Military Review

How Bogdan Khmelnitsky Russian citizenship took

42
Relations with Ukraine today cannot be called not only good, but even neutral. The official course of the Ukrainian leadership is to set Russia as a historical enemy, who has almost “broken his whole life” to the Ukrainian people. Meanwhile, this year marks the 370 years since the moment in the city of Cherkassy in 1648, a petition was filed addressed to the Moscow sovereign, which emphasized:


We want for ourselves an autocrat of this kind, a master in your own land, like your royal grace, an Orthodox Christian tsar ... To the merciful legs of your royal majesty we are dutifully surrendered.


It was not anyone who signed these words, but the hetman of the Zaporizhzhya troops, Bogdan Khmelnitsky and his loyal Cossacks. However, the entry of the Ukraine into the Russian state dragged on for several years. Only 8 in January, 1654, the Pereyaslav Rada nevertheless supported Khmelnitsky, who finally called for a sovereign. The choice, in fact, was quite clear - between the Crimean Khan, the Ottoman Sultan, the king of the Commonwealth and the sovereign of Moscow. The Orthodox Cossacks then made a choice in favor of a co-religionist - the Tsar of Moscow.



For three and a half centuries long, Bogdan Khmelnitsky entered the Russian history as the person who united Ukraine with Russia. Even in the Soviet period, the attitude towards Khmelnitsky remained very positive - there were many streets of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, including in cities in other regions of the country, in honor of the hetman they called entire settlements and educational institutions. Of course, the hetman was a controversial figure and in some ways not even the best in national history. But the fact that he made the decision to become citizenship of the Russian state became the main and main achievement of Khmelnitsky.

To the entry into Russian citizenship Little Russians were long. Strictly speaking, it was one of the most common slogans during numerous anti-Polish uprisings, which periodically flared up on the territory of modern Ukraine. When it was necessary to oppose the Commonwealth, Little Russians and Cossacks raised pro-Russian slogans, counting on the help of the Moscow tsar. But then the Russian state did not really want to quarrel with the Commonwealth. After all, not so long ago, the Poles seized Moscow, not to mention the more western Russian cities, then, in 1634, they took Smolensk and again reached Moscow. The king and his boyars did not doubt that the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would be severe and bloody, and did not want to go into open conflict because of the Little Russians. At least until a more significant strengthening of the country's forces.

In the meantime, anti-Polish uprisings flared up more and more in the Ukraine. In 1625, the Polish-Lithuanian government, irritated by the increasing incidence of peasants ’flight to the Cossacks, sent numerous troops under the command of hetman Stanislav Konetspolsky to Kyiv region. When the Polish army approached Kanev, the local Cossacks retreated to Cherkasy. Quite numerous Cossack detachments gathered in the area of ​​the Tsibulnik River, which were soon led by hetman Marko Zhmailo.

October 15 Cossacks in a major battle caused quite serious damage to the Polish troops, but still had to retreat - forces were too unequal. However, on November 5, conspirators who were among the Cossack officers, overthrew Marko Zhmailo from the post of hetman. The fate of the leader of the uprising remained unexplained.

The consequences of the subsequent anti-Polish uprisings were no less dramatic for the Cossacks. When in the 1635 year, the Sejm issued a decree that reduced the number of the registered Cossacks and allowed the construction of the Kodak fortress in a strategically important place to control the communication between Zaporozhye and the South Russian lands belonging to Rzeczpospolita, another anti-Polish uprising began. On the night of 3 on 4 on August 1635, non-clandestine Cossacks led by hetman Ivan Sulima attacked the Polish garrison in the unfinished Kodak fortress and exterminated the Poles led by the commandant of the fortress Jean Marion. Kodak was destroyed. Then Rzeczpospolita again sent against the rebels the troops of Stanislav Kanetspolsky, consisting of Polish gentry and registered Cossacks. Like Marco Zhmailo, the Cossack elite betrayed Ivan Sulimu - they grabbed him and gave the Poles sergeant. The captive leader of the uprising was brought to Warsaw, where they brutally executed them - according to some information, he was impaled, and according to others - they were quartered.

