Military Review

14 August 1775 Zaporozhskaya Sich was disbanded by decree of Empress Catherine II

52
14 August 1775 Zaporozhskaya Sich was disbanded by decree of Empress Catherine II

14 August 1775, by decree of the Russian Empress Catherine II, the Zaporizhian Sich was finally abolished. After the reunification of a significant part of Little Russia with the Russian state in 1654, the privileges enjoyed by other Russian Cossack troops were extended to the Zaporozhye army. Zaporizhzhya Cossacks played an important role. The Cossacks defended the southern borders of Russia, played a prominent role in the wars with the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, the Cossacks retained a certain autonomy from the central government. However, the Cossacks hid fugitives hiding in the Zaporizhzhya Sich from the persecution of the royal authorities. In addition, there was the danger of a rebellion against the center, an alliance with Russia's external enemies.

So, in 1709, ataman Kost Gordienko and hetman Mazepa signed an allied treaty with the Swedish king Karl XII. Zaporizhian Sich joined the union of Mazepa and Karl against Russia. There were several skirmishes of the Cossacks with Russian troops. Peter gives the order to Prince Menshikov to move from Kiev to the Sich three regiments under the command of Colonel Yakovlev in order to "destroy the whole nest of the rebels." The sink was destroyed, and later Peter did not allow her to be restored. The Cossacks founded Kamenskaya (1709 — 1711) and Aleshkovsky Sich (1711 — 1734) on the lands controlled by the Turks and the Crimean Tatars. However, they did not last long.

In 1733, when, after the outbreak of war between the Russian Empire and Turkey, the Crimean Khan ordered the Aleshkovsk Sich Cossacks to go to the Russian border, General Weisbah (he was at that time building the Ukrainian line of fortresses) handed the Cossacks a certificate in the Krasny Kut gorge, 4 versts from the old Chertomlytsky Sich. The Cossacks received a diploma from the sovereign Anna Ioannovna for pardon and acceptance into Russian citizenship. As a result, a New (Podpolnenskaya, or Pidpilnyanskaya) Sich was created, it existed until the final destruction of the Zaporizhzhya Sich in 1775 year.

New Sich was very different from the old. It became not only a military, but an economic, political organism. Cossacks received full self-government and land for settlement. New structures appeared - “palanques”. These were a kind of “provinces” of the Sich on Samara, Mius, Bug, Ingulets, etc. Each palanka was ruled by a colonel, a captain and a clerk who submitted to Kosh. It was the land that became the main source of income for the Cossacks, and not the salary. In the vicinity of the Sich settled "zimovchaki" - married Cossacks, they had neither the right to vote in the Rada, nor the right to be elected to the positions and were obliged to pay "smoke" in the Sich treasury, that is, a kind of family tax. In addition to married Cossacks, they came to be called the alien people (mostly peasants, poor people who were looking for a better life), who came from Great Russian provinces, Right-Bank Ukraine, and Turkish possessions. They were not considered Cossacks, but were subject to the Sich, supplied food and paid 1 a ruble per year. The inhabitants of the Sich lived at the expense of fishing, hunting, cattle breeding, agriculture and trade. The foreman received income from the duty for the importation of goods, possession of land, pastures, fishing.

The Cossacks obeyed only their own laws, tried small cases in palanca, for significant matters - from Koshins. The perpetrators could have been extradited to the imperial authorities, but more often they punished themselves, right up to the death penalty. Sich quickly became one of the flourishing regions of Russia. Palanques were covered with villages and farms.

However, there were serious contradictions between the foreman and golot in the Sich. Thus, the tsarist government almost immediately violated the obligation to issue annually a salary to 20 Thousands of Sich. Already from 1738, only 4-7 thousand were given. The rest of the money was ordered to be paid from army funds, but they were empty. As a result, the authorities began to cheat - they gave out "publicly" 4 thousand rubles, the rest of the money was transferred secretly to the foreman, to the smoked atamans. However, the Cossacks quickly found out about it: in 1739, the city of Tukal and the foremen overthrew, beat and looted their property (the sable was beaten so badly that it soon died). In the future, the foremen continued to grow rich. In particular, the Kalnyshevsky cattle once sold 14 thousands of horses from their herds. Ordinary Cossacks lived in misery, all the benefits were in favor of the foreman.

Ordinary Cossacks worked on the foreman, fished, and the “haidamatstvo” developed, that is, robbery. In the lower reaches of the Bug, the Russian, Turkish and Polish borders converged, which helped to escape after the robbery. In 1750-1760-ies, Haidamache became a real disaster of this region. People were just afraid to drive through Wake Bow. From Turkey and Poland rained complaints to the Cossacks. The instructions of the imperial authorities simply "descended on the brakes." The fishery was very profitable, and there were many foremen and administration of palanques in the lot. When, in the 1760 year, under pressure from the Russian authorities, the Beletsky koshey organized a raid to capture the robbers, only 40 people could be arrested. Yes, and then the smoked chieftains banned them from issuing, dismantled in the smokes and released after repentance. When the Russian military command patrolled the border with regular cavalry and suburban Cossacks, armed clashes began.

There was another reason for the conflict Sich with the central government. During this period, there was an active development of the previously empty areas of the Wild Field and the Cossacks began to defend their "legitimate" lands. They based their claims on a fake - “copies of a letter from Stefan Batory,” who allegedly granted them land near the town of Chigirin, Samara and the Southern Bug, the left bank of the Dnieper to Seversky Donets. And since the Russian sovereigns, beginning with Alexei Mikhailovich, confirmed "the former Zaporozhye liberties," the very word "liberties" began to be interpreted in a territorial sense. The Zaporozhian Cossacks, defending their “legitimate” lands, did not stop even before using force. They burned several new settlements, the villagers dispersed. As a result, the Cossacks simply became impudent, challenging the central government. However, under Elizabeth and the hetman Razumovsky, they got away with it.

