Military Review

"Oprichnoe case" of Ivan the Terrible

108

One of the main mysteries of the Russian stories is the establishment by Ivan IV of his personal, separate from the state appanage - the infamous oprichnina.


The strange "flight" of Ivan IV


On December 3, 1564, something unheard of happened in Russia. Ivan IV, the legitimate monarch, whose power no one seemed to dispute, left Moscow without announcing a reason in an unknown direction.


M. Panin. Departure of Ivan the Terrible from Moscow in front of the oprichnina, painting 1911

The tsar, of course, was not obliged to obtain permission to leave the capital, but he had to inform the Duma about his plans and leave some orders for the period of his absence. At the same time, he tried to do everything possible so that the entire population of Moscow would know about his departure. The tsar took the army, the state treasury, church relics, children, as well as many boyars with their families. It was a demonstration of either flight, or some kind of emergency evacuation. There were simply no visible and understandable reasons for such actions. Rumors in Moscow went bad and very disturbing, including about the imminent, hitherto unprecedented, campaign of the Tatars against Holy Russia. Two letters of Ivan IV, which came to Moscow from Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda in the first days of January 1565, did not clarify anything, but only completely confused the situation. In the first of them, the fugitive tsar Ivan accused the boyars of numerous insults that they inflicted on him “due to his infancy” (the tsar at that time was over 34 years old), and the clergy of harboring some “traitors”. And in the second, addressed to the merchant and townspeople of Moscow, it was said that there was no royal anger against the common people, and Ivan did not reproach them for anything.

"Oprichnoe case" of Ivan the Terrible
Ivan IV in a portrait kept in the Kunstkamera

Recall that in childhood and youth, Ivan IV was indeed subjected to humiliation by the boyars Shuisky and Belsky. He later recalled:

“Ivan Shuisky used to walk in a shabby fur coat, and now he eats on gold ... And what a need we have not suffered, even losing food and clothes!”

He:

“It used to happen that in my presence he put his boots on his father’s bed.”

However, back in December 1543 (21 years ago), Ivan IV ordered the kennels to seize Andrei Shuisky, who believed in his omnipotence, and throw him into prison. The servants then "overdid it" - they strangled the boyar. But for Ivan, in the end, it turned out even “better”: the rest of the boyars realized that the “jokes” with the tsar were over, and immediately moderated their arrogance.

In 1564, under Ivan IV, of course, no one “thrown his feet in boots” on the bed, and he did not endure the need for clothes and food. Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1554) had already been taken. Moreover, the tsar also got rid of the members of the Elected Rada that bored him: in 1560 Adashev and Sylvester were sent into exile, Andrei Kurbsky fled to Poland in 1564.

At the disposal of historians there is no information about the presence of serious boyar opposition to the power of Ivan IV at the time of his departure from Moscow. And no popular riots, with which the history of Russia is so rich, were also not recorded at that time by any of the sources. The foreign policy situation was also quite favorable. Most recently (in the autumn of 1564), Alexei Basmanov and his son Fyodor repelled the attack of the Crimean Tatars Devlet Giray on Ryazan, and then pursued them, capturing 500 prisoners, among whom was Murza Mamai.


This is how Alexei Basmanov was seen by the audience of the famous film "Ivan the Terrible" (S. Eisenstein, 1944)

Events on the fronts of the Livonian War at that time did not cause much concern - the main failures were ahead.

Some historians have tried to connect the tsar's flight from Moscow with the death of his first wife, Anastasia, in whose poisoning he allegedly suspected the boyars. Like, Ivan was afraid that he would be poisoned - after his wife. However, Anastasia died six months before those events (July 27, 1560), and not suddenly, but after a serious illness that lasted 10 months. Yes, and the grief of Ivan IV after the death of his wife was very short. Eight days later he told the courtiers:

"Do I always cry? Do not harm the health of my precious. To console my grief, I want to get married.”

One gets the impression that the sick wife had long been a burden to him, and the king was waiting for her death, which would untie his hands and allow him to enter into a new marriage.

In general, no one in Moscow understood anything, but on behalf of the metropolitan, the boyars and townspeople, an embassy was sent to Ivan the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda with a request to return and continue the reign. Ivan agreed, but not for nothing, but with conditions. The first of these was the right of free reprisal against "traitors" and persons objectionable to him. And the second - the separation of the royal "household" from the rest of the state. The tsar took for himself such cities as Mozhaisk, Vyazma, Kozelsk, Belev, Przemysl, Medyn, Galich, Suzdal, Vologda, Kostroma, Ples, Kashin. In Moscow, for his people, he received Arbat, Sivtsev Vrazhek, Nikitskaya Street. And the main residence of the tsar has now become Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (the modern city of Aleksandrov, Vladimir Region).


Johann Theodor de Bry. Alexander Sloboda. Feast at the court of Ivan IV. Early XNUMXth century engraving


Museum-Reserve "Alexandrovskaya Sloboda"

This is how the famous oprichnina appeared, about which Klyuchevsky wrote that she:

“Protecting the sovereign shook the very foundations of the state. Directed against imaginary sedition, it prepared the real one.

It should be said that the word "oprichnina" has two meanings. The first is the "widow's share", which was given to the wives of deceased nobles. The second is the best dishes that the host at the feasts kept to himself in order to share them with selected guests. Which of them did Ivan IV have in mind? This, apparently, only the king himself knew.


Poorly visible, the only true lifetime portrait of Ivan the Terrible on the cover of the first printed "Apostle" of 1564

Fear of Ivan the Terrible


But what was the meaning of this performance with the departure of the tsar from Moscow? Many historians see in it a not too skillful performance, thanks to which Ivan IV, with the permission of the people, began many years of repression against his real and imaginary enemies. However, it is known that in the month and a half that the tsar then spent in Alexander Sloboda, he changed dramatically. Some sources claim that Ivan has noticeably aged and even gone bald. It is very likely that his experiences and fear were sincere and unfeigned. And this is very strange, because, in general, he had nothing to be afraid of. Next to Ivan and under his supervision were his sons and the main contender for the throne - cousin Vladimir Staritsky, bound by two "cross-kissing" letters of allegiance. And with the tsar there was an army loyal to him, which he led away from Moscow. Under such circumstances, would anyone try to announce claims to the royal throne?


Ivan IV. Parsuna. XNUMXth century

But in the future, some genuine and inexplicable fear haunted Ivan IV. He quite seriously asked the English Queen Elizabeth for asylum for himself and his family in case of flight from the country and began the construction of ships that could reach London. The state treasury was transferred to Vologda. In the Cyril Monastery, he ordered to prepare cells for himself and his sons. Paranoia? But at the same time, the tsar's struggle with the "traitors" is distinguished by a strange inconsistency, which makes it difficult to explain his actions both by mental illness and by considerations of state expediency. Agreeing that the struggle for the centralization of power was necessary, V. Klyuchevsky was perplexed:

“It was necessary either to eliminate the boyars as a government class and replace it with other, more flexible and obedient instruments of government, or to separate it, bring the most reliable people from the boyars to the throne and rule with them ... it was necessary to act against the political position of the whole class, and not against individuals. The tsar ... suspecting all the boyars of treason, rushed at the suspects, tearing them out one by one, but left the class at the head of the Zemstvo administration.

Here is the most striking example of the inconsistency of Ivan IV. In 1569, he forced his cousin Vladimir Staritsky, his wife and eldest daughter to drink poison, exterminated all those close to the prince. That is, it seems to have destroyed the very possibility of a rebellion or attempts at separatism by this influential and noble family. But why did he then transfer his inheritance and title to the son of the executed Vladimir? Where can one see the struggle of Ivan IV for the centralization of power?

Other influential boyar families, whose members were descended from specific princes, also retained their land holdings. The place of the destroyed authoritative and senior representatives of the families was taken by the junior and secondary ones, who continued to remain sovereign and semi-independent rulers of their estates.

Oddities of the "Pogrom of Novgorod"


Everyone knows about the defeat of Novgorod by Ivan the Terrible during the campaign of 1569-1570. (on the way, he ruined Yaroslavl at the same time). However, in 1569 Tver, Medyn, Torzhok, Vyshny Volochek were also devastated. Recall, by the way, that Medyn was an oprichny, that is, a city that belonged personally to the king - and this did not save it from being defeated by the oprichny army.

If the campaign of Ivan IV against Novgorod can still be explained by the need to combat the separatist sentiments of its inhabitants, then punitive operations against other cities are puzzling. At the same time, all the pogroms of completely peaceful and not rebellious cities were in the nature of a military operation. Ahead and along the flanks of the army of guardsmen, detachments allegedly marched, detaining or even destroying all the people who had the misfortune to meet them on the way. The doomed cities were surrounded and blockaded so that no one would be able to get out of them. Involuntarily, one gets the impression that Ivan the Terrible was looking for something (or someone) in them and tried very hard so that the enemy unknown to us would not escape him.


Savichev A. Entry of Ivan IV the Terrible to Novgorod on January 8, 1570

As you know, Novgorod suffered especially hard. They say that in January-February 1570, not only trading warehouses and shops, but also churches and monasteries were looted in the city, all the clergy were destroyed, and even that in the district for 200-250 miles all bread was burned and cattle were slaughtered. In general, the day was considered “light and fertile”, when only 500-600 people were thrown into the Volkhov bound.

Meanwhile, the “German” Staden, who seems to be supposed to “slander” the Russian Tsar, writes that it was not people who were drowned in Volkhov, but the unnecessary property of the executed:

“Everything that military people could not take away with them was thrown into the water or burned. If any of the Zemstvo tried to pull something out of the water, they hanged him.

But even more interesting is another testimony of this author:

"Most of them (executed) were Poles."

That is, mostly foreigners and their Novgorod supporters were repressed.

Schlichting and Guagnini also turned out to be very "modest" and moderate authors. Talking about those events, they write about 2770 killed citizens, however, adding:

“Not counting the mob” (Schlichting) and “Not counting the poor people and women” (Guagnini).

Schlichting, in addition, reports that out of 300 boyars arrested and brought to trial, 184 were found not guilty.

Taube and Kruse bring the number of victims to 15 thousand people (by the way, A. Kurbsky agrees with them). But even this is much less than the figures given in the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles - 30 thousand and 60 thousand, respectively. However, Jerome Horsey surpassed everyone, before whom Ivan IV allegedly boasted of his treasures:


A. Litovchenko. Ivan the Terrible Showing Treasures to Jerome Horsey

The Englishman, without hesitation, writes about 700 thousand (!) victims, which completely compromises his testimony.

It is currently believed that in the middle of the 30th century the population of Novgorod did not exceed 1581 thousand people. Papal Nuncio Antonio Possevino, who visited Novgorod in October 1582 and January 20, estimates its population at 000. A. A. Zimin and A. L. Khoroshkevich in the book “Russia in the Time of Ivan the Terrible” cite an “average” figure of 26 people.

The memorial lists of the Novgorod synodicists for that year contain the names of 2800 people (a figure very close to the data of Schlichting and Gvagnini), but not all of them were killed: some died of natural causes.

The remains of about 10 thousand people were found in a mass grave near the Nativity Church, but in 1570 the plague came to Novgorod, and, quite possibly, it was she, and not the repressions of Ivan IV, that dealt the main blow to this city.

The number of those executed could hardly exceed two and a half thousand. And the famous Malyuta Skuratov, in his report (“fairy tale”), even claims that 1490 people were executed in Novgorod and 15 were killed from squeakers (perhaps when trying to resist). It is unlikely that he wanted to downplay the "exploits" of the guardsmen loyal to the tsar.

It is curious that after those events, Ivan IV took the Trade side of Novgorod to the oprichnina and built his palace here. But at the beginning of 1572, without formally abolishing this division of the city into oprichnina and zemstvo parts, the tsar actually restored the traditional system of government. He appoints the boyar Mstislavsky as his deputy, to whom the oprichny boyar P. Pronsky was now forced to obey. In the same 1572, allegedly completely devastated Novgorod became the royal headquarters and rear base of the Russian army leading the Livonian war. The state treasury is delivered to it and placed in the church cellars of the zemstvo (not oprichnina) part of the city.

Some historians believe that the story of the Novgorod pogrom of Ivan IV is more consistent with the actions in the same city of his grandfather, Ivan III, whom his contemporaries also called Grozny. He then (in the winter of 1487) expelled from Novgorod all the boyars, all the richest merchants and half of the merchants of the “middle hand”, as well as about 7 thousand citizens. Perhaps, in the memoirs of descendants and the writings of later authors, these two events merged into one.

Many people think that after the pogrom perpetrated by Ivan IV, Novgorod became an ordinary Russian city, but this is not true: it retained the right to mint coins and independence in diplomatic relations with Livonia and Sweden. And for what then was this campaign made? And, most importantly, what was the result? If Ivan IV really fought against Novgorodian separatism, then it was exactly the opposite. During the Time of Troubles, the Novgorodians unanimously decided to secede from Moscow and accepted the Swedish corps of General Delagardie.

Academician S. B. Veselovsky could not find any system in the repressions of Ivan the Terrible. The tsar's wrath was not directed at any particular social group - the boyars, the merchants or the clergy. Separate families were selectively subjected to repressions, which were completely cut out. In the devastated cities and counties, all their inhabitants suffered to the same extent - regardless of their origin, position in society and wealth.

"The best cities and the worst people" for Ivan IV


Another contradiction in the domestic policy of Ivan the Terrible was noted by V. Klyuchevsky, who wrote:

“The sovereign, having declared before the face of the whole earth that all the boyars are traitors and that there is no disgrace and anger against ordinary people, left these ordinary people loyal to him under the rule of the Boyar Duma, filled with traitors.”

For himself, the tsar chose “the best cities and the worst people”, whom the foreigners who served in the oprichnina called murderers and scumbags politically incorrect.

Albert Schlichting wrote:

“He began to collect the oprichnina, that is, the murderers, linking them with himself with the closest bonds of obedience ... whom he recruited from the scum-robbers. If he noticed somewhere a particularly impudent and criminal person, he soon attracted him to the community and made him a servant of his tyranny and cruelty.

It is curious that the guardsman Vasily Gryaznov, who was captured by the Tatars, in a letter to Ivan the Terrible (with a request for a ransom) assured the tsar that he personally "bitten to death" 6 people.

Heinrich Staden argued that, according to the oath, the guardsmen not only did not have the right to maintain contact with anyone from the "Zemshchina", but even had to give up their father and mother, if they were "Zemstvo".

But the guardsmen did not feel safe at all.

Taube and Kruse wrote about the same. According to the recollections of foreigners, the guardsman, caught in any relationship with the Zemstvo, was killed without trial, the whole family of his acquaintance was cut out.

And Schlichting, already quoted by us, states:

“Whether someone at court speaks loudly or quietly, laughs or winces, the accusation will immediately arise that you are at one with the enemies or are plotting against the king.”

Another oddity was the almost obligatory presence of Ivan the Terrible at "interrogations with passion." The pleasure is rather dubious: either this king was a complete sadist, or his desire to hear answers to some questions was very great.

The fate of the guardsmen


And then Ivan the Terrible suddenly "cured" of his fear - somewhere around 1571. The former closest associates of the tsar were accused of treason, and not only ordinary performers, but also the top leaders of the oprichnina - Basmanov, Vyazemsky, Gryaznov and some others - were executed on Moscow squares. Malyuta Skuratov took the most active part in their destruction; And then a royal decree came out banning the mention of the word "oprichnina" itself. Officially, contrary to popular belief, it was not abolished during the life of this tsar, it was just that the oprichniki became “yard people”, the oprichny cities and lands became “yard yards”. The tsar writes a will, in which the decision on the fate of the oprichnina is transferred to the discretion of his sons, Ivan and Fedor: “how it is more profitable for them, and they repair". It seems that Ivan IV himself does not need and is not interested in both the oprichnina and the guardsmen now.


Sculptural portrait of Ivan IV (reconstruction according to Gerasimov's method)

Sometimes they write that the reason for the change in the attitude of Ivan IV towards the guardsmen was their inability to protect Moscow from the Tatars in 1572. However, this is not entirely true: in the famous battle of Molodi (between July 29 and August 2, 1572), guardsmen, commanded by Dmitry Khvorostinin, also participated - and they fought very well. Their advanced regiment defeated the Tatar rearguard and then led the main army to the hill, on which the walk-city was already deployed. But then the hitherto unthinkable happened: the guardsmen became part of the zemstvo army and obeyed the zemstvo governor Mikhail Vorotynsky. That is, the battle of Molodi was won by the united Russian army. And here the cause is confused with the effect. Ivan IV did not become angry with the guardsmen after that battle, but put them in a subordinate position because he had already decided on their future fate before it began.