But this brutal massacre could not intimidate the Cossacks - already two years later, in 1637, an even more numerous and organized uprising of Pavlyuk broke out. Pavlyuk, elected by the hetman, did not hide his intentions to pass into Russian citizenship. Numerous regiments of the registered Cossacks came to the side of Pavlyuk, which contributed to the success of the rebels, who began to occupy the city outside the city. The Polish army under the command of Nikolai Pototsky, a former Bratslav governor appointed by the crown hetman, was directed against the rebels. And in this case, as before, the Cossack petty officer again played a traitorous role - she persuaded Pavlyuk to decide to negotiate with Potocki, who guaranteed his immunity. Of course, Pavlyuk was deceived, brought to Warsaw and executed in a brutal way.

In the process of suppressing the uprising, Nikolai Pototsky dealt with the rebels in the most severe way. Cossacks and Little Russian peasants were planted on stakes. Those lucky enough to survive, fled to the place where the Poles could not get them - for example, to the Don. However, already in 1638, the uprising against the Poles raised the new hetman of the unregistered Cossacks Jacob Ostryanin. And his life ended just as the life of his predecessors — the Poles concluded “perpetual peace” with Ostryanin, and then treacherously seized him, brought him to Warsaw, and there they wheeled.

Naturally, the question arises - why did Moscow get rid of the brutal suppression of Cossack uprisings from Warsaw at that time? After all, the Cossacks and Little Russian peasants were Orthodox, and they repeatedly asked the Tsar of Moscow to transfer to his citizenship. But the events, firstly, were unfolding very rapidly, and secondly, Moscow also had its opponents of aggravating the already complicated relationship with the Commonwealth. Moreover, to conceal, the Cossack hetmans did not differ much in constancy. Today, they could ask for the citizenship of Moscow, and tomorrow to make peace with Warsaw or go to the Crimean Khan. Therefore, Bogdan Khmelnitsky did not cause any special sympathy in Moscow.

Despite the scale of the individual, it is not so much known about the early years of Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s life. He was a nobleman. His father, Mikhail Khmelnitsky, served as Chigirinsky podstarostoy the hetman of the crown Stanislav Zolkevsky. In 1620, the father of Bohdan Khmelnytsky died in a battle with the Crimean Tatars, being part of the Polish army, who went on a campaign in Moldova.

How Bogdan Khmelnitsky Russian citizenship took


Bogdan Khmelnitsky himself, who by then had experience of studying in a Jesuit college, was captured in the same battle and was sold into slavery to the Turks. Only two years later, his relatives bought him back and he returned to the life of the Cossack. It is interesting that in the most turbulent years of the anti-Polish uprisings about any participation or non-participation of Khmelnitsky they did not preserve any information. Only the surrender of the insurgent troops Pavlyuk was written by his hand - he was the Cossack general clerk. According to some information, in 1634, Khmelnitsky participated in the siege by the Polish army of Smolensk, for which King Vladislav IV awarded him a golden saber for his bravery.

Such facts from the biography of Bohdan Khmelnitsky could not speak in his favor. In Moscow, they could have justly distrusted the hetman, considering him an adventurer constantly vacillating between the Commonwealth and Russia. But Khmelnitsky had his own reasons for the anti-Polish rotation: the Polish sub-elder Chaplinsky attacked Bohdan’s farm and took his woman to Gelena, and also, according to some reports, beat one of his sons to death. Khmelnitsky turned for help to King Vladislav, who personally awarded him a golden saber, and not for anything, but for his own salvation from Moscow captivity. But the king couldn’t do anything in defense of Khmelnitsky, and then the latter arrived in Zaporizhia, where he was elected hetman and at the beginning of 1648, he organized another anti-Polish uprising. Only it was fundamentally different from all previous uprisings - Khmelnitsky managed to enlist the support of the Crimean Khan, and the latter sent the army of Perekop Murza Tugay-Bey to help the Cossacks.



Polish troops suffered one defeat after another, while in the Korsun battle they did not suffer such a crushing fiasco that both Polish hetmans were captured - the coronate Nikolai Pototsky and the full-fledged Martin Kalinowski. In the Korsun battle, the entire 20-thousandth crown (regular) army of Poland was destroyed. However, the Commonwealth was able to gather new forces. The next three years were a constant war between the Poles and Khmelnytsky and the Tatars. All Little Russia was covered with blood - the Cossacks cracked down on the Poles and Jews, the Poles - on the Cossacks, and those and others - mercilessly robbed the peaceful peasant population.

