Military Review

Peter's reform of the Russian army

45



The necessity of carrying out military reforms by Peter I was due to the fact that by the time the new tsar assumed the throne (1689), Russia was behind the most advanced countries of Western Europe not only economically but also militarily.

At the base of the national army at that time were the noble militia and the Strelets army. The first arose at the end of the 15th century and consisted of noblemen, as well as boyar children, who were obliged to arrive on first request for military service on their horse, with weapons and accompanied by slaves. Strelets army, created in 40-50-s of the XVI century, was recruited from the townspeople and rural residents. Since military service was considered lifelong and hereditary for archers, they were usually settled on government lands, allowed to start a family and engage in trades. The manning conditions adopted at that time resulted in the fact that the combat readiness of the old military formations and the level of discipline in them were kept at a low level. Complicated the task and the fact that the troops were subject to different orders: the nobles - Discharged, the archers - Streletsky. There was also Reitarsky order, which was engaged in the regiments of the new system, formed mainly on the Western model. Naturally, such a division in the administration also had a negative impact on the combat capability of the army.

There was also no regular navy in Russia. Existing small flotilla of medium-sized sailing and rowing vessels were intended mainly to protect trade routes along the Volga, Dnieper, Don, Caspian, Siberian rivers and the White Sea. Meanwhile, many countries of Western Europe and the Middle East by that time already possessed large naval forces. It is fair to say that for a hundred years Russia was cut off from the main shipping lanes that previously connected it with Europe. The Black Sea was in the hands of Turkey, and Sweden closed the Baltic. Only the White Sea remained open. But it was removed from the main centers of the country and the advanced Western European states.

To remove the power from the backward state, it was also necessary to eliminate its isolation from the developed Western European states. New armed forces were necessary, because the old military formations were unable to solve complex military-political tasks. And the fleet of the state was still helpless. Peter I felt this keenly during the Azov campaigns, which convinced him of the need for immediate military reforms, and the uprising of the archers in 1698 finally lost faith in their loyalty.

Peter's reform of the Russian army


8 November 1699, the young king issued a decree "On admission to the service of soldiers of all free people." Thus, the recruitment duty was introduced, which covered all taxable classes. Recruits were supplied with 10-15 yards each. The soldiers broke away from home and fishing. Military service became for them the main and lifelong. The service life of recruits was then changed: from 1793, the year was reduced to 25 years, from 1834, to 20 years. In 1855-1872 12, 10 and 7-year service life are set in succession. In 1874, the recruit conscription was replaced by universal conscription.

The defeat at Narva accelerated the reorganization of the army. By 1705, recruitment principles for field and garrison troops were developed based on the recruitment system. The first included regiments of the new system, and in the garrison the archers and young soldiers served, and after completing the course of training, they were sent to field troops. By 1707, the field army numbered about 100 thousand people. This was required by the difficult military situation. The Swedish army was superior to the Russian in the quality of weapons, and in the qualification of officers, who had extensive combat experience. Therefore, in the initial period of the Northern War, Peter I strove for a numerical superiority on the battlefields, but, having won the victory at Poltava (1709), considered it possible to reduce the armed forces and stabilize the army.

The organization of the army was influenced by the nature and objectives of the combat battles. First of all, the main types of troops were created - infantry, cavalry and artillery, later there was a need for engineering troops, without which a siege of fortresses would be unthinkable, the equipment of defensive lines and fortified camps. They were officially created in February 1712 of the year, according to a mine company and a pontoon team approved by Peter I. Soon formed and the "Regiment of military engineers." After all these transformations, the national army reached the level of the armies of the most advanced European countries.

In the course of creating the Russian armed forces, Peter I was faced with the problems of providing the army with weapons, ammunition, equipment, and food. Since the industry in the country was unable to satisfy the army’s need, on the orders of the king, large weapons factories were built in Tula and Sestroretsk, and factories for the production of guns and ammunition were established in the central and southern regions of the country, in the Urals and in the Olonets region .



At the end of 1708, the rearmament of the Russian army was almost complete. The infantry was equipped with the best in the world smooth-bore guns, which had a single caliber, a convenient curved butt and an all-metal bayonet. Russian guns were inferior to European muskets in the range, but at the same time they had a twofold superiority in the rate of fire. For the grenadiers' mouths, grenades were made, and each infantry regiment had a pair of three-pound guns and four light mortars. As you can see, the Russian infantry could successfully conduct long-range and close combat, to fight in bayonet attacks.

Dragoons (cavalry) were armed with carbines, long-barreled pistols and broadswords. In addition, one of the companies of the Dragoon regiment was armed with grenades. In 1723, hussar regiments were created, which were irregular units. They were formed from Serbs, Moldovans and Vlachs.

In the course of Peter the Great, military uniform was introduced. It should be noted that although in the Russian army as early as the 17 century, that is, almost half a century earlier than in the most advanced countries of Europe, each regiment had its own form, it was not typical. This created difficulties in the management of troops in the course of the battle, and the unification of form was required. As a result, green kaftans and black hats are introduced for infantrymen, blue kaftans and black hats for cavalrymen.



The success of the reorganization of the army largely depended on the quality and speed of training of officers. At first, all the young nobles were obliged to serve in the rank and file soldiers in the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky Guards regiments. After receiving the initial officer rank, they were sent to military units, service in which became a life-long obligation for the young nobles. However, this system of officer training was not able to fully meet the growing needs for new officers, and Peter I established a number of specialized military schools. In 1701, an artillery school was opened in Moscow for simultaneous training of up to three hundred people, and a year later in St. Petersburg - another one, of a similar purpose. To train army engineering personnel, two engineering schools were established in 1708 and 1719. In 1721, garrison schools were opened, where non-commissioned officers were trained. During the reign of Peter I in Russia, 50 order of such schools was opened.