The tone of Ivan the Terrible when dealing with the British also changed dramatically. He now refers to Queen Elizabeth in correspondence not "our noble sister", but "a vulgar girl who is ... ruled by trading men". The English ambassador is informed about the withdrawal of the request for "political asylum" for Ivan IV and his family. The goods of English merchants were seized. All work to strengthen Vologda has stopped, the construction of other oprichnina fortresses has stopped.

“Fuel to the fire” is added by a well-known fact: many documents of the era of Ivan the Terrible were seized from the archives by order of Metropolitan Filaret (father of Mikhail Romanov) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (grandson of Filaret), which documentary evidence of clerks of that time has been preserved. And at the beginning of the 1626th century, the materials of the detective case about the “Novgorod Treason” also disappeared from the archives. In the Census Book of the Ambassadorial Order in XNUMX, the following description of these documents is given:

"An article list from the detective from the treasonable case of 78 (1570) on the Bishop of Novgorod on Pimen, and on the Novgorod Dyakov, and on the clerks and on the guests, and on the Vladyka Prikazhnye, and on the Children of the Boyars and on the clerks."

The “cleansing of the archives” is usually explained by the fact that the Romanovs justified their rights to the throne solely by property with Ivan IV through his first wife, Anastasia Zakharyina-Romanova. And, apparently, there were some facts inconvenient for the new dynasty, which they decided to consign to oblivion. Perhaps some of the documents destroyed then could answer the question about the reasons for the appearance of the oprichnina.

We will try to talk about the possible reasons for the fear of Ivan the Terrible in the next article.
Author:
108 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. Pafka
    Pafka 27 March 2022 04: 53
    +17
    Personally, I am always confused by quoting German "historians".
    1. know
      know 27 March 2022 09: 09
      +8
      The most curious thing is that it was precisely in the story about the "pogrom of Novgorod" that the "Germans" Staden, Schlichting and Gvagnini just turned out to be less dreamers than the Russians - the same Kurbsky (Taube and Kruse equaled him in assessments) and, especially, the authors of the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles. And in comparison with the Englishman Horsey, they are all examples of honesty and objectivity.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 29 March 2022 07: 26
      +1
      Quote: Pafka
      Personally, I am always confused by quoting German "historians".

      So dear, if you quote the English, they will not be more objective. Shpakovsky's school bothers me more.
  2. vervolk
    vervolk 27 March 2022 05: 33
    +16
    These pages of history have always seemed to me full of mysteries. Sometimes completely fantastic ideas and explanations come to mind. First of all, the following versions arise:
    1. there were several kings. Over a different period of time, one or another character performed under the personal "Terrible Tsar". In favor of this version would be an explanation of changes in appearance and sharp "turns" in domestic policy. Then the campaigns against the "rebellious" cities that did not recognize the impostor and the reprisals against the "inner circle" - who personally knew by sight, so to speak, are understandable. After all, we must remember that there were no photographic portraits, newspapers and paintings in the tradition. The king was always seen from afar and recognized by his clothes, regalia and surroundings. Well, there is a beard, Monomakh's hat, a scepter with an orb and bells in an escort.
    2. version number two. The king was very advanced and well-read, a nugget able to think strategically, sharpening his mind with chess games and reading Roman and Greek philosophers, and all his actions are conscious internal reforms. After all, what is the oprichnina if not the very attempt of Peter1 to surround himself with "nobles" personally devoted to him and indebted to him for everything, as opposed to the high-born aristocracy - the boyars, each clan of which behaves from the Ruriks and has the same claims to the throne as the ruling dynasty? Who is Peter's Menshikov, a hare pies merchant, if not a "mean" little man from the oprichnina? And the division of lands and cities is an attempt to create a material base for itself, as opposed to traditional divisions. Let us recall the history of the formation of French absolutism, when there was often a situation when the king of France had less lands and subjects than his duke or count, and then it was necessary to improve the situation by a profitable marriage or vice versa by accusing him of treason. In fact. in the future, the oprichnina was transformed into courtyard people, the same nobility, with the support of which Peter was able to finally destroy the power of the boyars, undermined by troubled times.
    3. version three, the king was simply not understood. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the campaign against Novgorod coincides in time with the plague epidemic? the description of the actions of the troops of the guardsmen - the encirclement of the city - the destruction of all those who met, did not let anyone out of the cities, drowned and burned the seized things and property, very much reminded me of tough quarantine measures. Perhaps the flight from Moscow and internal campaigns, is it a fight against an infection not of a political but of a biological nature? Indeed, in a society not familiar with the theory of the spread of the epidemic through bacilli and microbes,
    1. T.A.V.
      T.A.V. 27 March 2022 13: 07
      +3
      In my opinion, the second version is the most plausible, but quarantine measures should not be ruled out either. But regarding the first, about different kings, I can’t imagine such a situation.
      Although this version is not devoid of logic, of course.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 March 2022 13: 37
      +9
      I see it this way. We cannot figure it out in the Second World War, and we will never figure it out in many issues (the same losses of Germany and satellites) - there are simply no documents, period. And to try to understand the affairs of bygone days ... Definitely necessary. But you need to understand that here we can only guess with varying degrees of probability about what happened.
    3. kytx
      kytx 29 March 2022 01: 54
      0
      Heh. Well, P1 somehow removed the old-fashioned families from the "court".
  3. Ermak_Timofeich
    Ermak_Timofeich 27 March 2022 05: 42
    +4
    Protecting the sovereign shook the very foundations of the state

    To argue with the authorities (Klyuchevsky) is a thankless task. But, nevertheless, it did not shake, but strengthened. I will allow myself to have this point of view on the basis of the subsequent results of the introduction of the oprichnina. The existence of the "fifth column" was, is and will always be. In various forms - the descendants of the Rurikovichs, relatives of the royal family, defendants in the Streltsy and Guards coups, clinical idiots of the "Bell", "Lenin Guard", "prisoners of conscience" (it is not clear whose), liberal democracy, etc. etc. And bringing the structure of the state to order is the business of the first persons of the state.
    There are fans of the alternative. stories. Try it - remove the oprichnina. It is not worth voicing the results, they are obvious - the disappearance of Russia from the world map.
    1. tatra
      tatra 27 March 2022 06: 28
      -4
      Only now the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people who captured the USSR have demonstrative double standards in everything and always.
      Here, they have the Romanovs and those who ruled before them had every right to repress and destroy the "fifth column", the enemies of the USSR themselves, after they seized the republics of the USSR, believe that they have every right to repress the "fifth column", but the fact that the communist Bolsheviks repressed and destroyed the "fifth column", the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people - this is their crime.
      1. Ermak_Timofeich
        Ermak_Timofeich 27 March 2022 06: 50
        +5
        I agree with you, but where in my text is the division between:
        the enemies of the USSR, after they seized the republics of the USSR, believe that they have every right to repress the "fifth column",.

        и
        but the fact that the Bolsheviks-communists repressed and destroyed the "fifth column", the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people, is their crime
        ?
        This is one field of berries. Regardless of the existing system. This, at all times, is a cancerous tumor of any state structure.
        And, for the arrangement of positions, communism is a thing of the past, never showing up anywhere. Marx's teaching was true until all his postulates came to naught. There are no foundations and forces in the world today, on which Marx relied.
        1. astra wild2
          astra wild2 27 March 2022 14: 07
          +5
          "communism is a thing of the past" I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you: the ideas of communism have not gone into the past and will not go away! Another thing is that Zyuganov has nothing to do with the communist-Leninists. He is a social democrat, not a communist
          1. Ermak_Timofeich
            Ermak_Timofeich 27 March 2022 14: 53
            +2
            God forgive me - what does Zyuganov and his hedgehog have to do with it? Ideas remained, you can’t argue here, but the idea and goal of communism itself was not confirmed and consolidated in history:
            - Were there examples of creating communes at the grassroots level?
            - Of course.
            - Were they durable?
            - Not. Outlived themselves at the stage of formation.
            And the building of socialism in one country - yes, confirmed the relevance and possibility of the history of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the Chinese Revolution of 1911, 6 years before Russia. Yes, they were tossed "on the waves of Marxism", but they were thrown by everyone who embarked on this path (including Lenin). But today, historical experience, having confirmed the possibility of creating a prosperous and dominant socialist state, has not given any confirmation of the possibility of creating and existing a communist stand, even at the primary level of communes.
            And most importantly, does that driving force "which has nothing to lose except its chains" exist today?
            1. astra wild2
              astra wild2 27 March 2022 16: 02
              +1
              In your opinion, have everyone already become olegars?
            2. Alexander Kuksin
              Alexander Kuksin 28 March 2022 10: 04
              0
              But socialism was never built in one separate country. The USSR was not in the full sense of the socialist state. I am not even sure that if the war of 1941-1945 had not happened, there would have been a new coup that would have destroyed this system. Maybe this war was the salvation and punishment of Russia. Otherwise, a new turmoil would lead to the death of our country.
        2. Alexander Kuksin
          Alexander Kuksin 28 March 2022 09: 54
          0
          The only true thing is that this loafer, who never worked anywhere and lived at the expense of others, wrote his "works" commissioned by English and French bankers. Just a habit to consider him and the worthless lawyer Ulyanov as geniuses. The truth is that the fifth column is inherent in any state system. There are always those who are dissatisfied. Only there are passive (kitchen) and active, arranging riots.
    2. paul3390
      paul3390 27 March 2022 07: 28
      +9
      But, nevertheless, it did not shake, but strengthened.

