Alexander III Alexandrovich Romanov
Years of life: February 26, 1845, Anichkov Palace, St. Petersburg - October 20, 1894, Livadia Palace, Crimea.
Son of Maria Alexandrovna, recognized daughter of Grand Duke Ludwig II of Hesse and Emperor.
Emperor of All Russia (1 (13) March 1881 - 20 October (1 November) 1894), Tsar of Poland and Grand Duke Finnish since 1 March 1881
From the Romanov dynasty.
He was awarded a special epithet in pre-revolutionary historiography - Peacemaker.
He was in imperial family 2nd son. Born on February 26 (March 10), 1845 in Tsarskoe Selo, his elder brother was preparing to inherit the throne.
The mentor who had a strong influence on his worldview was K.P. Pobedonostsev.
As crown prince, he became a member of the State Council, commander of guards units and ataman of all Cossack troops.
During the Russian-Turkish War of 1877–1878. he was the commander of the Separate Rushchuk detachment in Bulgaria. Created the Voluntary Fleet of Russia (since 1878), which became the core of the country's merchant fleet and the reserve of the Russian navy.
After the death of his elder brother Nicholas in 1865, he became heir to the throne.
In 1866, he married the fiancee of his deceased brother, the daughter of the Danish king Christian IX, Princess Sophia Frederica Dagmar, who took the name Maria Feodorovna in Orthodoxy.
Having ascended the throne after the assassination of Alexander II on March 1 (13), 1881. 
(his father’s legs were blown off by a terrorist bomb, and his son spent the last hours of his life next to him), canceled the draft constitutional reform signed by his father immediately before his death. He stated that Russia would pursue a peaceful policy and deal with internal problems - strengthening the autocracy.
His manifesto on April 29 (May 11), 1881 reflected the program of domestic and foreign policy. The main priorities were: maintaining order and power, strengthening church piety and ensuring the national interests of Russia.
The Tsar created the state Peasant Land Bank to issue loans to peasants for the purchase of land, and also issued a number of laws that alleviated the situation of workers.
Alexander 3 pursued a tough policy of Russification, which encountered opposition from some Finns and Poles.
After Bismarck's resignation from the post of Chancellor of Germany in 1893, Alexander III Alexandrovich entered into an alliance with France (French-Russian alliance).
In foreign policy, behind years of reign of Alexander 3 Russia has firmly taken a leading position in Europe. Possessing enormous physical strength, the tsar symbolized the power and invincibility of Russia for other states. One day, the Austrian ambassador began to threaten him during lunch, promising to move a couple of army corps to the borders. The king listened silently, then took a fork from the table, tied it in a knot and threw it on the ambassador's plate. “This is what we will do with your couple of buildings,” answered the king.
Court etiquette and ceremony became much simpler. He significantly reduced the staff of the Ministry of the Court, the number of servants was reduced and strict control over the expenditure of money was introduced. At the same time, huge amounts of money were spent on purchasing art objects, since the emperor was a passionate collector. Under him, Gatchina Castle turned into a warehouse of priceless treasures, which later became a true national treasure of Russia.
Unlike all his predecessor rulers on the Russian throne, he adhered to strict family morals and was an exemplary family man - a loving husband and a good father. He was one of the most devout Russian sovereigns, firmly adhered to the Orthodox canons, willingly donated to monasteries, to the construction of new churches and the restoration of ancient ones.
He was passionate about hunting and fishing, and boating. The emperor's favorite hunting spot was Belovezhskaya Pushcha. He participated in archaeological excavations, loved to play the trumpet in a brass band.
The family had very warm relations. Every year the wedding date was celebrated. Evenings for children were often organized: circus and puppet shows. Everyone was attentive to each other and gave gifts.
The emperor was very hardworking. And yet, despite a healthy lifestyle, he died young, before reaching the age of 50, completely unexpectedly. In October 1888, the royal train crashed near Kharkov. There were many victims, but royal family remained intact. With incredible efforts, Alexander held the collapsed roof of the carriage on his shoulders until help arrived.
But soon after this incident, the emperor began to complain of lower back pain. Doctors came to the conclusion that the terrible concussion from the fall was the onset of kidney disease. At the insistence of Berlin doctors, he was sent to Crimea, to Livadia, but the disease progressed.
On October 20, 1894, the emperor died. He was buried in St. Petersburg, in the Peter and Paul Cathedral.
The death of Emperor Alexander III caused an echo throughout the world, flags were lowered in France, and memorial services were held in all churches in England. Many foreign figures called him a peacemaker.
The Marquis of Salisbury said: “Alexander III saved Europe many times from the horrors of war. From his deeds the rulers of Europe should learn how to govern their people.”
He was married to the daughter of the Danish king Christian IX, Dagmara of Denmark (Maria Feodorovna). They had children:
He had military rank- general-from-infantry, general-from-cavalry (Russian Imperial Army). The emperor was distinguished by his enormous stature.
In 1883, the so-called “coronation ruble” was issued in honor of the coronation of Alexander III.
CHAPTER FIRST
Manifesto on the accession of the sovereign to the throne. – Assessment of the reign of Emperor Alexander III (V. O. Klyuchevsky, K. P. Pobedonostsev). – General position in 1894 – Russian empire. - Royal power. - Officials. – Tendencies of the ruling circles: “demophiliac” and “aristocratic”. – Foreign policy and the Franco-Russian alliance. - Army. - Fleet. - Local government. – Finland. – Press and censorship. – The softness of laws and courts.
“It pleased Almighty God, in his inscrutable ways, to interrupt the precious life of Our beloved Parent, Sovereign Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich. The serious illness did not yield to either treatment or the fertile climate of Crimea, and on October 20 He died in Livadia, surrounded by His August Family, in the arms of Her Imperial Majesty the Empress and Ours.
Our grief cannot be expressed in words, but every Russian heart will understand it, and We believe that there will be no place in Our vast State where hot tears would not be shed for the Emperor, who untimely departed into eternity and left native land, which He loved with all the strength of His Russian soul and on whose welfare He placed all His thoughts, sparing neither His health nor life. And not only in Russia, but far beyond its borders, they will never cease to honor the memory of the Tsar, who personified unshakable truth and peace, which was never violated throughout His Reign.”
These words begin the manifesto that announced to Russia the accession of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.
The reign of Emperor Alexander III, who received the name Tsar-Peacemaker, was not replete with external events, but it left a deep imprint on Russian and world life. Over these thirteen years, many knots have been tied - both externally and internally. domestic policy- to untie or cut which his son and successor, Emperor Nicholas II Alexandrovich, had the chance to do.
Both friends and enemies of Imperial Russia equally recognize that Emperor Alexander III significantly increased the international weight of the Russian Empire, and within its borders established and exalted the importance of autocratic tsarist power. He led the Russian ship of state on a different course than his father. He did not believe that the reforms of the 60s and 70s were an unconditional blessing, but tried to introduce into them those amendments that, in his opinion, were necessary for the internal balance of Russia.
After the era of great reforms, after the war of 1877-1878, this enormous tension of Russian forces in the interests of the Balkan Slavs, Russia, in any case, needed a respite. It was necessary to master and “digest” the changes that had occurred.
At the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, the famous Russian historian, prof. V. O. Klyuchevsky, in his word in memory of Emperor Alexander III a week after his death, said:
“During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, before the eyes of one generation, we peacefully committed our state system a series of deep reforms in the spirit of Christian rules, therefore, in the spirit of European principles - such reforms that cost Western Europe centuries-long and often violent efforts - and this Europe continued to see in us representatives of Mongolian inertia, some kind of imposed adoptions of the cultural world...
