlovna Shtokfish). If our assumption is still true, and Elizabeth in the novel is Clementinka de Bourbon (at one time the young tsesarevna was persistently wanted to be married to Louis XV or, at worst, to the Duke of Orleans, for which they were specially trained in French and turned into an ardent gallomete) It includes the following words: “... the new challenger was tall, loved to drink vodka and rode like a man. Without effort, having inclined to his side the four soldiers of the local invalid team and being secretly supported by the Polish intrigue, this idle pro-ramite captured the minds almost instantly. ”

Meanwhile, the “homeless traveler”, who did not receive a systematic education, opened the first gymnasiums in Russia - in Moscow and Kazan, founded the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts and the Moscow University.

Russia's foreign policy during the reign of Elizabeth was also extremely successful. The first 1741 – 1743 war ended with a complete victory - with Sweden instigated by the French, who tried to get revenge for the fatal loss to Peter. Having forgotten about the Poltava defeat, the scammers heirs of Charles XII and his aggressive policy must have mentally already marched around Ingermanland, trampled Petersburg into the marshland! However, all these feverish dreams dispelled reality: the Swedes in Finland received from the Russians a few sensitive zubotychin and kicks, their army was surrounded and surrendered. The enemy's panic reached such proportions that the Baltic fleet barely noticed at Sutton only the receding silhouettes of the Swedish ships: the Swedes were scooping under all the sails!

Soon the Abos peace treaty was concluded, under which Sweden, in exchange for Finland seized from it, recognized all other territorial acquisitions of Russia in the Baltic States.

The medal “In Memory of the Abos Peace”, minted in the same year, was given to every Russian veteran. Its author was the Scottish master Benjamin Scott, who worked at that time at the Moscow Mint. On the obverse of the medal, the breastplate of the empress with curls falling on her chest and shoulders, in a crown and mantle, with a sash over her shoulder, was knocked out. The inscription on the circle (by the way, it is called a legend at the medal) is as follows:

“B. M. ELISAVET I THE IMPERAT I THE SELF OF ALLER ”.

There is another stamp (speaking of the medals of the Peter's epoch, because of their abundance we did not linger on the descriptions of the variants), where the order of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called is also depicted on the chest on the ribbon.

On the reverse, a bridge passes across the river flowing between the fields with the inscription “THE RIVER OF KIMES” (this Finnish river passed through); Above, two arms emanating from the clouds hold a wreath of two bound laurel branches; in the field, formed by a wreath; in the same place, a double-headed eagle crowned with an imperial crown with a scepter and power in its claws holds two shields with the emblems of Sweden and Denmark on a ribbon; under the wreath on the tape inscription:
“Strong Union” (the result of a complex family and political intrigue, to explain which here would mean too far to deviate from the topic).

Circumference:

“IN THE MEMORY OF THE PRISONER OF SWISS OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD IN THE ABN 1743 FOR THE YEAR AUG 7 OF THE DAY”.
And below, under the river and the edge:

"SIA EAST BORDERS OF THE STATE OBEIH".

The medal was minted without an ear, in the amount of a ruble coin. The ear was added twenty years later under Catherine, at the same time it was ordered to wear a medal around his neck, on the blue ribbon of the Order of St. Andrew.
A good medal tradition, barely continued, stopped again for a long time, with the exception of a few memorable trifles, then for seventeen years. However, the large-scale Seven Years War, which began in 1756, changed everything.

She was led by Prussia and England against Austria, France and Russia (the so-called union of three women - the Austrian monarch Maria Theresa, Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, better known as Marquis de Pompadour, influential favorite of the weak-willed King Louis, and his frustrated Russian bride Elizabeth, famous gallomanches). The fighting took place not only in Europe, but also in India, and - moreover, rather energetic - in North America, where France lost, for example, its Canadian possessions, and these days are far from being subdued.


Award medal "For the victory at Kunersdorf. 1 August 1759

At first, things were more than successful for Prussia: her king Frederick II, a gifted strategist and theorist of military art, whose commanding genius was, however, excessively exaggerated by contemporaries and descendants, German historians like Hans Delbrück, scored several striking victories. But in 1757, the Russian army appeared on the European theater, and from that moment on, the vaunted Prussians began to suffer one setback after another.

