Shcherbatov. "Russian History". The main culprits of the Troubles were servicemen who wanted to hide the peasants. Hence the disruption of order. B.G. is smart, hardworking, but cunning and evil. False Dmitry - similar virtues, but loves luxury and entertainment too much.
Karamzin ( History of Russian Goverment ) called the Troubles a terrible and absurd result of “depravity” prepared by the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible and the “Uglich murder” organized by Boris Godunov. During the Time of Troubles, writes N.M. Karamzin, the people recognized their strength and “played” with the kings, realizing that they could be elected by his power. Internal enemies carried out outrages in Russia, but they were directed by external enemies, i.e. Poles.
Soloviev ( History of Russia since ancient times ). He put forward the decline in the morality of the people and the development of the Cossacks as the causes of the unrest. Solovyov S.M. saw in the events of the 17th century. a violent break in the organic course of Russian history. In his opinion, after the “turmoil” the movement resumed along the “legal” path, from those borders where in the 16th century. The Rurikovichs stopped. Historian S.M. Solovyov considered the cause of the Russian Troubles to be the struggle between social and anti-social elements, the struggle of zemstvo people, property owners, who benefited from maintaining peace, with the so-called Cossacks, people who separated their interests from the interests of society.
IN. Klyuchevsky(Course of Russian History) for the first time developed an integral concept of the Russian Troubles as the result of a complex social crisis. The reason for it was the painful mood of the people after the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible and the suppression of the Rurik dynasty, and the cause of the Time of Troubles was “the very structure of the state with its heavy tax basis and the uneven distribution of state duties”
Kostomarov, N.I.. (The Time of Troubles of the Moscow State at the beginning of the 17th century) N.I. Kostomarov considered the cause of the Time of Troubles to be the desire of the Catholic Church and Poland to subjugate Russia.
S. F. Platonov ( Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th–17th centuries ) saw the origins of the Troubles in the reign of Ivan the Terrible, who, through unreasonable internal policies, led Moscow society to division into warring groups. The object of hostility was land - the main capital of the country. The unsuccessful Livonian War increased general discontent and accelerated the ferment that ended in the Time of Troubles.
The cause of the Troubles was seen in several factors. One of the main ones was the peculiarities of the formation of the Russian state, created both through the peaceful annexation of appanage principalities and through the forcible seizure of foreign territories. Differences in the political, economic and social structure of different parts of the state became the cause of the upheavals of the Time of Troubles. In the time under study, the researcher identified several periods: 1 - the struggle for the Moscow throne; 2 - destruction of state order, “social turmoil”; 3 - attempts to restore state order, "struggle for nationality."
Platonov saw the results of the Time of Troubles only in the social sphere: the complete defeat of the old nobility, the formation of a new palace nobility from the middle strata, the defeat of the free Cossacks and the establishment of a serf system.
Soviet historians revised the concept of the Time of Troubles, highlighting the class struggle.
M.N. Pokrovsky believed that there was a powerful explosion of class struggle in Russia, in other words, a peasant revolution, and the appearance of impostors was caused by internal reasons, and not just by Polish intervention.
I. E. Zabelin viewed the Troubles as a struggle between herd and national principles. The representative of the herd principle was the boyars, who sacrificed national interests for the sake of their own privileges.
A.A. Zimin tried to prove that the peasant war lasted in Russia from 1603 to 1614. His periodization received recognition in Soviet historical literature.
Interpreting the events of the Time of Troubles solely as a “peasant revolution,” Marxist historians rejected the very term “Troubles.” M.V. Nechkina stated that this term was adopted in noble and bourgeois historical literature, “emerged in counter-revolutionary circles and contains a negative assessment of the revolutionary movement.” The concept of “Troubles” was supplanted for a long time by the formulation “peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov,” which was reflected in the works of Pokrovsky, Smirnov, Grekov, Sakharov, Koretsky and others.
Boris Godunov (1598–1605). Karamzin reports that the first two years of his reign were the best in all of Russian history. A decree was issued to restore the peasants' exit on St. George's Day, schools were built, the free sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited to combat drunkenness, contacts with Western Europe expanded, from where officials, artisans and doctors began to come to Russia to serve. The reason for the fall of the Godunov dynasty N.M. Karamzin considers external circumstances, i.e. famine 1601–1603 Klyuchevsky also agrees with Karamzin’s assessment, adding that Godunov gained enormous popularity in the country thanks to his concerns for the poor and beggars. Platonov draws attention to the fact that under Godunov, Western customs became widespread, which the head of the Russian church, Patriarch Job, did not like, but he did not dare to resist, seeing the tsar’s support for this. Kostomarov also drew attention to this feature of Godunov’s policy, noting that none of the previous Russian rulers was as kind to foreigners as Boris Godunov. Solovyov believes that Godunov, with his balanced policy towards all segments of the population, “brought upon himself the indignation of the boyar class, who expected privileges from Godunov, but did not receive them. Skrynnikov also shares a similar point of view on the pro-Western nature of Godunov’s policy; Godunov showed great interest in Europe, and therefore there were more foreigners in Russia under him than ever before. False Dmitry I (1605–06), who replaced Godunov, made the course even more aimed at rapprochement with Europe. So Karamzin reports that the Pretender, convinced of the superiority of Europe, convinced Russian people to go to study in Europe, restructured the activities of the Boyar Duma following the example of the Polish Sejm and promised that he would rule in a European way, through mercy. Soloviev claims that False Dmitry I issued two decrees that alleviated the situation of slaves and serfs. The first limited the spread of indentured servitude, and the second spoke about the prohibition of returning fugitive peasants to their owners if they could not feed the peasants during famine. Kostomarov adds that under False Dmitry I everyone was given the right to freely travel abroad and return to Russia. The impostor, according to Kostomarov, said that he did not want to embarrass anyone and that his domain would be free. The British noted that False Dmitry I was the first sovereign in Europe who made his state so free. During the six months of his reign, all goods in Moscow became so cheaper that they became available to all those who previously did not have the opportunity to buy them. Thus, Kostomarov believes that the impostor was a man who called Russian society to a new life. He spoke to the Russian people with the voice of freedom, declared complete religious tolerance and declared war on the old Russian way of life. At the same time, False Dmitry I showed by personal example the new European way of life, thereby reminiscent of Peter I, but he tried to act without coercion. Karamzin wrote about Vasily Shuisky (1606–1610) that he wanted good for the fatherland, but even more wanted to please the Russians. Therefore, instead of the old tradition, when the people give the king an oath of allegiance, he himself gave the people an oath to serve him faithfully, not to execute anyone without trial, not to take away property from the relatives of the executed and not to believe slanderers. According to Karamzin, in this way Shuisky wanted to surpass False Dmitry I in his love of freedom, so there was greater freedom in judgment about the tsar, who began to be perceived as a half-tsar. In this regard, Klyuchevsky notes that the reign of Vasily Shuisky constituted an era in Russian history, since it was the first experience of creating a limited monarchy in Russia. In matters of public administration, Shuisky put the solution to the peasant question in the first place. In 1607 he canceled Godunov’s decree on allowing peasants to move on St. George’s Day, and in 1609 – the decree on slaves from 1607, which resulted in their complete enslavement. At the same time, Golovatenko believes that Shuisky’s accession did not bring peace to Russia, since those social forces that came into motion during the struggle of False Dmitry I with Godunov were counting on more serious changes than the division of powers between the Tsar and the Boyar Duma. As for the invitation of the Seven Boyars to the Russian throne of Vladislav, Karamzin reports that his attempt to ascend the throne was accompanied by the same restrictions as the reign of Shuisky, i.e. was evidence of the desire to reform Russia according to the European model by creating a limited monarchy in it, which involved resolving all issues jointly with the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor.
Troubles in the history of Russia
The historiography of the “time of troubles” is very extensive. The views of early noble historians were somewhat influenced by the chronicle tradition. V.N. Tatishchev looked for the causes of the “Troubles” in the “mad strife of noble noble families.” At the same time, he was the first to express the idea that the “great misfortune” of the early 17th century was a consequence of the laws of Boris Godunov, which made peasants and slaves involuntary. Tatishchev's observation laid the foundations for the scientific concept of the Troubles.
Noble historiographer N.M. Karamzin did not see a pattern in the popular uprisings of the early 17th century. and argued that at that time “debauchery” affected all levels of society - “from the mob to the noble rank.” According to N.M. Karamzin, to the greatest extent, the “Troubles” were caused by the intervention of foreign enemies of Russia.
The largest bourgeois historian S.M. Soloviev associated the “Troubles” not with external, but with internal factors - with the “bad state of morality,” the dynastic crisis, and especially with the actions of anti-social elements in the person of the Cossacks, landless and wandering people. CM. Solovyov resolutely rejected the opinion of historians who believed that “the prohibition of peasant exit made by Godunov was the cause of the Troubles.”
N.I. Kostomarov emphasized that the Cossacks played a positive role in protecting the borders, but the riots of the Cossacks, who raised the “bloody banner of turning the Russian land upside down,” had only negative consequences, interfering with “the success of the development of Russian public life.”
Troubles Russia Godunov False Dmitry
IN. Klyuchevsky was the first to develop an integral concept of the “time of troubles” as the product of a complex social crisis. The reason for the “Troubles,” wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky, the Kalita dynasty was suppressed, but its real reasons were rooted in the very structure of the state, in the uneven distribution of state duties, which gave rise to social discord.
Soviet historians revised the concept of the “Troubles” and highlighted the factor of class struggle. “Troubles,” wrote M.N. Pokrovsky, began not from above, but from below. In Russia there was a powerful explosion of class struggle - the "peasant revolution". The appearance of impostors was not associated with foreign intervention, but with internal struggle. False Dmitry I was a Cossack king who led the Cossack revolution in Russia.
