Military Review

Peter I as commander

180



Peter I entered history as an outstanding statesman and military leader of Russia, the founder of the regular army and fleet, a talented commander and diplomat, whom even in the West, when compared with Frederick II, was called "a truly great man."

The most important reforms of Peter I are military reforms. Held under the conditions of rapid economic and political growth, they turned Russia into one of the most powerful military powers of Europe, allowed to return to the Baltic Sea, to seize all those "that was absolutely necessary for the natural development of the country."

Creating a regular army, Peter I went a new, independent way, different from the Western states, where by that time the mercenary-recruiting system of recruitment into the army was finally formed. Soldiers of any nationality who served only for salaries were accepted for military service. The exception was Sweden, whose army was staffed largely by its own "settled soldiers". Peter I, well aware of all the advantages of a homogeneous army in terms of national composition, retained the old Russian experience of recruiting “dutch people” from a certain number of peasant and township courtyards. He gave this system a strict order and established a life-long (later 25 years) service for soldiers on full state support. In 1705, the “handlers” became known as recruits.

Recruitment duty, undoubtedly, laid a heavy burden on the shoulders of ordinary people. However, a new way of recruiting a regular army allowed to quickly replenish it with people and was the most perfect for its time. Immediately after the Azov campaigns, the Russian tsar began a gradual abolition of the Strelets army, and in return ordered him to begin the formation of the first 30 regiments of the regular army.

The system of education and training of troops introduced by Peter I was also advanced. If in hired armies a drill and cane discipline were imposed, and the fighting spirit was “maintained” by the fear of punishment, then in the Russian army “moral training” of soldiers began to be based on such character traits of the Russian people as national pride and patriotism, hatred for foreign invaders, readiness for self-sacrifice in the name of the Fatherland, etc. Of course, the same feudal system prevailed in the army then, as in all of Russia, but the soldier was inspired to be a defender of the Motherland, and his title was honorable.

"... You must not think," said Peter I before the battle of Poltava, "that you are fighting for Peter, but for the state." All this found understanding among the soldiers, all the more so that the king demanded a strict but respectful attitude towards his subordinates and care for their needs from the officers: “To praise their good deeds and to repay them. For the thin, they are firmly and diligently punished. ”

Peter I was an opponent of drill and parade training, demanded to teach what is necessary for the fight, introduced new forms and methods of training, close to combat conditions, "like in the battle itself." To this end, he introduced the bilateral field exercises of the troops - maneuvers that were not practiced yet in the European armies of the time. They were considered "supposedly a precursor of the case." To avoid a pattern in the application of the tactical provisions of the statute, as it was in the foreign armies, the king-reformer sought to develop an initiative in his subordinates. In additions to the 1716 military regulations of the year, developed by him, it was stated that the regulations describe the orders, but not every possible case is described, "but therefore the statute should not be kept like a blind wall." This was the beginning of the best traditions of the Russian army, which were carefully preserved and developed by progressive commanders of Russia over the centuries. Many of them have survived to this day.

The homogeneous national composition of the Russian army, the advanced system of education and training of troops, the progressive nature of the wars that Peter the Great led, gave him soldiers with significantly higher moral and fighting qualities than in the Western armies. The army of Peter I was equipped with an advanced, quite modern infantry weapons and the latest artillery, had a coherent organization that ensured close cooperation in the battle of infantry, cavalry and artillery. He skillfully used all this to use new tactical combinations on the battlefield, new methods of warfare, inaccessible to mercenary armies. The Russian army became the ancestor of the most advanced trends in the art of war, which was born on the battlefields of the Northern War.

Peter I as commander


Due to the international situation that had developed by the beginning of the 18th century, Russia was unable to prepare for the war with Sweden of Charles XII in advance, therefore its army was created during the war. The first bitter lesson for the Petrine regiments, scrawled and almost untrained, was the heavy defeat at Narva (1700), where they faced a highly experienced Swedish regular army. Fortunately for Russia, her young king had the ability to soberly evaluate events and draw the right conclusions, both from success and failure. After the failure of Narva Peter unleashed a stormy activity to create and train the army, which soon began to bear fruit.

For the commanding art of Peter I in the Northern War, first of all, the decisiveness of the strategy is typical. Against the background of the wars of the West with their cordon strategy and long maneuvering, the strategy of the Russians became a new word in the art of war. Its appearance was determined by the decisive and progressive nature of the political goals of Russia, which was waging war for the return of the exit to the Baltic Sea, which was so necessary for its development. Peter I’s deep understanding of the relationship between strategy and politics is the most important feature of his commander’s art.

Peter realized that the “classical strategy” that prevailed in the West, in which the commanders, in fear of losing their army, tried to avoid decisive battles, was not suitable for the Russian state. Such a strategy led to insignificant results in the war. For him, however, he needed a complete victory over Sweden, and Peter I decided to reach it by crushing the military power of Sweden on land and at sea, which, along with the army, required a strong fleet. The idea of ​​the need for a fleet for Russia was clearly expressed in the Peter the Great Sea Charter 1720 of the year: "Every Potentate (sovereign) who has a single land army has one hand, and which the fleet has both hands."

Peter I developed new active forms of war, in which maneuver was not an end in itself, but a means of achieving favorable conditions for holding a general battle and completely defeating the enemy’s armies. Combining determination with caution, he went to the general battle consistently, mobilizing all the reserves of the state, skillfully combining various forms of struggle, defense and attack. Both with defensive and offensive actions demanded high activity and initiative.

Possessing a rare insight, Peter I skillfully extracted strategic benefits from the current military-political situation, correctly choosing the direction of the main attack and the form of military operations. It is known that in the first period of the Northern War (from 1700 to 1706), after the defeat near Narva, he adopted a defensive plan. But the defense of the Russian army was exceptionally active, not peculiar to the military art of the West. In addition, the Russian commander skillfully took advantage of the miscalculation of Charles XII, who overestimated the results of the Narva victory and decided to transfer the main military efforts to Poland in order to defeat it and thus, as the Swedish king assumed, to complete the conquest of the whole Eastern Europe.

Preparing the country for defense and directing all his indomitable energy to the creation of a large regular army and navy, Peter I simultaneously launched a “small war”, setting himself the aim of defeating the Swedish troops left in Estonia and Livonia. The Russian army did not sit out in the cities and fortresses in anticipation of the enemy, and she was looking for him. Peter I did not miss any opportunity to strike at the enemy troops, exhausting the forces of the Swedes with unexpected attacks. So, in 1701, they were defeated at Erestfere, in 1702, at Gummelshof, on the Izhora River, near Kexholm (Priozersk) and Noteburg (Petrokrepost). In the 1703 year, the Swedish fortresses of Nyenskans, Yamburg, Koporye were taken, in the 1704 year - Derpt (Tartu) and Narva with Ivangorod.



As a result of vigorous actions during 1701 -1704. All the Swedish troops located in the region of the Gulf of Finland and on the Neva shores were broken up in parts. The Russian army reached the Baltic Sea. With a defensive general plan of war, Peter I already at that time was able to achieve its first strategic goal. The young army of Peter gained combat experience in the “small war,” hardened, believed in her strength. “We finally achieved that,” wrote the commander, “that the Swedes are already winning.”

Now Russia faces a new challenge - to firmly establish itself on the Baltic coast. Peter I saw her decision in the construction of new fortresses and in the intensive work on the creation of the Baltic Fleet and its first bases.

In 1703, the construction of St. Petersburg began, and to protect the approaches to it from the sea, the same year Kronslot was built on Kotlin Island. Ahead of the fortress were erected forts, reinforced coastal artillery. The Baltic Fleet, which by the year 1708 numbered 46 large warships (frigates, galleys, firefighters, brigantines), was created at a rapid pace.

Peter's military art was most fully revealed in the second, most crucial period of the Northern War (from 1707 to 1709), when Charles XII, encouraged by England and Holland, launched an invasion of Russia. Like other Western conquerors who attacked the Russian lands, the Swedish king aimed the main blow at Moscow. Peter I divined the plans of the enemy and contrasted them with his deeply thought-out plan of military operations. Concentrating the main forces, including the newly created 50-thousand-strong reserve army, to cover the Moscow strategic direction, he fought to delay them countries, exhausting enemy forces in defensive battles, destroyed them in parts by strikes of mobile units, disrupted communications, supplies, etc. The Swedes very quickly began to experience an acute shortage of food and fodder. In our land, the rule generally accepted in those years was not justified, according to which "war should fuel the war." That is why Charles XII already in September 1708 of the year was forced to abandon the march on Moscow and turned his army towards Ukraine, where he relied on the help of the traitor Mazepa and the sympathy of the population. This was the undoubted success of Peter I. With skillful actions, he achieved a change in the strategic situation, imposed his will on the Swedish king.

The Russian commander immediately gained from the prevailing conditions in the theater of military operations. With great skill, he carried out an exceptional complexity maneuver - a parallel strategic pursuit of the enemy with his main forces. During his sweeping communications, the Swedes were attacked by mobile detachments separated from the main forces. The culmination of parallel persecution was the battle of the village of Lesnoy (September 28 (October 9) 1708), in which a mobile detachment of cavalry and infantry under personal control of Peter utterly defeated the sixteen thousandth corps of Levengaupt, who was in a hurry to unite with the main army of Karl XII and hanging a huge army ammunition and food. Peter I himself assessed the victory at Lesnaya as “the mother of Poltava victory”.

Victory changed the balance of power. The “small war,” which Peter I had waged with such skill and care until this time, bore fruit. The strategic initiative was taken out of the hands of the enemy. Now Peter I began to look for the general battle. But considering it a dangerous business, he was still calculating, he carefully prepared himself, he chose the most advantageous moment for the decisive blow in order to act for sure. Such a moment presented itself in the summer of 1709, when the Swedish army, not having received the expected help in Ukraine from the Cossacks and the support of the population, deprived of the defeat of the Forest replenishment, ammunition, food, was in a strategic impasse. Concentrated in the region of Poltava, she was bogged down in an unsuccessful siege of this small city.



8 June Peter I decided to attack the Swedes. By the end of the month, he concentrated the main forces near Poltava, and with separate detachments he blocked the Swedish army. To participate in the battle, 42 thousand people and 72 guns against 20 thousand men and 4's guns left by Charles XII were allocated (28 Swedish guns without ammunition were in the train). June 27 Russian army commanded by Peter in the Battle of Poltava completely defeated the Swedish troops. Their remnants, overtaken as a result of organized persecution, quickly capitulated. Under Poltava, the military might of Sweden was crushed on land and the outcome of the Northern War was predetermined.

In subsequent years, the Russian army completed the defeat of the Swedish troops in the Baltic States, captured Finland. The young Russian fleet, created by Peter, by its victories at sea, deprived Sweden of its sea power. At this stage of the war, especially in the battles of Gangut and Grengam, Peter I declared himself and as a talented naval commander. He skillfully organized the strategic interaction of the naval forces with the ground forces.

Peter I enriched not only the strategy, but also made a major contribution to the development of tactics. Deeply understanding the essence of the battle, and using the high combat and moral qualities of the Russian soldier, he became the first in the conditions of linear tactics, based on fire fighting, found the right combination of fire and bayonet strike. In contrast to Western European views, Peter I considered fire only as a means of preparing a bayonet attack. Since then, the Russian infantry has gained fame unsurpassed in force of the "bayonets."

An innovation was also introduced in the construction of a linear order of battle. Peter I refused to evenly distribute forces on the front, began to focus them on the most important areas, to allocate private and general reserves to build up the force of impact from the depths. For example, in a battle near Lesnaya, the main lines are amplified by grenadier companies set between them. In the Battle of Poltava in a new way, in two lines, each regiment was built. The second-line battalions essentially performed the role of private reserves, supporting the first line of their regiments in battle. In addition, Peter left a general reserve of the 9 battalions in the fortified camp. Thus, he gave the order of battle a certain depth. For the convenience of maneuver in battle, the linear order of battle often dismembered along the front.



Contrary to the patterns of linear tactics, when troops built with solid lines and strictly tied to their place as part of battle formation, were deprived of the possibility of maneuver and interaction along the front, the Russian commander demanded: “We must firmly watch each other for a second, and when the enemy goes on one wing, then the other wing of the enemy from the rear or flank to attack "". His improvements in order of battle and were aimed at achieving this requirement, as well as at eliminating the basic flaws of linear tactics. Created eat the depth order of battle and the dismemberment of Peter I predetermined the further development of tactics, he took the first steps on the way to the tactics of deep battle.

The newly adopted order of battle and the high fighting qualities of the soldiers allowed the Russian army to abandon the rule that existed - to fight only on the open level terrain. Moreover, seeing in it the weakness of the Western European armies, the Russian commander demanded to use rough and wooded terrain for battle.

The experience of military operations in the Lesnaya area and in Finland clearly showed the advantages of the Russian army in combat on rough terrain. A new step forward was made in the organization of interaction on the battlefield of infantry, cavalry and artillery. Peter I abandoned the traditional location of cavalry in the columns on the flanks of the battle formation. To enhance its activity in battle, he built cavalry, like infantry, most often in full lines for a joint attack.

For a closer cooperation of artillery with other branches of the armed forces, regular regimental artillery is introduced into the infantry and cavalry regiments. The field artillery began to unite into large batteries, which occupied firing positions in the most important areas.

An unusual and new in the field of tactics was the engineering training of Peter I of the battlefield near Poltava. The advanced position built by him in the form of a redoubt system allowed the enemy army to disrupt the battle formations of the enemy army, dismember its columns and beat the enemy piecemeal, and then deliberately retreat the cavalry to bring it under the flank fire attack of the entire Russian army from the fortified camp.



The Russian regular army created by Peter I and the principles of military art developed by him predetermined the development of military affairs in Russia for many decades. The provisions of the Petrovsky Military Charter of 1716 of the year were the basis for all subsequent statutes of the Russian army until the end of the XVIII century. They were supplemented and developed in the instructions and manuals of such outstanding commanders as P.A. Rumyantsev, A.V. Suvorov, M.I. Kutuzov. These great commanders considered themselves the disciples of Peter, the successors of the Russian military traditions established by him. The military legacy of Peter I was the source from which they and other leading figures of Russia drew principles for organizing, educating and training the army, the rules of warfare and combat, and learned to win. A.V. Suvorov called him a great man and the first commander of his age in all respects.

The role of Peter I in the development of military art goes far beyond the national framework. Not only in Russia, but also abroad his military activity was investigated, his experience was used. The Russian commander was one of the largest military authorities for Napoleon, who carefully studied the history of the Northern War before going to Russia. Peter I as high as a military leader and commander, many other European commanders. His military theoretical legacy was appreciated by domestic military science.

Sources:
Kresnovsky A. History of the Russian Army: M .: Golos, 1992. C. 17-67.
Porfiryev E. Peter I - the founder of the military art of the Russian regular army and navy. M .: Voenizdat, 1962, S. 97-104
A group of authors. History of military art. t.1. M .: Military Publishing, 1983. C. 114-118
Ivanov V. The Military Art of Peter I. // VIZH. 1982. No.8. C. 66-70
Shishov A. Poltava battle [1709 g.] // Army collection. 1995. No.7. C.3-7.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Suddenness in the tactics of Suvorov
Special tactics of Admiral Chichagov
Genius resolute offensive strategy
The genius of the maneuver who beat Napoleon
Peter's reform of the Russian army
180 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. PKK
    PKK 3 June 2016 06: 25
    -43%
    Your petruha, a nemchura of Oldenburg, is somewhat reminiscent of the current Gadia Savchenko. He also loved Russia. Even he stung the Russian letter, than the letter prevented him? The author of success.
    1. Pitot
      Pitot 3 June 2016 07: 03
      -33%
      I fully support your opinion. The scumbag is still that. Military talents? No worse and no better than other famous European military leaders. And again, how could it be melted into cannons in his time? Bell metal was not suitable for these purposes. Another beautiful bike.
      1. avt
        avt 3 June 2016 08: 58
        +1
        Quote: Pitot
        . Military talents? No worse and no better than other famous European military leaders.

        Raise in vain! And Azov took .... from the second call. Narva, again from the second call, and the first time it was so ... if it had not jumped out of the army, it might not have been smashed wassat ... Again, the Prut campaign, which he muddied, he himself prepared and himself led heroically, they really did not break up there - he brought the matter to peace negotiations in the blocked army, but he was led by such a great commander that Azov was given away, the Black Sea Fleet was partially burned, partly, including his beloved, , Goto Predestinatsiya "sold to the Turks, yes - even like a new fortress - Taganrog agreed to tear down.
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 09: 17
          +36
          Well, then, near Poltava, was Peter, even though he defeated Charles XII ?!) or he was just interfering, and contrary to his instructions the people won (as liberals like to say about Stalin).
          1. avt
            avt 3 June 2016 09: 34
            +1
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            Well, then near Poltava is Peter, even though he defeated Charles XII?

            Smashed! The priest broke it. And how not to break that? Well, with such a numerical superiority and FOUR guns at the Swedish tramp, opposite .... How much did Petrusha have that ?? Yes, thanks to the glorious inhabitants of Poltava for their staunch defense, and indeed to the Little Russians - they exhausted the Swedes and did not follow Mazepa. It would be a shame to lose at Poltava. It was not me who said this, but some of the greats who, by the way, sincerely admire the "genius of Peter"
            1. Heimdall47
              Heimdall47 3 June 2016 11: 39
              +27
              Quote: avt
              azbil! Broken father. Yes, and how not to break it? Well, with such a numerical superiority and FOUR cannons in front of the Swedish tramp, on the contrary .... How much did Petrusha have that ??

              What is the claim to Peter then?
              This is precisely what martial art consists of - bringing the enemy to the worst state and only after that engage in a direct battle with him. Maybe he should have moved to Poland to meet Karl, to give battle there on unfavorable conditions, to request 50 thousand Russian troops and win a beautiful heroic battle? I’m afraid that in this case too, you would hang shit on him.
            2. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 13: 10
              +14
              Quote: avt
              Smashed! Broken father. Yes, and how not to break it? Well, with such a numerical superiority and FOUR cannons in front of the Swedish tramp, on the contrary .... How much did Petrusha have that ??
              well thanks and on this hi
              There were 28 more cannons in the train, to which there was simply no ammunition. And the ammunition, together with the Levengaupt corps and even more supplies, were Swedes profucans in the battle of Lesnaya. Which again Peter won. To be able to concentrate superior forces on the main site, one of the skills of a real commander, which allows you to level the numerical superiority of the enemy. The same Charles XII, under Narva, was inferior in numbers much more (almost 4 times). Well, or at the battle of Kliszow, where he successfully defeated the Polish-Saxon army, 2 times less in numbers. It is not surprising that near Poltava he hoped to repeat his successes, since the Caroliners (King’s guards) were at hand - but it didn’t work out.
            3. xan
              xan 3 June 2016 13: 26
              +7
              Quote: avt
              Smashed! Broken father. Yes, and how not to break it? Well, with such a numerical superiority and FOUR cannons at the Swedish tramp, on the contrary ..

              Half of the Russian infantry and a third of the cavalry did not participate in the battle. The battle of Lesnoy was won by Peter against the Swedes in almost equal compositions.
              Peter, of course, was not a talent as a commander, he had to win in the Prut campaign, apparently he had a lot of fun and did not believe in a soldier. But as an organizer and manager at that time, it was very in its place.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 3 June 2016 18: 06
                +3
                Quote: xan
                in the Prut campaign it was necessary to win, apparently very strong

                He counted on the help of Moldova and Wallachia who called him. As a result, the army was cut off from its rear, on foreign territory, and without serious food supplies. And even if he had won, he would still have to make peace quickly, because a war on two fronts is a very serious matter.
                1. xan
                  xan 3 June 2016 20: 50
                  0
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  And even if he had won, he would still have to make peace quickly, because a war on two fronts is a very serious matter.

                  If instead of Peter there were Rumyantsev or Suvorov, the Sultan would still be looking for his army. This is what distinguishes talent from just a commander.
                  And to fight on two fronts, so Russia in its history fought 35 times with two opponents, this is a familiar thing.
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 3 June 2016 21: 14
                    +1
                    Quote: xan
                    If instead of Peter there were Rumyantsev or Suvorov, the Sultan would still be looking for his army

                    And then what? Even having defeated the enemy, Peter would not have won the war. In addition, the battle was not lost, but reduced to a draw, and such that the Turks immediately agreed to a peace, not on the most favorable conditions, and that says a lot.
                    Quote: xan
                    Russia in its history fought 35 times with two opponents

                    I fought. And not only her. That's just such a war is extremely dangerous if you do not surpass the enemy in their resources.
                  2. Svidetel 45
                    Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 22: 57
                    +4
                    If yes, Suvorov and Rumyantsev appeared as commanders from scratch, their formation took place on the experience of predecessors, including Peter.
            4. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 22: 53
              +3
              Excuse me to drive nonsense, is war a knightly tournament? This is the art of war, which is to create an advantage over the enemy in the right place and at the right time. Well, yes, of course, if the Russian army were commanded by avt (3), the greatest commander of all time, then the famous Swedish army, strongest in Europe at that time, would have been defeated without a doubt
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. AK64
            AK64 3 June 2016 10: 32
            -5
            Well, then, near Poltava, was Peter, even though he defeated Charles XII ?!) or he was just interfering, and contrary to his instructions the people won (as liberals like to say about Stalin).


