Military Review

John the Terrible - the most odious or the most slandered ruler of Russia

165
John the Terrible - the most odious or the most slandered ruler of Russia

John IV Vasilievich is one of the Russian sovereigns whose rule and life are assessed, perhaps, the most ambiguously both abroad and in our country. His name is associated with many extremely harsh assessments and categorical judgments. However, are they reasonable? What if, in this case, we are dealing with firmly rooted malicious slander, and the whole “odiousness” of the king, who entered history under the name of Grozny, for the most part is fiction?


In order to understand this issue, first of all, it is necessary to determine two key points: a list of charges against John Vasilievich, and the sources from which they came. Let's start with paragraph one: Terrible attributed to Grozny, which led to the fact that his reign was marked by a huge number of executions and reckless reprisals, as well as other manifestations of tyranny. Well, what do you want from this barbarian: he even killed his own son!

This is followed by the device of John IV of the notorious oprichnina, supposedly fatal to Russia. Everyone knows about it, only few can clearly explain the meaning and essence of this phenomenon. Even Grozny was an aggressor: he took and attacked the innocent civilized Livonians, began to mercilessly destroy them, and seize the land. The Tatars again oppressed, destroyed their khanates ... Well, in addition to all this is a heap of absolutely absurd accusations such as polygamy, pathological suspicion and almost insanity. Which of these can be considered true?

Almost nothing. The practice of "slandering the sovereign" has begun since the time of the sovereign himself.

The "enormous" number of convicts on the chopping block under Grozny, according to available and credible annals, is actually reduced to 4-5 thousand people. Too many? For comparison: Henry VIII, who ruled around Britain at the same time, hung his subjects with tens of thousands, including children caught in vagrancy. Elizabeth, who replaced him on the throne, executed thousands of one hundred Britons. Incidentally, the same Henry had wives more than John Vasilyevich, but, unlike our sovereign, he chopped their heads off, excuse me, like chickens. In Russia under Grozny, they were sentenced to death exclusively for the most serious crimes such as murder, arson of an apartment building along with the inhabitants, high treason. For theft, as in "enlightened Europe", no one was hanged.

Aggression? The Livonian war was the beginning of the struggle for the return of Russian lands in the Baltic and was ultimately ended by the descendants of Grozny, even centuries later. Astrakhan and Kazan Khanates? Well, there was nothing Russian people in full and slavery to steal, burn our cities and villages. Sami asked for it. During the reign of John IV, the territory of the Russian State grew exactly twice. And, by the way, he was the first to begin to be called the king - quite deservedly and rightfully.

Oprichnina? In fact, it was a natural process of establishing a centralized state power, curbing the rampant freemen of large feudal lords. Countries that followed this path later became empires (Russia, France, Germany). Another option is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with its puppet kings, endless wars of magnates and three divisions in a hundred years. Kinks? Surely there were. But in the end, Poland became part of Russia, and not vice versa.

Grozny did not kill his son - there are a lot of fundamental research on this subject, which I will not retell. Poisoning with a mercury compound, the so-called mercuric, brought to the grave of both the prince and subsequently his crowned father. And, by the way, they were not alone in the Kremlin (so conspiracies and assassination attempts to Grozny did not seem at all imagined). From now on, it’s worth moving on to talking about where all the terrifying things came from, which they have been saying and writing about John Vasilievich for centuries. We restrict ourselves to three specific sources.

The first and, perhaps, the main denunciator of Grozny is Prince Andrei Kurbsky. This person can be described very briefly: Vlasov of the sixteenth century. Kurbsky ran to the enemy voluntarily, after which he went with foreign invaders to his homeland, which he betrayed to fire and sword. However, much more this Judas was noted in the ideological war. It can be said that the ancestor of all Soviet and Russian “dissidents” - masters — from behind the cordon they poured mud on their country for satisfying grubs. Can this be believed? Judge for yourself.

It is also extremely difficult to consider as objective the writings of a certain Heinrich von Staden, posing as a “guardsman” and almost as a “close king”. In Russia, this character really lived and was even in the royal service, for which he was granted lands and ranks. But only in the end he created something such that everything was taken from him and put out of the country. After which Staden fell into ardent Russophobia, not only shut himself up with the whistleblower of Grozny’s atrocities, but also set about running around the European royal courts with plans to “conquer Russia”. In a word, embittered and avenged as he could. Incidentally, he never was a clerk: it has been documented.

The third “expert” in Grozny is the Jesuit Antonio Possevin. The personality is colorful. He arrived in Russia with a “special assignment” to the papal throne, which consisted in preparing the soil, if not to catholicize our country, then at least the entry of the Russian Orthodox Church into a union with Rome. In fact - a professional intelligence officer. Posevin did not succeed in his activities, primarily due to John Vasilievich, who was harder than flint in matters of faith. It was he who launched the “horror story” regarding the “murdered prince”. And also many other bloody and dirty myths about John Vasilievich. The rest of the foreign authors, sparing no colors painted the "horrors of the reign of Grozny", did not visit Russia at all.

“John the Terrible, for his cruelty called Vasilyevich ...” Do you think this is a historical joke? Nothing of the sort - it was printed that way in the well-respected French dictionary of Larouss. This alone exhaustively testifies both to “deep knowledge of the issue” and to the degree of “objectivity” of all those who tried and are trying to “persuade” the Russian Tsar. John the Terrible was terrible and hated by the West because it was during his time that Russia from the provincial principality, the former provinces of the Golden Horde, began to turn into a powerful, and, most importantly independent kingdom, and embarked on the path of creating an empire. Hence the whole wave of lies that, alas, has taken root in the homeland of one of the most controversial, but truly great rulers of Russia.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / picture by V. M. Vasnetsov "Ivan the Terrible"
165 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B
    Far B 18 June 2020 08: 13 New
    41
    I want to write a lot of things in support of Ivan Vasilich, but, I suspect, he does not need my support. Therefore, just a statement: a great ruler. Unfortunately, as it often happens with us, who did not leave a worthy successor
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 18 June 2020 08: 19 New
      31
      John the Terrible - the most odious or the most slandered ruler of Russia

      Odious, his distinction from obscurantist rulers of that era, and therefore slandered by them ...
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 18 June 2020 09: 10 New
        +4
        he was the first to begin to be called a king - deservedly and rightfully


        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 18 June 2020 11: 25 New
          +8
          Quote: Alexander Kharaluzhny
          he was the first to begin to be called a king - deservedly and rightfully
          It depends on what it means to invest in this phrase. Russia gained complete independence from the Horde under Ivan III. As an autocrat Ivan III took the title "...Prince all Russia ... "
          1. Insurgent
            Insurgent 18 June 2020 11: 52 New
            +3
            Quote: Nikolay S.
            It depends on what it means to invest in this phrase. Russia gained complete independence from the Horde under Ivan III. As an autocrat Ivan III took the title "... Sovereign of All Russia ..."

            The Sovereign is the Emperor, and the Caesar (King) is the King ...
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 19 June 2020 02: 11 New
              -2
              Quote: Insurgent
              The Sovereign is the Emperor, and the Caesar (King) is the King ...

              Ivan IV was crowned king immediately upon accession to the throne. When he did not have any dubious achievements.
  2. polpot
    polpot 18 June 2020 08: 15 New
    +5
    A child of his time, with its pros and cons.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 18 June 2020 08: 17 New
      10
      as Repin drew for us, we also know History. - an example of how History is "written."
  3. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 18 June 2020 08: 16 New
    +6
    Ivan did not have 4 nicknames "formidable". How much can you insult a great ruler with this Western nickname?
    1. Sentinel-vs
      Sentinel-vs 18 June 2020 08: 20 New
      10
      In the west, Ivan IV is called Ivan the Terrible. Literally - Ivan the Terrible.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 18 June 2020 08: 24 New
        +7
        “West” it is multifaceted, there were not only the British, but they could call in different interpretations. "Terrible" from the same mythology that the murder of Ivan 4 of his son. Purpose: to slander the great man whom they feared.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 19 June 2020 02: 13 New
          -3
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Purpose: to slander the great man whom they feared.

          Who was afraid of Ivan 4, the British? Wow, how timid.
          1. Petrik66
            Petrik66 19 June 2020 14: 55 New
            +1
            No, the British were friends with him, but the neighbors were afraid. it is precisely those who, after the defeat of the Russian principalities by the Tatars and internal disassembly, cleaned up the lands that were badly laid. I hope that We are still to everyone who frolic in the 90s, "We'll still do goat’s face"
    2. Insurgent
      Insurgent 18 June 2020 08: 47 New
      +9
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Ivan did not have 4 nicknames "formidable". How much can you insult a great ruler with this Western nickname?

      The Serb, with whom he had to serve, said that in Serbia, Ivan IV the Terrible, they call them "Ivan the Great", as in Serbian "terrible" - this "dirty"...
      1. MstislavHrabr
        MstislavHrabr 18 June 2020 17: 19 New
        +3
        He is Ivan the Great, and he is not the fourth ... He is the first (in it is the blood of Genghisides, Tatars and Kipchaks and Byzantines, Russians and Rurikovich). He led part of the Horde, had the rights to most of it, and added this part ...
      2. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 18 June 2020 18: 24 New
        0
        And the Bulgarians, sort of called Ivan the Good ... good
      3. 5-9
        5-9 19 June 2020 14: 28 New
        +1
        And he is the Great ... originally his grandfather Ivan the 3rd was terrible (like during their lifetime) .... but then they twisted
    3. Vend
      Vend 18 June 2020 10: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Ivan did not have 4 nicknames "formidable". How much can you insult a great ruler with this Western nickname?

      Why insult? They were afraid of him, calling Ivan Vasilyevich Grozny, once again we emphasize the cowardice and deceit of the West.
      1. Threaded screw
        Threaded screw 18 June 2020 11: 08 New
        +1
        They were afraid of him, calling Ivan Vasilyevich Grozny
        I could be wrong, but in Russia they called Ivan the Terrible, who later received another nickname Kalita.
        1. Vend
          Vend 18 June 2020 11: 17 New
          0
          Quote: Threaded Screw
          They were afraid of him, calling Ivan Vasilyevich Grozny
          I could be wrong, but in Russia they called Ivan the Terrible, who later received another nickname Kalita.
          The first time I hear it, maybe in some sources it is, but I did not come across
          1. Threaded screw
            Threaded screw 18 June 2020 11: 42 New
            -1
            The first time I hear this, maybe in some sources
            Somewhere there, I won’t say right away, I need to shovel. I’ll look at my leisure if there is time.
        2. Hantengri
          Hantengri 18 June 2020 12: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: Threaded Screw
          I could be wrong, but in Russia they called Ivan the Terrible, who later received another nickname Kalita.