A significant event in historiography was the book by V.I. Koretsky, who comprehensively studied, using vast archival material, the social policy of the state at different stages of the Troubles.
A review of historiography allows us to conclude that the history of the Troubles requires further research. It is important to find out the nature and character of popular uprisings, the role of various population groups in them. When analyzing the events of the "time of troubles" it is necessary to take into account all factors - political, social and economic - in their interaction. This approach can provide a complete concept of the history of the first civil war in Russia.
"Kovalenko G. The sad benefit of troubled times / Motherland - 1999, No. 4 - pp. 45-49."
The fight for Crimea and Sevastopol 1944
On the Kerch Peninsula by the spring of 1942, the position of the Soviet troops was very difficult. The troops of the Crimean Front went on the defensive. However, the front command treated the organization of defense without due responsibility...
Was October 1917 inevitable?
In the Soviet Union, the liberal direction could not develop, so the baton passed to the West. The history of Western historiography can be divided into three periods. The first period began in the 20s. and lasted until the 60s...
Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky
According to the author, Karamzin believes that Shuisky is a negative person in the history of Russia: “Vasily, the flattering courtier Ioannov, was first an obvious enemy, and then an unscrupulous saint and still a secret ill-wisher of Borisov.....
The entry of the territories of Siberia into the Russian state in the 17th century: colonization or development?
Russian people could first become acquainted with Siberia at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. And in 1563, a detachment of Volga Cossacks led by Ermak went to Siberia, they marked the beginning of the epic exploration of Siberia...
Settlement of Bashkortostan
The process of Russian development of the Urals developed ambiguously. The first penetration of Russians into the territory of modern Bashkortostan (on the “Belaya Volozhka”, as the Russians originally called the Belaya River)...
False Dmitry I - legend and reality
According to legend, Otrepiev was hiding under the guise of an impostor. The legend had a strong influence on the historiographical tradition. N.I. Kostomarov was the first to subject him to comprehensive criticism. However, P.O soon came out in defense of the traditional version...
The personality of the priest Sylvester during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible
N.M. Karamzin wrote in “The History of the Russian State”: In this terrible time, when the young Tsar was trembling in his Vorobyovsky Palace, and the virtuous Anastasia was praying, some amazing man named Sylvester, with the rank of Priest, appeared there...
Olympics-80: ideological aspects of Soviet sports
Special attention should be paid to modern textbooks on physical culture and the Olympic movement for schools and higher educational institutions, because it is the statements contained in the textbooks...
Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible
Prison. History of the Yenisei region
With the arrival of the Russians, a new life began on the banks of the Yenisei. By the end of the 17th century, the descendants of the first explorers and those who came from beyond the Urals founded several cities, as well as about 250 villages, villages, single-yards and winter huts...
Assessment of the life and work of Napoleon Bonaparte in Russian historiography
Soviet historical science continued to study the topic of Napoleon. The development of this topic in the Soviet Union had its own characteristics, which were dictated by the dominance of the formational approach...
Siberia under the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich
The development of Siberia and the Far East continued for many years. The tsarist government divided the huge region into 20 districts. Each was headed by a governor sent from Moscow. He felt like the complete ruler of his district...
Time of Troubles
For a long time, in Soviet historiography, the term “Time of Troubles” was rejected as bourgeois. It was believed that at the beginning of the 17th century. in Russia there was a powerful explosion of class struggle - the “peasant war” or “Cossack revolution”. I.I...
Soviet circus in the 1920s - 1980s
The October Revolution became a historical milestone in the history of the Russian circus, marking a sharp turn in the organization of the creative activities of the arena masters. In January 1918, at the III Congress of Soviets V.I...
Economic development of the Novgorod Republic in the XI-XV centuries
Using archaeological materials, one can trace the connections of the Novgorod Republic with other Russian lands and foreign countries. The most important import items were: slate whorls, southern amphorae, walnut shells...
Introduction
The causes, course and consequences of the Troubles according to R.G. Skrynnikova
Conclusion
Introduction
One of the most difficult periods in Russian history was the end of the 16th century. - the beginning of the 17th century, known as the Time of Troubles, when the country faced a real threat of losing independence. This period is complex and difficult to understand and study.
The theme “Time of Troubles” is relevant in modern conditions. This is evidenced by the frequent study of questions about the Troubles. The Time of Troubles was a manifestation of a deep state crisis, the result of a complex interweaving of various contradictions. Already the contemporaries of the Troubles, represented by Russian publicists of the first half of the 17th century, tried to comprehend the reasons for these events, find out the essence of what was happening and give their assessment of what they saw. Many works are devoted to research questions. Basically, the material presented in educational literature is of a general nature, and numerous monographs on this topic examine narrower issues of the problem of the “Time of Troubles.”
In our country, a huge literature has been created on the history of the Time of Troubles, from works of fiction to diverse studies. Knowledge and ideas about the Troubles, assessments of its main events and results, the image of the Troubles as a historical event - all this occupied an important place in the spiritual life of Russian society. At the same time, the history of the Time of Troubles was and is the subject of controversy and debate.
The purpose of the work is to find out the role of the works of R.G. Skrynnikov in the study of the period of the Time of Troubles.
Based on the goal, the objectives of the work are: to study the causes, course of events and the meaning of the Time of Troubles in the works of R.G. Skrynnikova.
My work concerns the period of the late 16th century. - the beginning of the 17th century, as well as the views of historians on this event. In pre-revolutionary historiography, the most important works on the history of the Time of Troubles were the works of historians of the 19th century: S.M. Solovyova (1820-1879), V.O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911), S. F. Platonov (1860-1933).
For this test the research works of the authors were used:
A) S.F. Platonov “Lectures on Russian history”, Moscow, publishing house “Higher School”, 1993. The author shows in great detail and clearly the events of the Time of Troubles.
b) Klyuchevsky V.O., “Course of Russian history. Volume 3". The author expressed himself in a number of brilliant characteristics of historical figures and in outlining the ideological side of many historical moments.
V) Soloviev S.M. “History of Russia since ancient times” book 4. The author tried to reveal the historical meaning of the oprichnina as a struggle against the “appanage” aspirations of the boyars, while at the same time condemning the cruelty of the tsar.
G) Smirnov I.I. Bolotnikov's uprising 1606-1607 The author of this study set a goal to collect everything that has been preserved in the sources about Bolotnikov's uprising, and based on the collected materials, to recreate a detailed picture of the uprising.
d) Skrynnikov R.G. “Russian History. IX - XVII centuries.” M., 1997, “Russia on the eve of the Time of Troubles. M., 1985., “Impostors in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century.” Novosibirsk, 1990., “Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Ivan Bolotnikov." L., 1988., “Tsar Boris and Dmitry the Pretender.” Smolensk, 1997, “Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. " M., 1988. The author in his works well analyzed the era of the Time of Troubles.
1. R.G. Skrynnikov as a historian
Appeal from R.G. Skrynnikov’s approach to the events of the Time of Troubles can be considered quite logical. After graduating from the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University, where he studied medieval history, R.G. Skrynnikov in 1953 entered the graduate school of Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after. A.I. Herzen. His scientific career R.G. Skrynnikov began by defending his Ph.D. thesis on the topic “Economic development of the Novgorod estate at the end of the 15th - 16th centuries.” In 1960 he became a teacher at the history department of Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. R.G. Skrynnikov combined teaching with scientific activities. He studied the history of Russia for a long time and carefully in the middle and second half of the 16th century, publishing the now classic “oprichnina” trilogy - in 1966 “The Beginning of the Oprichnina” was published, in 1967 R.G. Skrynnikov defended his doctoral dissertation “The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible”, and in 1969 - the monograph “The Oprichnina Terror”.
In 1973, Professor R.G. Skrynnikov was invited to the history department of Leningrad State University. For almost 20 years, Skrynnikov studied the policies of Ivan the Terrible from all sides: foreign and social policy, economics, and the development of Siberia. The scientist’s research resulted in a new monograph, “The Reign of Terror” (1992), and within 4 years, 3 major monographs were published: “The Tragedy of Novgorod” (1994), “The Collapse of the Kingdom” (1995) and “The Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible” (1997 , in 2 volumes), which became the pinnacle of the scientist’s research.
A thorough study of the era of Ivan the Terrible allowed the scientist to see in it the origins of the tragedy of the Time of Troubles. In one of his early works dedicated to the Time of Troubles: “Russia on the eve of the Time of Troubles,” R.G. Skrynnikov, having analyzed and reinterpreted numerous historical sources telling about the destruction of the right of peasant exit, revises traditional ideas about reserved years and the mechanism of their action and formulates the conclusion that “The immediate result of the abolition of St. George’s Day was the grandiose Peasant War. The “time of troubles” began. In this case, we can conclude that, as a faithful Soviet historian R.G. Skrynnikov identifies the concept of “time of troubles” with the peasant war.
In later works: “The Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Ivan Bolotnikov”, “Impostors in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Grigory Otrepiev", "Tsar Boris and Dmitry the Pretender" R.G. Skrynnikov, having examined the course of events in detail and analyzed them, comes to the conclusion that the concept of the peasant war does not stand up to the test of facts. Even the uprising of I.I. Bolotnikov does not fit into the rigid scheme of the peasant war. The historian believes that the events of the Time of Troubles are essentially a civil war. In these works, the historian, relying on the study “Russia on the Eve of the Time of Troubles,” more clearly formulates the causes of the Time of Troubles.
