Военно-исторические исследования в Поволжье: сборник научных трудов.
"Edinorog" (Unicorn) is a serial publication on military and social history of Muscoavy and Russian empire.
History of the missions abroad of the Italian armed forces
Jonathan D. Smele’s comprehensive account fits well into the prolonged centenary of the Russian imperial crisis marked by the Great War, the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the protracted conflict that the author calls the “‘Russian’ Civil Wars.” The book is a valuable addition to the new body of literature that will, hopefully, bring about a better understanding of one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history, provide convincing answers to some of the many remaining questions about its causes and consequences, and uncover new blind zones in the plethora of events that unfolded in Northern Eurasia between 1916 and 1926.
The author synthesizes the data indicating large (numerous) corps of professional warriors in service of the rulers of Rus' in the 10-11th centuries. Following the Czech mediaevalist František Graus the author designates the institution as the “large retinue” (Czech velkodružina, German “Staatsgefolge”). The rulers maintained these corps mainly by payments in cash extracting money as a tribute from subjugated people. In Rus' the corps were called by the words otroki and grid'. They numbered up to several thousands soldiers. The model of the “large retinue” calls for a re-examination of the concept of družina which is very popular in the Russian historiography. The concept should be treated in a more subtle and differentiated way.
This review article is the analysis of recent historiography on the issue of military efficiency of the Russian officer corps in 1800–1914. The author reviews three monographs published not long ago (Gudrun Persson's book on Russian military thinking of the second part of the 19th century, John W. Steinberg's research on Russian General Staff in late 19th – early 20th century and Dmitrii Kopelev's study of the German party in the Russian Navy and Fleet) and gives an interpretation of academic research of the theme, approaches applied and findings presented.
Fate took the Russian generals who had participated in the Napoleonic Wars in different directions. Many transferred to the civil service, became provincial governors or central government ministers, or held other top positions. This chapter aims to open up a scholarly debate on the position and role of military men in the political elite of the Russian Empire in the first half of the nineteenth century. In particular, an attempt is made to shed light on the following: first, to show how military men, particularly those who participated in the Napoleonic Wars, were represented in the ruling elite of the Russian Empire in the first half of the nineteenth century; second, to situate these findings within the broader context of the history of the ruling elite; third, and more broadly, to clarify the question of the reputation of minister-generals in society.
The economic weakness of the state, the dimensions of the country, and the lack of effective communications in the end of 18th century in Russia made centraliazed control all but impossible and endowed Russian officers with full responsability for the everyday life of their units. Such relative interdepence, as demonstrated in Mikhail Velizhev's contribution, which is based on the unpublished diaries of General Vasilii Viazemskii, provided more social space for independent thinking than many institutions of civil society. It quite possibly contributed to Russian officer's ability to withstand the challenges of military campaigns. In Viazemskii's cse, both his critical attitude to current authorities including the tsar and his fervent patriotism were magnified by the fact that his brigade was stationed outside the country. Velizhev concludes that it is in the army that one ought to search for the early symptoms of a developing public sphere in Russia.