Another form of officer training was business trips of young nobles to Europe for military training. In the new regular army, a unified system of military ranks was introduced, which was finally finalized in the Table of Ranks declared on January 24 on January 1722. Most of the military ranks of Peter the Great existed unchanged until 1917.

The allegations of the decisive role of foreign officers in the army of Peter the Great, common among Western European and modern, liberal, domestic historians, are untenable. They are true only for the first years of its existence, when the Russian government, due to the lack of its own personnel, was forced to actively use foreigners. But many of them had little knowledge of military affairs, spoke Russian poorly, treated soldiers badly. The betrayal of a large group of foreign officers and generals near Narva forced Peter I to take decisive measures to begin training commanders from the Russian nobility. As a result, the Russian army began to receive its own qualified officer personnel — infantry, artillery, and engineering. And already in 1711, the number of foreigners in the regiments was limited to one third, and by the year 1720 only a few remained in the national army.

The statements about the structure of the Russian army according to Western European models are also not true. Peter I carefully studied the military organizations of many European countries and did not accept either the Swedish, or Austrian, or Prussian systems. He created his own army, corresponding to the socio-political conditions of our country at that time. It was a truly Russian army both in its national composition and moral and combat qualities. Her warriors took all the best that was characteristic of the previous Russian troops and in general, the people themselves: resilience, patience in hardship and distress, endurance, the ability to sacrifice themselves, courage and courage. These remarkable qualities were fully revealed in the Northern War, by the end of which the Russian army became truly regular in all aspects: it had a uniform procedure for recruiting and training officers; slender organization and standard weapons; was completely on the content of the state. Later, the principles of its organization were borrowed by many Western European countries.



The beginning of the formation of a regular domestic navy was laid well-known historical a document - a resolution of the Boyar Duma of October 20, 1696, in which there is a significant phrase - "to be sea vessels."

Shortly after the Azov campaigns, Peter I, by imperial decree, introduced a special naval service, applicable to all landowners (secular and spiritual), merchants and other merchants. By the beginning of 1700, most of the planned, for the Azov fleet, combat ships were built. The active construction of ships for the fleet was conducted during the Northern War, which required the creation of a new Baltic fleet.

Initially, rowing ships were built, but the ship sailing fleet soon appeared. Sailboats had great seaworthiness, strong artillery and were used mainly for combat in the open sea. The fleet was recruited similarly to the army by recruiting duty. Two-thirds of the ship's crews were sailors, sailors and gunners, gunners, one-third was from the naval shipboard soldiers.

The officer cadres were formed from young noblemen who were trained in specially created schools. The first nautical school in Russia was opened in 1698 in Azov. She was preparing sailors for the Azov fleet. In 1701, the School of Mathematical and Navigation Sciences was established in Moscow, in which 500 noble children already studied three years later. In 1715, her high schools are transferred to Petersburg, and their graduates became students of the first Russian Maritime Academy. Simultaneously with the training of officers inside the country, sending young noblemen to study maritime affairs in Spain, Italy, France, England and Holland was widely practiced.



Some historians associate the success of the Russian fleet in the Northern War, primarily with the names of foreign specialists and naval officers who were in the service of Peter I. But the facts and documents refute these allegations. After the Azov campaigns, the young king was forced to allow the recruitment of shipwrights, technicians, and engineers abroad. However, under the guise of specialists, many foreigners arrived in Russia who were completely unfamiliar with shipbuilding. When the apparent unsuitability of foreign "masters" was discovered, they were immediately sent back, and only some of them provided real assistance in the creation of the fleet. In the majority, especially in the second half of the reign of Peter the Great, the shipwrights were led by Russian masters. The same thing happened with the officer cadres. On the eve of the Northern War, Peter I really recruited naval officers abroad. However, many of them, without later gaining trust from the tsar, were gradually replaced by Russian sailors trained in special educational institutions of Russia.

The reorganization of the Russian army and the creation of the Russian Navy were accompanied by a reform of the military administration. Before Peter I in Russia there were only military orders alone before 20. In addition to the three already mentioned (Razryadny, Streletsky, Reitarsky), Inozemsky, Pushkarsky, Oruzheiny, Bromny, Barrel and so on were engaged in various military affairs. functional responsibilities. Such a narrow departmental division not only made it difficult to control the troops, but also dispersed forces and means. In 1711, Peter I founded the Governing Senate, and under him created the discharge table and the Commissariat. The first of them was engaged in the acquisition of the Russian army, the second was in charge of financing and providing the armies with food, clothing, ammunition and armament. As before, the order of artillery, which received a special staff in 1712, was in charge of artillery issues.

The establishment of these bodies initiated the process of centralizing military affairs. In the 1719 year, at the final stage of the Northern War, the Military Collegium was founded, under its authority were the field army, the garrison troops "and all other military affairs, which are received throughout the state." The first president of this body was Peter's talented associate - A.D. Menshikov. The new, collegial system was different from the previous, mandative one, primarily because one body was responsible for solving all military issues. In addition, the powers of the Military Collegium, as well as other 11 colleges, extended to the entire state, which excluded a departmental and local approach to the solution of military-political issues.



The change has undergone control in the troops themselves. During the war period it was carried out through the field headquarters, which was later transformed into the General Staff. The main duties of the Chief of Field Headquarters were performed by the quartermaster general. This post, introduced in 1701, was first held by Prince A. F. Shakhovskoy. During his stay there was a military camp office. Attaching great importance to good command and control of troops, Peter I in the 1711 year established the duties of quartermaster general and the number of quartermaster units. The quartermaster general was responsible for inspecting and describing the terrain and roads, moving troops, and organizing intelligence. They were in charge of other staff affairs. Quartermaster posts were also introduced in regiments, brigades, divisions. The main unit of account was the battalion, and the highest - the regiment. The regiment commander had a headquarters, which included three senior officers and eight junior officers.