            Sheremetyev. Peter was present there, and received congratulations.
          4. qwert
            qwert 3 June 2016 11: 16
            +14
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            Well, then, near Poltava, was Peter, even though he defeated Charles XII ?!) or he was just interfering, and contrary to his instructions the people won (as liberals like to say about Stalin).
            I join)
            And I look at this site in general there is a group of "comrades" who declare mediocrity about any of the domestic commanders. Although Kutuzov, even Suvorov, even Rokossovsky. Well, it seems that the era of perestroika publications was not in vain; some people have the opinion that Russians are a nation of mediocrity, slurping soup
            1. AK64
              AK64 3 June 2016 11: 44
              -7
              And I look at this site in general there is a group of "comrades" who declare mediocrity about any of the domestic commanders. Although Kutuzov, even Suvorov, even Rokossovsky. Well, it seems that the era of perestroika publications was not in vain, some people have the opinion that the Russians are a nation of mediocrity, bastard soup slurping


              Yep ...

              And in my opinion, it’s just your little Kodla who is throwing mud at the domestic commanders — in this case, Sheremetyeva (who defeated Poltava).

              And Peter .... Who is he anyway? Who is "scorer Pyotr Mikhailov"? And who is Kepten Peter (in Dutch)? And why did the man kill his (allegedly) children from his first marriage?

              Who is he at all?

              And what do you know about Peter?
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 3 June 2016 18: 06
                0
                Quote: AK64
                And what do you know about Peter?

                What do you know?
                1. AK64
                  AK64 3 June 2016 19: 21
                  -7
                  What do you know?


                  I know I don't know anything. Who is the "scorer Pert Mikhailov"? And who is Captain Peter?

                  I know that I don’t know anything.

                  But those here are how you read the agitation of Tolstoy Alexei - and are convinced that they know everything.

                  That's how many Petrov was: one? Or two? Or three or four?
                  For you, as I understand it, this question itself is NOT STUDY. Meanwhile, Peter is the ONLY Russian tsar about whom there was not just gossip that they had "replaced the tsar", but there was such a general confidence. So strong that it was necessary to open the "Secret Chancellery" in order to combat this "rumor".
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 3 June 2016 21: 03
                    +4
                    Quote: AK64
                    I know that I don’t know anything.

                    That's right.
                    Quote: AK64
                    Who is the "scorer Pert Mikhailov"? And who is Captain Peter?

                    The king formally went through all the levels of military ranks. There was nothing wrong with that.
                    Quote: AK64
                    Meanwhile, Peter is the ONLY Russian tsar about whom there was not just gossip that they "replaced the tsar"

                    Considering the fact that he had to break the entire traditional Russian way of life, this is not surprising. Actually, he found himself in a situation where it was necessary to pass "100 years, we need to run in 10". Yes, there were reforms before him - that's a fact. And he had mistakes - this is also a fact. But he did his job.
                  2. Svidetel 45
                    Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 05
                    +2
                    And under Peter, everyone served, starting from the lowest level, even the children of noble noblemen, Suvorov began with an ordinary soldier, and then, after his death, indulgence gradually began, from the diapers began to be assigned officer ranks. It was such a system that made it possible to become the strongest Russian army until the end of the 18th century
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 4 June 2016 10: 18
                      0
                      And under Peter, everyone served, starting from the lowest level, even the children of noble noblemen, Suvorov began with an ordinary soldier, and then, after his death, indulgence gradually began, from the diapers began to be assigned officer ranks. It was such a system that made it possible to become the strongest Russian army until the end of the 18th century


                      That's when people, who have just mastered Tolstoy’s agitation, begin to teach ....

                      From ridiculous kids ... You didn’t even understand the question.

                      So, so that you know about the ranks: Peter was born in 1672. Bombardier Pyotr Mikhailov emerged from oblivion in 1695, when Peter was officially ... 23 years old - he is already quite mature to start from the bottom.
                      So who is the "scorer Peter Mikhailov" ??

                      And more about the ranks: at Tolstoy, according to which people like you "study history", it has not been written about that, but by 1989 Peter was ... the captain of the Reiter. Yes Yes.

                      So explain to me where did the dashing cavalryman go, and why instead of him a clown suddenly appeared in the ridiculous outfit of the Dutch cattle?
                      Well, come on, tell us about the "ranks"

                      Connoisseurs, damn it ...
                      My "don't know", kids, is worth all your "knowledge" - because I understand why I do not know.

                      So about the dashing cavalryman: as you know, Peter practically didn’t ride. Walked on foot, as befits a Dutch carpenter, even when in a hurry. I went in carts, in sleighs - but not on horseback. It seems that he was just afraid of horses.

                      So where did the dashing Reitr captain who could ride on a horse bareback in the middle of the night in Trinity go?

                      PS: I try to give only the material that is easily verified by Google. But in order to find confirmation that Pyotr Alekseevich was the Reitars' captain, you will have to work for this, you cannot do it in 5 minutes. They hide it, and they hide it because it is impossible to explain the inability of the "mature Peter" to ride a horse, and the direct fear of horses.
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 June 2016 10: 41
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        From ridiculous kids ... You didn’t even understand the question.

                        The king in his position is the commander of the army simply because he is king. He can transfer powers to others, he can command himself, as a matter of fact any modern head of state.
                        He introduced the rule that a person applying for an officer rank would serve from the bottom, in order to acquire practical knowledge of the service, and this was reasonable. The fact that he could formally try on this system did not remove his responsibilities from him.
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 4 June 2016 10: 47
                        0
                        The king in his position is the commander of the army simply because he is king.

                        That's not a single Russian tsar did not climb to command armies


                        He can transfer powers to others, he can command himself, as a matter of fact any modern head of state.

                        This is some kind of amazing "logic": I am "Who is the scorer Pyotr Mikhailov, and where did he come from?"- and they answered me with some nonsense about" who commands the army. "

                        He introduced the rule that a person applying for an officer rank would serve from the bottom, in order to acquire practical knowledge of the service, and this was reasonable. The fact that he could formally try on this system did not remove his responsibilities from him.

                        This "rule" was introduced somewhat LATER.

                        I repeat for you: Pyotr Alekseevich by the age of 17 was ... a captain. Reitarsky captain... How are some "scorers" in 23 years ?? What a strange reduction rank?

                        You should first understand the questions to learn ...
                      3. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 June 2016 13: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: AK64
                        That's not a single Russian tsar did not climb to command armies

                        But this does not change the fact that it was he who was the head of state and his army.
                        Quote: AK64
                        This kind of amazing "logic"

                        Well, Peter I liked formally how to serve in lower ranks, or to participate in the embassy, ​​under an assumed name, to simplify the diplomatic protocol, then what? In fact, as he was king, he remained so and fulfilled his duties. Was the state ruined because several uniforms were sewn? I don’t think so. So what are you unhappy with?
                        Quote: AK64
                        This "rule" was introduced somewhat LATER.

                        It was, but this does not change the fact that it was Peter who introduced it.
                      4. AK64
                        AK64 4 June 2016 13: 44
                        0
                        But this does not change the fact that it was he who was the head of state and his army.

                        In fact, even the Tsar was not automatic: he could appoint himself.
                        Example: in WWI, the first Commander-in-Chief was Nick-Nick. And only from August 1915, Nikolai "took upon himself"


                        Well, Peter I liked formally how to serve in the lower ranks,

                        Uh-huh: from a captain at the age of 17 - to someone with an incomprehensible name - "liked it."
                        at first I didn't like it - and then suddenly I liked it.

                        Why fantasy, huh?

                        or participate in the embassy, ​​under an assumed name, to simplify the diplomatic protocol, then what?

                        Yeah --- the only leader of the country FOR TWO YEARS (!!!) leaves the country. In which, incidentally, is restless - political opponents are still alive.
                        I liked it so much, I liked it so much.
                        And he liked to cook for himself. And he got the hang of an ax from somewhere, moreover ... right away.


                        In fact, as he was king, he remained so and fulfilled his duties.

                        No. I didn’t do it, and I couldn’t even do it.
                        The duties of the king performed .... Fedor Yuryevich Romodanovsky. Position Prince Caesar. Caesar is Caesar, king.

                        The title itself hints - no?
                        So he did it.
                        And the Dutch clown with him was parsley, jumping on strings. When the FYUR died, only then ... allowed a little.
                        And not an hour earlier.

                        Was the state ruined because several uniforms were sewn?

                        This is the whole psychology of m. "Soviet patriots" --- the psychology of frankly female (sorry for being straightforward).
                        You tell them about problems - and they tell you about rags: "Well, will we be poor if I buy myself some dresses?"

                        I don’t think so. So what are you unhappy with?

                        The most complete trifle: the fact that the Dutch throne settled on the Russian throne.
                        And so I’m happy for everyone.


                        It was, but this does not change the fact that it was Peter who introduced it.

                        No: the Russian nobleman was obliged to serve from 15 to 65 years (that is, in fact, for life). Guess the ranks of these 15-year-olds newcomers.
                        Yes, and it ended up with it all the same ordinary ones often.

                        A noble teenager could receive a "rank" only when he came to the service at the head of a detachment, which, of course, was extremely rare.
                      5. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 June 2016 14: 39
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        In fact, even the Tsar was not automatic: he could appoint himself.
                        that is, in fact, it was he who decided who commands. What is the difference?
                        Quote: AK64
                        in unclear who with unclear what name - "liked"
                        And what changed for him personally? Nothing.
                        Quote: AK64
                        The duties of the king performed .... Fedor Yuryevich Romodanovsky.
                        I know about the prince-Caesar, as well as about the fact that it was a "title" invented solely so that someone could "raise the king in rank."
                        Quote: AK64
                        This is the whole psychology of mr "Soviet patriots" --- the psychology of frankly female (sorry for being straightforward). You tell them about problems - and they tell you about rags: "Well, are we going to impoverish if I buy myself a few dresses?"
                        This is the whole psychology of Mr. "historians" - the psychology of an openly whiner (sorry for being straightforward). You tell them that the scale of the costs is not worth a damn - and they tell you about every fly: "Well, it's an elephant"
                        Quote: AK64
                        I eat that on the Russian throne, the Dutch dullness settled
                        Evidence that he was a Dutchman?
                        Quote: AK64
                        Russian nobleman was obliged to serve
                        "crowded, horse and armored" having come to the service at the head of the detachment, for which the nobility was created. Serve as privates, and it was Peter who forced everyone.
                      6. AK64
                        AK64 4 June 2016 15: 00
                        0
                        Sorry, but the answer got out of size.

                        I will not repeat.
                      7. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 June 2016 15: 15
                        0
                        Expected. Nothing to say.
                      8. AK64
                        AK64 4 June 2016 15: 29
                        0
                        Expected. Nothing to say.


                        Ask the owners to remove the size limit - and there will be something to say.

                        And then it is just the opposite: to say so many questions that do not fit into your questions.

                        But actually I would recommend you. Yes, I would recommend.

                        I would recommend answering your own questions yourself. It is easier to understand on its own.
                      9. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 June 2016 16: 39
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        Ask the owners to remove the size limit - and there will be something to say.
                        Have you tried to break into two messages?
                        Quote: AK64
                        But actually I would recommend you. Yes, I would recommend. Would recommend answering
                        With the expression of thoughts in Russian, you do not really?
                        Quote: AK64
                        Your own questions

                        So you have nothing to say?
                      10. AK64
                        AK64 4 June 2016 16: 46
                        0
                        Have you tried to break into two messages?

                        Messages disappear.
                        How could I slay what disappeared?

                        With the expression of thoughts in Russian, you do not really?

                        Yes, and in this matter, "the expression in Russian", we have some similarities with "Peter the 1st".


                        So you have nothing to say?

                        You know, I already told one ... extremely insistent that I do not like boors. So here you are, in my opinion, a boor.

                        Continue - go to the emergency.

                        What is your boorish "nothing to say": a good student who will be asked to "give 10 arguments that Peter is a Dutchman" will be able to give them.

                        The rest of your "questions" are of the same school level: that is, due to their banality, you should not even strain with an answer.

                        Then goodbye Mr. Ham

                        PS (10 minutes later): By the way, I realized what annoys me so much about you --- you once again reminded me of my last wife. She also, once again sitting in a puddle, in high tones began to repeat the same thing "you have nothing to say ?! you have nothing more to say !?" - and so on endlessly ...

                        You stop it, because these women’s little things to men somehow do not suit
                      11. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 June 2016 20: 33
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        Continue - go to the emergency.

                        He shrugged his shoulders in chagrin.
                        Quote: AK64
                        So here you are, in my opinion, a boor.

                        And in what?
                        Quote: AK64
                        a good student who is asked to "give 10 arguments that Peter is a Dutchman" will be able to bring them

                        I have not seen yours.
                        Quote: AK64
                        that is, due to their commonplace, you don’t even have to strain with the answer

                        Well, answer those, if not difficult.
                        Quote: AK64
                        Once again you reminded me of my last wife

                        I had no honor to know her, so I can not say anything about this.
                        Quote: AK64
                        You stop it, because these women’s little things to men somehow do not suit

                        Is logic peculiar only to women? Did not know.
  • PKK
    PKK 3 June 2016 16: 18
    0
    And here are mediocrity. Then all the Oldenburg, were absolutely talented, even mediocrity were clever. Only wars were inter-family, according to relatives.
  • PKK
    PKK 3 June 2016 16: 14
    -3
    They were all relatives there, this Karl, clearly Peter or a native uncle or tribe. But they are relatives. Interfamily disassembly, and they write to us a war, even bloody! The full name of this Karl: Karl Peter Ulrich .. Gottorpsky.
  • Simon
    Simon 3 June 2016 20: 11
    +1
    Azov Peter-1 was still young, there was no experience. And when the experience appeared, then he defeated the most powerful Swedish army in Europe.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • PKK
    PKK 3 June 2016 16: 07
    -1
    The guns were poured for the sole purpose of spending all the copper suitable for casting guns on bells. The bells always ring, the copper works and the guns of the rebels will not
    1. saigon
      saigon 24 December 2016 13: 29
      0
      Mr. Major, you can at least figure it out for yourself, well, or read wherever a metal science textbook is. Maybe then you will understand which alloy went to the bells, and which to the guns
  • PKK
    PKK 3 June 2016 16: 51
    0
    Petruha was the purest unchallenged, but when drunk, the teacher taught Peter the wrong language. Peter had to go to Russia and cut through the window to Russia, from the other side. I cut it. We are glad.
  • Simon
    Simon 3 June 2016 19: 45
    +1
    The bells were bronze, and the cannons poured the same from bronze. But for this, the bells were also removed, since bronze was not enough for casting cannons.
    1. AK64
      AK64 3 June 2016 19: 54
      -1
      the bells were also removed, as there was not enough bronze for casting cannons.


      You are mistaken: they poured so many guns that there was nowhere to go. Already with something, but the lack of bronze overflow of bells on such a scale can not be explained.

      So stop retelling Tolstov’s agitation
      1. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 08
        +1
        And you retelling whose propaganda, have the most reliable historical sources, then share.
  • 3agr9d0tryad
    3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 10: 34
    -3
    Quote: PKK
    Even the Russian letter stung

    Oh, her.
    Peter the Great in Russia abolished the institution of slavery (aka slavery) and replaced the then institute of serfdom, which later operated until 1991 as a residence permit.
    1. pigkiller
      pigkiller 3 June 2016 10: 52
      +5
      Until what year was the institution of slavery established in the United States, you know?
      Check before you flood about passport registration in the USSR.
      1. 3agr9d0tryad
        3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 10: 57
        -7
        Quote: pigkiller
        Until what year was the institution of slavery established in the United States, you know?
        Check before you flood about passport registration in the USSR.

        Why flood what to check?
        I wrote that for of his time the institution of serfdom was progressive, and I will add, liberal!
        But registration in the USSR was already atavism, and the situation of some Soviet citizens in the USSR was even worse than serfs in the Republic of Ingushetia.
      2. verboo
        verboo 3 June 2016 11: 26
        +1
        And the registration in the USSR was established by their USA? No? Then what does the USA have to do with it?
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. 97110
      97110 3 June 2016 11: 05
      +4
      Quote: 3agr9d0string
      which then operated until 1991 in the form of a residence permit.

      And after 1991, registration is also needed, in your manner now "registration". Much better, how clever about 1991, Mr. subject of her greatness? Or do you have a flag to confuse your tracks and confuse your own?
      1. 3agr9d0tryad
        3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 11: 32
        -1
        Quote: 97110
        It’s much easier that you were smart about 1991,

        Yes, essentially. Take a look around.
        1. 97110
          97110 3 June 2016 14: 07
          +5
          Quote: 3agr9d0string
          Yes, essentially. Take a look around.

          What should I look back to - I live in Russia. And you - I really don’t know where, but with your brains - just in the South Caucasus. How did the registration system remind you of serfdom? Did you jump from parnassus? Freedom to the parrots! Peace to the nations! (But what about NATO? Surrender?), Equal Opportunity! The burden of a white man! (in the sense of repenting before the former colonized, oppressed by her greatness).
          1. 3agr9d0tryad
            3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 14: 35
            -6
            Quote: 97110
            How did the registration system remind you of serfdom?

            In general, it does not resemble anything, I spoke about registration in the USSR.
            About the impossibility, for example, to buy a "house in the village" if you are registered in the city and another 100500 trifles killing human dignity.
        2. Svidetel 45
          Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 10
          0
          Especially for criminals feel better.
    3. verboo
      verboo 3 June 2016 11: 17
      -2
      Quote: 3agr9d0string
      replaced the institution of slavery (aka slavery) and replaced the then advanced institution of serfdom

      In fact, serfdom, this was slavery. But slavery was not slavery.
      Quote: 3agr9d0string
      which then operated until 1991 in the form of a residence permit.

      Comparing residence and serfdom is even somehow inconvenient. Registration is not an instrument of serfdom (slavery), it is an instrument of totalitarianism.
      1. 3agr9d0tryad
        3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 11: 43
        0
        Quote: verboo
        But slavery was not slavery.

        Slavery is a form of slavery.
        Serfdom is a form of feudal dependence.
        The reasons for serfdom are set forth in tax reform, namely the introduction of a poll tax, and there was nothing misanthropic in this, especially at that time.
        Even everything was quite liberal.
        Quote: verboo
        Comparing residence and serfdom is even somehow inconvenient.

        OK. Is it convenient with the Stalin collective farms?
        1. verboo
          verboo 3 June 2016 11: 45
          -9
          Quote: 3agr9d0string
          OK. Is it convenient with the Stalin collective farms?

          But serfdom with collective farms is convenient. Only here the collective farmers did not have a residence permit. Like passports. Therefore, the registration was later, when the USSR moved from a slave system (the so-called socialism) to the feudal (the so-called developed socialism).
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 97110
          97110 3 June 2016 14: 18
          +6
          Quote: 3agr9d0string
          OK. Is it convenient with the Stalin collective farms?

          Just relax and, calm down, think - how else in the late 20s of the last century could the country make a leap forward in development? How to mobilize resources? Only without snot about democracy and the "teardrop of a child." Passed. In the USSR, they were held in the Russian Federation. Not in the South Caucasus. There they simply asked for resources, and voluntarily donated people over whom the sun did not set. Well, those who disagree, those to the nail. No difference in skin color or distance from the Tower.
          1. 3agr9d0tryad
            3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 14: 46
            -3
            Quote: 97110
            how else at the end of the 20s of the last century could a country make a breakthrough in development? How to mobilize resources?

            First of all, think about how the once great and rich enough country could manage all these resources in 10 years!
            And then you may realize that there was no "breakthrough" in the 30s.
            There was a wildest increasing imbalance of the entire economy (more precisely, what was left of it) towards the military-industrial complex and heavy industry, including due to a deterioration in the quality of both this industry itself and the standard of living in the country.
            1. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 27
              0
              Yeah, it was necessary to meet Hitler not with Uralmash, but with sausage factories and tailor's workshops, smart guy. "There was no jerk," again the hackneyed Liberal record is playing here. And how could a great and rather rich country (according to Mikhalkov's cinematographic pictures) could have all these resources ... just ask this from the incompetent leadership of Tsarist Russia and the even more mediocre Provisional Government of the Liberals, who replaced it in February 17, which destroyed it completely, and then the Bolsheviks had to spend a lot of energy and resources, for which you are crying here, to collect it again. And also ask the Entente, which helped fuel the civil war and organized military intervention.
              1. verboo
                verboo 4 June 2016 13: 21
                -1
                Quote: Svidetel 45
                Hitler should not have been met by Uralmash, but by sausage factories and tailor workshops

                It was necessary to. You will be surprised, but the sausage factories and tailor workshops for the country's defense are no less important than weapons factories. This was not the case in the USSR, and the United States fed the entire Red Army war. In the literal sense of the word. At the same time, it fell to the population, although this was not provided for by a lease-lease.
                And about clothes and shoes, this is also the Americans supplied (not completely).
                And so, that's what the army was aimed at the blitzkrieg, it's the Red Army. There was no second one.
                Quote: Svidetel 45
                ask the mediocre leadership of tsarist Russia and succeeding him in February 17 even more mediocre Provisional Government of the Liberals

                A masterpiece. Who else to ask? Who else is to blame? Of course that's all. Except one mustached katso.
                Quote: Svidetel 45
                and then the Bolsheviks had to spend a lot of effort and resources that you cry about here to collect it again

                The Bolsheviks could not even reach the technological level of tsarism. Rather, they could, but not in comparable numbers, but in absolute ones. That is, simply put, by the beginning of the Second World War the Bolsheviks brought the country to about the technological level of Russia in 1913. But to the level that tsarist Russia could have in 1941. they didn’t even come close.
          2. verboo
            verboo 3 June 2016 14: 53
            -9
            Quote: 97110
            think - how else at the end of the 20s of the last century could a country make a breakthrough in development?

