Military Review

Ochakovskaya Victoria

Ochakovskaya Victoria

Y. Sukhodolsky, 1853 Sturm Ochakova December 6, 1788 the Central Militaryhistorical Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Signal Corps

The Ottoman Empire left the Northern Black Sea region extremely painful and reluctant. The problem of unhindered access to the Black Sea loomed before Russia not for the first century, but only Peter I took up its resolution, rolling up its sleeves. The life of the carpenter emperor was interrupted early — only one “window” was cut in the blank wall surrounding Russia. The contours of the second were marked up, but descendants had to carry out Peter's plans.

Throughout the 18th century, Russia persistently strove to firmly stand on its southern frontier. In fact, it was one long, permanent conflict, where wars flowed into unstable and shaky truces, and these, in turn, were again and again replaced by hostilities. The huge Ottoman Empire, exhausted by internal problems, was still a formidable force. The next Russian-Turkish war, which ended with the signing of the Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhiysky Treaty, was a glorious, but still a stage in achieving the goal - access to the Black Sea.

Old fortress

Ochakov fortress, or Achi-Kale, more than once stood a cliff in the path of the Russian army. The value of this extremely conveniently located Turkish stronghold is hard to overestimate. He posed a threat to communications going to the Crimea, controlled the exit from the Dnieper-Bug estuary, was not only a large fortress, but also a parking lot fleet. Ochakov is an old fortress. In the XIV century, a commercial settlement was founded by entrepreneurial Genoese in this place, the Crimean Tatars took the baton in the person of Khan Mengli Giray, who built the Kara-Kermen fortress here. With the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the Ottoman Empire became the owner of the Northern Black Sea Region, and Achi-Kale (Achi - a corner, Kale - a fortress) became one of the key strongholds of Turkish expansion.

During the years of the Russian-Turkish war of 1735 – 1739, the Russian army under the command of Burhard Minich in July 1737, after a competent siege and prolonged bombardment, forced the fortress garrison to capitulate. A well-known baron Munchhausen was a participant in this military episode. True, the fortress was subsequently taken back to the Turks.

The scheme of the fortress Ochakov. XVIII century

By 1787, Achi-Kale was significantly upgraded. The Turkish command made the proper conclusions from the lessons of the 1737 assault of the year. To improve the fortress, foreign specialists were attracted - French engineers were the best experts in the field of fortification in Europe, and it was for their services that it was decided to resort. The idea of ​​thoroughly and regularly helping the enemies of Russia has always been not without its popularity with enlightened navigators and philosophers. Europe at that time (as always) was extremely beneficial for Russia to get bogged down in its Black Sea or, even better, in some Siberian problems. French officers helped to modernize the Turkish fortress, worked as consultants at naval shipyards, they often acted as instructors in the Turkish army. The sons of Albion did not lag behind in their zeal. So, the English ambassador in Istanbul beat Sultan Abdul-Hamid I to start a war with Russia, seriously promising that England would side with Turkey. Of course, the gentleman was lying.

But even without that, the relationship between the two empires was rapidly falling towards the inevitable war. The Turks could not simply accept the loss of the Crimea, their long-standing instrument of influence on the whole south of Russia, the revanchist sentiments, kindly warmed up in the wigs' ingratiating whisper, reached a high point. 5 August 1787 The Grand Vizier Yusuf Kocha summoned the Russian ambassador Bulgakov and presented him with an ultimatum: return the Crimea, annul all previous Russian-Turkish treaties, renounce patronage over Georgia. (By the way, Yusuf Kocha was born in Georgia and made the way from a slave to a Grand Vizier in the Ottoman Empire). Bulgakov did not even have time to pass an ultimatum to Petersburg - on August X, Sultan Abdul-Hamid I declared war against Russia on 12.

War again

The plans of the Turks provided for the landing of troops in the Crimea, in order to clear it of the Russians together with the insurgent Tatars. Then it was planned to destroy the Russian flotilla in the Dnieper-Bug estuary, destroy Kherson and the shipyards located there, and then begin the invasion of Ukraine from Moldova and Crimea. Aci-Kale was assigned the most important role in the beginning war - the fortress was the largest Turkish base in the Northern Black Sea region.

As has repeatedly happened, Russia did not have a clear plan for war. The speeches of the Turks were expected, but still it turned out to be sudden. Prince Grigory Alexandrovich Potemkin logically proposed to seize Ochakov, then take control of the coast between the Bug and the Dniester, in order to continue the advance on the Balkans. For these purposes, it was decided to form two armies: Yekaterinoslav under the command of Potemkin proper and the Ukrainian, which was assigned to Field Marshal Rumyantsev. The Yekaterinoslav army, which was the main force, was supposed to total 75 – 80 thousand people with 300 guns. The task of the Ukrainian army in 35 – 40 thousand people with 96 guns was to interact with the allied Austrian troops and the defense of Ukraine. For the defense of the Crimea and actions in the Kuban, a mobile Crimean-Kuban corps was formed in 20 – 25 thousand people. While these contingents were being formed, the general-in-chief Suvorov was instructed to organize the defense of the Crimea, the fortress of Kinburn and the approaches to Kherson. The Russian Navy on the Black Sea was represented by five battleships, nineteen frigates, one bombing ship and several dozen small ships. These forces were divided into the Sevastopol squadron and the Liman flotilla. In view of the small size of the ship group, she was ordered to take defensive actions with an emphasis on the defense of the Crimea.

