Military Review

Forbidden victory

352
26 July 1572, the greatest battle of Christian civilization took place, defining the future of the Eurasian continent, if not the entire planet, for many, many centuries to come. Nearly two hundred thousand people came together in a bloody six-day battle, proving the right to the existence of many nations at once by their courage and dedication. More than one hundred thousand people paid with their lives for resolving this dispute, and it is only thanks to the victory of our ancestors that we now live in the world that we are used to seeing around. In this battle, it was not just the fate of Russia and the countries of Europe that was decided - it was about the fate of all European civilization. But ask any educated person: what does he know about the battle that happened in 1572? And practically no one, except professional historians, can answer you a word. Why? Because this victory was won by the “wrong” ruler, the “wrong” army and the “wrong” people. Four centuries have passed, as this victory is simply forbidden.


Historyas she is

Before we talk about the battle itself, we should probably recall how Europe looked in the little-known 16th century. And since the volume of a journal article makes it necessary to be brief, then you can only say one thing: in the 16th century there were no full-fledged states in Europe except the Ottoman Empire. In any case, dwarf formations that called themselves kingdoms and counties, it is senseless to even roughly compare with this huge empire.

In fact, only frantic Western European propaganda can be explained by the fact that we represent the Turks as dirty, stupid savages, wave after wave rolling on the gallant knight troops and winning solely because of their numbers. Everything was exactly the opposite: well-trained, disciplined, courageous Ottoman warriors, step by step, crowded apart, poorly armed formations, mastering more and more “wild” lands for the empire. By the end of the fifteenth century on the European continent it belonged to Bulgaria, at the beginning of XVI century - Greece and Serbia, by mid-century, the border moved to Vienna, the Turks took under his arm Hungary, Moldavia, the famous Transylvania, launched a war of Malta, devastated the coast of Spain and Italy .

First, the Turks were not "dirty." Unlike Europeans, in those days unfamiliar even with the basics of personal hygiene, the people of the Ottoman Empire were obliged, according to the requirements of the Koran, to at least perform ritual ablutions before each prayer.

Secondly, the Turks were true Muslims - that is, people who were initially confident in their spiritual superiority, and therefore extremely tolerant. In the conquered territories, as far as possible, they tried to preserve local customs, so as not to destroy the existing social relations. The Ottomans did not care whether the new subjects were Muslims, or Christians, or Jews, whether they were Arabs, Greeks, Serbs, Albanians, Italians, Iranians, or Tatars. The main thing is that they continue to work calmly and pay taxes regularly. The state system of government was based on a combination of Arab, Seljuk and Byzantine customs and traditions. The most striking example, to distinguish Islamic religious tolerance and pragmatism of European savagery, can serve as a history 100 000 Jews expelled from Spain in the year 1492 and willingly accepted in citizenship Sultan Bayazid. Catholics received moral satisfaction, having dealt with the "murderers of Christ", and the Ottomans received significant revenues from new, far from poor, immigrants.

Thirdly, the Ottoman Empire was far ahead of its northern neighbors in the technology of production of weapons and armor. It was the Turks, not the Europeans, who suppressed the enemy with artillery fire, it was the Ottomans who actively saturated their troops, fortresses and ships with cannon barrels. As an example of Ottoman power weapons can lead 20 bombards caliber of 60 90 to centimeters and a weight of up to 35 tons at the end of the XVI century put on combat duty in the forts that defended the Dardanelles, and stood there until the beginning of XX century! And not just those who stood still - at the beginning of the 19th century, in 1807, they quite successfully crushed the new British ships “Windsor Castle” and “Active”, which were trying to break through the strait. I repeat: the guns were a real fighting force even three centuries after its manufacture. In the XVI century they could be boldly considered as a real super-weapon. A manufactured referred to bombard in the very years when Niccolo Machiavelli carefully wrote out in his treatise "The Prince" the following words: "It is better to give the enemy to blind himself, rather than to search for it, seeing nothing because of the gunpowder," denying any benefit from the use of guns in military campaigns.