          Ivan III - the grandfather of Ivan Vasilyevich.
          1. Threaded screw
            Threaded screw 18 June 2020 12: 36 New
            0
            Ivan III - the grandfather of Ivan Vasilyevich.
            Perhaps now I’m not ready to operate on facts.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 19 June 2020 02: 17 New
              0
              Ivan Kalita, as far as I am in the subject, was not called formidable. Ivan 3 was called the Great, not the Terrible.
        3. andrew42
          andrew42 23 June 2020 15: 04 New
          0
          It couldn’t be. Kalita was nicknamed for carrying a purse for giving alms when going to the temple, and not only. If Ivan Danilych was "formidable-terrible," then it’s scary to think how they would call Yuri Danilych (the elder) who destroyed the “ladder of law”, drove the Horde to Russia (this is not a negative, just a fact), married Konchak, Uzbekova’s sister, and he “ordered” Mikhail Tversky in the Horde in the spirit of the bandits of the 90s. Ivan Kalita could not be "formidable" in any way, and he is the 4th brother among the Danilovichs, if my memory serves me right.
          1. Threaded screw
            Threaded screw 23 June 2020 15: 28 New
            -1
            Kalita was nicknamed for carrying a purse for giving alms when going to the temple, and not only.
            Kalita before becoming Kalita, was a cruel, cunning and hypocritical ruler, who brought a lot of violence, even by the standards of the time. Brutal forms of government evoked a corresponding attitude among the masses. And he became Kalita when he rethought his being and tried to make amends for past sins.
  4. antivirus
    antivirus 18 June 2020 08: 19 New
    +7
    what they will not say about him - all half the truth, and the country created with him and he personally lives
    1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
      Andrey Krasnoyarsky 18 June 2020 08: 49 New
      +1
      The country was created by Ivan the Fourth ??? This is something new in history. In fact, Russia was created by several generations of rulers, starting with Ivan Kalita and ending with Peter the Great. Ivan the Terrible is only an intermediate link in the process of forming a centralized state.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 18 June 2020 10: 48 New
        +5
        and Kalita in between, and Dmitry Donskoy ... and we are temporary ..
        everything is perishable, but the Parade will pass (veterans 99% have already died) and Russia is
      2. MstislavHrabr
        MstislavHrabr 18 June 2020 17: 21 New
        0
        These are the ideas of historians of the Romanov era ...
        1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
          Andrey Krasnoyarsky 19 June 2020 06: 18 New
          0
          And what, some historians were in the pre-Domanovian era? In fact, the first Russian historian is considered Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev, who worked in the first half of the 18th century. There are also opinions that the first historians were either Innocent Gisel or Andrei Lyzlov. But the works of these authors appeared in the second half of the 17th century. Again under the Romanovs. Chroniclers are not historians, they are event recorders, as well as religious moralizers. And by the way, what did the Romanovs not please you with? It is a fairy tale, as if they forced someone to rewrite the annals and the whole story is not accepted due to its absolute delirium.
  5. parma
    parma 18 June 2020 08: 20 New
    -17
    Everything goes in a circle, a couple of years ago there was already an article on this topic, although the author was different there and the facts at least attracted the ears ....
    Regarding this article, alternativeism from the “mustache lies, but I won’t give you any evidence!” ... I don’t even want to discuss this, the VO spoils every year ...
    1. Tatyana Pershina
      Tatyana Pershina 18 June 2020 09: 29 New
      10
      With evidence from the author, just everything is in order. Any of his statements can be verified, but in the article on this resource, of course, it is impossible to quote all historical documents, sources. Search for yourself
      1. parma
        parma 18 June 2020 11: 13 New
        -7
        Quote: Tatyana Pershina
        With evidence from the author, just everything is in order. Any of his statements can be verified, but in the article on this resource, of course, it is impossible to quote all historical documents, sources. Search for yourself

        Yeah, okay, they just don't exist ...
        Last time, the same "irrefutable" evidence was already debunking, because I will describe the situation with Antonio Posevin ... the person was sent to the Russian kingdom like the eyes and ears of a pontiff, but instead of collecting data and informing everything that happens, one of the most influential people in the world decides to lie to the employer and write fiction .. for some reason, just a Russophobe! The level of motivation and logic of actions just rolls over ... regarding the poisoning of the prince, so in those days they treated with such "ingenious" methods ...
        And besides the arguments "the story is written either by Russophobes or traitors" there is nothing in the article, not a single scientific work ..
        1. MstislavHrabr
          MstislavHrabr 18 June 2020 17: 32 New
          0
          Possevin is not lying. He gives an assessment of the events from the point of view of the enemy of our state. That's all. Here is a similar example of an assessment of one and the same event: - "Hitler treacherously attacked the Soviet Union"; - "Hitler in order to protect Europe from the communist danger - was forced to attack the USSR." Therefore, Posevin's assessments need to be considered very good. carefully ... Events were - yes ... And why? How to evaluate them? Question? But just not the same as the enemies of our state evaluated them!
        2. andrew42
          andrew42 23 June 2020 15: 11 New
          0
          I do not agree about the lack of understanding of the treatment of sublimate. In Russia, starting with Ivan III, the influence of Byzantine traditions was very strong. And already in poisons, foods and other "medicines" Tsaregradsky "ate a dog." They fed the tsar and the tsarevich on purpose, once or twice enough if the dose is good. The thing is common, - travanuli slightly, and then finished off with "medicines". This classic story is not like the history of states, it has already penetrated into fiction - I remembered the king from "It's Hard to Be a God", whose son was guarded by Rumat :)
    2. knn54
      knn54 18 June 2020 10: 04 New
      15
      Regarding the executed governor and boyars:
      Twice executed, Mikhailo Vorotynsky, three years after the second (!) Execution, contrived to draw up the first-ever charter of the border service (“Boyarsky sentence on the stanitsa and guard service”), and Maria Staritskaya, poisoned, strangled with smoke and drowned in Sheksna, leaves a year after her execution to Europe as the wife of the Danish prince Magnus ...
      Until the Time of Troubles (20 years after the death of I. Grozny)) NOBODY dared to encroach on the borders of a rich and strong Power.
      1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
        Andrey Krasnoyarsky 18 June 2020 14: 13 New
        -2
        No one dared to encroach ??? Oh and the "historians" are here. But what about Stefan Batory, besieging Pskov in 1581-82? Or does Pskov not belong to the "rich and strong power"? In general, the disastrous outcome of the Livonian war somehow does not fit with the image of the "rich-strong". And in 1591 the Crimean Khan Gaza-Gerai reached right up to the walls of Moscow (or was Moscow not a part of the State then?). However, he was completely defeated near Moscow, which, anyway, refutes the statement "no one dared to encroach." And at the beginning of the 17th century, those who wished to encroach had accumulated fairly. The only direction where, indeed, since the time of Ivan the Terrible and throughout the 17th century, Russia's successes have been colossal and undoubted is eastern. But if the accession of the Volga region was Ivan's unconditional merit, then the beginning of the conquest of Siberia was a private initiative of the Stroganov merchants, who had hired Ermak’s detachment.
        1. Vlad world
          Vlad world 18 June 2020 15: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
          . But if the accession of the Volga region was Ivan's unconditional merit, then the beginning of the conquest of Siberia was a private initiative of the Stroganov merchants, who had hired Ermak’s detachment.


          In fact, Yermak restored the jurisdiction of Moscow over Altai and Western Siberia. Lost for a while. Even with his grandfather, his detachment under the leadership of two children of the boyars marched from Altai to the Gulf of Ob. By taxing everyone and taking everyone by the arm of Moscow.
          True, this is not in the textbooks, but it can be read in the writings of some historians.
          1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
            Andrey Krasnoyarsky 18 June 2020 16: 21 New
            +1
            With grandfather Ermak ??? This is who Yermakov’s grandfather found when even his father is unknown (except for his name). And Yermak did not reach any Altai; he managed to capture only part of Western Siberia. Where he died in battle. After him, the Russians non-stop went east.
            1. Vlad world
              Vlad world 19 June 2020 08: 04 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
              With grandfather Ermak ??? This is who Yermakov’s grandfather found when even his father is unknown (except for his name). And Yermak did not reach any Altai; he managed to capture only part of Western Siberia. Where he died in battle. After him, the Russians non-stop went east.


              Here it is not necessary to give out my fantasies for my writings.
              The article is generally about Ivan the Terrible. So, under Ivan the Terrible’s grandfather, this action happened.
        2. Octopus
          Octopus 19 June 2020 02: 26 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
          Oh and the "historians" are here. But what about Stefan Batory, besieging Pskov in 1581-82?

          Hmm, Pskov.

          Nobody here, apparently, is aware that in some people he also burned Moscow. And not in the "rich and strong", but with the birthday man himself, who successfully draped from the advancing Tatars in 1572.
      2. Engineer
        Engineer 18 June 2020 14: 55 New
        +1
        Nobody wrote down Maria Staritskaya as a victim.
        In Sheksna drowned Euphrosyne Staritskaya. There is practically no doubt about her violent death - the name is in the "synodics of the disgraced"
    3. lucul
      lucul 18 June 2020 10: 14 New
      +4
      Regarding this article, alternativeism from the “mustache lies, but I won’t give you any evidence!” ... I don’t even want to discuss this, the VO spoils every year ...

      No, it’s just moving farther and farther away from Zionist tales, which used to treat us well.
      You don’t have to go far for an example - what do you think the Zionists would write about the Crimea in 2014 in its HISTORY in 2200? )))
  6. Catfish
    Catfish 18 June 2020 08: 28 New
    11
    There is nothing to comment on. More than two lines could be written about Tsar Ivan. Author, if you do not know what to say. it’s better not to touch the topic.
    I’ll just quote from Satyricon Arkady Averchenko: “Tsar Ivan the Terrible ruled in Russia for the cruelty called Vasilich.”
    This is to how in the West they study our entire history, not only from Gostomysl to Timashev, but also much later. laughing
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 18 June 2020 08: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Sea Cat
      This is to how in the West they study our entire history, not only from Gostomysl to Timashev, but also much later.

      The main thing is that applied methodological material contributes to this yes

      1. volodimer
        volodimer 18 June 2020 10: 10 New
        +3
        Judging by the picture you provided, not only our “disagners” have problems with knowledge of history.
        Thunderbolt, but not the one. A10 instead of P47. Well, yes, the Germans have jet aircraft, which means the exceptional ones were, of course, much better. laughing
    2. Korsar4
      Korsar4 18 June 2020 09: 29 New
      +3
      Comics came to us.
      Any page from the "Prince of Silver" will speak of a lighter time.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 18 June 2020 11: 09 New
        +6
        Sergey, hello. hi I read “Prince of Silver” about thirty years ago, approximately at the same time I read about Congo, Biafra, Kinshasa. Can you help me figure out why I remember everything about Hoar, Muller and Steiner, but nothing about the “Prince”, maybe I somehow lack patriotism inside?
        1. Korsar4
          Korsar4 18 June 2020 11: 26 New
          +1
          It will not work to compare. I came across in childhood. And the syllable of A. K. Tolstoy is still close. By the way, many perceive him as the forerunner of the Silver Age.

          I myself remember - that Dumas did not read in childhood, then did not perceive in any way.

          A recipe for patriotism: can the use of kvass be doubled?
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 18 June 2020 11: 54 New
            +3
            A recipe for patriotism: can the use of kvass be doubled?

            In his youth he preferred beer, then he realized that he had already drunk his own and switched to rum. What kind of patriotism there is for my mother, and I don’t like these idiots with a dead elephant and Kievan Rus.
            1. Korsar4
              Korsar4 18 June 2020 12: 10 New
              +3
              Not our method of dividing people into castes.
              At the same time, people speaking the same language go astray.
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 18 June 2020 12: 44 New
                +2
                What does "not our method" mean? He is not whose? And caste has absolutely nothing to do with it. I would very much like to see you have a bunch of little limts at the table with their bawdy girls. Well, not now, but somewhere in the seventies. Although, of course, the people among them were different, but for some reason, when they were visiting me, various small but beautiful things disappeared from something. Then, when it became clear who stole it, they beat their own in the hostel with their muzzle, and, they beat, regardless of gender. The next time everything was repeated. I tried to treat them like our guys from my yard, but failed. What do you think is the problem? Yes, our boys have been hanging out in my house since childhood, the nail has not disappeared.
                1. Korsar4
                  Korsar4 18 June 2020 12: 57 New
                  +2
                  Kozma Rods:

                  “The Slavophiles and the nihilists are coming,
                  Both the nails are not clean. ”

                  Here in childhood: the yard, yard football - I did not even think about it - who had what was in the family. Somehow reflected light was perceived.