Under Catherine II, the situation has changed. She seriously took up the affairs of a loose Ukraine. In 1763, the hetman Razumovsky, who hinted about the hereditary status of his post, resigned "of his own accord." Little Russian College was restored. Its president was appointed General P. A. Rumyantsev. He found a picture of complete collapse in Ukraine. The military elite, who ruled on behalf of Razumovsky, completely lost her hands. The elders turned into all-powerful nobles, real local "princes". They went so far as to fight with each other, challenging the land, arming the Cossacks and peasants. The population was subjected to merciless exploitation. Ordinary Cossacks or ruined, turning into farm laborers, or engaged in personal economy. The decree of 1721 on the promotion of Cossack distillation affected the army in a negative way. Many people drank themselves, others drank their land. As a result, the Little Russian army decayed. Rumyantsev could not even organize mail: the rich did not want to serve, the poor did not have the opportunity.

I had to take measures to restore the fighting capacity of local troops. In 1764, the Cossack units began to be converted into regular ones. From the Ukrainian regiments created 5 hussars: Black, Yellow, Blue, Serbian and Ugorsky. In addition, they created four Pikiner regiments (Elisavetgrad, Dneprovsky, Donetsk and Lugansky). Later, several more hussar regiments were created and the landmilitia was reformed into infantry units. In general, Ukraine should have lost its special status and be equalized with other Russian provinces. The flop in these plans was a major obstacle.

Attention was drawn to the "state in the state" - Zaporizhzhya Sich. In 1764, Kosh was subordinate to the Little Russian College. Zaporozhye administration attributed no longer hold elections. The Cossacks were outraged and, in defiance of the instructions, held new elections, electing Kalnyshevsky to be the catman. The new koshevoy voluntarily went to St. Petersburg to demand the direct subordination of the Foreign College and raise the issue of "legal" Zaporozhye lands. Rumyantsev proposed to the Empress to arrest the delegates. A draft reform was drawn up for Sich. However, Catherine did not go on harsh measures, a new war with Turkey was approaching, they did not want to complicate the situation in the south. The Empress received the delegation graciously. This inspired the Cossacks, returning to the Sich, they began to boast that they "frightened" the government.

In the 1767 year, he reported that the Kalnyshevsky and the clerk Ivan Globa agreed to enter into negotiations with the Turkish sultan if the government did not fulfill their demands. Catherine left a denunciation without consequences, but the fate of the Sich was already predetermined. The solution of the problem was only postponed until the end of the war with the Ottoman Empire.

The Sich leadership itself exacerbated its precarious position. It not only challenged the Russian authorities, but also came into contact with the Crimea and Turkey. On the eve of the war, the Cossacks received letters from Bakhchisarai and Istanbul, in which they were tempted by the possibility of moving to the service of Turkey, promising a threefold salary. The French emissary Totleben visited the Sich on behalf of the Sultan. Kalnyshevsky refused to the Turks, but did not interrupt the correspondence. In addition, he allowed Totleben to speak to the Cossacks and did not betray him to Rumyantsev. In the Cossack mass went confusion. When in December 1768, the Cossacks were instructed to start a war with Turkey, they rebelled. Kalnyshevsky had not only to suppress the rebellion, but to ask for help from the Russian garrison from the Novosechensk retransfer. Unrest lasted for several months, the Cossacks left the borders, and the Tatars in January 1769 broke through to Ukraine.

In the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774. 10 thousand Cossacks took part (about 4 thousand still remained on the territory of the Sich). In the war they showed high fighting qualities, differed in intelligence and raids, and played an important role in the battles of Larg and Cahul. Victory in this war was another reason for the elimination of the Zaporozhye army. With the conclusion of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi agreement, the Russian Empire gained access to the Black Sea, the Dnieper defensive line was created, the Crimean Khanate was on the verge of destruction. Second historical the enemy of Russia - Catholic Poland, lost its power, and in 1772 its first division took place. Zaporizhzhya Cossacks lost their role as defenders of the southern borders.

In May 1775, the body of General Peter Tekeli was moved to the Sich. The operation was bloodless. The elders, realizing that the resistance was meaningless, together with the priests calmed ordinary Cossacks. By decree of Catherine Zaporozhskaya Sich abolished. Ordinary Cossacks were not harassed. Some remained in Ukraine and settled down in villages and cities. Part of the commanders received officer ranks, sergeants became nobles. Only three of the Cossacks — Kalnyshevsky, a military judge, Pavel Golovaty, and a Globa clerk were convicted of treason and sent to monasteries. Kalnyshevsky lived in the Solovki monastery until 112 years and died in 1803 year, taking the monastic dignity.

Part of the Cossacks went to the Danube under the authority of the Turkish Sultan and created the Danubian Sich. In 1828, the Danube Cossacks went over to the side of the Russian army and were pardoned personally by sovereign Nicholas I. Of these, the Azov Cossack army was created. In Russia, during the war with Turkey, Alexander Suvorov in 1787-1788. from the Cossacks of the former Sich and their descendants organized the "Army of the faithful Zaporozhtsev". In 1790, it was transformed into the Black Sea Cossack army and then gained the territory of the left-bank of the Kuban. Cossacks took an active part in the Caucasian War and other wars of the Russian Empire.
Author:
52 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. biglow
    biglow 14 August 2012 09: 16
    -1
    so the gangster enclave was closed
    1. Bandera
      Bandera 14 August 2012 12: 18
      +13
      The author did not fully conduct a historical investigation. The article is one-sided and tries to justify the actions of the Russian crown.
      First, the Haidamaks are shown as arrogant robbers and thieves. But it is enough to recall the Koliivshchyna of 1768, as the epogee of this movement, in the Right-Bank Ukraine against the Polish gentry. Taras Shevchenko even wrote the poem "Haidamaki". I consider it biased to row everyone with the same brush, not understanding the origins of this phenomenon.
      Secondly, upon signing the Treaty of Pereyaslavl in 1654. the Zaporozhye Cossacks were guaranteed freedom ("freemen") and the right to Wild Field. The Cossacks, as one of the parties to this agreement, quite legally challenged the encroachments of the Russian Empire.
      Thirdly, yielding and obliging candidates were approved for the post of hetman of Little Russia. Therefore, it is not surprising that they had poor control over the situation.
      1. Skavron
        Skavron 14 August 2012 12: 30
        +4
        That's right !!! Plus.
      2. Nicholas C.
        Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 00: 09
        -5
        In fact, the article is not pro-Russian, but anti-Russian, Svidomo with Svidomo myths and legends.