Thirteen years of the reign of Emperor Alexander III passed, and the more hastily the hand of death hastened to close His eyes, the wider and more astonished the eyes of Europe opened to the global significance of this short reign. Finally, the stones cried out, the organs of public opinion in Europe began to speak the truth about Russia, and they spoke the more sincerely, the more unusual it was for them to say this. It turned out, according to these confessions, that European civilization had insufficiently and carelessly ensured its peaceful development, for its own safety it was placed in a powder magazine, that the burning fuse more than once different sides approached this dangerous defensive warehouse, and each time the caring and patient hand of the Russian Tsar quietly and carefully took him away... Europe recognized that the Tsar of the Russian people were the sovereign of the international world, and with this recognition confirmed the historical vocation of Russia, for in Russia, according to its political organization , the will of the King expresses the thought of His people, and the will of the people becomes the thought of their King. Europe recognized that the country, which it considered a threat to its civilization, stood and stands guard over it, understands, appreciates and protects its foundations no worse than its creators; she recognized Russia as an organically necessary part of her cultural composition, a blood, natural member of the family of her peoples...
Science will give Emperor Alexander III his rightful place not only in the history of Russia and all of Europe, but also in Russian historiography, will say that He won a victory in the area where these victories are most difficult to achieve, defeated the prejudice of peoples and thereby contributed to their rapprochement, conquered the public conscience in the name of peace and truth, increased the amount of good in the moral circulation of humanity, encouraged and raised Russian historical thought, Russian national consciousness, and did all this so quietly and silently that only now, when He was no longer there, Europe understood what He was for her."
If Professor Klyuchevsky, a Russian intellectual and rather a “Westernizer,” dwells more on the foreign policy of Emperor Alexander III and, apparently, hints at a rapprochement with France, the closest collaborator of the late monarch, K.P., spoke about the other side of this reign in a concise and expressive form. . Pobedonostsev:
“Everyone knew that he would not give in to the Russian, his history of bequeathed interest either in Poland or on other outskirts of the foreign element, that he deeply preserves in his soul the same faith and love for the Orthodox Church with the people; finally, that he, along with the people, believes in the unshakable significance of autocratic power in Russia and will not allow it, in the ghost of freedom, a disastrous confusion of languages and opinions.”
At a meeting of the French Senate, its chairman, Challmel-Lacourt, said in his speech (November 5, 1894) that the Russian people were experiencing “the grief of the loss of a ruler immensely devoted to his future, his greatness, his security; The Russian nation, under the just and peaceful authority of its emperor, enjoyed security, this highest good of society and an instrument of true greatness.”
Most of the French press spoke in the same tones about the late Russian Tsar: “He leaves Russia greater than he received it,” wrote the Journal des Debats; and “Revue des deux Mondes” echoed the words of V. O. Klyuchevsky: “This grief was also our grief; for us it has acquired a national character; but other nations experienced almost the same feelings... Europe felt that it was losing an arbiter who had always been guided by the idea of justice.”
1894 – just like the 80s and 90s in general. – refers to that long period of “calm before the storm”, the longest period without big wars in the new and medieval history. This time left its mark on everyone who grew up during these years of calm. By the end of the 19th century, the growth of material well-being and external education proceeded with increasing acceleration. Technology went from invention to invention, science - from discovery to discovery. Railways and steamships have already made it possible to “travel around the world in 80 days”; Following the telegraph wires, strings of telephone wires were already stretched around the world. Electric lighting quickly replaced gas. But in 1894, the clumsy first cars could not yet compete with the graceful carriages and carriages; " live photo“was still in the stage of preliminary experiments; controllable balloons were just a dream; Heavier-than-air vehicles have never been heard of. Radio had not been invented, and radium had not yet been discovered...
In almost all states, the same political process was observed: the growth of the influence of parliament, the expansion of suffrage, and the transfer of power to more left-wing circles. In essence, no one in the West waged a real struggle against this trend, which at that time seemed to be a spontaneous course of “historical progress”. The Conservatives, themselves gradually moving towards the left, were content to at times slow down the pace of this development - 1894 saw just such a slowdown in most countries.
In France, after the assassination of President Carnot and a series of senseless anarchist assassination attempts, up to a bomb in the Chamber of Deputies and the notorious Panama scandal, which marked the beginning of the 90s. In this country, there has just been a slight shift to the right. The president was Casimir Perrier, a right-wing republican inclined to expand presidential power; The Dupuis ministry was governed by a moderate majority. But already at that time those who were on the extreme left of the National Assembly in the 70s were considered “moderate”; just shortly before - around 1890 - under the influence of the advice of Pope Leo XIII, a significant part of French Catholics joined the ranks of the Republicans.
In Germany, after the resignation of Bismarck, the influence of the Reichstag increased significantly; social democracy, gradually conquering everything big cities, became the largest German party. The conservatives, for their part, relying on the Prussian Landtag, waged a stubborn struggle against the economic policies of Wilhelm II. For lack of energy in the fight against the socialists, Chancellor Caprivi was replaced in October 1894 by the elderly Prince Hohenlohe; but this did not result in any noticeable change in course.
In England in 1894, the liberals were defeated on the Irish question, and the “intermediate” ministry of Lord Rosebery was in power, which soon gave way to the cabinet of Lord Salisbury, which relied on conservatives and liberal unionists (opponents of Irish self-government). These unionists, led by Chamberlain, played such a prominent role in the government majority that soon the name of the unionists generally supplanted the name of the conservatives for twenty years. Unlike Germany, the English labor movement was not yet political in nature, and the powerful trade unions, which had already staged very impressive strikes, were for now content with economic and professional achievements - finding more support in this from conservatives than from liberals. These relationships explain the phrase of a prominent English figure of that time: “We are all socialists now”...
In Austria and Hungary, parliamentary rule was more pronounced than in Germany: cabinets that did not have a majority had to resign. On the other hand, the parliament itself opposed the expansion of suffrage: the dominant parties were afraid of losing power. By the time of the death of Emperor Alexander III, Vienna was ruled by the short-lived ministry of the prince. Windischgrätz, which relied on very heterogeneous elements: German liberals, Poles and clerics.
In Italy, after a period of dominance of the left with Giolitti at the head, after a scandal with the appointment of the thieving bank director Tanlongo to the Senate, at the beginning of 1894 the old man came to power again political figure Crispi, one of the authors of the Triple Alliance, played the role of a conservative in the special Italian parliamentary conditions.
Although the Second International had already been founded in 1889 and socialist ideas were becoming increasingly widespread in Europe, by 1894 the socialists did not yet represent a serious political force in any country except Germany (where in 1893 they already had 44 deputies ). But the parliamentary system in many small states - Belgium, Scandinavian, Balkan countries - has received an even more straightforward application than that of the great powers. Apart from Russia, only Türkiye and Montenegro among European countries did not have parliaments at all at that time.
The era of calm was at the same time an era of armed peace. All the great powers, and after them the small ones, increased and improved their weapons. Europe, as V. O. Klyuchevsky put it, “for its own safety has placed itself in a powder magazine.” Universal conscription was carried out in all the main states of Europe, except insular England. The technology of war did not lag behind the technology of peace in its development.
Mutual distrust between states was great. The Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy seemed the most powerful combination of powers. But its participants did not fully rely on each other. Until 1890, Germany still considered it necessary to “play it safe” through a secret treaty with Russia - and Bismarck saw a fatal mistake in the fact that Emperor Wilhelm II did not renew this treaty - and France entered into negotiations with Italy more than once, trying to tear it away from the Tripartite Treaty union. England was in "magnificent solitude." France harbored the unhealed wound of its defeat in 1870-1871. and was ready to side with any enemy of Germany. The thirst for revenge clearly manifested itself in the late 80s. the successes of Boulangism.
