Military Review

Duma about hetman Bogdan

22
On the origin of Bohdan (Zinoviy) Mikhailovich Khmelnitsky still there are different versions. However, most scientists, in particular, the Russian historian Gennady Sanin and his Ukrainian colleagues Valery Smoliy and Valery Stepankov, claim that he was born on December 27 on 1595 either in the rich father’s farm Subotov, which was located on the territory of Korsunsky, and then Chigirinsky elder, or Chyhyryn himself. His father, Mikhail Lavrinovich Khmelnitsky, came from the so-called Boyar, or rank, gentry, and spent many years in the service of the full crown hetman Stanislav Zolkiewski, and then his son-in-law, Korsun and Chigirin’s elder Yan Danilovich. Most likely, the mother of Bogdan, whose name was Agafya, came from the Little Russian noble family. Although a number of historians, for example, Oleg Boyko, believed that she was a registered Cossack.


Duma about hetman Bogdan


In the 1608 year, after graduating from the Kiev fraternal (Orthodox) school, when Bogdan knocked 12 years old, his father sent him to study at one of the best Jesuit collegia - the brotherly school in Lviv, where all the then “students” studied the traditional set of academic disciplines: Old Slavonic, Greek and Latin languages, grammar, rhetoric, poetics, elements of philosophy, dialectics, as well as arithmetic, geometry, beginnings of astronomy, theology and music. In the 1615 year, after completing the seven-year study that was traditional for that time, Bohdan Khmelnitsky, who among other sciences perfectly mastered French, Polish and German, could go to Warsaw and start a brilliant career here at the court of King Sigismund III himself. However, his father recalled his son in Chigirin, where he began his military service in the Chigirinsky regiment as a regular registered Cossack, serving in the military service of the “Polish Coruna”.

Already in 1620, when the next Turkish-Polish war broke out, young Bogdan along with his father participated in the campaign of the great crown hetman and great chancellor Stanislav Zolkiewski to Moldavia, where his father, together with his long-term benefactor, died in the famous Battle of Tsetsors, and Bogdan himself captured by the enemy.

As many historians believe, two or three years of heavy slavery in the Turkish gallery (and perhaps in the retinue of one of the Turkish admirals) did not pass for Bogdan in vain, because in captivity he managed to learn Turkish, and possibly Tatar. And in 1622 / 1623, he returned to his homeland, being redeemed from Turkish captivity, either by some nameless Dutch merchant, or by Sigismund III himself, or by his countrymen, the Cossacks of the Chigirinsky regiment, who, remembering the martial affairs of his deceased father, helped Bohdan's mother collect the necessary amount for the redemption of his son from the Turkish bondage.

Upon returning to Subotov, Bogdan Khmelnitsky was again enrolled in the royal registry, and from the middle. 1620-s he begins to actively participate in the sea campaigns of the Cossacks in Turkish cities, including in the suburbs of Istanbul (Constantinople), from where the Cossacks returned to 1629 with rich booty and young Turkish women. Although then, after a rather long stay in Zaporizhska Sich, in 1630, he returned to Chyhyryn and soon married the daughter of his friend, Pereyaslavl Colonel Yakim Somko, Anna (Ganna) Somkovna. In 1632, his firstborn was born - the eldest son Timofey, and soon he was elected centurion of the Chigirinsky regiment.

According to the Polish chronicler Vespiyan Kokhovsky, it was in this capacity that Bogdan Khmelnitsky in 1630 took an active part in the famous uprising of the Zaporozhye hetman Taras Tryilo in the famous uprising. However, modern historians, in particular, Gennady Sanin, deny this fact. Moreover, in stories The new uprisings of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks against the Polish crown, including Ivan Sulyma in 1635, the name of Bogdan Khmelnitsky is no longer found. Although it was reliably established that it was he who in 1637, being already a troop (general) clerk of the Zaporozhye army, signed the capitulation of the lower (not registered) Cossacks who were defeated during the new uprising led by hetman Pavel Pavlyuk.

At the same time, according to the statement of the “Samopov samovid’s Chronicle,” whose authorship is attributed to Roman Rakushka-Romanovsky, when Bogdan Khmelnitsky joined the Polish throne in the Polish throne (1632 – 1648) and the Smolensk war began between Poland and the Russian Federation in the Russian Union of Nations in Russia in the Russian Union of Nations in Russia in the Russian Union of Independent States. –1633's. Moreover, as the Kharkov professor Peter Butsinsky, the author of his master's thesis “About Bogdan Khmelnytsky”, established, in 1634, he received a golden saber from the hands of the Polish king for personal bravery and his salvation from enemy captivity during one of the clashes with the regiments of the governor Mikhail Shein. True, much later, at the height of the next Russian-Polish war of 1635 – 1654, the Zaporozhye hetman allegedly reproached himself for this royal reward, stating to the Moscow ambassadors that “this saber is Bogdan’s shame”.

It is clear that after such a high award, Bogdan Khmelnitsky received a special position of the Polish king and three times - in 1636, 1637 and 1638 - was part of the Cossack deputations to present to the Valnom (general) Seym and Vladislav IV numerous complaints and petitions about violence and ruin, urban registry Cossacks from the Polish magnates and the Catholic gentry. Meanwhile, according to a number of modern authors, including Gennady Sanin, Valery Smolia, Valery Stepankov and Natalia Yakovenko, after the famous 1638 – 1639 ordination, which significantly curtailed the rights and privileges of the registered Cossacks, Bogdan Khmelnitsky lost the position of troop clerk and again became centurion Chigirinsky regiment.



Meanwhile, in 1645, Vladislav IV, who had long fought with the Valnom Diet, decided to provoke a new war with the Ottoman Empire, so that, under the pretext of this military conflict, to substantially replenish the Quartz (Royal Regular) Army, as the Polish magnates by this time fully controlled the collection Commonwealth of destruction (gentry militia). To this end, he decided to rely on a Cossack sergeant and entrusted his plan to three authoritative personalities - Cherkasy colonel Ivan Barabash, Pereyaslavsky colonel Ilyash Karaim (Armenian) and Chigirinsky centurion Bogdan Khmelnitsky. At the same time, the Polish king granted to the registered Cossacks his Universal, or Priviley, to restore their desecrated rights and privileges taken from the Cossacks in 1625 year. Although the matter did not come to the next war with the Turks, since the “royal party” recruited Cossack troops caused terrible agitation among the Polish magnates and gentry, and Vladislav IV was forced to abandon his previous plans to settle accounts with Valnom Diet. Nevertheless, the royal Priviley remained with the Cossacks and, according to various sources, was secretly kept either by Illyash Karaim or Ivan Barabash. When the Polish king suffered another setback in the fight against the magnate opposition, then, according to historians (Nikolai Kostomarov, Gennady Sanin), Bogdan Khmelnitsky lured the royal Priviley with cunning and decided to use this letter for his far-reaching plans.

It must be said that different historians interpret these plans differently, but most of them, for example, Gennady Sanin, Valery Smoliy and Valery Stepankov, argue that initially the plans of Khmelnitsky himself, as well as most of the Cossack elders and the top Orthodox clergy, included the creation of an independent Cossack state independent of Turkey, the Commonwealth and Russia.

Meanwhile, a number of modern authors, in particular, Gennady Sanin, believe that frequent visits to Warsaw as part of Cossack delegations allowed Khmelnytsky to establish fairly trusting relations with the French envoy to the Polish court, Count de Brezi, who soon signed a secret agreement to send 2500 Cossacks to France, which, within the framework of the famous Thirty Years War (1618 – 1648), took an active part in the siege of Dunkirk by the French Prince Louis Conde. And, interestingly, according to Polish and French chronicles (for example, Pierre Chevalier) and according to many Ukrainian and Russian historians, Bogdan Khmelnitsky not only received a personal audience with Prince Condé during his stay in Fontainebleau, but also a personal message from the English leader revolutionaries "Lieutenant-General of the parliamentary army of Oliver Cromwell, who then led the armed struggle against the English King Charles I. Although it should be recognized that this rather walking version was refuted in the works of the famous Soviet Institute Ain historian Vladimir Golobutskogo and contemporary Polish historian Zbigniew Wójcik, who authoritatively stated: in fact, in the siege and capture of Dunkirk took part the Polish squad of mercenaries, commanded by Colonel Krzysztof Pshiemsky.

Meanwhile, in the spring of 1647, taking advantage of the absence of Bogdan in Chigirin, the Chigirin underworld Daniel Chaplinsky, who had an old personal dislike with his neighbor, attacked his village, looted him, took away his new “civilian” wife named Gelena, with whom he began to live after the death of his first wife, he married her according to the Catholic rite and carved him to the death of his youngest son Ostap, who was barely ten years old.



Initially, Khmelnitsky began to seek the truth and protection in the crown court, however, not finding them, he appealed to the king, who told him that the Cossacks, having a “sable in a belt,” had the right to defend their legal rights with weapons in hand. Returning from Warsaw, he decided to resort to the “wise” advice of the king and, relying on his Privileges, began to prepare a new uprising of the Zaporozhye Cossacks. True, soon a certain Roman Pest reported on the intentions of Bohdan Khmelnytsky to the Chigirin headman, Alexander Konetspolsky, who ordered his arrest. But with the support of his faithful comrade, Chigirinsky Colonel Mikhail Krichevsky, who himself was involved in the preparation of a new Cossack riot, Khmelnitsky escaped imprisonment and in early February 1648, led by a Cossack detachment, arrived on Tomakovka island.

Having gathered around him local Cossacks, he moved to Khortytsya, in the Zaporizhian Sich itself, located on the Nikitsky Horn. Here, the Khmelnitsky detachment defeated the Polish garrison and forced Cherkasy Colonel Stanislav Jurassky to flee, whose Cossacks immediately joined the insurgent detachment of the registered and Zaporozhye Cossacks, saying that “fight Cossacks against Cossacks — all is one thing, orami”.

In early April, 1648, having entered into secret negotiations with the Crimean Khan Islam III Giray, Khmelnitsky got him to send a large detachment of the Perekop Murza Tugay-Bey to help the Cossacks. This unexpected "foreign policy" success played into the hands of Khmelnitsky, who, upon returning to the Sich, was immediately elected troop hetman of the Zaporozhye army.
At the end of April 1648, the 12-thousandth Crimean-Cossack army, bypassing the Kodak fortress, withdrew from the Sich and went to meet the quartz detachment of Stefan Potocki, who spoke from Krylov to meet the Cossacks. Moreover, both the hetman of the field - the crown Nikolai Pototsky and the field Martin Kalinovsky - remained in their camp located between Cherkasy and Korsun, waiting for reinforcements.

Meanwhile, Bogdan Khmelnitsky went to the mouth of the river Tiasmin and camped on its tributary - Yellow Waters. It was here that the 5-thousandth detachment under the command of Stefan Potocki was completely defeated, and his young leader, the son of Nikolai Pototsky, was fatally injured and died. Then the Crimean Cossack army moved to Korsun, where in the middle. May 1648, a new battle took place on Boguslavsky Shlyakha, which resulted in the death of almost the entire 20-thousandth Quartz Army and the capture of Nikolay Pototsky and Martin Kalinovsky, who were presented with the gift of Tugay-Bey as a gift.

The defeat at the Yellow Waters surprisingly coincided with the sudden death of Vladislav IV, which caused a murmur among the Polish gentry and magnates. And, interestingly, according to a number of current historians, in particular, Gennady Sanin, already in June 1648, Khmelnitsky sent a personal message to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to Moscow with an unusual proposal to run for the election of the new Polish king. And, although it, of course, remained unanswered, the fact of the establishment of direct contacts of the hetman with Moscow is important.

By the end of the summer, 40-thousandth Polish commonwealth was assembled in Volyn as part of the Polish gentry and zholner, which, due to the captivity of both hetmans, were headed by three coronial commissars - Vladislav Zaslavsky, Alexander Konetspolsky and Nikolai Ostorog, whom Bohdan Khmelnitsky himself jokingly called “Perina, Dimitinos’ Latin. All R. On September 1648, both armies met at the village of Pilyavtsy near Starokonstantinov, where on the banks of the Ykva River, the Crimean-Cossack army won a brilliant victory and plunged the enemy into a stampede, who left guns on the 90 battlefield, tons of gunpowder and huge trophies, which cost no. 7 million gold.

After such a brilliant victory, the rebel army rushed to Lvov, which hastily abandoned by field hetman Jeremiah Vishnevetsky, were themselves defended by the townspeople headed by the local mayor Martin Groswier. However, after taking part of the Lviv fortifications by the detachment of Maxim Kryvonos, the Lvov citizens paid a small contribution to the Cossacks for lifting the siege of the city, and in late October Bogdan Khmelnitsky headed towards Zamosty.

Meanwhile in the middle. November 1648 was the younger Polish brother of the late Vladislav IV Jan II Casimir (1648 – 1668), who ascended the throne, including with the support of Bohdan Khmelnitsky himself and the Cossack petty deputation, who apparently agreed with him that he would support registered Cossacks in the fight against the Polish and Lithuanian gentry and tycoons for their equal rights with them.



At the very beginning. January 1649, Bogdan Khmelnitsky triumphantly entered Kiev, where a new round of negotiations with the Polish side, begun back in Zamoć, soon began. Moreover, according to the information of the modern authors, Natalya Yakovenko and Gennady Sanin, who refer to the testimonies of the head of the Polish delegation, the Kiev governor Adam Kissel, before their start, Bogdan Khmelnitsky told the entire Cossack foreman and the Polish delegation that now he is a small man who has become according to the will of God, the “one owner and autocrat, Ruthenian”, will knock out “all the Ruthenian people out of Lyadskaya bondage” and from now on will “fight for our Orthodox faith, because the land of Lyadskaya is sinister, and Russia will be panuvati”.

Already in March, 1649, Bogdan Khmelnitsky, who had long sought reliable allies in the fight against the Polish crown, sent a policeman, Colonel Siluyan Muzylovsky to Moscow with a personal message to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in which he asked him to take the “Zaporozhskoye army under the high sovereign’s hand” and give him a favor help in the fight against Poland. This message was favorably received in Moscow, and under the tsar's order in Chigirin, where the headquarters and the office of the Zaporozhye hetman were then located, the first Russian ambassador, the head clerk Gregory Unkovsky, left, who signed the following agreement with Bogdan Khmelnitsky: 1) since Moscow is currently forced to comply with the terms of the Polyanovo Peace Treaty (1634), then it will not be able to start a new war with Poland, but will provide all possible assistance to the Zaporozhye hetman with finances and weapons; 2) Moscow will not object if, at the request of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the Don Cossacks take part in hostilities against the Polish crown.

Meanwhile, Jan II Casimir unexpectedly resumed hostilities against Bogdan Khmelnitsky, although already in August 1649, the crown army under the leadership of the king himself was completely defeated under Zborov, and he was forced to announce the “Grace of His Royal Majesty the Zaporozhian Army to the points proposed in their petition ". The essence of these privileges was as follows: 1) Warsaw officially recognized Bogdan Khmelnytsky as a hetman of the Zaporozhsky army and transferred to it Kiev, Bratslav and Chernihiv voivodship; 2) the quartering of the Polish crown troops was forbidden on the territory of these voivodships, but the local Polish gentry received the right to return to their possession; 3) the number of the registered Cossacks in the service of the Polish crown increased from 20 to 40 thousand sabers.

Naturally, Bogdan Khmelnitsky attempted to make the most of the new truce to find new allies in the fight against the Polish crown. Enlisting the support of Moscow, where the idea of ​​an alliance with the Zaporozhye hetman supported the Zemsky Sobor in February 1651 of the year, and Bakhchisarai, who entered into a military alliance with the Cossacks, Bogdan Khmelnitsky resumed hostilities against Poland. But in June, 1651 under Berestechko because of the mean betrayal of the Crimean Khan Islam III Giray, who fled from the battlefield and forcibly detained Bogdan Khmelnitsky in his camp, the Zaporozhye Cossacks suffered a crushing defeat and were forced to sit at the negotiating table. In September, 1651, the belligerents signed the Belotserkovsky peace treaty, under the terms of which: 1) the Zaporozhye hetman lost the right of external relations; 2) only Kiev Province remained in its management; 3) the number of registered Cossacks was again reduced to 20 thousand sabers.

At this time, Bogdan Khmelnitsky himself had to go through a difficult personal drama. His second wife Gelena (in Orthodoxy Motron), with whom he married in 1649, suspected of adultery with a trooper, was ordered by Timofei Khmelnitsky, who did not like her stepmother, was hanged with her thieving lover.

Meanwhile, the new world with Rzecz Pospolita turned out to be even less durable than the previous one, and soon the fighting resumed, which even the Russian Ambassador Boyar Boris Repnin-Obolensky, who promised to forget the violation of the conditions of the old Polyanovo Treaty by Poles, could not prevent Belotserkovsky from Warsaw contract

In May, 1652 of the year, Bogdan Khmelnitsky defeated under Batog the army of crown field hetman Martin Kalinovsky, who fell in this battle with his son, the clerk of baggage Samuel Ezhi. And in October 1653, he defeated the 8-thousandth detachment of Colonels Stefan Charnetsky and Sebastian Makhovsky in the battle of Zhvants. As a result, Jan II Casimir was forced to enter into new negotiations and sign the Zhvanetsky peace treaty, which exactly reproduced all the conditions of the “Zboriv grace” granted to the Cossacks in 1649 year.

Meanwhile, in October 1653, a new Zemsky Sobor was held in Moscow, which, in a new, fifth way, asked the hetman ambassadors of Kondrat Burylaya, Siluyan Muzhilovsky, Ivan Vyhovsky and Grigory Gulyanitsky, finally made a firm decision to take the Zaporozhye army under the “high hand” of the Russian Tsar and the beginning of the war with Poland. In order to formalize this decision, the Grand Embassy was composed of Bogdan Khmelnitsky at the headquarters of Boyar Vasily Buturlin, Okolichykh Ivan Alferov and Artamon Matveyev and Duma Diary Hilarion Lopukhin. In January, 1654 was held in Pereyaslavl by the Combined Arms Council, during which the Zaporozhye hetman, the entire military foreman and representatives of the 166 "Cherkasy" cities gave the oath to be "eternal subjects to his royal majesty All-Russian and his heirs."



In March, 1654 in Moscow in the presence of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, members of the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral and the Hetman Ambassadors - military judge Samuil Bogdanovich and Pereyaslav Colonel Pavel Teteri - signed a historic treaty on the reunification of the original Russian lands with Russia. In accordance with the "March Articles": 1), the entire administrative, that is, the military-regimental control system remained in the whole territory of Little Russia, "that the Hetman be elected to the Zaporozhian Samozhey itself and the Royal Majesty be informed that because that long-standing military custom "; 2) “In the Zaporozhian Troops, that they narrowed their rights and had their liberties in the courts and in the courts, so that neither the voivode, nor the boyar, nor the stolnik could join the courts in the courts”; 3) “Zaporozhian army in the number of 60 000 so that it was always full”, etc. And, what is particularly interesting, the “March Articles” detailed the specific size of the sovereign's salary and land holdings of the entire Cossack (military and junior) foremen, in particular, the military clerk, military judges, military colonels, regimental esaulov and centurions.

It must be said that in modern Ukrainian historiography, and in the wide public consciousness of many “Ukrainians,” there persists a steady myth about the existence of a special form of republican rule in Little Russia (Hetmanate), which visibly manifested itself in the form of a free Cossack state. However, even a number of modern Ukrainian historians, in particular, Valery Smoliy, Valery Stepankov and Natalya Yakovenko, rightly say that in the so-called Cossack Republic much visible elements of terry authoritarianism and oligarchic rule were present, especially during the hetmanship of Bohdan Khmelnytsky , Ivan Vyhovsky, Yuri Khmelnitsky and Paul Teteri. Moreover, almost all applicants for the hetman's mace, outwardly demonstrating their commitment to the ideas of subordinating hetman powers to the “collective will” of the Zaporozhian army, in fact, made every effort to expand the boundaries of their authoritarianism and even pass the hetman's mace. Moreover, Professor Natalya Yakovenko directly stated that it was under Bohdan Khmelnytsky that the regime of military dictatorship was established in the Hetmanate, since all the leading posts here were occupied exclusively by military officers. It is also well known that many Little Russian hetmans, after coming to power, pursued a policy of terror against all political opponents. For example, the same Ivan Vyhovsky only in June 1658, executed Pereyaslavsky Colonel Ivan Sulimu, Korsun Colonel Timothy Onikienko and more than a dozen regimental head officers. Therefore, fleeing the hetman's terror, the Uluansky colonel Ivan Bespalyi, the Pavolotsky colonel Mikhail Sulichich, the general esaul Ivan Kovalevsky, the punitive hetman Yakim Somko and many others fled from the Ukraine.

Also unreasonable are the constant references and the unfounded moaning of Ukrainian independenceists about the special national autonomous status of Left-Bank Ukraine (Little Russia) as part of the Moscow kingdom, since in reality it was not national or regional, but military-class autonomy, stemming from the special border position of Little Russia and New Russia lands located on the borders with the Crimean Khanate and the Commonwealth. Exactly the same military estate autonomy existed in the lands of the Don and Yaik Cossack troops, which, like the Zaporozhye Cossacks, carried out frontier service on the southern frontiers of the Moscow kingdom, and then the Russian Empire.

Taking the Zaporozhye army and the entire Hetman under his “high hand”, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, of course, took into account the inevitability of war with Poland, so this decision was made only when the Russian army was able to start a new war with its old and strong adversary. The new Russian-Polish war began in May 1654, when the 100-thousandth Russian army marched in three main directions: Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself led the main forces from Moscow to Smolensk, Prince Alexei Trubetskoy with his regiments made a connection from Bryansk with the troops of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky, and the boyar Vasily Sheremetev from Putivl went out with the Zaporozhian Cossacks. In order to prevent the possible performance of the Turks and the Crimean Tatars, at the same time a boyar Vasily Troyekurov was sent to the Don to instruct the Don Cossacks to keep a watchful eye on the Crimean frontiers and, if necessary, not to oppose the enemy.



During the 1654 military campaign of the year, the Russian army and the Zaporozhye Cossacks, inflicting a series of major defeats on the Polish-Lithuanian Kvatsyarny army of the hetmans Stefan Potocki and Janusz Radziwill, took Smolensk, Dorogobuzh, Roslavl, Polotsk, Gomel, Orsha, Shklov, and Yman and other people and other people. Little Russia. The 1655 military campaign of the year also proved to be extremely successful for the Russian army, which inflicted a number of major defeats on the Poles and captured Minsk, Grodno, Vilna, Kovno, and advanced to Brest. But by the summer of 1655, the situation on the territory of Little Russia itself was seriously complicated, because part of the Cossack officers, who did not recognize the decisions of Pereyaslavl Council, supported the Polish gentry, and the crown hetman Stefan Pototsky managed to assemble and arm the new army. However, in the middle. On June 1655, selected regiments of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, Aleksei Trubetskoy and Vasily Buturlin defeated the Poles near Lvov, and the city itself was taken to the ring. In the meantime, the new Crimean Khan Mehmed IV Giray decided to help Warsaw and invaded the borders of Polish Ukraine, but in the Ozernaya region the Tatars were defeated and hastily retreated back home. After these events, the Polish king Jan II Casimir fled to Silesia in panic, and the Lithuanian hetman Janusz Radziwill went over to the Swedish king Charles X Gustav, who a year ago started the Northern War (1655 – 1660) with the Polish crown.

The crushing military defeat of Poland was skillfully used in Stockholm, and at the end of 1655, the Swedish army captured Poznan, Krakow, Warsaw and other cities of the southern neighbor. This situation radically changed the course of further events. Not wanting to strengthen the position of Sweden in the strategically important Baltic region, under pressure from the head of the Ambassadorial Order Afanasy Ordin-Nashchokin Alexei Mikhailovich declared war on Stockholm, and in May 1656, the Russian army hastily moved to the Baltic States. Although, according to historians (Gennady Sanin), Patriarch Nikon, Vasily Buturlin, and Grigory Romodanovsky, and other members of the Boyar Duma opposed this war.

The beginning of the new Swedish campaign was very successful for the Russian army, and literally in one month it took possession of Dinaburg and Marienburg and began the siege of Riga. However, in the beginning. October, having received the news that Karl X was preparing a campaign in Livonia, the siege of Riga had to be lifted and retreated to Polotsk. In this situation, in October 1656, Moscow and Warsaw signed the Vilna truce and began joint combat operations against the Swedish army, which at that time took control of a large part of Polish territory.

This circumstance very frightened Bogdan Khmelnitsky, and in February 1657, he entered into a military alliance with the Swedish king Charles X, sending thousands of Zaporozhye Cossacks to help his new allies 12. Upon learning of this, the Poles immediately notified Moscow of this fact, from where an ambassadorial mission was headed to Bogdan Khmelnitsky, led by the boyar Bogdan Khitrovo, who found the Zaporozhye hetman already seriously ill. Trying to justify himself before the royal ambassador, he told that in February 1657, the royal envoy Colonel Stanislav Benevsky came to Chigirin, who offered him to go to the king's side, therefore "because of such tricks and lies, we opposed part of the Zaporozhian Army". Due to these clearly contrived reasons, Bogdan Khmelnitsky himself refused to withdraw his Cossacks from the Polish front, however, the Zaporozhians themselves, having learned that their campaign was not coordinated with Moscow, returned by their own means and said to their foreman: those times you leaned towards the sovereign, but as you see, behind the sovereign's defense, you saw room and much possession and enriched yourself, so you really want to be a self-styled panami ”.

It must be admitted that this version of events is contained in the works of many, including the current Ukrainian historians. Although it should be said that the modern Russian historian Gennady Sanin, on the contrary, asserts that Moscow was fully aware of the behavior of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and even sent to Chigirin the ambassadorial deacon Artamon Matveyev, who presented him with “many sables” on behalf of the king.

Shortly after the departure of Bogdan Khitrovo, Bogdan Khmelnitsky, feeling the imminent death, ordered to convene the Combined Arms Council in Chigirin to choose his successor, and the military foreman elected his younger 16-year-old son Yuri Khmelnitsky to be the new Zaporozhian hetman. However, after the death of his father, in October 1657, the head of the military office, Ivan Vyhovsky, was elected on the new Combined Arms Rada, convened already in Korsun, as a new Zaporozhian hetman.

It must be said that for quite a long time the date of Khmelnitsky’s death caused heated debates. However, it is now precisely established that he died 27 on July 1657 of the year from a hemorrhagic stroke in Chigirin and was buried next to the body of the deceased older son Timofei in the family farm Subotov, in the stone Illyinsky church he had built. True, in 1664, the Polish voivode Stefan Charnetsky burned Subotov, ordered the ashes of Khmelnytsky and his son Timothy to be dug up and to throw their bodies away for "devouring to dogs" ...
Author:
Originator:
http://xn--h1aagokeh.xn--p1ai/special_posts/%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%BE-%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5/
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. verb
    verb 12 November 2016 16: 15
    +3
    I read it, I was looking for Uma, I never found it. Now I am at a loss: what kind of "Uma" about Bogdan? Thurman, what-le? Admins finally lost their scent ???
    1. EvgNik
      EvgNik 13 November 2016 05: 56
      +2
      Quote: verb
      I read, I was looking for everything to Uma, but I did not find it.

      The Goddess of Mind (Shakti) is Truth, so the title of the article should read: "The Truth about Hetman Bogdan".
      Something like that. I only doubt that the article is the ultimate truth.
  2. Bureaucrat
    Bureaucrat 12 November 2016 16: 28
    +7
    Be that as it may, in every major city in Russia there is a street in his honor. And we will not rename them. We do not trade our history.
  3. Retvizan
    Retvizan 12 November 2016 16: 32
    +7
    a good article reminds me very much of a similar one in the Ukrainian version, with the mention of Kostomarov.
    Bogdan is a very strong personality, what he could do was not possible for any hetman. This is what education does.
  4. Rozmyssel
    Rozmyssel 12 November 2016 16: 37
    +2
    There are still different versions about the origin of Bogdan (Zinovy) Mikhailovich Khmelnitsky.

    Well, the fact that TIishnikov never has one version is familiar to everyone.
    The great Russian commander Bogdan Khmelnitsky, defeated the best European-Polish army at that time, captured by force the weapons of 20 Polish cities and reached Warsaw itself.
    What does TI tell us? That the Cossacks are runaway peasants, warlords and robbers, that they on the Don and in Zaporozhye were hiding from their rightful feudal lords, were stupid, stupid and uneducated. In order to create an active army, CENTURY MILITARY TRADITIONS are necessary, continuity i.e. the creation of an army cannot be a momentary matter, but here culture and traditions of generations of fathers and grandfathers are needed, only then things will go. So somehow this TI does not fit with the great victories of Khmelnitsky. All tishniki never consider the economy of the Cossacks. In order to arm TENS of THOUSAND soldiers it was necessary to have the economy of a DEVELOPED state, you need ore mines, coal mines, because in Malorussia you are strained with wood, you need metallurgical plants, you need plants for the manufacture of gunpowder, and this is sulfur and coal, why as soon everything rests on OBJECTIVE REALITY among historians, languages ​​begin to weave, and their mouths close? And this is not enough because in order for all this to work successfully, it is necessary to have a FINANCED FINANCIAL SYSTEM, which historians completely deny, not only in Little Russia, but even in Russia 17th century ???
    Well, for the mood, the famous Zaporizhzhya March and Vidio with the brilliant Bogdan Stupka.
  5. Basil50
    Basil50 12 November 2016 16: 50
    +3
    Yes, the nobility of the Polish gentry and chivalry manifested themselves in all wars and in everyday life. Today, the Poles’s turbulences in the public service can neither be understood nor accepted when ambition and outright vileness pass as Polish policy. But they were like that at all times.
    The fate of Khmelnitsky, who aspires to become * his own * for the Poles and who is ready to serve as anyone, is very revealing, but how many were the same that we will never know about?
    1. avt
      avt 12 November 2016 18: 21
      +4
      Quote: Vasily50
      The fate of Khmelnitsky aspiring to become * his * for the Poles

      If they didn’t notice, then he was actually quite “his own” and was. Exactly until the moment when he de jure did not formalize the ownership of Chigirin and
      At first, Khmelnitsky began to seek truth and protection in the Crown Court, however, not finding them, he turned to the king, who told him that the Cossacks, possessing a "saber behind the belt", themselves had the right to defend their legal rights with arms in their hands.
      Having lost the courts outright, I decided to solve the issue according to the concepts of the boys. And when the responsibility really came to light - he rushed to engage in the "liberation movement". In which he succeeded very much. However, even after the Pereyaslavl Rada, already the entrance of the "Quietest" military campaigns against Poland, the tsar drank from him ..... and the descendants too. .... let's just say - they did not unambiguous actions.
      Quote: parusnik
      That’s what political stupidity leads to .. The Poles did not want to see the Orthodox nobility in the ruling elite .. only on conditions accept Catholicism.

      You will laugh, but even building a mono-ethnic state with attempts to empire, this elite managed not to see at least some sort of sane power over itself, that’s at least someone, especially fellow tribesmen. laughing On that state schizophrenia stood and will stand the Speech of the Commonwealth forever and ever to the full amen (I) bully
      1. Retvizan
        Retvizan 13 November 2016 17: 36
        0
        Quote: avt
        rushed to engage in the "liberation movement"

        well, he had done this before (he signed the surrender there)
        The time was like that. Khmelnitsky was the first to realize that it is better to do everything himself, and not wait for the next Batory. Poland should also say thank you to him, for the policy of the Seim was definitely not ideal. Interpreting in terms of simplicity can also be done in different ways. Yet he was a Cossack in the service. And the fact that he was in the "system" helped him a lot. The atamans from the Sich did not go further than the Warsaw stake.
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 12 November 2016 17: 19
    +7
    This is what political stupidity leads to .. We didn’t want the Poles to see the Orthodox nobility in the ruling elite .. only accept Catholicism on conditions .. There would be no discrimination on religious grounds .. We wouldn’t know Bohdan Khmelnitsky too ..
    1. captain
      captain 13 November 2016 04: 14
      +1
      Our Empress Catherine !! with a stroke of the pen she stopped all the rebellious inclinations of the top of the Zaporozhye Cossacks, gave them noble liberties. The remaining dissatisfied simply dispersed or relocated to the Kuban, simply and surprisingly wisely.
      1. Vladislav 73
        Vladislav 73 13 November 2016 07: 25
        +3
        The first time the Zaporizhzhya Sich was destroyed on 11.05.1709/1733/03.08.1775 by order of Peter I in connection with the betrayal of Hetman Mazepa. Peter I issued a manifesto on the liquidation of the Sich, and until the end of his life forbade to restore anything there. Only in 112 Anna Ioannovna granted pardon to the Cossacks, allowing New Sich on the Podpolnaya River, which existed until the final dispersal of Catherine II. XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX she signed the manifesto "On the destruction of the Zaporizhzhya Sich and its reckoning to the Novorossiysk province." The last kosh chieftain of the Sich Pyotr Kalnyshevsky died on Solovki at the age of XNUMX!
      2. Retvizan
        Retvizan 13 November 2016 17: 39
        0
        Quote: captain
        Our Empress Catherine !! with a stroke of the pen she stopped all the rebellious inclinations of the top of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, gave them noble liberties

        oh well ... Razumovsky and Panin's group elevated her to the throne. True, she threw everyone. Even Orlova.
        Everything was not so easy. Razumovsky at least did something for Getman, but was purely at court. His so to speak.
        It was not a "stroke of the pen", but rather a thoughtful action. The truth is ambiguous ... in Ukraine it is definitely not positive.
  7. Caretaker
    Caretaker 12 November 2016 18: 39
    +4
    Thanks for the detailed story!
    It is a pity that banderlogs do not enter this site.
    1. Retvizan
      Retvizan 13 November 2016 17: 40
      0
      Quote: Caretaker
      It is a pity that banderlogs do not enter this site.

      depending on whom to think so, if all the Ukrainians come in.
      1. Caretaker
        Caretaker 13 November 2016 18: 49
        0
        But you yourself, quite rightly, do not think so.
      2. Caretaker
        Caretaker 13 November 2016 19: 13
        0
        Fortunately, not all citizens of Ukraine profess Nazi ideology. I would venture to assert - such a minority, although the most aggressive and illiterate.
  8. Torins
    Torins 13 November 2016 13: 07
    0
    Quote: Retvizan
    a good article reminds me very much of a similar one in the Ukrainian version, with the mention of Kostomarov.
    Bogdan is a very strong personality, what he could do was not possible for any hetman. This is what education does.

    And I got the impression that he is a political prostitute. How much did he violate the agreements he signed? How many rulers managed to serve? In general, an extremely unpleasant person in history.
    1. Retvizan
      Retvizan 13 November 2016 17: 52
      0
      Quote: Torins
      And I got the impression that he is a political prostitute. How much did he violate the agreements he signed? How many rulers managed to serve? In general, an extremely unpleasant person in history.

      Well, also an interesting point of view. The same can be said, betrayed the king of Poland (one really was for his idea, the second he considered his protege),
      was not completely honest with the tsar of Moscow (the tsar was also the same in truth),
      negotiated with the Sultan and Khan personally (extraordinary courage in the "walking political girl")
      with Swedes and Ugrians .. and so many.
      Believe me, the slogan "political girl" can be called any figure of any century!
      But not everyone succeeds like Hops. (Although there have been much more successful politicians in history)
      I take only deeds - I leave words. All gave their word to all-all violated. Peter 1, whom I read a little, assured the Swedes about peace, and immediately declared war on them, as soon as the Ukrainians made peace. And there are thousands of such cases in history!
      Quote: Torins
      In general, an extremely unpleasant person in history

      Well, for the Poles it’s generally unpleasant
      he pushed Ukraine into the arms of Moscow
      As for the older times, namely the conflict between the Cossacks and the gentry, schools teach that Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky went against the Polish government and oppressed the gentry. His uprising is not regarded as a struggle for independence. “We are taught in the classroom that the rebellion of Hetman Khmelnitsky pushed Ukraine into the arms of Moscow. And then the Cossacks themselves regretted the Pereyaslavl treaty concluded with the Russians and tried in every possible way to get along with the Poles by signing an agreement in Gadyach,” retells a section from the textbook Novak.
      and here in general
      http://www.traitorofukraine.com/ru/index.html
      "Traitor of Ukraine" - destroyed the best empire (RP) and the future of Ukraine ...
      how many people have so many opinions.
  9. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 13 November 2016 13: 26
    +1
    The author cited, let us say, the "ceremonial" biography of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, adding to it the traditional kick recently addressed to Ukraine.
    However, the activities of "Bohdan Khmelnitsky - the Troops of the Zaporozhye Commander-in-Chief, the War of the Kholopskaya Pioneer, the Revolted Cossacks and the People of the Ukrainian Prince", as Wilhelm Gondius, the Flemish cartographer and court engraver of the two Polish kings, Vladislav IV and Jan-Kazimr, gave estimates and different, sometimes diametrically opposite. His role in history is perhaps not thoroughly investigated and not realized to this day, and some of the secrets of his life have not yet been solved.
    Oliver Cromwell closely followed the actions of Bohdan Khmelnitsky. He saw in the hetman not only his potential ally, but also a kindred spirit. In one of his personal messages, Cromwell addressed the Ukrainian commander: "Bohdan Khmelnytsky, by God's grace, the Generalissimo of the Greco-Eastern Church, the leader of all Zaporozhye Cossacks, the intimidator and exterminator of the Polish nobility, the conqueror of fortresses, the destroyer of the Roman priesthood, the persecutor of the pagans and antichrists ...".
    But some of Khmelnitsky’s actions contradict the above estimates and were criticized by both contemporaries and historians.
    In the summer of 1648, Poland was declared a "crumbling overthrow". In September 1648, the Polish army, numbering about 40 thousand people, including 18 thousand mercenaries, gathered near Lvov. The battle with the army of Khmelnytsky took place near the town of Pilyavtsy in the Lviv region. The Polish army was headed by three magnates: Prince Dominik Zaslavsky, Nikolai Ostrorog, and 18-year-old Alexander Konetspolsky, who bore the title of crown cornet. In the battle that took place, the Poles were utterly defeated. A terrible catastrophe, when the flower of Polish chivalry was put to flight like a flock of sheep, occurred when the Commonwealth had not yet had time to recover from the deafening blows at Yellow Waters and near Korsun. This defeat caused general terror and numbness. Poland lay at the feet of Khmelnitsky. The Poles were at a loss and could not muster a new army. The path to Warsaw was open and Khmelnitsky had a real chance to strike a crushing blow on Poland.
    If he had thought to move inland with his regiments, he would not have met resistance until Warsaw itself. As historians write, if there are moments in the life of peoples that all their future depends on, then that moment was the time after the victory at Pilyavtsy on 23 of September 1648 of the year. Getting rid of Polish oppression, complete national liberation - everything was possible and achievable at that moment. The people felt this and was eager to complete the cause of freedom.
    Khmelnitsky led the troops - but not to Warsaw, but to Lviv, which paid off a large indemnity from the siege. After Lvov, Khmelnitsky moved to Zamosc, which he then besieged for a long time, not allowing him to be stormed. He entered into negotiations with the Poles about the election of the king, sent his representatives to the Sejm, made a promise to obey the orders of the new head of state. At the request of the newly elected King of the Commonwealth, Jan Kazimir Khmelnitsky sends station wagons to the Cossack regiments, which operated in the south of Belarus, with the order to return to Ukraine. The Cossack army leaves the outskirts of Zamost and goes to the Dnieper. On 11 of December 1649 of the year, Yan Kazimir sends a letter to Khmelnitsky demanding that insurgent groups be disbanded. In Belopol (Kiev Voivodeship) Khmelnytsky dissolves his army.
    Why did Khmelnitsky do this? Why gave the Poles the opportunity to create a new springboard for an attack on Ukraine? Why did you let them gather strength? Many historians have tried to answer this question. Some believed that Khmelnitsky, who had led a fierce peasant war by chance, was simply frightened, simply was not ready for a historical role of this magnitude. Whether it is true or not, we may not even recognize it.
    It’s also unlikely that we will find out what the Anenerbe organization, which operated under the patronage of Heinrich Himmler and was created in 1941 to study the traditions, history and heritage of the Aryan race, in 1943 - 1935 years in Saturday (the official residence of Getman) . Basically, Anenerbe was looking for sources of “special knowledge”, those that could contribute to the creation of a superman with superpower and superknowledge. To confirm the theory of the Aryans, the Nazis scoured the world - from Tibet to Africa and Europe.
    We do not even know for sure what this legendary person looked like. The only description of the appearance of Bogdan, which has come down to our time, left us in the XVII century. Austrian Ambassador Alberto da Vimina: "Khmelnitsky was rather tall than medium and very wide in bone." Reliable images of the hetman is not preserved. The landmark is the only black and white engraving of the 17th century, Gondius, already mentioned by us, which was allegedly painted from his lifetime portrait.
    With Khmelnitsky’s relics preserved to our day, it’s not all simple either. A significant part of the items associated with the name of the legendary Ukrainian hetman Bogdan Khmelnytsky is now kept in museums in Poland, and above all, in the famous Czartoryski Museum, which has been a branch of the National Museum in Krakow since 1950 of the year . This museum, the oldest private collection in Poland, was founded in 1796 by Princess Isabella Czartoryski. According to museum catalogs, at the beginning of the 19th century, relics associated with the name of Bogdan Khmelnitsky were found in the same collection - a saber, a nagaika and two cups. Of exceptional interest is the inscription engraved on the saber. There is still controversy over the correct reading. The most frequently cited version was proposed at the beginning of the 20th century by the Polish researcher Stanislav Szewieza:
    Szczo pod Zborowom Zbarazom slawy zarobyli
    Jnj pod Bcresteczkom na hlowu utratyli
    Ne buto na tachow swoich sia porywaty
    J z B [ercsteczka (?)] Zaraz w skok utekaty
    Toby w naszoy slawie ne buio utraty. 1652.
    (What is near Zborov, Zabarazh glory gained
    Others under Berestechkom lost their head
    There was no rush on the Poles
    And with B [spawn] immediately jump away
    That would not have lost our glory. 1652.
    The intrigue of this whole story is attached by the fact of the existence of an almost identical saber, which is now kept in the Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky Historical Museum, where it came from the collection of the famous Ukrainian collector V.V. Tarnowski. On the blade of this saber, at the base of the blade, is also engraved the already familiar inscription in Polish: “What is under Zborov, Zbarazh ...”
    There have been mystical experiences in his life. When he studied at the Lviv Jesuit College, he was once raised by a tornado, surrounded by a collegium building, and put it carefully in place. One can only imagine what impression this event made on the witnesses. Someone was already convinced that this person will have an amazing fate.
    In conclusion, I would like to cite an excerpt from the biography of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, written in 1894 by the Russian writer V.I. Yakovenko and published in the series "Life of Remarkable People" by the Russian book publisher and educator FF. Pavlenkova: “Khmelnitsky died in 1657 without completing the work he had begun. Indeed, could it have been possible to finish it in the ten years he has lived since the outbreak of the fatal feud? The struggle between the gentry-aristocratic and Cossack-folk principles could not be finished even for a whole century. A great work remained imperfect; but fate did not send successors and successors worthy of the initiator. And strangely enough, even now, after two and a half centuries, a calm, impartial attitude towards the personality of the main figure of the most significant epoch in our history, Bohdan Khmelnitsky, has not yet been established. While the society erects a monument to him and the Kiev Committee for the Collection of Donations in its appeal defines the meaning of Khmelnitsky as follows: "To the one who returned the Kiev relic to the Russian people, who saved, perhaps, Orthodoxy on the banks of the Dnieper and laid the cornerstone of the current state the building of all Russia ", - at this time the Moscow Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities publishes a three-volume passionate pamphlet of the famous Kulish, depicting Khmelnitsky as a notorious villain and scoundrel! Apparently, it is still impossible to say that the deeds of Bohdan Khmelnitsky are the property of the times of the past. "
    Unfortunately, today's Ukraine and Ukrainians are far from what our ancestors were. We do not have such a leader as Bogdan Khmelnitsky.
    1. The centurion
      The centurion 17 February 2017 18: 48
      0
      Quote: Dekabrist
      Unfortunately, today's Ukraine and Ukrainians are far from what our ancestors were.

      Is it ???????
      The transition of the Dnieper Cossacks under the authority of the Moscow Tsar took place, on the one hand, and on the other hand, under the influence of a combination of circumstances and external causes. The Cossacks, fleeing from their final defeat by Poland, sought protection under the authority of the Moscow tsar or the Turkish sultan. And Moscow took them to keep from going under the rule of Turkey. On the part of the Moscow tsar, the Cossacks confirmed their liberties, but they presented requirements as a service army. And the Cossack officers did not want to give up their privileges in the management of the army and subordinate territories. This duality of the gentry consciousness of the Ukrainian elite was characteristic from the very beginning of the annexation of Little Russia to Great Russia, and it was not eliminated even later, and it has not yet been eradicated. It is the basis of the Russian-Ukrainian mistrust and misunderstanding that has characterized for many centuries and became the basis for numerous betrayals and excesses of the Ukrainian gentry, revolts and manifestations of separatism and collaborationism. These bad habits, like infections, spread over time from the Ukrainian gentry to the wider masses. The subsequent history of three centuries of living together the two, and not becoming truly fraternal, peoples, like the history of the twentieth century, gave a number of examples of this situation. In the 1918 and 1941 years, Ukraine almost meekly accepted the German occupation. The occupation of 1918 of the year and the civil war famously went through Ukraine. Hetman, Haidmatchin, Petliurism, Makhnovshchina ... Many works have been written about it and dozens of films have been shot, including incredibly popular ones. Remember the "Wedding in Malinovka", "Red Devils" and you vividly imagine ... the future of Ukraine. And in 1941, only some time later, the “charm” of the German occupation led some Ukrainians to start a struggle against the occupiers, but the number of collaborators was also very large. So from 2 million More than half of the Soviet people who cooperated with the Nazis to one degree or another during the war were citizens of the Ukrainian SSR. Along with the collaboration, the size of desertion from the Red Army was awesome. Here is an example characterizing the scale of this phenomenon in Ukraine. At 1946, the year was a bad crop forecast, and there were not enough hands. At the insistence of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine (then the Communist Party of Ukraine was headed by N.S. Khrushchev) to 1 May 1946, the amnesty was announced to the deserters. Those were already about 1 million. people, most of whom were also citizens of the Ukrainian SSR. Amnesties were subject only to "clean" deserters who have not committed anything else. It should be borne in mind that a significant part of deserters, encircling and fugitives from the 1941 front of the year, under the influence of the occupation regime, came to their senses during the war, washed away their disgrace with affairs and blood, according to the procedures adopted at that time, was “cleared of suspicion and punishment” , was not subjected to repression and was never listed as deserters. Otherwise, the magnitude of the phenomenon would be even more frightening. Ukraine was a strip line. Along with the areas that had an active and heroic resistance movement comparable to the Belarusian one, there were regions in which the size of the collaboration was quite comparable to the Baltic ones. It was affected by the fact that for many centuries the desert Wild Field voluntarily-forcibly settled by Polish pans with a diverse and mixed population from all the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Russian landlords continued the same thing, settling their unpopulated estates in Novorossia, received from the authorities for service, by diverse and mixed ethnic groups from the Russian and non-Russian provinces of the immense empire. This polyethnic borscht in the Ukrainian cauldron was not cooked to the end; moreover, even the Russian component was severely infected with Westerners. Ideas of independence, independence, hostility to Muscovites (read to the Russian people) constantly agitated the popular consciousness of many Ukrainian citizens under any authority. As soon as Gorbachev shook the USSR, as Ukrainian separatists and collaborators of all stripes immediately and fervently picked up his destructive ideas and reinforced them with massive popular sympathy and support. It is no coincidence that it was President of Ukraine Kravchuk, who arrived in Belovezhie in 1991, still at the Minsk airport, said that the new treaty of alliance between Ukraine and Ukraine would not be signed.

      https://topwar.ru/33813-perehod-kazachego-voyska-
      getmanschiny-na-moskovskuyu-sluzhbu.html
  10. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 13 November 2016 16: 42
    0
    The article is interesting, plus I put it. However, referring to a "master's thesis" is the same as referring to a graduate work (if someone does not know). So you can get to the school essay. The link level is too shallow.
  11. burigaz2010
    burigaz2010 13 November 2016 22: 08
    0
    Not that Khmelnytsky with ... ka decent knew before that! But what I learned now! Article plus!