        1. It must be clearly understood that the Cossacks are not the inhabitants of a particular territory, but the military estate, the armed forces for salaries, tax and other benefits that protect the border. As soon as the borders of Russia were far removed under Catherine, Russia sent its servants to a new duty station. Who did not want to, he did not go, but, accordingly, lost the Cossack status.

        2. What are the obligations of the tsarist government to pay "20 thousand rubles"? In the treaty clauses worked out in Pereyaslavl, as well as in those that Zarudny and Teterya agreed on in Moscow, Polish zlotys (and in some places efimki) appear in Khmelnitsky's petition. In the final document - the Grant of Grant - there is no money, only the order of the tsar to keep an army of 60 thousand Cossacks.
    2. biglow
      biglow 15 August 2012 17: 27
      0
      biglow,
      minusers are not in agreement with what?
  2. Skavron
    Skavron 14 August 2012 10: 05
    +14
    The whole history of the Cossack army can not be described in one page ...
    Many inaccuracies, the author read more literature))
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 14 August 2012 11: 18
      +14
      I will support you. The article shows a clear bias in one direction, it is necessary to read literature with different views on the same problem.
  3. borisst64
    borisst64 14 August 2012 11: 04
    +1
    "Kalnyshevsky lived in the Solovetsky Monastery until the age of 112 and died in 1803"

    These are Solovki, for centenarians, almost a sanatorium))
    1. Barrel
      Barrel 14 August 2012 12: 54
      +1
      He spent 28 years in a cold chamber measuring 1 by 3 m. Kalnishevsky was released from the cell into the fresh air 2 times a year: during the holidays of Christmas, Easter and the Transfiguration

      Moreover, he went blind there.
  4. revnagan
    revnagan 14 August 2012 11: 05
    +4
    M-yes, the Moor has done his job, the Moor may leave ... And the people of Ukraine in gratitude, serfdom.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 14 August 2012 13: 02
      +7
      I wonder why, then, on the Don, Kuban, Siberia and many other places where the Cossacks were not liquidated and existed until the end of the Empire? Maybe the author is not so wrong? That is, of course, one-sided, but still the fault of the Zaporozhians themselves also had a place to be? Yes, and something I do not remember from history, that the Don Cossacks there were separate negotiations with Turkey or Persia. Azov was arbitrarily taken and defended from the Turks, but negotiations "on a change of service" - this does not come to mind.
      1. black_eagle
        black_eagle 14 August 2012 13: 28
        +7
        The Cossacks were distinguished by disobedience, self-government and therefore were objectionable, at that time there was a difficult situation with the Turks, and the Cossacks with their raids could easily destroy the already precarious world
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 00: 15
          0
          Self-government of the Cossacks did not differ from other Cossack troops. For example, the same Donets are known for the fact that "there is no extradition from the Don" and the fact that even in Moscow a Cossack could be judged only by an outgoing Cossack village.

          As for objection, do not build complexes either. At the new duty station, the former Cossacks faithfully serve Russia.
      2. Alex
        Alex 17 February 2014 17: 55
        +3
        Quote: Trapper7
        It is interesting, why then in the Don, Kuban, Siberia and many more where the Cossacks did not liquidate and existed until the end of the Empire?
        Because on the Don, Kuban and Terek, almost to the very end of the Empire, a tense situation remained (the Caucasus, however), and in Dauria, until 1917, they lived as on a powder keg. To have in such hot spots self-organizing paramilitary formations of professional military personnel in a state of constant combat readiness (EMNIP, a Cossack was going to war in three days, a hundred in five, but I will not argue) is an absolutely adequate vision of the military-political situation. On what devil in the south of Ukraine the Cossacks were needed after the conquest of the Crimea, I can't imagine. The liquidation of the Sich as a military-political organization is a completely natural stage in the state development of the state.
    2. edge
      edge 14 August 2012 17: 52
      +1
      serfdom is better than Turkish-Tatar will. Still do not want to let the Tatars in the Crimea.
    3. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 00: 28
      -4
      It is a myth.
      Serfdom, slavery and other forms of exploitation were invented in the Roman Empire. Written in detail, all this is written under Charlemagne around 800m. And moved east as the Western conquests and the strengthening of Catholic influence.

      In Russia, serfdom appeared only under the Westerners of the Romanovs in the Code of 1649. A historical embarrassment is associated with this. Towards a campaign in Moscow, Vladislav, the Poles scored a register of Cossacks of 30 thousand. The Cossacks distinguished themselves by carnage and robbery. But after the Deulinsk truce, they became unnecessary and the registry was reduced to 6 thousand. This meant enslavement for the rest. And these unfortunate warriors began to massively ask Russia for citizenship. Even the Hetman himself, a Galician faithful Polish dog Sagaidachny in 1620, asked for Russian citizenship. The truth turned up at that moment the Turkish war, where he disappeared.
    4. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 01: 20
      -1
      Serfdom, slavery, and other forms of exploitation are all inventions of the Roman Empire. The written laws were formulated in detail under Charlemagne in about 800m. All of this was advancing to the east as conquests and Catholic influence.

      In Russia, serfdom appeared under the Westerners of the Romanovs with the Code of 1649. In Lithuania, which included the north of present-day Ukraine, serfdom was at least 200 years before, given that the first printed law in Lithuania - led Casimir - appeared in 1447. Most of present-day Ukraine has been part of the Horde for 550 years, then the Crimean Khanate and Turkey, with hope there are no questions about slavery there.

      A historical embarrassment is associated with this. By Vladislav’s campaign in Moscow, the Poles scored 30 Cossacks in the register. After the campaign, they became unnecessary and left 6 thousand in the register. For the rest, this meant enslavement. And all these woeful warriors, robbers and executioners, rushed en masse to ask for Russian citizenship. Even the Hetman of Galicia and the faithful Polish dog Sagaidachny in 1620 asked. Then the Turkish war turned up for him, where he disappeared.
  5. Barrel
    Barrel 14 August 2012 14: 10
    +2
    Little Russia

    Is the author ashamed to write Getman?

    reunions

    And when was the land of the Hetmanate were part of the Moscow kingdom? Author, you are raving.

    the very word "liberties" began to be interpreted in a territorial sense

    Neither political nor administrative liberties remained with them. Nothing remained of the 1654 treaty. Russian tsars are dishonest people who do not keep their word.

