The story of one betrayal: how Moscow swore allegiance to Poland

20 September 1610 of the year. Moscow. Night. From the western direction, thousands of warriors approached the city. These were the Poles. Not encountering any resistance, the Polish army enters the Kremlin gates opened for them. The city was taken without a "single shot."

It is worth noting that the residents of Moscow accepted this event without complaint. At that moment, chaos and utter lawlessness reigned in the country: theft, robbery, arson and murder were the norm for that time. But where was the Russian tsar? Why was he inactive when the Kremlin was captured by enemies?

And there was no king. The last Tsar Vasily Shuisky has been a monk for several months now. Seven boyars grab rule the country, quietly sit behind the Kremlin wall. They could not retain power and restore order. And they themselves offered the Russian throne to the Polish prince Vladislav. August 27 1610, Moscow swore allegiance Poland.

Comments

[andj61]

And what was the betrayal? The fact of the election of the king of the Pole and the Catholic? In those days, often the high-born became monarchs in distant lands. The same Vladislav claimed the Swedish throne, but was rejected by the Riksdag about because of an unwillingness to change the faith. Under the agreement of February 4, 1610, and the agreement of August 27, 1610, the Orthodox Tsar Vladislav Zhigimontovich was to ascend the throne, and the Poles were to leave Tushinsky camp of False Dmitry 2 and lift the siege from Smolensk. However, Vladislav did not accept Orthodoxy, he was not married to the kingdom and the Poles did not fulfill the conditions of the agreement. So the oath was not made to Poland, but to a specific Orthodox Tsar, who at that time was 15 years old. And they refused the regency until his coming of age to his father Sigismund. And on his behalf the boyars minted a coin and ruled the country. In October 1612, the boyar government of Prince Vladislav was deposed in Moscow; in 1613, Mikhail Fedorovich was elected king. Until 1634, Vladislav continued to use the title of Grand Duke of Moscow.
In 1617, Vladislav, encouraged by the Polish Sejm, unsuccessfully attempted to seize the Russian throne, limiting himself to Moscow’s territorial concessions to Poland over the Deulinsky truce. He finally refused claims to Russia in the Polyanovsky world in 1634, already being the Polish king.

[M. Michelson]

Absolutely.
The Time of Troubles revealed a conflict between the passing feudalism and the beginning of the formation of the nation.
With the classic feudal t.z. prince on the throne is a very profitable option due to the kindness of the applicant. But lobbyists did not take such a decision into account that the Russians were already nationrather than bargaining chips in dynastic games. And a well-conceived project failed.

[Basil50]

It is very convenient to describe the past, you can even not pay attention to facts or documents. His vision is akin to artistic rethinking. Iron excuse if convicted of outright lies.
From the Poles and those who work out the Polish fees, and not what can be expected. They do not hesitate to lie there not only about the affairs of four years ago, there they lie about the twentieth century and even about the past year. The owners of the Poles themselves are marked in a lie because the Poles lie.

[antivirus]

and then the birch prevented the Poles, and not the militia, as in the early 21st

[avt]

It was the ONLY chance given to History by the Poles to really create an empire from Mozh to the ocean, which they incompetently miscalculated solely because of their own national, “noble” swagger. They did not have such a chance in subsequent history, but judging by the dynamics of development, they will not.

[Reptiloid]

No, no, this is not a story, it gave them a chance, but some alternativeism showed an option.
The place of Poland in the backyard, as if the FSA were unsupported !!!!!!!!!

[Dart]

Does the article have an author? or everyone hid behind reprint .... how did the level fall ...
What is betrayal in kind? Our boyars of the people? I do not argue ... or did the author want to deduce something else?

[Molot1979]

I agree that there was no betrayal in that sense of the word. In the modern - is. But in the then-no. There was then no concept of a nation state. They swore allegiance to a particular monarch. They distinguished themselves from strangers by faith, but there were no national states. Among others, Vladislav was not the worst candidate. Belonged immediately to two legitimate dynasties - Rurikovich and Gedeminovich. I did not have time to grow up “my own” in my childhood, I did not participate in local showdowns. Subject to the adoption of Orthodoxy, even the very patriotic and anti-Polish-minded patriarch Germogen had no objection to the candidacy of Vladislav. But Germogen cannot be ranked among traitors. Let me remind you that at the same time other candidates were considered - the Swedish princes. They were a little better off, but still royal kids. So Gustavus-Adolf, the future Swedish Lion, had a chance to become the Tsar of Moscow. True, then they stopped not on him, but on Karl-Philippe. Dad Vladislav ruined everything. Having decided to become a greater Catholic than the Roman Couple himself, Sigismund tried to grab the Moscow kingdom for himself. And to spread Catholicism to where it had never happened before. Therefore, he did not lift the siege from Smolensk, and he arrested the Russian ambassadors, and ordered his son to sit on the ass exactly. greed does not bring to good, Smolensk Zhigimont received, but with the rest came a sharp bummer. From that moment on, the further fate of the Commonwealth was a foregone conclusion. She became the number 1 enemy for Russia and in the end was completely obliterated from reality.