Wars of 1812 - 1814 had a serious impact on the Russian economy. Many provinces were ruined. Moscow, Smolensk and a number of other cities were turned into ruins. The state's financial system was in disarray. Feudal-serf oppression intensified. The burden of government taxes has increased. Broad sections of the peasantry hoped that after the victory over Napoleon their situation would be eased. But in royal manifesto all that was said about the end of the war was that the peasants would receive their “retribution from God.”
In the post-war years, Alexander's government Iin its domestic policy it took the path of open reaction. The leadership of the central administrative apparatus was actually in the hands of General A. A. Arakcheev, who was a faithful executor of the will of the Tsar. Police brutality and a brutal regime were established in the country, which began to be called “Arakcheevism.”
The transition to open reaction was clearly manifested in the policy of tsarism on the peasant question. Alexander's government Iexpanded the rights of landowners and strengthened their power over the peasants. In 1822, landowners again received the right to exile their peasants without trial to a settlement in Siberia, which was abolished in 1809. A decree of 1823 confirmed the monopoly of the nobles on the ownership of populated estates.
Since 1816, the government of Alexander Ibegan to create military settlements in order to “reduce the cost” of maintenancearmy and form a special military caste in the country, which would serve as a weapon in the fight against the liberation movement and would be a reserve of trained troops. Some of the soldiers and state peasants of St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Kherson and other provinces were transferred to the position of military villagers. Arakcheev was appointed head of the military settlements. Military villagers were required to combine military service with agricultural work. Their life was strictly regulated. For the slightest disobedience, the villagers, their wives and children were subjected to cruel corporal punishment.
To combat the revolutionary danger, control over activities was strengthened educational institutions, press and literature. The Ministry of Education was transformed into the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education. It was headed by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, the ardent reactionary Prince A. N. Golitsyn.
The Patriotic War of 1812 caused the awakening of political consciousness among the people. Former militia warriors and soldiers returned to their native villages. They no longer wanted to meekly bear the yoke of serfdom. In 1816 - 1825 The anti-serfdom movement grew in the country. The average annual number of unrest has doubled compared to the first decadeXIXV. In 1818 - 1820 the anti-serfdom movement unfolded on the Don. It took on a particularly wide scale in 1820. More than 45 thousand peasants took part in the movement. Large military forces were sent to pacify the rebels.
The movement of working people has intensified. In 1816 - 1825 There were more than 50 labor unrest. Up to 10 thousand people took part in the unrest in the Perm province. The "rebellious" workers were pacified only with the help of soldiers.
An integral part of the anti-serfdom movement was the struggle of peasants against military settlements. The largest uprising of military villagers occurred in 1819 in Chuguev and its environs (not far from Kharkov). It covered an area inhabited by 28 thousand people. The peasants demanded the liquidation of military settlements. To suppress the uprising, troops were brought in led by Arakcheev, who carried out a bloody massacre of the settlers.
The massive anti-feudal movement was reflected in the army. The position of the soldiers was still difficult. The service lasted 25 years. Cane discipline and senseless, grueling drills caused an increase in the number of soldier protests. In 1816 - 1825 In Russia there were 20 open soldier demonstrations. It was restless in the guard.
In 1820, excitement gripped the Semenovsky Guards Regiment, which became famous for its military deeds and was stationed in St. Petersburg. The authorities quickly managed to eliminate the indignation of the Semyonovites. All companies of the regiment were sent to the Peter and Paul Fortress. After the “ringleaders” were punished, the regiment was disbanded.
However, discontent in the country continued to grow. It also embraced the advanced part of the nobility. Under these conditions, a revolutionary movement against tsarism arose in Russia - the Decembrist movement.
Source---
Artemov, N.E. History of the USSR: Textbook for students of the I90 Institute of Culture. In 2 parts. Part 1/ N.E. Artemov [and others]. – M.: graduate School, 1982.- 512 p.
Karzhenkova Natalya Petrovna
MBOU secondary school No. 182
Leninsky district
Nizhny Novgorod
Final test on Russian history
8th grade
1. The highest legislative power, according to the reform of M.M. Speransky, should belong to:
1. State Duma; 3. To the Emperor;
2. State Council; 4. To the Senate.
2. Arrange in chronological order the inclusions in Russia.
1. Georgia. 2. Siberia 3. Bessarabia. 4. Central Asian khanates.
3. What historical event of the early 19th century is the poem talking about? famous poet that time N.M. Shatrova?
“I sing the Fire of unfortunate Moscow!
A new Tamerlane has arrived
And heavy, terrible abuse
Broke into the Kremlin like a hurricane;
And there is no strong defense;
There is fear everywhere, groans everywhere,
Here is a bitter cry, there is a terrible battle,
Violence and oppression everywhere
Everywhere there is murder, extermination,
There is robbery everywhere, robbery everywhere.”
The above passage refers to the events of ________________________________.
4. Alexander I decided to establish military settlements in order to:
1. make the army self-sufficient;
2. get cheap labor;
3. protect the eastern borders of the empire;
4. accustom Russian people to European image life.
5. Indicate what is superfluous in the series:
Establishment of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery, reform of the management of state peasants, creation of the Secret Committee, publication of “ Full meeting laws Russian Empire”.__________________________
6. Match events and dates.
1. Patriotic War a) 1802
2. Replacement of collegiums with ministries b) 1803
3. Decree on free cultivators c) 1807
4. Peace of Tilsit d) 1812
7. The opponent of liberal reforms in the first years of the 19th century was:
1. N.M. Karamzin; 2. M.M. Speransky; 3. N.N.Novosiltsev; 4. P.A.Stroganov.
8. Choose the wrong one answer. According to the “Constitution” of N. Muravyov:
1. Russia was to become a constitutional monarchy;
2. Russia was to become a democratic republic;
3. canceled in Russia serfdom;
4. The land remained with the landowners, the peasants received 2 tithes.
9. Who does this description characterize?
“Colonel. The son of the Nizhny Novgorod provincial leader of the nobility. He was elected Dictator on December 14, 1825. By the verdict of the Supreme Criminal Court, he was sentenced to hard labor forever. According to the amnesty of August 26, 1856. restored to the rights of the nobility, but without the princely title."
1. S.P.Trubetskoy. 3. P.G.Kakhovsky.
2. K.F. Ryleev. 4. S.G. Volkonsky.
10. Match the spheres of creativity and the names of cultural figures.
1. History a) P.N. Fedotov
2. Poet b) I.P.Martos
3. Artist c) T.N. Granovsky
4. Sculptor d) M.Yu. Lermontov
11. Say a name Russian Emperor according to the description.
In the manifesto upon accession to the throne at the beginning of the 19th century. the new emperor promised that
He will rule “according to the laws and according to the heart in the blessing of our late august grandmother, Empress Catherine the Great.” ____________________________
12. In Russia in the second half of the 19th century, an impoverished peasant who was hired to work for a wealthy fellow villager, a kulak, was called ____________.
