编号 2 (2024)

В российской исторической науке со времени, когда учёные, преодолев этап написания хронологически широких обобщающих трудов, стали специализироваться на изучении того или иного увлёкшего их периода, сложилось несколько своеобразных рубежей, разделяющих пространство прошлого на несколько слабо связанных между собой эпох. К их числу, в частности, относится Батыево нашествие XIII в., дающее учёным основания специализироваться на исследовании «домонгольского» периода или, напротив, истории России времени ордынского владычества1. Не менее глубокая пропасть пролегла между специалистами по истории XVII и XVIII вв. Историки, отдавшие сердце первому из этих двух столетий, не любят заглядывать во второе (как правило, увлекаясь «экзотикой» Московской Руси и, в лучшем случае, указывая на ошибки первого императора и цену проводимых им преобразований). Учёные же, специализирующиеся на истории XVIII в., напротив, обыкновенно имеют самое общее представление о предшествующем периоде, часто воспринимая его как негативный фон, обосновывающий необходимость и гениальность петровских реформ, вырвавших Россию из оков «азиатской дикости» и превративших её в страну европейскую. Об ограниченности таких шаблонных представлений немало сказано и написано исследователями, работающими по обе стороны «рубежа XVII–XVIII вв.», но приходится констатировать, что прочных мостов, позволяющих преодолевать эту пропасть, до сих пор не так уж и много. Тем отраднее видеть появление работы, представляющей собой, по сути, ещё одно звено, связующее «старую Русь» и «новую Россию». Таковым по праву можно считать недавно опубликованную монографию А. Г. Гуськова, К. А. Кочегарова и С. М. Шамина о русско- турецкой вой не конца XVII в.2 Помимо бесспорно важного магистрального сюжета монографии, в контексте сказанного выше она интересна ещё и тем, что изучаемый авторами военный конфликт хронологически относится как к «закату Московской Руси», так и к «заре петровской эпохи». И именно на материале исследуемых событий (гораздо более широком, нежели традиционная «военная история») становится особенно очевидной искусственная природа барьера, по разные стороны которого лежат «бесславные крымские походы Голицына» и «блестящее Азовское взятие Петра I». Авторам книги удалось показать, что речь идёт о непрерывной цепи событий, исторически и логически связанных между собой и составляющих часть единого полотна российской истории XVII–XVIII вв. В дискуссии о достоинствах и спорных моментах монографии приняли участие доктора исторических наук Б.В. Носов и Д.В. Сень, кандидаты исторических наук П.А. Аваков, Т.А. Базарова и Г.М. Казаков. 1 Историография новейшей эпохи возвела для себя ещё два труднопреодолимых «вала», разделив события последних ста с небольшим лет на периоды «досоветский», «советский» и «постсоветский».

The authors of the monograph (Guskov A.G., Kochegarov K.A., Shamin S.M. The Russian-Turkish War of 1686–1700. Moscow, 2022) focus not only on military events on the southern borders of Russia at the end of the 17th century, but also on the actions of Russian diplomats. The activities of the Ambassadorial Prikaz are consistently analyzed in the context of the political goals and objectives implemented by the sovereign at various stages of the war. They were solved by the most experienced diplomats of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, who began their service under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It is shown that the vast experience, established connections and contacts of K.N. Nefimonov, P.B. Voznitsyn and E.I. Ukraintsev gave them a number of advantages, but they did not have the ability to quickly respond to a changing international stop.

The essay reviews the book “The Russo-Turkish War of 1686–1700” by A.G. Gus’kov, K.A. Kochegarov, and S.M. Shamin. It touches upon the chronology of the conflict and the authors’ goal to give a comprehensive overview of the war as a prolonged series of clashes between Russian, the Crimean khanate and the Ottoman empire. It also highlights the authors’ decision to focus on the less known episodes of the war, such as the North Caucasian theatre of operations.

The paper is devoted to studying the phenomenon of the hereditary military dynasties in the officer corps of the Russian army units in Siberia during the 18th century and up to the turn of the 18th – 19th centuries. This phenomenon correlates with the point of view, existing in modern historiography, regarding the allocation of the “military estate” in the social structure of the Russian empire. It is concluded that in Siberia, where there was almost no hereditary nobility, representatives of such officer dynasties could count on increasing their social status and achieving a privileged position. However, it is precisely for this reason that they should not be combined with ordinary military personnel within the general category of “military estate”.