2. The causes, course and consequences of the Troubles according to R.G. Skrynnikova
One of the reasons for the Time of Troubles was R.G. Skrynnikov considers Ivan IV’s appeal to oprichnina politics: “In 1565, Ivan the Terrible established the oprichnina, seeking, with the tutelage of the aristocratic Duma, to introduce a regime of unlimited personal power in the country. As an anti-princely measure, the oprichnina lasted only a year. However, the split in the feudal class, caused by the division of the nobles into oprichniki (“household servants”) and zemstvos, persisted for twenty years and became one of the sources of the political crisis of the early 17th century. The power of the nobility was shaken, but not broken. The aristocracy was waiting in the wings. This hour came as soon as the Troubles began.”
“...The oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible was one of the important prerequisites for the coming civil war. ... Through the oprichnina, the tsar divided the nobility in two and set one half against the other. ... The support of the monarchy was split, as a result of which the regime lost stability...”
Another source of the social crisis that gave rise to the Troubles was R.G. Skrynnikov believes: “The clash of interests of the feudal state and the nobility, on the one hand, enslaved peasants, tax-paying townspeople, serfs and other groups of dependent people, on the other...”.
“The rise of the local system strengthened the position of the serving nobility in the 16th century. However, by the end of the century, symptoms of its decline began to emerge: the number of the feudal class was rapidly increasing, while the stock of cultivated and settled estate lands was sharply reduced... The landowners who were crushing were deprived of the opportunity to serve in cavalry regiments “horse, manned and armed” and transferred to the category of foot riflemen-squeakers...
At the end of the 16th century. The government of Boris Godunov implemented major social reforms in order to support the dwindling Russian nobility. The treasury exempted the feudal lords' own cultivation of their estates from taxes. Thus, for the first time, a demarcation line was drawn between the higher and lower tax-paying classes, notes R.G. Skrynnikov - In an effort to restore the completely disrupted financial system, the authorities carried out a general description of the lands in the country and announced the introduction of a regime of reserved years. The tax-paying population in cities and rural areas was “commanded” (forbidden) to leave the draft yards and arable plots...” The conclusion of R.G. was fundamentally important. Skrynnikov that the “commandment” affected not only the rural, peasant, but also the urban, townspeople. In other words, “the general purpose of introducing the regime of reserved years was, apparently, to return the taxed population to taxation.”
“The impoverished nobility appreciated the benefits flowing from the government’s financial orders and began to seek the transformation of temporary measures into permanent legislative provisions. At the very end of the 16th century. The authorities, under pressure from the noble service class, developed a code on peasants. Landowners received the right to search for runaway peasants for five years. At the same time, a code on indentured servants was issued.
Serfdom laws were directly and directly related to the crisis of the estate and local economy at the end of the 16th century. The contradictions between the feudal nobility and the lower classes, who were subject to enslavement, were one of the main preconditions for the civil war in Russia. The clash took on a unique form due to the presence of vast, unsecured outskirts. Runaway serfs, peasants, townspeople who did not want to put up with the existing order found refuge in Cossack villages on the Don, Volga, Yaik and Terek. By the beginning of the 17th century. The free Cossacks grew numerically and became a significant social force that played an extremely important role in the events of the civil war. In Russia, the mass of the population did not have military weapons, and military affairs were the privilege of mainly the feudal elite. On the outskirts, people from the lower classes were armed and had combat experience acquired in clashes with nomadic hordes...”
“At the beginning of the 17th century. The crisis affected both the lower and upper classes of Russian society. The high-born nobility was unhappy that after the suppression of the Kalita dynasty, the throne went to the noble Boris Godunov, who owed his career to the oprichnina. "Great Famine" 1601-1603 doomed the people to immeasurable suffering. A significant part of the country's population died out. Armed “robbery” detachments appeared in many counties. In the fall of 1603, the largest of these detachments was defeated in the vicinity of the capital. Its leader Khlopko ended up on the gallows. The appearance of “robberies” foreshadowed the Troubles.”
Mr. R.G. Skrynnikov considers the beginning of the civil war when the self-proclaimed Tsarevich False Dmitry I invaded Russia. “The people believed that the return to the throne of the legitimate dynasty would put an end to the troubles and misfortunes that befell the state.”
Using the help of the Polish king Sigismund III and Polish magnates, the impostor recruited up to 2 thousand mercenaries. The news of the “saved prince” quickly reached the Cossack villages. Cossack detachments moved towards him from the Don.
The government severely punished those who helped the impostor. The Komaritsa volost, which recognized False Dmitry, was defeated. The tsarist troops were unable to take Kromy. After the sudden death of Boris Godunov, a rebellion broke out in the camp near Kromy. The royal regiments went over to the side of the rebels.
Boris's heir, Tsar Fyodor Godunov, was unable to retain power. June 1, 1605 An uprising occurred in Moscow. The people destroyed the palace, Tsar Fedor was taken into custody. Under pressure from the rebels, the Boyar Duma was forced to express submission to the impostor, and opened the Kremlin gates for him. False Dmitry ordered the secret death of Fyodor Godunov and his mother, and only after that he came to the capital.
The historian, relying on various historical sources, describes in detail the course of events associated with the actions of False Dmitry I and comes to the following conclusions: “The decisive role in the overthrow of the elected zemstvo dynasty was played not by peasant uprisings, but by the rebellion of service people near Kromy and the uprising of the capital garrison and the population of Moscow in June 1605 of the Godunovs. As a result of the popular uprising, power passed into the hands of Otrepyev. This was the only case in Russian history when the rebels managed to place their leader on the throne, who acted as a “good tsar.” Coming from a small noble family, a former boyar serf, the defrocked monk Otrepiev, having accepted the title of Emperor of All Rus', kept all socio-political orders and institutions intact. His policy was of the same pro-noble character as the policy of Boris Godunov. His measures towards the peasants met the interests of the feudal landowners.”
The short reign of False Dmitry I ended with a palace coup organized by boyar conspirators on May 17, 1606. After the murder of False Dmitry I, the boyars sat in the Kremlin all night until dawn. The bargaining for power lasted three days. In the end, the throne went to the boyar Vasily Shuisky. At the moment of his naming the kingdom in the Assumption Cathedral, Shuisky made a speech, promising his subjects to rule graciously.
The boyars were afraid of treasury attacks on their estates and wanted to protect themselves from royal disgrace. All this was reflected in Shuisky’s famous kissing cross dated May 19, 1606. R.G. Skrynnikov considers V.O. Klyuchevsky’s assessment of the “kissing cross record” as an act limiting the power of the autocrat in favor of the tsar to be unfounded: “... Shuisky’s record symbolized a return to tradition, violated by the oprichnina...” - the historian believes.
As soon as Vasily Shuisky ascended the throne, the news spread throughout the country that the “dashing” boyars tried to kill the “good sovereign,” but he escaped a second time and was waiting for help from his people. Mass uprisings on the southern outskirts of the state marked the beginning of a new stage of the civil war, says R.G. Skrynnikov.
The first impostor, according to the apt remark of V.O. Klyuchevsky, was baked in a Polish oven, but fermented in Moscow. The new False Dmitry also did not escape Polish cuisine, notes R.G. Skrynnikov - but his fate was different: he was not finished cooking and was not taken out of the oven. The “thief” lurked from the dark corners of the Sambir Palace throughout the uprising of 1606-1607, not daring to show his face not only to the Poles, but also to the rebellious Russian people.
The Sambir impostor made attempts to lead the rebel movement from abroad, and for this purpose he tried to put his own people at the head of the movement. One of the emissaries of the Sambir impostor was Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov.
Based on sources, R.G. Skrynnikov reveals the fallacy of the assumption that Bolotnikov took part in the uprising very late, “in the autumn” of 1606. “Sources give direct indication that during the summer of 1606 Bolotnikov led the rebels’ actions not only in Putivl and near Kromy, but also in other points of Seversk Ukraine.”
Russian and foreign sources testify, says R.G. Skrynnikov that the initiative against Shuisky was taken by the residents of Putivl, who were supported by the population of Chernigov, Rylsk, Starodub, Krom, Kursk, Yelets. It is enough to outline the boundaries of the territory covered by the uprising to make sure that the population of those very northern and southern towns that were the main base of the rebel movement in favor of False Dmitry at the first stage of the civil war rose up against Tsar Vasily.
The civil war split the country in two. The southwestern and southern districts became the main base of the movement in support of the legitimate Tsar “Dmitry” from the Kalita dynasty, while Moscow and other districts recognized Vasily Shuisky as Tsar.
The movement in favor of a “legitimate” dynasty, having united the most diverse social strata and groups, immediately gained great strength. Local landowners constituted a relatively small group of the population. But they were best armed and trained in military affairs. Participation in the popular uprising allowed them to maintain their traditional positions as a leading political force. On the side of the “good king” were the townspeople, archers, boyar slaves, peasants, free and service Cossacks.
After a year-long break, civil war broke out in Russia with renewed vigor. A new stage of the Troubles, according to R.G. Skrynnikov had his own characteristics. Firstly, Otrepyev began the war with Godunov with a mercenary army. In 1606 there were no mercenary soldiers in the rebel camp. Secondly, Otrepiev's invasion took Godunov by surprise; two months passed before the tsar assembled a noble militia. Tsar Vasily in the summer of 1606 had fully mobilized regiments at his disposal, since False Dmitry I gathered all the military forces of the country for a campaign against Azov.
Yelets was in the main direction, and the tsar sent one of the senior governors, Prince I.M., there. Vorotynsky. Secondary governors came to Kromy - Prince Yu.N. Trubetskoy and M.A. Naked.
Having defeated the rebels in an open field, the governors were unable to recapture a single large fortress from them. Shuisky's armies spent more than two months at the walls of Yelets and Krom, after which they retreated to Moscow.
