Territorial changes in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th century. Composition of the Russian Empire Mapping of the territory in the 19th and early 20th centuries

Along with the collapse of the Russian Empire, the majority of the population chose to create independent national states. Many of them were never destined to remain sovereign, and they became part of the USSR. Others were incorporated into the Soviet state later. And what was the Russian Empire like at the beginning XXcentury?

By the end of the 19th century, the territory of the Russian Empire was 22.4 million km 2. According to the 1897 census, the population was 128.2 million, including the population of European Russia - 93.4 million; Kingdom of Poland - 9.5 million - 2.6 million, Caucasian region - 9.3 million, Siberia - 5.8 million, Central Asia - 7.7 million. Over 100 peoples lived; 57% of the population were non-Russian peoples. The territory of the Russian Empire in 1914 was divided into 81 provinces and 20 regions; there were 931 cities. Some of the provinces and regions were united into general governorships (Warsaw, Irkutsk, Kiev, Moscow, Amur, Steppe, Turkestan and Finland).

By 1914, the length of the territory of the Russian Empire was 4383.2 versts (4675.9 km) from north to south and 10,060 versts (10,732.3 km) from east to west. The total length of land and sea borders is 64,909.5 versts (69,245 km), of which land borders accounted for 18,639.5 versts (19,941.5 km), and sea borders - about 46,270 versts (49,360 , 4 km).

The entire population was considered subjects of the Russian Empire, the male population (from 20 years old) swore allegiance to the emperor. The subjects of the Russian Empire were divided into four estates ("states"): nobility, clergy, urban and rural inhabitants. The local population of Kazakhstan, Siberia and a number of other regions stood out as an independent "state" (foreigners). The coat of arms of the Russian Empire was a two-headed eagle with tsarist regalia; the national flag - a cloth with white, blue and red horizontal stripes; the national anthem - "God Save the Tsar." National language - Russian.

Administratively, the Russian Empire by 1914 was divided into 78 provinces, 21 regions and 2 independent districts. Provinces and regions were subdivided into 777 counties and districts, and in Finland - into 51 parishes. Counties, districts and parishes, in turn, were divided into camps, departments and sections (2523 in total), as well as 274 Lensmanship in Finland.

Territories important in the military-political plan (capital and border areas) were united into governorships and general governorships. Some cities were allocated into special administrative units - city governments.

Even before the transformation of the Grand Duchy of Moscow into the Russian kingdom in 1547, at the beginning of the 16th century, Russian expansion began to go beyond its ethnic territory and began to absorb the following territories (the table does not indicate the lands lost before the beginning of the 19th century):

Territory	Date (year) of accession to the Russian Empire	Facts
Western Armenia (Asia Minor)		The territory was ceded in 1917-1918
Eastern Galicia, Bukovina (Eastern Europe)		In 1915 it was ceded, in 1916 it was partially recaptured, in 1917 it was lost
Uryankhai Territory (Southern Siberia)		Currently part of the Republic of Tuva
Franz Josef Land, Emperor Nicholas II Land, New Siberian Islands (Arctic)		Archipelagos of the Arctic Ocean, fixed as the territory of Russia by the note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Northern Iran (Middle East)		Lost as a result of revolutionary events and the Civil War in Russia. Currently owned by the state of Iran
Concession in Tianjin		Lost in 1920. Currently, the city of central subordination of the PRC
Kwantung Peninsula (Far East)		Lost as a result of defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Currently Liaoning Province, PRC
Badakhshan (Central Asia)		Currently, the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous District of Tajikistan
Hankou Concession (Wuhan, East Asia)		Currently, Hubei Province, PRC
Transcaspian region (Central Asia)		Currently belongs to Turkmenistan
Adjarian and Kars-Childyr sandzhaks (Transcaucasia)		In 1921 they were ceded to Turkey. Currently Adjara Autonomous Okrug of Georgia; Illy Kars and Ardahan in Turkey
Bayazet (Dogubayazit) sandzhak (Transcaucasia)		In the same year, 1878, ceded to Turkey following the results of the Berlin Congress
Principality of Bulgaria, Eastern Rumelia, Adrianople Sandjak (Balkans)		Abolished by the results of the Berlin Congress in 1879. Currently Bulgaria, Turkey's Marmara region
Kokand Khanate (Central Asia)		Currently Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan
Khiva (Khorezm) Khanate (Central Asia)		Currently Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan
including the Aland Islands		Currently Finland, Republic of Karelia, Murmansk, Leningrad regions
Tarnopolsky District of Austria (Eastern Europe)		Currently, the Ternopil region of Ukraine
Bialystok District of Prussia (Eastern Europe)		Currently Podlaskie Voivodeship of Poland
Ganja (1804), Karabakh (1805), Sheki (1805), Shirvan (1805), Baku (1806), Cuban (1806), Derbent (1806), northern part of Talysh (1809) Khanate (Transcaucasia)		Vassal khanates of Persia, seizure and voluntary entry. Sealed in 1813 by a treaty with Persia following the results of the war. Limited autonomy until the 1840s. Currently Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
Imeretian kingdom (1810), Megrelian (1803) and Gurian (1804) principalities (Transcaucasia)		Kingdom and principalities of Western Georgia (since 1774, independent from Turkey). Protectorates and voluntary entries. Sealed in 1812 by a treaty with Turkey and in 1813 by a treaty with Persia. Self-government until the end of the 1860s. Currently Georgia, Samegrelo-Upper Svaneti, Guria, Imereti, Samtskhe-Javakheti regions
Minsk, Kiev, Bratslav, eastern parts of Vilna, Novogrudok, Beresteysky, Volyn and Podolsk voivodeships of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Eastern Europe)		Currently Vitebsk, Minsk, Gomel regions of Belarus; Rivne, Khmelnytsky, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia, Kiev, Cherkassk, Kirovograd regions of Ukraine
Crimea, Edisan, Dzhambayluk, Edishkul, Small Nogai Horde (Kuban, Taman) (Northern Black Sea region)		Khanate (independent from Turkey since 1772) and nomadic Nogai tribal unions. Annexation, secured in 1792 by treaty as a result of the war. Currently Rostov region, Krasnodar region, Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol; Zaporizhzhya, Kherson, Nikolaev, Odessa regions of Ukraine
Kuril Islands (Far East)		Tribal unions of the Ainu, bringing into Russian citizenship, finally by 1782. Under the treaty of 1855, the South Kuriles in Japan, under the treaty of 1875 - all the islands. Currently, the Severo-Kurilskiy, Kurilskiy and Yuzhno-Kurilskiy urban districts of the Sakhalin region
Chukotka (Far East)		Currently Chukotka Autonomous Okrug
Tarkov shamkhalstvo (North Caucasus)		Currently the Republic of Dagestan
Ossetia (Caucasus)		Currently, the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania, the Republic of South Ossetia
Big and Small Kabarda		Principality. In 1552-1570, a military alliance with the Russian state, later the vassals of Turkey. In the years 1739-1774, under the contract - a buffer principality. Since 1774 in Russian citizenship. Currently Stavropol Territory, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Chechen Republic
Inflyantskoe, Mstislavskoe, large parts of the Polotsk, Vitebsk Voivodeships of the Commonwealth (Eastern Europe)		Currently Vitebsk, Mogilev, Gomel regions of Belarus, Daugavpils region of Latvia, Pskov, Smolensk regions of Russia
Kerch, Yenikale, Kinburn (Northern Black Sea region)		Fortresses, from the Crimean Khanate by agreement. Recognized by Turkey in 1774 by treaty as a result of the war. The Crimean Khanate gained independence from the Ottoman Empire under the auspices of Russia. Currently, the urban district of Kerch of the Republic of Crimea of Russia, Ochakovsky district of the Nikolaev region of Ukraine
Ingushetia (North Caucasus)		Currently, the Republic of Ingushetia
Altai (Southern Siberia)		Currently, Altai Territory, Altai Republic, Novosibirsk, Kemerovo, Tomsk regions of Russia, East Kazakhstan region of Kazakhstan
Kymenigorda and Neyshloth flax - Neyshlot, Vilmanstrand and Friedrichsgam (Baltic States)		Flax, from Sweden by treaty as a result of the war. Since 1809 in the Russian Grand Duchy of Finland. Currently Leningrad region of Russia, Finland (region of South Karelia)
Junior zhuz (Central Asia)		Currently, the West Kazakhstan region of Kazakhstan
(Kyrgyz land, etc.) (South Siberia)		Currently the Republic of Khakassia
Novaya Zemlya, Taimyr, Kamchatka, Commander Islands (Arctic, Far East)		Currently, the Arkhangelsk region, Kamchatka, Krasnoyarsk Territory