    In general, Ukraine had to lose its special status and be equalized with other Russian provinces. Slich in these plans was a serious obstacle.

    That’s all, this is the meaning of the whole article, why write the rest - it’s not clear.

    The leadership of Sich itself exacerbated its precarious situation. It not only challenged the Russian authorities, but also came into contact with the Crimea and Turkey.

    Well, they were not fools, they understood that wiping Sich off the face of the earth for the entire army of the Russian Empire is a completely feasible task and it is necessary to look for an ally.

    Conclusion: The article itself is written in one key - to show the Cossacks in the worst possible light. The article describes only the "minuses" of the existence of Sich, but no "pluses". All the pros and cons of such an act (destruction of Sichi) are not weighed. It seems that this is not an independent opinion of the author, but an article ordered under the dictation of Catherine 2. laughing
    1. PARROT
      PARROT 14 August 2012 14: 26
      -2
      Russia at that time competently expanded its possessions using Cossacks, diplomacy, coincidence, well done, and we need to draw conclusions. Mazepa and Peter were not friends, but when it came to mutual assistance, Peter refused to Mazepa, I am sure that without the Andrusov armistice, Poland would not have attacked Ukraine during the Russian-Swedish war. But joint action in the Russo-Polish war is not an association to protect the Hetman’s region, but the use of the Cossacks for their geopolitical purposes. When Peter refused to support Mazepa, the latter was forced to turn to the Swedes, because the rulers think about their homeland, and there was no choice.
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 14 August 2012 14: 56
      0
      Quote: Barrel
      Russian tsars are dishonest people who do not keep their word.

      Yeah. And the Cossacks - never changed their oath, did not go to serve the Swedes, Poles, Turks ...

      The article describes only the "minuses" of the existence of Sich, but no "pluses". All the pros and cons of such an act (destruction of Sichi) are not weighed.

      How are there no conclusions? And what's that?
      In the Russian-Turkish war 1768-1774. 10 thousand Zaporozhian Cossacks took part (still about 4 thousand remained on the territory of the Sich). In the war, they showed high fighting qualities, differed in intelligence services and raids, played an important role in the battles of Larg and Cahul. The victory in this war was another reason for the elimination of the Zaporozhye army. With the conclusion of the Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhi agreement, the Russian Empire received access to the Black Sea, the Dnieper defensive line was created, the Crimean Khanate was on the verge of destruction. The second historical enemy of Russia - Catholic Poland, has lost its power, and in 1772 there was its first section. Zaporizhzhya Cossacks lost their role as defenders of the southern frontiers.


      The article is written in one direction - to explain and justify the need to disband the Zaporizhzhya Sich. Why is there a semi-independent military formation in the deep rear of Russia? At the same time, I have already pointed out that similar formations - such as the Donskoy, Terskoy, Kubanskoye, Transbaikal and other Cossacks in the Empire were preserved. Perhaps the reason was also the independent disposition of the Zaporozhians, or rather their "top", because for the simple Cossacks and those hetmans who were loyal to Russia, believe me, I have the deepest respect.
      1. Barrel
        Barrel 14 August 2012 16: 18
        +4
        Yeah. And the Cossacks - never changed their oath, did not go to serve the Swedes, Poles, Turks ...

        This was after the king betrayed them, and they could not escape from the trap on their own.

        who were faithful to Russia

        With what fright should they be like dogs and remain faithful after they have been betrayed?

        According to the Bereznev articles, the Moscow detachment was to enter the war with the Commonwealth. The war began in 1655. In 1656, the king concluded a truce with Poland, and it can be said to conclude an alliance with them. How else to interpret this step, except as a betrayal? Kozaki gave their lands to Moscow, and in return they asked for help in the war, and as a result, Moscow and Warsaw simply divided Ukraine. We completed our part of the transaction, but the kings didn’t. And what kind of fidelity can we talk about? This I am not talking about how the kings quietly deleted from the list Cossack liberties and added responsibilities.
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 00: 40
          -1
          Svidomitskaya education misses something.
          The Andrus truce was concluded in 1667.
          And before that there was the betrayal of the previous Mazepa (Hetman Vyhovsky) and so beloved by President Yushchenko "Battle of Konotop" in 1659. The result of which was the era of the Ruins on the right bank. Poles and Tatars agreed to leave the right bank in vain. They also burned it out, drove the people into slavery. The refugees who escaped, Russia took to its free lands and settled in settlements.
          1. Barrel
            Barrel 15 August 2012 10: 42
            0
            The chauvinist Great Russian did not understand that I was talking about the Vilno-Moscow-Polish Armistice of 1656, according to which the hostilities between Moscow and Warsaw ceased, joint hostilities began against Sweden and Branderburg, and the king was elected to the Polish throne.
            But at the expense of Vygovsky, he had no choice but to go over to Sweden to break out of the hands of the vile tsar, and as a result the war for liberation from Moscow began.
            1. Nicholas C.
              Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 12: 30
              -2
              Try to keep yourself within the bounds of decency, although I’m not sure that you understand what I mean. And by the way, a lie-this is characteristic of Jesuit Svidomo propaganda.

              Russia by that time had gone through a monstrous Polish occupation and a complete plunder of its entire territory. And in little more than twenty years after the final expulsion of the Poles, she was not yet capable of waging a full-fledged war. Especially two. If Sweden began to fight against Russia, it is not surprising that hostilities on the other front were suspended. However, "truce" -it seems to be the fruit of Svidomo propaganda and fooling. Because references to it are only in the Svidomo "works". At the same time, it was not possible to find who and what agreed there. And here the traitors to Russia, who raised a squeal about this, is impossible to understand.
              1. Barrel
                Barrel 15 August 2012 14: 42
                +1
                However, "truce" -it seems to be the fruit of Svidomo propaganda and fooling. Because references to it are only in Svidomo's "works". At the same time, it was not possible to find who and what agreed there.


