Discussion:
No February Russian revolution
(too old to reply)
SolomonW
2018-02-04 05:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.

To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.

Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
WolfBear
2018-02-04 21:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
I suspect that Tsar Nicholas II would only buy himself a couple/several extra months' of time in such a scenario.
WolfBear
2018-02-04 21:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by WolfBear
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
I suspect that Tsar Nicholas II would only buy himself a couple/several extra months' of time in such a scenario.
*months' worth of time ... (typo)
SolomonW
2018-02-05 07:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by WolfBear
Post by WolfBear
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
I suspect that Tsar Nicholas II would only buy himself a couple/several extra months' of time in such a scenario.
*months' worth of time ... (typo)
Winter is always a problem for supplies, in a few months, it is summer with
the harvest coming in and food prices down. Plus in Jan 1917, the Russian
army looked pretty good, a major victory over the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
might buy him more than a few months.

Plus if the Russians are still in the war, looks much better for the locals
with the gain of another few months.
jerry kraus
2018-02-05 14:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
As I've indicated repeatedly, the problem with the Czarist regime was not WWI, it wasn't Nicholas II, it wasn't Lenin and Trotsky. The problem with the Czarist regime was the Czarist regime, which was hopelessly incompetent and corrupt at all levels. How can anyone take a regime seriously that actually believes, in the middle of WWI, that it's only problem is the eccentric monk Grigory Rasputin?
SolomonW
2018-02-06 09:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
As I've indicated repeatedly, the problem with the Czarist regime was not WWI, it wasn't Nicholas II, it wasn't Lenin and Trotsky. The problem with the Czarist regime was the Czarist regime, which was hopelessly incompetent and corrupt at all levels. How can anyone take a regime seriously that actually believes, in the middle of WWI, that it's only problem is the eccentric monk Grigory Rasputin?
The regime that replaced it was even more hopelessly incompetent and
corrupt at all levels.
jerry kraus
2018-02-06 14:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
As I've indicated repeatedly, the problem with the Czarist regime was not WWI, it wasn't Nicholas II, it wasn't Lenin and Trotsky. The problem with the Czarist regime was the Czarist regime, which was hopelessly incompetent and corrupt at all levels. How can anyone take a regime seriously that actually believes, in the middle of WWI, that it's only problem is the eccentric monk Grigory Rasputin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
The regime that replaced it was even more hopelessly incompetent and
corrupt at all levels.
No, Solomon, the Soviet Union WAS an improvement over the Czars, although I'd be inclined to agree that wasn't saying a great deal. Live expectancy actually doubled under the Soviets from the medieval levels in Russia under the Czars, a fact that Western Capitalists conveniently ignore. Of course, it was still a very bad regime, most Russian governments are. Peter the Great exterminated 20% of the Russian population, for example. Is that why he was so great? Despite the Civil War, the Second World War, etc., the population of Russia grew substantially under Josef Stalin.
SolomonW
2018-02-08 12:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
As I've indicated repeatedly, the problem with the Czarist regime was not WWI, it wasn't Nicholas II, it wasn't Lenin and Trotsky. The problem with the Czarist regime was the Czarist regime, which was hopelessly incompetent and corrupt at all levels. How can anyone take a regime seriously that actually believes, in the middle of WWI, that it's only problem is the eccentric monk Grigory Rasputin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
The regime that replaced it was even more hopelessly incompetent and
corrupt at all levels.
No, Solomon, the Soviet Union WAS an improvement over the Czars, although I'd be inclined to agree that wasn't saying a great deal.
Mmmmmmmm

I see it as a backward step but we could agree that neither was a great
deal for the population.
Post by jerry kraus
Live expectancy actually doubled under the Soviets from the medieval levels in Russia under the Czars, a fact that Western Capitalists conveniently ignore.
Maybe because the West life expectancy went up much further.
Post by jerry kraus
Of course, it was still a very bad regime, most Russian governments are.
Yep.
Post by jerry kraus
Peter the Great exterminated 20% of the Russian population, for example. Is that why he was so great?
Please explain
Post by jerry kraus
Despite the Civil War, the Second World War, etc., the population of Russia grew substantially under Josef Stalin.
Check the growth rates under the Czar.
Alex Milman
2018-02-09 15:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Peter the Great exterminated 20% of the Russian population, for example. Is that why he was so great?
Please explain
Of course, the statement above is an idiocy on more than one account. To start with, out of 3 Russian rulers with "Great" added to the name only Peter was associated with the big losses of population so no, he was not called "great" because of these losses.

Obviously (well, not to everybody), it is pointless to compare XVIII century to the XX century so the relevant approach would be to look at Peter's contemporaries. The only one other "Great" of that period was Louis XIV and his "greatness" included destruction of France on a scale which even Louis himself eventually recognized: by the end of his reign France was in ruins economically, financially, militarily and politically and suffered consequences all the way to the French Revolution. Probably human losses (as a percentage) had been lower than those of Peter's reign but they were big and you can make some parallels like building residence on a swamp or terror against the most productive part of a population (Protestants and Old Believers).

Another "quasi-great" personage of that time ("great" enough for Voltaire to write his biography) was Charles XII of Sweden who also left his country in ruins.