May 10, 2003
On the air of the radio station "Echo of Moscow" Leonid Lyashenko is a historian.
The broadcast is hosted by Sergey Buntman.

S. BUNTMAN And we are continuing the theme, the big theme of expanding the borders of Russia, which we started from ancient Russia and are now continuing in the Russian Empire of the 19th century. This is a joint project with the Znanie Sila magazine. I remind you once again that you suggested this topic, which we have already analyzed for several programs. The last time the program was hosted by Alexei Venediktov, it was just the beginning of the 19th century that was considered. And we went straight to the Caucasus. Leonid Lyashenko in the studio, hello, good evening.
L. LYASHENKO Good evening.
S. BUNTMAN And we are approaching the Caucasus, the Caucasus as a concrete object of active Russian politics, the Caucasus and Transcaucasia too. True, we had somewhat different relations with Transcaucasia. Here is the Caucasus, the North Caucasus.
L. LYASHENKO Indeed, everything begins, as we have already said, from Transcaucasia, when the Georgian kingdom in 1801 asked for the hand of Russia, then three, in fact, were put forward in Russia "for" this salvation of fellow believers, because genocide, indeed, Christian Georgians from Persia, especially from Turkey, were very strong.
S. BUNTMAN I.e. and Persia too? We always remember the Ottoman Empire.
L. LYASHENKO Of course. Georgia as a springboard for the struggle against the mountain peoples, who worried and disturbed the southern Russian borders with their continuous raids, and in general with all sorts of disgraces. And a reliable rear, of course, in the wars with Persia and Turkey, which everyone understood that there would still be several such wars ahead, at least. As for the North Caucasus, the reasons were somewhat different. I must say that Petersburg was looking for a long time, what, in fact, to say in this regard. We started as usual with economic reasons. But they just somehow were not found, these economic reasons. Then we moved on to a civilizing mission, which is wonderful, West is West, East is East, etc.
S. BUNTMAN Yes.
L. LYASHENKO And in the end it all ended very prosaically transport communications, the necessary transport communications for communication with the Transcaucasia, especially since Armenia was next in line, and in the next queue, part of, in any case, Armenia was about to join Russia. And here is the problem, the first, from what time the Caucasian war begins, say, a very interesting, wonderful writer-historian Gordin, he says that since 1802, since Tsitsianov, a general, settled there in Georgia, the war begins. Some later things are more accepted, the 13-16th years, the appearance of Ermolov in the Caucasus, but this is not important, it is not important, but still interesting, since the prehistory of this war is quite deep. But here's what, in my opinion, it's funny that they collided not in material, but psychologically, but collided, in my opinion, this is what a Chechen and a Dagestani, they thought that, having exterminated several Russian expeditionary detachments, they would forever discourage Russia from meddling to the North Caucasus. They simply did not imagine the real possibilities of their northern neighbor. Generals, yes, and besides, of course, the refusal of raids for the highlanders was economic, religious and behavioral self-destruction, simply self-destruction. They couldn't refuse it. Russian generals, they did not want to divide the right and the wrong as usual, they, inspired by the imperial inertia, acted by the method of, how to say, total suppression, and no flexible tactics, no flexible conversations, tactics they probably did not use and did not even try to use ... And what is interesting, in my opinion, when analyzing the behavior of both, the moral-evaluative criterion is completely useless. The point is, after all, what is the matter is that if we begin to condemn either the generals or the highlanders during this period, in the 19th century, of course, then we will just as successfully begin to blame or destroy Alexander the Great, Caesar, Genghis Khan for their conquests, or vice versa, we will begin to criticize the peoples who fought against these conquests.
S. BUNTMAN Because they destroyed the state structure of this or that empire.
L. LYASHENKO Yes. Each time still has its own songs, you understand, because you really agree that only the 20th century came to the idea of the inadmissibility or inexpediency of interethnic violence. And then he came to the idea.
S. BUNTMAN Not to practice.
L. LYASHENKO And this is far enough from real practice.
S. BUNTMAN Naturally, yes.
L. LYASHENKO What can be said here, what to do for the Caucasus and Russia was and now what to do is this, the fact is that they have nowhere to get away from each other, this is completely understandable. And the way, I think so for myself, that Pushkin, Lermontov and Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy before their anti-state period, they showed this way. They talked about the need to patiently unravel the psychological foundations of each other's existence. We need to mutually adapt. And there is simply no other way. But in principle, the Caucasus, the annexation of the Caucasus to the Russian Empire, is ahead. And what was real here, what did we add at that time, at the beginning of the Nikolaev reign?
S. BUNTMAN What was there, what was there to add?
L. LYASHENKO Yes, this means that then we should move away from the Caucasus a little, leave it probably for the second half of the 19th century, but we should probably talk about Persia and Turkey, relations with these powers. These relations also had close contacts with Russian behavior in the Caucasus. So, the first Russian-Persian war of 1826-1828, the Turkmanchay peace treaty, the war and the treaty that we remember, the majority remember, at least because there is this whole story with Griboyedov, with Alexander Sergeevich. But it’s interesting for us what we have added. So, after this war, which was successful enough for Russia, we annexed Eastern Armenia. And the entry of Armenia into the Russian Empire began precisely from this period. We got the opportunity to maintain a military fleet in the Caspian, i.e. we got the opportunity to control the Persian coast of the Caspian Sea, because the Persian of course could not compare with the Russian fleet in the Caspian. And plus to this, because of which, in fact, the whole story, basically, happened, Griboyedov's, with the Russian embassy. This is 20 million rubles in silver indemnity. This, and so for a poor Persia, was a complete ruin, which made it possible for both the British and the Persian authorities to blame all the troubles of the Persian people on the Russian government, on its demands. But one way or another, the Persians have been sorted out so far. But with Turkey, with Turkey, as you remember, there are long-standing stories, Kamensky was here, talking about these things, but with Turkey, Russia in the 19th century preferred for the time being to act according to Montesquieu. Montesquieu said that the most remarkable thing that a state can have is a weak neighbor. This is the best thing. And in no case can you destroy a weak neighbor, because otherwise you will find a strong neighbor, and who needs adventure? And now the war of 1828-1829. with Turkey, it ended with the conclusion of the Adrianople peace treaty, and Russia got something else, she got the Danube delta, she got the Black Sea coast from the mouth of the Kuban to Poti. Those. she received an even wider outlet in the Caucasus to the Black Sea.
