Introduction 9
may wonder why this volume does not contain more statistical exercises
tabulating military expenditure per man, casualty ratios, and the like. An
effort to reconstruct expenditure on the armed forces between 1789 and 182512
convinced me that many of the essential data are highly unreliable. Even ror a
period as late as the Crimean War estimates of the Russia army's actual size (as
distinct from the official establishment figure, or shtat) vary tremendously,
and casualty figures are even less trustworthy. This, too, is a task for the
future.
The ranking system in the post-Petrine army was of the standard European
type, with ensign (praporshchik) as the lowest commissioned rank; officers
from ensign to captain inclusive were classed as subalterns (ober-ofitsery), and
majors to colonels as staff officers (shtab-ofitsery); general ranks extended
from brigadier to full general (general-anshef). Minor differences of desig-
nation between various arms of service have been disregarded. The term
'soldier' as used here usually refers to the nizhnye chiny, who included warrant
officers, non-commissioned officers (NCOs), and privates (in American,
enlisted men). A verst is equivalent to 1.067 km. (1166.4 yards), a desyatina to
1.09 hectares (2. 70 acres), a pud to 16.38 kg. (36.11 lb.), and afunt to 409.4 gr.
(0.90 lb.).
A number of friends and colleagues kindly read parts of the manuscript and
made helpful suggestions; none are responsible for such errors as remain. I
should like to thank them and also the John S. Guggenheim Foundation for its
generous financial support.
12 'Russian Army's Response', pp. 521-3.