Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:59:47.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject Nationalities in the Military Service of Imperial Russia: The Case of the Bashkirs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Robert F. Baumann
Robert F. Baumann*
Affiliation:
Combat Studies Institute, U. S. Army Command and General Staff College (Ft. Leavenworth)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 6 July 1874, the government of Alexander II published an edict announcing the formation of a mounted Bashkir squadron in the Orenburg guberniia. The modest scale of the endeavor—a squadron-sized element added little to Russian military strength—belied its historic importance. The Bashkirs, in 1874, stood at a watershed in their long history of military service to Russia marking the divide between decades of irregular frontier duty and inclusion in the ranks of the regular army. The evolution of Bashkir military formations, paralleling the course of social change, offers a most instructive case in little-studied aspects of imperial policy towards subject national minorities and their employment in the armed forces in particular. A virtually forgotten component in Russia's rich military tradition, the contribution of “native” units organized among the inorodtsy of the Caucasus, the Crimea, and Asia was indeed significant.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 46 , Issue 3-4 , Fall/Winter 1987 , pp. 489 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to acknowledge crucial support for this research from the International Research and Exchanges Board, Fulbright-Hays, the Russian and East European Center at the University of Illinois, and Moscow University. I also thank my former colleagues in the Department of History at Kansas State University for their constructive suggestions.

1. The term inorodtsy literally refers to all those of alien origin but was more commonly applied to Asians than to Europeans.

2. The establishment of universal military service in Russia had important social implications, beginning with the extension of liability to young men of all social estates. Excellent discussions of thereform can be found in Zaionchkovskii's, P. A. Voennye reformy 1860–70 godov v Rossii (Moscow: Moscow University Press, 1952)Google Scholar and Miller's, Forrestt Dmitrii Miliutin and the Reform Era in Russia (Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

3. D. A. Miliutin, “O glavnykh osnovaniakh lichnoi voennoi povinnosti,” Central State HistoricalArchive of Leningrad (hereafter TsGIA), fond 908, opis’ 1, delo 28, listy 35–36. On the topic ofuniversal service and nationality policy, see Baumann, Robert, “Universal Service Reform and Russia's Imperial Dilemma,” War and Society 4, no. 2 (1986): 31–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. For a good analysis of Russification policies, see Thaden's, Edward “Introduction” in Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland, 1855–1914, ed., Thaden, E. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981)Google Scholar. Thaden defines “administrative Russification” on p. 9 as the “gradual introductionof Russian institutions and laws and extension of the use of Russian in the local bureaucracyand as a subject in schools. “

5. The Bashkirs were among the best represented inorodtsy in irregular forces during the nineteenth century. Groups more integrated into Russian society, such as the Volga Tatars or Mordvinians, did not serve in irregular units.

6. Among these general studies the principal ones written by historians in the Soviet Unioninclude Ocherki po istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, a collective effort published by the Bashkirian Academyof Sciences in 1959; Usmanov's, Kh. F. Razvitie kapitalizma v sel'skom khoziaistve Bashkirii v poreformennii period (Moscow: Nauka, 1981 Google Scholar; and Davletbaev's, B. S. Krest'ianskaia reforma 1861 goda v Bashkirii (Moscow: Nauka, 1983 Google Scholar. The first surveys the main features'of the historical landscape sincethe onset of Russian domination, while the latter two assess social conditions in Bashkiria during the nineteenth century and the problems raised by progressive Russian encroachment on Bashkir lands. A fourth item warranting mention is “Uchastie Bashkir v voinakh i pokhodakh Rossii v period kantonnogo upravleniia,” a brief study by A. Asfandiarov. Appearing in Iz istorii feodalizma i kapitalizma v Bashkirii (Ufa: Bashkirskii filial AN ASSR, 1971), this article details the involvement of Baskhkir units in Russia's wars of the early nineteenth century but offers little substantive commentary.Finally, Donnelly's, Alton The Russian Conquest of Bashkiria 1552–1740 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1968)Google Scholar examines the process of Muscovy's penetration of its southeastern border lands and chronicles the rising tide of rebellion and reprisals between Bashkirs and Russians. Itstands as the lone work in English on Russia's incorporation of Bashkiria.

7. Donnelly, Russian Conquest, p. 19.

8. Avrich, Paul, Russian Rebels 1600–1800 (New York: Norton, 1972, p. 196 Google Scholar; Vasil'ev, S. M., ed., Materialy po istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR (Moscow: Akademiia Nauk, 1960) 1: 684 Google Scholar. Avrich focuses on the traditions of Russian peasant rebellions but pays close attention to the role of non-Russian elementsas well.

9. Donnelly, Russian Conquest, pp. 82–95, 138.

10. S. v. “Bashkiry,” Entsiklopedkheskii slovar’ (St. Petersburg: Efron and Brokhaus, 1897), pp.225–240. This entry is rich in data concerning nineteenth century Bashkiria.

11. Avdeev, P. I., Istoricheskaia zapiska ob orenburgskom kazach'em voiske (Orenburg, 1904). p. 43 Google Scholar, and Nikol'skii, A., Voinskaia povinnost’ kazach'ikh voisk in Stoletie voennogo ministerstva, 1802–1902, ed., Skalon, D. A. (St. Petersburg: M. O. Vol'f, 1907) 11 (pt. 1): 322–323 Google Scholar. Donnelly, Russian Conquest, pp.168–169, and “Bashkirskoe voisko,” Voennaia entsiklopediia (St. Petersburg, 1911) 4: 428–429. The figure of one thousand is from A. I. Maksheev, Istoricheskii obzor Turkestana i nastupatel'nogo dvizheniia v nego russkikh (St. Petersburg: Voennaia Tipografiia, 1890), p. 95. The sources do not show how theseso-called loyal Bashkirs were recruited. They probably lived in the proximity of Russian outposts and found opportunity in Russian service. See also Vasil'ev, Material)/, pp. 431–433.

12. Tarasov, Iu. M., Russkaia krest'ianskaia kolonizatsiia iuzhnogo Urala (Moscow: Nauka, 1984, pp. 53–54 Google Scholar. A break down of the population by nationality is not available, but the Bashkirs probably accounted for not more than one-third.

13. Vasii'ev, Materialy, p. 677; Avrich, Russian Rebels, p. 197. For greater detail see Chuloshnikov, A. P., Vosstanie 1755 g. v Bashkirii (Moscow: Nauka, 1940 Google Scholar.

14. Avrich, Russian Rebels, p. 198.

15. Mavrodin, V. V., Krest'ianskaia voina v Rossii v 1773–1775 godakh: vosslanie Pugucheva (Leningrad: Leningrad University, 1970) 3: 275–291 Google Scholar and Avrich, Russian Rebels, pp. 243–244.

16. Avrich, Russian Rebels, p. 198.

17. A. Nikol'skii, Glavnoe upravlenie kazach'ikh voisk in Skalon, , Slolelie voennogo minislerstva (St. Petersburg: Sunodal'naia tipografiia, 1902) 11 (pt. 2): 78 Google Scholar, and Smirnov, A. and Ustiugov, N., eds., Ocherkipo istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR (Ufa: Akademiia nauk. Bashkirskii filial, 1959) 1 (pt. 2): 36 Google Scholar.

18. “Bashkirskoe voisko,” Voennaia entsiklupediia, pp. 428–429, and Tipeev, Sh., Ocherki po istorii Bashkirii (Ufa: Bashkirskoe gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo, 1930), p. 27 Google Scholar

19. Avdeev, Istoricheskaia zapiska, pp. 41–43; Nikol'skii, Voinskaia povinnost’ kazach'ikh voisk, pp. 322–324.

20. Smirnov and Ustiugov, Ocherki po istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, and Mikhailovskii-Danilevskii, A. I., Opisanie vtoroi voiny Imperatora Aleksandra s Napoleonom v 1806 i 1807 godakh (St.Petersburg, 1846), p. 243 Google Scholar. See also Babkin, V., Narodnoe opolchenie v Otechestvennoi voine 1812 goda (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi literatury, 1962)Google Scholar.