      Pay attention - Ivan Vasilyevich is not Bloody, not Terrible, not Ferocious .. He is Terrible. And the epithet formidable in Russian does not at all carry an obvious negative meaning. Rather, the opposite. Terrible - for whom? Certainly not for the people. In addition, they fought for the Terrible Tsar to the last, one siege of Pskov was worth something, and even the battle of Molodi. Sorry - but they don’t fight like that for a hated ruler .. It means that the vast majority of contemporaries had a slightly different point of view on his deeds ..
      1. VLR
        27 March 2022 10: 32
        +12
        In folk memory (songs, tales), Ivan IV, in general, is rather a positive character - strict, but fair. The brightly negative coloring of his image is the "merit" of Karamzin, who laid the foundation for the tradition.
  4. Dmitry Donyakin
    Dmitry Donyakin 27 March 2022 05: 46
    +3
    Ivan Vasilyevich's father, Vasily III, had no children for a long time. For 20 years he lived with his beloved wife, but there was no heir. And this is a state matter. The boyars persuaded him to get a divorce and send his wife to a monastery. Vasily went on another military campaign, his wife was exiled. The tragedy is that she was pregnant at the time. And she gave birth to a son, an heir, in the monastery. She understood that her son would not live. And he "died". And he was buried in the monastery. Ivan the Terrible ordered to open the grave. She was empty. Oprichnina is the search for a brother. The power of Grozny was illegitimate while he was alive. In parallel, he "built" the boyars. But the main meaning of the oprichnina is "to sort out little people." Terrible phrase. And only when the brother was found and killed, the "repressions" ended.
    1. Roman Efremov
      Roman Efremov 27 March 2022 09: 34
      +2
      Is this version somehow confirmed, or pure fiction?
      1. Dmitry Donyakin
        Dmitry Donyakin 30 March 2022 16: 16
        0
        Sergey Tsvetkov. "Ivan the Terrible". Very interesting book.
        1. Roman Efremov
          Roman Efremov 30 March 2022 19: 49
          0
          That is, some Tsvetkov came up with?
          1. Dmitry Donyakin
            Dmitry Donyakin 31 March 2022 16: 04
            +1
            You can say in this case that everyone comes up with. For example, I read three versions about the son of the Terrible Fyodor. The books were written by people with historical education. According to one version, he was weak-minded and did not solve anything. According to another version, he liked to ring bells. And he was not involved in government affairs at all. According to the third version, he was a very good king. The common people lived well with him. This is also why Godunov did not succeed. His life got worse. Even under Fedor, Siberia was annexed. They finally "calmed down" the Crimean Khan, etc. Almost golden time. Who to believe? What I liked about Tsvetkov: he does not impose his point of view.
    2. T.A.V.
      T.A.V. 27 March 2022 13: 10
      +1
      Is there a source for this version? I would like to take a look.
      1. Dmitry Donyakin
        Dmitry Donyakin 30 March 2022 16: 05
        0
        Sergey Tsvetkov. "Ivan the Terrible". I highly recommend this book. The author tries to consider historical events from different positions.
        1. T.A.V.
          T.A.V. 30 March 2022 16: 18
          0
          Thank you very much!
    3. astra wild2
      astra wild2 27 March 2022 13: 51
      +1
      Colleague, Dmitry, let's ask Valery: what does he think?
      1. VLR
        27 March 2022 13: 59
        +4
        There is such a version, although not too well known and popular - apparently because of its "conspiracy" in the spirit of Ren-TV. The widespread rumors about the birth of George, Ivan's older half-brother, are mentioned, for example, by Herberstein, who visited Moscow. And George, in principle, did not even need to really exist - after all, some impostor, the forerunner of False Dmitry, could take his name. In the next article, I write about this version as one of the possible causes of Ivan the Terrible's "fears". There are other versions of these fears, I tried to talk about them.
        1. Dmitry Donyakin
          Dmitry Donyakin 30 March 2022 16: 08
          +1
          Sergey Tsvetkov. "Ivan the Terrible". I liked this book because the author tries to present different points of view. Arguments for the birth of Grozny from a lover, and arguments that he is Vasily's own son. Etc. I read it with pleasure.
      2. Dmitry Donyakin
        Dmitry Donyakin 30 March 2022 16: 34
        +1
        He knows about this version. So, it was not born in a vacuum. Unfortunately, our whole history is a constant struggle. And we have few documents preserved therefore. Our History is Faith. We don't have much to prove. It remains to believe.
  5. paul3390
    paul3390 27 March 2022 07: 11
    +9
    We are told: Ivan the Terrible is a bloody villain, because he executed innocent boyars. Have you ever seen innocent boyars? Well, if you look around ... (c)
    1. astra wild2
      astra wild2 27 March 2022 13: 47
      0
      Colleague paul, don't you think that comparing the realities of the 16th century and people of the 21st century is not entirely appropriate?
      I myself really don’t like reality, but I don’t compare the 16th century with the 21st
  6. burigaz2010
    burigaz2010 27 March 2022 07: 12
    -5
    Ugh, I think I read Samsonov, but no, it turns out to be red, there is no difference. And before the normal author was
    1. astra wild2
      astra wild2 27 March 2022 13: 33
      +2
      "there is no difference" don't you really feel the "Ryzhov style"?
      Samsonov the Terrible is "combed", and Ryzhov is what he is
  7. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 27 March 2022 08: 38
    +10
    However, in 1570, the plague came to Novgorod, and, quite possibly, it was she, and not the repressions of Ivan IV, that dealt the main blow to this city.

    And there was no other way to fight the plague, except to lock the sick and infected in the house, and then burn it along with all the property, in those days.
    So it is quite possible that the "pogrom" of Novgorod was a fight against the plague, and not against the opposition.

