Violent practices and discourses on violence during the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763)

该分项目比较了七年战争(1756-1763)期间奥地利和俄罗斯军队在欧洲的特定暴力文化。两军在东部战区进行了合作，并多次以盟友的身份行动。两军都有一些共同的特点，比如使用非正规的边境部队(哥萨克人、潘杜尔人)，联合行动，如突袭和战斗，以及共同的技术(舒瓦洛夫的秘密榴弹炮)，两者都是丰富的亲普鲁士宣传言论的目标，密切关注他们的行为。这两支军队在文化上都不同，其将领的行动范围取决于各自中心(莫斯科、维也纳)所作的决定。除了明显的相似之处，还有一些显著的不同：尽管奥地利和普鲁士的军队反映了不同的国家背景，但奥地利和普鲁士没有俄罗斯和普鲁士相提并论的语言障碍，奥地利的供应链没有俄罗斯供应链那么远，西方军队的形象也不同。意在比较的重点是被当代人认为超出规范范围的非正规暴力的主要做法。这包括对平民的屠杀，在战斗和围困中夸大的暴力，以及焦土政策，所有这些都被认为在18世纪的开明战争中是不合适的。这些做法与“被驯服的贝洛纳”的开明愿景相矛盾，是公众判断的问题，这本身就使这种比较成为一个有希望的案例研究，因为对类似做法的不同判断可以进行比较。

The sub-project compares the Austrian and Russian armies during the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) in Europe with regard to their specific cultures of violence. Both armies cooperated in the eastern theatre of war and acted on many occasions as allies. Both armies shared some common features such as the use of irregular border troops (Cossacks, Pandurs), joint operations like raids and battles and common technologies (Shuvalov’s secret howitzer), and both were the target of a rich pro-Prussian discourse of propaganda, which kept a close eye on their behaviour. Both armies were culturally diverse and their generals’ scope of action depended on the decisions taken at the respective centre (Moscow, Vienna). In addition to evident similarities, there were also some striking differences: Although their armies reflected a variety of national backgrounds, Austrians and Prussians shared no language barrier comparable to the one the Russians and Prussians had, Austrian supply chains were not as far from home as the Russian ones and the image of the armies in the West differed. The intended comparison focuses on key practices of irregular violence considered by contemporaries to be outside the norm. This includes massacres against the civilian population, exaggerated violence in battles and sieges and a policy of scorched earth, all considered inappropriate in eighteenth century ‘enlightened’ warfare. These practices contradicted the enlightened vision of the ‘tamed Bellona’ and were issues of public judgement, which in itself makes this comparison a promising case study because different judgements of similar practices can be compared.