The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Issues of military and diplomatic and colonial policy of autocracy in the North Caucasus (second quarter of the 19th century)



sabir GAZIUMAROV

ISSUES of MILITARY and DIPLOMATIC AND COLONIAL POLICY of AUTOCRACY IN the NORTH CAUCASUS (second quarter of the 19th century)

Article is devoted to historiographic generalization of issues of military and diplomatic and colonial policy of the Russian Empire in the conditions of the Caucasian war of XIXv. which left a serious mark in national history. In article the main directions of development of a historiography of war in imperial, Soviet and the present are defined.

This article is dedicated to the historiographic generalization of military and diplomatic issues and colonial policy of the Russian empire during the Caucasian war (19th century), which played an important role in Russian history. The article defines the main ways of the war historiography progression during the empire, soviet and modern historic period.

The Caucasian war, the North Caucasus, Dagestan, Chechnya, mountaineers, policy of Russia in the North Caucasus, historiographic researches; Caucasian war, North Caucasus, Dagestan, Chechnya, mountain dwellers, Russian policy in the region of North Caucasus, historiographic research.

Years of military-political and diplomatic activity of the Russian Empire in the second quarter of the 19th century in the North Caucasus are not only bright pages of national history, but also left a serious mark in world history. They initially drew to themselves close attention of domestic and foreign historians, political and public figures, representatives of culture, literature and art. It is unlikely so many researches are devoted to any events in the history of the North Caucasian people. Unfortunately, so far there are no generalizing historiographic researches devoted to the comprehensive analysis of publications on stories of the Russian-North Caucasian relations of the second quarter of the 19th century. In article an attempt to give the short state-of-the-art review of the domestic historiography devoted to policy of the Russian Empire in the second quarter of the 19th century is made

First of all we will note that in a historiography of the specified subject three main periods are allocated: pre-revolutionary (1801 — 1917), Soviet (1917 — 1991) and Post-Soviet (since 1991 till present).

The first works relating to a research subject appeared already in the first half of the 19th century. They in detail described features of the North Caucasian region, its climate and customs of the people living here, i.e. had some ethnogeographical character. The characteristic of the listed researches consisted in their political indifference, lack of any critical evaluations and aspirations to the objective, weighed analysis of prospects of the Russian development new zemel1.

From the middle of the 19th century in historical literature the researches of military contents devoted to revolts of mountaineers under the leadership of the local nobility, to participation of the Cossacks and regular army in the Caucasian war prevailed. The course of fighting moved in many respects unilaterally, many problems were just suppressed,

1 See S.M. Bronevsky. The latest geographical and historical news of the Caucasus. In 2 parts. Ch.1. - M, 1823.

GAZIUMAROV

Sabir Dzhalalovich —

graduate student of department

stories Russian

economic

academies

of G.V. Plekhanov

as works of historians came down mostly to studying fighting and direct implementation of policy of P.D. Tsitsianov and the Apostle of Ermolova1.

The noticeable place in kavkazovedchesky literature is taken by works of the military historian of the 19th century of the general R.A. Fadeyev and especially his monograph "60 years of the Caucasian war". R.A. Fadeyev wrote that "the Caucasian army holds in the hand a key from the East" and that "from the Caucasian isthmus Russia can get everywhere where it will be necessary for it" 2.

R.A. Fadeyev's work was, in fact, reflection of views of the Russian generals. The author was right, claiming that offensive war against mountaineers began really only with appointment as the commander-in-chief of the Caucasian edge of the general Yermolov in 1816

R.A. Fadeyev, emphasizing importance of development of trade relations in the Caucasus, wrote about importance of establishment of unilateral control of Russia of trade in the Caucasus, emphasizing that "... the European trade with Persia and Internal Asia passes through the Caucasian isthmus, subordinated to the Russian state, promises the state positive benefits; the same trade which passed through the Caucasus independent of us would create a never-ending number of losses and dangers to Russia". This point of view many authors of the 19th century 3 Among them S.A. Belokurov, V.A. Potto, M. Pogodin, A.L. Zisserman, P. Zubov, M.M. Kowalewski, O. Markgraf, V.I. divided Ivanenko4.