What did Moscow do in this situation? First of all, it is worth noting that in 1649, the special envoy of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Duma Dean Gregory Unkovsky arrived in Khmelnitsky. He directly stated to the hetman that the tsar did not object to the acceptance of the Cossacks into Moscow citizenship, but now Moscow has no opportunity to directly confront the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Accordingly, the troops in support of the hetman Alexei Mikhailovich can not, but he allows duty-free import of grain, salt and other products and supplies from Russia to Zaporozhye. In modern language, this would mean the provision of humanitarian assistance.

In addition, the tsar's envoy noted that Don Cossacks had come to the aid of Khmelnitsky. Thus, military support was also provided to the hetman in a veiled form. Incidentally, this was soon realized in Warsaw — Polish officials complained that the Moscow kingdom, in violation of all the peace agreements, supplied food, gunpowder and weapon "Rebel" Bogdan Khmelnitsky.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich could not decide whether to accept Khmelnitsky and his Cossacks into Russian citizenship or not. Ultimately, with the diplomatic mission of Boyar Boris Alexandrovich Repnin, who had the characteristic nickname "Echidna", went to Rzeczpospolita. They were awarded Repnin numerous envious, angered by his rapid elevation at the court of Alexei Mikhailovich. Repnin asked Rzeczpospolita to reconcile with Bogdan Khmelnitsky, but his mission was not completed with success. In 1653, a new Polish squad invaded Podolia, which began to suffer defeat from the Khmelnytsky Cossacks and the Tatars. In the end, the Poles went to the trick and made a separate peace with the Tatars, after which they allowed the last devastation of Little Russia.



In Khmelnitsky in the changed situation, there was no other way out but to apply to Moscow with a regular request to accept the Cossacks as a king. Ultimately, the 1 (11) of October 1653 was convened by the Zemsky Sobor, which supported the Khmelnitsky request. 8 (18) January 1654 was collected by the Pereyaslavskaya rada, at which the hetman’s proposal to transfer to Moscow citizenship was accepted unconditionally. Then the Tsar's envoy Vasily Vasilyevich Buturlin, the boyar and the governor of Tver, who was present at the meeting, was happy to present the Tsarist flag, mace and luxurious clothes to Khmelnitsky. Buturlin gave a special speech in which he emphasized the origin of the power of the sovereign of Moscow from St. Vladimir, said that Moscow is the successor of Kiev. The formal procedure for entry into Russian citizenship was completed.

Thus, already in the middle of the 17th century, the Russian authorities successfully used the methods of indirect support for potential allies, providing them with economic and military assistance and sending Don Cossacks who were not formally part of the Russian regular army. As a result of these actions, the Zaporizhian Sich was accepted into Russian citizenship, and Russia followed the war with the Commonwealth. It is clear that without a union with Moscow, the Hetmanate alone would not withstand the confrontation with such a powerful and insidious adversary, who at that time was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - one of the largest states in Eastern Europe.
Author:
42 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 7 October 2018 05: 35
    +1
    Over the past 100 years, Russia has only lost territory, lost Ukraine completely for many years, but the annexation of Crimea is presented as a great victory.
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 7 October 2018 08: 32
      +5
      Pessimist22 "The annexation of Crimea is presented as a great victory."
      This is truly a Great Victory. All the boron cheese in Ukraine because of the Crimea was.
      1. Nicholas C.
        Nicholas C. 7 October 2018 10: 56
        +5
        Quote: Ilya Polonsky
        Little Russia ... Little Russians ... about the transition to Moscow citizenship ... of the sovereign of Moscow ... already in the middle of the XVII century ... As a result of these actions, the Zaporizhzhya Sich was accepted into Russian citizenship, and then Russia began the war with the Commonwealth ... without Union Hetman alone could not stand one with Moscow
        Absolutely disgusting Russophobic article written by a seasoned Jesuit. Repeats all the Svidomo nonsense. By the way, the same supply of material was during the years of forced Ukrainization in the USSR.