1. V.G. Belinsky; 2. A.I. Herzen; 3. N.M. Karamzin; 4. S.S. Uvarov.
14. The development of industry in post-reform Russia was characterized by the following:
a) the flourishing of the metallurgical industry in the 60s of the 19th century;
b) the transformation of metallurgy into the leading branch of Russian industry;
c) active construction of railways;
d) completion of the industrial revolution;
e) closing or transferring into private hands some unprofitable public
Enterprises;
f) disappearance of handicraft production;
g) formation of a cadre proletariat;
h) the transformation of the textile industry into the leading branch of Russian industry
1. (a, b, c, e) 2. (b, d, f, h) 3. (c, d, e, h) 4. (d, f, g, h)
15. In Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. was (a, oh, and):
1. constitution; 3. autocracy;
2. parliament; 4. legal political parties.
16. During the reign of Nicholas I there was (oh, a):
1. serfdom was abolished; 3. reform of state peasants was carried out;
2. a decree was issued on “free cultivators”; 4. Military settlements were created.
17. Indicate the names of travelers in the sequence corresponding to the research they conducted - discovery of Antarctica, - study of Central Asia, - study of the population of New Guinea, - study of Kamchatka.
1. N. Miklukho-Maclay, S. Krasheninnikov, N. Przhevalsky, I. Bellingshausen;
2. I. Bellingshausen, S. Krasheninnikov, N. Miklukho-Maclay, N. Przhevalsky;
3. I. Bellingshausen, N. Przhevalsky, N. Miklukho-Maclay, S. Krasheninnikov;
4. N. Miklukho-Maclay, N. Przhevalsky, I. Bellingshausen, S. Krasheninnikov.
18. Choose the wrong one answer. One of the reforms of Alexander II is:
1. abolition of serfdom; 3. military reform;
2. decree on “free cultivators”; 4. zemstvo reform.
19. Famous public figure second half of the 19th century. A.N. Engelhardt, in his letters “From the Village,” reported on the mood of Russian peasants in the 70s of the 19th century: “The boxman Mikhailo brought war paintings, and “The Wonderful Lunch of General Skobelev under Enemy Fire,” and “The Assault on Kars,” and “The Capture of Plevna.” .
“This,” he explains to the women and farm laborers gathered around him, “this is what Skobelev, General Plevna, took. Here they lead Osman Pasha by the arms - look, he’s crouched!”
This passage talks about the events of the _______________________ war of ______years.
20. Arrange in chronological order.
1. Zemstvo reform.
2. Abolition of serfdom in Russia.
3. Public administration reform project M.T. Loris-Melikova.
4. Military reform.
21. As a result of “going to the people” in the 70s of the 19th century:
1. the peasant war began on Russian territory;
2. mass entry of peasants into populist organizations began;
3. a mass movement of workers for their rights developed;
4. Repressions against the populists intensified.
22. Match the names of historical figures with what united them.
1. N.N. Novosiltsev and V.P. Kochubey a) General-heroes of the war of 1812
2. N.N. Raevsky and A.P. Ermolov b) Personal friendship and revolutionary activity
3. A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev c) Activities in government agencies on preparation of peasant reform
4. Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and d) Members of the “Unofficial Committee”
N.A. Milyutin
23. Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878. ended with the signing:
1. Berlin Treaty; 3. Aigun Treaty;
2. Treaty of San Stefano; 4. Treaty of Portsmouth.
24. A native of N. Novgorod, a great scientist, a self-taught mechanic, who personally made a telescope, a microscope, a model of a telegraph, a model of an arched wooden bridge across the Neva, and a “water boat” - this is ________________________________.
25. Highlight the factor that accelerated the industrial development of Russia after the reform of 1861.
1. Preservation of landownership.
2. Preservation of autocracy.
3. Personal freedom of peasants.
4. The need for the purchase of land by peasants.
26. The Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th century included the territory:
1. Ukraine; 2. Finland; 3. Khanate of Khiva; 4. Bessarabia.
27. In the 19th century, Russia’s form of government was:
1. a democratic republic; 3. feudal republic;
2. constitutional monarchy; 4. autocratic monarchy.
28. Arrange in chronological order.
1. The beginning of the industrial revolution in Russia.
2. Death of Emperor Alexander II.
3. Russia's participation in the continental blockade.
4. The end of the Crimean War.
1. Battle of Borodino. 3. Defense of Sevastopol.
2. The Decembrist uprising. 4. Founding of Moscow University.
30. F.I.Tyutchev
To the Emperor
"You took your day... Noticed from the ages
By the great grace of God -
You are a slave image moved from the person
And he returned the younger brothers to the family..."
Answer the questions.
- What event of the 19th century? is the poem talking about?
- When did it happen?
Answers to the test:
2-1-3-4 |
|
Patriotic War |
|
1-d, 2-a, 3-b, 4-c |
|
Libmonster ID: RU-8177
Military settlements have existed in Russia for a long time. Back in the 17th century, the eastern and southern borders of the Moscow state were guarded by settled troops, who were engaged along with military service agriculture. They repeatedly resorted to creating military settlements to protect the outskirts in the 18th century. Peter I, queens Anna and Elizabeth established settlements on separate borders of the empire. With the expansion of borders, such settlements lost their significance and the villagers merged with the local population.
The military settlements of the 19th century are not in any continuity with them. They arose in a completely different environment and were intended to solve completely different problems.
The reasons that caused the emergence of military settlements in the 19th century began to take shape during the reign of Paul I. Frightened by the Pugachev uprising and the French revolution of the 18th century messenger, Paul I sought to strengthen autocracy through the militarization of the country. By introducing merciless military discipline, Paul I sought to protect himself from revolutionary uprisings.
He introduced the Prussian cane system into the army, expelled from it everything living and initiative associated with the name of Suvorov, and tried to subordinate the life of the entire civilian population to the same military order.
The idea of militarization of the civilian population, the idea of petty regulation of private life, and most importantly, the grandiose drill system were later reflected in military settlements.
Back in 1778, in a letter to Panin, Paul I proposed placing shelves in “fixed apartments” together with families. “By placing the shelves together,” he wrote, “they will always be under the eyes of their superiors,” and when the shelves are scattered, “various whims and excesses occur” (Russian Antiquity for 1882, p. 407).
During his short reign, Paul did not have time to take measures to introduce military settlements. This was partially implemented during the reign of Alexander I. But Alexander I, who covered up the idea of the absolute power of the monarch, emphasized by Paul I, with promises to create “representative institutions,” retained the harsh Pauline order only in the army.
There was one place in Russia where, on the scale of an estate, what Paul I aspired to on the scale of an empire was accomplished: this is Gruzino, the estate of Count Arakcheev with its purely military orders.
Two epithets could be applied to everything that existed in Arakcheev’s possessions: uniformity and lawlessness. The houses were built according to the same plan, stretched out in one line, at equal intervals and painted the same pink color. All the peasants were dressed the same. Their whole life was regulated to the smallest detail, right down to the obligation to report every egg laid by a chicken. Without Arakcheev’s knowledge, no one could do anything. Even the most intimate aspects of life were invaded by Arakcheev’s soldier’s boot. He composed " Brief rules for peasant mothers of the Georgian fatherland" and "Rules on weddings". Arakcheev arranged marriage couples by order. If the intended victims did not agree to marry, he imposed a short resolution to "agree" ... and they were "agreed". From the belvedere of the count's palace, Arakcheev could to see all his twenty-two villages through a telescope. “There (in Gruzin. - N.L.) one had to involuntarily remember the deceased father (about Pavel. - N.L.), and in the person of the owner of this estate one could see the devoted servant of the deceased. "(Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich "Alexander I". T. I. p. 272).
