Military Review

“Black Myths” about the Russian Emperor Nicholas I

167
Russia is a powerful and happy power in itself; it should never be a threat to other neighboring states or to Europe. But she must have an impressive defensive position, capable of making any attack against her impossible.
Where the Russian flag is raised once, it should not descend there.

Emperor Nicholas I


220 years ago, 6 July 1796, the Russian Emperor Nikolai I Pavlovich was born. Nicholas I, together with his father, Emperor Paul I, is one of the most maligned Russian tsars. Russian tsar, the most hated by the liberals of both that time and today. What is the reason for such persistent hatred and such fierce slander, which does not subside until our time?

First, Nicholas is hated for suppressing the conspiracy of the Decembrists, conspirators who were part of the system of Western Freemasonry. The uprising of the so-called "Decembrists" was to destroy the Russian empire, leading to the emergence of weak, semi-colonial state formations dependent on the West. And Nikolai Pavlovich suppressed the rebellion and preserved Russia as a world power.

Secondly, Nikolay cannot be forgiven for the prohibition of freemasonry in Russia. That is, the Russian emperor forbade the then “fifth column”, which worked for the masters of the West.

Thirdly, the king is “guilty” of firm views, where there was no place for masonic and half-masonian (liberal) views. Nikolay clearly stood on the positions of autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality, defended Russian national interests in the world.

Fourth, Nikolay fought against the revolutionary movements organized by the Freemasons (Illuminati) in the monarchical states of Europe. For this, Nikolaev Russia was nicknamed the “gendarme of Europe”. Nikolay understood that revolutions do not lead to the triumph of “freedom, equality and fraternity”, but to the “liberalization” of a person, his “liberation” from the “shackles” of morality and conscience. What this leads to is seen in the example of a modern, tolerant Europe, where bureaucrats, bastards, Satanists, and other misguided evil spirits are considered the “elite” of society. And “lowering” a person in the field of morality to the level of a primitive animal leads to his complete degradation and total slavery. That is, the Masons and the Illuminati, provoking a revolution, simply brought the victory of the New World Order - the global slave-owning civilization headed by the "elect". Nicholas opposed this evil.

Fifthly, Nikolai wanted to end the hobbies of the Russian nobility in Europe, the West. He planned to stop further Europeanization, the westernization of Russia. The Tsar intended to become at the head, as A. S. Pushkin expressed it, “the organizations of the counter-revolution of Peter’s revolution”. Nikolay wanted to return to the political and social precepts of Muscovite Russia, which found its expression in the formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality”.

Thus, myths about the extraordinary despotism and terrible cruelty of Nicholas I were created because he prevented the revolutionary liberal forces from seizing power in Russia and Europe. “He considered himself called upon to suppress the revolution, - he always pursued it and in all forms. And, indeed, there is historical the calling of the Orthodox Tsar, ”noted the maid of honor of Tyutchev in her diary.

Hence the pathological hatred of Nicholas, the accusations of "bad" personal qualities of the emperor. Liberal historiography of the 19th - early 20th centuries, Soviet history, where “tsarism” was presented mainly from a negative point of view, then modern liberal journalism branded Nikolai “despot and tyrant”, “Nikolai Palkin”, because from the first day of his reign, from the moment of suppression of the then “fifth column” - “Decembrists”, and until the last day (organized by the masters of the West Crimean War), he spent in a continuous struggle with the Russian and European Masons and the revolutionary societies created by them. At the same time, Nikolai, in domestic and foreign policy, tried to adhere to Russian national interests, not bending to the desires of Western "partners."

It is clear that such a person was hated and, even during his life, created a series of persistent “black myths”: that “the Decembrists fought for the freedom of the people, and the bloody tyrant shot them and executed them”; that "Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and the lack of rights of the peasants"; that "Nicholas I in general was a stupid martinet, a close-minded little-educated person, alien to any progress"; that Russia under Nicholas was a "backward state", which led to the defeat in the Crimean War, etc.

The myth of the Decembrists - "Knights without fear and reproach"

The ascension to the throne of Nicholas I was overshadowed by the attempt of the secret Masonic society of the so-called "Decembrists" to seize power over Russia (The myth of the Decembrists - "knights without fear and reproach"; The myth of the “Knights of Freedom”). Later, the efforts of Western liberals, social democrats, and then Soviet historiography created the myth of "knights without fear and reproach," who decided to destroy the "royal tyranny" and build a society based on the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity. In modern Russia, it is also customary to speak of the Decembrists from a positive point of view. They say that the best part of the Russian society, the nobility, challenged the “royal tyranny”, tried to destroy the “Russian slavery” (serfdom), but was defeated.

However, in reality the truth is that the so-called. “Decembrists”, hiding behind the slogans that were completely humane and understandable to the majority, objectively worked for the then “world community” (the West). In fact, they were the forerunners of the Februarylists of the 1917 model, who destroyed the autocracy and the Russian empire. They planned to complete the physical destruction of the dynasty of the Russian monarchs of the Romanovs, their families, and even to distant relatives. And their plans in the field of state and national construction were guaranteed to lead to a great confusion and disintegration of the state.

It is clear that part of the noble youth simply did not know what they were doing. Young people dreamed of destroying “various injustices and oppressions” and bringing the estates closer together to increase social welfare in Russia. Examples of the dominance of foreigners in the highest administration (just remember the environment of Tsar Alexander), extortion, violation of the legal proceedings, inhuman treatment of soldiers and sailors in the army and on navy, trade in serfs was excited by noble minds, which were inspired by the patriotic upsurge of 1812-1814. The problem was that the “great truths” of freedom, equality and fraternity, supposedly necessary for the good of Russia, were associated in their minds only with European republican institutions and social forms, which in theory they mechanically transferred to Russian soil.

That is, the Decembrists sought to "transplant France to Russia." As later, Russian Westernizers of the early 20th century will dream of remaking Russia into Republican France or the constitutional English monarchy, which will lead to the geopolitical catastrophe of 1917 of the year. The abstraction and frivolity of such transferring lay in the fact that it was carried out without an understanding of the historical past and national traditions, centuries-old spiritual values, and the psychological and everyday structure of Russian civilization. Noble youth, brought up on the ideals of Western culture, was infinitely far from the people. Historical experience shows that in the Russian empire, Soviet Russia and the Russian Federation, all borrowing from the West in the sphere of social and political structure, spiritual and intellectual sphere, even the most useful ones, are distorted on Russian soil, leading to degradation and destruction.

The Decembrists, like the later Westerners, did not understand this. They thought that if the advanced experience of the Western powers in Russia was transplanted, the people were given “freedom”, then the country would take off and prosper. As a result, the Decembrists' sincere hopes of a forced change in the existing system, of the legal order, as a panacea for all ills, led to the turmoil and destruction of the Russian Empire. It turned out that the Decembrists objectively, by default, worked in the interests of the masters of the West.

In addition, in the program documents of the Decembrists you can find a variety of settings and wishes. There was no unity in their ranks; their secret societies were more like the discussion clubs of sophisticated intellectuals, who vigorously discussed pressing political issues. In this regard, they are similar to the Westernizers-liberals of the sample of the late XIX - early XX centuries. and the Februarynists of 1917, as well as the modern Russian liberals, who cannot find a common point of view on almost any important issue. They are ready to endlessly “rebuild” and reform ”, in fact, destroy the legacy of their ancestors, and the burden of their managerial decisions will have to be borne by the people.

Some Decembrists offered to create a republic, others - to establish a constitutional monarchy, with the possibility of introducing the republic. Russia, according to N. Muravyev’s plan, was offered to de-facto dismember the 13 powers and the 2 regions, creating a federation of them. In this case, the powers received the right of separation (self-determination). The manifesto of Prince Sergei Trubetskoy (the prince of Trubetskoy before the uprising was chosen as a dictator) suggested liquidating the “former government” and replacing it with a provisional one before the election of the Constituent Assembly. That is, the Decembrists planned to create an interim government.

The head of the Southern Society of the Decembrists, Colonel and Freemason Pavel Pestel wrote one of the program documents - “Russian Truth”. Pestel planned to abolish serfdom, transferring to the peasants half of the arable land fund, the other half was supposed to be left in the ownership of the landowners, which was to contribute to the bourgeois development of the country. Landowners had to lease land to farmers - "capitalists of the agricultural class", which should have led to the organization in the country of large commodity farms with a broad attraction of hired labor. “Russkaya Pravda” abolished not only the estates, but also the national borders - all the tribes and ethnic groups living in Russia planned to unite into a single Russian people. Thus, Pestel planned, by the example of America, to create a kind of "melting pot" in Russia. To speed up this process, national segregation was actually proposed with the division of the Russian population into groups.

Muravyov was a supporter of the preservation of land holdings of landowners. The liberated peasants received only 2 tithing of land, that is, only a personal plot. This site, at the then low level of agrotechnologies, could not feed a large peasant family. The peasants were forced to bow to the landowners, the landowners, who had all the land, meadows and forests, turned into dependent farm laborers, as in Latin America.

Thus, the Decembrists did not have a single, clear program, which could lead, if they won, to an internal conflict. The victory of the Decembrists guaranteed led to the collapse of statehood, the army, chaos, the conflict of estates and different peoples. For example, the mechanism of the great redistribution of land was not described in detail, which led to a conflict between the multimillion-dollar mass of peasants and the landowners-landowners of that time. Under the conditions of a radical breakdown of the state structure, the transfer of the capital (they planned to transfer it to Nizhny Novgorod), it is obvious that such a “restructuring” led to a civil war and a new unrest. In the field of state-building, the plans of the Decembrists correlate very clearly with the plans of the separatists of the beginning of the 20th century or the 1990-2000. As well as plans of Western politicians and ideologues who dream of dismembering Great Russia into a number of weak and “independent” states. That is, the actions of the Decembrists led to confusion and civil war, to the collapse of the powerful Russian Empire. The Decembrists were the forerunners of the “Februaryists” who were able to destroy Russian statehood in 1917.

Therefore, Nicholas and shed mud in every way. After all, he was able to stop the first major attempt at "perestroika" of Russia, which led to confusion and civil confrontation, to the delight of our Western "partners".

In this case, Nicholas is accused of inhuman treatment of the Decembrists. However, the ruler of the Russian Empire, Nikolai, who was recorded in history as “Palkin”, showed amazing mercy and humanity for the rebels. In any European country for such a rebellion, many hundreds or thousands of people would be executed in the most cruel way so that others would not be discouraged. And the military for revolt were subject to the death penalty. Would reveal all the underground, many have lost their posts. In Russia, everything was different: from 579 people arrested in the case of the Decembrists, almost 300 were acquitted. Only the leaders (and not all) were executed - Pestel, Muravyev-Apostol, Ryleev, Bestuzhev-Rumin, and the murderer of the commander of the Life Guards Grenadier Regiment, Stürler and the Governor of Miloradovich-Kakhovsky. 88 people were sent to penal servitude, 18 to settle, 15 demoted to the soldiers. Corporal punishment was applied to the insurgent soldiers, they were sent to the Caucasus. The "dictator" of the rebels, Prince Trubetskoy did not appear at all on Senate Square, coward, stayed out at the Austrian ambassador, where he was tied up. At first he denied everything, then he confessed and asked for forgiveness from the sovereign. And Nicholas I forgave him!

Tsar Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and the lack of rights of the peasants

It is known that Nicholas I was a consistent supporter of the destruction of serfdom. It was under him that a reform of state peasants was carried out with the introduction of self-government in the countryside and a “decree on obligated peasants” was signed, which became the foundation for the abolition of serfdom. The position of state peasants has seriously improved (their number reached about 1850% of the population by the second half of the 50-s), which was connected with the reforms of P. D. Kiselev. During his tenure, the state peasants were allocated their own allotments of land and forest areas, and also subsidiary cash registers and bread shops were established everywhere, which provided peasants with cash loans and grain in case of a bad harvest. As a result of these measures, not only did the well-being of the peasants increase, but the incomes of the treasury from them increased by 15-20%, the tax arrears halved, and there were almost no landless laborers who lived in poverty and dependency. received land from the state.

In addition, under Nicholas I, the practice of distributing peasants with lands as a reward was completely stopped, and the rights of landowners vis-à-vis the peasants were seriously curtailed and the rights of serfs were increased. In particular, it was forbidden to sell peasants without land, it was also forbidden to send peasants to hard labor, since serious crimes were removed from the landowner's competence; serfs received the right to own land, conduct business and received relative freedom of movement. For the first time, the state began to systematically ensure that the rights of the peasants were not violated by the landowners (this was one of the functions of the Third Division), and to punish the landowners for these violations. As a result of the application of punishments towards landowners, by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, about 200 landlord estates were under arrest, which greatly affected the position of the peasants and landlord psychology. As historian V. Klyuchevsky noted, two completely new conclusions followed from the laws adopted under Nicholas I: first, that the peasants are not the property of the landowner, but, above all, the subjects of the state that protects their rights; secondly, that the identity of the peasant is not the private property of the landowner, that they are connected with each other by their relationship to the landlord’s land, with which the peasants cannot be driven away.

Developed, but, unfortunately, were not implemented at that time and reforms to the complete abolition of serfdom, however, the total proportion of serfs in Russian society during his reign was seriously reduced. Thus, their share in the population of Russia, according to various estimates, declined from 57-58% in 1811 — 1817. to 35-45% in 1857 — 1858 and they no longer make up the majority of the population of the empire.

Also under Nicholas, education was booming. For the first time, a mass peasant education program was launched. The number of peasant schools in the country increased from 60 schools where 1500 students studied in 1838 year to 2551 schools where 111 thousand students studied in 1856 year. In the same period, many technical schools and universities were opened - in essence, a system of vocational primary and secondary education in the country was created.

Myth of Nicholas - "king-martinet"

It is believed that the king was "martinet", that is, was interested only in military affairs. Indeed, from early childhood, Nikolai had a particular passion for military affairs. This passion for children instilled father - Paul. Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich received a home education, but the prince did not show much zeal for his studies. He did not recognize the humanities, but he was well versed in the art of war, was fond of fortifications, was well acquainted with engineering. Known hobby of Nikolai Pavlovich painting, which he studied in childhood under the guidance of painter I. A. Akimov and Professor V. K. Shebuev.

Having received in his youth a good engineering education, Nicholas I showed considerable knowledge in the field of construction, including military. Like Peter I himself, he did not disdain to personally participate in the design and construction, focusing on the fortresses, which later literally saved the country from much more sad consequences during the Crimean War. At the same time, under Nicholas, a powerful line of fortresses was created, covering the western strategic direction.