Fourth, the Turks had the most advanced regular professional army for their time. Its backbone was the so-called "Janissary Corps". In the XVI century, it was almost completely formed from the boys, who were legally slaves of the Sultan, who were bought or captured by boys. All of them went through high-quality military training, received good weapons and turned into the best infantry, which only existed in Europe and the Mediterranean region. The number of corps reached 100 000 people. In addition, the empire had a completely modern feudal cavalry, which was formed from sipahs - owners of land plots. Such allotments, "Timar," the commanders rewarded valiant and worthy soldiers in all newly attached areas, thanks to which the size and combat capability of the army increased steadily. And if you remember also the fact that he was a vassal of the Magnificent Ports rulers were bound by the order of Sultan lead their armies to general campaigns, it becomes clear that the Ottoman Empire could at the same time put on the battlefield no less than half a million highly trained soldiers - much more rather than having troops all over Europe combined.

In the light of the foregoing, it becomes clear why, at the mere mention of the Turks, medieval kings were thrown into cold sweat, the knights clutched their weapons and twisted their heads in fear, and the babies in the cradles began to cry and call for mom. Any more or less thinking person could confidently predict that in a hundred years the whole habitable world will belong to the Sultan of Turkey, and lamented the fact that the advance of the Ottomans to the north holds back not courage Balkans defenders, and the desire of the Ottomans in the first place to learn much more rich lands Asia, conquer the ancient countries of the Middle East. And, I must say, the Ottoman Empire achieved this by moving its borders apart from the Caspian Sea, Persia and the Persian Gulf and almost to the Atlantic Ocean (modern Algeria was the western lands of the empire).

We should also mention a very important fact, for some reason unknown to many professional historians: since 1475 years of the Ottoman Empire included the Crimean Khanate, the Crimean Khan appoints and dismisses the sultan firman, led his troops on the orders of the Magnificent ports or began military action against anyone from neighbors on orders from Istanbul; on the Crimean peninsula there was a sultan governor, and in several cities there were Turkish garrisons.

In addition, the Kazan and Astrakhan Khanate were considered to be under the auspices of the empire, as a state of co-religionists, moreover, regularly supplying slaves to numerous war galleries and mines, as well as concubines for harems ...

Golden Age of Russia

Strangely enough, but now that few people of Russia of the XVI century are of themselves today, few people can imagine - especially people who have learned the history of high school on their conscience. It must be said, there is much more fiction than real information, and therefore any modern person should know a few basic, supporting facts that allow us to understand the attitude of our ancestors.

First of all, slavery practically did not exist in Russia of the XVI century. Every person born in the Russian lands was initially free and equal with all others. The serfdom of that time is now called the land lease agreement with all the ensuing consequences: you cannot leave until you have paid the land owner for its use. And that's all ... There was no hereditary serfdom (it was introduced by the Council of 1649), and the son of a serf was a free man until he decided to take a plot of land for himself.
No European savagery like nobility for the first night, to punish and pardon, or just drive around with a weapon, scaring ordinary citizens and starting a quarrel, did not exist. In the 1497 trial, only two categories of the population are generally recognized: service people and non-service people. Otherwise, everyone is equal before the law, regardless of origin.

Military service was completely voluntary, although, of course, hereditary and lifelong. You want - serve, you do not want - do not serve. Unsubscribe the estate to the treasury, and - free. Here it should be mentioned that the concept of infantry in the Russian army was absent completely. The warrior went on a march on two or three horses - including archers, who dismounted only immediately before the battle.

Actually, the war was a permanent state of the then Russia: its southern and eastern borders are constantly fiddling with predatory raids of the Tatars, the western borders of troubled brothers-Slavs Duchy of Lithuania many centuries Moscow has contested the right of the championship on the legacy of Kievan Rus. Depending on military success, the western border was constantly moving to one or the other side, and the eastern neighbors were pacified, then they were trying to cajole them with gifts after the next defeat. From the south some protection was represented by the so-called Wild Field - the southern Russian steppes, completely deserted as a result of the continuous raids of the Crimean Tatars. To attack Russia, the subjects of the Ottoman Empire needed to make a long transition, and they, as people lazy and practical, preferred to rob either the tribes of the North Caucasus, or Lithuania and Moldova.