So, from a contemporary perspective, Peter qualified as "great" because he expanded Russian territory, made it an officially recognized empire and (which was very important from a contemporary point of view), turned Russia into what superficially looked as Western-style absolute monarchy. As for the rest, to quote from "Fanfan the Tulip", "when it comes to glory, I'm not bargaining": nobody was looking for the cost (or for the long-term consequences).

In other words, the argument is simply preposterous and, as a comparison between Tsarist Russia in general and the SU is a plain absurdity.
Alex Milman
2018-02-05 15:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
As you can easily find out, soon after the October coup (aka, "Bolshevik Revolution") starvation in Moscow and Petrograd reached the level surpassing whatever was there in the February of 1917 and, yet, the regime survived.

There were 2 main differences:

1st, extreme ruthlessness of the regime. Bolsheviks confiscated everything they could and organized a massive looting of the countryside to get at least some food for where it mattered (2 main cities). Any attempt to resist meant execution and the same goes for the black market (not that Cheka was capable to eliminate it completely). The strikes, which started the whole thing in OTL were outlawed (with the "standard" penalty) and, one of the reasons for the food shortages, strikes by the union of the railroad workers (Wikzel), was eliminated quite effectively (of course, by their policies the Bolsheviks created a fundamental supply problem but this was a different story). In OTL harvest of 1916 was good and (funny as it may sound) the government introduced "prodrazwerstka" but, unlike the Bolshevik program of the same name, it covered only a part of the whole production leaving in place a free market (and allowing the owners to hold the grain in expectation of the higher prices). It does not even make sense to discuss an issue of the political opposition.

2nd, a reliable military support base. There were always loyal units in the capital(s) with their loyalty guaranteed by the adequate food supplies. Noticeable percentage of these troops were foreigners: it seems that the "Latvian Rifles" were also including the German POWs, and recruitment of the Chinese started early in the 1918. Nicholas made a fundamental mistake of sending the Guards to the front and replacing them with the reservists (some of the "old" regiments in Petrograd were old just by name).


Tsarism in OTL version simply was not ruthless enough for these measures.
Rich Rostrom
2018-02-05 17:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
In OTL harvest of 1916 was good and (funny as it may
sound) the government introduced "prodrazwerstka"...
Which means ??
Post by Alex Milman
recruitment of the Chinese started early in the 1918.
"Chinese"?????

There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
SolomonW
2018-02-06 09:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
recruitment of the Chinese started early in the 1918.
"Chinese"?????
There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_in_the_Russian_Revolution_and_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
Alex Milman
2018-02-06 17:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
recruitment of the Chinese started early in the 1918.
"Chinese"?????
There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_in_the_Russian_Revolution_and_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
Part:

"The Red Army commander Iona Yakir headed a Chinese detachment guarding Lenin and Trotsky." is highly questionable: during the RCW Yakir was operating in Ukraine and Don area and hardly could serve as a head of Lenin's bodyguards. He is, indeed, credited with creation of the 1st Chinese unit but this was far away from Moscow. However, there are rumors about Lenin's Chinese guards.
SolomonW
2018-02-07 05:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
recruitment of the Chinese started early in the 1918.
"Chinese"?????
There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_in_the_Russian_Revolution_and_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
"The Red Army commander Iona Yakir headed a Chinese detachment guarding Lenin and Trotsky." is highly questionable: during the RCW Yakir was operating in Ukraine and Don area and hardly could serve as a head of Lenin's bodyguards. He is, indeed, credited with creation of the 1st Chinese unit but this was far away from Moscow. However, there are rumors about Lenin's Chinese guards.
Its clearly wrong but the wikipedia did ask whoever wrote it for a cite.
Alex Milman
2018-02-06 17:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
In OTL harvest of 1916 was good and (funny as it may
sound) the government introduced "prodrazwerstka"...
Which means ??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka#World_War_I_grain_razvyorstka

Contrary to the "everybody knows", the Bolsheviks borrowed this idea from Tsarist government (but, of course, expanded it well beyond the initial scope).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
recruitment of the Chinese started early in the 1918.
"Chinese"?????
What's wrong with the Chinese? There were between 150 and 200K of them in Russia by 1917.
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
Yes, why are you surprised? Approximately 40 - 50K out of 300K foreign mercenaries (two other major groups were Latvians and Hungarians).

http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%86%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8
Rich Rostrom
2018-02-06 18:27:33 UTC
Permalink
In article
<74c7fd07-a9e0-4358-8af3-***@googlegroups.com>
,
Post by Alex Milman
What's wrong with the Chinese? There were between
150 and 200K of them in Russia by 1917.
Where? I would not be surprised to find some Chinese
immigrants in the Russian Far East, but not in Moscow
or Petrograd.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
Yes, why are you surprised? Approximately 40 - 50K
out of 300K foreign mercenaries (two other major
groups were Latvians and Hungarians).
Well, Latvians weren't exactly foreigners, since Latvia
had been part of the Russian Empire, and Latvia was only
400 km from Petrograd and 650 km from Moscow. Russia
was in contact with Hungary during WW I, and had a lot
of Hungarian PoWs.

There were Chinese in _western_ Europe, but in maritime
locations such as the docks of London. I suppose there
were migrants to other countries with extensive
involvement in East Asia (China, Indochina, the East
Indies - thus France, Germany, the Netherlands, maybe
Portugal).

