Andrei Kurbsky - a traitor who slandered Ivan the Terrible

91
Andrei Kurbsky - a traitor who slandered Ivan the Terrible


Who is Prince Andrei Kurbsky?


To get an idea about him, you need to remember General Vlasov, who, having fallen into Hitler's captivity, led the so-called "Russian Liberation Army" against the USSR. Kurbsky did not fall into captivity, but voluntarily got in touch with the Polish king Sigismund II, with whom Muscovy was at war, and gave out military secrets for a year and a half; betrayed the governor of the castle, Helmet, and thwarted the bloodless surrender of the fortress; issued a plan for the movement of the 20th army, helped to defeat it.



This produced the effect of an exploding bomb. The traitor personally led the Polish army, helped bypass patrols on the border and attack, gave out secrets about the weak points of the Russian army. Tens of thousands of deaths are on his conscience. It was his lie that formed the basis of the myth of the tyrant Grozny. Let's take a closer look at his actions.

Betrayal of Prince Kurbsky No. 1


In 1562, he was entrusted with an army of fifteen thousand people. Kurbsky received an order to go against the Lithuanian troops. But he suffered a crushing defeat from an enemy army numbering four thousand people. And I note that he was not executed and persecuted.

On the contrary, a year later he was appointed governor-viceroy in Derpt (Yuriev), where under his command there was a 100-strong army. Here is how this event is described by the Polish historian Valiszewski:

“Previously, Prince Kurbsky fought in Livonia at the head of the tsarist troops and won victories. But in 1562 he was defeated near Nevel. Perhaps this failure was prepared by some suspicious relations between him and Poland. Since then, the former favorite of Ivan has already fallen halfway into the royal disgrace, which contributed to the fact that he rebelled against the despotic habits of the Moscow sovereign. Finally, in 1564, the irritable and tough boyar openly rebelled against Ivan and showed it in a completely Moscow way - he fled outside the borders of his state.

If Kurbsky had fallen under suspicion, then he would not have been entrusted with a 100-strong army.

Betrayal #2


Kurbsky's betrayal number two also happened during the Livonian War.

Count Arts was the governor of the Helmet castle, which was attacked by Russian troops. Arts offered Kurbsky to surrender the castle without a fight. The terms of the agreement were not only agreed upon, but even signed and sealed. Count Arts was betrayed to the Lithuanian authorities, arrested and wheeled.

From the annals of the chronicler Franz Nieshtadt, it follows that Kurbsky himself surrendered the Swedish governor of Livonia. Thus, Kurbsky prevented the bloodless surrender of the castle. Being the viceroy of Livonia from the Russian side, "without sparing his belly" he gave out military secrets, plans for the Russian army for a year and a half. He fled because he was afraid that they would soon come upon him.

Betrayal of Kurbsky No. 3


At first, the Livonian War developed successfully for the Muscovite state. Pal Polotsk. If we draw a parallel with the battles of the Great Patriotic War, then it was akin to the fact that Prussia fell. At the end of 1563, a large Polish-Lithuanian embassy arrived. The Lithuanians refused to recognize both the loss of Polotsk and the cession of land up to the Dvina.

The king expected such an outcome of the negotiations and was ready for it. Moreover, he personally developed a plan to capture two large cities - Minsk and Novgorodok-Litovsk (Novgorodok). After the departure of the delegation of negotiators, hostilities continued. According to the plan of Grozny, the army of Peter Shuisky set out from Polotsk, and the army of the Serebryany-Obolensky princes from Vyazma. They were given the task of uniting and taking these two cities - Minsk and Novgorodok-Litovsky.

Under the command of Shuisky there was a 20th corps. On January 28, 1564, the troops of the Lithuanian hetman Radziwill, having reliable information about the route of movement of troops, organized an ambush and unexpectedly attacked the governor's headquarters. 200 people from the army command were killed, including Commander-in-Chief Shuisky. The warriors, as the soldiers were then called, having lost control and management, fled back to Polotsk, without putting up resistance to the few attackers. This event is included in history like the battle of Ula.

Someone might think that the losses were not so great and not fatal: out of 20 thousand, 200 people from among the governors died. And it was not only the command staff, but the event had the effect of an exploding bomb. The Poles and Lithuanians cheered up, they realized that the Russian army could be defeated.

In addition, this worsened the military situation, because the Crimean Khan refused an alliance with the Muscovite state. This betrayal nullified all diplomatic efforts in negotiations with Devlet Giray.

As Skrynnikov writes:

“Having received news of Moscow's military failures, the Crimean Khan did not approve an alliance treaty with Russia and entered into an alliance with the king (of Poland). The anti-Russian coalition took joint action against Moscow already in the autumn of 1564" [2].

This meant not only inspiring enemies with military successes, but also Grozny's war on two fronts.

The event near Ula became known in Moscow a couple of days later. Historian Ruslan Skrynnikov claims that it was Kurbsky who "had a hand" in the defeat of Shuisky's army, informing in his letter to Hetman Radziwill the route plan, stopping places, details and its weak spots. It turned out that the army of Peter Shuisky was not riding in combat gear, but was carrying armor in a sledge, confident that there were no opponents nearby.

In addition, the tsar realized that there were traitors in his inner circle, since he personally developed the plan, members of the Boyar Duma claimed. Suspicion fell on two other people - Repnin and Kashin. They fell under suspicion not because of their negligent service, but because they abandoned their own people and did not go to their rescue.

Prince's Betrayal #4


As Mazurov writes,

“Arriving in Lithuania, Kurbsky immediately declared that he considered it his duty to bring to the attention of the king about the “intrigues of Moscow”, which should be “immediately stopped.” He gave the Lithuanians all the Livonian supporters of Moscow, with whom he himself negotiated, and Moscow agents in Poland, Lithuania and Sweden, as well as all action plans, locations of Russian troops, their number and composition, supply routes, information about the defense infrastructure of Russia: about fortresses, outposts, etc. As a result of Kurbsky’s information, the Poles managed to win several victories over the Russian troops” [3].

Comments are superfluous.

Betrayal of Kurbsky No. 5


This scoundrel not only betrayed the military secrets of his country, but also gave advice on how to set other states against her, to draw her into a war on several fronts. In the archives of Latvia, the historian Skrynnikov found this evidence:

“On the advice of Kurbsky, the king set the Crimean Tatars against Russia, then, having sent his troops to Polotsk, Kurbsky participated in the Lithuanian invasion. A few months later, with a detachment of Lithuanians, he crossed the Russian borders for the second time. As evidenced by newly found archival documents, the prince, thanks to his good knowledge of the area, managed to surround the Russian corps, drove it into a swamp and defeated it.
An easy victory turned the boyar's head. He persistently asked the king to give him an army of 30, with the help of which he intended to capture Moscow.
If there are still some suspicions about him, Kurbsky declared, he agrees to be chained to a cart during the campaign, surrounded in front and behind by archers with loaded guns, so that they would immediately shoot him if they notice intention in him; on this cart, surrounded by horsemen for greater intimidation, he will ride in front, lead, direct the army and lead it to the goal (to Moscow), even if the army follows him” [4].

