The Mind in the Machine 223also lower than that in other European armies, but since the latter included
large numbers of mercenaries this is not surprising. The Russian rate must be
considered high given the fact that this was a conscript army, nationally and
sociaiiy homogeneous, and ihai penahies wen: so severe.
Deserters who were caught generally faced the gauntlet, and might be
executed if their offence was carried out in aggravating circumstances.^106 As a
rule sentences were commuted. For example, I. Chernoy, a dragoon in the
Valuyki regiment, serving in the Ukrainian land-militia, deserted for the
second time in June 1762, adopted a false name, and stole one rouble and
some 'belongings' (pozhitki). A court martial sentenced him, on the basis of
the military statute and a decree of 1759, to the knout, facial mutilation, and
forced labour for life in Siberia. The sentence went up for confirmation to
Lieutenant-General Lachinov, who substituted a penalty of four passes. through a gauntlet of I ,000 men. This was reduced by the higher confirming
authority (Lieutenant-General Olits) to three passes, followed by service in a
garrison unit-also in Siberia, but in a better location than the notorious silver
mines of Nerchinsk.^107
Men who fled tended to do so in small groups, as this enhanced their
chances of survival. Before quitting they often took weapons and ammunition,
together with some money or other valuables which they could exchange for
food. To wear peasant dress was no guarantee against detection. S. Pletenets,
who deserted from the Yelizavetgrad mounted musketeers in June 1790,
encountered a search party; for some reason he 'took off his hat, and so Kemyl.it
[Pidsakov, chief of the search party], seeing his shaven head, declared him to
be a fugitive'.^108 It was helpful to acquire a false internal passport, although if
a man were discovered bearing one this aggravated his offence. It was often
hard for the authorities to establish the identitity of a suspected deserter
without going to the length of confronting him with his erstwhile comrades.
To be sure, his physical features (primely) were described in his papers, and in
the search orders, but only in vague terms. On the other hand the searchers
had all the resources of the civilian administration at their disposal as well as
posses of troops. Most deserters were probably recaptured without much effort
after a few days of liberty. They were wholly dependent on their wits and on
the goodwill of petty officials, tavern-keepers, and the like, who might well
be tempted by the prospect of a reward if they turned them in.^109 It was
therefore an advantage to would-be deserters if their units were stationed close to
the frontier.
106 Voinskiye artikuly, §§ 94-100 (PRP viii. 340-3).
101 TsGVIA, V-UA, ed. khr. 88 (1763), II. 15 ff. Cf. the case of Stepan Odintsev (Apr. 1779) in
ibid., ed. khr. 226, 11. 62-3.
108 TsGVIA, V-UA, ed. khr. 16449 (1790), II. 139 f.
109 This was 5 roubles under Peter I, but was doubled in 1732 and again in 1797. PSZ viii. 6024
(17 Apr. 1732), xiv. 10737 (7June1757), xv. 11405 (16 Jan. 1762), xxiv. 18244(15 Nov. 1797), § 5;
xxvi. 19270 (9 Feb. 1800).