Military Review

Prut campaign of Peter I

40
Prut campaign of Peter I


Of all the wars between Russia and Turkey, the 1711 war of the year, known as the Prut campaign of Peter the Great, was the most unsuccessful for Russia. Among the most important reasons for the defeat were the consequences of the conflict between the Russian state and the Cossacks and, as a result, the small participation of the Cossacks in this war on Russia's side.

It was the Cossacks who had experience of constant and sometimes very successful struggle against Turkey. The Donets in 1641 fought off the 250-thousandth Turkish-Tatar army in Azov. The Cossacks, together with the Dontians (surpassing them quantitatively by an order of magnitude) at that time, constantly made sea raids on the shores of the Crimea and Turkey. These raids even got the name "Bosphorus War".

But an attempt to catch fugitives among the Don Cossacks and enlist them (as recruits) in the standing army being created led to the well-known Bulavinsky uprising of the 1708 of the year and the cruel suppression of freemen. “For this is saryn,” as Peter I wrote, “apart from cruelty, it cannot be settled.” Yet in the spring of 1709, from the Don Cossack Army, 2000 Cossacks were sent to Smolensk service to join the detachment of the B.S. Korsak.

Peter I went to the Russian army stationed in Ukraine. Even before Peter I “pacified” the Don army finally, hetman Mazepa came out against the emperor. October 24 1708, he crossed the Desna and himself arrived at the Swedish outposts. Since the betrayal was being prepared secretly, he took about 2000 people with him.

On November 6 in Glukhov, Colonel Skoropadsky was elected a new hetman of Ukraine. 12 November Mazepa was anathematized in Moscow in the Assumption Cathedral. Support for Mazepa had only Cossacks. And Peter sent A.D. Menshikov decree take and destroy Sich. Most of the defenders were killed, 300 people were captured.

June 27 in the Battle of Poltava, the Swedes suffered a terrible defeat. Late on the evening of June 30, the wounded Karl XII crossed the Dnieper. Mazepa crossed over with the king and soon died on September 22 1709 in Varnita near Bender.

The whole 1710 year was especially successful for Peter's accomplishments in the Baltic. 4 July capitulated Riga. Participation in the siege of Riga is the only specific event of the Donians, marked by the first Don historian Rigelman. He speaks about others sparingly and vaguely: “And above all, many in the whole ongoing war against the Swedes in many places and in Finland themselves were used with utility, also in 711 with the Sovereign against the Turks in Moldova at the Prut River. And on the Don, leave together with the Kalmyks, led by General-Admiral Count Theodore Matveyevich Apraksin, to guard the Tatar and Turkish attacks in the Russian borders. ”



One of the consequences of the victory at Poltava was an undesirable war with Turkey. Naturally, in the Ottoman Empire there were forces that were striving for war against Russia, first of all, Tatars. The observance of peace between Russia and Turkey deprived them of their most important source of income - the capture of prisoners and the slave trade. It was worth Peter before leaving for Poltava to appear on the Don and in Azov, as the Tatar population became agitated, calling on the Turkish authorities to war with the Russians.

In October, Peter 1710 demanded that the Swedish king be removed from Turkish territory and threatened war, but on November 20, at a ceremonial meeting of the sofa, the Turks themselves decided to start a war. The campaign of their troops led by the Grand Vizier was supposed in the spring of 1711. The first military actions began the Crimean Tatars. Turks have long been waiting for them. After the end of the Azov campaign and the conclusion of peace between the Sultan and the Russian Tsar, the Turkish authorities prohibited the Krymchaks from attacking Russian lands.



In December, 1710, the initiator of the war, the Crimean khan Devlet-Girey met in Bendery with the Swedish king Carl XII and the hetman of Right-Bank Ukraine Philip Orlik. Calculated strength. In addition to the Crimeans and the Nogai vassals of the Crimea, the parties were accompanied by the registries of Philip Orlyk, who had fled to Mazepa, and the Cossacks, who had been knocked out by the Menshikovs of the Sich, and the Poles who were hostile to Tsar Peter and King Augustus II.

After consulting, the Khan, the King and the Hetman decided to strike at Right-Bank Ukraine with the combined forces of the Khan's son Mehmed Giray with Orlikists and the Poles, and at the same time with the forces of the Crimean Khan and the Zaporozhians in Left-Bank Ukraine.

Russian about such a foray and assumed. Lieutenant-General, Prince M.M. Golitsyn, the brother of the Kiev governor, December 26 reported from Yaroslav: “And their very intention, as their rivers will become, in order for them to come: Khan and Orlik to Ukraine, and the Turks themselves with the Swedish king and with the power of Kamianets Podolsky in Polschy”.



And on the very first day of the new 1711, Peter decided to divert the Tatars, to organize a campaign from the Volga and from the Don across the steppe to the Kuban. To do this, deployed a corps near Voronezh under the command of Admiral FM. Apraksin, subjecting him to cash in the service of the Don Cossacks in the number of 5 thousands of people. In Russia, the war has not yet been declared; the troops were moved south from Livonia. Lieutenant-General MM Golitsyn moved to the Moldovan border with ten Dragoon regiments.



On Baptism, 6 January 1711, Krymchaks crossed Perekop and poured into Ukraine in two streams. Khan's son Mehmed Giray led 40 000 Tatars and 7 000-8 000 Orlik's Cossacks moved along the right bank of the Dnieper. He was reinforced by the 700 Swedes, Colonel Züliha and the 400 Janissaries. The Bujak Tatars and 3 000-5 000 hosted by the Poles hostile to Tsar Peter, who crossed the Dniester from Bender, moved towards Mehmed Girey. Khan Devlet-Girei himself with the same number of Tatars and with 2000 Zaporozhian Cossacks went along the left bank, the advisers to him were 40 Swedish officers.

The raid was opposed by a few troops covering the Right-Bank Ukraine (formally, Polish territory). Prince Volkonsky with four dragoon shelves stood "at the border of a hair and with him Cossack and hairy shelves stand, but Major General Widman with 4 shelves are set in the vicinity of him, Volkonsky."

