Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Bagrationa"

T’amar Bagrationi, Queen of Georgia (1184–1210). T’amar Bagrationi was the ninth monarch from the royal house of Bagrationis who ruled over the united Georgian Kingdom. She reigned as a co-monarch alongside her father, Giorgi III, from 1178, assuming full authority in 1184. During her reign, dynastic legitimacy necessitated the appearance of the monumental royal portraits displaying the monarch with immediate predecessors and heirs. T’amar’s gender required introduction of meticulous visual language that would re-gender her with all signs of a male ruler and justify her status and sole right to rule. This notion was embodied in her portraits that were carefully incorporated in the overall programmes of the churches. T’amar’s five monumental depictions survive where she is identified in inscriptions; two other monumental images are presumed to depict her. Of all the depictions, only one can be determined to have been commissioned directly by her. T’amar’s imagery relies on Byzantine elements and adheres to established Georgian models for the local royal portraiture; however, it also adopted sophisticated visual means that was aptly used for manifesting royal power and manipulating authority over the nobility.

В статье рассматриваются основные этапы жизнедеятельности выдающегося русского полководца, героя Отечественной войны 1812 года генерала П.И. Багратиона. Вся жизнь П.И. Багратиона была посвящена служению России. С юношеских лет князь П.И. Багратион был на военной службе России, пройдя путь от рядового мушкетера до генерала от инфантерии (полного генерала по современной терминологии). П.И. Багратион был участником 20 войн и более 150 сражений, большую часть из которых он провел командованием выдающегося русского полководца А.В. Суворова. При этом он был непросто его подчиненным, а учеником и продолжателем его науки побеждать. За полководческий талант, личное мужество и храбрость, справедливость и заботу о подчинённых его любили в войсках. «Бог рати он!» – говорили о нём солдаты. Именно так с легкой руки поэта Г.Р. Державина фамилия П.И. Багратиона была преобразована в созвучное, но наполненное особым смысловым содержанием словосочетание «бог-рати-он», закрепившееся за ним, прежде всего, в солдатской среде. Как «бога рати» и воспринимали его солдаты, боготворившие своего командира. Безусловным феноменом талантливого полководца было также и то, что фактически никакого образования, в том числе и военного, князь так и не получил. П.И. Багратион в этом плане повторил судьбу своего учителя А.В. Суворова, который также начинал свою службу солдатом и также «академий не закачивал», что не помешало ему достигать побед в многочисленных сражениях над «образованными» военачальниками. П.И. Багратион, также как и А.В. Суворов, обладал врожденными выдающимися военными способностями, талантом полководца, делавшими недостаток образования нечувствительным. Эти способности давали преимущество перед противником – турками, шведами, наполеоновскими генералами и маршалами. Примечательно, что и сам Наполеон, высоко оценивал его военные способности и талант, считая его лучшим генералом Русской армии. Полководческий талант П.И. Багратиона во многом обеспечили провал планов Наполеона разбить русские армии по отдельности в его кампании 1812 года. То, что генерал П.И. Багратион, командуя 2-й Западной армией, сумел вывести её и соединить с 1-й Западной армией у Смоленска, во многом изменило ход войны. По сути, этот маневр П.И. Багратиона сделал возможным дальнейшее сопротивление Наполеону и обеспечил итоговую победу Русской армии. Знаменателен и последний подвиг П.И. Багратиона на Бородинском поле. Именно его армия, приняла на себя основной удар наполеоновских войск, выстояла и сумела нанести ответный удар противнику, в ходе которого смертельное ранение получил и сам командующий генерал П.И. Багратион. The article examines the main stages of the life of the outstanding Russian commander, hero of the Patriotic War of 1812, General P.I. Bagration. P.I. Bagration's whole life was devoted to serving Russia. From his youth, Prince P.I. Bagration was in the military service of Russia, having gone from an ordinary musketeer to a general of infantry (full general in modern terminology). P.I. Bagration was a participant in 20 wars and more than 150 battles, most of which he spent under the command of the outstanding Russian commander A.V. Suvorov. At the same time, he was not just his subordinate, but a student and follower of his science of winning. For his generalship talent, personal courage and bravery, justice and care for his subordinates, he was loved in the troops. "He is the God of the army!" the soldiers said about him. That is how, with the light hand of the poet G.R. Derzhavin, the surname of P.I. Bagration was transformed into a consonant, but filled with a special semantic content, the phrase "God-rati-he", which was fixed for him, first of all, in the soldier's environment. It was the soldiers who idolized their commander who perceived him as the "god of the army". The unconditional phenomenon of the talented commander was also the fact that the prince never received any education, including military education. P.I. Bagration in this regard repeated the fate of his teacher A.V. Suvorov, who also began his service as a soldier and also "did not download academies", which did not prevent him from achieving victories in numerous battles over "educated" military leaders, P.I. Bagration, as well as A.V. Suvorov, possessed innate outstanding military abilities, the talent of a commander, which made the lack of education insensitive. These abilities gave an advantage over the enemy – Turks, Swedes, Napoleonic generals and marshals. It is noteworthy that Napoleon himself highly appreciated his military abilities and talent, considering him the best general of the Russian army. The generalship talent of P.I. Bagration largely ensured the failure of Napoleon's plans to defeat the Russian armies separately in his campaign of 1812. The fact that General P.I. Bagration, commanding the 2nd Western Army, managed to withdraw it and connect it with the 1st Western Army near Smolensk, largely changed the course of the war. In fact, this maneuver by P.I. Bagration made possible further resistance to Napoleon and ensured the final victory of the Russian army. The last feat of P.I. Bagration on the Borodino field is also significant. It was his army that took the brunt of the Napoleonic troops, withstood and managed to strike back at the enemy, during which the commander General P.I. Bagration himself was mortally wounded.