    And further. As far as I understand, there was only one historian who tried to look at the reign of Ivan IV with an open mind, and that Pole. I'm talking about Kazimierz Waliszewski. In his work, he conscientiously listed everything that the sources brought to us, but at the same time, firstly, he constantly compared these events with what was happening in "enlightened Europe", and secondly, he tried to critically comprehend them. And if it is written in the sources that the whole family of a certain boyar was slaughtered, and in the discharge books his sons receive salaries for many more years, then the question involuntarily arises, was the story of total extermination an artistic exaggeration?
    Of course, Ivan, nicknamed Vasilyevich for cruelty, was not an angel in the flesh, slandered by the evil Romanovs. Normal such a medieval satrap. No better, but no worse than his contemporaries.
    1. balabol
      balabol 27 March 2022 13: 54
      +4
      Sorry, but Ivan the Terrible is by no means a satrap. Satrap - a cruel governor appointed by the central government. Hence the usual form - "royal satrap". No one appointed Grozny, no one gave him orders.
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 27 March 2022 16: 44
        +2
        You are right.
        Tyrant is better?
        1. balabol
          balabol 27 March 2022 16: 59
          +3
          For me, in this context, a tyrant or a despot is more appropriate. But this is our assessment even today. And then it's a monarch like everyone else. King, just king.
  8. know
    know 27 March 2022 08: 38
    +6
    Very concise, concise and clear. It is well written, easy to read and enjoyable to read. The illustrations are traditionally well and tastefully selected. We are waiting for an article with versions of the "phobias" of Ivan IV. I'm guessing that maybe, but it's still very interesting.
  9. Korsar4
    Korsar4 27 March 2022 08: 44
    +8
    The oprichnina went well through the aristocracy, especially the Suzdal nobility.
    And when the blood flows, it takes a long time to recover.
  10. Roman Efremov
    Roman Efremov 27 March 2022 09: 38
    0
    The sculptural portrait of Ivan, made according to Gerasimov's method, is very similar to his own portrait on Parsun. I wonder how strong the influence of the second on the first? Did the restorers have to "customize", or is everything clean and scientific? Well, a beard and bald patches - okay, Parsuns could take it. But the very characteristic "Mediterranean" features - is it from Parsuna or from the skull?
    1. VLR
      27 March 2022 10: 15
      +5
      To be honest, I am skeptical about the Gerasimov method. His reconstructions are very doubtful. Where did Mongoloid features suddenly appear on his portrait of Andrei Bogolyubsky? If they didn’t hear about the Mongols in Russia at that time? And the Polovtsy, who were in the family of this prince, are not Mongoloids at all. And the portrait of Sophia Paleolog is clearly embellished and does not correspond to the descriptions of her appearance that contemporaries left.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 27 March 2022 10: 39
        +3
        To be honest, I am skeptical about the Gerasimov method.
        Your right to doubt. However, at the same time, the Gerasimov method was applied in forensic medical examination, and showed excellent results. Only after that, Gerasimov and his students began to restore images of historical figures (Grozny, Ushakov, etc.) from the skull.
        1. VLR
          27 March 2022 11: 04
          +5
          It seems that it was precisely in the reconstruction of the images of historical figures that Gerasimov was not completely objective. He gave them features in accordance with his ideas and likes and dislikes.
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 27 March 2022 11: 57
            0
            That is, you allow arbitrariness in the reconstruction? Gerasimov's first works date back to the 30s, when the results were very strictly monitored (for example, S.P. Korolev sat down for misuse of funds). The use of the Gerasimov method in forensic medical examination indicates the objectivity of this method.
            1. VLR
              27 March 2022 12: 04
              +4
              Many people already doubt the objectivity of Gerasimov. And in the case of the portraits of Andrei Bogolyubsky and Timur, some even directly speak of a "scientific forgery." Because Gerasimov understood that these were Caucasoid skulls, but for some reason he deliberately gave the portraits created Mongoloid features.
              Here is what, for example, Zvyagin writes:
              “The reason for the transformation of the Caucasoid skull, gravitating towards “Nordic forms”, into the “Mongoloid character of the face” on the sculptural reconstruction of Andrei Bogolyubsky is not entirely clear. Perhaps, when working on the bust of Prince M.M. Gerasimov took into account his Russian-Polovtsian origin. In those years, it was erroneously believed that the Mongoloid racial type dominated among the Polovtsy.





              1. VLR
                27 March 2022 12: 10
                +3
                Compare the reconstruction of the appearance of Andrei Bogolyubsky Gerasimov:



                And a graphic reconstruction by Zvyagin, 2011:

                1. VLR
                  27 March 2022 12: 19
                  +5
                  Viktor Nikolaevich Zvyagin is a doctor of medical sciences, professor of the Federal State Budgetary Institution "Russian Center for Forensic Medical Examination" of the Ministry of Health of Russia, an expert of the highest qualification category.
                  1. know
                    know 27 March 2022 12: 32
                    +4
                    "The reason for the transformation of the Caucasoid skull, gravitating towards"Nordic forms”, to the “Mongoloid character of the face” on the sculptural reconstruction of Andrei Bogolyubsky is not entirely clear.

                    Did Gerasimov turn a "Viking" into a "Mongol"? Yes, this is our way, "patriotic". laughing
                2. astra wild2
                  astra wild2 27 March 2022 13: 20
                  +2
                  Valery, in my opinion - heaven and earth
              2. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 27 March 2022 12: 40
                +1
                Here is what, for example, Zvyagin writes:

                In my opinion, this is just a settling of personal scores by representatives of various scientific schools. I still meet this regularly in my main activity. But what about a forensic medical examination? After all, everything is very strict there, and there are relevant articles in the Criminal Code.
                1. VLR
                  27 March 2022 12: 46
                  +5
                  These are already different levels of expertise: Zvyagin uses more advanced methods, including computer techniques, which simply did not exist at the time of Gerasimov. And Gerasimov "was in captivity" of the wrong ideas of that time about the Polovtsians.
                  1. Aviator_
                    Aviator_ 27 March 2022 13: 33
                    +1
                    These are already different levels of expertise: Zvyagin uses more advanced methods, including computer techniques, which simply did not exist at the time of Gerasimov. And Gerasimov "was in captivity" of the wrong ideas of that time about the Polovtsians.
                    And about the victims of criminals, when he restored their appearance, he was also "captive to misconceptions"? You answer a specific question about a forensic medical examination.
                    1. VLR
                      27 March 2022 13: 40
                      +3
                      So Zvyagin has already answered: the reason why Gerasimov in this case went for falsification is not clear. The skulls of Andrei Bogolyubsky and Timur are Caucasoid, and this is a fact that no one doubts, it is impossible to deny. Why Gerasimov gave both of them a Mongoloid appearance is not known and incomprehensible. It is also unknown why Gerasimov portrayed Sophia Paleolog as thin, although it is known from sources that she was extremely full from a young age.
                      1. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 27 March 2022 13: 57
                        +1
                        My question was not about that. I'm talking about a forensic examination. What, to answer - is it objective or subjective, is there not enough strength?
                      2. VLR
                        27 March 2022 14: 08
                        +4
                        Probably, a lot depends on the level, qualifications and conscientiousness of the expert. Although now, with the development of computer technology, the factor of subjectivity is probably less significant.
                      3. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 27 March 2022 14: 59
                        +2
                        That is, you think that the use of this technique allows you to determine the criminal purely subjectively, and not objectively. So does it work or not? Exposing a criminal according to the Gerasimov method is a fact of the objectivity of the method.
                      4. VLR
                        27 March 2022 15: 15
                        +5
                        In the case of Gerasimov's reconstructions of the image of Andrei Bogolyubsky and Timur, according to many modern historians, we are talking, no more, no less - about CONSCIOUS DISTORTION. Some talk about SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. The reasons why Gerasimov did this remain unclear. Probably, in the case of Bogolyubsky, he adjusted the image to the prevailing theory that the Polovtsy (and the prince's mother was a Polovtsy) were Mongoloids. Which is fundamentally wrong. And the same Sophia Paleolog just decided
                        "blind" prettier than she really was. Although ideas about beauty have changed over the centuries, perhaps Ivan III would not have liked the thin Sophia.
                      5. Fat
                        Fat 27 March 2022 14: 45
                        +4
                        hi Sergei. In order to judge subjectively - objectively, try to make a "identikit" of a certain person yourself, and then ask another "witness" to do the same independently of you. There will always be discrepancies depending on the ability of the eyewitness to observe and remember details.
                        So what kind of forces are you talking about?
                        Forensic medical examination is extremely subjective, it all depends on the qualifications of the pathologist, and on the task assigned to him.
                      6. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 27 March 2022 14: 50
                        +2
                        Andrey, the fact is that Gerasimov's technique was tested in conditions where its "subjectivity" helped to objectively expose criminals. Regarding the scientific showdown between the schools of Zavenyagin and Gerasimov (who died long ago), I can’t say anything. And about the identikit - this invention of the early twentieth century, of course, is not a panacea, but it has helped and is helping in forensic science. Look at least the documentary "Notes of the Investigator" by Lev Sheinin. The capture of a real criminal is not a subjective act of law enforcement agencies (if, of course, he is a true criminal). This is an objective reality.
                      7. Fat
                        Fat 27 March 2022 15: 10
                        +2
                        This is not an objective reality itself, but only the establishment of a sufficiently high degree of probability of such a reality. request
                        It happened that fingerprinting made mistakes and even genetic examination.
                        The more perfect the technique, the higher the probability of establishing objective truth.
                      8. vladcub
                        vladcub 27 March 2022 20: 07
                        +1
                        Well, about Sheinin, I have a different opinion.
                      9. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 27 March 2022 21: 31
                        +1
                        Well, about Sheinin, I have a different opinion.
                        It's not about this Komsomol activist, who by chance became an investigator. By the way, in the late Stalin era, for some reason, he suffered greatly. The point is in a specific technique that yielded results. In his notes, just about its application is well written.
      2. Roman Efremov
        Roman Efremov 27 March 2022 11: 46
        +2
        I do not presume to judge the Gerasimov method - I am not competent. And as for the Polovtsians - is it generally known who they were? Have the Polovtsian skulls been dug up and their appearance restored?
        1. VLR
          27 March 2022 11: 56
          +7
          Well, why is it unknown? The Polovtsy are the Kipchaks, the worst enemies of the Mongols. And here is a Polovtsian from the Kvashnikovo burial. XII - XIII centuries.
          Reconstruction by G.V. Lebedinskaya, established in 1989:

          1. Roman Efremov
            Roman Efremov 27 March 2022 12: 08
            +3
            Thank you, did not know
  11. parusnik
    parusnik 27 March 2022 10: 25
    +4
    "A satrap, he is a satrap" (c) Valery, Ruslan Grigorievich Skrynnikov, did you try to read?
    1. VLR
      27 March 2022 10: 30
      +5
      Of course, him too
  12. astra wild2
    astra wild2 27 March 2022 13: 11
    +2
    Valery, with the return "home" there are a great many interesting topics here. All your materials are good, but "home" topics directly relate to our history and, to some extent, our present
  13. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 27 March 2022 14: 09
    +2
    At first I did not even want to open the article, thinking that it was Samsonov. Then, in the comments under Shpakovsky, I read that Ryzhov was also published today. I read the article. I read the comments. There were questions to the author.
    Valery, tell me, are you really satisfied with the changes that are gaining momentum in your work? Are you sure that you are on the right track in your development as an author?
    If you are satisfied and confident, then one more question: how do you see your audience in five to ten years? Can you describe it?
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 27 March 2022 14: 43
      +6
      Mish, good day. Valery can say that you are not satisfied. I'll ask for arguments
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 27 March 2022 16: 58
        0
        Hello, Glory.
        Valery's work reminds me more and more, and not only me, of Samsonov's work. The differences are still significant, but the trend of rapprochement is becoming more and more pronounced.
        That's why I asked Valery how he represents his audience after a while. Does he have fears that his articles will become a platform for communication of all sorts of pseudo and near-historical freaks and a target for malicious ridicule from sane people.
        So far, I repeat, this is still far away, but the road will be mastered by the walking one.
        When the first publications of Valery appeared here, I was the first to call him a promising author and I was not mistaken. Now I have been ringing all the bells for a year now, shouting: "Valery, come back," but the dog barks, and the caravan goes on. Alas.
        Nevermind.
        Each person is his own polar fox.
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 27 March 2022 19: 55
          +3
          Mish, in my opinion it's not soon.
          This is our Vic. Nick, as he is, said: "our storyteller" and cited facts, and Valery respects facts
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 27 March 2022 20: 41
            +1
            Vic. Nick. not only sees and feels the mistakes of the authors, but also can, as they say, "from the sight" explain what exactly the author is wrong and at the same time refer to the source. In this he differs from all of us, but this is a fundamentally different level of knowledge, unattainable for most of us. I can't and won't try. In order to reveal the author's mistake, and even with a link to the source, it will take me too much time, which I often do not have.
            In the case, for example, with the current article, I only see where these errors are, or most likely there are, I see that they are significant. But in order to open them, I would need to spend several hours on the Internet. Sometimes I did this, wrote, criticized with facts, but I realized that the game in this case is not worth the candle. So today I read an article, wrote a comment and sat down to read about Andrei Bogolyubsky - I am now interested in his early years.
            If Valery reacted to criticism, one could somehow try to help him improve the quality of his articles, but this is not the case, so is it worth breaking the spears?
            In general, Slava, I assure you that it is much more pleasant for me to praise the authors than to criticize, but the reasons for praise are rare.
            1. know
              know 27 March 2022 20: 55
              +2
              My God, Michael, do you think that
              Your "valuable advice" can somehow help the author of the level Valery Ryzhov?! At the same time, you offer to take your word for it (thanks, of course, that you consider "gentlemen"). Well, you have self-esteem.
              Finally, write something and I will also give you a dozen valuable tips. Moreover, I promise that, so be it, with references to sources (to which you yourself do not want to condescend).
              .
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 27 March 2022 21: 19
                +2
                Quote: vet
                Finally write something

                Take it and read it. My profile is at your service. For now, enough of what has already been written and published on this site. It will become interesting - write in a personal, I'll give you something else to read, I'm not sorry.
                I will also listen with interest to your critical remarks and "valuable advice", I hope they will contain something constructive and useful.
                1. know
                  know 28 March 2022 12: 39
                  0
                  The past is no longer interesting, you let's do something new - to discuss what and with whom.
                  1. Trilobite Master
                    Trilobite Master 28 March 2022 16: 59
                    +1
                    What a capricious one. laughing
                    But only I'm not a girl, so that at your request, "give".
                    In this tone, you can ask your wife, maybe she will agree, but it’s useless for me.
                    You can read my articles, express your qualified opinion there, here or in a personal message - we'll discuss it, if anything happens. And then I'll think about whether you should give something new ...
                    I haven’t had anyone here for a long time and have nothing to prove, and you are a relatively new person and so far have shown yourself in my eyes only by cockiness, behind which I have not noticed either intelligence or a broad historical outlook.
                    Prove yourself, prove that your opinion is worth reckoning with...
            2. vladcub
              vladcub 28 March 2022 12: 17
              0
              "for praise" is correct. There is not always something to praise
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 27 March 2022 16: 28
      +5
      Hi Michael! smile

      Regarding Tsar Ivan, everything has long been said and quite succinctly.

      Ivan Vasilievich the Terrible
      His name was
      For being serious
      Solid person.

      31
      Acceptance is not sweet,
      But the mind is not lame;
      Such a set order
      At least roll the ball!
      request
  14. vladcub
    vladcub 27 March 2022 14: 40
    +3
    "gives it to the discretion of his sons" Valery, but how did his heirs react to the reason?
    Most likely, they just forgot how: "about Pankov pants"
    1. VLR
      27 March 2022 14: 55
      +4
      The head of the "Court", which Skrynnikov calls the "double of the oprichnina," was Belsky, Godunov's rival. After the defeat of Belsky, who wanted to return the "Yard" to its former influence, the "yard" no longer had much importance and influence. And there, the Troubles was already close.
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 27 March 2022 15: 18
        +1
        "was Belsky" Valery, but Malyuta - Skuratov is Belsky?
        1. VLR
          27 March 2022 15: 20
          +4
          We are talking about the last favorite of Ivan the Terrible - Bogdan Yakovlevich Belsky. This is the nephew of Malyuta Skuratov.
  15. vladcub
    vladcub 27 March 2022 15: 43
    +1
    "puts his boots on his father's bed" claims to his mother. If she showed a desire, Shuisky considered it a blessing to lick the floors near that bed
    "I ordered my houndsmen to seize Andrey Shuisky, who believed in his omnipotence" I'm not particularly interested in the biography of ex-favorites, but their fate is not the most enviable: in most cases they gratified aging ladies, and they are more than jealous. Comrades, do you know what a woman's
    jealousy.
    Yes, and autocrats willingly their tavo. Reduced
  16. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 27 March 2022 16: 24
    +3
    This rotten thing has gone again ... Every time when they want to seriously strike our state, they remember the "mad tsar" Ivan the Terrible. Who executed everyone without trial and without guilt, and in general was the first to eat babies. Then this occupation was continued, which is typical, Stalin)
    For historians, this moment is a complete mystery) Erase the paragraph. I wanted to explain what the "mystery" is, but I realized that the site would not be missed. So, on topic:
    The terrifying disease of Russia at that time was the absolutely fantastic practice of parochialism. The boyar class, on which Russia was then held, and which pushed its borders almost to the present, was a localism hard, and even mortally sick. What is this sickness? And here.
    There are two boyars in the world - Ivanov and Petrov. And one day, under the rule of Tokhtamysh, the boyar Ivanov was in the army under the command of the boyar Petrov. This is all. It's forever. Now never, and in ten years, and in a hundred, and in three hundred, the descendants of the boyar Petrov will not serve under the command of the boyar Ivanov. This is completely out of the question. Can you imagine?
    Any business involving more than one boyar should have begun not with preparation, but with finding out the "place". Who will walk under whom. At the same time, NOTHING was taken into account from modern realities. Nothing at all. At all. The main thing was that all participating boyars clearly found out who went under whom in recent centuries relative to each other. This fun dragged on for many months. The army is standing (eating, drinking and decomposing), the boyars are fighting, dragging each other by the beards, shaking the scrolls of many centuries ago, some are cut in the corner ...
    Is it really easy and pleasant to govern the state this way? Seven months have passed, the enemy has been outrageous and left, it is already spring, there is no army, and now, finally, they have chosen a commander. True, the boss is from him, like a sieve from a dog's tail, but no one found a dusty piece of paper that he walked under one of those present! Charming...
    This is not all, of course, that seems to historians, thanks to the arrangement of their heads and conscience, "mysterious" (for example, the country's governance system was just hellish), but perhaps the most important thing. Here you will go bald when nothing really can be done, instead of any work, localism is all around!
    And the king took part of the cities in DIRECT control. He arranged people according to intelligence and knowledge, and not according to localism. And those who tried to observe the old insane order were executed by the guardsmen. And many had to be executed. To make the country WORK.
    As they say on the net - do not learn physics, and the world around you will always be full of secrets and mysteries...
    1. lisikat2
      lisikat2 27 March 2022 18: 08
      0
      Dear Mikhail, I agree with the assessment of localism, but Ivan the Terrible did not even think of abolishing localism.
      Valery writes that Grozny appointed an oprichny boyar in Novgorod. So to say, ",,,, his best shots," and then put a well-born boyar over him.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 27 March 2022 18: 11
        +2
        Did you try to read what I wrote? Localism and "table of ranks", is there any difference for you? It's a pity...
        1. lisikat2
          lisikat2 27 March 2022 20: 22
          -1
          "Table of Ranks" - Peter 1, and in the days of Grozny localism was relevant
          You write; "placed people according to their mind and knowledge" I gave an example with Novgorod. Grozny put his protege in charge of the Trade side, and after 2 years he appointed Mstislavsky, an ancient family, as governor. It turns out that Grozny decided that his protege Pronsky was not worthy of being governor?
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 28 March 2022 09: 32
            +1
            It's just a matter of mental discipline, ma'am. As they say, you are absolutely right ... just not in this matter) What is localism, I described. And your description is a business management issue.
            The tsar saw that the boyar, for some reason, was not pulling (it may well be that there was not enough authority for the nobility of the family - the boss yesterday was from boyar children, and subordinates from older families, for example) and replaced him. What's with the locality? Ordinary situation of controlled management. Unlike local madness...
  17. astra wild2
    astra wild2 27 March 2022 16: 51
    +1
    Valery, colleagues, I like how Klyuchevsky said about And the Terrible "the tsar did or planned a lot of good, smart, even great .. he did even more deeds that made him the subject of horror and disgust"
  18. lisikat2
    lisikat2 27 March 2022 17: 56
    0
    Good evening. The topic is interesting and I would say responsible.
    For me, Ivan the Terrible is too gloomy a person, but his era is important in the history of Russia.
    Half a day looking for estimates of historians. I immediately wanted a fabric quote from Karamzin, and then I got carried away. I read how Kurbsky assessed Grozny. He knew Ivan the Terrible and most of his entourage very well. It is quite possible that while in exile, he maintained contact with someone in Russia.
    I repeat: Kurbsky's assessment is interesting, but biased.
    In my opinion, Kurbsky simplifies: he forgot God and went tyranny. Everything is more complicated: religiosity, psychological trauma, temperament: "a person with excessive energy, strong willfulness, endless activity, but without certain convictions. Without having his own, he fulfilled someone else's" (Kovalevsky, psychologist)
    1. VLR
      27 March 2022 19: 10
      +5
      "I read how Kurbsky assessed Grozny"