The Russian Navy’s control system was also severely centralized. Until the 18 century, it was managed either by the Vladimir Order, or on behalf of individuals. In 1700, the Vladimir Order is transformed into an Admiralty Affairs Order. With the beginning of the construction of the Baltic Fleet, the leadership of them, Peter I, laid upon the governor of St. Petersburg, A.D. Menshikov. In 1718, the Admiralty Board was formed, at the head of which Peter I placed his talented associate, General-Admiral FM. Apraksin. With the formation of this central institution, confusion and duplication in the management of maritime and ship affairs is eliminated. The Russian fleet received a single command, which lasted until the middle of the 19 century.

The creation of the new armed forces of Russia required a change in the existing system of training and training troops and naval crews. The training of soldiers under Peter I was distinguished by simplicity and practicality. From the soldiers and sailors they demanded not mechanical actions, but a sensible understanding of what to do, how to do it, and why to do it. On similar principles, the upbringing was also based, which provided for not blind obedience, but the fulfillment of military duty for the defense of the Fatherland. Peter I attached paramount importance to the establishment of strict military discipline, education of courage, resilience and courage. In his instructions, he repeatedly noted that victory was accompanied by "good practices, brave hearts, help weapons." New military rituals, orders and medals introduced by him in the army and navy served the purposes of patriotic education.

As we see, the military reforms of Peter I touched upon all aspects of the formation and activities of the Russian army and navy of that time. This difficult process took place in a period of severe Northern war. The Russian Armed Forces were simultaneously created, trained and fought. The most important in the regulations of the epoch of Peter the Great were the “Military Charter” (1716 year) and the “Sea Charter” (1720 year). Both documents reflected the views of Peter I on the role of the country's armed forces. "Every patent," is written in the addendum to the "Sea Regulations", "which has a single army army, has one hand, and which has a fleet, has both hands." Many experts believe that in their theoretical and practical significance, these Peter's regulations are incomparably higher than foreign charters of the time. The military reforms of Peter I, which were of great importance for the Russian state, were legislatively enshrined in military and maritime statutes.



Sources:
E. Anisimov. State Transformations with the Autocracy of Peter the Great in the First Quarter of the 18th Century in St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1997. C. 113-117.
Anisimov E. Time of Peter's reforms L .: Lenizdat, 1989. C. 177-183.
Matsulenko S. Military reforms // Military history magazine. 1988. No.8. C. 83-86.
Shishov A. Creation by Peter the Great of the Russian regular army // Landmark. 2000. No. 3. C. 28-33.
Author:
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Amurets
    Amurets 30 December 2015 08: 01
    +3
    Article plus. It is a pity that our army just did not have the legendary units bearing the title of the first personnel regiments: Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky. In fact, the regular personnel army of Russia began with them.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 30 December 2015 08: 16
      12
      Quote: Amurets
      It is a pity that the legendary units bearing the titles of the first personnel regiments did not remain in our army: Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky.

      Putin heard you. Here's what came first:

      "The Russian Defense Ministry made a decision on which units to assign the honorary names of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments, FederalPress learned today, March 26. The 154th separate commandant regiment, stationed in Lefortovo, and the 130th separate brigade of motorized riflemen, stationed in Sokolniki ".

      Video from 2012 of the year:

      1. Amurets
        Amurets 30 December 2015 08: 26
        +5
        Quote: Boris55
        Putin heard you. Here's what came first:

        Thank you! I didn’t know!
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 30 December 2015 18: 30
      +1
      Well, yes, the "reason" for such military reforms is the "backwardness of the Russian army," but then it turns out that after the "transformations" the Peter's army had to defeat everyone, of course? otherwise why all this fuss with the translation of Russian into non-Russian? Let's remember what victories Peter was able to fight with his "European" army.
      -The Northern War -lasted 21 years as a result -the complete ruin of Russia, a huge decline in population, and that there are conquests from the Swedes? As a result, for the sake of ending the war, Peter paid the Swedes 1.5 miles of compensation in gold, that's how the commander! On the neck of Peter sat the kings of Poland and Denmark, these "allies" only pulled Russia's meager resources over to themselves and there was NO help from them.
      - The trip to the Shah of Persia ended in a FULL DEPTH and loss of land across the Caspian.
      -Title on Turkish Saltan ended with a complete failure and loss of land near the Black Sea.
      Peter is considered a "great reformer", but what did he do for Russia? Except, as the fact that in the window that he opened, all the European rabble crawled, which, as they occupied the Academy of Sciences, that for 150 years there were almost no Russians and wrote Russian history as they wanted, and when in the time of Lomonosov the Russians tried to object, then many were executed with the wording "for disrespect for the German people", and Lomonosov was sent to prison. The Russians called Peter the ANTICHRIST and they were right ...
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 30 December 2015 19: 01
        +1
        about the so-called "battle of Poltava"
        -if you look at the list of officers of the army of Peter, then there were half the Swedes and Germans, the Russians were few
        -Fun, the burial of Russians near Poltava is called a SWEDISH GRAVE !! Moreover, the monument was erected only at E2, when the mythologization of the "great reformer" began, and the burial of the Swedes is not called at all, this is the story, though there is a monument to the Swede Kelin, who fought on the side of Peter ...
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 31 December 2015 15: 50
          +2
          Quote: Sveles
          about the so-called "battle of Poltava"

          Wow! Pseudoscientific films turns out to be an argument! Have come ...
      2. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 19: 45
        +1
        Quote: Sveles
        The Northern War lasted 21 years as a result of the complete ruin of Russia, a huge population decline, and what are the Swedes' conquests? AT
        40 thousand dead - a huge population decline?
        Back in 1977, the book of the historian Yaroslav Vodarsky, “The Population of Russia at the End of the 1678th - beginning of the 1719th Century”, was published, where he, on the basis of archival data, showed that the population of Russia during the period from 39 to XNUMX not only did not decrease, but grew by XNUMX%.
        Quote: Sveles
        As a result, for the sake of the end of the war, Peter paid the Swedes 1.5 mile compensation gold, like that commander!
        Looted as a result of the landings in Sweden significantly more. And they got huge territories, at the same time breaking the ridge to the Swedes.