S. BUNTMAN On the one hand in the Caucasus, and on the other hand in the West.
L. LYASHENKO In the West, yes. And plus, of course, the right of free passage of Russian merchant ships through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which, of course, was also a huge matter in connection with our trade in grain, southern, etc.
S. BUNTMAN If you ask Turkey as a neighbor, it will be in a few years, already in the early 50s, there will be continuous conversations about a sick gentleman, about a dying gentleman in all available European languages, Nikolay and his ministers speak about this. What is it then, in the system of European states, and because Turkey is nevertheless included in the European system of states then, what is it in terms of strength, organization, and propensity to disease?
L. LYASHENKO In general, since the 1920s. The 18th century begins, the so-called Eastern question is seriously raised. What is the Eastern question? This is the question of non-Turkish territories, non-indigenous Turkish territories that are part of the Ottoman Empire. What is it about the Balkans, Egypt, the Mediterranean islands, of course, Crete, first of all, Cyprus. So, what Turkey was like in terms of the military, it was shown by the end of the 18th century, in general, when Suvorov and Rumyantsev, who only beat the Turks 3,000 in Turkey.
S. BUNTMAN But, do not forget, a military reform is underway in Turkey, an extremely serious one.
L. LYASHENKO Of course. And plus to this, of course, Turkey has always been distinguished by its fleet. The fleet, maybe it is not European in level, not French, not English, all the more certainly not even Swedish, but still it is numerous, and the Turkish navigators are certainly skillful, what is there to argue about? This is about forces, i.e. she was quite able to defend herself. But the internal confusion in the Ottoman Empire, of course, was already beginning to be absolutely terrible. Here, I don't know where to start, let's start with the Danube principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia. They are either because of their proximity to Russia, or else because of something else, but they did not want to remain under Turkey any longer. I'm not talking about Greece, I'm not talking about the Balkan states. But even the Egyptian possessions of Turkey are starting to explode. And the governor, Mohammed Ali, in Egypt, he raises a mutiny and puts the Ottoman Empire on the brink of existence in general. And who is saving her? Russia is saving her. Although the sultan turned to Russia last. He turned to England, he turned to Austria-Hungary, he turned to France, but Russia saves him. Here is another thing that, in my opinion, is interesting, starting with Greece, probably, it is the first among the Balkan peoples to be liberated, we will talk about this a little later, we will just mention, but starting from Greece, the Balkan peoples gained independence and independence with the help of Russia, so or otherwise. But soon all of them, almost all of them, were looking to the West. And this paradox / not a paradox, what was it? Was it ingratitude? In politics in general, gratitude
S. BUNTMAN Yes, is it worth introducing this category now, even in conversations?
L. LYASHENKO But it's a shame all the same somehow. No, probably, after all, this is different. After all, Russia, having liberated these peoples, could not ensure their progress, either industrial, agricultural, commercial, or whatever. And so they had to look for someone who could provide them with it.
S. BUNTMAN I.e. can we say that the situation here is already changing very seriously? And compared to the 18th century too? Because we annex, say, a part of Poland, for all the violence of the partition of Poland, we annex the former Crimean Khanate, Crimea joins, others from the Danube, these Danubian territories. The further we go in the 19th century, Russia ceases to be a factor, first of all, of unquestioning power when they join, and somehow the same is done here, we talked quite a lot about governance. So here the choice comes between not entering any of the empires directly, as for Greece, yes, but looking at different options for your own further development?
L. LYASHENKO Of course. When we talk about this "ingratitude" that we do not yet take into account, we do not take into account the fact that after all, who was Russia guided by in these states? Only for the aristocracy. And the time has already passed. We have already said that in general this is diplomacy, and in general life, only oriented towards the aristocracy, as a family affair of royalty, this is all over, it is all over. And finally, Russia completely did not pay attention to the so-called syndrome of the liberated, when these same liberated people do not want to interfere in their affairs, they don’t want to be prompted even. This is understandable, this is the inertia of liberated people, such a euphoria. And Russia did not even hear about such a syndrome, but naturally no one heard it then, but in principle it was.
S. BUNTMAN After a while it will become much clearer. Alexander, we naturally agree with you that there is a certain anachronism in the name of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which almost just became the Austrian Empire. She has not yet become Austria-Hungary, well, let's be strict. In half a minute we will move on to the brief news, and then I think that at the end of the program we will return to your questions, those that we have already gone through thematically. Here the situation is changing and the role of Russia in the European situation is changing, this is exactly what we will do together with Leonid Lyashenko in the program "Not so" in 5 minutes after the brief news.
NEWS
S. BUNTMAN Joint program with the Znanie Sila magazine, and today Leonid Lyashenko is in our studio, and we are talking about expanding the borders of Russia and about Russia in the international system, because we cannot do without it now, let's say, in 3, 4th and 5th decades of the 19th century. We talked about the Eastern question, we talked about the Caucasus at that time. And Russia is entering a completely new and European situation. And starting with the liberation movements and ending with such a not entirely liberation movement, not only a liberation movement, one might say so.