Under Gross-Egersdorf in East Prussia, Frederick felt for the first time the strength of a Russian weapons. When Zornorf next year, the Germans were still trying to fight on equal terms, and only the unsuccessful command of Willim Fermor deprived Russia of victory and led to gigantic senseless bloodletting from both sides. But 12 August N. with. at the Silesian Kunersdorf, four miles away from Frankfurt an der Oder, Frederick's army was crushed to smithereens. Of the 48, thousands of Prussians remained in the ranks, about three thousand, the rest fell or fled. The king himself almost died in battle and, fleeing persecution, lost his hat, taken as a trophy and still kept in St. Petersburg, in the State Memorial Museum of A.V. Suvorov.

The medal "For Victory at Kunersdorf" was established on August 11 of the following, 1760 year. The decree read: “Like last summer, namely, on 1, the day of August (old style. - M.L.) was won by the weapons of Her Imperial Majesty over the King of Prussia near Frankfurt, such a glorious and famous victory, which in recent times there are almost no examples then, Her Imperial Majesty, in memory of this great day, in difference with those who had taken part in it and as a sign of His royal favor, ordered to make a decent medal to this incident and distribute to the soldiers of that battle.

Now the stamp is already ready and is sent to the Governing Senate for this, so that 31000 medals can be immediately pressed on it and sent to the Conference, which, in the event of a lack of silver, can be used. At this, one should notice that the 30000 numbers are attached to be wearing on the tape, and 1000 medals without ears. " The soldiers were handed silver medals, really perechekannye of rublevikov, officers were “squeezed” gold, the same design for all.

On the obverse - the portrait and title of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. On the reverse is an ancient Roman legionary with a Russian banner in one hand and a spear in the other. He steps over the dead vessel with the river Oder flowing from it, as is evident from the inscription placed right there. In the background is a view of Frankfurt, in front of it - the battlefield, corpses, abandoned weapons and standards with the monogram of Friedrich. The inscription is Caesarian laconic: "WINNER". Below, under the edge: "OVER the Prussians". And the date is the old style.

So, Prussia was on the verge of disaster. But then circumstances of a higher order intervened. It happened that in German historiography it is customary to call the “miracle of the Brandenburg house”, namely the Austrians and the Russians failed to quickly take advantage of the Kunersdorf victory due to mutual contradictions. While they hesitated and sparred, Empress Elizabeth died. Her nephew, crossed in Peter Fedorovich, the Holstein duke Karl Peter Ulrich, betrayed Russia and concluded a separate peace with Frederick’s idolatry in exchange for all sorts of trinkets like the Prussian Order of the Black Eagle. Incidentally, he returned Minikh from Siberia. However, the main thing is that Peter III refused all the lands he had gained at the cost of Russian blood, including Königsberg, who swore allegiance to Russia, where Immanuel Kant lived at that time, which some people call on this basis not only German but also Russian philosopher. However, it is already completely different. история.
Author:
Originator:
http://историк.рф/special_posts/медали-елизаветинской-эпохи/
14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vikings
    Vikings 30 November 2015 15: 41 New
    +4
    I express my gratitude to the author. I consider the necessary and useful state, I look forward to
    of
  2. Decathlon
    Decathlon 30 November 2015 15: 55 New
    +1
    "... all other territorial acquisitions of Russia in the Baltic states ..."
    So so so! Here from this place, please, in more detail! What have we bought there on occasion ?! repeat
  3. victorrat
    victorrat 30 November 2015 16: 41 New
    +1
    The Baltic states, which the author forgot to indicate, are rightfully Russian. Peter bought it, paid the full bill. But our habit of forgiving debts to our debtors makes it difficult to point the Chukhons to their place.
  4. Riv
    Riv 30 November 2015 16: 53 New
    0
    Well, about Peter the Third, the author lied here. The Russian garrisons in East Prussia under him were not only not withdrawn, but even intensified. Peter was clearly not going to part with such a valuable acquisition. Do not forget that Peter was also the Duke of Goldstein. It is enough to look at the map to understand what strategic benefits the country received, having under its flag East Prussia and Schleswig-Goldstein. It will also become clear why Peter dreamed of a war with Denmark. Subsequently, Bismarck will not hesitate to unleash two wars with her and will not calm down until he joins Goldstein to Germany. Actually, the Danish campaign itself would be possible only with Russian-controlled East Prussia.

