The king is good, the boyars are bad. On the atrocities of the boyars surrounding Ivan the Terrible
Can we, the citizens of Russia, imagine that, for example, the Chairman of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, V.V. Volodin, fled to the USA, Great Britain, or some other country hostile to Russia? No.
Why did I choose this person as an example? Because of the position. It is believed that after the President, the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Federation Council, the Speaker of the State Duma is the fourth in the hierarchy of public positions. What seems to us utter nonsense - the escape abroad of such a high-ranking official of the state, was an everyday occurrence in the era of Grozny.
In April 2023, V.V. Putin signed a number of laws toughening punishment for treason, terrorism and participation in sabotage. Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for punishment up to life for espionage, the issuance of state secrets, going over to the side of the enemy, providing financial, consulting and any other assistance to a hostile state. President of Belarus A. G. Lukashenko went further and signed a law introducing the death penalty for high treason for officials.
How would we react if the deputies of the Duma turned to the President of the country not only with a request to pardon a high-ranking traitor fugitive, but also to return to his post? And what if they offered to replenish the state budget in the amount of 1 billion rubles for this?
Many members of the government, deputies not only of the State Duma, but also in the regions, are very rich people. The website rbc.ru posted an article by E. Kuznetsova on the income of deputies for 2020: “The richest deputy of the State Duma earned more than 2 billion rubles in a year. The deputies with the highest incomes, like a year ago, were Grigory Anikeev (2,7 billion rubles), Leonid Simanovsky (1,5 billion rubles) and Nikolai Bortsov (808 million rubles)” [1]. Information about the income of deputies is not a state secret, they report annually, information is publicly available on the website of the State Duma, but from 2023 the names of people's deputies will be closed.
V. V. Volodin is not only a high-ranking person with access to state secrets, but also a very wealthy person. If my example of Volodin’s escape to the country’s enemies is fictional, then Grozny actually had an attempt to escape the head of the Boyar Duma, I. D. Belsky, to the Polish king during the years when there was a war between the two states, and there was a guarantee for his release.
Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky
Here is an excerpt from the book of the historian Skrynnikov:
“In January 1562, the authorities arrested the head of the Boyar Duma, Prince Ivan Belsky, the owner of the Lukhovsky specific principality. The Bielskis were also of Lithuanian descent. During their arrest, royal letters of protection were found with an invitation to leave for Lithuania, as well as a painting of the way to the Lithuanian border. The head of the Duma confessed that he had referred to Sigismund II and that he “took a dangerous letter from him that I should go to him.” The tsar disgraced Belsky and held him in custody for three months. The specific principality passed into the treasury.
The change was evident. But Belsky escaped punishment for reasons that can only be judged speculatively. The specific prince was a close relative of the king in the male line, and, in addition, his mother was the cousin of the sovereign. Ivan Belsky received the boyar rank after the fall of Adashev, less than a year before disgrace. The main guarantor for the disgraced was Prince Semyon Mikulinsky, who had never been a member of the tsar's inner circle and was recorded nineteenth in the list of the Duma according to the Palace Notebook. Other guarantors - Prince Ivan Troekurov, Yuri Kashin and Mikhail Repnin - were recorded at the end of the same list.
In addition to minor boyars, more than a hundred princes and boyar children from the Sovereign's court vouched for Belsky. In the event of the escape of the disgraced abroad, the guarantors had to pay 10 rubles and answer with their own heads, in other words, with their lives. Under pressure from the Duma and the clergy, the authorities stopped the investigation. Belsky was given back his inheritance and the post of head of the Duma” [000].
The change was evident. But Belsky escaped punishment for reasons that can only be judged speculatively. The specific prince was a close relative of the king in the male line, and, in addition, his mother was the cousin of the sovereign. Ivan Belsky received the boyar rank after the fall of Adashev, less than a year before disgrace. The main guarantor for the disgraced was Prince Semyon Mikulinsky, who had never been a member of the tsar's inner circle and was recorded nineteenth in the list of the Duma according to the Palace Notebook. Other guarantors - Prince Ivan Troekurov, Yuri Kashin and Mikhail Repnin - were recorded at the end of the same list.
In addition to minor boyars, more than a hundred princes and boyar children from the Sovereign's court vouched for Belsky. In the event of the escape of the disgraced abroad, the guarantors had to pay 10 rubles and answer with their own heads, in other words, with their lives. Under pressure from the Duma and the clergy, the authorities stopped the investigation. Belsky was given back his inheritance and the post of head of the Duma” [000].
From the description of a historian biased towards Grozny, one gets the impression that nothing terrible happened, he wanted to escape and was stopped, the crime was insignificant, it seemed that they took away his inheritance, but then they returned the lands, property and post.
Military historian V. E. Shambarov conveys all the danger from the current situation:
“And in January 1562, Ivan Belsky was arrested, who was about to flee to Lithuania. Among the aristocracy, he was the first in rank! A relative of the sovereign headed the Boyar Duma. Oh, what a gift it would be for Sigismund! It was possible to create an “alternative government” around such a figure, to agitate in his name for new betrayals. He corresponded with the king, had already received a "dangerous letter", a pass to cross the front line. For this they sent to the chopping block. But where is it! The case never even went to trial. The metropolitan spoke with "sadness", and five boyars expressed their readiness to take Belsky on bail.
Of course, the sovereign was not pleased with such a friendly intercession for the traitor. He appointed a huge bail, 10 thousand rubles. However, the initiators immediately gathered more than a hundred representatives of the nobility who agreed to become part of the guarantors - they dropped a hundred each, and that's it. Then the tsar included one more condition in the manual record, which had not been practiced before. It was pointed out that the guarantors were responsible for Belsky not only with money, but with their own heads. No, even this did not stop the boyars. Signed easily. Are they really executing more than a hundred people from the very top?
In March 1562, Belsky was released and again headed the Duma” [3].
Of course, the sovereign was not pleased with such a friendly intercession for the traitor. He appointed a huge bail, 10 thousand rubles. However, the initiators immediately gathered more than a hundred representatives of the nobility who agreed to become part of the guarantors - they dropped a hundred each, and that's it. Then the tsar included one more condition in the manual record, which had not been practiced before. It was pointed out that the guarantors were responsible for Belsky not only with money, but with their own heads. No, even this did not stop the boyars. Signed easily. Are they really executing more than a hundred people from the very top?
In March 1562, Belsky was released and again headed the Duma” [3].
How did Grozny fight the boyar arbitrariness before the beginning of the oprichnina?
Let us turn to the information of S. B. Veselovsky:
“The responsibility of the metropolitan and the authorities was exclusively moral. Reinforcement of the surety by the guarantors was the threat of excommunication from the church and the curse "in this age and in the future" if the person forgiven for them by the surety sins again. The responsibility of private guarantors could be twofold. The guarantor answered either with his “head”, that is, personally and with all his property, like the person for whom he vouched, or the guarantee was only property and limited to a certain amount.
Full guarantee could be obtained only among relatives, friends and close acquaintances. Limited guarantee, of course, was easier to obtain, but even it required certain sacrifices from the rescued person. In any case, the guarantors, assuming responsibility, became interested in the behavior and lifestyle of the person they helped out and, in essence, took him under their supervision.
The habit of taking notes about a person who has sinned before the prince and been forgiven by him has existed for a long time. Since the third quarter of the XNUMXth century, many records have come down to us (they are printed in volume I of the “Collection of State Letters and Treaties”). From the time of Tsar Ivan, we have records of ten persons, but in reality there were a lot of them.