This paper is devoted to history of Eastern ad Soutthern-Western Georgia in the Early Middle Ages. Kartvelian statehood was quickly restored after a short reign of Persian marzpans. In the era of Arab dominance, Kartli was under the strongest pressure from the Arabs. On the territory of Kartli, the Tbilisi Emirate was formed, which was an important center of Muslim statehood in Georgia in the 9th -12th centuries. The rest of Kartli became an object of rivalry between the Abkhazian kingdom, Tao-Klarjeti and Kakheti. The decisive role in the history of Georgia was played by the Tao-Klarjeti Kurapalate from the Bagrationi dynasty for a long time in the 9th-10th centuries. The apogee of their power, they reached during the Kurropalat David III the Great. With his assistance, the Bagrationi dynasty ascended the Abkhaz throne. Among the East Georgian rulers the leading role was played by the Kakheti kingdom. It became the main rival of the Abkhazian kingdom under Tsar Kvirik III of the Arevmaneli dynasty. Under him, Kakheti subdued Eretia. Under the Kyurikean dynasty, Kakheti continued to oppose the Abkhazian Bagrationi. David IV was able to subjugate Kakheti оnly in 1104. Regarding Eretia, this kingdom was inhabited by the Dagestan-speaking population, which felt Georgian and Armenian influences.

In Georgian reality, the term “art”, can be found in a new, purely aesthetic sense, in terms of “artistic creation” – in the translation (1815) of Jean-Pierre Frédéric Ansillion’s (1767-1837) work “Aesthetic Judgments”, a French philosopher, member of the Prussian Academy, by David Bagrationi (1767-1819). As we know, the term “art” (Greek “techne”) has been historically interpreted in various ways. The term referred to practices established in the society, nature, individual creativity or crafts, as well as religious and mystical rituals. It shows a resemblance to the concepts such as “art – scientio – исскуство – art”. This term is especially noteworthy for the history of Georgian theoretical-literary and aesthetic thinking, however, a kind of substitute existed in our writing. It was “Facial expression”. As for the term “aesthetics” (the etymology of which is related to sensitivity, sensual perception of events), this term was introduced since 1750 by the German scientist Baumgarten in the meaning of the doctrine about “beauty” and the Georgian society got familiar with it with through the translation of Ansillion’s work “Aesthetic Judgments” translated by David Bagrationi. It should also be noted that this work was the first aesthetic work to be translated into Georgian. This fact, in turn, is of the utmost importance. According to Georgian translation of Ansillion’s work “Aesthetic Judgments” proves once again that development of Georgian philosophical-aesthetic thinking in the 18th and 19th century proceeds with a creative approach to the philosophical heritage of the past, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it has its equivalent in European philosophy.

