Military Review

Taking snow town

49



Long time there was nothing for the gallant century, but today is the right date: March 22 1774, the first major battle took place between the armies of Catherine II and Tsar Peter Fyodorovich, that is, Emelyan Ivanovich Pugachev. Government forces under the command of Major General Peter Golitsyn drove the Pugachevs out of the Tatishcheva fortress, which the claimant to the throne seized in September of the previous year and made his "capital".

Golitsyn had 6500 infantry and cavalry with 25 guns, and about 9000 defended the fortress with Cossacks, runaway serfs, Tatars, Bashkir and deserters with 42 guns. Instead of the wooden walls and towers burned during last year’s storming, the Pugachevs surrounded Tatishchev with a high snow shaft, the outer side of which was watered abundantly, so that it turned into an almost sheer ice wall. On the shaft, the rebels made wooden platforms, and seven guns rolled into them.

Despite all this, the general decided to attack the fortress on the move, relying on the training and discipline of his soldiers. He simply did not have any other choice, since his army came to Tatishcheva after a long march with a minimum supply of provisions, and therefore she could not take a siege. In addition, Tatishcheva stood in the middle of a bare, snow-covered steppe, where it was impossible to find any fuel for fires or materials for the construction of dwellings. Strictly speaking, the rapid seizure of the fortress with its buildings, as well as stocks of firewood and food, became a matter of survival for the Golitsyn Corps.

After a two-hour artillery preparation, which had destroyed a snow-ice wall in several places, the infantry went on the attack and, despite the case-breaking volleys, managed to quickly overcome this obstacle. In those places where the shaft was not broken by the cores, the soldiers climbed over it, chopping down the steps in the ice with heaps. Hand-to-hand fighting ensued on the streets and between the houses inside the fortress, but the motley army of "Pyotr Fyodorovich" held out for a while. Unable to withstand bayonet strikes, the rebels fled, but deep snow prevented this, and therefore few managed to escape.

In general, Europe, thanks to better organization, once again won Asia. According to the Golitsyn report, the Pugachev 1180 died in the Tatishchev battle, still about 4000 — surrendered. Many who fled across the steppe lost their way and froze, because, despite the calendar spring, the frosts were still severe, and there were no settlements around for many miles.

However, Pugachev himself and about 250 his associates, who had fresh horses, managed to get away from the chase, since the horses of the Golitsynian cavalry were tired of the long transition. Golitsyn's victory at Tatishchev cost 141 killed and 516 injured. Despite the almost complete destruction of the Pugachev army, this success did not lead to an end to the civil war. Dissatisfied with the orders that prevailed in the country, the peasants, mining workers, Cossacks and representatives of the steppe peoples continued to flock under the Pugachev flags, and as a result, after only a month, the army of many thousands was at the disposal of the "resurrected Peter III".

On the screen saver - a picture of Stanislav Young "Pugachevschina".



Major-General Prince Pyotr Golitsyn and portrait of Emelyan Pugachev from Pushkin "Stories Pugachev's rebellion ". Under it are the" hieroglyphs "of an illiterate impostor who tried to create the impression from his equally illiterate comrades that he could write. images of this person. However, some historians believe that this is a fake, made in the XIX century.



A bronze 3 / 4-pound falconet of the 18th century, exhibited in the Orenburg Museum of Local History and History with a sign "The Pugachev Cannon on a Home-Made Rack". I just can not understand why such a small trunk was hoisted on such a heavy and bulky carriage.