But it never occurred to me that there would be Chinese
in heartland Russia.

Also, 40-50K troops out of a population of 150K to 200K
seems very high.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2018-02-06 19:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
In article
,
Post by Alex Milman
What's wrong with the Chinese? There were between
150 and 200K of them in Russia by 1917.
Where? I would not be surprised to find some Chinese
immigrants in the Russian Far East, but not in Moscow
or Petrograd.
The 1st Chinese unit had been formed in the Southern Russia (Odessa region) which is far away from the Far East. Why do you assume that a need for the cheap labor had been limited to the areas near the Russian-Chinese border?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
Yes, why are you surprised? Approximately 40 - 50K
out of 300K foreign mercenaries (two other major
groups were Latvians and Hungarians).
Well, Latvians weren't exactly foreigners, since Latvia
had been part of the Russian Empire, and Latvia was only
400 km from Petrograd and 650 km from Moscow. Russia
was in contact with Hungary during WW I, and had a lot
of Hungarian PoWs.
And, since 1906 (actually, earlier) it had plenty of Chinese workers. Probably much more than the captured Hungarians. As for the Latvians, yes, Latvia is closer but by 1918 it was an independent state hostile to the Soviet Russia so most of the Latvian Rifles (and Cheka per1sonages) had been either "leftovers" from the old times (Latvian Riflemen division formed in 1915 - 16). After Soviet Russia and Latvia signed a peace treaty in 1920 11,395 former Red Riflemen returned to Latvia (the rest continued their careers in the Red Army and Cheka).
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese in _western_ Europe, but in maritime
locations such as the docks of London.
In the case of Russia there was a thing called "railroads". :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
I suppose there
were migrants to other countries with extensive
involvement in East Asia (China, Indochina, the East
Indies - thus France, Germany, the Netherlands, maybe
Portugal).
How about the US? California aside, NYC is, seemingly, on the wrong coast and yet it has Chinatown since 1830's. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
But it never occurred to me that there would be Chinese
in heartland Russia.
Well, there are always new things to find out. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, 40-50K troops out of a population of 150K to 200K
seems very high.
When calculating percentages, keep in mind that most of these 150 - 200K were males (migrant workers), often married to the local women.

Yes, it was high but, with the peace time economy collapsing many of them found themselves out of work and service as a mercenary involved salary and food.
Rich Rostrom
2018-02-07 14:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
What's wrong with the Chinese? There were between
150 and 200K of them in Russia by 1917.
Where? I would not be surprised to find some Chinese
immigrants in the Russian Far East, but not in Moscow
or Petrograd.
The 1st Chinese unit had been formed in the Southern
Russia (Odessa region) which is far away from the
Far East. Why do you assume that a need for the
cheap labor had been limited to the areas near the
Russian-Chinese border?
Because Russia was a country awash in cheap labor?
One expects to see labor migration _from_ countries with
high population and weak economies, and _to_ countries
that are low-population with expanding economies. Or
to urban areas that are much wealthier than the source
country (but a relative trickle in the latter case).

The Russian Far East was thinly populated, and remote
from the populous areas in European Russia, and very
near to populous regions of China, so some spilling
over from China into that area seems likely. But there
are no obvious economic, demographic, or geographic
reasons for Chinese migration to European Russia.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
Yes, why are you surprised? Approximately 40 - 50K
out of 300K foreign mercenaries (two other major
groups were Latvians and Hungarians).
Well, Latvians weren't exactly foreigners, since Latvia
had been part of the Russian Empire, and Latvia was only
400 km from Petrograd and 650 km from Moscow. Russia
was in contact with Hungary during WW I, and had a lot
of Hungarian PoWs.
And, since 1906 (actually, earlier) it had plenty of
Chinese workers. Probably much more than the
captured Hungarians.
How large was the "Czech Legion"?
Post by Alex Milman
As for the Latvians, yes,
Latvia is closer but by 1918 it was an independent
state hostile to the Soviet Russia...
Such a recent change in chaotic political conditions
would not be a really strong factor (IMO).