During the September rebel offensive on Moscow, two major battles took place: the boyar Prince I.I. Shuisky defeated Bolotnikov near Kaluga on the Ugra, and the boyar Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuisky defeated the rebels at Prah near Serpukhov.
The rebels’ September offensive against Moscow failed, primarily for that reason, notes R.G. Skrynnikov - that the rebels were unable to unite their forces. They had two main leaders - Pashkov and Bolotnikov, as a result of which government troops defeated the rebel armies one after another.
By mid-October 1606, Kolomna had become one of the main centers of military operations. Having kept Serpukhov in his hands, Pashkov set out with his main forces near Kolomna, where he united with the Ryazan rebels.
With the fall of Kolomna, Moscow's military situation deteriorated sharply. Tsar Vasily hastened to gather all available forces and sent them to Kolomna.
On October 27, the rebels defeated the royal regiments near Troitsky. On October 28, the siege of Moscow began.
The Battle of Troitsky became the largest event of the civil war, says R.G. Skrynnikov. The internecine struggle split the military support of the monarchy. The local militia, which was experiencing a crisis, disintegrated. The nobles remembered the defeat of Boris Godunov's army of thousands at the walls of Krom. Lyapunov and other Ryazan nobles, as at Kromy, led the rebels.
October 1606 Pashkov's troops occupied Kolomenskoye in the vicinity of Moscow. A few days later, Bolotnikov arrived there with his troops. The military situation in Moscow became critical. Tsar Vasily was left without an army.
The outcome of the struggle for Moscow depended on the position of the townspeople, who made up the bulk of the capital's population. The support of the church was of exceptional importance for Shuisky. Patriarch Hermogenes waged persistent campaigning, denouncing the dead man with his clothes cut off, and sent letters throughout the cities, anathematizing the rebels.
Shuisky's propaganda measures achieved their goal. The support of Moscow, as well as other largest cities in the country - Smolensk, Veliky Novgorod, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl, helped him survive the fight against Bolotnikov.
The outcome of the struggle for Moscow was influenced by many circumstances, including changes in the mood of the capital's population, the social heterogeneity of the army that besieged the capital, discord in the rebel camp, the betrayal of its leaders P. Lyapunov, and then I. Pashkov.
The political conflict generated by the struggle for power began to develop into a social conflict, notes R.G. Skrynnikov, the lower ranks of the people were drawn into it. Social discord was clearly evident already during the siege of Moscow. The appeal to the lower classes caused deep anxiety among the wealthy landowners who found themselves in the camp of the rebels.
Lyapunov's betrayal was one of the indicators of increasing social discord in the rebel camp. However, one must keep in mind - notes R.G. Skrynnikov - that after 40 Ryazan nobles fled from Kolomna, many children of boyars and nobles from other districts of Russia remained there. Pashkov's betrayal was caused both by social discord in the rebel camp and by reasons of a purely personal nature - the rivalry between the two most prominent leaders of the movement.
The decisive battle near Moscow took place on December 2, 1606. According to generally accepted opinion, events developed as follows: on December 2, the governors defeated Bolotnikov’s troops, after which the rebels retreated to Kolomenskoye, where they defended for three days. Following this, Bolotnikov retreated to Kaluga.
After unsuccessful negotiations with the Moscow Posad, the rebel leaders realized that the absence of “Dmitry” could ruin the whole thing. Bolotnikov wrote to Putivl many times, demanding that the Tsar’s return be accelerated. The Putivl voivode G. Shakhovsky, finding himself in a difficult situation, sent messengers from himself and from the Putivl residents to the Don to the self-proclaimed Tsarevich Peter Fedorovich.
The appearance of “Tsarevich Peter” in Putivl with an army in November 1606 inevitably led to changes in the rebel camp. The free Cossacks increasingly turned into the leading force of the movement, notes R.G. Skrynnikov.
The coming to power of the Cossack “prince” and the execution of nobles in Putivl led to a further division of forces. The feudal landowners of Northern Ukraine, who at first actively participated in the uprising against Shuisky, now began to leave the rebel camp en masse. By the summer of 1607, the majority of the Severshchina nobles ended up in Shuisky’s army.
In January 1607, “Tsarevich Peter”, having gathered all available forces, set out from Putivl to Tula. It is characteristic that in accordance with tradition, the “prince” appointed the most noble of his boyars, A.A., as the chief commander of the campaign. Telyatevsky, and put the Mosalsky princes at the head of the detachments sent to Kaluga and Serebryanye Prudy. Prince V.F. Aleksandrov-Mosalsky received an order to go to the rescue of Bolotnikov.
R.G. Skrynnikov believes that in the spring of 1607, a situation arose in the camp near Kaluga similar to the situation near Kromy in 1605. The siege of Kaluga had already lasted almost five months. Shuisky's warriors had to spend the winter near the walls of Kaluga. They had used up all their food supplies and faced the threat of starvation. Due to frequent attacks, there were many killed and wounded in the army.
Bolotnikov skillfully used the moment to make a sortie. The rebels attacked the siege camp and caused so much trouble to the commanders that they abandoned the trenches with heavy guns and warehouses with weapons.
Tsar Vasily was again left without an army. The path to Moscow from Tula and Kaluga was open. However, the rebels did not have enough strength for a new offensive. To give the army a rest, Bolotnikov decided to take it to Tula.
The Cossack leader Ileika Korovin (“Tsarevich Peter”) failed to become a leader on a national scale. His appearance in the rebel camp did not eliminate the need for an impostor. The people continued to wait for the exodus of the “good Tsar Dmitry” from abroad, and “Dmitry” appeared.
The Poles sent the applicant to the small Seversk fortress of Starodub. It cannot be considered accidental, notes R.G. Skrynnikov, that at the moment of the appearance of False Dmitry II in Starodub, the emissary of “Tsarevich Peter” and Bolotnikov, Cossack ataman Ivan Zarutsky, was there.
False Dmitry II hardly had any political views or political program when he found himself in the camp of the rebels. However, it was destined to become the banner of the rebel movement. A special stage of the civil war began, which had its own characteristic features.
The appearance of False Dmitry II in Starodub led to the emergence of a new center of the rebel movement, different from Tula. Firstly, among the advisers of False Dmitry II there were no Russian boyars or Polish magnates. Secondly, False Dmitry II found himself in a rebel camp when the nobles began to leave this camp. The beatings of Cossacks and serfs after the defeat of Bolotnikov near Moscow and the execution of nobles in Putivl and Tula marked an important milestone in the history of the civil war. Feudal landowners inevitably had to break with the movement, which had acquired a pronounced social character, says R.G. Skrynnikov.
The appearance of False Dmitry II gave impetus to a new powerful explosion of the civil war, as a result of which most of the territory of Russia was engulfed in uprising.
Having gathered an army, the impostor came to the aid of Bolotnikov and “Peter”, besieged in Tula.
After moving from Kaluga to Tula, Bolotnikov, apparently, believes R.G. Skrynnikov, - lost the rank of “great governor” - commander-in-chief of the rebel troops. At the court of “Tsarevich Peter”, its own bureaucratic hierarchy was formed, at the top of which stood Telyatevsky, the former master of the fugitive slave Bolotnikov.
On June 1607, a battle broke out within the Kashira district on both banks of the Vosma River, in which the rebels were defeated.
Three important fortresses remained in the hands of the rebels - Tula, Kaluga and Aleksin. Bolotnikov tried to defend himself, relying on this triangle.
The Tula garrison was significantly inferior to Shuisky's siege army. The Tula camp had approximately the same composition as the later Tushino camp, believes R.G. Skrynnikov. The hierarchy of Tula officials was headed by “Tsarevich Peter” and his Duma people, among whom very noble persons took precedence. The main military force of the Tula camp were the free Cossacks, and therefore their leaders played a special role in the defense of the city.
Tula attracted the main forces of Shuisky's army, which eased the position of the rebels on the outskirts. At the same time, the siege of Tula led to the fact that the rebel movement in the camp lost its leadership center. During this period, such features of the uprising as its locality and disunity most clearly manifested themselves, says R.G. Skrynnikov.
“Tsarevich Peter” with Bolotnikov and Telyatevsky defended Tula all summer. With the onset of autumn, the struggle for the city entered a critical phase.
The besieging army experienced great difficulties, but the situation of the besieged garrison was even worse. By the end of the four-month defense, food supplies in the city had come to an end.
After Upa was blocked by a dam, a flood began in Tula, bringing new disasters to the city’s population and destroying the remaining food supplies. Disunited by the flood and driven to extremes, the Tula garrison laid down its arms.
The news of the fall of Tula caused panic in the army of False Dmitry II. Having stayed in Bolkhov for 24 hours, the “tsar” on October 17 hastily retreated closer to the border in Karachaev, where the Zaporozhye army abandoned him.
False Dmitry II spent the winter in the palace Samovo volost near Orel. There he received reinforcements and replenished food supplies. In 1608, an impostor appeared in Orel.
The fall of Tula, the death of the main rebel army and the subsequent executions of the leaders of the rebellious Cossacks weakened the movement for a time. But less than a year had passed before the civil war broke out with renewed vigor.
“False Dmitry II is considered a protege of Polish magnates. But this is not true, says R.G. Skrynnikov. - The initiators of the new impostor intrigue were Bolotnikov and “Tsarevich Peter”.
Following in the footsteps of Otrepyev, False Dmitry II moved towards Moscow, but was unable to occupy the city and set up a camp in Tushino near Moscow since the nobles and nobility appeared in his camp, the situation changed. Power passed into the hands of the Tushino Boyar Duma. Filaret Romanov, the most dangerous of Shuisky’s opponents, became the patriarch in Tushino. Mercenary detachments from Poland played a significant role in the Tushino camp.