The Cossacks were one of the main strongholds of autocracy in the North Caucasus. Prominent historians of I.D. Popko, Items Korolenko5, etc. researchers were engaged in studying its history. Noting legality of the Cossack rights and privileges in the won region, they reflected socio-political moods of the Russian society of the time. In pre-revolutionary kavkazovedchesky literature the important place is taken by F.I. Leontovich's works,

1 U. Daudayev. Chechen tribe. Collection of information about the Caucasian mountaineers. T.4. — Tiflis, 1872.
2 R.A. Fadeyev. Sixty years of the Caucasian war. Soch. - SPb., 1889, t. 1, p. 10.
3 See, for example, P.P. Kartsev. To the history of conquest of the Caucasus//the Russian old times, 1894, No. 4.
4 See: Belokurov S.A. The intercourses of Russia with the Caucasus. - M, 1888.
5 See: I.D. Terskiye's buttocks Cossacks with age-old

times. — SPb., 1880; P.P. Korolenko. Kuban

Cossacks. — Ekaterinodar, 1894, etc.

S. Esadze, G. Hans and A.A. Kaufmana6. In them the public relations, common law and social interrelations of the mountain people, ways of transition of indigenous people from a patrimonial system to feudal are investigated. In post-reform years there was a liberal bourgeois direction of the Russian historiography. A.G. Evreinov's research can be an example of the liberal views in the Russian historiography of the Caucasus. Criticizing national policy of autocracy, he emphasizes that preservation of the multinational state and management of it has to be based on the thought-over decision multinational otnosheniy7.

A.S. Griboyedov was one of the first Russian writers who managed to understand that in the Caucasus there live people, worthy sympathies from decent people of the Russian land. Recognizing historical need, he condemned the control system of edge constructed on violence, robberies and unfaithfulness. "My God, what at us here generals! — with bitterness A.S. Griboyedov wrote. — They precisely are purposely created even more to approve me in disgust which I have ranks and differences" 8. In some cases the great writer expressed the admiration of "courage, insight and A.P. Yermolov's mind".

In the last quarter of the 19th century the historians pay attention to formation of new social and economic structure in the explored region. Attempts of the analysis of the land and class relations of mountaineers of the North Caucasus and the prospects of economic interaction with Russia are made.

Since October, 1917 qualitatively new historiographic period which feature was close connection of historical science with ideological installations of party and the Soviet government begins.

With the assistance of the large historian Marxist academician M.N. Pokrovsky in a historiography the most negative estimates of policy of a tsarism in the Caucasus were approved. Since this period in works Soviet is-

6 See: F.I. Leontovich. Adats of the Caucasian mountaineers. — Odessa, 1882; S. Esadze. The historical information about management of the Caucasus, t.1. — Tiflis, 1907.
7 See G.A. Evreinov. Ethnic questions on the foreign outskirts of Russia. — SPb., 1908.
8 A.S. Griboyedov. Complete works. — Petrograd, 1913, t.3, p. 34.

investigators of imperial strategy and tactics of the autocratic power in the Caucasus in the first quarter of the 19th century the course of internationalism and friendship between the people which "was surely conducted by the first Soviet republic" 1 is opposed "only true".

In the 1930th, with adoption of the Constitution of 1936 and new trends in the national policy of the Soviet state, despite tight ideological restrictions, in the Soviet historiography interest in policy of Russia in the Caucasus became aggravated again. Justification of continuity of fate of Russia and the North Caucasus became a top trend of historical researches of this time. Thus, researches which contained criticism not only imperial policy of a tsarism, but also nationalism of the small people of Kavkaza2 became an important part of a historiography of this period.