        1. There are no Little Russians and Little Russia in the documents of those years. See "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire" and a page from it below. The Cossacks call themselves Russians, their land is Lesser Russia, and the Russian kingdom is Great Russia.
        2. About what Moscow citizenship and the Moscow sovereign is the author interpreting? Isn't it about Muscovy invented by the Jesuits? The title of the ruler of our state, starting with Ivan IV - "... Tsar ... of All Russia", At the predecessors: Vasily III and Ivan III - after the declaration of independence from the Horde - "... Sovereign of All Russia". Those. our state was called Rus, and not, as the author writes, Moscow.
        3. About which soyuz "Moscow" with "Hetmanate" is the author broadcasting in Jesuit? There was no "hetmanate" before the reunification of the Russian people. There were only rebellious Russian lands in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Hetmanate part of these lands - those that were reunited - began to be called later - already as part of Russia, as the territory that the king gave to the hetman. To talk about union, this territory was not a subject of international law either before or after reunification. It was precisely a petition for citizenship and a letter of merit for it.
        4. When, at last, the author learns that the territory of the Zaporizhzhya Army (the one that reunited with Russia) and the Zaporizhzhya Sich are different territories at that time in different states. The Zaporizhzhya Sich was annexed to Russia, but not only in the 1734th century, as he writes, but in the XNUMXth century. In XNUMX, as a result of the RussianTurkish war Zaporizhzhya Sich was recaptured from the Ottoman Empire.
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 7 October 2018 15: 42
          0
          Nikolay S. I agree with you that the terms can and should be more precise. But the essence is correctly conveyed by the author: after all, Ukraine was not immediately accepted by all into the Russian state, and the author writes about this
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 8 October 2018 15: 46
            +1
            Quote: vladcub
            But the essence is correctly conveyed by the author: after all, Ukraine was not immediately accepted by all into the Russian state, and the author writes about this

            what does it mean accepted? Russian lands that were turned ON by the Polish Crown as a result of the formation of the RF had to be won, and not accepted as you write. The whole article of the author is essentially a lie because it distorts the very essence of events.
        2. Avior
          Avior 8 October 2018 08: 14
          -1
          there is not a word on the page that Khmelnitsky considers living in Kiev and Moscow to be one and the same people.
          Just different people of the same faith.
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 8 October 2018 15: 49
            +1
            Quote: Avior
            Just different people of the same faith.

            but where does Khmelnitsky call the Russians living in Moscow uzarst other people? For example, there are papers where Khmelnitsky calls himself Russian and in Moscow they also called themselves Russian. Now the question is, how can people who call themselves Russian be different people?
      2. LeonidL
        LeonidL 8 October 2018 04: 43
        +1
        Donbass will be the second behind Crimea sooner or later, and after it the whole of New Russia!
        1. Antares
          Antares 8 October 2018 22: 36
          -2
          Quote: LeonidL
          Donbass will be the second behind Crimea sooner or later, and after it the whole of New Russia!

          Donbass is Ukraine (Russian partners).
    2. cost
      cost 7 October 2018 18: 27
      0
      According to some reports, in 1634 Khmelnitsky participated in the siege of the Polish army of Smolensk

      The Polish army besieged Smolensk in 1634 ??? And this is exactly the "history" section ??? belay
      1. Antares
        Antares 8 October 2018 22: 47
        -1
        Quote: Rich
        The Polish army besieged Smolensk in 1634 ??? And this is exactly the "history" section ??

        The siege of Smolensk 1632-1633 - the main battle of the Smolensk war, an unsuccessful attempt by the Russian army led by Mikhail Shein to return the strategic city of Smolensk, lost by Russia as a result of almost two-year Polish-Lithuanian siege of 1609-1611. The siege began in December 1632 and lasted until October 1633. After this, the Shein’s army, driven back from the city by the arriving deblockad army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, waged defensive battles for several months, being in a position blocked and cut off from supplies. In February 1634, Shein signed an “honorary surrender”, which provided the army with free withdrawal when surrendering heavy weapons
        the period of the blockade of Shein’s troops (October 1633 - February 1634), which ended with the surrender of the Russian army ..
        Here all the cheese is boron due to saber
        According to the Chronicle of the seer, when Vladislav IV came to the Polish throne and the War of the Commonwealth with the Russian Empire began, Khmelnitsky participated in the siege of the Poles of Smolensk in 1634 and, as the first researcher established, “Metrics of the Crown (Polish) Russian.” Pyotr Butinsky, in 1635 received from the king a gold saber for his courage and for saving King Vladislav from Moscow captivity during one of the skirmishes near Moscow
        Hops before prison was a pretty good citizen (although he rebelled according to the old Ukrainian tradition) and believed in the judiciary of the Republic of Poland, but after an order to decapitate and escape, he did not forgive such an RP ... and this was the beginning of a bad thing for her .. It would be if not Hops, it is not clear which project would be stronger than RP or MK, which later became RI.
        Here is such a RP before the restructuring by Khmelnitsky.
  2. sgapich
    sgapich 7 October 2018 06: 00
    +3
    There is a good book by Nathan Rybak about these events "Pereyaslavl Rada".
    1. Hlavaty
      Hlavaty 7 October 2018 15: 08
      0
      Quote: sgapich
      book Nathan Rybak "Pereyaslavskaya Rada"

