The murder of a Russian knight on the throne

91
The murder of a Russian knight on the throne 215 years ago, 12 (24) in March 1801, Emperor Pavel I was killed by conspirators at night in his Mikhailovsky Castle in St. Petersburg by conspirators. He was strange and ambiguous. Paul's connection with the Order of Malta (and hence the European hidden hierarchy) was known. On the other hand, the Russian emperor did not strengthen the power of hidden Western structures in Russia, but, on the contrary, strengthened the influence of the empire in the Mediterranean through them. There is no doubt that the break with Austria and Britain, and the strategic alliance of Russia and France, was of great geopolitical, strategic importance. Russia stopped supplying “cannon fodder” for Vienna and London, breaking the vicious circle of constant wars with France that did not meet national interests.

As a result, the Russian Empire challenged the British spider swelling from the blood of hundreds of peoples and tribes, which then claimed a leading position in the Western project. The union of Russia and weakened France could weaken the power of Britain. For a long history Russia was practically the first attempt at direct confrontation with England. It is known that for centuries, Britain continued the policy of ancient Rome: "divide, control, and rule." The British pitted European and Asian nations with each other, while they themselves reaped the fruits of other people's victories. It was the same before Paul and after him, when, for example, England poisoned Napoleonic France and Russia, who for many years in bloody wars destroyed their best sons, spending resources not on development, but on war. England regularly incited Persia, Turkey, Sweden, Japan to Russia, and in the twentieth century, two of the greatest Aryan nations — the Russians and the Germans — blew away with the USA twice. In fact, these were fratricidal wars (especially considering that the territories of Germany and Austria are the indigenous lands of the Slavorus, and the “Germans” are largely assimilated, the Silent Russ, the Slavs lost their language and culture), which greatly weakened the potential of Russian civilization and fully consistent with the interests of the owners of the West.



Pavel Petrovich, at the beginning of the 19th century, was the first to raise his hand to the monstrous western octopus - the union of the British crown and international capital. It was a knightly deed. The campaign of the Russian Cossacks to India was a kind of challenge thrown to England by a knight’s glove. And the owners of the West responded in a standard manner for them - the best of the opponents should die. With the help of British gold and local hangers-on, the “invisible hand” of the West’s masters struck down the seemingly all-powerful Russian autocrat.

The reign of Paul was distorted, hidden in the darkness, a lot of garbage was thrown on his grave. The organizers of the murder and their agents and ideological periphery in Russia created such a powerful information cover for the operation to eliminate one of the most sensible rulers of Russia, so far most of the inhabitants believe Paul I to be a tyrant, a despot, a petty tyrant, almost mentally ill person. The myth of Paul's “madness” was written. As a result, Pavel found himself in the line with such rulers as Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, although it was under their rule that the vector of development of the state was closest to the interests of the people.

His time still requires careful study. However, one thing is certain, the Russian emperor was a real knight, possessed of iron will and uncompromising determination. Had he lived 20-30 for years and Russia could reach the southern seas, have a solid position in Asia Minor, the Mediterranean Sea, Persia and India, and Napoleon would never have reached Moscow.

Milestones of the board

The correct assessment of Pavel’s activity was given by the Russian historian VO Klyuchevsky. He noted: “Having collected all the jokes, you will think that all this is some kind of motley and rather incoherent tale; meanwhile At the heart of the government policy (Emperor Paul), both external and internal, lay serious thoughts and principles that deserve our complete sympathy. ” Klyuchevsky wrote that Pavel Petrovich was the first “counter-noble king” of this era, and “the rule of the nobility and rule based on injustice was a sore point for a Russian hostel in the second half of the century”. Guiding the work of Paul was a sense of order, discipline, and equality. It was a kind of “knight on the throne” who tried to restore order and social justice in the empire.

Pavel challenged degraded Russian nobility (especially its metropolitan, court part), which his predecessors freed from compulsory service. Pavel tried to restore discipline, breathe "knightly spirit" into the nobility, discard luxury. The rights of the nobles were sharply curtailed. Many of the military were fired - a significant part of them, having rank and receiving salaries, did not serve at all. The emperor dismissed for negligence and licentiousness, for brutal treatment of soldiers, tore off epaulettes and exiled to Siberia.

His negative attitude towards Catherine II was based not only on personal experiences and the tragedy of the death of his father, but on the mode of action, the behavior of the mother empress. According to Paul, Catherine was only a "noble queen" and completely depended on the nobility. This led to a distortion of the political system of the Russian kingdom. Having ascended the throne, Pavel Petrovich decided to put in the basis of his state activity not the abstract philosophical and political ideas of Western thinkers and their Russian imitators, but the interests of the Russian people. He sought to improve the socio-political situation of most of his subjects. The granted letter to the nobility from 1784 of the year, which created the privileged position of the nobility not only in personal rights, but also in local government, was canceled. Pavel tried to crush class privileges, restore truth and legality in the Russian state. Hence the order that the serfs swore allegiance to him along with the other estates of the Russian Empire. By this, he showed that they are for him the same subjects as the landowners. The governors were instructed to monitor how the owners treated the serfs and immediately report all abuses to the sovereign. In one of the windows of the Winter Palace they even put an iron box in which everyone could throw a complaint or petition. This "iron box" has become a whole symbol of the era. The first nobles and dignitaries were afraid of him.

It is clear that a narrow group of higher aristocracy, accustomed to parasitizing on the people, could not forgive the sovereign. He became her enemy. The higher strata of the nobility expected further privileges, and not the restoration of a healthy hierarchy, order and law. They did not want to serve, but only wanted to enjoy the fruits of their high position.

In April, 1797, a decree was issued on the succession to the throne and the imperial family, and he had to remove the "soil" of palace coups. The law eliminated the free interpretation of the right to supreme power, eliminated the root cause of unrest. Now the throne could be inherited only through the male line: after the death of the king, he passed on to the eldest son or next brother, if there were no children. A woman could occupy the throne only when interrupting the male line.

Pavel respected the peasantry with great respect, understanding its importance for Russia. In his Manual to the children, he noted that the peasantry contains all the other parts of the state with its works, therefore it is "worthy of special respect." In February, 1797, the emperor Paul banned the sale of yard people and serfs without land. He forbade to force the peasants to work on holidays. State-owned farmers received self-government, on 15, acres of land, they were forgiven for 7 million arrears. The grain duty, which was a heavy burden on the peasants, was replaced by monetary. To reduce the price of bread, the sovereign ordered him to sell it at special prices from state-owned bread stores. The price of bread fell. A decree was issued on limiting serfdom (the work of the peasants for the nobility) three days a week. In fact, it was the first attempt to limit serfdom. Researchers note that these decrees have caused great gratitude among millions of people in Russia. Even a century after the murder of Paul, the peasants came to worship the tomb of the people's king and put candles to him. The people remembered Paul as a benefactor, despite the brevity of his rule. It is clear that Paul managed to do a little. However, the peasantry (the overwhelming part of the population of Russia) in this short time received more than all the long reign of Catherine II.

In the sphere of religion, Pavel Petrovich also proved to be a tolerant and kind person. He stopped the persecution of the Old Believer Christians, who, despite the heavy repression, preserved the identity of the Russian way. At the beginning of 1798, in the Nizhny Novgorod region, which was considered the center of the Old Believers, they even allowed to open their churches. When one of the schismatic hermitages on Kerzhents burned down, the Old Believers asked for help from the sovereign and received it. Pavel allocated benefits from his personal funds. Pressure was also extinguished on the Orthodox Church, which in the 18th century was turned into a “spiritual ministry”, an appendage of the state. Paul began to return to the church the selected property, estates. Partially returned rights and privileges. First of all it concerned the monasteries.

Pavel paid much attention to the financial position of the empire. When Empress Catherine II finances were very upset. The Russian Empress spent too recklessly on state funds for unnecessary celebratory, entertaining events and for her favorites. Pavel had a different attitude towards state funds. The sovereign considered state revenues to be the wealth of the state, and not the personal treasury of the king. Costs were to be measured by parishes and used according to state needs, so as not to burden the population. Paper money (introduced because of financial problems) was collected and burned in the square in front of the Winter Palace. Total burned paper money worth more than 5 million rubles. To restore the value of money, many court silver sets and things were melted down and minted a coin. The cost of money has recovered.

Pavel was still thinking about Western informational influence on the Russian youth. Raising children and young people determined the future of the country. In the spring of 1800, some western books were banned from importing into Russia. Banned sending abroad young people to study in foreign educational institutions. This immediately gave results. Passion for all foreigners has decreased. The highest circles of society began to switch from French to Russian (at that time “native” was French for the highest nobility).

Having become the head of the Order of Malta, Paulhotel wanted to solve two main problems. First of all, he understood that it was necessary to fight against harmful ideas with ideas too, physical struggle alone was not enough. Pavel decided to oppose revolutionary ideas and Freemasonry with a religious-political structure, a religious-secular order, uniting the best forces of Europe. In this regard, the Order of Malta, having hundreds of years of hard, heroic struggle against the enemies of Christian Europe, seemed like a suitable structure. Russian resources and capabilities could bring the order to a completely different level. The Russian emperor cherished the idea of ​​concentrating all the healthy spiritual and military forces of Europe without distinction of nationality and religion around the renewed Order of Malta, in order to suppress the revolutionary forces behind which the masters of the Western project stood.

