THE ARMY AND NAVY IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY
At the outset of the century, Alexander I
inherited a sizeable and unaffordable army, many of whose commanders were
seasoned veterans. After instituting a series of modest administrative reforms
for efficiency and economy, including the creation of a true War Ministry, the
Tsar in 1805 plunged into the wars of the Third Coalition. For all their
experience and flexibility, the Russians with or without the benefit of allies
against Napoleon suffered a series of reverses or stalemates, including
Austerlitz (1805), Eylau (1807), and Friedland (1807). After the ensuing Tilsit
Peace granted five years’ respite, Napoleon’s Grand Armée invaded Russia in
1812. Following a fighting Russian withdrawal into the interior, Mikhail
Illarionovich Kutuzov in September gave indecisive battle at Borodino, followed
by another withdrawal to the southeast that uncovered Moscow. When the French
quit Moscow in October, Kutuzov pursued, reinforced by swarms of partisans and
Cossacks, who, together with starvation and severe cold, harassed the Grand
Armée to destruction. In 1813, the Russian army fought in Germany, and in 1814
participated in the coalition victory at Leipzig, followed by a fighting entry
into France and the occupation of Paris.
The successful termination of the
Napoleonic wars still left Alexander I with an outsized and unaffordable
military establishment, but now with the addition of disaffected elements
within the officer corps. While some gentry officers formed secret societies to
espouse revolutionary causes, the tsar experimented with the establishment of
settled troops, or military colonies, to reduce maintenance costs. Although
these colonies were in many ways only an extension of the previous century’s experience
with military settlers on the frontier, their widespread application spawned
much discontent. After Alexander I’s death, unrest and conspiracy led to an
attempted military coup in December 1825.
Tsar Nicholas I energetically suppressed
the socalled Decembrist rebellion, then imposed parade ground order. His
standing army grew to number one million troops, but its outdated recruitment
system and traditional support infrastructure eventually proved incapable of
meeting the challenges of military modernization. Superficially, the army was a
model of predictable routine and harsh discipline, but its inherent
shortcomings, including outmoded weaponry, incapacity for rapid expansion, and
lack of strategic mobility, led inexorably to Crimean defeat. The army was able
to subdue Polish military insurrectionists (1830–1831) and Hungarian
revolutionaries (1848), and successfully fight Persians and Turks (1826–1828,
1828–1829), but in the field it lagged behind its more modern European
counterparts. Fighting from 1854 to 1856 against an allied coalition in the
Crimea, the Russians suffered defeat at Alma, heavy losses at Balaklava and
Inkerman, and the humiliation of surrender at Sevastopol. Only the experience
of extended warfare in the Caucasus (1801–1864) afforded unconventional
antidote to the conventional “paradomania” of St. Petersburg that had so
thoroughly inspired Crimean defeat. Thus, the mountains replaced the steppe as
the southern pole in an updated version of the previous century’s north-south
dialectic.
During the first half of the nineteenth
century, the navy, too, experienced its own version of the same dialectic. For
a brief period, the Russian navy under Admiral Dmity Nikolayevich Senyavin
harassed Turkish forces in the Aegean, but following Tilsit, the British Royal
Navy ruled in both the Baltic and the Mediterranean. In 1827, the Russians
joined with the British and French to pound the Turks at Navarino, but in the
north, the Baltic Fleet, like the St. Petersburg military establishment, soon
degenerated into an imperial parading force. Only on the Black Sea, where units
regularly supported Russian ground forces in the Caucasus, did the Navy reveal
any sustained tactical and operational acumen. However, this attainment soon
proved counterproductive, for Russian naval victory in 1853 over the Turks at
Sinope drew the British and French to the Turkish cause, thus setting the stage
for allied intervention in the Crimea. During the Crimean War, steam and
screw-driven allied vessels attacked at will in both the north and south,
thereby revealing the essentially backwardness of Russia’s sailing navy.
No comments:
Post a Comment