Test of endurance

The Turks were the first to try to impose a tempo. On October 1, after several demonstrations of the fleet, they disembark the 5,5-thousandth troops, separated from the contingent stationed in Ochakov, on the Kinburn Spit to capture the fortress of Kinburn. Suvorov, the commander of the Russian forces in the area, was expecting a similar attack of the enemy - he gave the visitors a warm welcome, destroying the landing forces almost completely. It is curious that when inspecting the bodies of the murdered Turks, two disguised Frenchmen were discovered, and these were clearly not researchers of local folklore, but military advisers. When this news brought to the notice of the Empress, Catherine commanded that if such a case recurs, and some French are taken alive, then send them to Siberia to rest in order to discourage them from going to teach and instruct the Turks. Obviously, the empress was far from tolerance.

Prince Potemkin. author unknown

While the aforementioned events were taking place, Prince Potemkin, having completed the formation of the Yekaterinoslav Army, was in no hurry to go over to decisive hostilities. Neither in the autumn of 1787, nor in the winter of 1787 – 1788, he decided not to launch the siege of Ochakov. Inaction of the Most Serene allowed the Turks to bring the Ochakov garrison to 20 thousand people and strengthen the defense of the fortress with field fortifications. The number of guns located on the shafts and the transferee, reached 330 trunks. The fortress was surrounded by a deep moat to the depth of 7 meters. The pantries and powder cellars of Ochakov were significantly expanded, and they collected resources to supply the garrison with everything necessary for a long siege. At the head of the garrison was the three-armed Hussein Pasha.

By mid-May 1788, over 50, thousands of soldiers and officers were concentrated in the area of ​​Olviopol (modern yet Pervomaisk). Having waited for the approach of numerous wagons and siege artillery parks, the Russian army began to move south. 25 May she crossed the Southern Bug and continued to move in the direction of Ochakov. Burdened by numerous rears, Potemkin traveled 200 versts in 33 of the day. Suvorov suggested that the commander, with the help of the Liman flotilla, take the fortress on the run, until the Turks came to their senses. But Potemkin decided to conduct a classical siege "according to the method" - with laying trenches and batteries. His plan was to build redoubts covering the flanks of the Russian army, and then erecting a number of siege batteries in order to force the garrison to surrender by methodical bombardment, as it was done by 50 years ago by Munnich. However, His Highness did not take into account the fact that the enemy also drew proper conclusions from his defeat, and the fortress was strengthened and equipped now with much better.

July 12 built the first battery on the Black Sea coast, and by July 20 the army completely overlaid the fortress. In early August, in order to prevent enemy attacks and cover up siege operations, two redoubts were built with artillery two kilometers from Ochakov. Undermining the enemy fortifications to dig was not possible because of the characteristics of the soil. The Turks did not remain passive observers - on July 29, apparently, for the purpose of reconnaissance in force, a cavalry detachment left the 50 man who attacked the Cossack picket. Behind the cavalry, at least 500 foot janissaries advanced. A small sortie, quickly overcoming the scale of the clash, began to grow to a battle. Reinforcements also approached the Russians - the company of the Fanagori regiment and the company of the grenadier, which drove the Turks away with accurate fire. The enemy, seeing how the matter was growing, also began to introduce one unit after another into battle, bringing the number of infantry on its part to three thousand. A crisis arose, and with a view to resolving it, the General-General of Suvorov, having built two Grenadier battalions in the square, personally led them to the attack. The enemy ran, and the Russians managed to capture several field fortifications. The general wanted to burst into the fortress on the shoulders of the Turks - the right moment was ripe for that. But Suvorov clearly lacked the available forces - he sends Potemkin orderlies with requests similar to demands to send reinforcements. The commander not only does not send any troops, but also demands to retreat. Thrice enraged, Suvorov demands help, three times he receives an order to retreat. The Turks, meanwhile, came to their senses and opened heavy fire. Having introduced fresh forces into the battle, the grenadier began to throng. Suvorov, who was wounded in the neck, had to surrender command to Lieutenant-General Bibikov, who was soon forced to give an order to retreat. In this battle, the Russians lost 154 people killed and 211 wounded. Some historians explain the reasons why the ambitious Potemkin did not help Suvorov with personal motives. Say, glory did not want to share. It is more likely that the methods of warfare, adopted by Alexander Vasilyevich, were too impudent, swift and dynamic for the cautious in military affairs of Potemkin. He was frightened by the volume and number of decisions that had to be made in a short period of time. The prince was a talented administrator, a man of a large and dynamic mind, but his military talents left much to be desired.

In addition to injuring Suvorov, he was severely reprimanded by the commander, who accused the general of excessive dashingness and useless losses from the point of view of Potemkin. The main argument of the prince was reduced to the value of the soldiers' lives, which greatly offended Suvorov himself, who was anxious about subordinates. A conflict arose between two extraordinary personalities, which Alexander Vassilyevich commented very sharply on the tongue with caustic puns such as: “I am sitting on a pebble, I look at Ochakov”. Naturally, helpful individuals brought Suvorov's puns to Potemkin’s attention, which, to put it mildly, did not improve the atmosphere at the top of the Russian army. In the end, Suvorov returned to Kinburn. The aged Rumyantsev spoke no less sharply: they say, Ochakov is not Troy, to besiege his 10 years. The general discontent with Potemkin’s activities during the siege of Ochakov grew. The famous condotier in the Russian service, Prince Nassau-Siegen, wrote to St. Petersburg about the missed opportunity to take the fortress in the spring.

Catherine was aware of the details of the Ochakov Seat and Potemkin's slowness, but the credit of trust in him was very high. The Most Serene began to organize a full-scale siege. Throughout August, Russian soldiers dug parallels and erected siege batteries that were supposed to bombard the fortress. The garrison tripled the number of sorties from time to time, alarming the besiegers. On August 18, a major clash took place with Turkish garrison forces trying to hinder battery construction. Having lost more than 500 people killed, the enemy retreated. Russian troops lost 150 people. It is noteworthy that in this battle, Major General M.I. received a second wound to the head. Kutuzov. The wound turned out to be serious, but fate kept the future field marshal for more serious matters. For the whole of August and September, a total of 30 artillery batteries were equipped with 317 siege and field artillery guns. The fire power of the Russian army was constantly growing. They burned a lot of gunpowder, consumed cores, but the Turks did not show signs of weakness - Hussein Pasha certainly refused all Potemkin’s ultimatums. The superiority of the Turkish fleet at sea allowed on November 1 to deliver thousands of reinforcements and necessary supplies by sea to Ochakov 1,5. A strong wind did not allow the Russian flotilla to leave the estuary and prevent this. Meanwhile, little by little the methodical bombardment gradually began to bring results. By early November, Turkish fortifications, especially at the front line, were badly damaged. Some of the buildings inside the fortress are destroyed. Having cruised, the Turkish fleet went to Istanbul for the winter, which could not but affect the morale of the garrison. It is known from history that a fortress with a fleet and a fortress without a fleet are two different situations. Taking advantage of the enemy’s withdrawal, the Russian rowing flotilla on November 7 landed a tactical assault on the island of Berezan, on which there was a small garrison, and captured it.

Nevertheless, the enemy constantly made attacks - especially large November 11 forces up to 2 thousand people. On the Russian side, Major General S.P. Maximov, three officers and nearly a hundred soldiers. Even to cautious Potemkin it became clear that the siege did not bring the corresponding results. On the nose was winter in the steppe, and Potemkin knew about the number of sanitary losses in the army of Minich, who stood here in 1737 year. The losses of his own army by the sick and those who have died of deprivation have long exceeded the fighting. The prospect of either wintering in the cold, windswept steppe, where even there was nothing to build capital housing for the soldiers, or to remove the siege and retreat to apartments became very clear. Failure Potemkin could not bear - it was completely unacceptable. He knew perfectly well what intrigues weave against him in Petersburg, who are persistently crowding at the door of the Empress's bedroom. He needed a victory. Reluctantly, the prince gives the order to prepare for the assault.


Frosts began in the second half of November. Under these conditions, the Russian army was preparing for an assault. His plan was Ivanovich Möller, who was in the headquarters of the Yekaterinoslav army, General-in-Chief of Artillery. For the mastery of the fortress were formed six columns. The first and second were to capture the citadel, the third struck from the north, the fourth - from the east side of the fortress. The fifth and sixth columns were in reserve and acted "by consideration of General Meller." Artillery training to ensure surprise, it was decided not to carry out.

All preparations were completed by the evening of December 5. At 7 in the morning of 6 in December 1788 of the year, on the day of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, after a moleben during the frost in 23 degrees, Russian troops went to the assault on Ochakov. The Turks had a fierce and stubborn resistance - the attackers met with heavy fire. Column of Major General P.A. Palen wedged into the Turkish fortifications between the fortress and the citadel, the so-called castle of Hussein Pasha. Then he sent Colonel F. Meknob to attack the castle. The colonel and his men broke into the citadel, and the Turks who were there near 300 along with Hussein Pasha himself were taken prisoner. Holistic control of the defense of Ochakov was lost. The third column energetically attacked the earthworks, which was headed by Major-General Volkonsky, was killed. Colonel Jurgenz, who took command, brought her to the walls of the fortress. The fourth column under the command of Lieutenant-General Prince Dolgorukov, during a stubborn bayonet battle, broke through to the fortress gates, occupied and opened them. The Turks blew up two previously laid land mines, but this did not stop the assault.

The fifth and sixth columns, entered into the battle, struck gaps in the defense of the enemy and went directly to the bastions of the fortress. Part of the forces of the sixth column, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Zubin, approached the southern side of the fortress on the ice of the Estuary. Moreover, the grenadiers dragged with a gun. Taking them to direct fire, under the cover of artillery fire, Zubin’s soldiers climbed onto the wall and captured it.

Downed from the walls, the Turks settled in the ruins of houses inside the fortress and put up fierce resistance. But the backbone of the enemy defense was already interrupted, it ceased to be organized. The remnants of the Turkish garrison were destroyed mainly as a result of a bayonet battle. Liberal historians love to complain about the "massacre" organized by the Russians in Ochakovo, forgetting about some of the details of the stay of Christians in Turkish captivity and the capture of the Turks of the cities. Lyric Mehmed II, who took Constantinople, did not interfere with composing poems mass slaughter of the Christian population. In Turkey, even filmed a very pretentious film on this event, without uncomfortable details, of course. In the ground battle of Abukir 25 July 1799, the French were driven into the water and virtually drowned under heavy fire from 10 to 11 thousands of Turks. Who will remember this? The war in the East was radically different from the battles of noble gentlemen in Europe. All gentlemen and chivalry after the transition through the Neman instantly evaporated.

Prince Potemkin observed the general course of the assault with one of the advanced batteries. When the captured Turkish commander Hussein Pasha was brought to him, His Highness attacked him with anger, saying that so much blood had spilled out of his stubbornness. To which the old commandant, Achi-Kale, philosophically objected that he, like his opponent, was simply doing his duty.

An hour later, with a little resistance, the Turkish garrison was broken - Ochakov was taken. During the assault, thousands of Turks were killed and died from the wounds of 9,5. Another 4 thousand taken prisoner, not counting the inhabitants. More than 300 guns and 180 banners, stocks of gunpowder, bullets and cores were captured as trophies. The losses of the Russian army amounted to 956 killed and 2776 injured. The bodies of the officers killed in the assault were transported to Kherson and buried in the church of St. Catherine the Great Martyr. The military necropolis of the heroes of Ochakov has survived to our time.

Medal for the lower ranks for the capture of Ochakov

The numerous bodies of the dead Turks did not have the opportunity to bury immediately in the frozen ground - part of them was transferred to the ice of the estuary, where it remained until spring. Immediately after the capture of the fortress, Potemkin set about to destroy it. He justified his zeal before Catherine that the fortress could cause complications in negotiations with the Turks. Although by 1789, the outcome of the war no longer aroused any doubts. After the destruction of Ochakov, the entrance to the estuary was covered by the Kinburn fortress, only during the 1877 – 1878 war, coastal batteries were built at this place.

Catherine, who was waiting for victory, generously rewarded Potemkin. 4 February 1789 year in the Winter Palace, he received the baton of General Marshal, the Order of George I degree, a sword decorated with diamonds and 100 thousand rubles premium. Many officers who participated in the assault were also awarded the Orders of St. George and St. Vladimir, IV degree. The lower ranks received silver medals and an additional semi-annual salary.


The Ochakov victory allowed Russia to finally establish itself in the Northern Black Sea region, to ensure the safety of approaches to the Crimea. Eliminate the immediate threat to the shipyards of Kherson. To expand the shipbuilding base of the Black Sea Fleet, which is gaining momentum and importance, in the 1789 year, at the confluence of the Southern Bug and Ingul, on the instructions of Potemkin, the new shipyard and city were founded, which received the name Nikolaev in honor of the victory of Ochakov. It will subsequently become the second largest shipbuilding center of the empire.

One may criticize Prince Potemkin for the sluggishness of a siege, favoritism, and a love of rewards. Having received the management of the wild steppe inhabited by gophers and jerboas, this man in a short time turned the southern frontiers of Russia into a prosperous land, where cities, fortresses and shipyards were built. Almost from scratch, the Russian Black Sea Fleet was created, whose ships were in no way inferior to the enemy. Stimulating the resettlement of peasants from overpopulated central provinces to the New Russia, tacitly allowing the peasants who fled here not to be turned over to landlords, Potemkin ensured that there was a population on the shores of the Black Sea that could, if necessary, stand up for Russia weapons in hand. The prince had a remarkable mind and was able to distinguish talented people from the crowd of sycophants and sycophants, a quality that would be very commendable for many modern statesmen.

Modern Ukrainian historiography, spinning like it already in a frying pan, is trying to eliminate the word "Russia" and "Russians" from the epic of the development of the Northern Black Sea region. It comes to the point of absurdity: the actions of a faceless army that participated in specific events are described. Unknown people founded Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa. The army without belonging defended Kinburn and took Ochakov. Unknown ships (probably “Flying Dutchmen”) plowed the Black Sea. The word “Russian” is tabooed in many textbooks. Facts and events are there, and who implemented them, is silent. I would like to believe that this is all just another song that they are trying to sing without words. But more it looks like a conspiracy of silence about those people and that country who cannot be thrown out of this song.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parusnik
    parusnik 8 December 2015 08: 04
    Unknown ships (probably the “Flying Dutchmen”) plowed the Black Sea.... Yeah, and won the victory over the Turkish fleet .. because the Turks were afraid of ghosts .. smile ..Thank you, Denis .. wonderful ..
    1. Condor-a
      Condor-a 8 December 2015 22: 53
      Fer-Champenoise Victoria, Tsushima Confusion ... the author, what do you have with the Russian language? Was the two as foreign?
      1. Russ_Dry
        Russ_Dry 9 December 2015 07: 08
        then they spoke in surzhik. almost like right now
        then it was considered cool to win Victoria instead of winning, to give satisfaction instead of satisfying the request / demand, etc.

        right now, too, they require transparency of processes instead of transparency, and in the Crimea it’s not a blackout. Instead of full and short lists, now long lists and short lists.

        Moreover, even the established (Russified) foreignisms are being changed: for about five minutes I remembered the synonym for the word "fake", well, not fake, fake or deception, namely foreignism. I broke my head while I remembered - falsification.

        PS: we had a Mayor in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky for a long time, and I was proud that it was not some kind of meeer. and now we have, damn it, a city manager. city ​​manager, Karl!
        1. Condor-a
          Condor-a 9 December 2015 08: 57
          This is all done for a reason ... the victories of these sadistic Freemasons who were accepted through were usually amusing or bloody, in which the number of the Russian population was declining. As Tsushima is so nicholasque (at which it grew), the Narva defeat or disaster in the Prut campaign of Peter, where he surrendered the army of millions, is just an embarrassment.

