Military Review

How Bolotnikov besieged Moscow

28
How Bolotnikov besieged Moscow
Battle of Bolotnikov's army with tsarist troops near Moscow. Artist Ernest Lissner


410 years ago False Dmitry II was killed in Kaluga. A protege of Poland, an impostor who posed as if by a miracle the escaped son of Ivan IV the Terrible, Tsarevich Dmitry Uglitsky. A significant part of the Russian state submitted to his power.

"Miraculous Salvation"


Almost immediately after the impostor False Dmitry I was killed in Moscow (chopped up, burned and fired from a cannon with ashes), rumors spread throughout the city that “the tsar was alive” and would soon return. These rumors were spread by supporters of the impostor.

This caused unrest among the people. Muscovites demanded explanations from the boyars. The boyars went to Execution Ground and swore that the liar had been killed, that Otrepiev had been defrocked, and that soon everyone could see the relics of the true Tsarevich Dmitry with their own eyes. Vasily Shuisky sent in advance to Uglich for the body of the prince Philaret (Romanov), who had just been named patriarch. Also, Pyotr Sheremetev and other opponents of Shuisky entered the Uglich commission.

Tsar Vasily tried to win over Filaret, the Romanov family and his other opponents to his side. However, these favors of the new tsar in relation to the Romanov clan were in vain. Boyarin Fyodor Romanov could no longer become tsar himself, but he had a son, Mikhail. The Boyar Duma rejected the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov. However, rumors about the possibility of his election as king continued to circulate throughout the country.

Filaret played actively. In particular, he tried to overthrow Vasily Shuisky, to make room for his son. And the new impostor was a convenient figure for the fight against the Shuiskys. People from the inner circle of the murdered impostor were engaged in the "resurrection" of Dmitry. Almost all of them were of Polish origin and in custody. That is, someone from Russian nobles helped them.

In Uglich, the patriarch and the boyars discovered the relics of Tsarevich Dmitry. They were promised to be transported to the Archangel Cathedral. With a huge crowd of people, the clerks read out the accusatory articles against the impostor: before his death, False Dmitry confessed that he was a fugitive monk Grishka Otrepiev. He was accused of witchcraft, heresy, a desire to destroy the Orthodox faith. In the ruin of the treasury, etc.

However, these official statements did not achieve their goal. The belief in the "true king" proved to be tenacious, it was fueled by hatred of the boyars. Finding the relics of Tsarevich Dmitry did not help either. Martha Nagaya, obviously, at the sight of her son's body, could not utter the right words. And Shuisky's speech did not touch the crowd.

Both Shuisky and Nagaya lied and too many hypocrites to be believed. There was still anxiety among the people, which was fueled by the boyars and nobles interested in continuing the Troubles.

Soon after his election to the kingdom, Shuisky replaced the carrot with a whip. The leaders of the rebellious settlement were whipped and sent into exile. Tsar Vasily got rid of the opposition in the Boyar Duma. Many of False Dmitry's favorites were stripped of their titles and sent into disgrace, abroad. Filaret was expelled from the patriarchal court. Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes was put in his place. He was distinguished by his cool "words" and deeds.

Hermogenes immediately launched a struggle against the "rabid" - a part of the lower clergy who were involved in the turmoil.

“Then many priests and monks went mad,

- reported the church author, -

and they overthrew the priesthood from themselves and shed much Christian blood. "


Impostor. Portrait fantasy of the artist of the XIX century

A new impostor. Development of the civil war


The favorite of False Dmitry, Mikhail Molchanov, who "became famous" for the murder of Tsar Fyodor II Godunov - the son of Boris Godunov and the widow of Boris - Queen Mary, was able to escape with the help of his supporters. He was joined by Prince Grigory Shakhovsky, who was exiled to the province of Putivl.

Molchanov quickly grew bold at large and soon announced that he had helped save Tsar Dmitry. The fugitive went to Lithuania and there declared that he was the king himself, who had escaped during the May 1606 uprising. Molchanov stole the gold seal, which replaced the royal signature. Letters of letters poured into Russia from the Commonwealth

“Dmitry miraculously escaped”.

In the summer of 1606, a Polish bailiff reported to the Russian ambassadors who crossed the border:

"Your sovereign Dmitriy, whom you say killed, is alive and now in Sendomir with the governor's wife."

That is, the wife of the Sandomierz voivode Yuri Mnishka, who himself at that time was in Russian captivity.

The head of the embassy, ​​Prince Grigory Volkonsky, replied to the Pole that he was an impostor and most likely "Mikhalko Molchanov", he must have whip marks on his back (marks of torture).