                  And the feast for the birthday, probably, the prince will have to roll up so that all the potions go in.

                  You can talk superficially with everyone. Deep - with few.
                  Although Shakespeare already said this:

                  “Give everyone an ear,
                  The voice is only a few. "

                  Moreover, I like random meetings, but I can’t say that there are many of them.
        2. MstislavHrabr
          MstislavHrabr 18 June 2020 17: 44 New
          0
          Read Sergeyevsky Tsensky's "Sevastopol Strada" -help ... For this novel, the author received the Stalin Prize in 1941 ... I really liked it. Tolstoy, with his Sevastopol Stories, is weaker ...
  7. smaug78
    smaug78 18 June 2020 08: 30 New
    -12
    For comparison: Henry VIII, who ruled around Britain at the same time, hung his subjects with tens of thousands, including children caught in vagrancy. Elizabeth, who replaced him on the throne, executed thousands of one hundred Britons.

    The author in the story is a complete zero. And he joyfully slandered both the king and the rulers of other countries ... And they are judged by the results of the entire board ...
    1. Vladimir Glinsky
      Vladimir Glinsky 18 June 2020 09: 14 New
      12
      Sorry, what's wrong there? "According to the" vagrancy law ", from 12 to 72 thousand people were hanged according to various sources, and the upper limit is considered very high." That is, even if we accept the upper figure as unrealistic, then we are still talking about tens of thousands of hanged people only under the law of vagrancy.
      1. smaug78
        smaug78 18 June 2020 10: 55 New
        -4
        Now we look at the state of the countries after the death of Ivan the Terrible and the same Elizabeth. Yes, and the phrase
        Elizabeth executed a thousand hundred British
        to put it mildly does not sound ... 89 more correct.
  8. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 18 June 2020 08: 39 New
    17
    Together with Stalin, probably the two most prominent rulers in the history of Russia. And both slanders were later, unfortunately
    1. Vlad world
      Vlad world 18 June 2020 10: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      Together with Stalin, probably the two most prominent rulers in the history of Russia. And both slanders were later, unfortunately


      Yes, I agree with you. And if Stalin began his "associates" and the liberals continued, then with Grozny it is more difficult. The liberal “father of Russian history” began walking in Paris with the badge of a supporter of the revolution. With Karamzin, the "baiting" of liberals from history began. And it continues to this day. And they refer to the Judas of Kurbsky and Shinkar Staden. Which had a tire in Moscow and, of course, quietly traded on the left. The business failed and had to run, but the insult remained. And Staden never had any posts. Just in those days, if you were given the nobility in one country, then in another you were recognized as a nobleman. And this is all better than the Shinkar. Lists of hundreds of those times are preserved, and Staden is not in them. And according to his stories, he commanded at least three hundred.
      1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
        Andrey Krasnoyarsky 18 June 2020 14: 27 New
        -1
        Is Karamzin a liberal ??? Yeah, the ease in your thoughts is unusual, just like that of Ivan Aleksandrovich Khlestakov. Indeed, in his youth, Nikolai Mikhailovich was not a stranger to liberal enlightenment ideas, even consisted of a Masonic lodge, but after traveling through Europe and seeing the "charms" of the French Revolution, liberalism was forever and irrevocably renounced. And his "History of the Russian State", as well as the treatise "Notes on Ancient and New Russia," he wrote as a convinced conservative, monarchist, an implacable enemy of the revolution and an ardent Russian patriot.
        1. Vlad world
          Vlad world 18 June 2020 14: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
          Is Karamzin a liberal ??? Yeah, the ease in your thoughts is unusual, just like that of Ivan Aleksandrovich Khlestakov. Indeed, in his youth, Nikolai Mikhailovich was not a stranger to liberal enlightenment ideas, even consisted of a Masonic lodge, but after traveling through Europe and seeing the "charms" of the French Revolution, liberalism was forever and irrevocably renounced. And his "History of the Russian State", as well as the treatise "Notes on Ancient and New Russia," he wrote as a convinced conservative, monarchist, an implacable enemy of the revolution and an ardent Russian patriot.


          He needed the money and licked it with all his might. In order to exist comfortably.
          He was a scout walking with the badge of a supporter of the revolution. I put it on myself.
          It is thanks to him that Ivan the Terrible is not on the monument. He slandered Grozny and you will write that he is not a liberal in his soul. Fulfilled the political order of defamation of the king. And this is such a monarchist. Oh well.
          1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
            Andrey Krasnoyarsky 18 June 2020 16: 16 New
            +1
            Your set of ridiculous accusations is the best proof that you have not the slightest idea about either Karamzin or his work. If only for the sake of money he wrote, he would have been engaged in literature, created books about "poor leases" and calculated fees. And history did not immediately begin to generate income, and the income was not so hot, but there were a hundred times more labor than writing romantic novels. What political order and from whom did he execute ??? By the way, all contemporaries, even political opponents, noted the crystal honesty and high moral qualities of Nikolai Karamzin. In particular, A.S. Pushkin. By the way, especially for you: Karamzin explained his desire to write Russian history for the reason that the foreign (European) history is described well and in detail, and even the Russians themselves know little about Russian history. And the second reason is the exposure of Russophobic nonsense, written in Europe (for example, Leclerc). And Ivan’s assessment is twofold, Karamzin relied not only on Posevino or Staden, not even so much on them as on the Novgorod and Pskov annals of the 17th century, the Synodal annals, discharge books, as well as annals of the era of Ivan the Fourth, the works of Russian authors of the late 16 early 17th centuries In general, tie with the practice of "did not read, but condemn", and also do not retell the ravings of semi-literate Internet historians from the plow and the keyboard.
            1. MstislavHrabr
              MstislavHrabr 18 June 2020 17: 51 New
              0
              The main thing that Karamzin relied on was the opinion of the Romanov family ... who were among those offended by Ivan the Terrible ... "An honest historian at court" ...
              1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
                Andrey Krasnoyarsky 19 June 2020 06: 43 New
                0
                Karamzin primarily relied on his own opinion. He was a convinced monarchist and supporter of the autocracy. But here he understood the principle of autocracy a little differently than the Romanovs from Michael to Paul inclusive. For the Romanovs, the autocratic sovereign is God's anointed, each word of which is the ultimate truth, who is wise and infallible by definition. According to Karamzin, the sovereign is the same person. like everyone else, by the will of fate ascended to the summit of power, capable of making mistakes and even commit crimes. According to Karamzin, autocracy and tyranny are not the same thing. The autocrat acts for the good of the people and the state, and the tyrant only pleases his own whims and whims. The power of the autocrat is not a pleasant pastime, but the highest responsibility. That is why Karamzin allowed himself to criticize not only Ivan the Terrible, but also other monarchs, who, in his opinion, did not correspond to the high honor of ruling Russia. Enough to spread nonsense already, as if Nikolai Mikhailovich wrote History under the dictation of the Romanovs. Although he had the post of historiographer (that is, a court historian), Alexander the First (whose reign was Karamzin’s work as a historian) didn’t tell him anything at all, and only got acquainted with Karamzin’s work after the first volumes were published.
                1. Vlad world
                  Vlad world 19 June 2020 08: 49 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
                  Karamzin primarily relied on his own opinion. He was a convinced monarchist and supporter of the autocracy. --------------------------------------- Enough to spread nonsense already, as if Nikolai Mikhailovich wrote History under dictation of the Romanovs. Although he had the post of historiographer (that is, a court historian), Alexander the First (whose reign was Karamzin’s work as a historian) didn’t tell him anything at all, and only got acquainted with Karamzin’s work after the first volumes were published.


                  And this "convinced monarchist" walks around Paris with the badge of a revolutionary supporting them.
                  Why write some books and depend on the vicissitudes of the writer's fate when the Position of the Court historian with a boarding house is much better.
                  And you on the "blue eye" claim that the Court historian does not take into account the Opinion of the court - the emperor in his works. What naivety or worse. Here the opinions and wishes of scientific leaders are taken into account with might and main - and the emperor’s wishes are not taken into account. Yes, no words. Moreover, the wishes of the emperor dreaming that his subjects Velikorosy were replaced by the Germans.
                  And after working in the archives by Karamzin, some documents tended to evaporate.
                  Yes, Ivan the Terrible was a locally revered saint.
                  1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
                    Andrey Krasnoyarsky 19 June 2020 14: 31 New
                    0
                    Surprisingly, accusing Karamzin of slander, his critics bring down a much greater stream of slander on him. What is such a "revolutionary badge"? He did not accept the French revolution, if he traveled to Europe as a liberal dreamer-Westernizer, then he returned from Europe as a convinced patriotic monarchist. To consider Alexander the First as a scientific adviser is the height of absurdity. You probably assume that the emperor was at least a candidate of historical sciences. I don’t understand why to invent nonsense, when Karamzin himself clearly before the start of work explained why he was writing the history of the Russian state and how he was going to write it. This program completely satisfied the tsar, there is not a single evidence that Alexander advised Karamzin something. As a result, the history of the Russian state for many years has become the officially recognized history of the country. But not because someone dictated something to Karamzin, but only because Karamzin’s views coincided with the ideas of the emperor himself. But, I am afraid, people who are used to thinking and writing only dictated from above, it is difficult to prove that the historian can create his work without dictation.
                    1. Vlad world
                      Vlad world 19 June 2020 14: 50 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
                      Surprisingly, accusing Karamzin of slander, his critics bring down a much greater stream of slander on him. What is such a "revolutionary badge"? He did not accept the French revolution, if he traveled to Europe as a liberal dreamer-Westernizer, then he returned from Europe as a convinced patriotic monarchist. To consider Alexander the First as a scientific adviser is the height of absurdity. You probably assume that the emperor was at least a candidate of historical sciences. I don’t understand why to invent nonsense, when Karamzin himself clearly before the start of work explained why he was writing the history of the Russian state and how he was going to write it. This program completely satisfied the tsar, there is not a single evidence that Alexander advised Karamzin something. As a result, the history of the Russian state for many years has become the officially recognized history of the country. But not because someone dictated something to Karamzin, but only because Karamzin’s views coincided with the ideas of the emperor himself. But, I am afraid, people who are used to thinking and writing only dictated from above, it is difficult to prove that the historian can create his work without dictation.