        Quote: Sveles
        Except, like the fact that all the European scum fell through the window that he opened, who, as they had occupied the Academy of Sciences, there were almost no Russians there for 150 years
        It was as if Peter founded it, and Lomonosov was a member of it. By the way, when did you manage to sit out according to yours?)) Or is it from the opera above, about the march on ice through the Baltic to Stockholm wassat
      3. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 31 December 2015 15: 49
        +1
        Quote: Sveles
        Let us remember what victories Peter was able to fight with his "European" army.

        For starters, at least a couple of books on the history of Russia, read before you carry this nonsense.

        The army of Russia under Peter 1 was able to defeat the first-class European army, without missing it in the central provinces. It will be a surprise for you, but since the time of Gustavus-Adolf, the Swedish army was considered the best in Europe and the Swedes, both England and France actively tried to take hold of as allies.
        The reform of the manning system and organization, organized by Peter 1, made it possible to get just a regular army.

        The Russian navy, just created, was able to create a threat to Sweden by its mere existence, and later brought the royal fleet to complete disability.

        And now on the hikes. Your knowledge is clearly shining with ABSOLUTE ignorance, but in short:
        1. The Northern War.
        At the beginning, Russia is a country with minimal political weight (perceived at the level of India). The Baltic (including the Russian Baltic, under the full control of Sweden.
        At the time of the conclusion of the peace, the political capital of Russia and the glory of its Armed Forces were such that England was forced to send its fleet to the Baltic, but did not dare to start hostilities. The Russian Armed Forces independently occupied ALL of the Baltic Sea, Finland, conducted operations in Pomerania, and raided directly to Sweden.
        2. The campaign against the Persians ended with the annexation of territories that Russia did not have at all in this region.
        3. The short war with Turkey, although it ended unsuccessfully, but to call it a complete debacle is the same as calling the winter in the fall. The loss of the Black Sea coast and Azov (which at the time did not make it possible to operate actively in the Black Sea), occupied several years earlier, did not affect the authority of Peter and Russia. Moreover, if it was a complete failure, then something the Turks did not develop their success.
        It is impossible to write briefly about the "useful" of Peter. Better teach the history of your homeland.
    3. palm
      palm 30 December 2015 18: 59
      0
      the first was the Bruce Regiment
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 30 December 2015 08: 13
    +4
    He created his army, corresponding to the socio-political conditions of our country at that time. It was a genuine Russian army, both in terms of its national composition and moral and combat qualities...Very faithfully noticed .. Thank you for the article .. With Coming!
    1. washi
      washi 30 December 2015 14: 47
      +6
      Quote: parusnik
      He created his army, corresponding to the socio-political conditions of our country at that time. It was a genuine Russian army, both in terms of its national composition and moral and combat qualities...Very faithfully noticed .. Thank you for the article .. With Coming!

      Here it is appropriate to compare Peter with VIL, and GDP with Peter’s father
      Some break everything (morality, worldly principles), others want to do everything gradually.
      Radicalism is necessary with a very strong backwardness, which began after the assassination of Ivan the Great.
      Peter made reforms too radically. One form (not adapted to our climate) is worth it. And his court regiments became the basis for the palace coups until 1917.
      There is no need to talk about backwardness.
      The first regular army (archers), local government, the absence of legalized forced serfdom - all this was under Ivan 4. and there were no schismatics, our weapons were considered the best in Europe. There were no riots. The people accepted the reforms. Here, a comparison is suitable for an IVS with Ivan the Great, the last Rurikovich on the throne.
      Unfortunately, and I hope yours, the archives are on fire. People cannot remember everything forever. The story is changing. And historians change it in the service of rulers. Some school books are worth
  3. Old_Python
    Old_Python 30 December 2015 09: 36
    12
    The article is, of course, a plus. Although even from school I developed a far from ambiguous attitude towards Peter's military development. One "Book of Future Commanders" is enough to understand that the archer was armed no worse than the Peter's soldier, and dressed, perhaps, better. And then I came across infa (I don’t remember where it came from) that Alexei Mikhailovich had half of the regiments of a foreign formation, with foreign commanders ...
    In general, "not everything is so simple!" ... (c)
    But the fleet is yes ...
    1. avt
      avt 30 December 2015 10: 08
      +4
      Quote: Old_Python
      . Although back in school, I had a far ambiguous attitude towards Peter's military development.

      It will gain a foothold with you if you dig deeper into the kingdom of brother Petit and his dad. You will see that even under Lesha, European ranks appeared in command personnel, the reforms were continued by his son, but not Petya, and in Russia there appeared “soldiers” regiments, which in ancient times before the Troubles were called regiments of a foreign system. Leisure whom Patrick Gordon actually commanded before the oath of allegiance to Pete # 1, well, under Sophia.
      Quote: Old_Python
      the Sagittarius was armed no worse than the Petrovsky soldier,

      "The Swedish" musket Lesha ordered to be adopted after the next campaign in Poland.
      Quote: Old_Python
      But the fleet is yes ...