Arakcheev was, as it were, a living bridge between the reigns of Paul I and Alexander I. The connection between these two reigns was clearly revealed in 1810 in the organization of military settlements.
The idea of military settlements received its first practical approval in 1810, when the inevitability of war with France began to clearly emerge. This required increasing the already significantly grown army and finding funds to maintain it. Russia's military expenditures were already so prohibitively large that they led the country to a difficult financial situation.
page 115
Minister Speransky was called upon to find a way out of this situation. He proposed introducing severe austerity, reviewing the budgets of all departments and establishing control over government costs. But cuts in military spending could only mean a reduction in the army, and Alexander I could not allow this. Consequently, it was necessary to look for ways to reduce the cost of maintaining an army. In the opinion of Alexander I, this was the way to organize military settlements.
Of course, it is no coincidence that it was at this time that Alexander I visited Georgia for the first time (July 7, 1810). He was delighted with the “abundance and arrangement” that he found there, and entrusted the leadership of the military settlements to Arakcheev.
The practical work of creating settlements was entrusted to General Lavrov. Alexander I specially sent him to Gruzin to look at the structure there. “In order not to waste any more time,” Alexander I wrote to Arakcheev, “I ordered Lavrov to go to you in Gruzino for a personal conversation with you... I liked your drawings very much, and it seems to me that it would be better to come up with a clever idea. Perhaps show Lavrov - everything your rural structure" (Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich "Alexander I". T. IV, p. 24).
In the summer of 1810, Lavrov began searching for a suitable area for settlement. In the Bobyletsky eldership, Klimovets povet, Mogilev province, a plot of land was found, provided by a special agreement for the use of state-owned peasants for three years. It was decided to terminate the agreement, resettle the peasants to the Novorossiysk region, and settle soldiers in their place.
November 9, 1810 addressed to the general. Lavrov was followed by a decree proposing to begin organizing settlements. The peasants were the last to learn about the misfortune that had befallen them. Throughout 1811, they were building, acquiring new houses and not suspecting the impending disaster. They were informed of their fate just two months before the resettlement, in February 1812. 4 thousand peasants were resettled to Crimea, and the conditions of the move were such that a significant part of them died on the road.
A reserve battalion of the Yelets Musketeer Regiment, composed of soldiers who knew agriculture, was moved into the empty peasant houses. They were given land, livestock, implements and seeds. The soldier had to become a farmer and feed himself.
The War of 1812 interrupted this experience. Already in July 1812, the settled battalion went to the front, and when the survivors returned back, they found their farm plundered.
The war of 1812 - 1813 - 1814 and the devastation associated with it raised the question of the position of the Russian army even more acutely. Europe, in which Alexander I achieved military hegemony, by this time had created a new type of army. Its two features were mass character and mobility. The prerequisites for the creation of such an army were “... the social and political emancipation of the bourgeoisie and the small peasantry. The bourgeoisie gives money, the peasants provide soldiers; the emancipation of both classes from feudal and guild fetters is a necessary condition for the emergence of the current colossal armies...” (F. Engels. Selected military works. T. I, p. 23, 1937).
The army was built according to a completely different principle in feudal-serf Russia. Tsarist Russia acted in the international arena as a stronghold of reaction, and its influence on European affairs was based on military power, the basis of which was the old, serf-dominated army. The presence of a colossal army urgently raised the question of its financing. In the 1816 budget, military spending accounted for 54.5% of the total budget, and the total amount of spending doubled compared to 1810. The army absorbed all income and jeopardized the country's financial situation. This forced Alexander I to return again to his idea of organizing military settlements. But the implementation of this idea now encountered new difficulties. During the war years, serious changes took place in the army. Contact with the bourgeois countries of Europe had a huge impact on the soldiers. They stopped considering themselves a blind tool in the hands of their superiors. “Soldiers who returned from abroad,” V. Karazin reported to Kochubey, “and especially those who served in the corps located in France, returned with completely new thoughts... People began to reason more. They judge that it is difficult to serve, that there are great penalties, that they receive little salary, that they are punished severely, etc. ("History of the Russian Army and Navy", p. 94).
Alexander I, however, was firmly convinced that a soldier could not reason, and if the soldier did speak, it was only due to corrupting influence from the outside. “Our people are rogues or fools,” the king spoke contemptuously of his subjects. Alexander I considered the only means of strengthening the army to be isolating it from all other layers of society, checking the officers, strengthening
page 116
training to the maximum. He hoped to accomplish this “with the help of built-in settlements.
Immediately after the war of 1812 - 1814, brutal drills began again in the army. Even Konstantin, brother of Alexander I, an avid “Gatchina resident,” was forced to admit: “I have been serving for more than twenty years and I can tell the truth, even during the time of the late Emperor I was one of the first officers at the front; but now they are so too clever that you won’t even be hired... Yes, I have such thoughts about the guard now... that I told the guard to stand on their hands with their feet up and their heads down and march, so they will march" (N. Epanchin "Tactical preparation of the Russian army before the campaign of 1828 - 1829", p. 2 , 3).
The growth of revolutionary sentiment among the peasantry, caused by the War of 1812, also pushed Alexander I towards the path of eliminating all troubles through military settlements.
The militarization of the peasantry and the introduction of military order in the countryside were, in the opinion of Alexander I, to ensure complete order in the country. Alexander I began to implement his plan in the fall of 1816.
In fact, military settlements, in which Alexander I saw salvation from all troubles, absorbed huge amounts of money and, as a result, turned out to be unprofitable.
The "Code on Military Settlements" sets out the principles of organizing military settlements. A plot of land inhabited by state peasants was allocated for the regiment being settled. If it included landowners' lands, they were either bought out from the landowners together with the peasants or exchanged for others located outside the area of military settlements. This area received the name of the district of the settled regiment. State-owned peasants living in the district turned into military villagers.
The settled regiment was divided into two parts: 1) active, consisting of two battalions, and 2) settled, consisting of one battalion. In addition, there was a reserve battalion.
The settled battalions were composed of soldiers of the active part of “impeccable behavior”, mostly married and always former farmers, from the wealthiest peasants, aged from 18 to 45 years. Those included in the settled battalion were given the title of master-villagers. They made up the bulk of the settlements. The owner-villagers had to support the soldiers of the two active battalions and their families. For each owner there were two soldiers from active units, who were called guests. The treasury was supposed to issue some provisions to the guests, transferring them into the hands of the owners. The guests were obliged to help their owners during their free time from military service, and the soldiers' families were completely dependent on the latter. The owner-villagers were also obliged to supply fodder.
The owner-villagers had their own farm: land, lambing, equipment. The treasury supplied those entering the army as masters from the soldiers. The settled part was provided with complete settled life, and it never went on a campaign. The owner-villagers, in addition to farming, also had to engage in front-line service: three days a week were devoted to military activities and three days to agricultural work.
That part of the indigenous residents who, due to poverty, were not included in the settled battalion, were distributed into active units and non-combatant units, or were used in government work.
The children of all military villagers were considered cantonists. Cantonists were divided into three ages: 1) small - up to 7 years, 2) medium - from 7 to 12 years and 3) large - from 12 to 18 years. Older cantonists were enrolled in a reserve battalion and trained in military affairs, but lived with their parents and were obliged to help them in their work.
These are the most general outline principles of organizing military settlements. But in reality, life in military settlements was not built according to these principles at all.