V. Kalugin quotes the Polish historian and heraldist of the XNUMXth century Simon Okolsky about Kurbsky:

“He was a truly great man: firstly, great in his origin, for he was in common with Prince John of Moscow;
secondly, great in position, as he was the highest military leader in Muscovy;
thirdly, great in valor, because he won so many victories;
fourthly, great in his happy fate: after all, he, an exile and a fugitive, was received with such honors by King Augustus.
He also possessed a great mind, for in a short time, already in his advanced years, he learned the Latin language in the kingdom, with which he was previously unfamiliar.

The fugitive traitor was from the Yaroslavl princes - the Russian princely family of the Rurik dynasty. According to the history of the family, they received a surname from the village of Kurba (in the Middle Ages, the term “votchestvo” was used on behalf of the estate or inheritance, which was disposed of by the feudal lord by inheritance received from his father).

Prince Kurbsky believed that he had more rights to the Russian throne, because he was a descendant of Rurik in the senior line, and Ivan IV in the junior line. Maybe that's why he is very "hard" and worked on the "field of betrayal"?

For these numerous betrayals, he was awarded by the Polish king. In the possession of the prince for the “righteous works”, which he did tirelessly with a bloody sword and pen, he received the city of Kovel with a castle, ten villages, in Lithuania he received 4 thousand acres of land and 28 villages in Volyn. By the way, Grozny let his wife and son go to Kurbsky, but the presence of a Russian wife did not prevent him from marrying twice, but already to the Poles.

V. A. Mazurov writes:

"Kurbsky is guilty of the death of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers and residents" [6],

at the same time they praise him, try to justify him.

During the 37 years of his reign, Grozny approved the execution of up to 5 people! They were investigated. Among those sentenced to death are foreign spies, traitors, arsonists, murderers and other criminals, that is, persons who have committed serious crimes.

Historians' estimates


Historians assess the significance of Kurbsky as a commander in different ways.

The first group claims that in the historical chronicle of those times there is not a single material left that shows Kurbsky as an intelligent governor, that he never even came close to the steps of the elite of the military hierarchy.

The second claims that he was the best combat commander.

The third point of view is that the feat of the other Kurbskys was mistakenly attributed to Andrei Kurbsky. Roman and Mikhail Kurbsky, who were killed near Kazan, fought in the army. Andrey Kurbsky "became famous" for his robberies, but he got into the chronicles as a "hero".

But all groups of historians are unanimous that Kurbsky fled to the West to the enemy, but differ in their assessments of this escape.

The side of historians who hate Grozny stubbornly proves that Kurbsky fled because of the unreasonable disgrace that threatened him from the tsar, and the execution that could inevitably follow this. As an example, I will quote from Skrynnikov’s book with my own comments: “The term of the prince’s annual service in Yuryev expired on April 3, 1564.
However, he remained there for another three weeks, apparently due to a special order from Moscow. Yuryev was remembered by everyone as the place of disgrace and death of Adashev (from alcoholism - commentary of the ShAA), so the delay did not bode well for Kurbsky.

At the end of April 1564, the disgraced boyar fled from Yuriev to the Lithuanian borders. Late at night, faithful servants helped Kurbsky get over the fortress wall. In a safe shelter, 12 accomplices were already waiting for him - the children of the boyars. The detachment managed to elude the chase and cross the border (they knew the road perfectly and in exactly the same way they could bring enemy troops to their homeland, which Kurbsky would later do - SHA comment). In Yuryev, the voivode left his wife and newborn son (according to other sources, the boy was 9 years old - comment by ShA).

Judging by the subsequent correspondence, he did not have time to take with him almost nothing of his property, even military armor and books, which he valued very much (he allegedly took money on credit in the monastery, in addition, he took a large sum of money with him, left with 12 bags - comment SHA.) The reason for the extreme haste was the sudden news received from Moscow (the execution of Repnin and Kashin due to suspicion of betrayal - SHA comment).

Once in Wolmar, Kurbsky wrote a letter to the tsar, in which he explained the flight abroad by tsarist persecutions (Grozny did not suspect him of anything - comment by the ShAA).

The second group of historians list the betrayals and atrocities of the prince, but for all this they remain admirers of Kurbsky. Historians-admirers of Kurbsky, justifying the escape by the demand of Christianity, for one who does not save his life by flight in case of a threat to his life, is like a suicide. Here is what Kobrin writes:

“Let's not rush to condemn the one who did not want to put his neck under the executioner's ax, but preferred to loudly tell the truth about the tyrant. But let's not rush into something else: we shouldn't turn a runaway boyar into an angel.
A few months will pass and Kurbsky will lead the Lithuanian troops in a campaign against Rus'. But, I repeat, the flight itself was not treason. Yes, and the concept of loyalty then was different: they served not the country, but the sovereign. Having come into conflict with Grozny, Kurbsky, naturally, waged war against him” [7].

From Skrynnikov:

“For the first time, he (Kurbsky) had the opportunity to openly, without fear of persecution, criticize the actions of the sovereign ruler of Russia, and at the same time justify his betrayal and departure to Lithuania” [8].

I consider it strange the interpretation of historians-critics of Grozny that they then served the sovereign, and not the state. It seems that the country is perceived as a hut or apartment. I liked the apartment - you serve its owner, but you liked the chambers of another monarch - you changed your home, brought thieves, rapists and murderers to your old house.

The third group of historians unconditionally considers the Yaroslavl prince a traitor.

An indisputable fact is that Kurbsky is a traitor who must be brought to the judgment of history. It is his betrayals that should be shown in films and serials made at the expense of the state budget, and not fabrications of what Grozny was not and did not do.

Doctor of Historical Sciences, author of many books about Ivan IV Skrynnikov writes:

“Prince Kurbsky was one of the few people who was not afraid to argue with the autocrat and condemned the clergy for compromising with the tyrant. Discord with the tsar put an end to the boyar's career. After returning from the Polotsk campaign, Kurbsky did not receive the expected awards, but was expelled from Moscow to the voivodeship in Yuryev (Derpt) "[9],

or:

“After the conquest of Polotsk, the victorious army returned to the capital, a triumph awaited it. Senior officers could count on awards and rest. But Kurbsky was deprived of all this. The tsar ordered him to go to Yuryev and gave him less than a month to prepare" [9],

then it seems that due to the fact that he was not given, as a manager, a bonus or bonus, and rest, he thereby received the right to betray. During the Great Patriotic War, Soviet generals fought tirelessly, sometimes did not sleep for days, but did not leave their command post or dangerous sector of the front. The soldiers slept in the trenches in the rain, in the mud, in the snow in severe frosts, and Kurbsky simply did not receive the expected awards ...

The phrase of regret and justification is amazing that during the war years Kurbsky was not given a month to pack. I would like to draw a parallel with the battle for Moscow in the winter of 1941. At the cost of incredible efforts, the fascist hordes not only stopped, but also drove back. Imagine the following situation: Stalin, a week after the end of the battle for Moscow, instructs the great commander Zhukov, for example, to fly to another no less dangerous sector - to break through the blockade to the Leningrad Front.

And here Georgy Konstantinovich is offended that he was not given well-deserved awards, rest on his laurels, a month of rest and was sent to Leningrad. And as a result of such resentment that he is not appreciated, not respected, our great commander decides to enter into correspondence with Hitler, give out secret plans for military operations and the state of affairs in the army, go over to the side of the enemy, and then fight at the head of the enemy troops with his homeland.

Can we imagine such a thing? May Victorious General Zhukov forgive me for this nonsense, which I was forced to come up with as an example, but this is exactly what an attempt to justify the traitor Kurbsky looks like in my eyes.