The eleven-thousandth corps of Major General F.V. Shidlovsky stood on the left bank of the Dnieper near Kharkov. For the battle in the field of these troops is clearly not enough, and the Russians had hope to defend themselves in the fortresses, until the north would come to the aid of the troops the king himself.

On the Russian left-bank side, the khan managed to seize the Novosergievka fortress (in the upper reaches of the river Samara), whose population, mostly former Cossacks, surrendered without a fight. Then the troops of Devlet-Girey went in the direction of Kharkov and Izum, but, faced with the Belgorod and Izyumsk fortress defensive lines, were repulsed. Khan was counting on the help of the Nogai from Kuban, but the Nogai did not come, and the Tatars turned in the beginning of March to the Crimea. In Novosergievskoy fortress Devlet-Girey left the garrison - 1,5 thousands of Cossacks and Tatars under the overall command of the Zaporozhye Colonel Nestuleya.

On the right bank, the campaign went on with varying success. In the first half of February, the 1711goda Tatars easily captured Bratslav, Bohuslav, Nemirov. The garrisons there were small and did not render much resistance to the Tatars.

Orlik began to distribute generalists so that local registries would join him and start fighting with “Moscow captivity”.

But 25 in March, Tatars Mehmed Giray and the Cossacks of Orlik (over 30 000 people) approached Belaya Tserkov and here, trying to storm the city, were defeated. On the Left Bank detachment F.V. Shidlovsky with a sudden blow returned the Novosergievsky fortress, thus clearing the left bank of the Dnieper from the Tatars and Zaporozhians. After these failures, Tatar detachments, who felt that they would soon return to the Crimea, rejected pretense and began to engage in looting and seizing civilians.

Commander-in-Chief of the Russian forces in Ukraine, General M.M. Golitsyn quickly assessed the situation, assembled the 9 dragoon and 2 infantry regiments and pressed on the heavily laden Krymchaks. Mehmed Giray, saving prey, began to go to Bender, in Ottoman possessions. Along with him, naturally, Orlik began to leave. 15 April 1711 of the year near Bohuslav Golitsyn overtook a part of the Crimeans and beat off over 7 000 captured captives. The raid is over.



Now the Russians were to deliver a return visit to the Tatars and Ottomans.
Formally, the manifesto on the war with Turkey was read in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin in the presence of Tsar Peter 25 February 1711 of the year. But the war plan was made long before its announcement. For the first time, the plan envisaged the conduct of hostilities in three theaters - the Danube, the Crimea and the Caucasus. And it later became a kind of tradition in the wars of Russia against Turkey.

The main blow was planned to inflict on the Danube Theater. Peter I, hoping for the help of the rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia, decided to raise on both banks of the Danube to fight with the Turks local Christians, vassals of the Ottoman Empire.

12 April a military council was held in Slutsk. Peter consulted with Field Marshal B.G. Sheremetev and General L.N. Allart and Chancellor GI Golovkin and the Russian ambassador to the Commonwealth GF Dolgorukov. The council decided earlier that the Turks would approach the Danube and seize the crossings. The troops for the campaign planned to concentrate on the banks of the Dniester, in the Polish part of Ukraine. The advanced units of the Russian army were to reach the Dniester by May 15. Sheremetev with the infantry was supposed to go there no later than 20 in May, having a three-month supply of food. The troops reached the Dniester, but Peter himself was late for them, as he was negotiating with the Polish king and the Saxon elector Augustus II.

Due to the absence of Peter and food difficulties Sheremetev with the troops crossed the Dniester 30 in May, 10 days later than planned. But then it became known that the Turks of the Danube had already passed, they could not be intercepted or held at the crossings, and Sheremetev turned to Iasi. So, at the Danube Theater, initially everything went wrong according to the plan, as is well known, ended in defeat.

At the Crimean Theater, the campaign was led by General-in-Chief Ivan Ivanovich Buturlin and Hetman Skoropadsky himself. Russian troops consisted of 7 infantry regiments and 1 dragoon regiment (7178 people), with a hetman were 20 000 Cossacks. By warning the Russian offensive on the Crimea, Nuraddin Bakhti-Giray staged an attack on Thor and Bakhmut. Tatar raid was repulsed, but the campaign performance was delayed.

Finally, May 30, a day with Sheremetev, Buturlin and Skoropadsky made their way from Perevolochny and, burdened with cumbersome transports, dragged towards the Crimea. 7 June they reached Novobogoroditskoy fortress. The "languages" informed them that the 30 000 Tatars of Bakhti-Girey are standing in the headwaters of the Samara River and are awaiting a Russian offensive. Going further to the Crimea means leaving them behind me. But Buturlin was not embarrassed by this. Leaving part of the force for the protection of communications, he slowly moved through the Dnieper rapids. He covered himself with the Dnieper from the Yedikul horde and from the Dzhambuliuyk, and Ingulets - from the Edisan.



On the left flank, in the Caucasian theater, movement also began. Even in winter, the Russians exchanged letters with the Kabardian rulers, urging them to oppose the Tatars. Kabardians responded that they had a great hostility with the Kuban Tatars, and there would never be friendship between us until the death of ours.

Later, 20 000 Kalmyks Taishi Ayuki arrived. All this army steppe and Don moved to Azov, to strengthen more and Azov garrison.

On June 3, Prince Alexander Bekovich Cherkassky wrote to Peter from Kabarda on June 3 that he agreed with the local rulers: as the boyar Apraksin with the Russian army and the Kalmyks go against the Kuban Tatars, the Kabardians will also immediately come out against the Kuban. The distances and the primitive organization of communication did not allow the Russians to strike at all three theaters at the same time.

2 July Buturlin's troops arrived at Kamenny Zaton. This fortress was once built on the bank of the Dnieper to prevent the Zaporozhye Cossacks without the royal will of the Dnieper to go out into the sea, to quarrel the sultan with the king. The Kamenny Zaton was guarded by the Russian garrison - the Gulits and Yankovsky infantry regiments. From here to the Crimea it was within reach, and the hetman and Buturlin had already made plans how to land the troops on the Crimean coast.