In Russia, there was an active introduction of new technologies. As the historian P.A. Zayonchkovsky wrote, in the reign of Nicholas I, "contemporaries created the idea that the era of reforms had begun in Russia." Nicholas I was actively introducing innovations in the country - for example, the Tsarskoye Selo railway opened in 1837 was only the 6 railway of general use in the world, despite the fact that the first such road was opened shortly before in 1830. Under Nicholas, the railway between St. Petersburg and Moscow was built - at that time the longest in the world, and it should be attributed to the tsar’s personal merits that it was built almost in a straight line, which at that time was still a novelty. In fact, Nicholas was a technocrat emperor.

The myth of the failed foreign policy of Nicholas

On the whole, Nikolai’s foreign policy was successful and reflected the national interests of Russia. Russia has strengthened its position in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, the Balkans and the Far East. Russian-Persian War 1826 — 1828 ended with a brilliant victory of the Russian Empire. The policy of Britain, which incited Persia to Russia, with the aim of ousting Russia from the Caucasus and preventing the further advancement of the Russians in the South Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East, failed. According to the Turkmanchai peace treaty, the territories of the Erivan (on both sides of the Araks river) and the Nakhichevan khanates were ceded to Russia. The Persian government pledged not to hinder the resettlement of Armenians into the Russian borders (the Armenians provided support to the Russian army during the war). A contribution of 20 million rubles was imposed on Iran. Iran confirmed the freedom of navigation in the Caspian Sea for Russian merchant ships and Russia's exclusive right to have a navy here. That is, the Caspian was withdrawing into the sphere of influence of Russia. Russia was given a number of advantages in trade relations with Persia.

Russian-Turkish war 1828 — 1829 ended with a complete victory for Russia. According to the Adrianople Peace Treaty, the mouth of the Danube with the islands, the entire Caucasian Black Sea coast from the mouth of the Kuban River to the northern border of Ajara, as well as the fortresses of Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikh with the adjacent areas departed to the Russian Empire. Turkey recognized the accession to Russia of Georgia, Imeretia, Megrelia and Guria, as well as the khanates of Erivan and Nakhichevan, who had passed from Iran under the Turkmanchai Treaty. The right of Russian nationals to conduct free trade throughout the territory of the Ottoman Empire, which granted the right to Russian and foreign merchant ships to freely pass through the Bosphorus and the Dardenelles, was confirmed. Russian nationals in Turkish territory were under jurisdiction of the Turkish authorities. Turkey undertook to pay Russia a contribution of 1,5 million Dutch ducats for 1,5 years. Peace provided autonomy to the Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia). Russia assumed the guarantee of the autonomy of the principalities, which were completely out of the power of Porta, paying it only an annual tribute. Also, the Turks confirmed the commitment to respect the autonomy of Serbia. Thus, the World of Adrianople created favorable conditions for the development of Black Sea trade and completed the accession to Russia of the main territories of Transcaucasia. Russia strengthened its influence in the Balkans, which became a factor that accelerated the process of liberation of Moldova, Wallachia, Greece, Serbia from the Ottoman yoke.

At the request of Russia, which declared itself the patroness of all the Christian subjects of the Sultan, the Sultan was forced to recognize the freedom and independence of Greece and the wide autonomy of Serbia (1830). Amur Expedition 1849 — 1855 thanks to the decisive mood of Nicholas I personally, the fact of joining Russia to the whole left bank of the Amur, which was documented under Alexander II, ended. Successfully Russian troops moved in the North Caucasus (Caucasus War). The structure of Russia included Balkaria, the Karachay region, the uprising of Shamil was not successful, the forces of the highlanders, thanks to the methodical pressure of the Russian forces, were undermined. Victory in the Caucasian War drew closer and became inevitable.

The strategic mistakes of the government of Nicholas include the participation of Russian troops in the suppression of the Hungarian uprising, which led to the preservation of the unity of the Austrian Empire, as well as the defeat in the Eastern War. However, the defeat in the Crimean War should not be exaggerated. Russia was forced to confront a whole coalition of opponents, the leading powers of that time — Britain and France. Austria has taken an extremely hostile position. Our enemies were planning to dismember Russia, reject it from the Baltic and the Black Sea, to tear away huge territories - Finland, the Baltic States, the Kingdom of Poland, the Crimea, lands in the Caucasus. But all these plans failed due to the heroic resistance of Russian soldiers and sailors in Sevastopol. In general, the war ended with minimal losses for Russia. England, France and Turkey could not destroy the main achievements of Russia in the Caucasus, the Black Sea region and the Baltic. Russia has resisted. It still remained the main opponent of the West on the planet.

“Black Myths” about the Russian Emperor Nicholas I

Northern Colossus. French caricature of Nicholas I and the Crimean War

To be continued ...
Author:
167 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. PKK
    PKK 6 July 2016 06: 25
    +21
    Nikolay1y, a respected patriot of Russia. During his reign, Russia was an independent Empire. But there were too many traitors and Russia had to lose the Crimean War and become dependent on Naglia. Thanks to the backlog of Nikolay1go, Russia is still alive.
    1. venaya
      venaya 6 July 2016 06: 55
      +16
      Quote: PKK
      there were too many traitors and Russia had to lose the Crimean War and become dependent on Naglia

      Even the death of the emperor in the midst of the battle in the Crimea suggests that this death could not have been natural and most likely the real instigators of this whole war simply ran out of money, and it was much cheaper to end the war so that Emperor Nicholas I himself died. It is not possible to consider the government of England or the Emperor Napoleon III to be the instigator of the "Crimean War", because the British government did not allocate any money for the conduct of hostilities (although it allowed the participation of British soldiers), but Napoleon III could not understand until the end of his life - and why was all this war necessary? After all, it contradicted the direct economic interests of France and directly worked for the economic interests of British bankers to the detriment of the economy of France itself. It is believed that Napoleon III made his decision about France's participation in this war under the influence of newspaper propaganda, whose funding was carried out from British bankers. Pure NLP!
      1. goose
        goose 6 July 2016 11: 46
        +2
        Quote: venaya
        for the British government did not allocate any money for warfare

        England allocated just the money, and considerable, for which the war was arranged. And there are just a few people.
        1. Beefeater
          Beefeater 6 July 2016 12: 24
          +4
          Quote: goose
          Quote: venaya
          for the British government did not allocate any money for warfare

          England allocated just the money, and considerable, for which the war was arranged. And there are just a few people.

          The English fleet and Raglan's large expeditionary force took part. The bloom of the British aristocracy fell during the famous "attack of light cavalry"
      2. razmik72
        razmik72 6 July 2016 14: 46
        +9
        Quote: venaya
        Quote: PKK
        there were too many traitors and Russia had to lose the Crimean War and become dependent on Naglia

        Even the death of the emperor in the midst of the battle in the Crimea suggests that this death could not have been natural and most likely the real instigators of this whole war simply ran out of money, and it was much cheaper to end the war so that Emperor Nicholas I himself died. It is not possible to consider the government of England or the Emperor Napoleon III to be the instigator of the "Crimean War", because the British government did not allocate any money for the conduct of hostilities (although it allowed the participation of British soldiers), but Napoleon III could not understand until the end of his life - and why was all this war necessary? After all, it contradicted the direct economic interests of France and directly worked for the economic interests of British bankers to the detriment of the economy of France itself. It is believed that Napoleon III made his decision about France's participation in this war under the influence of newspaper propaganda, whose funding was carried out from British bankers. Pure NLP!

        Some works by historians suggest that Emperor Nicholas 1 was so depressed and wounded by the defeats of the Russian army in the Crimean War that he did not pay the slightest attention to his health, ate little, dressed very easily, as if something had been broken in this man. , lightly dressed, he caught a cold and died. He was not a straightforward person, he had both good sides and not so much. Personally, for the Armenian people his activity was positive.
        Such a death of Nicholas1 from longing and pain due to the defeats of the Russian troops in the Crimean War reveals to us a patriot who is seriously suffering a defeat.
    2. Pavel1
      Pavel1 6 July 2016 09: 36
      -15%
      in the picture, a creature that does not show signs of a male is strange.
      The fashion for wearing blue ribbons was introduced in the 18th century. We will deal with this issue. Nowadays there is such a definition of pid_rasov-blue. Why exactly blue? but because the blue color is not male color, but female, and male red. But at some stage we were replaced by concepts and replaced men's colors with women's colors. For example, at the birth of boys, you need to tie up with a blue ribbon, and a girl with a pink one is a fact of substitution. But in some ways, nevertheless, humanity has retained the correct concepts and therefore the desire to be a man and a woman was called blue.
      It is right for a man to be fire-red, and a woman to remain cold-blue, which corresponds to the nature of man, such is the analysis of yet another substitution of concepts and misleading people.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 6 July 2016 09: 46
        +7
        And whether it is necessary to understand such issues (the fashion for wearing blue ribbons), who needs it. So, let’s get to the raspberry jackets.
        1. Pavel1
          Pavel1 6 July 2016 10: 01
          0
          Quote: bober1982
          And whether it is necessary to understand such issues (the fashion for wearing blue ribbons), who needs it. So, let’s get to the raspberry jackets.


          interconnection of generations is interrupted, and traditions cease to be traditions, it should not be so, everything must be returned to their natural divine places.
          Speak a raspberry jacket? This is right for a man.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 6 July 2016 10: 25
            0
            I will not argue.
      2. kov123
        kov123 6 July 2016 10: 14
        +15
        The blue ribbon is the ribbon of the Order of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called. The badge of the order was worn on such a ribbon at the hip.
        1. Beefeater
          Beefeater 6 July 2016 12: 27
          +10
          Quote: kov123
          The blue ribbon is the ribbon of the Order of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called. The badge of the order was worn on such a ribbon at the hip.

          Red ribbon badge of the Order of St. Catherine. Therefore, girls have pink and red colors
      3. alebor
        alebor 6 July 2016 10: 34
        +16
        What nonsense? Why should the modern homosexual epithet "blue" be carried over to the XNUMXth century, when such an epithet did not exist and there were no corresponding associations?
        If we take the Russian folk peasant costume, then the red color is the color of the bride’s sundress and, in general, the festive color of the clothes of the peasant women.
        And the colors blue - male and pink - female, as expected, come from the colors of the ribbons of the orders of St. Andrew the First-Called (the same color of the ribbon on the naval St. Andrew’s flag) and St. Catherine. As you know, all newborn grand dukes were automatically awarded the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called with a blue ribbon, and the great princesses with the Order of St. Catherine with a red ribbon.
        1. Pavel1
          Pavel1 6 July 2016 10: 57
          -16%
          Quote: alebor
          Why should the modern homosexual epithet "blue" be carried over to the XNUMXth century, when such an epithet did not exist and there were no corresponding associations?


          it seems to you that "blue" is a modern definition, in fact, this is how the people always called pida_rasov.
          Quote: alebor
          If we take the Russian folk peasant costume, then the red color is the color of the bride’s sundress and, in general, the festive color of the clothes of the peasant women.


          do not confuse clothes and SYMBOLS, clothes can be any, but when it is necessary to put meaning in a concept, in a symbol, then the concept should already be unambiguous and you can’t change it.


          Quote: alebor
          And the colors blue - male and pink - female, as expected, come from the colors of the ribbons of the orders of St. Andrew the First-Called (the same color of the ribbon on the naval St. Andrew’s flag) and St. Catherine.


          Well, so most of these "reforms" were done by the "great reformer", he was repulsive to all Russian traditions in symbolism, and in clothes, and in the army, and in language, and in architecture, and in state and church administration. Therefore, our rulers love him, flesh of flesh ...
          1. Oprychnik
            Oprychnik 6 July 2016 19: 34
            +3
            "It seems to you that" blue "is a modern definition, in fact, that is how the people always called pida_rasov."
            In 1978 I graduated from the university and came to Kuzbass for assignment. I was 23 years old. And there I heard the expression "blue" for the first time in my life. I naively asked what it was. They explained to me. And before that he called this phenomenon in a simple way, like the rest of our people.)
          2. alexej123
            alexej123 6 July 2016 21: 54
            +4
            I suggest you go out to Gorky Park in Moscow on August 2 and loudly express your thoughts for the blue color.
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 6 July 2016 22: 01
              +6
              Quote: alexej123
              I suggest you go out to Gorky Park in Moscow on August 2 and loudly express your thoughts for the blue color.

              - the obituary will say "drowned in a fountain" .. crying
            2. Pavel1
              Pavel1 6 July 2016 22: 55
              -3
              Quote: alexej123
              I suggest you go out to Gorky Park in Moscow on August 2 and loudly express your thoughts for the blue color.


              blue betetas against speckles -red? The Reds will do ...
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. a housewife
        a housewife 6 July 2016 11: 50
        +2
        All questions to the creator of orders on tapes!
      6. Revolver
        Revolver 6 July 2016 15: 49
        +10
        Quote: Paul1
        Nowadays there is such a definition of pid_rasov-blue.

        What does homosyatin have to do with the topic under discussion? what
      7. Kotyara Fat
        Kotyara Fat 6 July 2016 16: 43
        0
        Nonsense! Blue color is the color of the Virgin! The colors of fagots he became much later.
      8. sibiryouk
        sibiryouk 6 July 2016 20: 00
        +2
        Back in the XNUMXth century, Russia was awarded the highest orders with a blue ribbon over the shoulder - the so-called. "Cavalry". The color blue was then associated with exclusivity, a special position - the expression "blue blood" (a sign of greatness, special nobility). This color was not associated with homosexuality.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 6 July 2016 20: 14
          +6
          in the 19th century, blue was the color of Lancer, in 20m it became the color of a landing. In general, vulgarizing colors and tying them to perverts is a shame for flowers
        2. Gvas1174
          Gvas1174 7 July 2016 16: 23
          +3
          It is not pleasant to touch upon the topic of "full of holes" when discussing the personalities of distant ...
          I think I will express the general opinion that the most worthy color for them is the color of shit (I’m sorry), but not the sky, and not the rainbow.
      9. Cat
        Cat 6 July 2016 21: 15
        +3
        If I’m not mistaken, the blue Leneta is a confirmation of the statute of the highest order of the Russian Empire - Andrew the First-Called. All emperors of Russia had ceremonial portraits with the specified ribbon. Including emperors: Elizabeth and Catherine II.
      10. alexej123
        alexej123 6 July 2016 21: 51
        0
        Maybe for pi .... owls you know better. The blue ribbon is the ribbon of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, the highest Order of the Russian Empire.
    3. Pavel1
      Pavel1 6 July 2016 10: 19
      0
      according to the content of the article. Now it’s hard to figure out how progressive Nikolai was for Russia. Samsonov writes that he saved the country from the Masons? Not a fact, the Romanov rule for the Russian people is an absolute evil, terrible slavery-serfdom, absolute illiteracy, restraining progress by all means, the dominance of foreigners in power and in science, which is why we have the distorted-rewritten history, all this was completely in the traditions of Romanov rule -This was already sufficient reason for a change of power.
      What kind of debunking of myths about Nikolai2 can we talk about if the most important thing in his life is he lost the war?
      In 1853, the length of railway lines in the country totaled 979 versts, which amounted to 1,5% of the global railway network. This circumstance negatively manifested itself during the Crimean War, because the lack of modern means of communication made it impossible to provide the army with the necessary reinforcements, ammunition, and food.