      The name of the writer casts doubt on his objectivity in relation to the Cossacks.
  3. Brutan
    Brutan 7 October 2018 07: 37
    +2
    Important event for both countries!
    And it is not in vain that the monument to Bogdan proudly stands in the center of Kiev)
    1. The centurion
      The centurion 7 October 2018 09: 44
      +2
      As a result of these actions, Zaporizhzhya Sich was accepted into Russian citizenship,

      To put it mildly, this is not quite the case. Citizenship took the Dnieper Cossacks, and the Sich did not take the oath.
      “Khmelnitsky with the Cossacks took the oath, they were promised their liberties and a register of 60 people. However, a strong party arose against reunification with Great Russia and was headed by the outstanding koshevoy ataman of the Zaporizhzhya Host Ivan Sirko. With his comrades, he went to Zaporozhye and did not take the oath. the acceptance of the Cossacks and the population into the Tsar's citizenship, Moscow was inevitably drawn into the war with Poland. "
      https://topwar.ru/33813-perehod-kazachego-voyska-getmanschiny-na-moskovskuyu-sluzhbu.html
      Ataman Sirko
      1. Operator
        Operator 7 October 2018 11: 11
        -2
        Do not confuse God's gift (Hetman Khmelnitsky) with scrambled eggs (Ataman Sirko).
        1. dgonni
          dgonni 7 October 2018 13: 55
          -3
          Fried eggs is Khmelnitsky! Sirko WARRIOR! And yet he had a divine gift! The last of the characterists. Rest in peace!
          1. cost
            cost 7 October 2018 15: 11
            0
            Do not confuse God's gift (Hetman Khmelnitsky) with scrambled eggs (Ataman Sirko).

            In his Cossack "rank" Ivan Sirko was much higher than Khmelnytsky. Khmelnytsky was the hetman of the right-bank Ukraine (registered - technical sciences of the city Cossacks) under the patronage of the Polish crown, and Sirko was the Zaporozhye kosh. And he did not obey anyone except the Lord God. These are not my words - it was knocked out by the monks on his tombstone. Yes, and Sirko's saber could put out more than Khmelnitsky. During his tenure as chieftain, he fought 244 large and small battles. The hero of the Cossack oral legends and songs. The Turks called Serko Urus-Shaitan, that is, "the Russian devil", and the Turkish mothers frightened their children by his name. Serko has always stood and stood up for the Orthodox faith. in 1676, Serko signed a letter from the Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan Mehmet IV (the plot of the famous painting by Ilya Repin), a fanatical Christian, he fought with all the enemies of Orthodoxy with the Lyakhs, Turks, the Crimean Khan, Nogai. In the Zaporozhye army, Jewish pogroms were prohibited (for example, "Taras Bulba" by Gogol), but the Poles, Tatars, and Turks were robbed mercilessly. The koshevoy ataman of the Zaporozhian Army Ivan Dmitrievich Serko died on August 1, 1680, the inscription on the ataman's tombstone read: “R. B. (To the fate of God) May 1680 4 Servant of God repose. Ioan Serko Dmitrovich ataman koshovy of Zaporozky wax for his Ts. P.V. (Tsar's Most Holy Majesty) Fyodor Aleksevich. One is the servant of God. Commemoration of the Righteous One with praises ”[12].
            Khmelnitsky fought for an increase in the registry (correspondingly the money content from Polish kruly) and for the intoxicated monopoly. The Russian Tsar offered more than the Polish. That is the whole point of the Preyaslav Rada. And Khmelnytsky won all his victories, only together with the Krymchaks - he, unfortunately, only lost without Tatar support. Professor Solovyov blamed Sirko for breaking the Embassy of the Registered Cossacks to the Crimean Khan in 1674, but captured Ivan Kaledinsky (future Mazepa) but did not kill him, as he usually did, and transferred him to the hetman of the left-bank Ukraine, Samoilovich.
            1. Looking for
              Looking for 7 October 2018 19: 52
              +1
              Sirko was just a successful ataman of a gathering of free mercenaries, which in essence were Zaporozhye Cossacks.
            2. co-creator
              co-creator 8 October 2018 15: 57
              +1
              Quote: Rich
              for his C.P.V. (Tsar's Blessed Majesty) Fedor Aleksevich. One servant of God. The memory of the Righteous with praise ”[12].