From the same inventory of the royal archive, we learn that Prince. In 1562, Ivan Belsky gave, in addition to the usual guarantees, other confirmation records: a record according to which he kissed the cross to his guarantors, and a record according to which his courtyard people were led to the cross.
Records printed more than a hundred years ago still remain unused and not properly evaluated by historians. Meanwhile, only in ten printed records, there were up to 950 people, of which 117 people. vouched twice, 16 - thrice, 7 - four times, and Ryazan Kushnik Grigory Verderevsky vouched five times.
The guarantee of private individuals was essentially similar to mourning for the guilty metropolitan and the authorities. The guarantors were, as it were, mediators and conciliators between the tsar and a person suspected or guilty of him. Risking their head and property, they linked their interests with the fate of the rescued. Thus, the practice of suretyship, carried to its extreme limits by the tsar, caused consequences hardly foreseen by the tsar and hardly desirable for him; she rallied the environment with which Ivan was in conflict.
Let's take the handbook of 1562 according to the book. I. D. Belsky. Let me remind you that Belsky was not suspected, but convicted of treason and intended to flee to Lithuania. Therefore, the guarantee was a very serious matter. Among the guarantors for Belsky, we see the future oprichniki: (he lists many people - 20 people, including those later executed for treason).
Each blow that Tsar Ivan inflicted on one or another representative of this milieu touched, to a greater or lesser extent, dozens of persons associated with the disgraced, and caused a reaction on their part. When in 1563-1564. disgrace struck a large number of nobles, Tsar Ivan had to feel entangled in a dense network of "sorrowers", intercessors and persons ready to vouch for the disgraced head and all their property" [4].
Full guarantee could be obtained only among relatives, friends and close acquaintances. Limited guarantee, of course, was easier to obtain, but even it required certain sacrifices from the rescued person. In any case, the guarantors, assuming responsibility, became interested in the behavior and lifestyle of the person they helped out and, in essence, took him under their supervision.
The habit of taking notes about a person who has sinned before the prince and been forgiven by him has existed for a long time. Since the third quarter of the XNUMXth century, many records have come down to us (they are printed in volume I of the “Collection of State Letters and Treaties”). From the time of Tsar Ivan, we have records of ten persons, but in reality there were a lot of them.
From the same inventory of the royal archive, we learn that Prince. In 1562, Ivan Belsky gave, in addition to the usual guarantees, other confirmation records: a record according to which he kissed the cross to his guarantors, and a record according to which his courtyard people were led to the cross.
Records printed more than a hundred years ago still remain unused and not properly evaluated by historians. Meanwhile, only in ten printed records, there were up to 950 people, of which 117 people. vouched twice, 16 - thrice, 7 - four times, and Ryazan Kushnik Grigory Verderevsky vouched five times.
The guarantee of private individuals was essentially similar to mourning for the guilty metropolitan and the authorities. The guarantors were, as it were, mediators and conciliators between the tsar and a person suspected or guilty of him. Risking their head and property, they linked their interests with the fate of the rescued. Thus, the practice of suretyship, carried to its extreme limits by the tsar, caused consequences hardly foreseen by the tsar and hardly desirable for him; she rallied the environment with which Ivan was in conflict.
Let's take the handbook of 1562 according to the book. I. D. Belsky. Let me remind you that Belsky was not suspected, but convicted of treason and intended to flee to Lithuania. Therefore, the guarantee was a very serious matter. Among the guarantors for Belsky, we see the future oprichniki: (he lists many people - 20 people, including those later executed for treason).
Each blow that Tsar Ivan inflicted on one or another representative of this milieu touched, to a greater or lesser extent, dozens of persons associated with the disgraced, and caused a reaction on their part. When in 1563-1564. disgrace struck a large number of nobles, Tsar Ivan had to feel entangled in a dense network of "sorrowers", intercessors and persons ready to vouch for the disgraced head and all their property" [4].
I will cite the second and very important episode from the life of the Muscovite state, connected with Belsky.
In the early spring of 1571, the tsar received information that the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey, at the head of a huge army, behind which stood the Ottoman sultan, was preparing a raid on Moscow. Grozny left with five zemstvo and one oprichnina regiments to the Oka. He was with the troops until mid-May. Soon, intelligence reported that the Crimean troops were not visible, that the raid was either canceled or postponed. After such data, the king left the regiments.
“John did not know that at that time from 120 to 200 thousand Crimeans were already approaching the border of Rus'. But they did not go along the usual path, but by secret ways, bypassing the outposts. They were led by traitors led by Kudeyar Tishenkov.
May 23 - a week after the departure of the king! - Devlet Giray unexpectedly went to the Oka and crossed where he was not expected, in an unguarded place, and "thanks to secret informers" - high-ranking traitors in the Russian ranks,
May 23 - a week after the departure of the king! - Devlet Giray unexpectedly went to the Oka and crossed where he was not expected, in an unguarded place, and "thanks to secret informers" - high-ranking traitors in the Russian ranks,
- writes V. G. Manyagin [30].
Historians, led by Karamzin, accused the tsar of cowardice and flight, but military historian V.E. Shambarov has a different opinion:
“Ivan the Terrible later complained - “at least they brought two Tatars, even if they brought me only a Tatar scourge!” No, the commanders of the advanced regiment did not bother themselves. Not finding the Crimeans in front of them, they reported that the signals of the Cossacks were false. This means that the khan canceled the raid, went not to Rus', but somewhere in the other direction. On May 16, Ivan the Terrible, left in the army part of the guardsmen under the command of Ya. F. Volynsky, and he himself went to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda - without stopping by Moscow (his enemies later portrayed this as “flight”).
At that time, the horde was already crossing the Oka, but much to the west, in the upper reaches of the river. And she appeared suddenly, from an unexpected direction. The detachment of Volynsky tried to detain her, but 2-3 thousand guardsmen were simply swept away by a hundred thousandth avalanche. The Crimeans quickly reached the Serpukhov tract, leaving the Russian army in the rear, and moved to Moscow. And there were no troops in the capital! The news of this hit the king like snow on his head.
He did the only thing left for him - urgently sent to Moscow all the forces at hand, an oprichny convoy led by M.I. Vorony-Volynsky. Instructed him to arm the townspeople, to organize defense. And the sovereign himself, in the same way as Dmitry Donskoy or Vasily III did in such cases, went to Rostov and Yaroslavl to gather local nobles, raise the people, withdraw regiments from the west - let the defense at least stop the Tatars, and the threat of the approach of the tsarist troops will force them to remove siege" [29].
At that time, the horde was already crossing the Oka, but much to the west, in the upper reaches of the river. And she appeared suddenly, from an unexpected direction. The detachment of Volynsky tried to detain her, but 2-3 thousand guardsmen were simply swept away by a hundred thousandth avalanche. The Crimeans quickly reached the Serpukhov tract, leaving the Russian army in the rear, and moved to Moscow. And there were no troops in the capital! The news of this hit the king like snow on his head.
He did the only thing left for him - urgently sent to Moscow all the forces at hand, an oprichny convoy led by M.I. Vorony-Volynsky. Instructed him to arm the townspeople, to organize defense. And the sovereign himself, in the same way as Dmitry Donskoy or Vasily III did in such cases, went to Rostov and Yaroslavl to gather local nobles, raise the people, withdraw regiments from the west - let the defense at least stop the Tatars, and the threat of the approach of the tsarist troops will force them to remove siege" [29].