Forbidden victoryIvan IV

It was in this Russia, in 1533, that the son of Vasily III Ivan reigned. However, reigned - this is too much said. At the time of accession to the throne, Ivan was only three years old, and his childhood can be called happy with a very big stretch. At the age of seven he was poisoned by his mother, after which he literally killed a man whom he considered to be his father, dispersed his beloved nannies, everyone he liked a little bit, either killed or sent out of sight. In the palace he was in the position of a chained dog: then they were taken to the wards, showing the “beloved prince” to the foreigners, then they were kicking everyone. It got to the point that the future king was forgotten to feed for whole days. Everything went to the fact that before the age of majority he would simply have been slaughtered in order to preserve the era of anarchy in the country - but the sovereign survived. And not just survived - but became the greatest ruler in the whole history of Russia. And what is most striking is that Ivan IV did not become embittered, did not revenge for past humiliations. His rule was perhaps the most humane in the history of our country.

The last statement is by no means a reservation. Unfortunately, everything that is usually told about Ivan the Terrible, ranges from “complete nonsense” to “outright lies”. By "complete nonsense" include "evidence" renowned expert on Russia, the Englishman Jerome Gorseya his "Notes on Russia", which argues that the winter 1570 years guardsmen killed in Novgorod 700 000 (seven hundred thousand) inhabitants, with a total population of this city at thirty thousand. To "frank lies" - evidence of the cruelty of the king. For example, looking into the well-known encyclopedia "Brockhaus and Efron," in an article about Andrei Kurbsky, anyone can read it, anger the prince, "in order to justify their rage Grozny could lead only to the fact of treason and violation of kissing the cross ...". What nonsense! That is, the prince changed the Fatherland twice, got caught, but was not hanged on an aspen tree, but kissed the cross, swore by Christ-God that he would no longer be, was forgiven, changed again ... However, for all that, the king is trying to blame the wrong that he did not punish the traitor, but what the geek continues to hate, bringing Polish troops to Russia and shedding the blood of the Russian people.

To the deepest regret of the "ivano-haters", in the 16th century there was writing in Russia, the custom of commemorating the dead and synodnik, which survived along with the memorial records. Alas, with all the diligence on the conscience of Ivan the Terrible for all his fifty years of rule, no more than 4000 dead can be attributed. Probably, this is a lot, even if we take into account that the majority honestly earned themselves a penalty by treason and perjury. However, in the same years, more than 3000 Huguenots were cut out in Paris in neighboring Europe in one night, and more than 30 000 in just two weeks in the rest of the country. In England, on the orders of Henry VIII, 72 000 were hanged, guilty of being a beggar. In the Netherlands, during the revolution, the expense of the corpses passed for 100 000 ... No, Russia is far from European civilization.

By the way, on suspicion of many historians, the bike about the devastation of Novgorod insolently was written off from the assault and the ruin of Liege by the Burgundians of Karl the Bold in 1468 year. Moreover, plagiarists were even too lazy to make an amendment to the Russian winter, as a result of which the mythical oprichniki had to go on boats along the Volkhov, which in that year, according to the chronicles, froze to the bottom.

However, the main personality traits of Ivan the Terrible do not dare to challenge even his most terrible haters, and therefore we absolutely know for sure that he was very clever, prudent, echid, cold-blooded and courageous. The king was amazingly well-read, had an extensive memory, he loved to sing and composed music (his verses were preserved and performed to this day). Ivan IV was fluent in pen, leaving a rich epistolary heritage, he loved to participate in religious disputes. The king himself dealt with litigation, worked with documents, could not bear the vile drunkenness.

Having achieved real power, the young, far-sighted and active king immediately began to take measures to reorganize and strengthen the state - both from within and its external borders.

Meeting

The main feature of Ivan the Terrible is his manic passion for firearms. For the first time in the Russian army, detachments armed with peelers appear - archers, which gradually become the backbone of the army, taking away this rank from local cavalry. Cannon courtyards appear all over the country, on which more and more new barrels are cast, fortresses are being rebuilt for a fiery battle - they straighten the walls, set mattresses and large-caliber food in the towers. The king, in all ways, stockpiles gunpowder: he buys and places powder mills; he has besieged cities and monasteries with salt work. Sometimes this leads to awesome fires, but Ivan IV is inexorable: gunpowder, gunpowder as much as possible!

The first task that is set before the army gaining strength is the cessation of raids by the Kazan Khanate. At the same time, the young tsar is not interested in half measures, he wants to stop the raids once and for all, and for this there is only one way: to conquer Kazan and incorporate it into the Moscow kingdom. Seventeen young man went to fight the Tatars. The three-year war ended in failure. But in 1551, the king appeared under the walls of Kazan again - a victory! Kazan asked for peace, agreed to all the requirements, but, as usual, did not fulfill the conditions of peace.