The settlement began in August 1816 with the battalion of the grenadier Count Arakcheev regiment in the Vysotsk volost, Novgorod province. Two settlement areas were planned: Novgorod and Mogilev provinces - for the settlement of infantry regiments - and the southern provinces (Kharkov, Kherson, Ekaterinoslav) - for the settlement of cavalry.
By the end of 1818, there were military settlements in the following places: 6 regiments of the 1st Grenadier Division in the Novgorod province, streams of the 2nd Infantry Division in the Mogilev province, 3rd Ulan division in the Kharkov province, Ulan Bug division in the Kherson province . and one artillery company at the Okhtensky powder factory.
In 1821 and 1824, the number of settlements was increased, and by the end of the reign of Alexander I, the military settlements consisted of: in the Novgorod settlement - 90 battalions, in the Mogilev settlement -
In a military settlement.
From an engraving by M. V. Dobuzhinsky. Museum of the USSR Revolution.
12 battalions, in Sloboda-Ukrainian - 36 battalions and 240 squadrons, 32 Furstadt companies, 2 sapper companies and 3 companies of the Okhtensky pea plant.
On January 1, 1826, in the districts of military settlements there were all the lower ranks, including the troops assigned for work, 156,043, cantonists - 154,062. The number of all those under command: gr. Arakcheev reached 748,519 people (Report for 1825 to Nicholas I. Based on the book by P. P. Evstafiev “The Uprising of the Novgorod Military Villagers.” M. 1934).
Military settlements were a large organization, covering hundreds of thousands of people. Alexander I firmly intended to settle the entire army, and Arakcheev “drew up a special settlement map for the entire army.
Until 1831, Nicholas I continued to expand military settlements. Only the grandiose uprising of the Novgorod villagers, which threatened to develop into an all-Russian peasant war, forced Nicholas I to abolish military settlements.
Already from a cursory presentation of the general principles of organizing settlements, one could notice that the conversion of peasants into military villagers played a huge role in this event.
Only state peasants, who were the freest part of the Russian peasantry, were subject to conversion. They were personally free and only contributed a certain rent and taxes to the treasury. Thus, they had some incentives to develop their farm. Transformation into military peasants meant the cruelest military-serf bondage, almost slavery, in comparison with which even the position of the landowner peasants seemed enviable.
As already indicated above, the most prosperous part of the peasants were converted into master villagers. Since some soldiers from the active army were also made master-villagers, the number of farms increased sharply, which led to a decrease in the land norm. “To feed one tax in all steppe places, therefore the most fertile, at least 6 acres of arable land and 3 acres of meadows are assigned. In the settlements of the Novgorod province, only 4.5 acres of arable land and 1 ,5 tithes of meadows and pastures,” says a note to Nicholas I (“Century of the War Ministry,” vol. IV, book I, appendix No. 15, p. 57).
The situation was further complicated by the fact that the number of guests only in rare cases
page 118
yah was legal, i.e. 2 people, but usually it significantly exceeded the norm and reached 9 people.
Very soon after the creation of the settlements, the owner-villagers stopped issuing soldiers' salaries and provisions for their guests. Arakcheev set the task for the district commanders - “to take care of accelerating the transition of food in his district to the duties of military settlements.” To encourage him, he introduced a complex bonus system that stimulated the activities of the command staff in this direction.
The officers, striving to earn bonuses, began with all the ardor to carry out this event. An example of such enterprise can be the head of the Old Russian settlement, Gen. Mayevsky. In an effort to prove that it is very profitable for the villagers to keep guests, Mayevsky wrote in his order: “And if we take as an example the proverb, justified by time and experience, that at three the fourth is always full, then from this it is obvious that the significant benefit of any owner who adopts thus: a new member in his family" ("Novgorod Collection". Issue IV, p. 239. Novgorod. 1866).
But this was by no means the only form of exploitation of the owner-villagers. There were dozens of other methods of robbery.
Very often the owner-villager was torn away for government work. At the same time, he received 10 kopecks per day, while the usual daily wage of a farm laborer was 50 - 60 kopecks, and sometimes reached a ruble.
They were forced to do some work for free. It was the refusal of the villagers to mow state-owned hay in the time of need (and it was necessary to mow 103 thousand pounds of it) that served as the reason for the famous Chuguev uprising of 1819.
Running your own farm was extremely complicated by the fact that very often the meadows were 40 - 50 versts away, and the pastures were sometimes 10 - 12 versts away. The villagers systematically lacked hay, and their livestock died of hunger. In 1824, the villagers of the Old Russian districts were forced to buy at their own expense a huge amount of hay - 1,169,672 pounds.
It seems that there was not a single event in military settlements that was not aimed at robbing the villagers. For example, there was a situation:
“To support the military villagers-owners in unforeseen financial needs in the household, a loan capital is established in the settled battalion...”
It was formed by “a deduction from each military villager-owner when issuing a salary of 1 ruble per third” (“Institutions on military settlements.” Part 1, § 157).
Under such a plausible pretext, a very significant amount of money was forcibly withheld from the villagers' salaries. The villager was almost never able to get a loan, because the committee in charge of issuing loans was personally responsible for the money and, in case of non-repayment, was obliged to compensate for losses from personal funds. Of course, there were no people willing to risk both pockets.
In fact, the management had complete control over this borrowed capital.
The establishment of spare bread stores was of the same predatory nature. The funds of these stores were made up of one-time collections after the harvest. Soon the villagers borrowed the same bread with the obligation to return it in double and triple amounts.
There was also a system of monetary fines for violating the rules; and since all life was minutely regulated, there was no way to avoid them.
In general, Arakcheev’s ingenuity in terms of pumping money out of the villagers was inexhaustible. So, he obliged all villagers to go to the company bathhouse every Saturday, for which they charged 4 kopecks. per person. This amounted to a large amount for a family.
All these levies were three to four times higher than the amount of taxes levied before.
The serf-like nature of military settlements was reflected with particular force in the fact that with the transition of the peasant to the position of a peasant, he no longer owned his farm. At any moment he could be deprived of everything.
“Bad and careless owners are deprived of their house, land, all benefits from the treasury in the settlement presented to them and are discharged from military village-owners to active battalions,” says the “Institution on Military Settlements” (Part I, § 87).
The villager kept the household from the treasury and for this he served corvee (government and public works), contributed quitrent (borrowed capital, fines, penalties), paid in kind (maintenance of guests, supply of firewood, bricks) and finally paid the blood tax (his children completed settled regiment).
Unlike the landowner peasant, the peasant, instead of one type of duty, served all three. With all this he was
page 119
still a soldier, completely devoid of personal boots.
Since military service took up most of men's time, the entire burden of housekeeping fell on women. Their life was also strictly regulated. None of them had the right to sell any of their property without the permission of the company committee: no chickens, no eggs, no butter, no wool.
In general, Arakcheev was a virtuoso in the field of regulation. But only the lives of people, but also the behavior of livestock were strictly prescribed. “The route of daily marches was written with equal precision for the soldier and the cow... the cow was treated like a gun,” recalls the gene. Mayevsky.