                The Bereznevi statti of B. Khmelnitsky in 1654 was also lost due to the fault of the Moscow Tsar or later (it was beneficial even to the top of the USSR to interpret history in his own way). And what, there is no document - there are no rights that were given to the Cossacks.
                And the internal problems of the king are his problems. We have fulfilled our part of the deal, the rest is on his conscience. There was no need to sign a document if you cannot fulfill its obligations. So hide your simitophobia and the opinion imposed by the authorities about the "non-existent nation".
                1. Nicholas C.
                  Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 15: 12
                  -2
                  This is also a Svidomo lie. What are the March articles? Then I already answered you. But once you as Svidomo is not enough. There was no contract and could not be. So there’s nothing to lose and now.

                  There was preliminary work: the articles adopted in Pereyaslav, the articles that Tetery and Zarudny were taking to Moscow for approval, were the Khmelnitsky petition for citizenship. The final document is a Charter. This is, in its sense, a unilateral document, where the king favors his new subjects. Therefore, there was one copy of the original, handed to the Cossacks. The second copy went to the tsar’s archive, which in its meaning is already a copy. Where the Cossacks shared the original, and why the Svidomo blame Moscow for its loss - the ways of the Svidomo imagination do not lend themselves to common sense.
                  1. Barrel
                    Barrel 15 August 2012 19: 45
                    0
                    The second copy went to the royal archive

                    Where is he now?
                    1. Nicholas C.
                      Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 21: 28
                      -2
                      Those. the original is no longer looking for? Decide what you need. And then other svidomity require the original.

                      1st edition The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire (PSZ) was compiled under the direction of M. M. Speransky and published in 1830; included more than 30 thousand legislative acts of Russia from the time of the Council Code of 1649 until December 12, 1825 www.nlr.ru/e-res/law_r/search.php?regim=4&page=322&part=5
                      1. Barrel
                        Barrel 16 August 2012 02: 27
                        +1
                        Nothing is clear, I just made out that this is some kind of economic agreement, because apart from money, nothing is discussed there
                      2. Nicholas C.
                        Nicholas C. 16 August 2012 06: 30
                        -2
                        It was immediately evident that the topic was not your mind.
                      3. Barrel
                        Barrel 16 August 2012 13: 51
                        +1
                        1) This is an old, not even my native language, I have not studied it.
                        2) Literature Wieliczka - the original text.
                        Stay with your opinion, your right. To prove, using only the Internet, that the litopist Wieliczka is not a fake document, like the Bereznevi articles and the Vilna truce, I can’t you, contact the historians, I’m just a simple engineer. And all these "Great Russian" attacks have already bothered me. On this site, they are in almost every comment, article. Anyone who at least respects their homeland will not like this, so goodbye.
                      4. Nicholas C.
                        Nicholas C. 16 August 2012 14: 01
                        -4
                        Fair wind. You were given a link to the very "March articles" and to what you call the "agreement". In a language understandable to the Zaporozhye Cossacks. And you are no longer wise to read them. A link to how the historian Kostomarov incriminates the forger Velichko (and / or Rigelman) is given. Your quote in obvious translation. About "Vilenskoe truce" typical Svidomo lies and slander.
        2. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 15 August 2012 11: 23
          0
          Quote: Barrel
          This was after the king betrayed them, and they could not escape from the trap on their own.

          What trap? Where to break out of? Do not talk nonsense. Or is it Mazepa’s trap? Yes, he pleased when he began to hobble with Karl, and embarrassed many honest Cossacks. Yes, only the common sense of the majority of the Cossacks defeated then. I repeat once again - history knows many examples of betrayal and betrayal of the Cossacks. Here is an example:
          in 1590, the Zaporozhye Cossacks tricked and burned Voronezh. Zaporizhzhya detachment reported that it was going to the Don to strike in Azov and the Crimea. The townspeople trustingly let in the Cossacks and paid for it. At night, the Cossacks attacked the townspeople, killed or captured many, and burned the fortress.
          1. Barrel
            Barrel 15 August 2012 14: 44
            +2
            if honestly fulfilled all the clauses of the contract, this would not have happened.
            1. Trapperxnumx
              Trapperxnumx 15 August 2012 16: 06
              +1
              Quote: Barrel
              if honestly fulfilled all the clauses of the contract, this would not have happened.

              Then to court. But the case will be dismissed after the expiration of the limitation period.
              That you all clung to your "agreement"? There are such concepts as "honor", "oath" - everything that prevents a person from turning into a bandit or an animal. Based on your logic, any group of soldiers left in the encirclement can not just surrender - but go into service with the enemy, they were abandoned !!! Do not forget that at that time Muscovy was the ONLY independent and independent state with a predominantly RUSSIAN population and an ORTHODOX faith. The preservation of this state is ALWAYS a matter of paramount importance. It was hard for Ukraine at that time, I do not argue, troops of all neighboring states were walking on its lands, ruining all sedentary economies along the way, which, incidentally, was the fundamental principle of the Cossacks in Ukraine - the impossibility of a normal economy due to the constant raids of Tatars, Turks, extortions Polish gentry. It was hard for everyone. And it was hard for Russia too. Swedes, Poland, Turkey, Crimea, Nogais, whoever was willing to profit at the expense of Russia, and how many people were driven away? Even a hundred years after the Pereyaslav Rada, we could not ensure the proper security of our internal lands, not to mention the border. With the same success one can begin to say that in those ancient times we did not support the Serbs with the Bulgarians. Everything is within our power.
              And then, after the conquest of Crimea, the partition of Poland, objectively, the need to support the Cossacks, who also had very great willfulness and self-will, and who could rebel themselves or support the rebellion of someone else, this very need then disappeared.
              1. Barrel
                Barrel 15 August 2012 19: 51
                +1
                There are also such concepts as "honor"

                I repeat, how can you stay true to the one who betrayed you? If one company signs a bilateral contract with another company, and the last one, instead of fulfilling its duties, begins to absorb the first company, then, you just have to lay down your hands and leave everything to chance or defend your company by any means?