Which regiments stood and did not budge, allowing the Crimeans to cross the Oka? Only zemstvo! Oprichniki stood to death, like the Panfilovites near Moscow in the winter of 1941:
“Only the oprichnina regiment under the command of Ya. F. Volynsky stood in the way of the Tatars. But the number of daredevils did not exceed 6 people, and they were simply swept away by a 000-strong Horde. Having waited for the Tatars to finish the crossing and leave for Moscow, the zemstvo brave men, without firing a single shot, withdrew from their positions and hastily fled to the capital.
The tsar, having learned about what had happened and knowing full well that the reason for this state of affairs was not only the criminal negligence of the zemstvo governors Belsky and Mstislavsky, but also direct treason, was forced to leave Moscow and, of course, not with two hundred thousand, but well, if two hundred guardsmen. For the defense of the city, the tsar left the entire reserve, headed by M.I. Vorony-Volynsky.
The zemstvo regiments, which fled from the Oka, instead of meeting the enemy in an open field, hastily set up a siege among the wooden Moscow suburbs. The next day, May 24, the Tatars set fire to the estates. The fire was terrible. The army perished in the fire, the governor I. D. Belsky suffocated in the basement of the house where he tried to hide, the commandant of Moscow Voronoi-Volynsky burned down, selflessly trying to save the Oprichny yard. The Tatars have gone home,
The tsar, having learned about what had happened and knowing full well that the reason for this state of affairs was not only the criminal negligence of the zemstvo governors Belsky and Mstislavsky, but also direct treason, was forced to leave Moscow and, of course, not with two hundred thousand, but well, if two hundred guardsmen. For the defense of the city, the tsar left the entire reserve, headed by M.I. Vorony-Volynsky.
The zemstvo regiments, which fled from the Oka, instead of meeting the enemy in an open field, hastily set up a siege among the wooden Moscow suburbs. The next day, May 24, the Tatars set fire to the estates. The fire was terrible. The army perished in the fire, the governor I. D. Belsky suffocated in the basement of the house where he tried to hide, the commandant of Moscow Voronoi-Volynsky burned down, selflessly trying to save the Oprichny yard. The Tatars have gone home,
- writes V. G. Manyagin [30].
Here is the assessment of betrayals by V. G. Manyagin in the book “Terrible: Apology of the Russian Tsar”:
“This time the Russians suffered a crushing defeat, losing the army and burned down Moscow. The fact that this defeat of the Russian troops was a betrayal is confirmed by R. Yu. Vipper: “The Crimean Khan acted in agreement with Sigismund, supporters of the Polish intervention (participants in the Chelyadin-Staritsky conspiracy) knew about this in Moscow, who still had not been transferred, despite executions of the preceding triennium; they "did not see" the approach of the Tatars, failed, or, better, did not want to organize the defense of the capital.
The raid of 1571 inspired the Crimeans that it was possible to take not only Moscow, but the entire state. After all, in addition to Moscow, they burned 36 more cities. For traitors, this was not enough:
“During the departure of Khan Devlet Giray from Moscow in 1571, Murza Abyslanov, who was in the royal service, tried to go over to him. Caught by the Russian outpost, he confessed that he had been sent to Devlet-Girey by the governor I.F. Mstislavsky with a proposal to surrender Moscow during a new campaign.
The head of the Zemsky Duma was arrested and confessed to everything and promised to continue to faithfully serve the tsar and his children. The oprichnina and zemstvo governors, who fought under his leadership, interceded for the prince. Three noble governors vouched for the disgraced prince, promising to pay a deposit in the event of his new offense. The tsar released the prince and sent him as governor to Novgorod,
The head of the Zemsky Duma was arrested and confessed to everything and promised to continue to faithfully serve the tsar and his children. The oprichnina and zemstvo governors, who fought under his leadership, interceded for the prince. Three noble governors vouched for the disgraced prince, promising to pay a deposit in the event of his new offense. The tsar released the prince and sent him as governor to Novgorod,
- V. A. Mazurov gives such data [19].
Let's continue the story about the high-ranking fugitives, besides the king's relatives.
Vasily Mikhailovich Glinsky
Grozny had a maternal cousin - Vasily Mikhailovich Glinsky. He tried to run to the Polish king, but was caught.
Historians, biased towards Grozny, explain the attempt to escape by the fact that Glinsky became the spokesman for the opinion of the entire aristocracy - dissatisfaction with the marriage of the tsar to the "busurman".
Agree, isn't that an absurd excuse?
Metropolitan Macarius and the Consecrated Cathedral interceded for Glinsky, the cousin underwent the procedure of cross-kissing and was released on all four sides.
The tsar forgave another close relative, promoted him to the boyars, and then introduced him to the Boyar Duma.
Mikhail and Alexander Vorotynsky
Prince Mikhail Ivanovich Vorotynsky - governor and boyar, belongs to the Rurik branch, an outstanding commander, hero of the capture of Kazan and the Battle of Molodi, drafter of the charter of the guard and border service. Captured among 109 other prominent figures of the Russian stories on the monument "Millennium of Russia".
He was sent to the temple on Beloozero with the following content, described in the book by K. Valishevsky:
“In our hands are official documents, from which it is clear that this prisoner lived in a rather comfortable environment. He complains that they do not send him the Rhine and French wines that are due to him by right. Requires a variety of supplies: fresh fish, raisins, lemons and prunes. This is what he needs for himself, his family and twelve servants, who, like him, are supported by the state.
As we can see, Vorotynsky's imprisonment bore little resemblance to hellish torments. Ivan's government treated such people too humanely. It is difficult to admit that before their exile they were subjected to such terrible torments” [17].
As we can see, Vorotynsky's imprisonment bore little resemblance to hellish torments. Ivan's government treated such people too humanely. It is difficult to admit that before their exile they were subjected to such terrible torments” [17].
The second representative of the family is Alexander Ivanovich Vorotynsky. Specific service prince, governor, governor, okolnichiy and boyar. He was sent to Galich in the Kostroma region.
Historians who hate Grozny write that the conflict between the governor Mikhail Vorotynsky and the tsar allegedly arose not at all because of his attempt to escape to Sigismund in 1562.
The reasons for the escape attempt of Alexander Vorotynsky are given by spiteful critics are very strange.
The first - because of the escheated land (“a third of the Novosilsko-Odoevsky specific principality, which passed after the death of Prince A. I. Vorotynsky (1553) into the hands of his widow Princess Mary” [5]), they say, Vorotynsky was rude to the king, that he did not inherit the land.
The second reason is even more strange - “the tsar from the time of his wedding with Maria Temryukovna“ looked askance ”at Prince A.I. Vorotynsky and even“ held great anger at him ”.
Let's take an analogy from modern days. Suppose that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin would marry a second time. If the deputies of the State Duma or members of the government do not like his choice, then how can this be a weighty reason for high treason? Strange excuse, isn't it?
Speaking about the Vorotynsky clan, some historians are silent about the fact that since the distant childhood of the tsar, Ivan Vorotynsky and his sons Mikhail, Vladimir and Alexander tirelessly weaved conspiracies.
Let us turn to V. E. Shambarov:
“But the old enemies decided to take advantage of the rule of a woman and a child (Elena Glinskaya and little Ivan - ed. note): the Crimean Khan Sahib Giray with his kalga Islam, the Polish-Lithuanian king Sigismund. The Tatars demanded unthinkable payments (half of the grand ducal treasury), but negotiations with them had not even begun when their hordes attacked the Ryazan region. The governors of Punkov and Gatev utterly defeated them on the Pron River, but this was only the beginning of a whole series of wars. Sigismund put forward a claim to return all the lands taken from him by Vasily III. And also, without waiting for an answer, he began to gather an army, made an alliance with Sahib Giray.