A textbook on the history of the USSR talks about the military regulation of the life of villagers:
“Twice a day, the non-commissioned officer walked around the homes, ensuring cleanliness and order and wiping cruel punishments their violators. Field work was carried out under the command of a corporal. To get up, go to the field to work, have dinner, go to bed - the villagers did everything according to military signals and the beating of drums. All peasant women had to light the stoves at the same time; at night it was strictly forbidden to turn on the light... For the slightest disobedience, the settlers, their wives and children were subjected to severe corporal punishment" ("Russia in the 19th century", p. 118. Vol. II. Edited by Prof. M.V. Nechkina).
This was the situation of the main part of the peasantry converted into military settlements. The situation was no better for the other part - the soldiers of the reserve, active and working battalions.
As mentioned above, the poor part of the peasantry, unfit for military service, was used in government work.
In the districts of military visits, enormous construction work was going on: forests were cut down, swamps were drained, stone was broken, bricks were made, peasant huts were demolished and extertsirhauses, guild houses, headquarters houses, churches, infirmaries, shops, and stables were built. Such a scale of construction would have required enormous strain on the treasury, but Arakcheev found an easy way out by using cheap soldier labor.
The daily wage of a soldier per day was 25 kopecks, while the daily wage of landowners and other private individuals ranged from 60 kopecks to 1 ruble.
The same system of cheating and abuse that was applied to the owner-villagers flourished here completely.
The everyday life of soldiers in active units was even more difficult than that of other villagers. They lived 8 people in one room, and if one of them got married, then his family settled right there, in the same common cramped room. They ate very poorly, as they received food from impoverished villagers, who “often go without salt for 10 days. The villagers cook food - cabbage soup with cabbage, whitened with milk or vegetable oil; but never with meat...” ("Count Arakcheev and military settlements", p. 205. St. Petersburg. 1871).
An exhaustive description of the soldier’s situation is given by the already quoted author of “A Look at Military Settlements”:
“Here it is again impossible to refrain, Most Gracious Sovereign, from the question: what is the prosperity promised to this, perhaps, wounded warrior? He lives in a barracks, in which exorbitant cleanliness is required of him, he does not know women, he has no property, he bears the entire burden of military service and, in addition, performs other hard work, such as: digging canals, carrying stones, clearing tulle, making roads, helping the owner in field work, and if he enjoys good food, then only by donating part of the salary he receives "Bot Sovereign, the position of an active soldier!" (“Centenary of the War Ministry.” Part IV. Book I. Appendix No. 15, p. 58).
The life of the officers also took place under strict supervision. They tried in every possible way to isolate them, to rob them from any outside influence.
The enormous importance Alexander I attached to this can be seen from his letter to Arakcheev, received by the latter on March 4, 1824. Alexander I writes: “Paying vigilant attention to everything that relates to our military settlements, my eyes are now diligently looking through notes about travelers. Everyone who travels to Staraya Russa becomes wonderful to me. On March 2, retired Major General Verigin went to Staraya Russa , 47th Jaeger Regiment, Colonel Aklecheev. Maybe they went on their own business, but to this century caution is not useless" (Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich "Alexander I". T. II, p. 645). The letter ends with a strict order: "In general, order Morkovnikov and the military authorities to pay vigilant and thoughtful attention to those coming from St. Petersburg to the Western Territory." So the king himself exercised personal control over his beloved brainchild.
All even somewhat progressive elements within the army itself were immediately “seized.” Even the simply educated
Drilling soldiers in a military settlement.
From a painting by A. V. Moravov.
And cultured people Those who had an interest in public issues were not allowed into the officer corps of military settlements. The bet was placed on rude, ignorant “fruntoviks” - real Gatchina residents.
“In the life of the settled officer,” writes an eyewitness, “there were no dark or bright things; there was only one, so to speak, colorless side, an oppressive heavy routine that ate away at every human ability - a decisive absence of any reasonable thought and word. In the life of our officers mental life, higher needs and the like could almost not exist... books were considered an unaffordable luxury" (Krymov, "Memoirs of officers of the Novgorod settlement", p. 443. 1862).
An analysis of the situation of soldiers and peasants in military settlements fully confirms the conclusion that the settlement was a further enslavement of the peasants.
Most researchers recognized that military settlements were the crudest form of serfdom. But from this situation they did not draw the logically inevitable conclusion that the military settlements were an attempt to solve the peasant question as a whole, for all of Russia. This was a solution to the peasant question not only because in order to settle the entire army, which Alexander I strove for, it was necessary to convert 75% of all state-owned peasants into peasants. This is an important but not decisive factor. The main point was that the existence of military settlements was possible only if there was serfdom in the rest of Russia. This means that Alexander I, introducing settlements, sought to strengthen and strengthen serfdom.
In the “Institution on Military Settlements,” the prescription to combine farming with military service is motivated by a reference to the landowner peasants, “obligated to do the master’s work in relation to their landowner.” Here the connection between the settlement and the presence of serfdom is clearly exposed.
It is known that even after 1816, i.e. after the beginning of the mass introduction of graying, Alexander I pretended to be interested in projects for the liberation of the peasants. Moreover, in 1818 he ordered Arakcheev to draw up a project for the liberation of serfs. In fact, during the entire period of Alexander I’s activity, it is impossible to indicate a single real event aimed at even limiting serfdom.
Alexander I took into account the heterogeneity of the nobility, took into account the strength of its progress
Chuguev military settlements. XIX century.
Museum of the USSR Revolution.
the main part, the strength of public opinion at home and abroad, which is why he did his dirty, feudal work under the guise of liberal speeches.
The common mistake of all researchers of the reign of Alexander I and his time was the assertion that military settlements were Alexander’s personal business; I and Arakcheeva. But the very idea of military settlements did not raise objections from the reactionary part of the nobility, and, if there were no threat of a revolutionary explosion, they would have welcomed it; The landowners, however, knew too well what a colossal reserve of revolutionary energy was accumulated in the peasants, and therefore were afraid to put weapons in their hands. The landowners were not firmly confident in the strength and power of soldier drill and in this they disagreed with the emperor, who believed that the peasant, turned into a soldier and isolated from the “liberalists,” he can rebel.
One can cite hundreds of statements confirming that only the fear of an uprising of armed peasants turned this part of the nobility against military settlements. Wigel vividly expressed this thought: “What one and a half million people, dissatisfied, exhausted, driven out of patience with weapons in their hands, cannot do!” (Wiegel "Notes". Part II, p. 119).
“It is in the order of things,” writes Longinov, the Empress’s secretary, “that sooner or later Russia will not escape revolution... The fire will begin with these notorious settlements” (“Russian Archives of 1912.” Book 7, p. 367 ).
The progressive part of the nobility and, first of all, the Decembrists had a different attitude towards military settlements.
Pestel attacked the introduction of this event with the greatest anger: “The mere thought of the military settlements established by the previous government fills every right-thinking soul with torment and horror. How many innocent victims have fallen to satiate that unheard-of evil power that furiously tormented the unfortunate villages, the days of this institution were given away ... No government can have any right to separate a part of it from the general mass of the people in order to impose on this part, to the exclusion of the rest, the most difficult and cruel duty, which is military service. reject in order to designate some families for the war, with all their children, grandchildren and generally offspring... Don’t military settlements have the same feelings, don’t they have the same rights to prosperity. , like other Russians, don’t other Russians have the same duties to the fatherland, so do they, and isn’t the defense of the fatherland a sacred duty for each and everyone” (P. I. Pestel "Russian Truth". Ch. III, § 9).