            Where to develop? To the next world? Only this was the result of the pre-war fantasies of Dzhugashvili after the creeping coup d'etat that he committed in the late 20s and early 30s.
            The results of that "industrialization" became evident during WW2, when the USSR had to fight with weapons and technologies of "accursed tsarism". And in 1943. start a new, and this time real, not exaggerated, industrialization.
            And in the late 20s and early 30s, in my opinion, it was simply the extermination of part of the population. Under a plausible pretext. Bolshevik renegades (Stalinists). And the Bolshevik-Leninists (they were called Trotskyists for disguise) also got it.
            Quote: 97110
            Only without snot about democracy and the "teardrop of a child."

            Actually, a "teardrop of a child" is the most important thing in this life. And only ghouls do not understand this elementary truth.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 3 June 2016 18: 10
              +4
              Quote: verboo
              And in 1943. to start a new, and this time real, not pouting, industrialization.

              How's that?
              Quote: verboo
              And in the late 20s and early 30s, in my opinion, it was simply the extermination of part of the population

              It was only then that they steered from whom Stalin finally got rid of in 1937.
              Quote: verboo
              Actually, a "teardrop of a child" is the most important thing in this life. And only ghouls do not understand this elementary truth.

              In theory. In fact, sometimes due to one tear of a child, a thousand other children die.
              1. verboo
                verboo 4 June 2016 12: 50
                -1
                Quote: Dart2027
                How's that?

                Yes, just in general.
                Quote: Dart2027
                It was only then that they steered from whom Stalin finally got rid of in 1937.

                What nonsense. These are ordinary switchmen. Regular "guilty", such was the tactics of Dzhugashvili, everywhere and always there were "guilty". Besides him, of course.
                And he steered right from the 14th congress (1925) Dzhugashvili. Only the degree of authoritarianism of his power was different. Actually, the renaming of the RCP (b) to the CPSU (b) at this congress was not an empty formality and decorative action. In the USSR began another etokha. By the time of the 15th congress (1927), Dzhugashvili’s power had already become absolute; he successfully completed the coup.
                Quote: Dart2027
                In theory. In fact, sometimes due to one tear of a child, a thousand other children die.

                With this phrase you create the impression of a cynical and bad person. It would be nice if involuntarily, by chance.
            2. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 29
              0
              And long thought to give such nonsense?
          3. AK64
            AK64 4 June 2016 10: 27
            0
            how else at the end of the 20s of the last century could a country make a breakthrough in development? How to mobilize resources?


            And how did Nikolai do this?
            How did Germany do 30 years before Nicholas?

            After all, there were no collective farms, huh?

            Maybe the whole point is that water carriers and cooks should work as water carriers and cooks, and shouldn't they be forced to rule states?

            Let me give you an example: about 20 years ago, my wife studied accounting courses in ... a certain country. So her classmates looked at her as a witch when she multiplied in her mind 5x5: "and HOW DID YOU DO IT ??!".

            So, if everyone who multiplies 5x5 in their minds, and knows 5-6 languages ​​each, remove them, then in ANY state there will be a ruin.
        4. Mikhail Matyugin
          Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 17: 37
          +4
          Quote: 3agr9d0string
          Slavery is a form of slavery.
          Serfdom is a form of feudal dependence.

          Quote: 3agr9d0string
          Even everything was quite liberal.

          Sorry, but it's just fucking crazy! Would you like to see the surviving opinions of the SIMPLE PEOPLE about the Tsar-Antichrist (THERE ARE NO GREAT KING IN OUR HISTORY!).

          They would explain to ordinary peasants (who were not at all mass slaves) that their reduction to the position of feudal slaves is LIBERALLY and PROGRESSIVE!
        5. SergeBS
          SergeBS 4 June 2016 02: 30
          +1
          Quote: 3agr9d0string
          Slavery is a form of slavery.
          Serfdom is a form of feudal dependence.

          Schaub, I lived like that ... Have you not taught economics (political economy)?
          If not:
          The slave does not have his own property, his tools, etc. There is nothing. Everything from the owner. the master makes the slave work (through supervisor, etc.) and feeds the slave master.
          The serf has his own farm, the master does not feed him, but the BARSHIN - plow and bow. In the time remaining from the corvee - work for yourself, since the master will not FEED. How is Nekrasov in "Who Lives Well in Russia"?
          If you taught, then I remind you: classes are determined by the attitude to property and means of production (well, the quantity wink ).
          Funny: at one time (in the 80s) at a seminar we divorced our prep on the topic of classes and it turned out: the intelligentsia - ALSO a class (engineers wink ).
      2. 97110
        97110 3 June 2016 14: 12
        +2
        Quote: verboo
        In fact, serfdom, this was slavery. But slavery was not slavery.

        Yes, you guys are bad at social studies. Serfdom is a product of the feudal system. Well, there was such a socio-economic formation, in contrast to the slave system. It was different though. But you are not interested. Pegasus from Parnassus shouted - registration is slavery! Go ahead, rehearse louder.
        1. verboo
          verboo 3 June 2016 14: 26
          -2
          Quote: 97110
          Yes, you guys are bad at social studies.

          Yours is even worse.
          Quote: 97110
          Serfdom is a product of the feudal system.

          Yeah. Hold your pocket wider. The serfdom (slavery) in Russia was, as it were, canceled back in the mid-19th century. Then at 20 in it for several decades in one form or another restored (the so-called socialism and the so-called developed socialism). But feudalism ... With feudalism in Russia, everything is complicated.
          Quote: 97110
          registration is slavery

          Registration (the so-called developed socialism) is feudalism. But lack of passports (the so-called socialism) is slavery.
      3. Simon
        Simon 3 June 2016 20: 23
        0
        In fact, serfdom, this was slavery. But slavery was not slavery.--- A serf and serf - this is not the same thing! That one that the other both belonged to the owner. fool
  • willi
    willi 4 June 2016 12: 13
    +1
    Do not confuse Peter the Great and Peter III (about Oldenburgskrgo, and even then Peter III- Holstein-Gotropp)
    1. PKK
      PKK 4 June 2016 13: 47
      0
      Why do you call Peter the Great the Great? Do you dislike the same Russian way of life? Clearly, I swear, you were always distinguished by verbiage, because you were never adequate. Not given.
    2. PKK
      PKK 4 June 2016 13: 47
      0
      Why do you call Peter the Great the Great? Do you dislike the same Russian way of life? Clearly, I swear, you were always distinguished by verbiage, because you were never adequate. Not given.
  • Basil50
    Basil50 3 June 2016 06: 37
    +9
    There are films about Peter and much has been taken from there. But it’s amazing that they compared with Frederick, who was called * the great * in mockery, this is the one that created the army, according to some sources, 150000 soldiers (one hundred and fifty thousand) and began to fight with all whom he considered weak, and ended up with the army * shrinking to 10000 soldiers (ten thousand), and only the death of the empress in RUSSIA saved from the shame of surrender, and the heir was a big admirer of * greatness * Friedrich.
    The European * scale * of comparisons and the scale of talents and talents is simply amazing. If the wretchedness of the West does not allow to realize any event then they will ignore it. The meanness is that they are measured by the US * as there, in the West they look * and try to appease Western * public opinion *. Shamefully surrendering the interests of RUSSIA.
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 3 June 2016 09: 15
      +19
      Frederick of Prussia, his nature is very contradictory (for me personally, just disgusting), and to that alternatively oriented, I would also be careful not to call great. But here are some numbers that characterize the reign of this king. Frederick died in 1788, having ruled the country for 48 long years. During his reign, Frederick fought for a total of 15 years. The last 23 years of his reign, Prussia did not fight with anyone at all. During his reign, Prussia has doubled territorially. As for the 10-thousandth army, by the beginning of the 80s of the 200th century, the Prussian army numbered 1764 thousand people and two-thirds of the state budget went to its maintenance. In 10, Prussia had 1763 (ten!) Times more guns than the Prussian army lost during the entire Seven Years War. After the end of which, the king immediately began to restore the economy destroyed by the war - for the period from 1786 to 24 he was distributed for the restoration of the state (both to various Prussian provinces and to individuals - nobles, burghers, merchants, industrialists and even peasants) 3999 838 1786 thalers (according to the calculations of the Prussian cabinet minister Getsberg). Moreover, not a single pfenning from the state treasury was spent on this - private savings (presumably confiscated), indemnities and ... His Majesty's own treasury went into payments. Frederick himself, when asked about this, answered indifferently: "My state is rich, but I myself am poor, so what?" - I believe that this is not the worst example for a ruler. Finally, in XNUMX, Frederick founded the German Confederation to better secure the rights and independence of the German rulers. It was thanks to his deeds that the basis for the creation of a unified German state - the Empire with "iron and blood" was created, which was united by another great German - Count Otto von Schönhausen, Prince Bismarck.
      Literature on this subject is full - both in German (including published in the GDR), as well as translated and Russian historians. You can read and see for yourself.
      And with the fact that Friedrich of Prussia was saved from the inevitable defeat in the Seven Years War only by the death of the Russian Empress Elizabeth Petrovna and the change in the foreign policy of Russia under her heir, I completely agree with you. Peter I was also in many respects a kind of enthusiastic (and to put it mildly) contradictory, but nevertheless it was he who laid the foundation for the future Russian Empire and for this he was called the Great Descendants.
      1. avt
        avt 3 June 2016 09: 37
        -3
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        Peter I was also in many respects a kind of enthusiastic (and to put it mildly) contradictory, but nevertheless it was he who laid the foundation for the future Russian Empire and for this he was called the Great Descendants.

        Well, actually - a medical fact. That's just to approach the assessment, I think it is necessary to myself with a sober head, without exaltation of any polarity of emotions and the good of time has flowed pretty well.
      2. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 17: 58
        +3
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        Frederick himself, when asked about this, answered indifferently: "My state is rich, but I myself am poor, so what?" - I believe that this is not the worst example for a ruler.

        It is very nice to see a person who really appreciates this extremely ambiguous ruler.
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 09: 23
      +4
      Quote: Vasily50
      But it’s amazing what they compared with Frederick, who was called * great * in mockery,

      In all encyclopedias and any serious sources, Frederick II is called the Great. During the reign of Frederick the Great, the territory of Prussia doubled. It's strange to hear about ridicule at such results.
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 3 June 2016 09: 45
        +2
        Well, of course, you need to have * the talent * of Friedrich to * brilliantly * lose everything, and through your own fault, and get the nickname * great *, recover at the expense of * generosity * of the winners, and despise them for their generosity. By the way, Prussia has increased in size also thanks to * generosity * RUSSIA.
        In the twentieth century, the Germans * were not lucky * with * the great *, AND IN STALIN was a true patriot of the SOVIET UNION and did everything in the interests of their country.
        Today the Germans are again in search of * the great *, the previous one let us down, and of course they will find, well, or grow up, and try to repeat their * uber ales *.
        1. qwert
          qwert 3 June 2016 11: 24
          +5
          Quote: Vasily50
          Well, of course, you need to have * the talent * of Friedrich to * brilliantly * lose everything, and through your own fault, and get the nickname * great *, recover at the expense of * generosity * of the winners, and despise them for their generosity. By the way, Prussia has increased in size also thanks to * generosity * RUSSIA.

          Damn, he’s really Great in the course. If losing all the battles managed to grow Prussia. Is it not genius. Yes, God forbid, our country would have such a leader who would even win by losing !!!! Yes, even if he had managed as described below.
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          After the end of which the king immediately set about restoring the economy destroyed by the war - during the period from 1763 to 1786, he was given out to restore the state (both to various Prussian provinces and to private individuals - noblemen, bourgeois, merchants, industrialists and even peasants) 24 3999 838 thalers (according to the estimates of the Cabinet Minister of Prussia Getsberg). Moreover, not a single pfenning from the state treasury was spent on this - private savings (presumably confiscated), indemnities and ...
      2. AK64
        AK64 3 June 2016 10: 35
        +2
        In all encyclopedias and any serious sources, Frederick II is called the Great. During the reign of Frederick the Great, the territory of Prussia doubled. It's strange to hear about ridicule at such results.


        Because Elizabeth died in time.
        Wouldn't have died, so what then? How then would Prussia "win" the 7-year war (which it completely merged into Russia)
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 13: 35
          0
          Quote: AK64
          Because Elizabeth died in time.
          Wouldn't have died, so what then? How then would Prussia "win" the 7-year war (which it completely merged into Russia)

          history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood hi the Austrians generally believed that they won the battle of Kunersdorf, and the Russians, so, were caught
          1. AK64
            AK64 3 June 2016 14: 10
            +1
            history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood

            And here the "subjunctive mood"?
            What is the valor of Frederick? Was it he who organized the timely demise of Elizabeth?

            I would rather bet on the British: this is typical of them.

            That is, Frederick is not great - the secret service of Her English Majesty is great.

            the Austrians generally believed that they won the battle of Kunersdorf, and the Russians, so, were caught


            And at least one battle without the Russians in the wings was won by those Austrians in that war?
            I'm not rhetorical - I'm purely out of curiosity
            1. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 16: 06
              +1
              Quote: AK64
              What is the valor of Frederick? Was it he who organized the timely demise of Elizabeth?
              Well, Elizabeth had to think about the heir, or to preserve health - the death of Roosevelt just before the end of the war did not help Hitler at all, for example. Catherine also did not continue the war with Frederick, after the assassination of Peter. Actually, the goals of Russia in the Seven Years' War were rather vague; Frederick didn’t threaten us with any place - they simply participated in European squabbles.
              Quote: AK64
              And at least one battle without the Russians in the wings was won by those Austrians in that war?
              I'm not rhetorical - I'm purely out of curiosity
              The battle of Colin 1757 - as a result, Frederick had, in addition, to lift the siege of Prague
              1. AK64
                AK64 3 June 2016 16: 18
                +1
                Well, Elizabeth had to think about the heir,

                Arsenic to feed him?

                or save your health

                Do not eat arsenic?

                - Roosevelt’s death just before the end of the war didn’t help Hitler at all,

                Cool, what.

                Catherine also did not continue the war with Frederick, after the assassination of Peter.

                Draw conclusions?

                Actually, the goals of Russia in the Seven Years' War were rather vague; Frederick didn’t threaten us with any place - they simply participated in European squabbles.

                But this is true --- it is completely incomprehensible why it was necessary to get into that war. But if you climbed in, and even won, you should have received the portion of pies and sweets owed to you all the same. No?

                The battle of Colin 1757 - as a result, Frederick had, in addition, to lift the siege of Prague

                Yeah. yeah.

                The scale, however, is not the same: Kurensdorf is an absolute defeat. And Colin - well, "did not hold the position"
                1. Stirbjorn
                  Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 18: 46
                  0
                  Quote: AK64
                  But this is true --- it is completely incomprehensible why it was necessary to get into that war. But if you climbed in, and even won, you should have received the portion of pies and sweets owed to you all the same. No?

                  Well, it was useless to demand indemnities at that time - Prussia had already been robbed, and joining Koenigsberg with the German population would inflict a mortal insult to all of Prussia. As Frederick said that without East Prussia I can’t even be called a king - just the Elector of Bradenburg. And so they got a faithful ally for almost 150 years for sure.
                  Quote: AK64
                  The scale, however, is not the same: Kurensdorf is an absolute defeat. And Colin - well, "did not hold the position"

                  well, in addition to Kunersdorf, only Rosbach pulls for absolute defeat in that war. The rest, in essence, are the same held, un held positions
      3. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 41
        0
        It is even stranger to hear the unflattering accusations against Peter, thanks to which Russia became a great European power, otherwise, with the archaic streltsy regiments and the lack of a navy, almost the fate of China of the 100th century could wait for it. Yes, this greatness was created on the bones, by the exertion of all forces, but whether there was another way, this is a big question. Although of course, today there are enough smart people who will prove with dull self-confidence. what do they know. as it was necessary and how it is not necessary.
        1. verboo
          verboo 4 June 2016 13: 30
          0
          Quote: Svidetel 45
          Peter, thanks to whom Russia became a great European power, otherwise, with the archaic streltsy regiments and the absence of a navy, almost the fate of China of the 100th century could wait for it.

          Why did Russia suddenly become a European power? And why then is the history of Russia in the 20th century largely repeating the history of China?
          Quote: Svidetel 45
          Yes, this greatness was created on the bones

          This greatness was not. But there were a lot of bones. A lot, and not only in the time of Peter. And the consequences were not slow to affect.
    3. PKK
      PKK 3 June 2016 16: 28
      -2
      Friedrich, the most probable father of Peter. Petruch tried to equip him with a horse, then they dragged this monument across Europe until they attached it to Peter. The crowns are the same, the coats of arms and many little things coincide.
      1. willi
        willi 4 June 2016 12: 31
        -1
        I repeat, Peter the Great and Peter III are slightly different people (grandfather and, if not mistaken, grand-nephew)
  • Fox
    Fox 3 June 2016 07: 52
    +3
    yes ... but how his wife ransomed him from captivity, forgot to write? ... ah! he's great! there is no need for such little things, it was a "great cunning plan" ...
  • Kazakh
    Kazakh 3 June 2016 08: 13
    0
    . Peter I, well aware of all the advantages of an army with a uniform ethnic composition, Immediately after the Azov campaigns, the Russian Tsar begins the gradual abolition of the Streltsy army, and in return orders him to begin the formation of the first 30 regiments of the regular army.
    And that the archers were not Russian or unprofessional military?
    1. Penzuck
      Penzuck 3 June 2016 08: 22
      +4
      Quote: Kazakh
      that the archers were not Russian or unprofessional military?

      1. They were not regular.
      2. Were separate (from peasants, noblemen and Cossacks) small estate.
      3. Sagittarius degraded and were unreliable (how many times did they rebel?).
      1. Kazakh
        Kazakh 3 June 2016 08: 31
        +2
        Quote: Penzuck
        . Sagittarius degraded and were unreliable (how many times did they rebel?)

        Well, the Russian peasantry constantly rebelled, but something was imperceptible that they wanted to replace them. laughing As for the degradation of the archers, I do not agree that my duty to protect the state was fulfilled. And the archers were unreliable only in relation to Peter himself but not to the state.
        1. Basil50
          Basil50 3 June 2016 09: 35
          -1
          Sagittarius was a professional warrior, they were taught from childhood the possession of weapons and battle tactics. Anecdotes about the failure of the archers targeted order of the Naryshkins, in justification of the robbery of the archery regiments. The Romanovs needed executors of any order, so they recruited soldiers from enslaved people.
          1. AK64
            AK64 3 June 2016 10: 42
            +5
            Sagittarius was a professional warrior, they were taught from childhood to use weapons and tactics of battle. Anecdotes about the failure of the archery targeted order of the Naryshkins, to justify the robbery of the archery regiments. The Romanovs needed executors of any order, so they recruited soldiers from enslaved people.

            Yeah ... Khovanshchina is an example of this: here professionalism and fidelity as an ideal are everything.

            They learned to sit in shops from childhood: Moscow archers (well, unlike provincial) are shopkeepers. Their main activity was to sell a shop without tax. And from the meadow? ... And what is the service? Drive him to this service.

            Another thing is that the author is completely unaware of the existence of a regular army of 70 thousand regiments of the "new style" even under Alexei Mikhailovich
          2. Svidetel 45
            Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 50
            0
            It is doubtful that they were professionals, because in peacetime they were engaged in completely non-military affairs, supported their families, engaged in household maintenance, and even engaged in trade.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Penzuck
          Penzuck 3 June 2016 09: 53
          0
          Quote: Kazakh
          Well, the Russian peasantry constantly rebelled

          Rise of the Cossack Bulavin? Or the uprising of the peasants who rebelled due to their recruitment in the army? wassat Not counting. wassat
          But seriously: starting with ethnic minorities and ending with the Old Believers, Peter had opposition - well, a lot. tongue
          Quote: Kazakh
          fulfilled their duty to protect the state. And the archers were unreliable only in relation to Peter himself but not to the state.

          You do not confuse the elected soldiers' regiments Lefortovo and Butyrsky - count the guards, the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments and the rest of Sagittarius? Apparently confused.
        4. 3agr9d0tryad
          3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 10: 39
          +1
          Quote: Kazakh
          Well, the Russian peasantry constantly rebelled, but something was imperceptible that they wanted to replace them.