Meanwhile, Grigory Shakhovsky in Putivl, seeing that the people were ready for a new riot, and wishing to reckon with Shuisky, announced that

The "true king" is alive.

Tsar Shuisky tried to make peace with the Putivlians, promised to consider all their complaints and give a salary higher than usual. But in vain. City Cossacks, service people, townspeople and peasants did not expect anything good from the new government. And they did not want to give up the benefits received from the impostor.

Peasants across the country were outraged by the harsh new serfdom. They did not want to put up with them. Justice, tradition and customs were on their side. The right of peasant transition has existed for centuries. The cancellation of St. George's Day violated the old law and justice. Nobody listened to pleas and requests.

A social explosion is ripe. False Dmitry promised a lot to everyone, including the peasants, but did little. The people made the appropriate conclusion: if the promised freedom was not given, it means that the dashing boyars prevented the tsar. At the same time, they also killed the king (or tried).

A new powerful wave of popular movement has risen in Russia. In the provinces, many servants, dissatisfied with their position, believed the rumors about the salvation of the king. The provincial nobility felt their strength and yearned for power and wealth.

False Dmitry himself, during his short reign, relied on servants and nobles. He summoned representatives of the nobility from the provinces to inquire about their needs, and handed out generous gifts. Now the nobles feared that with the elimination of the "son of the Terrible", the advancement course would come to an end. Therefore, the servants and nobles of the entire southern outskirts of Russia from Putivl to Tula and Ryazan rose up against Moscow.

In Putivl, the rebels were led by the nobleman Istoma Pashkov. Ryazan region was raised by Procopius Lyapunov. Pashkov and Lyapunov served False Dmitry I. Noblemen, archers, Cossacks, townspeople from different districts flocked under the banners of Pashkov and Lyapunov. In Oskol, the rebels killed Buturlin, the loyal governor of Shuisky, and Saburov in Borisov. Shein, the police officer, barely escaped from Lieven. The rebels occupied Astrakhan and some other Volga cities.

In July 1606, Moscow was under siege and preparing for battle. At first, the authorities tried to hide the truth from the people. They announced that they were waiting for the invasion of the Crimean horde. But soon the capital learned the truth. On the streets of the city, there were new apocalyptic letters from "Tsar Dmitry".

Uprising of Bolotnikov


The main point of the struggle soon became the small fortress of Yelets. False Dmitry I, preparing for the campaign against Azov, sent many guns, supplies of equipment and food to this fortress. Vasily Shuisky tried to persuade the Yelets garrison to his side, but without success. Then he sent a host led by Ivan Vorotynsky to the fortress.

Government troops laid siege to Yelets. Pashkov led the militia, which came to the aid of the besieged. The rebels themselves blocked the government forces, and then in August 1606 completely defeated Vorotynsky's army.

Meanwhile, the civil war was gaining momentum. The rebels have a new leader. It was Ivan Bolotnikov.

His origin is not exactly known: according to one version, he was one of the ruined children of the boyars, served as a military slave of Prince Telyatevsky (or was just a slave), according to the other - a Don Cossack. He had a rich biography: he was captured by the Tatar, sold into slavery, for several years he was a rower in Turkish galleys. A Christian ship captured a Turkish galley, and the slaves were freed. He lived in Venice, then through Germany he came to Poland. He served as a Cossack in the Polish Ukraine. Distinguished by bravery and military talents, he was chosen as chieftain.

He visited Molchanov in Rzecz Pospolita, the impostor gave him a letter to Prince Shakhovsky and sent him to Putivl as a personal envoy and "great voivode". By the fall of 1606, Bolotnikov arrived in Putivl with a large detachment of Zaporozhye Cossacks. Here, they enthusiastically received his news of the meeting with the "good king."

From Putivl, the rebel army marched towards the Kroms. The city was besieged by the tsarist army under the command of Mikhail Nagy and Yuri Trubetskoy. Bolotnikov tried to break through to the city. Both ratios fought hard, there was no clear winner. But the tsarist governors were not sure of their regiments.

Many nobles did not want to fight. Novgorod and Pskov nobles went home. Also, the tsarist generals were discouraged by the defeat of Vorotynsky at the walls of Yelets. Not having achieved a quick victory and fearing that the hostilities would be dragged out for the whole autumn, Nagoya and Trubetskoy took their regiments to Orel. But there was revealed the "vacillation" of the troops. The uprising in Orel led to the final disintegration of the royal army.