The Decembrists understood the feudal essence of the settlements, and the fight against the settlements was a fight against the hated serfdom. Moreover, they even relied on the villagers in their revolutionary plans. This is stated in “A Look at Military Graying”: “And didn’t we see in the last riot that the intention of the rebels was, in case of failure, to retreat to the settlement.”
page 122
3
But the victims of this grandiose experiment themselves understood the essence of military settlements best of all. The peasants grasped the connection between the settlements and serfdom. This was most clearly revealed in their fierce struggle against military settlements.
It is worth reading Arakcheev’s letters in those days when he planted military settlements in order to feel what kind of fear he was overcome with, expecting an uprising of the peasants. When creating the Old Russian settlements, Arakcheev slept for 3 nights without undressing, preparing every minute to gallop away from reprisals. Peasants of the Vysotsk volost , appointed first to the settlement, responded by setting fire to their own village of Arakcheev, hoping in this way to get rid of the soldiers; in order to turn the village of Yasenevo (13 versts from Novgorod) into a settlement, they had to call up the Semenovsky Life Guards Regiment from the capital, which blocked the village for 6 weeks. “The peasants, pushed back to the last hut, exhausted by hunger and cold, submitted” (“Count Arakcheev and military settlements”, p. 3).
The campaign of the Semenovsky regiment was mockingly called the “Yasenev campaign.”
The peasants of the Kholynsky volost refused to obey the decree to move to the settlement. Many of them, right there at the gathering where the decree was announced, were surrounded by troops and driven into the courtyard. There, the peasants resisted all offers of surrender for 12 days without food and water and, only exhausted by hunger, surrendered.
The struggle against settlements in the south, where there was a tradition of freedom and special rights of the Cossacks, was especially acute. Strong unrest took place in 1817 during the transfer of the Bug Cossack army to the settlement. The Cossacks refused to obey the decree on the transition. Among them, a rumor persisted about the existence of some kind of charter from Catherine II, according to which the Bug Cossacks were not subject to transformation. The movement was led by Captain Bravinsky, who undertook to find the “missing letter”. His assistants were the Cossacks Bibichenko and Germanenko. 3 regiments with 4 horse guns were sent to suppress resistance. Cossacks were sworn in under the muzzles of loaded cannons with lit wicks.
Nothing could stop Alexander I from carrying out his plan, “There will be military settlements no matter what,” and even if the road from St. Petersburg to Chudov had to be paved with corpses” (a distance of more than 100 kilometers. - N.L.), - declared the emperor.
The uprisings did not stop in subsequent years. The largest of them were the uprisings of 1819 and 1831. The first of them broke out in the districts of the Chuguev and Taganrog Uhlan regiments. The villagers of the Chuguevsky regiment refused to go mow state-owned hay at this hot, strange time. The settled lancers also joined the rebels. The excitement quickly spread to the district of the Taganrog regiment. From all sides, villagers rushed to Chuguev to help the rebels. The uprising took on an increasingly threatening character.
Arakcheev hastily left St. Petersburg. But by his arrival, Gen. Lisanevich had already suppressed the uprising. He arrested 1,104 people from the Chuguevsky regiment and 899 from the Taganrog regiment. A military court sentenced 275 people to “deprivation of the belly.” The hypocrite Arakcheev overturned the court's verdict, replacing the death penalty with spitsrutens: "every thousand people twelve times." This was the cruelest form of reprisal, because almost no one could endure such execution.
The convicts were told that those who showed repentance and asked for mercy would be forgiven. But the royal satraps were mistaken in their calculations. The convicts showed exceptional heroism, and almost all resolutely refused pardon. Most of those subjected to execution died under the blows of the spitzrutens.
The most significant in scope and significance was the uprising of Novgorod military villagers in the summer of 1831.
From the very beginning this uprising is official; the name of the "cholera riot". By this they tried to hide the class nature of the struggle of the military villagers and pass it off as a manifestation of barbarism and ignorance. But cholera served only as a pretext, and the real reasons for the “rebellion” were the military, economic and moral oppression to which the villagers were subjected.
The uprising began on July 11, 1831, in Staraya Russa. The artisans of the 10th military labor battalion beat their officers, saying that they wanted to poison them, and rushed into the city. They were joined by city townspeople and merchants. The latter, however, soon abandoned the rebels, confused by the scale of the movement.
The rebels became the masters of the city. The artisans went to the district to raise the landowner peasants. Soon the uprising covered all districts of settlements (with the exception of one) and spread beyond their borders. “The alarm sounded throughout the villages. The revolt of the settlers covered the entire space from Novgorod to Kholm and Demyansk and was ready to spread to the Tver province.”
The uprising raged over an area of 200 miles.
Riot in Novgorod military settlements. XIX century.
Museum of the USSR Revolution.
The military villagers sought to destroy not only the settlements, but also the landowners. They clearly understood the reasons for the uprising. Lieutenant Colonel Panaev, a participant in pacifying the uprising, turned to one villager with a request to explain to the rebels that cholera is not caused by drugs. To this the villager answered him: “What can I say! Poison and cholera are for fools; but we need your noble goat tribe not to exist” (“Revolt of Military Villagers in 1831,” p. 121). Essentially, it was not a soldier's uprising, but an uprising of peasants against the nobles.
The uprising shocked the authorities and Nicholas I himself. The head of the settled corps, General. Euler was in a panic. The soldiers refused to obey their superiors and betrayed their officers to the villagers. When a crowd of rebel villagers entered Staraya Russa, the soldiers offered no resistance to them and handed over their officers.
The uprising was suppressed through deception. Nicholas I urgently issued a manifesto to the rebels, guaranteeing them forgiveness in case of sincere repentance. He even went to the area of the uprising himself. At the same time, troops under the command of General. Samsonov and fraudulently, under the pretext of the highest review, all reserve companies in Gatchino were withdrawn from the settlement area.
By the end of July, Samsonov's reins arrived and the reprisal began. About 5 thousand people were put on trial. All of them were severely punished.
It was this uprising that was the reason for the abolition of military settlements. Immediately after the Novgorod uprising, in the same year, 1831, the Novgorod and Mogilev military settlements were reorganized into districts of infantry soldiers, in which troops were stationed on a general basis. From this moment on, military settlements began to play a secondary role.
Solving the problems of peasants (mainly state peasants), Alexander founded so-called military settlements. The idea was not completely new to Russia. Cossack troops traditionally acted as defenders of the country's southern borders, performing the same functions as military settlements. There were also artificial attempts to create military-agricultural settlements in Russia. The peasants responded with mass desertion. Peter I used the so-called militia to guard the southwestern borders. This militia was replaced in 1751 by six regiments, consisting mainly of Serbian emigrants, performing the same function until their dissolution in 1769. During the reign of Catherine II, Grigory Potemkin settled light cavalry units in Novorossiya and founded military settlements in the newly acquired territory between the Bug and the Dniester. In 1804, General Rusanov tried to inspire soldiers dismissed from service to engage in agriculture, giving them land, livestock, and tools. Alexander was familiar with the practice of creating soldier colonies in Austria, on the southern border with the Ottoman Empire, and decided to create similar ones in Russia.