so most of the
Post by Alex Milman
Latvian Rifles (and Cheka per1sonages) had been
either "leftovers" from the old times (Latvian
Riflemen division formed in 1915 - 16). After Soviet
Russia and Latvia signed a peace treaty in 1920
11,395 former Red Riflemen returned to Latvia (the
rest continued their careers in the Red Army and
Cheka).
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese in _western_ Europe, but in maritime
locations such as the docks of London.
In the case of Russia there was a thing called "railroads". :-)
Long uninterrupted journeys by sea are commonplace.
(There is no place to stop in the middle.) By rail,
not so much. (And there was no rail connection to
Russia till after 1906.)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
I suppose there were migrants to other countries
with extensive involvement in East Asia (China,
Indochina, the East Indies - thus France, Germany,
the Netherlands, maybe Portugal).
How about the US? California aside, NYC is,
seemingly, on the wrong coast and yet it has
Chinatown since 1830's. :-)
The US had been very active in trade with China since the
1700s. The famous "Yankee Clippers" were built for the
China trade (many in NYC shipyards).
Post by Alex Milman
most of these 150 - 200K were males (migrant
workers), often married to the local women.
So there are "Russians" named Wong or Chang or Liu?
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, it was high but, with the peace time economy
collapsing many of them found themselves out of work
and service as a mercenary involved salary and food.
I would have expected such men to move on, avoid the
fighting, and seek opportunity elsewhere. But obviously,
that didn't happen.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2018-02-07 18:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
What's wrong with the Chinese? There were between
150 and 200K of them in Russia by 1917.
Where? I would not be surprised to find some Chinese
immigrants in the Russian Far East, but not in Moscow
or Petrograd.
The 1st Chinese unit had been formed in the Southern
Russia (Odessa region) which is far away from the
Far East. Why do you assume that a need for the
cheap labor had been limited to the areas near the
Russian-Chinese border?
Because Russia was a country awash in cheap labor?
Not sure if it was really "awash" but even cheaper labor would be welcomed. Plus, don't underestimate Chinese individual entrepreneurship, the area in which they would beat Russians hands down.
Post by Rich Rostrom
One expects to see labor migration _from_ countries with
high population and weak economies, and _to_ countries
that are low-population with expanding economies.
As in "from China to Russia".
Post by Rich Rostrom
Or
to urban areas that are much wealthier than the source
country (but a relative trickle in the latter case).
Well, you can chose or invent whatever theories you like as long as they are not contradicting the known facts. And the facts are there: by 1917 there were numerous Chinese in various parts of Russia and there were Chinese units (and individual Chinese) in the Red Army. The 1st such unit had been created in Odessa region which is (AFAIK) far away from the nearest Russian-Chinese border.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Russian Far East was thinly populated, and remote
from the populous areas in European Russia, and very
near to populous regions of China, so some spilling
over from China into that area seems likely. But there
are no obvious economic, demographic, or geographic
reasons for Chinese migration to European Russia.
"Obvious" to you but I'm not sure that you know enough about the subject.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese troops in Bolshevik service?
Yes, why are you surprised? Approximately 40 - 50K
out of 300K foreign mercenaries (two other major
groups were Latvians and Hungarians).
Well, Latvians weren't exactly foreigners, since Latvia
had been part of the Russian Empire, and Latvia was only
400 km from Petrograd and 650 km from Moscow. Russia
was in contact with Hungary during WW I, and had a lot
of Hungarian PoWs.
And, since 1906 (actually, earlier) it had plenty of
Chinese workers. Probably much more than the
captured Hungarians.
How large was the "Czech Legion"?
It peaked at 61K in the early 1918. The total number of people evacuated with the Czechoslovak Legion in Russia was 67,739 including noncombatants (6,714 civilians, 1,716 wives, 717 children, 1,935 foreigners and 198 others). Not quite sure what this has to do with the Hungarians.

It seems that number of Hungarians (former POWs) joining the Red Army (plus CHON and Cheka) did not exceed 40K at any point with those fighting on the Far East 27 - 30K. _Total_ number was presumably up to 100K.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
As for the Latvians, yes,
Latvia is closer but by 1918 it was an independent
state hostile to the Soviet Russia...
Such a recent change in chaotic political conditions
would not be a really strong factor (IMO).
There was a single Latvian division (which changed names many times adding to the confusion) which ended up having 9 rifle regiments, 1 cavalry regiment, 2 artillery divisions (confusing term about which even Jomini was complaining: in Russian "division" and "divisia" are different words), air squadron and armored cars unit. Between 15 and 25K total. This does not include individuals fighting in the Red Army units.
Post by Rich Rostrom
so most of the
Post by Alex Milman
Latvian Rifles (and Cheka per1sonages) had been
either "leftovers" from the old times (Latvian
Riflemen division formed in 1915 - 16). After Soviet
Russia and Latvia signed a peace treaty in 1920
11,395 former Red Riflemen returned to Latvia (the
rest continued their careers in the Red Army and
Cheka).
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese in _western_ Europe, but in maritime
locations such as the docks of London.
In the case of Russia there was a thing called "railroads". :-)
Long uninterrupted journeys by sea are commonplace.
(There is no place to stop in the middle.) By rail,
not so much.
OK, so there is no Chinatown in NYC because it does not fit into your theory. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
(And there was no rail connection to
Russia till after 1906.)
Most of Chinese went to Russia AFTER 1906.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
I suppose there were migrants to other countries
with extensive involvement in East Asia (China,
Indochina, the East Indies - thus France, Germany,
the Netherlands, maybe Portugal).
How about the US? California aside, NYC is,
seemingly, on the wrong coast and yet it has
Chinatown since 1830's. :-)
The US had been very active in trade with China since the
1700s.
So was Russia starting from the mid-XVII.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The famous "Yankee Clippers" were built for the
China trade (many in NYC shipyards).
I doubt that Chinese migrants were the main cargo of these clippers. OTOH, quite a few Chinese had been used in railroads construction and would move with the railroads.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
most of these 150 - 200K were males (migrant
workers), often married to the local women.
So there are "Russians" named Wong or Chang or Liu?
Hardly so. Adopting the local names is quite common practice and not only among the Chinese.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, it was high but, with the peace time economy
collapsing many of them found themselves out of work
and service as a mercenary involved salary and food.
I would have expected such men to move on,
Where exactly?
Post by Rich Rostrom
avoid the
fighting,
Rather difficult in the midst of the civil war: fighting was pretty much everywhere. Staying in the big cities was the safest course of action.
Post by Rich Rostrom
and seek opportunityelsewhere.
Most of these opportunities had been gone when RCW started.
Post by Rich Rostrom
But obviously,
that didn't happen.