      The rifles were smooth-bore, against rifled -western ones, the country’s SHAME -flooding of its fleet was due to Russia's lagging in the field of shipbuilding and the fleet was sailing as opposed to the western one by engine.
      Russia was not just a backward country, but most importantly, under Nikolay it was lagging ever stronger than other countries and this is a fact.
      1. dkflbvbh
        dkflbvbh 6 July 2016 11: 02
        0
        Most importantly, he did not crush the Poles and their henchmen in the bud. As a result, we now have the so-called "Ukraine" and "Belarus", and not a single Russian state ...
      2. Beefeater
        Beefeater 6 July 2016 12: 40
        +5
        Quote: Paul1
        according to the content of the article
        The rifles were smooth-bore, against rifled -western ones, the country’s SHAME -flooding of its fleet was due to Russia's lagging in the field of shipbuilding and the fleet was sailing as opposed to the western one by engine.
        Russia was not just a backward country, but most importantly, under Nikolay it was lagging ever stronger than other countries and this is a fact.

        The French also had a large part of the army armed with smoothbore guns.
        The tactics were backward - the attack in the columns.
        The Russians used a completely new progressive tactic of trench warfare.
        Outstripped the Anglo French in terms of the fleet was simply unrealistic
        1. Pavel1
          Pavel1 6 July 2016 13: 07
          -2
          Quote: Beefeater
          The French also had a large part of the army armed with smoothbore guns.

          Weapons of France
          By the beginning of the Crimean War, the French army for financial reasons had not yet completely switched to rifled weapons: about 2 / 3 infantry of the empire were armed with smoothbore percussion rifles while only 1 / 3 (mainly huntsmen) were rifled fittings. However, France sent to Crimea only those soldiers who were armed with rifles - to maintain the prestige of the "great power" and achieve technical superiority over the enemy army.


          is not enough
          Quote: Beefeater
          Outstripped the Anglo French in terms of the fleet was simply unrealistic


          really want to say? unrealistic for those who do nothing or when they don’t give anything, but they beat on the hands, as in Nikolay1.
          In general, Lenin was undoubtedly right in some ways, namely in his assessments of tsarism for Russia. "Tsarism for Russia was an unconditional brake on development." Lenin did not explain to the truth why the Romanovs were a brake. "
          The answer to this question is given only by the Fomenko-Nosovsky theory.
          1. Beefeater
            Beefeater 6 July 2016 22: 25
            +3
            Yes, it was impossible to build a fleet equal in strength to English at that time. There was no such powerful industry. England was the forge of the world, a country with centuries-old maritime traditions. But the Russian sailors showed themselves perfectly in the battle of Sinope.
            And the defense of Sevastopol was built competently, thoughtfully. In a matter of days, defenses were built from the shore, which simply did not exist
      3. Aleksander
        Aleksander 6 July 2016 14: 34
        +3
        Quote: Paul1
        Romanov’s rule for the Russian people is absolute evil, terrible slavery-serfdom, absolute illiteracy, restraint of progress by all means

        Yes, yes, this "absolute evil" together with the people created the most big and best country in the world. With this "evil", the Russian people have largely become themselves, acquired territory (since the time of Grozny it has increased FIVE times), developed the best culture in the world, advanced science in the world and won glorious victories.
        Of course, there were problems, like in other countries, but they were solved and the people doubled approximately every 50 years.
        No one has ever created such a country again.
        1. Pavel1
          Pavel1 6 July 2016 14: 40
          -8
          Quote: Aleksander
          Yes, yes, this "absolute evil", together with the people, created the largest and best country in the world.


          you think or better say you are following the traditional path, the Germans didn’t create anything Romanov –– they could conquer Great Tartaria with the help of all Europe, but Tartaria –– the Russian state was really great.
      4. russkiy redut
        russkiy redut 6 July 2016 14: 55
        +6
        Answer the question, if Russia was always so all backward, why did our Western "Partners" staged a revolution in 1917 and 1991, invested money if we collapsed ourselves, because we are backward !!!! I am sure you cannot say anything intelligible!
        1. Grenader
          Grenader 6 July 2016 21: 28
          +1
          Quote: russkiy redut
          Answer the question, if Russia was always so all backward, why did our Western "Partners" staged a revolution in 1917 and 1991, invested money if we collapsed ourselves, because we are backward !!!! I am sure you cannot say anything intelligible!

          He will not answer, for this is an adherent of the sect of Fomenkoids. These individuals like ukrozombi believe in their teaching no arguments. Not long ago, they started a dispute with them on the topic of ancient Rome, they called it minuses and called a boor and a schoolboy, but they did not give evidence of their theories. In general, discussing an activity with them is useless.
          1. Pavel1
            Pavel1 6 July 2016 22: 51
            -5
            Quote: Grenader
            These individuals like ukrozombi believe in their teaching no arguments.

            cheap...
            Quote: Grenader
            Not long ago, a dispute started with them on the topic of ancient Rome, they called minuses they called a boor and a schoolboy,


            except for minuses, usually there are no arguments ...

            Quote: Grenader
            In general, to discuss business with them is useless.


            to discuss minuses, of course ...
          2. Pavel1
            Pavel1 6 July 2016 22: 52
            0
            Quote: Grenader
            He will not answer for it is an adherent of the sect of Fomenkoids


            let him turn as a human being, as is customary in people.
      5. Revolver
        Revolver 6 July 2016 15: 52
        +7
        Quote: Paul1
        Rifles were smoothbore

        Smoothbore rifle? what At you bent.
        1. Pavel1
          Pavel1 6 July 2016 17: 51
          -1
          Quote: Nagan
          Smoothbore rifle? what et you bent.


          here's an article that mentions "rifled rifles" if there are rifled rifles, then there were rifles and not rifled
          However, if the reliability of small arms was improved, then its ballistic characteristics remained at a fairly low level. For comparison, the range of the Russian gun is 300 steps, and the aiming range is generally 200 steps, while the English rifles had a range of 1100-1200 steps. But nevertheless, negotiations were held on the purchase of rifled rifles

          http://gunmaster.pp.ua/articles/20-strelkovoe-oruzhie-v-krymskoi-voine-1853-1856
          -gg.html
      6. erg
        erg 6 July 2016 17: 23
        +9
        Do you even understand anything or just to track? A rifle, by definition, cannot be smoothbore. The name itself comes from screw rifling in the bore. For reference - there were shotguns and with straight rifling, not twisting. Yes, and already under Nicholas 1, in the backward Russian army they used electricity to undermine mine charges. Including in the Crimean War.
      7. The comment was deleted.
      8. Dart2027
        Dart2027 6 July 2016 21: 03
        +2
        Quote: Paul1
        The rifles were smooth-bore, against rifled -western

        Actually, rifled ones were also introduced, it’s another matter that the Republic of Ingushetia did not expect a war with a coalition of European countries, and therefore it was not corny to prepare for dealing with internal problems.
        Quote: Paul1
        the flooding of its fleet was associated with Russia's lag in shipbuilding

        No, it’s just that the size of the Allied fleet did not leave any chances for victory in a naval battle.
    4. goose
      goose 6 July 2016 11: 12
      +6
      Key phrase of the article: "He did not recognize the humanities." This fundamentally distinguished him from the traditional "elites" that filled the top of the government. Let us remember that even under the communists there were quite a few humanitarians, but what can we say about the tsarist elite, where the humanities occupied about 99% of the number, or about the bourgeoisie, where the importance of the humanities was less, but still no less than 90%. The bias towards one or another gave sad consequences (towards the techies, in Russia, perhaps, there has never been a bias - thanks to the Russian Orthodox Church).

      In fact, Peter, Paul, Nikolay 1, Alexander 3 were technocratic kings. Here you can add Stalin.
      In opposition to them were Catherine 2, Elizabeth, Alexei, Nikolai 2, Alexander 1 - more likely humanitarians. During the reign of the technocrats, the rights of the elite, as a rule, expanded, the rights of the people increased. Technocrats laid the foundations for industry and economics. During the reign of the humanitarians, the rights of the elite and the church were expanded at the expense of the ordinary people, the cream was skimmed at the expense of the heritage of ancestors with the unstable development of science, industry, trade and the army (or even degradation). The rule of the humanities was sometimes accompanied by an adventurous policy, not supported by accurate calculations and resources. The "techies" prepared their policy and diplomacy with a large margin, but they were sometimes excessively slow, achieving a guaranteed result.
    5. g1v2
      g1v2 6 July 2016 11: 22
      +10
      Yeah, the more the ruler did for Russia, the more shit poured on him in the future. Nicknames come up, the executioner put up. Ivan the Terrible, Pavel 1, Stalin, Nikolai1 - they were all smeared, declaring someone tyrants, some crazy. You can immediately conclude that if some ruler was poured with mud, then the ruler was standing.
      1. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 6 July 2016 13: 28
        +2
        Quote: g1v2
        Yeah, the more the ruler did for Russia, the more shit poured on him in the future. Nicknames come up, the executioner put up. Ivan the Terrible, Pavel 1, Stalin, Nikolai1 - they were all smeared, declaring someone tyrants, some crazy. You can immediately conclude that if some ruler was poured with mud, then the ruler was standing.

        I would add Peter III to this list
      2. Pissarro
        Pissarro 6 July 2016 13: 35
        +5
        I.V. Stalin: "If our enemies scold us, then we are doing everything right."
    6. Rastas
      Rastas 6 July 2016 12: 25
      +1
      “In Russia, only two people do not steal - you and me,” Nikolai I once said to his son. Not a very brilliant situation. Under Nicholas, the power in the country was seized by the bureaucracy. “The country is run by clerks,” Nikolai said. peasant reform, judicial, educational, military, never began. While the industrial revolution was going on in Western countries, in Russia the construction of a railway from St. Petersburg to Moscow was presented as a great achievement. Russia met the Crimean War with a sailing fleet, like its highly developed neighbor Turkey, with smooth-bore guns, rampant embezzlement and a failure of foreign policy.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 40
        +4
        Under Nicholas, the power in the country was seized by the bureaucracy. "The country is run by clerks"


        Now, too, the country is ruled by a bureaucracy. The question is, who ruled the country before Nikolai the First created the bureaucracy and the captains? It's funny when they criticize the transition from feudal to capitalist relations as regression laughing

        Russian laying of the railway from St. Petersburg to Moscow served as a great achievement


        Given that at the time of construction it was the longest and most direct railway in the world, this was an achievement
      2. Cat
        Cat 6 July 2016 21: 42
        0
        What a habit to measure everything in absolute terms. History has no syllable. Replay it is not possible. After a century and a half, you can hang stamps on everyone and everything.
        To summarize the above, I will give only one example: literally a month ago, I came across the book "History of the Development of Siberia" and on its first flyleaf was a map of "Western Siberia - 1850s". Moreover, the map depicted Siberia from the Urals to Komchatka. Yes, yes, with the Far East, though still without Vladivostok and the Sakhalin skeleton, but with Okhotsk, Chukotka and the Kuriles. I thought the publishers' mistake depicted the whole of Siberia, and not just its western part. Believe me, what shock I experienced when I saw Eastern Siberia on the second flyleaf of the book? Yes, yes, with Alaska, the Commander Islands and California. And you about the roads! It took a year to get from Petropavlovsk Komchatsky to St. Petersburg. Think YEAR.
    7. xan
      xan 6 July 2016 13: 30
      +3
      Quote: PKK
      Nikolay1y, a respected patriot of Russia. During his reign, Russia was an independent Empire. But there were too many traitors and Russia had to lose the Crimean War and become dependent on Naglia. Thanks to the backlog of Nikolay1go, Russia is still alive.

      How can one believe in such nonsense? There are specific facts that cannot be falsified. Nicholas 1, such a patriot and statesman, scoured everything that is possible, in general everything:
      - the army was bureaucratized so that military thought and initiative practically evaporated, only executive idols were put forward, the consequences for the generals of the Russian army were no longer corrected until the end of the monarchy. The last splendor in the Russian-Turkish war for the liberation of Bulgaria is almost entirely on exclusion generals like Skobelev or the courage of soldiers like Shipka.
      - society is squeezed in such a way that there is no need to speak about any science, culture in the broad sense of the word, and not just for nobles, social initiative, bureaucracy in its worst manifestation,
      - Foreign policy is given to the rogue Neselrode, who lay under Meternich. Russia worked all the time for someone, saved the monarchies of Turkey and Austria, who stuck a knife in the back in the Crimean War. At the end of Nikolay’s reign, she found herself in political isolation with such favors to her neighbors — this must be known. Turned his beloved Russia into a second-rate power.
      - the economy, they splashed the industrial revolution with all the ensuing consequences.
      Nikolai's rule made the October Revolution inevitable. He compressed the spring so that it practically unclenched until 1917. Its time is similar to the time of the Inquisition for Spain, which killed the superpower from within. "You will recognize him by his deeds", "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." His energy and consistency in the right direction, the price he would not have.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 6 July 2016 13: 43
        +2
        the army was bureaucratized so that military thought and initiative practically evaporated, only executive idols were put forward, the consequences for the generals of the Russian army were no longer corrected until the end of the monarchy.


        Falsehood: Persia and Turkey were successively defeated, insurgencies in Poland and Hungary were suppressed. During the war of 1854-1856, all enemy attacks on all fronts were repelled, half a city was lost. It is especially funny to read about executive initiative-free idols in an era of lack of communication and the inability to give valuable instructions to garrisons. for example, in Petropavlovsk, which calmly and proactively destroyed the aggressor.

        About the lack of culture in the very cultural age of Russia is also ridiculous
        1. xan
          xan 6 July 2016 16: 00
          +1
          Quote: Pissarro
          Falsehood: Persia and Turkey were successively defeated, insurgencies in Poland and Hungary were suppressed. During the war of 1854-1856, all enemy attacks on all fronts were repelled, half a city was lost. It is especially funny to read about executive initiative-free idols in an era of lack of communication and the inability to give valuable instructions to garrisons. for example, in Petropavlovsk, which calmly and proactively destroyed the aggressor.