Upon learning of this, Elena and the boyars began to prepare regiments on the southern and western borders. But it soon became clear that Lithuania was counting not only on its own forces and on the Tatars, it took care to acquire secret allies within Russia. And among the relatives of the Grand Duke!
The youngest of the three Belsky brothers, Semyon Fedorovich, and the devious Ivan Lyatsky, who were instructed to form units in Serpukhov, maintained contact with Sigismund and, together with their squads and servants, fled to him ...
More precisely, the conspiracy was much broader. It was attended by the governors of a large regiment, Ivan Belsky and Ivan Vorotynsky, Vorotynsky's sons Mikhail, Vladimir and Alexander (two of the listed persons, Lyatsky and Vorotynsky, figured among the opposition even under Vasily III).
With the onset of the Lithuanians, the consequences would have been catastrophic - the traitors could open the front, be transferred to the side of the enemy. But the plot was exposed. Semyon Belsky and Lyatsky, sensing danger, fled. Ivan Belsky and the Vorotynskys did not have time, they were arrested.
True, some historians put forward versions that they were imprisoned without guilt, only because of Ivan's relationship with the defector Semyon, but this, of course, is nonsense. Because the third brother, Dmitry Belsky, did not suffer at all, remained in the Boyar Duma. Yes, and Vladimir Vorotynsky in 1553 openly admitted that he, with his father and brothers, actually participated in treason” [6].
Upon learning of this, Elena and the boyars began to prepare regiments on the southern and western borders. But it soon became clear that Lithuania was counting not only on its own forces and on the Tatars, it took care to acquire secret allies within Russia. And among the relatives of the Grand Duke!
The youngest of the three Belsky brothers, Semyon Fedorovich, and the devious Ivan Lyatsky, who were instructed to form units in Serpukhov, maintained contact with Sigismund and, together with their squads and servants, fled to him ...
More precisely, the conspiracy was much broader. It was attended by the governors of a large regiment, Ivan Belsky and Ivan Vorotynsky, Vorotynsky's sons Mikhail, Vladimir and Alexander (two of the listed persons, Lyatsky and Vorotynsky, figured among the opposition even under Vasily III).
With the onset of the Lithuanians, the consequences would have been catastrophic - the traitors could open the front, be transferred to the side of the enemy. But the plot was exposed. Semyon Belsky and Lyatsky, sensing danger, fled. Ivan Belsky and the Vorotynskys did not have time, they were arrested.
True, some historians put forward versions that they were imprisoned without guilt, only because of Ivan's relationship with the defector Semyon, but this, of course, is nonsense. Because the third brother, Dmitry Belsky, did not suffer at all, remained in the Boyar Duma. Yes, and Vladimir Vorotynsky in 1553 openly admitted that he, with his father and brothers, actually participated in treason” [6].
Treason continued under the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The tsar confiscated all their possessions, sent Mikhail Vorotynsky to Beloozero, and Alexander and his family to Galich. Before the tsar had time to exile them, the boyars began to ask to release the family from Galich under the pretext that Alexander's guilt was less than Mikhail's. Eminent guarantors appeared:
“No less indicative is the composition of the guarantors under Prince. Alexander Vorotynsky (1563). They vouched for him with his head and 15 thousand rubles. book. Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky (himself a criminal), Prince. Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky and such major future guardsmen as Alexei Danilovich Basmanov, Ivan Yakovlevich Chebotov, boyars Prince. Andrei Ivanovich Nogtev Suzdalsky, Dmitry Ivanovich Nemoy Telepnev-Obolensky and those executed shortly after this guarantee, Prince. Yuri Ivanovich Kashin-Obolensky and Mikhail Petrovich Repnin” [7].
A small comment. Kashin and Repnin issued military plans and were executed in 1564. Compared to Belsky, the tsar increased the amount of the bail and appointed 15 rubles, but very quickly one hundred people from the so-called nobility collected this amount, and Alexander received freedom.
All these Glinsky, Belsky, Vorotynsky - the closest relatives of the king, without their subversive and treacherous activities, attempts to harm external enemies would be in vain. Here is what I. Ya. Froyanov writes about this:
“The Polish king, the local princes and pans often provoked such escapes, sending seductive letters and speeches to potential fugitives through scouts. They also plotted dashingly against the Russian sovereign, sending us performers of dashing deeds - "likhodeev", in the terminology of the cross-kissing letter. Consequently, the betrayal of such people as V. M. Glinsky was fraught with danger not only to the Russian state, but also personally to Ivan the Terrible and his entire family” [8].
The collapse of the Russian Empire became possible thanks to the betrayal of the elites and relatives of the tsar, but even before the Romanovs, the Rurikovichs sinned with this ...
In the recent past, we witnessed the successful cooperation of the treacherous Soviet elite headed by Gorbachev with the Western intelligence services, thanks to which the USSR was destroyed. And in our time, liberal officials sit at different levels in different government offices, whose activities bring a lot of harm to the multinational Russian people.
Dmitry Ivanovich Kurlyatev-Obolensky
Let's go back to the Middle Ages and consider the escape of Prince D. I. Kurlyatev-Obolensky.
The escape and capture of Kurlyatev was played up in one of the black series about Grozny as follows: during an attempt to escape, he was caught, asked for mercy, but on Grozny’s orders, not only him, but his entire family was killed. In reality, there was nothing of the kind.
To explain this episode, I will give one hypothetical example.
1941, Moscow. Country before the Great Patriotic War. There are traitors in Stalin's entourage. Some were imprisoned, and some hid and are trying not only to help each other, but also to give out military secrets to enemies. They developed a plan: to transfer one of the commanders by the name of Kurlyatev as a commandant to the Brest Fortress, so that it would be more convenient to flee the border. The most embarrassing for such a fictional example, especially remembering how the commandant of the Brest Fortress, Major Pyotr Gavrilov, fiercely resisted the fascist hordes.
Fictional Kurlyatev arrives at the place of service, allegedly begins to fulfill his duties. In fact, he has been collecting information for two months, studying the plan of the fortress, various schemes and weak points of defense. One day, at dawn in early June 1941, he collects a convoy, loads goods on carts, seats family members, and they head to the border along secret paths. But the border guards are not asleep, they catch the convoy and, at the request of Stalin, send Kurlyatev to Moscow. Comrade Stalin asks Kurlyatev why he went to the border? In response, he hears that he allegedly just got lost. They believe the commandant and let him go.
This is a simplified hypothetical example, which did not exist in the history of the Great Patriotic War, but in the realities of Grozny and Muscovite Rus', which fought with the Polish-Lithuanian state, there was such a fact.
Dmitry Ivanovich Kurlyatev-Obolensky was one of the close associates of the tsar. He was helped to get a direction to Smolensk, because the city was the nearest fortress on the Lithuanian border. Smolensk was supposed to cover the direction to Moscow, but with such a governor there would be a hole in the defense. Before going the wrong way and "getting lost" with his family, servants and armed guards, he gathered a variety of information that could be useful to Sigismund. But he was disgraced not only for being "lost", but
"according to the totality of crimes for all" treacherous deeds "committed during the reign of the Chosen Rada and a little later" [9].
As the historian V. E. Shambarov writes, other terrible war crimes of Kurlyatev-Obolensky were revealed - not helping the Rignen garrison, when all the soldiers were exterminated, and together with the princes Kurbsky and Serebryany, they disrupted the operation to save the besieged Tarvast. According to the laws of wartime, during the Great Patriotic War, he would have been handed over to the tribunal.