Judging by the numbers this DID happen to a majority but the rest decided that the military service is a better option because it provided food and payment.
Rich Rostrom
2018-02-11 09:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
One expects to see labor migration _from_ countries with
high population and weak economies, and _to_ countries
that are low-population with expanding economies.
As in "from China to Russia".
Except that Russia, by world standards, was high-population,
weak economy.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
How large was the "Czech Legion"?
It peaked at 61K in the early 1918. The total number
of people evacuated with the Czechoslovak Legion in
Russia was 67,739 including noncombatants (6,714
civilians, 1,716 wives, 717 children, 1,935
foreigners and 198 others). Not quite sure what this
has to do with the Hungarians.
A fairly obvious parallel: people from a central
European country stranded in Russia by war.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were Chinese in _western_ Europe, but in maritime
locations such as the docks of London.
In the case of Russia there was a thing called "railroads". :-)
Long uninterrupted journeys by sea are commonplace.
(There is no place to stop in the middle.) By rail,
not so much.
OK, so there is no Chinatown in NYC because it does
not fit into your theory. :-)
As noted below, American ships (many of them from
NYC) sailed directly to China, and sailed directly
back to America - a connection which brought a trickle
of Chinese immigrants to the eastern US.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
(And there was no rail connection to Russia till after 1906.)
Most of Chinese went to Russia AFTER 1906.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US had been very active in trade with China since the
1700s.
So was Russia starting from the mid-XVII.
I very much doubt that Russian ships from Odessa ever
sailed to China except on very rare occasions.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, it was high but, with the peace time economy
collapsing many of them found themselves out of work
and service as a mercenary involved salary and food.
I would have expected such men to move on,
Where exactly?
Out of the country.
Post by Alex Milman
Judging by the numbers this DID happen to a majority
but the rest decided that the military service is a
better option because it provided food and payment...
...and incoming fire. Very few men will volunteer for
military service when they have no interest in the
cause _and_ the army in question is engaged in active
fighting.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2018-02-11 17:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
One expects to see labor migration _from_ countries with
high population and weak economies, and _to_ countries
that are low-population with expanding economies.
As in "from China to Russia".
Except that Russia, by world standards, was high-population,
weak economy.
Taking into an account that conversation was about Chinese immigration into Russia, what you wrote is completely irrelevant: comparing to China Russia was high economy and low population (both absolute and in the terms of density).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
How large was the "Czech Legion"?
It peaked at 61K in the early 1918. The total number
of people evacuated with the Czechoslovak Legion in
Russia was 67,739 including noncombatants (6,714
civilians, 1,716 wives, 717 children, 1,935
foreigners and 198 others). Not quite sure what this
has to do with the Hungarians.
A fairly obvious parallel: people from a central
European country stranded in Russia by war.
The obvious difference is that the Czechs were trying to return home while the Hungarians on the Soviet service were not (unlike the Hungarians who did return home after the WWI was over).

[Chinese]
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
(And there was no rail connection to Russia till after 1906.)
Most of Chinese went to Russia AFTER 1906.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US had been very active in trade with China since the
1700s.
So was Russia starting from the mid-XVII.
I very much doubt that Russian ships from Odessa ever
sailed to China except on very rare occasions.
Which did not prevent Chinese from living in Odessa region by the time of the Russian Revolution (which is an established fact). In other words, the schema of migration which you invented is not applicable to the realities of Russia - China.

BTW, Russian-Chinese trade relations which existed since XVII did not involve sailing to or from Odessa because there was no such a port until late XVIII. The trade routes were coming overland across Siberia.
Alex Milman
2018-02-11 17:22:04 UTC
Permalink
[Chinese in Russia]
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, it was high but, with the peace time economy
collapsing many of them found themselves out of work
and service as a mercenary involved salary and food.
I would have expected such men to move on,
Where exactly?
Out of the country.
"Moving out" of the European Russia to China in the midst of the RCW was an extremely risky and prolonged adventure. Not to mention that at that time China was not a very safe place either.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Judging by the numbers this DID happen to a majority
but the rest decided that the military service is a
better option because it provided food and payment...
...and incoming fire. Very few men will volunteer for
military service when they have no interest in the
cause _and_ the army in question is engaged in active
fighting.
Except that this was a common practice in Europe all the way to the late XVIII and that the foreign mercenaries did exist even in the XX century.

Anyway, your theories on the subject are irrelevant because they contradict to the known and well-established facts of which you were unaware until this thread started. There were numerous Chinese fighting in the Red Army and that's the fact.
Rich Rostrom
2018-02-14 21:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
...and incoming fire. Very few men will volunteer for
military service when they have no interest in the
cause _and_ the army in question is engaged in active
fighting.
Except that this was a common practice in Europe all
the way to the late XVIII and that the foreign
mercenaries did exist even in the XX century.
Was there any European group where half the adult male
population turned mercenary? I would add that a great
many European mercenaries were hired for garrison and
guard duties in peacetime. E.g. the Swiss Guard at the
Vatican.