              So did he serve the tsar or refused to serve?) In fact, he is an ordinary robber who, as if in words, was for the tsar, but in reality he did not want to obey anyone, a sort of Makhnovets.
              1. cost
                cost 8 October 2018 17: 28
                +1
                hi Consortium
                cared, in his words: "About wax Zaporozkoy, faith Khrstovay and about Rus land." Judging by the order of the words in his phrase, the first place was still the Zaporozhye Sich and Cossack liberties. And he probably considered only his island Khortitsa to be Russian land. Frankly speaking, the people of the right-bank and left-bank Ukraine, groaning under the yoke of the Poles and the registered lords-atamans, did not care about him .. But if someone offends the faith. Here he had a specific point.
                So did he serve the king or refused to serve?

                In the end, he swore allegiance to the king, then threw him passed to Doroshenko, was taken prisoner, again swore allegiance to the king. But in fairness, he did it not for his own benefit, but at the behest of the Zaporozhye Sich. He died as a subject of the Russian Tsar, hence the following text of the inscription on his grave. The church loved him, the people saw in him a kind of robingood, the warrior was from God, although he was not interested in anything except his Cossacks. A sort of "district authority of the nineties"
                PS his military talent and abilities would really serve the "land of Russia" ... but as they say - you can't rewrite history
          2. NG inform
            NG inform 7 October 2018 16: 00
            -4
            This Turk was a typical bandit in our lands.
          3. Operator
            Operator 7 October 2018 20: 30
            0
            Kosovo Ataman Serko (from 1663 to 1675 years) is politically trifle potty compared to hetmans Khmelnitsky and Bespalov (pro-Russian), Vygovsky and Doroshenko (pro-Polish).

            In 1660, Serko swore allegiance to the tsar and was appointed colonel of the Kharkov Cossack Regiment. In 1668, he violated the oath and fought against the Russian army, for which he was brutally defeated during the siege of Kharkov, captured and exiled to Tobolsk. In 1672, he again took the oath to the tsar, after which he served in the Zaporozhye Cossack army until his death.
      2. Hlavaty
        Hlavaty 7 October 2018 15: 13
        +1
        Quote: Centurion
        However, a strong party arose against reunification with Great Russia, and its leader was the outstanding ataman of the Zaporizhzhya Army Ivan Sirko.

        And how was he going to confront the Poles and Tatars and the Russians alone?
        Or is he, too, a fighter for "nezalezhnist" to the last Cossack, like today's nationalists?
        What was he thinking - about the fate of people who trusted him or about his "hetmancy"?
        1. cost
          cost 7 October 2018 15: 47
          +1
          And how was he going to confront the Poles and Tatars and the Russians alone?

          You won’t believe it, but for some time you have opposed it. Darted here and there to the Russian Tsar, then to the Hetman Dorosheko. He fought with his Cossacks for Tsar Alexei against Doroshenko, then for Doroshenko against Alexei.
          Serko’s letter to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, written in May 1664, has been preserved:
          "Performing the service with your Zaporizhzhya Army to your royal blessed majesty, I, Ivan Serko, on the month of January 8, went to two rivers, the Bug and the Dniester, where, by the grace of God and the intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos and your great sovereign, I attacked Turkish villages above Tyagin’s city , beat a lot of the busurman and took great booty. Turning around from the Turkish city of Tyagin, he went under the Cherkasy cities. Hearing about mine, Ivan Sirk, the parish, the townspeople themselves began to chop and chop the Yids and Poles, and all the regiments and the Polish-Lithuanian-Lithuanian raids, which had suffered so many misfortunes, bondage and torment, began to give up. Through us, Ivan Serk, all of Little Russia, cities above the Bug and beyond the Bug, is addressed again to your royal majesty, namely: Bratslavsky and Kalnitsky regiments, Mogilev, Rashkov, Umansky district, up to the Dnieper and Dniester; innocent people promised with their souls to keep under the strong hand of your royal blessed majesty until their souls are in their bodies ”[10]
          Or is he, too, a fighter for "nezalezhnist" to the last Cossack, like today's nationalists?