L. LYASHENKO Yes, if the 1920s were occupied by Russia with a showdown with Persia and Turkey, then the 1930s and 1940s. this is the era of European revolutions, to which Russia had to somehow react, firstly. And secondly, it turned out that she was emerging from this era in some kind of new capacity, with some new responsibilities, perhaps, international ones.
S. BUNTMAN And what is the difference here and what is the development here, from what is necessary, from the sacred union, from the Congress of Vienna, from some new role in the Napoleonic wars?
L. LYASHENKO No, we should probably start from the Vienna system, after all, because this Vienna system, as we said, was still the concern of England, Austria and Prussia, and Russia, and France, which joined.
S. BUNTMAN But still the result of the Napoleonic wars, of course.
L. LYASHENKO Of course. And since the 30s, let's just take a quick run, Greece is proclaimed an independent state, the July uprising in Paris, the end of the restoration regime, the uprising in Poland in 1830-31, in 33, the Egyptian Pasha Muhammad Ali rebelled against the Ottoman Empire. And we are forced to save him, to save the Sultan. We conclude, of course, a beneficial Hungarian-Russian agreement with secret articles, which, however, did not last long. And the internal Black Sea was for several years only for Turkey and for Russia, and then all the same, foreign armed forces received the right to pass through the straits. And as a result of these events of the 30s. the Viennese system becomes a concern, as it happened, the concern of mainly only Russia.
S. BUNTMAN And what about England at this time? We said that the regime is changing in France, in general, very serious, the July monarchy is not at all the same as the Viennese ideas, ideology means a lot to him, to Louis Philippe. What is England? England already at the very beginning of Victoria turns out.
L. LYASHENKO Yes, it turns out that way. As for Russia, here is Nicholas 'Russia, Nicholas' understanding of all these events, it dictates to him loyalty to the previous treaties and the previous principles of maintaining the status quo in Europe. For a very long time he does not accept the French regime at all and does not understand what it is. He also tries not to maintain relations with them for some time with states in which there are some kind of coups and some, so to speak, cataclysms of a national liberation nature, of a revolutionary nature. And in the 40s, this is generally the 43rd year, this is the revolution in Greece and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Greece. A 48-49 this is a pan-European, from the point of view of Nicholas, a catastrophe. And what is interesting, in my opinion, in these years it was not Uvarov with his formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” that became the Russian ideologist, but Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev. In 44, Tyutchev writes a memorandum in which he directly and openly opposes Russia and the West, the Slavic world and the Catholic world. In 48 he wrote two articles, two works, or something, which were supposed to be the chapters of a huge book, "Russia and the Revolution" and "Rome and the Papal Question", in which he simply proclaims the primacy of Orthodoxy over Catholicism, and therefore, the primacy the Slavic world over the Western European world. And these ideas, they were approved by Nikolai, and financially approved, and in the form, so to speak, of orders and some kind of service promotions to Fedor Ivanovich. And the most important thing is not the most important thing, but plus to this, that Tyutchev, after all, developed these same ideas in poetry. And I'll just remind a few lines
And the vaults of ancient Sofia
Renewed Byzantium
Let the altar of Christ overshadow
Fall before him, O Tsar of Russia
And stand up like an all-Slavic king.
S. BUNTMAN Here is the all-Slavic tsar, and again something similar to the Greek project appears.
L. LYASHENKO Yes, of course, and these revolutions, it seems to me, pushed Nicholas to decisive action against this weak neighbor, against a weak person, against the Ottoman Empire. He considered, firstly, that the time had come, that Turkey had weakened so much that its further existence threatened to fall, and this rumble for Russia would be especially audible, of this fall of the Ottoman Empire. And secondly, he sought from the Sultan advantages for the Orthodox Church in comparison with the Catholic Church, right according to Fedor Ivanovich, so to speak, all this goes. And when the sultan, not that he refused, but the guys said, just stand in line and that's it, then Nikolai was offended, this is already the beginning of the 50s, and the adventure begins, as it turned out, a foreign policy adventure, which ended very hard for Russia. He enters the Danube principalities, Nicholas, violating all and the Vienna agreements, including, occupies these Danube principalities and thinks that the Sultan, frightened, will give him the opportunity to dictate his will in holy places and in general on the territory, perhaps, of the entire Ottoman Empire. But this does not happen, the Crimean War begins, which ends
S. BUNTMAN At the same time, he expects, in general, that all foreign policy activities both in England and in France are being conducted rather intensively, but, as it turned out, with an incorrect strategic calculation.
L. LYASHENKO Absolutely.
S. BUNTMAN If I am not mistaken, it was based on the impossibility of an alliance between England and France.
L. LYASHENKO Yes, it was based on this, it was based on gratitude, which we have already spoken about, to Austria, when we crushed the Hungarian revolution in 49 and saved the Austrian Empire thereby. And he hoped that Austria would be grateful and allow anything to be done in the Balkans. But this is not easy. He hoped that Louis Napoleon was not up to any major foreign policy things, he needed to put things in order in France, forgetting precisely that a just war, if it is possible to prove to the population that it is just, unites the nation, on the contrary, and gives an opportunity.
S. BUNTMAN Moreover, he came in the wake of the revival of the Bonapartist idea, and as a nephew of himself, he could not live without it.
L. LYASHENKO Of course. And finally, Nicholas is trying to bargain with England, Lord, bargaining with England is completely useless simply because the British, thank God, ate more than one dog in this. And he offers them Egypt, he offers them Crete, and they just bargain with Turkey.
S. BUNTMAN Without intermediaries.