Information war


Modern historians, writers and screenwriters make extensive use of the correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky. What kind of correspondence are you talking about?

Let's turn to the World Wide Web:

“The correspondence of the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible and his former commander Prince Andrei Kurbsky, who was in exile, continued from 1564–1579, and became widely known, occupied a significant place in the journalism of the 1564th century. Correspondence began after Andrei Kurbsky left Russia in April XNUMX and went to Lithuania (there was no unity in assessing the reasons for leaving - both the persecution of the prince and treason on his part were called), and wrote the first letter to the king.
In July of the same year, the tsar sent an answer - a letter of a rather large volume, which Kurbsky assessed as "broadcast and noisy", Kurbsky sent a short answer, but failed to deliver it to Russia, as he himself explained, due to the closure of Moscow's borders, and correspondence interrupted. In 1577, after a campaign against Livonia, the tsar sent a new letter, and in 1579 the prince compiles a new answer and sends it along with the previous letter.
In total, the correspondence was limited to five letters. There are suggestions that Andrei Kurbsky tried to compose a more detailed answer to the tsar and even create a literary work based on this answer, but did not complete this work.

Making a comparison between Kurbsky's betrayal of Muscovy and General Vlasov of the USSR, she asked herself the question: if Vlasov had written a letter to Stalin, would Stalin have answered him? Under what circumstances would Vlasov write a letter to Stalin?

I want to draw your attention to the fact that the first letter was written in April 1564. This is the year of Kurbsky's flight to Lithuania. This letter contains the following lines:

“Written in the city of Volmer, the possession of my sovereign King Sigismund August, from whom I hope to be granted and consoled in all my sorrows by his royal grace, and especially with the help of God.”

Despite the fact that it always bugs me when traitors and murderers hope for "God's help", now it's about something else.

It was the writing of this letter by Kurbsky the Terrible that contributed to the emergence of such a political phenomenon as the information war against Russia. This phenomenon is more than 450 years old. And the fantasy of Russia's opponents, alas, will not run out. For the first time, cartoons, leaflets, nonsense about Russia appeared in Europe in the era when Ivan the Terrible ruled.

The debate about whether this correspondence was in reality, or is it fiction, continues to this day, but Kurbsky's first letter was unambiguous. To answer other questions, let's turn to the book of the military historian Valery Shambarov:

“... But the message was not intended for Ivan IV. It spread throughout European courts, among the gentry - so that it would not be passed on to the tsar, sent to the Russian nobles, so that they would follow the example of the prince and instead of "slavery" choose "freedom" [10].

When the first letter appeared, Sigismund II was king. Kurbsky, either decided to justify himself, or received an order to denigrate the tsar in order to help rally the Medieval European Union against Rus', where a tyrant supposedly rules, from whom the people need to be freed. But Kurbsky continued to write and help Bathory, who became the next king after the death of Sigismund. When the Poles, led by the new monarch, surrounded Polotsk, Kurbsky arrived to persuade the defenders of the fortress and the townspeople to go over to the side of the "liberators", those who would "bring them peace and prosperity" after many years of war.

Grozny from the Principality of Moscow created a state that became larger in area than all other European countries combined, population growth was 30–50%, carried out many reforms that strengthened the state and its defense capability, founded 155 cities and fortresses, 300 postal stations, laid the foundation for book printing , created printing houses, six secondary schools, etc. Western rulers had reason to hate Grozny ...

But in a surprising way, the libel of the traitor, on whose conscience the treacherous escape, return from weapons in the hands of the head of the enemy army, the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, not only formed the basis of lies about the life and service of Grozny, but are still published, his image is ennobled in cinema.

Footnotes:
1. Valishevsky K. Ivan the Terrible. Historical essay. 1993, p. 182.
2. Skrynnikov R.G. The Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. 1998, p. 181.
3. Mazurov V. A. Truth and lies about Ivan the Terrible. 2018. S. 54.
4. Skrynnikov R. G. The Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. (Tyranny). 1998, p. 241.
5. Kalugin V. V. “Moscow scribes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the second half of the 2020th century.” Russian Resurrection website, XNUMX.
6. Mazurov V. A. Truth and lies about Ivan the Terrible. 2018. S. 54.
7. Kobrin V. A. Ivan the Terrible. 1992, pp. 522–523.
8. Skrynnikov R.G. The Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. 1998, p. 230.
9. Skrynnikov R. G. The Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. 1998, pp. 223–224.
10. Skrynnikov R. G. Vasily III. Ivan groznyj. 2008, pp. 304–305.
11. Shambarov V. E. "The Tsar of Terrible Rus'" electronic edition of the book.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +17
    18 March 2023 05: 38
    A good article, and even with footnotes to source links for deep reading.
    A lot of lies have been written about Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, and moreover, a film was made about him in the image of a despotic tyrant of the country.
    But if he discards all the husks and dirt from Ivan the Terrible, and carefully looks at those events, it turns out that he was a wise ruler, and plus an excellent economist in his time.
    But alas, many did not understand his essence of government, and remained slandered by the Great Sovereign in the form of Ivan the Terrible.
    1. +4
      18 March 2023 08: 47
      A global census of history is the goal of every ruler. The Ruriks ended with Ivan the Terrible. Then came the tinsel, logically disappearing in 1917.
    2. +5
      18 March 2023 11: 53
      Prince Kurbsky is a traitor. Dot.
      1. AAK
        0
        18 March 2023 18: 37
        And here the film turned out to have an interesting continuation ... in Bushkov's book "Ivan the Terrible. The Bloody Poet" a curious parallel was drawn ... Kurbsky's descendants in Poland began many years later to write themselves as Krupsky ... and then Nadenka found Volodenka .. .
        1. +1
          21 March 2023 11: 06
          Aren't you ashamed to invent all sorts of crap?
  2. 0
    18 March 2023 05: 39
    The author has a biased attitude towards his hero, and to the era, in particular. But the article is still a plus!
    1. +2
      18 March 2023 09: 17
      Show us an unbiased gishtoric :). The essence is the same - interpretations and interpretations of a hodgepodge of real events and conjectures. This porridge is dry and uninteresting without the "author's position", sorry about the "judgment of history" on the part of the historian. Just as Karamzin launched the plot (the language does not dare to call this version) about the "terrible tyrant", so this leitmotif went into the "canon", which even the corrosive Skrynnikov followed.
      1. 0
        21 March 2023 13: 40
        Quote: Gestas
        The essence is the same - interpretations and interpretations of a hodgepodge of real events and conjectures.

        The problem is that the same person in his 20s and in his 50s will look like two completely different people. Both "reality" and speculation are possible.
        Children are curious.
        Young revolutionary.
        Adults are lazy.
        The elderly are reactionary.
        Old people are conservative.
  3. +7
    18 March 2023 06: 00
    Traitors are the scourge of our society ... both then and now ... these renegades and renegades have caused and are causing the greatest damage to our state, country and people.
    It is a pity that there was no NKVD under Grozny ... in three days the betrayal of this Kurbsky would have been revealed, arrested and hung on an aspen.
    I thank the author for that article ... informative. hi
    1. +7
      18 March 2023 06: 04
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      It is a pity that there was no NKVD under Grozny

      But what about the oprichnina?
      1. +7
        18 March 2023 06: 31
        Ж
        Quote: Luminman
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        It is a pity that there was no NKVD under Grozny

        But what about the oprichnina?