      Yes . But that's just the same classic sailing fleet Petya, built by almost a full complement ..... rotted without battles. Black Sea and completely the remnants after the “heroic” Prut company were sold to the Turks. Petya fought at sea on oars and this lasted right up to the accession of Katya # 2. But the forest is richly exhausted. So really
      Quote: Old_Python
      In general, "not everything is so simple!" ...
      Although
      . Many experts believe that, in terms of their theoretical and practical significance, these Petrine regulations stand incomparably higher than the foreign charters of that time. Military and naval charters legislatively reinforced the military reforms of Peter I, which were of great importance for the Russian state.
      Well, now in the Duma on Okhotny Ryad.
      1. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 11: 30
        0
        Quote: avt
        Yes . But here is just the same classic sailing fleet Petey built almost completely ..... rotted without battles.
        But what about the battle of the island of Ezel in 1719? And then, the next war with Sweden was only 20 years after the Northern War, and besides the Swedes, there was no one to fight in the Baltic. Naturally, the fleet needed updating by this time hi
        1. avt
          avt 30 December 2015 12: 17
          +2
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          But what about the battle of the island of Ezel in 1719?

          This is when six battleships and a shnyava drove and captured one battleship and a Swedish frigate? AND! There the Swedes also had a brigantine. Well, according to Petit's order, if the "Vakhmister" were in the entire squadron of three battleships and three frigates of the Swedish squadron, there would definitely not be a battle. Your will, but somehow for a heroic victory Chesma's level does not pull well in any way. Of course it worked out well and must be remembered, but ... No. not a high level indicator.
          1. Stirbjorn
            Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 13: 27
            0
            Well, the battle was with the classic sailing fleet - they won again laughing and the fact that the forces were unequal was also martial art and the problems of the Swedes themselves. Under Gangut, too, there was a defeat of part of the Swedish fleet by our superior (galley) forces. However, along with Sinop and Cheshma, Gangut is displayed by strips on the sailor’s guise, in any case there is such a legend.
            1. washi
              washi 30 December 2015 15: 03
              +2
              Quote: Stirbjorn
              Well, the battle was with the classic sailing fleet - they won again laughing and the fact that the forces were unequal was also martial art and the problems of the Swedes themselves. Under Gangut, too, there was a defeat of part of the Swedish fleet by our superior (galley) forces. However, along with Sinop and Cheshma, Gangut is displayed by strips on the sailor’s guise, in any case there is such a legend.

              The largest jamb in the fleet of Peter: the ban on building traditional Russian ships
              He ruined navigation not only along rivers but also in the northern seas
              1. Stirbjorn
                Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 15: 17
                0
                Is this a boat? Excuse me from the neopagans? wassat
            2. avt
              avt 30 December 2015 16: 05
              +4
              Quote: Stirbjorn
              . However, along with Sinop and Cheshma, Gangut is displayed by strips on the sailor’s guise, in any case there is such a legend.

              You were awarded a minus in vain, but I do not agree with your conclusions, and even more so about the strips on the guis. This is a bike, in fact, the strips determined the belonging to one or another crew of rowing ships and boats, well, after that they simply unified up to three with the name of the ship or crew on the ribbon, and then they just belonged to one or another fleet.
              Quote: Vasya
              The largest jamb in the fleet of Peter: the ban on building traditional Russian ships

              what Well, in the rowing fleet he, though before the Turkish and Venetian galleys, used them very widely.
              Quote: Stirbjorn
              Is this a boat? Excuse me from the neopagans?
              Rather, the colleague meant in the north Petya’s ban on boats, including fishing, to sew and switch to nails and caulking, and also classical European contours, instead of proven for centuries and ice conditions. This is yes - Petrusha’s stupidity is primary.
              1. Stirbjorn
                Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 18: 21
                +1
                Quote: avt
                You were awarded a minus in vain, but I do not agree with your conclusions, and even more so about the strips on the guis. This is a bike, in fact, the strips determined the belonging to one or another crew of rowing vessels and boats, well, after that they simply unified up to three with the name of the ship or crew on the ribbon, and then they just belonged to this or that fleet

                Honestly, naval officers at the military department told us this, honored people. So even if the bike is very common in the Navy.
                And what exactly do not agree on the conclusions? I operate with facts
                1. avt
                  avt 30 December 2015 18: 50
                  +2
                  Quote: Stirbjorn
                  And what exactly do not agree on the conclusions? I operate with facts

                  Quote: Stirbjorn
                  that the forces were unequal were also martial art and the problems of the Swedes themselves.

                  The problems of the Swedes - yes, but there was no "art", there was a very specific order for Petya to get involved in a ship battle with, it seems, superiority. What actually did - the Swedes were really unlucky, they could not even leave when they were tied "battleships brigantine and a frigate five of us, two of them caught up with the" Vakhmistra "So this is not the later glorious capture of the frigate" Venus "and already under the Andreevsky flag the capture by" Venus "of" Retvizan "
                  Quote: Stirbjorn
                  So even if the bike is very common in the Navy.

                  That is yes.
        2. washi
          washi 30 December 2015 14: 59
          +2
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          Quote: avt
          Yes . But here is just the same classic sailing fleet Petey built almost completely ..... rotted without battles.
          But what about the battle of the island of Ezel in 1719? And then, the next war with Sweden was only 20 years after the Northern War, and besides the Swedes, there was no one to fight in the Baltic. Naturally, the fleet needed updating by this time hi

          In addition to the Baltic, there was also a "Black Sea" fleet Both rotted
          And Stockholm surrendered to ours without any fleet
          Stupidly passed on ice
          1. Stirbjorn
            Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 15: 26
            0
            Quote: Vasya
            And Stockholm surrendered to ours without any fleet
            Stupidly passed on ice
            What is Stockholm ?! What ice? What are you talking about? What kind of fairy tales?)))
          2. avt
            avt 30 December 2015 16: 11
            +3
            Quote: Vasya
            And Stockholm surrendered to ours without any fleet
            Stupidly passed on ice