7 July intelligence reported the withdrawal of the main forces of the Tatars from Perekop. The movement of the Russian troops was stopped, waiting for the Tatar attack. Only four battalions of Captain Postelnikov were sent forward, who burnt down the deserted smoking of the New Zaporizhian Sich and took four guns there. Zaporozhtsev in New Sich was not, they at that time fought behind the Dniester with the army of Tsar Peter himself.

The position of the troops Buturlin was extremely difficult. They have not yet crossed their border, but they have already spent supplies. And no wonder - for a whole month they were trampling almost in one place. Starvation, had to eat horse meat. The soldiers and the Cossacks began to scatter a little. The horde loomed beyond the Dnieper not far away, distracted. Meanwhile, 15 000 Tatars Bakhti-Girey moved to Sloboda Ukraine, to the Donets, Mirgorod, Bakhmut and Thor were threatened.

23 July Buturlin and Skoropadsky gave orders to their troops to retreat. Thus, the campaign to the Crimea was unsuccessful. As it became known, the day before, the troops of Tsar Peter himself, having signed an agreement with the Turks, began crossing back over the Prut. 1-3 August Russian crossed the Dniester.

But the Kuban campaign, which had been prepared for so long, entered its decisive stage. 17 August Apraksin, who did not receive information that the war was over and the world was signed, with 9 000 the soldier left Azov and moved south. The Kalmyk horde reached there.

On August 26, according to Apraksin's triumphant report, the bid of Nauraddin Bakhti-Giray - Kopyl was ravaged.
Author:
40 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Hunt
    Hunt 3 August 2016 07: 18
    +7
    "Friends" of Russia for two hundred years, their composition has not changed !!!
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 3 August 2016 08: 49
      -6
      he himself was the very first "friend", like the "reformers" of Gorbach and Yeltsin in one bottle, so he simply took the army and surrendered to the Turks, just as he surrendered all the artillery near Narva
      1. avt
        avt 3 August 2016 09: 07
        +1
        Quote: Simpsonian
        he himself was the very first "friend", like the "reformers" of Gorbach and Yeltsin in one bottle, so he simply took the army and surrendered to the Turks, just as he surrendered all the artillery near Narva

        Who exactly where "took" ?? If about Pec # 1, then learn the materiel - he drove the army iak, that really the Turks pressed and there was nowhere to go, if not for the diplomats who agreed there with the Pasha, hell would Petsya fortel of the Narva sample Carlos the Swedish sprinkled foam when he learned how the Turks released Petsu. The Turks solved all their problems in the northern direction without a fight, at once for a long time removed Russia from the Black Sea and went to study the western one. Prut's campaign in a kind of artistic memoir calm.
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 3 August 2016 21: 28
        +3
        Quote: Simpsonian
        he himself was the very first "friend", like the "reformers" of Gorbach and Yeltsin in one bottle, so he simply took the army and surrendered to the Turks, just as he surrendered all the artillery near Narva

        Yeah. Knowledge of the history of Russia is simply prohibitive. Especially kills - "surrendered artillery near Narva" - this is after many hours of battle.
        And to say about Peter I that he was like our "reformers of the 90s" is completely ridiculous, given how many cities and factories were built, given that under Peter I Russia became from a "country on the outskirts" of one of the great powers, given that that Peter I buried Sweden as a great power.

        Quote: Aspeed
        It was only 50 years after that that Russia started a war with the Circassians (Kabardins, Adyghe) and completely quarreled with its main ally in the Caucasus. Why - until now, no one can understand.

        Why, for a long time, it has long been described in many sources - raids on the border territories of Russia and friendly negotiations with the Port were not necessary.
        1. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 4 August 2016 22: 02
          0
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          Especially kills - "surrendered artillery near Narva" - this is after many hours of battle.

          The hours of battle? when did the Moscow regiments run on the first attack?!? Oh well...
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 5 August 2016 15: 41
            0
            Quote: Warrior2015
            The hours of battle? when the Moscow regiments ran

            Oh well. So they fled that Karl XII was surprised when the German generals - commanders of the Russian army proposed surrender, so they fled that the positions of the guards regiments were already occupied by the Swedes, etc. Learn the history of your country, and do not collect myths - we have bitter defeats and defeats that are worthy of many victories, and victories that make the country and its people proud.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 3 August 2016 07: 37
    +2
    Among the most important reasons for the defeat were the consequences of the conflict between the Russian state and the Cossacks and, as a result, the insignificant participation of the Cossacks in this war on the side of Russia.... As putting it mildly, the conflict ... Not a fig for a conflict, a solid hetman, ran over to the side of the enemy ... And Tsar Peter, had to write letters to Mazepa with the words ... Come back, I'll forgive everything .. And a little later, The "offended" Cossacks headed by Orlik ... together with the Tatars began to rob and kill their own ... On a noble basis ... like we are for freedom ...
    1. avt
      avt 3 August 2016 08: 34
      -1
      Quote: parusnik
      ... A little later, the "offended" Cossacks with Orlik at the head ... together with the Tatars began to rob and kill their own ... On a noble basis ... like we are for freedom ..

      Well, the defenders of Orthodoxy, who
      “For this sir,” as Peter I wrote, “except cruelty, cannot be taken away.”
      finally brought to a single state denominator was only after almost civil war Pugacheva. And Sechiks .....
      Quote: parusnik
      The "offended" Cossacks headed by Orlik ... together with the Tatars began to rob and kill their own ...

      in general, at different times with different gates and chieftains for them, this comme il faut was under the Sultan and Serbs and other Orthodox Christians went on board in punitive expeditions. Again, with Katya No. 2, they only shortened it completely.
      a day earlier, the troops of Tsar Peter himself, having signed an agreement with the Turks, began crossing back through the Prut. On August 1-3, the Russians crossed the Dniester.
      It would be nice to highlight the conditions of the world, according to which Taganrog was torn down, Azov was lost and ... the remains of the Black Sea fleet were burned, and some of the ships, like about five that the Turks refused to let through the straits, were sold to the Turks, including, it seems "
      1. strannik595
        strannik595 3 August 2016 11: 28
        +10
        Again, with Katya number 2

        If about Pets№1

        Would Tsar Peter have the courage to say in his face that he was Petsya # 1, would the trousers remain clean? (for warm-up, you can say "Way # 1" in public) ....... I doubt it ........ Your familiarity is annoying ...... first do as much for Russia as they did, then let yourself familiar vyser
        1. avt
          avt 3 August 2016 12: 03
          -7
          Quote: strannik595
          .Your familiarity is annoying .....