          Lie.
          It was only later, during the "Bolshevik yoke", it became fashionable to exaggerate the significance and scale of popular unrest.
          But in fact, if we compare that time not with today's, but with the neighbors of that time, then the Russian Empire was one of the calmest countries on the planet.
          1. AK64
            AK64 3 June 2016 10: 46
            +2
            Lie.
            It was only later, during the "Bolshevik yoke", it became fashionable to exaggerate the significance and scale of popular unrest.
            But in fact, if we compare that time not with today's, but with the neighbors of that time, then the Russian Empire was one of the calmest countries on the planet.


            Absolutely. Not a single peasant riot.

            Bulavin is the Cossacks, who were deprived of the right to use the salt industry --- and salt for the Cossacks at that time was the main source of income. The Cossacks didn’t plow the land; there was no such possibility. Yes, and this was not a skill too)
          2. Svidetel 45
            Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 55
            0
            Yeah, calm, especially during the time of Pugachev, when, in order to suppress the uprising, he had to abandon not just a regular army, but also attract the best commander in the Russian army - Suvorov.
            1. AK64
              AK64 4 June 2016 10: 34
              0
              Yeah, calm, especially during the time of Pugachev, when, in order to suppress the uprising, he had to abandon not just a regular army, but also attract the best commander in the Russian army - Suvorov.


              But the "Pugachev uprising" is not a peasant uprising at all - it is the Cossacks and the Bashkirs who supported them.

              And the peasants? .... And what about the peasants? Well, there were probably peasants ....
      2. AK64
        AK64 3 June 2016 10: 38
        -2
        1. They were not regular.
        2. They were separate (from peasants, nobles and Cossacks) a small estate.
        3. Sagittarius degraded and were unreliable (how many times did they rebel?).


        Sagittarius at the time of Peter’s accession to the throne is actually already did not have.
        There were regiments of the "new order" - soldiers 'and reitars' ones.
        about 67 thousand of the regular army, in peacetime, at the time when Petrush was still playing soldiers.

        If you know about this (and this is not a secret), then the author can only ... laugh.
        1. Penzuck
          Penzuck 3 June 2016 12: 51
          +1
          Quote: AK64
          Sagittarius at the time of Peter’s accession to the throne was virtually gone.

          20 000 archers put Sophia on the throne. bully
          Quote: AK64
          There were regiments of the "new order" - soldiers 'and reitars' ones.

          crying

          Quote: AK64
          If you know about this (and this is not a secret), then the author can only ... laugh.

          Your knowledge is below SKIRT. The streltsy estate was liquidated by Peter 1 in 1699. Of these, he formed soldiers. Alexei Mikhailovich just established the Lefortovsky and Butyrsky "soldier's elective regiments of the new system." Those. the best were chosen from among the archers, forming a guard. And gave them all the nobility laughing. And if the guard was showered with gold, then others lived including craft, and turned from soldiers into petty bourgeois. And when the bourgeois are deprived of business, they rebel. fellow
          1. AK64
            AK64 3 June 2016 12: 59
            +3
            It is clear: another ignorant fool demonstrates rudeness.

            It would seem - you do not know: go figure it out. But no - the disout is a disgrace.
            And what are they hoping for? After all, anyone can break through the "shelves of the new system" or "the shelves of the foreign system."

            MV Skopin-Shuisky drew attention to their qualities and decided to organize the Russian army according to the Dutch model, which the Swedes adhered to. It was assembled in Novgorod and consisted mainly of peasant militias, numbering 18 people. This army was trained by the Belgian Christian Somme. People were trained, in particular, in the military system, as well as in the possession of weapons.
            ......
            The new army was assembled in August 1609 and in September began to take action. It was able to gain several major victories over the Poles, lift the blockade of Moscow, recapture several cities and push back the troops of the invaders. Tushino camp ceased to exist. But soon MV Skopin-Shuisky was poisoned, and the army dispersed.


            In 1631, two soldier regiments were formed in Moscow, each with 1 personnel. Initially, they were staffed from the childless boyar children, but they did not show interest in the infantry service - by September, only about 600 of them had signed up. Therefore, the regiments were allowed to accept Strelets children, “hunting free people”, Cossacks and other servicemen, as a result of which by December 60 the number of regiments was already 1631 3 people.
            Colonel
            Alexander Leslie

            The regiments were commanded by 176 initial people - mostly foreigners. The regiments were divided into 8 companies, headed by a colonel, a colonel (lieutenant colonel), a major, and 5 captains; there were 200 ordinary soldiers in the company - 120 musketeers and 80 lancers. By the beginning of 1632, the number of soldier regiments reached 6, and the number was 9.


            At the beginning of the Russo-Polish war of 1632-1634, 10 regiments of the new system were formed, numbering up to 17 people.


            And so on.

            In general, impudent child, do not go to adults with your "opinions" anymore.

            Yes, literature for those interested
            http://militera.lib.ru/research/chernov_av/05.html
            1. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 01
              0
              "And so on," but it was the archers who put Sophia on the throne, who were no longer there. And Peter had to suppress the rebellion not the soldiers of the new system, but the archers, so there is no need to drive misinformation.
              1. AK64
                AK64 4 June 2016 10: 42
                0
                "And so on," but it was the archers who put Sophia on the throne, who were no longer there.


                As a military force - exactly what was not.
                By the middle of the 17th century, the archers "had ceased to meet the requirements." The shopkeepers did not want to fight, and they saw their service as a way to get money and not pay taxes (tax).
                Well, they were, accordingly, tried to be thrown off the state neck. And they did not want to slaz - for profitable.

                And what "the archers planted Sophia" is like fairy tales: it would be more correct to say "the Miloslavskys' party skillfully used the discontent of the shopkeepers."
                And, by the way, this "put Sophia" then perhaps saved the life of Ivan Alekseevich and Pyotr Alekseevich. And maybe Sofyushka herself too - otherwise they would have been poisoned.


                And Peter did not have to crush the rebellion not as a soldier of the new system, but as archers, so there was no need to drive the misinformation.

                And you ask at your leisure how many of those "rebels" were there. After all, a huge army of azhnik in 2000 (TWO thousand) heads gathered.
                And those who speak evil tongues did not go to rebel, but ... with a complaint of oppression. They went to complain.
                1. willi
                  willi 4 June 2016 13: 37
                  +1
                  Do you imagine 2000 minimally trained people with at least some kind of weapon against the crowd?
                  I had 28 conscripts in Ferghana, there were no armored personnel carriers,
                  3 Kalash, 25 SKS, 1PM, and the order "take it as you can" Meskhetian Turks-Uzbeks (both were not counted quantitatively) Retained, lost an ear, did not lose anyone. Then they pissed away everything anyway ... But the crowd was stopped at that moment (according to estimates, there were up to 15000 people on both sides)
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 4 June 2016 13: 49
                    0
                    Do you imagine 2000 minimally trained people with at least some kind of weapon against the crowd?


                    Sorry, what kind of "crowd"? WHERE did you see the "crowd"?

                    At that time in MSCs and in the okrug, several MILITARY and RAYTAR regiments were stationed. The staff of the soldier’s regiment of that time is like 1600 soldiers.
                    The archers did not have a single chance, and they could not understand this.

                    That's why they say: they went with a complaint, and not rebel.
        2. Svidetel 45
          Svidetel 45 3 June 2016 23: 57
          +1
          And on Red Square, he personally chopped off the heads of the rioters from the regiments of the "new order"?
      3. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 17: 40
        +2
        Quote: Penzuck
        Sagittarius degraded and were unreliable (how many times did they rebel?).

        You will be greatly surprised to learn that it was the archery regiments that were considered the most trained in the first and second periods of the Northern War, and it was on their basis that many professional regiments of regular infantry were formed.
      4. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 3 June 2016 20: 27
        +1
        First, take an interest in the wars that Peter's father and brother waged with Poland and Turkey ... probably be surprised that the adversaries fought not only as archers !!!
    2. verboo
      verboo 3 June 2016 10: 11
      -4
      Quote: Kazakh
      And that the archers were not Russian or unprofessional military?

      The streltsy had a big minus, they were of a different, not peasant class. Therefore, they could have put such a "ruler" on the peaks. And with peasant children (recruits) it was easier. From childhood they were brought up in obedience. And since Peter turned the peasants into slaves (he finally enslaved, as they bashfully wrote earlier), with the obedience of the army, everything has become not that simple, but very simple. This was the main distinguishing feature of the Russian army. And the Soviet one, too. However, under the USSR this obedience was slyly called discipline.
      1. 3agr9d0tryad
        3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 10: 46
        -4
        Quote: verboo
        And since Peter turned the peasants into slaves

        That's not true.
        Slavery in Russia was originally from prehistoric times, a fine was imposed for killing a slave, a slave could not have property (he himself was property) and so on and so on.
        The Institute of serfdom at that time (we do not take into account Bolshevik serfdom) was not only a progressive, but also quite liberal innovation.
        1. AK64
          AK64 3 June 2016 10: 48
          -1
          That's not true.

          It's true
          Slavery in Russia was originally from prehistoric times, a fine was imposed for killing a slave, a slave could not have property (he himself was property) and so on and so on.
          The Institute of serfdom at that time (we do not take into account Bolshevik serfdom) was not only a progressive, but also quite liberal innovation.

          Yep ...
          serfs before Peter did not pay taxes.
          Peter also wanted to get taxes from them. But as?
          And so they forced the landowners to pay for the serfs - turning the landowners into tax collectors.

          Which meant both a sharp deterioration in the legal status of the peasants, and a significant increase in exploitation (now it was necessary to get both oneself and taxes from peasants)
          1. 3agr9d0tryad
            3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 11: 08
            0
            Quote: AK64
            serfs before Peter did not pay taxes.

            Are you talking about slave-slaves? Well, blacks in the USA also did not pay taxes, and today's Americans pay taxes.
            In your opinion, if a person began to pay taxes, then he began to live worse ????
            PS And yes, how do you imagine a state without taxes ?!
            1. AK64
              AK64 3 June 2016 11: 47
              0
              Are you talking about slave-slaves? Well, blacks in the USA also did not pay taxes, and today's Americans pay taxes.
              In your opinion, if a person began to pay taxes, then he began to live worse ????
              PS And yes, how do you imagine a state without taxes ?!


              Before Peter the serfs did not pay taxes - their "tax" was the feeding of the landowner (who, in turn, was obliged to serve from 15 to 65, that is, for life).

              Peter introduced a tax. And he ordered the landowners to collect it.
              1. 3agr9d0tryad
                3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 12: 13
                -1
                Quote: AK64
                Before Peter the serfs did not pay taxes - their "tax" was the feeding of the landowner (who, in turn, was obliged to serve from 15 to 65, that is, for life).
                Peter introduced a tax. And he ordered the landowners to collect it.

                Well, actually, yes, the train of thought is correct.
                But I definitely do not understand, why did you decide that the peasants got worse from this?
                And in general, there was an evolutionary need for these reforms! (and it was not even Peter who started it)
                Or do you think that the "landlords" fought better than regular troops?
                Or that taxes were not needed, even if they were the yoke for the peasants?
                (you might think in other countries then the peasants had no yoke)
                1. AK64
                  AK64 3 June 2016 12: 35
                  -1
                  But I definitely do not understand, why did you decide that the peasants got worse from this?

                  The intensity of exploitation has increased - but the peasants have become even better: an interesting train of thought ...
                  And in general, there was an evolutionary need for these reforms! (and it was not even Peter who started it)

                  Precisely "these"? No: not at all.
                  Or do you think that the "landlords" fought better than regular troops?

                  Then why give them peasants at all?
                  Ah, the landowners are corny tax collectors? So, tax farms are an extremely cruel and equally extremely unprofitable form of tax collection.
                  Or that taxes were not needed, even if they were the yoke for the peasants?

                  Once again: tax farms are the most disadvantageous form of tax collection.
                  And again: the state confesses to its own helplessness - "we cannot collect taxes even".

                  (you might think in other countries then the peasants had no yoke)

                  "Do you have blacks lynched in America!"? We heard, we know.
                  1. 3agr9d0tryad
                    3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 13: 01
                    -2
                    Quote: AK64
                    AK64

                    Again.
                    Bonded peasantry was what was before Peter, what was after.
                    Only before Peter the "bayare" did not pay taxes from the peasants who were forced by them, and after they began.
                    And the "slaves" both before and after the "bayars" paid.
                    So why exactly did they begin to live worse, and not "bayar"?
                    Quote: AK64
                    Then why give them peasants at all?

                    Nobody handed them out to them, they already had peasants (we remember St. George’s Day).
                    Quote: AK64
                    So, tax farms are an extremely cruel and equally extremely unprofitable form of tax collection.

                    1. And where then was different? Redemption in some countries already existed until the end of the 19th century. Feudalism was.
                    2. And why "extremely tough"? and even by default, without worrying about the amount of both the buyout and the income ?!
                    Quote: AK64
                    "Do you have blacks lynched in America!"? We heard, we know.

                    We heard that "Russia is the homeland of elephants"! But you still can't trample the steam locomotive forward, then the world social thought had not yet matured to anything except feudalism, in its various forms.
                    Or do you propose then to create a presidential republic ?! laughing
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 3 June 2016 14: 18
                      +4
                      Again.

                      Yes two, at least 22.

                      By the way, are you putting me minus there? Sports, what.

                      By the way, is it again a hard cock, that is, hard rock? According to petty womanish obstinacy - he is

                      Bonded peasantry was what was before Peter, what was after.

                      Well, there’s no need to talk further - nothing.

                      Only before Peter the "bayare" did not pay taxes from the peasants who were forced by them, and after they began.

                      Can I ask a question? And where did you get the money? Probably in the nightstand?
                      Until the peasant provided "food" for the nobleman, who, in turn, served all his life. This system is not perfect - but fairly common.
                      AFTER ... AFTER the rights of the peasant did not remain. Absolutely. Because the landowner needs a tax from him.

                      I don’t see any reason to speak further: a stupid woman’s petty obstinacy is disgusting to me in real life.
                      1. 3agr9d0tryad
                        3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 15: 51
                        -2
                        Quote: AK64
                        Yes two, at least 22.

                        You and 64 will not be enough.
                        Quote: AK64
                        is that you put me minus there?

                        I never bet.
                        Quote: AK64
                        it's hard cock again

                        You made a mistake again. And enchanting, because there is also a hard cock.
                        Quote: AK64
                        there is no need to talk further.

                        Yes to you.
                        No, of course you’ve done something good, for example, you have come across a good book on the First World War (I even know the author), but otherwise you are an absolute layman.
                        Quote: AK64
                        Further, I don’t see the point

                        And don’t talk. You can serve and blacklist me, anyway, I’m no longer interested in reading your comments.
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 3 June 2016 16: 06
                        +2
                        And don’t talk. You can service and blacklist me

                        Of course - I do not like hamye

                        I don’t care anymore to read your comments.

                        Hedgehog cried, but ate a cactus
                      3. 3agr9d0tryad
                        3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 16: 17
                        -2
                        Quote: AK64
                        Of course - I do not like hamye

                        And finally, he was rude, and even according to the principle "he is like that", and even in advance.
                        I put you a plus sign to make you even more angry. Bye hi
                2. Mikhail Matyugin
                  Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 17: 55
                  +3
                  Peter I unraveled the plans of the enemy and opposed them with his deeply thought-out plan of military operations.

                  Which, do not enlighten? - simple - burn everything and hope that the enemy will die of hunger! that’s the whole plan!

                  In contrast to Western European views, Peter I considered fire only a means of preparing a bayonet attack. Since that time, the Russian infantry has gained fame unrivaled in strength of the strike "with hostility."

                  The author is again very mistaken. You won’t believe it, but the Swedes were exactly what was stopped by fire, because they knew that it was useless to grapple with bayonets.


                  A.V. Suvorov called him a great man and the first commander of his century in all respects.
                  Yeah. Only as a model for personal life ... took Charles XII.
        2. PKK
          PKK 3 June 2016 16: 35
          +2
          During slavery in the United States, they fed all the slaves, young and old. They abolished slavery and drove out all the Negroes, and took them back to work.
    3. verboo
      verboo 3 June 2016 11: 31
      -3
      Quote: 3agr9d0string
      The Institute of serfdom at that time (we do not take into account Bolshevik serfdom) was not only a progressive, but also quite liberal innovation.

      Enchanting nonsense. Serfdom can conventionally be called slavery. But serfdom was real slavery.
      You should learn a story, young man.
      1. 3agr9d0tryad
        3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 11: 49
        -1
        Quote: verboo
        You should learn a story, young man.

        I already answered you above, slavery was servility, half-slavery was serfdom.
        Check out the reasons for introducing a poll tax, then you will understand that we are sewing and discussing soap, but serfdom is still better than servility.
      2. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 11
        +1
        That’s not true, slavery is when one owns a person as a thing, and they can do anything with it without any restrictions, but everything is more complicated with a serf, you couldn’t kill him, for example, there were certain laws that could sometimes to be violated.
  • Svidetel 45
    Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 03
    0
    And what is wrong with discipline? This is the basis of the combat effectiveness of any army, including the Prussian adored by you.
    1. verboo
      verboo 4 June 2016 13: 31
      0
      Quote: Svidetel 45
      And what is wrong with discipline?

      In discipline, nothing. The bad in humility, which was replaced by discipline.
  • Cro-Magnon
    Cro-Magnon 3 June 2016 20: 25
    0
    About 70 regular cuirassiers, reytarsky, dragoon and infantry regiments of the army of Alexei Mikhailovich of the 1650s, the name of GREAT Peter the Great ... disappeared into a historical haze ...
  • Kazakh
    Kazakh 3 June 2016 08: 23
    +3
    Peter I as commander
    I thought there would be an analysis of some strategic tactical decisions of Peter, and here is the general set of dies. Does he have no generals? Why did he invite any leforts then?
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 20: 43
      0
      Quote: Kazakh
      He didn’t have any generals? Why then did he invite any leforts?

      Yes, Peter I somehow had a bad time with the generals, especially in the initial period of rule: he destroyed the old serving aristocracy, there were only thieving hangers-on and foreigners.

      And another important feature: according to the memoirs of contemporaries, those of the European officers who wanted "glory and honor" went to serve the Swedes. Yes.

      Those who wanted money went to the Saxon or Russian army.

      What do you think - which people will fight better - those who want fame or those who want money?

      Therefore, Russia had to again create a class of people who fought in the name of honor.
      1. AK64
        AK64 4 June 2016 10: 55
        0
        Yes, Peter I somehow had a bad time with the generals, especially in the initial period of rule: he destroyed the old serving aristocracy, there were only thieving hangers-on and foreigners.


        Actually, from the "old" one Sheremetyev comes to mind.

        But who and whom "exterminated" this is a serious question: I have a feeling that there was a serious "political struggle" in the MSC. Well, they interrupted each other.

        Well, as for this conversation: “patriots” touch me, they talk to Peter, tear T-shirts for “patriotism” - but at the same time, they have never heard such a name, Boris Petrovich Sheremetyev.
  • V.ic
    V.ic 3 June 2016 08: 28
    +3
    The system of education and training of troops introduced by Peter I was also advanced. If mercenary armies inculcated drill and stick discipline, and morale was “supported” by the fear of punishmentthen in the Russian army the “moral preparation” of soldiers began to be based on such traits of the Russian people as national pride and patriotism, hatred of foreign invaders, readiness for self-sacrifice in the name of the Fatherland, etc. Author Technical Engineer

    What about the death penalty for wrongdoing? About a hundred points were available for which a person could be "deprived of the belly." What is not the "Yasa" of Genghis Khan!
    It is known that in the first period of the Northern War (from 1700 to 1706), after the defeat near Narva, he adopted a defensive plan. Author Technical Engineer

    drained the Swedes by unexpected attacks. So, in 1701 they were defeated at Erestfer, in 1702 - near Gummelsgof, on the river Izhora, near Kexholm (Priozersk) and Noteburg (Petrokrepost). In 1703, the Swedish fortresses Nyenschanz, Yamburg, Koporye were taken, in 1704 - Derpt (Гartu) //Тartu // and Narva with Ivangorod. Author Technical Engineer

    Is this called defense? By the way, in Livonia and Estonia they ensured the actions of B.P. Sheremetev, who led the irregular formations (from the local cavalry to the Cossacks and foreigners).
    Throughout 1704, Karl 12 "kneaded" the Russian and Saxon troops, so that the "genius" Petrusha barely had time to rebound from the Polish lands from the kick of the Swedish boots.
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 09: 20
      +4
      Quote: V.ic
      Throughout 1704, Karl 12 "kneaded" the Russian and Saxon troops, so that the "genius" Petrusha barely had time to rebound from the Polish lands from the kick of the Swedish boots.

      no matter how brilliant Karlush kneads, but following the war, the Swedes lost all of Ingermanland.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 3 June 2016 10: 12
        0
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        following the war, the Swedes lost all of Ingermanland.