On the left and in the center - slightly caricatured images of a grenadier, a sergeant and an ordinary musketeer company of the Tomsk Infantry Regiment in uniforms that he wore in 1774 year. This regiment was part of the Golitsyn corps and played an important role in the assault on Tatishcheva, losing 16 soldiers and two officers killed. On the right - Yaik (Ural) Cossacks of the Pugachev rebellion.
Author:
Originator:
http://vikond65.livejournal.com/454454.html
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. surrozh
    surrozh 24 March 2016 07: 07
    +10
    It turns out that Golitsyn defeated the superior troops, and even settled in the fortress. Pugachev did not pull the role of Peter 3.
    1. PKK
      PKK 24 March 2016 21: 55
      +1
      There is one riddle about which they do not write a word. For every horse in winter, every day, you need 15 kg of oats. They don’t write where they got the feed for the horses, how they were supplied. On average, a horse can carry 100 kg of cargo. How many horses are needed for supply and how much far can the army move away from supply bases? The best scheme, no more than 2-3 days. From 100 kg, 3 days there and three days back, the horse eats 90 kg from 100 kg. 10 kg remain in the Army. Therefore, the most truthful and real supply is obtained by rivers, during shipping time, especially in floods. On barges the size of tens of meters, you can carry enough supplies for the Army. And you can’t believe in supplying the Army in winter. Decide for yourself what and how.
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 25 March 2016 03: 41
        0
        One horse in a sleigh will take a ton in winter. And in the summer - carts.
      2. Hurray
        Hurray 25 March 2016 05: 23
        0
        These were not modern "European" horses, but steppe horses that can rake snow and eat ordinary grass.
  2. Revolver
    Revolver 24 March 2016 07: 15
    +8
    Article plus. Pure history, without political assessments with the imposition of a point of view.
    1. shamil
      shamil 26 March 2016 06: 21
      0
      The author does not even have any doubts about the veracity of the whole story. What about the loss ratio? It is unbelievable. Hungry, tired troops attacked FORTRESS. Something is wrong here. Maybe it was the other way around? Pugachev failed to take the fortress?
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 24 March 2016 07: 50
    +2
    On the left and in the center are slightly caricatured images of the grenadier, sergeant and ordinary musketeer company of the Tomsk infantry regiment in uniform, which he wore in 1774... And where were these cartoons published in due time? .. I doubt that in the humorous magazine "Anything and everything" ...
    1. abakumov
      abakumov April 14 2016 09: 14
      0
      Figures of soldiers of the Tomsk infantry regiment taken from the site:
      tomskmap.tomsk.ru
  4. Good cat
    Good cat 24 March 2016 08: 27
    0
    I wonder how the results of this battle were interpreted in Soviet times. As far as I remember from the textbooks, Soviet historians associated Pugachev’s loss with the betrayal of wealthy Cossacks.
    1. Bureaucrat
      Bureaucrat 24 March 2016 08: 37
      +6
      The Pugachev’s capture by the authorities was connected with the treason of the rich Cossacks, and the losses went right away as soon as the regular army that had freed itself after the war with Turkey intervened.
      1. xan
        xan 24 March 2016 10: 55
        0
        Quote: Bureaucrat
        The Pugachev’s capture by the authorities was connected with the treason of the rich Cossacks, and the losses went right away as soon as the regular army that had freed itself after the war with Turkey intervened.

        Yes, there was more fear of Pugachev. Almost 200 thousand troops fought with the Turks, and 10 thousand were enough for Pugachev. By sending Suvorov, the tsarina was clearly "outdated", and besides, Suvorov did not have time - everything was decided without him.
        1. PKK
          PKK 24 March 2016 21: 45
          0
          14 regiments of registered Cossacks went with Suvorov from the Don. Tartaria had fortresses and a capital in Tobolsk along the line of defense. One can only guess the reason for the defeat of the Troops of Tsar Pyotr Petrovich.
    2. shamil
      shamil 26 March 2016 06: 22
      0
      I suggest reading the book by Nosovsky and Fomenko "Pugachev and Suvorov".
  5. Pig
    Pig 24 March 2016 09: 01
    +2
    "" I just can't understand why such a small barrel was hoisted on such a heavy and bulky carriage. "
    the carriage is homemade and so heavy and bulky ...
    1. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 24 March 2016 11: 15
      +2
      Well, with an ax, it was possible to embarrass - to reduce the weight of the carriage. When transporting it is important.

      Rather, it is a later compilation ...
  6. Alex
    Alex 24 March 2016 09: 51
    +3
    Instead of the wooden walls and towers burned during last year’s assault, the Pugachevites surrounded Tatishchev with a high snow shaft, the outside of which was abundantly watered with water, so that it turned into an almost sheer ice wall.
    There is nothing new under the sun...
    1. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 24 March 2016 11: 18
      +1
      And what is it?
      Would you still put in a shot from the film "Landnik Period" with a rat-squirrel ...
  7. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 24 March 2016 10: 53
    +3
    The article is a definite plus! Just for Topwar! It is the analysis of military operations and military art! To my shame, I absolutely did not know about this battle.