          In the case of the latest "modernisms", the attitude is simply made that Russians with their Russian language are flawed and cannot govern themselves. So someone else should do it with them for us.
  2. Pal2004
    Pal2004 8 December 2015 08: 53
    Thank. Very good informatively!
    1. Abrekkos
      Abrekkos 8 December 2015 12: 57

      In my opinion, a series of articles about the Russian-Turkish wars is the best answer in today's situation.

      In our history, everything is written about our present and, to some extent, the future.

      This mine is incomparably better than trying to discuss and make judgments on the possibilities of a top secret weapon about which it is impossible to speak that particular truth. Yes, and real possibilities open up in real use, which God forbid.

      And here everything has been known for a long time and there is something to learn. And there is something to be proud of, whom to look up to and for what to fight for.

      But all these wars were ultimately for the return of Constantinople, an attempt by the Third Rome to return the Second and the center of Orthodoxy. Well, of course, the straits.

      Thank you.
      1. Condor-a
        Condor-a 8 December 2015 22: 51
        Fer-Champenoise Victoria, Tsushima Confusion ... the author, what do you have with the Russian language? Was the two as foreign?
  3. AK64
    AK64 8 December 2015 11: 06
    The problem of unhindered access to the Black Sea loomed before Russia for more than a century, but only Peter I took up its resolution, rolling up his sleeves.

    It is clear that you can not read further: well, the author does not know anything about 200 years of war with the Crimea and Turkey BEFORE Peter ... It happens - but why then write in the newspapers, here's the question?

    But, by the way, what does the author mean by "rolled up his sleeves"? That is, apparently, according to the author, 200 years of war with the Turks and the Crimea before Peter fought without rolling up their sleeves? But Peter rolled up - and won at once? It turns out so ...

    That is, of course, it is clear that before Peter in Russia there was no life at all, but still: who, for example, was in Azov?

    / shakes his head /
  4. Morrow
    Morrow 8 December 2015 12: 06
    What kind of Ukraine are they talking about? About New Russia or Little Russia?
  5. Snail N9
    Snail N9 8 December 2015 13: 18
    The attitude of the German woman Catherine to the Novorossiysk Territory and, in general, to her land, which she expressed during one of her meetings with State Secretary Bezborodko, is curious. Bezborodko brought her a bunch of complaints from officials that life in the newly acquired Novorossiysk Territory and Crimea is simply hellish, there is no water, everywhere salt marshes and "narodishko" settlers are dying from "bad" water and "infection" immeasurably and that Chancellor Osterman asked to convey Empress that he has an offer from the Ottomans to redeem these lands back for gold, and the Austrians and Genoese are asking for the same, which would be useful for the empty treasury, etc. To which Catherine replied approximately the following: "Tell the Chancellor that if he due to his wits or his own selfishness, he cannot or does not want to properly dispose of the newly acquired lands, then let him leave these lands to his descendants, who will certainly be smarter than him and find them worthy use. There is nothing more valuable for the state than its land, because only the land grows the state if there is land, then there will be a people of this land, and therefore there will be a state. And, as far as gold and all the riches of which you can get for the sale of your land, then this is because it is corruptible and coming, and the earth will be forever ... "
    So I think what would prevent our state politicians and officials who consider themselves "patriots of Russia" and at the same time who trade Russian lands, exchanging them for worthless pieces of paper "on the settlement of" border disputes ", to learn patriotism and attitude towards their country from a German woman -images of Catherine II.
  6. Aleksander
    Aleksander 8 December 2015 13: 56
    You can criticize Prince Potemkin as much as you like for the sluggishness of the siege, favoritism, and love of rewards. Having taken control of the Wild Steppe, inhabited by gophers and jerboas, this man in a short time turned the southern borders of Russia into a prosperous land where cities, fortresses and shipyards were built

    This was a man with a capital letter, like his associates, storytellers of New Russia. And how far the Bolsheviks turned out to be Non-People, transferring this built-up region to the under-republic of Ukraine with this work of Russia ....
  7. Vohman
    Vohman 8 December 2015 14: 27
    The article is interesting. Historically, these are very interesting places. And in those days, the Pervomaysky prison island (about which, unfortunately, nothing was said) like Alcatraz, built by Catherine on the bones of commoners, and nothing is said about the island of Berezan. There is also the Tendra Spit, where there was also a fortress. And the city of Ochakov was Karakarman, Achikale, and Dashev, and a very, very long time Alektor.
    And although the article reads and looks fine, the last paragraph completely spoiled the overall impression. The author writes: "Modern Ukrainian historiography, spinning like a frying pan, is trying to eliminate the word" Russia "and" Russians "from the epic of the exploration of the Northern Black Sea region. It reaches the point of absurdity: they describe ...", etc. Well, why is this in this article? Is it really necessary to bring EVERYTHING to the point of absurdity with politics and your subjective views? Judging by the history of these places, we can say that these lands are not native Russian at all !! Isn't that how it comes out of history? Why are these phrases and these conclusions? And if, then, according to the text, then the early statements that there was no Ukraine and it is not known what and where it was - the author's lines look somehow strange: "..two armies: Yekaterinoslav [..] and Ukrainian ... Yekaterinoslav army [. .] 75–80 thousand people with 300 guns. The task of the Ukrainian army of 35–40 thousand people with 96 guns was to interact with the allied Austrian troops and the defense of Ukraine .. "Thus, the author successfully and briefly highlighted some historical events, but decided to insert his "five" and spoiled a good article with his conclusions, "explaining" that the Ukrainian army, like Ukraine itself, was not there and no one had any role - neither the local population itself, nor the army (of Ukraine! - words of the author), nor allies - did not play at all (although this is about half of the Russian army + allies). At the same time, in the text there was both the Ukrainian army and Ukraine ...
    What I want to say with my remark is that you don’t always have to interfere with shit when you describe great historical events - the soul is not quite good. And so - without the last paragraph - the article is not bad.
    1. Morrow
      Morrow 9 December 2015 19: 43
      There was no Ukraine. It was Little Russia. What's wrong?
  8. Plombirator
    8 December 2015 14: 59
    Quote: Vohman
    nor the army (of Ukraine!