        Been waiting for this question... smile
        Malyuta Skuratov is not Beria, he did not deal with the issues of the atomic project ... but sometimes the guardsmen showed too much cruelty where it was not necessary to do this.
        Although by all indications, the guardsmen are the same NKVD officers.
        By the way, they also showed themselves well on the battlefields.
        1. +9
          18 March 2023 07: 29
          Although by all indications, the guardsmen are the same NKVD officers.
          By the way, they also showed themselves well on the battlefields.
          Quite right, like the divisions of the NKVD during the Second World War. And in the same way, the whole reason is crap in our history, like Ivan the Terrible.
          1. +2
            18 March 2023 07: 32
            Quote: Aviator_
            the whole reason is crap in our history, like Ivan the Terrible

            Over the past 30 years, after the collapse of the USSR, not only Ivan the Terrible, but everything that came before him, including Rurik, was crap in our country ...
        2. +1
          18 March 2023 11: 49
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          By the way, they also showed themselves well on the battlefields.
          Actually, it's bad. For which they were dispersed.
      2. +1
        18 March 2023 06: 31
        And what about the oprichnina? Have the relatives been expelled? And just something?
        1. +7
          18 March 2023 07: 25
          Oprichina destroyed the feudal fragmentation of the territory and, under its cover, Grozny became the ONLY FEUDAL lord IN THE COUNTRY, becoming not only the first among equals, BUT THE ONLY HAVING AN ARMY, and the understanding that a STATE WITH CENTRALIZED TEETH appeared in the east made the Romano-Saxon world bristle against him. on the throne, maybe the fortress lasted until the 19th century and would not have had to burn Moscow as under the Romanov Germans
      3. +2
        19 March 2023 15: 00
        Well, the oprichnina was not only in Russia. Compare Henry, it seems, the eighth with Ivan Vasilyevich. Where are the guardsmen. Ivan the Terrible kitten compared to him ...
  4. 0
    18 March 2023 06: 29
    Thanks for the article, although I knew this, but it's good to be reminded.
  5. +7
    18 March 2023 06: 45
    This is just a continuation of the confrontation between the Roman Empire and Byzantium, with the inheritance of religion, we also acquired permanent enemies of Byzantium, and a lot of them have accumulated over the thousand-year history of the Second Rome. Accordingly, the opposition of different branches of the Christian denomination. On the other hand, there is self-interest, there are many heirs, and there is not enough land for everyone, hence the war. Well, the modern Western Roman Empire, revived in the form of the European Union, is trying to squeeze an additional eon from the Eastern for its economic market. The paradox lies in the fact that having deprived itself of the huge Russian market with the help of sanctions, the West returned to the pre-crisis state of the 80s, which they managed to avoid with the help of our next traitors, Gorbachev, a traitor in the nearness of "start", well, Yeltsin, out of pride, "understand" . The summer of the 23rd, interesting for events, awaits us because of the Jews ...
  6. +11
    18 March 2023 07: 02
    Well, what Kurbsky was like can be understood from his act - he took money, moreover, a large amount borrowed from the monastery (and which he clearly was not going to give back), but left his wife and son. Although in those days, and even later, the family was responsible for the misdeeds of the head of the family. And he knew this very well and still grabbed the loot. And he left his family. So that the portrait of a swindler and scoundrel on the face.
  7. -3
    18 March 2023 07: 46
    The article is bullshit, with the transfer of judgments and perceptions of the 20th-21st centuries, to the 16th century.
    In addition, deceitful and biased.
    If you need a great ruler from Muscovite Rus', here is Ivan the Third, and his grandson overestimated his strength and ruined the country with a lost war and terror.
    1. -4
      18 March 2023 12: 59
      Hmm ... Recently, all sorts of pseudo-historical articles on the topic of "traitors" and whitewashing of all kinds of odious rulers who committed genocide or sent their people to be slaughtered for the sake of their "great" goals often began to appear. Why pseudo-historical? Because Russian history has been rewritten many times and always for the sake of the "victorious government." Looking for grains of truth in it is such an occupation. Why articles about "traitors" and "slandered rulers" have now appeared is, then, understandable. If we talk specifically about Kurbsky, then I advise you to read his correspondence with Grozny yourself, and not rely on the judgments coached by the author in the way he needs. Read - this correspondence is on the Internet.
      1. +2
        18 March 2023 15: 29
        hi
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        Looking for grains of truth in it is such an occupation.

        To look for grains of truth in it is an archival and archival occupation.))) For a number of reasons.
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        Why articles about "traitors" and "slandered rulers" have now appeared is, then, understandable.

        good That's just clear, as you can see, not everyone.)))
    2. 0
      20 March 2023 01: 41
      Quote: Cartalon
      If you need a great ruler from Muscovite Rus', here is Ivan the Third

      Ivan 3 is also a rather cruel and bloodthirsty king. His contemporaries also called him formidable, which is translated into modern language from Old Russian as a cruel, bloodthirsty, sadist. It's just that Ivan 4 in senseless cruelty surpassed Ivan 3 and the latter was no longer called cruel. Over time, the past appears simple and bright without the dark sides of the old. Under Ivan 3, the Kasimov Tatars, practically by agreement, received Russia as food for their service to the tsar, a terrible pogrom of Novgorod was staged, which led to an independent decline in the center of Russian culture, statehood and traditions of veche democracy. Under Ivan 4, unsuccessful wars with the Crimean Tatars and Western Europe brought the Russian state to the brink of death. Civil society and the church were severely destroyed in the country, which later led to the crisis of the Time of Troubles.
  8. 0
    18 March 2023 08: 03
    A lot of nobles fled from the "wrath" of Ivan IV.
    Righteous or not, they all saved their lives and the lives of their loved ones.
    There is information about them on the Internet, and yes, they fought against the tsarist troops. Some are quite successful.
    The most famous of them is Kurbsky, who became famous thanks to his correspondence with the tsar.
    The reason for the disgrace is unknown and all "betrayals" look very stretched. It is quite possible that Ivan Vasilyevich was looking for a scapegoat because of the failures in the Livonian War.
    In no way am I defending Kurbsky, but if he felt the danger of his life, he could do so.
    It's good from the XNUMXst century to call him a traitor. Many foreigners fought on the side of Russia - did they also betray their state?
    Captive Swedes, for example, who swore an oath to the king, fought against the Crimean Tatars.
    And the hundreds of thousands of males who fled the Russian Federation after 24.02.22/XNUMX/XNUMX are also traitors?
    In history, one should be more careful with labels.
    The topic is interesting. How ethical was the transition under the rule of another ruler in the XNUMXth century and the assessment of this, hence the difference in the opinion of historians
    1. +3
      18 March 2023 09: 30
      Kurbky did not stand out in any way from the environment of the aristocracy (at least domestic, at least foreign) of that time, except for a kind of literary "field". Didn't the same Count Arz want to surrender Helmet by "the consent of the high contracting parties"? True, Arts was on the wheel. Apparently, in Poland there was a different attitude to this feudal practice of changing overlord :). More precisely, let's say this - there were no questions about practice (as for the same Swedes you mentioned), and betrayal in wartime was always punished without delay.
    2. +4
      18 March 2023 10: 10
      IMHO - for starters, you just need to read Grozny's letters .. For, as for me, he sets out his position very clearly. And in general - he has a chic style and a very logical style ..