Secondly, the principles underlying the Order of Malta: strict Christian piety, helping others, defending justice with weapons in the hands, both the unconditional obedience of the younger elders (a healthy hierarchy), as well as the knightly way and his mystically religious direction, fully corresponded to the emperor's worldview. Paul wanted to create a Russian spiritual order that would be able to resist decomposition, which gradually spread across Europe. Under Stalin, this idea will be remembered when they compare the Bolsheviks with the "Order of the Sword," which will have to switch to ideological and educational work (the idea will not have time to realize). The spiritual-secular order was supposed to serve the revival of the Russian nobility, its essence and at the same time bring to the service of Russia the best representatives from other classes and social groups of the population. The highest circles of the nobility, spiritually and intellectually, were badly corrupted and infected with various Western ideas. Paul was not opposed to the nobility as such. But he wanted the nobility not only to be considered the highest and noble class, but to be so. It was necessary to force the Russian nobles to follow the ideals of chivalry. To such people as Suvorov, Ushakov, Lazarev, Kornilov and Nakhimov were not the exception to the rule, but the typical representatives of the “Russian chivalry”. In fact, Pavel planned to form a new national elite.

The development of the Russian army. For a long time, Pavel was criticized for failing to appreciate the originality of the Russian military school of Rumyantsev and Suvorov, turned a blind eye to his achievements and introduced the Prussian orders. However, this is only part of the truth. Subjecting Paul to fair criticism in the sphere of Prussian orders, they simultaneously forgotten or deliberately concealed the good things that Paul did for the army.

The Russian army of the times of Rumyantsev, Potemkin and Suvorov was radically different from the European armies: it was a national army with high morale, not European soulless discipline, with slender tactics, with the training of soldiers only that they could be useful in the march and combat, convenient "Potemkin" form ". However, the unhealthy political and moral atmosphere that prevailed in Russia during the times of the epoch of palace coups, could not but have an impact on the army, especially on the morals of the officers. If in the units that were directly subordinate to Rumyantsev and Suvorov, real military spirit and tough discipline reigned, then other units were far from ideal. The military genius of Suvorov was not used to transform the entire army, although it would have been a reasonable step. Under Catherine II, Suvorov was not allowed to tackle the most important issues of the organization of military affairs. Alexander Suvorov was a “magic wand”, a genius commander who was used only for solving crisis phenomena - war with the Turks, suppressing the unrest of the Poles. They even threw out the fire of the Pugachev region.

The brain of the army — the general staff (its chief was then called the quartermaster general) was disorganized and was powerless to change anything. The commanders-in-chief (local senior military commanders) completely disregarded him, relying on their connections at court. A significant part of the army was used for other purposes - tens of thousands of soldiers were dragged as servants and serfs. Theft reigned. Meanwhile, the revolutionary French army was victorious after victory, actively promoting talented commanders (including commoners) and raising a number of brilliant generals.

It is therefore not surprising that Emperor Paul firmly took over the establishment of order in the army. On the first day of his reign, the emperor dismissed the old General Staff and on the fourth day he formed him from new people. Then the “purge” of the command began: during the reign of Pavel, 7 field marshals, more than 300 generals and over 2000 headquarters officers and chief officers were sent out. Massive dismissal of officers from the army tried to explain the tyranny of Paul. However, Paul’s actions are more like the “purge” of the army under Stalin, when most of the officers were simply dismissed for disciplinary offenses, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, low qualifications, etc. Pavel I conducted a similar purge of the army at the turn of the 18th – 19th centuries. He fought with embezzlement, violations of military discipline, the transformation of soldiers into serfs. He dismissed the generals and officers for the fact that they could not answer basic questions about military affairs. He fired officers for the so-called. "Long holidays", the nobles were listed in the shelves, but in fact they were absent. They cleaned the rows from the undead, children who were recorded in the officers. From now on, the leave for officers and generals should not exceed one month per year. Paul, like Peter I, demanded that the nobles serve their state.

Pavel paid much attention to the rank and file. For officers, a real disciplinary and criminal liability for the life and health of soldiers was introduced. Corporal punishment was allowed only in extreme cases, and it was specifically stipulated that they should not cripple, but correct negligent soldiers. For the lower ranks of the introduced vacation - 28 days a year. For the lower ranks, a cloth overcoat with sleeves for winter and cold time was introduced as the subject of the uniform (before this instruction, the soldiers had only a uniform for all seasons, under which they could put what they could). For the guard in the winter time introduced sheepskin coats and felt boots. Moreover, in the guardroom in the guardroom, the boots should be as long as necessary for each change of soldiers to wear dry felt boots. Under the fear of penal servitude, Paul forbade to make deductions from the soldiers' salary and not to give it out at all. The salaries and salaries themselves were increased. The soldiers were distributed awards orders: for 20 years of immaculate service began to issue signs of St.. Anne.

In each regiment were established hospitals. Only those persons who passed the exam at the Medical College could be doctors in them. The king introduced soldiers to service 25 for years and retired from service because of injuries to pensions containing them in disabled teams. The soldiers who died and died were ordered to be buried with military honors, and their teams were to be looked after by disabled teams. The soldier was forbidden to use as a labor in the interests of commanders. The massive construction of the barracks began to rid the army of the harmful effects of permanent residence.

Paul tried to stop the process of turning the nobility into social parasites. He tried to put an end to the era of sybarism and hedonism. Pavel forced all the officers to work hard to turn the army into a powerful combat unit. It is clear that representatives of aristocracy, accustomed to hedonism, simply hated the emperor. Subsequently, many of them tried to trample his name in the dirt.

Pavlovskaya Mushtra, a military historian A. Kersnovsky (“The History of the Russian Army”) recognized this, “strongly pulled up a brilliant, but disbanded army, especially the guard of the end of the reign of Catherine. The dandies and sybarites, who skimped on their duties, looked at the service as a pleasant sinekur, and considered that “it is not a bear — it will not run away into the forest”, it is given to understand (and feel) that service is primarily service ... Order, clarity in “uniformity everywhere were brought exemplary.

Fyodor Rostopchin noted that the Russian infantry had been greatly transformed within one year. He wrote to S. Vorontsov: “I saw that (infantry), which cost so much work to the late Prussian king (Frederick the Great), and I assure you that it would be ours.” The historian Schilder, who wrote an extensive study about Pavel I and who had a negative opinion about him, nevertheless noted: "The way of life of the guards officers has changed completely." Now they were not driving around theaters and societies, but were engaged in military training from morning to evening.

Another anti-hero of the pro-Western and liberal-minded public - Arakcheev, in a short time turned the Russian artillery into a formidable type of military force, which would play a huge role in future victories of the Russian army. I must say that the principles of the organization of artillery, laid Arakcheev, lasted until the First World War (!).

Paul did a lot for the development of the military and commercial fleet. Russia owes him patronage of the merchant fleet, assistance to the Siberian industrialist Shelikhov and the founding of the Russian-American Company.

It is clear that there were mistakes. The main mistake of Pavel in military construction was that while reforming the Russian army, the sovereign took not the ingenious principles of Rumyantsev and Suvorov, but the best European system - the military system of the Prussian king Frederick the Great, as the basis for its reorganization. Apparently, this was due to the upbringing of the Russian monarch. Although Catherine did not like her son, she nevertheless tried to educate and give him an education in the European spirit. Paul did not become a fan of the ideas of "enlightenment" and an atheist, but still he was able to inspire the idea of ​​the superiority of some European orders over the Russians. Pavel Petrovich was well aware of the diseases of the Russian army of the era of palace coups, when only the genius of individual commanders and unyielding resilience, the self-sacrifice of Russian soldiers saved the army and the state from a number of military catastrophes. Therefore, Paul began to build an army on the basis of the principles of the Prussian king. Hence, a meaningless drill, uncomfortable uniforms and boots, braids, wigs, powder and other attributes of the Russian army of the Paul I era. If in domestic politics Pavel Petrovich tried to return Russia to the traditional historical path, he tried to rebuild the army in Prussian mode, which was a mistake.

Thus, as can be seen from the activities of the king, Paul tried to correct the imbalances that appeared in the empire during the so-called. "Golden Age" Catherine II. All of them are reasonable and no trace of the “crazy tyrant” is observed. On the whole, a harmonious and internally integral system was seen in the events of Paul. If Paul had not been killed, Russia could have made a serious development breakthrough. Moreover, it was precisely along the “Russian path” that gradually freed from the Western fetters that hampered the development of Russia.

England's challenge

Pavel Petrovich is often blamed for the fact that his foreign policy was contradictory and inconsistent. Like, he began to destroy the achievements of the mother, rushing from side to side. The reason for the "inconsistency" of Paul's foreign policy is also seen in his "abnormality." However, this is an obvious deception.

As heir to the throne, Paul traveled extensively throughout Europe and was well acquainted with the political situation and the interests of various countries. Therefore, his foreign policy was sober. She was contradictory only at first glance. Paul was a staunch enemy of revolutionary France. And it was quite reasonable. The French Revolution was a project of the Freemasons and the Illuminati, who followed the path of the revolutionary transformation of Europe, the destruction of the former political systems, religion, tradition and morality, up to their complete demolition. In fact, they were the forerunners of the internationalist revolutionaries who, after 1917, staged a bloody massacre in Russia that claimed millions of Russian lives. What will happen to revolutionary Europe is a good example of France. A brutal terror was arranged in the country. Thousands of people were shot, their heads cut off and drowned in barges. At the same time a bunch of speculators and bankers fabulously enriched. This bloody orgy and financial and economic degradation put an end to the military dictatorship of Napoleon.