The article provides a comparative analysis of the Russian and French perceptions of each other during the Patriotic War of 1812 and the military campaign in France of 1814, and also traces how and to what extent these large-scale contacts influenced the transformation of previous stereotypical ideas among representatives of the warring parties about the enemy country. It is shown that the War of 1812, for a number of reasons, did not make any significant adjustments to the pre-war ideas of the French about Russia as a country of “northern barbarians”; at the same time, the presence of the Russian army in Paris allowed the population of France, if not completely discarding, then significantly correcting a number of propaganda clichés regarding the Russian military. The acquaintance of Russian officers with French reality led to a serious revision of their pre-war image of France as a state close to the ideal, and a certain reassessment of values. It is emphasized that the comparison of traditions, behavior, culture, religion, spiritual development of the French and Russians has already allowed many contemporaries to perceive the war of 1812–1814 not only as a military-political clash of states, but also as a civilizational conflict. All this was reflected in the historical and cultural memory of the Russian and French people about the events of that time.

After the defeat of the Serbian army on October 29, 1876, near Junis, Emperor Alexander II, after much hesitation, decided to begin mobilizing the Russian army in order to force the Ottoman Empire to conclude an armistice with Serbia. Mobilization caught the army in a period of unfinished transformations. In 1874, universal conscription was introduced, in the same year the Empire's armory factories began producing Berdana rifles, their rearmament in 1877 was not completed. During the first mobilization of the mass army, all this affected the condition and combat capability of the troops. A particularly important and difficult problem was the condition of the railways, besides, the Russian command did not yet have the experience of transferring, concentrating, or supplying such a significant mass of troops by rail. All this had an impact on the war plans and the conduct of military operations beyond the Danube.

The article is devoted to the work of women during the First World War in military censorship institutions, a topic that is only beginning to attract the attention of Russian researchers. On the basis of documents, mainly concentrated in the Russian State Military History Archive (RGVIA) and the Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA), the article interprets the process of women's involvement in the military censors' duties, i.e. in a profession that in pre-war times was considered exclusively male. The article reveals the reasons that led the Russian military command to allow the involvement of the female population first to work in rear military censorship stations and then in similar institutions in military districts in the theater of war, reveals the motivation of women to join the military censorship, as well as the conditions of their work.

The article, based on archives’ materials, memoirs and scientific literature, shows the role of the Kandalaksha in the soviet military planning in 1940–1941, which has not been deeply considered in the historiography. The problematic nature of military planning on the Kandalaksha direction in 1940–1941 is revealed. An attempt is made to comprehensively characterize the Kandalaksha direction as one of the most important areas of military operations in the North in 1941. The problem of reflecting the role of Kandalaksha during the Great Patriotic War in domestic historiography, which focuses on the events of the Murmansk direction, is raised.

The article examines the main methods of industrial mobilization used by the Soviet leadership during the Great Patriotic War. Based on an analysis of the state of affairs in the metallurgical, chemical and oil-extracting industries, the author comes to the conclusion that the mobilization of industry was by no means limited to the repurposing of plants and factories from the production of civilian products to the fulfillment of defense orders. The most important aspects of the mobilization of industry during the war years were the expansion of existing civilian industries due to evacuated equipment and the construction (including using simplified technologies) of new enterprises; expanding the range of products manufactured by civilian enterprises (including through the development of higher quality products); widespread use of various surrogates and development of new sources of raw materials.

The article provides an overview of the recently published land survey books of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of the 1550s, notes the historiographical and source study contexts of the publication, its strengths and prospects for further study of this type of documents

In the review of the collective monograph “Russia at international forums and congresses of the XVII ‒ early twentieth century”, published at the Institute of Russian History in 2021, the main task was to study the contribution of scientists in the development of concept of the Russian foreign policy history during the 4th centuries. The work, compositionally constructed according to the problem-chronological principle, identifies the key problems of Russia's foreign policy at each stage of its development. The indisputable merit of the authors is the disclosure on concrete historical material of the conference diplomacy, presented in the form of tools for the implementation of strategic tasks facing the Russian state in each historical period. The researchers described in detail the system of international congresses and conferences in which Russia participated, analyzed the most significant achieved results. The strong point of the work is the use by the authors of a wide range of domestic and foreign literature, as well as documents from Russian archives, introduced for the first time into scientific circulation.

The article is devoted to a review of the monograph by the St. Petersburg historian D. A. Bazhanov, the focus of which is an analysis of the situation in the Baltic Fleet in 1917. Based on unpublished archival materials, D. A. Bazhanov examines in detail the everyday life of sailors, their political sentiments, religiosity, the combat effectiveness of the fleet and its importance as a factor in big politics in 1917.

The review of the publication of the documents "Confession of the Undefeated" states the significance of publishing the transcripts of conversations (interviews) with participants in the Defense of Sevastopol 1941-1942, the need of continuation of a comprehensive study of this part of the history of the Great Patriotic War. The authors of the review point to the peculiarities of this type of sources of personal origin, associated both with the primary procedures for obtaining them and with the specifics of their heuristic use at the present stage. In general, the importance of further publication of materials of the Commission on the History of the Great Patriotic War of the USSR Academy of Sciences, consistently carried out by employees of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is stated.

The article analyses current historiographical trends in the study of Soviet sport during the Cold War, lacunas and prospects for further research development