Also, how much could the Bolsheviks pay? Spain in the
XVI and XVII centuries hired lots of mercenaries, but
that's where a lot of the New World bullion went.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2018-02-15 18:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
...and incoming fire. Very few men will volunteer for
military service when they have no interest in the
cause _and_ the army in question is engaged in active
fighting.
Except that this was a common practice in Europe all
the way to the late XVIII and that the foreign
mercenaries did exist even in the XX century.
Was there any European group where half the adult male
population turned mercenary?
Irrelevant question - we had been talking about the Chinese in the Red Army.
Post by Rich Rostrom
I would add that a great
many European mercenaries were hired for garrison and
guard duties in peacetime. E.g. the Swiss Guard at the
Vatican.
I would add that you either don't know the subject or are not paying attention.

Prior to ending up in Vatican the Swiss pikemen had been the most fearsome mercenaries in Europe. By the time of the Italian Wars they represented a bulk of the French infantry and kept serving in the French army during the Wars of Religion and afterwards. Even Hungarian Black Army of King Matias had Swiss mercenaries.

Armies of the 30YW were predominantly mercenary (few exceptions, like, initially, Swedish and Spanish armies) an these mercenaries had been routinely changing their allegiance (captain Dugald Dalgetty from W. Scott's "A Legend of Montrose" is a good example or you can read "Simplicissimus").

Prussian army of Frederick II had been famous for hiring the foreign mercenaries all the way to kidnapping people (practice started by his father or even earlier).

French Old Regime army had numerous regiments of the foreign mercenaries (Swiss, Scots and Irish).

Russian army of the XVIII had been routinely hiring the foreigners and initially the hussar regiments had been formed out of the Hungarian, Serbian, etc. mercenaries.

French Foreign Legion is not exactly a "decorative" unit for the parades.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, how much could the Bolsheviks pay?
You keep asking irrelevant questions: Chinese mercenaries in the Red Army did exist and the same goes for other foreigners. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this fact is your personal problem.

Whatever the Bolsheviks could give was attractive for the Chinese. If you are so interested in the subject, try to find out how much a Chinese field hand or a mine worker was getting in Russia and compare this to the soldier's compensation. Keep in mind that with the RCW going on many of these jobs had been gone so it was something vs. nothing.



Spain in the
Post by Rich Rostrom
XVI and XVII centuries hired lots of mercenaries, but
that's where a lot of the New World bullion went.
Spanish infantry (definitely not the foreign mercenaries) had been created by The Great Capitan well before the Spanish conquest of Mexico and Peru and the Landsknechts (Imperial mercenaries, not Spanish) had been participating in the Italian Wars before these conquests as well. Of course, they expected to be paid but even a superficial familiarity with the period would tell you that quite often they were not (and almost never in time) and had to compensate by other means. Search under "The Sack of Rome" to get one of the best-known examples (the German Protestants and the Spanish Catholics acted in the perfect unison).
Rich Rostrom
2018-02-17 23:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
...and incoming fire. Very few men will volunteer for
military service when they have no interest in the
cause _and_ the army in question is engaged in active
fighting.
Except that this was a common practice in Europe all
the way to the late XVIII and that the foreign
mercenaries did exist even in the XX century.
Was there any European group where half the adult male
population turned mercenary?
Irrelevant question - we had been talking about the Chinese in the Red Army.
_You_ are the one who cited European history as a parallel.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
I would add that a great many European mercenaries
were hired for garrison and guard duties in
peacetime. E.g. the Swiss Guard at the Vatican.
I would add that you either don't know the subject or are not paying attention.
Prior to ending up in Vatican the Swiss pikemen had
been the most fearsome mercenaries in Europe. By the
time of the Italian Wars they represented a bulk of
the French infantry and kept serving in the French
army during the Wars of Religion and afterwards.
Even Hungarian Black Army of King Matias had Swiss
mercenaries.
Armies of the 30YW were predominantly mercenary (few
exceptions, like, initially, Swedish and Spanish
armies) an these mercenaries had been routinely
changing their allegiance (captain Dugald Dalgetty
from W. Scott's "A Legend of Montrose" is a good
example or you can read "Simplicissimus").
Prussian army of Frederick II had been famous for
hiring the foreign mercenaries all the way to
kidnapping people (practice started by his father or
even earlier).
French Old Regime army had numerous regiments of the
foreign mercenaries (Swiss, Scots and Irish).
Russian army of the XVIII had been routinely hiring
the foreigners and initially the hussar regiments
had been formed out of the Hungarian, Serbian, etc.
mercenaries.
French Foreign Legion is not exactly a "decorative"
unit for the parades.
Thank you for nuking that straw man from orbit.
Where did I state European mercenaries never saw
combat? I wrote that "a great many European mercenaries
were hired for garrison and guard duties". None of
the examples you cite (all of which I am familiar
with) contradict that in any way.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, how much could the Bolsheviks pay?
You keep asking irrelevant questions: Chinese
mercenaries in the Red Army did exist and the same
goes for other foreigners. Your unwillingness to
acknowledge this fact is your personal problem.
Where have I ever denied that this Chinese force
existed? What I have noted is that its existence
is surprising to me - noting the many factors which
made it unlikely. What I have argued against is the
insistence that there was nothing unlikely or
surprising about this force.
Post by Alex Milman
Whatever the Bolsheviks could give was attractive
for the Chinese. If you are so interested in the
subject, try to find out how much a Chinese field
hand or a mine worker was getting in Russia and
compare this to the soldier's compensation. Keep in
mind that with the RCW going on many of these jobs
had been gone so it was something vs. nothing.
"Something" which includes
- marching long distances in all weathers
- camping outdoors in all weathers, and often sleeping in the mud or snow
- exposure to dysentery, cholera, and typhus (about half of WW I US military deaths were from disease, not enemy action)
- being shot at by the enemy
- being shot by one's superiors for insufficient enthusiasm

but also

- whatever rations could be managed
- pay in whatever fiat currency the Bolsheviks offered (presumably _not_ in bullion)