False Dmitry II besieged Moscow for two years. During this time Russia had two kings. At times, the impostor's possessions were not inferior in territory to the possessions of the ruler of the Kremlin. The presence of two kings completely paralyzed state power and made Russia an easy prey for its neighbors.
In the fall of 1609, Sigismund III violated the truce agreement and besieged Smolensk. Shuisky used mercenary troops sent to Russia by his ally the Swedish king to fight the Tushins and Poles. In March 1610, governor Skopin-Shuisky with Russian and Swedish troops liberated Moscow from the siege. The Tushino camp collapsed. Skopin was preparing to come to the rescue of the Smolensk garrison, but suddenly died at the age of 23. The command of the huge army was taken by the tsar’s mediocre brother Dmitry Shuisky. In the battle of Smolensk, the Poles defeated the Russian and Swedish armies. On July 17, 1610, the Boyar Duma and troops overthrew Shuisky from the throne, and two days later he was forcibly tonsured a monk. Power passed into the hands of a commission of seven boyars. When Polish troops approached Moscow, the boyars concluded a peace treaty with their leader, Hetman Zholkiewski. In accordance with the agreement, Moscow recognized Prince Vladislav, the son of the Polish king, as king.
At the insistence of Zholkiewski, “great ambassadors” - Prince Vasily Golitsyn and Metropolitan Filaret Romanov, together with representatives of all classes - left for the camp near Smolensk. But peace negotiations failed. Sigismund firmly decided to take Smolensk and annex it to the crown possessions. He did not want to let his son go to Russia and hoped to take the royal throne himself.
Having signed an agreement with Zholkiewski, the Seven Boyars began to insist on the surrender of Smolensk. Following this, the boyars allowed Polish mercenary companies into the Kremlin. Meanwhile, False Dmitry II was killed by his own guards in Kaluga. With the death of the impostor, Vladislav remained the only king in the country.
The leader of the Ryazan nobles P. Lyapunov challenged the boyar government, accusing it of treason. The detachments he collected united with the Cossacks who arrived from Kaluga. The first zemstvo militia arose... In the Moscow camp there was a government - the Council of the Whole Land. For the first time in history, notes R.G. Skrynnikov, - The Zemsky Sobor did not include either the official Boyar Duma or the highest clergy. The decisive vote at the council belonged to the provincial nobility and Cossacks. However, these forces were too heterogeneous to maintain unity. The recognized leader of the militia, P. Lyapunov, was suspected by the Cossacks of treason and hacked to death without trial.
Meanwhile, Russia's foreign policy situation has deteriorated sharply. The army of Sigismund III captured Smolensk after a 20-month siege. A month and a half later, the former allies the Swedes captured Novgorod.
The Zemstvo liberation movement was on the verge of disintegration and collapse. However, Patriarch Hermogenes addressed the people with a call to save the kingdom from the Gentiles... his call encouraged the population. In Nizhny Novgorod, the merchant Kuzma Minin and the governor Prince Pozharsky organized the second zemstvo militia. In stubborn battles near Moscow, two militias, combining their forces, defeated the Polish army of Hetman Jan Chodkiewicz, and in October 1612 liberated the Kremlin.
On February 1613, the Zemsky Sobor declared Mikhail Romanov tsar. The election of a new dynasty stopped the collapse of the state and created the preconditions for overcoming the state of anarchy and unrest in the country.
In 1617, in the village of Stolbovo on the border, an agreement on “eternal peace” was signed between Russia and Sweden. The Swedes returned Novgorod to Russia, but retained the entire course of the Neva River and Karelia.
...at the end of 1618, Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth entered into an agreement on a fourteen-year truce. Russia lost Smolensk, Chernigov and thirty other cities. The new border passed on the closest approaches to Moscow. King Sigismund III sowed the seeds of a new war.
The civil war was a real disaster for Russia. The riots and rebellions of the Time of Troubles were accompanied by unprecedented ruin of the state and the death of a significant part of the population. The terror of Grozny claimed thousands of lives, and the Troubles of hundreds of thousands of lives. The country's population dropped sharply, and most of the arable land was abandoned and overgrown with forest. The central districts and the once flourishing Novgorod land were especially affected. More than half a century passed before Russia was able to overcome the devastation that reigned in the country.
For a long time, in Soviet historiography, the term “Time of Troubles” was rejected as bourgeois. It was believed that at the beginning of the 17th century. in Russia there was a powerful explosion of class struggle - the “peasant war” or “Cossack revolution”. I.I. Smirnov developed the term “The First Peasant War under the leadership of Bolotnikov”: the driving forces were peasants and serfs, and the main slogan was “the destruction of serfdom, the elimination of feudal oppression.”
Soviet historians began to revise and clarify approaches to the tragic events of the turn of the 16th-17th centuries only in the 70-80s of the 20th century. At the same time, R.G. also turned to the study of the events of the Time of Troubles. Skrynnikov.
CM. Soloviev associated the Troubles with the action of internal forces; he pointed out the significance of social changes, such as the emergence of the free Cossacks. In his main work, “History of Russia since Ancient Times,” S.M. Soloviev expressed disagreement with historians who considered the cause of the upheavals “the ban on peasant exit made by Godunov.” Although “it should be noted that the Cossacks, under the banner of impostors, are really trying everywhere to incite the lower classes against the higher ones, indeed in some places in the south the peasants are rebelling against the landowners, but this, according to S.M. Solovyov, is a local phenomenon, but the general phenomenon is that those peasants who were dissatisfied with their position by nature were inclined to be Cossacks... became Cossacks and began to rob, first of all, their own brethren - the peasants.”
IN. Klyuchevsky developed the idea that the basis of the Troubles was a social struggle, that the very “tax” system of the Moscow state gave rise to social discord stemming from the difficult situation of the oppressed lower classes: when “the social ranks rose, the Troubles turned into a social struggle into the extermination of the upper classes by the lower classes.” Bolotnikov's uprising became the most striking embodiment of this phenomenon.
S.F. Platonov viewed the Troubles as a complex social and political crisis prepared by the entire course of Russian development in the second half of the 16th century. In the Bolotnikov uprising, according to S.F. Platonov, for the first time the long-standing enmity between the class of service landowners and the enslaved working population became open. The uprisings of the people against Godunov were not a class struggle, and only Bolotnikov’s movement set the goal not only of replacing the tsar, but also of “a social revolution in the sense of overthrowing the serfdom.”
Conclusion
Works of R.G. Skrynnikov made a significant contribution to the study of the history of Russia at the end of the 16th century. - beginning of the 17th century The researcher’s work made it possible to dispel the myth of the peasant war and return the old term “Troubles.”
The historian, turning to the time of Ivan the Terrible, analyzing many sources, examined the socio-economic prerequisites of the Time of Troubles, which he associated with the process of “establishing serfdom in Russia.”
Considering the course of events of the Time of Troubles, analyzing the social composition of the armies of False Dmitry I, Bolotntkov, False Dmitry II, - R.G. Skrynnikova comes to the conclusion that the leading role in them was not played by the peasantry, which, of course, took part in the events since peasants made up the overwhelming majority of the population of Russia at that time. Not only the peasants were dissatisfied with the situation in the country, but also the military slaves, to whom the historian pays serious attention.
The free Cossacks played an active role in the events of the Time of Troubles. These categories of the population were close to a new social character - a small landowner who dropped out of the equestrian noble militia and served “with a squeak.” It proliferated most of all in the southern “Ukraine”, where local land ownership developed in very difficult conditions. However, the crisis of the local system as a whole also had its effect. All these people were a breeding ground for “troubled moods.”
Therefore, the essence of the Troubles, according to the researcher, is a civil war, not a peasant war.
Skrynnikov Troubles False Dmitry
List of used literature
1. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. T. 3. - M., 1989.
2.Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history: Textbook. - M.: Higher School, 1993. 736 p.
Skrynnikov R.G. Russian history. IX-XVII centuries - M., 1997. 496 p.
Skrynnikov R.G. Russia on the eve of the Time of Troubles. - M.: Mysl, 1981. 233 p.
Skrynnikov R.G. Impostors in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. - Novosibirsk,: Science, Siberian branch, 1990.
Skrynnikov R.G. Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Ivan Bolotnikov. - L.: Nauka, 1988. 256 p.
Skrynnikov R.G. Tsar Boris and Dmitry the Pretender. - Smolensk: Rusich, 1997. 624 p.
Smirnov I.I. Bolotnikov's rebellion 1606-1607 - M.: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1951. 592 p.
Soloviev S.M. History of Russia from ancient times. Book 4. - M., 1960.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Municipal budgetary educational institution
"Staritsa secondary school"
Research work on the topic
“The Time of Troubles in the Assessments of Historians and Historical Songs”
(History section)
Yatsenko Anna,
8a grade student
Supervisor:
Klimova Vera Viktorovna,
history and social studies teacher
Staritsa, 2014
Work plan
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………3
ChapterI.
Historical songs as a historical source…………………..5
ChapterII.
The Time of Troubles is a tragic period in the history of Russia…………7
ChapterIII. Heroes of Troubles………………………………………………………9
§ 1. “The Robber Godun’s Son”…………………………………………………9
§ 2. “Evil Undressed Grishka Otrepiev”………………………………………………………..12
§ 3. Saviors of the Fatherland………………………………………………………16
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...19
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..21
Introduction
In the first years of the 17th century, the Moscow state experienced a terrible shock that shook its deepest foundations. This period is known in Russian history as the “Time of Troubles” or “Time of Troubles.”
Signs of the Troubles appeared after the death of the last king of the Rurik dynasty, Fyodor Ioannovich, the son of Ivan the Terrible. The Troubles ended in Moscow at the beginning of 1613, when representatives of the estates, gathered at the Zemsky Sobor, elected the founder of the new dynasty, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, to the throne.