      http://www.infoliolib.info/rlit/drl/grozny.html#g1
    3. 0
      19 March 2023 08: 05
      Yes, in those days, the transition from one sovereign to another was not uncommon. Only then even then it was considered a betrayal and, at any opportunity, was punishable by death. And how can there be a single ethics in an era of constant wars of everyone against everyone? Only the ethics of war is ethical that helps me to win. And in the modern world, little has changed, the same "double standards".
      And in the above example, the Swedes, mind you, fought not with the Swedes, but with completely alien Tatars to them. Just in contrast to Kurbsky, who not only fought with his former sovereign, but did it on his own initiative.
  9. +7
    18 March 2023 08: 32
    Some kind of fashion has gone, any historical event can be compared with episodes from Soviet history. The transition to another overlord, at that time, was a recognized feudal norm, and was not a rare phenomenon. For example: Prince Vasily Lvovich Glinsky, with his brothers, after the death of his father , in Lithuania, "left" to Russia in 1508, his daughter, Princess Elena Vasilievna, was the second wife of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich and the mother of Ivan the Terrible. Who is he? "Political" emigrant or a traitor? What prompted him to "leave"? He supported his younger brother Mikhail, who rebelled against his overlord, after the defeat he moved to Moscow, the city of Medyn was granted. His Lithuanian estates were confiscated and given to: Narbutovich and Prince Czartorysky. The only thing that distinguishes him from Kurbsky was that he did not correspond with his overlord, but there was a medical reason, he suffered from an eye disease. As they said in Soviet times: We have scouts, they have spies.
    1. +6
      18 March 2023 08: 57
      Good morning!
      Agree. Just a little Vlasov.
      The Pskov hero Prince Dovmont - escaped from Lithuania, converted to the Orthodox faith and very successfully fought with the Lithuanians and not only.
      Is he the Lithuanian prototype of Vlasov
      So I'm writing, be careful not to be labeled.
      1. +3
        18 March 2023 09: 03
        hi Good morning! And given that many boyar families boasted of their foreign origin, so the elite consisted mainly of "traitors" who "betrayed" their overlords and went to the service of the Moscow sovereigns? smile
        1. +2
          18 March 2023 09: 15
          Good morning! And given that many boyar families boasted of their foreign origin, so the elite consisted mainly of "traitors" who "betrayed" their overlords and went to the service of the Moscow sovereigns?

          Good)
          Although they criticize comparisons of the past with the present, the current government is sheer traitors who have abandoned the CPSU, who previously joined there on nomenklatura mercenary convictions, just like now in the United Russia ..

          This bad man will betray us at the first danger.

          Gentlemen of Fortune.

          Good luck)

          "A betrayer once - betray more than once"
          1. 0
            18 March 2023 10: 29
            Quote: Konnick
            Although they criticize comparisons of the past with the present, the current government is sheer traitors who have abandoned the CPSU, who previously joined there on nomenklatura mercenary convictions, just like now in the United Russia ..

            Well, you will also say, "this is another!".)))
            Quote: Konnick
            "A betrayer once - betray more than once"

            I totally agree with you about the above! In general, the word "betrayal" must be handled very carefully. Is it possible to consider a traitor, for example, General Brusilov or the hero of the novel "Quiet Don", Grigory Melekhov?
      2. +1
        18 March 2023 10: 16
        Prince Dovmont
        I think it is worth adding that the right flank of the Russian army on the Kulikovo field was commanded by the Gedeminoviches, who later died on Vorskla as part of the Lithuanian army. Yes, and the origin of Dmitry Bobrok raises questions.
        1. +3
          18 March 2023 10: 44
          There is another version, Bobrok-Volynsky did not participate, in the battle on Vorskla, and after the death of his son, he became a monk.
          1. +4
            18 March 2023 11: 23
            Alexey, I'm actually not talking about Bobrok, Andrey and Dmitry Olgerdovich, and Dovmont and others like them. I'm talking about the fact that it's not good to approach the Middle Ages with modern patterns.
            1. +5
              18 March 2023 11: 30
              that it’s not good to approach the Middle Ages with modern patterns.
              Anton, you and I, and not only us and other commentators, are talking about the same thing, but as you can see, they don’t heed us. smile Moreover, some in their comments are trying to compare the NKVD and the guardsmen, which they found in common is not clear. smile
    2. 0
      18 March 2023 09: 53
      Quote: parusnik
      The transition to another overlord, at that time, was a recognized feudal norm, and was not a rare phenomenon.

      The transition, yes, but when you serve and you yourself transfer information to another, this is betrayal in its purest form.
      Kurbsky did not fall into captivity, but voluntarily got in touch with the Polish king Sigismund II, with whom Muscovy was at war, and gave out military secrets for a year and a half; betrayed the governor of the castle, Helmet, and thwarted the bloodless surrender of the fortress; issued a plan for the movement of the 20th army, helped to defeat it.
      1. +3
        18 March 2023 10: 23
        But Glinsky, when he moved, did not give out military secrets .. Yeah .. He kept silent smile
        1. -1
          18 March 2023 10: 32
          Hello Alexey! hi
          Quote: parusnik
          But Glinsky, when he moved, did not give out military secrets .. Yeah .. He kept silent

          You wrote above
          Quote: parusnik
          We have scouts, they have spies.
          1. +3
            18 March 2023 11: 09
            You wrote above
            So he wrote, but you see, I had to write a second time. And then, if anyone read the correspondence between Kurbsky and the Terrible, they know that in their messages, neither Kurbsky, nor in the answers of Ivan the Terrible, indicate the reasons that prompted Kurbsky to betray. Both are silent, like a fish, on ice. Only mutual reproaches. They also forget that Kurbsky was one of Ivan the Terrible’s close associates, the Poles began to lure Kurbsky a long time ago, and when the earth staggered under him, he accepted the offer. principality and dumped to Prince Vasily Ivanovich, having previously sent the news, they say, wait. "Spies" and "scouts." smile hi
        2. +2
          18 March 2023 14: 06
          Quote: parusnik
          And Glinsky, when he moved

          Are we talking about those times?
          Quote: parusnik
          The transition to another overlord, at that time, was a recognized feudal norm, and was not a rare phenomenon.
          Yes it was. That's just
          Quote: Dart2027
          when you serve and you yourself transfer information to another, this is pure betrayal
          1. +2
            18 March 2023 17: 31
            Let's return to Glinsky, who "passed over" to the father of Ivan the Terrible, do you think he passed the information on or not? He conveyed my opinion, he is the same traitor as Kurbsky. But it turns out that Kurbsky is a "spy", and Glinsky is a "scout". They definitely shared information when they moved from one overlord to another, and this is a betrayal. Peter I hired foreign specialists, for what? What would they, in his service, share information. Did he hire them for their beautiful eyes, or is it something else? Have you read Kurbsky's correspondence with Grozny? Not a single one indicates the reason why Kurbsky went to Sigismund. I already wrote, but I repeat, Kurbsky, even before I was interested in the Poles, as a specialist, as a commander. He could have left earlier. But he did not consider it necessary, he was not under Grozny poorly fed, when he realized that the feeding was over, he went to Sigismund. In the course of intrigues at court, Sigismund I removed Glinsky from his posts. Having failed in an attempt to peacefully return to their former position at court, Glinsky and his relatives rebelled. Kurbsky, he could not afford this when his position at the court of Ivan the Terrible staggered. Glinsky and Kurbsky, the same berry. Only the first "scout" , and the second "spy". And Ivan the Terrible, son, of his father Vasily III and daughter of the "scout", Glinsky. And we are talking about the same time, about the events of the XNUMXth century.
            1. 0
              18 March 2023 19: 21
              Quote: parusnik
              Let's return to Glinsky, who "passed over" to the father of Ivan the Terrible, do you think he passed the information on or not? He conveyed my opinion, he is the same traitor as Kurbsky. But it turns out that Kurbsky is a "spy", and Glinsky is a "scout".
              Very dramatic. But you decide
              Quote: parusnik
              The transition to another overlord, at that time, was a recognized feudal norm, and was not a rare phenomenon.
              or not? Otherwise, your attempts to justify Kurbsky look ridiculous.
              1. -1
                18 March 2023 19: 51
                Quote: Dart2027
                And then your attempts to justify Kurbsky look ridiculous

