Resistance, Repression, and Reformstricken response, which took the spectacular form of disbanding the regirr
overnight. The alleged ringleaders were sentenced to the gauntlet, followec
exile to the Siberian mines, while the rest of the men were dispersed am
other units, most of which were iocated in the south, where they formed a re
voir of potentially subversive elements; as we know, the officers in the se1
societies tried to make use of their disaffection.
It is now clear, thanks to recent Soviet research, that apart from this af
there were at least 15 other collective protests by soldiers between 1820 ;
1825.^11 When Grand Duke Constantine wrote privately that 'the men in
ranks are ceasing to obey their superiors'1^2 he was exaggerating, but they \Ii
indeed less willing than usual to put up passively with corrupt or unjust acti
by their superiors. This attitude was more widespread in the south, as
might expect. Distance from the capital was a factor here, as was the prese
of many of the men who had served in France under Lieutenant-Gen•
Vorontsov. They also had the sympathy and goodwill of several enlighte
senior commanders, among them some of the 'patrons' whose role ·
discussed in ch. 11. Major-General M. F. Orlov, who headed the 16th In far
Division stationed in Moldavia, tried to apply the law in an even-handed m
ner-conduct so unusual that it cost him his position ( 1823 ). He sent for co'
martial officers who committed acts of brutality or peculation, but even
could not prevent all those who submitted complaints lawfully from be
punished.^1 J One of the his associates, Major V. F. Rayevsky, wrote later t
this was a general practice, 14 but fortunately there were exceptions. Thw
June 1823 a company of the Tobol'sk infantry regiment protested aga
cruelty on the part of their lieutenant, Pertsov, by stepping forward in a b1
during a parade held by the corps commander, General I. V. Sabaneyev; n
is no record of their being punished for doing so, and Pertsov was postec
another division.^15 Protests in guards units seem to have been handled
severely. One should not assume that every complaint was necessarily justif
In one unit penalties were imposed for misconduct and drunkenness b
lieutenant, A. V. Usovsky, who later became an active member of one of
secret societies; he was evidently just trying to enforce the regulations i
reasonable way.^16
This incident shows how difficult it was for Praetorian officers to fin
common language with their men. Their tactics were on the whole sensible
None of this, needless to say, exonerates him from respo11sibili1y for unpardonable cone
Wieczynski's sources may be 'upplemented by Engel"gardt, Zap1ski, pp. 232-7; Kari
'Semenovskiy polk'; Chernova, 'lz istorii', pp. 56-68; V. l. Rao.:hinsky, 'O be,poryadkakh
[ 1852), in Shchukinskiy sbomik,' i. 15 7-69; Fedonl\. Sulclcmkoye 1frd1e111re, pp. 72-160.
11 Fedorov, Su/datskoyedvizhen(ve, pp. t61-73; on the 'Kam..:hatJ..a rcgimc111 affair' d.
Orlov, Kapitulyatsiya Parizha, p. 296.
12 Fedorov, Soldatskoye di•izhem_ve, p. 164.
l.l Ibid., pp. 165-8; R/JS xii. 358-9.
14 'O solda1e' (c. t822), reproduced in Oksman e1 al., Delwhris1y, p. 22.
Il Fedorov, So/datskoyedvizheniye, pp. 170-1. lh Ibid., p. 172.