It is clear that with such a plague it was necessary to fight. And better on the far lines. Therefore, Paul became an ally of Austria and England in the fight against revolutionary France. However, the Russian emperor soon realized that Vienna and London wanted to use Russian soldiers as cannon fodder and care not so much about fighting France as about using the victories of the Russian troops and navy for their own strategic interests. The unselfish impulse of the “emperor-knight,” who desired the welfare of all Europe, was crushed. Austria at the expense of Russian victories wanted to gain a foothold in Italy, and England - in the Mediterranean. In addition, so-called. The "partners" intrigued against the Russian army, which almost led to its defeat. Only the miracle that Alexander Suvorov accomplished with his heroes saved the Russian army from defeat and captivity. In addition, London was in no hurry to fulfill its financial obligations and seized Malta from the French, which legally belonged to the Russian Empire, since Paul was the grandmaster of the Order of Malta. The demands to transfer it to Russia were ignored and eventually Malta was annexed to the British Empire. That is, London formally seized our island, which could become a Russian strategic base in the Mediterranean.

Naturally, such "partners" of Russia were not needed. Pavel decided to withdraw from the anti-French coalition and withdraw troops from Western Europe. There was another important reason, apart from the treachery of the coalition allies, which forced Paul to radically reconsider his foreign policy. Pavel I studied the situation in France attentively and saw that the young first consul of the French Republic Napoleon was striving to suppress the most destructive consequences of the revolution, to establish order and restore the monarchy. When Napoleon broke up the Directory, and then the Council of Five Hundreds, it became obvious that the revolution in France came to an end. Tens of thousands of immigrant royalists were allowed to return to France. The country gradually returned to its traditional monarchy, albeit under the authority of another dynasty. Further events confirmed this conclusion.

Napoleon was a visionary man and also constantly sought to establish friendly relations with Russia. He was the first to take a step towards reconciliation - he said that he wanted to release all the captured Russian soldiers to the homeland (about 6 thousand people). As a result, Paul agreed to peace, in order to restore "peace and quiet" to Europe. It was a sensible decision, since with France we did not have any serious contradictions, for example, as a century-long antagonism between England and France. In his instructions to his representative in France, Count Sprengporten, Paul wrote: “Since the two states are mutually mutual, France and the Russian Empire, being far from each other, can never be forced to harm each other, they can, by joining and constantly maintaining friendly relations, prevent , so that others with their striving for conquest and domination could not harm their interests. ”

The case went to the conclusion of the Russian-French strategic alliance directed against England, Russia planned to strike at the "pearl" of the British colonial empire - India, for this purpose the Don regiments were sent. Initially, the Cossacks were to conquer Khiva and Bukhara, thereby annexing Central Asia to the Russian Empire. A joint Russian-French expedition to India was planned to take place through Persia.

Almost simultaneously, Russian diplomacy effortlessly concluded in December 1800 of the year an agreement with Sweden and Denmark on a joint struggle against England. This is how the League of the Northern Powers appeared, with an anti-British orientation. Prussia joined the union. A powerful coalition was created against England. In Europe, a new political alliance emerged, which allowed to isolate England and stop its expansion.

Thus, Russia challenged the British Empire, which claimed the role of "king of the mountains" on the planet. Russia could join Central Asia earlier than it finally happened (under Alexander II), go to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. That is, Russia could start its globalization project by creating an alternative to the Western project.

It is worth noting that Napoleon’s view of the campaign in India and Paul completely refutes the inventions of those who diligently turned the Russian emperor into a caricature, “a fool on a throne”. It is foolish to blame Paul for “madness” when the idea of ​​going to India was the most beloved project of Napoleon. He even dreamed of leading the combined Russian-French army, which was to march from southern Russia. Apparently, it is more useful to reckon with Napoleon’s authority than with the conclusions of those who accused Paul of insanity when he planned to go to India. Napoleon respected Pavel with great respect and spoke to the Russian envoy Sprengporten: "Together with your sovereign, we will change the face of the world." Upon learning of the murder of Paul, Napoleon was furious, his cherished dreams collapsed: "They missed me ... but they hit me in Petersburg." Later, already in exile, the French emperor, recalling the death of Paul, with whom he established such warm relations, always associated this tragedy with the name of the British ambassador.

Thus, Pavel Petrovich was a great historical figure, a man who with all his heart worked for the Russian cause and tried to bring benefit to the people and Russia. For this he was slandered and blackened, like many other Russian devotees.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -6
    16 March 2016 06: 25
    No matter how I come across, I want to trust Klyuchevsky's vision.
  2. -13
    16 March 2016 06: 52
    Author, you write about one more "knight" - about Peter III :-)
    1. +4
      16 March 2016 08: 00
      Quote: sa-ag
      Author, you write about one more "knight" - about Peter III :-)

      this (about Peter III) was struck by an apocalyptic blow with the fists and legs of the Orlov guards ...
      Although the trail of the English Masons in the coup can be traced very clearly.
      1. -2
        16 March 2016 11: 25
        Very reminiscent of a series of articles about Nikita Khrushchev. Only the author does not like Nikita, but he is positive about Paul.
        As a result, he did everything wonderfully, only with a drill slightly went too far.
        Alexander, I am ready to give you a good set of watercolor paints so that your articles are not black and white.
        How can i do this?
        1. +1
          16 March 2016 19: 50
          Very reminiscent of a series of articles about Nikita Khrushchev. Only the author does not like Nikita, but he is positive about Paul.


          Khrushchev is defamatory as well as Pavel and for the same as Pavel -
          He was a great historical figure, a man who with all his heart worked for the Russian cause and tried to bring benefit to the people and Russia. For this he was slandered and blackened, like many other Russian devotees.
    2. 0
      16 March 2016 11: 18
      Quote: sa-ag
      Author, you write about one more "knight" - about Peter III :-)

      I am waiting for an article to be written about the great democratic Tsar-reformer Peter 2, who at the age of 15 was a brilliant politician, commander, economist ....
    3. -4
      16 March 2016 21: 02
      And I am inclined to believe that Catherine soberly assessed the personal qualities of her son, preparing for the reign of Alexander’s grandson. Well, she didn’t want her exalted Russia to be in her hands. The disappearance of the will of the empress, the proclamation of Paul as emperor and his rule naturally led to his untimely death. The son and the Arakcheev knew about the attempt, but did not stop the conspirators. In this case, historical justice triumphed, alas, by killing the usurper Paul.
  3. +1
    16 March 2016 07: 00
    If all this is as it is written. then ... the English fellows! We always knew how to keep our interests on time!
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 15: 00
      Vyacheslav! What are you really, beads ...
  4. -3
    16 March 2016 07: 17
    Paul was a very ambiguous person, and with his cockroaches, as befits a monarch. Plus, a huge inferiority complex against the backdrop of mutual dislike with the crowned mother, who had to be sure to try to surpass at least something.
    And here such Samsonov - once, and in one article he covered and clarified all questions good... Interestingly, "Poor, poor Paul" the author has long revised? Oleg Borisov was very good there, and even this role was actually his last work, right on the subject.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 07: 37
      Quote: inkass_98
      "Poor, poor Paul" has the author reviewed for a long time?

      A lot depends on the director. Revise "Battleship Potemkin." There is "historical" footage of the shooting on the stairs.
      1. 0
        18 March 2016 10: 20
        So the uprising on "Potemkin" is a lot of incomprehensible.
        Somehow I will post material on the site.
    2. +7
      16 March 2016 10: 15
      Quote: inkass_98
      And here such Samsonov - once, and in one article he covered and clarified all questions

      And yet, if Paul’s rule is judged objectively, only by deeds. It was one of the best kings. So, according to some estimates, under Paul, the population of the Russian Empire increased by 7%. The relief was also the absence of active wars. Paul’s economic reforms have no analogues in history at all, and are inferior in systematic and large-scale except to Peter I and Stalin, and approximately on a par with Ivan the Terrible. But the possibilities for an independent policy were not so many, as indeed Peter and Joseph. Elizabeth and Catherine 2 used the fruits of their predecessor. Alexander 2 and 3 were not dynamic enough, although they were consistent. Under Nicholas 2 - a frank failure.
      1. +4
        16 March 2016 11: 20
        Quote: goose
        So, according to some estimates, under Paul, the population of the Russian Empire increased by 7%.

        For 5 years of rule? Are you serious?
      2. +15
        16 March 2016 12: 06
        The mere fact of the participation of the British ambassador and intelligence in the murder of Paul says a lot. They do not kill fools - they kill those whom they fear. And they kill those on whom a lot is tied. In general, I agree with the author of the article with reservations. Paul was far from stupid and had a very smart policy. Whether she was successful or not - xs, but the fact that she was not stupid is a fact. Unfortunately, the winners write the story, and then Alexander1 and England won - as a result we have the stigma of a fool on a perfectly reasonable ruler. And this is far from the first such case. We have the stigma of a madman on the GREATEST GOVERNOR OF RUSSIA AND RUSSIA in the whole history - Ivan the Terrible, who led Russia to the Premier League and gave it the foundation, creating the guarantee of a superpower. We have the stigma of worthlessness on Peter 3, killed by his wife the Great Catherine. But here at least the replacement turned out worthy. We have the stamp of the executioner on Stalin, etc. Up to Prince Igor. And you begin to be interested in the issue and get acquainted with known sources and the conclusions are completely different. I often disagree with the author, but according to Pasha 1 it is completely in agreement.
      3. 0
        16 March 2016 21: 11
        relieved ... lack of active wars
        ??? And in Italy hto poured blood? And a hike across the Alps? Damn bridge? And what about AV Suvorov, who defeated Joubert's army at the head of the allies, where he caught a cold and died soon after the march of the "knights" of the Maltese orders in the mountains?
    3. avt
      +2
      16 March 2016 10: 18
      Quote: inkass_98
      Interestingly, "Poor, poor Paul" the author has long revised? Oleg Borisov was very good there, and even this role was actually his last work, right on the subject.

      what In the production of the theater "Soviet Army"? Well, like that, yes And in a movie like Sukhorukov played, and Palena - Yankovsky.
    4. +2
      16 March 2016 10: 43
      Quote: inkass_98
      Oleg Borisov was very good there,

      Didn't Viktor Sukhorukov Pavel play?
  5. +3
    16 March 2016 07: 26
    It is clear that it was necessary to fight such a plague...His mother Catherine II told Pavel that they don’t fight with ideas and guns .. and didn’t climb into any coalitions .. she waited for the arrival of "Caesar" .. Aunt understood how revolutions end .. A trip to India .. a pure adventure .. Gathered and went .. Paul is a rather controversial person, like his reign .. Not everything is clear .. as the author described in the article .. solid oil ...
  6. +10
    16 March 2016 07: 43
    Quote: sa-ag
    Author, you write about one more "knight" - about Peter III :-)

    About the fact that Pet-3 was a jerk, we know from the words of his killers. Those. nobles conspirators and wife. He is credited with a passion for playing the soldier, although Suvorov and the German Kaiser are credited with this.
    In the opinion of foreign contemporaries, Peter-3 was quite sane. I just wanted to give freedom to the peasants, and to press the nobles opposite. And the nobles could not allow this to him. A scarf around the neck and .....
    1. +12
      16 March 2016 08: 17
      Dear Edward!