In addition to war crimes, the tsar accused the Kurlyatevs of killing their daughters:
“The answer to the question, what was Kurlyatev's fault, Ivan Vasilievich gave many years later in a message to Kurbsky: “And why was Kurlyatev better than me? Buy all sorts of patterns for his daughters, but cursed for my daughters and for the rest "?
This is not a direct indication, but a hint - but a hint quite understandable to Kurbsky. It can be understandable to us too, if we remember: the king's daughters were poisoned in infancy (and the priest Sylvester, who was close to the king, used this as alleged evidence of the "curse" weighing on the sovereign's family for the "sins" of his ancestors and himself).
Kurlyatev's crime was terrible. Involvement in the killing of children. And if we consider that well-born aristocrats served as mothers and nannies of the royal offspring, the most likely version is that Kurlyateva's wife took care of the princesses and had a hand in their death. That is why, unlike other disgraced, the boyar was brought to justice along with his family.
The tsar did not want to leave such a guilt unpunished. But ... he found the only way to punish the criminals so that boyar sabotage would not interfere again! I already knew in advance that the Boyar Duma would refuse to judge or justify, a whole cohort of guarantors would gather. Therefore, Kurlyatev with his wife, son and two daughters were tonsured monks and sent to monasteries. They knew their fault - they did not dare to protest. And from monasticism you will not be released on bail.
However, even tonsure was not irrevocable for everyone. Streltsy head Pukhov Teterin, convicted of treason and sent to the Antoniev-Siya Monastery, managed to escape to Lithuania, and even wrote mocking letters from there to the faithful servant of the Tsar Mikhail Morozov [10].
Dmitry (Mitka) Elsufiev
In the military hierarchy of the Middle Ages in the army of Grozny, there was the position of head of the three thousandth corps of archers, which was held by Elsufiev. This position in modern language sounds like the head of the presidential security service. He took an active part in organizing the escape of the head of the Boyar Duma I. Belsky, for which his tongue was cut off:
“... and as for Elsufiev, it’s even worse, because before us is not an ordinary serviceman, but one of the chiefs of the three thousandth corps of archers - the king’s personal guard stationed in Sparrow Sloboda.
This Elsufiev, who had an estate in Belaya, located near the Lithuanian border, not only persuaded Belsky to flee to Lithuania, but also compiled for him, as the chronicle testifies, a road painting to the border, thereby showing an active participation in the preparation of the escape "[11]. According to the same road painting, it was possible to bring the enemy army in reverse.
Bogdan Khlyznev-Kolychev
1563 was another year of the military triumph of the Russian army, led by Ivan the Terrible.
To explain it, I will turn to the capture of the fortress city of Koenigsberg during the Great Patriotic War, turned into a powerful fortified area with numerous forts, bastions, towers, ravelins, hundreds of reinforced concrete bunkers and firing points, underground passages, anti-tank ditches, trenches, wire fences and minefields, collected in three rings of defense.
The Soviet units are preparing the operation "Storm of Koenigsberg". Suppose that there is a traitor in the General Staff who passes these plans on to the Nazis. But our intelligence will know about this betrayal in time. So that the fascists do not have time to prepare, the Red Army begins the assault on Koenigsberg ahead of schedule and, thanks to this, eliminates the consequences of the issuance of military secrets. Thank God that there were no traitors in our General Staff, the Koenigsberg operation was successfully carried out from April 6 to April 9, 1945. The Soviet troops lost 3 people killed, and the Nazis 700, 42 were captured. This is one of the many examples that refute the fact that the Red Army fought by numbers, and not by skill. The defense of Koenigsberg was opened like a tin can.
With my unpleasant hypothetical example, I want to bring to another traitor of a high rank, who was in the close circle of the king - Bogdan Khlyznev-Kolychev.
The tsar personally developed a plan for a military campaign against Polotsk, an ancient city once torn away from Rus'. Grozny led the 80th army, which set off on December 23, 1562.
The factor of surprise, which often guarantees success and disorganizes the enemy, the tsar could not use because of the escape of the aristocrat Khlyznev-Kolychev:
“In the days of the campaign, the noble nobleman B.N. Khlyznev-Kolychev went over to the side of the Lithuanians. The defector gave important information about the plans of the Russian command, which were immediately transferred by the Polotsk governors to the Lithuanian government" [13].
The Russian army besieged Polotsk on January 31, at dawn on February 14, the operation began, and on February 15, Polotsk fell. The king accepted the surrender and the keys to the city. We can read about the importance of this victory from a Polish historian:
“This campaign was crowned with a major victory - in the hands of the Russians was Smolensk and Polotsk, the center of the largest Polish-Lithuanian province, which was at the same time an important point of trade with Riga. The superiority of the Russian artillery gave Ivan the upper hand. Now, more insistently than before, he spoke about the return of Kyiv to him.
At the same time, Grozny showed mercy to the vanquished:
“Moreover, just as almost half a century ago, after the victorious assault on Smolensk, Vasily III released all the captured Poles, so now, by his son Ivan, all the surrendered Polish officers and soldiers were generously gifted with fur coats and released back home” [15].
"Tyrant" Grozny not only saved the lives of 20 urban poor from starvation and cold, ordered to clothe, shelter, allocate rations, but also gave the order to restore the city, be fair and take care of the townspeople. But, despite this, in Europe they invented fables about the atrocities of the king.
It was possible to further develop the victory and end the war with the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom. All of Europe, and especially Sigismund II, refused to believe in the victory of the Terrible: what was considered a stronghold fell in a day! After the capture of Kazan, the Ottoman sultan was indignant; after the fall of Polotsk, European rulers led by the Polish king were indignant. Ferdinand I of Habsburg offered to join forces, but in the fight against Turkey.
Grozny understood that in this way they wanted to deprive him once again of victory, which was within easy reach, and pit him against one of the most powerful empires of that time - the Ottoman Empire. The king gave the order to move on, but he remained unfulfilled. Once again, the Polish-Lithuanian king and his governors Radziwill and Khodkevich got in touch with the governors of Grozny, they asked the governor, and not the tsar, for a truce ...
The tsar added a new one to his titles - "Grand Duke of Polotsk", was forced to agree to a truce.
In 1559, the tsar agreed to a truce and received instead of one decrepit Livonian Order as opponents a large and powerful country - the Commonwealth. Why did he agree a second time?
The answer was found in the book of I. Ya. Froyanov:
“The Lithuanian side, as we see, was very afraid of the continuation of the war. And so Belsky came to the aid of Sigismund and the panamas with his brothers in the Boyar Duma. They tried their best, which they repeatedly reported to the happy lords, as if putting it in their merit before the Lithuanian side. They managed to induce Tsar Ivan to give Lithuania a truce, and enlist Vladimir Staritsky for help, enlisting his support.
I. D. Belsky, V. M. Glinsky, I. F. Mstislavsky, P. I. Shuisky and others who were good-natured to the Polish king and lords of the Rada were never "faithful sovereign servants." They continually strove to betray the Muscovite tsar: let us recall the very recent case of the flight to Lithuania of princes I.D. Belsky and M.V. Glinsky, let us not forget how Prince I.F. secret messages. It is impossible to portray these kalachis, grated in politics, as naive people who do not know what they are doing. These boyars were well aware that they were continuing the foreign policy course of Alexei Adashev at a new stage and under new conditions, which diverged not only from the plans of the tsar, but also from the state interests of Russia.