However, this time the stupid Russians for some reason did not swallow a grudge and the following summer, in 1552, they again disbanded the flags of the enemy capital.

The news that far away in the east, infidels smash fellow believers, caught Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent by surprise - he hadn’t expected anything like that. Sultan gave the order to the Crimean Khan to help Kazan, and he, hastily gathered 30 000 people, moved to Russia. The young king at the head of 15 000 riders rushed towards and routed the uninvited guests utterly. Following the news of the defeat of Devlet Giray, the news flew to Istanbul that in the east there was one less khanate. The sultan did not have time to digest this pill - and they already told him about another khanate, Astrakhan, joining Moscow. It turns out that after the fall of Kazan, Khan Yamgurchy, in a fit of anger, decided to declare war on Russia ...

The glory of the Khanate conqueror brought Ivan IV new, unexpected subjects: hoping for his patronage, the Siberian khan Ediger and the Circassian princes voluntarily swore allegiance to Moscow. The North Caucasus was also under the authority of the king. Unexpectedly for the whole world - including for itself - Russia in a few years more than doubled in size, came to the Black Sea and found itself face to face with a huge Ottoman empire. It could only mean one thing: a terrible, devastating war.

Blood neighbors

The blunt naivety of the Tsar's closest advisers, so beloved by modern historians - the so-called "Chosen Rada" - is striking. By their own admission, these clever men, they repeatedly advised the king to attack the Crimea, to subdue him, like the khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan. Their opinion, by the way, will be shared four centuries later by many modern historians. To better understand how stupid such advice is, it’s enough to look at the North American continent and ask the first comer, even a stoned and uneducated Mexican: is the boorish behavior of the Texans and the military weakness of this state enough reason to attack it and return the original Mexican lands?

And they will immediately reply to you that you may attack Texas, but you will have to fight with the United States.

In the XVI century, the Ottoman Empire, having weakened its pressure on other directions, could withdraw five times more troops against Moscow than Russia allowed itself to mobilize. Only the Crimean Khanate, whose subjects were not engaged in craft, farming or trade, was ready, on the orders of Khan, to put all of their male population on horses and repeatedly went to Russia by armies in 100-150 thousand people (some historians bring this figure to 200 000). But the Tatars were cowardly thieves, with whom the troops coped in 3-5 times smaller in number. It is quite another thing to come together on the battlefield with battle-hardened and accustomed to conquer new lands janissaries and Seljuks.

To indulge such a war Ivan IV could not.

The contact of borders happened unexpectedly for both countries, and therefore the first contacts of the neighbors turned out to be surprisingly peaceful. The Ottoman Sultan sent a letter to the Russian Tsar, in which he offered a choice of two possible ways out of the current situation: either Russia provides the Volga robbers, Kazan and Astrakhan, the former independence, or Ivan IV swears allegiance to the Magnificent Port, being part of the Ottoman Empire, along with the subjugated khanstvam.

And for the second time in the long history in the chambers of the Russian ruler, the lights were burning for a long time and the fate of the future Europe was decided in painful thoughts: to be or not to be? Admit the king to the Ottoman proposal - and he will secure the southern borders of the country forever. The Sultan will no longer allow the Tatars to rob new subjects, and all the predatory aspirations of Crimea will be turned in the only possible direction: against the eternal enemy of Moscow, the Lithuanian principality. In this case, the rapid extermination of the enemy and the rise of Russia will become inevitable. But at what cost? ..

The king refuses.

Suleiman releases the Crimean thousands, which he used in Moldova and Hungary, and indicates to the Crimean khan Devlet-Giray a new enemy that he will have to crush: Russia. A long and bloody war begins: the Tatars regularly rush toward Moscow, the Russians barricade a multi-hole ridge trait from forest windbreaks, fortresses and earthen ramparts with stakes dug in them. 60-70 thousands of warriors annually take the defense of this giant wall.

Ivan the Terrible is clear, and the Sultan has repeatedly confirmed this with his letters: the attack on the Crimea will be regarded as a declaration of war against the empire. In the meantime, the Russians suffer, the Ottomans also do not begin active hostilities, continuing the wars that have already begun in Europe, Africa and Asia.