                      1 How great - Karamzin's views coincided with the ideas of the emperor himself. Dictated no - the ideas coincided. The Court historian cannot have a different way.
                      Do you even understand what you wrote. This is an absolute confirmation of Karamzin’s licking of power. What you please. And this "monarchist" slandered Ivan the Terrible and so then Repin drew his Absolutely False picture. Which liberals gladly propagandized and propagandize everywhere and everywhere.
                      Such coincidence is already seen by a fisherman-fisherman from afar.
                      2 It means that Alexander dreamed of replacing the Great Russians with the Germans, you agree.
                      1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
                        Andrey Krasnoyarsky 19 June 2020 15: 16 New
                        +1
                        1) We have on this site among commentators full of fans of Stalin. What are they, Stalin personally makes to post comments in his support? Probably still they have their own opinion and their own views. That the emperor did not dictate anything to Karamzin is unequivocal and without options. It’s just that the emperor is full of other things and concerns. But even before the publication of the first volumes of the History of the Russian State, Karamzin sent the Emperor a Note on ancient and new Russia, where he outlined his vision of the history and modernity of Russia - this is a fact. And Alexander approved of these views. About "licking" - this is only your speculation, there is not a single source that would reflect the fact of the emperor’s dictation to the historian of the concept of Russian history. About Ivan the Terrible - some contemporaries of Karamzin, like you, were outraged that Karamzin dared to criticize the tsar. But no one had the wild idea that the criticism was inspired from above or by some "liberals." Dissatisfaction caused the very fact of a negative assessment of the sovereign (albeit already dead) by the subjects of the state. Karamzin wrote chapters about Ivan the Terrible from those sources. who were at his disposal. And not on the basis of propaganda and pseudo-partiotic cliches. Using the tsar’s example, the historian wanted to show that beneficent autocracy turns into bloody tyranny if the tsar is guided not by the good of the Fatherland, but by feelings, emotions, and a thirst for revenge. 2) The thesis about Alexander’s desire to replace the Great Russians with Germans is complete nonsense, so no comment.
                      2. Vlad world
                        Vlad world 19 June 2020 20: 04 New
                        0
                        Karamzin did not criticize Grozny; he slandered him. And this is a monarchist who slanders the monarch. Hence, either the fulfillment of the political order or the internal liberal order to kick the successful great king of the dead also. And belonging to another dynasty.
                        So, according to him and your sovereign, he doesn’t and should not have feelings, emotions, etc., and should not be guided by them in life. Yes, science fiction in its purest form. So the Western sovereigns can be guided by feelings and Russian nizya. Liberalism in its purest form is admiration for the West.

                        You mean you need papers like - I ordered this to write this or that. Alas, the wishes and ideas expressed either in passing or otherwise are not recorded on paper. And in your opinion, the coincidence of ideas is absolute. And this happens only when one person expresses her (ideas) to another out loud or to a group of people.
                        But in vain there is no comment. It was like expressing one Russian court wishes that the sovereign would make him a German.
                      3. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
                        Andrey Krasnoyarsky 20 June 2020 13: 08 New
                        0
                        Yes, read at last Karamzin himself and a section of his Story about Ivan the Terrible. It’s obvious to me that you haven’t read anything from his work. Otherwise they would not tell me fantastic fables that have nothing to do with the real Karamzin. I read not only the History of the Russian state, but also the Note of both ancient and new Russia, Letters from a Russian traveler, so I can confidently judge the views of Nikolai Mikhailovich and the evolution of his views. You’re right after M. Zhvanetsky: let's argue about the taste of pineapple with the one who ate it. Without even a ghostly idea of ​​Karamzin, you are discussing with someone who has read both himself and the vast literature about him. By the way, Soviet historians did not like Karamzin very much and criticized him for his reactionary and conservatism, but even they did not think of the historian's delusional accusations of slandering the tsar and indulging Western liberals (incidentally, the Russian liberals of that era had a negative attitude towards Karamzin, for example, N . Field). Last: if Karamzin wanted to discredit the Rurikovich dynasty by criticizing Ivan the Fourth, then why did he lift Ivan the Third to heaven and cast it as the ideal of the sovereign? This Ivan is also Rurikovich.
                      4. Vlad world
                        Vlad world 20 June 2020 13: 36 New
                        0
                        But did Ivan the third have the title of Tsar. And he increased the European territory of Russia by almost two times. Etc. Yes, Ivan III has great merits, but why did the West take up arms only against Grozny. And Karamzin, with his story and the subsequent dominance of EE, led to the writing of the Absolutely False picture of Repin - Grozny kills his son. And her subsequent propaganda.
                        That is why his story leads to such consequences. Think about it.
                        Yet.
      2. Octopus
        Octopus 19 June 2020 02: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
        By the way, all contemporaries, even political opponents, noted the crystal honesty and high moral qualities of Nikolai Karamzin. In particular, A.S. Guns

        In his "History" elegance, simplicity
        Prove to us, without any prejudice,
        The need for autocracy
        And the charm of a whip.


        Karamzin is perhaps better than nothing. But you should not overestimate this predecessor Pikul.
        1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
          Andrey Krasnoyarsky 19 June 2020 06: 25 New
          0
          You should not overestimate. Of course, Karamzin’s book was outdated a long time ago, and his apologetics of autocracy was considered a group of enlightened people (just the very liberals, to which some of our commentators belong to him), reactionary already during the life of the historian himself. The point is not to attribute to Karamzin what he did not say and did not do, not to write silly fables about him that are not based on anything.
  • gabonskijfront
    gabonskijfront 18 June 2020 08: 41 New
    +9
    Our history is Eurocentric, in it the Mongol campaign in China is some kind of inconspicuous event, but it is not known about the conquest of India, but the battle of Poitiers is some kind of epoch-making event, although if you compare the whole Hundred Years War this is just a showdown in the gateway. genocide and the robbery of the whole world under the name "Great geographical discoveries." So you need to overestimate everything that is covered from the position of Europe.
    1. Sentinel-vs
      Sentinel-vs 18 June 2020 08: 53 New
      +4
      I agree! Nothing is known to our general public about the history of China, India, Siam. Somewhat more is known about the history of Japan, but also only in general terms. But here the history of Europe is understood in schools, universities, a bunch of articles on the net and news on television related to certain anniversaries of European events.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 18 June 2020 08: 42 New
    +5
    Serious ruler, statesman .....
    And the rest ... everything is as usual, the tear in the eye of our unfortunate children needs to be "inflated" to the size of the Great Lakes, and the sea is no longer tears, but the blood shed by their rulers all over the world, it’s the only divine thing ....
  • captain
    captain 18 June 2020 08: 49 New
    10
    Tsar increased the territory of Russia by 2 times. Thanks to his activities, we now have huge reserves of oil, gas, gold, diamonds, timber, etc. Due to what we lived, we live and hope we will live, despite the fierce hatred of many in Europe, America and Asia. And interestingly, there are such in Russia. Thanks to his deeds, we survived in all wars, in all revolutions, in perestroika. The author basically agrees with you. And get ready to criticize, we have a lot of fans to criticize. Everyone knows, everyone knows how, only now we do not live very well, apparently from a great mind.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 18 June 2020 08: 51 New
    -7
    In fact, Ivan the Terrible bizarrely childish. Therefore, such attention.
    Plus - he carried out reforms without sweetening the sweet, like Peter.

    Although OUR, and not our people, love to describe foreign kings too. ..Types of 100 thousand hanged in England under Henry, did not wash, etc. .. IMHO, any Spaniards, Angles, Swedes, etc., are more concerned about their crazy kings. We just don’t write about it ....
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 19 June 2020 02: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Max1995
      In fact, Ivan the Terrible bizarrely childish. Therefore, such attention.
      Plus - he carried out reforms without sweetening the sweet, like Peter.

      )))
      The speakers who put Stalin and Grozny on the same line are partly right. Both the one and the other made a huge, from the point of view of history, mistake. They killed people who left memoirs. If they fed these people, and killed in the same quantities to nobody interesting chumaziks, they would undoubtedly remain the greatest rulers.

      Similarly, the Holocaust is a monstrous crime, all Jews were literate, many are well educated. The death in the same years of a comparable number of Indonesians or Bengalis is of interest to 0 people. None of these poor fellows left memoirs about themselves, all the more so.

      Only those people who have a voice have the right to memory. That is, they left written evidence. Among the enemies of Ivan IV there were extremely many of them, this is his difference from the same Alexei Mikhailovich Tishayshiy, who made enemies, nevertheless, much more selectively. Although he was not even afraid of blood at all, the Nikonian reform alone, meaningless and merciless, was worth it.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 19 June 2020 11: 00 New
        +2
        The speakers who put Stalin and Grozny on the same line are partly right. Both the one and the other made a huge, from the point of view of history, mistake.

        There is a media perception of history, but there is a scientific or pseudoscientific one. In this case, as I understand it, we are talking about the media.
        From the point of view of praisers, Grozny is good precisely because he killed “those who left memoirs” of precisely these very literate princes who still remembered their right to leave, highly literate church hierarchs who believed that they had the right to discourse with the king, “from God delivered” . This is not Grozny's mistake, but precisely his achievement.
        Terrible in the minds of praisers is a firm hand punishing the boyars of the then oligarchs, the princes of the then separatists. This is the archetype of a statesman in the view of the post-Soviet layman. Precisely because Posevino and Staden criticized the king in his memoirs and pamphlets he was extolled without regard to critical analysis. One Jesuit is a second German mercenary. Immediately, the protection relay is triggered - Russophobes and demon guards, the conductors of ideological warfare.
        The media image of Grozny is positive precisely because it is a punisher and precisely because it punished the elite. T
        The fact that he punished the non-elite by the media is not interesting.
        Have you seen the US national debt, that is, the Tudor repression seen?
        According to Malyutin, Malyuta trimmed 1490 people in a parcel in the Novgorod parcel (by manual truncation), 15 people squeaked
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 19 June 2020 11: 45 New
          -2
          Yes you are right.
          Quote: Engineer
          The media image of Grozny is positive precisely because it is a punisher and precisely because it punished the elite. T
          The fact that he punished the non-elite by the media is not interesting.

          Uh-huh.

          Stalin and the people are against a lot of understanding about themselves.

          As far as I understand, it was the Stalinists who pulled this monster from the grave in order to put their whiskered icon in the corresponding iconostasis.
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 19 June 2020 11: 49 New
            +1
            As far as I understand, it was the Stalinists who pulled this monster from the grave,

            Not the Stalinists, namely Stalin. Eisenstein and Tolstoy carried out state orders. Both works were continuously endorsed by the leader. Tolstoy, to sputum in pants, was afraid to make a mistake. and wrote in personal documents how scary "not to guess"
  • smel
    smel 18 June 2020 08: 51 New
    +5
    Author. In such a modest work, which you submitted for general discussion, it is simply physically impossible to consider the indicated topic. The format should be completely different. Not to mention the very knowledge of the topic. Read at least A. Tyurin, his very literate and based on historical facts work "The War and Peace of Ivan the Terrible." Many well-known writers addressing this topic shamelessly rummaged whole chapters from there, that is, they plagiarized. And it’s a shame for our country that such books are released in scanty print runs. Although what am I talking about ???. After all, commerce is in the yard.
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 18 June 2020 09: 09 New
    +1
    Countries that followed this path later became empires (Russia, France, Germany). Another option is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with its puppet kings, endless wars of magnates and three divisions in a hundred years. Kinks?
    Everything is straight "in the eyebrow", short but aptly. And about excesses, if you look at Europe at that time, it turns out that Ivan Vasilyevich is the kindest ruler in the whole globe. And Russia was under Ivan
  • Doctor
    Doctor 18 June 2020 09: 28 New
    +3
    After the Time of Troubles about the era of Ivan Vasilyevich - count on the fingers.
    So you can safely write anything you want.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 18 June 2020 09: 39 New
    -11
    Malyuta skuratov probably became the most odious oprichnik., The oprichniks were hated like the devil, remember the symbol of the oprichniki, the dog’s head and the broom. This Ivan also did not sit idly by, and was present at many executions. And his ancestors were not awarded such nicknames. And Yaroslav the Wise, and Vasily the Quiet, and Vladimir the Red Sun. And the same expanded and defended our state. But the formidable left a bloodless country; the villages were abandoned. Yes, remember the Novgorod massacre. When 10-15 thousand were slaughtered, and in Novgorod there were 30000 inhabitants. Every second was killed. And he invented a large number of executions. Massovik playman damn it. And do not say, but they have blacks there lynching. We also had maniacs, but no one is going to kill passers-by. A maniac exposed to power, this is the ugliest creature.
    1. Vlad world
      Vlad world 18 June 2020 10: 31 New
      +9
      Quote: Free Wind
      Malyuta skuratov probably became the most odious oprichnik., The oprichniks were hated like the devil, remember the symbol of the oprichniki, the dog’s head and the broom. This Ivan also did not sit idly by, and was present at many executions. And his ancestors were not awarded such nicknames. And Yaroslav the Wise, and Vasily the Quiet, and Vladimir the Red Sun. And the same expanded and defended our state. But the formidable left a bloodless country; the villages were abandoned. Yes, remember the Novgorod massacre. When 10-15 thousand were slaughtered, and in Novgorod there were 30000 inhabitants. Every second was killed. And he invented a large number of executions. Massovik playman damn it. And do not say, but they have blacks there lynching. We also had maniacs, but no one is going to kill passers-by. A maniac exposed to power, this is the ugliest creature.