Thus, the years from 1598 to 1613 are considered to be the Troubled Period of our history, during which Boris Godunov (1598-1605), Fyodor Godunov (April-June 1605), False Dmitry I (1605- 1606), Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610), Seven Boyars (1610-1613) - representatives of the boyars who invited the Polish heir, Prince Vladislav, to the throne. Among the persistent contenders for the throne are False Dmitry II, who fought with Vasily Shuisky, and some other little-known impostors. The rulers were on the throne for a short time, the throne was occupied precariously.
The fragility of the succession to the throne was felt by the people. The throne was obtained by deception, lies, and exorbitant lust for power.
Historian R.G. Skrynnikov calls the Time of Troubles a “civil war,” which was caused by two reasons: the mysterious suppression of an ancient dynasty and then its artificial resurrection in the person of the first impostor. During the Time of Troubles, various factors and elements of historical phenomena appear in a wide variety of combinations: civil war, foreign intervention, anti-feudal struggle, the war of the Cossacks with the centralizing policy of the state, struggle within the ruling class - all this multifaceted complexity complicates the analysis of the Time of Troubles.
Contemporaries and historians have repeatedly tried to comprehend the essence and significance of the Troubles. Often opinions in assessing historical events are polar, but in the Time of Troubles all researchers are unanimous in one thing: the Time of Troubles is a tragedy for Russia. The people inspired by Dmitry Pozharsky and Kuzma Minin acted as the savior of the Fatherland. History and folk tradition have forever united these two names, and as a symbol of this inseparability, national unity, there is a monument to them on Red Square of the Moscow Kremlin, and on November 4, Russia celebrates National Unity Day.
The people also contributed to the fact that in the records of the early 17th century. Historical songs have reached us relating to all the main moments of the Troubles. These songs also preserve traces of the people's assessment of events.
Relevance This study is obvious: analysis of historical, especially tragic, experience can never be useless; The events of the 17th century turned out to be connected with modernity, the memory of their bright end is marked by a holiday. The role of the individual in history is still relevant; it is useful to trace the line of behavior of historical figures, dictated by personal qualities, objective circumstances in which a person becomes a pawn, a puppet in the wrong hands, a hero, an author or a performer. It is interesting to study the events and heroes of the era on the basis of a unique historical source - historical songs. Why were historical songs chosen as a source, since they can be accused of subjectivism, partiality, and fantasy? But the authors of studies can also be biased and subjective, and comparing the opinions of researchers and popular judgments can help to comprehend the truth. It is also important that historical songs are a collective opinion, the result of experience.
Purpose The work is covering the events of the Time of Troubles, studying the images of heroes based on a comparison of the assessments of historians and historical songs.
Tasks research:
Determine the essence of the Time of Troubles as a historical era;
Present the features of historical songs as a historical source;
To trace the character of the individual, the specifics of the activities of the leading characters of the period and the reflection of these aspects in historical songs;
Compare the assessments of historians and the position of the authors of historical songs.
The topic of the Time of Troubles worried contemporaries, historians, and creative people; evidence of this is the drama of A.S. Pushkin's "Boris Godunov", opera by M.P. Mussorgsky "Boris Godunov". The work is based on the analysis of research by classical historians (N.M. Karamzin, N.I. Kostomarov, V.O. Klyuchevsky), modern educational literature (N.I. Pavlenko, I.L. Andreev, L.M. Lyashenko and others), monographic works (R.G. Skrynnikov), historical songs.
ChapterI. Historical songs as a historical source
Sources define historical songs as “epic Russian folk songs (poems), the content of which is historical events, uniquely refracted in folklore transmission.” Historical songs are familiar to all peoples; they were also created in the Slavic environment; this is an integral part of their culture.
The geography of song creation is quite wide, but most of them are composed in the northern part of Russia. Perhaps because here, for example, in the Arkhangelsk and Olonets provinces there was no serfdom, people lived freely, allowed themselves to fearlessly express their emotions and think out loud.
Who became the heroes of these works? True historical characters are why songs are called historical. Of course, these are well-known characters in the history of the state; they belonged to various social strata, including Ivan the Terrible, Ermak Timofeevich, Stepan Razin, Boris Godunov and many others. The songs tell not only about specific people, but also about important historical events that left an indelible mark on the people's memory, for example, the Streltsy revolt of the time of Peter the Great. Typically, historical songs trace two main thematic lines: military and social. The first includes, for example, songs about wars and commanders, for example, A.V. Suvorov, for the second - songs about Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev.
The songs are interesting for their content, and the content is not a list of facts, but necessarily their interpretation, an expression of attitude towards events and characters. The deep meaning in the songs is that it was a way to express their feelings for the Motherland, worries about its fate, compassion for the martyrs, and admiration for the heroes. The general character of all historical songs is pronounced patriotism and love for Russia.
The historical song reaches its climax in the 17th-18th centuries, this is the heyday of the Cossack freemen, the time of expression of free will, although still not realized.
The main advantage of a historical song is a reflection of the essence of the era, its color, uniqueness, and originality. Songs are called epics, which means they must contain a well-thought-out narrative. “The epic character is manifested in the story of events that are depicted objectively, but without a clear recording of events, the lives of historical characters. The songs contain symbolism, hyperbole, emotional and evaluative elements, national identity, and a kind of mentality. N.V. Gogol introduced the concept of “historical song” into Ukrainian folklore in his article “On Little Russian Songs” (1833). He points out the defining feature of this genre: “They do not break away from life for a moment and ... always correspond to the present state of feelings.” Among the features of historical songs it is also worth noting: showing important social events and historical figures; a short story about them; the presence of outdated words and expressions; strophic or couplet construction."
Some comparison of historical songs with epics is appropriate. But if epics are works of the “large form genre,” then historical songs are smaller in volume than epics. Songs are similar to epics in terms of fluency of speech, but differ in the greater dynamism of the narrative; events in them develop faster. Sometimes the plot in them comes down to one event or even an episode. The story is often devoid of developed descriptions and so-called epic rituals: narrative decoration, constant formulas, slowdowns, stable beginnings and endings, although some of their types are included in historical songs from epics. At the center of the event are usually the people's struggle for independence and their socio-political struggle. “Due to their specific historical nature, historical songs reflect the movement of history, as it is recognized in folk art.” At the center of the event are usually the people's struggle for independence and their socio-political struggle.
The value of historical songs lies not only in the fact that they tell about the past, but also in the fact that they were often composed soon after past events. Some songs could have been composed by participants or witnesses of events, “... the subject of historical songs is modern history, and not the more or less distant past,” writes B.N. Putilov. And further: “A historical song does not refer to the past, it lives in the present.” But time passes, and for subsequent generations the events and persons depicted in the song become history. The transmission of a song from generation to generation is accompanied by a weakening of the correct reproduction of events and persons, and sometimes even the spirit of the times. She sometimes allows inaccurate interpretations of events and assessments of the actions of historical figures, since she does this from the point of view of modern times. Fiction plays a significant role in the creative process. But in historical songs it does not have the character of fantasy. The historical song, unlike the epic, does not use increased hyperbolization.
An important feature of historical songs is that in them the people act or are present at the events, who sometimes express their attitude to these events. Finally, they often contain explanations of events and behavior of characters. Researchers also note the manifestation of acute journalisticism, especially in songs of such socially tense periods as the Time of Troubles.
Thus, in the study of historical events, one cannot neglect such a source as historical songs; in combination with other sources, they help to comprehend the meaning and significance of the historical past.
ChapterII. The Time of Troubles is a tragic period in the history of Russia
“The disasters of the Time of Troubles shook the mind and soul of the Russian people. Contemporaries blamed everything on the damned impostors who poured out of the bag onto the country. The impostors were seen as Polish henchmen, an instrument of foreign intervention. But that was only a half-truth. The ground for imposture was prepared not by Russia’s neighbors, but by a deep internal illness that struck Russian society,” notes R.G. Skrynnikov.
The Time of Troubles, like any other historical event or phenomenon, has its reasons. Agreeing with the position of R.G. Skrynnikov, the causes of the Troubles should be sought not outside of society, but within it, and external circumstances were only a catalyst for internal events. Foreigners, seeing the instability of Russia's internal political situation, wanted to take advantage of it to realize their goals.
On what historical time scale did the causes of the Troubles mature? The starting point could be considered 1584 - the year of the death of Ivan IV the Terrible and the dynastic crisis that arose in connection with this: Ivan IV did not leave a strong successor. But the causes of a phenomenon mature on the basis of prerequisites. R.G. Skrynnikov calls the oprichnina, which divided the nobility in two and set one half against the other, a prerequisite for the Troubles.
The political reasons for the Troubles were also profound. Finally, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, they were shaken, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, “spiritual bonds of society” are moral and religious feelings. Extrajudicial executions and disgraces normalized violence and arbitrariness. Human blood was shed with extraordinary ease; servility, dexterity and unscrupulousness were valued. It is no coincidence that all the main characters of the Troubles, in one way or another, went through the school of the oprichnina.”
The prologue to the Troubles was the events of 1591, which we will present in the presentation of S.F. Platonov. “On May 15, 1591, at noon, the prince’s mother, running out of her chambers in response to a scream, found her son in the courtyard of the Uglitsky Palace with a mortal wound in his throat. In a frenzy, Queen Marya accused Bityagovsky [royal official, clerk] of the death of the prince. The people who came running killed Bityagovsky. The event was reported to Moscow. From there, very soon an investigative commission arrived in Uglich, headed by the patriarchal vicar (Metropolitan Gelasius of Krutitsa) and the Duma boyar, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Having examined the case, the commission reported to Moscow that the prince and his peers were playing with a knife with a knife, at that time the usual attack of epilepsy came upon him, the prince, in convulsions, stumbled upon the knife and inflicted an unexpected mortal wound on himself. The clergy headed by the patriarch and the boyars, after listening to the report of the commission, accused the Nagikhs of arbitrariness and exiled them, and Queen Marya was tonsured as a nun, and the Uglichites were also punished. The prince was buried in Uglich near the cathedral church. Popular rumor did not believe the Tsarevich’s accidental suicide and repeated the accusations that the Tsarevich’s mother had expressed at the moment of his death. Boris Godunov was quietly named as the main culprit of the crime. They thought that Boris sent assassins to the prince and wanted to kill him in every possible way so that he could become king himself after the death of childless Fyodor.”