Historically, in nearly all contexts, nearly all men
offered such "opportunities" responded "No thanks",
especially those with dependent wives or children.

Even those in difficult situations usually preferred
becoming refugees.

It appears that the Chinese-Russians responded
differently.

(Typical mercenary recruits were unmarried younger
sons with no prospects.)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Spain in the XVI and XVII centuries hired lots of
mercenaries, but that's where a lot of the New
World bullion went.
Spanish infantry (definitely not the foreign
mercenaries)
Not mercenaries? Then it is irrelevant, so why bring
it up?
Post by Alex Milman
had been created by The Great Capitan
well before the Spanish conquest of Mexico and Peru
Gonzalo de Cordoba, a/k/a _El Gran Capitan_ (The Great
Captain"). Commanded in Italy from 1495 to 1507; the
conquest of Mexico was in 1521, Peru in 1532. Not much
later, and Spanish use of mercenaries continued for
at least 150 years. BTW, Cordoba was attacked by
Ferdinand of Aragon for spending too much on pay for
his mercenaries.
Post by Alex Milman
and the Landsknechts (Imperial mercenaries, not
Spanish) had been participating in the Italian Wars
before these conquests as well.
Does this contradict the fact that Spain spent large
sums on mercenaries?
Post by Alex Milman
Of course, they expected to be paid but even a
superficial familiarity with the period would tell
you that quite often they were not (and almost never
in time)
So hiring mercenaries was cheap because they didn't get
paid and looted instead? Somehow I get the impression
that countries which never paid mercenaries would soon
have trouble recruiting more.

=======================================================

To repeat - I do not and never did dispute the existence
of Chinese mercenaries in Bolshevik service.

But I do have questions about how this force came about,
as it seems to have occurred against the usual conditions
for such events.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2018-02-18 18:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
...and incoming fire. Very few men will volunteer for
military service when they have no interest in the
cause _and_ the army in question is engaged in active
fighting.
Except that this was a common practice in Europe all
the way to the late XVIII and that the foreign
mercenaries did exist even in the XX century.
Was there any European group where half the adult male
population turned mercenary?
Irrelevant question - we had been talking about the Chinese in the Red Army.
_You_ are the one who cited European history as a parallel.
Only as far as your theories about usage of the mercenaries were involved.