          A fighter for "nezalezhnist" he is now diligently made in modern Ukraine, although during his lifetime he was called Urus-Shaitan, that is, "Russian devil"
          What was he thinking - about the fate of people who trusted him or about his "hetmancy"?

          he was not a "hetman", but was a koshev ataman, that is, not appointed but an elected person. Just for 1 year. Sirko was koshev for 12 years in a row !!! A record, however. And I cared, I will say with his words: "About wax Zaporozkoy, faith Khrstovay and about Rus land"
          1. Hlavaty
            Hlavaty 7 October 2018 21: 14
            +1
            Quote: Rich
            You won’t believe it, but for some time you have opposed it. Darted here and there to the Russian Tsar, then to the Hetman Dorosheko. He fought with his Cossacks for Tsar Alexei against Doroshenko, then for Doroshenko against Alexei.


            As I understand it, to call it the word "opposed" is a great exaggeration. What you described is typical mercenary behavior. Whoever gets sick, we fight for him.

            All our deputies do nothing but “oppose” in this way. Now for one party, then for another.

            Quote: Rich
            And I cared, I will say with his words: "About wax Zaporozkoy, faith Khrstovay and about Rus land"

            And what exactly was this concern manifested in? Fairly shared the loot?
      3. NG inform
        NG inform 7 October 2018 15: 59
        -4
        The opinion of the Turks is not very interesting here.
      4. co-creator
        co-creator 8 October 2018 15: 52
        +2
        Quote: Centurion
        To put it mildly, this is not quite the case. Citizenship took the Dnieper Cossacks, and the Sich did not take the oath.

        well, if you call a spade a spade, it’s an ordinary pirate republic that served those who pay. For them there was no difference who killed the Orthodox or Muslims.
        1. cost
          cost 8 October 2018 17: 54
          +1
          For them, there was no difference who killed the Orthodox or Muslims.

          You are right, they cut and Orthodox
          The fact is that Sich spit on all the royal "drunken monopolies" has deployed a real bootlegging network on the territory of modern Ukraine. On Khortitsa, specially invited Jews drove the vodka under the protection of the Cossacks. And if the registered Cossacks tore apart the Zaporozhye shanks on their territory, fulfilling the royal law "winna monopol". - from the slaughter immediately arrived "a brigade of thugs"
  4. BAI
    BAI 7 October 2018 09: 54
    +2
    during the Soviet period, the attitude towards Khmelnitsky remained very positive - there were many streets of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, including in the cities of other regions of the country, whole settlements, educational institutions were named after the hetman.

    There was a military order - Bogdan Khmelnitsky. The only one in honor of the "foreigner".
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 7 October 2018 16: 06
      0
      Dear BAl, I slightly disagree with you about the "foreigner": in my opinion Khmelnytsky did not consider himself a foreigner. At that time, they were considered by religion, and Khmelnitsky and Aleksey Mikhailovich were of the same faith. PS. The initiator of the creation of the order was N. S. and I don’t remember any other positive deeds behind him.
      1. cost
        cost 7 October 2018 16: 35
        0
        vladcub (Svyatoslav): N. S. was the initiator of the creation of the order. I don’t remember any other positive deeds behind him.