21. Smirnov and Ustiugov, Ocherki po istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, pp. 64–65, and Asfandiarov, A. Z., “Uchastie bashkir v voinakh i pokhodakh Rossii v period kantonnogo upravleniia (1798–1865gg.)” in Iz istorii feodalizma i kapitalizma v Bashkirii, ed. Vasil'ev, S. M. (Ufa: Bashkirskii filial ANSSSR, 1971, pp. 84–88 Google Scholar.

22. Wilson, Sir Robert, Brief Remarks on the Character and Composition of the Russian Army and a Sketch of the Campaigns in Poland in the Years 1806 and 1807 (London: T. Egerton Military Library, 1810), p. 40 Google Scholar.

23. Tipeev, Ocherki po istorii Bashkirii, p. 27.

24. Wilson, Composition of the Russian Army, p. 40.

25. “Bashkiry,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar', p. 232; Matvievskii, P. E., Orenburgskii krai v otechestvennoi voine 1812g. (Orenburg, 1962), p. 112 Google Scholar, as cited in Asfandiarov, “Uchastie Bashkir,” p. 81.

26. Smirnov and Ustiugov, Ocherkipo istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, pp. 70–71. There is no indication that Bashkirs actually saw combat against the Turks.

27. Rybakov, B. A., ed., Islohia SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1968) 4: 438–439 Google Scholar; Smirnov and Ustiugov, Ocherki po istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, p. 93.

28. Nikol'skii, Glavnoe upravlenie kazach'ikh voisk, pp. 246–248.

29. Ibid., p. 246, and Smirnov and Ustiugov, Ocherki po istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, p. 39.Nikol'skii identifies remaining cantons as the fourth, fifth, sixth, and ninth, while Smirnov andUstiugov cite the fourth, sixth, seventh, and tenth,

30. “Bashkirskoe voisko,” Voennaia entsiklopediia, p. 429, and Avdeev, Istoricheskaia zapiska, p. 149. See also V. Potto, “O stepnykh pokhodakh,” Voennyi sbornik, no. 5 (1873), p. 8.

31. “Bashkirskoe voisko,” Voennaia entsiklopediia, p. 429. See also Ivanov, O. A., Obozrenie sostava i ustroistva reguliarnoi russkoi kavalerii (St. Petersburg, 1864)Google Scholar.

32. Murtazin, M. L., Bashkiriia i bashkirskie voiska v grazhdanskuiu voinu (Moscow: Izdanievoennoi tipografii, 1927, p. 46 Google Scholar, and Tipeev, Ocherki po istorii Bashkirii, p. 28.

33. Neither author attempts to explain. In any case, Tipeev's account seems to have been borrowed wholes ale from Murtazin.

34. Fisher, Alan, The Crimean Tatars (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1978), p. 89 Google Scholar.

35. Asfandiarov, “Uchastie bashkir,” p. 89. In fact, in 1853, 590 Bashkirs joined in the campaignagainst Ak-Mechet in Central Asia. See Vodop'ianov, V., “Orenburgtsy v Turkestane,” Voennoistoricheskii sbornik, no. 2 (1915), pp. 150, 154.Google Scholar

36. Smirnov and Ustiugov, Ocherki po istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, p. 150.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid., pp. 151–154, and Davletbaev, B. S., Krest'ianskaia reforma 1861 goda v Bashkirii (Moscow: Nauka, 1983, pp. 109–112 Google Scholar.

39. Voenno-statisticheskii sbornik (St. Petersburg, 1871), p. 19; Usmanov, Kh. F., Razvitie kapitalizma v sel'skom khoziaistve Bashkirii v poreformennyi period (Moscow: Nauka, 1981, pp. 106–107 Google Scholar.

40. “Zapiska chlena Soveta Glavnogo Upravleniia Zapadnoi Sibiri, Deistvitel'nogo StatskogoSovetnika Suprunenka, o tekh osobennostiakh, kakie neobkhodimo ustanovit’ pri otbyvanii lichnoipovinnosti v Zapadnoi Sibiri,” TsGIA, fond 1246, opis’ 16, 1874, delo 1, chast’ 1, list 741.

41. Ibid., listy 741–742. Russians referred to the Kazakhs as Kirghiz. For further discussion ofthe matter of nomadic peoples and the universal service statute, see Baumann, “Universal MilitaryService,” pp. 38–41. Suprunenko pointedly distinguishes this force from a conventional militia thatwould more closely adhere to a normal army regimen.

