Military reforms in the 2nd half of the 19th century. Military reform in Russia in the second half of the XIX century. Background of military reform
Annotation: The article analyzes certain aspects of the military reform carried out in Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century. Keywords: army, reform, war, state, emperor, law, society, benefits, defeat, result, ministry, conflict, criticism.
In the early fifties of the nineteenth century, Russian-Turkish relations once again escalated. Historically, there were enough reasons for the conflicts, as evidenced by the numerous wars of past centuries. One of the reasons for the opening of hostilities was that Russia sought the right from the Sultan government to protect its co-religionists in the Ottoman Empire and especially in Palestine. When a categorical refusal ensued from Istanbul (Constantinople), the Russian troops occupied Moldavia and Wallachia. In turn, the Turkish sultan presented the government of Nicholas I with an ultimatum demanding that the principalities of the Danube be cleansed within 15 days, but, not waiting for its end, launched an offensive in the Caucasus. As a result, on October 20, 1853 (according to the old style), Emperor Nicholas I issued a manifesto about the war with Turkey, and soon in the Sinop Bay the Black Sea squadron under the command of Admiral P.S. Nakhimova completely destroyed the Turkish naval compound, which had a significant numerical superiority. The battle was the "swan song" of the domestic sailing fleet, for the era of ships with steam engines had actually come, in the production of which steel, cast iron and other metals were widely used.
The possible strengthening of Russian influence in the East was greatly alarmed by European powers and, above all, England, who feared that the Russian Empire would not only take over Istanbul, having established control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, but would then oust the British presence from the Mediterranean Sea with its Black Sea fleet. “France supported the hostile policy of Russia also in France, where Emperor Napoleon III, who had reached the throne through a coup d'état, sought the opportunity to intervene in European affairs and take part in some kind of serial war to support his power with the splendor and glory of the victory of the French arms.”
Alarmed by the victorious Sinope battle, England and France entered the combined fleet into the Black Sea, clearly revealing hostile intentions against Russia. In response, Emperor Nicholas I recalled the ambassadors from London and Paris, and the manifesto of February 9, 1854 declared war on these countries. Later, the kingdom of Piedmont joined the formed European coalition, which at that time consisted of northern Italian regions and the island of Sardinia. At the same time, the Russian autocrat sincerely hoped, if not for direct support, then at least for the friendly neutrality of Austria and Prussia, but he was deeply disappointed. Austrian troops began to directly threaten a blow to the flank of our Balkan army, and the Prussian government refused even diplomatically to assist its long-standing ally. In the last decade of August 1854, the British and French landed troops on the Crimean peninsula near Evpatoria with an initial strength of 62,000 troops and 207 guns. This high-class operation was carried out due to the presence of their modern high-speed, steam fleet and almost complete unpreparedness of the Russian side. Neither in Sevastopol, much less in the capital did not believe in the possibility of such a large-scale maneuver by numerous forces and in an extremely short time. In Crimea, the heroic defense of Sevastopol continued for 11 months, but the largest battle of the ground forces took place in September 1854 on the Alma River, where the VI Corps of the Russian Army was defeated, resulting in 4 generals, 193 officers and 5511 privates.
It is believed that only the lack of cavalry units among the allies did not allow the retreat to turn into a disaster. A month later, in a fierce Inkerman battle, the Russian army suffered another serious setback. The actions of the command were distinguished by disunity and inconsistency, and the officers did not even have maps of the area, crossed by deep and steep ravines, which made it extremely difficult to move quickly. Therefore, it is quite natural that the irretrievable Russian losses exceeded 10,000 people. Most accurately, the state of affairs in the Russian army is characterized by the phrase uttered by the French marshal Saint-Arnault after the battle on the Alma River: "their tactics are half a century behind." His words are confirmed by the fact that our columns, like decades ago, went on the attack in close formation, in the foot, observing, as in the parade, the alignment to the middle. Gunfire was carried out battalion and did not cause how much damage to the enemy.
The soldiers knew how to die heroically, but not to win. The senseless harsh drill of the past decades has fundamentally undermined the energy and ability of the Russian army to engage in independent hostilities, where the skills of the parade system were completely unacceptable. In addition, widespread embezzlement, the complete disorganization of the rear logistics system, revealed a clear lack of engineering units, and the poor quality of medical support for the sick and wounded. The deplorable state of communications was very negatively affected by the combat readiness of the troops, since not only railways but also highways were not laid to the south from the central part of the country. Weapons, ammunition, equipment and food were delivered by horse-drawn transport. At the same time, a mass of horses and oxen perished due to lack of feed and lack of drinking water. In turn, the military personnel also had to make thousand-foot walking marches, which, of course, negatively affected their physical and moral condition, led to illnesses and a significant number of non-military, irreparable losses. At the same time, the French formations that participated in the Crimean War went through heavy African campaigns, conquered Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, and were tempered in the mountains and deserts.
In the troops of Emperor Napoleon III, not only the generals, but also all the officers had a wide initiative, were distinguished by an active desire to find a way out of a difficult situation and make extraordinary decisions. A few years later, on June 24, 1859, at the battle of the village of Solferino, on Italian fields, it was these French divisions, supported by the allied army of the kingdom of Piedmont and Sardinia, that the Austrian troops, which were mothballed in the routine of drill and parasite, were routed. Meanwhile, the Russian Empire did not at all admit that it had infantry and cavalry units that possessed the advanced and invaluable knowledge of warfare that was relevant for that time. This is the Caucasian army, behind which remained fifty years of a harsh and bloody war. On the one hand, she knew well the bitterness of loss and retreat; on the other, it was marked by victories over the Persian and Turkish troops, as well as countless fierce battles with warlike highlanders in the Dagestan mountains and Chechen forests. “She was not touched by the Gatchina military espantons, she was not desecrated by the gauntlets of military settlements, her immortal spirit was not sought to extinguish by the parasitic fiction of“ linear teaching ”. A handful of Russian and Russian soldiers, not constrained by the corrupting rationalism of the home-grown Prussachina, showed here what a Russian officer is capable of, what a Russian soldier can do, ”emphasized A.A. Kersnovsky.
However, in the St. Petersburg ministerial offices, in the Academy of the General Staff and military educational institutions, this experience was not taken into account, was not subjected to analysis or any in-depth study. As a rule, various metropolitan auditors who came to the Caucasus, in their reports criticized the army’s non-compliance with clothing, a bad marching step, and the soldiers’s inability to maintain interval and distance. The favorites and nominees of Emperor Nicholas I did not contribute anything to military science: the Minister of War, Prince A.I. from the cavalry Chernyshov, Field Marshal Prince M.S. Vorontsov, Field Marshal Prince I.F. Paskevich, Admiral Prince A.S. Menshikov, artillery general Prince M.D. Gorchakov. In their young years, they were distinguished by personal courage and courage, but over the years they became numb to achieve high ranks, honors and posts. In fact, the highest army ranks of the Nikolaev era became a brake on the path of military progress. The Crimean War or, as it was called in Europe, the East ended for Russia extremely unsuccessfully. She revealed to society and the state numerous problems characterizing the backwardness of the empire in all spheres of social life and, above all, showed the real state of the armed forces and economy.