          Do not know military history. Persia and Turkey are not opponents, their armies belong to previous generations. The uprisings of Poland and Hungary were crushed by the many times superior forces of the regular army, and this is against the rebels. Executive idols lost the battle of Alma, Inkerman, could not lift the siege of Sevastopol with equal strength, even the cavalry brigade at Balaklava could not be completely destroyed, and suffered comparable losses. Catherine’s generals and warriors turned over in their grave for 12 years. Not a single military talent of the commander, all victories were won thanks to the high fighting qualities of ordinary soldiers, this is a bare medical fact. The saddest thing, after Nicholas in general, generals from God in Russia was not visible, except for the constantly shuttered Skobelev. Of course they were, but not where they should be. And it all started with Nicholas.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. xan
              xan 6 July 2016 20: 04
              -3
              Quote: erg
              Without competent military commanders, no soldiers, even those with high combat qualities, are able to win battles, and even more so a war. An army of donkeys led by a lion, better than an army of lions led by a donkey. The truth is known and multiple times, confirmed by history from the time of ancient Rome.

              What a clever one! The Gross-Egersdorf battle, the commander-in-chief Apraksin gave the order to retreat, but the young Rumyantsev, seeing the high morale of his soldiers and the desire to help the defeated vanguard, makes his way through the impenetrable forest with his soldiers and attacks the Prussians with those who managed to get through. Victory. Apraksin is a typical Nikolaev general, and Rumyantsev is a commander from God. Imagine what the Nikolaev military bureaucracy would do with Rumyantsev.
              1. Pissarro
                Pissarro 6 July 2016 20: 12
                +3
                blaming people for what you would do according to your understanding in some situation in my opinion is the pinnacle of insanity. You made a decision for them and they were accused of this decision laughing wassat
              2. erg
                erg 6 July 2016 20: 46
                +4
                Would be awarded for a victory. You can be sure. But about the army of the time of Nicholas, you have no idea at all. Judge, it seems only by literary works.
                1. xan
                  xan 6 July 2016 21: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Pissarro
                  blaming people for what you would do according to your understanding in some situation in my opinion is the pinnacle of insanity. You made a decision for them and they were accused of this decision laughing wassat

                  Quote: erg
                  Would be awarded for a victory. You can be sure. But about the army of the time of Nicholas, you have no idea at all. Judge, it seems only by literary works.

                  Open your eyes and look at the bare facts - all the victories of Nikolaev Russia over the wretched Persia and Turkey, as well as over the rebels of Poland and Hungary. As soon as they encountered a serious enemy in the Crimea, defeats immediately began, and with capable command, it was possible to win both Alma and Inkerman, and lift the siege from Sevastopol. All victories are only due to the fighting efficiency and courage of a simple soldier and sailor, Sinop is certainly a victory, but the Russians have much more guns, and the enemy too. Not a single truly talented commander, where did the talents suddenly go ?. Well, where is the literature? Can you think for yourself?
                  1. erg
                    erg 6 July 2016 23: 49
                    +1
                    Hmm, you were missing there. You would definitely win. Remember, facts, and especially naked ones, do not always lead to the truth, they can also lead in the false direction. First of all, you need to know the patterns. Here is the analogy that students often cite when studying criminal law, in particular the concept of crime. There is a fact - a man had a fight, let's say was beaten. The second fact - his death came some time after the fight. According to the autopsy results from the injury. The fool immediately concludes on the basis of these bare facts that those who beat this person are guilty of death. But in fact, the injury leading to death could have been received after the fight and had nothing to do with it. Think about it.
                2. xan
                  xan 6 July 2016 22: 16
                  0
                  Quote: erg
                  Would be awarded for a victory. You can be sure.

                  Of course I would be awarded. And then they would be sent to such a darkness, and goodbye to a military genius. Under all emperors before Nicholas in Russia there were undeniable military talents that shone both in the east and in the west. Where did they suddenly disappear under Nicholas? Didn’t come up with such a thought?
                  1. Pissarro
                    Pissarro 6 July 2016 22: 28
                    +1
                    General Paskevich, in my opinion the chief commander of Nicholas. The commander of the Russian troops in a number of major successful campaigns: the Russian-Persian war (1826-1828), the Russian-Turkish war (1828-1829), the suppression of the Polish uprising (1831), the suppression of the Hungarian uprising (1849 )

                    Of course you can beat this man, but the merits and talents of this Nikolaev general are indisputable, like all his victories. And not a single defeat

                    if someone has disappeared from your field of vision, does not mean that he has disappeared from the history of Nikolaev reign
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Pissarro
            Pissarro 6 July 2016 17: 35
            +2
            Progressive allies stormed Petropavlovsk, a selective large landing against a local team of disabled people with outdated weapons. And screwed up. In the north they screwed up generally against the monks from Solovki. In Crimea they screwed up in Sevastopol, where, with their resources, equipment, logistics, numbers, they couldn’t even theoretically screw up.

            But if we are talking about generals, in the camp of the enemy who flashed? Who among the British and French for the indicated half a century shone at least where? All examples, if any, will be against the Papuans
          4. Dart2027
            Dart2027 6 July 2016 21: 14
            +2
            Quote: xan
            could not lift the siege of Sevastopol with equal strength

            And please tell me what was the size of the Russian army in the Crimea, and what was the number of opposing allies?
            Quote: xan
            Not a single truly military talent of the commander, all victories were won thanks to the high combat qualities of ordinary soldiers, this is a bare medical fact

            The same thing is said about Stalin. Do you believe that? I somehow do not.
            Quote: xan
            The uprisings of Poland and Hungary were crushed by the many times superior forces of the regular army, and this is against the rebels.

            And you do not know why the regular army of AB could not cope with these rebels? It seems modern, trained and armed, but I had to call the Russians.
            1. xan
              xan 6 July 2016 22: 05
              0
              Quote: Dart2027
              And please tell me what was the size of the Russian army in the Crimea, and what was the number of opposing allies?

              Find the answer to the question yourself. Under Alma and Inkerman, roughly equal forces, ours lost to the western sharkuns.
              Quote: Dart2027
              The same thing is said about Stalin. Do you believe that? I somehow do not.

              Stalin commander?
              Quote: Dart2027
              And you do not know why the regular army of AB could not cope with these rebels? It seems modern, trained and armed, but I had to call the Russians.

              And where did you get the idea that the Austrian army was modern, trained and armed? Do you know anything specifically about this uprising and about Austria at that time?
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 6 July 2016 22: 47
                +3
                Quote: xan
                Stalin commander?

                And who was the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USSR?
                Quote: xan
                And where did you get the idea that the Austrian army was modern, trained and armed?

                As warriors, the Austrians did not shine, but they had a completely European army, which could easily cope with the rebels, whom you cite as an example of an absolutely incapable enemy.
                Quote: xan
                Under Alma and Inkerman, approximately equal forces

                Under Alma, 33-35 thousand against 60-61 thousand plus fleet support on the left flank. Is it about equal?
                Under Inkerman, we had a numerical superiority, but we had to storm well-fortified positions there.
    8. russkiy redut
      russkiy redut 6 July 2016 14: 35
      +2
      Thanks to Nicholas I for not leaking Russia. Sasha Samsonov - Author of the article +.
  2. Tsoy
    Tsoy 6 July 2016 06: 28
    +14
    did not know about the "slander". For me, Nicholas the first was always the emperor as an engineer. Pulkovo Observatory, railways, development of technologies and sciences. The first dear road in the empire that connected Moscow and St. Petersburg. The increased track made it difficult for the Germans to use communications during the Second World War. So he did a lot, not only during his lifetime, but also contributed to the defense of a different state in the future.
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 6 July 2016 13: 08
      +2
      And a lot of Nicholas the First railways built? The road from St. Petersburg to Moscow did not really work, because the bridges were wooden and burned forever. All equipment was imported.

      The father of the railways in Russia was Alexander the Second.
      1. Tsoy
        Tsoy 6 July 2016 13: 23
        +1
        Father, not father, but in history he remained as the ruler under whom the first road was built. Subsequent successes and his merit, too, as a pioneer.
        1. Zulu_S
          Zulu_S 6 July 2016 14: 00
          +3
          Nicholas 1 brought Russia to defeat in the Crimean War, Nicholas 2 - to the collapse of the Russian Empire. Nicholas 3 Russia would not have survived? They could be just wonderful people (engineers, photographers, anyone!), But kings (managers) are bad.
          1. erg
            erg 6 July 2016 17: 47
            +6
            And you look from the other side. The times of Catherine, Paul, Alexander - these are times of strong influence of the aristocratic elite. Times of favoritism. And it’s good if the favorites like Potemkin. Say both Catherine and Alexander, I don’t know about Pavel, thought about abolishing serfdom, but the serf lobby, in the face of an almost omnipotent aristocracy, always hindered, in modern terms. And Paul’s example shows how dangerous this can be. Under Nicholas, bureaucracy has grown, and an official has advanced to the first place in the state machine. And he, in fact, owes only supreme power. This bureaucratization is not an ice, but it strongly crippled the omnipotence of the aristocracy. No, she has not gone anywhere, but her influence has greatly weakened. By the way, it was during the time of Nicholas 1 that most of the officers in the army scored from the lower ranks, from serfs recruited by recruitment. At the same Skobelev, his grandfather was a serf, who served the nobility in the army.
            But most importantly, the weakening of the aristocracy allowed the abolition of serfdom by Alexander 2. He actually continued on this issue the policy of his father, who repeatedly tried to solve this problem.
        2. ism_ek
          ism_ek 6 July 2016 18: 02
          0
          Railways are an industry. Starting from the issuance of Railway bonds and ending with the production of railway property. This is the training of engineers and the training of skilled workers. All this was created under Alexander the Second. Thanks to his work, Russia by the end of the century came to the forefront in the construction of railways, connecting Europe and the Pacific Ocean.

          The Nikolaev railway station is a good example of how you don’t need to build ... Nikolay ran a ruler on the map and tens of thousands of serfs with wheelbarrows dragged millions of tons of soil.

          And serfdom ... Paul the First also declared that it was time to abolish serfdom. Nikolai’s spirit didn’t have enough to do this.
          1. Pissarro
            Pissarro 6 July 2016 18: 15
            +3
            that is, the Nikolaev railway did not have railway property, engineers and skilled workers?

            and on the construction sites of the empire’s railroads under the heirs of Nicholas, peasants and convicts did not drag the soil? Trucks have teleported them since the 20th century?
          2. Tsoy
            Tsoy 6 July 2016 18: 46
            0
            Quote: ism_ek
            Nicholas spent a ruler on the map and tens of thousands of serfs wheelbarrows dragging millions of tons of soil.


            And Peter the First was laughed in Europe when he founded Petersburg on the island ... and worked there 300 000.
  3. Pre-cat
    Pre-cat 6 July 2016 06: 42
    +4
    The normal ruler was, unlike his namesake descendant. Some historians called him the last knight of Europe due to the fact that he always respected both the letter and the spirit of international treaties (by the way, because of this, our troops went to pacify the Hungarians, to save the Austrian monarchy, but on the mountain). It is a pity that he later realized that Russia has only two reliable allies - the army and navy.
    1. xan
      xan 6 July 2016 16: 29
      +1
      Quote: The cat is half-educated
      Some historians called him the last knight of Europe due to the fact that he always respected both the letter and the spirit of international treaties

      Let it be called a scum, but wars must be won, and the economy should be raised, including by the hair as under Peter 1.
  4. Gvas1174
    Gvas1174 6 July 2016 06: 42
    +7
    Alas, in this era I was not knowledgeable, which upset me. I knew about the Masons and their movement with the Decembrists.
    As a result, it is worth continuing this very series of publications. It is possible to be unlimited only by the Sovereigns, but the statesmen should be included.
    Applause to the author
  5. strelets
    strelets 6 July 2016 06: 47
    +12
    They like to rewrite history under liberals. Ivan the Terrible, Nicholas I ... How many more slandered historical figures! And if you look at history books altogether, you will go to apologize for being Russian.
    1. Beaver
      Beaver 6 July 2016 08: 05
      +8
      Quote: strelets
      They like to rewrite history under liberals.

      Unfortunately, not for liberals, but for themselves liberalists.
      I have long been convinced: the more slop poured on the ruler of Russia, the more he really did for her good.
  6. Wolka
    Wolka 6 July 2016 06: 59
    +2
    a good essay for the main task for historians is to draw the attention of students to a multilateral understanding of various historical events and circumstances and the role of specific historical figures in them, and not only in light of the conjunctural fabrications of some applicants for scientific degrees and ranks ...
  7. Gvas1174
    Gvas1174 6 July 2016 07: 03
    +4
    And yes, by the way; thanks for the reference to the article about the Decembrists, it is very instructive, although not as voluminous as here. I will continue to follow the publications of the author.
    And yes, by the way, did anyone notice that pedobritz sharply intensified in relation to Russia after the Rothschilds managed to crank up a scam at the Battle of Waterloo? As far as my memory serves me, the Rothschilds became key players in the financial market in PdBr, and these comrades were from Austria, where the riot of Hungarians was suppressed by the hands of Russia. Good ball, is not it)))))
  8. knn54
    knn54 6 July 2016 07: 10
    +17
    Simply, Nicholas 1 tried to restore order in the country, which is immediately perceived as tyranny.
    Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev, Leo Tolstoy, Goncharov, Dostoevsky, Bryullov, Lobachevsky, Zinin, Jacobi, Schepkin, Mochalov. Pirogov, Cherepanovs, Zasyadko ... Enough?
    PS Under Nicholas I, the number of gymnasiums doubled, and district schools tripled. Kiev University, Petersburg Technological Institute were opened ...
    PP.S In Paris, a mediocre play “from Russian life” was staged, where the circumstances of the death of Paul I were outlined in an insulting form for Russia and Nicholas ...
    Soon, the Russian ambassador in a secular tone said:
    “Gentlemen, they asked you to convey it here ... If this play nevertheless goes to the theater, my emperor will send a million spectators in gray overcoats to Paris, who will thoroughly lighten it ... The play was INSTANTLY removed.
  9. parusnik
    parusnik 6 July 2016 07: 24
    -7
    C'mon ... No worse and no better than other kings of the 19th century .. I didn’t bring anything to mind during the years of my reign .. like the others .. that then came around ..
    1. Beaver
      Beaver 6 July 2016 08: 08
      +13
      Quote: parusnik
      Didn’t bring anything to mind during the years of his reign .. like the rest

      Well, not all the same infallible, like you, my dear! By the way, what kind of state are you currently managing? Are all subjects satisfied and happy?
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 6 July 2016 11: 22
        +2
        Let's not switch to avatrkas ... And the result of the general imperfections of the tsarist ... the February revolution, and then the October Revolution ... And then ... , he answered kindly - ironically: "Dad was a genius and he needed only diligent performers, and I am not a genius, as Dad was: I need smart advisors."
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 6 July 2016 11: 34
          +2
          Alexandra Fedorovna, not Maria Fedorovna
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 6 July 2016 12: 38
            +3
            Yes ... thanks ... about to be printed ... Alexandra Fedorovna ...
        2. Beaver
          Beaver 6 July 2016 14: 58
          +4
          Quote: parusnik
          Let's not switch to avatars ...