          I do not like it - there is a black list to the extreme.
          Quote: strannik595
          would it blow the spirit of Tsar Peter to say that he was Petsya No. 1, would the tails remain clean?

          Another moralizer, ala creative intelligentsia, would like to live in Stalin's times? "Well, for such people, already quite weighty people said to themselves -" They don't choose times, they live and die. " I see no need to lay out the beads, after this
          Quote: strannik595
          for a warm-up, you can GDPR say "Path number 1" in public) ....... I doubt it .......

          Also a favorite of the intelligentsia to scribble a denunciation. while sincerely denouncing the "informers".
          Quote: strannik595
          ..first do for Russia as much as they did, then allow yourself the crony’s highs

          At first, study gistoria not according to the textbook, then we’ll talk to someone who’s vyser, but then the vyserin’s weather doesn’t smell like love.
          1. fitter71
            fitter71 23 October 2016 22: 49
            0
            Quote: avt
            Quote: strannik595
            for a warm-up, you can GDPR say "Path number 1" in public) ....... I doubt it .......
            Also a favorite of the intelligentsia to scribble a denunciation. while sincerely denouncing the "informers".

            you mnu touched :)) informers all who have a different point of view from yours or through one? and yet yes - I join - if you are so smart - why do we have Putin president? the brain does not pull? or ... oh well, I won’t be like :)))
        2. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 4 August 2016 22: 03
          0
          Quote: strannik595
          would it be enough for Tsar Peter to say in his face that he was Petsya No. 1, would the tails remain clean? (

          I’ll answer for comrade AVT - it would be enough, because this king was akim "reformer" that Gorby and Yeltsin surpassed in the square.
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 3 August 2016 21: 32
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      Not a fig a conflict, an integral hetman, ran over to the side of the enemy ... And Tsar Peter, had to write letters to Mazepa with the words .. Come back, I will forgive everything .. And a little later, the "offended" Cossacks with Orlik at the head .. at the same time with the Tatars they began to rob and kill their own ... On a noble basis ... like we are for freedom ...

      And the Sich Cossacks were always not particularly loyal to any government - they went to Russia with the Poles, then they went to the Poles with the Crimean Tatars, etc. The funny thing is, HOW did Mazepa go over to the Swedes - he brought 20 thousand, and gave the Swedes one and a half times less. In addition, given WHAT the Swedes were doing with the civilian population (we read the diaries of the confessor Karl XII and his officers), it is generally surprising that at least someone crossed over. But now he is a "hero-liberator" :)
  3. V.ic
    V.ic 3 August 2016 10: 54
    -6
    One of the prerequisites for the defeat of the Russian regular troops in the Prut campaign was the lack of support for the Cossacks. Petrusha's dad told Stenka Razin, and his son, with his bastard policy, provoked an uprising led by Kondrat Bulavin, who died in battle. Danila Nekrasov saving the Cossack population went to Turetchina.
    1. avt
      avt 3 August 2016 12: 15
      -2
      Quote: V.ic
      One of the prerequisites for the defeat of the Russian regular troops in the Prut campaign was the lack of support for the Cossacks.

      laughing Or maybe everything is much more prosaic? It was necessary to prepare the campaign specifically, and not to let in ears that the Orthodox Moldovans would meet with bread and salt, and to start eating it would be trivial to prepare for the army then? Again, if you attend to knowledge in gishtoria, then the campaigns ended successfully when the REGULAR troops, in accordance with the campaign plan, well, with proper calculation of forces and means, occupied territories with the subsequent development of the civil administration of the state, and didn’t go to the raid, well, after zipun . The Prut campaign was originally based on the broad, and quite specific material support promised by Kantemir, of the local population, which simply did not happen. For what reason - a separate issue. As a result, Petsya No. 1 instead of walking with a meeting with bread from the local Orthodox population got into into the concrete plague of the war with limited food resources, the Turks squeezed so hard that he and Katka / Marta Skavronskaya couldn’t get off the Narva manir and .... the bow to the very specific negotiators from the Russian side was released by the Turks. BUT!
      Quote: avt
      without a fight, they solved all their problems in the northern direction, at once removing Russia from the Black Sea for a long time and went to engage in the western
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 3 August 2016 16: 51
        +2
        Quote: avt
        As a result, Petsya No. 1, instead of walking with a meeting with bread and salt from the local Orthodox population, fell into a specific plague of war with a limited food resource

        As you have it, everything is simple. For comparison: the battle for Plevna in 1877-78, that is, 170 years after the Prut, was given to Russia very difficult and this is with the many-fold increased military and technical potential.
        In principle, at the then level of intelligence, getting into the environment was very simple. The truth is that Minih and Lassie moved quite quickly and slipped out of the boilers :)
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 3 August 2016 21: 41
          0
          Quote: Pilat2009
          In principle, at the then level of intelligence, getting into the environment was very simple.

          For example, during one of the Austro-Turkish wars, the Austrian army destroyed itself at night at all: sappers found a tavern with a large supply of drinks and did not share, in the dark a fight between irregular cavalrymen and sappers was taken for battle. Panic and flight began. In the morning, the Turks found a field littered with wounded, abandoned weapons and equipment.
      2. V.ic
        V.ic 3 August 2016 21: 38
        -1
        Quote: V.ic One of the prerequisites for the defeat of the Russian regular troops in the Prut campaign was the lack of support for the Cossacks.
        [quote / avt] Or maybe everything is much more prosaic ?