      Similarly, from the mainstream media, we found out how bad Stalin was, well, not a bright spot, this is in 1956-1964. And in 90, we learned how EBN was a wise and healthy one, as much as a shake (or twist) danced before the 96 election. Later it turned out that they lied to us impudently.
      And Paul was really a knight. He punished and rewarded according to his actions. And he should have read not the novels of chivalry, but the work of Machiavelli "The Emperor".
      hi
    2. +4
      16 March 2016 10: 19
      Quote: qwert
      a game in a soldier, although Suvorov and the German Kaiser it is credited.

      "Friedrich der große" elector, kingBut not a kaiser.
    3. +2
      16 March 2016 11: 21
      Quote: qwert
      In the opinion of foreign contemporaries, Peter-3 was quite sane. I just wanted to give freedom to the peasants, and to press the nobles opposite. And the nobles could not allow this to him. A scarf around the neck and .....

      Otkel data that he wanted to give freedom to the peasants?
  7. +10
    16 March 2016 07: 44
    I liked the article very much, everything was very competently parsed.
    Paul I is probably the first emperor to occupy the throne lawfully. What is characteristic of his reign is that most of the laws developed by him existed until 1917.
    His role in reforming the army is great, given that the army of the model of his royal mother was a disordered, unruly crowd (according to foreign generals)
    1. +6
      16 March 2016 10: 03
      Quote: bober1982
      the army of the model of his royal mother was a disordered, undisciplined crowd

      And how such a crowd drove the well-trained army of Friedrich, smashed the Turks. So the crowd drove the Turkish army out of the Crimea and from the shores of the Black Sea, sank the Turkish fleet? request what And yes, it’s
      Quote: bober1982
      (according to foreign generals)

      But AV Suvorov, on Paul's order to introduce the Prussian system, remarked: "The Russians always beat the Prussians. What is there to adopt?" and went into exile in the village, until the allies were piled high in Italy. That's where the chieftain was needed for the crowd.
      1. +8
        16 March 2016 10: 37
        Whose and whom the crowd drove can endlessly. Then Napoleon drove everyone along with Frederick. You can recall our Emelka Pugachev-how he drove the regular army of Catherine the Great.
        A.V. Suvorov and Pavel I conflicted, but respected each other. The Tsar did not consider it shameful to ask for forgiveness from Suvorov.
        1. +2
          16 March 2016 11: 33
          Quote: bober1982
          Whose and whom the crowd drove can talk endlessly. Then Napoleon drove everyone, along with Frederick.

          They would read something about the 7-year war, they wouldn’t write such nonsense.
          Quote: bober1982
          You can recall our Emelka Pugacheva-how he drove the regular army of Catherine the Great.

          But nothing that the regular army fought with the Turks, when there was the rise of Pugachev? And with the Pugachev, the units of the disabled and the noble militia initially fought? When the regular army approached, everything fell into place.
          I understand that you are a victim of EG, but to write that Napoleon drove someone TOGETHER with Frederick is a complete out.
          1. +2
            16 March 2016 11: 37
            .... this is a complete out
            So to speak, can only the victim of EG
            1. +1
              16 March 2016 11: 50
              Quote: bober1982
              .... this is a complete out
              So to speak, can only the victim of EG

              Hmm,)))
              1. +3
                16 March 2016 11: 56
                1: 1, and leave for a break in a football match.
          2. +6
            16 March 2016 12: 47
            Quote: Your friend
            Quote: bober1982
            Whose and whom the crowd drove can talk endlessly. Then Napoleon drove everyone along with Frederick.
            They would read something about the 7-year war, they wouldn’t write such nonsense.

            In vain you run into a comrade at this point. Formally, he is absolutely right. There was Friedrich in Bonaparte's rivals / just a little younger, "Der Gross Friedrich". Five years after the death of Paul 1, Bonaparte inflicted on the king of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm III is defeated. "As a result of the defeat of Prussia at the Battle of Jena and Auerstedt in 1806, King Frederick Wilhelm III was forced to temporarily leave Memel." http://monero.ru/?p=2310
            "Wives of Alexander 1 and Friedrich Wilhelm" http://nicsky.ru/zhenu-fridrixa-vilgelma-4.html
            Probably Frederick 3 ruled closer to the era of Paul 1, who ascended the throne in November 1896, rather than Frederick II, who died in August 2.
            So there can be no talk of any "7-year" war... Yes, and visitors who "plus" you on this issue should be ashamed.
            1. 0
              16 March 2016 14: 18
              Quote: V.ic
              Quote: Your friend
              Quote: bober1982
              Whose and whom the crowd drove can talk endlessly. Then Napoleon drove everyone along with Frederick.
              They would read something about the 7-year war, they wouldn’t write such nonsense.

              In vain you run into a comrade at this point. Formally, he is absolutely right. There was Friedrich in Bonaparte's rivals / just a little younger, "Der Gross Friedrich". Five years after the death of Paul 1, Bonaparte inflicted on the king of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm III is defeated. "As a result of the defeat of Prussia at the Battle of Jena and Auerstedt in 1806, King Frederick Wilhelm III was forced to temporarily leave Memel." http://monero.ru/?p=2310
              "Wives of Alexander 1 and Friedrich Wilhelm" http://nicsky.ru/zhenu-fridrixa-vilgelma-4.html
              Probably Frederick 3 ruled closer to the era of Paul 1, who ascended the throne in November 1896, rather than Frederick II, who died in August 2.
              So there can be no talk of any "7-year" war... Yes, and visitors who "plus" you on this issue should be ashamed.

              Before you write your long post, you should carefully re-read what Beaver and I wrote.
              Beaver wrote that Napoleon TOGETHER with Frederick drove everyone. And you wrote some nonsense about the battle of Frederick William against Napoleon.
              Before you say your "phi", you'd better think a little longer. )))
              1. +4
                16 March 2016 14: 26
                do not cling to words, had in mind-Napoleon drove everyone together, including Frederick
                1. -1
                  16 March 2016 14: 38
                  Quote: bober1982
                  do not cling to words, had in mind-Napoleon drove everyone together, including Frederick

                  Ahahahaha ... why Frederick? What kind of Frederick? And why did you only remember Frederick when the Austrians were Napoleon's main enemy? Well, yes, do not cling to your words, no matter what nonsense you write. Five points))))
                  How did Napolen drive everyone in the Middle East? Can you tell the victim EG?))))
                  1. +1
                    16 March 2016 14: 45
                    That you, as a young lady, swung around. This Frederick surrendered to me, we can’t figure it out with your own.
                    1. +1
                      16 March 2016 14: 49
                      Quote: bober1982
                      That you, as a young lady, swung around. This Frederick surrendered to me, we can’t figure it out with your own.

                      This is strong, about the "young lady razakhali". Ahahaha, god ...
                      1. -1
                        16 March 2016 14: 52
                        All tired, enough, the match is over, the final whistle.
              2. +2
                16 March 2016 20: 06
                Quote: Your friend
                Before you write your long post, you should carefully re-read what Beaver and I wrote.

                I read it carefully, otherwise I would not have written. By the way, not "Beaver", but "bober1982".
                Quote: Your friend
                Beaver wrote that Napoleon TOGETHER with Frederick drove everyone.

                Now the appeals have gone, "we will see" and the comma "we'll see" ... Why then: "If you read something about the 7-year war, you wouldn't write such nonsense."
                Quote: Your friend
                And you wrote some nonsense about the battle of Frederick William against Napoleon.

                Rave? "Jena-Auerstedt battle 1806 - two related battles on October 14 between the French and Prussian-Saxon armies during the Russian-Prussian-French war 1806-07." http://napoleon-battles.narod.ru/iena_o.htm
                Quote: Your friend
                Before you say your "fi"

                Where did you see / hear my "phi"?
                Quote: Your friend
                you'd better think longer.

                A year, two, three?
      2. erg
        +5
        16 March 2016 10: 39
        In fact, much was adopted, which allowed our army to become one of the strongest. Because it was not stupidly copied, competently disassembled what is needed, what is not plus own experience. So it was under Peter the first and third and under Paul. And Suvorov was not opposed. He protested against mindless copying.
        But what are your actual complaints about the Prussian "drill", only specifically, if you understand anything in this.
      3. +5
        16 March 2016 10: 40
        Quote: Captain45
        the crowd drove Frederick's well-trained army

        Frederick 2 had a quarrelsome neighbor - Austria / Maria Theresa / and a scandalous neighbor France / Louis 15 /. To the best of their strength, they tried to beat the great tactician. Without Russia, both Austria and France (the world powers of that time) regularly raked from Frederick. The qualifications of the "generals" Apraksin and Fermor were below the plinth. Everything was based on the unsurpassed stamina of "a Russian soldier, who needs two bullets: the first to kill, and the second to knock down" (attributed to the same Frederick 2). Another thing is Saltykov Pyotr Semyonovich, who "saw through" the tactics of Frederick 2. So he began to "chase the tail and mane" of the generals of Frederick 2.
        1. +1
          16 March 2016 14: 34
          Quote: V.ic
          Quote: Captain45
          the crowd drove Frederick's well-trained army

          Frederick 2 had a quarrelsome neighbor - Austria / Maria Theresa / and a scandalous neighbor France / Louis 15 /. To the best of their strength, they tried to beat the great tactician. Without Russia, both Austria and France (the world powers of that time) regularly raked from Frederick. The qualifications of the "generals" Apraksin and Fermor were below the plinth. Everything was based on the unsurpassed stamina of "a Russian soldier, who needs two bullets: the first to kill, and the second to knock down" (attributed to the same Frederick 2). Another thing is Saltykov Pyotr Semyonovich, who "saw through" the tactics of Frederick 2. So he began to "chase the tail and mane" of the generals of Frederick 2.

          Frederick 2 himself was still that squabbler. Friedrich not only defeated Austria and France, but he also raked - the defeat under Colin, under Hochkirch, and the Allies more than once beat the generals of Friedrich ....
          Apraksin defeated the Prussians at Gross-Egersdorf - well, yes, below the plinth its level ...
          1. 0
            16 March 2016 20: 16
            Quote: Your friend
            Apraksin defeated the Prussians at Gross-Egersdorf - well, yes, below the plinth its level ...

            Well, yes, of course, why then was he replaced by Fermor? Good commanders are not changed like gloves and are not given under investigation.
      4. +1
        16 March 2016 20: 39
        Quote: Captain45
        But AV Suvorov, on Paul's order to introduce the Prussian system, remarked: "The Russians always beat the Prussians. What is there to adopt?" and went into exile ...

        Near Ryazan, in Meshchera there is a settlement - Polkovo. According to one of the versions of the legend of the formation of the village, Pavel, angry for something, sent a whole regiment on a march into exile, to Siberia. Then he changed his decision to "quarters" the regiment where the courier would catch up with him. The order caught up with the regiment in the deep forest of the Ryazan region. wink
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  8. +12
    16 March 2016 07: 46
    Article plus. I read with interest, although I already knew all this.
    Oil was not oil, but Paul was not a moron and a tycoon, as the people involved in his murder claim. Naturally, they will say that they saved Russia, and not noble liberty and lawlessness.
  9. Pig
    +3
    16 March 2016 08: 23
    Pavel was overthrown by their own - nobles, precisely because even the closest to him were not sure that tomorrow they would not be sent somewhere beyond the Urals only at the whim of a whipped up tsar ...
    Pavel hated "Catherine's eagles" - this was the main reason for "repression" at the same time, he could not create a support for himself from like-minded people - for the above-mentioned reason for his tyranny ...
    therefore, when the conspiracy matured, Pavel had absolutely no one to rely on ... his favorites took part in the conspiracy together with the nobles "offended" by him
  10. +5
    16 March 2016 08: 27
    What we should definitely learn from the Britons is to defend our interests in any way. Disliked by a ruler in another country? So it is necessary to change it, and in any way. Yes, we can say that “Shurik, are you a Komsomol member? This is not our method!”, But sometimes you have to use his own methods against the enemy.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 10: 02
      It was good for the bourgeoisie in the XVIII-XIX centuries: foreign kings-kings were changed like gloves, and there all the monarchies were completely destroyed for the sake of their interests. Now, in order to achieve such an effect, it is not the rulers in the United States that need to be changed, but the world economic system based on the dollar and loan interest that must be destroyed.
  11. -1
    16 March 2016 08: 32
    Paul had a lot of sound actions, but also a lot of mistakes. Alas, he is far from the great Peter.
  12. +5
    16 March 2016 08: 50
    Thanks to the author of the article - one way or another, I knew everything described, including from a benevolent point of view, but here everything is collected in one story. Once I read an article about how the British Empire got out of this situation, created, including by Paul, in the first place - with the help of his murder. By the way, this is a good answer to the question why the state needs a nationally oriented elite. But even in this article, you have to justify Paul through the mind of Napoleon - a sad irony, it is more ironic that Catherine II is considered great, and even mother, but Paul II, who did not worsen, but improved (in general, compared to mother ) the position of the peasantry is not so well known.

    What is the story? Tale of the winners for the vanquished.
  13. +16
    16 March 2016 09: 06
    In defense of Paul, I will make a repost with Yuri Veremeyev.

    1.Pavel introduced the real disciplinary and criminal liability of officers for maintaining the life and health of soldiers.
    2. Introduced the concept of "immaculate service" for the lower ranks. For the immaculate 20 years of service, the lower ranks were forever exempt from corporal punishment.
    3. He regulated the corporal punishments of the lower ranks, emphasizing that "... they should be allowed in extreme cases, bearing in mind that they serve to correct negligent soldiers, and by no means for their mutilation."
    4. Introduced for the first time in Europe the rewarding of the lower ranks with insignia of the orders "St. Anne" and "Donate of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem".
    5. He dismissed from the service all the lower ranks of the nobility, who were listed on the shelves, but who were on long vacations.
    6. He ordered that all newly opening officer vacancies be occupied only by graduates of military schools or experienced noncommissioned officers from nobles who had passed literacy examinations and knowledge of the statute.
    7. He forbade officers and generals to leave more than one month a year.
    8. Introduced holidays to the lower ranks on 28 days a year.
    9. For the lower ranks, he introduced a woolen overcoat with sleeves for winter and cold time for the lower ranks (until that time, the soldiers had only a uniform for all seasons, under which they would hook who could). Soldiers wear this piece of military clothing to this day!
    10. Introduced for winter time for sentry guard sheepskin coats and felt boots, and in the guardroom, felt boots should be as much as required for each change of sentry clothes to wear dry felt boots. This rule of guard duty exists today !!
    11. Dismissed from service 333 generals and 2261 officers who failed to answer elementary simple questions on military affairs.
    12. He ordered that only those who passed the medicinal exam at the Medical College were allowed to join the regiment by doctors.
    13. Under the penalty of hard labor, he forbade him to make deductions from the soldiers 'wages and, on pain of death, not issuing soldiers' salaries.
    14. Established infirmaries at each regiment.
    15. He introduced retired soldiers who left the service because of injuries or soldiers who had served more than 25 for years with the maintenance of such soldiers in mobile or garrison disabled companies.
    16. He ordered the dead and dead soldiers to bury with military honors, to hand over the graves for the care of the disabled garrison companies.
    17.Has prohibited the production of non-commissioned officers of the illiterate.
    18. He forbade the use of soldiers as a labor force in officers 'or generals' estates.
    1. -7
      16 March 2016 10: 28
      When 18 aces are on the table, this combination is hard to cover with something real other than checkmate and blah blah blah.
    2. -3
      16 March 2016 11: 19
      Quote: mishastich
      . He introduced a cloth coat with sleeves for winter and cold time as an object of the form for the lower ranks (until that time, soldiers had only a uniform for all seasons, under which they had pulled anyone who could). To this day soldiers wear this item of military clothing!
      10. Introduced for winter time for sentry guard sheepskin coats and felt boots, and in the guardroom, felt boots should be as much as required for each change of sentry clothes to wear dry felt boots. This rule of guard duty exists today !!


      but how could the soldiers who have nothing to "pry who could what?" This is a very strange moment, because warm clothes were a NECESSITY for a serviceman and how could soldiers and officers in winter in cold weather do without greatcoats, and on guard without short fur coats?
      In the Catherine’s Palace there are stoves that were delivered AFTER the construction of the palace itself, the area of ​​the GLAZING of the facades of the palace is such that this house could no longer keep the heat in frosty Russian winters, therefore the palace has the second name Summer Palace for summer. How did they miss building?
      By all indicators, it becomes clear that at 17 the climate was much milder than today, and apparently during the time of Paul with the climate, something happened, a sharp jump in temperature, and therefore were forced to enter overcoats of boots and short fur coats ...
      1. erg
        +7
        16 March 2016 11: 42
        Houses in Russia were built with summer and winter rooms. That is, in winter, heating was provided not for the whole house, but only parts of it. The remaining premises were considered summer and were not used in winter. And a similar manner existed even in the conditions of the North. Take a trip to the Arkhangelsk region, to the Malye Karely Museum, look at the houses of prosperous Pomors. In the construction of palaces and estates, they usually did the same. If necessary, heat an additional room in winter, for example, use fryers with coals, placing them in a heated room. This episode, by the way, can be found in the famous notes of the Cavalry Maiden Durova (although she was not a girl).
        Soldiers under a uniform in cold time put on sheepskin coats on a sheepskin. Usually they were sewn from camisole (part of the uniform worn under a caftan) of the second term. A caftan was built so that in the right places it could expand at the seams. The charter of 1796 spelled out this requirement, as well as the instruction to alter camisoles. Officers could afford fur caftans. In addition, in the cold and rain, they used epancha, and under Paul already overcoat.
        1. -2
          16 March 2016 12: 46
          Quote: erg
          Houses in Russia were built with summer and winter rooms.


          what kind of stupidity, what kind of premises in the Russian house were not heated? bedroom, living room, kitchen, hallway? Everything was heated.

          Quote: erg
          Take a trip to the Arkhangelsk region, to the Malye Karely Museum, look at the houses of prosperous Pomors

          Yes, you yourself go ...

          Quote: erg
          Soldiers under a uniform in cold time put on sheepskin coats on a sheepskin. Usually they were sewn from camisole (part of the uniform worn under a caftan) of the second term. A caftan was built so that in the right places it could expand at the seams. The charter of 1796 spelled out this requirement, as well as the instruction to alter camisoles. Officers could afford fur caftans. In addition, in the cold and rain, they used epancha, and under Paul already overcoat.


          perhaps this was practiced when a cold snap has already occurred, BUT putting the sheepskin coat under the uniform is idiotism of the highest mark WHAT WILL A SOLDIER LIKE? ON A SCARAW? and most likely historians came up with it. By the way, a link to these your words ...
          1. erg
            +4
            16 March 2016 13: 30
            Charter of 1797. Not sheepskin coats, but sweatshirts expressed a little incorrectly, as indicated in the charter - part 10, chapter 5. I bring the scans of the pages. Do not understand, search the Internet, lies in free download or in the full collection of laws of the Russian Empire.
            - I lived in Arkhangelsk. And I know firsthand the peculiarities of Russian architecture in the North.
            1. erg
              +2
              16 March 2016 13: 31
              Second scan
            2. +1
              16 March 2016 13: 36
              Quote: erg
              Not sheepskin coats, but sweatshirts expressed a little incorrectly, as indicated in the charter - part


              Well, where is it about sweatshirts? there is nothing, you yourself looked?

              Do not figure it out, search the Internet,

              not a buddy this is not done looking for the one who made the throw ...
              1. erg
                +1
                16 March 2016 13: 39
                Under the words chapter 5, hereinafter its name, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, between the second and third paragraphs of the note. That's where it says.
                1. +1
                  16 March 2016 13: 44
                  Quote: erg
                  Under the words chapter 5, hereinafter its name, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, between the second and third paragraphs of the note. That's where it says.
                  The answer


                  doesn't it seem like it's abnormal winter to wear casual? Did the sleeves also lace up? did your pants lace up too?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. erg
                    +3
                    16 March 2016 14: 20
                    There was then no casual or ceremonial form. There was a uniform to which belonged and equipment with weapons. And what, in what combination to wear, the corresponding decrees were determined, depending on the conditions. Only in the second half of the 19th century did the usual uniform classification begin to take shape. The camisole was laced up behind to pull it on a figure. Under Paul, camisoles were forbidden to wear without a caftan, because all these elements were not visible. Previously, in hot weather it was allowed to remove caftans. The picture shows the grenadiers of the pre-Paul era. One in the caftan, the other in the summer without him. In addition, depending on the time of year, the caftans were worn either completely zipped up or partially or fully unzipped. The warming elements did not belong to their uniforms themselves and were worn depending on weather conditions.
                    1. +1
                      16 March 2016 17: 17
                      Quote: erg
                      There was then no casual or ceremonial form.


                      how it was not "everyday" form when there was a daily service, do you just mind that?
                      And what in this form of caftan + camisole could you be in the cold? Or was it a caftan already the great image of the overcoat of cloth and thick matter? Yes, that's exactly how KAFTAN was the top cloth of soldiers, and the rest of the inhabitants of Russia in the 18th century.
                      1. erg
                        +3
                        16 March 2016 18: 29
                        There was no concept of everyday dress. As there was no concept winter form, summer, ceremonial, etc. There was a set of uniform things. Depending on the nature and conditions of service, these or other things were worn, their different combinations. Some things that are not included in the concept of a uniform were purchased independently, from the population or sewn. These included just sheepskin coats, felt boots, non-standard pants for any work, etc. Some uniform clothes were intended for parades and other special occasions, others for everyday wear. For officers, such a uniform became known as a vice uniform. Actually, he became the prototype of what in Soviet times was called the daily output form. There were things only for summer, others only for winter. How to warm up, I gave you an example. Kaftan is inherently closer to a modern demi-season coat or demi-season cloak. There were jackets made of canvas fabric for wear in the summer or in the heat. Before the overcoat, the epanche drove into the cold. Sleeveless cloak with a stand-up collar, fastens one button on top and sewn from thick cloth. It was to replace him that the overcoat was introduced, which was sewn from the same thick cloth. Before Paul, greatcoats were introduced for rangers. Under Paul, for the whole army, with the exception of the hussars, who received their greatcoats already under Alexander. By the way, in everyday service, the uniforms of the second term were most often used at work. That is, those who have expired socks, but they were still suitable. The uniform was built every year. Old uniforms were also changed into different auxiliary types of clothing. In the pages of my charter I have mentioned this.
                      2. +1
                        16 March 2016 18: 34
                        Quote: erg
                        There was no concept of everyday dress.


                        The concept of EVERYDAY FORM should always be with the Greeks, the Egyptians or the Germans, or the Russians - this is what a soldier puts on every day, this is understandable also for a hedgehog, it is strange that this presents a difficulty for you ...
                      3. erg
                        +2
                        16 March 2016 18: 45
                        Bring me at least one decree of Paul 1 (all soil science, changes and permissions on what and how to wear were determined by the highest decrees, down to the color of buttons) where the term everyday form is introduced and I agree with you. Those pictures given by me and illustrate that very everyday form, it was also the front door, only cleaned and tattered. Well, it could differ in some elements. So at the front door white dress boots could be worn, and in everyday, black or even boots (for some weapons). Everyday form familiar to us, as a separate form of form, did not exist yet.
  14. +1
    16 March 2016 09: 34
    Quote: Pig
    Pavel was overthrown by their own - nobles, precisely because even the closest to him were not sure that tomorrow they would not be sent somewhere beyond the Urals only at the whim of a whipped up tsar ...
    Pavel hated "Catherine's eagles" - this was the main reason for "repression" at the same time, he could not create a support for himself from like-minded people - for the above-mentioned reason for his tyranny ...
    therefore, when the conspiracy matured, Pavel had absolutely no one to rely on ... his favorites took part in the conspiracy together with the nobles "offended" by him



    A knight and a politician are usually opposed personalities ...
    The knight lives by the dictates of the soul and conscience, while the politician more than calculates the results of what was said and lives by reason.
    Paul did not have time to combine it ... to our great regret ..
    Hence the number of dissatisfied, successfully used by our sworn "partners".


    Thank you Alexander for the article, sincere Russian thanks.
  15. +5
    16 March 2016 09: 51
    Quote: mishastich
    In defense of Paul, I will make a repost with Yuri Veremeyev.

    Sorry, I'm not malicious, I just want to understand, here you have indicated in your post that this is a repost from Yuri Veremeyev and the author writes the same word for word Alexander Samsonov and I want to understand who the real author of the article is Veremeev or Samsonov. Yes, another question to in the title, he refers to Paul as a Russian knight. If he means nationality, then Paul as the son of the Holstein (German) Prince Peter (Friedrich) and the Anhalt-Zerbst (German) Princess Catherine (Sophia-Frederick) cannot be Russian because oranges will be born. Russian emperor P Abel was, but not Russian. By the way, a dynasty reigned on the Russian throne that had nothing in common with the Russian nationality except the hereditary surname of the Romanovs reigning house. The article is informative, I do not argue.
    Moreover, to the paragraph on the financial condition of the Empire: Towards the end of the life of the Empress (Catherine the Great), external debt amounted to 56,5 million guilds. and 3 million piastres, which is equal to 41,4 million rubles silver. For its repayment, together with the payment of borrowed interest, approximately 55 million rubles in silver was required. The Empire’s ordinary income exceeded 62 million rubles. When Paul in 1801, external debt without interest was 62,6 million rubles silver. (S) from: http: //histrf.ru/en/biblioteka/book/dolghi-rossii -ot-piervykh-romanovykh-do-nas
    hikh-dniei. So compare yourself.
    1. +1
      16 March 2016 10: 11
      About the repost - here is the direct link http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/pavel_1.shtml, you better decide for yourself who the author is.

      Your link simply throws me to the site the history of Russia. Without the source, I cannot judge the state of affairs in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century. But if there was enough money for the war with Napoleon, without introducing new taxes, then the tsarist budget did not burst at the seams.
    2. +3
      16 March 2016 10: 18
      Paul was the Russian emperor, but not Russian .....
      As for the German origin of the Russian emperors, in my opinion there are a lot of all kinds of speculations.
      How and how to call Bagration, Barclay, Stalin and many others: great Germans, Georgians, Scots?
      1. +1
        16 March 2016 10: 41
        Quote: bober1982
        How and how to call Bagration, Barclay, Stalin and many others: great Germans, Georgians, Scots?

        Here they are just Russian, because they did not force their subjects, subordinates, citizens of the country to wear Circassians, kilts, to dance Lezginka, play bagpipes and so on, but they accepted the Russian culture and lived it and remained in Russian history. And those courtiers and nobles, who did not know the language of the country and spoke French, German, English, can hardly be called Russian. Here is a Scot by birth M.Yu. Lermontov - a great Russian poet.
        1. 0
          16 March 2016 10: 53
          Then in what story the Russian emperor Pavel I remained a mystery.
          1. 0
            16 March 2016 11: 43
            Quote: bober1982
            Then in what story the Russian emperor Pavel I remained a mystery.