        vladcub (Svyatoslav) hi
        Thanks for the info. Did not know. An interesting clarification, I looked at the status of the order, indeed - it was established during the liberation of Ukraine at the proposal of a member of the Military Council of the 1st Ukrainian Front, Lieutenant General N. S. Khrushchev
      2. Avior
        Avior 8 October 2018 08: 18
        -1
        it is unlikely.
        With the Greeks, they did not consider themselves to be one people, for example.
        Khmelnitsky, of course, was not foreigners, he accepted the king’s citizenship, but he didn’t consider living in Kiev as one people living in Moscow, so it was not about reuniting the same people, but about transferring the Orthodox faith under the tsar.
        1. cost
          cost 8 October 2018 23: 52
          0
          so it was not a question of reuniting the same people, but of becoming subordinate to the Tsar of the Orthodox faith

          Unfortunately, we were talking about increasing the registry (read the monetary content from the king) to 60000 people. and their own intoxicating monopoly. Under these conditions, Zinovy-Bogdan Khmelnitsky agreed to go with his Cossacks to Russian citizenship. Not a word about the people here
          1. cost
            cost 9 October 2018 00: 07
            0
            The real name of Comrade Zinovia is covered in darkness. Bogdan Khmelnitsky-Cossack drove. It is only known that he came from the gentry clan coat of arms “Abdank”. In his youth, he was a student of the Jesuit College, located in Lviv.
  5. Operator
    Operator 7 October 2018 11: 07
    +1
    "Aleksey Mikhailovich ... allows duty-free import of bread, salt and other products and supplies from Russia to Zaporozhye ... Don Cossacks came to help Khmelnitsky" - does it remind you of anything? bully
  6. kalibr
    kalibr 7 October 2018 12: 40
    0
    Ilya, decently sign pictures. In this, first of all, such a little trifle is manifested as the author's respect for readers!
  7. Molot1979
    Molot1979 7 October 2018 13: 31
    +5
    The author, well, you can’t crap like that .... In 1634 Smolensk was besieged not by the Poles, but by the Russians. The war was called Smolensk. In the course of it, the Poles besieged not the city of Smolensk, but the Russian camp under the city. The first time I saw it, I decided, well, a typo, a person made a mistake, it happens. But when I saw the second time that Khmelnitsky participated in the siege of Smolensk, he took it too long. Learn history, dear and do not allow ridiculous and ridiculous blunders. Or command your entire text to be verified by sources?
  8. vladcub
    vladcub 7 October 2018 15: 52
    0
    Quote: Operator
    "Aleksey Mikhailovich ... allows duty-free import of bread, salt and other products and supplies from Russia to Zaporozhye ... Don Cossacks came to help Khmelnitsky" - does it remind you of anything? bully

    Yes, something reminds of modernity and seems geographically close
  9. Rey_ka
    Rey_ka 8 October 2018 12: 37
    +1
    You also need to remember that Poland during the times of Khmelnitsky was an active bargaining chip in Europe. Henry 3 of Valois was the king of Poland and Lithuania with his brother king in France, and after them there the Austrian Habsburgs drew themselves.
    1. Antares
      Antares 8 October 2018 22: 55
      0
      Quote: Rey_ka
      Poland during the time of Khmelnitsky was an active bargaining chip in Europe.

      she became pro-French later. So far (in the time of Hop) she still radiated the rays of fame of Stephen Batory. And continuous wars with Turkey and MK. The Swedes from the north and the Turks from the south, and the Russians from the east ... the life of the RP is not easy .. but there are also pans and Cossacks started a broth. The neighbors did not fail to take advantage. Russia and Sweden almost destroyed the Republic of Poland, but it again experienced prosperity and managed .. Even Kiev returned. True, then he was still given for participating in the Crimean campaigns ..
      I repeat, the wound left by the War of Independence knocked down the Republic of Poland, together with the lords of the lords ... They would have kept Stefanov Batoria, and not Vladislavov and Yanov ...
      funny detail
      Aleksey Mikhailovich cannot, but he does permit duty-free import of bread, salt, and other products and supplies from Russia to Zaporozhye. In modern language, this would mean the provision of humanitarian assistance.

      Moscow canceled customs duties on the import of bread to Ukraine, and the Turkish sultan, in turn, lifted duties on trade in Ottoman ports.
      The situation of people then was terrible, they were sold for a pinch of tobacco, fierce hunger (it was impossible to sow anything, they destroyed everything), whitened bones and deserts ... the gracious land was empty.
  10. Larum
    Larum 17 December 2018 09: 37
    0
    I read that these Getmans passed several times from one citizenship to another. Including Khmelnitsky. Is it true?