L. LYASHENKO Without intermediaries, and as a result Russia finds itself in front of a coalition, before a coalition of European states, this is no longer Turkey, but England and France after all. And plus the possibility of Austria joining this union, plus the possibility of Sweden, Spain joining this union, i.e. Russia is facing a united European front. And here we will not talk too long, the war, of course, was lost, it was lost both due to the technical backwardness of Russia and due to diplomatic calculations, and due, as it turned out, the Nikolaev system of internal government, it turned out to be ineffective in such extreme conditions.
S. BUNTMAN At that moment, yes, in such conditions it could, probably, calculated for a thousand years of stable development.
L. LYASHENKO You know, I have an analogy here with a military parade. Here is a military parade, everything is going well in Russia. As soon as hostilities begin with a serious adversary, it turns out that in the military-technical respect we are lagging behind, tactically behind, etc. The same is with the system of internal control, while everything is quiet and normally a mighty power. As soon as extreme conditions begin, it turns out that there is no such thing, there are no transport routes, the messages are theft in the commissariat, the soldiers are not dressed, not fed, etc.
S. BUNTMAN And when there is a search for ingenious decisions at the tactical level, as was the case in Sevastopol, all this has shown, indeed, and not at the state level, the state turned out to be lagging behind in relation to a single moment?
L. LYASHENKO Of course.
S. BUNTMAN And opposition to such a coalition, it could bring only heroism, only heroic memory.
L. LYASHENKO Of course.
S. BUNTMAN Not a practical gain.
L. LYASHENKO Pirogov's medicine, it was advanced, Tatleben's tactics, say, or Nakhimov's, all sorts of Kornilov's things are all advanced things. But these are isolated cases.
S. BUNTMAN Including the psychological impact on the troops, what they showed there.
L. LYASHENKO Of course. But these are isolated cases, at this time Menshikov withdraws troops from the Crimea, leaving and abandoning Sevastopol to the mercy of fate. Those. when it comes to national events, it turns out that we are far from being at the forefront. And on this sad, so to speak, note, I would like to part with Europe for a while and move on to another story, a story about Russian relations with China and the United States.
S. BUNTMAN Here we also strongly forget such a problem as Russian Eastern Siberia and the Far East.
L. LYASHENKO Yes.
S. BUNTMAN And the United States, and a temporary presence on the American continent.
L. LYASHENKO Of course, and this should not be forgotten at all, because it is becoming especially interesting, more and more somehow from time to time, and at the moment it is becoming more and more interesting. So, if we talk about China, here with the Qing Empire we had two big, very big problems. First, Russia had to achieve a status equal to China in the Far East, and that was very difficult. And secondly, we had to decide not that the issue of borders, no, this, frankly, was not discussed in the first half, it was useless. We still could not ensure the protection of these borders. And it was only about shipping along the Amur, i.e. mainly about trade in the Far East, because the region is rich, of course. So, in order to resolve these two issues, we had to overcome the China-centric concept that Beijing adhered to. And we had to overcome the theory of world domination of the son of heaven, i.e. Chinese emperor. The fact is that China considered all Europeans to be barbarians, Russia does not. He considered Russia a dynastic state, which was subject to China.
S. BUNTMAN Subject?
L. LYASHENKO Yes, and the Russian emperor was called a khan in Chinese diplomatic documents, i.e. he was subject to the Chinese emperor. It was necessary with this, it was necessary to break it. As a matter of fact, Golovkin's mission was the most serious, it was the beginning of the 19th century, 1804-1806, but this mission failed, and failed to resolve a single issue. And all these issues that we talked about, an equal, so to speak, status with China in the Far East, borders, shipping along the Amur, all this for the entire first half of the 19th century hung in the air. This has never been resolved. It was some kind of mixed territory, so to speak, the Far East and Eastern Siberia, everyone who was there went here and there. There, thank God, there were not many people from our side, frankly, but nevertheless, this issue was not resolved in the first half of the 19th century. But with the United States there is an interesting thing, because when you start reading the press of the time, some publicistic speeches, it turns out that the Americans insisted that Russia and the United States are two very similar states, these are two young developing civilizations, as they said who do not seek to acquire colonies do not seek. And the expansion of borders is a natural process of the growth of the constituent parts of the state, be it the Russian empire, be it one state or another, or some several states.
S. BUNTMAN Than it grows, by buying as the same huge Louisiana, all French possessions, or the development of empty.
L. LYASHENKO Yes. And even such things as serfdom and slavery, this again brought the United States and Russia together. And here, indeed, history sometimes jokes very interestingly, because 1812, for example, is naturally a Patriotic war in Russia and the beginning of the Anglo-American war. It all starts in one year. And in general, America's attitude towards Russia was, of course, very friendly, frankly speaking. And moreover, because the Treaty of Ghent was concluded between England and America in 1814, if my memory serves me right, but it left a lot of contradictions between England and America. And in the 21st year of Alexander I, both the British and the Americans were asked to mediate in their disputes. And Alexander I decided practically all disputes in favor of America, practically everything. It is clear why, and it is clear why. Nevertheless, both England and America agreed with the decision of our emperor. And by the beginning of the 19th century, Russian America was founded, i.e. in general, the discovery of America from the east is 1732, this is Saint Gabriel, and Novoarkhangelsk became the capital of this Russian America, this is on the island of Sitka, since 1814. But the population is Russian, this Russian America, purely Russian is 800 people, something around this figure. A certain amount, of course a larger number from mixed marriages of Russians with all sorts of local aboriginal women. Plus the natives who lived in this very North America. Until 1841, Russia owned, in addition to Alaska, she also owned the village of Fort Ross in California. This, so to speak, as you know, did not last long enough, but was managed from the end of the 18th century itself, from the beginning of the 19th century by the Russian-American company "RAC" its name is usually abbreviated. So, "RAC" all the time demanded from the government the expansion of Russian America, the expansion of territories, since the territories were empty or almost empty around, and St. Petersburg did not want to do this, although it was possible, quite calmly, to tidy the Hawaiian Islands under the Russian hand ...
