190 The Imperial Century, 1725-1825been an exceptional situation, since in such newly colonized regions civilian
tradesmen were still a rarity. Normally tailoring and repairs were done within
the unit, and craftsmanship was of a high standard.
Under Potemkin and Suvorov Russian troops were at least spared some of
the ridiculous accoutrements inlruuuced by Pctci HI, which were unpopular
both on practical grounds and because they seemed to symbolize alien 'Ger-
man' ways. General Khrushchev complained in 1764 that cavalrymen spent
hours powdering and braiding their hair and even had to sleep sitting up lest
their elaborate coiffure should suffer before they went on parade in the morn-
ing. 92 Suvorov's maxim: 'a soldier's outfit should be so:/Up he gets and he's
ready to go'^93 was echoed approvingly by Potemkin:
What makes military dress smart to behold is its uniformity and fitness for its pur-
pose. A soldier's tunic should clothe him, not inconvenience him. All extravagance
[shchego/"stvo) ought to be eliminated, for it is the fruit of luxury and takes a lot of time
and money. A soldier has no servants to look after him.^94
Such common-sense views were no longer in vogue under the militaristic rulers
who followed Catherine to the throne. However, the implications of the
change have been exaggerated by the more chauvinistic writers. As we have
seen, the 'Russian school' differed from the Prussian in style, not in substance.
It was tinged with respect for the 'simple Spartan life' and the classical soldierly
virtues-values later exemplified by Napoleon. Their consequences for men in
uniform would prove just as disastrous as those of old-school conservatives
who treated soldiers as if they were inanimate playthings.
Turning to the question of accommodation, we are confronted by a
paradox. For a century or so the troops benefited indirectly from the state's
inability to build the permanent quarters that Peter I had ordered. Had the
gentry co-operated in his scheme, the Russian army would have been even
more isolated from the rest of the population than it was. But the emperor's
instructions were largely ignored and had to be repealed soon after his death.
Landowners were relieved of the obligation to construct barracks on their
estates at their own expense,^95 and in the follQwing year the troops (now reduced
in strength) were withdrawn altogether from rural districts. This reform dealt a
major blow to the Petrine service state and was too radical to last. It was
countermanded in 1728 and the army returned; it also continued to collect the
poll tax.^96 With the passage of years barracks appeared, first in St. Petersburg
(mainly for the guards) and later in Moscow and certain provincial towns,
especially in border regions.^97 Those not so housed were billeted on the local
92 Dubrovin, Suvorov, p. 4; cf. Vyazemsky, 'Zapiska', pp. 13-16.
93 'Soldatskiy naryad dolzhen byt' takov I Chto vstal, to i gotov.' Dubrovin, Suvorov, p. 70;
Bogdanovich, Russkaya armiya, p. 21. 94 Dubrovin, Suvorov, pp. 108-10.
95 PSZ vii. 4936 (19 July 1726); Troitsky, Fin. politika, p. 131.
96 Petrov, Russkaya voyennaya silo, ii. 124.
97 PSZ viii. 5615, 6171 (4 Sept. 1730, 14 Sept. 1732), "· 7564 (20 Apr. 1738), Ki. 8079 (25 Apr.
1740), xvii. 12372 (10 Apr. 1765).