        The prose was that during the uprising of the Don Cossacks against the cannibal Petrushka, about 200 Russian settlements were cut out by the rebel Bashkirs in the strip from modern E-burg to Ufa. Without exception. The revolt of the Don people (mainly Old Believers) against the Nikonian Petrushka was a godly deed in the light of the well-known version of the substitution of the Tsar in Europe.
  1. Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 3 August 2016 23: 49
    0
    Quote: V.ic
    The prose was that during the uprising of the Don Cossacks against the cannibal Petrushka, about 200 Russian settlements were cut out by the rebel Bashkirs in the strip from modern E-burg to Ufa. Without exception. The revolt of the Don people (mainly Old Believers) against the Nikonian Petrushka was a godly deed in the light of the well-known version of the substitution of the Tsar in Europe.

    1. Dear. You at least 1/1000 of what Peter I did, and only then you will have at least some right to derogate him so derogatoryly.
    2. Your "insurgent Donets" rebelled during the war with one of the strongest powers in Europe at the time due to the fact that they were threatened with the obligation to start paying taxes, handing over the fugitives and serving, like everyone else in the army - NO religious reason that you far-fetched here is not. In fact, the rebels did not differ much from the Vlasovites during the Second World War.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 3 August 2016 21: 38
    +1
    Quote: V.ic
    One of the prerequisites for the defeat of the Russian regular troops in the Prut campaign was the lack of support for the Cossacks. Petrusha's dad told Stenka Razin, and his son, with his bastard policy, provoked an uprising led by Kondrat Bulavin, who died in battle. Danila Nekrasov saving the Cossack population went to Turetchina.

    It’s ridiculous. Razin fought for power, robbed and killed neighboring countries in peacetime, and when he tried to bring him to justice, he began an uprising.
    Bulavin spoke out because Moscow (Petersburg) finally began to struggle with the rule "there is no issue from the Don." By the way, he began an uprising during a difficult war with the strongest external enemy.
    The influence of the Cossacks on the fighting between the regular forces is very much extolled - this is not the period of Catherine and Alexander when they made full-fledged light cavalry from them. The rod was caused by the underestimation of the enemy, but the Turks also underestimated the Russian army. As a result, Prut did not become a catastrophe, but only one unpleasant defeat, the consequences of which did not affect the Great Northern War, and were completely leveled under subsequent rulers.
  • qwert
    qwert 3 August 2016 11: 24
    +1
    He was young, hot, naive. And in general, Peter-1 is far from unambiguous.
  • fa2998
    fa2998 3 August 2016 11: 53
    -3
    Quote: V.ic
    One of the prerequisites for the defeat of the Russian regular troops in the Prut campaign was the lack of support for the Cossacks.

    Not only support, many Cossacks fought on the side of the enemy. This is not the fault of the Cossacks, the main fault in the wrong policy of Moscow (St. Petersburg) regarding the Cossacks.
    The free Cossacks on the southern borders were the shield of Russia. The Cossacks protecting their lands from the Tatars and Turks at the same time covered the whole of Russia. They also raided and weakened the enemy. Give them privileges, help with heavy weapons, gunpowder, and let them continue to live according to their charter! No, it was necessary for the authorities to put everyone in charge, to subordinate all, to put their commanders. Here and there was a confusion in the Cossacks, ours are not ours. Until now in Romania, on the banks of the Prut live the descendants of those Cossacks who fled from Moscow. hi
    1. avt
      avt 3 August 2016 13: 31
      -3
      Quote: fa2998
      Cossacks defended their lands from the Tatars and Turks at the same time covered the whole of Russia. They also raided and weakened the enemy. Give them benefits, help with heavy weapons, gunpowder and let them live on with their charter! No, it was necessary to put everyone in power, everyone subordinate, put your commanders

      For the siege, for example, of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, the Cossacks, together with the Poles, are reluctant to say anything? There, too, "Orthodox" Cossacks
      Quote: fa2998
      covered the whole of Russia. Yes, and raids did, weakened the enemy

      Quote: fa2998
      No, it was necessary to put the power on everyone, to subordinate everyone, to put their commanders.

      And what is characteristic - somehow everything calmed down at once and really began to fight for the good of the state, well, until the next turmoil of 1917 and Krasnov's "Cossacks".
      1. Retvizan
        Retvizan 3 August 2016 18: 29
        +1
        Quote: avt
        For the siege, for example, of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, the Cossacks, together with the Poles, are reluctant to say anything? There, too, "Orthodox" Cossacks

        Nationals of Rzeczpospolita. Registered and Zaporozhye with Hetman Skoropadsky. Since the Cossacks were an additional resource, the Poles often used them with Turks, Tatars and Muscovites .. But the Cossacks often didn’t fight with the latter (except for the times of Skoropadsky and even after their sleeves, they didn’t see any special contradictions with the White Tsar)
    2. Retvizan
      Retvizan 3 August 2016 18: 25
      +1
      What Don, what Zaporizhzhya Cossacks was the place that stood out for its freedoms (not serfs) against the background of enslaved Russia. People constantly ran away from the landlords. Cossacks restrictions were constantly (then the term of the issue of the tax and the service)
      Pyotr strictly demanded that from the Ukrainian Cossacks discipline and their charter (to be there and to do this and that - which the Cossacks could understandably do as regulars could, they have other abilities). And under Azov, as the Don people rebelled, and under Taganrog (construction) .. Similarly, Zaporozhye. Well, they are not builders.
      Therefore, the policy was unsuccessful. A bad policy is more cost.
    3. Verdun
      Verdun 3 August 2016 20: 06
      -1
      Quote: fa2998

      Not only support, many Cossacks fought on the side of the enemy. This is not the fault of the Cossacks, the main fault in the wrong policy of Moscow (St. Petersburg) regarding the Cossacks.