S. BUNTMAN Here, Alaska, but the Hawaiian Islands are a pity.
L. LYASHENKO And the leader of the Sandwich Islands generally asked for Russian citizenship. But Petersburg, fearing clashes, not fearing clashes fearing to push Washington away, simply preferred not to do it. Although the shores of the Russian-American company were guarded by frigates, the brigs were guarded by the Russians. True, a little, but there were. What worried us and that we all the time with the Americans were quarreling on the sly, these were American smugglers and poachers, because they mostly beat fur animals and whales just barbarously, predatory, of course. The Russian-American company could not afford it both due to its small size, thank God, and due to the fact that after all this is its wealth, why is everything at the root?
S. BUNTMAN To destroy everything?
L. LYASHENKO Yes, sweep it. Americans, yes, and in addition to this, in 1823 the famous Monroe comes out with his doctrine, which sounds in general, of course, I would say, purely American. The main meaning of this doctrine is the slogan of non-colonization, i.e. non-interference of other states in general in American affairs of North American, Central America, South America, no non-interference. Which European states, of course.
S. BUNTMAN Yes, the former colonials, first of all, England, France, Spain, Portugal.
L. LYASHENKO I.E. America for Americans.
S. BUNTMAN I.e. already says "everyone has already arrived"?
L. LYASHENKO Yes.
S. BUNTMAN How, on the one hand, the import of slaves from Africa was prohibited, i.e. is it called “everyone has already arrived here, everyone, goodbye”?
L. LYASHENKO Yes.
S. BUNTMAN Only on a personal basis, on an individual basis.
L. LYASHENKO But in the light of this doctrine, the Russian-American company, of course, somehow looked somewhat strange. But somehow they tried to settle it, and in 1824, say, the first convention between Russia and America on navigation and trade and settlements was concluded, and then it was determined that Russian settlements were all north of 54 degrees and 40 seconds of northern latitude. Those. what we owned in Alaska is ours, so to speak, and to the north of that. And plus, freedom of navigation was recognized, although the leadership of the RAC categorically protested against freedom of navigation, because the Americans, I say again, mercilessly beat these unfortunate whales, and fishing, freedom throughout the Pacific Ocean. As soon as we recognized and the Americans recognized, and we recognized as soon as, let's say, equality in navigation, equality in settlements was recognized, this is where, in fact, the end of Russian America begins, because we could not withstand the pressure, of course, we physically they could not. Although in 1832 a trade agreement was concluded, which lasted until 1913, after all. A trade agreement in which the United States and Russia granted each other most favored nation treatment. That would be some kind of us now.
S. BUNTMAN It is close to the fact that this can be achieved with a smart policy.
L. LYASHENKO Of course. This is, in fact, what is happening in the first half of the 19th century, and I hope that we will meet once more and talk.
S. BUNTMAN Let's talk, because there will be very interesting things in the east, and in the south, and in the west, there will be in the southwest, there will be very interesting events.
L. LYASHENKO And then it will be necessary to answer, as I understand it, to the question of what the Russian Empire is, and how good or bad it is, or are we so insidious or not at all?
S. BUNTMAN Yes, once again I will have to answer this question.
L. LYASHENKO Yes.
S. BUNTMAN Probably, we will not answer Natasha's question, now we have a few minutes. Natasha, we probably will not answer the question: "What kind of status should the Crimean peninsula have, which country should it belong to" - this is a matter of diplomacy.
L. LYASHENKO What can we say about this?
S. BUNTMAN We can weigh all that strange and contradictory that happened in this territory and in many others. But now we, if we are not starting a crazy war, then we must recognize the situation that has created and find from this the third, fourth, fifth, sixth diplomatic ways out first of all. Alexander, thank you for the reminder, for the addition to the details about 1812, that Moscow and Washington were on fire at the same time.
L. LYASHENKO Yes.
S. BUNTMAN If we are going, then we must get to this picture.
L. LYASHENKO Yes, thank you very much.
S. BUNTMAN Alexander, that's great. So, another interesting question, which will probably also hang in the air in our country, probably for other programs: “How organically the syndrome of the liberated falls on the behavior of Iraqis towards the Americans. I wonder if the latter have enough wisdom, as Nadezhda writes, to sort out the situation in their favor and, accordingly, in favor of democracy? "
L. LYASHENKO I don’t know wisdom, but there’s enough money.
S. BUNTMAN Money does not always decide.
L. LYASHENKO Not always, they help great.
S. BUNTMAN Not only Marshall's plan solved the problem of Europe and the restoration of democracy in Western Europe.
L. LYASHENKO Of course.
S. BUNTMAN Here is the most important thing that is required now, since all this has happened, the most delicate plan of support is required. What else to find out in this region, in order to establish, I do not think that classical European democracy, this will probably not work. But this is very interesting.
L. LYASHENKO If they rely on the generals. It won't work.
S. BUNTMAN In my opinion, no longer.
L. LYASHENKO And thank God.
S. BUNTMAN I will conclude this with a speech by Zinaida Prokofievna, our amazing character from the audience: “It's terribly insulting about Hawaii. I was so upset that the pressure increased. "
L. LYASHENKO Well, it’s not necessary.
S. BUNTMAN Don't worry like that, okay, nothing. Konstantin offers us a new series of programs, and maybe we will make one or two programs for sure, and "Not so", and at the Arsenal "It was - was not", very interesting stories and Ingermanlandia, and settlements there in connection with the anniversary of St. Petersburg ...
L. LYASHENKO Yes.
S. BUNTMAN I think it would be reasonable. Although they will absolutely do everything, but I think that we will be able to find an angle that will seem interesting to you, it will be different for us.
L. LYASHENKO Probably.
S. BUNTMAN Thank you very much, Leonid Lyashenko, we have already gone through the second half of the 19th century, we will continue this movement next Saturday.