    So Peter did not betray any such Russia. Maybe he intended to return something to Friedrich, but ... The Petersburg peace treaty was concluded by him on June 19, and nine days later he was overthrown. The peace with Frederick and the withdrawal of Russian troops from East Prussia was ratified precisely by Catherine, who then had not been called Great. And she did this only two years after she began to rule alone. What diplomatic games were conducted between Russia and Prussia at that time, one can only guess, but Catherine certainly did not lose in them.

    In 1764, Russia and Prussia mutually guaranteed the European possessions of both powers and pledged not to conclude any treaties that could weaken the strength of the signed alliance. In the event of an attack on one of the contracting parties, the second pledged to set up an auxiliary building. Subsequently, during the Russo-Turkish wars, not a single European country provided Turkey with open support. Frederick the Great guaranteed it.

    Were Crimea and Novorossia East Prussia? Maybe yes...
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander 1 December 2015 06: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Riv
      Well, about Peter the Third, the author lied here. The Russian garrisons in East Prussia under him were not only not withdrawn, but even intensified. Peter is clearly not going to part with such a valuable acquisition

      belay belay Well yes, that's why he immediately after the death of Elizabeth stopped the victorious war and concluded the peace of St. Petersburg (in APRIL 1962 of the year, and not in June), according to which East Prussia was returning to Prussia

      unconditionally. This is how they fix the conquered-pass it to the enemy belay
      Quote: Riv
      Actually, the Danish campaign itself would be possible only with Russian-controlled East Prussia.

      But under Prussian control and an agreement already concluded with Prussia, it is impossible, of course. lol
      By the time of the overthrow of Peter, the situation had radically changed — Russia (of her own free will) was left without allies, Frederick grew stronger, and Catherine was also not up to the war with Prussia — she had to retain her power. In addition, she also had a weakness for Prussia. But I think that if she had accepted Russia immediately after Elizabeth and there would have been no Petersburg world, she would not have given East Prussia to Frederick (not that character).
      Quote: Riv
      Were Crimea and Novorossia East Prussia?

      The question did not stand like that. Prussia didn’t care about New Russia; it didn’t interfere.
      1. Riv
        Riv 1 December 2015 09: 52 New
        0
        Something tells me that you have not read the text of the contract ... Not surprisingly. For official historiography, it is slightly uncomfortable. Try to search for fun. Will you find?

        About the date of the peace treaty - yes, I got it. In June, an allied treaty was signed. But one way or another, a fact is a fact: it was Catherine who signed an agreement with Frederick, which subsequently guaranteed her hegemony in Europe. Peter by then almost two years lay in a grave. She might not have ratified it, but finished what Peter had begun, without inventing anything new.
        Then Frederick, of course, also got into something. Sin to complain. So to estimate: the territory of Prussia subsequently almost doubled.

        You generally have some kind of strange logic. Did you learn at school that participation in the Seven Years War was an unnecessary and costly adventure for Russia? They taught. Bushkov, probably, also read? He details how Chancellor Bestuzhev pulled Russia into this war for bribes. But sorry ... Why then are you unhappy that Peter stopped this war ??? She is unnecessary and unjust! Or, if the war is victorious, let’s continue to fight until it ceases to be so? Then it is possible to return the territories conquered. Then everything will be according to the concepts.
        1. Aleksander
          Aleksander 1 December 2015 11: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Riv
          She is unnecessary and unjust! Or, if the war is victorious, let’s continue to fight until it ceases to be so? Then it’s possible to return the territories conquered


          The concepts of "fair-unfair", "necessary-unnecessary" humanity still can not figure it out, everyone has their own understanding and vision. But this war was necessary for Russia — to limit the power and influence of Prussia — and history, in my opinion, proved that it was right. If Koenigsberg remained in Russia, Prussia would have become weaker on him and Germany in that terrible form, in which she appeared only after 100 years, perhaps there would have been no ... IMHO. hi
          1. Riv
            Riv 1 December 2015 12: 16 New
            0
            Goode ... But WHY it was necessary to limit the influence of Prussia? So to think: she was an ally of Russia for almost a hundred and a half years. There have never been disagreements between them that should have been resolved by military force. Since the reign of Peter the Great, Russian tsars have married German princesses. Dynastic marriage - at that time it was very serious. The strengthening of Prussia did not like Austria and France, but the former almost always pursued an openly anti-Russian policy (except for a brief period of wars with Turkey), and the latter twice invaded the territory of Russia in the 19th century. So what's the problem?

            As for the Third Reich ... It is not Peter the Third who is to blame for the fact that relations between the countries deteriorated in the 20th century. And the USSR is not to blame for Hitler’s exaltation.
            1. Aleksander
              Aleksander 1 December 2015 21: 49 New
              0
              Quote: Riv
              : She was an ally of Russia for almost one and a half hundred years

              From what time did you calculate? If the beginning implies the above events, then in the Crimean War and the Balkan War of 1877, Prussia acted as frank and consistent ENEMY Russia.
              Quote: Riv
              but the former almost always pursued an openly anti-Russian policy (with the exception of a brief period of wars with Turkey

              And in the wars with France, is not Austria a permanent ally (mainly, of course) of Russia?
              France invaded, but it was it that turned out to be a natural and necessary counterweight to the German monster, grown, unfortunately, with the great help of Russia ...
              1. Riv
                Riv 1 December 2015 22: 20 New
                0
                No, you obviously read bad historical jokes. During the Crimean War, Prussia took a neutral position (as did Austria, by the way). At that time, Prussia and Austria had an alliance treaty, but it was by no means directed against Russia. When Austria entered into an agreement with (as I recall) France on a defensive-offensive alliance, Prussia withdrew from this treaty. Bismarck used the political situation for his own purposes, for which it is difficult to blame him. Very soon, the Prussians will warm up Austria and France, but this is a completely different story ...

                You are also mistaken about the Balkan war. It was with the support of Bismarck that Russia achieved, after the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War, the abolition of the provisions of the Paris Treaty. In turn, this created the prerequisites for an unhindered showdown with Turkey. And again: for its neutrality, Austria then demanded political concessions from Russia. And again: peace was concluded with the mediation of Germany. Gorchakov in Berlin behaved completely mediocre, but Bismarck is no longer to blame.

                And it’s better to keep silent about the Napoleonic wars. The Austrians only tried to set up the Russian army and at least slightly weaken Napoleon. Here was a series of articles on this topic.
                1. Aleksander
                  Aleksander 2 December 2015 05: 29 New
                  0
                  Quote: Riv
                  During the Crimean War, Prussia took a neutral position (as did Austria, by the way).

                  You have clearly re-read the bad alternative story. Austria is neutral ?!
                  In August 1854 crossed the border of Wallachia Austrian troops that, by agreement of the allies with the Turkish government, replaced the Turks and occupied the principalities of Moldova and Wallachia. Until August, I recall, these principalities occupied Russia, which was forced to keep 15% of its most combat-ready army in Bessarabia throughout the war. In December 1855 g Austria (neutral. in your opinion) presented to Russia ultimatum:

                  the replacement of the Russian protectorate over Wallachia and Serbia with the protectorate of all the great powers;
                  establishment of freedom of navigation at the mouth of the Danube;
                  preventing the passage of anyone's squadrons through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the Black Sea, the prohibition of Russia and Turkey to keep a fleet on the Black Sea and to have arsenals and military fortifications on the shores of this sea;
                  Russia's refusal to patronize the Orthodox subjects of the Sultan;
                  Russia's concession to Moldova for the part of Bessarabia adjacent to the Danube.
                  At the same time, Alexander II received a letter from Frederick William IV, (“neutral” Prussia, yes) who called on the Russian emperor to accept Austrian conditions, threatening that otherwise Prussia may join the anti-Russian coalition.
                  In Berlin 1878 Bismarck FULLY supported the claims of Austria and England against Russia. The Paris Treaty died on its own, in the battle of Sedan.
                  And yes, Austria is an ally of Russia in many wars (bad, yes), not only anti-Turkish (they also happened to be Turks' allies, by the way)
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 2 December 2015 08: 21 New
                    0
                    You have some kind of strange logic ... Austria presented Russia with an ultimatum. And you consider her an ally. So to speak: "in many wars." Some wrong ally is obtained. But for some reason you don’t like Prussia, although according to the results of the Crimean and Balkan wars, it didn’t have anything from Russia.

                    Specifically, according to the Autrian ultimatum: having copied a paragraph from a wiki, it was worthwhile to think about its contents. Do you really think that it was this ultimatum, and not the loss of Sevastopol and with it all of Crimea, that forced Alexander to make peace? But there was nothing new in it. The Allies demanded the same, even more. For example, England really wanted to take control of the Caucasus. And doesn’t it seem strange to you that the same ultimatum demanded that Russia give up the maintenance of the navy in the Black Sea, but that it demanded the same from Turkey? In general, military squadrons were forbidden to pass through the straits. Well, yes, the Austrians once again rowed for themselves. The departure of Russia from the mouth of the Danube was beneficial to them. In fact, it was Austria that received the greatest benefits from the Crimean War, but far from the fact that it would actually get involved in the war.

                    Yes, most likely William’s letter to Alexander played a role. But Bismarck had nothing to do with it. At that time, he still did not enjoy absolute influence on the politics of Prussia. And again: far from the fact that Prussia would also enter the war on the side of the coalition. There were enough contradictions with Austria. In just a few years there will be Sadovaya.

                    You generally have a primitive view of things. "Austria is good, Prussia is bad, Russia alone is in white." But in fact, in such a dirty business as politics, there are no white and fluffy ones. All in the same, and flow around.
                  2. Riv
                    Riv 2 December 2015 08: 21 New
                    0
                    You have some kind of strange logic ... Austria presented Russia with an ultimatum. And you consider her an ally. So to speak: "in many wars." Some wrong ally is obtained. But for some reason you don’t like Prussia, although according to the results of the Crimean and Balkan wars, it didn’t have anything from Russia.

                    Specifically, according to the Autrian ultimatum: having copied a paragraph from a wiki, it was worthwhile to think about its contents. Do you really think that it was this ultimatum, and not the loss of Sevastopol and with it all of Crimea, that forced Alexander to make peace? But there was nothing new in it. The Allies demanded the same, even more. For example, England really wanted to take control of the Caucasus. And doesn’t it seem strange to you that the same ultimatum demanded that Russia give up the maintenance of the navy in the Black Sea, but that it demanded the same from Turkey? In general, military squadrons were forbidden to pass through the straits. Well, yes, the Austrians once again rowed for themselves. The departure of Russia from the mouth of the Danube was beneficial to them. In fact, it was Austria that received the greatest benefits from the Crimean War, but far from the fact that it would actually get involved in the war.

                    Yes, most likely William’s letter to Alexander played a role. But Bismarck had nothing to do with it. At that time, he still did not enjoy absolute influence on the politics of Prussia. And again: far from the fact that Prussia would also enter the war on the side of the coalition. There were enough contradictions with Austria. In just a few years there will be Sadovaya.

                    You generally have a primitive view of things. "Austria is good, Prussia is bad, Russia is all in white." But in fact, in such a dirty business as politics, there are no white and fluffy ones. All in the same, and flow around.
  5. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 30 November 2015 17: 55 New
    +2
    Normal woman, funny, beautiful. love

    "Since the reign of Princess Sophia, life in Russia has never been so easy, and
    not a single reign until 1762 left such a pleasant memory "
    - V.O. Klyuchevsky
  6. bober1982
    bober1982 30 November 2015 19: 32 New
    0
    I liked the article very much. We remembered with kind words the Empress Anna Ioannovna (whom descendants only watered with mud), Minikh.
    The author correctly noted the piety of Elizabeth Petrovna, in which the death penalty was abolished (although temporarily)
    When the empress asked the old nobleman: why there was so much cruelty, because of reprisals against political opponents, the old nobleman simply replied, there was such a time.