        Have you forgotten about the two million Yefimki Swedes from the grateful Peter?
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 13: 18
          0
          Quote: V.ic
          Have you forgotten about the two million Yefimki Swedes from the grateful Peter?

          do you think this is a lot? Yes, as a result of the landing in the Stockholm area, at the end of the war, production per million tylers was seized, and damage was done to all 12 million.
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 3 June 2016 18: 39
            +2
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            per million tylers

            Actually, not Tylers, but Tallers, well, these are trifles. Petrusha shouldn't have fought, anyway, the case ended in a banal ransom. I respect the creativity of A. Tolstoy, but psychologically Peter is more accurately reflected in Merezhkovsky's novel "Antichrist", from where the "red count" ripped off the trick of the tsarevich to Muscovy, under the high hand of papa. It is possible that the father himself personally crushed his son.
            1. AK64
              AK64 4 June 2016 11: 16
              0
              It is possible that dad personally crushed his son.


              If the son. And if not? Then everything falls into place - just a very ordinary action to consolidate the throne for their children
  • Penzuck
    Penzuck 3 June 2016 08: 29
    +2
    Menshikov A.D. and Sheremetyev B.P. in the battle of Poltava: 1. Menshikov - embezzler and bribe-taker, he also commanded the troops in the operation to "reconcile" the Swedes. (parallels however) wassat
    2. Sheremetyev is a nobleman (those who always served and were really talented). The whole point of Peter as a commander is the right strategy (or the right decision based on advice), Sheremetyev and Menshtkov are talented performers at their level, roughly speaking, from the Supreme Commander-in-Chief - the Tsar to the soldier!
    1. Kazakh
      Kazakh 3 June 2016 08: 39
      +3
      Quote: Penzuck
      Menshikov A.D. and Sheremetyev B.P. in the battle of Poltava: 1. Menshikov - embezzler and bribe-taker, but he also commanded the troops in the operation to "reconcile" the Swedes

      Well, that Yudenich was also a big fan of drinking, but the Turks in 1 didn’t get any easier from the world.
      1. Penzuck
        Penzuck 3 June 2016 09: 23
        0
        Quote: Kazakh
        Well, that Yudenich was also a big fan of drinking, but the Turks in 1 didn’t get any easier from the world.

        I mean, a controversial figure. There are disadvantages, there are pluses, you can draw historical parallels. Well, we don’t have crystal clear ideal people who are talented in everything.
    2. AK64
      AK64 3 June 2016 12: 39
      0
      Sheremetev and Menshtkov talented performers at their level

      And is it nothing that Sheremetyev almost everywhere in that war and before that acted independently?

      Listen to you, and Suvorov is a banal "talented performer"
    3. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 20: 57
      0
      Quote: Penzuck
      Sheremetyev and Menshtkov are talented performers at their level,

      Yes, Russia will be saved from such "talented performers" as these two disgusting thieving subjects!

      Quote: Penzuck
      Menshikov - embezzler and bribe-taker, he also commanded the troops in the operation to "reconcile" the Swedes.
      I’ll disappoint you a little - after Poltava, the Northern War continued for 12 years - more than it was before!

      Don't you think that the "reconciliation operation" took too long?

      And Menshikov, to put it mildly, under Poltava, almost ruined the plan of Peter (or rather his staff), which almost led to huge losses of the Russian army.
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon 3 June 2016 09: 18
    +3
    A stereotyped Soviet article, Peter was not a general and did not claim to be so. He was completely defeated by linear tactics.
    1. pigkiller
      pigkiller 3 June 2016 11: 03
      +7
      The whole of Europe was committed to linear tactics, because of the tactical characteristics of smooth-bore weapons.
  • Heimdall47
    Heimdall47 3 June 2016 09: 36
    +3
    Peter I, well aware of all the advantages of a uniform army,

    It’s bad that since 1917 we no longer understand this advantage
    1. avt
      avt 3 June 2016 10: 06
      +4
      Quote: Heimdall47
      It’s bad that since 1917 we no longer understand this advantage

      Thank God that Stalin did not think to use this "advantage"! And in the Patriotic War of 41-45, ALL THE SOVIET PEOPLE, ALL REPUBLICS included in the USSR and not as part of individual national units and formations fought, which was a complete surprise for the Wehrmacht and the top political leadership Nazi Germany, which seriously counted on the fact that the "colossus on feet of clay" would crumble at the first impact into national fragments, but it was cruelly miscalculated in the strength of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and Stalin's leadership. But the US made the right conclusion from that war and now they are working from within and in the same direction, which was confirmed by 1991 - the pinnacle of their work on national policy within the USSR / Russia.
      1. Heimdall47
        Heimdall47 3 June 2016 10: 39
        +4
        Quote: avt
        Thank God that this "advantage" Stalin did not think to use!

        Although I’m not a big fan of Joseph Vissarionovich, it’s clear to everyone here - he guessed to put emphasis on the Russian people and did it. Hence the support of the Russian Church, the appeal to the Russian heroes of the past, a toast to the Russian people, etc.
        Again, as Baghramyan said (maybe the truth lies and he didn’t say, but essentially true): “When less than 50% of Russians remained in the division, I knew that the division needed to be disbanded”

        And the fact that the Communists, with all the desire and understanding of the advantages of purely national parts, could not create them, is the limitation of their ideology - that's all. The chicken may also be willing to soar like an eagle - but not given.

        It is always better to have an army homogeneous in national, religious and social composition - this is quite obvious. It's like a fist beat or with spread fingers. In the latter case, your fingers will break everything.
        That is why our kings didn’t toil and created the largest state in the world.
        And the communists, who "guessed" for 70 years, have wasted everything. Well, and now toil.
        1. 3agr9d0tryad
          3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 11: 18
          -1
          Quote: Heimdall47
          And the communists, who "guessed" for 70 years, have wasted everything.

          Here it must be understood that of the many terrorist gangs operating in the Republic of Ingushetia, only the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks with anarchists fell to the Russian people.
          All other gangs were from the national suburbs, and it was on them (the Caucasus, Poland and the Baltic states) that the bulk of the political terror at that time fell.
          This explains the love of the Bolsheviks for national separatism, as they actively collaborated with the national separatists in Ingushetia, conducting joint "expropriations" and political assassinations, for example, with the Georgian "Mesame-Dasi", of which Dzhugashvili was a member since 1989.
        2. avt
          avt 3 June 2016 11: 47
          0
          Quote: Heimdall47
          Again, as Baghramyan said (maybe the truth lies and he didn’t say, but essentially true): “When less than 50% of Russians remained in the division, I knew that the division needed to be disbanded”

          There were no need to jump off the topic In tsarist Russia there were quite specific restrictions on the conscription of "foreigners" and "infidels" - refresh the fence from Central Asia for chores instead of active service, and these restrictions were completely drawn up by Sasha No. for a conscript army, chopping off a significant mobile resource. In the USSR, there was only one restriction - the ideological and ethnic eviction of the same Tatars, Kalmyks and Germans followed quite specific acts of mass order in the places of their compact residence already at the beginning of the war.
          Quote: Heimdall47
          And the fact that the Communists, with all the desire and understanding of the advantages of purely national parts, could not create them,

          laughing These "advantages" showed themselves during the Kerch operation, when the divisions formed in Georgia actually fled, despite the fact that the same Georgians in the Red Army fought quite worthy of the memory of the same Bagration and died in battles on the fronts in the struggle for their Motherland.
          Quote: Heimdall47
          , so this is a limitation of their ideology

          It was thanks to this "restriction", and indeed the iron will of the top party leadership and the party system built into the administrative apparatus, that it was possible to break the Hitler machine, which mobilized ALL of Europe against the USSR, with the exception of Yugoslavia and Britain. Like it or not, it is a medical fact. - France and its four-week resistance to Yu, and even then the war there was not for complete destruction. You may not share the communist ideology, but another one, some real at that time, capable of resisting head-on to Nazism and so, through I could not, mobilize and stand to win, It just wouldn’t. Dodge overseas doesn’t count, which Churchill actually proclaimed joyfully upon learning of the attack on the USSR.
          1. 3agr9d0tryad
            3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 12: 21
            -6
            Quote: avt
            Like it or not - a medical fact. Alternative - France and its four week resistance

            Again, France has prevented you!
            Yes, calm down already, France fought much better than the USSR.
            But it was ruined by what partially saved the USSR (and personally the Bolsheviks and Dzhugashvili in the first place), the distance and the development of transport infrastructure.
            And you better remember how the Soviet Union attacked Finland a year before the French company, when everyone, including Hitler, realized that the USSR was not able to fight.
            1. Heimdall47
              Heimdall47 3 June 2016 13: 03
              +3
              Quote: 3agr9d0string

              Again, France has prevented you!
              Yes, calm down already, France fought much better than the USSR.
              But it was ruined by what partially saved the USSR (and personally the Bolsheviks and Dzhugashvili in the first place), the distance and the development of transport infrastructure.

              She struggled and not bad at first, but she didn’t have the will and determination to really strain. France also had distances - Algeria is at hand. No one interfered with the creation of military production there in a timely manner and pondering ways out. Retreat where they had - there was no desire.
              Moreover, just the First World War and the French in practice represented the offensive capabilities of the Germans. But instead of drawing the right conclusions, they closed their eyes and waited for the end.
              1. 3agr9d0tryad
                3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 13: 21
                -3
                Quote: Heimdall47
                France also had distances - Algeria is at hand. No one bothered to create military production there in a timely manner.

                Yeah. Very close at hand. In general, there were no problems creating production there. (I'm shocked, honestly, with such confidence)
                Quote: Heimdall47
                but she had no will and determination.

                As I understand it, you're talking about the government.
                Well, this is a debatable question, whether they could continue the struggle after the capture of Paris (given Italy and Spain), but this is unlikely, very unlikely.
                1. Heimdall47
                  Heimdall47 3 June 2016 14: 02
                  +2
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  Yeah. Very close at hand. In general, there were no problems creating production there. (I'm shocked, honestly, with such confidence)

                  Yes, all of southern France was clean of Germans when the French dumped from Dunkirk.
                  Have you heard about the battle prod Marcel? And about the battle of Toulouse? No - because they were not there. And they could be. The French had much room to retreat without Algeria.

                  And what are the problems to create production in Algeria, given that there were quite a lot of Europeans living there? Why can plants be created in Irkutsk and Vladivostok, but not there?

                  As I understand it, you're talking about the government.

                  Government is a reflection of the people.
                  1. 3agr9d0tryad
                    3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 15: 00
                    -1
                    Quote: Heimdall47
                    And what are the problems to create production in Algeria

                    Minimum Mediterranean Sea and Italy.
                    Quote: Heimdall47
                    The French had much room to retreat without Algeria.

                    Should the retreat be?
                    If the army is defeated and surrounded, there is no time for mobilization and rearmament, then you can certainly retreat, but does it make sense?
                    PS In general, to be honest, I’m not interested in whether France could continue to fight or not, but at the time of the war it was fighting better than the Soviet one.
                    1. Heimdall47
                      Heimdall47 3 June 2016 15: 30
                      0
                      Quote: 3agr9d0string
                      Minimum Mediterranean Sea and Italy.

                      France had a century to develop Algeria and a fairly strong fleet. Plus, in World War II they could always rely on the British fleet.
                      France had to draw conclusions from the WWI - even then the Germans were standing near Paris. And again, everything went according to the same pattern. Who's guilty?
                      Quote: 3agr9d0string
                      In general, to be honest, I have little interest in whether France could continue to fight or not, but at the time of hostilities it was fighting better than the Soviet one.

                      I just don’t understand - what is better? I want to understand. Soldiers fired more accurately and were braver? Maybe - but this is not the whole war.
                    2. Svidetel 45
                      Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 34
                      0
                      Yeah, better, in three weeks of active hostilities they lost more than 100 thousand, and now multiply this number by the quotient from dividing 1418 days by 20.
            2. avt
              avt 3 June 2016 13: 22
              +4
              Quote: 3agr9d0string
              how the USSR a year before the French company attacked Finland,

              I know how I fought and what very specific organizational conclusions and personnel shifts in the People’s Commissariat of Defense followed. And here you are hiking except the cliche from the chronicle of Svanidze, no, since you repeat nonsense
              Quote: 3agr9d0string
              when it became clear to everyone, including Hitler, that the USSR was not able to fight.

              If they really didn’t know how, then when not one Nazi Germany fell upon the USSR, but the whole mobilized Europe of the USSR survived, unlike what hurts your eyes
              Quote: 3agr9d0string
              Yes, calm down already, France fought much better than the USSR.

              It fought so bad that it crashed and it remains for you to repeat after the Nazi generals
              Quote: 3agr9d0string
              But it was ruined by what partially saved the USSR (and personally the Bolsheviks and Dzhugashvili in the first place), the distance and the development of transport infrastructure.

              About the fact that they were defeated by General Moroz, unknown to the village, and other colonels off-road. At the same time, quietly in a racket silently about the pace the Germans were advancing along this very off-road, when they made holes in the defense of the Red Army.
              1. 3agr9d0tryad
                3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 14: 12
                -4
                Quote: avt
                permutations in the people's commissar of defense

                What kind of permutations? Furniture? Well, sooooo help of course, yes, yes, we all believe!
                Quote: avt
                If they really didn’t know how, then when not one Nazi Germany but the whole mobilized Europe fell upon the USSR

                Yes, yes, the whole "mobilized Europe" piled up! I'm so tired of reading your nonsense that it's not even funny.
                I’d better remind you that in World War I, RI had the largest army in numbers (while having the most machine guns, the only one with strategic aviation and generally a lot of goodies).
                Moreover, of all the warring countries it had the least mobilized per 1000 people.
                The least wounded and killed per thousand mobilized.
                It was the only country that did not experience serious food problems, and in general left the World War least affected by all countries, that is, it was in the most favorable position at the end of the war.
                And what have the "Bolsheviks" achieved ?!
                1. avt
                  avt 3 June 2016 17: 24
                  +3
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  What kind of permutations? Furniture?

                  Learn the materiel, then knock on the clave.
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  ! So tired of reading your nonsense, which is not even funny.

                  So you’ll be laughing like a laughter all your life, repeating other people's chants in response to very specific facts, once again - learn the materiel at least read the Müller Guildenbrant’s handbook on the Wehrmacht’s Ground Forces and their preparation for the war, and
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  I’d better remind you that in World War I, RI had the largest army in numbers (while having the most machine guns, the only one with strategic aviation and generally a lot of goodies).
                  Moreover, of all the warring countries it had the least mobilized per 1000 people.
                  The least wounded and killed per thousand mobilized.

                  laughing It didn’t work there, decided to go from the other end? Well, then again, Leninist - Learn, study and study again. For machine guns and small arms - start with Fedorov, this ingenious Russian gunsmith sensibly painted everything when the pre-war stock ran out and how Yu tried to restore it with what incredible difficulties. And this is in the presence of really warring France and England.
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  and least affected from all countries,

                  Interesting ? How do people live with goat formation and hypertrophic aplomb? And the number of prisoners of the imperial army is reluctant to look for? And what is the level of losses even after the Brusillian breakthrough, when they finished off personnel and those called up really became the woods of the February and subsequent Civil War coup?
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  And what have the "Bolsheviks" achieved ?!

                  The Bolsheviks under the leadership of Vekhovny Stalin did not piss off the country like Supreme Niki # 2, moreover, in conditions of mountain-a-azdo more severe and a larger-scale war to destroy the entire population according to the plan "Ost", about which the Svanidzemlechenskie liberoids sing that there was no such thing ...
                2. Svidetel 45
                  Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 36
                  0
                  Have read the fairy tales "A Thousand and One Nights".
            3. V.ic
              V.ic 3 June 2016 15: 03
              +4
              Quote: 3agr9d0string
              attacked Finland, when it became clear to everyone, including Hitler, that the USSR was not able to fight.

              You re-read Rezun, how he tried to spend the night in a 20-degree frost with a loaf of frozen bread in Budennovka and an overcoat. It's about the winter war. Something went wrong with Adik with the winter war. So don't "la-la"! Mannerheim's line was broken and Finland surrendered. Dixi.
              1. verboo
                verboo 3 June 2016 15: 11
                0
                Quote: V.ic
                You reread Rezun,

                That "ha ha, read Rezun." Then "re-read Rezun". Somehow it would be necessary to already decide on him.
                Quote: V.ic
                The Mannerheim Line was broken and Finland capitulated. Dixi.

                Do not forget to count losses according to the results of that war. Right from 1939 to 1945.
              2. 3agr9d0tryad
                3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 15: 31
                -3
                Quote: V.ic
                Something about Adik with the winter war also went wrong.

                Initially, he was not going to fight in the winter, it is very inefficient.
                Therefore, the fact that the USSR stopped Hitler was Soviet propaganda, he stopped himself (albeit a little later and a little closer than he wanted) and began to wait for the end of spring.
                Quote: V.ic
                Mannerheim Line broke through

                So many Soviet generals fought with the line of one royal, how many people laid down, what are you proud of?
                1. avt
                  avt 3 June 2016 17: 30
                  +2
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  Therefore, the fact that the USSR stopped Hitler was Soviet propaganda, he stopped himself (albeit a little later and a little closer than he wanted) and began to wait for the end of spring.

                  Here or according to Lavrov -D.B. Or a really virgin brain. A kind of disk compressed with liberoid stamps, on which no information is allowed. Here are glitches of our own production and are issued about
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  began to wait for the end of spring.

                  That is, the operation "Typhoon" passed by the brain, as well as the Soviet winter counter-offensive, which the Germans resisted. It turns out that all this was not, but ... Hitler was waiting for spring! fool
                2. Cro-Magnon
                  Cro-Magnon 3 June 2016 20: 53
                  +1
                  And he shot himself too ... in shame - he could not satisfy his young wife!
                  The 90s greatly affected the brains of the rising generation ... the chicks of the Onischen nest ...
                  1. Svidetel 45
                    Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 48
                    0
                    Yes, it’s not in vain that our liberals worked with young people, their brains are completely deprived of the ability to objectively and critically perceive information, Rezun is the ultimate truth for him.
                    1. verboo
                      verboo 4 June 2016 13: 35
                      0
                      Quote: Svidetel 45
                      perceive information, Rezun for him is the ultimate truth.

                      No one has denied Rezun yet. He found a lot of flaws. And his dad was, as it were, not very. And mom, as it were, so-so. But no one has been able to refute its version so far. And on the contrary, the numbers of the Red Army in the prewar years speak more likely in favor of its version.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                3. Svidetel 45
                  Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 43
                  0
                  Of course, he stopped when he got plop near Moscow, as well as in the south near Rostov.
                4. V.ic
                  V.ic 4 June 2016 07: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  Initially, he was not going to fight in the winter, it is very inefficient.

                  Well, yes, everyone knows that in Germany there is no winter. How did the wretched winter find out? It’s not inconsequential to listen, but fairy tales about the famous Baron Munchausen / about frozen sounds / and the Frenchman Raspe composed at all.
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  The USSR stopped Hitler. This is Soviet propaganda, he stopped himself (albeit a little later and a little closer than he wanted) and began to wait for the end of spring.

                  Well, yes, he stopped a little, retreated a little (this is to "level the front line"), to poison the lice a little, but the Russian troops had nothing to do with it ... So, the general background shone for the heroic rest of the invincible German troops under the leadership of the great Adik .. Dig into the Internet and, if you have the brains, you will find that the Battle of Moscow was the largest battle in terms of the number of troops and equipment in the 2nd WW.
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string
                  what are you proud of?

                  I AM? Then highlight the appropriate place in my comments and quote if this does not complicate you.
              3. Svidetel 45
                Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 40
                0
                And you re-read the memoirs of those German soldiers who remained alive after the battle of Moscow, how they survived in 30-degree frost near Moscow in summer nail files and fishcoats, and what now?
                1. AK64
                  AK64 4 June 2016 11: 21
                  0
                  And you re-read the memoirs of those German soldiers who remained alive after the battle of Moscow, how they survived in 30-degree frost near Moscow in summer nail files and fishcoats, and what now?


                  You will laugh even more:

                  The Germans still had winter uniforms prepared. Yes, it did. (Not prepared, yeah)

                  But it got stuck in the Warsaw area, and the Germans failed to push it east.
            4. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 00: 29
              0
              Well, it’s much better, it lasted for three weeks, except for one more week spent to lay a carpet on the famous trailer where they signed the surrender. This despite the fact that the quality and quantity of weapons even surpassed the Wehrmacht. And distances do not save, but rather, on the contrary, complicate the situation when the enemy has a strategic initiative and incomparably greater experience in waging a maneuvering war. But you really like to savor the failures of the Red Army in the initial period, just a balm for the soul.
          2. Heimdall47
            Heimdall47 3 June 2016 12: 43
            0
            Quote: avt
            Here it is not necessary to jump off the topic

            You just jump and distort. I understood national parts as Russians. Peter the First, about which this article, like the Jewish or Georgian units, did not create. Therefore, I thought it was pretty obvious what kind of nation I was talking about.
            therefore
            Quote: avt
            These "advantages" showed themselves during the Kerch operation, when the divisions formed in Georgia actually fled.

            this example is about nothing.
            It was thanks to this "limitation", and indeed the iron will of the top party leadership and the party system built into the administrative apparatus, that it was possible to break the Hitler machine, which mobilized ALL of Europe against the USSR, with the exception of Yugoslavia and Britain. Like it or not - a medical fact

            Like dislike - this is a completely different topic. And Stalin, relying on the Russians won the war, asking for the truth at the same time under the 30 million people to the people. If he didn’t make a bet, he would lower everything completely.
            Churchill proclaimed joyfully upon learning of the attack on the USSR. Everything is said - England is saved

            Churchill with England and France is not at all involved here. They thereby began to fight Nazism when the USSR provided allied assistance to Germany.
            1. Basil50
              Basil50 3 June 2016 13: 12
              +4
              47 to the German. Lying is bad. It was with English, French and American money that Hitler and his party were raised. It was the British and French who armed the Nazi army when they surrendered their ally to the Czech Republic to Hitler. THE SOVIET UNION had a nonaggression pact with Germany much later than similar treaties of the British, French, Poles and other * democrats *. An alliance agreement with the Nazis was among the Poles. And it was the Germans who dealt with the SOVIET PEOPLE, killing the civilian population. You, all Germans, are supposed to kneel down in gratitude AND TO STALIN for pitying the Germans, otherwise you would all be gone, nobody, for all the atrocities.
              1. verboo
                verboo 3 June 2016 13: 25
                -4
                Quote: Vasily50
                It was with English, French and American money that Hitler and his party were raised.