Second half of the 19th century characterized by major territorial changes in the Russian state. Russia continues to actively advance to the regions of the Far East, Central Asia and the Caucasus.

In 1857, under the leadership of the governor in the Caucasus, Prince A.I. Baryatinsky, there was a systematic offensive of Russian troops on the positions of the supporters of Imam Shamil. In 1859 Shamil, besieged in the village of Gunib, surrendered. The entire territory from the Georgian Military Highway to the Caspian Sea (Dagestan, Chechnya, etc.) came under the control of the Russian government. By 1864, it was possible to take control of the territories of the Caucasus adjacent to the Black Sea.

According to the San Stefan Peace Treaty of 1878, concluded after the Russian-Turkish war, the Kara region with the cities of Kara and Batum was ceded to Russia, and southern Bessarabia with the mouth of the Danube, lost after the Crimean War, was returned.

In the 60s of the XIX century. the establishment of Russian control over Central Asia begins. After a series of military operations, the Kokand and Khiva Khanates, the Bukhara Emirate, and the territory of the Turkmen tribes were subordinated. After the Tashkent uprising of 1876, the Kokand Khanate was abolished, and the Fergana region was formed on its territory. The Khiva Khanate and the Bukhara Emirate retained their statehood, but were under the protectorate of Russia. The southern borders of the Russian Empire were fixed by the Russian-Iranian convention of 1881 on delimitation to the east of the Caspian Sea and the Russian-English protocol of 1885 on the border with Afghanistan.

In the Far East, through diplomatic negotiations with China on the Aigun agreement of 1858 on the Russian-Chinese border, Russia was assigned a territory along the left bank of the Amur right up to the sea estuary. The Beijing Treaty of 1860 secured for Russia the territory of the Ussuri region up to the Tumynjiang River. In 1886, a redemarcation of the border to the south of Lake Hanko was carried out, its results were fixed by special protocols.

As a result of the advancement of the Russians to the Kuril Islands by the middle of the 19th century. the Russian-Japanese border is being formed. A treatise on trade and borders between Russia and Japan in 1855 established that the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai are Japanese territory, and the islands north of Urup are Russian territory. In 1875 Russia ceded the Kuril Islands to Japan in exchange for Japan's cession to Russia of the rights to Sakhalin Island. Later, after the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War under the Portsmouth Peace Treaty of 1905, Russia was forced to transfer to Japan a part of Sakhalin Island south of the fiftieth parallel of northern latitude.

In 1867, the sale of Alaska took place. The territory of the Russian possessions was the property of the Russian-American company. This kind of property was common in the 18th and 19th centuries. (for example, the ownership of the East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, etc.). In modern literature, both domestic and foreign, one often encounters the assertion that Russia did not have any act on the annexation of these possessions, which is not true (see clause 13.2).

The formal reason for the decision to sell Alaska was the company's unprofitableness, its financial debt to the budget, and the impossibility for Russia to simultaneously develop both Alaska and the territories in the Far East. The Crimean War (1853-1856) not only led to a depletion of the treasury, but also once again showed the vulnerability of Russian possessions in the Pacific Ocean from the British fleet. In government circles, talk began that the sale of Russian America would help replenish the treasury and, at the same time, relieve one of the worries about the development and development of a distant colony. In addition, the ruling circles of Russia hoped, having sold Alaska to the United States, to acquire an ally in their person in the struggle against the then hostile England.

Ultimately, the Russian government decided to sell Alaska to the United States and instructed its ambassador to the United States, Baron Stekle, to begin negotiations. On March 11, 1867, Steckle began negotiations for the sale of Alaska with US Government Secretary William Seward.

The treaty on Russia's cession of its North American colonies to the United States was drawn up in Washington on March 18, 1867. According to the Treaty, the Russian emperor pledged to cede the entire territory held by Russia on the American mainland to the United States for 7.2 million dollars in gold, which amounted to 14.32 million Russian rub. The total area of the transferred territories was 1530 thousand square meters. km 1.

It should be noted that initially many in the United States were skeptical about this deal, regarding the acquisition of Alaska as nothing more than "Seward's Folly" however, today the peninsula dividing the Bering Strait and a city in Alaska are named after him. Every year, on the last Monday of March, in commemoration of the signing of the treaty between Russia and the United States, a state holiday is celebrated - "Seward" s Day.

It is characteristic that the negotiations and the decision on the sale were carried out without any notification of the Russian society, not to mention taking into account its opinion. So, on March 23, the editors of St. Petersburg newspapers received a message about this via the Atlantic telegraph and refused to believe it, regarding this news as an empty rumor. The famous publisher of the "Voice" A.A. Kraevsky expressed the bewilderment of the Russian society on this issue: “Today, yesterday and the day before yesterday we are transmitting and transmitting telegrams received from New York and London about the sale of Russian possessions in North America ... to such an incredible rumor otherwise, as to the most cruel joke over the gullibility of society. " On May 3, 1867, Alexander II approved the treaty. On July 18, the White House officially announced its desire to pay Russia the amount assigned in the auction for Alaska. And only on October 8 in the newspaper of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs "Severnaya Pochta" was published "The imperially ratified agreement on the cession of the Russian North American colonies." The formal transfer of Alaska to the United States took place on November 11, 1867 at Sitka.