The division of Africa was largely completed by 1890, at least on the coast. Enterprising colonialists strove from everywhere to the interior of the mainland, where there were still unexplored areas, to be the first to raise the flag of their country and secure “no man's lands” for it. Only on the middle reaches of the Nile was the path of the British still blocked by the state of the Mahdists, Muslim fanatics, who in 1885 defeated and killed the English general Gordon during the capture of Khartoum. And mountainous Abyssinia, against which the Italians began their campaign, was preparing an unexpectedly powerful rebuff for them.
All these were just islands - Africa, like Australia and America before, became the property of the white race. Until the end of the 19th century, the prevailing belief was that Asia would suffer the same fate. England and Russia were already watching each other through the thin barrier of weak, still independent states, Persia, Afghanistan, and semi-independent Tibet. The closest it came to war during the entire reign of Emperor Alexander III was when in 1885 General Komarov defeated the Afghans near Kushka: the British kept a vigilant eye on the “Gateway to India”! However, the acute conflict was resolved by an agreement in 1887.
But in the Far East, where back in the 1850s. The Russians occupied the Ussuri region, which belonged to China, without a fight, and the dormant peoples just began to stir. When Emperor Alexander III was dying, on the banks Yellow Sea guns thundered: little Japan, having mastered European technology, was winning its first victories over the huge, but still motionless China.
Portrait of Alexander III. Artist A. Sokolov, 1883
In this world, the Russian Empire, with its space of twenty million square miles, with a population of 125 million people, occupied a prominent position. Since the Seven Years' War, and especially since 1812, Russia's military power has been highly valued in Western Europe. The Crimean War showed the limits of this power, but at the same time confirmed its strength. Since then, the era of reforms, including in the military sphere, has created new conditions for the development of Russian strength.
Russia began to be seriously studied at this time. A. Leroy-Beaulieu in French, Sir D. Mackenzie-Wallace in English published large studies about Russia in the 1870-1880s. The structure of the Russian Empire differed very significantly from Western European conditions, but foreigners then already began to understand that we're talking about about dissimilar, and not about “backward” state forms.
“The Russian Empire is governed on the exact basis of laws emanating from the Supreme Authority. The Emperor is an autocratic and unlimited monarch,” read the Russian fundamental laws. The king had full legislative and executive power. This did not mean arbitrariness: all essential questions had precise answers in the laws, which were subject to execution until repealed. In the field of civil rights, the Russian tsarist government generally avoided a sharp break, took into account the legal skills of the population and acquired rights, and left in force on the territory of the empire both the Napoleonic Code (in the Kingdom of Poland) and the Lithuanian Statute (in Poltava and Chernigov provinces), and Magdeburg law (in the Baltic region), and common law among peasants, and all kinds of local laws and customs in the Caucasus, in Siberia, in Central Asia.
But the right to make laws indivisibly belonged to the king. There was a State Council of the highest dignitaries appointed there by the sovereign; he discussed draft laws; but the king could agree, at his discretion, with both the opinion of the majority and the opinion of the minority - or reject both. Usually, special commissions and meetings were formed to conduct important events; but they had, of course, only preparatory value.
In the executive sphere, the fullness of royal power was also unlimited. After the death of Cardinal Mazarin, Louis XIV declared that from now on he wanted to be his own first minister. But all Russian monarchs were in the same position. Russia did not know the position of the first minister. The title of chancellor, sometimes assigned to the minister of foreign affairs (the last chancellor was His Serene Highness Prince A.M. Gorchakov, who died in 1883), gave him the rank of 1st class on the table of ranks, but did not mean any primacy over the other ministers. There was a Committee of Ministers, it had a permanent chairman (in 1894 he was still former minister finance N.H. Bunge). But this Committee was, in essence, only a kind of interdepartmental meeting.
All ministers and chief executives in separate parts had their own independent report from the sovereign. The governors-general, as well as the mayors of both capitals, were also directly subordinate to the sovereign.
This did not mean that the sovereign was involved in all the details of the management of individual departments (although, for example, Emperor Alexander III was “his own minister of foreign affairs”, to whom everything “incoming” and “outgoing” was reported; N.K. Girs was, as it were, his "comrade minister") Individual ministers sometimes had great power and the possibility of broad initiative. But they had them because and while the sovereign trusted them.
To implement plans coming from above, Russia also had a large staff of officials. Emperor Nicholas I once dropped an ironic phrase that Russia is governed by 30,000 government officials. Complaints about “bureaucracy” and “mediastinum” were very common in Russian society. It was customary to scold officials and grumble at them. Abroad, there was an idea of almost universal bribery of Russian officials. He was often judged by the satires of Gogol or Shchedrin; but a caricature, even a successful one, cannot be considered a portrait. In some departments, for example, in the police, low salaries actually contributed to the fairly widespread use of bribes. Others, such as the Ministry of Finance or the Judiciary after the reform of 1864, enjoyed, on the contrary, a reputation for high integrity. It must be admitted, however, that one of the features that unites Russia with eastern countries, there was an everyday condescending attitude towards many actions of dubious integrity; the fight against this phenomenon was psychologically difficult. Some groups of the population, such as engineers, enjoyed an even worse reputation than officials - quite often, of course, undeserved.
But the top government officials were free from this disease. Cases where ministers or other government officials were involved in abuses were rare and sensational exceptions.
Be that as it may, the Russian administration, even in its most imperfect parts, carried out, despite difficult conditions, the task entrusted to it. The tsarist government had at its disposal an obedient and well-organized state apparatus, adapted to the diverse needs of the Russian Empire. This apparatus was created over centuries - from Moscow orders - and in many ways achieved high perfection.
But the Russian Tsar was not only the head of state: he was at the same time the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which occupied a leading position in the country. This, of course, did not mean that the tsar had the right to touch upon church dogmas; The conciliar structure of the Orthodox Church excluded such an understanding of the rights of the tsar. But at the proposal of the Holy Synod, the highest church college, the appointment of bishops was made by the king; and the replenishment of the Synod itself depended on him (in the same order). The chief prosecutor of the Synod was the link between the church and the state. This position was occupied by K. P. Pobedonostsev, a man of outstanding intelligence and strong will, for more than a quarter of a century, the teacher of two emperors - Alexander III and Nicholas II.
During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the following main tendencies of power appeared: not a sweepingly negative, but in any case a critical attitude towards what was called “progress”, and the desire to give Russia more internal unity by asserting the primacy of the Russian elements of the country. In addition, two currents appeared simultaneously, far from being similar, but seemingly complementing each other. One, which sets itself the goal of protecting the weak from the strong, preferring the broad masses of the people to those who have separated from them, with some egalitarian inclinations, in the terms of our time could be called “demophilic” or Christian-social. This is a trend whose representatives were, along with others, the Minister of Justice Manasein (who resigned in 1894) and K.P. Pobedonostsev, who wrote that “the nobles, like the people, are subject to curbing.” Another trend, which found its exponent in the Minister of Internal Affairs, Gr. D. A. Tolstoy, sought to strengthen the ruling classes, to establish a certain hierarchy in the state. The first movement, by the way, ardently defended the peasant community as a unique Russian form of solving the social problem.
The Russification policy met with more sympathy from the “demophile” movement. On the contrary, a bright representative of the second trend, famous writer K. N. Leontyev spoke in 1888 with the brochure “National Policy as a Tool world revolution”(in subsequent editions the word “national” was replaced by “tribal”), proving that “the movement of modern political nationalism is nothing more than the spread of cosmopolitan democratization, modified only in its techniques.”
Of the prominent right-wing publicists of that time, M. N. Katkov joined the first movement, and Prince joined the second. V. P. Meshchersky.
Emperor Alexander III himself, with his deeply Russian mindset, did not sympathize with the Russification extremes and expressively wrote to K.P. Pobedonostsev (in 1886): “There are gentlemen who think that they are the only Russians, and no one else. Do they already imagine that I am a German or a Chukhonian? It’s easy for them with their farcical patriotism when they are not responsible for anything. It’s not I who will offend Russia.”
In foreign policy, the reign of Emperor Alexander III brought great changes. That closeness with Germany, or rather with Prussia, which remained a common feature of Russian politics since Catherine the Great and runs like a red thread through the reigns of Alexander I, Nicholas I and especially Alexander II, gave way to a noticeable cooling. It would hardly be correct, as is sometimes done, to attribute this development of events to the anti-German sentiments of Empress Maria Feodorovna, a Danish princess who married the Russian heir shortly after the Danish-Prussian War of 1864! Can we really say that political complications this time were not mitigated, as in previous reigns, by personal good relations and family connections of dynasties. The reasons were, of course, mainly political.
Although Bismarck considered it possible to combine the Triple Alliance with friendly relations with Russia, the Austro-German-Italian alliance was, of course, at the root of the cooling between the old friends. The Berlin Congress left bitterness in Russian public opinion. Anti-German notes began to sound at the top. Gen. is known for his harsh speech. Skobeleva against the Germans; Katkov in Moskovskie Vedomosti led a campaign against them. By the mid-1980s, the tension began to be felt more strongly; The German seven-year military budget ("septennate") was caused by deteriorating relations with Russia. The German government closed the Berlin market to Russian securities.
Emperor Alexander III, like Bismarck, was seriously worried about this aggravation, and in 1887 the so-called reinsurance agreement. This was a secret Russian-German agreement, according to which both countries promised each other benevolent neutrality in the event of an attack by any third country on one of them. This agreement constituted a significant reservation to the act of the Triple Alliance. It meant that Germany would not support any anti-Russian action by Austria. Legally, these treaties were compatible, since the Triple Alliance only provided for support in the event that any of its participants was attacked (which gave Italy the opportunity to declare neutrality in 1914 without violating the alliance treaty).
But this reinsurance agreement was not renewed in 1890. Negotiations about it coincided with the resignation of Bismarck. His successor, Gen. The Caprivi, with military straightforwardness, pointed out to William II that this treaty seemed disloyal to Austria. For his part, Emperor Alexander III, who had sympathy for Bismarck, did not seek to get involved with the new rulers of Germany.
After this, in the 90s, things came to a Russian-German customs war, which ended with a trade agreement on March 20, 1894, concluded with the close participation of the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte. This agreement gave Russia - for a ten-year period - significant advantages.
Relations with Austria-Hungary had no reason to deteriorate: from the time when Austria, saved from the Hungarian revolution by Emperor Nicholas I, “surprised the world with ingratitude” during the Crimean War, Russia and Austria clashed on the entire Balkan front, just like Russia and England along the entire Asian front.
England at that time still continued to see in the Russian Empire its main enemy and competitor, “a huge glacier hanging over India,” as Lord Beaconsfield (Disraeli) put it in the English Parliament.
In the Balkans, Russia experienced in the 80s. grave disappointments. The liberation war of 1877-1878, which cost Russia so much blood and such financial turmoil, did not bring it immediate fruit. Austria actually took over Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia was forced to admit this in order to avoid a new war. In Serbia, the Obrenovic dynasty, represented by King Milan, was in power, clearly gravitating towards Austria. Even Bismarck spoke caustically about Bulgaria in his memoirs: “Liberated peoples are not grateful, but pretentious.” There it came to the persecution of Russophile elements. The replacement of Prince Alexander of Battenberg, who became the head of anti-Russian movements, by Ferdinand of Coburg did not improve Russian-Bulgarian relations. Only in 1894 was Istanbulov, the main inspirer of Russophobic policies, supposed to resign. The only country with which Russia for many years did not even have diplomatic relations was Bulgaria, so recently resurrected by Russian weapons from a long state oblivion!
Romania was allied with Austria and Germany, resentful that in 1878 Russia had regained a small portion of Bessarabia taken from it in the Crimean War. Although Romania received in the form of compensation the entire Dobruja with the port of Constanta, it preferred to get closer to the opponents of Russian policy in the Balkans.
When Emperor Alexander III proclaimed his famous toast to “Russia’s only true friend, Prince Nicholas of Montenegro,” this, in essence, corresponded to reality. Russia's power was so great that it did not feel threatened in this solitude. But after the termination of the reinsurance agreement, during a sharp deterioration in Russian-German economic relations, Emperor Alexander III took certain steps to move closer to France.
The republican system, state unbelief and such recent phenomena as the Panama scandal could not endear the Russian Tsar, the keeper of conservative and religious principles, to France. Many therefore considered a Franco-Russian agreement out of the question. The ceremonial reception of the sailors of the French squadron in Kronstadt, when the Russian Tsar listened to the Marseillaise with his head uncovered, showed that sympathy or antipathy for the internal system of France was not decisive for Emperor Alexander III. Few people, however, thought that already in 1892, a secret defensive alliance was concluded between Russia and France, supplemented by a military convention indicating how many troops both sides undertake to field in the event of war with Germany. This agreement was so secret at that time that neither the ministers knew about it (of course, except for two or three senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Military Department), nor even the heir to the throne himself.
French society had long been eager to formalize this union, but the tsar made it a condition of strict secrecy, fearing that confidence in Russian support could give rise to militant sentiments in France, revive the thirst for revenge, and the government, due to the peculiarities of the democratic system, would not be able to resist the pressure of public opinion .
The Russian Empire at that time had the largest peacetime army in the world. Its 22 corps, not counting the Cossacks and irregular units, reached a strength of up to 900,000 people. With a four-year term of military service, an annual call for recruits was given in the early 90s. three times more people what the army needed. This not only made it possible to make strict selection based on physical fitness, but also made it possible to provide broad benefits based on marital status. The only sons, older brothers, in whose care were younger ones, teachers, doctors, etc., were exempted from active military service and were directly enlisted in the second-class militia warriors, to whom mobilization could only reach the very last place. In Russia, only 31 percent of conscripts each year enlisted, compared with 76 percent in France.
Mostly state-owned factories worked to arm the army; in Russia there were no “gun dealers” who enjoy such an unflattering reputation in the West.
For the preparation of officers there were 37 middle and 15 high military educational institutions, in which 14,000-15,000 people studied.
All lower ranks who served in the army received, in addition, a certain education. The illiterate were taught to read and write, and everyone was given some basic principles of general education.
The Russian fleet, which had been in decline since the Crimean War, came to life and was rebuilt during the reign of Emperor Alexander III. 114 new military vessels were launched, including 17 battleships and 10 armored cruisers. The fleet's displacement reached 300,000 tons - the Russian fleet took third place (after England and France) among the world's fleets. Weak side It was, however, that the Black Sea Fleet - about a third of the Russian naval forces - was locked in the Black Sea by international treaties and did not have the opportunity to take part in the struggle that would arise in other seas.
Russia had no imperial representative institutions; Emperor Alexander III, in the words of K.P. Pobedonostsev, believed “in the unshakable significance of autocratic power in Russia” and did not allow it “in the specter of freedom, a disastrous confusion of languages and opinions.” But from the previous reign, local government bodies, zemstvos and cities remained as a legacy; and since the time of Catherine II, there has been class self-government in the form of noble, provincial and district assemblies (petty bourgeois councils and other bodies of self-government of townspeople gradually lost all real significance).
Zemstvo self-governments were introduced (in 1864) in 34 (out of 50) provinces European Russia, that is, they spread to more than half the population of the empire. They were elected by three groups of the population: peasants, private landowners and townspeople; the number of seats was distributed between groups according to the amount of taxes they paid. In 1890, a law was passed that strengthened the role of the nobility in zemstvos. In general, private owners, as the more educated element of the village, played a leading role in most provinces; but there were also predominantly peasant zemstvos (Vyatka, Perm, for example). Russian zemstvos had a wider sphere of activity than local governments in France now have. Medical and veterinary care, public education, road maintenance, statistics, insurance, agronomy, cooperation, etc. - this was the area of activity of zemstvos.
City governments (dumas) were elected by homeowners. Dumas elected city councils headed by the city mayor. Their sphere of competence within cities was in general terms the same as that of zemstvos in relation to the countryside.
Reception of volost elders by Alexander III. Painting by I. Repin, 1885-1886
Finally, the village had its own peasant self-government, in which all adult peasants and wives of absent husbands took part. “Peace” resolved local issues and elected representatives to the volost assembly. The elders (chairmen) and their clerks (secretaries) led these primary cells of peasant self-government.
In general, by the end of the reign of Emperor Alexander III, with a state budget of 1,200,000,000 rubles, local budgets administered by elected institutions reached an amount of about 200 million, of which zemstvos and cities accounted for approximately 60 million per year. Of this amount, zemstvos spent about a third on medical care and about one sixth - for public education.
The noble assemblies, created by Catherine the Great, consisted of all the hereditary nobles of each province (or district), and only those nobles who had land property in a given area could participate in the assemblies. Provincial noble meetings were, in essence, the only public bodies in which issues of general policy were sometimes legally discussed. Noble assemblies, in the form of addresses addressed to the Highest Name, more than once came up with political resolutions. In addition, their sphere of competence was very limited, and they played a certain role only due to their connection with the zemstvos (the local leader of the nobility was ex officio the chairman of the provincial or district zemstvo assembly).
The importance of the nobility in the country at that time was already noticeably declining. In the early 1890s, contrary to popular ideas in the West, in 49 provinces. In European Russia, out of 381 million dessiatines of land area, only 55 million belonged to the nobles, while in Siberia, Central Asia and the Caucasus, noble land ownership was almost absent (only in the provinces of the Kingdom of Poland, the nobility owned 44 percent of the land).
In local governments, as anywhere where there is an elective principle, there were, of course, their own groups, their own right and left. There were liberal zemstvos and conservative zemstvos. But this did not lead to real games. There were no significant illegal groups at that time after the collapse of Narodnaya Volya, although some revolutionary publications were published abroad. Thus, the London Fund for Illegal Press (S. Stepnyak, N. Tchaikovsky, L. Shishko and others) in a report for 1893 reported that during the year they distributed 20,407 copies of illegal brochures and books - of which 2,360 were in Russia, which is not a large number per 125 million population...
The Grand Duchy of Finland was in a special position. There was a constitution in force there, granted by Alexander I. The Finnish Diet, consisting of representatives of the four classes (nobles, clergy, townspeople and peasants), was convened every five years, and under Emperor Alexander III it even received (in 1885) the right of legislative initiative. The local government was the Senate, appointed by the emperor, and communication with the general imperial administration was ensured through the Minister of State and Secretary of State for Finnish Affairs.
In the absence of representative institutions, there was no organized political activity in Russia, and attempts to create party groups were immediately suppressed by police measures. The press was under the watchful supervision of the authorities. Some large newspapers were published, however, without prior censorship - in order to speed up publication - and therefore carried the risk of subsequent repression. Typically, a newspaper was given two “warnings,” and on the third, its publication was suspended. But at the same time, the newspapers remained independent: within certain limits, subject to some external restraint, they could, and often did, carry out views that were very hostile to the government. Most of the big newspapers and magazines were deliberately oppositional. The government only put up external barriers to the expression of views hostile to it, and did not try to influence the content of the press.
It can be said that the Russian government had neither the inclination nor the ability for self-promotion. Its achievements and successes often remained in the shadows, while its failures and weaknesses were diligently described with imaginary objectivity on the pages of the Russian periodical press, and were disseminated abroad by Russian political emigrants, creating largely false ideas about Russia.
With regard to books, church censorship was the most stringent. Less severe than the Vatican with its “index,” it at the same time had the opportunity not only to put prohibited books on the lists, but also to actually stop their distribution. Thus, anti-church writings by gr. L. N. Tolstoy, “The Life of Jesus” by Renan; when translating from Heine, for example, passages containing mockery of religion were excluded. But in general - especially if we take into account that censorship acted with varying degrees of severity in different periods, and books, once accepted, were rarely removed from circulation - books prohibited for the Russian “legal” reader made up an insignificant portion of world literature. Of the major Russian writers, only Herzen was banned.
In a country that was considered abroad as “the kingdom of whips, chains and exile to Siberia,” in fact, very mild and humane laws were in force. Russia was the only country where the death penalty was generally abolished (since the time of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna) for all crimes tried by general courts. It remained only in military courts and for the highest state crimes. During the 19th century the number of those executed (if we exclude both Polish uprisings and violations of military discipline) was not even a hundred people in a hundred years. During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, in addition to the participants in the regicide on March 1, only a few people who attempted to kill the emperor were executed (one of them, by the way, was A. Ulyanov, Lenin’s brother).
Administrative exile on the basis of the law on the situation of enhanced security was applied quite widely to all types of anti-government agitation. There were different degrees of exile: to Siberia, to the northern provinces (“places not so remote,” as they usually called it), sometimes simply to provincial towns. Those deported who did not have their own funds were given a government allowance for living. In places of exile, special colonies of people united by a common fate were formed; Often these colonies of exiles became cells for future revolutionary work, creating connections and acquaintances, promoting “enslavement” in hostility to the existing order. Those who were considered the most dangerous were placed in the Shlisselburg fortress on an island in the upper reaches of the Neva.
The Russian court, based on the judicial statutes of 1864, stood from that time on high altitude; “Gogol types” in the judicial world have faded into the realm of legends. Careful attitude towards defendants, the broadest provision of defense rights, a selected composition of judges - all this was a matter of just pride for the Russian people and corresponded to the mood of society. Judicial statutes were one of the few laws that society not only respected, but was also ready to jealously defend from the authorities when it considered it necessary to introduce reservations and amendments to the liberal law for a more successful fight against crime.
There were no zemstvos: in 12 western provinces, where non-Russian elements predominated among landowners; in the sparsely populated Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan provinces; in the Don Army Region, and in the Orenburg Province. with their Cossack institutions.
The nobility in Russia did not constitute a closed caste; the rights of hereditary nobility were acquired by everyone who reached the rank of VIII class on the table of ranks (college assessor, captain, captain).
Russia has only one possible ally. This is its army and navy.
Alexander 3
Thanks to his foreign policy, Alexander 3 received the nickname “Tsar-Peacemaker.” He sought to maintain peace with all his neighbors. However, this does not mean that the emperor himself did not have more distant and specific goals. He considered the main “allies” of his empire to be the army and navy, to which he paid a lot of attention. Moreover, the fact that foreign policy the emperor personally followed, speaks of the priority of this direction for Alexander 3. The article examines the main directions of the foreign policy of Alexander 3, and also analyzes where he continued the line of previous emperors, and where he introduced innovations.
The foreign policy of Alexander 3 had the following main objectives:
After the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the Russian Empire finally established itself as the protector of the South Slavic peoples. The main result of the war was the formation of the independent state of Bulgaria. The key factor in this event was the Russian army, which not only instructed the Bulgarian, but also fought for the independence of Bulgaria. As a result, Russia hoped to receive a reliable ally with access to the sea in the person of the then ruler Alexander Battenberg. Moreover, the role of Austria-Hungary and Germany is increasingly increasing in the Balkans. The Habsburg Empire annexed Bosnia and also increased its influence over Serbia and Romania. After Russia helped the Bulgarians create their own state, a constitution was developed specifically for them. However, in 1881, Alexander Battenberg led a coup d'état and abolished the newly adopted constitution, establishing virtual one-man rule.
This situation could threaten the rapprochement of Bulgaria with Austria-Hungary, or the beginning of a new conflict with the Ottoman Empire. In 1885, Bulgaria completely attacked Serbia, which further destabilized the situation in the region. As a result, Bulgaria annexed Eastern Rumelia, thereby violating the terms of the Berlin Congress. This threatened to start a war with the Ottoman Empire. And here the peculiarities of Alexander III’s foreign policy appeared. I understand the pointlessness of a war for the interests of ungrateful Bulgaria, the emperor recalled everyone from the country Russian officers. This was done in order not to drag Russia into a new conflict, especially one that broke out due to the fault of Bulgaria. In 1886, Bulgaria broke off diplomatic relations with Russia. Created by actual efforts Russian army and diplomacy, independent Bulgaria, having begun to show excessive tendencies towards unifying part of the Balkans, violating international treaties (including with Russia), caused serious destabilization in the region.
Until 1881, the “Union of Three Emperors” was actually in effect, signed between Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. It did not provide for joint military action; in fact, it was a non-aggression pact. However, in the event of a European conflict, it could become the basis for the formation of a military alliance. It was at this point that Germany entered into another secret alliance with Austria-Hungary against Russia. In addition, Italy was drawn into the alliance, the final decision of which was influenced by contradictions with France. This was the actual consolidation of a new European military bloc - the Triple Alliance.
In this situation, Alexander 3 was forced to start looking for new allies. The final point in the severance of relations with Germany (despite the family ties of the emperors of the two countries) was the “customs” conflict of 1877, when Germany significantly increased the duty on Russian goods. At this moment there was a rapprochement with France. The agreement between the countries was signed in 1891 and became the basis for the formation of the Entente bloc. Rapprochement with France at this stage was able to prevent the Franco-German war, as well as the brewing conflict between Russia and Austria-Hungary.
During the reign of Alexander 3 in Asia, Russia had two areas of interest: Afghanistan and the Far East. In 1881, the Russian army annexed Ashgabat, and the Trans-Caspian region was formed. This caused a conflict with England, since it was not satisfied with the approach of the Russian army to its territories. The situation threatened war; there was even talk of attempts to create an anti-Russian coalition in Europe. However, in 1885, Alexander 3 moved towards rapprochement with England and the parties signed an agreement on the creation of a commission that was supposed to establish the border. In 1895, the border was finally drawn, thereby reducing tension in relations with England.
In the 1890s, Japan began to rapidly gain strength, which could have disrupted Russia's interests in the Far East. That is why in 1891 Alexander 3 signed a decree on the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
As for the traditional approaches to the foreign policy of Alexander 3, they consisted of the desire to preserve Russia’s role in the Far East and Europe. To achieve this, the emperor was ready to enter into alliances with European countries. In addition, like many Russian emperors, Alexander 3 devoted great influence to strengthening the army and navy, which he considered “Russia’s main allies.”
Analyzing the foreign policy of Alexander 3, one can find a number of features that were not inherent in the reign of previous emperors:
And another small innovation, compared to Alexander 2, was personal control over foreign policy. Alexander 3 removed the previous Minister of Foreign Affairs A. Gorchakov, who actually determined foreign policy under Alexander 2, and appointed an obedient executor N. Girs.
If we sum up the 13-year reign of Alexander 3, then we can say that in foreign policy he took a wait-and-see attitude. For him there were no “friends” in international relations, but, first of all, the interests of Russia. However, the emperor sought to achieve them through peace agreements.
Born on March 10 (February 26, old style) 1845 in St. Petersburg. He was the second son of Emperor Alexander II and Empress Maria Alexandrovna.
He received the traditional military engineering education for grand dukes.
In 1865, after the death of his elder brother, Grand Duke Nicholas, he became crown prince, after which he received more fundamental knowledge. Among Alexander's mentors were Sergei Solovyov (history), Yakov Grot (history of literature), Mikhail Dragomirov (military art). The greatest influence on the Tsarevich was the law teacher Konstantin Pobedonostsev.
In his father’s reforms, he saw, first of all, negative aspects - the growth of government bureaucracy, the difficult financial situation of the people, imitation of Western models. The political ideal of Alexander III was based on ideas about patriarchal-paternal autocratic rule, the inculcation of religious values in society, the strengthening of the class structure, and nationally distinctive social development.
On April 29, 1881, Alexander III issued a manifesto “On the Inviolability of Autocracy” and launched a series of reforms that were aimed at partially curtailing the liberal initiatives of his father-reformer.
The tsar's domestic policy was characterized by increased control of the central government over all spheres of state life.
To strengthen the role of the police, local and central administration, the “Regulations on measures to protect state security and public peace" (1881). Adopted in 1882, the "Temporary Rules on the Press" clearly outlined the range of topics that could be written about and introduced strict censorship. In addition, a number of "counter-reforms" were carried out, thanks to which it was possible to suppress the revolutionary movement , first of all, the activities of the People's Will party.
Alexander III took measures to protect the class rights of noble landowners: he established the Noble Land Bank, adopted a Regulation on hiring for agricultural work that was beneficial for landowners, strengthened administrative guardianship over the peasantry, helped strengthen the communalism of peasants, and the formation of the ideal of a large patriarchal family.
At the same time, in the first half of the 1880s, he took a number of measures to alleviate the financial situation of the people and mitigate social tension in society: the introduction of compulsory redemption and the reduction of redemption payments, the establishment of the Peasant Land Bank, the introduction of factory inspection, and the gradual abolition of the poll tax.
The emperor paid serious attention to increasing the social role of the Orthodox Church: he increased the number of parochial schools and tightened repression against Old Believers and sectarians.
During the reign of Alexander III, the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow was completed (1883), parishes that had been closed during the previous reign were restored, and many new monasteries and churches were built.
Alexander III made a significant contribution to the restructuring of the system of state and public relations. In 1884 he issued the University Charter, which curtailed the autonomy of universities. In 1887, he issued a “circular about cooks’ children,” which limited the entry into gymnasiums of children from the lower classes.
He strengthened the social role of the local nobility: since 1889, peasant self-government was subordinated to zemstvo chiefs - who united judicial and administrative power in their hands to officials from local landowners.
Conducted reforms in the field of urban government: zemstvo and city regulations (1890, 1892) tightened the administration’s control over local government, limited the rights of voters from the lower strata of society.
He limited the scope of the jury trial and restored closed proceedings for political trials.
For economic life Russia during the reign of Alexander III was characterized by economic growth, which was largely due to the policy of increased patronage of domestic industry. The country rearmed its army and navy and became the world's largest exporter of agricultural products. The government of Alexander III encouraged the growth of large capitalist industry, which achieved notable successes (metallurgical production doubled in 1886-1892, the network railways increased by 47%).