    In my opinion, Prince Peter Golitsyn and his officers showed amazing commander art:
    - on the move, from the march, in deep snow, to take the fortress is an art in itself.
    - And even where the enemy, having in 2 times more artillery, sat down!
    - and the enemy, who had to be determined to resolute resistance, because pardon for the rebels at this stage was hardly declared.

    In general, the fact is amazing and poses many questions. So it’s unclear - were there really any gaps? it just explains a lot. And if not, then take the fortified camp by storm, climbing the steps cut down in ice?!?
    1. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 24 March 2016 11: 22
      +2
      Quote: Warrior2015
      and even where the enemy, having 2 times more artillery, sat down!


      Read the article again:
      "... The rebels made wooden platforms on the rampart, and seven cannons rolled onto them."

      No matter how many guns you have, it’s important how you use them. Napoleon, for example, anticipated Schlieffen and concentrated artillery on a narrow section and forced it through ...
    2. shamil
      shamil 25 March 2016 06: 23
      0
      Apparent inconsistencies in this battle. In general, crap from Prince Golitsyna.
  8. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 24 March 2016 12: 04
    +3
    Quote: Kostoprav
    The rebels made wooden platforms on the rampart, and seven cannons were rolled on them.

    I took it as 7 guns - from above, and the rest - in the loopholes of the "plantar" or "grassroots" battle. Didn't the Pugachevites leave them in the shed? smile

    Probably the government troops nevertheless created fire superiority in a separate area of ​​the defense and made a breach? Where did they point the point of the assault?

    And in other parts of the wall, apparently, distracting attacks were carried out with attempts to climb the icy walls without assault stairs.

    True, there is one more option - why did Pugachev manage to leave with headquarters - does this mean that there was no complete blockade of the fortress, and maybe they even pulled it before the battle or at the very beginning, thereby further disorganizing the defense of their supporters?

    And yet - if out of 9 thousand 1 thousand died, 4 thousand were captured (and most likely executed), then where did 5 thousand go? One gets the feeling that they just fled without much resistance ...

    And when the irretrievable losses differ by ORDER - this is either evidence of a collision of forces completely different in the level of military art, or the fact that there was no battle as such, but there was a persecution.
  9. Vladimir Vasilich
    Vladimir Vasilich 24 March 2016 12: 48
    +1
    Boys and mature husbands - READ, friends, books. The history of the Russian State is a storehouse of invaluable experience, amazing inspiration and HOPE
    1. shamil
      shamil 25 March 2016 06: 18
      -2
      The ratio of losses, especially after a difficult march, indicates a clear lie Golitsyn. And it is necessary to read the works of Fomenko and Nosovsky.
      1. Sascha
        Sascha 25 March 2016 09: 27
        0
        Oooo, what characters are there ...
  10. Cornet77
    Cornet77 24 March 2016 13: 03
    +1
    The winners write the story, and it is doubly unpleasant when this story is not yet written by its own.
    The article is good. However, there is an alternative point of view for this entire period, and on the "Pugachev uprising" in particular.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 24 March 2016 13: 37
      0
      Just don't need "new chronological research" about the "King of Tartary Emelian" :)
      1. Bruss
        Bruss 24 March 2016 15: 53
        0
        And in some sources, even Emilien!
      2. shamil
        shamil 25 March 2016 06: 20
        -1
        Why is this not necessary? Age does not allow us to accept the bitter truth that all my life I used a false story from the Germans?
        1. Sascha
          Sascha 25 March 2016 09: 31
          0
          Pardonte, if I go out to the world community and loudly report on the creation of alternative mathematics, where 2x2 = 5. And in order not to doubt and to be ashamed - reproachfully so, I will call it "bitter truth" .... Karoche, what medical institution you ran away from in the spring ??
          1. shamil
            shamil 26 March 2016 06: 29
            +1
            You have no idea about the volume of work performed by chronologists A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky, and about the volume of their discoveries. And here you "kAroche" should only wish to create your own theory from 2x2 = 5, and not just crow.
          2. Mwg
            Mwg 26 March 2016 14: 15
            +1
            For Sascha. It’s not worth comparing mathematics with history. Mathematics is an exact science. History is the dominance of authoritative opinions raised by the followers into dogma. Just.
  11. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 25 March 2016 22: 08
    +1
    Oh, just that, immediately an alternative story ... Well, why so? at the same time, these people didn’t really read more than one historical document, even in Russian in the original!