Meeting no resistance, Bolotnikov moved to Kaluga. Tsar Vasily sent a new army against the rebels, led by his brother Ivan Shuisky. On September 23 (October 3), 1606, the tsarist troops did not allow the rebels to cross the Ugra River. The rebels suffered heavy losses. But the tsarist governors did not use this success. Troubles spread to the Oka towns. The royal army retreated to Moscow.


Hike to Moscow


After stopping in Serpukhov, Bolotnikov led the rebel army to Moscow. A government detachment under the command of Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky stopped Bolotnikov's army on the Pakhra River, forcing the rebels to take a longer route to Moscow. This provided the capital and the tsarist governors with additional time to prepare the defense. The tsarist troops had an advantage over the rebels. Usually the well-armed cavalry of the nobility routed the rioters.

But after each failure, Bolotnikov made a new leap and approached Moscow. Having been forced to retreat from the battlefield, he did not give up, acted with tenfold energy, put in order the disorganized army, formed new detachments. On the way to Bolotnikov's army, peasants and slaves joined in crowds. On the way, the Bolotnikovites smashed the noble estates, divided the property.

In the cities, trials were held over "traitors". The alarm bells summoned the townspeople to the highest tower ("roll"). The convict was taken upstairs and after the announcement of his name and guilt they asked the people what to do with him. The people either forgave the victim or demanded execution. The culprit was thrown from the tower into the ditch.

The change in the social composition of the army, violence against the landowners, frightened the noble part of the rebel army of Bolotnikov. Pashkov's detachment acted independently. After the victory at Yelets, he could go to Tula and Moscow.

But Pashkov preferred to wage his own war. The voivode turned to Ryazhsk, then went to the Ryazan region. There Prokopiy Lyapunov gathered considerable forces. The younger Ryazan governor Sunbulov joined him. The Ryazan militia and Pashkov's detachment took Kolomna. Then Lyapunov and Pashkov decided to go to Moscow. Tsar Vasily sent his main forces against them under the command of Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky and Golitsyn. Skopin-Shuisky's detachment also hurried to them.

However, there was no unity among the tsarist governors. Mstislavsky and Golitsyn themselves dreamed of a Moscow table and did not want to fight for Shuisky. Among the nobles there were many supporters of the deceased impostor. Therefore, the army of Mstislavsky, although it had a numerical superiority over the enemy, could not withstand the attacks of the detachments of Pashkov and Lyapunov.

On the Kolomna road in the village of Troitskoye, government forces were defeated. Several thousand royal nobles and warriors were taken prisoner. They were punished with a whip and sent home.

On October 28, 1606, the advanced rebel forces occupied the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow. Soon the main forces of Bolotnikov arrived.

The insurgent army numbered up to 20 thousand people and was constantly replenished with fugitive peasants, serfs (as a result, its number increased to 100 thousand people). However, the Bolotnikovites could not organize a full-fledged siege, and they did not want to.