42. “Ob otpravlenii voennoi povinnosti naseleniem otdalennykh mest Vostochnoi Sibiri, iz “iatykhnyne ot rekrutskoi povinnosti,” TsGIA, fond 1246, opis’ 16, 1874, delo 1, chast’ 1, listy 760–761.

43. Usmanov, , “Perekhod bashkir k osedlosti i zemledel'heskomu khoziaistvu ,” in Issledovaniia po istorii Bashkirii XVII-XIX vv. (Ufa: Akademiia nauk. Bashkirskii filial, 1973), p. 88 Google Scholar.

44. Smirnov and Ustiugov, Ocherkipo istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, pp. 173–174.

45. Ibid., p. 177.

46. Davletbaev, Krest'ianskaia reforma, p. 115.

47. Ibid. See also “Podavlenie bezporiadkov na Mangyshlake v 1870 godu,” Voennyi sbornik, no.3 (1872), pp. 29–44.

48. McNeal, Robert, “The Reform of Cossack Military Service in the Reign of Alexander II,” in War and Society in East Central Europe, ed., Kiraly, Bela and Rothenberg, Gunther, (New York: Brooklyn College Press, 1979) 1: 412–416 Google Scholar.

49. Rostislav Fadeev, “Pereustroistvo russkikh sil,” Birzhevye vedomosti, no. 12 (13 January 1872).By the 1870s, Fadeev was largely discredited in government circles because of his rash outspokenness.

50. A. Shemanskii, “Skobelev i ego mysli 1879–81,” Voennoistoricheskii vestnik, no. 1 (1912), p. 22. Both Skobelev and Fadeev held strong pan-Slavist views and their disagreement about themilitary employment of inorodtsy belies the general similarity of their views.

51. “O sformirovanii Bashkirskogo eskadrona,” Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii, vtoroesobranie 49, no. 53, 706, and “Vysochaishe utverzhdennye pravila o poriadke otbyvaniia voinskoipovinnosti bashkirami Orenburgskogo kraia,” no. 53, 712; Kvitka, A., “Zametki o bashkirskom konnompolku,” Voennyi sbornik, no. 6 (1882), p. 315.Google Scholar

52. Fisher, Crimean Tatars, pp. 87–89.

53. “O pereformirovanii krymskogo i bashkirskogo eskadrona v diviziony,” Polnoe sobranie zakonov 49, no. 54, 927.

54. Bogdanovich, M. I., Istoricheskii ocherk deilel'nosti voennogo upravleniia v Rossii 1855–1880 (St. Petersburg, 1880) 5: 252–253 Google Scholar.

55. Kvitka, “Zametki,” p. 316.

56. Ibid., pp. 316–317.

57. Ibid., p. 316.

58. Ibid., p. 317.

59. Afanas'ev, V., “O bashkirskom konnom polku,” Voennyi sbornik, no. 8 (1882), pp. 328–329.Google Scholar

60. Ibid., p. 332.

61. Ibid., pp. 330, 332, 333.

62. Kvitka, “Zametki,” p. 318.

63. “Ob uprazdnenii bashkirskogo konnogo polka, s zamenoi onogo formirovannym v voennoevremia bashkirami militsii,” Polnoe sobranie zakonov, tret'e sobranie, vol. 2, no. 1, 010

64. See Zaionchkovskii, Voennye reformy, pp. 305–308 and 331–334, for an interesting perspectiveon the aims and achievements of the reformers. The experience of the Bashkirs in the regular armyremains a subject for future research. It will be particularly important to establish whether or not, asMiliutin hoped, service in the ranks fostered the future integration of the Bashkirs into the social andinstitutional life of the empire. Whatever the case, other Russian institutions had little effect. Accordingto Raimov, R. M., Obrazovanie Bashkirskoi Avtonomnoi Sovetskoi Sotsialisticheskoi Respubliki (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1952), p. 59–61 Google Scholar, the Russian educational system reached few Bashkirs.As of 1897, only 0.5 percent of Bashkirs in the Ufa guberniia were considered literate in Russian.