Now, while the Ottoman Empire has hands tied by battles in other places, while the Ottomans are not going to lean on Russia with all their might, there is time for the accumulation of forces, and Ivan IV begins energetic transformations in the country: first of all he introduces a regime in the country was called a democracy. Feeding is abolished in the country, the institute appointed by the king by the governor is replaced by local self-government — the provincial and labial elders elected by peasants, artisans and nobles. Moreover, the new regime is imposed not with stupid obstinacy, as it is now, but prudently and intelligently. The transition to democracy is made ... for a fee. Like the voivode - live the old way. I do not like it - the locals contribute to the treasury the amount from 100 to 400 rubles and can choose who they want to be their superiors.

Transformed army. By personally participating in several wars and battles, the king is well aware of the main trouble for the troops - regionalism. Boyars demand appointment to posts according to the merits of their ancestors: if the grandfather commanded the wing of the troops, it means that I have the same post. Let the fool, and the milk on the lips is not dried: but still the post of the wing commander is mine! I don’t want to obey the old and experienced prince, because his son walked under the hand of my great-grandfather! So, I am not him, but he must obey me!

The issue is being resolved radically: a new army is being organized in the country, the oprichnina. Oprichniki swear allegiance to only the sovereign, and their career depends only on personal qualities. It is in the oprichnina that all the mercenaries serve: Russia, leading a long and difficult war, chronically lacks warriors, but it does have enough gold to hire ever-poor European nobles.

In addition, Ivan IV is actively building parochial schools, fortresses, stimulating trade, purposefully creating the working class: direct tsarist decree prohibits the involvement of tillers of the land for any work connected with detachment from the ground - workers must work in construction, factories and factories not the peasants.

Of course, there are many opponents of such rapid transformations in the country. Just think: a simple rootless landowner like Boriska Godunov can reach the governor simply because he is brave, smart and honest! You think: the tsar can buy the family estate into the treasury only because the owner knows his business badly and the peasants run away from him! Oprichniki hate, disgusting rumors about them, conspiracies are organized against the tsar - but Ivan the Terrible with a firm hand continues his transformations. It comes to the fact that for several years he has to divide the country into two parts: the oprichnina for those who want to live in a new way and the zemstvo for those who want to preserve old customs. However, despite everything, he achieved his goal, turning the ancient principality of Muscovy into a new, powerful state - the Russian kingdom.

Empire strikes

In 1569, the bloody respite consisting of the continuous raids of the Tatar hordes ended. The Sultan, at last, found time for Russia. 17 000 selected janissaries, reinforced by the Crimean and Nogai cavalry, moved towards Astrakhan. The king, still hoping to do without blood, took all the troops out of their way, and at the same time replenished the fortress with supplies of food, gunpowder and nuclei. The campaign failed: the Turks did not manage to drag artillery with them, and they were not accustomed to fight without guns. In addition, the reverse transition through the unexpectedly cold winter steppe cost the lives of most Turks.

A year later, in the 1571 year, bypassing the Russian fortresses and knocking down few Boyar barriers, Devlet-Girey brought 100 000 riders to Moscow, set fire to the city and came back. Ivan the Terrible tore and threw. Boyar heads rolled. The executed were accused of a specific treason: they missed the enemy, they did not report the raid in time. In Istanbul, they rubbed their hands: reconnaissance in force showed that the Russians did not know how to fight, preferring to sit behind the walls. But if the light Tatar cavalry is not able to take fortifications, then experienced janissaries could uncork them very well.

It was decided to conquer Muscovy, for which Devlet-Girei was given 7000 janissaries and gunners with several dozen artillery barrels - to take cities. Murza were appointed in advance to the still Russian cities, governors to the not yet conquered principalities, the land was divided, merchants received permission for duty-free trade. All the men of Crimea, young and old, have gathered to develop new lands.

A huge army had to enter the Russian borders and stay there forever.

And so it happened ...

Battlefield

6 July 1572 of the year Devlet Giray reached Oka, stumbled upon 50 000-th army under the command of Prince Mikhail Vorotynsky (many historians estimate the number of the Russian army in 20 000 people, and the Ottoman - in 80 000) and laughing at the foolishness of their foolishness. up along the river. Near Senkin ford, he easily dispersed a detachment of boyars from 200 and, crossing the river, moved to Moscow along the Serpukhov road. Vorotinsky hurried after him.

Huge cavalry masses moved with speed unprecedented in Europe in the Russian open spaces — both armies moved light, on horseback, not burdened by carts.