                Muscovy was the ONLY ... state with ... the ORTHODOX faith

                That was precisely one of the reasons why Khmelnitsky signed an agreement with her, and not with the Ottoman Empire, although such thoughts were.

                possessed a very great willfulness and self-will, and could rebel themselves

                no one argues that this is the root cause of the destruction of Sich
                1. Nicholas C.
                  Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 21: 32
                  -1
                  You are a barrel - a liar and a slanderer. So long ago, Jesuit balabolite about the king's betrayal of his Charter, and do not bring any evidence of betrayal, let alone evidence.
                  1. Barrel
                    Barrel 16 August 2012 02: 23
                    +2
                    Literature Wieliczka:
                    After the promo was read there, it was read, in the radial, earlier ordering ready pacts of that union , and after reading the readings, Khmelnitsky, with usherin and partnership, swore allegiance to his new sovereign. After the fortune-telling, the new ambassador Buturlіn giving the Khmelnitsky Tsarskoy gonfalon mace that is the meaning of the monarch’s name ...
                    When tsomu vin voted pid oath to the monarch of the word th rush, scho vin, blessed rossiy monarch, triathym malu rossiyu with us zaporozky wyj at his own patronage in case of non-righteous preservation of old rights and liberties and boronity and additional rights of the first people and attacks with their own belongings and belongings
                    1. Nicholas C.
                      Nicholas C. 16 August 2012 06: 40
                      -1
                      The same Kostomarov repeatedly questions the authenticity of the events described by Velichko, or rather, he directly accuses Velichko of lying and falsification. See, for example, "Is it long ago that Little Russia began to be written by Little Russia, and Russia by Russia." By the way, in the documents related to the reunification on the link I gave earlier, "Russia" is used.
                    2. Nicholas C.
                      Nicholas C. 16 August 2012 11: 04
                      -3
                      And do not quote the translation into mov. Translations into mov are already falsifications. So Gogol was translated. And everything, everything, everything.
      2. edge
        edge 14 August 2012 17: 59
        -1
        everything is true and the Don and the Cossacks, and the Volga, and the Urals ....... by the same methods put in place. they became the beauty, pride, support and strength of Russia.
    3. black_eagle
      black_eagle 14 August 2012 17: 29
      0
      Barrel,
      Quote: Barrel
      And when was the land of the Hetmanate were part of the Moscow kingdom? Author, you rave

      Question, a history textbook in the 5th grade smoked? To refresh your brain, read about Pereyaslavskaya Rada, when Bogdan Khmelnitsky, after the defeat of the war with the Poles, asked Russia for help, no one! did not cancel the given agreements !!! At the head of Ukraine was the Governor-General of Russia, and the possibility of self-government did not benefit Ukraine, if you do not remember those times in history, Ukraine was called Ruina - Rozruha, the famous Chorna Rada, today reminds me of an orange, they drove ordinary people, like for ideals, but in fact they shared chairs !!! But they simply couldn’t agree with the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, they interfered with the Russian Empire, was there an opportunity to peacefully resolve the conflict? Hardly, but not for us to decide now
      1. Barrel
        Barrel 14 August 2012 18: 36
        +1
        Question, a history textbook in the 5th grade smoked? To refresh the brain read about Pereyaslavskaya Rada

        I meant this passage: "the reunification of a significant part of Little Russia with the Russian state in 1654" What kind of reunification are we talking about?

        none! did not cancel the given agreements !!!

        the king violated this agreement, thereby canceling it

        were called Ruina

        It was called ruin because Ukraine was fragmented into 3 parts, and the Moscow Tsar and the Sejm fomented a civil war between the hetmans. In any case, the Kozaks lived on Sich on their own and did not participate in wars (except for campaigns in Ottomania).
        Well, let’s say how not to fight, let’s say Doroshenko, who led an independent policy from Poland and sought to unite the right and left banks in an independent state, with Bryukhovetsky, who led a pro-Moscow policy and bent down with a cancer in front of the king. You can’t unite with such (Bryukhovetsky), you only need to destroy such scum, and the Cossacks of both banks, which served ideas, not money, supported Doroshenko.
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 03: 49
          0
          Some kind of porridge. Bryukhovetsky, Mnogogreshny, Samoilovich - these are the left-bank hetmans, by definition, in the Moscow hetman'sine. And Doroshenko is not just a right-bank hetman, he received these signs from Turkey - he is a Turkish hetman. He brought Tatars and Turks to the right bank up to Lviv, including the Turks, who led Christians into slavery in corrals, during his reign churches were converted into mosques. The Cossacks from the Sich fought with him under both hetman Sukhoveenko and hetman Khanenko. In the end, he was left with only one colonel - Gogol, whom Nikolai Vasilievich Yanovsky invented as his ancestor in order to receive the nobility. And there were 2 thousand troops left. And with all this, he surrendered to the left bank and Moscow, respectively. Although in the Turkish service he cursed the left-bank "barabashi".
          1. Barrel
            Barrel 15 August 2012 10: 50
            0
            Doroshenko immediately after being elected a hetman began a war with Poland for liberation (1666). Of course he used the Tatars, like B. Khmelnitsky, but he did not turn the church into a mosque. Then the Kiev metropolitan would come to him. And what’s the point of turning churches into mosques, when the Tatars don’t live there anyway, and Islam is not popular among the population, where did you read that? Again, the pseudo-historians baked by the government, whose main argument is that all historical documents are supposedly fake, but themselves having no evidence of their theories, use conjectures, passing them off as facts ?!
            So, back to Doroshenko. After getting rid of the Polish government, he began the unification of the Hetman and went on a campaign on the Left Bank, against the same Bryukhovetsky, about whom I wrote above. And the campaign was successful, and if the Commonwealth and Moscow left us alone, then there would be no ruin!
            1. Nicholas C.
              Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 13: 00
              -2
              You, obviously, have not read anything at all, except for the Svidomo "textbooks" (those in which about the 140-year-old Ukrainian people).

              About Doroshenko wrote Ukrainian (modern) nationalist and separatist famous historian Kostomarov. For participation in the box of which (Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood), T. Shevchenko was drafted into the soldiers. For example, when the Turks captured Kamenets from Doroshenko, six churches were turned into mosques (the name of the padishah, the name of his mother, the name of the sultana Haseka, the great vizier, kaim-makem and another vizier).

              Because under Doroshenko, Turks and Tatars constantly robbed people, raped them, drove them into slavery, then the people of Doroshenko hated and constantly fought with them, including Zaporizhzhya Cossacks. Even Serko, who deprived Hetman of the traitor Vygovsky, but held the position that it was more proper to fight with the Tatars and Turks than with Doroshenko, even then fought against Doroshenko.