      Do not lie if you do not know the question. There was no Novgorod massacre. Lists of those arrested and convicted by the verdict of the Boyarsky Court have been preserved to this day. Some historians lie by issuing Skudelniki with the dead from the epidemic for the dead. Although work on this issue has long been out. But not all are liars to liars.
      2 As for the bloodless country - the population has increased at least one and a half times.
      3 As for the guardsmen do not know, be silent. There was an attempt to create an order like the crusaders. The number of -2000 people with a salary of 3 rubles-at least 100 rubles from the head. Financial documents preserved.
      The attempt was deemed unsuccessful. The order was dissolved. Although he completed certain tasks.
      4 All executions were by sentence of the Boyarsky Court. The king affirmed him and often replaced the execution with a monastery prison.
      5 But Basil the quietest very large pig planted with his church reform.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 18 June 2020 11: 13 New
        -6
        Lists of those arrested and executed? when 90 percent of the population is not able to read. Well let it be, But why fix the victims !!!!!!! ??????
        1. Free wind
          Free wind 18 June 2020 11: 14 New
          -6
          Maniac. Because.
        2. Vlad world
          Vlad world 18 June 2020 12: 20 New
          +5
          Quote: Free Wind
          Lists of those arrested and executed? when 90 percent of the population is not able to read. Well let it be, But why fix the victims !!!!!!! ??????


          No need to repeat the propaganda about the illiteracy of the population of that time. Early birch bark letters convincingly refute this. The population of that time (illiterate in your opinion and liberals' opinion) distributed taxes among themselves and sometimes sued the boyars or even higher. Alone without help.
          The bureaucracy is called - why lists of the executed and planted were introduced in the 30s of the 20th century.
      2. Korsar4
        Korsar4 18 June 2020 11: 33 New
        +4
        I hope that "Basil the Quiet" is just a typo.

        But what should it be for her to appear in this form?
    2. forester1971
      forester1971 18 June 2020 10: 49 New
      +5
      Your comment is a lie, from the first to the last word. The nicknames of the great princes were invented by historians centuries after their death. For the entire reign of Ivan 4, no more than 7-10 thousand people were executed, which is also not small, but does not go beyond that time. From your point of view, probably, the film "Rimbaud-3" is the truth about the USSR in Afghanistan.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 18 June 2020 11: 18 New
        -5
        How much anger and hatred are in you.
        1. forester1971
          forester1971 18 June 2020 11: 25 New
          +3
          I do not think so. But you probably know better from the outside. In my comment there is not a single rude or offensive word.
    3. ee2100
      ee2100 18 June 2020 11: 34 New
      +3
      Nicholas the Bloody is a popular whooper. Only to these gentlemen whom you listed is not driven people gave.
      Cut out 10000-15000 people. and threw everyone into the Volkhov? Why repeat propaganda. It’s clear that he’s not an angel, it’s clear that he fought with the opposition and there were many conspiracies and his wife was poisoned and he was tried. Did he have to sit back? What's cooler, for a real paper cup or for a real ax conspiracy?
      Maybe you will call the rulers of the Russian land, who you like.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 18 June 2020 11: 42 New
        -1
        The master class is given by Ivan III. The specific opposition with him is much stronger, but he did not even get close to such manic crap as his granddaughter. He did not suffer defeats, he shortened the princes. Grozny single-gantry removal
        1. ee2100
          ee2100 18 June 2020 11: 46 New
          +1
          What times are such and kings
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 18 June 2020 11: 48 New
            -2
            Sounds funny to the kings of one era.
            1. ee2100
              ee2100 18 June 2020 11: 57 New
              0
              But for some reason no one is discussing it.
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 18 June 2020 12: 00 New
                0
                Ivan the 3rd? Exclusively from ignorance of history and addiction to ready-made concepts, preferably pseudo-patriotic.
                1. ee2100
                  ee2100 18 June 2020 12: 08 New
                  +1
                  Write an article about Ivan III, we will discuss it specifically. We do not know the reasons for those who received Ivan IV, to act in the way he acted., Litter for the goods tax. And by this we judge by facts. We do not know how dear Ivan III would lead you in a situation of a grandson.
                  1. Engineer
                    Engineer 18 June 2020 12: 12 New
                    -2
                    To compare, you need to write an article?
                    And judging by the facts

                    Haraluzhny judges the facts? Fear god
                    We do not know how dear Ivan III would lead you in a situation of a grandson.

                    And there is nothing to guess. Just a comparative analysis of at least the general situation, at least facts, at least achievements
                    1. ee2100
                      ee2100 18 June 2020 12: 21 New
                      +1
                      I did not write about Harluzhny. You did not understand about the “situation”. We do not know what situation the grandson was in and what prompted him to such decisive actions.
                      Pay attention to Putin's policies before 2003 and after. Is everything clear to you?
                  2. MstislavHrabr
                    MstislavHrabr 18 June 2020 17: 59 New
                    +3
                    1. Historians do not deny the fact that Ivan the Terrible was a highly educated and intelligent person of his time ...
                    2. We do not know what each of you would do if you lived in that era surrounded by people who poisoned your mother, then your wife and would smile at you every day and give advice on how to live and who to trust ...
        2. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 18 June 2020 12: 34 New
          +5
          Quote: Engineer
          The master class is given by Ivan III.

          Greetings, Denis. hi smile
          But I wouldn’t have found ten differences between one and the other. smile
          Both methods used the same, set similar goals, the problems also had approximately the same. The results, too, are generally consistent with the capabilities. Ivan III was also defeated, and on the same front as his grandson, in Livonia. Only now, Ivan III, if my memory serves me right, my brother was rotten in prison, and it’s impossible to say exactly what happened with Ivan IV with his son.
          For me, both rulers look like twin brothers. Ivan IV, except that he personally was bolder, and his grandfather was not so impulsive.
          In short, quite comparable personalities about the “one-run removal”, I think, there is no talk. If someone's victory will be, then only a “separate decision of the judges”. smile
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 18 June 2020 12: 59 New
            -1
            Good afternoon.
            Briefly, Ivan the 3rd is Ivan the Terrible of a healthy person. He did not lose wars in Livonia either. Pogroms in Tver and Novgorod did not inflict. Prefer to put in jail, and not on the count. And Moscow wasn’t fired by him
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 18 June 2020 13: 41 New
              +4
              Ivan III waged unsuccessful wars with both Kazan and Livonia. Ivan IV defeated both of them. Plus he fought off the Ottomans - also a considerable achievement, his grandfather had no such problems. The defeat in the Livonian War was not caused to him by the Livonians, but Europe, and this war was already from a different era - from the New Age. Russia simply did not keep pace with Europe, and at the same time, the development of the political situation inevitably led to such a conflict, it was impossible to avoid it, if only postponed by purely concessions, including territorial ones. Under Ivan, I believe, they still got off easily.
              The extent of the pogroms in Russian cities by contemporaries is nevertheless greatly exaggerated, and, for example, I’m not at all sure that Ivan III inflicted less damage on the same Novgorod than his grandson — he cut his noses, starved him, and chopped his head without pity and compassion , and, if I remember correctly, in several visits.
              Prisons or stakes - what's the difference. Moreover, from the prisons of Ivan III came out alive not much more often than from the stakes of Ivan IV. To some extent, the stakes and chopping blocks are even more humane.
              In general, I want to repeat myself, the personalities in my opinion are quite comparable. Someone may prefer grandfather, someone grandson, a matter of taste. Personally, I am not inclined to deify either one or the other. Both well done. Plus or minus is the same. As a politician, my grandfather was probably stronger, as a man a grandson more sympathetic. smile
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 18 June 2020 14: 26 New
                0
                1. Starting conditions at Grozny are much better than at Great. Grandfather was more difficult in absolutely everything. He generally started as a non-sovereign sovereign.
                2. Kazan and Livonia for the grandfather secondary theaters. Conflicts were fleeting. The conflict with the Ottomans in general turned out to be purely borderline. They were taken out by the garrison of Astrakhan. There is a controversial moment with the "Janissaries" under Molodi, but the same Penskaya denies that they were Turks
                3. The defeat in the Livonian War is primarily diplomatic. Alternatives separate conversation. It’s ripened or not ripened, it generally takes us to the wrong steppe. This Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was ahead of the Moscow state ???. BUT for now we postpone the argument, we just note that the grandfather did not have such lesions.
                4. Damage to Novgorod. Novgorod began the war. Open. Lost. The defeat of the city was not. Martha Boretskaya was tonsured a nun. Terrible in the wilderness executes the dyks, robs the monasteries, takes out the treasury and smashes the posad to the heap. Grandfather trashed posad with the massacre of commoners ???
                And further. He levied zemstvos with excessive taxes, he humiliated himself before the Crimean khan, with his son the traditional version looks preferable.