This article dwells on the role of armoured vehicles obtained under the Lend-Lease agreement in the Byelorussian offensive operation (Bagration) in the summer of 1944. The author examines the use of foreign armoured vehicles in combat operations as part of tank, mechanized, and cavalry units of the Red Army and evaluates their quantity and quality. The Lend-Lease armoured vehicles participated in combat operations on all four fronts involved in Operation Bagration. Primarily, these were British Valentine Mk III and American M4A2 Sherman tanks. However, a significant contribution was also made by the SU-57 and M10 self-propelled artillery, as well as by the M3A1 Scout Car. In addition, the troops continued to use a certain number of M3 Medium and M3 Light tanks left over from the previous periods of the war. In 1944, they were no longer supplied. Foreign vehicles showed a good performance both in terms of reliability and combat qualities, in particular manoeuvrability, armour protection and firepower. Importantly, it was in the units advancing in the main direction that the number of Lend-Lease tanks was the largest (in the 1st Mechanized (100 %) and 3rd Guards Mechanized (91 %), in the 3rd Guards Cavalry (82.5 %) and in the 8th Guards Tank (59 %) Corps). In smaller numbers, foreign tanks were also available in the line units of all fronts involved in the operation (1st, 2nd and 3rd Byelorussian and 1st Baltic Fronts). In total, foreign tanks accounted for about 1/3 of the entire Soviet tank fleet in the Byelorussian offensive operation.

Previous research on the art of military engineering indicates that the development of this support branch focuses on technological and organizational advancements whereas theory development seems to be lacking. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which J.F.C Fuller´s theory might be able to address the scientific gap that exists today, by considering the possible impact of military engineering on the outcome of a historical land operation. The study uses a case study to examine the four offensives of the Soviet Union’s Operation Bagration, drawing on a theoretical framework derived from contemporary maneuver warfare theory by J.F.C Fuller. This theory contains the physical elements of war: mobility, offensive power and protection and Fuller´s physical principles of war with their tactical and strategical classes. These classes and elements are applied throughout this study to analyze the occurrence of military engineering and their effect on the operation. The findings of the study show that J.F.C Fuller´s theory can be applied to historical offensives to examine the effects military engineering has on the outcome. The effects can for example be explained through the contribution military engineering has on limiting the opponent’s mobility and enabling the envelopment of the opponent’s flanks through mobility.

Between three and four o’clock in the afternoon Prince Andrei, who had persisted in his request to Kutuzov, arrived at Grunth and reported himself to Bagration. Bonaparte’s adjutant had not yet reached Murat’s detachment and the battle had not yet begun. In Bagration’s detachment...

On our right flank commanded by Bagration, at nine o’clock the battle had not yet begun. Not wishing to agree to Dolgorukov’s demand to commence the action, and wishing to avert responsibility from himself, Prince Bagration proposed to Dolgorukov to send to inquire of...

Prince Bagration, having reached the highest point of our right flank, began riding downhill to where the roll of musketry was heard but where on account of the smoke nothing could be seen. The nearer they got to the hollow the less they could...

Shortly after nine o’clock that evening Weyrother drove with his plans to Kutuzov’s quarters where the council of war was to be held. All the commanders of columns were summoned to the commander-in-chief’s and with the exception of Prince Bagration, who declined to come,...

At dawn on the 16th of November Denisov’s squadron, in which Nikolai Rostov served and which was in Prince Bagration’s detachment, moved from the place where it had spent the night, advancing into action as arranged, and after going behind other columns for about...

That same night Rostov was with a platoon on skirmishing duty in front of Bagration’s detachment. His hussars were placed along the line in couples and he himself rode along the line trying to master the sleepiness that kept coming over him. An enormous...

At five in the morning it was still quite dark. The troops of the centre, the reserves, and Bagration’s right flank, had not yet moved, but on the left flank the columns of infantry, cavalry, and artillery which were to be the first to...

The chief action of the battle of Borodino was fought within the seven thousand feet between Borodino and Bagration’s flèches. Beyond that space there were, on the one side, a demonstration made by the Russians with Uvarov’s cavalry at midday, and on the other...