    Dear colleague, not the army of Ukraine, but the "Ukrainian army". The Baltic front is that the Baltic army ?! And Volkhovsky is the army of the Magi ?! The last paragraph is a complaint about the fact that the aforementioned lands are now called primordially Ukrainian. And Nikolaev, Odessa, Kherson and others are Ukrainian cities!
    1. Vohman
      Vohman 8 December 2015 16: 08
      Quote: Plombirator
      The last paragraph is a complaint that the aforementioned lands are now called native Ukrainian

      Ahhhh. Here I agree that these lands can not be considered either native Ukrainian or native Russian. It’s just written here
      The word "Russian" is taboo in many textbooks. There are facts and events, but who implemented them is silent
      For example, I did not notice this. On the contrary, the author in the last paragraph speaks completely dismissively of the Allied forces, and of the troops that were formed from the local population, and of the contribution to ensuring all armies without exception that participated in these events. And as you know, without security there is no war. But the Russian army is extolled. I don’t want to offend anyone - now and so everyone has porridge - Yesterday's Theirs become sharply enemies, for tomorrow they are Theirs again ... :(
      Just to say that the local population of those states and territories where the events took place played absolutely no role in solving the geopolitical goals of the Russian Empire - this will be a lie and unfair to the participants in those events. And the fact that they were called Ukrainians, and the territory of Ukraine is a fact. Unfortunately, for some reason now it has become fashionable for this particular state and people living in Ukraine to be called Little Russians and something else. But they called themselves Ukrainians, and Ukrainian and Ukrainians fought side by side with the Russian army. It was, and this is not to throw it away. Like Russian, as well as allied (Austrians, etc.)
      For example, in the war with Napoleon in the Kiev direction in the regular Russian army, the Ukrainian part of the population was a fairly significant percentage. So, among the rank and file, it was 50%, among the junior officers - 80%, senior officers - 20%.
      And so it is possible to describe other formations that are completely not related to the Russian army, but participated and made a huge contribution.
      Again, the cities of course are Ukrainian - Nikolaev, Odessa, etc. because they belong to this country. If this is not so, then one can just as well speak of many Russian cities. After all, they also were not always Russian - Kaliningrad, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and Murmansk, etc. Yes, they founded, it is written, and in many respects I agree, but other people, other peoples lived there before. Why not just as successfully call them someone else's ?!
      I’ll write again - I meant with my remark that when the author wants to write and writes about historical events, then you should not dilute them with modern political intrigues! That is what I had in mind. And if you say - yes, the city that belongs to any country - they belong to this country. No one else. Or will you, having bought an apartment, claim that your apartment is already Uncle Petit, because he once sat there, drank vodka? All lands were once upon a time. And now they are within these boundaries, and if it is ignored, this usually leads to bloodshed. Therefore, do not pour oil into the fire. You write about an event in the Russian-Turkish war - you should not mix this war with its not yet defined historical status - time will put everything in its place. But it is not worth reducing the merits and participation of other nations either. The commanders of those times were wise, and therefore relied on the armies of other states and territories, without humiliating their merits. But politics is a completely different topic.
      1. Morrow
        Morrow 9 December 2015 19: 45
        Give the facts that they were called Ukrainians! Only the pro-Apostle apostates called it. But Bogdan Khmelnitsky, Mazepa and everyone else called themselves Little Russians. THESE FACTS !!
        1. Vohman
          Vohman 10 December 2015 04: 04
          Bring facts

          I already wrote it below. Sorry, I repeat, it’s interesting:
          In the drama "Boris Godunov" (1825) Grishka Otrepiev says about himself: "And finally he fled from his cell / To the Ukrainians, to their violent smoking rooms, / He learned to own a horse and a saber ..." (scene "Night. Garden. Fountain")

          If you need more, I can accurately and using open sources from the literature of those times give many interesting facts. I am sure that you are smart and will not argue with the fact that the date of at least this work is "slightly" older than your reasoning on this issue.
          1. Morrow
            Morrow 10 December 2015 09: 34
            What does Boris Godunov drama have to do with it? Are there any historical documents?
    2. bondarencko
      bondarencko 10 December 2015 03: 13
      And, by the way, Nikolaev is now on Ukrainian maps, called Mikolaev, although the name comes from the Greek Nikos - VICTORY, Laos - people.
      1. Vohman
        Vohman 10 December 2015 03: 55
        the name comes from the Greek Nikos - VICTORY, Laos - people.