Noticeable recession in a research of a subject was observed during the period since the beginning of the 1940th and up to the XX congress in 1956 3 Objective research of relationship of Russia and the mountain people became impossible owing to political circumstances, mainly because of the policy of deportation of a number of the people of the North Caucasus pursued in the 1940th.

In particular, at a boundary of 1940 — the 50th assessment of the movement of mountaineers in the Northeast Caucasus of the first half of the 19th century sharply changed on opposite. In 1947 at an enlarged meeting of the sector of history of the people of the USSR of Institute of history of Academy of Sciences of the USSR "About historical essence of the Caucasian myuridizm" H.G. Adzhimyan made the report. The essence of a performance came down to the fact that the positive assessment of the movement of mountaineers accepted in the Soviet historical science is incorrect — it was reactionary, feo-

1 N.F. Yakovlev. Ingushs. — M — D., 1925; Aliyev U. Cara-Hulk (Black people). Essay of historical development of mountaineers of the North Caucasus. — Rostov N / D., 1927; Priests N.N. October revolution and ethnic question. — M, 1927; Cantor E. An ethnic question at the 12th congress of RCP. — M, 1923, etc.
2 B.V. Skitsky. Social nature of the movement of the imam Mansour//News of the 2nd North Caucasian teacher's college of Gadiyev. — Ordzhonikidze, 1932; L. Rubenstein. In fight for Lenin national policy. — Kazan, 1930; Saxophone of. Work among ethnic minorities. — L., 1931.
3 Soviet socialist multinational

state. — M, 1940; E.N. Burdzhalov. Royal

Russia after the Decembrist uprising. — M, 1941.

dalno-religious resistance to influence of more advanced Russia, and his heads were the Anglo-Turkish agents. The author of the first Marxist-Leninist assessment of the movement of mountaineers of the Northeast Caucasus as progressive and liberating M.N. Pokrovsky was subjected to sharp criticism. The reasons of similar revaluation lay far outside science.

In April, 1950 in theoretical and political body of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) of the Central Committee — the Bolshevik magazine M. Bagirov's article "To a question the nature of the movement of a myuridizm and Shamil" was published. In it adzhamyanovsky estimates and arguments completely repeated.

A turning point in the history of the country became taken place in February — March, 1956 the XX congress of the CPSU which openly condemned a cult of personality and laid the foundation for many transformations.

In 1956 in Moscow and Makhachkala two all-Union scientific conferences on the objective analysis and assessment of the movement of mountaineers of the Northeast Caucasus 20 — the 50th of the 19th century took place. Their conclusions were unambiguous: movement of the North Caucasian mountaineers under the leadership of Shamil was grass-roots, national, anti-colonial and could not be inspired from abroad.

Distinctive feature of the works created in the 1960th is close attention of historians to a problem of cultural influence of Russia to Chechnya, Dagestan and Kabarda and also the fact that at this time the most active development of a historiography happens not in the center of the country, and in the republics of Northern Kavkaza4. In the 1960th certain interest in the national liberation movement of mountaineers of the North Caucasus which was supported mainly with the policy of rehabilitation which began since 1957 deported by the Stalin management on-rodov5 was observed. Since the end of the 1960th it is noticeable a post -

4 See Z.V. Anchabadze, A.I. Robakidze. To a question of the nature of the Caucasian mountain feudalism. Iberian-Caucasian linguistics. T.18. — Tbilisi, 1973; A.L. Letifov. Historical experience of national-state construction in the North Caucasus. — Makhachkala, 1972.
5 N.P. Gritsenko. Social and economic development of Chechen-Ingushetia in 18 — to the first half is 19 century — Grozny, 1961; M. Totoyev. From the history of friendship of the Ossetian people with the great Russian people. — Ordzhonikidze, 1963; A.V. Fadeyev Russia and the Caucasus in the first third of 19 century — M., 1961.

foam recession of number of research works on a problem of the movement of mountaineers which can be connected with begun at a boundary of 1960 — the 1979th the so-called period of stagnation.