                Enchanting.
                Quote: Vasily50
                It was the British and French who armed the Nazi army when they surrendered their ally to the Czech Republic to Hitler.

                And again, enchanting. How he visited the Soviet political information.
                Quote: Vasily50
                the non-aggression treaty with Germany much later than the similar treaties of the British, French, Poles and other * democrats *. Union agreement with the Nazis was at the Poles

                You already decide what the Germans had with the Poles. And then one of your phrases refutes another.
                1. 3agr9d0tryad
                  3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 14: 15
                  -4
                  Quote: verboo
                  Enchanting.

                  I liked "French" the most! laughing
                  I'm already used to American and English.
                  1. verboo
                    verboo 3 June 2016 14: 39
                    -1
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    I liked "French" the most! laughing
                    I'm already used to American and English.

                    Why then? "American" is also impressive. Especially considering the US isolationist policy of the 30s.
                    1. Cro-Magnon
                      Cro-Magnon 3 June 2016 21: 06
                      +1
                      Gentlemen oligarchs like Henry Ford "laid down" on this very policy of isolationism ...
                      1. verboo
                        verboo 4 June 2016 12: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Cro-Magnon
                        like Henry Ford "lodged"

                        These gentlemen were not representatives of American government agencies. Do not confuse flies with cutlets.
                2. Cro-Magnon
                  Cro-Magnon 3 June 2016 21: 03
                  +2
                  Fierichnoe naivete ...
                  Hitler's famous book written in prison is not just a political manifesto and a program of the s.n.p.g. but also a BUSINESS PLAN for Western "investors" ... with an indication of the specific goal of future investments - the destruction of Russia ... that's why denyuzhki started flowing first into the political struggle, then the restoration of the economy and the military-industrial complex of Germany ...
                  1. verboo
                    verboo 4 June 2016 12: 41
                    0
                    Quote: Cro-Magnon
                    Hitler's famous book he wrote in prison

                    I did not read it. And you, I think, did not read it. But discussing something that no one has seen, from other people's words, is stupid. This is at least.
                3. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 3 June 2016 21: 09
                  +2
                  Quote: verboo
                  And again, enchanting. How he visited the Soviet political information.

                  So you haven’t heard about the Munich agreement?
                  1. verboo
                    verboo 4 June 2016 12: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    So you haven’t heard about the Munich agreement?

                    And what does the Munich treaty have to do with the phrase "It was the British and the French who armed the Nazi army when they gave their Czech ally to Hitler."
                4. Svidetel 45
                  Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 01: 04
                  0
                  Have you heard enough of radio "freedom"?
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 3 June 2016 13: 27
                -4
                Quote: Vasily50
                47 to the German. Lying is bad. It was with English, French and American money that Hitler and his party were raised .... You, all Germans, are supposed to kneel down in gratitude AND TO STALIN, for pitying the Germans, otherwise you would all be gone, nobody, for everything atrocities.

                Yes, I'm not German - relax. The flag is simply hung up automatically.
                Let's be specific - without tales about "democrats" and capitalists.
                That, in collusion with Hitler, the USSR did not attack
                1. Finland
                2. Romania
                3. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia
                4. Poland?

                An attack on the latter, together with Germany, did not the Second World War begin?
                Or the fact that the USSR did this two weeks later, how does it retouch this fact?
                Who was attacked by England and France in collusion with the Nazis?
                1. Svidetel 45
                  Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 01: 09
                  +2
                  Lies, Soviet troops entered Poland when it already virtually did not exist as a state and occupied territory along the Curzon line, otherwise the bridgehead for an attack on the USSR would be even closer to Moscow in '41.
                  1. verboo
                    verboo 4 June 2016 13: 45
                    0
                    Quote: Svidetel 45
                    Soviet troops entered Poland when it already as a state did not actually exist

                    And what does this have to do with the fact itself?
                    Quote: Svidetel 45
                    otherwise, a bridgehead for an attack on the USSR would be even closer to Moscow in '41.

                    You are already there, somehow make up your mind.
                    1. Either the USSR was not preparing for war and the attack was unexpected.
                    2. Or the USSR began to prepare for war back in 1939.
                    You have to choose something, both of your favorite versions will not work together.
                  2. Heimdall47
                    Heimdall47 4 June 2016 13: 58
                    +1
                    Quote: Svidetel 45
                    Lies, Soviet troops entered the territory of Poland, when it already as a state did not actually exist

                    I asked already below the comrade:
                    If your neighbor left the apartment in a hurry as a result of an attack by hooligans and forgot to close the door - you will get in there to pull out someone else's piano and at the same time beat anyone who interferes?
                2. V.ic
                  V.ic 4 June 2016 07: 28
                  +1
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  That, in collusion with Hitler, the USSR did not attack
                  1. Finland 2. Romania 3. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia 4. Poland?

                  So it is your opinion / from your text follows clearly! / Hitler persuaded the USSR to attack 1, 2, 3, 4.? Orr-riginally!
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  An attack on the latter, together with Germany, did not the Second World War begin?

                  Well, why distort? Take a look at the dates of the declaration of war by Germany France and Britain. This date will determine exactly the WORLD WAR.
                  Child EG, by golly!
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  Who was attacked by England and France in collusion with the Nazis?

                  But this is generally "pearl"! Try to see a psychiatrist, m. will help, prescribe some pills from a fevered imagination. And don't read Vicky at night!
              4. Basil50
                Basil50 3 June 2016 19: 11
                +1
                47 to the German. Only the Germans and the French know how to lie. Americans, like the British themselves do not lie, they hire for this and then refer to the liar.
                Take an interest in how many times the Finns declared war on the SOVIET UNION.
                The Poles provoked WWII and quickly surrendered the country in 14 days, on the 17th day in Poland there were not even secretaries from the government.
                About the war with Romania from 1941 to 1945 a lot of things have been written, but apparently you read the Goebelsian * press releases *.
                In the Baltics today a lot of things are lying, it has come to declaring their own ancestors demented for a plebiscite of joining the SOVIET UNION.
                1. Mikhail Matyugin
                  Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 20: 13
                  +2
                  Quote: Vasily50
                  The Poles provoked WWII and quickly surrendered the country in 14 days,
                  But about Poland it is not necessary - they fought bravely, this is not Denmark for example.

                  It's just that when you are attacked by such an unexpectedly super-powerful military machine like the Wehrmacht with the Luftwaffe, and another superpower suddenly strikes in your back, how can you not "merge"?



                  Quote: Vasily50
                  for a plebiscite for joining the SOVIET UNION.
                  Do you directly believe that with the unexpected appearance of several Red Army divisions in the Baltic countries, some other plebiscites could have passed, with a different result? laughing fellow
                  1. Basil50
                    Basil50 4 June 2016 10: 20
                    0
                    matyugin. Well, you believe in the * voluntary * secession of both Poland and Finland, under the occupying forces. Or * voluntary * entry of western Ukraine and Belarus into Poland. Or * voluntary departure * to a foreign state of part of Moldova.
                    It is strange that the existence of RUSSIA is generally recognized. If you listen to import politicians, then OUR COUNTRY RUSSIA is generally illegal * education *, well, different * justifications * of their theses.
                    It should be a shame to everyone who * is * on such a thing. I BELIEVE SOVIET MESSAGES since ALL of them are documented and legally IMPROVABLE and NO violations of international law, even the British could not bring.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. AK64
                    AK64 4 June 2016 11: 27
                    +1
                    It's just that when you are attacked by such an unexpectedly super-powerful military machine like the Wehrmacht with the Luftwaffe, and another superpower suddenly strikes in your back, how can you not "merge"?


                    Suppose their government ran away long before the 17th. So the "stab in the back" was already on the corpse.

                    Another thing is more interesting: why did the British (and the French) so easily sacrifice Poland? What is the political goal?

                    After all, while the Polish army is fighting - it is distracting itself with something, some forces ...

                    But they merged calmly --- as if they had "written off" in advance. Even with regard to Finland, there were more emotions, especially French ones ...

                    I don’t understand this ...
                    (That is, I, as usual, I do not know)
                2. Heimdall47
                  Heimdall47 3 June 2016 22: 03
                  -1
                  Quote: Vasily50
                  Take an interest in how many times the Finns declared war on the SOVIET UNION

                  And what - does this justify the fact of the attack on Finland under the cover of false statements about the need to push the city of Lenin from the border? And in truth - driven simply by the desire to get another Soviet republic, for which the government has already been prepared.
                  We fought with all our neighbors a hundred times, and now you can beat anyone without thinking? Good deal.
                  The Poles provoked WWII and quickly surrendered the country in 14 days, on the 17th day in Poland there were not even secretaries from the government.

                  What provoked someone there is a matter of Poles and Germans.
                  If your neighbor left the apartment in a hurry and forgot to close the door - is that a reason to break in and rob?
                  About the war with Romania from 1941 to 1945 a lot

                  I'm talking about the seizure of Bessarabia from Romania, and not about 45 years old.
                  and a plebiscite on joining the SOVIET UNION.

                  Yes, a good plebiscite - with a gun at the temple.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 4 June 2016 11: 30
                    0
                    And what - does this justify the fact of the attack on Finland under the cover of false statements about the need to push the city of Lenin from the border? And in truth - driven simply by the desire to get another Soviet republic, for which the government has already been prepared.
                    We fought with all our neighbors a hundred times, and now you can beat anyone without thinking? Good deal.


                    And there was nothing to make coups in St. Petersburg in the 17th.

                    For that fought for it and ran.

                    And then to say: the border of 1920 is difficult to consider honest - it was carried out at gunpoint
                    1. Heimdall47
                      Heimdall47 4 June 2016 14: 06
                      0
                      Quote: AK64
                      And then to say: the border of 1920 is difficult to consider honest - it was carried out at gunpoint

                      Well, now the borders with our neighbors are not very honest. Kazakhstan, for example, in northern Kazakhstan, there were no Kazakhs before.
                      So - are we staging the shelling of our border guards from the Kazakh side and let's go?
                      Or the Baltic states - Peter bought her for blood rubles from the Swedes.
                      Then tomorrow a tank strike without any announcements?

                      I’m basically in favor, do you think so too?
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 4 June 2016 14: 40
                        0
                        Well, now the borders with our neighbors are not very honest. Kazakhstan, for example, in northern Kazakhstan, there were no Kazakhs before.
                        So - are we staging the shelling of our border guards from the Kazakh side and let's go?

                        In Kazakhstan, there are more Russians (if with Little Russians) than Kazakhs. Why make a shurum burum if you can vote?
                        The main thing is the correct national policy, and 10 years.

                        Or the Baltic states - Peter bought her for blood rubles from the Swedes.

                        The same is with the Baltics: first, the correct national policy, and then vote. And then, when the "interests of ordinary people" various bastards begin to discourage them - to introduce .... 3 police brigades.

                        Then tomorrow a tank strike without any announcements?

                        See above. I explained to you: "BY OTHER means." You see, OTHER.
                        No need to do shurum-burum, no need to shout. First you need to start the right policy.
                        Russian, but not ... dumb whose (as today)
              5. The comment was deleted.
            2. avt
              avt 3 June 2016 13: 15
              +1
              Quote: Heimdall47
              And Stalin, betting on the Russians won the war,

              Once again - Stalin did not rely on proletarian internationalism. Trotsky, headed by the Commintern under the leadership of Zinoviev, and on the practically declaration of World War DOMESTIC, once again, and the fatherland it was the USSR for all its peoples, without exception, and naturally, as a wise politician and generally pragmatic to the core, he could not help but single out objective reality this feeling - the contribution of the Russian people to the Victory
              1. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 3 June 2016 13: 42
                +3
                Quote: avt
                Quote: Heimdall47
                And Stalin, betting on the Russians won the war,

                Once again - Stalin did not rely on proletarian internationalism. Trotsky, headed by the Commintern under the leadership of Zinoviev, and on the practically declaration of World War DOMESTIC, once again, and the fatherland it was the USSR for all its peoples, without exception, and naturally, as a wise politician and generally pragmatic to the core, he could not help but single out objective reality this feeling - the contribution of the Russian people to the Victory

                Smartly slip smile But the truth is this: Stalin actually scored on the multinational USSR and the talk-shop about internationalism. He relied ONLY on the Russian people. He did not put in the Kremlin the supreme mufti or llama, he did not hang a portrait of Bagration (although he could) or Genghis Khan on the wall of his office - he chose the most important thing. Because at that moment everything else was husk.
                he could not help but single out objective reality

                not only could he not highlight - he himself created this reality. Once again - he relied on national cadres - Russians. All this talking room about the common Fatherland is just politically correct stories. Because besides Russians, nobody needs Russia.
                1. 3agr9d0tryad
                  3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 14: 29
                  -2
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  Because at that moment everything else was husk.

                  Just at that moment in the occupied territory at least 5 million Soviet citizens, to one degree or another, went over to the side of Germany.
                  And what is surprising if the USSR in the 30s was on the verge of a second civil war, what was the defeat of the Komsomol and the leadership of the army and the party worth, that is, all those who could even theoretically theoretically lead a popular uprising against the Bolshevik yoke ?!
                  Therefore, Dzhugashvili really had no choice but to "repent" of the Truth and start hanging icons on the walls.
                  That's just his "repentance", these were false!
                  1. V.ic
                    V.ic 4 June 2016 13: 50
                    +1
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    The USSR in the 30s was on the verge of a second civil war, which only cost defeat Komsomol and the leadership of the army and the partyThat is, all those even theoretically could lead popular uprising Bolshevik yoke?

                    In your opinion, it turns out "bees against honey". Have you at least re-read your opus before clicking Add icons.
                2. avt
                  avt 3 June 2016 20: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  . Once again - he relied on national cadres - Russians.

                  What a fright? What are such national cadres as Russians? Removed ALL foreign in the republics of the USSR and replaced by Russian? wassat Personnel were placed solely on business qualities and nomenclature states and national quotas.
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  He relied ONLY on the Russian people.

                  And the rest, as before, the Russian emperors attributed from the army to hozrabot? wassat
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  All this talking room about the common Fatherland is just politically correct stories.

                  This is exactly what was eventually raised as gonfalons from both sides by 1991 and the RSFSR in fact and led by the EBN voted for sovereignty, like enough to feed everyone and it all started from all sides.
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  Fatherland is just politically correct tales. Because besides Russians, nobody needs Russia.

                  Tell this to hundreds of thousands of Kazakhs who fought and died in the Red Army, not a few Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks. Calculate as a percentage of the total number of the peoples of the USSR who died on the fronts for Russia, which they didn’t need "And what? The commissars drove half a bullet to the barrage of their commissars? Is your mother a Tatar? ”He answered - I’m a Soviet man.
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  , he did not hang a portrait of Bagration on the wall of his office

                  Well, yes - he named a large-scale operation only in his honor laughing With regards to the church - so he
                  Quote: avt
                  as a wise politician and, in general, a pragmatist to the marrow of bones, he could not help but single out separately the objective reality given to the feeling - the contribution of the Russian people to the Victory

                  Well, in fact there were more Orthodox Christians. And why for the sake of missing this opportunity - declaring war on the Patriotic War, to give an additional impetus. Moreover, this step was calculated by him, not in a short, but in the future in a southerly direction, there, in the same piggy bank, put help in creating Israel. And when the direction after the war was closed and the patriarch of Moscow and All Russia could not be made ecumenical by assembling the cathedral, he refused Israel, fortunately there was an excuse - a terrorist attack at the USSR embassy.
                  1. Heimdall47
                    Heimdall47 3 June 2016 22: 27
                    0
                    I summarize, and then the transfusion of empty to empty
                    1. Stalin met precisely with the metropolitans of the Russian Church, and not with representatives of other faiths.
                    With regards to the church - so he
                    Quote: avt
                    as a wise politician and, in general, a pragmatist to the marrow of bones, he could not help but single out separately the objective reality given to the feeling - the contribution of the Russian people to the Victory

                    Before the Victory in 43, there was still stomping and stomping.
                    2. Stalin turned to the memory of Russian national heroes. And not Salavat Yulaev and Imam Shamil.
                    3.
                    Tell it to hundreds of thousands of Kazakhs who fought and died as part of the Red Army, not the least number of Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks

                    All the peoples of the USSR made their contribution. But it is quite obvious to any sane person that if all these nationalities were combined and added to them Chinese for quantity, then without the Russians they would have been draping from Germans to Vladivostok itself.

                    Further, I think the conversation is meaningless.
              2. 3agr9d0tryad
                3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 14: 22
                -2
                Quote: avt
                as a wise politician and generally a pragmatist to the bone

                And the brain of this "smart politician" was 1300 grams with an affected right hemisphere.
                And if he could have at least 50 grams more, then the USSR would have attacked (and he had to attack !!!) Germany the very next day, after that attack on France.
            3. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 4 June 2016 01: 03
              0
              Well yes. of course, they began to fight, they began to pretend that they were fighting, and they themselves gradually sent him to the USSR, refusing to sign an agreement with the USSR. But Hitler turned out to be not such a simpleton that, entering the war with the USSR, he left in his rear a combat-ready French army and an English expeditionary force, which was what the Anglo-Saxons were counting on, and before the start of the campaign to the East, he punched in the least to spoil our "partners" crushed France and drove the British to their island. His fatal mistake was that he did not crush the British, as a result, in the end, he had to wage a full-scale war on two fronts and, as they say, Bolivar could not stand two.
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander 3 June 2016 13: 36
        +2
        Quote: avt
        not part of separate national parts


        There were national units — the Lithuanian division, for example, my uncle fought there.
  • verboo
    verboo 3 June 2016 10: 01
    -4
    Quote: Technical Engineer
    Peter I went down in history as

    It depends. For many, as a typical oriental despot and executioner.
    And also, as a despot, who finally turned his subjects into slaves. Moreover, all, from top to bottom. And completely official. For such things, the count of aspen in films is driven into the grave, and not glorified by the ghoul in every way.
    Quote: Technical Engineer
    they turned Russia into one of the most powerful military powers in Europe

    Yes? And why did Europe not know about this?
    Quote: Technical Engineer
    allowed to return access to the Baltic Sea

    And what, they once were?
    And these exits are not to the Baltic Sea, but to the Gulf of Finland of this sea. And with the sea itself from the Petrograd region, everything is complicated to this day. Despite the grand sacrifices.
    Quote: Technical Engineer
    The recruiting service, no doubt, laid a heavy burden on the shoulders of ordinary people. However, a new way of recruiting a regular army made it possible to quickly replenish it with people and was the most perfect for its time

    What is it to people? They wanted to sneeze at what it allowed there and what it didn’t allow. Their life has become worse, from this and such a "reform", this is the result of shit ***
    Quote: Technical Engineer
    Whereas mercenary armies inculcated drill and stick discipline, and fighting spirit was “supported” by the fear of punishment, in the Russian army the “moral preparation” of soldiers began to be based on such traits of the Russian people as national pride and patriotism, hatred of foreign invaders, readiness for self-sacrifice in the name of the Fatherland, etc.

    A masterpiece. It’s rare where you subtract such nonsense.
    Quote: Technical Engineer
    however, the soldier was impressed that he was the defender of the Motherland, and his title was honorable.

    They beat him like a dog. That’s the whole honor.
    Quote: Technical Engineer
    put at his disposal soldiers with significantly higher moral and combat qualities than in the Western armies

    Somehow I was tired of reading this opus. Instead of calling a spade a spade, the author retells agitation of Agitprop. It is absolutely not interesting to read how exactly and what exactly this oriental despot had fun with. It would be better if he was lying on the couch, smoking a pipe and using a favorite. Less people would be killed.
    1. 3agr9d0tryad
      3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 10: 53
      -3
      Quote: verboo
      For many, as a typical oriental despot and executioner.

      No.
      These are the Bolsheviks, during the time of Stalin they did it. They searched in history for examples of a strong hand, and presented absolutely everything in a favorable light for themselves.
      In fact, it was that liberal, you just faintly imagine the spirit of that time.
      Quote: verboo
      And why did Europe not know about this?