        Is that a joke? Complete nonsense! All want to wishful thinking? But why? Or was it you who were Prince Potemkin, who - at that time the shipyard - was officially named Nikolaev for the first time.
        And all these fabrications about Greek - well, I don’t even want to discuss it!
        Nikolaev, as far as I know, is named in honor of St. Nicholas as the patron saint of sailors. There, on the main street Sovetskaya, there is a sculpture and fountains for him - google maps help you, and read books.
      2. Vohman
        Vohman 10 December 2015 20: 43
        called Mikolaev

        In Ukrainian, as you know, Nikolai will be Mykola. Therefore, the city of Mykolaev.
  9. Plombirator
    8 December 2015 15: 02
    Quote: AK64
    Well, the author does not know anything about 200 years of war

    The purpose of the article is not a multi-page presentation of Russian-Turkish relations, but only a story about a specific combat episode of these relations.
  10. Plombirator
    8 December 2015 17: 25
    Quote: Vohman
    But the Russian army turns extolled.

    I gave due to the stubbornness and courage of the garrison of Ochakov, for:
    Yes, the enemy was brave.
    All the more our fame. (K.M. Simonov)
    It would be strange if Turkish were emphasizedly exalted - for this purpose there are relevant websites in Turkey, and, believe me, they are in perfect order)
  11. kvs207
    kvs207 8 December 2015 18: 45
    Quote: Vohman
    For example, in the war with Napoleon in the Kiev direction in the regular Russian army, the Ukrainian part of the population was a fairly significant percentage. So, among the rank and file, it was 50%, among the junior officers - 80%, senior officers - 20%.

    Well, there was no nationality then - "Ukrainian". At best, they wrote "maloros", and there was no concept like the notorious "fifth" column either. People were written according to their place of residence, but not according to their ethnicity.
  12. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 8 December 2015 22: 06
    Rumyantsev, when he read the report on the capture of Ochakov, said: "Well, finally, the Most Serene One took his Troy ..." (the siege of which, as you know, lasted 10 years and cost great sacrifices)
  13. Vohman
    Vohman 10 December 2015 02: 58
    Quote: kvs207
    Well, there was no nationality then - "Ukrainian". At best, they wrote "maloros"

    Let's see at least here
    In the drama "Boris Godunov" (1825) Grishka Otrepiev says about himself: "And finally he fled from his cell / To the Ukrainians, to their violent smoking rooms, / He learned to own a horse and a saber ..." (scene "Night. Garden. Fountain") ...

    Although we can talk much more about the early period. Probably need to read, ask. Propaganda - this is certainly interesting - science fiction is simple, but there are really a lot of interesting things in history. hi
    1. Morrow
      Morrow 10 December 2015 09: 35
      Read what historical documents are. This is definitely a literary work. But the gogol in Taras Bulba calls out Little Russians all, and so what?
      1. Vohman
        Vohman 10 December 2015 20: 21
        I have always believed that if in any artistic or official document / work for a certain year - in this case 1825 - there is a mention of something, then it means that something really happened. "Boris Godunov" is not a fantastic work. This work is dated. So there were Ukrainians at that time.
        Yes, I can still give examples dated by earlier dates. if interested, then I’ll rummage.
      2. Vohman
        Vohman 10 December 2015 21: 41
        yes, for example, literature released in 1937, under Comrade Stalin (like everyone now respects him like that period), Grekov “A Short Course in the History of the USSR” 1937.
        We read: "..From the beginning of the 13th century the Kiev principality of the Slavs has been called Kiev Rus .." (p. XNUMX).
        We read further: "The" Russian national state "appeared only under Ivan III" (p. 32)

        This is a tutorial! Under Stalin! Censored! What is the problem actually? Or do you think that under STALIN it was possible to write something NOT SAME for nothing and publish it all the more for education ?!

        “It is clear that the Ukrainian historiography did not like Kievan Rus: in the meanings of that time, it was dissolved in the spatial or historical limits of the greater Rus-Russia.

        Actually, if there were no passports with the "nationality" column, then the peoples inhabiting certain territories called themselves and had the right to do it as they liked. So they called themselves Ukrainians, no matter how anyone there wanted to. Another thing is how it was later called officially by the same Muscovy or other states.
        After all, China does not call itself the word "China". They had him all the time - in my opinion - Jun Guo - in two hieroglyphs, which means China for US. But you will not now argue that the Chinese were not there until you or someone else began to call them that!

        Nevertheless .. I hope I pointed out to you some official sources of the times that you should trust. Check - easy - there are pages.
      3. Vohman
        Vohman 10 December 2015 22: 47
        Quote: Morrrow
        Read what historical documents are ..

        1755 year!
        Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov. Russian grammar. § 45–128

        Second instruction
        On reading and spelling Russian
        Chapter 5
        § 112

        It is necessary to observe in spelling: 1) that it serves to be readable by anyone who knows Russian literacy, 2) that it does not depart far from the main Russian dialects, which are three: Moscow, Northern, Ukrainian, 3) that there is not much to be removed from a pure reprimand, 4 ) so that the traces of production and addition of utterances are not completely obscured.