The tsarist army in Moscow retained some of the communications (supply) and was constantly receiving reinforcements.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nazar
    Nazar 23 December 2020 05: 12
    +3
    The more information about those times, the more filthy the founder of the Romanov dynasty, Filaret, looks.
    But about Bolotnikov's "peasant" war (as we were presented at school), the big question is, how peasant is it?
    1. Far B
      Far B 23 December 2020 05: 27
      +2
      how peasant is it?
      Quite a peasant, judging by:
      Changes in the social composition of the army, violence against the landowners, frightened the noble part of the insurgent army of Bolotnikov
      и
      The insurgent army numbered up to 20 thousand people and was constantly replenished with fugitive peasants, slaves (as a result, its number increased to 100 thousand people)
      The peasants rebelled. It is understandable - who will like it when Yuryev's day is cut off without anesthesia?
      1. Nazar
        Nazar 23 December 2020 05: 35
        +3
        Dalny V - The motivation of the peasants is understandable, but is it correct to consider Bolotnikov's army "peasant"? On the one hand, this is so, but on the other hand, as soon as the detachments of "servicemen", Lyapunov and Pashkov betrayed the rebels and went over to Shuisky, Bolotnikov's victories ended.
        That is, the "servicemen" played an essential role in the uprising, and without them the uprising was doomed to failure.
        1. Far B
          Far B 23 December 2020 05: 52
          -2
          Doomed / not doomed is irrelevant in this case. Bolotnikov's army mainly consisted of peasants, it fought - which means that the war is peasant, whatever one may say.
          1. Snail N9
            Snail N9 23 December 2020 06: 45
            -4
            The history of Russia, which is based on the false stories of Messrs. "Millers" and "Company", approved by the collegiums under the leadership of Blumentrost, Kaiserling, von Korf, von Brevern, "Russian" Razumovsky and others of the notorious Russian "Academy of Sciences" of the 18th century, fully censored, sequestered from any objectionable and unpleasant moments of power, stripped of historical primary sources, except for such as the "Rodzivilov Chronicle" and the notorious "Tale of Bygone Years" (even in the 19th century doubted its authenticity) and corrected under "well-known, European sources", does not have nothing to do with historical reality. To judge historical figures or historical events, the significance of certain events, relying on the "official history" of Russia - well, that is ...
            1. Kronos
              Kronos 23 December 2020 12: 12
              +4
              Standard stories that foreigners have faked the entire history of Russia.
            2. ecolog
              ecolog 24 December 2020 06: 43
              0
              Well, yes, they also dug up everything that was archaeologically unnecessary and buried everything that was necessary, in the meantime destroying all traces of the "great Aryan civilization of all times." They also forged documents in Europe, among the Arabs and China, where Russia is mentioned. And all this on paper of those years and taking into account the linguistics of those eras. Straight not Germans, but reptilians with nibiru.
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 23 December 2020 06: 55
            +8
            Whatever one may say, neither Bolot, nor Razin, nor False Dmitry1234, nor Pugach, nor Bulavin waged a war in the interests of the peasantry. They dreamed of a kingdom, their chieftains dreamed of ministerial posts. The core of the armies was made up of Cossacks and servicemen
            1. aleksejkabanets
              aleksejkabanets 23 December 2020 08: 40
              +2
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Whatever one may say, neither Bolot, nor Razin, nor False Dmitry1234, nor Pugach, nor Bulavin waged a war in the interests of the peasantry. They dreamed of a kingdom, their chieftains dreamed of ministerial posts. The core of the armies was made up of Cossacks and servicemen

              They had no class theory, what else could they dream of?
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 23 December 2020 09: 22
                +3
                [quote = aleksejkabanets] [/ quote]
                They did not have a class theory, what else could they dream of? [/ Quote]
                about the republic. examples were already in their lifetime.
                but they stubbornly called themselves "saved kings." Well, the peasant land issue was not resolved and did not intend to
                1. aleksejkabanets
                  aleksejkabanets 23 December 2020 09: 56
                  +6
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  about the republic. examples were already in their lifetime.

                  Can you imagine the general level of education of the peasantry or the Cossacks at that time? What republic could we talk about then? The maximum that the peasants wanted was to take the land from the landlords, the good tsar and the fortress to be abolished. All.
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 23 December 2020 10: 23
                    +2
                    Well, how did you give them B, Lzh, R or P land?
                    By the way, Bolotnikov and Otrepiev knew perfectly well what republics were.
                    1. aleksejkabanets
                      aleksejkabanets 23 December 2020 10: 35
                      +2
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Well, how did you give them B, Lzh, R or P land?
                      By the way, Bolotnikov and Otrepiev knew perfectly well what republics were.

                      Otrepiev, then where? Did these uprisings win, so that you could talk about something? And what did Pugachev, for example, with the landowners on "their" lands?
            2. ecolog
              ecolog 24 December 2020 06: 47
              0
              If Pugachev did everything "according to the Cossack model," this would imply the abolition of serfdom, at least. At least in his era, this was already technically possible, since the army no longer relied on local cavalry and the defenses would not have suffered.
        2. Undecim
          Undecim 23 December 2020 12: 17
          +10
          What's the secret? The fact that the "peasant detachments of Bolotnikov" were led by Prince Telyatevsky and Prince Shakhovskoy has long been known. In the same battle at Pchelna, "Bolotnikov's troops" were commanded by Telyatevsky.
          Bolotnikov's army became "peasant" and "rebellious" in Soviet historiography. And before that it was the army of one of the groups fighting for the throne.
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 23 December 2020 07: 36
      +6
      The Romanovs came to power illegally and criminally. Here is the study of the historian Pyzhikov, as the Romanovs substituted the biography of Anastasia Romanovna, who was the first wife of Tsar Ivan4 and therefore her son Mikhail Romanov received the right to reign, but this turned out to be a lie.