            "Russians do not fight in winter" laughing It's funny, but true - for over twenty years, Petya fought with the Swedes, the European army "according to the European rules of war" with varying success, but it cost an irregular part of the army ... but just Tatars, Bashkirs, Cossacks according to an old custom to start plundering Sweden at zero, at once they asked for a pardon.
            1. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 18: 23
              0
              Looted in the summer, Apraksin landed on the same galleys. And then the Bashkirs with the Tatars and Stockholm? Vasya is just poisoning some tales or Vyborg is confused with Stockholm, so I asked about neopaganism - they like all sorts of alternative stories
    2. tacet
      tacet 30 December 2015 11: 11
      +1
      In 1634, the total number of archers was brought up to 25669 people, of which 22972 were on foot and 2697 were mounted. In 1630, the number of troops of serving Cossacks was 11 people. By 1632, the army numbered 27433 people of boyar and noble children, of whom 2642 were in Moscow and 24781 of city noblemen and boyar children. Let us divide by the type of service they were divided into regiment and siege troops unfit for regimental service, the number of which was 11 583 By 1634, 10 regiments of the new system were formed, numbering 17000 people, of which 4 were regiments of soldiers, 1639 of Reytra and dragoons. The regiments of the new system were trained by foreign initial people who were expensive and often did not know the Russian language, so the government tried to replace them with Russian, and as early as 744, out of 316 elders, 428 were foreigners and XNUMX were Russian, chosen from children of the boyars.
      So you came across an incorrect info about the composition of the army of Aleksei Mikhailovich (Silent) In fact, the regiments of the foreign system and a third of the total number were not.
  4. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 30 December 2015 09: 58
    0
    and the rebellion of the archers in 1698 finally disbelieved their loyalty.

    After the unsuccessful performance of the archers in 1687, to defend Tsar Ivan V, Peter I was declared king. The Sagittarius again attempted to defend Muscovy from the Jesuit Catholics in the 1698 year, but were defeated by superior forces by the foreign forces of General Peter de Gordon (Patrick Leopold Gordon, a Catholic, the chief curator of the Romanov government and especially Peter I for the military and naval units. Muscovy since 1661, arrived in the rank of major, was engaged in the formation of troops from foreign mercenaries and commanded them. Peter I assigned him the rank of general and rear admiral). Mass public executions swept through Moscow and its environs with sophisticated torture of dissent. Peter I, who had just returned from Western Europe, personally participated in executions and torture. So the archers, like the people-army and those who sympathized with them, were almost completely exterminated in favor of the Catholic curators of the Romanov power. (according to the book of G. R. Enikeev "Heritage of the Tatars")
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 11: 17
      +2
      So in what way did Catholicism manifest itself in the future, since the "victory over the Orthodox archers" was won
  5. 97110
    97110 30 December 2015 10: 59
    0
    To accompany illustrations with decent signatures is lazy? Or is it difficult to tie a moving train with a smoking steam engine to Peter's activity? At the institute I was taught that for science, you should have a concrete backside, good scissors and a large bottle with clerical glue. The presence of such in the author is not in doubt. The publication completely ignored the issues raised in the comments on the availability of foreign regiments and the construction of ships to Peter. Front page for the 300th anniversary of the victory in the Northern War?
  6. qwert
    qwert 30 December 2015 10: 59
    -1
    Peter 1 king is certainly controversial. The introduction of European customs and habits, the construction of a capital in a swamp, the writing of the history of Russia by the Germans, etc., went too far somewhere, and there was no need to do anything at all. But in terms of the fleet, the army and the development of industry, it was precisely his reforms that were indisputably true. He created a regular army, armed and created an industrial base for its development. This is not to mention the fleet
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 30 December 2015 13: 41
      +1
      IMHO Peter is just indisputable, for he laid the whole system for centuries to come. And his authority has always stood high among the heirs, unlike, for example, from Comrade Stalin, alas.
  7. erg
    erg 30 December 2015 11: 58
    +1
    Before Peter, a regular army really began to be created. But just begun. Her creation was not brought to its logical conclusion. Namely, a single army command and control body was not created. The soldier’s regiments were often listed under various orders, including the Streltsy, and before Peter they were not determined to whom they should obey. A clear structure of the army and arms was not created. Toward the end of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, part of the soldier regiments were transferred to Streltsy, which caused outrage among many soldiers. Orders literally filled up with petitions on the transfer of the newly appointed archers back to the soldiers. Sagittarius is a different form of organization of the army, class, the so-called service on the device, that is, assigned to life service. By organization, these are typical military settlers, they were only located, as a rule, in cities. They carried on their households and carried part of the costs of military service themselves, like the Cossacks. Indeed, a modern rank system has developed, but meanwhile, in the regiments there was often a discord in ranks. In parallel, the ranks of foreign armies existed, which did not subsequently enter the Russian system of ranks. There were shelves, for example, where the ensign was listed above the lieutenant. No laws have been created defining the system of organization of regiments, ranks, personnel training, etc. what we know today as charters. The charter of 1647 was just a translation work and was not of a legal nature, but only a fact-finding, which is stated in the preface by the author of this work. However, like the following Weide charter. There was no question of uniform weapons or equipment. The terms of service and so on were not defined, which distinguishes the regular army. In general, the regular army is what it should be, that is, it was Peter who created the state structure, but the beginning was laid by his predecessors.
  8. Oprichnik
    Oprichnik 30 December 2015 11: 59
    +1
    And the king is not real!?
  9. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 30 December 2015 13: 41
    +5
    Quote: parusnik
    It was a truly Russian army both in its national composition and moral and combat qualities.

    Yep 80% of senior officers, mercenaries-Europeans.
    Form - absolute tracings with European standards.
    Armament - import purchases (approximately 80-90%).
    Charter - a compilation of German, Dutch and Swedish charters.
    What else have you forgotten?
    Where do we have Russian roots here? Peter just fought the real Russian roots! And what made the Peter army real Russian - happened later, made by other people and after the death of Peter I, mainly in the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine the Great.

