The Struggle for Survival 197
Losses were particularly high among recruits-proportions of one third to one
half were frequently mentioned by foreign writers^137 -but most of these men
will surely have deserted, not died. All the same death, not discharge, was the
musi iikdy pruspt:l:i awaiting Russian soidiers. What of the fortunate survivors'!Until the end of the eighteenth century Russia had no 'veteran problem'. Peter
I had his old soldiers sent to monasteries. m The practice continued, 139 despite
occasional grumbles by the religious, until these establishments had their lands
secularized in 1764. That year Catherine 11 set aside 31 towns as places of
residence for certain younger and healthier veterans. They were organized into
'detachments of non-serving invalids' and given light duties: guarding
armouries, churches, schools, etc. They were not to be sent outside the town to
which they were assigned and a sum of 80,000 roubles was set aside for their
maintenance.^140 This was a step in the right direction, but the number of places
in these units was pathetically small. Over half of them were allocated to
officers (695 as against 560 for NCOs and privates); moreover, many of the
latter, for instance the 110 guardsmen mentioned, will have been of privileged
background. This may have reflected their preponderance among veterans of
the Seven Years War. The reform of provincial government in 1775 brought
military invalids under civilian jurisdiction, but the emperor Paul charac-
teristically reversed this move.^141 By 1801 the number of non-serving invalids
in the lower ranks had climbed to 9,386.^142 This was a respectable growth in
absolute terms but represented an infinitesimal proportion of the men who had
been inducted into the forces. (Unfortunately no statistics are available for the
total number of veterans.)
Throughout the period the official assumption was that the bulk of ordinary
soldiers who were no longer fit to serve should be maintained by the com-
munities from which they had been recruited, to which they were supposed to
return-as free men rather than serfs. This expectation was unrealistic. Their
donors, whether peasant communities or landowners, considered that they no
longer bore any obligation towards such ghostly figures who had, as it were,
'returned from the dead'.^14 ' These men had lost their right to a land allotment
and were too old to learn a new trade; unless they could find a new 'protector',
they were reduced to begging for alms. We hear of such men 'wandering from
137 For example, [Schwan(?)]. MerkwurdiRkeiren, p. 123; Ami de la Verile, Coup d'oeil, p. 90;
von Reimers. 'Peterburg', p. 447; de Raymond, Tableau. p. 519; cf. Petrov, Russ. voyennayo silo,
ii. 152 for a 45 per cent loss to one party of recruits in 1754!
138 PSZ vi. 3576 (3 May 1720), vii. 4151 (28 Jan. 1723).
139 PSZ viii. 5337. 5360 (9 Oct. 1728, 17 Jan. 1729). ix. 6321 (10 Feb. 1733). xi. 8354 (26 Mar.
1741), xiv. 10355 (9 Feb. 1755).
140 PSZ xvi. 12060 (26 Feb. 1764); cf. xvi. 11674 (3 Oct. 1762). xliii. 12135, ~ 10, xliii. 18300,
Table VIII; Geysman, in SVM iv (2, i). 44-6.
141 'lnvalidy', VE x. 608.
142 Geysman, in SVM iv (2. i). 46.
143 Ncizvestnyy, 'Za mnogo let', p. 122; cf. P. Czap, Jr. in D. Ransel (ed.), The Family in Im-
perial Russia: New Lines of Historical Research, Urbana. II. 1978, p. 112.