            In the history of the State of the Russian or Russian Empire. So does it suit you? These are historically established names. Even Karamzin has "History of the Russian State", not Russian. The people are Russian, but the Russian state.
            1. 0
              16 March 2016 11: 54
              To be honest, I did not understand.
              By the way, Karamzin, to whom you made a reference, was officially appointed historiographer by Emperor Alexander I (German, according to your reasoning)
          2. +3
            16 March 2016 12: 05
            Quote: bober1982
            Then in what story the Russian emperor Pavel I remained a mystery.

            Not a mystery at all ...


            1. 0
              16 March 2016 14: 07
              Quote: Avantageur
              Quote: bober1982
              Then in what story the Russian emperor Pavel I remained a mystery.

              Not a mystery at all ...


              Ah what Well, okay ...
    3. erg
      +3
      16 March 2016 10: 59
      Veremeev’s site is for information only. He talks about the army in an accessible and popular way. He has errors, but he himself admits their existence and asks readers to point to them. He himself never appropriates someone else's material and at the end of each article he has a list of sources. There is also an indication of the sources in the texts of articles. So if a repost from Veremeyev, then he, in turn, also uses the works of other people, but as I said, he notifies the reader about this.
      1. +1
        16 March 2016 13: 09
        He writes himself, always get to the source. For which I love to read it.
  16. +3
    16 March 2016 09: 53
    Pavlovskaya drill, admitted by the military historian A.A. Kersnovsky ("History of the Russian Army"), "greatly pulled up the brilliant, but dismissed army, especially the guard of the end of Catherine’s reign


    And why not quote Kearnsky to the end? And his final conclusion on the reform of the army by Paul was depressing:

    In general, the reign of Emperor Paul did not bring Russian happiness
    army. Our army was a watch-parade esponton seduced from his way
    normal original development, the path along which Peter I, Rumyantsev and
    Suvorov
    и aimed at the path of blind imitation of Western European models.

    And for a whole century, or even more, Russian military thought was under the yoke of an ideological fuchtele - foreign, mainly Prussian-German doctrines.

    Russian military doctrine - whole and ingenious in its simplicity - was
    abandoned.
    We voluntarily left our place - first place in a row
    European military exercises to be on the last poor place
    Prussian echoes
    some subprussians...

    From Pavlovsky watch parades, the Russian army went on a thorny path, through
    Weyrotero's century of disposition, Pfule's strategy and Read's confusion - to
    Sevastopol Calvary ...
    1. erg
      +1
      16 March 2016 11: 06
      Do not always trust military historians, sometimes doubt it. Especially when they pronounce lush phrases about identity, etc. True, forgetting to explain what its essence is.
  17. +1
    16 March 2016 09: 54
    Had he lived 20-30 years, and Russia could have reached the southern seas, had strong positions in Asia Minor, the Mediterranean Sea, Persia and India
    Not sure about that. But Paul’s policies at least met the national interests of Russia, not England.
    The granted letter to the nobility from 1784 of the year, which created the privileged position of the nobility not only in personal rights, but also in local government, was canceled.
    In my opinion, one of the main reasons for the conspiracy.
  18. -3
    16 March 2016 09: 58
    By the way, a dynasty that had nothing to do with Russian nationality reigned on the Russian throne .....
    Here you are blatantly mistaken.
    1. +3
      16 March 2016 11: 00
      Quote: bober1982
      Here you are blatantly mistaken.

      Regarding the fact that Paul's parents were Germans by nationality, you do not argue? Then who is the child from the marriage of two Germans by nationality, is it really a Pole? The son of Paul (German) from a marriage to a German princess (German) -Alexander who is your ethnicity? French, Jew? He (Alexander) married a German princess (German by nationality), who will be his children by nationality-Chinese? And so on until "Saint" Nicholas, who talked and corresponded with his wife (a German woman who never learned Russian) for some reason in English.
      1. +1
        16 March 2016 11: 11
        Alexandra Fedorovna was the beloved granddaughter of the Queen of England, this is because English was not a stranger to the family. They spoke and corresponded, of course, not only in English.
        You talk about the crowned parents of the Germans, Paul, and at the same time declare that the German dominance in Russia began with him.
        1. 0
          16 March 2016 11: 51
          Quote: bober1982
          You talk about the crowned parents of the Germans, Paul, and at the same time declare that the German dominance in Russia began with him.

          Find and quote me a place from my comments where I announced German dominance in Russia. I only said that Germans by nationality cannot have descendants as anyone else than Germans. Genetics, you know. Have you heard about such a science? By the way, German dominance at government posts in Russia was considerable. The start was laid by Anna Ioannovna, who brought along a bunch of Courland, Prussian relatives.
      2. -2
        16 March 2016 14: 58
        Gee-gee, there is a tale that at one of the ceremonial receptions, Emperor Alexander III, having secluded himself from the guests with the then-famous 18th-century connoisseur Barskov, asked him in a whisper if he didn’t really know was the father of Paul I. To which Barskov, with the frankness of a surgeon, accustomed to cutting on a living, replied that in fact, given the character of Catherine the Great, he could be anyone, even a Chukhon peasant (this is a reference to the topic of the substitution of Paul), but, most likely, the great-great-grandfather of His Imperial Majesty was Count Saltykov. “Thank God,” the emperor crossed himself, “that means I have at least some Russian blood in me.”
  19. +3
    16 March 2016 10: 06
    England bleed Napoleonic France and Russia, which for many years in bloody wars destroyed their best sons, spending resources not on development, but on war. England regularly set to Russia Persia, Turkey, Sweden, Japan, and in the XX century, a couple with the United States twice bleed the two greatest Aryan nations - Russians and Germans.


    What kind of expressions - "played", "set"? States that are stupid and blind mongrels, rushing to the slaughter named "fas"? Yes, there would be no England in the world, so Russia would not have fought with the Port for the Black Sea region and the Balkans? Wouldn't you be at war with Sweden for the Baltic? With Persia over the Caspian? Or would Germany not have climbed into France and Russia? And I would have attacked even earlier!
    Yes, England influenced decisions and events, but was not omnipotent, and the powerful states themselves decided what to do based on their interests and ideas.
    1. -1
      16 March 2016 11: 47
      Quote: Aleksander
      England bleed Napoleonic France and Russia, which for many years in bloody wars destroyed their best sons, spending resources not on development, but on war. England regularly set to Russia Persia, Turkey, Sweden, Japan, and in the XX century, a couple with the United States twice bleed the two greatest Aryan nations - Russians and Germans.


      What kind of expressions - "played", "set"? States that are stupid and blind mongrels, rushing to the slaughter named "fas"? Yes, there would be no England in the world, so Russia would not have fought with the Port for the Black Sea region and the Balkans? Wouldn't you be at war with Sweden for the Baltic? With Persia over the Caspian? Or would Germany not have climbed into France and Russia? And I would have attacked even earlier!
      Yes, England influenced decisions and events, but was not omnipotent, and the powerful states themselves decided what to do based on their interests and ideas.

      This simply proves the clinical anti-Russianness of the then imperial elite. There were Austrian, English and French parties at court. There was only Russian. But we must somehow justify the comprador character of that government. her lack of intelligence. So they come up with the idea that "the Englishwoman crap." The universal answer, everyone is to blame except me)))
  20. -4
    16 March 2016 10: 15
    "... As a result, the Russian Empire challenged the British spider, swollen with the blood of hundreds of peoples and tribes ...".
    ".... anti-noble ... in the interests of the people ..."


    Author! I almost burst into tears from chuistf!
    And our empire is Tada XTO, if the British is a spider?
    Well, it is necessary, the main one for the nobility, it turns out, was pursuing an "anti-noble policy" ... Yeah!

    Russia-England-France. What bleed? Napoleon FORCED Russia to the continental blockade, pushing on our necks and autriaks (here nits) under Austerlitz.
    Napoleon had no thoughts to capture or dismember Russia. General battle in the borderlands - world - cont. blockade, Poland, and back home.
    It was already our strategists who reached Moscow, "lured".

    For the conspiracy and its reasons and funding, so to speak. The conspirators themselves had money. Yes, there was talk, but no one stepped on the "English trail"!
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 14: 56
      The author writes about Paul 1, not about Alexander 1. What kind of blockade? Which Austerlitz? There were no thoughts then.
      1. 0
        16 March 2016 15: 16
        Citizen "Trapper7". Can't you look wider and deeper? Or on Paul I, the history of Russia-England-France relations ended? These are the same clever guys and minuses.
        Ahhhh, caught, he writes about Alexander I, and the article about Paul, ahhhh!
        1. +1
          18 March 2016 13: 19
          Quote: King, just king
          Citizen "Trapper7". Can't you look wider and deeper? Or on Paul I, the history of Russia-England-France relations ended? These are the same clever guys and minuses.
          Ahhhh, caught, he writes about Alexander I, and the article about Paul, ahhhh!

          Wildly sorry, but that’s not the point. Not that caught. The fact of the matter is that under Paul there was neither Austerlitz nor the capture of Moscow, there were several campaigns, there were good luck and failure, but there were no devastating defeats. But under the policy of an alliance with France, it could not be.
        2. 0
          18 March 2016 13: 19
          Quote: King, just king
          Citizen "Trapper7". Can't you look wider and deeper? Or on Paul I, the history of Russia-England-France relations ended? These are the same clever guys and minuses.
          Ahhhh, caught, he writes about Alexander I, and the article about Paul, ahhhh!