    And with the Golitsyn’s relativity, something was wrong - apparently embellished the successes, but in reality it seems that most of the rebels draped as soon as the government forces made a breach and launched an assault ...
    1. shamil
      shamil 26 March 2016 06: 15
      0
      A line from the song: "You cannot strangle this truth, you cannot kill." The heroic work of A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky will not be appreciated soon, because we are dominated by doctors-historians who hide awkward historical questions. They cannot admit the correctness of the New chronology (simply correct chronology) - then they become not doctors of science, but graduate students.
      The activities of A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky are very patriotic, because shows the central role in world history of events taking place on the territory of then-Russia.
    2. Mwg
      Mwg 26 March 2016 14: 19
      0
      For Warrior 2015. What historical documents do you suggest reading? Those created by Schletzer and others like him? Or those created by Scaliger and his loyal associates? A true story can only be one that can be explained without exception by archeology, chemistry, physics, mathematics and astronomy. Everything else is from the evil one. Do you believe in devils? )))
      And the "Russian" "stories" - they come from the late 19th century ...
  12. Alanart
    Alanart 26 March 2016 00: 43
    0
    Quote: PKK
    There is one riddle about which they do not write a word. For every horse in winter, every day, you need 15 kg of oats. They don’t write where they got the feed for the horses, how they were supplied. On average, a horse can carry 100 kg of cargo. How many horses are needed for supply and how much far can the army move away from supply bases? The best scheme, no more than 2-3 days. From 100 kg, 3 days there and three days back, the horse eats 90 kg from 100 kg. 10 kg remain in the Army. Therefore, the most truthful and real supply is obtained by rivers, during shipping time, especially in floods. On barges the size of tens of meters, you can carry enough supplies for the Army. And you can’t believe in supplying the Army in winter. Decide for yourself what and how.

    With all due respect, as having something to do with equestrian sports, I cannot agree. For a horse at work, the maximum rate is somewhere around 11-12 kg. (oats have a lot of protein, you can have problems, in particular, swelling of the legs), but usually not more than 5-7 kg. And these are modern sports monsters. Then the animals were smaller and easier for them to pull a thread out of the snow, there was no sinking. So, even in a pack, without a rider, of course, you can drag for two weeks. But there are carts, and even more so sledges in winter, where not even a battle horse, but a peasant cassock can pull 300-400 kilograms, at least, without straining. So, feel free to increase the "combat radius" 3-4 times, minimum. From 3 to 10-12 days, and during this time you can plow 500-600 kilometers without straining too much
  13. shamil
    shamil 26 March 2016 06: 02
    +1
    For those who always understand everything, "... the government troops of Catherine 1 1 allegedly without much effort repeatedly smashed the disorderly gangs of the" thief Pugachev. "Pugachev, who had been defeated by them, constantly rushed into a panicky flight. But for some reason this" flight "was strangely directed FORWARD, TO THE SIDE OF MOSCOW. They write: "Only Mikhelson acted actively against the rebels. He rushed against the Pugachevites into the mountains, defeated them" [7], vol. 3, p. 125. After this "defeat" Pugachev TAKES KAZAN. : "Mikhelson was approaching Kazan. Pugachev went to meet him, but FAILED and retreated to Kazan. Here a new battle took place, in which the rebels suffered a COMPLETE DEFEAT" [7], v. 3, p. 125. What does he do after that " utterly defeated "Pugachev? And this is what:" Pugachev crossed the Volga and went to Nizhny Novgorod, meaning in the future to move to Moscow. The movement of the rebels in this direction FURNISHED not only Nizhny Novgorod, but also Moscow. STAND IN THE HEADS E WOISK for SALVATION OF MOSCOW AND · RUSSIA. The empress was dissuaded from this decision. ... ... By this time the war with Turkey was over, SUVOROV ARRIVED from the front and was appointed HEAD OF ALL VISK against the rebels ”[7], v. 3, p. 125 "From the book of Pugachev and Suvorov Fomenko and Nosovsky
  14. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 26 March 2016 14: 41
    0
    Quote: shamil
    The activities of A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky are very patriotic, because shows the central role in world history of events taking place on the territory of then-Russia.