                Where's the points? Knockout unlucky granddaughter am
                1. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 18 June 2020 15: 43 New
                  +6
                  Starting conditions - well, then which side to look at. The grandfather was faced with the task of joining, mainly, Russian lands, which already gravitated towards Moscow and in many respects dependent on it. The task is much simpler than conquering in its purest form.
                  In relations with the Steppe, playing on the contradictions between the Crimean Khan and the Great Horde, it was possible to balance these forces with each other, which was successfully done. The final disintegration of the Big Horde and the adoption by the Crimeans of the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire put an end to this balance and the grandson had to deal with another Steppe in which he has no and could not have allies.
                  Kazan and Livonia, in my opinion, are the same, equivalent directions of expansion, as are Lithuania and Poland. Ivan III chose Lithuania solely because it was easier to attach the Russian principalities to the Russian state, especially using a confessional community - they, in fact, surrendered themselves. But still, from time to time I tried to twitch in those directions - all of a sudden? Not a ride. Ivan the Terrible had the opportunity to expand his state already only at the expense of "alien" lands, with a different religion. Again, harder.
                  Under Molody, the army of not just the Crimean Khan was defeated, and the fact that there were noticeable contingents from the Ottoman Empire itself, as far as I know, is not disputed by anyone. In any case, even assuming that the Ottomans did not provide direct military support (and they did), the very fact of economic and political support (or even pressure) from the empire allowed the Krymchaks to more fully mobilize troops and resources for the campaign. Without this support, the campaign would not have taken place at all.
                  The defeat in the Livonian War was caused by the fact that Ivan the Terrible invaded European space. Livonia - a buffer state - would inevitably fall in the near future and a conflict would be inevitable. The fact that she fell under pressure from the east does not mean anything. In a year or two it would have fallen under pressure from the west, without options. Ivan had a choice - either to try to capture Livonia himself, or to wait for the Livonian lands to do this from the west, and indeed, if taken more broadly, the Livonian interests for the Russian Tsar would be irretrievably lost.
                  The Commonwealth speech was ahead of the Moscow state as much as it lagged behind Western Europe. Sweden, boiling in a European cauldron, was ahead also in terms of military art and in terms of economic efficiency.
                  Well, as for Novgorod - there really was not everything so smooth at the grandfather and not so rough at the grandson. The most active opponents of Ivan III were killed in the battles on the outskirts of Novgorod. Who did not lie down was executed. In Novgorod itself there are few and not the most influential and active ones. Nevertheless, the city was starved for a long time, and then the cutting of heads, forced evictions, land acquisition, etc. began. They regretted Martha, but whom else did they regret? And by the way, if it is absolutely formal to approach the issue with Novgorod, then at the time of the outbreak of hostilities Ivan was the Novgorod prince and was overlord for the city. So the city could not declare war on him - he could only rebel.
                  Grandfather didn’t burn Posadov, of course, but that’s simply because he had thinned out the Novgorod freemen on Sheloni and on the banks of Ilmen near Korostyn, and even then starved him to death.
                  Well, the grandiose successes of Ivan the grandson in the east could be the reason for the envy of Ivan the grandfather. smile
                  In general, were Ivan-grandfather's initial positions more difficult, achievements more, and the efforts made more effective - the question, in my opinion, is at least a moot point, especially when you take into account the resistance that both of them had to face.
                  1. Engineer
                    Engineer 18 June 2020 16: 42 New
                    +1
                    Michael, thanks for the opinion, we seem to disagree.)
                    Ivan the Terrible had at his disposal a large army at times and posed much more global tasks.
                    In the triangle Moscow State-Speech-Sweden in the second half of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century, Sweden is the weakest. This is evident from the results of several wars between the participants.
                    About the battle of Molodi and the Turks. Pensky’s work seems to be the most recent.
                    Events in Novgorod in 1478. As far as one can judge, the emperor spared ALL at all. Yes, Novgorod was a vassal, his war is a riot. But the moderation of the grandfather is all the more praiseworthy. I remind you that the defeat of Novgorod with his grandson was on a completely far-fetched occasion.
                    The front of the dispute is too wide. There is a very inconvenient discussion. It is necessary to choose something, or until we meet again)))
                    1. Trilobite Master
                      Trilobite Master 18 June 2020 17: 05 New
                      +2
                      And really, let's finish. smile
                      Thanks for the discussion. hi
              2. Octopus
                Octopus 19 June 2020 02: 56 New
                0
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                Both well done

                One of the saddest signs of the present time is that suddenly, out of nowhere, they began to force this crazy Grozny, according to which there was a consensus in tsarist and even in Soviet times. Yes, perhaps he was not a greater monster than some of his predecessors or heirs. but in his case atrocities were considered generally recognized.

                And then suddenly, for several years, a wave of revisionism. Well done, yes.
        3. ee2100
          ee2100 18 June 2020 12: 36 New
          0
          I wanted to copy the text from the original source, but could not. Read the characteristics of Ivan IV given in the book "The Baltic Question. The Struggle for Livonia" by G.V. Frosten, 1893, St. Petersburg, pp. 40-42.
          It is freely available on the Internet. Exciting and non-engrossed reading!
  • Hantengri
    Hantengri 18 June 2020 09: 44 New
    -3
    Another opus of Harluzhny, from the cycle "A Short History Course, for children with mental retardation."
    Against the background of the historical research of this author, even the works of Mr. Samsonov possess a certain touch of solidity and depth.
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 18 June 2020 10: 02 New
      +2
      Almost Plato's argument about the relativity of water temperature.
      How the concept of solidity can be transformed.
      1. Hantengri
        Hantengri 18 June 2020 10: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: Korsar4
        Almost Plato's argument about the relativity of water temperature.
        How the concept of solidity can be transformed.

        What can you do? Everything in the Universe is relative, as the comrade Odnokameshkov convincingly proved to us. )))
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 18 June 2020 12: 02 New
      -1
      Mr. Samsonov possess a touch of solidity and depth.

      Do not take away. Samsonov even points to sources. At this pace, we will soon begin to miss him)))
    3. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 18 June 2020 12: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: HanTengri
      Another opus of Harluzhny, from the cycle "A Short History Course, for children with mental retardation."

      Igor, don’t you think that such a course, how to say it ... well, you need it. In any case, some.
      It first.
      And secondly - who told you that the author is trying to educate someone, tell someone something new? It’s just a sketch made in a gallop at dinner. Half an hour and done.
      Thirdly, the works of “Mr. Samsonov” (which, incidentally, lies behind the letters “Mr.” - exactly what I thought? smile ) is much more dangerous and harmful, because they contain a certain creative principle and sincere conviction. It seems to me that let Kharaluzhny publish with his copy-paste better than Samsonov with the Masters of the West and the superethnos. Let it be boring and mediocre, but at least not harmful.
      Although, in general, of course, darkness.
      After Ryzhov finally turned to the side of subjectivity in history, and Shpakovsky got into politics, there were sharply fewer good articles ... I remember pirates and Vikings with some nostalgia ... Will we recall the beginning of summer with the same nostalgia? On the 20th?
      1. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 19 June 2020 12: 58 New
        +2
        And secondly - who told you that the author is trying to educate someone, tell someone something new? It’s just a sketch made in a gallop at dinner. Half an hour and done.

        Michael, I will say this. The trouble is when people who try to write good articles on other topics try to write about history. hi with respect to all, but the trend is clear ... what
        I read your discussion with Denis with interest. drinks Such disputes are more important than other articles! good
      2. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 19 June 2020 13: 21 New
        +2
        good articles sharply diminished ... With some nostalgia I remember pirates and Vikings ...

        but I would probably agree with that. hi
        Let's remember the times of three to four years ago. Three articles a day came out. Shpakovsky, Samsonov, one of the authors. Denis Brig, for example, wrote very well. When published Zhukov - also read with pleasure. Alexey Oleinikov presented good detailed cycles on his subject. good
        The most important thing - They knew that every day there would be one or two articles on interests. Chat ran to the forum! drinks And when Mr. Samsonov wrote a cycle demanding “to return Alaska back”, what happened? They quarreled. request This was the first strong abuse in the history section, which I remember from the 15th year. Since then, a number of users have split into several not-so-conciliatory camps, each with its own standard and charter. hi
        I will say a deeply subjective thought, but earlier it was more interesting ... I recall with sadness the times of the 16-17th years. drinks with respect to all! hi
        And Ivan the Terrible has long been a "sacred cow" to attract attention! request
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 19 June 2020 13: 58 New
          +3
          I agree.
          Some believe that commentators shredded, that, they said there were people here, it was interesting to talk, a lot of sensible comments ...
          And I will say this: what article - such and comments. Which authors - such and commentators. Or in another way: what you sow, you will reap.
          For me, it would be good if one article in a section were published per day, but for it to be an article by a normal author, who is faced with the task of not raising once again the turbidity from the bottom, but submitting new information unknown to the reader. An author who does not want to be checked at every step - whether verified information, whether he is fantasizing ...
          For example, this article: to whom did she give something new? Personally, nothing to me. I believe most commentators too. It’s just a pretext in the style of “something we haven’t communicated with Ivan the Terrible for a long time. Well, guys, come on, dipped feathers in what and forward.”
          One article by a normal author. Not a lazy copy-pasteur, not a visionary enthusiast, not a rally demagogue - just a researcher.
          It doesn’t come out ... Market law: copy paste is simply cheaper, the dreamer is generally free, he works for the idea, and the demagogue of clicks brings five times more.
          Artem's cycle will end sooner or later. I don’t know whether our former idols will return from the mainstream of journalism to the mainstream of history. Whether they want to, if they can ... If not, then I will abandon this thing, for sometimes a site does not cause anything but wild longing for several days. And if these intervals stretch to weekly, then well it. More time will be free. smile
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 19 June 2020 14: 16 New
            +2
            For example, this article: to whom did she give something new? Personally, nothing to me. I believe most commentators too. It’s just a pretext in the style of “something we haven’t communicated with Ivan the Terrible for a long time. Well, guys, come on, dipped feathers in what and forward.”

            Exactly! A clique-gathering "sacred cow." hi if you don’t know what to give out, write about him according to the principle of a well-known joke: "everyone is around Sodomites, and I am Dartanyan," in the sense: "everyone is enemies, and John is a cherub." yes Well, as it were, it is! request
            and the demagogue of clicks brings five times more.

            completely! good caught my thoughts.
            for the site sometimes doesn’t cause anything but wild longing for several days.

            on this point too. But many topics are not mine. The most important thing is that the "fuse" has gone, a certain desire ... a little uninteresting ... As it were, no offense to everyone, including the administration! These are my personal feelings. hi
  • ee2100
    ee2100 18 June 2020 10: 01 New
    +1
    It is hard to imagine what the author set for this article. The figure of Ivan IV is very ambiguous, as is the assessment of his actions by contemporaries.
    We can quite arbitrarily imagine that era. Putin broke the system in the country before him. And he continues to do so. Who and how of contemporaries evaluate his deeds? Everyone has their own opinion at the current moment. As well as Ivan IV, there were enough opponents who did not want death and fled not only Kurbsky. He remained in history thanks to his correspondence with the king. The most interesting thing is that the tsar answered him, realizing that their epistolary romance would become the property of history.
    The reign of Ivan IV is very interesting and epoch-making for Russia and naturally requires comprehensive study and research. And not just one author, but the more there will be, the better for the truth.
    Only time will put everything in its place, as it is now. In the final, Ivan IV is the great king who acted in the paradigm of his time.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 18 June 2020 10: 07 New
    -7
    As usual, frantic propaganda is hiding behind the fight against propaganda and "denigrating"
    The first to give a negative characterization to Grozny was someone Karamzin.
    1.
    For comparison: Henry VIII, who ruled around Britain at the same time, hung his subjects with tens of thousands, including children caught in vagrancy. Elizabeth, who replaced him on the throne, executed thousands of one hundred Britons.

    A historical joke / propaganda walking in RuNet. In fact, there were fewer victims. In any case, how do the freaks of the Western monarchs justify Grozny?
    2. The Livonian war ended in our complete defeat.
    3. Astrakhan surrendered "half-voluntarily" - with a kind word and a gun. Kazan was taken with great difficulty. At the same time, John lamented that Adashev and the boyars did not release him from the army to his sick wife. The merit of taking the city does not belong to the king.
    4. Victims of the oprichnina. Perhaps the most controversial moment. The calculation is based on the disgraced Synod and reports of the guardsmen. The same Skrynnikov noted that the Synod is not complete. The question is how much is not complete?
    5. "Ivan the Terrible did not kill his son" - a new wave launched to please the mainstream. Supporters do not introduce new documents, they just pick the traditional version for inconsistencies. It turns out not very.
    The final. Target audience of statues of Mr. Kharaluzhny
    1. ee2100
      ee2100 18 June 2020 11: 20 New
      0
      Cool story! As in a drop of water it reflects the whole diversity of the attitude of the people to Ivan IV
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 18 June 2020 11: 22 New
        0
        Are you talking about the video? I did not see there a "people". Only the marginal victim of TV propaganda subjected to remote lobotomy
        1. ee2100
          ee2100 18 June 2020 11: 42 New
          +2
          So from your very submission this video appeared here. "People" is about those who hang out on this one. Next time I will express specific
    2. Sergey Zhikharev
      Sergey Zhikharev 19 June 2020 11: 17 New
      0
      A historical joke / propaganda walking in RuNet. In fact, there were fewer victims. In any case, how do the freaks of the Western monarchs justify Grozny?