Russian foreign policy under Alexander III was distinguished by pragmatism. The main content was a turn from traditional cooperation with Germany to an alliance with France, which was concluded in 1891-1893. The aggravation of relations with Germany was smoothed out by the “Reinsurance Treaty” (1887).
Alexander III went down in history as the Peacemaker Tsar - during his reign, Russia did not participate in a single serious military-political conflict of that time. The only significant battle - the capture of Kushka - took place in 1885, after which the annexation of Central Asia to Russia was completed.
Alexander III was one of the initiators of the creation of the Russian Historical Society and its first chairman. Established the Historical Museum in Moscow.
He simplified court etiquette and ceremony, in particular, abolished genuflection before the king, reduced the staff of the court ministry and introduced strict supervision over the expenditure of money.
The emperor was pious, distinguished by frugality and modesty, and spent his leisure time in a narrow circle of family and friends. He was interested in music, painting, history. He collected an extensive collection of paintings, objects of decorative and applied art, and sculptures, which after his death was transferred to the Russian Museum founded by Emperor Nicholas II in memory of his father.
The personality of Alexander III is associated with the idea of a real hero with iron health. On October 17, 1888, he was injured in train accident near Borki station, 50 km from Kharkov. However, saving the lives of loved ones, the emperor held the collapsed roof of the carriage for about half an hour until help arrived. It is believed that as a result of this excessive stress, his kidney disease began to progress.
On November 1 (October 20, old style), 1894, the emperor died in Livadia (Crimea) from the consequences of nephritis. The body was taken to St. Petersburg and buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral.
Alexander III's wife was the Danish princess Louise Sophia Frederica Dagmara (in Orthodoxy - Maria Fedorovna) (1847-1928), whom he married in 1866. The emperor and his wife had five children: Nicholas (later Russian Emperor Nicholas II), George, Ksenia, Mikhail and Olga.
The material was prepared based on information from open sources
The date of Napoleon's invasion of Russia is one of the dramatic dates in the history of our country. This event gave rise to many myths and points of view regarding the reasons, plans of the parties, the number of troops and other important aspects. Let's try to understand this issue and cover Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 as objectively as possible. Let's start with the background.
Napoleon's invasion of Russia was not a random or unexpected event. This is in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” it is presented as “treacherous and unexpected.” In fact, everything was natural. Russia brought disaster upon itself through its military actions. At first, Catherine the Second, fearing revolutionary events in Europe, helped the First Anti-French Coalition. Then Paul the First could not forgive Napoleon for the capture of Malta, an island that was under the personal protection of our emperor.
The main military confrontations between Russia and France began with the Second Anti-French Coalition (1798-1800), in which Russian troops, together with Turkish, English and Austrian troops, tried to defeat the army of the Directory in Europe. It was during these events that the famous Mediterranean campaign of Ushakov and the heroic transition of the thousands of Russian army through the Alps under the command of Suvorov took place.
Our country then first became acquainted with the “loyalty” of the Austrian allies, thanks to whom Russian armies of thousands were surrounded. This, for example, happened to Rimsky-Korsakov in Switzerland, who lost about 20 thousand of his soldiers in an unequal battle against the French. It was the Austrian troops who left Switzerland and left the 30,000-strong Russian corps alone with the 70,000-strong French corps. AND famous hike Suvorov was also forced, since the same Austrian advisers showed our commander-in-chief the wrong path in the direction where there were completely no roads or crossings.
As a result, Suvorov found himself surrounded, but with decisive maneuvers he was able to get out of the stone trap and save the army. However, ten years passed between these events and the Patriotic War. And Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 would not have taken place if not for further events.
Alexander the First also started a war with France. According to one version, thanks to the British, a coup d'état took place in Russia, which brought young Alexander to the throne. This circumstance may have forced the new emperor to fight for the British.
In 1805, the Third was formed. It included Russia, England, Sweden and Austria. Unlike the previous two, the new alliance was framed as defensive. No one was going to restore the Bourbon dynasty in France. England needed the alliance most of all, since 200 thousand French soldiers were already stationed near the English Channel, ready to land on the island, but the Third Coalition prevented these plans.
The climax of the alliance was the “Battle of the Three Emperors” on November 20, 1805. It received this name because all three emperors of the warring armies - Napoleon, Alexander the First and Franz the Second - were present on the battlefield near Austerlitz. Military historians believe that it was the presence of “dignitaries” that created complete confusion for the allies. The battle ended with the complete defeat of the Coalition troops.
We try to briefly explain all the circumstances, without an understanding of which Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 will be incomprehensible.
In 1806, the Fourth Anti-French Coalition emerged. Austria no longer took part in the war against Napoleon. The new union included England, Russia, Prussia, Saxony and Sweden. Our country had to bear the entire brunt of the fighting, since England helped mainly only financially, as well as at sea, and the other participants did not have strong ground armies. In one day everything was destroyed at the Battle of Jena.
On June 2, 1807, our army was defeated near Friedland and retreated beyond the Neman - the border river in the western possessions of the Russian Empire.
After this, Russia signed the Treaty of Tilsit with Napoleon on June 9, 1807 in the middle of the Neman River, which was officially interpreted as equality of the parties when signing the peace. It was the violation of the Peace of Tilsit that became the reason why Napoleon invaded Russia. Let us examine the contract itself in more detail so that the reasons for the events that occurred later are clear.
The Tilsit Peace Treaty implied Russia's accession to the so-called blockade of the British Isles. This decree was signed by Napoleon on November 21, 1806. The essence of the “blockade” was that France was creating a zone on the European continent where England was prohibited from trading. Napoleon could not physically blockade the island, since France did not have even a tenth of the fleet that the British had at their disposal. Therefore, the term “blockade” is conditional. In fact, Napoleon came up with what today are called economic sanctions. England traded actively with Europe. From Russia, therefore, the “blockade” threatened the food security of Foggy Albion. In fact, Napoleon even helped England, since the latter quickly found new trading partners in Asia and Africa, making good money on this in the future.
Russia in the 19th century was an agricultural country that sold grain for export. The only major buyer of our products at that time was England. Those. the loss of the sales market completely ruined the ruling elite of nobles in Russia. We are seeing something similar today in our country, when counter-sanctions and sanctions have hit the oil and gas industry hard, resulting in the ruling elite incurring colossal losses.
In fact, Russia joined the anti-British sanctions in Europe, initiated by France. The latter itself was a large agricultural producer, so there was no possibility of replacing a trading partner for our country. Naturally, our ruling elite could not fulfill the conditions of the Tilsit Peace, as this would lead to the complete destruction of the entire Russian economy. The only way to force Russia to comply with the demands of the “blockade” was by force. That is why the invasion of Russia took place. The French emperor himself did not intend to go deep into our country, wanting to simply force Alexander to fulfill the Peace of Tilsit. However, our armies forced the French emperor to advance further and further from the western borders to Moscow.
The date of Napoleon's invasion of Russia is June 12, 1812. On this day, the enemy troops crossed the Neman.
There is a myth that Napoleon's invasion of Russia happened unexpectedly. The emperor held a ball, and all the courtiers had fun. In fact, balls for all European monarchs of that time occurred very often, and they did not depend on political events, but, on the contrary, were an integral part of it. This was an unchanging tradition of monarchical society. It was there that public hearings on the most important issues actually took place. Even during the First World War, magnificent celebrations were held in the residences of nobles. However, it is worth noting that Alexander nevertheless left the First Ball in Vilna and retired to St. Petersburg, where he stayed throughout Patriotic War.