In the 1970th — the first half of the 1980th the problem of development of feudalism and ethnocultural features of the mountain people becomes the hottest topic in historical researches. In the monographs on problems of implementation of the Russian policy in the Caucasus which appeared in the 1970th, the main focus was traditionally placed on criticism of the tsarism seeking to subordinate the freedom-loving people of Northeast Kavkaza1.

From the second half of the 1980th the research of a subject gets absolutely new referral. The policy of Russia in the North Caucasus receives unambiguously negative assessment in works of researchers, and leaders of liberation movement turn into national heroes. A peculiar summary of scientific moods of that period is reflected in article of professor M.M. Bliyev "The Caucasian war: social sources, essence", published in No. 2 for 1983 of the Istoriya SSSR magazine. Only five years later, in 1988, article of his opponents containing opposite interpretation of the Caucasian war was published in the same historical magazine.

In the late eighties — the beginning of the 1990th works of nationalist and separatist orientation were actively published. Any interpretation of the known historical events and prevalence of critical views of national policy not only tsarist Russia, but also Soviet state blow-stva2 became distinctive feature of a historiography of this period.

Since the beginning of the 1990th till present

1 See: V.B. Vinogradov. Through ridges of centuries. — Grozny, 1971; E.N. Kusheva, M.A. Ushanov. To a question of a social order of Vainakhs//the Soviet ethnography, 1978, No. 6; N.G. Volkova. The ethnic structure of the population of the North Caucasus in 18 — the beginning of the 19th century. — M, 1974.
2 Formation of the Russian Federation. — M, 1986; O.I. Chistyakov. The national state in the USSR in the years of civil war (1918 — 1920). — M, 1987; The History of national-state construction in the USSR. — M, 1989; A. Avtorkhanov. Empire of the Kremlin. — Minsk — Moscow, 1991.

in development of a domestic historiography noticeable changes happen. Historical researches of this period gained relative independence from any kinds of ideology, scientists began to allocate a problem of national movements as one of factors of disintegration of the country in 1917 and 1991. Interest in national policy of the Russian Empire was in addition updated in connection with aggravation of national and ethnic contradictions on Post-Soviet prostranstve3. The greatest interest of historians, especially in national regions, liberation movement of mountaineers of the first half of the 19th century 4 caused

Fundamental changes of the 1990th immeasurably increased the interest of scientists in studying history of the Russian policy in the North Caucasus. A number of scientific works on this teme5 is in recent years published. However, as shows the analysis of a historiography, despite numerous researches, the question remains insufficiently studied. It is connected with a number of objective and subjective factors from which the influence of ideology and excessive politicization of a problem generating discrepancy of estimates of the same historical events are distinguished.

In modern conditions the research of issues of military and diplomatic and colonial policy of autocracy in the North Caucasus in the second quarter of the 19th century continues to remain one of the directions of development of the Russian historiography.

3 A.I. Doronchenkov. The international relations and national policy in Russia: current problems of the theory, history and modern practice. Ethnopolitological essay. — SPb., 1995; National policy of Russia: history and the present / Under the editorship of V.A. Mikhaylov. — M, 1997.
4 A.M. Khalilov. The national liberation movement of mountaineers of the North Caucasus under Shamil's leadership. — Makhachkala, 1996; Gammer M. Shamil. Muslim resistance to a tsarism. Conquest of Chechnya and Dagestan. — M, 1998.
5 G. Vertepov. Ingushs: historical and statistical essay. — Saratov, 1996; V.L. Velichko Caucasus. Russian business and intertribal questions//Power, 1997, No. 9; G.N. Malakhova. Formation of the Russian administration in the North Caucasus at the end of XVIII — the first half of the 19th century. — Moscow — Pyatigorsk, 1999.
Antonsen Arnulf
Other scientific works: