Military Review

How liberated Moscow from Polish cannibals

33
Interestingly, when the Minin and Pozharsky people's militia liberated Moscow from foreign invaders, it turned out that Polish and other invaders, blocked in the Kremlin and deprived of food supplies, began not only to eat each other, but also salt some “corned beef” in large vats and barrels . These "supplies" were found after the liberation of the Kremlin. Degenerative scum, encroaching on Russian wealth, put an end to them as befits.


Capitulation of the poles

The defeat of Chodkiewicz (As the Polish army of hetman Khodkevich suffered a defeat near Moscow) did not rallied the militia, on the contrary, quarrels continued. Boyar Trubetskoy saw himself as the leader of the militia and demanded obedience from Minin and Pozharsky. In his opinion, they should have come to him in the camp for orders. After all, Pozharsky was not a Tushino "migratory" boyar, and so he remained a steward. However, Minin and Pozharsky were not going to obey the rogue.

There was no unity among the militia. Cossacks shouted that they were hungry, stripped and undressed, that it was time to leave Moscow and go to “walk” around the northern Russian cities, rewarding themselves for siege deprivation. And near Moscow, let the rich nobles remain. Minin and Pozharsky would not mind if the Cossacks had gone home, but could not allow them to continue to "walk" around Russia. Taking advantage of the conflict between Trubetskoy and Pozharsky, certain commanders acted autonomously and did not obey anyone.

With the mediation of Trinity archimandrite Dionysius, the conflict was managed to be extinguished. The Cossacks promised the monks to endure everything, but not to leave Moscow. In the area of ​​the Cannon Yard, in the Egoryevsky Monastery and near the Church of All Saints on Kulishki, siege batteries were erected, which opened round-the-clock fire with hot-hot cores and mortars on the Kremlin and China – the city. From the hot cores began a strong fire, burning courtyard of Prince Mstislavsky. Poles with great difficulty managed to extinguish the fire. Pozharsky and Trubetskoy agreed to partition the Zamoskvoretsky Peninsula with a deep moat and palisade from one side of the Moscow River to the other, in order to exclude the possibility of bringing food to the enemy garrison. Both governors, replacing each other, followed the work.

September 15 Pozharsky sent a letter to the Kremlin, offering honorable surrender: “Prince Dmitry Pozharsky beats the colonels and all the knights, Germans, Cherkas and haidus who sit in the Kremlin. It is known to us that you, being in a city under siege, endure immeasurable hunger and suffer great need, waiting from day to day for your death, and Nikolai Strus, and the Muscovite state strengthens you and traitors. Fedka Andronov and his comrades who are sitting with you for their abdomen (this word means life in Russia is the Author) ... Don't expect the getman another time: the Cherkasy who were with him left him and went to Lithuania. The hetman himself went to Smolensk, where there are no people who have arrived, the Sapezhinsky army is all in Poland ... Send us without delay, save your heads and your stomachs intact, and I will take for your soul and ask all the war men We will let go of our land without any clue, and those who want to serve the Moscow State will be honored ... And what they tell you is that Strus and Moscow traitors do that we have disagreement with the Cossacks and many leave us, it’s natural for them to sing such a song and teach the languages ​​to say it, and you are ashamed the bottom you sat with them. You yourself are well aware that a lot of people are coming to us and even more of them promise to arrive soon ... And even if we were at odds with the Cossacks, then we have strength against them and they are enough to stand against them. ” .

September 21 Poles responded in an offensive tone. In fact, the proud nobles strongly starved and have already crossed the line separating a person from a reasonable animal. They ate not only carrion and corpses, but they killed and ate prisoners, townspeople, and even each other. As one of the Polish commanders, Colonel Osip Budila, wrote: “... there is no news in any stories that anyone under siege suffers such hunger that there is such a hunger anywhere, because when this hunger came and when it became grass, roots, mice, dogs, cats, fell, then the besieged ate prisoners, ate dead bodies, pulling them out of the ground: the infantry ate and ate others, catching people. The infantry lieutenant Truskovsky ate his two sons; one haiduk ate his son too, another ate his mother; one comrade ate his servant; in a word, the father of a son, the son of a father, did not spare; the lord was not sure of the servant, the servant of the lord; whoever could, who was healthier than the other, he ate. A deceased relative or comrade, if someone else ate such, was tried as an inheritance, and argued that the nearest relative should have eaten it, and not to anyone else. Such a court case happened in the platoon of the city of Lenitsky, from whom the haidus ate the dead haiduk of their platoon. A relative of the deceased — a haiduk from another ten — complained about this before the captain’s head and argued that he had more right to eat him as a relative; but they objected that they had the right to do so, because he was with them in the same row, ranks and in the top ten. The captain did not know what the sentence should be made of and, fearing that the disgruntled party would not eat the judge himself, he fled from the court. ”

The Polish king was unable to assist the besieged garrison. The long “seat” near Smolensk was a strategic mistake of the Polish leadership. Almost all the forces and means of the Commonwealth were spent on a long siege and storming of the Russian fortress. In the fall of 1612, the Polish king tried to help the Kremlin garrison, but again he had no money. Polish gentry did not pay for the summer months and they went home without thinking about their comrades in Moscow. As a result, Sigismund had to go on a campaign only with a detachment of foreign mercenaries and hussars from his guard. The king moved from Smolensk to Moscow through the so-called. King's Gate. However, in front of the king, the gate broke off its hinges and blocked the road to the detachment. The Poles had to get out of the city in another way. Dear Sigismund was joined by Adam Zolkiewski, the hetman's nephew, with his personal squad of 1200 fighters. The Poles arrived in Vyazma at the very end of October 1612. But by this moment the dragged out drama in Moscow had already come to an end.

By order of Prince Pozharsky, a large siege battery was arranged at the Cannon Yard, which since September 24 opened heavy fire on the Kremlin. October 3 opened fire siege battery, built by the First Militia at the Nikolsky Gate. On October 21, the Poles offered the Russians to begin negotiations and sent Colonel Budil to Pozharsky. Negotiations dragged on. Polish knighthood demanded honorable surrender, passes from the Kremlin with weapons, stolen good, and so on. But Pozharsky now wanted unconditional surrender.

The Cossacks learned about the negotiations and decided that they want to deprive them of legitimate loot. October 22 without the permission of the chief commanders of the Cossacks attacked the walls of China-town. The Poles did not expect an attack, moreover, they were exhausted by hunger. The Cossacks broke into China Town and knocked the Poles out of it. Among the dead were notable gentlemen Seradsky, Bykovsky, Tvarzhinsky and others. Such a quick loss of China-town somewhat discouraged a proud enemy. They again requested negotiations. Now negotiations were conducted near the Kremlin wall. The Polish garrison was represented by Colonel Strus, and the Moscow battle, which was seated in the Kremlin, was represented by Prince Mstislavsky, the militia was represented by the princes Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. At the beginning of the negotiations, the former head of the Boyar Duma, Mstislavsky, repented and was the brow of the “whole earth,” Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. At the beginning, the Poles asked permission for all Russian women to leave the Kremlin. Russian voivode agreed.

After three days of talks, the leaders of the militia and the boyars government concluded an agreement and sealed him with an oath. The boyars received a guarantee that their ancestral ancestral lands would not be touched. Having made a concession to the Moscow boyars, the leaders of the militia achieved a political concession on the part of the boyar government (the seven-boyars). The Boyar Duma (the highest legislative body) agreed to liquidate the oath to Vladislav and break off all relations with the Polish monarch. As a result, the Zemstvo leaders, by default, accepted the lie that “Lithuania” kept the boyars in captivity during the siege of Moscow.

It is worth noting that in the years of the Troubles, the Boyar Duma completely compromised itself, the Moscow boyars were smeared with mud and blood. Boyar "elite" actually itself arranged the Troubles, in the course of their intrigues and squabble for power, plunging Russia into chaos. Boyars consistently destroyed the genus of the Godunovs (before this they destroyed the heirs of Ivan the Terrible); they called and killed the "legitimate king" of the False Dmitry; put on the throne of Shuisky, then rushed between him and the second impostor (Tushinsky thief); part of the boyars recognized the rights to the throne of the Polish prince Vladislav, Vasily Shuisky overthrew and forcibly identified as monks. Seven Boyars already went to direct betrayal, letting the Poles to Moscow, and proclaiming the Polish prince Vladislav the Russian tsar. And this was done against the will of Patriarch Hermogenes. Yes, and in the martyrdom of Hermogenes, the Russian boyars are more to blame than the Polish gentry. In addition, by the year 1612, there were practically no boyars left in Russia, who were awarded the rank of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. Boris Godunov gave the boyars to someone, Lzhedmitry to someone, Vasily Shuisky to someone, Tushinsky thief to others.

In fact, Minin and Pozharsky made a strategic mistake. It was necessary to put the "whole land" on the throne of Pozharsky already in Yaroslavl, as they wanted. Then the “politics” began, in which the boyars, who started the Troubles, drowning the Russian land in blood and nearly destroying it, were masters and outplayed the militia leaders. Not only were they not punished, although for their sins they needed to be hung up or impaled (and repeatedly), but they retained the position of the masters of Russia, the land, they chose a weak king, Romanov, and from the clan who was also guilty of the Troubles, therefore could not punish the same criminals. Not surprisingly, under Mikhail Romanov, a very mediocre man, his mother and her relatives ruled, then the father — Patriarch Filaret (the Great Sovereign) and all living representatives of the treacherous boyar government — the Seven Boyars — held leading posts in the State.

Pozharsky and Minin, recognizing the boyars as "captives of the Poles" made a fatal mistake. Behind them was the Truth, the support of the people, the leading force - the Zemstvo army of the majority of Russian lands. The boyars sitting in Moscow no longer had squads. The Poles suffered a decisive defeat and could not immediately resume the war on the same scale. Pozharsky and Trubetskoy themselves rescued and rehabilitated the boyars, returned their estates, left behind them all the wealth, that is, they did not even make them pay a ransom for the crimes. Apparently, the point would be that Minin and Pozharsky did not want to "stir up the water", to continue the struggle and shed blood. The civil war had to stop.

Then it was already a "matter of technology". Within a few months, having regained power in the ancestral lands, having restored the personal detachments, the boyars became the leading force in Moscow, pushing through the acceptable candidates. But Pozharsky did not want to conflict, moreover, he let the majority of the noble detachments go home. Thus, the boyars clans and the Romanovs, a clan that was one of the leading organizers of the Troubles, which almost destroyed the Russian state and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, began to rule the country. That turned out to be very dark история. Especially if the fate and connections of the boyars with the West. Later, the historians of the Romanovs will try to whiten it, trying to show mostly heroic pages - such as the defense of Smolensk, the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the partisan movement, and keeping silent about other impartial pages or even distorting them.

Prince Pozharsky could bring the boyars to trial, deprive the boyars and patrimonies, could execute, power and the Truth was behind him. Their lands and other property could be distributed to noblemen, Cossacks and local people. So Pozharsky could become the leader of the Cossacks. And anyone who would have regretted the boyars-traitors and would have resisted the confiscation of their property could be subjected to repression. The Cossacks gladly "walked" at the expense of traitors. The first militia (in fact, the Cossacks) would have passed under the arm of Pozharsky. It is clear who would be elected king in this case. Pozharsky could simply close his eyes to how the Cossacks compensate for the damage at the expense of the boyars and punish traitors. The consequences would be the same. However, he did not do this, so the boyars would soon quickly take first places in the big Moscow game and push aside the honest and brave warrior, not to mention the common man Minin, to the side.

On October 26 (November 3), the Trinity Gates of the Kremlin opened, and boyars and other Muscovites, who were under siege with the Poles, came to the Stone Bridge. Ahead of the procession went Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, behind him Ivan Vorotynsky, Ivan Romanov with his nephew Mikhail and his mother Marfa. The Cossacks attempted to attack the traitors, at least for the purpose of robbery, but Pozharsky and the noblemen by force of arms protected the boyars and forced the Cossacks to go to their camp. But a few strokes of the Cossack sabers could radically change the history of Russia.

October 27 (November 4) from the Spassky Gate of the Kremlin came the procession of the clergy, who was under siege with the Poles. Ahead went the "black cardinal" of the Time of Troubles - the tough metropolitan Paphnutius. Behind him, the Archangel Archbishop Arseny and the Kremlin clergy. The churchmen, apparently waiting for the massacre of the boyars, went separately. On the same day, the Polish garrison surrendered. Kuzma Minin accepted the surrender. Part of the prisoners led by Colonel Strussem were given to Trubetskoy, and the rest with Colonel Budila to the second militia. The Cossacks killed most of the Poles they got. The Poles who survived Pozharsky and Trubetskoy were sent around the cities: to Nizhny Novgorod, Balakhna, Galich, Yaroslavl and others. The Poles committed so many atrocities and unholy cases on the Russian land that the authorities in Russian cities did not always manage to protect captured enemies from the mob of the citizens. Thus, in Galicia, a mob interrupted prisoners from the Budila company. The same thing happened with the Stravinsky company in Unzha. Polish officers led by Budila were taken to Nizhny Novgorod in December. The local authorities wanted to drown all enemies in the Volga, but they were saved by the intercession of Pozharsky's mother.

Having entered the Kremlin, the warriors of Pozharsky and the Cossacks Trubetskoy were horrified. All churches were looted and polluted, almost all wooden buildings were broken down into wood and burned. In large vats and barrels they found cut and salted human bodies. Poles and other foreigners have prepared a "stock" for the winter. Nevertheless, in the Assumption Cathedral served the mass and prayer. Immediately began cleaning and restoring the Kremlin and the entire capital. Trubetskoy settled in the Kremlin in the Palace of Godunov, Pozharsky - on Arbat in the Vozdvizhensky monastery. Moscow boyars for some time dispersed in their fiefdoms. Mikhail Romanov and his mother went to their patrimony - the village of Domnino, Kostroma district.

The Polish king Sigismund in Vyazma learned about the surrender of the garrison in Moscow. There the royal squad joined the warriors of Hetman Chodkiewicz and together went to the town of Pogorely Gorodishche. The local governor, Prince Yuri Shakhovsky, responded to the king with the demand for surrender: “Go to Moscow. Moscow will be yours and we are yours. ” The king led the troops on. The main forces of the Poles laid siege to Volokolamsk, and the Zolkiewski detachment moved to Moscow. Zolkiewski reached the village of Vagankovo, where Russians attacked him. The Poles were defeated and fled. In battle, the soldiers of Zolkiewski seized the Smolensk nobleman Ivan Filosofov. The Poles asked him if Muscovites King Vladislav were still in the kingdom, whether Moscow was full of people and whether there were a lot of supplies there. Ivan replied that Moscow was “full of people and bread,” and everyone was ready to die for the Orthodox faith, and they would not take the kingdom to the kingdom. The same was said by the brave nobleman and the Polish king.

Having lost hope of seizing Moscow, Sigismund decided at least to take Volokolamsk, which was defended by the governors Ivan Karamyshev and Chemesov. The Poles went to storm the fortress three times, but they were repelled. After the third assault, the Cossacks from the garrison went on a sortie under the command of atamans Nelyub Markov and Ivan Yepanchin. The Cossacks managed to inflict great damage to the enemy and repel several guns. Sigismund gave the order to return to Poland. On the way, many died of hunger and cold.

The struggle for the Russian throne continued. No one denies the leadership talent of Dmitry Pozharsky, his brilliant abilities as a statesman. But after the liberation of the capital from the Poles, its influence gradually fell. Apparently, the Russian commander made two major mistakes. First, as previously noted, gave the traitor boyars not only to get away from the water, but also to preserve wealth and influence. Their betrayal by default was forgotten. Secondly, I could not retain a military advantage, the noble squads from the Second Militia. And then the time was such that for whom the biggest battalion is right. As a result, the Tushino Cossacks, who were bribed and easily deceived, under the pressure of brute force, succeeded in dragging Mikhail Romanov to the throne.

Later, they came up with the myth that supposedly the prince-servant (the savior of Russia, the people, and even Prince Rurikovich!), In the simplicity of his soul he took and refused the throne!

How liberated Moscow from Polish cannibals
Author:
Articles from this series:
405 years ago, the Minin and Pozharsky people's militia freed Moscow from foreign invaders
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Amurets
    Amurets 6 November 2017 10: 24 New
    +6
    So, the boyar clans and the Romanovs — a clan that was one of the leading organizers of the Troubles, which nearly ruined the Russian state and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, began to rule the country.

    And in 1917, the Romanovs tried to repeat this a second time. Only everything turned out to be on the reverse, did not ascend the throne, but lost it.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 6 November 2017 10: 55 New
      +7
      If you carefully study the troubles, it is clear that most of the boyar clans behaved like outright traitors. In the story with the same Otrepiev, they knew very well that this was no prince, but Godunov had to be overthrown. So they brought in tales to the people about Dmitry who was happily saved.
    2. Victor jnnjdfy
      Victor jnnjdfy 6 November 2017 11: 07 New
      +2
      Commonwealth = Kingdom of Poland + Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Sigismund - King and Grand Duke in one bottle. Pole Gonsevsky (commandant of the Kremlin) was a headman of Velizh. He served in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and at that time the lands of modern Lithuania included the lands of modern Lithuania, Belarus and Russia (and even little things). And most of the Kingdom of Poland at that time is the territory of present-day Ukraine. Did the author hear or read anything about the registry cossacks of the Kingdom of Poland? He and Gonsevsky from Velizh (now the district center in the Smolensk region) brought the Poles to the Kremlin, and the registered Cossacks from the territory of modern Ukraine are also Poles. Sapieha and Khodkevichi are magnate clans from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Zholkevskys come from Red Russia ... By the way, in modern Belarus these are its historical military and political figures. There, even Ostrogsky became a "Belarusian".
      In a word, according to the logic of the article, with the same success, its author, Samsonov himself, can be safely called a Pole.
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 6 November 2017 11: 51 New
        +5
        Actually, Romanova was put forward for reign by the church, which was headed by Pope Alexei.
        And nothing that the first person in the church hierarchy had a family and children.
        By the way, after the accession of the Romanovs, they began to enslave all the peasants and destroy all the rest * denominations *, except for Protestant Catholics and Muslims. The split of the church covered the destruction of all the dissatisfied, who were burned and hung drowned. For belonging to ORTHODOXY, they also burned, hung, drowned.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 6 November 2017 13: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Vasily50
          Actually, Romanova was put forward for reign by the church, which was headed by Pope Alexei.

          Well, actually, the first of the Romanovs to the tsars put forward 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich, the father of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
          1. Victor jnnjdfy
            Victor jnnjdfy 6 November 2017 13: 18 New
            0
            Mikhail Fedorovich was the son of Fedor, who was then the patriarchs Filaret. The pope-patriarch was a co-ruler with the king-son. The names are confused, but in fact it’s true ...
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 6 November 2017 14: 11 New
              +1
              Quote: Victor Jnnjdfy
              Mikhail Fedorovich was the son of Fedor, who was then the patriarchs Filaret. The pope-patriarch was a co-ruler with the king-son. The names are confused, but in fact it’s true ...

              Here you have it right and right. But what is messed up with the names, unpleasantly hurts his eyes.
            2. avt
              avt 6 November 2017 14: 51 New
              +2
              Quote: Victor Jnnjdfy
              The pope-patriarch was a co-ruler with the king-son. The names are confused, but in fact it’s true ...

              But the essence will be true, given the fact of tonsure of boyar Romanov as a monk by Godunov and that he was a patriarch in the camp of the Tushino thief.
        2. Cat
          Cat 6 November 2017 21: 59 New
          +5
          Filaret - father of Mikhail Romanov in 1612 was in a Polish dungeon!
          With the election of his own son as king, he automatically received confirmation of his status as a patriarch. Although initially he had this high rank by the grace of the Tushensky thief - False Dmitry II.
          1. avt
            avt 6 November 2017 22: 55 New
            +2
            Quote: Kotischa
            Filaret - father of Mikhail Romanov in 1612 was in a Polish dungeon!

            Can I start crying? bully Hermogenes also sat, but somehow their prison terminations ended differently.
        3. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 7 November 2017 06: 32 New
          +2
          On October 27 (November 4), a procession of the clergy, who was besieged with the Poles, came out of the Spassky Gate of the Kremlin. Ahead was the “black cardinal” of the Time of Troubles - the Krutitsky Metropolitan Paphnutiy. Behind him is the Archangel Archbishop Arseny and the Kremlin clergy. The clergy, apparently waiting for the massacre of the boyars, went separately.

          What then, what now ... Nothing has changed. Clergy that corrupt girls.
        4. Weyland
          Weyland 8 November 2017 21: 26 New
          0
          Quote: Vasily50
          And nothing that the first person in the church hierarchy had a family and children.

          And nothing that Boris Godunov forcibly tonsured monks when he already had a wife and children?
          We must learn history!
      2. Caretaker
        Caretaker 6 November 2017 13: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Victor Jnnjdfy
        Commonwealth = Kingdom of Poland + Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Sigismund - King and Grand Duke in one bottle.
        .
        In a word, according to the logic of the article, with the same success, its author, Samsonov himself, can be safely called a Pole.

        "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is difficult to pronounce and write. Just the "Lithuanians" - even more confusing (although it is used quite often). "Poles" is an established term like "Germans" in describing the events of World War II.
        1. Victor jnnjdfy
          Victor jnnjdfy 6 November 2017 14: 07 New
          +3
          This leads to historical lies. In the Great Patriotic War, almost the whole of Europe perished in the USSR. Why keep silent about the fact that the Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, Czechs, Frenchmen fought the Red Army ...? Regarding the topic of the article, that is, the terms "litvin", "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", "Lithuanian gentry" .... It is simply necessary to know and understand this, and only then write articles. If the author has only “Poland” and “Poles” in his head, then it is better for him to highlight problems in gynecology and orthopedics.
          On the other hand, modern Belarusian historians in the 15-16 centuries see Belarus and Belarusians, when at that time there was neither such a nation, nor such a state. It was ON and the Lithuanian magnates Sapegi, Khodkevichi .... By the way, the awakening, about which the author writes, was never Polish by blood either. Then the Poles or descendants of the "Litvin" will read this article, and draw a conclusion about our cave level of historical and intellectual development.
          1. Caretaker
            Caretaker 6 November 2017 18: 42 New
            0
            Quote: Victor Jnnjdfy
            Regarding the topic of the article, that is, the terms "litvin", "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", "Lithuanian gentry" .... It is simply necessary to know and understand this, and only then write articles. If the author has only “Poland” and “Poles” in his head, then it is better for him to highlight problems in gynecology and orthopedics.

            Speakers - it is inconvenient and incomprehensible.
            Not all of the “Poles” in the Kremlin belonged to the “Lithuanian gentry,” do not distort.
            What does gynecology and orthopedics have to do with the content of the article under discussion?

            Quote: Victor Jnnjdfy
            This leads to historical lies. In the Great Patriotic War, almost the whole of Europe perished in the USSR. Why keep silent about the fact that the Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, Czechs, Frenchmen fought the Red Army ...?

            Whatever your comment is a historical lie, you must list all nationalities and countries. Otherwise, you contradict your previous statements and, by your definition, historical ...? No offense, but it follows from your comment!
            1. Victor jnnjdfy
              Victor jnnjdfy 6 November 2017 19: 19 New
              0
              What to "be offended" if you can neither read nor write? Understand first what the three dots at the end of the sentence mean when it is being listed. With what letter do you need to write the word "Kremlin".
              And before you write, carefully read the text to which you wanted to write an answer. I wrote exactly that it is impossible to reduce everything to Poland and the Poles, as the author of the article. Very different people were outside the walls of the Kremlin.
        2. Weyland
          Weyland 8 November 2017 21: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Caretaker
          "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is difficult to pronounce and write. Just the "Lithuanians" - even more confusing (although it is used quite often).

          Residents of the GDL are commonly referred to as Litvinians. The difference between “litvin” and “Lithuanian” - as between “Russian” and “Russian”
  2. EvgNik
    EvgNik 6 November 2017 11: 15 New
    +5
    It’s in the blood of the Romanovs to abandon the throne. They are not kings, not kings.
    1. technarj
      technarj 7 March 2020 09: 06 New
      0
      Already 300 years, if not kings ...
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 6 November 2017 11: 48 New
    +5
    Interestingly, the Poles ate each other ... and the boyars who were with the Poles did not eat themselves ... they probably used the nobleman ...
  4. kalibr
    kalibr 6 November 2017 12: 06 New
    +1
    Quote: Vasily50
    And nothing that the first person in the church hierarchy had a family and children

    Catholics had celibacy only!
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 6 November 2017 12: 13 New
      +1
      Well, the current * pope * church in RUSSIA, too, and has a family and claims to the throne?
    2. Weyland
      Weyland 8 November 2017 21: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: kalibr
      Catholics had celibacy only!

      The Orthodox monks and the higher clergy (starting from the bishop) are also celibate. But Boris Godunov, the boyar Fyodor Romanov, and his wife Ksenia, as dangerous rivals, forcibly tonsured monks under the names “Filaret” and “Martha” (which was supposed to deprive them of the right to the throne) in 1600, when their son Mikhail was already 4 years old . So Boris was late: Fedor-Filaret himself did not receive the throne - but he advanced his son!
  5. Humpty
    Humpty 6 November 2017 13: 54 New
    +2
    There is a rumor that when in 1812 they drove them from Russia, there were cases when the Poles attacked the French and ate them, it is curious that at the same time the Poles impersonated the Russians.
  6. Luga
    Luga 6 November 2017 14: 43 New
    12
    Well, the curve swept into the bath.
    Pozharsky, therefore, had to cut out all the traitor boyars, without trial
    put on the count (and repeatedly)
    , confiscate property and distribute to the people, and be crowned. Great is the genius of Samsonov, of course. wassat So I remember "take everything and share", only Sharikov didn’t offer to plant anyone openly for a stake.
    I am simply amazed at such a childish, simplified perception of historical realities.
    Ivan the Terrible 50 years ruled the country, before him, Ivan the Great, united the Russian lands 40 years, and before such a simple move (to collect all the boyars and hang up at once, and hand over the land to the Cossacks), they did not think of the other. Would Samsonov be in their place, he would already be then at the beginning of the 17th century. created an empire, and now all of Eurasia would have returned under the Russian superethnos and a golden age would have come.
    But it seems to me that if Pozharsky violated this word, executed executed boyars (had such an opportunity, I agree) and tried to put the crown on his forehead, it would have ended very deplorably, the unrest would have continued for an extra couple of three, and even more years, until the prince would finally have flippers wrapped up. Just the surviving boyars (not all of them were in Moscow) and the heirs of the executed would quickly organize, give Pozharsky a fight, one, if necessary another, a third, in the end the Cossacks and the militia would run away and Pozharsky would have to run around the country , from the whole nation to lift. And the rabble itself would join him and he would have to rob his people for the sake of nourishing the army, in short, he would become a prince! - the outcast and the robber.
    To believe that the people (read "Cossacks and the militia") at that time could provide any reliable support for the political struggle is naive, if not stupid. It’s easy to lift someone into the spears once, and for years to fight, where will anyone work?
    So Pozharsky did everything right. He led the militia, won a military victory and surrendered his powers, because he was a smart man, and most importantly, honest, and he did not want personal glory, honors and power, but only the good of his homeland, the end of confusion and the establishment of order. To blame him for not shedding the blood of his own Russian people (after the execution of the traitor boyars, a war would have been inevitable), did not throw unnecessary firewood into the fire of troubles for the sake of political ambitions, only an extremely short-sighted and naive person, which probably , and is the author of this article.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 6 November 2017 15: 34 New
      +4
      Very nice comment!
      1. Karen
        Karen 6 November 2017 23: 05 New
        0
        I agree, a good comment.
        But history knows other examples ... Timur, for example, realized that his power would be the best .... Although, in this case too, the expected thing happened - the “boyars” there recouped on his grandson ... They don’t like boyars too smart ... everywhere.
        1. Luga
          Luga 7 November 2017 17: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Karen
          But history knows other examples ... Timur, for example, realized that his power would be the best ....

          I was afraid that you would bring Napoleon to me as an example smile
          And Timur and Napoleon, after the seizure of power, fought all the time, defending it. Pozharsky managed to end the war.

          Quote: kalibr
          Very nice comment!

          Thank you. hi
          1. Karen
            Karen 8 November 2017 08: 32 New
            0
            Dear, you left me a field for maneuver :)
            Timur remained the Victor and left to the descendants everything acquired in fair battles, and Napoleon all his victories about ...
            That is - for deeds and glory.
    2. Seal
      Seal 9 November 2017 17: 24 New
      0
      I am simply amazed at such a childish, simplified perception of historical realities when they say that they say
      Ivan the Terrible ruled the country for 50 years, before him Ivan the Great united the Russian lands for 40 years, and before such a simple move (to collect all the boyars and hang them up at once, and distribute the lands to the Cossacks), they did not think of the other.

      At the same time, forgetting that the same Ivan the Terrible did not think of the whole, but half of the Russian land, to take for his personal use and, to a large extent, distributed it ... well, not to the Cossacks, but to the guardsmen. But is it really a matter of terms?
      And in terms of hanging or taking life in a different way from the boyars, the same Ivan the Terrible was the greatest conductor. No, he still didn’t hang all the boyars and didn’t take his life in any other way and didn’t even exile ... but on the whole he was close to this somewhere. But it seems to me that if Tsar Ivan the Terrible saw not imaginary, but real betrayal of the boyars, who ... well, say, during the period when he retired to the Alexander Sloboda, they took and called to Moscow the kingdom of the Polish prince - then Tsar Ivan the Terrible more than would probably achieve the goal of the total extermination of all the traitor boyars. Moreover, the method is much less humane than simply hanging.
      A very funny and very primitive approach is to take one historical period with a specific historical situation (there is no king, rulers who invite the Polish prince to the Moscow throne) and put him on the same level with another historical period (with a completely different historical situation - your king , which everyone fears, the boyars dare not and utter a laugh, the king himself claims the Polish throne, and without changing faith) and based on this primitive comparison of not comparable situations draw far-reaching conclusions.
      Something can be agreed upon before such a comparison as:
      “Ivan the Terrible ruled the country for 50 years, before him Ivan the Great united the Russian lands for 40 years, and after him Peter the Great, Alexander the Great, Nikolai the Great, Alexandra ... - everyone collected and collected, and before such a simple move — to make a revolution, to remove all “princes and boyars at once” from power, to distribute the land to the peasants, and Finland in general to present complete independence - neither one nor the other, nor the fifth or tenth — thought of it.

      But it seems to me that if Pozharsky would execute the captured boyars (had such an opportunity, I agree) and put the crown on himself, it would end up in Russia that there would be not the Romanov dynasty, but the Pozharsky dynasty.
      The surviving boyars would constitute a new Boyar Duma, and the heirs of the executed would quickly organize, and as it was under Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, they would unite in licking the hands of the new tsar.
      To believe that the people (read "Cossacks and the militia") at that time could provide any reliable support for the political struggle is naive, if not stupid. It’s easy to lift someone into the spears once, and for years to fight, where will anyone work?

      Yes, yes, of course, according to Luzhsky, the boyars will work. There’s nobody else. Believe it "not stupid." laughing
      Reproach him with the fact that he did not execute a couple of dozen traitor boyars due to the lack of his own political ambitions, he can only go to the extreme ....... the person who is probably .....
      1. Luga
        Luga 9 November 2017 19: 03 New
        0
        Let's start from the end.
        Quote: Seal
        To blame him for not executing a couple of dozen traitor boyars due to the lack of his own political ambitions can only an extremely short-sighted and naive person, which, probably, is the author of the commentary I am discussing.

        You are confused. I did not blame Pozharsky for NOT executing the traitor boyars. I praised him for that. In your ironic exercises quoting me myself, you were lost, actually getting lost in the three pine trees, which amused me even a little. Next time try not to get carried away to such an extent smile
        About the rest. You probably have the most vague idea of ​​the structure of feudal society in general and Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. in particular, otherwise such fun would not have been written. So, I explain.
        In the period under consideration, Russia was a class-representative monarchy in its classical version: the tsar (the largest landowner), the landowner nobles, nobles (service people), the tax-paying population (peasants, artisans, merchants, etc.). The boyars controlled a huge amount of land, respectively, and the money received from this land and the people living in it, they formed the military force of the state and at their own expense maintained permanent military units. There was no other professional military force in the state, except for detachments formed directly at the personal expense of the king. In making these or those decisions, the tsar was forced to reckon with the opinion of the boyars, who could “refuse” him. Ivan the Terrible struggled with such a situation by all means, but did not succeed, and even the oprichnina you mentioned was forced to cancel after only six years from the moment of its creation (and talk about her, talk ...) and return everything to its place. So why? It can be seen that without the boyars it was in Russia even with such a strong king ... Explain why or do you understand?
        They (the boyars) were the true, real masters of the country. And without their approval, even Ivan the Terrible could not help but marry, not gather troops, not execute any of their class. They decided the fate of the country in the presence of a living king and, even more so, in his absence. If you do not understand this, then you should not state your point of view until you figure it out, otherwise you will be like Samsonov. wassat
        Those whom Pozharsky could execute, but did not, lost the political struggle, but if they could succeed in crowning their candidate’s kingdom, they would be heroes. But, despite the defeat, they remained representatives of their class, owners of real economic and military forces, in addition, from the point of view of "colleagues", such boyars, even if they were not sitting in Moscow, they remained "their own." And it was they who ultimately resolved the issue with the king, choosing a weak and obedient monarch, while preserving both land and power. No one could resist this force until it was possible to create a counterbalance to the boyars in the form of a strong nobility, but this will happen in a hundred years.
        What you should understand is that without the support of most of the boyars, it was impossible to obtain (and retain!) The supreme power in Russia at that time. If one of the boyars was executed without a court (a boyar court!), Pozharsky would have outlawed himself and been destroyed, and only one thing depended on the level of his abilities: how long the trouble would continue in Russia before he was sent to Russia chopping block or killed in battle.
        And the last.
        Quote: Seal
        Yes, yes, of course, according to Luzhsky, the boyars will work. There’s nobody else. Believe it "not stupid."

        They made fun again. laughing Well, where did you get this? wassat Read the text carefully. Since it is written, and not as you want. And it is written there, if you do not understand, the following. The militia is incapable of conducting long military companies, unlike the boyar and princely squads. Therefore, having fulfilled the task set before him, in this case, the expulsion of the Poles from Moscow, they went home with a feeling of deep satisfaction, for they were accustomed to work, not to fight. No authority of any Pozharsky would have forced them to postpone their main occupations for a couple of years and fight with their own boyars, unless, of course, we are talking about “Cossacks” and “Taties”, but about normal men, and it is about them . And Pozharsky would have remained after the victory over the Poles and the execution of the “traitor boyars” alone with the Cossacks who are not averse to “taking a walk”, and are hardly capable of anything more in the light of a long perspective. Is it more affordable?
        1. Seal
          Seal 10 November 2017 10: 06 New
          0
          Regarding that which did not execute - you are right. Having a lot of warnings issued out of the blue, I was forced to blow into the water and remade the ending several times to exclude all possible, even the smallest hints of "insulting the opponent." The result is what happened. But not the point. The main thing is that you understand what I mean.
          Now essentially.
          tsar (the largest landowner), boyars, landowners, nobles (service people), tax-paying population (peasants, artisans, merchants, etc.).

          Let's see if this is so.
          Under Peter the Great, a census was conducted to determine the tax base.
          It turned out that at the time of the census in 1724, state peasants made up 19% of the population. Subsequently, their share in the population increased, including due to the secularization of monastic lands carried out by Catherine II and in 1858 state cr. already accounted for 45% of the population in the territory covered by the first audit.
          Legally, state peasants were considered as “free rural inhabitants”. By extrapolation it can be assumed that 100 years before Peter the Great, state peasants, that is, personally owned by the tsar, were no more than 10%. And the peasants, from then called "black-worn" (and later - state) - this is actually the land.
          Accordingly, it is not a fact that the king was the largest landowner. At least in the period under review, the church was probably the largest landowner.
          Then you need to understand that in addition to black-mown peasants, there were white-mowed peasants. White-haired peasants did not belong to anyone and did not pay taxes at that time. But they owned land. Actually, they were the so-called "nobles." Or, as they were called in the Soviet historiography, "odnodvoryati". This is the whole Sloboda Outskirts. And this is a huge area. So, in total, the “Slobodaites” may well argue with the Church in terms of the size of their land. They constituted the main professional military force in the state.

          In making these or those decisions, the tsar was forced to reckon with the opinion of the boyars, who could “refuse” him.

          It’s ridiculous. Tsar Ivan the Terrible was forced to reckon with the opinions of the boyars and even allegedly could not execute anyone without the approval of the Boyar Duma or, as you write, a certain “boyar court”. Where did you get it?
          Apparently this character - Dmitry Fedorovich Ovchina Telepnev-Obolensky did not know about his rights to the "boyar court". hi
          Ivan the Terrible struggled with such a situation by all means, but did not succeed, and even the oprichnina you mentioned was forced to cancel after only six years from the moment of its creation (and talk about her, talk ...) and return everything to its place.

          In fact, the traditional version of history in its framework gives the answer that: "Oprichnina was canceled due to the complete fulfillment of the tasks set - the elimination of any hints of independence in a boyar environment." Well, a more interesting version ... however, you yourself know.
          Having executed one of the boyars without trial (a boyar court!), Pozharsky would have outlawed himself and would have been destroyed

          You are trying to write in an instructive tone, but that makes you only get funnier to read. How to listen to a kindergartener or a younger schoolboy who spent the whole year learning a poem from the “adult” series that was not very clear to him, he mastered it, and so he climbed onto a stool for the New Year and requires special attention. Not noticing that the panties are falling lol
          Again. If Pozharsky, even before approaching Moscow, had organized (along with Minin and the boyars, nobles, service people and Cossacks who were in the Second Militia) his election as king, then he would have approached Moscow as king.
          Now we need to figure it out, but actually how many boyars are we talking about? In fact, no one knows how many boyars sat with the Poles in the Kremlin. Here Kostomarov mentions the following: Mstislavsky, Kurakin, Lykov, Sheremetev, Saltykov, Romanov (Ivan Nikitich) and ... everything, then he is modest .. and others. Who else is either he does not know, or they are, so to speak, of insignificant size. Most likely there was G.P. Romodanovsky.
          So what ? The militia of Minin and Pozharsky had their own boyars: Vasily Petrovich Morozov; Dolgoruky, Buturlin, representatives of the branches of the same Kurakin and Sheremetev.

          In the army of Trubetskoy, besides Trubetskoy himself, were Prince Shakhovskaya,
          Prince Vorotynsky was somewhere "in custody" by the Poles, but not in the Kremlin. V.V. Golitsyn, together with the pope of the future king, was in Poland, such as under arrest.
          Many boyars either died or were killed: Zasekin, Bogdan Belsky, Telatevsky, Vasily Petrovich Golovin, Tatev, Cherkassky .....

          So, it was even from whom to compose so beloved “boyar court”. Moreover, as history shows, the boyars never joined together, but rather squabbled with each other. Even within the same branch. And the execution of the representative of the senior branch opened the way for the representatives of the younger branch.
          Now about the militia itself. What did the “militia” of Minin and Pozharsky consist of? Of yesterday's townspeople and farmers? No. The militia consisted mainly of professionals, who, incidentally, were paid well. The fact that the “Western European Cossacks” flocked to the smell of money in the Volga region — mercenaries such as Y. Delagardi, Y. Margeret and others, which other parties stopped paying and owed, cannot be canceled.
          Traditional history says that: "Warriors" were recruited from the Nizhny Novgorod nobles, the children of the boyars and archers, from those who moved to Nizhny Novgorod Smolensk, Vyazma and Dorogobuzh noblemen, archers, various service people "on the device" (for hire).

          We must remember that the militia, which for the most part consisted of mercenaries, being fully equipped with English money, at the very beginning went ... not to Moscow, but to Kazan, where, for starters, they killed the former councilor under Fyodor Ioannovich, governor Belsky, and then up the Oka to Ryazan, and up the Volga to Yaroslavl. In the spring of 1612, in Yaroslavl, the British set up their headquarters, where a whole team arrived from the British Isles (see A.P. Toroptsev, pp. 447–448). By the way, Dmitry Pozharsky, being in Yaroslavl in 1612, negotiated assistance even with representatives of the Austrian emperor Matvey Habsburg (see “Sovereigns of the House of Romanov”, p. 56).
          This team brought the English ship cannons, which can still be seen in the museum of the city of Pereslavl-Zalessky. True, there they are listed as being taken from the Poles - but which Poles near Pereyaslavl if, according to traditional historiography, they were heroically stopped by the defenders of the Trinity Lavra 70 km on the way from Moscow? No, these guns most likely remained precisely from the Second Militia, which occupied the strategically important intersection of roads from Yaroslavl to Moscow and from Vladimir to Tver, the intersection at which Pereslavl-Zalessky stood, the armament of which the English were engaged in!
          It’s time to stop believing in the fairy tale about saying:
          Minin decided that all wealthy citizens of Nizhny Novgorod should donate two-thirds of their property to the militia: “Brothers, we will divide our possessions into three parts, give them to the army, and leave one part to us for our needs!” Some gave more. And for those who refused to support the army, property was taken to the Zemstvo treasury, and they themselves were given to slaves.

          Well, let the property be taken to the treasury and to the slaves themselves, but property and slaves are not money yet. In order to turn property and slaves into money, they need to be sold to someone. And to whom to sell - if everything around 2/3 of the money is transferred to the "militia treasury"?

          In general ..... I will not give you any advice. I see - it's useless. hi
          1. Luga
            Luga 10 November 2017 11: 36 New
            0
            In general, it is not very convincing, although with pathos.
            Quote: Seal
            Under Peter the Great, a census was conducted to determine the tax base.

            Quote: Seal
            A very funny and very primitive approach is to take one historical period with a specific historical situation (there is no king of your own, the boyars rule, who invite the Polish prince to the Moscow throne) and put him on the same level with another historical period

            It turns out I can’t, but you can. And why, and it is necessary! laughing Okay, next.
            Quote: Seal
            By extrapolation, it can be assumed that for 100 years before Peter the Great, state peasants, that is, personally owned by the tsar, were no more than 10%

            This, exactly, made the king the largest landowner. Or do you think someone else had more?
            Quote: Seal
            At least in the period under review, the church was probably the largest landowner.
            Perhaps the only possible competitor, however, the church did not participate in military affairs, it did not contain military units. Further.
            Quote: Seal
            White-haired peasants did not belong to anyone and did not pay taxes at that time. But they owned land. Actually, they were the so-called "nobles."
            You yourself are not funny? The nobles are service people who received their land allotment for serving the sovereign, if this is not for salaries. The military class, those who are at the "court". In the period described, the nobility did not exert a significant influence on state policy due to its scarcity and weakness. Snow-white peasants - residents of the "settlements", i.e. settlements temporarily exempted from taxes (most often newly set) and located (you are right) on the outskirts of the state. These are peasants, they worked on the land. They had nothing to do with the nobles.
            Quote: Seal
            Dmitry Fedorovich Ovchina Telepnev-Obolensky

            The character you indicated was killed, not executed. Feel the difference? And there were not so many such cases to make a system out of them.
            Quote: Seal
            In fact, the traditional version of the story in its framework gives the answer that: "Oprichnina was canceled due to the complete implementation of the tasks
            I heard that on the contrary - due to the fact that I did not justify myself as a political tool. In essence, the oprichnina is an attempt to artificially create a strong nobility as opposed to nobility. An attempt ahead of time and therefore unsuccessful.
            Regarding the boyars in the army of Pozharsky. Of course there were many, though not many. But if you think that they participated in the militia from any interests other than self-possessive interests, and even more so from patriotic motives, then you are naive as Prince Myshkin.
            Quote: Seal
            If Pozharsky, even before approaching Moscow, had organized (along with Minin and the boyars, nobles, service people and Cossacks who were in the Second Militia) his election as king, then he would have approached Moscow as king.

            If Pozharsky would raise the question of his wedding to the kingdom BEFORE the Poles were expelled, they would look at him ... well, approximately, as I look at you - with slight bewilderment. Why? Some kind of provincial service prince and suddenly - immediately the king. It's ridiculous. He even AFTER the victory had unfortunate little chances (there wasn’t), but who needed BEFORE?
            You also need to learn to distinguish between the concept of "militia" from the concept of "hired squad." The basis of Pozharsky’s army was precisely the militia, i.e. not professional warriors, but merchants, artisans, posad people. So that
            Quote: Seal
            militia, for the most part consisting of mercenaries
            this is nonsense, "fried ice."
            Discussions about the British and their guns leave on your conscience.
            All the best. hi
    3. 73bor
      73bor 13 November 2017 21: 33 New
      0
      But what about the fact that these traitors, the boyars, after the capture of the Kremlin by Pozharsky, crawled like cockroaches into their waters, but no, they remembered the bitches and got them out of the "dust"! And nothing would have happened if they had been executed, after a while "new boyars" came about the old clans, no one even remembered!