                Your attempts to pull up the Middle Ages under the current worldview look ridiculous! Can you suggest condemning our Cro-Magnon ancestors for cannibalism?
                1. 0
                  18 March 2023 20: 44
                  Quote: aleksejkabanets
                  Your attempts to pull up the Middle Ages under the current worldview look ridiculous!

                  That is, in the SW to serve two masters was the norm?
                  1. +1
                    19 March 2023 08: 22
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    That is, in the SW to serve two masters was the norm?

                    Going from one master to another was normal.
                    1. +1
                      19 March 2023 09: 38
                      Quote: aleksejkabanets
                      Go from one mister
                      I asked
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Was serving two masters the norm?
                      Yes or no?
                    2. -1
                      19 March 2023 10: 29
                      And then and now it was considered treason. Treason was punished very cruelly at that time. Times change, but people don't.
                      1. 0
                        19 March 2023 11: 02
                        Quote: Herman 4223
                        And then and now it was considered treason.

                        I know this, I just want to get an answer from aleksejkabanets.
                      2. -4
                        19 March 2023 14: 44
                        They here believe that their masters could be changed as a job today. What can he tell you intelligibly? It’s just amazing how many commentators have begun to justify the traitor and shit the article. One degenerate also turns out to have students, I can imagine what kind of dirt he puts in their heads.
    3. +2
      18 March 2023 20: 00
      Good afternoon. I'm not a magician, I'm just learning. Do not judge strictly. In my opinion, you are right when you write that in the era of feudalism, the transition to a different overlord is the norm. And comparison with modernity is unnecessary.
    4. -3
      20 March 2023 01: 49
      Quote: parusnik
      Some kind of fashion has gone, any historical event can be compared with episodes from Soviet history

      Of course, it is more interesting to discuss the conflict between Prigozhin, Beglov, Shoigu, Nemtsov, Nabiullina for influence in the country, but it is much easier to discuss Ivan the Terrible. He has long been in the grave with his guardsmen, and from the other world they are indifferent to earthly judgments about them, which cannot be said about current politicians. The indifference of people to the whitewashing of the atrocities of Ivan the Terrible apparently allows us to hope that politicians who allow senseless excessive oppression of their people can count on their whitewashing with cunning propagandists.
    5. 0
      20 March 2023 18: 07
      I agree, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Vishnevetsky and Sigismund II also served Ivan the Terrible, then returned to Lithuania again. After all, then the cross was kissed not by the state, but by the ruler. Dies will kiss another or not. And the relationship was mutual if someone believed that the conditions of the oath were violated, then he considered himself free from obligations.
  10. -3
    18 March 2023 09: 20
    the article is correct and ends with a correct summary that Ivan the Terrible, who actually received only a small Muscovy as an inheritance, created a great Russian empire, despite the traitors of the then Vlasovites, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland, who, when Ivan the Terrible came to power, had the borders of their imperial states sizes . From the time immediately after Ivan the Terrible, it is necessary to conduct deductions from the moment when Russia realized that the Mongols and Tatars were no longer dangerous to Russia, just as Lithuania and Poland and their entire Western cohort are dangerous. That is why they still hate Ivan the Terrible for the fact that from his time the dismantling of Poland and Lithuania began, and even the henchmen of the Poles Romanovs later contributed to this. This is where the modesty of the Romanov historians lies to reveal the true magnitude of the size of Kurbsky's betrayal. Kurbsky betrayed Russia to those who later placed their Romanovs on the Russian throne. But it turned out to be embarrassing - the Romanovs fooled the Lithuanians and the Poles, and after several generations of the dynasty, they divided Poland and Lithuania itself across Europe.
    Obvious gaps in the history books, because about the main traitors of the past, Kurbsky and Vlasov, whole public multi-volume anthologies of their betrayal should be released. Well, what would our heirs do the same with the multi-volume anthologies of betrayals of Gorbachev and Yeltsin ....
  11. +6
    18 March 2023 10: 39
    200 people from the army command were killed, including Commander-in-Chief Shuisky. The warriors, as the soldiers were then called, having lost control and management, fled back to Polotsk, without putting up resistance to the few attackers. This event went down in history as the Battle of Ula.
    Someone might think that the losses were not so great and not fatal: out of 20 thousand, 200 people from among the governors died.

    Normal such losses! 200 governors: this is approximately the same as in the battle of Liepaja in June 1941, 200 Soviet generals were killed.
    I strongly doubt that there were such a number of governors in the Muscovite state.
    Of course, the losses in the Battle of Ole are not exactly known: the Moscow chronicler speaks of 150 boyar children. The later Piskarevsky chronicler wrote about 700 killed and captured boyar children. The Pskov scribe noted that "not many boyar children were beaten, while others all ran away."
    The Lithuanians and the Poles, of course, were not stingy (what a pity for his adversary): Radzwill himself wrote about 9000 beaten, Kommendoni - about 10, and M. Stryikovsky - about 000 defeated opponents at all.
    It is unlikely that the army of Peter Shuisky was more than 4-5 thousand people, it was a "light army" that went on a raid. Indirectly, its not very large number is evidenced by the fact that about 3000, or even more, carts with all sorts of property, and another 2000 sets of armor fell into the hands of the Lithuanian army. As you know, “they didn’t go according to the sovereign’s order, making a mistake, not carefully and not regiments, and they carried their armor and all service attire in a sleigh”
    1. +5
      18 March 2023 11: 23
      Radzwill himself wrote about 9000 beaten [
      /b] He writes about those beaten by him, but here is what he writes about his losses: [b]
      "In the ongoing battle of ours, although no more than 20 people were killed, from six to seven hundred were wounded. In the company of Prince Solomirsky, almost all privates and convoys were wounded, and in the company of Mr. Zenovich, almost everyone was also wounded, and he himself was wounded in the head" ( With).
      And if we take into account that Russian chronicles speak of 150 killed, then a completely passing skirmish has acquired the scale of a heroic battle. It’s just not clear why the author uses exclusively "enemy" sources. And besides, the attack caught the army of Peter Shuisky by surprise:
      The kings and the grand prince voevoda not only (not) managed to put on armor, but the regiments didn’t have time either
      1. +7
        18 March 2023 11: 40
        Quote: parusnik
        oh, a completely passing skirmish has gained the scale of a heroic battle

        But in fairness, it must be said that this battle, regardless of the scale, thwarted all the plans of the Russian command company for this year.
        1. +5
          18 March 2023 11: 59
          frustrated all the plans of the company of the Russian command for this year.
          Of course, but it was not a fic:
          “They didn’t go according to the sovereign’s order, making a mistake, not carefully and not regiments, and they carried their armor and all service attire in a sleigh”
    2. +2
      18 March 2023 15: 09
      150 boyar children. The later Piskarevsky chronicler wrote about 700 killed and captured boyar children.