The boyars deliberately hurried Ivan in order to snatch his consent to the cessation of hostilities in a rude manner. And here they also fulfilled the wishes of the gentlemen of the Rada.
... to the accompaniment of words about the non-shedding of Christian blood, common to the rhetoric of that time, they unanimously accepted the conditions proposed by the defeated side.
From a military point of view, stopping troops within the city limits of Polotsk and ceasing hostilities is a gross mistake, not only tactical, but also strategic.
Apparently, each side had its own reasons. The motives of the boyars, led by Vladimir Staritsky (cousin of Ivan the Terrible, who claimed the throne - ed.), do not represent a big mystery. All of them, in one way or another, stood on the positions of the recently abolished Terrible Chosen Rada and its leaders, Adashev and Sylvester, who were ardent opponents of the Livonian war, and, more to the point, of the war with the West in general.
In this regard, there is apparently no fundamental difference between the truce with the Livonian Order in 1559, concluded through the efforts of Alexei Adashev, and the truce of 1563, granted to Lithuania thanks to the efforts of the boyars and the old prince. Both diplomatic acts were a betrayal of Russian state and national interests. Therefore, their creators should and should be considered traitors and traitors to the Holy Russian kingdom.
As for Tsar Ivan, he found himself in a very difficult position. The supporters of the truce, who were in the Russian camp and tried to please the Lithuanian lords and the Polish king, managed to rally the boyars, enlist the support of Vladimir Staritsky and act as a united front, so to speak. What was Ivan to do? You can’t fight those governors who don’t want to fight” [16].
I. D. Belsky, V. M. Glinsky, I. F. Mstislavsky, P. I. Shuisky and others who were good-natured to the Polish king and lords of the Rada were never "faithful sovereign servants." They continually strove to betray the Muscovite tsar: let us recall the very recent case of the flight to Lithuania of princes I.D. Belsky and M.V. Glinsky, let us not forget how Prince I.F. secret messages. It is impossible to portray these kalachis, grated in politics, as naive people who do not know what they are doing. These boyars were well aware that they were continuing the foreign policy course of Alexei Adashev at a new stage and under new conditions, which diverged not only from the plans of the tsar, but also from the state interests of Russia.
The boyars deliberately hurried Ivan in order to snatch his consent to the cessation of hostilities in a rude manner. And here they also fulfilled the wishes of the gentlemen of the Rada.
... to the accompaniment of words about the non-shedding of Christian blood, common to the rhetoric of that time, they unanimously accepted the conditions proposed by the defeated side.
From a military point of view, stopping troops within the city limits of Polotsk and ceasing hostilities is a gross mistake, not only tactical, but also strategic.
Apparently, each side had its own reasons. The motives of the boyars, led by Vladimir Staritsky (cousin of Ivan the Terrible, who claimed the throne - ed.), do not represent a big mystery. All of them, in one way or another, stood on the positions of the recently abolished Terrible Chosen Rada and its leaders, Adashev and Sylvester, who were ardent opponents of the Livonian war, and, more to the point, of the war with the West in general.
In this regard, there is apparently no fundamental difference between the truce with the Livonian Order in 1559, concluded through the efforts of Alexei Adashev, and the truce of 1563, granted to Lithuania thanks to the efforts of the boyars and the old prince. Both diplomatic acts were a betrayal of Russian state and national interests. Therefore, their creators should and should be considered traitors and traitors to the Holy Russian kingdom.
As for Tsar Ivan, he found himself in a very difficult position. The supporters of the truce, who were in the Russian camp and tried to please the Lithuanian lords and the Polish king, managed to rally the boyars, enlist the support of Vladimir Staritsky and act as a united front, so to speak. What was Ivan to do? You can’t fight those governors who don’t want to fight” [16].
Can we imagine a situation when, during the Great Patriotic War, German generals wrote letters to Soviet generals in March 1945, proposed a truce, then the military leaders reported to Stalin, began to exhort and persuaded to give a truce ... As a result, instead of the Victory on May 9, the great event was postponed to more for a long time, to be more precise, for a couple of decades.
In the Livonian War, there were many such episodes with governors from among those close to Grozny, because of which the war lasted for many years, and after 450 years, Grozny is blamed for everything.
Ivan Petrovich Fedorov
The next character from among the traitorous environment is a high-ranking intriguer Ivan Petrovich Fedorov.
After a successful marriage, he inherited a huge fortune, added his wife's surname to his last name, and soared up the career ladder. In the sources he is referred to as Chelyadin-Fedorov. He held two most important posts in the state - he headed the Konyushy order and the Boyar Duma.
The Middle Ages cannot be imagined without horses, as they were the only means of transportation. Successes on the battlefields, in organizing patrols, delivering provisions and guns depended on training, physical condition, and the number of horses.
Allocated herds of fighting, riding and plowed horses. As the number of horses increased, so did the number of servants who “walked” them, and the amount of work increased. To coordinate the activities of all that was necessary for the care of horses, utensils, harnesses, carts, sledges and other means of transportation, the procurement and supply of fodder, a special service was created and a responsible "stable" was chosen. Over time, the Stable Order or the Ministry of Transport in a modern sound was created. The groom was both a business executive and a warrior, he accompanied the king on campaigns, and was also responsible for defense.
According to some sources, Chelyadin-Fedorov acquired the right to a decisive vote in the election of a new sovereign, according to others, he became a locum tenens.
"Locum tenens - temporarily acting as a higher spiritual dignitary or official."
Historian R. G. Skrynnikov writes: “During the periods of interregnums, the government was carried out by the Duma, whose representatives were the senior boyars of the Duma - the horsemen. By tradition, the stables became locum tenens until the new sovereign took the throne. It is no wonder that the dissension between the tsar and the boyars and the rumors about the possible tonsure of the sovereign not only caused the specter of a dynastic crisis, but also placed the figure of the equestrian Chelyadin-Fedorov at the center of the struggle” [24].
Chelyadin-Fedorov was a participant in one of the events described by historians as "an event in Kolomna." It is presented to show how inhuman the king was in his youth. But it seems to me that this was the first attempt to eliminate the head of state.
As always, there are several versions.
The historian Kostomarov described the event as follows: “Once, when fourteen-year-old Ivan went hunting, 50 Novgorod pishchalnikov came to him to complain about the governors. Ivan felt annoyed that they were interrupting his fun; he ordered his nobles to drive them away, but when the nobles began to beat them, the squeakers began to hit them back and several people lay down on the spot.
It looks like 50 unfortunate people came from Novgorod. They have come a long and difficult way to appeal to Ivan with a petition. But he did not listen to them and ordered them to be driven away, being indifferent to the aspirations and troubles of the people.
I note that Novgorod is located 600 miles from Kolomna. There are 1 meters in a verst. And it was necessary to clearly know where the young king was at that time. According to the historian Valishevsky, the detachment was armed:
“In May 1546, when the tsar was hunting near Kolomna, an armed detachment suddenly blocked his path. These were the Novgorod pishchalniks who came to him with a complaint about the governor. Not understanding anything in these matters, Ivan ordered the Novgorodians to be driven away. There was a scuffle, even a few shots rang out. The young king remained unharmed, but he was very frightened. It is possible that this trait was hereditary. But, besides, he was frightened in childhood, from that time, probably, a nervous impressionability developed in him, due to which he trembled and lost his presence of mind at the slightest danger. Ivan escaped, but imagined it was a conspiracy and ordered an investigation. A simple clerk, Vasily Zakharov, wanting to become the tsar's favorites, attracted attention by the fact that Vorontsov and his relatives, who were already in suspicion and even out of favor, were mixed into the case. The student immediately surpassed his teachers. Grozny took the stage. Then the work of the executioner on the chopping block began, which then did not stop. F. Vorontsov and one of his cousins laid down their heads on the chopping block. Other accomplices of the alleged conspiracy were exiled” [25].