              Because Since most of modern Ukraine was then the territory of the Crimean Khanate and Turkey, then even Svidomo should understand that both of them lived on this territory and with the help of people like Doroshenko kept in tight rein. Accordingly, they needed mosques.
              1. Barrel
                Barrel 15 August 2012 14: 46
                +2
                I do not see evidence. Just an empty stink.
                1. Nicholas C.
                  Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 15: 18
                  -1
                  This is all from Kostomarov's work "Ruin". If there is anything left after Svidomo's brain scraping, then you can easily find the text. If you and Kostomarov stink, then the doctor won't help you either.
                  1. Trapperxnumx
                    Trapperxnumx 15 August 2012 15: 51
                    +2
                    Nikolay S.,Barrel
                    Friends! You would still be easier in the corners. Here is a normal site, protecting your story is basically good, but adequate and without abuse.
                  2. Barrel
                    Barrel 15 August 2012 20: 12
                    +1
                    Yes, if you measure the "traitors" by your standards, then Susanin is a traitor, after all, he promised the Poles to cheat them, but did not? Vygovsky did the same as Susanin (by the way, he did not even swear allegiance to the tsar). You cannot understand this. You had room for the formation of a state, while our fragmented principalities were seized first by Lithuania, and then by Poland.
  6. jo_lik
    jo_lik 14 August 2012 15: 30
    0
    Something reminds me of all this. Nowadays, the behavior of Ukraine is not much different.
    1. connect30
      connect30 14 August 2012 16: 43
      +6
      That and Russia too ...
  7. mechanic11
    mechanic11 14 August 2012 17: 08
    +4
    Zaporozhye called Katerina 2-Tsaritsa-bitch.
    1. Skavron
      Skavron 14 August 2012 17: 28
      +3
      No, well, there is some truth))) So many lovers !!!!

      Another thing is that she used almost all of her lovers for state purposes and many very successfully!
    2. Galina
      Galina 14 August 2012 22: 11
      +3
      mechanic11
      It was not the Cossacks who called it that, but T.G.Shevchenko. After making royal contribution to his liberation from serfdom.
  8. mechanic11
    mechanic11 14 August 2012 17: 36
    0
    Territories of Yakut were brought to Moscow ii-called-vi-yisko Zaporizhzke-Ukraine of the western Cossacks. The ataman Ivan Sirko, having angered his shablah, if he recognized himself, but Bodan Khmelnitsky wrote the letters to be rewarded. After being brought to Moscow, the land was redirected to the land of the slaves !!! For slaves !!! there was no serfdom on this territory. !!!!
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 14 August 2012 17: 52
      +3
      Yeah ... and with the Poles and Austria-Hungary there was freedom
      "The Ukrainian peasants suffered the most from the Union of Lublin. They lost their right to land, and the lordship was increased (days of labor for the landowner)."
      "In Volhynia, panshchina reached three days a week. The situation of the peasants in the sparsely populated southern regions, where settlements were declared to attract peasants, exemption from panshchina and duties, was a little better. But soon these temporary benefits were abolished."
      The offensive of the Polish government and the Polish gentry on the Ukrainian lands for catholicization and polonization, on the one hand, and economic and social pressure, on the other hand, provoked the resistance of the Ukrainian people. As a counteraction, the Ukrainian Cossacks began to organize themselves. "
      "In the fierce 1768 fate, under the grip of the Russian order, the Polish king Stanislav Poniatowski signed a treatise on the formal development of the rights of Catholics in the all Orthodox and Protestant churches. Significant part of the Polish nobility was not supported by the Catholics. into the Russian empire at the city of Bari on the base of the Ukrainian Orthodox confederation in 1768. The confederates began to grab the Ukrainian population, to destroy the Orthodox churches and monasteries in the Ukrainian Volga region, to the confederate to fight. sensitively, tsarina Katerina II saw "The Golden Letter" because of the call to know the Polish gentry. All this became a bezposredny drive until the haydamack insurrection on the Right Bank began. "
      "Western Ukraine, which was part of the Austrian Empire, was very backward in socio - economic terms. It was one of the poorest regions in Europe. Galicia became part of the Habsburg Empire during the reign of Emperor Joseph II, who used Galicia as an area to test his socio-economic and educational reforms. Under him, the obligations of the peasants in favor of the landowner were reduced, the personal dependence of the peasant on the landowner was abolished. However, after his death, most of the reforms were canceled. "
      So, don’t get cancer for a stone ...
      1. Barrel
        Barrel 14 August 2012 23: 38
        0
        Well, no one says that there was freedom under the Poles, they just wanted to break out of one yoke, and fell into another
      2. Nicholas C.
        Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 01: 01
        -1
        After the Union of Lublin, the Poles simply threw the Litvin (White Rus). They banned the Russian (Ruzian) language, deprived Orthodox political rights (to be elected to the Diet, etc.), banned the Orthodox Church (there were only a few semi-legal bishops before the Tomb), annexed the Cossack south of Lithuania. After that, these lands were divided among themselves, but they did not come to manage them themselves, but they sent managers. The most suitable for this were the Poles Jews. Moreover, not only land was leased, but also what the Russians had never taxed before: fishing, bee-keeping, etc. up to the Orthodox churches. Now a Jew had to be paid to die, be born, and marry. Well, serfdom was something that never existed in tsarist Russia. there were both lordship, and cash tax, and natural tax. Such circumstances were the reason for Khmelnytsky, the main slogan of which, according to Kostomarov, is "bey Zhidiv-orendariv."
    2. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 00: 47
      -2
      No need to lie. This is a loss of face. Serko became a kosher in 1663, five years after the death of Bogdan.
      1. Barrel
        Barrel 15 August 2012 10: 55
        +2
        But this does not mean that until 1663 Sirko did not exist) It was just, as I understood it, that he indicated the title of a man.
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 15: 19
          0
          In addition to demagogy and Jesuitism, it seems that you are no longer capable of anything.
  9. PARROT
    PARROT 14 August 2012 18: 48
    +2
    All the neighbors used us, everyone and always valued only their own interests, and this will continue to be so if we have “henchmen” in power, and not patriots. The only thing is that Poland is now very loyal to us and Georgia, we have very good relations with them now, this can be seen from the little things.
    1. Galina
      Galina 14 August 2012 22: 16
      +1
      PARROT
      The only thing is that Poland now treats us very loyally and Georgia, we have very good relations with them now, this can be seen from the little things