      Wikipedia says that under Henry 8, from 12 to 72 thousand, even 12 thousand, were hanged for vagrancy. Against the background of 4-5 thousand at I. Grozny.
      There is such a concept "about times about morals", if all rulers cut their heads, hang their citizens, they have not heard about democracy and human rights, other liberal and universal values ​​are what Satan is going to do, why should the Russian Tsar be a "black sheep" if this is a common practice? Why should we condemn a person living in the 16th century according to the norms of the 20-21st century?
      2. The Livonian war ended in our complete defeat.

      It started well. It ended badly when Poland already approached.
      3. Astrakhan surrendered "half-voluntarily" - with a kind word and a gun. Kazan was taken with great difficulty. At the same time, John lamented that Adashev and the boyars did not release him from the army to his sick wife. The merit of taking the city does not belong to the king.

      I don’t understand, did Ivan-4 join Astrakhan or not? And Kazan was taken with great difficulty - badly, Astrakhan voluntarily - the same bad. Probably it was the other way around. Kazan was taken during the reign of Ivan-4, or we must assume that the merits of Suvorov, Peter-1, Catherine-2, Zhukov, Stalin in wars and battles are the same, because they did not personally participate.
      4. Victims of the oprichnina. Perhaps the most controversial moment. The calculation is based on the disgraced Synod and reports of the guardsmen. The same Skrynnikov noted that the Synod is not complete. The question is how much is not complete?

      And why should they believe it is disgraced? Maybe he wrote down all the dead to the account of the guardsmen?
      5. "Ivan the Terrible did not kill his son" - a new wave launched to please the mainstream. Supporters do not introduce new documents, they just pick the traditional version for inconsistencies. It turns out not very.

      Is there an investigation that showed exactly how Ivan-4 killed his son?
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 19 June 2020 11: 46 New
        0
        There is such a thing as "about times about morals,"

        Neither Ivan the Great nor Boris Godunov executed thousands of subjects. Therefore, the argument is past.
        I don’t understand, did Ivan 4 join Astrakhan or not? And Kazan was taken with great difficulty - bad, Astrakhan voluntarily - the same bad

        It's good. But telling how super-duper this is is not worth it. Moreover, John lost his main war
        And why should they believe it is disgraced? Maybe he wrote down all the dead to the account of the guardsmen?

        Take a look at the document and find out what exactly the victims of the guardsmen are written there. And not all.
        Is there an investigation that showed exactly how Ivan-4 killed his son?

        There is evidence of independent sources that Ivan killed his son. There is no evidence that Ivan Ivanovich died somehow about another; there is just that he was ill shortly before his death. Conclusion - most likely was killed by his father.
        1. Sergey Zhikharev
          Sergey Zhikharev 19 June 2020 17: 42 New
          0
          Neither Ivan the Great nor Boris Godunov executed thousands of subjects. Therefore argument past

          If there was a PR man, there would be deaths. For example, to declare that all those who died for Novgorod (12 thousand), Yaroslavl, Tver, Rostov were exactly executed, and Ivan-3 is the same maniac and sadist. Or Boris Godunov - “specially” created hunger in the country, and the candidate for maniacs is ready.
          It's good. But telling how super-duper this is is not worth it. Moreover, John lost his main war

          It’s clear - you don’t need to talk about any good, but bad things should be trumpeted into all fanfare. And is the annexation of Siberia that began after the capture of Kazan - not considered the main war?
          There is evidence of independent sources that Ivan killed his son. There is no evidence that Ivan Ivanovich died somehow about another; there is just that he was ill shortly before his death. Conclusion - most likely was killed by his father.

          Links to the studio, and the version that Ivan the Terrible killed his son was put forward by the Jesuit Anthony Possevin, and the rest are repeated. And about the disease:
          In 1581, Ivan the Terrible, in a letter to N. R. Zakharyin-Yuryev and A. Ya. Shchelkalov, wrote that he would not be able to come to Moscow because of his son’s illness:
          ... which day you went from Us and that day Ivan’s son was unclean and now ill, of course, and that you were sentenced to say that We went to Moscow in the middle of conspiracy and now We don’t want to go to the middle of Ivanov’s son ... and God will have mercy on us Ivan son of a drive from here is impossible [12].
          The death of Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich is reported in many Russian chronicles. So, the Moscow chronicler informs: “And that year [7090] Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich of all Russia ceased to exist” [13]. Pskov Chronicle I: “The same year Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich died in Sloboda” [14]. Morozov Chronicle: “There was no Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich” [source not specified 1102 days]. Piskarevsky chronicler not only informs about the death of the prince, but also indicates the time of this event: "At 12 o’clock night" [15]. The sources of death in these sources do not say anything. According to the most famous version, the prince was mortally wounded by his father [16] during a quarrel in the Alexander settlement in November 1581 (according to a common point of view, the quarrel occurred on November 14, and the prince died on November 19, but a number of sources give different dates). For example, the Mazurinsky chronicler reports ...........
          In 1963, the tombs of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich were opened in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Subsequent reliable studies, medico-chemical and medical-forensic examinations of the remains of the Tsarevich showed that the permissible mercury content was several times exceeded, several times higher than arsenic and lead. The chief archaeologist of the Kremlin, Doctor of Historical Sciences T. D. Panova writes: "... what can cause such an increased content (to put it mildly) of mercury, arsenic, and lead - one can only guess."
          The skull found at the autopsy of the burial of Ivan Ivanovich was in very poor condition due to the decay of bone tissue. For this reason, anthropologist Mikhail Gerasimov, who made a sculptural portrait of Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ioannovich, could not create a reconstruction of the skull of Tsarevich Ivan [
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 19 June 2020 18: 07 New
            0
            If there was a PR man, there would be deaths. For example, to declare that all those who died for Novgorod (12 thousand), Yaroslavl, Tver, Rostov were exactly executed, and Ivan-3 is the same maniac and sadist. Or Boris Godunov - “specially” created hunger in the country, and the candidate for maniacs is ready.

            Once again, historical science solves all these problems quite successfully. I repeat once again, Ivan the Third and Boris Godunov did not execute by thousands of people.
            And is the annexation of Siberia that began after the capture of Kazan - not considered the main war?

            Lord, 1000 (ALL THOUSAND !!!) of the soldiers of Voeikov and Koltsov-Masalsky were enough to defeat Kuchum. This is the same as considering the conquest of Mexico by Cortes as the main war of Charles 5 and its achievement.
            Ivan the Terrible killed his son put forward by the Jesuit Anthony Possevin, and the rest repeat. And about the disease:

            Check out the problem is not the only source.
            The news of the disease as a whole does not contradict the version of the murder, since according to it the prince lived a few days after the strike. Here it is necessary to clearly clarify the historical science does not declare the Terrible son-killer. She says there are serious reasons to consider Grozny a son-killer.
            Analysis data on excess MPC of heavy metals. very funny. First, you omit Panova’s further words that mercury then cured illnesses. Secondly, you did not do the simplest search to clarify the norms that determine the MPC of the same mercury and the amount of mercury that causes poisoning and death. Everything is clear enough there.
            1. Sergey Zhikharev
              Sergey Zhikharev 20 June 2020 12: 32 New
              0
              Once again, historical science solves all these problems quite successfully. I repeat once again, Ivan the Third and Boris Godunov did not execute by thousands of people.

              And during the reign of Boris Godunov there was a Great Famine - deaths went to thousands.
              Lord, 1000 (ALL THOUSAND !!!) of the soldiers of Voeikov and Koltsov-Masalsky were enough to defeat Kuchum. This is the same as considering the conquest of Mexico by Cortes as the main war of Charles 5 and its achievement.

              And the fact that this thousand (1000) soldiers turned out to be enough just after the conquest of Kazan ....
              The news of the disease as a whole does not contradict the version of the murder, since according to it the prince lived a few days after the strike. Here it is necessary to clearly clarify the historical science does not declare the Terrible son-killer. She says there are serious reasons to consider Grozny a son-killer.

              It seems that the disease was denied?
              Serious reasons to consider are not evidence, because with high probability there can be anything
              Analysis data on excess MPC of heavy metals. very funny. First, you omit Panova’s further words that mercury then cured illnesses. Secondly, you did not do the simplest search to clarify the norms that determine the MPC of the same mercury and the amount of mercury that causes poisoning and death. Everything is clear enough there.

              It is clear that if a poisonous snake bites me, I have nothing to fear, since she gave me the medicine (after all, snake venom is used in medicine).
              In the Middle Ages, many things were treated and various methods of medicine were used, only then many methods were abandoned.
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 20 June 2020 13: 39 New
                0
                And during the reign of Boris Godunov there was a Great Famine - deaths went to thousands.

                The question was about executions
                And the fact that this thousand (1000) soldiers turned out to be enough just after the conquest of Kazan ....

                Probably not. Eagle-town Chusovaya, Sol Kama, Tagil all the north of the Kazan Khanate.
                It seems that the disease was denied?

                No. Just the version of the murder seems to me more reasonable.
                Conclusion - probably was killed by father

                Serious reasons to consider are not evidence, because with high probability there can be anything

                This is history. That is how she formulates the theses. We are inclined to conclude ..., given the available data ..., it can be assumed with high probability. If you do not make such reservations, then you get propaganda like the author of the article.
                It is clear that if a poisonous snake bites me, I have nothing to fear, since she gave me the medicine (after all, snake venom is used in medicine).
                In the Middle Ages, many things were treated and various methods of medicine were used, only then many methods were abandoned.

                As soon as you, apart from copy-paste, begin to clearly formulate theses, the discussion will make sense. While the stream of consciousness.
  • alebor
    alebor 18 June 2020 10: 46 New
    -7
    Justifying the cruelty of Grozny, for some reason we like to cite England or something else, but they are silent about the fact that before Grozny in Russia there was nothing like that. Yes, times were cruel, but they executed and tortured people before him, but such sophisticated sadism, massacres as it did under Grozny, never before or after him! They say that it was during his time that such "sophisticated" types of executions appeared in Russia as impaling or wheeling. Grozny was not typical of his time - even for his time he was pathologically cruel.
    It is impossible to compare Kurbsky with Vlasov either. Kurbsky fled from Grozny. I wonder what the author would do when he saw how all the people closest to him fall into disgrace and either are destroyed or imprisoned in monasteries? Of the members of the Elected Council, which included Kurbsky, only one Metropolitan Macarius was not injured. All the rest were those who were killed, who were forcibly tonsured as monks and exiled to a distant monastery (in fact, to prison). Did Kurbsky have to sit and wait when he was executed after painful torture? There is another subtle point that is not very clear to modern man. In the Middle Ages, nation-states did not yet exist. The state and the sovereign were synonymous. They served not the fatherland, but the sovereign. Were faithful or betrayed not the fatherland, but the sovereign. Therefore, it was quite common for the Middle Ages, when a nobleman left one sovereign and switched to the service of another, many aristocrats even officially had the right to make a “departure”. And when the death threat loomed over the prince, when "an ax was brought over his head", then the transition to the service of another monarch is quite understandable and justified, it can hardly be called a betrayal. To betray the one who killed your friends and threatens to kill you is anything but betrayal. By the way, a characteristic moment: if many Lithuanian princes voluntarily switched to the service of Ivan the Terrible Ivan III, then everyone ran away from Grozny.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 18 June 2020 14: 48 New
      +2
      "... but they are silent about the fact that there was nothing like that before Grozny in Russia ....." What a "grassy grass" :) And his grandfather, Ivan III, as Novgorod led to the "nail"? "Cruel Age" (c) In general, from the point of view of modern man, the whole history is a continuous "meat grinder"
  • Slavs
    Slavs 18 June 2020 11: 00 New
    +8
    Some of us like to pour mud on those who ruled, rather than squandering the state.
    Ivan the Terrible, Peter 1, Stalin.
    Here, with them, Russia was respected (feared)
    Any tough order is called repression ...
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 18 June 2020 11: 30 New
      -1
      They are both afraid and respected and hate a few different words.
      1. Slavs
        Slavs 18 June 2020 11: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Free Wind
        Fear and respect

        In the West, these are synonyms ... For Russians, the difference is obvious.
        1. Free wind
          Free wind 18 June 2020 11: 33 New
          -1
          Are you serious?
          1. Slavs
            Slavs 18 June 2020 11: 45 New
            0
            Good - "synonyms" ...
            Specially taken in quotation marks.
            Are there vivid examples of western respect?
            Well, or another statement of the question - who and for what is respected (respected) in the West?
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 19 June 2020 03: 06 New
              -1
              Quote: Slavs
              Well, or another statement of the question - who and for what is respected (respected) in the West?