In one version, "unarmed detachment", in the other - "armed". Even if these 50 people were not armed, there were a hundred kulaks, but these kulaks belong to the military.
Let's imagine the following picture. The President of the United States is playing golf and suddenly 50 people appear around him, even if they are not armed. Question: what will his guard do? Without hesitation, they will open fire.
It is believed that Chelyadin-Fyodorov was one of the organizers of the attempt to assassinate the tsar in Kolomna. At the request of Ivan IV, an investigation was carried out. The investigation presented the names of two people allegedly devoted to the tsar - F. Vorontsov, his relative I. Kubenkov and this very I. P. Chelyadin-Fedorov. It so happened that two people who were considered loyal to the king were executed. Apparently, they didn’t “mourn” for them, that is, they didn’t ask. Chelyadin-Fyodorov confessed to participation in the regicide plot and was forgiven, his excuses were accepted. As the historian Mazurov writes,
“It cannot be ruled out that the Vorontsovs were simply slandered by their enemies, settling scores”, “Ivan Vasilyevich forgave the direct participants in the riot. He himself was in danger in a shootout, but he left the pishchalnikov without any punishment. He strove with all his heart to improve the lives of his subjects.
Very often, historians accused the tsar of the fact that through his fault Russia fought in the Livonian War for twenty long years. But this is not the king's fault. At the moments when the king ordered to go on the offensive, the governors gave a "stop" order. I. P. Fedorov-Chelyadin was one of these “hero-voevodas”. In the midst of the Livonian War, as Mazurov writes,
“On September 15, 1562, being the governor of Livonia, I received a proposal for a truce from the Lithuanian hetman G. A. Khodkevich. And this boyar, with his power, without the sanction of the king, ordered a temporary cessation of hostilities in Livonia.
. The monarch had to look for a way to cancel the truce "without damage to the authority of the boyar." But the day came when the tsar's patience snapped, and he sent Chelyadin-Fyodorov into exile in Beloozero.
The favorite method of the West is the search for traitors in Rus', in the Russian Empire, the USSR, the Russian Federation ... Centuries pass, but, alas, they continue to use this method, sometimes successfully.
When did the tsar's patience with Chelyadin-Fyodorov run out?
During the Livonian War in 1566-1567. King Sigismund proposed to Hetman Khodkevich of Lithuania once again to send letters to the noble subjects of Grozny. As the historian V. E. Shambarov writes,
“The tsar began to prepare a powerful blow against the Lithuanians and decided to lead the army himself. However, the enemy managed to recover. The king managed to collect sufficient amounts from his taxpayers, received new loans, hired soldiers. Moreover, it turned out that in this campaign, too, he places great hopes on the internal opposition in Russia. Sigismund and Khodkevich, who replaced Radziwill as hetman, sent a certain Ivan Kozlov, a former servant of the Vorotynskys, with letters to Belsky, Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky and Fedorov-Chelyadnin.
About thirty recipients were chosen, but the main ones were three people: I. D. Belsky, M. I. Vorotynsky and Chelyadin-Fedorov.
“The outcome of the entire Lithuanian intrigue, in fact, depended on the success of negotiations with Fedorov. Will the governor agree to use all his enormous authority in the Duma to organize a conspiracy, will he help to attract other leaders of the zemstvo to the conspiracy, or, on the contrary, will he turn away from the adventure he has started and hand over the scout to the tsar” [26]?
Why were I. D. Belsky and M. I. Vorotynsky held in such high esteem by the Polish king?
The answer to this question can be found in R. G. Skrynnikov:
“According to the Lithuanians, M. I. Vorotynsky, who spent three years at Beloozero, was the best suited to the role of the leader of the rebellion against Grozny. In a secret message, King Sigismund offered Vorotynsky to go into citizenship with the fortresses and population of the Novosilsko-Odoevsky principality. He promised to transfer to Vorotynsky all the lands that he could win back from Russia, thanks to the service of the prince himself, that is, as a result of an armed rebellion against the tsar. Moreover, the king undertook to give Vorotynsky the ownership of several Lithuanian castles and grant the privileges enjoyed by the Duke of Prussia and other major royal vassals ... The king promised Vorotynsky that he would immediately send him military assistance - his “military people. In addition to Fedorov and Vorotynsky, Lithuania hoped to involve the boyars in the plot. I. D. Belsky and Prince. I. F. Mstislavsky. The Lithuanian government invited Belsky to leave for Lithuania with everyone he considered fit for royal service. The king promised to return to him the ancient possessions of the Belskys in Lithuania and "make him a sovereign in his own land." I. F. Mstislavsky received a similar promise.”
The word "drive off" refers to medieval phenomena and concepts. Historian K. Valishevsky explains it:
“Since the XNUMXth century, a broad emigration movement began to develop, captivating all classes and societies. It was made from the Muscovite state to Poland and back”,
because they were related to each other. The family ties of these two courts are described in detail by other historians.
Versions of how the king found out about the letters differ. According to the first, ID Belsky was the only one who told the tsar about the letter from the Polish king. According to the second, this “honest” was Chelyadin-Fedorov, who did not want to “emigrate”, like Kurbsky from Russia. In the third version, the messenger Kozlov was caught at the border and, thanks to this, the letters got to the king. Under the dictation of the king, everyone except Chelyadin-Fedorov wrote a letter to the Polish king, giving a negative answer.
Paper will endure everything, but what did they really think?
R. G. Skrynnikov provides information that
“Abusive letters to the king by no means reflected the mood of the Zemstvo nobility. They testified only to the fact that the disgraced Fedorov and the main leaders of the zemstvo managed to avert suspicion of treason from themselves” [27].
There was no need for Chelyadin-Fyodorov to flee, since he was one of the richest and most influential people in his country. He had something to lose, and, apparently, he had incomparably more of this good than Kurbsky, who fled to the Polish king. But why should he spend his life trying to kill the king, whom he has known since childhood? To understand a traitor, one must be a traitor himself, and therefore we cannot understand the reasons for the hatred of the tsar's contemporaries for him and for his homeland.
Historian Shambarov describes the situation as follows:
“On October 24, the Tsar continued on his way to his regiments. But suddenly alarming information began to come to him.
It turned out that the king, much earlier than the Russians, back in September, had gathered a large army in Borisov. But he behaves strangely - he maneuvers near the borders, doing nothing. He is waiting for something... And they learned from the prisoners and agents what exactly he was waiting for. Revolution in Russia! These plans are documented, the correspondence between Sigismund and Radziwill has been preserved, where it was mentioned that the Lithuanians really counted on the performance of the opposition boyars.
The tsar, of course, did not read these documents, but he understood: in any case, the threads of the conspiracy should lead to Vladimir Staritsky. His cousin was with him at headquarters, Grozny pressed him, he got scared and laid Fedorov and his comrades. To continue the campaign after revealing the conspiracy would be madness. On November 12, a military council was held at the Rsha Pit, Ivan Vasilievich canceled the operation and, together with Vladimir Andreevich, left for Moscow.
And wow, what a "coincidence"! When the king found out about the departure of the king, he also left the troops, disbanded the army and left the detachments of his governors to act independently. They did not achieve significant success. They ravaged and burned villages in the Smolensk region, approached the new fortress of Ula, but they were beaten and driven away. The Lithuanians managed to capture only another fortress, Kopiye. Despite the fact that the enemy had been nearby for a long time, she was not ready for an attack. During the attack of the governor, Peter Serebryany fled, the second governor, Vasily Paletsky, died, the garrison was killed or captured.