    There is a good Russian proverb - "It is better to lose with a clever than to find with a fool." So it is about the patriotism of Fomenko and Nosovsky.

    Quote: MVG
    Those created by Schletzer and others like him? Or those created by Scaliger and his loyal associates?

    In general, you probably never know that in Russia there are huge archives of documents from the 16-17 centuries, i.e. created even before Scaliger and 200 years before Schlozer?!?

    But Moscow - where the main repositories of archival records were located - burned - and not only in the 1812 year, but also during the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17 century, and when the Crimean Tatars took our capital in the 1571 year and beyond. Accordingly, the more deep into the centuries, the smaller the number of GENUINE documents becomes, but this is an objective process. There are documents and 14 century.

    Look for example what "scribe books" are.

    Quote: shamil
    By this time, the war with Turkey was over, SUVOROV ARRIVED from the front and was appointed HEAD OF ALL WIPO against the rebels ”
    All of the troops? true ? I will say only one thing - your lights of historical thought do not corny own texture. It's enough ?

    And one simple moment - Emelka Pugachev did so (by the way with Turkish money - he had enough of them seized from him, and for some reason they forget to write about it in the Soviet era, fencing off the murderer, and your lights of history) that the Russian Empire had to urgently complete ABSOLUTELY VICTORY war with Turkey practically by the world on a status quo position! In Istanbul, only palms were joyfully rubbed - Emel Pugach Pasha is such a good investment, what to do ...
    1. shamil
      shamil 26 March 2016 19: 40
      0
      And why was the Great Trans-Volga Wall built with moats on the western side of the rampart? From whom and who defended themselves? It is not true that after 1613 the united state was divided into parts and only a small part of it went to the Western proteges Romanov. And then these usurpers destroyed historical memory by burning archives. And in all the wars that they waged, the main and faithful were mercenaries from the West.
  15. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 26 March 2016 20: 08
    0
    That's always the case with Fomenko’s supporters - you catch their apostles of faith on lies, so they ignore them and move on. But ok, let's continue. laughing

    Quote: shamil
    Great Volga wall with moats on the west side of the shaft?
    Uh-huh, is there a lot of evidence of her existence? Did you accidentally confuse it with the defensive lines? So read about the Pugachev uprising - many of the small fortresses captured by the rebels were just the strongholds of such a line. And the system of "notch lines" is actually the NORM in Russia in the 15-18 centuries. Even the famous Caucasian "lines" are its direct heirs, it is a very effective system for blocking raids (in the 19th century, these were Caucasian highlanders).

    Quote: shamil
    after 1613, the united state was divided into parts, and only a small part of it was left to the Western proteges of the Romanovs.
    And the eastern part of the Moscow kingdom must be assumed to have accepted Chinese citizenship?

    About the fidelity of some mercenaries from the West to the Romanov family. How can you give a real example of their presence and participation in decisive battles?
    1. shamil
      shamil 26 March 2016 22: 31
      0
      We are talking about a defensive structure starting from the Astrakhan steppes up along the Volga. The remains are visible from above. And the moat from the west! These are not serif lines.
      I wanted to say it is surprising adherence to school truths of the 60s of the last century. And then I thought, age, it's too late to change horses ...
  16. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 26 March 2016 23: 25
    0
    Quote: shamil
    We are talking about a defensive structure starting from the Astrakhan steppes up along the Volga. The remains are visible from above.

    If you ignored my other questions, please answer at least this one: where can I see this defensive system? at least a description and aerial photographs?

    It is just that there are also "Scythian shafts" in Ukraine and "Trajan shafts" in Moldova.
  17. shamil
    shamil 27 March 2016 07: 41
    0
    http://taboo.su/istoriya/zapretnaya-arkheologiya/77-prochie-st/231-velikaya-zavo
    lzhskaya-stena.html
    Your questions ... How would I say this? The method of the dispute is to ask questions and wait for answers to catch new questions. I don’t need to know everything. Since 2000 I have an idea about the new chronology and understand how dangerous it is for current historians. She explains a lot of things that are hushed up by them. (starting from the construction technology of mega-structures-pyramids, etc.). It is not for us to discuss the strength and weakness of the discoveries of Fomenko and Nosovsky. This should be a discussion of people who consider themselves scientists. And the fact that there has been silence since the 80s only shows that traditional historians cannot present any arguments against mathematics.
    Here my friend surprised me, such a techie seems to be. He conducted his own investigation on how the artists depicted in the paintings the story of the acquisition of Moses (the one who drove ...). Search the Internet, download paintings and analyze. So until the mid-18th century, the atmosphere, clothes, types of European settlements (found 19 paintings). Since the 19th century, the surroundings are completely Egyptian (5 paintings). They gave a command and everyone was rebuilt.
  18. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 27 March 2016 11: 02
    0
    Quote: shamil
    Your questions ... How would I say this? The method of the dispute is to ask questions and wait for answers to catch new questions.