        I hope so far that will be enough for you.
        1. Condor-a
          Condor-a 13 December 2015 00: 29
          Which edition is the book? The Little Russian dialect was called South Russian. Ukraine is a Polish name, it was the outskirts of the Commonwealth. No one in the Russian Kingdom called the northern White Sea region, Siberia, Alaska and the Far East "Ukraine".
          This word began to be massively introduced only by the Germans and then the Bolsheviks after the German occupation of 1918 Little Russian and Novorossiysk lands in the Russian language.
          1. Vohman
            Vohman 13 December 2015 17: 55
            What book edition? Little Russian dialect was called South Russian

            Well read here. There you can see the original. Why are you spraying your saliva with anger? Why's that? Where from?

            Lomonosov. Probably now you will find another hundred excuses that Lomonosov didn’t mean it, and indeed he will not be an authority for you now .. Will he?

            (the link here is so strange, completely copy for the correct transition)





            This word began to be massively introduced only by the Germans and then the Bolsheviks.

            Apparently, after reading Lomonosov, you will nevertheless correct your knowledge of who called what and how, well, so for 300 years, minus to your reasoning (only from Lomonosov).
            If interested, I can find older documents.
            Notice, I give you documents.
            1. Condor-a
              Condor-a 15 December 2015 12: 47
              The book was written in 1755 and published when?
              Most of the Little Russians were offended by the "Ukrainian" even under the communists. Documents to understand still need the mind.
              1. Vohman
                Vohman 15 December 2015 21: 28
                Quote: Condor-A
                The book was written in 1755 and published when?

                Actually, this is the year of publication (as I recall).
                Well, about the grievances - you do not tell me just like that, ok? I’m kind of like documents to you, but you are just words to me.
                Once offended - a book in the studio. But it’s not just that someone was offended there, but so that, for example, a million are offended - it’s not jap and not fifty people. This is the people, if not cool. And everything is expensive in the documents. Then it will be a productive conversation. And it’s like we’re talking about big things, but we’ll slide into isolated cases (again, maybe).
                For example, when I lived in the south of the USSR, and even now before the events with the Crimea and the Donbass, never - NEVER! - There was no question about New Russia, about something like this. Neither in the Crimea, nor in the south of Ukraine (I did not live and did not live in the Donbas, I traveled except, therefore, I don’t say so). Therefore, mine is NEVER backed up by life. That's all. And these trends, as now Turkey, are just a rough policy of irresponsible politicians who have drawn people into strife and blood. Nobody bothered anyone. Everyone has always been. And here - once - and there was no Ukraine, Ukrainians all at once, now the Turks are all such ... how many more will be .. there were already Georgians, etc. Something is somehow wrong, do not you think? Somehow everything is childish - I didn’t give what I want - I’m not friends ... But all because of an adult, too adult as a result. And not for politicians, but for people :(
                OK. It was a "lyrical" digression and an expression of my opinion on this matter.
                If there are documents - and what to rely on in your statements - send. It is very interesting to me.
                1. Condor-a
                  Condor-a 16 December 2015 02: 15
                  In your opinion, it turns out that Crimea has always been Ukraine.
                  Your book, you and her in the studio ... The city was even such a Novorossiysk, the only thing that the arm of internationalism did not rise to (but it is in Russia), continuing the work of the German and Austro-Hungarian general staff to dismember the superethnos. Belarusians and then-Russians.
                  Ukraine is the Polish word.
                  1. Vohman
                    Vohman 16 December 2015 03: 05
                    Quote: Condor-A
                    In your opinion, it turns out that Crimea has always been Ukraine.
                    Your book, you and her in the studio ...

                    Did I say something like that about Crimea? And is he Russian? And has it always been Russian?
                    And secondly, I asked to confirm your comments with a book, a document ..
                    I think I won’t swear and quarrel. Since you do not want and cannot, apart from your words, prove anything documented or shown, sorry, this is the end of the conversation.
                    I, as you requested, confirmed with a document. You, unfortunately, are just balabolite.
                    1. Condor-a
                      Condor-a 16 December 2015 03: 15
                      Well, about immediately north of the Crimea you wrote something for some reason ... And you wrote about him right away in the next sentence. laughing
                      I think you will not see anything except a fig in any book on this topic - you are probably one of the "Yulia Baptists", or something like that. lol
                      1. Vohman
                        Vohman 16 December 2015 03: 24
                        Quote: Condor-A
                        you're probably one of the "Yulia Baptists", or something like that.

                        everything is clear to me. Good night, boy (I don’t know the age, but the text, unfortunately, turns out that way)

                        And yet, where are the facts?
                      2. Condor-a
                        Condor-a 16 December 2015 03: 29
                        All clear with you. The fact is that at first there was Kievan Rus, and "Ukraine" is a Polish word, go sing along with the pastor and rub coke into your gums ...
                        You were there above "quoted Lomonosov" so he attributed the "Ukrainian" dialect to the Russian - what other separate people then? lol
                      3. tropic
                        tropic 16 December 2015 11: 23
                        Quote: Condor-A
                        The fact is that Kievan Rus was first,

                        The fact is that Kievan Rus never existed. It was just Russia. With the capital in Kiev.
                      4. Condor-a
                        Condor-a 16 December 2015 14: 04
                        And Vladimir-Suzdal Rus with capitals in Vladimir and Suzdal also never been?
                        Rurik, the grandson of Gostomysl was even called in the wrong place ...
                        Kiev was not loved for its bargaining, and ... in general, "Khazar" back then. winked