      I knew.
      Peter's army was indeed one of the most powerful LAND armies on the continent.
      But naturally not the strongest. Although before him, everything was even worse.
      And what, they once were?

      There were rivers.
      1. verboo
        verboo 3 June 2016 11: 34
        -1
        Quote: 3agr9d0string
        In fact, it was that liberal, you just faintly imagine the spirit of that time.

        Enchanting.
        Quote: 3agr9d0string
        Peter's army was indeed one of the most powerful LAND armies on the continent.

        Did you figure it out yourself?
        Quote: 3agr9d0string
        There were rivers.

        And again, very enchanting.
        1. 3agr9d0tryad
          3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 11: 57
          0
          Quote: verboo

          Did you figure it out yourself?

          And without me it was believed that more than 200000 troops and more than 100000 Cossack cavalry.
          As a result, regular participation in military conflicts and an increase in the territory of the state.
          And before Peter this was not.
          Quote: verboo
          Enchanting.

          Quote: verboo
          very enchanting.

          Usually expect more from you, get ready! hi ))))
          1. verboo
            verboo 3 June 2016 12: 11
            0
            Quote: 3agr9d0string
            As a result, regular participation in military conflicts and an increase in the territory of the state.

            Where to? To the Atlantic and the Bosphorus? Do not give out wishful thinking.
            Quote: 3agr9d0string
            And before Peter this was not.

            Well, of course. And who nailed the shields on the gates of Constantinople?
            1. 3agr9d0tryad
              3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 12: 40
              0
              Quote: verboo
              Where to? To the Atlantic and the Bosphorus?

              Well, then I will remind you that there has never been a single owner of land "from the Atlantic to the Bosphorus" in history, so do not pass off the inadequate as an argument.
              Or do you have the status of the largest continental monarchy in the history of mankind?
              Quote: verboo
              And who nailed the shields on the gates of Constantinople?

              Will there be adequate questions? And then as much as a tear struck that we are again "the homeland of elephants"!
              1. verboo
                verboo 3 June 2016 12: 56
                0
                Quote: 3agr9d0string
                Or do you have the status of the largest continental monarchy in the history of mankind?

                And what is this achievement? What is the status? In all ages, the quality of the land (in the time of feudalism based on land, as the main capital) was important, and not their quantity. And Russia did not begin to expand eastward under Peter.
                Quote: 3agr9d0string
                And then as much as a tear struck that we are again "the homeland of elephants"!

                Not nailed? Blame then if you can.
                1. 3agr9d0tryad
                  3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 13: 46
                  -1
                  Quote: verboo
                  And what is this achievement?

                  Well this is a 146% greater achievement than the Bosphorus.
                  (which would have been ours anyway, if not for the "Bolshevik yoke")
                  Quote: verboo
                  In all ages, the quality of land was important

                  I love how cleverly you measured the quality of the land! laughing
                  Now seriously.
                  Today, all EU countries depend on the supply of both food and resources to their countries.
                  And the problem of lack of resources was acutely felt in Europe at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century.
                  Especially in continental Germany, in which mass famine began during the First World War.
                  And then already in fascist Germany, with the outbreak of World War II, food problems began, because Germany could not simultaneously fight and feed herself.
                  In difference, by the way, from the Russian Empire, note in which, of all the warring countries in the first world, food was the best!
                  So, everything is fine with the quality of the land.
                  Quote: verboo
                  Blame then if you can.

                  OK! hi
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. verboo
                    verboo 3 June 2016 14: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    Well this is a 146% greater achievement than the Bosphorus.

                    And how much will it be in grams?
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    (which would have been ours anyway, if not for the "Bolshevik yoke")

                    I don’t think so. All the same, the Britons would be deceived.
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    Today, all EU countries depend on the supply of both food and resources to their countries.

                    Why don't they know about this? You are on the basis of whose articles you write? Have you been to Europe and the world in general? How much is food there seen? If you have not been and have not seen, then go and see. Very surprised. Especially considering the price of drinking water somewhere in hot Africa after the statues that fresh water is a huge shortage.
                    And with energy now everything is not easy. Figs are for sale. It is very expensive.
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    in which during the First World War began a massive famine.

                    The famine was not in progress, but after WW1. Read German authors of those times. Everything is detailed there, with hints of the alleged perpetrators.
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    And then already in fascist Germany, with the outbreak of World War II, food problems began, because Germany could not simultaneously fight and feed herself.

                    I don’t even have words to comment on your rubbish somehow.
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    In difference, by the way, from the Russian Empire, note in which, of all the warring countries in the first world, food was the best!

                    In my opinion this is called trolling.
                    Quote: 3agr9d0string
                    So, everything is fine with the quality of the land.

                    Perhaps you have in Britain and normal. I do not know.
                    1. 3agr9d0tryad
                      3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 15: 22
                      0
                      Quote: verboo
                      And how much will it be in grams?

                      6 years. yes
                      Quote: verboo
                      I don’t think so. All the same, the Britons would be deceived.

                      You better not think what you are thinking now. And then after such thoughts, people begin to write that Hitler was brought to power by "the United States, England and France."
                      Quote: verboo
                      Have you been to Europe and the world in general? How much is food there seen?

                      I saw that. What does the cost of food in Europe (which, by the way, differs by country) relate to the fact that today Europe is not able to feed itself without importing food and GMOs?
                      Quote: verboo
                      The famine was not in progress, but after WW1.

                      In Germany, famine began during the course of the World War. In all, during the war years, 81% of men aged 15-49 took part in it.
                      Quote: verboo
                      I don't even have words

                      Bad.
                      You should know that the only reason for Hitler’s attack on the USSR, and not on Britain, was food problems that began by the 40th year.
                      Were it not for these problems, it would block Gibraltar, which belonged to Great Britain, and together with Italy strike in Africa and the Middle East, this would be a win-win option militarily, but there would not be enough food for such military operations.
                      1. verboo
                        verboo 3 June 2016 16: 21
                        0
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        6 years.

                        Strict?
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        Don't think better

                        Then you have to join the dogmas.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        that today Europe is not able to feed itself without food imports

                        Have you heard about the international division of labor? Heard. And what about hunger in Europe now? Did not hear. So draw conclusions.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        You should know that the only reason for Hitler’s attack on the USSR, and not on Britain, was food problems that began by the 40th year.

                        Gee-gee. Fables will suit you to write. Did not try?
                        Where would the Germans in the USSR get food if the USSR could not really feed itself? No, the reasons for Germany's attack on the USSR were precisely in Britain. Rather, in her refusal to accept peace in Europe on the terms of the Germans (flight of the "crazy Hess", May 1941). It was after this that 2 MV really flared up, and not at all in September 1939. or in 1940. Yes, and "Hitler's insidious plan" was simple to the point of primitiveness, he wanted to secure his rear in the upcoming war with Britain. Therefore, in the east, he decided to push the USSR behind the line Arkhangelsk-Kotlas-Kazan-Astrakhan along the North. Dvina and Volga (Barbarossa plan). By depriving him of the mob. and prom. resources. And then I planned to deal with Britain.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        If it weren’t for these problems, he would block Britain-owned Gibraltar

                        Apparently by the power of thought.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        and together with Italy hit in Africa and the Middle East, it would be a win-win option militarily, but there would not be enough food for such military operations.

                        Was the heart of the British Empire there? And what, somehow they didn’t feed there? In North Africa, they stopped taking 2 crops a year?
                      2. 3agr9d0tryad
                        3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 17: 09
                        0
                        Quote: verboo
                        Strict?

                        Light.
                        Quote: verboo
                        Have you heard about the international division of labor?

                        Have you heard about his appearance?
                        And how could it "dock" with fascist Germany only on horseback on a tank? This is 1939.
                        Quote: verboo
                        Where would the Germans in the USSR take food if the USSR itself could not really feed itself?

                        Have you read General Plan Ost and Plan Bakke?
                        You will have a little picture below to let you know where.
                        Quote: verboo
                        Yes, and "Hitler's insidious plan" was simple to the point of primitiveness, he wanted to secure his rear in the upcoming war with Britain.

                        No.
                        The USSR was not capable of offensive military operations, as Finland and Poland showed. And Hitler knew that.
                        Therefore, the reason was precisely in food; without it, a long confrontation with Great Britain was not possible.
                        And everyone knew this except Dzhugashvili.
                        Quote: verboo
                        In North Africa, they stopped taking 2 crops a year?

                        You yourself are not funny now?
                      3. verboo
                        verboo 3 June 2016 17: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        Light

                        Filtered?
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        Have you heard about his appearance?
                        And how could it "dock" with fascist Germany only on horseback on a tank? This is 1939.

                        Those. you have not heard about the division of labor. It’s sad.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        Have you read General Plan Ost and Plan Bakke?
                        You will have a little picture below to let you know where.

                        I did not understand anything in your picture. And I’m not going to understand.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        The USSR was not capable of offensive military operations, as Finland and Poland showed.

                        Those. The USSR did not attack in Poland and Finland in 1939? You at least do not deny the obvious things.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        And Hitler knew that.

                        But Dzhugashvili did not know. And did not even guess.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        Therefore, the reason was precisely in food

                        Once again I ask you where in the USSR it was taken? There, so the population is periodically malnourished. The USSR was not the place to sniff.
                        Quote: 3agr9d0string
                        You yourself are not funny now?

                        Should it be?
                      4. The comment was deleted.
  • verboo
    verboo 3 June 2016 12: 32
    +1
    Quote: 3agr9d0string
    These are the Bolsheviks, during the time of Stalin they did it. They searched in history for examples of a strong hand, and presented absolutely everything in a favorable light for themselves.

    Was Catherine from the Bolsheviks?
    1. 3agr9d0tryad
      3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 14: 29
      0
      Quote: verboo
      Was Catherine from the Bolsheviks?

      You mixed me up with someone yes
      1. verboo
        verboo 3 June 2016 14: 36
        0
        Quote: 3agr9d0string
        You mixed me up with someone

        Catherine did not look for examples in history and did not look for Peter there?
        Everything that you write about the Bolsheviks applies to Catherine to the same extent. Therefore, he decided to clarify, suddenly she was a member of the CPSU (b). Although which of her member ...
        1. 3agr9d0tryad
          3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 15: 38
          -1
          Quote: verboo
          Catherine did not look for examples in history and did not look for Peter there?

          And what it was to look for, it was literally yesterday.
          Quote: verboo
          Everything that you write about the Bolsheviks applies to Catherine to the same extent.

          No.
          The Bolsheviks made Peter a despot, cutting down beards and heads but making IT Great Russia.
          Catherine, on the other hand, knew Peter primarily as a progressive and democratic reformer who developed science and culture along the European lines.
          1. verboo
            verboo 3 June 2016 16: 25
            0
            Quote: 3agr9d0string
            And what it was to look for, it was literally yesterday.

            So a long search did not have to.
            Quote: 3agr9d0string
            Catherine, on the other hand, knew Peter primarily as a progressive and democratic reformer who developed science and culture along the European lines.

            What nonsense. Catherine chopped heads no worse than Peter. And she hid behind them. By the way, it was she who called this ghoul the great. So that no one doubts what imperial greatness consists of.
            1. 3agr9d0tryad
              3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 17: 12
              -1
              Quote: verboo
              Catherine chopped heads no worse than Peter.

              And chopped a lot? In exact numbers?
              Quote: verboo
              By the way, it was she who called this ghoul the great.

              But what about the Academy of Sciences, and social elevators for peasants?
              Have you ever been to Kolomenskoye, where Peter was born? And in St. Petersburg? There is a difference?!
              1. verboo
                verboo 3 June 2016 17: 32
                0
                Quote: 3agr9d0string
                And chopped a lot? In exact numbers?

                A lot of. I did not count. The Turks actively helped her in this.
                Quote: 3agr9d0string
                But what about the Academy of Sciences, and social elevators for peasants?
                Have you ever been to Kolomenskoye, where Peter was born? And in St. Petersburg? There is a difference?!

                No way. Nothing to discuss. And the people from this St. Petersburg (you’ll break the language, damn it, was it called Pterograd, who bothered?) Was neither warm nor cold. Like the fun academy of sciences.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • pigkiller
    pigkiller 3 June 2016 10: 58
    +4
    You will repeat the contents of the Ukrainian film about Peter I and the Hetman Mazepa. For persuasiveness.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 3 June 2016 11: 12
    +6
    Quote: verboo
    It is absolutely not interesting to read how exactly and what exactly this oriental despot had fun with. It would be better if he was lying on the couch, smoking a pipe and using a favorite. Less people would be killed.

    Without this "Eastern despot" there would never have been modern Russia as a state. Through the efforts of external and internal enemies, they would have been pulled apart into shreds as early as the seventeenth century.
    It depends. For many, as a typical oriental despot and executioner.
    typical case of double standard. How many people did Napoleon put in wars? Moreover, he is great! How many people were consumed for one Bartholomew night? No one is horrified. How many died at the hands of the Inquisition? Trivia, some 10-12 million. But the Russian tsars, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great - cruel and bloody tyrants ...
    1. verboo
      verboo 3 June 2016 11: 23
      -1
      Quote: Verdun
      Without this "Eastern despot" there would never have been modern Russia as a state. Through the efforts of external and internal enemies, they would have been pulled apart into shreds as early as the seventeenth century.

      This is nothing more than your assumptions. In exactly the same way, I can assume that without Peter Russia would have spread all over Europe.
      Quote: Verdun
      How many people did Napoleon put in wars?

      For some reason, this does not interest me at all.
      Quote: Verdun
      Moreover, he is great!

      For you? May be. I hardly remember this at all. And if it were not for the war of 1812, then he would not have remembered at all.
      Quote: Verdun
      How many people were consumed for one Bartholomew night?

      Where is it? And How?
      Quote: Verdun
      How many died at the hands of the Inquisition?

      Some other uninteresting words.
      Quote: Verdun
      But the Russian tsars, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great - cruel and bloody tyrants.

      I. Grozny must be dealt with very carefully. It is quite possible and a decent person. But Peter Romanov, still a ghoul. Everything is clear and unambiguous here.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 3 June 2016 12: 37
        +1
        Quote: verboo

        Where is it? And How?

        I'm afraid to ask .. What do you even know then?
        1. verboo
          verboo 3 June 2016 12: 42
          0
          Quote: Verdun
          What do you even know then?

          Mostly interested in the history of Russia. And how many foreigners there were cut each other, it doesn’t interest me much at all.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 3 June 2016 13: 38
            +1
            Quote: verboo
            Mostly interested in the history of Russia. And how many foreigners there were cut each other, it doesn’t interest me much at all.

            It is impossible to study the history of one particular country in isolation from the history of the whole world. It is impossible to see the whole picture from one single fragment.
            1. verboo
              verboo 3 June 2016 13: 45
              -1
              Quote: Verdun
              It is impossible to study the history of one particular country in isolation from the history of the whole world. It is impossible to see the whole picture from one single fragment.

              May be. But this business does not change how many foreigners there have cut off each other’s heads. I am of little interest and concern. At least that's all, I don't care.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. AK64
      AK64 3 June 2016 11: 51
      0
      Without this "eastern despot" there would never have been modern Russia as a state. Through the efforts of external and internal enemies would be pulled apart into shreds another century in the seventeenth.


      A rather unexpected statement, especially considering in which year Perth reigned ...
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 3 June 2016 12: 00
        +3
        Quote: AK64
        A rather unexpected statement, especially considering in which year Perth reigned ...

        So then they would have pulled it away. Or do you think that Streltsy riots served to strengthen the state? Or maybe an army of archers could stop Charles XII? Or would the country's economy develop successfully in the absence of a normal merchant fleet?
        1. AK64
          AK64 3 June 2016 12: 52
          +2
          So then they would have pulled it away.

          Oh yes - we went through a troubled time, survived several successful wars with Poland. But without the "genius" they would have taken away. Yeah.

          Then the "brilliant" Ekaterina rules - the one that is the first, not the second - and did not take away. Then Peter-2 - and again they did not take it away. Then some kind of ridiculous through bad women. And we went through again. But without Peter (and the carnival of queens he caused) they would have taken away without fail, yeah.

          Or do you think that Streltsy riots served to strengthen the state?

          Oh dear, then Mai - archers went for a walk ....
          How many riots in the MSC before? Salt, Copper ... Razinschina again. And nothing. And then suddenly archers are a threat to the universe.

          Or maybe an army of archers could stop Charles XII?

          Why were you smoking there?
          By the end of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the Russian army was regular. By the end of his reign, the regular army of PEACE (soldier's and Reitar regiments of the "new order") - 67 thousand people.
          To deploy anything on this base in the event of war is a matter of technology.
          Or would the country's economy develop successfully in the absence of a normal merchant fleet?

          \ looks surprised \
          This is necessary a give out, huh?
          The merchant fleet in Russia appeared only at the end of the 19th century. Yes, and he was ... so fiction. I'm about the Voluntary Fleet.
          And how much effort was spent by the government to create it ...

          А Before Dobroflot - only individual boats, and even those on White sea.

          And those 1000 (approximately) ships that came to Peter and Riga at the beginning of the 19th century - so they were in the image of the English.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 3 June 2016 13: 49
            0
            Quote: AK64
            Why were you smoking there?

            Do you judge by yourself? And, you forgive me, once again I will not answer your comment. If you consider yourself competent, it is your right. Find opponents of your level and argue with them about your health.
          2. Heimdall47
            Heimdall47 3 June 2016 14: 45
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            Oh yes - we went through a troubled time, survived several successful wars with Poland. But without the "genius" they would have taken away. Yeah.

            Then the "brilliant" Ekaterina rules - the one that is the first, not the second - and did not take away. Then Peter-2 - and again they did not take it away. Then some kind of ridiculous through bad women. And we went through again. But without Peter (and the carnival of queens he caused) they would have taken away without fail, yeah.

            In general, that is, there is a lot of common sense in what has been said. You can also answer the chatter that the Bolsheviks saved Russia and without them it would have disappeared.

            But still, given the state of Russia under Sofya, it is fearfully done for the future of the Fatherland. Two lost Crimean campaigns, lost the first Azov campaign (it can be considered as an inheritance from pre-Petrine time).
            What would happen to Russia if it were to rule Sophia and she had to clash with Karl?
            I bet on the latter - he would cut off a piece of not frail from Russia.
            And so Peter, though he was a scumbag, was an intelligent man. He was not a revolutionary - he simply brought to the end the trends that already existed before him.

            And as for the babies - they sat successfully on the Petrine inheritance and reserve. If it weren’t, they would have been blown away by the wind.
            1. AK64
              AK64 3 June 2016 16: 01
              +2
              In general, that is, there is a lot of common sense in what has been said. You can also answer the chatter that the Bolsheviks saved Russia and without them it would have disappeared.

              So the legend is one and the same: according to one "before the Bolsheviks there was no life on Earth", and according to the other "before Peter there was no life on Mars There was no earth. "
              Same legend

              But still, given the state of Russia under Sofya, it is fearfully done for the future of the Fatherland. Two lost Crimean campaigns, lost the first Azov campaign (it can be considered as an inheritance from pre-Petrine time).

              This is if you study Sophia on Tolstoy’s agitation.
              "Crimean campaigns" generally "lost" a lot - much more than two. From which, in my opinion, only the extreme difficulty of such an enterprise in general follows. And Poland, a much more prosperous Poland, also somehow fought the Crimea without much success.
              And the first Azov and Peter had a complete failure ...

              So you don’t see much difference

              What would happen to Russia if it were to rule Sophia and she had to clash with Karl?

              WHY would she have to "clash" with Karl? What were the reasons for that, even if Sophia, even Peter?
              You think about the absurdity of that war from the point of view of Russia - the head will spin: it was difficult for the Russian leadership to come up with something more ridiculous than the Northern War.
              After all, Peter allegedly went to Europe (the Great Embassy) to form an alliance there against ... Turkey. And for some reason he returned with a wild brain rotation of 180 degrees. Why?

              And I will explain to you: in Europe, the war for the Spanish inheritance began. And Sweden was eager to participate in it. Well, Europe remembered the Swedes - how many pots they beat 60 years before. Well, it was necessary to neutralize Sweden. So ... neutralized (people can!). So here People are able - But why is this for Russia?


              I bet on the latter - he would cut off a piece of not frail from Russia.

              Rather - in Germany, in Pomorie (Pomerania). What exactly was the Swedes to "cut off" from Russia?
              But maintaining neutrality - one could either snatch from Poland without a fight at all - or from Sweden: depending on what would win in Europe.

              And so Peter, though he was a scumbag, was an intelligent man.

              Peter, if you like, was not there at all - this is a myth.
              Well, that is, everything they say and write - myth.
              And the real is completely incomprehensible. For example, how many Petrov were there, one, two or three? Or even more? And how did the dashing Raitar captain, cavalryman, suddenly begin to fear horses and stop riding? Or, how did the Russian tsar write so clumsily in Russian, but at the same time quite fluently (albeit with errors) in Dutch?
              And so forth ...

              And as for the babies - they sat successfully on the Petrine inheritance and reserve. If it weren’t, they would have been blown away by the wind.