Popular opinion is more categorical.
...The dog was raised - a damask knife,
He fell neither on the water nor on the ground,
He fell on the prince's white chest,
Is it that Tsarevich Dimitri
They killed Tsarevich Dimitri,
They killed him on Uglishi,
On Uglishi for games.
The historical song “The Death of Tsarevich Dmitry” does not present the details of the drama, but the death of the royal heir is called a “murder”, a planned action. Moreover, the one who planned this murder is also named, with an explanation of the motives for the insidious plan - to seize the throne.
...It’s just like in that palace on a black night
The kite has built a nest with kites!
Just like that eagle Dimitri Tsarevich,
Like that kite Boris Godunov,
Having killed the prince, he sat on the kingdom himself...
Whatever version of the causes of Dmitry’s death turns out to be correct, one thing is clear: the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, which gave rise to a lot of rumors, had tragic consequences for the entire country. Russia found impostors who tried to take the “rightful” place of the sovereign, and since the right was truly controversial, this entailed a bloody struggle in which foreigners intervened.
Events of the late XVI - early XVII centuries. became the result of a complex interweaving of various contradictions: economic, dynastic, class, spiritual and moral. All this diversity manifested itself in different ways during the course of the events of the Time of Troubles and in the actions of its heroes.
ChapterIII. Heroes of Troubles
§ 1."The Robber Godunov's Son"
Boris Godunov is the most important character in historical reality, one of the main heroes of the Time of Troubles. He took the throne not by inheritance, but by elections at the Zemsky Sobor. According to popular opinion, there was no promising start with the accession of Boris Godunov:
How our Orthodox Tsar passed away
Fedor Ivanovich. So Rosseyushka fell into villainous hands,
Villainous hands, boyar-lords...
“The story about Boris Fedorovich Godunov is a story about the lack of demand for a talented statesman. A man who made his way to the throne thanks to his family connections and business skills, knew several foreign languages, and had an excellent library, he hoped to establish peace and prosperity in Russia. Perhaps he even knew the ways to achieve this, but they were suitable for ordinary times, and at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. fate, it seemed, set out to prevent Godunov’s hopes from coming true. Instead of establishing social balance, he was forced to further enslave the peasants, instead of organizing proper industry and trade, he was forced to fight hunger and devastation in post-oprichnaya Rus', and instead of promoting enlightenment, he was forced to fight. Born to build, teach and learn, being alien to inertia and prejudices, this reasonable, balanced king spent all his strength fighting envy, ignorance, epidemics - and lost, dying either from a nervous breakdown or from poison. He had a wonderful gift of words and was smart.”
In such characteristics, historians clearly favor Tsar Boris, emphasizing the merits of the individual and statesman. There are other similar testimonies.
“Nature also endowed Boris with the talent of a ruler. He held power in his hands skillfully and firmly. Having gained influence and power at a time when the state was shaken and devastated by the oprichnina and heavy wars, Godunov directed all his abilities to calm the country and improve its well-being. According to contemporaries, he achieved significant success in this matter. Under him, trade increased, arrears decreased, and the royal treasury was filled. Instead of executions and orgies in Grozny, there was silence and calm, people “began to be consoled from their former sorrow and live quietly and serenely.” Attributing such grace to the holy prayers of Tsar Feodor, the Russian people gave justice to the talents of Boris Godunov. They unanimously praised him as a skillful ruler." This characteristic of S.F. Platonov is interesting not so much for its positive assessment of Godunov as for the fact that the emphasis here is on the opinion of his contemporaries. But it is in this case that not everything is so simple, including the assessment of contemporaries.
The rise of Boris Godunov begins with the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich (1584). Immediately after the crowning of Fyodor, Boris tried to strengthen his financial position, received the title of a neighboring sovereign boyar and the title of governor of the kingdoms of Kazan and Astrakhan. Boris was closest to the Tsar, since he was the brother of the Tsar's wife Irina.
The boyars could not come to terms with the rise of Boris Godunov: he seemed to them both young and not noble enough (albeit ancient, but from the modest Tatar family of Murza-Chet). And the opinion of the people on this matter is as follows, and it differs from the opinion of the historian:
This Godun has already deceived all the boyars.
The crazy Rosseyushka has already decided to rule,
He took possession of all of Russia and began to reign in Moscow.
Having consolidated his position in power, Godunov became the sovereign's regent.
To a significant extent, Godunov’s victory was facilitated by the fact that he had military power in his hands - the “yard” and, above all, the “yard” Streltsy orders, which guarded the Kremlin.
All these facts confirm the presence of prudence in Godunov’s personality, perhaps a penchant for intrigue in order to strengthen his position. “All the goals of his activity tended towards his own interests, towards his enrichment, towards strengthening his power, towards the elevation of his family. What is undeniable is that he took over a country that was in a very difficult situation. He maintained good peaceful relations with his neighbors, and in order to revive and develop the economy, he freed many areas from taxes for 3-5 or more years. Godunov also tried to develop Russian industry, eliminate the arbitrariness of local authorities, and provided trade benefits to foreigners.
Attracts attention from the point of view of a special event of its kind, which happened back in the reign of Feodor, but in which the role of Boris Godunov is indisputable, the visit to Moscow of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which led to a certain influx of Greeks of spiritual rank in the Muscovite state, to a greater rapprochement with the Orthodox East, and in ultimately the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. An event unprecedented in its significance: the Russian Orthodox Church became independent, independent (1589).
He calculated that at first it was necessary to win over the people, teach them to love themselves and obey themselves. For this purpose, he freed the rural people from taxes for one year, and foreigners from paying yasak. Boris gave all trading people the right to duty-free trade for two years, and at the same time gave service people an annual salary. In Novgorod he closed the taverns. Showing himself to be a guardian of morality, Boris pursued disorderly drunkenness, which pleased good people. Those in prison received freedom, those disgraced by the previous reign were given forgiveness; widows, orphans, and the needy received help from the king's generosity. There were no executions. Boris did not even punish thieves and robbers with death.
Tsar Boris did not deserve high praise for his activities among the people, because in the people’s memory he forever remained a cursed murdering tsar, a “robber” who deviated from the Orthodox commandments:
...He has already obtained the kingdom by the death of the king,
To the death of the glorious, holy king
Dimitri the Tsarevich.
How the robber Godunov’s son gathered for himself,
Gathered cursed people, evil robbers,
Having gathered them, he gave them a cursed speech:
“You are robbers, brave fellows,
You go, you kill Tsar Dmitry!
You will come and tell me whether the king was killed.
If you serve me this service, I will serve you
gold and silver."
The people are damned, the robbers are evil,
Let's go to a holy place, to Uglich - a glorious city,
The young prince, Saint Dmitry, was already killed there;
They came and told Boris Godun,
When Boris heard it, he rejoiced in evil...
Only in the first years did Boris's reign proceed peacefully and calmly. Despite Boris's generosity, he was not loved. Distrust in Boris was even caused by the fact that Tsarina Irina, Godunov’s sister, could not give birth to an heir to Tsar Fedor and was called to her to treat “heretics” (English doctors).
Thus, the personality is interpreted ambiguously, and the assessments are quite polar: an immoral intriguer, a talented politician who was not lucky enough to become the pacifier of the state, power-hungry, two-faced.
Interesting opinion of N.M. Karamzin about the personality and results of Godunov’s reign: “He (Boris) was not, but he was a tyrant, he was not inactive, but he was evil, eliminating his partners or executing his ill-wishers. If for a time Godunov established the state, for a time elevated it in the opinion of Europe, then was it not he who plunged it into the abyss of almost unheard-of misfortune - he handed it over to the Poles and vagabonds as prey.”
“Only one had a drawback: he had an indomitable desire for power and attempted to kill the kings who came before him, and therefore accepted retribution,” noted in the chronicle book of S. Shakhovsky. People in whispers continued to accuse Boris of murdering the royal child Dmitry. A trail of suspicion regarding the murder (?) of Tsarevich Dmitry that he “ordered” followed Boris throughout his entire life.
The people awarded him another name - “villain”:
...He, the villain, reigned for exactly seven years...
The fact that Boris Godunov was one of the leaders of the oprichnina policy of Ivan the Terrible was not forgotten, he was married to the daughter of the oprichnina No. 1 Malyuta Skuratov, that is, he was fed and raised in an environment of hypocrisy, anger, and cruelty.
Time of Troubles 1. Discussions about the causes of the Time of Troubles 2. Boris Godunov 3. The first impostor “It was the most unfortunate period! Our Fatherland looked more like a dark forest than a state." Karamzin N. M. Homework: § 17 -18, in 4 - in pairs © Kovalkova N. N.