    You haven't guessed in the least! I just like to explain to the supporters of the new chronology the elementary mistakes of their "apostles of faith". You see, elementary! And if a person makes elementary mistakes in the subject of research, then what kind of science can we talk about?

    Quote: shamil
    Since 2000 I have an idea about the new chronology and understand how dangerous it is for current historians.
    Well then? Here again - an empty declaration.

    Quote: shamil
    So until the mid-18th century, the situation, clothes, types of European settlements (found 19 paintings). Since the 19th century, the entourage is completely Egyptian
    In general, there is such a term "progressive development of science", in general, the acquisition of information about the world. This is the problem when techies go into history - they don't know the elementary things. And just representations before the 18th century about how what looked in
    the era of Moses was not. And so they painted like they saw around. Then - there was an accumulation of knowledge - and everything changed, they began to draw as they saw the Middle Eastern people, but again in MODERN clothes for artists. And only from the end of the 19th and in the 20th century did science more or less have an idea of ​​the realities of life in the era of Abraham-Moses.

    But by the way, it’s not easy with Moses, how complicated it is, this is a huge topic for research, and in normal science for three centuries (!!!) there has been a discussion about it.
  19. shamil
    shamil 27 March 2016 13: 30
    0
    You do not explain anything. Your basic knowledge is knowledge gained from "scientific" books. The biggest absurdity in them is the savagery of the Middle Ages in 12 centuries after the heyday of the sciences and arts in antiquity.

    But what is incomprehensible? Then enter into a dispute by new chronologists, and do not assert yourself with amateurs.

    And this is a familiar song. In your opinion, the closer to the time of events, the less knowledge, traditions and sources about it.

    Finally. My personal question. Why did Napoleon march on Moscow, and not on St. Petersburg, which had already been the capital for over 100 years?
  20. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 27 March 2016 15: 43
    0
    Quote: shamil
    The largest absurdity that exists in them is the savagery of the Middle Ages in the 12th century after the heyday of sciences and arts in antiquity.
    Actually, only untrained people who believe in all sorts of "black legends" speak about the "savagery of the Middle Ages".

    I will say more, even the Early Middle Ages are not an era of darkness and savagery, or rather, not only. For example, see what the "Lombard and Carolingian Renaissance" is.

    Quote: shamil
    But what is incomprehensible? Then enter into a dispute by new chronologists, and do not assert yourself with amateurs.

    You seem to have declared yourself as supporters of the new chronology from Fomenko and Co.? The valiant bearers of anti-scientific ideas themselves are not present, it seems, on the VO site.

    Quote: shamil
    And this is a familiar song. In your opinion, the closer to the time of events, the less knowledge, traditions and sources about it.

    Here's how ... request It's strange. I seem to write everything in good Russian. Once again - the CLOSER in time to the epoch of events, the better the idea of ​​it. But when it is "closer" - already very far away - the opposite happens.
    Those. people of Late Antiquity better understand the events of Early Antiquity.
    But here the people who lived in the Late Middle Ages - already extremely poorly imagine the details of the events and life of Early Antiquity.
    Although the people of the era of the Late Middle Ages would seem closer to the era in question!
    but they have less scientific knowledge than we do, because in the 19-20 centuries. thanks to advances in archeology, we were able to make a much better picture of the world of Early Antiquity!
    It seems so should be clear?

    Quote: shamil
    Finally. My personal question. Why did Napoleon march on Moscow, and not on St. Petersburg, which had already been the capital for over 100 years?
    Although you don’t answer my questions, I’ll ask you all the same: interesting, but supporters of the new chronology are generally aware that according to the ORIGINAL plan of their own general staff, the French Grand Army was supposed to end the war in 1812 in Smolensk and not move anywhere else?