There were practical reasons for considering the organization of a field army in peacetime. Maintaining the army cost the country a huge amount (more than half the budget). The war with Napoleon caused great material damage to the country. The service life in the Russian army was 25 years, which could not but affect later life conscripts. The soldiers who returned from the army could no longer restore the lost connection with native village and hoped only to spend the rest of their lives in a monastery or in special soldiers' houses.
The first settlement was founded in the Mogilev province in 1810. The land chosen for this belonged to the king. Local peasants were evicted, and in 1812 they were replaced by 40,000 state peasants from Novorossiya. The French invasion of Russia prevented further development project, since the French occupied the city itself and part of the Mogilev province, however, Alexander returned to his idea in 1814. This time, a place was chosen for the settlement not far from Arakcheev’s Gruzino estate. In 1816, Arakcheev was given full responsibility for the operation. The purpose of creating a settlement was for soldiers to provide assistance to peasants in peacetime, for which they, in turn, provide for the soldier's family when he participates in a military campaign. Peasants were provided with financial assistance. They were given land and a horse for their use, and they were completely exempt from taxes. To maintain the health of the colonists, hospitals were built and medicines were provided free of charge. Population growth was guaranteed by the provision of obstetric care, as well as the payment of 25 rubles to newlyweds. Particular attention was paid to training the children of soldiers and peasants, who were to form the basis of the new army. Arakcheev received 350,000 rubles to support the project. It was estimated that the settlements included 90 infantry battalions in the north, 12 in Mogilev, 36 in Ukraine (Little Russia) and 240 cavalry squadrons in the south (160,000 soldiers in total). If you add soldiers' wives, children, soldiers discharged from service, and 374,000 peasants, it turns out that by the end of Alexander's reign there were three quarters of a million people living in military settlements. When the old villages collapsed, residents moved to specially built dwellings located symmetrically with respect to the main road. Peasants and landowners whose properties lay within the land selected for the colonies were evicted. The colonies included not only soldiers, but also peasants (usually state-owned) who either lived on the land chosen for the colonies or were specially resettled in new villages. Alexander always showed a love of brevity and order. Therefore, he was greatly impressed by his visit in 1810 to Arakcheev’s Gruzino estate. In his letter to his sister Catherine, he described what he saw:
(1) order reigns everywhere;
(2) neatness;
(3) construction of roads and plantations;
(4) symmetry and elegance are visible throughout. I have never seen such neat roads even in cities... .
However, there is no reason to think that Arakcheev convinced the tsar to copy his estate model for military settlements. Arakcheev diligently followed Alexander’s instructions, although after the suppression of the uprising in the Chuguevsky regiment in 1819, he said: “I openly tell you that I am tired of all this.”
Alexander was driven not only by a practical desire to save money on the army and restore order in the countryside, but also by humanistic, idealistic and even utopian ideas. He believed that the settlements would serve to create a new class of useful, educated subjects of the state:
In military settlements, the soldier will have a permanent place of residence, and during hostilities his property, wife and children will support his morale. He serves with hope and returns with joy... Moreover, the education of settlers increases the number useful people, roads are improving, people don’t have to travel 10–15 miles to study and huddle in cramped housing.
Perhaps after defeating Napoleon, Alexander felt that he could change Russian society as well as political map Europe. One French observer noted that the desire for education for both sexes, which was expected in the military settlements, demonstrates that Alexander "desires the penetration of progress into the country to create a middle class, for which Russia's need is growing stronger every day." This suggests that Alexander wanted to create a class of peasant landowners. He, of course, expressed his desire for the liberation of the peasants, and although his policy had virtually no effect on the serfs living on the land of the landowners, it could be an important argument in the dispute with landowners who considered the peasants incapable of living within the framework of a system other than serfdom. If the settlements functioned as well as Alexander imagined, then the new class of peasants would prosper, since a lot of financial resources were spent, and the land, equipment and livestock allocated for the settlements were good quality. Arakcheev may have embezzled some of the funds, since he himself was the head of numerous committees founded to manage the settlements. These committees could dispose of the land as they saw fit and even confiscate it from the peasant if it was not used properly. This means that land and property were given to peasants only in exchange for excellent service. If the land belonged to the state, it could take it away if it believed the settler no longer deserved it. Alexander made no statements clarifying the property rights of the settlers, but since he knew about Arakcheev's policies, there is no reason to assume that he was against his methods.
The development of settlements met resistance from the peasants from the very beginning. The appeal of free drugs and good equipment could not outweigh their resentment at the forced removal from their homes, the establishment of a military regime and the prospect of their sons becoming soldiers and their daughters having to marry in the settlements. The entire peasant life was completely changed: peasants had to wear a uniform, shave their beards, and were subject to drill. Visitors noted the order and neat appearance of the colonies. Traveler Robert Leal discovered that the peasants were not compensated for their military discipline and there was constant interference in their personal lives:
Entering a peasant’s house, you wonder where the dirt and disorder that is common in Russian housing is! Even a simple bucket has its place. If an officer were to find him out of place during a morning check, he would be subject to a severe reprimand, and perhaps even caning.
Lack of experience among officers and financial corruption hampered the overall cause. In 1819, an uprising occurred in the Chuguev Uhlan Regiment, which was brutally suppressed. In the settlement of Zybkoy (Kherson province), Old Believers and Doukhobors were forcibly recruited into military service. Those who resisted were driven through the gauntlet. In 1825, the peasants of the village of Arakcheev, who so amazed Alexander, expressed their gratitude by killing their mistress. Some settlers showed touching faith in Alexander, hoping that he would protect them from the cruelty of their superiors. In 1816, the peasants of the village of Vysokoye wrote a petition to Alexander asking him to protect them from Arakcheev. The settlers unsuccessfully tried to ask for help from the Tsar's brothers, Nicholas and Konstantin, during their travels across Russia. In fact, Alexander approved of the punishments practiced by Arakcheev, despite their cruelty. As a result, twenty-five of the fifty-two participants in the Chuguev riot, sentenced to be run through the gauntlet, died from beatings.
Stubborn, Alexander refused to admit the shortcomings of his plan. In a conversation with Major General Ilyin, he insisted that discontent in the colonies was caused only by everyday problems: transportation difficulties, late sowing of grain, lack of feed for livestock. Naturally, the settlements were preparing for Alexander’s visits. As a result, he met smartly dressed soldiers and prosperous peasants. Alexander wanted to see the results of his experiment, no matter the cost. He said: “...military settlements will give results in any case, even if it is necessary to pave the road from St. Petersburg to Chudov with human bodies.” The French ambassador La Ferron wrote on February 13, 1820: “Alexander is organizing his colonies with extraordinary zeal and enthusiasm.” The king expressed the hope that his settlements would expand to the size of an entire army. In 1818, in the Senate, he said: “When, with God’s help, the settlements become what we intended them to be, then in times of peace there will be no need to recruit recruits from all over the empire.” In 1822, he asked Arakcheev to send him “a general map for the construction of settlements within the entire army.”