          I apologize.
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 6 July 2016 15: 03
            +4
            Accepted ...
            1. moskowit
              moskowit 6 July 2016 19: 14
              +1
              Here's a reference for you, my dear "duelists" ....

              "... On July 1 (13), 1817, the wedding of Grand Duke Nicholas with Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna, who was called Princess Charlotte of Prussia before her adoption of Orthodoxy [12] [13]. The wedding took place on the birthday of the young princess in the court church of the Winter Palace. A week before the wedding, on June 24 (6) July 1817, Charlotte converted to Orthodoxy and was given a new name - Alexandra Fedorovna, and after her betrothal to Grand Duke Nicholas on June 25 (7) July 1817, she became known as the Grand Duchess with the title of Her Imperial Highnesses [14]. The spouses were fourth cousins ​​to each other (they had a common great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother). This marriage strengthened the political union of Russia and Prussia .... "(from Wikipedia) ...
              I think this is enough to resolve your dispute. Be tolerant, please ... Well, I was a little mistaken, just hang all the "dogs on him ..."
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 6 July 2016 19: 52
                +2
                Yes, they have a dispute about something else, Alexandra Fedorovna has nothing to do with it. And there was no mistake, but a typo. Everyone would argue like that, right ..... gracious sovereign ... What does it mean, people are cultured.
  10. moskowit
    moskowit 6 July 2016 07: 32
    +9
    Very interesting about the Emperor Nicholas I wrote our historian Schilder N.K.

    “... For a century and a half, historians have been breaking spears assessing the reign of Nicholas I. During the reign of Emperor Nicholas Pavlovich, framed by the reformist eras of Alexander I and Alexander II, the main knots of contradictions in Russia's social development were tied, many stumbling blocks were thrown in its geopolitics, historical pages: suppression of the Decembrists and the Polish uprising, the Battle of Sinop and the defense of Sevastopol The difficult era of Nicholas I is interestingly and thoroughly reflected in the book of Nikolai Karlovich Schilder (1842-1902), the famous Russian historian, lieutenant general, participant in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 As director of the Imperial Public Library, NK Schilder had direct access to unique documents and valuable archival materials.Talented, conscientious and impartial work on the life and reign of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich will become a reference book for everyone interested in the historical past of Russia. book rich and in many ways unique illustrative material is presented, conveying to the modern reader the flavor of the era of Nicholas I .... "

    The works of the historian are easily found in electronic library. I sincerely advise ...
    1. Zulu_S
      Zulu_S 6 July 2016 14: 07
      0
      Thank you, I’ll look for Royal.lib.
  11. V.ic
    V.ic 6 July 2016 07: 37
    +9
    December 14/26, 1825 Nikolai Alexandrovich crushed the noble Maidan. And "what a disgusting thing": they hanged 5 people, and they hanged 125. Then some of the exiles took up their minds.
    I did not like only one phrase in the article:
    defended Russian national interests in the world. Author Samsonov Alexander

    With Karlushka Nesselrode as Chancellor, it was almost impossible to do this. He continued the policy of the Congress of Vienna, fostered by Alexander the "blessed". Not figs was harnessed to Austria in solving the Hungarian issue.
  12. ver_
    ver_ 6 July 2016 07: 42
    +1
    ... "Jews, Jews, there are only Jews around" ..
  13. Riv
    Riv 6 July 2016 07: 55
    -7
    I read up to the word "Freemasonry". I did not go further. Nonsense, a priori. The author needs to be vaccinated with Orthodox euthanazepam.

    And in the comments ... What did Poklonskaya say there? "It's chaos!"
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 6 July 2016 08: 14
      +7
      I read Freemasonry to the word ...... I did not go further.
      Your naivety surprises - in those blessed times, not being a Mason was considered bad form.
      1. Riv
        Riv 6 July 2016 09: 48
        0
        That's the whole point. But such a democratically established Freemasonry, by definition open to broad strata of society, automatically ceases to be a "small ruling elite". By analogy: our Russian Orthodox Church does not at all rule the world, and in Russia it does not enjoy special respect either. Well, yes, Putin hugs the patriarch, but he hugs a lot of people.
    2. Gvas1174
      Gvas1174 6 July 2016 09: 56
      +3
      Poklonskaya, with all her talents as a prosecutor, is still a very dubious authority on other issues. Her way out with a portrait of nickname2 made this very clear. with all due respect to her, it was not worth confusing the framework
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 6 July 2016 10: 33
        +4
        Poklonskaya came out with an icon, not a portrait. This topic has already been erased to the holes, including here on the site. Can crosses be worn on the skin?
        1. Tsoy
          Tsoy 6 July 2016 10: 52
          0
          Quote: bober1982
          Poklonskaya went out with an icon


          This is even worse ... Can someone explain how Nicholas II became holy? Or for example the family doctor Romanovs Botkin? What are you doing? To understand the role of the Emperor in the First World War, just read the memoirs of Brusilov, and my bewilderment will immediately become clear.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 6 July 2016 11: 11
            +3
            Gen. Brusilov at the end of his life went to church strenuously, prayed (in Bolshevik Russia), maybe (I do not affirm) atone for sins, including about his memories.
            1. Tsoy
              Tsoy 6 July 2016 11: 19
              0
              Well ... what about the rest? Witte, Rediger, Izvolsky? Yes, even his wife wrote about the weak character of the emperor. Although I can not fail to note that the opinion of the sovereign was contradictory. Someone saw one, the other is different.
          2. Heimdall47
            Heimdall47 6 July 2016 11: 16
            +3
            Quote: Choi
            . Can someone explain how Nicholas II became a saint? Or for example a family doctor of the Romanov Botkin? What are you up to?

            Holiness is not an order; it is not given for its activity in the First World War. The cause of holiness is the degree of aspiration of man to God, and not at all feats on the battlefields.
            But Brusilov is a traitor, which, in other things, does not detract from his merits and intelligence.
            So your perplexity from not understanding the essence of the issue.
            1. Pavel1
              Pavel1 6 July 2016 11: 23
              +2
              Quote: Heimdall47
              But Brusilov is a traitor, which, in other things, does not detract from his merits and intelligence.


              and whom did Brusilov betray?
              1. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 6 July 2016 11: 38
                0
                Quote: Paul1

                and whom did Brusilov betray?

                It is enough that he and the other commanders of the armies forced the king to abdicate. Moreover, under current law, the emperor could not recant in principle.
                Therefore, all this kodla violated the oath to the king. This time.
                Went to serve circumcised Jews in leather jackets smile - these are two.
                I think enough. The man had something to grind at the end of his life.
                1. Pavel1
                  Pavel1 6 July 2016 12: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: Heimdall47
                  It is enough that he and the other commanders of the armies forced the king to abdicate. P


                  so this fact still needs to be verified, you have no faith in the word. Even if so, the GREAT RUSSIAN SOVIET BRUSILOV had the right to express to Nikolai everything that he thinks of the war and him personally. And Alexei Alekseevich did not serve the tsar, but the Russian people, therefore he remained in the service already in Soviet Russia and served honestly, and he can be called GREAT for his services to the Russian people and you don’t know who to pour mud on him.
                  1. bober1982
                    bober1982 6 July 2016 12: 26
                    +2
                    Why are you so angry, you don’t know who you are,
                    and you do not have a word of faith.
                  2. Heimdall47
                    Heimdall47 6 July 2016 12: 35
                    +5
                    Quote: Paul1
                    so this fact still needs to be verified, you have no faith in the word. Even if so, the GREAT RUSSIAN SOVIET BRUSILOV had the right to express to Nikolai everything that he thinks of the war and him personally.

                    And what to check then? The great commander (and whether the great one - maybe just outstanding?) Brusilov was primarily a soldier who takes the oath to the Supreme Commander.
                    Here we have the cynical violation of this oath. Plus for the Orthodox, whom Brusilov was, the king is a sacred figure, more expensive than his father. And then it turns out that he helped to shoot this native father himself.
                    I am presenting dry facts, and everything else - "served the people and not the king" - is idle talk. He did not give an oath to the people and did not kiss the cross to the people.
                    1. Pavel1
                      Pavel1 6 July 2016 12: 51
                      +1
                      Quote: Heimdall47
                      Brusilov was primarily a soldier who takes the oath to the Supreme Commander.


                      formally, according to the text of the oath, but the Russian officers always served the tsar and the FATHERLAND, and if the tsar betrayed the fatherland with his indifference and mediocrity, it is foolish to serve such a tsar, the tsars change and Russia remains.
                      1. Heimdall47
                        Heimdall47 6 July 2016 12: 58
                        +4
                        Quote: Paul1

                        formally, according to the text of the oath, but the Russian officers always served the tsar and the FATHERLAND, and if the tsar betrayed the fatherland with his indifference and mediocrity, it is foolish to serve such a tsar, the tsars change and Russia remains.

                        You can justify Vlasov. Right here is your one-on-one terminology.
                        Well, actually everything has already been said - Brusilov, like Ruzsky, Ivanov, etc. in the midst of a bloody war, the oath was changed, they betrayed the Supreme Commander. At a time when victory was within reach.

                        I think I answered your question. Everything else is all the lyrics.
                      2. Pissarro
                        Pissarro 6 July 2016 13: 02
                        +2
                        At a time when victory was within reach.


                        well, a couple of kilometers from Mogilev to Berlin laughing
                      3. bober1982
                        bober1982 6 July 2016 13: 20
                        +2
                        From Stalingrad to Berlin was also far away, but Hitler was finished.
                    2. Pavel1
                      Pavel1 6 July 2016 13: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Heimdall47
                      You can justify Vlasov. Right here is your one-on-one terminology.


                      no need to juggle Brusilov did not go over to the side of the Germans, like Vlasov.
                      Quote: Heimdall47
                      Well, actually everything has already been said - Brusilov, like Ruzsky, Ivanov, etc. in the midst of a bloody war, the oath was changed, they betrayed the Supreme Commander. At a time when victory was within reach.


                      I have already said that your passage that Brusilov "forced Nicholas to recant" is not proven, so you did not answer. Brusilov, did he take Nikolai's hand over the paper? How did you get it?
                    3. Heimdall47
                      Heimdall47 6 July 2016 13: 31
                      +2
                      Quote: Paul1
                      I have already said that your passage that Brusilov "forced Nicholas to recant" is not proven, so you did not answer. Brusilov, did he take Nikolai's hand over the paper? How did you get it?

                      And no one really knows this until now. The commanders of the fronts just come to the king and say - we must renounce. Or maybe they’re not just saying, but doing something bad. But in any case, the king understands that there is no one to bet on.

                      The commanders of the fronts did not defend the last Russian autocrat: they supported Rodzianko. The next day, a telegram from Rodzianko with Brusilov's next postscript: “I consider myself obligated to report that with the coming menacing hour I do not see any other way out. The time of troubles is absolutely necessary to end, so as not to play into the hands of external enemies. It is just as necessary to maintain the army in perfect order and combat readiness. Do not forget that a loss of war will entail the death of Russia, and a loss is inevitable if fast complete order is intensified and fruitful work in the state is achieved. ”
                      Brusilov is not limited to this: he appeals to the tsar with the request to abdicate through Fredericks, through Alekseev and Ruzsky.
                      The position of the commanders-in-chief of the fronts was one of the motives that prompted the tsar to abdicate in favor of Mikhail Romanov. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief was again appointed Nikolai Nikolaevich
                    4. Pavel1
                      Pavel1 6 July 2016 14: 00
                      0
                      Quote: Heimdall47
                      And no one really knows this until now. The commanders of the fronts just come to the king and say - we must renounce.


                      Well, no one knows except you, of course, by the way, the link was forgotten to your quote ...
        2. Pissarro
          Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 35
          +2
          I went to serve circumcised Jews in leather jackets smile - these are two.


          For the Bulk Khrusts: Brusilov did not intervene in the civil war, Brusilov called for Russian officers to serve with the beginning of the Polish intervention to save Russia, and not any political force.

          “At this critical historical moment in our people’s life, we, your senior comrades, appeal to your feelings of love and devotion to your homeland and urge you ... to voluntarily go with complete selflessness and hunting to the Red Army or to the front or the rear, wherever the government of Soviet, Workers 'and Peasants' Russia appoints you, and serve there not for fear but for conscience, so that you can defend Russia at all costs and not allow its plunder with your honest service, not sparing your life because in the latter case it can irretrievably disappear, and then our descendants will rightly curse us and correctly blame us for the fact that ... we did not use our military knowledge and experience, we forgot our native Russian people and ruined our Mother Russia. ”
          1. Heimdall47
            Heimdall47 6 July 2016 12: 53
            +3
            Quote: Pissarro
            For the bullcrusts: Brusilov did not intervene in the civil war,

            Intervened. Let me remind you that in parallel with the Polish intervention, there was a civil war.
            The Polish intervention returned General Brusilov to the ranks of the armed forces of now Soviet Russia, in which he will serve faithfully for more than 5 years. 1920 - appointed chairman of the Special Meeting under the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the republic, member of the Military Legislative Meeting at the Revolutionary Military Council. 1921 - appointed chairman of the commission for the organization of cavalry pre-conscription training. 1922 - appointed Chief Military Inspector of Horse Breeding and Horse Breeding. 1923 - appointed Inspector of the cavalry of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army. 1924 - appointed for especially important assignments at the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR.

            Actually the question - "Was the service to circumcised Jews in leather jackets a betrayal to Russia?" - subjective. It is obvious to me that yes. I see you love the circumcised commissars - Trotsky, Uritsky, Apfelbaum, etc. Well, I understand everything - everyone has their own weaknesses laughing
            1. Pissarro
              Pissarro 6 July 2016 13: 00
              0
              Let me remind you that in parallel with the Polish intervention, there was a civil war


              misinterpretation. During the civil war, foreign intervention occurred. Normal patriots end the fight and hit the muzzle of the aggressor. What Brusilov, the Reds, and many officers understood, so far not considering it possible for them to participate in a fratricidal fight.