              Canada is afraid of the United States, and the Czech Republic - Germany, I understand you correctly?
              Quote: Slavs
              In the West, these are synonyms ... For Russians, the difference is obvious.

              RF / USSR / RI are afraid in the sense of being afraid to be near. There is no question of respect.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 18 June 2020 14: 49 New
      +3
      Most interestingly, the "cruel order" of Ivan the Terrible was an order of magnitude less cruel than that of "our sister, Aglitskaya, Lizaveta" and two orders of magnitude, than that of "brother of the Gishpan Philip"
  • iouris
    iouris 18 June 2020 11: 08 New
    +8
    Through the entire history of the Russian Federation, the line is drawn in red line: "Grozny" - "Stalin", "oprichina" - "bloody gebe." Who is next?
    Caution, the bloody history of “civilized nations”, who earned their first golden billion by robbing older civilizations, will be rewritten, and if they later rend it to our children and grandchildren, they themselves will destroy the state and present the natural resources of the BSSSR on a silver platter to transnational corporations. .
    If in general, it is necessary to teach people not to adapt "historical information" and assessments to the tasks of the current struggle for power, but to teach them to strive to know and understand the history of mankind as the history of the destruction of alternative civilizations. To do this, you need to know and understand the history of the development of finance and credit.
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 18 June 2020 11: 09 New
    +3
    The first and, perhaps, the main denunciator of Grozny - Prince Andrei Kurbsky. This person can be described very briefly: Vlasov of the sixteenth century. Kurbsky ran to the enemy voluntarily, after which he went with foreign invaders to his homeland, which he betrayed to fire and sword. However, much more this Judas was noted in the ideological war. We can say that the ancestor of all Soviet and Russian “dissidents” - masters — because of the cordon, poured mud on their country for satisfying grubs. Can you believe this? Judge for yourself.

    Judging by this:
    Fedor Alekseevich Basmanov (Basmanov-Pleshcheev) (died 1571?) - the oprichnik, son of Alexei Danilovich Basmanov, favorite and, according to Prince Andrei Kurbsky and the foreigners who served in Moscow, the lover of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible (about 1565-1570 years).

    And therefore:

    https://www.culture.ru/poems/47987/vasilii-shibanov
    Rare scum ...
  • Boratsagdiev
    Boratsagdiev 18 June 2020 11: 26 New
    +2
    Ivan the Terrible wrote to European tsars and tsarins that they were no match for him.
    Pointing to their legal status as king of the protege (viceroy) of God and the noble, and not how they are rootless and depraved mired in debauchery, etc.
    In fact, and not in essence, he was the last Russian Tsar.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 18 June 2020 13: 37 New
      -3
      Maybe I didn’t know, but some of his relatives and relatives were very respectable at the courts of Europe. In my opinion, this is a maniac.
      1. Boratsagdiev
        Boratsagdiev 18 June 2020 14: 19 New
        0
        Strange your "views."
        Who, in your opinion, are the European rulers (arbiters) of fate?
        1. Free wind
          Free wind 18 June 2020 14: 27 New
          -4
          There are descendants of Russian princes in Europe, but I do not respect this gentleman, let him burn in hell.
          1. Boratsagdiev
            Boratsagdiev 18 June 2020 18: 39 New
            +1
            Newly made descendants of self-proclaimed princes?
            And do they have slaves?
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 18 June 2020 14: 43 New
      0
      These were "show off" on the basis of religious demarcation.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 18 June 2020 14: 42 New
    +1
    I never understood the demonization of Ivan the Terrible. The usual "Great Sovereign" "in the format of its time" - like Elizabeth I, Philip II or Henry VIII - are all contemporaries. All are “butchers,” “reformers,” and “killers.” Such a time was cruel ....
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 18 June 2020 16: 44 New
      -1
      What does the time have to do with it? To eat a man, it at least at what time does not fit anywhere. And enjoy the sight of victims torn to pieces ???? these are maniacs. A normal person will not do this. Dead, and dead.
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 19 June 2020 11: 49 New
        0
        "let the dead bury their dead"
  • colotun
    colotun 18 June 2020 16: 16 New
    -3
    The fourth century AD - Attila conquers Western Europe. Atilla's banners depict an equilateral cross and a golden double-headed eagle.
    The twelfth century AD - Genghis Khan and Batu conquer Western Europe.
    The historical emblem of the Golden Horde is a golden double-headed eagle (only without three crowns). Also, the golden double-headed eagle is the family coat of arms of Genghis Khan.
    The Russian Empire was created from the East, and not from the West.
    What did the specific Russian princes do during the period of feudal fragmentation in Russia (11-12 centuries)?
    They slaughtered each other in the struggle for power, ruthlessly ruining the neighboring lands and Russian cities.
    When the Mongol-Tatars united them, they forbade them to fight with each other, told them: - "You are now one country, one people." And after several generations, Russian people in Central Russia ceased to regard their neighbors as enemies.
    In Ivan the Terrible, the blood of the Rurikovich and the khans of the Golden Horde (through his mother, Elena Glinskaya) was combined, and this explosive incendiary mixture splashed out in the form of a passionary union of the three pillars of Russian statehood - the union of Slavs, Turks and Finno-Ugrians = the Moscow, Vladimir, Suzdal principalities were united , Novgorod and the Golden Horde = Great Empire revived in a new guise again.
    Orthodox prayer ends with the word AMEN, Catholic prayer ends with the word OMEN, Muslim prayer ends with the word EMEN. Also known is the Indian Buddhist mantra OM-MAN.
    And there is the Turkic word AMAN = have mercy and mercy. And these are not the only traces of the Turkic origin of the Christian faith (reference to Academician Oparin).
    And there was also a great medieval empire that conquered including China (QIN dynasty = Golden Dynasty) and India (Great Mughals).
    It is interesting that on the territory of our country of Russia, approximately within the borders of the former Soviet Union, there were five empires: - the first empire was at Attila (4-5 century AD), the second empire was at Genghis Khan (11-12 century AD) , the third empire is the Romanovs, the fourth empire is the Soviet Union and the fifth empire is the Russian Federation now.
    The Russian nation came from the merger of three different nations - Slavs, Turks (including Tatars) and Finno-Ugrians.
    And for one and a half thousand years on the territory of our great united country people of different nationalities live, as one people.
    "Having seized the Russian lands, the Mongols shared their determination with the steppe wolves with the Russians, gave masculinity, a desire for expansion and suppression."
    (A quote from an article by a Chinese author in the Chinese newspaper Sohu dated May 2019)
    1. Diviz
      Diviz 24 June 2020 19: 49 New
      0
      You can still assume that this version is "supergen"
      But this already means the intervention of some other race living in the Pamir region. Perhaps she built the wall of China.
      1. If you add supergen to Russians, then you get big people - heroes.
      2. If the Chinese then the Dalai Lama.
      3. If the Indians then the Buddha.
      Well, etc.
      But if in the tamerlan’s tomb for me personally there is no exact answer yet to the question -Who was buried there ?. Therefore, one can only guess here ..
  • MstislavHrabr
    MstislavHrabr 18 June 2020 17: 09 New
    +1
    I will add that Ivan the Terrible can be considered the founder of the border service in Russia.
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 18 June 2020 17: 42 New
    +2
    It would be strange for Kurbsky to speak positively about Grozny
  • nnz226
    nnz226 18 June 2020 19: 26 New
    -1
    stupid western leaders, because of their linguistic limitations, even the nickname of the tsar - Terrible can not correctly translate! They translate as “terribble” - terrible ... And in the great Russian language, in contrast to the miserable gay Europeans, “Terrible” and “terrible” are absolutely two different concepts!
  • Kwas
    Kwas 18 June 2020 21: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    and you don’t think that such a course, how to say it ... well, you need it. In any case, some.

    You know, perhaps it’s not needed. It teaches you to primitize history, and then say "everyone lied to us." You know, everyone who doesn’t spit thinks that he knows football, boxing and politics. It is because of such profanity.
  • Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 19 June 2020 06: 56 New
    -1
    The Livonian war was the beginning of the struggle for the return of Russian lands in the Baltic and was ultimately ended by the descendants of Grozny, even centuries later
    the descendants of Grozny a century later were gone
  • Kunich80
    Kunich80 19 June 2020 21: 05 New
    -1
    What nonsense, starting with the first lines with well-established cliches about Henry viii, who was replaced by Elizabeth who executed 100000 Englishmen! Oh gods, how could she change dad! Read books or encyclopedias before writing this!
    Ivan the Terrible is an ambiguous personality and the first part of his reign is really worthy of pride, but then ... Everything is ambiguous with Novgorod, he could be a support in the north-west with a more competent policy. He himself got involved in Livonian (I’m not saying that the Poles didn’t crap), but he didn’t calculate the strengths. Oprichnina is the new oligarchs, for the centralization of power and the consolidation of the throne, a plus is possible. But the biggest trouble is the lack of normal heirs precisely his fault, which if disassembled in the future and led to confusion.
    Peter I was even more cruel, but he the Great - actually created a new country. And Ivan, in part, of course, is fooled by some sources and historians, but this cannot be compared, for example, by Paul I.
    And what has been the trend lately to exalt tyrants? Do chefs work?
  • Fishery
    Fishery 19 June 2020 22: 16 New
    -1
    and Novgorod is still a pity)
  • Nikolai Korovin
    Nikolai Korovin 20 June 2020 01: 15 New
    0
    A significant role in the discredit of John IV was also played by the Russian intelligentsia of the XNUMXth century, in particular, Klyuchevsky, who, in particular, was subjected to a boycott of students by the address of Alexander III, which he also fostered.
  • Diviz
    Diviz 23 June 2020 21: 11 New
    +1
    I want to note 2 points:
    1. Where did the library of Ivan the 4th go? ?
    2. And who is the Siberian Khan Kuchum?
    I read a story about the Golden Horn Island
    (near the city of Ishim). It describes underground tunnels with brickwork. It remains only to find out what is there.