The continued development of the settlement system met resistance from all sides. Leal remarked: "The colonies were maintained in complete disgust of the peasantry and hatred regular army... and with the extreme disapproval of all layers of the nobility." Some nobles were suspicious of the settlements, as they saw them as an attempt to create a class answerable only to the Tsar, which would lead to the creation of a military state within Russia. Even though Alexander did not try to use the colonists for such purposes, the fact remains that the settlers were isolated from the rest Russian society and obeyed only the internal laws of the settlement. Government officials could not visit settlements without permission from the military command. The settlers' court was carried out on the basis of their own laws, independent of the All-Russian legal system. The educated elite also did not support the settlements. Gabriel Stepanovich Batenkov, the future Decembrist, who worked as Arakcheev’s assistant, wrote: “Military settlements show us a terrible picture of lawlessness, oppression, window dressing, meanness, all the features of despotism.” The writer Alexander Herzen considered the settlements founded by Alexander “the greatest crime during his entire reign.” However, all this did not prevent Alexander from continuing to carry out his grandiose plans with the same energy. He did not retreat from them even in recent years reign, when the ideas of constitutionalism and equality were abandoned. The organization of settlements was significantly changed under Nicholas after a series of uprisings in the Novgorod settlements (the area of land allocated for them and the number of settlers increased under his rule). The idea of settlements was abandoned only after the defeat in the Crimean War.
In the first quarter of the 19th century. Russia was faced with an acute problem of the army. Victory in Patriotic War it came at too high a price - at the cost of ruining a significant part of the country. It was necessary to change the entire military system, based on conscription, the results and consequences of which were disastrous for society. For example, the trade in recruitment receipts, or the so-called “hunters” (volunteers), was no less shameful than the trade in serfs without land, and it extended to all tax-paying classes. The problem was aggravated by the fact that in the first quarter of the 19th century. the size of the army increased 3 times, reaching 950 thousand people, which entailed enormous economic difficulties. One of the attempts to get rid of conscription and a number of other problems of the Russian army was the notorious history of organizing military settlements.
First experience of the organization military settlements dates back to 1810, when a battalion of the Yelets musketeer regiment was settled on state lands in the Mogilev province. The original plan was to improve the life of soldiers, giving military service the features of family life and their own economic activities. Due to the outbreak of the War of 1812, they did not have time to expand this settlement.
In 1814, in the Manifesto on the occasion of the end of the war, Alexander I, addressing the soldiers, emphasized that he “intends to give them a settled life and to join their families.” Indeed, the life of a soldier was distinguished by its disorder. At the beginning of the 19th century. Only the guards were housed in the barracks. The main part of the army was either on military campaigns, summer camps, or was stationed for many months in winter quarters on the basis of the also hated conscription. Soldiers were forcibly placed in the families of peasants or urban residents. There was no wealth in the families, maintaining soldiers was burdensome for them, and the stay was accompanied by constant domestic conflicts between the owners and guests. The above is just the most general description difficulties of soldier's life and dissatisfaction of the population with the colossal troubles that arose during the recruitment and maintenance of the army. In addition, after the war, Russia experienced a severe financial crisis, and the government was looking for ways to reduce the cost of maintaining the army. At first glance, the creation of military settlements, where a stable life was combined with the self-sufficiency of the army, was a successful solution to the problem.
In the autumn of 1816, systematic government activities began to organize military settlements. The main initiator of this failed reform was Alexander I, and the direct executor was General A.A. Arakcheev. Initially, military settlements were created in the Novgorod and Mogilev provinces, later in the Sloboda-Ukrainian (Kharkov), Kherson and Yekaterinoslav provinces - mainly cavalry. To accommodate military settlements, populated state lands were allocated or landowners' estates were bought up. The state did not skimp on opening schools, hospitals, workshops and landscaping here. All residents turned into military villagers and became villagers-owners. In Novgorod settlements, each company occupied 60 houses - "connections" built according to a single model. The lower floor was occupied by 4 families of village owners; the upper one was reserved for the quarters of single soldiers, who were obliged to help their owners with their work. In other places, military villagers were housed in ordinary peasant houses. Military villagers were exempt from all state taxes and duties, including recruitment. The treasury supplied the owners with horses, agricultural tools and other livestock. At the same time, the settlers were obliged to provide themselves with everything necessary and to perform public works: to build houses, bridges, dams, roads, etc. In addition, the settlers were obliged to staff the regiment to which they were assigned with all people capable of military service. The state took upon itself the maintenance, education and training of children in military settlements. Upon reaching the age of 7, boys were selected into battalions of military cantonists, where they were kept until they were 12 years old. Then, until the age of 18, they were released to help their parents with housework, and after that they were called up for military service. It was believed that the military cantonists were supposed to constitute the elite of the army, but this was far from the case: the cantonists, plunging early into the brutal life of war, became one of the most restless elements in the troops.
Before the creation of military settlements in the Novgorod province, peasants were engaged primarily in trade and crafts, so their transfer to agriculture completely ruined their economy, and military occupations ruined their everyday life. In the southern settlements the situation was somewhat better: the cultivation of wheat brought in a small income, and the presence of large pastures made it possible to engage in sheep breeding and open stud farms that supplied horses for the cavalry and created a certain income for the villagers. All this led to the fact that the situation in different settlements developed differently. The most tense situation was in the Novgorod settlements. Here there were the most brutal orders and the most severe coercive measures. Some economic differences in military settlements in the south of Ukraine, Novgorod and Mogilev provinces did not change the general negative attitude of the villagers towards their situation. Very soon, the hidden discontent of the peasants transferred to military settlements acquired the character of open protests. Already in the summer of 1817, an uprising of the Bug Ukrainian Cossack regiment broke out in the Kherson province. In the autumn of the same year, there was an uprising of peasants who were transferred to military villages. The largest was Chuguev uprising military villagers of the Sloboda-Ukrainian province summer of 1819 Here the troops took into custody more than 2 thousand rebels, of which 273 participants were sentenced to death penalty, replaced by 12 thousand spitzrutens, which actually meant an even more painful death. The cruel reality when creating military settlements was in complete contradiction with good intentions proclaimed at their beginning, and even more so diverged from the constitutional plans of Alexander I.
It was not only the peasantry who expressed dissatisfaction with the creation of military settlements. The military officers, who actually turned into overseers of the villagers, took their position very hard. The landowners whose estates were transferred to military settlements were dissatisfied. Critical sentiments were expressed by the noble intelligentsia, who were the catalyst of public opinion in Russia. The difficulty lay not only in the methods used to create military settlements - the Russian public was accustomed to cruel administration towards peasants. The political consequences were much more serious. In the process of fulfilling the personal task of Alexander I to create military settlements, General A.A. Arakcheev, who had a huge influence on the formation of the military-bureaucratic regime in Russia. Even before, during the period of Alexander I’s participation in long military campaigns, he had great powers, but with the order to create settlements, these powers became almost limitless.
Politically, A.A. Arakcheev personified the interests of the bulk of the semi-literate small and middle-class nobility, who needed strong power and were afraid of liberal reforms. Personally, he was undoubtedly an honest, straightforward, punctual man, ready to carry out the orders of the emperor at any cost. In conditions of autocracy, he was an ideal executor who, with his hard hand, could force any officer or civil official to unquestioningly carry out his orders. The system of thoughtlessly following orders from superiors in the era of liberal reforms could not be accepted by society, and A.A. Arakcheev began to be perceived as the evil genius of the era of Alexander I. Society's hostility towards Arakcheev was so great that Alexander I's much more conservative successor to the throne, Nicholas, considered it necessary to quickly remove him from state affairs and send him to his estate. At the same time, not all of the reactionary features of government policy in the first quarter of the 19th century were associated only with Arakcheev. With all his reformist spirit, Alexander I was the main source of a number of anti-people measures and political mistakes.