      Well, here is Kurbsky - a very biased "witness", a personal enemy of Ivan IV. Reading him and about him, one must always remember that he is a traitor, Vlasov of the XNUMXth century. Liberals of the XNUMXth century romanticized and idealized him. In fact, he fled, abandoning his troops. He began to "distribute Russophobic interviews" to the delight of the new owners. Both he and his son fought against Russia.
      1. lisikat2
        lisikat2 27 March 2022 19: 38
        0
        Valery, do not consider me a naive girl.
        I am well aware of his bias, but it is all the more interesting: to compare his assessment and other authors. Of course, you also read: Pogodin and Karamzin and Kurbsky.
        I still know: I will look for Karamzin, Pogodin, Klyuchevsky in the morning
      2. Korsar4
        Korsar4 27 March 2022 21: 07
        +3
        "Oh prince, you who could betray me
        For a sweet moment of reproach,
        O prince, I pray God forgive you
        I will betray yours before the fatherland! (from).

        Kurbsky cannot be a positive character in our eyes.
  19. Luminman
    Luminman 27 March 2022 18: 16
    +1
    Quote: VlR
    Where did Mongoloid features suddenly appear on his portrait of Andrei Bogolyubsky?

    Have you seen the photo of the head of the Gestapo, Rudolf Diels? And the photo of French Prime Minister Laval? wink
    1. VLR
      27 March 2022 19: 22
      +4
      Well, in the XNUMXth century, this is no longer very surprising. But how the Mongolian genes could appear in Europe before the Mongols themselves, in order to clearly manifest themselves in the guise of Andrei Bogolyubsky, is an interesting question.
  20. lisikat2
    lisikat2 27 March 2022 18: 17
    0
    Valery, it's news to me that Gryazny wanted to flee to England. Wasn't there a safe haven?
    I don’t remember now, it seems that he wanted to marry Elizabeth.? Now I don't have time to search and clarify.
    The husband wants a phone. Will read Vyacheslav Olegovich
  21. Luminman
    Luminman 27 March 2022 18: 27
    +3
    Quote from lisikat2
    Valery, it's news to me that Gryazny wanted to flee to England.

    Wouldn't it be news to you that Ivan the Terrible looked very closely at English Protestantism?
  22. lisikat2
    lisikat2 27 March 2022 18: 39
    +1
    "Many documents of the era of Ivan the Terrible were removed from the archives on the orders of Metropolitan Filaret" Valery, I think Filaret cleaned up the "sins of youth", perhaps his closest relatives for an oprichnik, the Romanovs were guardsmen, they shed excess blood somewhere. In the reason "white and fluffy" was not. It is quite possible that he became ashamed of what they were doing. It is possible that they committed atrocities against the relatives of someone close to Mikhail1
    1. VLR
      27 March 2022 19: 17
      +3
      The first Romanovs were not ashamed. Yes, and who was there to be ashamed of - all the boyars got dirty and dirty during the Time of Troubles so that there was nowhere else to go. That's scary - maybe. Khrushchev also seized many documents compromising him from the archives.
  23. Luminman
    Luminman 27 March 2022 20: 16
    +2
    Quote: VlR
    And here's how Mongolian genes could appear in Europe before the Mongols themselves

    You probably forgot about the Magyars, with their prominent cheekbones and brachycephalic skulls, who came to Europe much earlier than the Mongols, the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe former "party" of which was along the line of the Southern Urals - Northern Kazakhstan. But other, "big cheekbones" - Finns and Estonians should not be forgotten either ...
    1. VLR
      27 March 2022 20: 24
      +4
      It's not about the cheekbones, but about the epicanthus ("Mongolian fold" of the upper eyelid at the inner corner of the eye) - a purely Mongoloid sign that Gerasimov "gave" to Andrei Bogolyubsky. That is, according to his version, this our prince - "the first Mongol in Russia" - without any options.
      1. Luminman
        Luminman 27 March 2022 20: 46
        +3
        It's not the cheekbones, but the epicanthus