      The talk that without the support of the Cossacks Russia would have lost all the soldiers in a row is better left to those mummers who walk the streets, admonishing themselves with medals and orders of "ancestors" to the navel. Throughout their history, the Cossack troops were good for raiding raids (simply put, robberies), and against regular troops on the battlefield, the Cossacks looked rather pale. And the policy was correct - how else was it to negotiate with the "brothers"?
      1. fitter71
        fitter71 23 October 2016 23: 00
        0
        well, well, no need to go to extremes - there were also gangs that hunted raids on Russia, whether there were those who fought without any oaths for the tsar (although most likely all for the same Russia). the world is not black and white. and judging by the fact that they "agreed" with the Cossacks in the ending, the parties to the agreement also understood this. I'm not talking about the current Cossacks - here I rather agree with you. but the heyday of the Cossacks - 18-19 centuries - the Cossacks were a real force. otherwise, the sultans and the Poles would not have tried to win over to their side ...
  • King, just king
    King, just king 3 August 2016 12: 34
    +5
    Did I misunderstand or read something? And where, in fact, the Prut campaign? There is no "to be continued" at the end of the article.
    1. Retvizan
      Retvizan 3 August 2016 18: 32
      +1
      here about the whole Turkish company. Description of the campaign can be found. Often they forget about the defeat of the entire company. Who with whom and why, where and how. And the defeat itself is quite instructive. You can’t go camping, quarreling with everyone, and the allies were only nominal. This is not even the Northern War (coalition) .. And not even the Azov campaigns (AB, RP, RC)
  • libivs
    libivs 3 August 2016 13: 52
    +1
    Quote: avt

    Quote: fa2998
    No, it was necessary to put the power on everyone, to subordinate everyone, to put their commanders.

    And what is characteristic - somehow everything calmed down at once and really began to fight for the good of the state, well, until the next turmoil of 1917 and Krasnov's "Cossacks".


    Yes, nothing calmed down ... Problems with the Cossacks continued throughout the 18th century, until 1835, when the Cossacks were herded into the military estate, depriving the Cossack troops of formal sovereignty, but leaving a fairly wide internal self-government. Suffice it to recall the conflicts between Catherine's government and the Cossacks and the Urals (Pugachevshchina). By the way, Cossackia was not an invention of Krasnov at all, but Cossack figures of the already emigrant period, such as Glazkov. Krasnov, just before the beginning of the Second World War, was considered one of the ardent opponents of the "Cossacks". It is enough to read his polemical journalism of the late 20s. In general, for researchers of the activities of the Cossack emigration, the reason for Krasnov's cooperation with the Nazis, in the form in which it was carried out, remains a mystery ... V.G. Naumenko, for example, having dealt with what was happening in reality, quickly left the ranks of the coloborationists ...
    1. avt
      avt 3 August 2016 14: 07
      -1
      Quote: libivs
      Yes, nothing calmed down ... Problems with the Cossacks continued throughout the 18th century, until 1835, when the Cossacks were driven into the military estate, depriving the Cossack troops of formal sovereignty, but leaving a fairly broad internal self-government. It is enough to recall the conflicts of the Catherine government with the Cossacks and the Urals (Pugachevschina).
      What am I talking about?
      Quote: avt
      finally brought to a single state denominator was only after almost civil war Pugacheva.
      Well, Sich is a separate issue with the Tmutarakan / Taman and Katya No. 2
      Quote: libivs
      ... Krasnov, just before the beginning of the Second World War, was considered one of the ardent opponents of the "Cossacks".

      Come on ! You will know them by their deeds.
      Quote: libivs
      In general, for researchers of the activities of Cossack emigration, it remains a mystery why Krasnov collaborated with the Nazis in the form in which it was carried out ...

      Rather wash the black dog to white. Say whatever you like, but just some kind of persistent conviction - the Germans recruited him by no means later than the Brestlite Peace Treaty. Comrade Trotsky. Further, it was only a matter of technique to lead the person involved, which the German special services actually did with their inherent accuracy. They decided to activate Krasnov, not Skoropadsky, out of the two then completely controlled hetmans / chieftains, who were then completely controlled by the spetsura, and not Skoropadsky, fortunately, fellow-in-arms in the struggle, well, the same Shkuro and smaller, were brought up. And in Ukraine they were already working as a new growth of their old agents of the Velikoukry project.
  • libivs
    libivs 3 August 2016 14: 22
    +1
    Quote: avt
    Quote: libivs
    Yes, nothing calmed down ... Problems with the Cossacks continued throughout the 18th century, until 1835, when the Cossacks were driven into the military estate, depriving the Cossack troops of formal sovereignty, but leaving a fairly broad internal self-government. It is enough to recall the conflicts of the Catherine government with the Cossacks and the Urals (Pugachevschina).
    What am I talking about?
    Quote: avt
    finally brought to a single state denominator was only after almost civil war Pugacheva.
    Well, Sich is a separate issue with the Tmutarakan / Taman and Katya No. 2
    Quote: libivs
    ... Krasnov, just before the beginning of the Second World War, was considered one of the ardent opponents of the "Cossacks".

    Come on ! You will know them by their deeds.
    Quote: libivs
    In general, for researchers of the activities of Cossack emigration, it remains a mystery why Krasnov collaborated with the Nazis in the form in which it was carried out ...

    Rather wash the black dog to white. Say whatever you like, but just some kind of persistent conviction - the Germans recruited him by no means later than the Brestlite Peace Treaty. Comrade Trotsky. Further, it was only a matter of technique to lead the person involved, which the German special services actually did with their inherent accuracy. They decided to activate Krasnov, not Skoropadsky, out of the two then completely controlled hetmans / chieftains, who were then completely controlled by the spetsura, and not Skoropadsky, fortunately, fellow-in-arms in the struggle, well, the same Shkuro and smaller, were brought up. And in Ukraine they were already working as a new growth of their old agents of the Velikoukry project.

    Hmm ... Recruited ?! Hardly. Such unprincipled and pragmatic to the point of cynicism, people like P.N. Krasnov are not amenable to recruitment. With the same success, one can continue the polemic about V. I. Lenin, recruited by the same Germans. Everything is much simpler. Real politician. Only the Germans could really help with weapons and, under certain conditions, army units in the formation of the Don army. All means are good to achieve the result. This is the whole Krasnov. As soon as the Germans were blown away (and it was not a secret for anyone, it was a matter of time), he, without a twinge of conscience, cooperates with the Anglo-French. Well, and Shkuro, with all due respect to his personal courage and charisma, he was drawn to the regiment commander as much as possible. A kind of white Chapaev, ahead on a dashing horse, not bothering himself with excessive mental activity ... In general, Cossack "separatism" is somewhat incorrect to compare with Euro-Ukrainian. The Cossacks were connected with Moscow (specifically with Moscow) much more closely than the Ukrainians. Moscow helped with diplomacy, weapons, money. The Cossacks helped Moscow with a continuous border war with the main geopolitical competitors, provided various services, and did not shy away from participation in the internal political life of the Russian state, albeit not always constructive.
    1. avt
      avt 3 August 2016 16: 13
      0
      Quote: libivs
      Such unprincipled and pragmatic to cynicism, people like P.N. Krasnov cannot be recruited.

      laughing laughing It’s just not ideological, but completely unprincipled, and even pragmatic, to recruit easily and simply - knit it constantly with dirt, money, blood, but rhythmically in the current time. Another thing is to keep it tight, because by the same unscrupulousness and pragmatism it will come off at the first opportunity. but the Germans in this case work meticulously and without much emotion.
      Quote: libivs
      . Real politician. Only the Germans could really help with weapons and under certain conditions, army units in the formation of the Don army.

      The Germans do not scatter materially for a healthy life in the name of the victory of something here and on every kilometer in the World. Even the third Reich, although with an idea, they did for themselves, and not for the sake of the victory of communism / socialism throughout the World.
      Quote: libivs
      . As soon as the Germans were blown away, (and that they were surrendered was no secret to anyone, it was a matter of time), without a twinge of conscience, he collaborated with the Anglo-French.

      But the agent’s business with compromising evidence was left by the Germans and the time had come — they remembered and did not go anywhere! bully
      Quote: libivs
      Shkuro, with all due respect to his personal courage and charisma, he pulled the maximum on the regiment commander.

      And with him, in the presence of Red, nothing more was needed, well, why the hell the Germans still had a tug of war between them. Everything is clearly on the shelves purely in German -ordung.
      Quote: libivs
      ... In general, Cossack "separatism" is somewhat incorrect to compare with Euro-Ukrainians. Cossacks were associated with Moscow

      laughing When and what in time, and yes. In contrast to the Little Russians, they were cherished by a bread and powder salary and other shells from the Moscow Tsar, while Little Russians, or rather the foreman, looked for gentry from the Poles. Like the same Zinovy ​​/ Bogdan Khmelnitsky that for bravery in the battles against the Muscovites he received a shabluk from the Polish king and was a friend of his ... until his grandmothers - a farmstead not registered in his name did not get.
      1. Retvizan
        Retvizan 3 August 2016 18: 51
        +1
        Quote: avt
        , and Little Russians, or rather foreman, looked for gentry among the Poles. Like the same Zinovy ​​/ Bogdan Khmelnitsky that for bravery in the battles against the Muscovites he received a shabluk from the Polish king and was a friend of his ... until his grandmothers - a farmstead not registered in his name did not get.

        Well, they were not young (only after the abolition of the Hetmanate Catherine 2)
        And that's where the saber comes from. Khmelnitsky participated in the siege by the Poles of Smolensk in 1634 and, as the first researcher established, “Metrics of the Crown (Polish) Russian.” P.N.Butinsky, in 1635 received from the king a golden saber for his courage and for saving King Vladislav from Russian captivity during one of the skirmishes near Moscow. If you consider that he was wounded near Tsetsora and was captive for 2 years by the Turks in galleys (or from an admiral, it is unknown), then he knew thoroughly that Muscovy (MC), that OI, that Crimea (KX), that RP.
        At one time, the press voiced the version that the blade was presented to Khmelnitsky by the Polish king Sigismund III. Shortly before his death, the hetman gave the saber to his son Yuri, in whom he saw the heir. However, the 16-year-old was not destined to continue the work of his father. Discarded by the Cossack supremacy from the throne, he was sent to study at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, and subsequently ended up abroad. There he lost his father's saber, and he himself was killed.
        After some time, a glorious blade appeared in the Turkish bazaar, where a Bulgarian bought it as a gift to Russian General Skobelev. A well-known philanthropist Vasily Tarnovsky saw his saber, who managed to beg a rarity for his collection. So the Cossack relic returned to Ukraine - to Chernigov, where it was stored until 1954. A saber was brought to Pereslavl-Khmelnitsky on the eve of the celebrations in honor of the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.
        the inscription on the blade "Who gained glory near Zborov and Zbarazh lost it near Berestechko"
        1. avt
          avt 3 August 2016 20: 08
          -1
          Quote: Retvizan
          Well, they were not young

          Fathers! Really ukram right away ??? wassat Or even worse, as Khmel himself called himself a Russian nobleman, Russian! ??? wassat
  • dkflbvbh
    dkflbvbh 3 August 2016 14: 59
    +1
    "... Mirgorod, Bakhmut and Thor."

    Thor is the future Slavyansk ...
  • Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 3 August 2016 16: 09
    0
    Pauline, if you write, then write the whole truth. Peter first surrendered to the Turks, and then the humiliated gave his wife in a harem to the Sultan. Thus he paid off from captivity. Moreover, the Turkish cavalry guarded the Russian army, because Russians were afraid of the attack of the Crimean Tatars. The Ottoman Empire and Russia concluded a final peace treaty. From then until the death of Peter, relations between Russia and Turkey were peaceful.
    1. avt
      avt 3 August 2016 16: 22
      -1
      Quote: Mangel Olys
      Pauline, if you write, then write the whole truth. Peter first surrendered to the Turks, and then the humiliated gave his wife in a harem to the Sultan. Thus he paid off from captivity. Moreover, the Turkish cavalry guarded the Russian army, because Russians were afraid of the attack of the Crimean Tatars.