      That is, the total number of those killed goes to at least hundreds. The boyar children were all mounted, the infantry could suffer much more in proportion to the number
      It is unlikely that the army of Peter Shuisky was more than 4-5 thousand people, it was a "light army" that went on a raid

      It is unlikely. Pyotr Shuisky regularly commanded the Big Regiment and most likely this time also led a very significant force.
      1. +6
        18 March 2023 17: 08
        Quote: Engineer
        infantry

        Was there infantry there? There were probably archers, since among the prisoners the archer "thousand" is mentioned. With a high degree of probability, we can assume that they were also put on horseback, based on the nature of the operation: they had to travel about 150 miles per week along winter roads and join the Smolensk army near Orsha, and then set off on a raid towards Minsk etc.
        It is unlikely. Pyotr Shuisky regularly commanded the Big Regiment and most likely this time also led a very significant force.

        Actually, he commanded a separate "army" - Polotsk, which was formed at the expense of the forces of the Polotsk garrison, which in turn hardly exceeded the total number of 10 thousand, including everyone (boyar children, archers, gunners, Cossacks, etc.) Therefore, the number of forces Shuisky in 2 thousand boyar children seems quite real. Indirectly, the 2 armor that the Lithuanians got as trophies in the convoy confirms this. We don't know anything about war serfs. Probably another 500-1000 archers, the rest are apparently kosh. Thus, 4-5 thousand seems to be a very real figure. That's all, hardly more. The Smolensk army was apparently larger in number.
        By percentage: Ivan led 16.5 thousand boyar children to the Polotsk campaign, with a total army of 40-45 thousand, including outfit, archers, staff, etc. And this was the very peak of what the Moscow government could put forward, it was not possible to collect more such armies. It is quite correlated: boyar children make up about a third of the entire army. hi
        1. +1
          18 March 2023 17: 54
          By percentage: Ivan led 16.5 thousand boyar children to the Polotsk campaign, with a total army of 40-45 thousand, including outfit, archers, staff

          At Pensky, according to calculations, 45-50 thousand. The staff is NOT included. Penskoy, on the other hand, referred to a fairly modern domestic work with an estimate of 70 thousand. The main problem with the calculations is that the ratio of the children of boyar and combat serfs is not known. Penskoy took the minimum as for me.
          Actually, he commanded a separate "army" - Polotsk, which was formed at the expense of the forces of the Polotsk garrison,

          http://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/Dokumenty/Polen/XVI/1560-1580/Ula1564/text.htm
          John, without leaving Moscow, was in a hurry, however, to strengthen Shuisky, whom he now appointed chief governor, sending him to help several detachments from different cities.


          I think Shuisky's 8-10 thousand is more realistic.

          At least someone here reads on the topic. good
          1. +4
            18 March 2023 18: 35
            Quote: Engineer
            I think Shuisky's 8-10 thousand is more realistic.

            Maybe, but here we are in the realm of hypothetical assumptions. Actually, in the figure of 4-5 thousand, he also relied on Pensky's calculations.
            Personally, I still tend to this figure, but of course only according to indirect data: Radziwill had about 4 thousand, against an army of 8-10 thousand - not enough, even despite the nature of the battle.
            As we remember, the Russian army was ambushed already in the evening, probably there was no battle as such: walking on the march under a sudden blow, they were overturned and fled, 200-300 people were killed and perished in the surrounding winter forests, and the same number was captured, which by the way is quite a lot with the size of the army of thousands of 5 people. According to Radziwill, the Lithuanians lost 20 people, which in these conditions looks quite reliable.
            the ratio of children of boyar and combat serfs is not known.
            Yes, it is not known, half believe that the number is given taking into account combat slaves, the other - that without. I'm more inclined to think - what is it with combat serfs, since they are never mentioned separately, and in the category books they go separately. But not a fact. hi
        2. +3
          18 March 2023 17: 59
          Good afternoon.
          Quite a decent answer.
          Once again I was interested in the topic "armor in the convoy". This question was addressed to Shpakovsky not so long ago, but he mumbled something and everything, and there were comments, such as "yes! on the march in full dress!"
          And here Sergey writes that he is in a convoy.
          It is a pity that not the article is commented, but comments.
          Something grouchy became drinks
  12. -2
    18 March 2023 12: 06
    Traitors - an eternal theme from Judas Iscariot.
    Kurbsky in the XNUMXth century, Vlasov in the XNUMXth century, Navalny in the XNUMXst century.
  13. +8
    18 March 2023 12: 07
    I didn't read the article to the end. He reached the "100th army", spat and moved on to the comments, not expecting to see anything good in them.
    In general, I was not mistaken - basically here, as expected, "obscurantism and ..." no, not jazz, but something like "Artillerymen, Stalin gave the order." And only a few comments of some colleagues somehow try to bring a bit of common sense into this orgy of hatred, ignorance and historical illiteracy.
    Once again I am convinced how much depends on the author in terms of the composition of commentators and the quality of comments.
    I thought of unleashing a "sharp polemic" with one of the apologists of Ivan Vissarionovich the Terrible-Stalin, but it is difficult, and not desirable, to single out one of this mass. In addition, today is a day off and I want to devote it to my family, and not to communicate with people that are unpleasant to me ...
    And the article is rubbish. From what I have mastered, it is clearly visible that the author does not understand the era he is writing about.
    Everything, thank you all for your attention. laughing
    1. +4
      18 March 2023 12: 19
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      Ivan Vissarionovich the Terrible-Stalin

      For the cruelty of the nicknamed Vasilich! laughing
      Greetings Michael!
      it is clearly seen that the author does not understand the era

      But what an impressive list of references! drinks
      1. +7
        18 March 2023 12: 47
        Quote: Mihaylov
        But what an impressive list of references!

        I'm not sure that I've read it all, and I'm not at all sure that I've understood it. As for Shambarov, I think it's better not to read him at all. I don’t know about Ivan the Terrible, but his “Belogvardeyshchina” is such a stinking rant against Soviet power that I, like this article, did not finish reading it.
        1. +6
          18 March 2023 12: 53
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          I'm not sure if I've read it all

          I can say right away that it is not. And you can consider me a "seer". laughing
          as for Shambarov

          I must confess that this character is unknown to me. hi
          1. +6
            18 March 2023 13: 13
            I do not recommend. I don’t know what he writes about Ivan the Terrible, but about the Civil War - complete darkness.
          2. +7
            18 March 2023 13: 59
            Sergei, this is a skillful juggling. I read Shambarov, a couple of books, no more desire. So, the article was written according to his work, but, to give "solidity" to the article, inserts from Skrynnikov were made, and those that do not reveal the overall picture.
            1. +7
              18 March 2023 14: 30
              Quote: parusnik
              article written on his work

              Ah, well then everything is clear. smile
              You did the right thing by not reading it. Thanks, clarified. hi
              1. +6
                18 March 2023 14: 39
                hi Mikhail, the author, is not the first time he uses this technique. smile I noticed that the authors, the trend has gone, they use one source, referring to many authors. I have students like that, in a technical school, they wrote essays. smile
                1. +6
                  18 March 2023 14: 51
                  Quote: parusnik
                  I noticed that the authors, the trend has gone, they use one source, referring to many authors. I have students like that, in a technical school, they wrote essays.