              And those who did not understand, weakened the Russian Red Army, pulling its forces against themselves and helping the Poles. Then they ended up in lackeys of the German Nazis.

              Make the right choice smile
              1. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 6 July 2016 13: 21
                +2
                I just refuted your thesis that Brusilov did not participate in the civil war.
                Since May 1920, he chaired the Special Meeting under the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the Soviet Republic, which worked out recommendations for strengthening the Red Army.
                Those. a person directly or indirectly participated, at least in actions against Wrangel - i.e. in the civil war.
                And the Poles and Finns who separated from Russia are the result of criminal acts of the same Brusilovs, Ruzsky, etc. Therefore, we will not shift from a sore head to a healthy one. Wrangel and Denikin did not remove the king and the state’s defense was not destroyed.
              2. Pavel1
                Pavel1 6 July 2016 13: 25
                0
                Quote: Heimdall47
                And the Poles and Finns who separated from Russia are the result of criminal acts of the same Brusilovs, Ruzsky, etc.


                so insanity grew stronger, tell me how Brusilov separated Finland and Poland from Russia?
              3. bober1982
                bober1982 6 July 2016 13: 37
                +2
                The separation of Poland, and subsequently Finland, is the result of a conspiracy of generals against the Sovereign, under the pressure of which he was forced to recant, General Brusilov is also responsible for his shameful actions.
              4. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 6 July 2016 13: 43
                +3
                Quote: Paul1
                how Brusilov separated Finland and Poland from Russia

                It is clear how - he and his accomplices ruined the army, introduced soldiers' committees and other nonsense, made a mess in the souls of soldiers. Is this not enough?
                Then everything went like an avalanche. And then, as a seceded Poland in the Sov. Russia rushed, so he began to shout - "the fatherland is in danger." Here is such insanity.
              5. Pissarro
                Pissarro 6 July 2016 13: 46
                0
                Brusilov ruined the army and introduced the soldiers' committees? belay
              6. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 6 July 2016 13: 49
                +3
                Quote: Pissarro
                Brusilov ruined the army and introduced the soldiers' committees? belay

                Are you kidding me?
                This was done by the Provisional Government, which Brusilov served, and which he directly or indirectly brought to power through his actions.

                May 22, 1917 appointed Interim Government Supreme Commander
              7. Pavel1
                Pavel1 6 July 2016 13: 57
                0
                Quote: Heimdall47
                This was done by the Provisional Government, which Brusilov served, and which he directly or indirectly brought to power through his actions.



                laughing laughing
                this is a scribe, well then you forgot about the fact that the Turkish conquests, that Yudenich fought, Brusilov is also to blame for your inverted logic fool
              8. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 6 July 2016 14: 00
                +3
                Quote: Paul1
                this is a scribe, well then you forgot about the fact that the Turkish conquests, that Yudenich fought, Brusilov is also to blame for your inverted logic

                What are the gains?
                If you do not understand that the collapse of the vertical of power during a tense bloody war leads to disaster, then there is nothing to talk about.
              9. Pavel1
                Pavel1 6 July 2016 14: 05
                0
                Quote: Heimdall47
                What are the gains?

                well, damn the story you don’t know, Yudenich chopped off half a dozen, came to Sinop ...
                Quote: Heimdall47
                If you do not understand that the collapse of the vertical of power during a tense bloody war leads to disaster, then there is nothing to talk about.

                I believe that it is not Brusilov who is to blame for this, but, first of all, the nicholas himself, his lack of will and lack of talent. His further presence as monarch would lead to the conquest of Russia by Germany ...
              10. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 6 July 2016 14: 11
                +2
                Quote: Paul1
                His further presence as monarch would lead to the conquest of Russia by Germany ...

                laughing Those. it turned out like this — they threw off the tsar, ruined the rear and the army tightly — and something Germany did not conquer Russia.
                But if, as before, they fought with the tsar and firmly holding the front, then Germany would conquer Russia.
                Good luck wink
              11. Pavel1
                Pavel1 6 July 2016 14: 37
                -2
                Quote: Heimdall47
                Those. it turned out like this — they threw off the tsar, ruined the rear and the army tightly — and something Germany did not conquer Russia.


                and Germany didn’t conquer Russia, right, because Nikolashka left.
                you forgot to give the link to your source on the overthrow ...
  14. Pissarro
    Pissarro 6 July 2016 13: 33
    +2
    Wrangel and Denikin did not remove the king and the state’s defense was not destroyed.


    There is Polish aggression with a specific purpose - to chop off Russian lands in favor of the newly formed Polish state, the eternal enemy of Russia. Patriots, upon Brusilov’s call, do not enter the ranks of the Red Army in the political kitchen, but defend their Homeland. And here Wrangel inflicts on the flank of the Russian red army strike, actually acting on the side of the Poles. Do you think it increased defense? And who is Wrangel after that?
  15. Heimdall47
    Heimdall47 6 July 2016 13: 39
    +1
    Quote: Pissarro
    And who is Wrangel after that?

    Clever man. He understands that he will no longer have another chance to throw Kodla from the Kremlin. Poland as part of Russia, the Bolsheviks and the Brusilovs have already expired. So it remains only to seize the moment.
  16. Pissarro
    Pissarro 6 July 2016 13: 49
    0
    that is, it is acceptable for you to serve a foreign aggressor in order to throw someone off in the Kremlin?
    There is a category of people for whom this is unacceptable

    And there’s an abyss between them. Now, by the way, nothing has changed.
  17. Heimdall47
    Heimdall47 6 July 2016 13: 53
    +2
    Quote: Pissarro
    that is, it is acceptable for you to serve a foreign aggressor in order to throw someone off in the Kremlin?

    Those. Comrades Trotsky, Blank and Sverdlov sitting in the Kremlin are relatives and people on your board? Rosalia Zemlyachka is also your idol?
    Congratulations. smile
    There is a category of people for whom this is unacceptable
  18. Pissarro
    Pissarro 6 July 2016 13: 59
    -2
    to push hypothetical Trotsky from the Kremlin, will you bring hypothetical Hitler to Russia?

    There is a category of people for whom this is unacceptable
  19. Heimdall47
    Heimdall47 6 July 2016 14: 06
    +2
    Quote: Pissarro
    to push hypothetical Trotsky from the Kremlin, will you bring hypothetical Hitler to Russia?

    Closer to reality - who led Hitler? Wrangel or something? Pilsudski did not pull on the role of Adolf. In addition, Wrangel did not take the oath to Poland. Therefore, the question is extremely incorrect. It was a temporary collaboration and rather problematic.

    If your question was asked for demagogy, then I would not have cited it. I do not condone the activities of Shkuro and Krasnov, although I fully understand them. People are in a very difficult situation - I feel sorry for them. By the way, I’m sorry for Vlasov too - I’m so pitiful.
  20. Pissarro
    Pissarro 6 July 2016 14: 32
    0
    It was a temporary collaboration and rather problematic.


    Yes, I’m not talking about demagogy, but about people. For some, it’s acceptable to cooperate with the enemy, for others not. That's all.
  • Zulu_S
    Zulu_S 6 July 2016 14: 19
    0
    If the uncircumcised "owner of the Russian land" Nicholas II had not brought the country to disaster with mediocre management, no "circumcised" would have come to power.
    1. Heimdall47
      Heimdall47 6 July 2016 14: 21
      +1
      Quote: Zulu_S
      If the uncircumcised "owner of the Russian land" Nicholas II had not brought the country to disaster with mediocre management, no "circumcised" would have come to power.

      Maybe. But questions of a change of power and a complete breakdown of state. building in the midst of World War II decide only traitors or idiots.
    2. Pissarro
      Pissarro 6 July 2016 14: 35
      -2
      Then Nicholas II was the first of them. Because he personally signed the abdication. He didn’t tear his nails and didn’t insert a harness. He could send everyone and click on the Cossacks of a personal convoy, pack traitors
    3. Heimdall47
      Heimdall47 6 July 2016 14: 49
      +3
      Quote: Pissarro
      Then Nicholas II was the first of them. Because he personally signed the abdication. He didn’t tear his nails and didn’t insert a harness. He could send everyone and click on the Cossacks of a personal convoy, pack traitors

      All this is written with a pitchfork on the water. The issue of renunciation is extremely dark. The document is signed in pencil and no one knows what they did to Nikolai there so that he signs it.
      There are many hypotheses on this subject.
      It is only clear that Nikolai made the decision to abdicate under strong pressure from the military and the deputies and in circumstances of exceptional complexity.
      In fact, at that moment the tsar was held captive and it was hard to imagine what the Ruzskys, Shulgins and others used to go to him with ears.
      So to simplify the situation is to fool around. Then a group of people will come to your house with the reeds on their side and they will start long and politely asking you to unsubscribe the apartment to another. How long will it last? Oh yes - run briskly click the police laughing How far do you run?
    4. Pissarro
      Pissarro 6 July 2016 15: 24
      0
      incorrect example, in this case, the police in the OMON battalion were sitting nearby, outside the door.
    5. Heimdall47
      Heimdall47 6 July 2016 15: 46
      +1
      Quote: Pissarro
      incorrect example, in this case, the police in the OMON battalion were sitting nearby, outside the door.

      Correct. Riot police can not always help.
      They will politely justify you that all the inhabitants of the entrance do not like your family and, most likely, a door will be burned in the near future and something bad will happen to loved ones. And now they offer you good money for an apartment - take it while you have the opportunity.
      In general, to break a person who is left alone and without support is just a spit.
      And for Nikolai, as far as I remember, only Khan of Nakhichevan and some others, I don’t remember, Keller, were ready to fit in. And this is among the whole mass of senior officers.
      So again, don't oversimplify the situation. Maybe Nikolai was largely to blame, but organizing a circus in the middle of a war is not his "merit".
      Yes - he was not a terminator, yielded to pressure. And who would not yield? I don’t know for myself - I was not there.
    6. Pissarro
      Pissarro 6 July 2016 17: 39
      0
      But a king like Peter or the Terrible would know what to do with these types. The convoy would hang everyone who came to the nearest birch trees and accompany them only for such an offer, the anointing of God. Not people gave the king power and it was not for them to take it from him, that’s the essence monarchy, divine law. But Nicholas just surrendered everything. And for this he and his family suffered God's punishment. Unfortunately, the country also
    7. Heimdall47
      Heimdall47 6 July 2016 19: 59
      +1
      Quote: Pissarro
      But a king like Peter the Terrible would know what to do with these types

      I agree. Nicholas 2 was neither Peter 1 nor Ivan the Terrible.
      But this is by no means a reason to hang all the dogs on him. He was an ordinary tsar a level higher than Mikhail Fedorovich, Peter 3 and many other Russian monarchs. He was no better and no worse than many kings and queens. But the emperor makes a retinue. And the retinue of Nicholas II specifically curled up. Therefore, the king is certainly to blame, but he is not to blame.

      General A. I. Spiridovich wrote in his memoirs:

      That evening the Emperor was defeated. Ruzsky broke the Emperor, who was exhausted and morally tormented, who in those days did not find serious support around him. The sovereign surrendered morally. He succumbed to strength, assertiveness, rudeness, which reached one moment before stamping his feet and before knocking his hand on the table. The Tsar spoke of this rudeness with bitterness later to his August mother and could not forget her even in Tobolsk.


      It was not people who gave the king power and it was not for them to take it away from him, this is the essence of the monarchy, divine right. But Nikolai just surrendered everything. And for this he and his family suffered God's punishment. Unfortunately, the country also

      It seems like the truth, given that the people who swore allegiance to Mikhail Fedorovich and his descendants also bear responsibility. The people in 1917 showed a rare coolness in this matter.
    8. Pissarro
      Pissarro 6 July 2016 20: 22
      0
      The people in 1917 showed a rare coolness in this matter.


      there were no people in that carriage and people did not participate in Nikolai’s decisions. Later people were informed that the king was quoting an eyewitness:

      General Dubensky D.N. commented on the abdication with the words "surrendered how the squadron is being handed over ... it was necessary to go not to Pskov, but to the guard, to the Special Army."
    9. Heimdall47
      Heimdall47 6 July 2016 20: 41
      +1
      Quote: Pissarro
      Nicholas people did not participate. Later people were informed

      The people were bound by oath. But the king could not deny the law. Therefore, no one canceled the oath.

      The issue had to be decided essentially by the Zemsky Sobor or the Constituent Assembly, but the people didn’t give a shit. Everyone thought of sitting out in the huts. So then they sat out in full. But not for the huts.
  • Heimdall47
    Heimdall47 6 July 2016 20: 16
    +2
    By the way, I dug

    On March 4, the commander of the Guards Cavalry Corps sent a telegram to Headquarters of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief: “We have received information about major events. I ask you not to refuse to cast at the footsteps of His Majesty the boundless devotion to the Guards cavalry and the willingness to die for your adored Monarch. Khan of Nakhichevan. "
    ... According to other sources, this telegram was sent on March 3, and General Alekseev never passed it to Nikolai. There is also a version that this telegram was sent without the knowledge of Khan Nakhichevan to his chief of staff, General Baron A. G. Wienken. According to the opposite version, the telegram, on the contrary, was sent by Khan Nakhichevan after a meeting with the commanders of parts of the corps.

    Another well-known support telegram was sent by the commander of the 3rd cavalry corps of the Romanian Front, General Keller F.A. ("The third cavalry corps does not believe that you, Sovereign, voluntarily abdicated the throne. Command, Tsar, we will come and protect you"). It is not known whether this telegram reached the king, but it reached the commander of the Romanian front, who ordered Keller to surrender the command of the corps under the threat of treason.


    So it’s obvious (for me at least) that the monarchy fell in 1917 as a result of a major conspiracy. I don’t know - Masons are not Masons, but behind all this was a thorough criminal plan.
  • erg
    erg 6 July 2016 17: 55
    +2
    And the law that the emperor could not abdicate will not bring?
    Keep in mind, phrases like Google and you will not be accepted happiness.
    1. Heimdall47
      Heimdall47 6 July 2016 20: 35
      +1
      Quote: erg
      And the law that the emperor could not abdicate will not bring?
      Keep in mind, phrases like Google and you will not be accepted happiness.

      This procedure was not prescribed by law, as far as I know.