Know the terms: Troubles, impostors, crisis of power, seven-boyarshina Know the dates: 1601 -1613. - Time of Troubles 1605 -1606. - reign of False Dmitry I 1606 -1610. - reign of Vasily Shuisky 1606 -1607. - uprising of I. Bolotnikov 1611 - 1612 - first and second militia Know personalities: False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II, V. Shuisky, I. Bolotnikov, K. Minin, D. Pozharsky
Name the most crisis phenomena in the state under Ivan the Terrible. Explain why you highlighted these phenomena. Highlight the main semantic units of the oprichnina, arrange them graphically
Who? Ivan IV When? 1565 -1572 Method? Terror Oprichnina Contents Zemshchina Consequence Troubles Consequence Power Consequence Economics. devastation
Find the cause-and-effect relationship between oprichnina and unrest. Guess what words can replace the term “unrest”, write them down in notebooks. Assume events that could have happened at this time
Read an excerpt from the source and answer the questions From the work of the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky. ". . . The basis for it was the painful mood of the people, carried out by the people from the reign of Ivan the Terrible and strengthened by the rule of Boris Godunov. The reason for the Troubles was given by the suppression of the dynasty and subsequent attempts to restore it in the form of imposture. The root causes of the Troubles must be recognized as the people's view of the attitude of the old dynasty towards the Moscow state, which made it difficult to get used to the idea of an elected tsar, and then the very structure of the state with its heavy tax basis. . . Other circumstances also contributed to the Troubles: the actions of the rulers who became heads of state after Tsar Feodor, boyar disgrace, famine, and pestilence. . . » Questions: 1. To what century of Russian history do the events described in the passage belong? 2. What did the historian mean when he spoke about the suppression of the dynasty and the election of a king? 3. Based on the text of the document and knowledge from the history course, name the main causes of the Troubles.
What was the alternative for the development of the country after the death of Ivan IV? Was the Troubles natural?
Boris Godunov From the family of Kostroma nobles, the Godunovs. He was raised by his uncle, guardsman D.I. Godunov. Since 1570 he has been married to Malyuta Skuratov’s daughter Maria. In 1578, he married his sister Irina to Tsarevich Fyodor. From 1581 - boyar. Since 1584 - great neighbor boyar and equerry. Since 1585 - the de facto ruler of the state. Boris Godunov
Tsar Boris In 1598, Tsar Feodor died. Boris Godunov. Hood. S. Prisekin The dynasty of Ivan Kalita came to an end. Candidates for the throne are the cousin of the deceased Tsar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov and Boris Godunov. On Godunov’s side is the support of the patriarch and Tsarina Irina, popularity among the townspeople. The Zemsky Sobor elected Boris to the throne. An elected tsar appeared for the first time in Russia.
The reign of Boris Godunov Tsar Boris Fedorovich. Portrait from the Titular Book. The reign of Boris Godunov was successful until 1601. In 1601–1603. Russia was struck by crop failure. Famine followed, exacerbated by the lack of supplies in the devastated country. Godunov’s popularity fell sharply, because people considered the famine as God’s punishment for the wrong choice of the king. Godunov turned out to be an unsuccessful tsar, and therefore illegitimate. 1603 - Cotton's rebellion, the beginning of the civil war.
During the reign of Boris Godunov, tax arrears were removed; direct taxes were replaced by indirect ones; partial exit of peasants from one owner to another was allowed; exile of unwanted persons was allowed 1600 -1603. – “hunger riots” 1603 – Khlopok’s uprising The impostor False Dmitry I appeared
In 1604, an impostor calling himself Dmitry appeared in Lithuania - a fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev. Grigory (in the world Yuri) Otrepiev - from a noble family, a slave servant of the Romanovs. False Dmitry I. Miniature n. XVII century He became a monk after the disgrace imposed by Godunov on the Romanovs and the tonsure of the head of the family, Fyodor Nikitich Romanov.
Chronology of events April 13, 1605 - the sudden death of Boris Godunov. June 1 - overthrow of Fyodor Godunov June 20 - False Dmitry's entry into Moscow June 30 - False Dmitry's crowning of the kingdom Vasily Shuisky confirmed that the prince was not killed in Uglich, but instead a popovich was buried. Agents of Dmitry the Pretender recognized Martha Nagai killing the son of B. Godunov. Hood. K. Makovsky
The shadow of the Terrible adopted me, named me Demetrius from the grave, outraged the nations around me, and condemned Boris as a sacrifice to me. A. S. Pushkin Explain the reasons for the success of False Dmitry I. But do you know why we, Basmanov, are strong? Not by army, no, False Dmitry I. not by Polish help, Miniature n. XVII century And by opinion; Yes! popular opinion A. S. Pushkin
Reasons for the victories of False Dmitry I Famine Doubts about the legitimacy of the Tsar Cotton's Rebellion and its suppression Possibility of impostor Mass hostility towards Godunov Appearance of the Impostor Successes of the Impostor
Unusual Tsar Swift, alien to the solemn False Dmitry I Engraving of the 17th century. palace slowness. He himself teaches the archers to shoot cannons and attack. Wears a Polish dress and shaves his beard. Doesn't sleep after lunch. Personally accepts petitions. The Boyar Duma is called the Senate. Criticizes the church for excessive attention to rituals. He tells the boyars about the need for education for the people, he is going to send nobles to study abroad
The fall of False Dmitry Brings Poles and Cossacks closer Didn't restore St. George's Day Didn't introduce Catholicism Pushed away the nobility Pushed away the peasantry Pushed away the Poles No support Doomed Violated customs Pushed away the clergy and Russian people in general
The fall of False Dmitry May 1606 - conspiracy, rebellion, death The last minutes of Dmitry the Pretender. Hood. K. Wenig
Reign of False Dmitry I Period of fixed years from 5 to 6 Peasants and slaves were removed from the army
Turmoil in the souls and heads Tsar Boris Fedorovich Tsar Fedor Borisovich Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich false tsar Frequent change of tsars, absence of a legitimate tsar Fall in the authority of power killed by rebels false tsar, killed by conspirators
Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky At the head of the conspiracy that overthrew False Dmitry was Vasily Shuisky. At the Zemsky Sobor in 1606, he was elected to the kingdom. Contemporaries: Vasily was called out as king. What does “called out” mean? Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky
Kissing cross record “I, the great sovereign, shall not put to death every person, without condemning the boyars with the true court, and estates, and households, and the bellies of their brethren... do not take away, also from guests, and from merchants, and from blacks people..., and I, the great sovereign, should not listen to false arguments, but thoroughly search for them with all sorts of investigations and confront them eye to eye, so that Orthodox Christianity does not perish without guilt, and whoever lies about whom, and, having found him, executes him, depending on the fault: if he was cocked wholeheartedly, he himself will be condemned.”
V. O. Klyuchevsky: “Vasily Shuisky turned from a sovereign of slaves into a legitimate king of his subjects, ruling according to the laws” 1. What is the significance of the cross-kissing record? 2. What similar document do you know in the history of Europe?
The uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov “That same summer, the founder of all evil and the leader of all evil deeds, Ivashka Bolotnikov, came to Kromy from Putivl” Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov - a serf-servant of Prince A. Telyatevsky. Captured by the Crimeans, sold as a rower on a Turkish galley. Released when a galley collided with a German ship. I traveled home through Germany and Poland. In Poland he met with the next “Dmitry” and was sent to Russia as the governor of the “Tsar”.
Hood. E. Lissner Bolotnikov's army consisted of Cossacks, peasants, serfs, and servicemen. There were also representatives of the nobility: princes D. Shakhovskoy and A. Telyatevsky. Together with the noble detachments of I. Pashkov, P. Lyapunov and G. Sumbulov, Bolotnikov besieged Moscow, setting up a camp near the village of Kolomenskoye.
Defeat of Bolotnikov Near Moscow, noble detachments went over to the side of V. Shuisky. The interests of the nobles on the one hand, peasants and Cossacks on the other, contradicted each other. The noble leaders were convinced that by fighting for “Tsar Dimitri”, they supported the adventurers
Reign of Vasily Shuisky First declared Russian autocrat - kissing record Obligation not to punish subjects without judicial proof of guilt Course of returning to the previous order Bolotnikov's rebellion, False Dmitry II, intervention of foreigners Seven Boyars 1, 2 militia rule of the "Seven Boyars" on behalf of the Polish king Vladislav
Time of Troubles Crisis of the Russian state Devastation of cities and villages Murder of innocent people Formation of people's militias In Ryazan and Nizhny Novgorod In 1611, under the leadership of D. Pozharsky Threat to national independence The collection of money for the people's militia was organized by the zemstvo elder K. A. Minin on October 26, 1612 . – liberation from the Poles of Moscow
ü Prince Dmitry Pozharsky - (1578 -1642). ü ü Representative of the Nizhny Novgorod nobility. One of the leaders of the first militia. In 1612 he led the second militia and actually led the state. He commanded the militia during the expulsion of the interventionists from Moscow. On his initiative, a Zemsky Sobor was convened in January 1613, at which a tsar was elected. In the period from 1615 to 1618. successfully fought with the Poles in 1619 -1628. led various orders, then they no longer needed him and he was sent into “honorable exile” by the governor in Mozhaisk.
Kuzma Minin ü Kuzma Minich Minin - (? - 1616) - ü ü Nizhny Novgorod townsman, zemstvo elder, traded meat. During the Time of Troubles, he initiated the creation of a second militia. He started collecting money and donated a third of his own fortune. He took an active part in the battles near Moscow, and later became a member of the zemstvo government (1612 -1613) and the Boyar Duma. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich granted him a noble title and patrimony.
The fight against the invaders The unity of the Russian people The cessation of the Time of Troubles On February 21, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov as Russian Tsar. M. Romanov did not strive for power
The struggle for power during the Time of Troubles (1605 -1612) Boris Godunov (1598 -1605) Vasily Shuisky (1606 -1610) False Dmitry I (1605 -1606) Seven Boyars led by Mstislavsky (1610 -1613) False Dmitry II (1607 -1610) ) Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613 -1645)