                  Greshen: as a student himself, he resorted to this technique. hi
                  1. +2
                    18 March 2023 15: 33
                    Quote: Mihaylov
                    Greshen: as a student himself, he resorted to this technique.

                    But are you the only one.))) We all sinned with this to a greater or lesser extent.
                2. +4
                  18 March 2023 15: 13
                  The brain of the vast majority of individuals desperately resists any unusual activity, especially thinking. Some time ago, wondering how people so quickly verbose and lengthy participate in the comments, I checked a number of commentators. Seamless copy\past from the first selections in Yandex. Therefore, an article based on a single source is quite a step forward.
                  1. +4
                    18 March 2023 16: 04
                    Quote: balabol
                    an article based on a single source is quite a step forward.

                    It depends on what source, how it is studied and how it is understood. This article, in my opinion, can in no way be considered a "step forward", no matter what position the author starts from.
                    1. +5
                      18 March 2023 16: 42
                      Maybe I didn't articulate it clearly enough. Articles in online publications are not a source of deep knowledge; you cannot learn from them. It is good if they provide separate, previously unknown facts, raise questions and interest in independent study of topics related to the issue under consideration and indicate sources for initial reading.
                      I certainly agree that decent work involves the analysis of sources and their critical evaluation. Yes, in general, it is interesting when there are unresolved issues and all statements have no alternative. In science, there are always options.
                3. +5
                  18 March 2023 16: 00
                  This is normal when one main source is taken to write an article. But, if this source - someone's article - is really good, then it should contain links to other sources, it would not be bad to go through them, see what's there, check, double-check. This is already normal work, since more objective and complete information is obtained.
                  It is bad when this source is copied without mind, and links are copied with it without checking and studying. What is the place to be in this case, I can’t say, because I’m not familiar with the original source, but the article from the very first lines did not inspire confidence. And the fact that the work of Shambarov was taken as a primary source explained a lot to me.
    2. +7
      18 March 2023 16: 36
      I didn't read the article to the end. I got to the "100th army", spat and moved on to the comments,
      So do I.
      1. +4
        18 March 2023 17: 27
        What is there to comment on? They reminded about Skrynnikov - and that's good.

        And the plot of the article "pre-election campaign" in Smeshariki reminds.
      2. +4
        18 March 2023 18: 17
        Hi, hello!
        I have published several articles on this resource. And none of them gave a link to the source. Everything is very simple. You can't be a dok across the spectrum of human history. I'm interested in the early Russian Middle Ages.
        I read, but I don’t write out quotes and also the authors.
        The picture is formed in the head itself.
        Often passing the place of the Battle of Rakovor, I think: "Where would the best view of it be from?"
        Shpakovsky writes for money, what Oksana is aiming for, we do not know.
        But, the range of her articles gives an idea of ​​her as a "doctor" of all sorts of sciences.
        Shpakovsky's replacement is being prepared
        1. +4
          18 March 2023 18: 33
          You can't be a dok across the spectrum of human history.
          Hi Sasha!
          It `s naturally. Even among specialists, deep knowledge of the era is limited to 2-3 centuries.
      3. Fat
        +4
        18 March 2023 18: 33
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        I didn't read the article to the end. I got to the "100th army", spat and moved on to the comments,
        So do I.

        Hello Anton. I won't join. For the first time I looked through the article in the early morning, Later I read it carefully. This "product" is impossible to comment on. These are such "cries of the soul with lamentations" indicating the sources of "righteous wrath". request
        I came here in the evening to see who and how reacts to the opus ...
  14. +4
    18 March 2023 18: 57
    Quote: Ilya-spb
    Prince Kurbsky is a traitor. Dot.

    Not so simple wink In fact, according to the nobility of the family, he is the same Rurik as Ivan-4. And according to the concepts of that time, he could quite easily migrate with children, households and personal troops from one patron to another, as he pleases. What he - like other boyars and nobles - did. Did he put money, fodder, a field army for the needs of the patron at the agreed time for the agreed period? Wonderful. Is there anything else hope-prince wants in excess of what was agreed? Let's goodbye.

    Why did Smolensk, Polotsk and its environs become Russian? Local rulers came under the patronage of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, "betraying" the Grand Duke of Lithuania. But this is different, right? Homage is such a thing, a product of the consent of two parties, if one party does not fulfill its obligations, then everything is canceled mutually.
    1. +1
      18 March 2023 19: 21
      But this is different, right?
      Kanesh, our Kurbsky, went over to "not ours", but "not ours", to ours. He is a traitor, and they are heroes. laughing For so many years, under the "yoke", they languished, and the craving for the Fatherland woke up, suddenly the smoke of the Fatherland became sweet and pleasant. Previously, they were not allowed to leave, apparently they did not issue a passport .. laughing
  15. 0
    19 March 2023 09: 58
    In general, in the article it would not hurt to highlight a list of historians who justified the traitor in one way or another. At best, they are narrow-minded people, and all their work in absentia is subject to doubt and rechecking. What is very surprising is how Russia is lucky for such personalities as Kurbanov. How many of them have been in our history and how many troubles they have brought.
  16. -1
    21 March 2023 12: 02
    After 100 troops, I was able to read a little more, but did not master it to the end. As many members of the forum rightly noted, feudalism was so interesting. How could Kurbsky betray Grozny, when he had his own allotment, his own fiefdom, and Grozny did not allocate it to her for his service? So they could compete who from the bottom is cooler and more noble (which in those days was constantly done, under Peter they just finished with this). Quite precisely, it was said, written, by many - he was absolutely in his right to send Grozny - which, in fact, he did. Thoughts about the Middle Ages in the paradigm of the countries of the 20th century are not even funny, stupid, to put it mildly. Especially if you remember when the countries in Europe were actually formed, as countries in the understanding of the commonality of management and economy.
    Kurbsky can be blamed for writing vile fables about Ivan the Terrible and his atrocities. Now they are writing the same about Stalin, Putin - everything is as old as the world under the moon.
    The article is anti-scientific and wrecking in meaning, as it intentionally misleads people.
  17. +1
    22 March 2023 01: 55
    Thank you for the article! The author laid everything out perfectly and simply proved as a theorem that Kurbsky is a traitor with a capital letter. If a person leaves his wife with a child, in order to save himself, and in addition takes money, allegedly in debt, then he immediately loses the respect of all normal people (in any era). It is amazing how the history of the Russian state was written from his words and is still being forced to learn this lie at school ... And some commentators, like descendants or fans of Kurbsky, are trying to spit on the true meaning of the written article.
  18. 0
    27 March 2023 08: 54
    Interestingly, the pre-revolutionary Russian rulers also seemed to dislike Ivan the Terrible. In fact, after all, a personality of the scale of Peter 1 or Stalin - however, it suddenly dawned on me here recently laughing that the Russian Navy has never had a ship named after Ivan the Terrible.
  19. 0
    27 March 2023 08: 57
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    It’s a pity that there was no NKVD under Grozny ... in three days the betrayal of this Kurbsky would have been revealed

    Well, first of all, it was.
    Secondly - the NKVD, for example, Khrushch "clicked".

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"