      SOGZ (Code of Basic State Laws) does not know the institution of the abdication of the reigning emperor from the throne. SOGZ provides for the possibility of abdication only of a person “entitled to this” (Article 37 of the SOGZ). The person entitled to the throne and the reigning emperor are different persons, the volume of one concept does not overlap with the volume of another concept. SOGZ does not call the sovereign in any place other than the term "emperor" or its derivative. If the legislator had in mind the granting of the right to the emperor to abdicate, it is difficult to answer the question of why he did not do it in an obvious way, for example, pointing to the abdication of the emperor as the basis for the succession to the throne [17]. It should also be noted that, as a general rule, peremptory norms are not subject to broad interpretation and the freedom of action of the obligated person is not assumed by them (the principle "everything that is not expressly permitted by law is prohibited").
      It first.

      Secondly :
      Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich after he married a twice divorced person completely lost the right to the throne, including his descendants. Those. Michael had no legal right to become the ruler of the state in any case. Therefore, Nicholas II legally legally passed the throne into the hands of such a person could not.

      I answered your question?
      1. erg
        erg 6 July 2016 23: 55
        +1
        No, specifically, give the laws (texts). With full indication of where to look.
        1. Heimdall47
          Heimdall47 7 July 2016 08: 22
          +1
          Specifically - there is a Code of Basic State Laws. Search there. Only there is nothing to seek, since there is no law on the abdication of the emperor in the vault.
          You cannot bring something that does not exist.
          Do you understand it?
  • alexej123
    alexej123 7 July 2016 09: 20
    0
    Please clarify for the "circumcised Jews in leather jackets", whom would you like to mean? Brusilov went to serve his people and HIS LAND whose name is Russia.
    1. Heimdall47
      Heimdall47 7 July 2016 10: 58
      -1
      Quote: alexej123
      Please clarify for the "circumcised Jews in leather jackets", whom would you like to mean? Brusilov went to serve his people and HIS LAND whose name is Russia.

      Sorry, I have already listed twice and described the situation. I have no desire to drive around hi
  • Beaver
    Beaver 6 July 2016 07: 57
    +1
    Iran was imposed a contribution of 20 million rubles.
    good
    Turkey pledged to pay indemnity in the amount of 1,5 Dutch chervonets to Russia within 1,5 years
    belay
    Is it a typo, or Turkey escaped with a symbolic indemnity? hi
    1. Riv
      Riv 6 July 2016 10: 45
      +1
      "Dutch ducat."
      I smoked for a long time, I thought ...
  • bober1982
    bober1982 6 July 2016 08: 02
    +1
    I liked the article very much. The era of the reign of Nicholas I is the peak of Russia's power, the heyday of culture, education, and art. The tsar managed to suppress the impending revolutionary chaos. After him, the country fell into the abyss.
  • Million
    Million 6 July 2016 08: 19
    +8
    What Masons banned is right!
  • Gvas1174
    Gvas1174 6 July 2016 08: 46
    +3
    And if you approach the possibilities with an open mind to the activities of the masses in Russia, then ... not bias, alas, passes, because they were pawns in the game of imported ideologists, and they did a lot of harm. The West must remain in the West, and Russia is at the crossroads of the worlds, and here has its own road and its own vision. The West now resembles an old fat eunuch, whom young and hungry slaves from the East are beginning to drive along the harem. How many do not jump and did not dodge, but one devil-devour. And to grow eggs will not work.
    IMHO, you can’t.
  • ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 6 July 2016 10: 13
    -1
    Liberals, Masons, Illuminati ... And the Jews? Where are the Jews? It’s somehow not comme il faut without them.
    1. Tsoy
      Tsoy 6 July 2016 10: 32
      +1
      reptiloids were forgotten ... and then ren-tv was not there ...
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 6 July 2016 11: 00
      +1
      Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
      What about the Jews? Where are the Jews? It’s somehow not comme il faut without them.

      Read the two-volume "red-sun" crap of AI Solzhenitsin "Russia and the Jews", and m. will make you feel better.
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 6 July 2016 10: 16
    +7
    I think that if Nikolay 1 had survived, the Crimean War would not have ended the way it had ended: Russia's reserves and resources were absolutely not exhausted, while at the same time, the Allies suffered unacceptable losses for them — human and material, as a result a whole year of war only one large city was captured (not completely), plans to move deeper into Russia were not even discussed, the society of England and France categorically demanded an end to the war incomprehensible to them.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 24
      +2
      Namely, unlike us, the Allies could not do anything. And the Russians took Kars, virtually destroyed the Turkish Anatolian army and opened the road deep into Turkey.
  • Mwg
    Mwg 6 July 2016 10: 51
    +1
    There is no experience of the "advanced Western powers"; there is a violent reformatting of the consciousness of nations. And only so. At one time, the consciousness of the Britons was redrawn - "1 bourgeois revolution", the Franks - "the great French revolution", etc., etc. On the territory of North America, a world of "equality and brotherhood" and a "country of great opportunities" were created, where some are more equal and more brothers to each other than others, and opportunities depend on belonging to a particular closed community. The whole world of "advanced Western powers" is built on the fact that a minority takes away from the majority of knowledge, means, and opportunities. What is given to the majority in exchange for this is the right to be "free" within a rigid framework, which the minority determines at its discretion: the right to "freedom of choice" for the spectacles of Hollywood and others like them, the right to "freedom of choice" of types of GMOs in products, the right to the "freedom of choice" perversion.
    We need it?
  • alebor
    alebor 6 July 2016 10: 51
    +1
    There are no impeccable rulers, there are no impartial historians. It seems to me that for a more or less objective assessment of the activities of this or that ruler, the following "mathematical" method should be used :-).
    1) What was at the "entrance", i.e. at the time of coming to power.
    2) What happened at the "exit", i.e. at the time of death, resignation, etc.
    If we evaluate Nicholas I according to this scheme, then at the entrance we have the most influential and powerful European power, defeating Napoleon, redrawing the map of Europe, a key participant in the Vienna system. The output is a country in international isolation, which has significantly lost its influence in Europe and is on the verge of defeat in the war and, which was clearly manifested in the same war, the country is technically backward.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 09
      +3
      at the entrance, we have a collapse of power, a leapfrog with a legacy, a revolt of the Decembrists, a rampage of serfdom, a catastrophe with finances that disintegrates the entire society of liberalism; at the exit, a formed vertical of power, a significantly improved position and a smaller number of serf peasants, and the order in finances due to the reform of Count Kankrin. Nonsense about some great defeats in the war (the enemy occupied half of Sevastopol, instead of heaps of lands and fortresses in the Caucasus, all the enemy’s attacks in the north and the far east were repelled) was invented by the enemies. In addition, the tsar did not sign any peace treaties, it made him liberal heir. The second nonsense is a certain significant technical backwardness, expressed in a small amount of rifled weapons among the British (the French, Turks and Italians did not have this) and steamers. You might think that the presence of steamboats and nipples in the Russians changed anything. The problem was in logistics, the supply by sea of ​​the enemy went much better than by dry land of the Russians. That is, in the absence of a railway that was not technologically unknown and worked for itself from St. Petersburg to Moscow, but until it was laid south.
      Under Nicholas, there was a golden era of Russian culture. After Nicholas, there were no more palace coups and their attempts. Before Nicholas, they went in carts, after which they began to ride trains
      1. Pavel1
        Pavel1 6 July 2016 12: 23
        +1
        Quote: Pissarro
        They drove to Nikolai in carts, then began to ride trains


        good passage, the question is, "what is it, everyone began to ride trains and stopped riding carts?"
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 26
          +2
          and not everyone went on carts. Like not everyone flies into space today. A question of technological development.
      2. Gamer
        Gamer 6 July 2016 12: 24
        +2
        The second nonsense is a certain significant technical backwardness, expressed in a small amount of rifled weapons among the British (the French, Turks and Italians did not have this)
        namely, lies in the Sevastopol Museum Belgian smoothbore most visible shotgun


        and only in 1875, a large railway tycoon P.I. Gubonin built a section from Lozovaya station of the Moscow-Kharkov railway to Sevastopol. A road of 615 versts was commissioned.


        in 20 years!
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 45
          +1

          and only in 1875, a large railway tycoon P.I. Gubonin built a section from Lozovaya station of the Moscow-Kharkov railway to Sevastopol. A road of 615 versts was commissioned.

          in 20 years!


          Well, this "tyrants" build quickly. Liberals are only quick to talk about smile
          1. Gamer
            Gamer 6 July 2016 13: 23
            0
            oh yes, if the historian Boris Yulin is not lying (in the program from Goblin-Puchkov), the construction of railways in Ingushetia was actively "pushed" by the French General Staff officers, who were freaked out by the state and length of their ally in the Entente
            1. Pavel1
              Pavel1 6 July 2016 13: 28
              0
              Quote: Gamer
              oh yes, if the historian Boris Yulin doesn’t lie (in a program from Goblin-Puchkov)


              the yudin basically lies, like the goblin himself - this is such a transfer ...
              1. Gamer
                Gamer 6 July 2016 13: 40
                +2
                it’s a shame if she’s lying, she’s pouring it in numbers - it’s kind and expensive hi
                1. Pavel1
                  Pavel1 6 July 2016 13: 52
                  0
                  Quote: Gamer
                  it’s a shame if she’s lying, she’s pouring it in numbers - it’s kind and expensive


                  history is a type of science because it is necessary to check every word spoken, who lies brazenly, who cheats impudently, who misleads by little, who misleads, who sculpts humpbacked, who trend in vain, lies have many shades. And to check everything that they talk there people have neither time nor opportunity. I watched this yulin-yudin bustle about Fomenko-Nosovsky’s New Chronology, there was a program with maps about Great Tartaria, yulin says that Great Tartaria is not a state, but simply Russia and it is ALL ITS ARGUMENT for the transfer. There is no evidence brazenly no, there wasn’t all.
  • antiexpert
    antiexpert 6 July 2016 11: 33
    0
    Quote: goose
    In fact, Peter, Paul, Nikolay 1, Alexander 3 were technocratic kings. Here you can add Stalin.

    and now the author of this comment is invited to justify the unique phenomenon of the development of culture precisely under the technocratic kings, and especially under Stalin.
  • Rastas
    Rastas 6 July 2016 12: 07
    -1
    You didn’t serve God and not Russia,
    He served only his vanity,
    And all your deeds, both good and evil, -
    Everything was a lie in you, all the ghosts are empty:
    You were not a king, but a hypocrite.

    FI Tyutchev
    1. Heimdall47
      Heimdall47 6 July 2016 12: 15
      +10
      No, I'm not a flatterer when the king
      I give free praise:
      I boldly express my feelings
      I speak the language of the heart.

      I just loved him:
      He cheerfully, honestly rules us;
      Russia suddenly he revived
      War, hopes, works.

      Oh no! even though youth is boiling in him,
      But the sovereign spirit in him is not cruel;
      The one who is clearly punished
      He secretly does mercy.
      ...

      A.S. Pushkin
      1. ALEA IACTA EST
        ALEA IACTA EST 6 July 2016 12: 39
        -1
        Alexander, they forgot the ending ... laughing
        1. Heimdall47
          Heimdall47 6 July 2016 13: 11
          +2
          Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
          Alexander, they forgot the ending ... laughing

          In the end, only constructive criticism. Nowhere without her smile
    2. Pissarro
      Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 16
      +2
      No, I'm not a flatterer when the King

      I give free praise:

      I boldly express my feelings

      I speak the language of the heart.

      I just loved him:

      He cheerfully, honestly rules us;

      Russia suddenly he revived

      War, hopes, works.

      Oh no, even though youth is boiling in him,

      But not cruel in him is a sovereign spirit.

      The one who is clearly punished

      He secretly does mercy ...

      Pushkin
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 6 July 2016 12: 31
        +1
        Only Pushkin wrote this poem in 1828, and Tyutchev in 1856. That is the difference. And if you quote, then let us to the end:
        Trouble country where the slave and the flatterer
        Some are close to the throne
        A heavenly chosen singer
        Silent, eyes downcast.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 49
          +2
          Tyutchev in 1856


          Any donkey can kick a dead lion. That’s the difference.

          Trouble country where the slave and the flatterer
          Some are close to the throne
          A heavenly chosen singer
          Silent, eyes down


          Namely, the trouble is in such a country. But this is not about Nikolaev Russia, where the singers did not remain silent, but sang, raising Russian culture to a level that had never been before, and has not been after the Nikolaev era. No wonder it is called the golden age of Russian literature . Personally, the king had a craving for this and was engaged in this, because it happened
    3. Aleksander
      Aleksander 6 July 2016 14: 07
      +3
      Quote: Rastas
      You didn’t serve God and not Russia, Only served your vanity,


      Oh Nikolay, peoples winner,
      You justified your name! You won!
      You, the lord the warrior erected,
      The fury of his enemies humbled him ...
      The cruel trials have come
      The end of the indescribable torment has come.
      Rejoice, Christians!
      Your god, the god of mercy and abuse
      I blew out a bloody scepter from wicked hands.


