8 lnlroduction
censors. Most of them accepted these IimitationsJO and their works often echo
the caste spirit and chauvinism characteristic of that age; nevertheless they
constitute a valuable body of source material. Still more important are the
various collections of laws and parts of the War Ministry's official history
(1902-11), while numerous foreign visitors to, or residents in Russia (some of
whom served in the forces), also left observations of interest, particularly if
they published their accounts abroad.
Soviet scholars have added considerably to knowledge of the subject, even
though 'the armed forces and society' (as it is termed in the West) is not yet an
acknowledged sub-discipline and historians' interpretation of the material has
sometimes been stridently nationalistic, not to say militaristic. This bias can be
allowed for, as can the ideologically motivated temptation to acclaim any dis-
sent or mutinous activity as evidence of 'class struggle'. No one can afford
to overlook the studies by V. I. Buganov, M. D. Rabinovich, or the late
lamented P. A. Zayonchkovsky and the dean of Soviet military historians,
L. G. Beskrovnyy. Specialists in other areas such as demography or agrarian
relations also have a great deal to add. Whatever mental reservations may be
harboured about Soviet historians' methodology, they have the inestimable
advantage of ready access to the rich archival holdings.
In 1978 I was kindly allowed to see some material from the Central Military-
Historical Archive (TsGVIA) in Moscow which relates to life in the ranks dur-
ing the late eighteenth century. An extensive sojourn in the USSR would be
necessary in order to write an authoritative, comprehensive account of this
subje1:t. The present volume does not claim to be more than an introduction
which may perhaps encourage others to study some of the themes touched on
only episodically here: for example, the organization of the supply services,
the militia (opo/cheniye), or the rewards system, which included the bestowal
of remarkably lavish gifts on individual servitors by the tsar, a practice that
must have done mud1 to foster lo;alist sentiments. ideally, the social history
of the Russian army should be dealt with in a comparative all-European con-
text, but this can scarcely be done until more preliminary studies have been
written. We have to walk before we can run. Happily work in this field is
under way.^11
Little has been said here about the autonomous Cossack warrior communities
of southern Russia, partly for reasons of space and partly because this topic is
best handled by specialists on the Ukraine. Aficionados of quantitative history
1o G. Ci. Karl\ov, one of 1he bes1 known of these writers. admi11ed thal, in describing a mutiny,
he had 'Inned down' whal seemed to him to be extreme or out of line wi1h the views of those who
regarded the mailer 'calmly': 'Semcnovskiy polk', p. 332.(^11) I owe a par1irnlar dcbl to the pioneering work of R. Hellie and J. S. Cur1iss. Studies in pro·
gress include those by E. Kimerling-Wirtschaflcr on soldiers in the early nineteenth century,
ll. W. Menning on lhe Cossacks, C. B. Stevens on the Razryad, and W. McK. Pintncr on the
defence budgel. Among authorities on the period 1874-1917 are J. Bushnell, P. Kenez and
A. Wildman. I had not seen D. Beyrau, Militiir rmd Gesel/schaft im vorrevolwioniiren R11ssla11d,
Cologne, 1984, when this manus.:ripl was sent to press.