So, archaic military factories based on primitive technology and manual labor, with almost complete absence of steam engines, produced on average 100-120 guns per year for land and naval forces with three times as many needs and 50-70 thousand rifles and pistols, although their need during the war increased manifold. The technical backwardness of our country is also characterized by the fact that the entire Russian fleet in the Baltic and Black Seas consisted of 115 ships, of which only 24 were steamers, and the combined Anglo-French fleet consisted of 454 warships, including 258 steamships. The famous liberal historian and publicist of the second half of the nineteenth century G.A. Dzhanshiev noted that “rich in individual examples of military prowess, this bloody and barren saga found in a sad light both the countless shortcomings of the military organization and the entire old management system based on bureaucratic guardianship, on the full enslavement of public independence, publicity and freedom of speech, on the complacent protection of everything that exists, from popular superstitions to the cornerstone of the old state system, like serfdom. ”
Nicholas I died on February 18, 1855 before the end of the war, having ordered the following messages to be sent to Moscow, Kiev and Warsaw: “The Emperor dies and says goodbye to everyone.” To the heir to the throne, Tsarevich Alexander, he said: “I am giving you the command, but, unfortunately, not in the order I wanted, leaving you a lot of work and worries.” In fact, the outgoing monarch acknowledged the sad results of his reign, the diplomatic isolation of Russia in the international arena and the collapse of the chimerical ideas of the Holy Alliance, which led our country to a political, economic and social impasse. For the new emperor Alexander II and his entourage, the primary task was to get out of the unsuccessful and protracted military confrontation with the least losses. During this period, the chief of the Third Division, the chief of the gendarmes and the commander of the imperial main apartment was the hero of the Patriotic War of 1812, a participant in foreign campaigns and other battles, a brilliant diplomat, and cavalry general Count A.F. Orlov.
Presenting a report on the situation in the country and in the international arena for 1855, he firmly advised Alexander II to make peace. In his report, the count emphasized that “the war is extremely burdensome for Russia: recruitment, militia, and stopped trade multiply needs and poverty, and although the Russians are ready to endure further disasters, but if the government, maintaining firmness and dignity, reached peace on conditions honest, that would be a common joy in the empire. ” It was this statesman in February-March 1856 who led the Russian delegation at the Paris Congress. Skillfully using the contradictions between the members of the Anglo-Franco-Turkish coalition, A.F. Orlov managed to achieve mitigation of peaceful conditions for Russia. At home, he was elevated to princely dignity for such an important diplomatic mission, and the French government awarded the Legion of Honor. On March 18, 1856, the Paris Peace Treaty was signed in the French capital. According to it, Russia received back Sevastopol, but returned the Kars fortress taken in the Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire. The Black Sea was declared neutral, our country lost the right to keep a navy on it and pledged not to erect fortifications on the coast.
Eastern Christians came under the protection of all European powers. Now, the Russian Empire, the autocrat and the government have in full faced the daunting tasks of solving the problems that have accumulated over decades and radically changing society. Therefore, military reform must be considered in conjunction with other measures of this kind in all socially significant areas: the restructuring of the judiciary, zemstvo and city government, censorship, university education, but the manifesto of the reforms was the February 19, 1861 Manifesto, which became a landmark act of historical significance. Since its publication, millions of peasants have gained the opportunity to get out of serfdom, as they were declared personally free citizens who received many rights granted by imperial laws, including property rights. However, as V.O. Klyuchevsky, “Imp. Alexander II made a great but belated reform of Russia: the greatness of the reform is the great historical merit of the emperor; in the lateness of reform is the great historical difficulty of the Russian people. ” Despite various contradictions and problems, the reforms of the second half of the nineteenth century opened up scope for the rapid development of capitalism, promoted the advancement of initiative, gifted people on the political, economic, military and social scene, who were able, without fear and looking back, to take responsibility for the state of affairs entrusted to them . A positive fact was that since 1862, for the first time in all of our country, the state budget began to be published in newspapers containing complete information about the composition and amounts of government revenues and expenses.
This made it possible not only to individual specialists, but also to all interested persons in the country to know the real state of affairs in the field of finance, including those related to the maintenance of military infrastructure. In the field of military policy, the corresponding transformations were not an instantaneous event, but represented a series of sequential and purposeful actions that lasted for many years, so they can, quite tentatively, be divided into two stages. The first was only partial changes introduced into the organizational structure of the former army of the Nikolaev era, objectively leaving for. The second is the creation of the modern armed forces, designed in the future to efficiently and effectively solve the tasks they face in protecting the interests of the Russian Empire in various theaters of operations. At the first stage, back in the fall of 1855, after the fall of Sevastopol, a "Commission for Improvements in the Military Unit" was established. It was headed by General Count F.V. Ridiger. The goals set for the commission were actually determined by the urgent requirements of the current day: a) reducing the burden of huge military spending, absorbing more than half of the state budget; b) a quantitative decrease in army units, headquarters and rear services; c) at the same time, the preservation of the fighting qualities of the army being reduced. So, on January 1, 1856, the ground forces totaled 37,000 and 2,266,000 lower ranks. In addition, during the Crimean War, the army was replenished with 866,000 recruits and 215,000 recruited indefinitely from the reserve, which allowed the formation of 11 reserve infantry divisions and two corps - the Guard Reserve and the Baltic. On the basis of the provisions of the coronation manifesto of 1856, Emperor Alexander II canceled recruiting sets for three years, and reduced the duration of active military service for lower ranks from 19 years to 15 years.
Then, 490000 troops were sent on indefinite leave and retired from the army and 4 reserve divisions were disbanded. In subsequent years, regular recruitment did not resume, and the soldiers who had served their term were immediately subject to dismissal. The second period of military reforms and all subsequent army reforms are inextricably linked with the name of General D.A. Milyutina. Researchers assessed his personality ambiguously, but as head of the military department, he went with Emperor Alexander II almost the entire path of his reign. The minister outlined his own position on the necessary changes to the emperor in an annual report submitted on January 15, 1862. First of all, it was necessary to reorganize the too expensive and ineffective senior army command apparatus, reduce its composition and significantly reduce its overall service life. The latter allowed to have in stock a large number of trained reservists. A significant place in the report was given to the need to create territorial bodies of army command - military districts. Among the other most significant problems, the Minister named the issues of reorganizing the military education system, building barracks and strengthening state borders. Of course, the closest attention was paid to the accelerated rearmament of infantry with rifled weapons and the equipping of artillery with new types of guns. According to D.A. Milyutin, in combination, this would solve two, at first glance, directly opposing tasks: to reduce military spending and increase the combat power of the country's armed forces. Indeed, by the end of 1862 the army numbered only 800 thousand people, and the material and financial expenses for its upkeep decreased significantly. It should be emphasized that, despite the unconditional support from the monarch, the activities of the minister were constantly subjected to serious and not always justified criticism.
In particular, the organization of military districts, existing to this day, met with stiff opposition. The conflict arose between people who had not only known each other for a long time, but in previous years had successfully and fruitfully served together in the ranks of the Caucasian separate corps, then renamed the Caucasian Army. In the second half of the 50s, it was headed by the governor in the Caucasus, Field Marshal Prince A.I. Baryatinsky, a longtime personal friend of the emperor, and the head of the army headquarters was General D.A. Milyutin. When the governor, as an officer "for special assignments", was R.A. Fadeev, combining the qualities of a brave soldier, a serious researcher and publicist. It was to him that the commander in chief entrusted the work on the official history of relations between the Russian Empire and the peoples of the Caucasus. In 1860, the book “Sixty Years of the Caucasian War” was published and gained wide fame in the country and abroad. This is evidenced by the fact that the author was elected a full member of the Russian Geographical Society. Then R.A. Fadeev published in 1868 the work “Armed Forces of Russia”, where he criticized many areas of the reforms and, especially, the system of military districts, considering it extremely risky.
Later he prepared such a study as: “Opinion on the Eastern Question”; published in periodicals articles: "Reorganization of Russian forces", "Doubts about the current military system." Reforms of the Minister of War seemed R.A. Fadeev mechanical, uncritical transfer of Western specifics to the domestic soil. He actively advocated the comprehensive consideration of national characteristics and the widespread use of previous Russian experience. Opponent D. A. Milyutin defended the idea that in the future our country should not prepare for a defensive, but for an offensive war, where it will be opposed by superior coalition forces of various states. Therefore, the main attention should be paid to the preparation of the reserve, the militia and not to forget about the moral principles in the education of soldiers. R.A. Fadeev set forth not only his views, but actually voiced the position of Prince A.I. Baryatinsky, for on various issues of reform prepared for him texts of memos. The latter, disputing almost every act of the Minister of War, the prince regularly sent to the emperor. O.V. Kuznetsov believes that “Baryatinsky was worried about the military power of the Russian army, but he also had a personal interest. Under the new conditions created by the "Regulation of April 17, 1868," the army did not have a post corresponding to its position, in any case, as he imagined. This circumstance was far from the last significance and left its mark on the long-standing confrontation between Baryatinsky (and his employees, among whom Fadeev belonged) and the War Ministry. "The Field Marshal considered himself circumvented, if not deceived, and not by anyone, but by a man who became a minister, thanks to his patronage." In addition, in the higher circles of St. Petersburg society against D.A. Milyutin was actively intrigued by the chief of the gendarmes Count P.A. Shuvalov, Count I.I. VorontsovDashkov and other persons.
However, despite all-round pressure, the emperor did not change his attitude towards the minister and his reforms, since he personally knew the military affairs and his problems. According to a number of researchers, some suggestions by R.A. Fadeev deserved serious support, but the thoughts about the offensive nature of the future war in the European theater of operations caused controversy and doubts. Already in Soviet times, a famous specialist in the field of military history P.A. Zayonchkovsky positively evaluated the creation of districts. In his opinion, the positive aspect of the innovation was that "the military district concentrated all the threads of both command and military administration in its hands, representing a kind of" kind of ministry of war "in miniature." Thus, a rather harmonious system of local military command was formed, and excessive bureaucratization and centralization were eliminated. Of course, not all of D.A. Milyutin stood the test of practice and time, there were errors and errors. Many undertakings could not be implemented because of the general economic backwardness of the national economy and the inability of the state to raise its own defense production to the proper level.
Therefore, the empire was forced to procure weapons abroad. In those years, in all industrialized countries, gunsmiths worked on the creation of various versions of rifles, revolvers and pistols. There was an active search for the best types of weapons, in their technical and ballistic characteristics that met the conditions of modern combat: the idea of \u200b\u200ba multi-shot rifle was in the air. One way or another, for twenty years, Russia was re-equipping the ground forces with the arms of European designers: Migne, Karl, Krnka, and then with an American product that had a sliding shutter: "Berdan's rapid-fire small-caliber rifle No. 2". Although the beginning of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78. the required work did not end, but under D.A. Milyutin, the Russian army became qualitatively different compared to its predecessor. Significantly, the fundamental transformations affected military schools. In particular, training programs for senior officers at the existing academy of the General Staff, at the Artillery, Engineering and Medical and Surgical Academies have changed. Given the objective requests of the army, the Military Law Academy was formed in 1867. Since the need for well-trained officer personnel was constantly growing, in addition to military schools, a network of cadet schools arose. By the beginning of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78. in the country there were 11 infantry, 2 cavalry and 4 Cossack cadet schools, which had graduated by that time 11,536 people. Another important area of \u200b\u200bactivity of D.A. Milyutin and his associates considered a radical change in the legislative framework related to all areas of military reform, which also found real support from Alexander II.
On March 29, 1867, by registered personal decree to the Governing Senate, the Military Codification Commission, created by the former emperor, was renamed the Main Military Codification Committee as the highest central organ of the War Ministry, "whose main purpose is to assist the Military Council in improving military legislation." Thanks to the fruitful work of this organization, the necessary normative legal acts were published in a timely manner: “Combat Charter” (1860), “Regulations on Military District Administrations” (1864), “Collection of States” (1864), “The Regulation on the field control of troops in wartime (1868), the“ Code of States ”(1870), etc. A separate place among the directions of military reform was the transformation in the military judicial sphere. Within a short time, the Military Statute (1867), the Military Statute on Punishment (1868), and the Disciplinary Statute (1869) were developed and entered into force. Based on the provisions of the Military Court Charter, three types of military courts were enshrined: regimental courts, military district courts and the main military court. Regimental courts were formed in each respective division and consisted of three people: a chairman with the rank of headquarters officer and two members - chief. At the suggestion of the regiment commander, they considered cases of misconduct of lower ranks, in their public harm similar to those in civil life subject to the jurisdiction of world courts. Military district courts were created at military districts and provided for adversarial proceedings. Their competence included all cases of unlawful acts committed by generals, officers and civil servants of the military department.
The main military court was part of the ministry and served as the highest court of cassation. Its chairman and members were personally appointed by the emperor from among authoritative and honored generals. In addition, the court was empowered to discuss various legislative drafts and to make the necessary adjustments and additions to military regulations. Compared with the previously applicable requirements, the content of the Military Charter on punishments was distinguished by a more advanced legislative technique and a clear statement of legal norms. The law fixed two types of punishments: criminal and correctional. The first included: imprisonment in a fortress, a reference to hard labor, a settlement with the deprivation of all rights of the state, and the death penalty. Disobedience was severely punished, for which in peace time was imprisonment for 4 to 12 years, and in war - execution.
Serious unlawful acts recognized violations of duties in the performance of guard duty, violations of duties in wartime, desertion, official crimes. The second type of punishment was incurred by servicemen who committed less serious acts. In relation to such measures could be applied: temporary imprisonment in a prison or fortress with subsequent dismissal from the army, detention on guardhouse, pecuniary punishment, exile to Siberia with dismissal and deprivation of rights. The following measures of responsibility were provided for the lower ranks (ordinary and non-commissioned officers): sending to military correctional companies for a certain period of time, imprisonment in a military prison, monetary penalties, deprivation of patches for immaculate service with transfer to the category of fines. However, the most significant, truly fundamental step forward was the enactment of the Charter on military service from January 1, 1874. He formulated the provision that the main way of recruiting ordinary and non-commissioned officers was to draw young people who had reached the age of twenty by lot. In addition, voluntary admission to military service as volunteers and hunters was allowed.
According to Art. 17 ch. II “On the term of service in the standing troops and on the reserve”, the total term of service in the ground forces was determined at 15 years, of which 6 years were active service and 9 years in reserve. In turn, the total service life in the fleet was determined at 10 years, of which 7 years of active service and three years in reserve. An exception to the rule was allowed only for persons sent to military units located in the Turkestan military district, as well as in the Semipalatinsk, Transbaikal, Yakutsk, Amur and Primorsky regions. A general 10-year service life was introduced for them, of which 7 years were in active service and 3 years in reserve. This was due to significant difficulties associated with the delivery of draftees to the remote edges of the empire, where there were no satisfactory means of communication. Russian society and the army have embraced the long-awaited law controversially and critically. On the one hand, there was no doubt the need to reduce the period of military service. On the other hand, formally, the Charter obligated service in the army of representatives of all classes, social classes and nationalities, for in Art. 1 ch. I emphasized: “The defense of the throne and the fatherland is the sacred duty of every Russian subject. The male estate, without distinction of conditions, is subject to military service. ” However, in reality, the law did not provide for the introduction of de facto universal military service, since its norms provided very broad benefits related to the family or property status of the conscript, as well as his education. Through the use of benefits, a huge number of citizens of the empire were not at all subject to draft in peacetime, or they served a deliberately insufficient period to be considered as a well-trained reservist. So, on the basis of Art. 45 of the Charter, three categories of privileges on marital status were fixed.
The first category included the only able-bodied son, brother, grandson. The conditions of the second category concerned the only able-bodied son, with a father also able to work, and brothers younger than 18 years old. The third category consisted of persons whose older brother was on conscription in active military service or died (died) during its performance. In turn, the extensive system of educational benefits could not be compared with any European country. For example, according to the rules of Art. 63 of the Charter, military workers with a doctorate in medicine, a master of veterinary sciences or pharmacy, teachers of state secondary and higher educational institutions, and persons of some other professions requiring special education were not subject to call up for active service in peacetime and were immediately enlisted for 15 years. For representatives of youth students, the corresponding privileges consisted in obtaining a deferment from appeal to persons studying in secondary and higher educational institutions until they reach the age of 22 to 28 years. Then, depending on the level of education and profession for conscripts, the duration of service was reduced; they had the right to enter the service, including freewill. “Researchers of this Charter cannot but be amazed at the enormous amount of educational benefits. Introducing these benefits, D.A. Milyutin pursued the good goal of promoting public education.
However, under this system, the most intellectually most valuable element was worst used (the first-class freedoms lasted only 6 months - it is clear that only mediocre warrant officers of the reserve could be obtained from them), ”A.A. Kersnovsky. As a principal critic of the Minister of War, the researcher noted that in Germany (and then in France) no one had the right to hold public office, or even an elected one, without the rank or rank of reserve officer or non-commissioned officer. Through the ranks of the army there passed all the most valuable that was in the country, and the connection of society with the army was real and effective. According to opponents, the most serious drawback of the Charter was that the people of Central Asia and Turkestan Territory, the Primorsky and Amur Regions, and some districts of the Arkhangelsk, Tomsk, Tobolsk, and Yakutsk provinces were not called up for military service in the Russian army. In addition, the provisions of the law did not apply to the indigenous population of the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia. In turn, a separate procedure for the performance of military service was provided for the indigenous population of the Grand Duchy of Finland, who had a special status within the Russian Empire. For two decades, benefits continued to Mennonites who resettled on the territory of Russia and accepted Russian citizenship in the 50-60s. nineteenth century.
Many analysts were not in doubt about the fact that joint military service, one way or another, would act as an effective means of bringing together representatives of different nations and nationalities inhabiting the country; familiarization with customs and mores, elements of history and culture. Unfortunately, these just and justified arguments were not taken into account by the developers of the Charter. Conclusions: with D.A. Milyutin successfully completed more than half a century of hostilities in the Caucasus. In a relatively short period and without serious losses, Central Asia was annexed and the Polish uprising was crushed. The Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78, which did not require general mobilization, was crowned with success. for the liberation of Bulgaria; the distinctive aspect that characterizes all areas of military reform was that it was carried out publicly, brought to the general public, discussed in the press and adjusted in the process; the main legislative act of military reform was the Charter on military service of January 1, 1874; the creation of a network of military and cadet schools, where young men could go regardless of class and origin, to some extent served as a positive change in the social composition of the officer corps; regardless of the presence of really serious shortcomings during the reform, the Russian Empire received a mobile and sufficiently combat-ready mass army; YES. Milyutin became the last soldier in the pre-revolutionary army, who in 1898 was awarded the rank of Field Marshal by Emperor Nicholas II.
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. The centenary of the Romanov dynasty. 1613-1913: reprint of the anniversary edition of 1913. M.: Sovremennik, 1990.S. 276.
2. Kersnovsky A. A. History of the Russian army: in 4 vols. T. 2. M.: Golos, 1993. S. 115.
3. Dzhanshiev G. A. The era of great reforms. T. 1. M.: Territory of the Future, 2008.S. 98.
4. Klyuchevsky V. O. Historical portraits. Figures of historical thought. M.: True, 1990.S. 554.
5. On the most gracious granting to the people of mercies and reliefs on the occasion of the Coronation of His Imperial Majesty: Manifesto. August 26 // PSZRI. The second meeting. T. XXXI. The first branch. 1856. St. Petersburg, 1857.S. 785-798.
6. Fadeev R. Armed forces of Russia. M., 1868.S. 244.
7. Exchange statements. 1871. No. 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 14.
8. Kuznetsov O. V. R. A. Fadeev: general and publicist. Volgograd, 1998.S. 37.
9. Zayonchkovsky P. A. Military reforms of the years 18601870 in Russia. M., Moscow Publishing House. University, 1952.P. 95, 118-119.
10. PSZ RI. The second meeting. T. XLII. No. 44412.
11. PSZ RI. The second meeting. T. 49. Ogd. 1. No. 52983.
12. Kersnovsky A. A. History of the Russian army. M., 1993.S. 186.
A.A. Gogin, Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Professor, Department of Entrepreneurial and Labor Law, Togliatti State University, Togliatti (Russia)
The military administration was also reorganized. All military reforms arose after the appointment in 1861 of the Minister of War, D. A. Milyutin, a professor at the Academy of the General Staff, then the head of the headquarters of the Caucasian Army, who possessed outstanding military and personal talents, who had a liberal view.
Already at the beginning of the reign, military settlements were removed. Humiliating physical punishments were abolished.
In the mid-60s, military schools were reformed. In 1863, the cadet corps were rebuilt into military gymnasiums, close to the real schools according to the program of general educational subjects (in addition to general military). In 1864, military schools were created, which enrolled students of military schools. Military schools graduated up to 600 officers every year. For special training of military engineers, cavalry, artillery, 16 cadet educational institutions with a training period of three years were built. The practice included an increase in the qualifications of officers during comprehension of military service. The system of higher military education increased in military academies - the Academy of the General Staff, Engineering, Artillery, Military Medical and in the newly created Military Law.
In January 1874, an all-conscription military service was declared. In the Highest document on this occasion, it was reported: "The defense of the throne and the Fatherland is the sacred duty of every Russian citizen ...." According to the law of 1874, all military units of the Russian Empire were divided into 4 types: irregular troops (Cossacks), regular army and navy, militia and reserve troops. Conscription was distributed to the entire male population that reached twenty years of age, without a difference of estates, i.e. she became omnipotent. The government annually establishes the required number of recruits, and by lot selects only this number from conscripts (as a rule, no more than 20-25% of conscripts were taken into the service). The call was not subject to one and only son of the parents, one and only breadwinner in the family, and in addition, if the older brother of the conscript is serving or served. According to the law of 1874, clergymen of all faiths, representatives of certain religious sects and associations (in connection with their religious beliefs), the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, and certain ethnic groups of the Caucasus and the Far North were exempted from military service. Those called up for service are listed in it: in the army 15 years: 6 years in service and 9 years in reserve, in the navy - 7 years of real service and 3 years in reserve. For those who have acquired primary education, the term of real service is reduced to four years, after graduating from a city school - to three years, a gymnasium - up to one and a half years, and those with higher education - up to six months.
It follows from here that the result of the reform was the creation of a small peacetime army with a high trained reserve in case of war.
The system of military rule has undergone great changes in order to strengthen rule at the locations of the troops. The consequence of this revision was the approval on August 6, 1864 of the "Regulation on the Military District Administrations." On the basis of this “Regulation”, 9 military districts were created first, and then (August 6, 1865) 4 more. In each district, the chief appointed by the name of the commander of the military district was appointed, determined by direct highest discretion. This position may also be assigned to the local governor general. In certain districts, the assistant commander is also determined.
The military-district system had a number of advantages: unnecessary centralization of command was eliminated, more suitable conditions for the operational leadership of the troops were established, and the time for mobilization of spare time in wartime was shortened. In the conditions of Russia with its considerable spaces, this has become of paramount importance. According to the "Regulation" of 1867, the central military administration was also reformed. Engineers, artillery, guards, military educational institutions (before that they had their own separate departments) were transferred to the Ministry of War, and for the duration of military operations - the army.
In 1867, a new military judicial charter was created and signed, erected on the basis of the judicial reform of 1864. Three judicial instances were introduced - the regimental, the main military courts and the military district. During the war, the Chief Military Field Court was created. The decisions of the military courts were subject to ratification by the regimental and district leaders, respectively, and in the final instance by the Minister of War.
By the end of the 19th century, the number of the Russian army gathered (per 130 million population): forty-seven thousand officers, doctors and officials, and one million one hundred thousand lower ranks. Then these figures decreased and amounted to 742,000 people, and military capabilities remained.
In the 60s, the rearmament of the army began: the change of smooth-bore to rifled weapons, the introduction of a steel artillery system, and the improvement of the equestrian park. Of particular importance was the accelerated formation of a military steam fleet. By order of the Ministry of War, railways were built to the western and southern borders of Russian territory, and in 1870, railway troops first appeared. During the 70s, for the most part, the technical rearmament of the army ended.
Caring for the defenders of the Motherland was expressed in everything, even in the smallest nuances. Say, for more than 100 years (until the 80s of the XIX century), boots were made without distinguishing between the right and left legs. The government believed that with combat alert the soldier did not have time to think which boot to wear, on which foot.
An unusual attitude was towards the prisoners. The military, captured and not in the service of the enemy, after returning home received money from the state for the entire time that they were in captivity. The prisoner was a victim. And those who distinguished themselves in battles were awarded with medals and regular ranks. Orders of Russia were especially appreciated. They provided such privileges that they even changed a person’s position in society.
At the end of the XIX century. the following changes were made in the Russian army. According to the new military charter of 1888, a five-year term of real service and a thirteen-year term was determined - staying in reserve for any military branches, with subsequent admission to the militia. From 20 years to 21 years, the draft age for real service increased. The age limit for the militia increased from forty to forty-three years. All privileges regarding marital status were retained, however, service periods for persons who completed secondary and higher educational institutions, as well as for volunteers, were increased by a factor of two to four.
Military Reforms 1861-1874 play an important role in increasing the combat effectiveness of the Russian army. However, the results of these reforms were not immediately reflected. Military educational institutions could not yet cover the acute shortage of officer personnel, the process of rearmament of the army dragged on for several decades.
Since the 19th century, history has gradually become world-wide; since that time, the history of Russia has truly turned into European. At the beginning of the XVII century. Peter I “cut a window into Europe”, under Catherine II they will reckon with Russia, but only after the Napoleonic wars (late XVIII - early XIX centuries), as a result of her victory over France (1812-1814), she finally established herself among European countries fighting for hegemony on the continent.
Russia entered this century, retaining its appearance as an autocratic state with a feudal-serf system of economy. It occupied a vast territory of 18 million square meters. km (Eastern Europe, Asia and North America (Alaska)). The population was more than 35 million people, 9/10 of them were engaged in agriculture, which still developed in an extensive way. And if, in terms of population and military power, Russia was the first power in Europe, then the structure of its economy remained archaic. The serf system impeded the growth of productive forces and prevented the country's progress along the path of modernization.
On the night of March 11 to March 12, 1801, the last palace coup takes place. Paul I was killed, his eldest son Alexander ascended to the throne. His education and upbringing was personally monitored by Catherine II. It so happened that the whole XIX century and until the end of the Romanov dynasty (March 1917) will be ruled by the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Catherine the Great, who will be nicknamed: Alexander I (1801-1825) - “Blessed”, Nikolai I ( 1825-1855) - “Palkin”, Alexander II (1855-1881) - “The Liberator”, Alexander III (1881-1894) - “Peacemaker” and Nicholas II (1894-1917) ) - "Bloody".
The focus of the country's government in the first half of the 19th century was three of the most important problems: administrative - improving public administration; social - agrarian-peasant question; ideological - improving the system of education and education.
Having ascended the throne, Alexander I was determined to carry out reforms on the most pressing socio-political issues. He began by abolishing the most odious decrees of his father, Paul I. He restored the letters of honor granted to the nobility and cities, lifted bans on traveling abroad, on European literature, and exempted officers and officials (about 12 thousand people) injured under Paul I. from exile.
In 1802 The obsolete Peter's colleges were replaced by ministries, which were governed by the principle of one-man management, and the ministers were directly subordinate to the emperor. A committee of ministers was established to discuss joint affairs.
At the same time, the Senate is being reformed, which has become the highest judicial body that simultaneously controls the rule of law in the country and the activities of administrative structures.
In 1803, a decree was issued on free cultivators, allowing landowners to set free serfs with the allocation of land for ransom. According to this decree for the first quarter of the XIX century. 47 thousand peasants were freed.
In 1810, the State Council was established - an advisory body under the emperor, which included the appointed ministers and senior officials.
On behalf of Alexander I M.M. Speransky prepared and presented a draft political reform, the core of which was the radical reform of state bodies, on the principle of separation of powers. In fact, this would lead to the transformation of the autocratic monarchy into a constitutional one (with a constitution chosen by the State Duma, etc.).
The emperor approved this project, but did not dare to implement it.
In 1803, the system of educational institutions was reorganized. It was based on: continuity and non-verbosity of education. In 1804, a university charter was adopted, which granted them autonomy, after 2 years there were already 6 universities in the country, and in 1811 lyceums were opened. All these reforms were progressive.
However, reform plans were disrupted by the war with France. June 12, 1812 for Russia began the Patriotic War. The allies of France were Austria and the Press. The numerical superiority in people was on the side of the French army (almost 2 times). Russian troops were led by War Minister Barclay de Tolly. From the very beginning of hostilities, the three Russian armies advanced to meet Napoleon began to retreat inland and the first battle took place near Smolensk. The city was captured by the enemy and its attack on Moscow continued. Under the influence of public opinion, M.I. Kutuzov was appointed commander in chief of the Russian troops. On August 26, 1812, on the steps to Moscow, the Battle of Borodino took place. In order to preserve the army, Moscow had to surrender, but then they gave decisive battles near Maloyaroslavets and Krasny, forced Napoleon to retreat along the devastated Smolensk road. December 25, Alexander I issued a manifesto on the end of the war. Then Warsaw, Hamburg, Berlin were liberated. A crushing defeat for Napoleon will be inflicted by the new anti-French coalition (Russia, England, Prussia and Austria) near Leipzig (October 4-7, 1813), in March 1814 the allies will enter Paris.
After the end of World War II, the domestic policy of Alexander I lost its former liberal hue. On his initiative in 1815, the “Holy Alliance” was created, uniting the European monarchs (Russia, Austria, Prussia, etc.) to fight the revolutionary movement. The regime of Arakcheevschina was established in Russia itself; censorship and persecution of progressively minded people are intensifying. The most ugly manifestation of feudal serfdom arises - military settlements. Uprising took place in some of them (1819 - in Chuguev, in 1820 - soldier of the Semenovsky regiment).
Thus, the domestic policy of Alexander I, first liberal, then reactionary, was aimed at strengthening the autocracy, objectively contributed to the activation of the noble revolutionary movement called the “Decembrists Movement”. The peak of his speech was planned for December 14 (after the death of Alexander I in November 1825), the day of the oath to the new emperor. Frightened by the Decembrist uprising, Nicholas I, having ascended the throne, brutally crushed the uprising, sought to impose military discipline on all sides of the country's life, and rigorously defended the autocracy and the serfdom. For this purpose, a set of laws is issued, a corps of gendarmes and a third branch of its own office are created (General A.Kh. Benckendorf). This leads to the overgrowth of the bureaucratic apparatus, the escalation of the situation in the country.
By his order, more than 10 secret committees are created to solve the peasant issue (without affecting the foundations of the serfdom and autocracy), the Ministry of State Property. On the one hand, this streamlined the taxation of state peasants, at the same time increased the number of officials who control and rob the people, their arbitrariness intensified, which was accompanied by bribery, extortion and embezzlement. Serfdom increasingly represented a powder magazine, ready to explode at any time.
A reactionary policy was also carried out in the field of education, educational institutions were under the strict control of the government. Higher education now could receive only nobles, tuition fees increased.
Education Minister Uvarov was the founder of the "theory of official nationality", which claimed as the main political motto of Russia: "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." Thus, the domestic policy of Nicholas I was focused on preserving the foundations of serfdom. Unwillingness to carry out transformations in the country, to improve the life of the people, had a tragic effect at the end of the reign of Nicholas I, resulting in the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War.
2. The beginning of the industrial revolution in Russia
and its consequences.
The main feature of the economic development of Russia in the 30-50s. XIX century - the beginning of the industrial revolution, i.e. a certain leap in the development of productive forces caused by the transition from a manual-based manufactory to a factory where machines are used. The industrial revolution has two sides: the technical (the systematic use of machines) and the social (the formation of the industrial bourgeoisie and the proletariat - wage workers). The material and technical base of production is being improved: first in the textile industry, then in the mining industry. Over this period, labor productivity grew 3 times, and the share of machine production already accounted for 2/3 of large-scale industry products.
The Russian economy began to take on a multi-layered character. Handicraft (small commodity) industry, serfs and civilian manufactories, the first factories and plants appear in industry. A new class is growing - the bourgeoisie. These are land tenants, owners of inns, mills, construction contracts of manufactories, merchants. Gradually, new bourgeois dynasties — the Sapozhnikovs, Morozovs, Bibikovs, Kondrashovs — were developing. At the other extreme, a layer of civilian workers is formed. Since serf labor in industrial production from the very beginning was ineffective, they began to hire city residents, state peasants, and serfs who went to work with the permission of their masters. By 1860, 4/5 of the workers were civilian employees. There were signs of a weakening of the monopoly of the nobility on earth. In 1801, the free purchase and sale of uninhabited land was allowed. In 1803, landowners were given the right to free peasants for ransom.
However, the development of the economy was hindered by the poor state of communications. The first Elizabeth ship appeared in Russia only in 1815, and the railway connecting Petersburg and Tsarskoye Selo appeared in 1837. Before the reform of 1861, there were only 1,500 miles of railways in Russia, which is 15 times less than in England, and the number of steamers barely reached 400, which, with a gigantic scale of the country, was extremely small.
Nevertheless, even in these conditions in the first half of the XIX century. manufactory production increased 14 times. New industrial areas are being formed in Russia - Central (Moscow), North-West (Petersburg) and Kharkov.
Domestic and foreign trade received a new impetus for development; the all-Russian market is gradually forming. Domestic trade expanded due to economic ties with the national outskirts of the empire. Russian merchants developed new territories: Kamchatka, Chukotka, the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, and Central Asia. The most dynamically developed foreign trade in raw materials and agricultural products. The value of grain exports grew, which reached about 70 million pounds by the middle of the century. Imports were mainly focused on meeting the needs of the nobility in luxury goods, and only a small part of imports were machines, tools necessary for the development of the country. All this led to a change in the social composition of Russian society. The urban population for the first half of the XIX century. It grew from 2.8 to 5.7 million people (more than doubled), the number of cities increased from 630 to 1032. The largest of them remained St. Petersburg (540 thousand people) and Moscow (462 thousand). Agriculture continued to develop extensively due to the expansion of sown areas; since the 40s, in the central provinces, the Baltic states and Belarus, potato crops have been increasing, and since then it has become a “second bread” for the peasant.