      Also TYUTCHEV yes
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 6 July 2016 14: 10
        +2
        doubly disgusting. Tsar Tyutchev was alive, he sang odes to him, he began to pour dirt. I despise such people
      2. ALEA IACTA EST
        ALEA IACTA EST 6 July 2016 20: 32
        0
        Also TYUTCHEV

        Ludwig I, King of Bavaria, a reactionary with obscurantist-clerical inclinations, part-time poet. Translated Tyutchev.
        O Nicholas, the victorious peoples
        You justified your name! You won!
        You, the lord the warrior erected,
        The fury of his enemies humbled him ...
        The cruel trials have come
        The end of the indescribable torment has come.
        Rejoice, Christians!
        Your god, the god of mercy and abuse
        I blew out a bloody scepter from wicked hands.
        To you, to you, the ambassador of his command -
        To whom God himself handed his terrible sword, -
        Lime his people from the shadow of death
        And cut the age-old chain forever.
        Over the chosen one, O king, your head
        How the sun shone grace!
        Turning pale before you
        The moon is covered in darkness -
        The rule of the Koran does not rise ...
        Your angry voice from hearing in the distance
        The Ottoman gates shuddered:
        Your hand is just a wave -
        And they will fall to dust at the foot of the cross.
        Do your work, make people salvation.
        Rivers: “Let there be light” - and there will be light!
        Enough blood, tears shed
        Pretty wives, battered children,
        Mohammed swore quite over Christ! ..
        Your worldly soul doesn't crave glory
        Your eyes are not fixed on the earth.
        But he, O king, by whom the powers are held,
        Your enemies have spoken their sentence ...
        He himself takes away his face from them,
        Their evil power has long been washed away by blood,
        Over their head the angel of death wanders
        Istanbul comes -
        Constantinople rises again ...
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 6 July 2016 12: 29
    0
    Well, about the Decembrists, you certainly bent. They had slightly different requirements and goals.
    1. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 6 July 2016 12: 35
      -1
      Well, now they’ll tell you about English spies, Zionists ™ and liberal villains. wink
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 6 July 2016 12: 46
        0
        And more about the State Department, Zhidobandera, ISIS, homosexuals.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 6 July 2016 12: 53
          +2
          If you have paranoia, this does not mean that no one is following you
  • Antokha
    Antokha 6 July 2016 12: 34
    +2
    Finally, it comes to the truth about our kings, especially those who held the country and the world in their hands. I remember how all these myths about Nicholas I (and others) were hammered into us at school, and it never occurred to me to find out what they were based on. Then 25 years passed, we examine the GDP in a microscope and learn, finally, to be based on facts, and to call assumptions this way - assumptions (or bullshit, sketches). Many thanks to the author! It is joyful that such materials are no longer a sensation. This is just the norm for a person who overslept from a dope of lies.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 6 July 2016 12: 44
      0
      And in my opinion, just a splint is created. In fact, Nikolai did not complete a single reform, Russia in industrial development by the beginning of the Crimean War remained a semi-feudal backward country. Well, it's not just that Alexander II began reforms. Well, Leo Tolstoy said for a reason: "Whoever did not live in 1856 does not know what life is." At the present time, he noticed that in Russia it is customary to glorify conservatives, such as Nicholas 1, and the reformers Peter I or Alexander II have steadfastly begun to be called Western liberals.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 6 July 2016 13: 08
        +1
        Leo Tolstoy, the national count, survived from the mind, moved with his mind - should I quote him?
  • Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 6 July 2016 12: 43
    +1
    Russia was forced to confront a whole coalition of opponents, the leading powers of that time - England and France. Austria took an extremely hostile position. Our enemies planned to dismember Russia, push it away from the Baltic and the Black Sea, tear off vast territories - Finland, the Baltic states, the Kingdom of Poland, Crimea, and lands in the Caucasus.
    What the external enemies of Russia failed to do during the reign of Nicholas I, managed to do the internal enemies (with the full support of external enemies), first in 1917, and then in 1991.
  • skeptic
    skeptic 6 July 2016 12: 56
    +7
    There has always been a perversion of Russian history.
    Mikhail Lomonosov fought in blood at the Academy with the so-called "historians"
    not from a good life ...
    The fabrications of the "Marxists" who hated the Russian people were driven into
    in youth for a century.
    The Bolsheviks remembered the lies when they taught us in the 50-80s.
    And how enthusiastically they lied to my dad that he is a Ukranian
    30-40 x in Kiev! I almost believed it! He caught himself in time and burned the embroidery ...
    Seeing how children’s parcels are being cut.
    Marxists endowed the Russian population of these regions with total education
    brainless mankurts - result - the current state of NATO
    bridgehead - "self-styled urkain" and the blood of the Slavs.
    Behind any lie, Freemasons are discovered.
    Behind any revolution is their global interest.
    Over the centuries, their goals and methods have not changed.
    1. Zulu_S
      Zulu_S 6 July 2016 14: 36
      0
      The first monkey to climb off a palm tree, drop its tail and pick up a club, was, without a doubt, the first freemason?
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 6 July 2016 14: 41
        +3
        A club is not a masson’s weapon. That's when a monkey with a club spat in tea, poured sand on a bed or put a muhamor into food, then the mason was born laughing
  • NordUral
    NordUral 6 July 2016 14: 11
    +2
    It's time to figure out our story. Objectively and thoroughly. Logic tells me that Ivan IV, Nicholas I and I.V. Stalin - these are the rulers to whom the Russian Empire (in all its expressions) owes the very fact of existence. And it is they who are declared liberals by bloody tyrants. It is time for us to draw the right conclusions from our history.
    1. zenion
      zenion 6 July 2016 14: 39
      -3
      And Peter the First?
      1. Mwg
        Mwg 6 July 2016 15: 11
        -2
        For zenion (1) And Pettsya Pershiy is one of the most dangerous enemies)))
  • zenion
    zenion 6 July 2016 14: 38
    0
    If you want to know more about Nicholas I, you can read "Kozma Prutkov". There, though allegorically, a lot has been written about him.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 6 July 2016 15: 40
      +2
      Creative workers (Kozma Prutkov and comrades) are not only gifted people, but also overly impressionable, so the source is doubtful.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Lyubopyatov
    Lyubopyatov 6 July 2016 17: 00
    0
    Zulu, xan and Co., I would like to ask: are you people, or just us?
  • iz odessy
    iz odessy 6 July 2016 17: 41
    +2
    lost, with his stupid attitude to modernization of the army, the Crimean War, although the army and people did everything to win ... and sold Alaska, is it really not enough to condemn this sheep? Nicholas are unsuccessful emperors, and this is a fact
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 6 July 2016 17: 51
      +3
      Tsar Nikolai didn’t lose the war, he died before the signing of the world. His son accepted the conditions of the world. His son and Alaska sold in 1867. All claims to Alexander the Second.

      Yes, and about this war, which was the defeat, more than one wise guy has yet to justify. They took half a city on the outskirts of the empire in two years. Instead, they lost all the fortresses in the Caucasus. Alexander was simply tired of fighting and he agreed to a draw. All in the end remained at his own .Russians returned half the city, the Turks fortress, the only condition not to have a fleet in the Black Sea was forgotten after 10 years.
      But liberals yell constantly about some global catastrophe laughing
      1. iz odessy
        iz odessy 6 July 2016 18: 26
        +1
        sale of Alaska - a consequence of the results of the Crimean War. And there is no need to justify the "DEFEAT" in the Crimean War, it is enough to read carefully the "conditions" ... which, by the way, cost us also wars and people's lives. Only a political nerd could, having such "trump cards" after the Patriotic 12th and the Holy Peace .. ..such a massive coalition in favor of Turkey. I am not writing about "wooden navy and smooth-bore weapons, it is written in" shod a flea "
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 6 July 2016 18: 37
          +3
          the sale of Alaska is a consequence of the outcome of the Crimean War.


          This is a joke. Can you justify it?

          And there is no need to justify the "DEFEAT" in the Crimean War, it is enough to read carefully the "conditions" .. which, by the way, cost us also wars and human lives.


          There was no military defeat. The cancellation of the conditions signed by Alexander was not worth a single life, not a single shot, October 19, 1870, a simple dispatch sent to the great powers. Even the poet mentioned above wrote about this

          Yes, you kept your word:
          Without moving a gun, not a ruble,
          Enters the rights again
          Native Russian land.
          And we bequeathed to the sea
          Again free wave
          On a brief forgetting shame,
          Lobs the coast of their own.
          Happy in our age to whom victory is
          It was given not by blood, but by the mind,
          Happy who point is Archimedes
          He knew how to find in himself -
          Who, full of cheerful patience,
          Calculation with courage combined -
          That restrained his aspirations,
          That promptly dared.
          But is the confrontation over?
          And how mighty your lever
          Master persistence in smart people
          And unconsciousness in fools?
          1. iz odessy
            iz odessy 6 July 2016 22: 22
            +1
            in your poetic pathos, there isn’t enough Pikul’s prose, but it’s somewhere nearby. references to poets in assessing the rule of a monarch or governor, for example Vorontsov, are gorgeous. He pressed a little, Vorontsov, Pushkin .. for his wife Lizochka and on you-received a spit verse. In all Soviet textbooks, history has become synonymous.
            Regarding "justifying", linking the Crimean War and Alaska, I suggest that you think and come up with another motive, except for the lack of money in the treasury. This is the best indicator of the quality of government by this "sovereign"
            1. Pissarro
              Pissarro 6 July 2016 22: 59
              0
              verses are just an illustration of what happened. By drawing the pen, the contract article flew into the trash, without the corpses you described.

              Alaska was sold 12 years after the death of Nicholas by a completely different king, not by him. Under Nicholas, the country was just controlled in good quality, thankful subjects didn’t throw bombs at it. And there was enough money in the treasury, it wasn’t necessary to sell zemlyatse. Nikolai: The argument is because you want it so much laughing
    2. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 6 July 2016 18: 54
      -3
      But ascending to the throne, Nicholas received the strongest power in the world.
      He shot soldiers from cannons, hanged the Decembrists, crushed the Polish revolution, saved Austria, but did not retain the role of world flagship for Russia ...
      The blame for this is not on the monarch, but solely on the monarchy.
  • Arkan
    Arkan 6 July 2016 20: 26
    +4
    Nikolai Pavlovich was a tough ruler, as the subsequent history of our state shows, only such a leadership style is acceptable in our country. Alas, education in the person of the Decembrists and their modern followers requires systematic tough measures of influence, otherwise they do not understand.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 6 July 2016 20: 49
    +1
    strange, but a monument to him stands and stood under the Soviets of power near Isaac.
    Father said: this is how they decided to leave on the totality of merit (internationalism and the campaign against tsarism in the 20s ???).
    What merits did the tsar have before the Bolsheviks?
    And now who has merits and achievements?
  • antivirus
    antivirus 6 July 2016 21: 15
    0
    by railway
    The population density, the distance between the main economic centers and the railway density per 10 or 1000 sq km (or miles) and the presence of railway between these economy centers.
    Everything indicates a lack of attention to infrastructure.
    Moltke (?): "Don't build fortresses, build railways"
    Not a hero.
    1. The famous route from the Varangians to the Greeks (from the Baltic to the Black Sea) - there is no railway. Losing the Crimean War.
    2. The road to the Urals, for the export of weapons, cast iron. iron and t p -No Railway. Lost the race for the Pacific Ocean. (Alaska-California, Kuril Islands-Sakhalin).
    3. Railway were mainly in Poland and the western provinces.
    But who can do more now?
    And if the United States conquers us, they will not dare to demolish this monument.
  • Ilja2016
    Ilja2016 7 July 2016 00: 52
    -4
    HORROR! NIGHTMARE! Not an article, but a complete falsification, "bullshit". Is the author accidentally not a member of the NOD?
    Maybe Starikova read?
    The same should be written like this: “Nicholas is hated for suppressing the conspiracy of the Decembrists, conspirators who were part of the system of Western Freemasonry. suppressed the rebellion and preserved Russia as a world power. "
    Masons and the fifth column again! Honestly, I'm tired of it already!
    Nikolai Palkin preserved Russia as a poor and economically backward country.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 7 July 2016 06: 28
      +2
      Quote: Ilja2016
      Honestly, I'm tired of it already!

      Actually, Starikov writes smart things.
    2. Alekspel
      Alekspel 14 January 2017 12: 09
      0
      And what is the flag of Russia, and not Israeli? Go there already, everything is fair there, you will serve in the army even if you respect Starikov.
  • Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 7 July 2016 15: 45
    -2
    Article - zilch. Everything is very superficial, without depth. Nicholas I, of course, loved our homeland, but he had it in his own way. VERY. And the point here is not about the Decembrists (in the end, they were all officers, and swore an oath, and none of their "struggle for values" would justify treason (let us at least remember how many of them were released on their estates to the peasants, or contributed to the fact that literacy and medicine among the serfs were promoted in their villages).
    Tsar Nicholas created a bureaucratic system that defeated Russia in the Crimean War. Nobody, I hope, will deny that the quality of weapons in the Russian army was much inferior to the French and English. The fact that the British and French could not advance further than Crimea is a merit, first of all, of our strategists - Nakhimov, Kornilov, Istomin, the merit of an engineer Totleben. The fact that the allies, having entered the Gulf of Finland, did not dare to go to St. Petersburg is the merit of Admiral Belitnshausen (the one who went to the South Pole), who, in recent years, has made every effort to strengthen Kotlin and build defensive lines ( as if he felt that something would happen).
    Well, the shameful defeat of the allies in Kamchatka is Admiral Zavoyko and the Kamchatka administration, who were able to agree with the local population (fortunately, the Kamchadals were equal subjects of the Russian Empire, and not the inhabitants of the colonies).
    But the main thing is that without our people who followed their military commanders, without their perseverance and courage, serfdom would not have to be abolished, for the state of RUSSIA itself would not exist.
    It was they who survived, BUT in no way the system that Nikolai Pavlovich created. And all that ultimately happened is the result of that mediocre diplomacy (remember Prince Menshikov in Constantinople), and a complete separation from reality (for Nicholas I lived in full confidence that after 182-1814 nobody in Europe would dare to fight with Russia. Unfortunately, they dared, because the British always had very good intelligence, and she knew perfectly well both about our domestic Russian life and about what the once invincible Russian army was like.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 7 July 2016 17: 34
      +3
      This is an old song about the fact that they won against the leadership and the system. They often turn it on about Stalin too. It never happens in reality. Contrary to the leadership, it is impossible to build a shed normally on a collective farm, not only to repel all enemy attacks in several directions for three years .
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 7 July 2016 18: 32
    0
    I liked the article, thank you very much. I have not studied everything yet. It turned out that yesterday I finished the topic of Nikolay's reign in "History of the 19th century" (8-volume edition edited by Professor E.V. Tarle, 2nd supplemented and corrected).
    During the article. There are also 2 brochures about that time, published by "Science", I will read.
  • Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 12 July 2016 16: 24
    0
    The man who, after the play by Gogol, the Examiner, said - everyone got it, and I the most, and who told his son - in this country only two people do not steal: you and I, perfectly understood all the shortcomings of the Russian Empire. If not for him, Russia would have disappeared even earlier. He did everything he could to create and operate a state apparatus and turn a backward country into a modern power, playing one of the main roles on the world stage !! This is Alexander II, he sold Alaska and Hawaii and freed the peasants without land, so he also hung all the expenses on them, so that they turned into the poorest and most illiterate estate in Russia, and his grandson Alexander III sold the whole country for loans to French and English bankers . Nicholas I was hostage to large landowners of the feudal lords! Even the Decembrists did not want to free their peasants!
  • Alekspel
    Alekspel 14 January 2017 12: 02
    0
    Historically, it turns out that we are closer to the Germans, and the British and their derivative - the Americans, enemies forever. Well, the Americans are strong, but what prevents England from being put in a pose with cancer? After all, they have been spoiling us for centuries, is there really no appropriate means? Their main grandmother is about..s..rat in all the media, but you never know? Finally stop admiring. For me personally, their Anglo-Saxon croaking is already disgusting. Let them learn our language if they want. But who's going to do it, that's the question? The kids of our bosses in London are studying and does anyone really think that they will become patriots of Russia? Here's an eternal question. Who will raise our country if the "elite" hates it. So it was under Nicholas 1 and 2, under Paul and Peter, Catherine and under Putin the same thing.