    And probably the supporters of the new chronology generally know little that in general the plan that was developed by the French was much more dangerous for Russia than that which Napoleon decided to implement on his own initiative?

    PS What about the ancient ramparts in the steppes near Orenburg? it would be interesting for me to laugh at them if, as you say, these are not defensive lines in the style of Russian serif features.
    1. shamil
      shamil 27 March 2016 19: 46
      0
      Not in the Orenburg region, but the Volga region. And the link was higher today at 07.41.http: //taboo.su/istoriya/zapretnaya-arkheologiya/77-prochie-st/231-velikay
      a-zavo
      lzhskaya-stena.html
      Yes, I am a supporter. But so to speak the user. Putting all the evidence in my head is not necessary for me. And the authors of N. chronology certainly have no time, so it is useless to waste time.
      In recent years, 24 films on the topic have been shot, and every Saturday at 15:XNUMX in Moscow, conversations are held with answers to listeners' questions on the radio station "Moscow Says". You can show your erudition there.
      According to Napoleon, this is not a new chronology. These are my thoughts. But I will notice. Again, instead of answering a question.
      About paintings - "people of the Late Middle Ages" had no knowledge of archeology. Yes, it has nothing to do with it. Medieval clothes and Egyptian clothes differ radically. And Egypt has been known to Europe since Dr Rome.
  21. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 27 March 2016 21: 41
    0
    Quote: shamil
    Not in the Orenburg region, but the Volga region

    I looked. You know, except that I saw nothing of the fortifications of the Orenburg line. At the same time - if these photos, which are laid out without a clear reference to the place, correspond to reality - a completely traditional system of bastions according to European military thought of the 17-18 centuries is seen. In general, at least judging by the link above - not convincing.
    Unfortunately, a simple moment is seen: from scratch, out of banality, invent a sensation, and then make money on it, spreading ignorant people.

    Quote: shamil
    About paintings - "people of the Late Middle Ages" had no knowledge of archeology. Yes, it has nothing to do with it. Medieval clothes and Egyptian clothes differ radically.
    Well, what about? or do you seriously believe that people who lived in the 15th century understood the archeology of ancient Egypt and knew for certain what Moses looked like?
  22. shamil
    shamil 28 March 2016 21: 15
    0
    Returned to the link, looked. There is a view with reference, near Samara. Where is Orenburg, and where is Samara? Not at all curious? It's good to just broadcast.
    So again there is no answer to the question, why did Napoleon go not to the capital, not to the government, but to the merchant Moscow?
    And about the artists. Although they are figures of the 16-18th centuries, do you really think they could not imagine what a male infant looks like? And I think they will draw the banks of the river without any archeology.
  23. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 28 March 2016 21: 54
    0
    Quote: shamil
    There is a view with reference, near Samara. Where is Orenburg, and where is Samara? Not at all curious?

    After I saw the types of bastions and the profile of the shafts - it became uninteresting. This is clearly the 17-18 century and Russian construction. Well, the Volga defense lines - there are many different nations around. What can I say - until recently, by that time, Kazan was the center of anti-Russian invasions.

    I said that there are more interesting objects - the same Trayanov shafts. But unfortunately they have no relation to the Pugachev uprising.

    Quote: shamil
    So again there is no answer to the question, why did Napoleon go not to the capital, not to the government, but to the merchant Moscow?
    I have already indicated the main point - the "Second Polish" war in general should be, according to his own plan, 2 years. But in real life it turned out not so.

    And having come to Peter, his La Grand Army lost food. Well, do not feed in an area seated on allowance, an invasion army. But Moscow is a huge MARKET, including well-established supplies and large stocks.

    Further - you apparently do not know about the military art of Bonopartia. So his FAVORITE plan was to occupy the CENTRAL POSITION and being in it to smash the forces of the enemy in different directions. And what could be more central to the center of the Russian plain? The only problem is that in Russia the roads are not the same and the distances are different.

    And one more small addition - the capture of Petersburg was still expected. For there was a strategic offensive. That's just bad luck - the army of Marshal Oudinot, which was entrusted with this task, did not cope with it. Look at the info about Peter Wittgenstein - "the savior of St. Petersburg in 1812" - almost an official title. It was his troops who often won victories over the French (in contrast to the armies of Barclay and Bagration).