Chinese in the Red Army is a different issue.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
I would add that a great many European mercenaries
were hired for garrison and guard duties in
peacetime. E.g. the Swiss Guard at the Vatican.
I would add that you either don't know the subject or are not paying attention.
Prior to ending up in Vatican the Swiss pikemen had
been the most fearsome mercenaries in Europe. By the
time of the Italian Wars they represented a bulk of
the French infantry and kept serving in the French
army during the Wars of Religion and afterwards.
Even Hungarian Black Army of King Matias had Swiss
mercenaries.
Armies of the 30YW were predominantly mercenary (few
exceptions, like, initially, Swedish and Spanish
armies) an these mercenaries had been routinely
changing their allegiance (captain Dugald Dalgetty
from W. Scott's "A Legend of Montrose" is a good
example or you can read "Simplicissimus").
Prussian army of Frederick II had been famous for
hiring the foreign mercenaries all the way to
kidnapping people (practice started by his father or
even earlier).
French Old Regime army had numerous regiments of the
foreign mercenaries (Swiss, Scots and Irish).
Russian army of the XVIII had been routinely hiring
the foreigners and initially the hussar regiments
had been formed out of the Hungarian, Serbian, etc.
mercenaries.
French Foreign Legion is not exactly a "decorative"
unit for the parades.
Thank you for nuking that straw man from orbit.
Where did I state European mercenaries never saw
combat? I wrote that "a great many European mercenaries
were hired for garrison and guard duties".
None of
the examples you cite (all of which I am familiar
with) contradict that in any way.
Yes, it does: the mercenaries had been hired primarily for fighting and the modern Swiss guards in Vatican are hardly an example of anything.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, how much could the Bolsheviks pay?
You keep asking irrelevant questions: Chinese
mercenaries in the Red Army did exist and the same
goes for other foreigners. Your unwillingness to
acknowledge this fact is your personal problem.
Where have I ever denied that this Chinese force
existed?
That would be extremely foolish because it most definitely DID exist.
Post by Rich Rostrom
What I have noted is that its existence
is surprising to me - noting the many factors which
made it unlikely.
Most of the "factors" you mentioned had nothing (or little) to do with the situation that existed in Russia at the time of the RCW or even prior to it. Your surprise was/is due to an obvious unfamiliarity with the issue.
Post by Rich Rostrom
What I have argued here was nothing unlikely or
surprising about this force.
Then what _exactly_ had you been arguing? So far, it _sounds_ as (a) improbability of the Chinese immigration into Russia, (b) improbability of Chinese volunteering to the military service, (c) improbability of the mercenaries being used in the battle. Perhaps you should try to formulate your position more clearly.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Whatever the Bolsheviks could give was attractive
for the Chinese. If you are so interested in the
subject, try to find out how much a Chinese field
hand or a mine worker was getting in Russia and
compare this to the soldier's compensation. Keep in
mind that with the RCW going on many of these jobs
had been gone so it was something vs. nothing.
"Something" which includes
- marching long distances in all weathers
- camping outdoors in all weathers, and often sleeping in the mud or snow
- exposure to dysentery, cholera, and typhus (about half of WW I US military deaths were from disease, not enemy action)
- being shot at by the enemy
- being shot by one's superiors for insufficient enthusiasm
but also
- whatever rations could be managed
- pay in whatever fiat currency the Bolsheviks offered (presumably _not_ in bullion)
Historically, in nearly all contexts, nearly all men
offered such "opportunities" responded "No thanks",
especially those with dependent wives or children.
Even those in difficult situations usually preferred
becoming refugees.
OK, in the "World according to Rich" the mercenaries in general and Chinese in the Red Army did not exist due to the list above.
Post by Rich Rostrom
It appears that the Chinese-Russians responded
differently.
And not only them (the issue of the foreign mercenaries in the Red Army was discussed in some details). So, with your theory being in an obvious contradiction with the facts, we have 2 options: (a) to discard the facts contradicting to your theory or (b) to recognize that your theory is not applicable because it does not fit the facts.
Post by Rich Rostrom
(Typical mercenary recruits were unmarried younger
sons with no prospects.)
"Typical" for the "world according to Rich" but the real world was full of the examples that do not fit your schema.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Spain in the XVI and XVII centuries hired lots of
mercenaries, but that's where a lot of the New
World bullion went.
Spanish infantry (definitely not the foreign
mercenaries)
Not mercenaries?
Do you have reading and comprehension problems? There is a substantial difference between just "mercenaries" and "foreign mercenaries". Spaniards serving in the Spanish armies of the XVI and XVII centuries were mercenaries but not the foreigners.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Then it is irrelevant, so why bring
it up?
You did.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
had been created by The Great Capitan
well before the Spanish conquest of Mexico and Peru
Gonzalo de Cordoba, a/k/a _El Gran Capitan_ (The Great
Captain"). Commanded in Italy from 1495 to 1507; the
conquest of Mexico was in 1521, Peru in 1532.
Which means, no "bullion".
Post by Rich Rostrom
Not much
later,
Interesting logic but it still does not explain what the gold and silver from America had to do with the army that existed before they became available.
Post by Rich Rostrom
and Spanish use of mercenaries continued for
at least 150 years.
The point is that Spain had been using the mercenary armies well before the gold and silver from America became available.
Post by Rich Rostrom
BTW, Cordoba was attacked by
Ferdinand of Aragon for spending too much on pay for
his mercenaries.
And Charles V (with all that bullion) had regular problems with paying his armies. Left a huge debt to his son.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
and the Landsknechts (Imperial mercenaries, not
Spanish) had been participating in the Italian Wars
before these conquests as well.
Does this contradict the fact that Spain spent large
sums on mercenaries?
Not at all. It just points out to the fact that the New World's "bullion" came into the picture when the foreign mercenaries were a common place in Europe.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Of course, they expected to be paid but even a
superficial familiarity with the period would tell
you that quite often they were not (and almost never
in time)
So hiring mercenaries was cheap because they didn't get
paid and looted instead?
Did I say a single word about them being "cheap"? Of course, extending an argument all the way to a complete absurdity is a well-known technique but the fact that most of the European rulers had regular problems with paying their troops on time is well-known. The same goes for the fact that the mercenaries had been quite often "compensating" for the unpaid salary by looting.

The Sack of Rome is probably the best-known example of the mercenary troops "compensating" for the unpaid salary but this event was unique mostly due to its scope and target.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Somehow I get the impression
that countries which never paid mercenaries would soon
have trouble recruiting more.
Well, taking into an account that NEVER paying the mercenaries is your own invention, I quite agree with that conclusion.

Except, of course, for the well-known cases when the armies had been raised by the individual entrepreneurs who (quite clearly for their followers) were not in a position to pay salary so it was expected that the army is going to live off the land it marches through. Count Mansfield and his army would be probably the best-known example but he was not alone even as far as the 30YW is involved. And if we expand area a little bit, Lisowski and his band also were "freelancers".
a***@gmail.com
2018-03-17 13:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Massive food shortages appeared in Petrograd in late January. The food was
there the problem is that the transportation system was not capable of
moving it to Petrograd. This led to massive food price increases and was
the spark that at the beginning of February, led to a series of strikes and
demonstrations.
To quell the riots, the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioters by
force. The troops began to mutiny. The revolution began.
Let us assume here, that enough food in late January arrives in Petrograd.
There are no massive price increases, no February revolution, now what?
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
Loading...