The Russian army was preparing for the French invasion long before this. War Minister Barclay de Tolly did everything possible to ensure that Napoleon's army approached Moscow at the limit of its capabilities and with huge losses. The Minister of War himself kept his army in full combat readiness. Unfortunately, the history of the Patriotic War treated Barclay de Tolly unfairly. By the way, it was he who actually created the conditions for the future French catastrophe, and the invasion of Napoleon’s army into Russia ultimately ended in the complete defeat of the enemy.
Barclay de Tolly used the famous “Scythian tactics”. The distance between Neman and Moscow is huge. Without food supplies, provisions for horses, or drinking water, the “Grand Army” turned into a huge prisoner of war camp, in which natural death was much higher than losses from battles. The French did not expect the horror that Barclay de Tolly created for them: peasants went into the forests, taking livestock with them and burning food, wells along the army’s route were poisoned, as a result of which periodic epidemics broke out in the French army. Horses and people were dying of hunger, mass desertion began, but there was nowhere to run in unfamiliar terrain. In addition, partisan detachments from peasants destroyed individual French groups of soldiers. The year of Napoleon's invasion of Russia is a year of unprecedented patriotic upsurge of all Russian people who united to destroy the aggressor. This point was also reflected by L.N. Tolstoy in the novel “War and Peace”, in which his characters demonstratively refuse to speak French, since it is the language of the aggressor, and also donate all their savings to the needs of the army. Russia has not seen such an invasion for a long time. The last time our country was attacked by the Swedes was almost a hundred years ago. Shortly before this, the entire secular world of Russia admired the genius of Napoleon, considered him greatest man on the planet. Now this genius threatened our independence and turned into a sworn enemy.
The size of Napoleon's army during the invasion of Russia was about 600 thousand people. Its peculiarity was that it resembled a patchwork quilt. The composition of Napoleon's army during the invasion of Russia consisted of Polish lancers, Hungarian dragoons, Spanish cuirassiers, French dragoons, etc. Napoleon gathered his " Great Army" She was eclectic, speaking different languages. At times, commanders and soldiers did not understand each other, did not want to shed blood for Grand France, so at the first sign of difficulty caused by our scorched earth tactics, they deserted. However, there was a force that kept the entire Napoleonic army at bay - Napoleon's personal guard. This was the elite of the French troops, who went through all the difficulties with the brilliant commanders from the first days. It was very difficult to get into it. The guardsmen were paid huge salaries and were given the best food supplies. Even during the Moscow famine, these people received good rations, when others were forced to look for dead rats for food. The Guard was something like Napoleon's modern security service. She watched for signs of desertion and brought order to Napoleonic's motley army. She was also thrown into battle in the most dangerous sectors of the front, where the retreat of even one soldier could lead to tragic consequences for the entire army. The guards never retreated and showed unprecedented tenacity and heroism. However, there were too few of them in percentage terms.
In total, about half of Napoleon's army were French themselves, who showed themselves in battles in Europe. However, now this was a different army - aggressive, occupying, which was reflected in its morale.
The Grand Army was deployed in two echelons. The main forces - about 500 thousand people and about 1 thousand guns - consisted of three groups. The right wing under the command of Jerome Bonaparte - 78 thousand people and 159 guns - was supposed to move to Grodno and divert the main Russian forces. The central group led by Beauharnais - 82 thousand people and 200 guns - was supposed to prevent the connection of the two main Russian armies of Barclay de Tolly and Bagration. Napoleon himself moved towards Vilna with renewed vigor. His task was to defeat the Russian armies separately, but he also allowed them to unite. Marshal Augereau's 170 thousand men and about 500 guns remained in the rear. According to the calculations of the military historian Clausewitz, Napoleon involved up to 600 thousand people in the Russian campaign, of which less than 100 thousand people crossed the border river Neman back from Russia.
Napoleon planned to impose battles on the western borders of Russia. However, Baclay de Tolly imposed a game of cat and mouse on him. The main Russian forces all the time avoided battle and retreated into the interior of the country, drawing the French further and further from Polish supplies, and depriving them of food and supplies on their own territory. That is why the invasion of Napoleon's troops into Russia led to the further catastrophe of the Grand Army.
At the time of the aggression, Russia had about 300 thousand people with 900 guns. However, the army was divided. The First Western Army was commanded by the Minister of War himself. Barclay de Tolly's group numbered about 130 thousand people with 500 guns. It stretched from Lithuania to Grodno in Belarus. Bagration's Second Western Army numbered about 50 thousand people - it occupied a line east of Bialystok. Tormasov's third army - also about 50 thousand people with 168 guns - was stationed in Volyn. There were also large groups in Finland - not long before there was a war with Sweden - and in the Caucasus, where Russia traditionally waged wars with Turkey and Iran. There was also a group of our troops on the Danube under the command of Admiral P.V. Chichagov in the amount of 57 thousand people with 200 guns.
On the evening of June 11, 1812, a patrol of the Life Guards Cossack Regiment discovered suspicious movement on the Neman River. With the onset of darkness, enemy sappers began to build crossings three miles up the river from Kovno (modern Kaunas, Lithuania). Crossing the river with all forces took 4 days, but the French vanguard was already in Kovno on the morning of June 12. Alexander the First was at a ball in Vilna at that time, where he was informed about the attack.
Back in May 1811, suggesting a possible invasion of Napoleon into Russia, Alexander the First told the French ambassador something like the following: “We would rather reach Kamchatka than sign peace in our capitals. Frost and territory will fight for us.”
This tactic was put into practice: Russian troops rapidly retreated from the Neman to Smolensk in two armies, unable to unite. Both armies were constantly pursued by the French. Several battles took place in which the Russians openly sacrificed entire rearguard groups in order to hold the main French forces for as long as possible in order to prevent them from catching up with our main forces.
On August 7, a battle took place at Valutina Mountain, which was called the battle for Smolensk. Barclay de Tolly had by this time united with Bagration and even made several attempts to counterattack. However, all these were just false maneuvers that made Napoleon think about the future general battle near Smolensk and regroup the columns from the marching formation to the attacking one. But the Russian commander-in-chief well remembered the emperor’s order “I have no more army,” and did not dare to give a general battle, rightly predicting future defeat. The French suffered huge losses near Smolensk. Barclay de Tolly himself was a supporter of further retreat, but the entire Russian public unfairly considered him a coward and a traitor for his retreat. And only the Russian emperor, who had already fled from Napoleon once at Austerlitz, continued to trust the minister. While the armies were divided, Barclay de Tolly could still cope with the wrath of the generals, but when the army was united near Smolensk, he still had to launch a counterattack on Murat’s corps. This attack was needed more to calm the Russian commanders than to give a decisive battle to the French. But despite this, the minister was accused of indecisiveness, procrastination, and cowardice. His final discord with Bagration emerged, who was zealously eager to attack, but could not give an order, since formally he was subordinate to Barcal de Tolly. Napoleon himself expressed annoyance that the Russians did not give a general battle, since his ingenious outflanking maneuver with the main forces would have led to a blow to the Russian rear, as a result of which our army would have been completely defeated.
Under public pressure, Barcal de Tolly was nevertheless removed from his post as commander-in-chief. Russian generals in August 1812 already openly sabotaged all his orders. However, the new commander-in-chief M.I. Kutuzov, whose authority was enormous in Russian society, also gave the order for further retreat. And only on August 26 - also under public pressure - did he give a general battle near Borodino, as a result of which the Russians were defeated and left Moscow.
Let's summarize. The date of Napoleon's invasion of Russia is one of the tragic ones in the history of our country. However, this event contributed to a patriotic upsurge in our society and its consolidation. Napoleon was mistaken that the Russian peasant would choose the abolition of serfdom in exchange for support for the occupiers. It turned out that for our citizens, military aggression turned out to be much worse than internal socio-economic contradictions.