Thus, in Russia in the first half of the XIX century. the capitalist system continued to take shape, but on the whole it remained an agrarian country. The most far-sighted politicians of Russia began to understand that the delay in economic development and the ever-increasing lag of the country from the West did not contribute to the growth of its international influence and complicate the solution of many internal problems.
3. The great reforms of Alexander II and their significance.
The eldest son of Nicholas I, Alexander II, ascended the throne on February 19, 1855. According to the dying father, his son received "a command not in good order." Therefore, reforms in the country became not only necessary, but also inevitable. At the end of 1857, on his instructions, noble committees were established in the provinces to draw up reform projects. The government program was determined by the end of 1858.
February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed "The manifesto on the abolition of serfdom" and the "Regulations" on the peasants. The main result of the reform was the personal liberation of the peasants, the endowment of their land and a redemption deal. The peasants received the right to own property, engage in commercial and industrial activities, move to other classes. However, peasants paid a high price for exemption from the landlords. Peasants were freed from the land, but its size should have been agreed with the landowner. If before the reform the peasants had more land than was envisaged by the act of February 19, then the surplus (“segments”) was given to the landlords. The peasants were given land of inferior quality. To become the owner of the land, the peasants had to pay a ransom significantly exceeding its market value. Since the peasants had no money, the state acted as an intermediary. It issued to the landlords up to 80% of the redemption amount. The peasants had to pay this debt with interest within 49 years. It was canceled only after the revolution of 1905-1907. However, for many peasants, 20% of the redemption amount was also beyond the power, therefore they were considered temporarily liable and for the use of allotments they had to serve their former duties - corvée or dues. Their condition was eliminated only in 1881.
The historical significance of the reform is that the peasants received personal freedom (about 30 million people), civil and property rights. It cleared the way for the development of capitalism in Russia, ensured a significant influx of peasants into the cities, and gave impetus to the development of industrial production. In subsequent years, production increased at metallurgical, mining, machine-building plants and other enterprises.
In 1862, the government held financial reform. Its conduct was due to the implementation of redemption payments for peasant land plots. A monetary reform was also carried out, which consisted in the fact that government credit securities could be exchanged for silver and gold. To revive the economic situation was created National Bank, private banks began to be created, which were also supposed to support economic growth.
The next step was local government reform. In accordance with the decree (1864), local governments - zemstvos were introduced at the provincial and district levels. The composition of the zemstvo was determined by the property qualification of three categories of citizens - landowners, citizens and peasants, with a term of office of 3 years. The executive bodies of the zemstvos were councils that were supposed to solve local issues related to education, medical care, etc., but under the strict control of governors. This year was held and judicial reform. There are single judicial bodies that function on a wordless basis. The trial should be based on an adversarial basis, the court itself was declared independent of the executive authorities. In addition, cases involving the military and the clergy were subject to individual courts.
In 1870, held urban reform. According to the City Regulations, an unconscious local government body was created in cities - a Duma, the executive body of which was the government, headed by the mayor. Decisions of the Duma were monitored by the governor and the Minister of the Interior. Elections to the Duma were held on property qualifications from the same 3 categories of citizens (curiae). They were in charge of medicine, education, the local tax system, trade relations, etc.
In 1862 it began and military reform. The whole country was divided into military districts, which made management more efficient. The size of the army was reduced, a program for the production and introduction of new weapons was developed. Special military educational institutions were established (gymnasiums and schools, as well as academies). Since 1874, the recruitment set was canceled, general conscription was introduced, which men were subject to from the age of 21.
1864 began education reform. Back in the late 1850s. Gymnasiums for women were created, and subsequently higher women's courses began to appear on the basis of university programs. In 1864, the autonomous status of universities was restored, which gave higher education institutions relative freedom in resolving educational issues and the policy of appointing teaching staff. The gymnasium was divided into classic and real with a training period of 7 years. In addition, there were Zemstvo and Sunday schools.
The transformations carried out by Alexander II were progressive in nature, laying the foundation for the evolutionary path of development of Russia. Their logical continuation could be the adoption of a moderate constitution developed in the late 1870s. Minister of the Interior General M.T. Loris-Melikov. However, the assassination of emperor Alexander II by the Volunteers (March 1, 1881) changed the general direction of the government course.
4. Features of the modernization of post-reform Russia.
The coming to power of Alexander III the Peacemaker (1881-1894) marked a new turn from liberal reformism to reaction. Considering his father’s reforms too liberal, he began the era of the so-called “counter-reforms”:
In April 1881, he published the manifesto "on the inviolability of the autocracy", which made it possible to close educational institutions, the press, and suspend the activity of zemstvos and city councils;
In 1882, he restored censorship, strict supervision of newspapers and magazines, and all the radical and many liberal ones were closed;
In 1884, a new university charter was introduced, their autonomy was eliminated, and supervision of teachers and students was strengthened. Tuition increases five times;
By decree of 1887 "On the Cook Children" the admission of children of lower classes to the gymnasium is prohibited;
In the 1880-1890s. laws are being passed that enshrined the community as a taxable unit, which made it difficult for peasants to leave it;
In 1889, the posts of Zemstvo chiefs (from the nobles) were established, which controlled the activities of self-government bodies, limiting their powers, etc.
However, the process of development of capitalism in Russia, launched by the Great Reforms of Alexander II, was gaining momentum. At the end of the XIX century. there is an upsurge in industrial production, a capitalist system is taking shape.
The transition to a capitalist, industrial society is called modernization. Russian modernization is characterized by a number of features. It, unlike the West, was catching up and was carried out from above, and this led to an increase in the role of the state in the economy, centralization and bureaucratization, to the strengthening of the authoritarian principles of supreme power.
Another feature was the emergence in the country of large enterprises with thousands of workers. By the degree of concentration of the working class in enterprises by the beginning of the 20th century. Russia ranked 1st in Europe and 2nd in the world (after the United States). This process was encouraged by the government, which was interested in creating large enterprises for large state orders (primarily military). Their owners received large loans and tax benefits.
A large degree of such concentration led to the formation of the monopolies “Prodmet”, “Produgol”, “Prodvagon” and others, which established control over the market for maximum profit.
In parallel with this was the concentration of bank capital. Five large banks controlled the bulk of the money that they invested in industry, subjecting it to their control. As a result, there was a merger of banking and industrial capital, that is, a financial oligarchy appeared, taking in its hands enormous funds and basic industrial capacities.
The formation of monopolies, the concentration of banking capital, the emergence of a financial oligarchy indicate that capitalism in Russia at the end of the XIX century. entered the stage of imperialism, but also with its own characteristics:
The new force - the financial oligarchy - was closely connected with state power, which led to the formation of state-monopoly capitalism. The bourgeoisie, gaining its economic power, strove for power, but found itself in opposition to the autocracy;
Domestic production was largely based on foreign capital and loans;
The Russian working class was the most oppressed and impoverished in Europe. The stratum of the labor aristocracy was very insignificant. A high concentration of production created favorable conditions for revolutionary agitation. All this deprived the bourgeoisie of freedom of maneuver; there was great fear of the possibility of revolutionary action by the working class;
Of particular note is such a feature of Russian capitalism - the catastrophic lag of the socio-economic development of the countryside. The reason for this is the remnants of serfdom. Backward peasant farming was still stifled by overwhelming taxes and payments.