          Wildly sorry, but that’s not the point. Not that caught. The fact of the matter is that under Paul there was neither Austerlitz nor the capture of Moscow, there were several campaigns, there were good luck and failure, but there were no devastating defeats. But under the policy of an alliance with France, it could not be.
  21. 0
    16 March 2016 10: 16
    Amazingly, a man first knew why he drove the troops to France for that reason, for some unknown reason, in India where they would have perished everything and he was well done.
    1. +1
      16 March 2016 15: 03
      The mother of this man, who, incidentally, was smart enough to stop driving them there, began to drive the why the troops to France.
      And towards India, for some unknown reason, I still had to break through almost a hundred years later.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        16 March 2016 20: 17
        Quote: Trapper7
        The mother of this man, who, incidentally, was smart enough to stop driving them there, began to drive the why the troops to France.


        А with whom Russia fought in Holland and Italy in 1799 ?! belay И who Russian troops sent there, if not Paul? Yes
  22. -3
    16 March 2016 10: 39
    Perhaps one of Paul’s major flaws was his inability to chop heads. He would have demolished a dozen or two of this snickering noble-guard bastard and reigned for those same 20-30 years. The very same Peter the Great (contrary to official history is far from being such a brilliant ruler and reformer) was therefore not afraid of blood for a long time.
    1. +4
      16 March 2016 12: 56
      Yeah, but Catherine didn’t chop anything or exile anyone, and the rules are longer and more successful than all in Russian history
  23. -1
    16 March 2016 11: 02
    YOUNG PAVLU I-MU !!! AND NOW SUCH MEASURES. soldier
  24. +4
    16 March 2016 11: 46
    Thank you, Alexander, although the article is on a historical topic, the moral in it is relevant at all times. There are now many powerful "bodies" and "stomachs" who live not for the good of the Fatherland, but according to their consumer needs of parasitic insects. Well, they knew for a long time that the "Englishwoman crap", but in Russian they did not care about their national interests and their national security. Agents of influence of the Anglo-Saxons did more harm to Russia than all wars with outright opponents, and these agents simply grazed in Russia, lobbying their interests with impunity, carrying out sabotage and sabotage to everything that could strengthen Russia. As there the British said that it is good to destroy an enemy ship in battle, but it is much better to destroy it immediately on the slipway. It got to the point that they began to destroy not only on the stocks, but already on the design tracing paper, in the very idea. Unbuilt ships, unborn, untrained soldiers and designers, destroyed production, agriculture, education, medicine, everything that is the very essence of a strong state. Yes, there were many of their own fools who caused harm, but they would not have done many things without the wise leadership of the "Englishwoman". It is necessary to revive the country with a serious attitude to the lessons of history, and the fate of Paul I here is a bright marker for conclusions in modern times.
  25. +4
    16 March 2016 12: 09
    In our films, Pavel is also a fool. People watch and draw conclusions. Something needs to be fixed, not order.
  26. +5
    16 March 2016 12: 25
    The slain tsars of Russia. http://fkt.moost.ru/ubcariross.php
    Many of them did not die by their death. The conspiracies were mainly coordinated and conceived in England.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 14: 38
      And what is the evidence? Someone caught with poison or a sword?
      And what is "basically". Coordinated somewhere else? Facts please.
      1. +1
        16 March 2016 14: 42
        Quote: King, just king
        And what is the evidence? Someone caught with poison or a sword?
        And what is "basically". Coordinated somewhere else? Facts please.

        Yes, no, it’s better to blame everything on the Englishwoman than justify the stupidity of the kings, the hatred of the Romanovs to each other, the venality of their environment ....
        1. -1
          16 March 2016 15: 22
          Yes, the best thing is to write, and then understand it. No facts, no thoughts, nothing ...
  27. +4
    16 March 2016 12: 59
    Of course, skeptics and adherents of the "traditional" view of Pavel and Arakcheev can continue to sing their tales about half-idiots and nonentities, but then tell me, dear ones, who rebuilt the entire Russian army and actually re-created all Russian artillery. There are facts cited by the author not in full, which cannot be refuted even if you strongly believe in stories about tyrants, tyrants and mentally ill people.
    1. +1
      16 March 2016 14: 45
      But was Catherine’s army bad? Were there any problems with artillery?
      1. Mobius
        +2
        16 March 2016 14: 50
        Quote: Cartalon
        But was Catherine’s army bad? Were there any problems with artillery?


        Under Catherine, European states had problems with artillery.

        The Empress created such conditions, and established such rules that without her highest consent NOT ONE GUN IN EUROPE DID SHOOT...
  28. +2
    16 March 2016 13: 40
    Quote: parusnik
    .Hike to India .. a gamble of pure water .. Gathered and gone.

    But they didn’t think so in either London or Paris, and they took it very seriously. I will say more, with proper preparation, the conquest of Central Asia could take place 80 years earlier.

    Quote: qwert
    About the fact that Pet-3 was a jerk, we know from the words of his killers. Those. nobles conspirators and wife. He is credited with a passion for playing the soldier, although Suvorov and the German Kaiser are credited with this.
    In the opinion of foreign contemporaries, Peter-3 was quite sane. I just wanted to give freedom to the peasants

    More precisely, he wanted to give freedom to both peasants and nobles. And his wife gave only freedom from serfdom to nobles only, turning them into a drones estate.

    Quote: Captain45
    And how such a crowd drove Frederick's well-trained army, smashed the Turks

    Well, do not get so excited, not everything is as simple as it seems. Even the victorious Frederick II Saltykov himself had a slightly different opinion.

    Quote: V.ic
    Another thing is Saltykov Pyotr Semyonovich, who "saw through" the tactics of Frederick 2. So he began to "chase the tail and mane" of the generals of Frederick 2.

    He did not see through the tactics of Frederick, many knew his tactics, he just came up with an "antidote" against it, relying precisely on the national characteristics of the Russian soldier.

    Quote: Aleksander
    And for a whole century, or even more, Russian military thought was under the yoke of an ideological fuchtele - foreign, mainly Prussian-German doctrines.
    It is not necessary to elevate Kersnovsky to the ideal, he organically hated everything German, while in the field of military art German achievements are stupid to deny.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 14: 43
      At the end of the 18 century, the Germans limited their achievements to Frederick, a campaign in India at the level of military medicine of the time of Paul could only end with the extinction of all the troops sent
  29. 0
    16 March 2016 14: 50
    Quote: Warrior2015
    Quote: parusnik
    .Hike to India .. a gamble of pure water .. Gathered and gone.

    But they didn’t think so in either London or Paris, and they took it very seriously. I will say more, with proper preparation, the conquest of Central Asia could take place 80 years earlier.



    What, on, conquest? Where did the occupation army come from if it (the army) was always lacking, because constantly fought with the Turks for incomprehensible interests (after the Crimea).
    In London and Paris, they took this campaign seriously, as thought that Russia sent innumerable hordes. Cossacks would reach India by ditching their horses in Afghan passes - what's next? Straight all of India rose to fight the British, yeah, she dressed and rose a new turban. The same famous sepoy uprising began, just because of the cartridges. And there, further, the krovushki spilled and rushed.
  30. +1
    16 March 2016 15: 08
    Thanks to the author.
    The only thing that can be said here is that we do not know what would happen to Russia if Pavel 1 would remain on the throne and what consequences for all of us could lead to
    Russia could begin its globalization project by creating an alternative to the Western project.
    1. +1
      16 March 2016 15: 48
      In order to start his options, it was necessary to continue the national policy of Catherine, and not rush between England, France and Austria, it was Paul who began these throwings and Alexander continued.
  31. +1
    16 March 2016 18: 52
    The main merit of Paul - a break with Britain and Austria. It is a pity that his son Alexander continued to act in the interests of treacherous England and the rotten Holy Roman Empire, sending tens of thousands of Russians to slaughter.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 22: 05
      Considering that it was Pavel who then contacted Austria and Britain, the gap was his most important merit, and if you remember that the Russian economy was tied to trade with England, then Paul’s actions look like wisdom
  32. +1
    16 March 2016 22: 54
    Quote: Cartalon
    At the end of the 18 century, the Germans limited their achievements to Frederick, a campaign in India at the level of military medicine of the time of Paul could only end with the extinction of all the troops sent

    There is truth in your words, but how it would be we do not know for sure.

    Regarding Frederick the Great and his army - it was rightly considered the best among the European, because it is a king, having a minimum of resources SEVEN YEARS, resisted the THREE STRONGEST CONTINENTAL POWERS OF EUROPE - Russia, France and the Austrian Empire (which I recall much more than modern Austria).

    All believed during the first, well, the edge of the second year, Prussia will be defeated and humiliated. As a result, the Allies were humiliated for seven years. Moreover, even at the end of the 18 century, it was the Prussian army that was considered the most combat-ready of the European ones, and it was not without reason that the French revolutionary troops were so afraid of it. Another thing is that the process of degradation began in it, and the French army, due to a number of factors, brought the matter to Jena and Auerstedt.

    Quote: King, just king
    In London and Paris, they took this campaign seriously, as thought that Russia sent innumerable hordes. Cossacks would reach India by ditching their horses in Afghan passes - what's next? Straight all of India rose to fight the British, yeah, she dressed and rose a new turban. The same famous sepoy uprising began, just because of the cartridges.
    Forgive me, but you do not understand the sepoy uprising, or you know about it only from Soviet clichés. I will say one simple thing: the British were DEADLY afraid, both during the uprising and later, during the Great Game, of the appearance on the territory of India of AT LEAST A SMALL RUSSIAN ORDER. Moreover, the British agents believed (for example, during the Mutiny and in some other periods) that the Russians allegedly had already broken through and stood at the head of the liberation movement of the South Asians. To which they from London rightly blamed that Russia "observes the rules of the game" and no Russian troops were observed south of Turkestan.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"