    Quote: Amurets
    It is a pity that the legendary units bearing the titles of the first personnel regiments did not remain in our army: Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky.

    All right - there is no historical continuity. There is not even a clearly defined tradition, as well as motivation. Petrovskaya (and the Russian Imperial Guard) died in the Time of Troubles 1917-1924.

    Quote: Old_Python
    Alexei Mikhailovich half of the regiments was a foreign system, with foreign commanders ...

    Well, if there were still a few foreign commanders, then yes, the regiments of the "soldier system" made up about 50% of the army. Another thing is that they did not show much success, and the army was not regular, tk. it was seasonally disbanded "to their homes for crafts".

    Quote: Oprichnik
    And the king is not real!?
    There is an opinion! For ALL the actions of Peter I show that he acted as a typical foreigner, but by no means a Russian national leader ...

    Fans of Peter can start minosovat, but real Russian patriots should understand what's what.
    1. erg
      erg 30 December 2015 15: 27
      +2
      Tell me, a real Russian patriot, what was done after Peter, what in your expression made the Peter's army a real Russian? And why is there no continuity between the RIA and the Soviet army, what kind of special motivation was there in the tsarist army? Just let's go without the annoying ones - "google" and find out.
  10. washi
    washi 30 December 2015 15: 15
    -2
    [quote = Ratnik2015] [quote = parusnik] It was a genuine Russian army both in terms of its national composition and moral and combat qualities. [/ quote]
    Yep 80% of senior officers, mercenaries-Europeans.
    Form - absolute tracings with European standards.
    Armament - import purchases (approximately 80-90%).
    Charter - a compilation of German, Dutch and Swedish charters.
    What else have you forgotten?
    Where do we have Russian roots here? Peter just fought the real Russian roots! And what made the Peter army real Russian - happened later, made by other people and after the death of Peter I, mainly in the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine the Great.

    [quote = Amur] It's a pity that just in our army there were no legendary units bearing the title of the first personnel regiments: Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky. [/ quote]
    All right - there is no historical continuity. There is not even a clearly defined tradition, as well as motivation. Petrovskaya (and the Russian Imperial Guard) died in the Time of Troubles 1917-1924.
    they killed the Russian army much earlier. As soon as the Koshkins-Romanovs came to power, the Petrovsky Guard is the main source of unrest.
    Namely, when the cat went the separation of power from the people

    I'm sorry on the tablet and missed with my thumb. Instead of + it turned out -
    And sorry
  11. qwert
    qwert 30 December 2015 16: 05
    +3
    Quote: Vasya
    Armament - import purchases (approximately 80-90%).

    Well, yes, did Demidov factories make pins and drove cockroaches? Under Peter, they did not build weapons factories, but companions! Some are still doing the same.
    The form is an absolute tracing-paper from European standards. Yes, it was not then Zaitsev and Yudashkin to masturbate the original form. Here the sin is not great. At all times, military uniforms in different countries are one way. The influence and command of time.
    Yep 80% of senior officers, mercenaries-Europeans. This is the initial period. And the end of the reign, the situation has changed a lot.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 12 July 2016 04: 53
      0
      When Peter was built, they seemed to have built the Tula, the Urals existed long before him.

      even Yudashkin could not have built such a "shape"
  12. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 31 December 2015 16: 49
    +1
    Quote: erg
    And why is there no continuity between the RIA and the Soviet army, what was such a special motivation in the tsarist army?
    Well, you better prove what is the continuity between the Soviet army and the army of the Russian Empire, which in fact fought among themselves in the Civil War, and when the Red Army was created on the basis of the Red Guard militia, and the "old regiments" entered the White Guard formations, as well as between the army Muscovy and the completely new foreign army of Peter I.

    Quote: Vasya
    Namely, when the cat went the separation of power from the people
    Well, not with Koshkins, but it is more correct to call the Romanov dynasty. And the whole 17 century still and the people’s rule (local and local councils) remained, and after Peter I, ABSOLUTELY BURDENING and DISCUSSION of the NOBILITY FROM THE PEASANT, when the defenders turned into drones-oppressors, really happened.


    Quote: qwert
    Well, yes and Demidov factories did pins and cockroaches drove?

    Well, how to say, the Ural factories entered "in full force" when the Northern War was already coming to an end and there were almost no field battles on land, and the most difficult time the Peter's army fought on "bought Luttikh and Maastrich rifles".

    Quote: qwert
    KUOTs are still doing the same.
    Comrade, well, do not make me laugh! laughing What, is still charcoal steel poured ??!?

    Quote: qwert
    Yep 80% of senior officers, mercenaries-Europeans. This is the initial period. And the end of the reign, the situation has changed a lot.
    I would not say that, but in the last years of Peter and under his successors, the situation has worsened; the actual Russian national army of the Russian Empire became under Elizabeth Petrovna.
  13. pts-m
    pts-m 1 January 2016 12: 34
    0
    the worst thing is that they are starting to change history. This leads to doubts. This leads to cracks in patriotism. One little doubt, but how many arguments are poured. That's how the USSR collapsed .... from words ....
  14. Dron313131
    Dron313131 2 January 2016 22: 07
    +1
    Before Peter 1 they gave land for service, it was allowed to have a family ... And what did Peter give and allow to his employees first .... ??? 25 years to live in the barracks ...?
  15. Dron313131
    Dron313131 2 January 2016 22: 28
    0
    The article says that Russian guns exceeded the rate of fire twice. And how was this superiority achieved?
    1. erg
      erg 3 January 2016 05: 25
      +2
      Nothing was achieved. Flintlock guns, even Russian, even foreign ones, have the same rate of fire, which is achieved only by the user's dexterity of the gun. Since the guns of those times were single-shot. For the production of each subsequent shot, manual reloading was required. And she was standard for all guns. The cock was cocked, the lid (it served as a flint) of the powder shelf opened, the cartridge was pulled out, the top of the cartridge was bitten off, part of the powder spilled onto the shelf, the cartridge was clamped in the bitten part with fingers so as not to spill the remaining gunpowder, the lid of the shelf was closed, the gun was moved to a vertical position, gunpowder was poured into the barrel through the barrel, a bullet located in the cartridge case was inserted into the barrel together with this cartridge (the bullet was obtained by wrapping a paper cartridge, which did not require a wad), a ramrod was inserted, inserted into the barrel, a charge was beaten, the ramrod was pulled out, inserted in its place, the gun is ready to shoot, it only remained to throw it, aim and shoot, then all over again. Well, what a rate of fire here. For doubters, the charging process is described in accordance with the charters of that time. Take any charter of the 18th century and check.
    2. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok 12 July 2016 04: 12
      +1
      Quote: Dron313131
      The article says that Russian guns exceeded the rate of fire twice. And how was this superiority achieved?