The oprichnik Dmitry Khvorostinin stole along the Tatars' heels to the village of Molodi at the head of the 5000 squad of Cossacks and boyars, and only here, on July 30 of 1572, received permission to attack the enemy. Rushing ahead, he trampled the Tatar rearguard into the dust of the road and, rushing on, crashed into the main forces along the Pakhra River. Slightly surprised by such arrogance, the Tatars turned around and rushed to a small detachment with all their strength. The Russians rushed to their heels - the enemies rushed after them, pursuing the guardsmen all the way to the village of Molodi, and then the invaders waited for an unexpected surprise: the Russian army deceived on Oka was already here. And she didn’t just stand, but she managed to build a walk-city — a mobile fortification of thick wooden shields. From the gaps between the shields, the cannons of the steppe cavalry were struck, and from the holes cut through the log walls of the battlements they squealed, and a shower of arrows poured over the fortifications. A friendly volley swept forward Tatar troops - like a huge hand wiped off unnecessary crumbs from the table. The Tatars mingled — Khvorostinin deployed his warriors and again rushed to the attack.

Thousands of horsemen coming up the road one by one fell into a cruel meat grinder. Tired nobles then retreated behind the shields of the walk-city, under the cover of dense fire, then they rushed into more and more new attacks. The Ottomans, hurrying to destroy the stronghold that they had taken from nowhere, rushed to the storm wave after wave, abundantly filling the Russian land with their own blood, and only the darkness that had fallen stopped the endless slaughter.

In the morning of the Ottoman army, the truth was revealed in all its terrifying ugliness: the invaders realized that they had fallen into a trap. Ahead of the Serpukhov road stood the solid walls of Moscow, behind the road to the steppe the guardsmen and archers chained off in iron blocked off. Now for the intruders, it was no longer about the conquest of Russia, but about getting back alive.

The next two days were spent in attempts to frighten the Russians who blocked the road - the Tatars showered the town with arrows and balls, threw themselves at him in horseback attacks, hoping to break through the slots left for the passage of the boyar cavalry. However, by the third day it became clear that the Russians would rather die on the spot rather than allow uninvited guests to get out. 2 August Devlet-Girey ordered his soldiers to dismount and attack the Russians along with the janissaries.

The Tatars were well aware that this time they did not go to rob, but rescued their skin, and fought like mad dogs. The heat of battle has reached the highest voltage. It got to the point that Crimeans tried to break the hated shields with their hands, and the Janissaries gnawed them with their teeth and chopped them down with scimitars. But the Russians were not going to release the eternal robbers into the wild, to give them the opportunity to catch their breath and come back again. The blood flowed all day - but in the evening the walking-city continued to stand still in its place.

In the Russian camp, hunger was craving - after all, chasing after the enemy, the boyars and archers thought about weapons, not about food, simply leaving a carriage with supplies of food and drink. As the chronicles say: “In the shelves I taught hunger to be great for people and horses.” It should be recognized here that, along with the Russian warriors, the German mercenaries, whom the tsar willingly took in the guardsmen, endured thirst and hunger. However, the Germans also did not grumble, but continued to fight no worse than others.

The Tatars were in a frenzy: they were used not to fight the Russians, but to drive them into slavery. Ottoman Murza, gathered to rule the new lands, and not die on them, was also no laughing matter. Everyone was looking forward to dawn to deliver the final blow and finally smash the brittle-looking fortification, destroy the people hiding behind it.

With the onset of dusk, the governor Vorotynsky took part of the warriors with him, walked around the enemy camp and hid there. And in the early morning, when, after a friendly salvo at the attacking ottomans, the boyars headed by Khvorostinin rushed to meet them and tied the city down, the voivode Vorotinsky unexpectedly struck the enemy in the back. And what began as a battle instantly turned into a beating.

Arithmetic

On the field near the village of Molodi, the defenders of Moscow completely slaughtered all the janissaries and the Ottoman murz, on it almost the entire male population of Crimea was killed. And not only simple warriors - the son, grandson and son-in-law of Devlet-Girey himself perished under Russian sabers. Having, according to various estimates, either three times less, or four times less power than the enemy, the Russian soldiers forever eliminated the danger emanating from the Crimea. Live managed to return no more than 20 000 from the gangsters who went on a campaign - and the Crimea has never been able to regain its strength.