Thus, at the end of the XIX century. Russia, on the one hand, has entered, following the leading countries of the world, into the era of bourgeois modernization. But at the same time, a complex bunch of contradictions has developed in the country, both vertically between power structures and horizontally. The immaturity of the middle strata, the weakness of the bourgeoisie, the rupture of the “tops” and “lower classes” caused an unstable and unstable state of society.
A set of measures to transform the Russian army, carried out in the 60-70s. 19th century Minister Milyutin.
Background of military reform
The need for reform of the Russian army was brewing for a long time, but it became obvious after the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War. The Russian army not only lost the war, but also showed its complete failure and weakness, all the shortcomings were revealed - poor equipment, poor training of soldiers and lack of human resources. The loss hit hard on the prestige of the government, and Alexander the 2nd decided that it was urgent to change the state’s policy and carry out a complete army reform.
Changes in the army began in the 1950s, immediately after the war, but the most notable reforms were carried out in the 1960s by an outstanding military leader, then Minister of War V.A. Milyutin, who saw well all the flaws of the system and knew how to get rid of them.
The main problem of the army was that it demanded too much money for its maintenance, but did not pay for itself in the war. Milyutin's goal was to create an army that would be very small in peacetime (and would not require a lot of money for maintenance), but could quickly mobilize in case of war.
The main event of the entire military reform is the Manifesto of General Conscription. This is what made it possible to create an army of a new type, which would not suffer from a shortage of soldiers, but at the same time did not require a lot of money for maintenance. The recruitment system was canceled, now every citizen of Russia over the age of 20, who has no criminal record, was obliged to serve in the army.
The service life of most troops was six years. It was impossible to buy off military service in the army or to avoid it in another way; in the event of war, the entire population that had undergone military training was mobilized.
However, before introducing universal conscription, it was necessary to substantially change the system of military control so that citizens of all categories could serve in it. In 1864, Russia was divided into several military districts, which greatly simplified the management of a huge power and its army. At the head of the seats were local ministers, who were subordinate to the War Ministry in St. Petersburg.
The division into districts made it possible to add matters that did not concern the entire state to the Minister of War and transfer them to the jurisdiction of the districts. Now the administration was more systematic and effective, since each military official had a certain range of responsibilities on his territory.
After the abolition of the old control system, a complete rearmament of the army was carried out. The soldiers received new modern weapons that could compete with the weapons of the Western powers. Military factories were reconstructed and now they themselves could produce modern weapons and equipment.
The new army also received new principles for the education of soldiers. Corporal punishment was abolished, soldiers became more prepared and educated. Military schools began to open across the country.
Only new laws could consolidate the transformations, and they were developed. In addition, a military court and military prosecutor's office appeared - this allowed improving discipline in the army and introducing officers' responsibility for their actions.
And finally, thanks to general conscription, the army became more attractive to peasants who could count on a good military career.
Results and significance of military reform
As a result of the reforms, a completely new army appeared, as well as a military command and control system. The soldiers became more educated, their numbers increased significantly, the army became well-armed and trained. Thanks to the mobility of the new system, the state could spend significantly less money on the maintenance of the military, but at the same time count on a better result.
The country was ready for a possible war.
The Russian empire in the second half of the 19th century experienced a period of gradual withering away of the feudal system and the formation of capitalist relations. The crisis of the feudal-feudal system exacerbated the defeat in the Crimean War of 1853-1856.
The country urgently faced the need for fundamental reforms - social, economic, military.
The growing revolutionary situation forced tsarism to take the path of abolishing serfdom and implement the reform of 1861. The liberation from serfdom and the related economic reforms have fundamentally changed the social situation of citizens.
There was an opportunity to reform the army. The plan of comprehensive military transformations was developed by the Minister of War D.A. Milyutin and at the beginning of 1862 was approved by Alexander II.
The main objective of the reforms was the creation of a mass army of the European type, compact in peacetime and capable of rapid mobilization in the event of war. Therefore, the first measures were to reduce the term of military service to 15 years, of which 6 years of active service for the ground forces, 9 in reserve; in the Navy 10 years - 7 years real, 3 years in reserve, as well as the reduction of all kinds of auxiliary troops. The soldiers of the pre-reform army were called up almost for life, so the army did not have a trained reserve. As a result of the reforms, in a few years the stock was more than doubled.
To increase the effectiveness of the command and control system in 1864, the entire territory of the Russian Empire was divided into 15 military districts, as if copying the structure of the military ministry on the ground.
In order to separate the combat and administrative management of the troops, a General Headquarters was created within the framework of the War Ministry, to which district headquarters corresponded in their functions to the districts. In addition, the army command and control system was streamlined and simplified, duplicating structures were eliminated, management staff and expenses were reduced.
Another important task of transforming the army was its rearmament, an urgent need for which arose due to the growing militarization of the advanced powers of Western Europe and technological progress in the military sphere. The re-equipment of the troops and the fleet with rifled, ammunition-loading and long-range weapons, as well as other new military equipment, entailed a number of reforms in all branches of military affairs.
There was a need to provide soldiers and sailors with basic education. The tactical principles of warfare have also changed.
During the 1960s, new military manuals were developed and published, which in many ways changed the system of combat training of troops. Its main provisions were most fully disclosed in the textbook tactics prof. Dragomirova, which was based on three training conditions: 1. to teach troops in peacetime only what is necessary in a war; 2. It is necessary to teach soldiers combat affairs in the order that they receive a clear understanding of the purpose of the subject of training; 3. to teach mainly by example.
The success of the training of troops depended primarily on the quality of the training of officers and non-commissioned officers. In connection with this, the reforms also affected the training programs for officers in military schools and academies.
It should be noted that the transition of the army to new types of weapons would not have been possible without the proper development of the domestic military industry. By the end of the XIX century. large enterprises producing weapons, ammunition and military vessels took a leading place in the country's economy. The growth of military production stimulated the development of scientific and technological thought. The developments and inventions of Russian scientists eliminated the threat of Russia's military-economic dependence on the countries of Western Europe.
Also, the social consequences of the reform were very significant. The army introduced compulsory literacy training for soldiers (and according to statistics, about 80% of recruits did not know how to read and write), as a result of which the average educational level of soldiers increased significantly.
The success of Milyutin’s military reforms was due to a deep understanding of the relationship between the processes taking place in society and the army, as well as the systematic nature of the reforms, the simultaneous focus on concrete quick results and the gradual, profound improvement of the military sphere. As a result of the reforms, Russia received a cheap and compact armed forces, the formation of which did not place a heavy burden on the shoulders of the population, and which completely restored the country's military prestige.