              Babishes arose only as a result of Peter's activity: if there hadn’t been Peter, there wouldn’t have been this carnival. Even if Alexei Petrovich had been innocently killed, the throne could have been avoided. And I’m silent about Ivan Alekseevich (one more badly slandered character)
              1. 3agr9d0tryad
                3agr9d0tryad 3 June 2016 16: 20
                0
                Quote: AK64
                And I will explain to you: in Europe, the war for the Spanish inheritance began. And Sweden was eager to participate in it. Well, Europe remembered the Swedes - how many pots they beat 60 years before. Well, it was necessary to neutralize Sweden. So ... they neutralized (people know how!). So People Are Able - but why is it for Russia?

                Well nifiga yourself! Already then there were conspiracy theories! Yes, for the Spanish inheritance! belay
                PS I put you a plus sign, out of respect for the work of others, write so much! hi
              2. Mikhail Matyugin
                Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 20: 36
                0
                Quote: AK64
                Rather - in Germany, in Pomorie (Pomerania). What exactly was the Swedes to "cut off" from Russia?
                But maintaining neutrality - one could either snatch from Poland without a fight at all - or from Sweden: depending on what would win in Europe.

                People do not know a bit that Sweden (with Finland) was the main enemy ... Denmark (with Norway). They have a whole history of relations — like Russia and Poland.

                Quote: AK64
                Babishes arose only as a result of Peter's activity: if there hadn’t been Peter, there wouldn’t have been this carnival. Even if Alexei Petrovich had been innocently killed, the throne could have been avoided.
                Yes, a very slandered personality, treacherously trapped by the order of his own father; the same supporter of progress, but not in such brutal methods as the priest.

                Somewhere I read the words of Charles XII, transmitted by one of his comrades in the field headquarters, - like "It would be nice if Peter I suddenly died, then I would immediately agree with his son and we would end the war that no one needs. We would have had enough Meet 1 time in person. "

                So the advisers helpfully at once: "Yours, so let's help, find the right people, season the dinner for Tsar Peter?"

                But to such advice, the knight-king said something like "I will order you to be shot myself, if you give me such advice at least once" ... We know how it all ended.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 4 June 2016 11: 45
                  0
                  People do not know a bit that Sweden (with Finland) was the main enemy ... Denmark (with Norway). They have a whole history of relations — like Russia and Poland.


                  Moreover, the
                  (1) relations with Sweden at the beginning of the Northern War were ... excellent - the only more or less reliable neighbor. But Poland ... but with Poland a continuous war. Ally, huh?
                  (2) By agreement BEFORE the war, Russia received ... absolutely nothing - Ingermanland, that is, swamps. The Baltic states are already in fact taken over. But by agreement, only swamps. For which it was not worth fighting at all.
                  (3) The Russian economy and Russian combat capability depended on ... supplies of Swedish iron. There was almost none of his own - that is, they were doing something in the villages, but this handicraft was not suitable for the regular army.
                  So HOW was the "genius" -Peter going to fight, without iron? So it had to be on the Moon - in the Urals - and the Urals at that time was like the Moon - to create industry from scratch with titanic efforts.

                  Amusing war came out ....

                  Yeah, Alexey Petrovich is a very slandered personality, treacherously trapped on the orders of his own father ;; the same supporter of progress, but not in such brutal methods as the priest.


                  If THIS it was the version of "Peter" that was Alexei's father. But if she was not, then everything is completely ordinary: securing the throne for YOUR children.
                  Routine.

                  I would immediately agree with his son and we would end the useless war. It would be enough for us to meet in person 1 time.

                  Because Karl did not see any sense for Russia in this war. That is, Karl understood the meaning: "people can"

                  But to such advice, the knight king said something like "I will order you to be shot myself, if you give me such advice at least once" ...

                  Karl ended up catching a bullet from his head ...

                  Interesting --- WHAT FOR?
                  That is, what is the point
              3. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 3 June 2016 22: 46
                +1
                Quote: AK64
                WHY would she have to "clash" with Karl? What were the reasons for that, even if Sophia, even Peter?
                You think about the absurdity of that war from the point of view of Russia - the head will spin: it was difficult for the Russian leadership to come up with something more ridiculous than the Northern War.

                But what - the need for Russia to access the Baltic Sea is no longer a significant reason? Are new trends coming?
                Russia / Russia fought the Swedes 14 times before the Northern War. So there are plenty of reasons.
                So if you sit the theory to breed, then there were no reasons for the war of Napoleon with Alexander, Hitler with Stalin. If everyone lived, they didn’t grieve - they smoked a pipe of peace. But there are always reasons to fight.

                So Sophia would fly in full with her friend dear Golitsyn.

                Everything else - conspiracy theology for me is not very interesting.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 4 June 2016 11: 59
                  0
                  But what - the need for Russia to access the Baltic Sea is no longer a significant reason? Are new trends coming?

                  Not at all.
                  Ingermanland swamps - what kind of "outlet to the sea" is this? WHERE is the "exit"? And Riga, much more profitable in this sense, Riga (although, to be honest, it is not a fountain either), no one promised Muscovy - it has already been "adopted"


                  Russia / Russia fought the Swedes 14 times before the Northern War. So there are plenty of reasons.

                  Really in the 17th century --- not a single reason.

                  But on other fronts:
                  (1) continuous war with Poland
                  (2) in the south, a continuous war with the Crimea-Turkey.

                  But with the Swedes, if not strange, "peace-friendship-chewing gum." So much friendship that during the 30-year war Muscovy gave Sweden economic aid. Yes Yes.


                  So if you sit the theory to breed, then the reasons for the war of Napoleon with Alexander,

                  And what, in your opinion, is the reason for the war of Napoleon and Alexander? Or war with Hitler?
                  But the reason was simple: both Napoleon and Hitler fought with England --- that's the whole reason for the attack on Russia / USSR.
                  Yes, yes --- everything is simple.

                  But there are always reasons to fight.

                  Well, well.
                  As old Clausewitz wrote, "war is a continuation of politics by other means". Understand, politics is primary, not war. That is, primary targets and goals. If we see an action, then we must look for it goal: WHAT FOR?

                  So the goal of the Northern War is to neutralize Sweden and prevent her from participating in the War of the Spanish Succession. But why is this for Muscovy? "Yes, let the Swedes pile on everyone there, and we, on the sly with Poland, will end it, once and for all!"

                  So Sophia would fly in full with her friend dear Golitsyn.

                  Golitsin was a smart uncle. He just didn’t take up his job - well, he was not a warrior. And as the Chancellor was so completely in its place.

                  Everything else - conspiracy theology for me is not very interesting.

                  Nuuuuuu .... Then you need to read the newspaper Truth - there is definitely no "conspiracy".

                  However, I understand when "walked, walked, fell, and right on the knife" - it happens. But when "and so 17 times" - it is already a little strange.
                  1. Heimdall47
                    Heimdall47 4 June 2016 13: 51
                    0
                    Quote: AK64
                    Ingermanland swamps - what kind of "outlet to the sea" is this? WHERE is the "exit"?

                    This is the very exit to the Baltic, for which most of the kings were cut down from Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great.
                    Oh yes, excuse me, I forgot - they didn’t understand everything. Now we will retroactively declare them all fools. Swedes and Germans replaced them all laughing
                    And what, in your opinion, is the reason for the war

                    Most wars and conflicts have one reason - human greed and not the ability to be content with what is available.
                    And therefore, any state that is in fact a grandiose organized crime group in the international arena will always find a reason for conflict with another organized crime group.
                    And the logic does not work here.
                    This is the same as explaining that citizen A could not take the fox hat from citizen B, since it was much easier for citizen A to go get a job as a loader and make money on this hat. Of course - it's easier and safer, but the caps are still removed.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 4 June 2016 14: 34
                      0
                      This is the very exit to the Baltic, for which most of the kings were cut down from Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great.

                      Really?
                      Is it possible to list those who were "cut" for this?

                      Let's say Grozny had that Ingermanlandia, It was, it was, do not hesitate. But for some reason this "exit" did not attract him much. And for some reason Grozny was "cut down" for Riga (Livonia and Estonia).

                      Yes, and there the war developed in such a way that Grozny was somehow not of particular interest.

                      Well, after Grozny and before Peter, who was "cut"? Ah ... nobody. Such is the strange fact.

                      Most wars and conflicts have one reason - human greed and not the ability to be content with what is available.

                      That is, Clausewitz is not a decree for you.
                      Well then - then there’s nothing to talk about.

                      And therefore, any state that is in fact a grandiose organized crime group in the international arena will always find a reason for conflict with another organized crime group.

                      About organized crime groups have you spied on me? In my next posts?
                      It is right. But then spy on and on - THEN come in handy with me and argue.

                      The states are of course the ORG - but even in the ORG there are no fools. Ipolitiki plan for centuries (when smart).
                      To start a war with the aim of war --- not one will. Moreover, if it is possible to achieve WITHOUT war, then no one will fight either.

                      War is an extreme expression of politics. When to squeeze gently failed. But in this case, not a single state climbed into the war with a chance of even 50-50 --- too little. Climb when they think that 80-20. (Well, or when they are forced)

                      And the logic does not work here.

                      It’s just that you don’t see her.
                      And she is.

                      And when this logic is shown to you, you turn away from it. Because it does not fit into your ideas taken out of school.

                      But you are not hopeless: once you understand the main thing, state is an organized crime group - then you will understand the rest inevitably.
            2. Mikhail Matyugin
              Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 17: 44
              +1
              Quote: Heimdall47
              What would happen to Russia if it were to rule Sophia and she had to clash with Karl?
              I bet on the latter - he would cut off a piece of not frail from Russia.
              And so Peter, though he was a scumbag, was an intelligent man.

              Excuse me, but do you know in general that it is Russia, even Peter I personally, declared war on Sweden, attacking it as part of the COALITION? Nobody thought that the allies would "get in the neck" from the young warrior king!
              1. AK64
                AK64 3 June 2016 17: 58
                0
                Russia, even Peter I personally, declared war on Sweden, attacking it as part of the COALITION?


                I noted above that this is generally the most ridiculous war for Russia out of the possible.
                This is a completely obvious war for the interests of others.

                The only question is: who has divorced such suckers?
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 3 June 2016 22: 56
                0
                Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
                Excuse me, but do you know in general that this is Russia,

                In the course - I just don’t understand the meaning of the deep question. If you are to the fact that Sophia would not have entered the war, it is difficult to say whether this is good or bad. Sooner or later, they would have to fight for access to the sea. It wouldn’t work out on the periphery of Russia anyway — not the scale of the state.
          3. Mikhail Matyugin
            Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 20: 23
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            By the end of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the Russian army was regular.

            All the same, probably "relatively constant", but not completely "regular", with year-round living in barracks, in isolation from their own economy and family.

            It's just that everyone forgets that even the regular European armies were "dumped" by the Carolins before Poltava (well, the Russian regular regiments, too - there was not enough "regularity").

            Quote: AK64
            And then suddenly archers are a threat to the universe.
            laughing Here, by the way, is a complete analogy with the Janissaries - both troops are partly similar in terms of military use and organization, and are similar in their influence on the government.
            1. AK64
              AK64 4 June 2016 13: 54
              0
              All the same, probably "relatively constant", but not completely "regular", with year-round living in barracks, in isolation from their own economy and family.


              For the middle of the 17th century, this is usually: remember at least dArtanyana, or Perez-Revete with his captain (how is it?)
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 3 June 2016 14: 10
    0
    Quote: verboo
    Somehow I was tired of reading this opus. Instead of calling a spade a spade, the author retells agitation of Agitprop. It’s not at all interesting to read exactly how and what exactly this oriental despot had fun with.


    Your funny and purely personal assessments are NOT "things called by their proper names", and categoricalness makes them just ridiculous ...
    1. verboo
      verboo 3 June 2016 14: 31
      -1
      Quote: Aleksander
      Your funny and purely personal assessments

      And what should I state? Yours? Or ideologically correct?
      If you do not like them, you can easily not read them. And I’ll even help you with this, I’ll bring you to the emergency.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • pigkiller
    pigkiller 3 June 2016 11: 11
    +4
    The memory of Peter the Great began to pour mud immediately after his death.
    We judge him on the basis of today's ideas about history and psychological complexes.
    But the dead do not shame.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 20: 09
      0
      Quote: pigkiller
      The memory of Peter the Great began to pour mud immediately after his death.

      Some during his lifetime even tried to tell the unpleasant truth in person. But this supposedly great sovereign quickly found a chopping block or a gallows.

      How to say - a man who did not spare his native and essentially only son and tortured to death, accusing him of mythical crimes, exiled his wives and mistresses - there are strong reasons to doubt his adequacy.
  • qwert
    qwert 3 June 2016 11: 30
    +2
    Peter 1 is a controversial figure, so some put the cons even without reading the article. Just because it is about Peter-1. But you should not see him only in black and white. And neither him as a person, nor his accomplishments. Yes, he was not perfect, but who can be put next to him besides Catherine? Shuisky? Nicholas II? Perhaps only Alexander, and even then not close, but not close.
    1. verboo
      verboo 3 June 2016 11: 38
      -5
      Quote: qwert
      Yes, he was not perfect, but who can be put next to him besides Catherine?

      If we proceed from the "degree of bloodsucking", then certainly it. And if from the "degree of moral licentiousness", then she will give Peter a head start.
      Quote: qwert
      Perhaps only Alexander, and even then not close, but not close.

      What about Paul I? Paul I was forgotten.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Igor39
    Igor39 3 June 2016 11: 37
    +5
    Peter 1 was king and became emperor, and under him began to coin full-fledged rubles, which are still valued.
  • gabonskijfront
    gabonskijfront 3 June 2016 13: 07
    +5
    Sweden of the 18th century is a super power, something like today's America, it has been building a Protestant empire for a century, which included half of Germany, Finland, Norway, from time to time Denmark and Sweden itself, its mobilization resource was higher than that of Russia, and its economic Opportunities are not comparable. The Swedes tormented the whole of Eastern Europe throughout the 17th century, the catalytic part of Germany became depopulated after their campaigns, they reached Prague (read "mother Courage") and now an obscure Moscow education landed the Swedish lion so that after a century he lost all desire fight.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 3 June 2016 16: 18
      +3
      Which gender is Germany? The Swedes had a couple of bridgeheads in Germany, nor any resources there. Karl recruited a lot of troops for Saxon mining, but basically he begged for subsidies from England and France, after Poltava they were able to recruit troops, but the quality was lower, And by the way they were all on French money ended after the Swedes got their brains in Brandenburg under Charles 11th if I am not mistaken.
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 3 June 2016 16: 23
      +2
      I would also add the warrior-king Charles XII, with whom, in terms of personality, does Gustof Adolf compare? Those misunderstandings that reigned after him could not reach the border for months, declaring war in advance. Allowed is to gather strength, not only to cover up defenseless St. Petersburg, but also the entire border, while Karl would have had enough time to reach Moscow by march. I’m silent that for a long time, he successfully fought with the three powers, while his descendants puffed up on the second front (the main forces of Russia were thrown onto the Turks). The more valuable is the victory of Peter over such an enemy.
  • Sascha
    Sascha 3 June 2016 13: 52
    0
    I am completely confused! I don’t understand anything.
    Where are all these our alternatives Where are the chicks of the nest of Fomenki ?? Why is the Academician ver_ silent ???
    We are really looking forward to the reasoned statements that Dmitry Dolgoruky is Peter I, aka Count Witte, and the Mongols = Swedes = Kalmyks = Cossacks Transbaikal.
    Why is silent extraterrestrial intelligence ?!
  • Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 3 June 2016 15: 14
    +2
    I was not too lazy, I read all the comments under the article .... the article is frankly weak ... but oh well, at least such a thing, for good reason, as they say, and the nightingale priest ...
    as for comments, friends ... here we often scold Gorbachev, who had a distinguishing feature, began to talk about one thing, but ended up not clearly how and about what .. so here .. the title and topic of the article are clearly formulated ... and discussions are gone altogether the devil knows where, absolutely off topic, off-article, friends, well, you just don’t really have to arrange a bazaar station often ... thanks
  • Sascha
    Sascha 3 June 2016 16: 33
    -1
    Quote: Andrey VOV
    I was not too lazy, I read all the comments under the article .... the article is frankly weak ... but oh well, at least such a thing, for good reason, as they say, and the nightingale priest ...
    as for comments, friends ... here we often scold Gorbachev, who had a distinguishing feature, began to talk about one thing, but ended up not clearly how and about what .. so here .. the title and topic of the article are clearly formulated ... and discussions are gone altogether the devil knows where, absolutely off topic, off-article, friends, well, you just don’t really have to arrange a bazaar station often ... thanks


    What article, such and comments ...
    I had a complete feeling that Voenizdat had already told us this superficially, about sixty years ago ...
  • pigkiller
    pigkiller 3 June 2016 16: 35
    +1
    "Warriors! Now the hour has come that will decide the fate of the Fatherland. And so you should not think that you are fighting for Peter, but for the state entrusted to Peter, for your family, for the Fatherland, for our Orthodox faith and the Church. You should not be embarrassed either. the glory of the enemy, as if invincible, which you yourself have repeatedly proved by your victories over him.Have in battle before your eyes the truth and God who overcomes for you.And about Peter know that his life is not dear to him, if only Russia lived in bliss and glory, for your well-being. " - Peter the Great's appeal to the Russian army before the Battle of Poltava.
  • Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 3 June 2016 17: 48
    0
    Quote: pigkiller
    Warriors! Here came the hour that will decide the fate of the Fatherland. And so you should not think that you are fighting for Peter, but for the state handed to Peter

    It is written in the text of the fake order of Peter I, which was composed by Feofan Prokopovich long after the battle. The real text was much shorter and completely different (it was preserved by the way).
  • Poplar505
    Poplar505 3 June 2016 18: 32
    +1
    Again, some "Fomenkovites" are lacking. Ignorant, talkers. Except for Fomenko, none of those who advocate such a thing do not know and do not want to know!
    Are you Peter I, as a general discussing, or what is the difference between registration and serfdom? Or again slid to the cooling of Stalin?
    The article was written on the basis of a textbook for high schools - the history of military art. (60s, still standing on the shelf in various publications at home).
    So what are we discussing here ???
  • ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 3 June 2016 20: 04
    +2
    Obscurantists have already reached Peter the Great ...
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth 3 June 2016 21: 11
    +1
    I read a funny book about Poltava. There it seemed that Peter had badly deployed troops and would certainly have lost if Karl had guessed to throw Mazepa's Cossacks into battle. Guess which country the book is from.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 4 June 2016 10: 38
      +1
      Quote: Kenneth
      There it seemed that Peter had badly deployed troops and would certainly have lost if Karl had guessed to throw Mazepa's Cossacks into battle. Guess which country the book is from.

      With the Battle of Poltava, everything is far from unambiguous and the real picture of the battle was somewhat different than that given in the classical descriptions.

      By the way, both sides were afraid to actively use the Cossacks at Poltava, because there were strong doubts about their reliability - on both sides.

      And yes, there were no Cossacks in the Poltava garrison; after Mazepa’s treason, the garrisons of the main fortresses of Ukraine were replaced by regular troops from the Great Russians.
  • Sascha
    Sascha 3 June 2016 21: 26
    0
    Quote: Kenneth
    I read a funny book about Poltava. There it seemed that Peter had badly deployed troops and would certainly have lost if Karl had guessed to throw Mazepa's Cossacks into battle. Guess which country the book is from.

    Ahh, if Grishenka, the Imposter of the Zaporozhye Cossacks ... from Moscow, she wouldn’t have fought in the Crimean Tatars ... it wouldn’t have been necessary, then, with the most enthralling ... Jamilevs to wander against the damned maskals ....
    Damn, the whole story - one big ukrovskaya error
  • Papandopulo
    Papandopulo 4 June 2016 12: 31
    0
    No way ... The strange cult of personality of this character among the antimonarchists, he did everything like Napoleon without his generals on whom he could rely?
  • Yura
    Yura 7 June 2016 10: 39
    0
    Hello everybody. hi

    The role of the personality of Peter I and his actions in our history is a very controversial issue.
    Who cares, here is the link, very entertaining material:

    http://atlantida-pravda-i-vimisel.blogspot.ru/2013/11/9.html
  • sxfRipper
    sxfRipper 17 January 2017 15: 57
    0
    "Red Count" Alexey Tolstoy nervously smokes on the sidelines ...
  • mvbmvbmvb
    mvbmvbmvb 19 March 2018 12: 00
    0
    Quote: Heimdall47
    Quote: avt
    azbil! Broken father. Yes, and how not to break it? Well, with such a numerical superiority and FOUR cannons in front of the Swedish tramp, on the contrary .... How much did Petrusha have that ??

    What is the claim to Peter then?
    This is precisely what martial art consists of - bringing the enemy to the worst state and only after that engage in a direct battle with him. Maybe he should have moved to Poland to meet Karl, to give battle there on unfavorable conditions, to request 50 thousand Russian troops and win a beautiful heroic battle? I’m afraid that in this case too, you would hang shit on him.


    But what did the Turks not bring to such a state on the Prut?