This was the first major defeat in the history of the Ottoman Empire. Having lost almost 20 000 janissaries and the entire huge army of their satellite on the Russian borders in three years, the Magnificent Port abandoned hopes of conquering Russia.

Of great importance was the victory of Russian weapons for Europe. In the battle of Molodya, we not only defended our independence, but also deprived the Ottoman Empire of the opportunity to increase its production capacity and the army by about a third. In addition, for the huge Ottoman province, which could have arisen in the place of Russia, there was only one way to further expansion - to the west. Retreating under the blows in the Balkans, Europe would hardly have survived even for a few years, if the Turkish onslaught increase even slightly.

Last Rurikovich

One question remains to be answered: why aren't they making films about the battle of Molodya, not telling about it at school, not celebrating its anniversary with holidays?

The fact is that the battle that determined the future of the whole European civilization happened during the reign of the king, who was not supposed to be not only good, but simply normal. Ivan the Terrible, the greatest tsar in the history of Russia, who actually created the country in which we live - who took the reign of the Moscow principality and left behind Great Russia, was the last of the Rurik dynasty. After him, the Romanov dynasty came to the throne - and they did the maximum possible to diminish the significance of everything done by the previous dynasty and to defame the greatest of its representatives.

According to the highest order, Ivan the Terrible was appointed to be bad - and along with his memory, the great victory was banned with great difficulty by our ancestors.

The first of the Romanov dynasty gave the Swedes the Baltic Sea coast and access to Lake Ladoga. His son introduced hereditary serfdom, depriving the industry and the Siberian expanses of free workers and immigrants. Under his great-grandson, the army created by Ivan IV was broken and industry was destroyed, supplying weapons to all of Europe (Tula-Kamensky factories alone sold west to 600 guns a year, tens of thousands of nuclei, thousands of grenades, muskets and swords).

Russia was rapidly sliding into an era of degradation.
Author:
Originator:
http://prozorov.lenizdat.su/essays/essay_06.shtml
352 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Prometey
    Prometey 13 December 2013 08: 24
    18
    The article is interesting, put a plus, but some of the author's conclusions are bewildering.
    The blunt naivety of the Tsar's closest advisers, so beloved by modern historians - the so-called "Chosen Rada" - is striking. By their own admission, these clever men, they repeatedly advised the king to attack the Crimea, to subdue him, like the khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan. Their opinion, by the way, will be shared four centuries later by many modern historians. To better understand how stupid such advice is, it’s enough to look at the North American continent and ask the first comer, even a stoned and uneducated Mexican: is the boorish behavior of the Texans and the military weakness of this state enough reason to attack it and return the original Mexican lands?
    Some kind of inappropriate comparison. For an attack on the Crimea needed a bridgehead. Without the accession of Ukraine (or union with it), this task was impossible.
    Ivan the Terrible, the greatest tsar in the history of Russia, who actually created the country in which we live, who entered the reign of the Moscow principality and left Great Russia behind, was the last of the Rurik family.
    Only for some reason the author kept silent about what happened to the victor at Molodi, Prince Vorotynsky. "The greatest king" rewarded him in a royal way - he killed him from the world.
    1. vezunchik
      vezunchik 13 December 2013 10: 05
      +9
      and what is wrong with us now ???
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. vezunchik
        vezunchik 13 December 2013 10: 13
        80
        Already Peter shed so much blood that Ivan the Terrible never dreamed of. And he began to plant booze with smoking and debauchery. He dragged the Germans, who began to rewrite Russian history. The truth of the Lord also punished him - the family stopped his daughter Elizabeth, starting with Peter 3 the purebred Holsteins went. And the subsequent Romanovs only had a surname ...
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 13 December 2013 10: 38
          +6
          Quote: vezunchik
          Already Peter shed so much blood that Ivan the Terrible never dreamed

          Suppose so. But somehow it’s dumb that we can compare our rulers only on the principle - who shed less blood.
          1. nnz226
            nnz226 13 December 2013 15: 41
            79
            Here on the site in another article it was correctly said: Ivan the Terrible, Peter 1, and Stalin shed enough blood, but the liberals and others like them bark at Ivan and Stalin, but they are silent about Peter for a simple reason: Ivan and Stalin also drove the blood poured from the then elite, and Peter shed folk blood !!! Here is the non-current elite, and the previous one, and it stinks in every way against its non-persecutors, about those who did not give this elite a chance to build and built, if necessary (by the way, Stalin highly appreciated Ivan the Terrible and Eisenshane shot the film about him )
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 13 December 2013 17: 30
              -9
              Quote: nnz226
              and Peter shed folk blood !!!