      Are these those made according to the Dutch model and shooting 2 times faster than the original? But from the still streletsky ones, they managed to make more shots to hand-to-hand combat, but not because of the rate of fire, but because the guns had a smaller caliber and a longer aiming range, not by much, but often it was very critical. And Peter banned rifles, and after all, many archers had them ...
      The whole article is from such mistakes.
  16. homedition
    homedition 4 January 2016 10: 42
    +2
    Oh, our ever-backward Russia. As I look at the map, so directly and I feel all our backwardness and unhappiness. At least this impression is formed after reading the beginning of the article.
  17. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 5 January 2016 23: 30
    +1
    In 1723, hussar regiments were created, which were irregular units. They were formed from Serbs, Moldovans and Vlachs.

    Dear Technician Engineer, allow me a few comments from an economist, but versed in both military affairs and military history. The fact is that Peter HATED Historical Russia, Muscovy! He wanted (unfortunately, but this is a fact) to turn our Fatherland into a kind of Holland, and absolutely did not accept national Russians and allied formations. In particular, he had possibly the BEST LIGHT CAVALERY OF EUROPE - DON AND UKRAINIAN COSSACKS! And in opposition to them he forms the hussar absolutely in the "European manner"! and from all sorts of rabble hired FOR VERY BIG MONEY! EXCLUSIVELY IN IMITATION OF AUSTRIAN, SWEDISH AND OTHER GUSARS! As a result, this experiment ended with nothing but huge government spending and the loss of confidence in the tsar on the part of the Cossacks ...

    These remarkable qualities were fully revealed in the Northern War, by the end of which the Russian army became truly regular in all aspects: it had a uniform procedure for recruiting and training officers; slender organization and standard weapons; was completely on the content of the state. Later, the principles of its organization were borrowed by many Western European countries.
    I look forward to at least ONE of the fact that a normal European army borrowed something from the army of Peter I. In reality, as I know, it seemed to be exactly the opposite - a complete blind imitation of the West ...


    Quote: Sveles
    Let's remember what victories Peter was able to fight with his "European" army.
    -Northern war -long 21 year in result-complete ruin of Russia, a huge decline in population and what is the conquest of the Swedes?

    Quote: Sveles
    - The trip to the Shah of Persia ended in a FULL DEPTH and loss of land across the Caspian.
    -Title on Turkish Saltan ended with a complete failure and loss of land near the Black Sea.

    Absolutely correct remark. Prut defeat completely leveled the Poltava triumph, and the DOUBLE FAILURE in the Persian campaign led to the loss of military prestige by Russia in Central Asia.

    Quote: Blackgrifon
    3. The short war with Turkey, although it ended unsuccessfully, but to call it a complete debacle is the same as calling the winter in the fall. The loss of the Black Sea coast and Azov (which at the time did not make it possible to operate actively in the Black Sea), occupied several years earlier, did not affect the authority of Peter and Russia. Moreover, if it was a complete failure, then something the Turks did not develop their success.
    My friend, read about the conditions on which Peter DISAPPEARED his diplomat Shafirov (by the way, a Jew!) To buy peace from the Ottomans. He agreed to give a lot more than the Turks asked in the end ... Well, about the bribe to the commander of the Turkish army in 300.000 gold, too, we know nothing? And about the fact that the Turks in the end got ALL their territories AND EVEN MORE than they had before the Crimean and Azov campaigns of Russian ratias, we also forget?
  18. erg
    erg 7 January 2016 14: 27
    +1
    Dear Ratnik 2015, tell me please, who can be depicted in the reconstruction below?
    1. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 15 January 2016 23: 28
      +1
      Yes, easy - it is usually believed that this is a warrant officer of the Reitarsky regiment of the Russian army around 1680. In fact, judging by the equipment (lack of armor, a saber, not a broadsword), although the horse is depicted of a European type, which was a rarity at that time, it is rather a warrior of the local cavalry from the poor or the middle hand of the noble "local".

      Quote: Dron313131
      that the Russian guns doubled in rate of fire. And what, this superiority was achieved?
      Comrade Erg you have already partially answered very well. In general, the Russian warrior reached the average European level only in the 2 half of the XXUMX century by the rate of fire, and probably never came out on the leading position (the British with the Prussians achieved incredible performance and strictest punishments for stealing allocated ammunition for training). Our regiments mainly focused on the bayonet battle, in which we were really VERY strong (especially if the colonel conducted real exercises with his soldiers, like the same Suvorov with his Suzdal regiment; later, for example, he also practiced the Fanagoriy regiment so that could bring down a TROEKRATNO-EXCELLENT European-trained enemy opposing him, not to mention the Turks — and the speed of the marches isn’t at all necessary, they reached the maximum 18-50 km per day with full display-what repeatedly led his troops to victory).