        Well, it is absolutely impossible to establish the epicanthus, just as it is impossible to establish the color of hair and eyes. These are Gerasimov's inventions
        1. VLR
          27 March 2022 20: 46
          +3
          That's it!
  24. Kozak Za Bugra
    Kozak Za Bugra 28 March 2022 08: 13
    +4
    For me, the personality of Ivan the Terrible is key for Russia, as far as I could understand this, the oprichnina allowed him to organize the first "modern" army and the formation of Russia in the transition from feudalism to a modern state, which, among other merits, made it possible to rebuff Devlet weights.
    What about the "horrors" of Grozny, in all countries the transition from feudalism was cruel, but against Europe, Grozny was still soft. But there was a lot of rubbish on it. For example, the murder of a son, there are many versions of how it happened, for example, Jean Jacques Margeret wrote that his son died much later than the scandal with his father and from similar symptoms of the plague, but for some reason everyone is inclined to the version of the papal legate Posevino that it was Ivan the Terrible who killed his son.
  25. Grossvater
    Grossvater April 1 2022 10: 09
    +1
    The sources are clear. But after all, it’s not a secret for a long time, there was even a film on Culture about this, very sensible. They opened the graves of both Grozny and his son. They didn't find any holes in the skull, but there was a lot of mercury. And the death of Glinskaya in all its symptoms is very similar to mercury poisoning, and oddities in behavior fit into the classical picture. They poisoned Ivan Vasilich, hence the signs of insanity.
  26. Holitan Har Amp
    Holitan Har Amp 7 August 2022 15: 43
    0
    Oprichnina, and everything connected with it - the work of hands, and in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. One of its main tasks was to strengthen the vertical of power, and to plant a new religion - Christianity, which is alien to our people and the old faith. Under the Ruriks, there was no Christianity, they did not let the blood enemies of the Greeks and Romans close to their lands, and in the new conquered territories they burned Christianity with red-hot iron, the same Novgorod, which became around the middle of the 16th century a Christian, Latin diocese. Didn't you pay attention to the birch bark letters, which Zaliznyak and other academic clowns dated "10-14" centuries, although they are not earlier than the middle of the 17th century (the end of the 17-18th century). They have "Cyrillic" mixed with "Latin". The new alphabet "Cyrillic" replaced the old one in Russia around the middle of the 17th century. The alphabet of the Rurik era has not existed for a long time, and none of you knows what letter they wrote down their messages. That's just big Novgorod (not "Great") before its conquest and annexation in the second half of the 16th century to RUSSIA, was not even part of it. The source of Russia is always, and only Vladimir. No one else and ever, even the dummy Kiev. Boyars and "Zemshchina" appeared under the Romanovs. Under the Ruriks, there was no slavery, serfs, and St. George's Day. In Russia, before the 17th century, there were no Greek names at all. The name - "Vasily" was not earlier than the middle of the 17th century. Greetings to John "Vasilyevich" ... The equilateral cross and crescent are the Great pre-Christian heritage of the Vladimir land, later appropriated by the Church. The Kabardian princess was the wife of Alexei Mikhailovich, and goes down in history under the name Maria "Miloslavskaya" Romanova. Before the reign of the Romanovs, there was only one John - John the Great, who from the 19th century also received the nickname "Terrible". The years of his life, approximately 1505-1558(62). The name John was given to him by his mother - Zoya Paleolog, his Father - the so-called "Vasily 2 the Dark". After the death of John and until 1584, his son, the so-called "Vasily 3," who even surpassed his Father and Grandfather in deeds, sat on the Moscow throne. Under Rurik there were no churches, metropolitans and other Christian paraphernalia. The only temple that has come down to us from the time of their reign is the Jerusalem Temple, under the Romanovs - Pokrovsky and "Basil the Blessed", originally not Christian, built under "Basil 3" in honor of the liberation of Moscow from the Horde, and the Great Victory in the Battle of Molodi (prototype of falsification "Battle of Kulikovo"). The actual time of the founding of Moscow is the end of the 15th, it is possible - the very beginning of the 16th centuries. The Moscow Fortress was founded by the Father of John the Great (the Terrible). Can you name his name, like the main name of John?! Before the 19th century, the Romanovs knew John the Great, but they had never heard of John the Terrible, as well as about Nevsky, Donskoy, Caves, and the First-Called. And they always spoke of John with respect and reverence, and never with disdain. And what happened in the 19th century, why, under Alexander I and Nicholas I, "all the dogs were let loose on Ruriks", do any of you know?! And most importantly. John never bore the title "king" like his descendants, and we will not humiliate them with this disgrace. John received his Great title at birth, along with the Great Genealogy. This title made the whole world tremble, it was unconditionally recognized in Russia, Asia, Europe, India and China. The monarchs of Europe and the khans of Asia tried to become equal with John and "Basil 3". The first Moscow Tsar (Rus) - Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, not even Mikhail. Kabardian princess - the first queen of Moscow (Rus). For the first time, Christianity in Russia appeared under the Romanovs, and Michael initially dragged the Latin version, and only his son Alexei, from the middle of the 17th century, took the Greek version from Constantinople. The murder of Philip, if such a fact really existed in history, could have been at the turn of the middle of the 17th century, during the so-called "church schism", and under Alexei Mikhailovich. How successfully in the 19th century the Romanovs' sins of their ancestors were attributed to the Ruriks with the help of the Church?! First, they got rid of Kabardinka, because in the 19th century a bloody war with the already Islamized Circassia continued, and such a queen was a black stain on the reputation of the Romanovs. Remember how during the First World War the Russians undeservedly insulted and cursed the German wife of Nicholas II, and how it all ended for the empire and the dynasty itself. Then they wrote off Oprichnina, and numerous repressions and executions under Alexei Mikhailovich and Peter the Great, and again, all on the same Ruriks. The war of 1812, the fire in Moscow and the burnt Moscow archives helped to write a new history of Russia from scratch, while destroying a few originals of the 16th-17th centuries. We have a wonderful story, there are a lot of specialists, but no one knows the truth. In Russia there is not a single original document, charter, seal and coins earlier than the middle of the 17th century. Since the 19th century, the names of the Sovereigns, their true titles and the chronology of reign have been changed. Not a single official "fact" from the life of John the Great (the Terrible) is categorically confirmed by actual history: neither for him nor against him. The main customer of falsifications is the Christian Church, and since the 19th century - already "Russian" and "Orthodox". The parsoon depicts "Vasily 3", as well as on the reconstruction of Gerasimov. There are two portraits of John the Great ("Terrible"). One from a German engraving and in profile, with a blue cap and a crown on his head, the other is a full-fledged portrait on canvas. A very impressive face, and do not hesitate, it is John (the Terrible). "Apostle" - a church messenger, began to be printed in Russia not earlier than the middle of the 17th century, under Alexei Mikhailovich. And it was under him that the name ROSIA first appeared, thanks to Greek books and church services in Greek. Romanovsky "Alexandrov" under the Ruriks and for the entire 16th century bore the name - LORGOV. "Bekbulatovich" did not sit on the Moscow throne for a second, and it is not clear who he is at all. There was a Kasimov city, and never - the Kasimov "khanate". The Rurik dynasty ruled in Russia until 1612 (13). After the death of John and until 1584 - a son, "Vasily 3". After 1584 to 1612(13) - daughter of John with her husband a foreigner (killed in 1606). This is a big hit for the falsifications of "Theodore Ioannovich, the innocently murdered Tsarevich Dmitry, Godunov, Shuisky, the false Dmitry, Glinskaya." We still need to work with Mnishek, how she was generally stuck to our history. The great names of the last two Sovereigns, the daughter of John and the foreigner, will completely shock you.
  27. Holitan Har Amp
    Holitan Har Amp 7 August 2022 17: 55
    0
    Under John the Great (the Terrible), there was no such territorial unit in Europe as "England", and even more so - the "Queen of England". At the end of the 16th century, the future "Arkhangelsk" bore the name "SAINT MICHAEL" or "Saint Michael", and was the patrimony of the Latin diocese. One of the major rivers - DAFINA, later received our name - Dvina. And there were no "streltsy" under the Ruriks. And so you can go through all the toponyms, terminology and "facts" of official history. And why do you believe the tales of European crooks allegedly of the 16th-17th centuries, although more than 90% of them were written no earlier than the 19th century, and do not believe Europe and the USA today?! With such an approach, it is necessary to take today at face value, and how great love and care of the West for us compassionate?! And what State contains academic science - history in the Russian Federation ?! Probably the Vatican. Because, as for more than 200 years, our unfortunate historians have been voicing precisely the Vatican version of the development of Russia. For some reason, history does not know where the Romanovs came from, who they were and how they got to the throne of Moscow, but in all details it knows by name who John executed, all the words that came from his lips, and also whom he sent and where. And why did the 19th century know the history of our ancestors better than the 17th and 18th centuries?! Probably, our children will know the history of the USSR better than their parents. Let's walk along the Romanovs?!
    "Romanovs" - nobles from the small estate gentry, who appeared in Russia after 1584. They ascended the Moscow throne in 1612 (13) after the death of the last of the Ruriks, with the help of the Jesuit fathers, Polish bayonets, and the Cossack Horde, who was in the service of the king of Polonia (Poland). Then who are "Minin" and "Pozhasky", as well as "Ivan Susanin"?! These falsifications were legitimized along with the bloody accession of the first "Romanov". And you didn’t wonder why the foreign monarchs themselves called John the Great (the Terrible) and his son "Vasily 3" - Emperors of Russia, and Peter the Great got this title with blood and great labors during the twenty-year war with Europe and the Turks, but still got it ?! What is the historical catch here ?! Europe understood who the first were, and did not put the second in anything, until 1721.
    John (the Terrible) did not have a wife with the name "Anastasia", especially "Romanova". We still do not know the real name of his wife, the mother of the great heirs, who she is. We also do not know the wife of his son, "Vasily 3". Why so many details in the official version of the story?!