      1. Deniska999
        Deniska999 23 December 2020 08: 34
        +6
        Yes, everyone comes to power through deception and lies, through wars and violence. Name at least one non-republican (and such, too) country where it was not so.
      2. Bar1
        Bar1 23 December 2020 08: 42
        +2
        Quote: Bar1
        Anastasia Romanovna, who was the first wife of Tsar Ivan4 and therefore her son Mikhail Romanov received the right to reign, but this turned out to be a lie.


        so little inaccuracy. Not so, the Tsar's wife "Anastasia Romanovna" had a brother Nikita, and so this Nikita was the father of Filaret's father Mikhail Romanov, that's how difficult it is. It turns out then that Mikhail Romanov is Tsarina Romanovna's BINNY GRANDNITCH and on this liquid basis he was recognized as the king of all Russia.
      3. Nazar
        Nazar 23 December 2020 11: 24
        0
        Bar1 - Colleague, precisely for the reason that these "Romanovs" impostors, with such frenzy under Alexei Mikhailovich destroyed all category books (records of birth and death), then the monastery libraries were burned, the originals of the chronicles were destroyed - the traces were covered up.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 23 December 2020 12: 07
          +3
          Quote: Nazar
          Bar1 - Colleague, precisely for the reason that these "Romanovs" impostors, with such frenzy under Alexei Mikhailovich destroyed all category books (records of birth and death), then the monastery libraries were burned, the originals of the chronicles were destroyed - the traces were covered up.

          Destruction of category books is a minor crime of the Romanovs. They perpetuated ALL the life of Russia. All these wars, troubles, uprisings - all these were stages of one big war in the result of which the Russian people were almost destroyed.
          1. Nazar
            Nazar 23 December 2020 14: 35
            +2
            Bar1 - Colleague, you can say the way you wrote, add to this the church schism (Nikon) under Alexei Mikhailovich and you get a complete picture of the "complex" activities of this family.
        2. ecolog
          ecolog 24 December 2020 06: 55
          +1
          Bit books are essentially a combat journal. And they are in a representative number. They destroyed parochial lists, so that it would be more difficult for the tribal aristocracy to measure themselves with pipiski, deciding who is more important and who should obey whom. And this is bad for the case. The same Grozny had to periodically intervene in parochial disputes, forcing the boyars to obey the governor appointed by him, regardless of parochialism.
          Local books were destroyed in order to finally equate the tribal aristocracy with the service nobility and strengthen the sole power of the king. That would not be like Poland, roughly speaking.
    3. Proxima
      Proxima 23 December 2020 13: 46
      +3
      Quote: Nazar
      But about Bolotnikov's "peasant" war (as we were presented at school), the big question is, how peasant is it?

      It is so customary in Soviet historiography that the four internal wars that the Cossacks (Bolotnikov, Bulavin, Razin, Pugachev) waged against the tsarist government were called peasant wars. By the way, many European monarchs simply exuded bile envying Russia about the fact that it has the Cossacks, they say, a free army and so on. The Austrian Empress Maria-Theresa even tried to create the Cossacks artificially - nothing came of it. So, I would recommend all these envious people to remember these four wars. hi
      1. BAI
        BAI 23 December 2020 19: 34
        +3
        The Austrian Empress Maria-Theresa even tried to create the Cossacks artificially - nothing came of it.

        To have Cossacks, one must have borders with wild backward peoples, provided that there is no state power in the border areas. And where to find such territories in Europe, in particular in Austria-Hungary?
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 23 December 2020 21: 54
          0
          Quote: BAI
          To have Cossacks, one must have borders with wild backward peoples, provided that there is no state power in the border areas. And where to find such territories in Europe, in particular in Austria-Hungary?

          Many countries had borders with backward peoples (not in Europe, of course). Cossacks are a unique phenomenon corresponding to the Russian mentality.
  2. Olgovich
    Olgovich 23 December 2020 07: 40
    0
    The Boyar Duma rejected the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov.


    And I would not have rejected - and there would not have been half of the Troubles ...

    How she was gone after his election.
  3. BAI
    BAI 23 December 2020 19: 27
    +3
    that "the king is alive" and will soon return.

    Millions of times this was repeated when talking about the Time of Troubles, and for some reason a sufficiently large number of people are still surprised by the execution of the royal family and they blame the Bolsheviks for this, not wanting to understand that this is not cruelty, a historical necessity.
  4. Rafal Vahitov
    Rafal Vahitov 10 February 2021 07: 11
    0
    Where did Bolotnikov bring the Cossacks to the Wild Field? If the Tatars lived there under Tsar Ivan the Terrible, those who served and remember Tsar Ivan 4 are still alive, and the people of the steppe changed in less than 30 years. Russian historians are silent, there is no longer the ideological department of the Central Committee of the CPSU and no one forbids writing the truth, there is NO PROPAGANDIST CENSORSHIP.