      laughing laughing This is strong! This is more abruptly than Bebik and his theory about the descent of Christ and Buddha from the Great Origins! Steeper is only the new theory that the Greeks are descendants of the Turks. You go there, well, to that company. laughing
    2. fitter71
      fitter71 23 October 2016 23: 07
      0
      Quote: Mangel Olys
      if you write, then write the whole truth. Peter first surrendered to the Turks, and then the humiliated gave his wife in a harem to the Sultan. Thus he paid off from captivity. Moreover, the Turkish cavalry guarded the Russian army, because Russians were afraid of the attack of the Crimean Tatars. The Ottoman Empire and Russia concluded a final peace treaty. From then until the death of Peter, relations between Russia and Turkey were peaceful.

      fantasy fantasizes ... do you use protective equipment? risk drowning in fantasies ...
  • libivs
    libivs 3 August 2016 18: 24
    +3
    Quote: avt

    Well, I do not agree with the version of direct recruitment. For what could the Germans grab during the era of revolutionary upheaval? For theft? But then there were no offshore companies, and didn’t everyone care about such trifles? For the fact that his division, and then the corps, were badly cut by the very Germans? It doesn’t go either. He was a cynic, not a Germanophile. Well, try to understand a fairly simple chain of facts:
    1. Krasnov is a cynic and a realist. What do you need to defeat the Reds? Weapons A lot of weapons. The Cossacks have little of it, but really want it, but the Germans in Ukraine have a mountain of captured Russian weapons. A simple conclusion: give, and we will promise you for this (I emphasize, we won’t give, but we promise or will give little) all kinds of things, and figs with him, even we will write to you gentlemen Germans very nice letter with best wishes, we will send an ambassador, also with best wishes . And it worked. Even a simple statement of the fact that Don does not consider himself at war with Germany was enough. After the conclusion of the Brest Peace, imputing Krasnov is simply stupid.
    2. Krasnov is a politician, the only one who could compete with the Bolshevik bison on this field. He was the first to realize the fact that the Bolsheviks create a state, and it is impossible to defeat the state with volunteer partisans. It is necessary to build your own, with all the attributes: governing bodies, a regular army, which is no economy and industry. And he practically succeeded in doing this. There was not enough resource and understanding from Denikin.
    3. Krasnov, again in the field of ideology, proposed a real alternative to Bolshevism and a model of the future state structure of Russia on the basis of the VVD. Cossack staggers, does not want to fight, and if he wants, then only for his farm or village. The rest of the grass does not grow. We must persuade, appease, promise that he is pleased, sometimes scare the Bolshevik Moscow with all sorts of punishments (no one else). Nonresident hostile, the more so does not want to fight. supports the Bolsheviks. The same thing: to persuade, scare, and at the same time to promise that everyone who voluntarily enters the Don army will be equated with the rights of a Cossack and endowed with land. By the way, it almost worked (Berezovsky Infantry Regiment). In the field of administrative structure, a federal model of the future structure of Russia was again proposed, which is to say. in the present world is not such an utter heresy.
    4. Krasnov as a strategist. From the very beginning, he suggested that Denikin not trample on the Kuban, but take Tsaritsyn, unite with Kolchak. He proposed not to be capricious and to build from himself innocence for the Entente at the sight of German artillery, but to do business. In general, the whole result of fuss: the triumph of Denikin and impatient scrupulous volunteers, followed by a catastrophe.
    In general, I am not an apologist for P.N. Krasnova. He made many mistakes and crimes at the sunset of his vibrant life. You just need to still separate the flies from the cutlets, not to hang other people's sins on him, with a large mass of his own. In any case, personally, (and I do not impose opinions) I consider him a wonderful writer and an outstanding historical person of my people, along with Ermak, Razin, Bulavin and Nekrasov.
    1. avt
      avt 3 August 2016 18: 55
      -2
      Quote: libivs
      Well, I do not agree with the version of direct recruitment.

      request Your will, but somehow Krasnov practically proved his activity.
      Quote: libivs
      For what could the Germans grab during the era of revolutionary upheaval?

      I won’t answer, but the one who read his intelligence case, or interrogation records will answer. We can grind the rest to infinity. Especially if
      Quote: libivs
      (and I do not impose opinions) I consider him a wonderful writer and an outstanding historical person of my people, along with Ermak, Razin, Bulavin and Nekrasov.

      to some extent fascinated by him as a person. The subjective approach always interferes, personally checked. bully
  • Cat
    Cat 3 August 2016 20: 08
    +3
    Cossacks, Cossacks - yes, an important factor that influenced the defeat of the Russian army, but .....
    First, we must not forget that the Northern War was going on, which did not allow to concentrate all forces on the southern theater of military operations.
    Secondly, in addition to the Cossack riots, the country was excited by the unrest of the Bashkirs and Kalmyks, who had previously always been natural allies.
    In the third, the Ottoman Porta was still a fairly powerful military state, which earlier, literally 20 years before the Put campaign, Peter opposed the alliance from Austria, Venice, Poland and Russia.
    In the end, the Turks, having almost five times superiority over the army of Peter I, could not defeat him. The apogee of the last days of the Prut campaign was the failure of the Janissaries to storm the Russian camp, which forced the great vizier to negotiate.
    An unceasing event in the history of Ports.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 3 August 2016 21: 27
      +1
      Quote: Kotischa
      The apogee of the last days of the Prut campaign was the failure of the Janissaries to storm the Russian camp, which forced the great vizier to negotiate.
      An unceasing event in the history of Ports.

      And this was already the result of the use of Russian field artillery. Something there was such that inappropriately devout Janissary die from cannon fire.
  • Cat
    Cat 3 August 2016 21: 41
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    he himself was the very first "friend", like the "reformers" of Gorbach and Yeltsin in one bottle, so he simply took the army and surrendered to the Turks, just as he surrendered all the artillery near Narva

    Or maybe it was necessary to lose all the artillery near Narva in order to recreate it at a completely different qualitative level. So much so that Swedish historians still reproach their Charles 12 for neglecting artillery in the Battle of Poltava, and the Turks nod at either the vizier or the Janissary. What does everyone scream, if only.