      So they have their own selfish interest. Do you take this for pure friendship and love? Naive....
      1. PARROT
        PARROT 15 August 2012 10: 51
        +2
        I accept, but remember the story.
  10. mechanic11
    mechanic11 14 August 2012 19: 09
    -2
    Shevchenko didn’t say anything about Polish oppression in the kobzar. He’s lying, probably, he didn’t talk about the Polish panschina, but he spoke well about gaydamaks.
    1. Barrel
      Barrel 14 August 2012 23: 36
      +3
      he has never been to Poland, what should he write about what he does not know
  11. mechanic11
    mechanic11 14 August 2012 20: 09
    0
    Viruskvartirus (tired of writing) There is nothing Volyn to interfere with Zaporozhye. This is western Ukraine.
  12. mechanic11
    mechanic11 14 August 2012 20: 29
    0
    Viruskvartirus (again, tired of writing a nickname) -Provide the data of the Polish lady in Zaporozhye.

    The original Pereyasov agreement has not yet been found. (They do not want to find)
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 14 August 2012 23: 17
      +1
      )) there are two magical keyboard shortcuts ... and for now clean epaulettes) take advice do not argue on nat question ...
    2. Skavron
      Skavron 14 August 2012 23: 24
      +1
      You Mechanic, Mikhailo Staritsky is suitable instead of Shevchenko ???
      "Rogue Karmelyuk" - I recommend!
      You read about "vlada lyakhiv". Though thin. work, but Shevchenko, you must admit, is not a documentary filmmaker either. And Staritsky is still a historian.
    3. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 01: 31
      -3
      How can you search for something that was not and, in principle, could not be. The Cossacks are no match for the tsar to conclude a "contract" with him.

      There was a Charter.
      1. Barrel
        Barrel 16 August 2012 01: 57
        -1
        The tsar had to admit that the Hetman state exists and conclude an agreement with it. But dear, your "letters" are also not available in the Moscow archives. Don't you think that all these documents could not have just disappeared? Some people benefit from them not to exist.
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 16 August 2012 06: 56
          0
          You are a liar. You are given a link to the very first publication of archival documents on this matter. And this is not a "contract" and certainly not with the mythical "Hetman". The fact that you said that you do not have the brains to understand these documents does not cancel the historical reality and does not turn it into a Svidomo-fantastic.

          And then to you, what is the matter with the Cossacks. Sich was relocated from the territory of modern Ukraine under Catherine. The Cossacks never called themselves Ukrainians. There was no such ethnic concept then. Historically, a phrase from Khmelnitsky's speech is known: "I will knock out all the people of Ruz from the slave bondage." And now the descendants of the Zaporozhye Cossacks do not call themselves Ukrainians. And the fact that the mummers at the place of their former service are trying to organize some kind of clowning in their name is the problem of the mummers.

          It is known that only the Orthodox could become a Cossack. Especially cynical and Jesuit looks when the enemies of Orthodoxy dress up under the Cossacks. In the First World War, the Ukrainians of Galicia (not to be confused with the Rusyns) in the service of Austria, fighting against Little Russians, called themselves Sichev archers. In the service of Hitler, they also organized themselves in smokers, etc.
  13. Dnepropetrovsk
    Dnepropetrovsk 14 August 2012 22: 24
    +2
    Glory to Ukraine !!!
  14. smel
    smel 15 August 2012 07: 18
    +3
    Both the article and the comments are interesting. Everyone is right in their own way. History has never been the same color. Always in it the same events were painted differently by different authors. There are countless examples. And you can start with Karamzin and his "History of the Russian State" Or just try to find Ivano the Terrible at the famous monument to the 1000th anniversary of Russia. The author is great. He just reminded us of the date.
  15. Barrel
    Barrel 15 August 2012 20: 40
    0

    Nicholas C.
    If Sweden began to fight against Russia, then it is not surprising that hostilities were suspended on the other front.


    Trapperxnumx
    Based on your logic, any group of soldiers remaining in the encirclement can not just give up - but go to serve the enemy, they were abandoned !!!


    Something like that, gentlemen, it turned out
    1. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 15 August 2012 21: 49
      0
      Your Jesuitism is sewn with white thread. Accuse Russia of the fact that it did not have sufficient forces in the first stage to oppose Hitler, therefore the territory of the USSR was partially occupied. Therefore, they say, Russia is guilty of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Galicians served Hitler and, as a result, millions of Ukrainians, Belarusians and other people were executed in this service. The exact same logic.
      1. Barrel
        Barrel 16 August 2012 01: 55
        0
        The USSR had its own mistakes, and we all know very well why the union lost in the early stages of the war. If you decide to debate throughout the history course - then you should go to another forum)
        1. Nicholas C.
          Nicholas C. 16 August 2012 07: 01
          -1
          That's how it is. You already speak for everyone and consider yourself perfectly knowledgeable. Although they just admitted that they did not have enough brains to master a simple short document.

          Therefore, you will definitely not understand the analogy in your reasoning.
  16. Alex
    Alex 17 February 2014 18: 14
    +2
    So, in 1709, the ataman Kost Gordienko and the hetman Mazepa signed an alliance agreement with the Swedish king Karl XII. Zaporizhzhya Sich joined the alliance of Mazepa and Charles against Russia.
    Completeness, author, 2000 Cossacks, who did not take part in the battle - is this the whole Zaporizhzhya Sich ?! Do not go too far.

    And stop speculating on Mazepa. This adventurer (like many of his predecessors in this post), together with Bandera and Shukhevych, is a festering ulcer on the Ukrainian body, a constant reason for rotten showdown on the principle of "who ate whose fat". Such little articles only discord and sow, which the author did with great brilliance.
  17. Glory Panasyuk
    Glory Panasyuk 14 December 2019 22: 49
    0
    The rarest nonsense!