It turned out that the king, much earlier than the Russians, back in September, had gathered a large army in Borisov. But he behaves strangely - he maneuvers near the borders, doing nothing. He is waiting for something... And they learned from the prisoners and agents what exactly he was waiting for. Revolution in Russia! These plans are documented, the correspondence between Sigismund and Radziwill has been preserved, where it was mentioned that the Lithuanians really counted on the performance of the opposition boyars.
The tsar, of course, did not read these documents, but he understood: in any case, the threads of the conspiracy should lead to Vladimir Staritsky. His cousin was with him at headquarters, Grozny pressed him, he got scared and laid Fedorov and his comrades. To continue the campaign after revealing the conspiracy would be madness. On November 12, a military council was held at the Rsha Pit, Ivan Vasilievich canceled the operation and, together with Vladimir Andreevich, left for Moscow.
And wow, what a "coincidence"! When the king found out about the departure of the king, he also left the troops, disbanded the army and left the detachments of his governors to act independently. They did not achieve significant success. They ravaged and burned villages in the Smolensk region, approached the new fortress of Ula, but they were beaten and driven away. The Lithuanians managed to capture only another fortress, Kopiye. Despite the fact that the enemy had been nearby for a long time, she was not ready for an attack. During the attack of the governor, Peter Serebryany fled, the second governor, Vasily Paletsky, died, the garrison was killed or captured.
Since they planned to extradite the king to the Polish king, then the head of state had to become vacant, and someone had to take it. The closest legitimate heir is the son of Tsar Ivan. The conspirators do not want to kill the king-father in order to put his son on the throne. There is another blood relative of the head of state who suits the boyars - the tsar's cousin Vladimir Staritsky. The king is overthrown so that the “holy place” is occupied by a character that suits them! The accession of the king's cousin was impossible without the murder of the king's children.
“Prince Vladimir, with his mediocre abilities, was unable to unite any significant political forces around him. To a large extent, it depended on the positions of the influential zemstvo leadership represented by Konyushev I.P. Fedorov” [28]. Chelyadin-Fedorov was first exiled to Kolomna for six months, a huge contribution was collected from him, but in the end he was executed on September 11, 1568. The Boyar court sentenced Chelyadin-Fyodorov to death. Staritsky also supported the decision of the court. “The sovereign knew perfectly well that he himself did not claim the kingdom and could not claim it. In Russia, unlike in the West, death sentences were not carried out in the city center. On the “trade” (Red Square) only “commercial executions” were carried out - corporal punishment. And criminals were deprived of their lives somewhere in the outskirts. Fedorov was executed in the Goat Swamp, foreigners reported that the corpse was left there for several days - to demonstrate the fate of traitors, ”writes V.E. Shambarov [29].
The betrayals of 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 to 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.
The betrayal of Prince Kurbsky number one.
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).
Here is how this event is described by the Polish historian K. Valishevsky: “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, he would not have been appointed governor.
Betrayal of Kurbsky 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 number three.
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 corps of 20. 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 at 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 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 died. This 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. Skrynnikov R. G. writes: “Having received the news of the military failures of Moscow, the Crimean Khan did not approve the union 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" [18]. 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 number four.
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" [19].
Comments are superfluous.
Betrayal of Kurbsky number five.
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 R. G. Skrynnikov found this evidence: “On the advice of Kurbsky, the king set the Crimean Tatars against Russia, then sending 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 him to the goal (to Moscow), even if the army follows him” [20].
V. Kalugin quotes the Polish historian and heraldist of the XNUMXth century Simon Okolsky about Kurbsky:
"He was truly a great man.
firstly, great in 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.
firstly, great in 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.
V. A. Mazurov writes:
"Kurbsky is guilty of the death of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers and residents" [22],
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.
She wrote a separate article about Kurbsky's betrayal, which can be found on the Military Review website.
These are the boyars surrounded the king. Do they write about their crimes in textbooks? No. But until now textbooks for schools and universities, books about Ivan the Terrible, all the TV shows talk about one thing - the atrocities of Ivan the Terrible and wanton executions.
Bibliography:
[1] Kuznetsova E. The richest deputy of the State Duma earned more than 2 billion rubles in a year. Article 16.04.2021/16/04 https://www.rbc.ru/politics/2021/6079/349/79475ac111a663edXNUMXdXNUMX
[2] Skrynnikov R. G. Vasily III. Ivan groznyj. 2008, pp. 266–267.
[3] Shambarov V. E. Ivan the Terrible against the “fifth column”. Judas of the Russian kingdom. 2017. S. 106.
[4] Veselovsky S. B. Research on the history of the oprichnina. 1963, pp. 123–125.
[5] Froyanov I. Ya. Terrible oprichnina. 2009, p. 303.
[6] V. E. Shambarov, Tsar of Terrible Rus'. 2009, pp. 107–108.
[7] Veselovsky S. B. Research on the history of the oprichnina. 1963, p. 125.
[8] Froyanov I. Ya. Terrible oprichnina. 2009, pp. 293–294.
[9] Froyanov I. Ya. Terrible oprichnina. 2009, p. 309.
[10] V. E. Shambarov, Tsar of Terrible Rus'. 2009, pp. 337–338.
[11] Froyanov I. Ya. Terrible oprichnina. 2009, p. 297.
[12] Kusheva E. N. Peoples of the North Caucasus and their connections with Russia. 1963, p. 210.
[13] R. G. Skrynnikov, Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. 1998, p. 207.
[14] Valishevsky K. Ivan the Terrible. Historical essay. 1993. S. 179.
[15] Pronina N. M. Ivan the Terrible without lies. martyr of power. 2013. S. 194.
[16] Froyanov I. Ya. Terrible oprichnina. 2009, pp. 324–328.
[17] Valishevsky K. Ivan the Terrible. Historical essay. 1993. S. 182, 211.
[18] R. G. Skrynnikov, Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. 1998, p. 181.
[19] Mazurov V. A. Truth and lies about Ivan the Terrible. 2018. S. 54, 276.
[20] Skrynnikov R. G. Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. (Tyranny). 1998, p. 241.
[21] V. V. Kalugin, “Moscow scribes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the second half of the 2020th century.” Russian Resurrection website, XNUMX
[22] Mazurov V. A. Truth and lies about Ivan the Terrible. 2018. S. 54.
[23] Shogenova A.A. Andrei Kurbsky is a traitor who slandered Ivan the Terrible.
https://topwar.ru/213008-andrej-kurbskij-predatel-obolgavshij-ivana-groznogo.html
https://dzen.ru/media/id/5eb715a70bd3a10518a53ee3/andrei-kurbskii--predatel-oklevetavshii-ivana-groznogo-64138aa848fe220cba61c301
[24] Skrynnikov R. G. Vasily III. Ivan groznyj. 2008, p. 366.
[25] Valishevsky K. Ivan the Terrible. Historical essay. 1993. S. 117.
[26] R. G. Skrynnikov, Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. 1998, p. 334.
[27] R. G. Skrynnikov, Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. 1998, p. 336.
[28] R. G. Skrynnikov, Great Sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. 1998, p. 338.
[29] Shambarov V.E. "Tsar of terrible Rus'". Electronic edition of the book.
[30] Manyagin V. G. Grozny. Apology of the Russian Tsar. 2021, p. 161.
Information