In the second half of the XIX - early XX century. Russia continues to actively develop the Arctic region. September 20, 1916 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire sent a note to foreign states on the inclusion in the territory of the Russian Empire of all lands that constitute a continuation to the north of the Siberian continental plateau. Since not a single state challenged the note, it became a document confirming the state ownership of lands and islands located in the Arctic zone adjacent to the Arctic coast of Russia.

At the beginning of the XX century. the territory of Tuva also came under the control of Russia. From 1757 to 1912, Tuva was under the rule of the Manchu rulers, against whom popular uprisings repeatedly broke out. One of the most famous was the uprising of "60 heroes" in the Khemchik valley in 1883-1885. In 1912, as a result of popular uprisings, Manchu rule was abolished. In 1912-1913. many large Tuvan feudal lords have repeatedly asked for the inclusion of Tuva in Russia. In 1914 Tuva (Uryankhai Territory) was taken under the protectorate of Russia.

Expansion of the territory in the first quarter of the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, Russia's foreign policy position was largely determined by the confrontation with Napoleonic France. One of the conditions of the Tilsit peace humiliating for Russia was the involvement of Russia in the so-called continental blockade of England, the main enemy of Napoleon.

During the peace talks in Tilsit, Napoleon, in order to compensate for the damage caused by the continental blockade imposed on Russia, proposed to Alexander I to divide the spheres of influence in Europe, giving Napoleon the west and Alexander the east. Taking advantage of this, Alexander began a war with Sweden. Russian troops occupied Finland and brought the war to Swedish territory. The Swedes were forced to make peace with Alexander in the city of Friedrichsgam (1809), through which Russia received Finland and the Aland Islands.

The defeat of Napoleon led to the further redistribution of some territories in Europe. Alexander received the central part of Poland with the city of Warsaw as a reward for his victory over Napoleon. This part of Poland was the so-called Grand Duchy of Warsaw under Napoleon. Russian Poland was declared the Kingdom of Poland, where Alexander outwardly declared the preservation of representative institutions and a constitution.

At the same time, Russia was very active on its southern borders.

According to the Manifesto of Paul I in 1800, Georgia was annexed to Russia.

The Azerbaijani khanates were supposed to be in the 18th century. withstand the incessant attacks on them by Iran and Turkey. In order to find protection from these attacks, individual Azerbaijani khanates began to conclude treaties with Russia. In the treaties, the khans recognized themselves as vassals of the Russian tsar. First, a similar agreement was concluded by the Cuban Khan (in 1792), and then by the Talysh. In 1804 the Gandzhin Khanate was annexed to Russia.

From 1806 to 1812 the war between Russia and Turkey continued. After Kutuzov defeated the Turkish army at the town of Slobodzeya, Turkey made peace. According to this world, Bessarabia was annexed to Russia, in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, Karabakh, Shirvan, Sheki Khanate, Ganja, Mingrelia and Imereti and the territories of the mountain peoples were annexed to Russia. One of the most important moments in strengthening Russian domination in Azerbaijan was the Peace of Gulistan with Iran (1813), according to which Iran recognized the transition to Russia of the Karabakh, Ganja, Sheki and Talysh khanates.

Until 1813, the war with Iran continued, which ended in the Gulistan peace, according to which Iran recognized Russia as the right to all the lands annexed to it during the hostilities.

In the same period, the territories of the mountain peoples of the North Caucasus were included in the Russian state.

Change of territory as a result of foreign policy of Nicholas I. The main direction of foreign policy of Nicholas I was the south. In the spring of 1827 he declared a new war on Iran. Russian troops under the command of General Paskevich took the cities of Yerevan and Tabriz. As soon as the road to the capital of Iran, Tehran, was opened for the Russian troops, the Iranian Shah rushed to make peace. According to the Turkmanchay Peace (1828), Iran finally renounced its rights to the Azerbaijani khanates and, in particular, to the Nakhichevan Khanate. In addition, the Yerevan Khanate joined Russia, i.e. territory dominated by the Armenian population.

Having strengthened his position in the Transcaucasus, Nikolai launched an offensive against Turkey. Having declared war on her in 1828, he decided to strike the Turks from both sides. One Russian army under the command of General Paskevich was thrown into the Transcaucasian possessions of Turkey. General Diebitsch took Adrianople, Paskevich - Kapc and Erzurum. Turkey was forced to conclude peace in Adrianople (1829), according to which Russia received the left bank of the lower Danube and the eastern coast of the Black Sea (Abkhazia and Adjara).

In 1853 Nicholas I again declared war on Turkey. Its beginning was marked by the brilliant victory of the Russian fleet under the command of Admiral Nakhimov, who destroyed the Turkish squadron at Sinop, and the defeat of the Turkish army near Kars. England, fearing the seizure of the straits by Russia, sided with Turkey, attracted France and Sardinia to the coalition. The intentions of Austria and Prussia were threatening. In view of this, the Russian troops operating in the direction of Constantinople had to move back across the Danube. The Anglo-French fleet managed to drive the Russian fleet back to Sevastopol, where it was sunk by order of the Russian command. Then the Anglo-French troops besieged Sevastopol. During this siege, Russian soldiers and sailors fought with such heroism that the fame of them lives on among the people to this day. The poorly equipped, half-starved army withstood the onslaught of the Anglo-French troops for a long time, possessing high military equipment. In 1855 the Russian garrison emerged from the ruins of Sevastopol.

In 1856, peace was concluded in Paris between Russia, England, France, Turkey and Sardinia. In this world, Russia pledged to destroy its fortresses on the shores of the Black Sea and not to keep a military fleet on it. Russia lost part of Bessarabia.