              Nukanuka, and how much did Peter shed national blood? Purely for his own satisfaction? We do not take into account mortality from wars and labor service, there were a lot of them under Stalin even under Lenin
              1. Karlsonn
                Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 25
                11
                Quote: Pilat2009
                Nukanuka, and how much did Peter shed national blood? Purely for his own satisfaction? We do not take into account mortality from wars and labor service, there were a lot of them under Stalin even under Lenin


                I’ll not cover all the minuses, but I’ll raise the rating wink .

                About folk blood, as I think, about the construction of North Palmyra, comrades do not understand what a grandiose construction is without antibiotics, medicine, food, etc. etc., Pilat2009 hi when you are once again asked about the blood that Peter shed, go right in the trump cards and ask about the victims among the builders of the Suez Canal and railway. in the USA bully , remember about them is not accepted.
                1. Gunsmith
                  Gunsmith 16 December 2013 10: 41
                  0
                  I immediately thought of the same thing ...
                2. shasherin_pavel
                  shasherin_pavel 17 December 2013 18: 45
                  +1
                  Better yet, ask the amers: how many farmers died of hunger during the "Great Depression"? Answer: about nine million for 32-33-34. And the "Holodomor" not a single historian dared to stretch it to 33 years. If you read the memoirs of people who survived the famine in 32 years, then you will understand that in the fall of 33 ration ration for bread increased by one hundred grams. And at 34, the reduction in food prices and a bucket of pears cost 30 kopecks.
              2. vjhbc
                vjhbc 14 December 2013 00: 57
                -1
                dig for any foundation in Leningrad and count
                Quote: Pilat2009
                Nuka-nuka and how much did Peter shed folk blood?
                1. Karlsonn
                  Karlsonn 14 December 2013 01: 09
                  26
                  Quote: vjhbc
                  dig for any foundation in Leningrad and count


                  nonsense that in enlightened Europe, people were burned alive by tens of thousands, people were hanged because they were beggars by tens of thousands, they were cut because they didn’t believe correctly by tens of thousands --- anyway! Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin - monsters !!! and Karl the Brave, Napoleon, Truman - the carriers of civilization !!!
                  1. Andrew 447
                    Andrew 447 17 December 2013 13: 42
                    +4
                    I agree with you 100%. According to some estimates, the Inquisition cost Europe up to 5 million people. Now the descendants of Europeans pay for this with the degeneration and dominance of Muslim migrants.
                2. Pilat2009
                  Pilat2009 14 December 2013 19: 02
                  -4
                  Quote: vjhbc
                  dig for any foundation in Leningrad and count

                  Native, we will poke when we drink a liter of vodka
                  Dig along the shores of the White Sea Canal and the Trans-Siberian
                3. ytqnhfk
                  ytqnhfk 16 December 2013 06: 59
                  +5
                  Tell me, are you starting a new business, which is not known to you, you will do without abrasions of cuts and other injuries? So, ANY new business until you gain experience without cuts, you will not manage! And I will say about PETRA 1 so it can be safely put on a par with GREAT PEOPLE Russian history! What kind of Russia did he accept and which one left how many lands did he conquer? How many industries did he leave behind? He didn’t just raise our country, he built a new one and remember, he didn’t favor balls and other magnificent feasts! He himself also participated in everything and checked! But such changes in the country without victims in those days are impossible and at that time remember what was happening in the world, against the backdrop of all this, Peter would certainly not be a monster! So, whatever you want, Peter 1 like Stalin for me on one step! By the way, the way of life of both of them was the same as nothing superfluous to the current servants of the people!
                  1. sergeschern
                    sergeschern 16 December 2013 18: 37
                    +2
                    I saw a snake runner in the Hermitage with an inscription embossed with a chisel: Tsar Peter forged the summer of such and such. That was the king!
              3. shevron
                shevron 14 December 2013 03: 55
                +1
                Question - How did you build Petersburg?
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 16 December 2013 12: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: shevron
                  Question - How did you build Petersburg?

                  It’s known how, the swamp fell asleep, zemlyotska in the palms and wore in the hem, I note this is the official version, Nonsense.
                  1. shasherin_pavel
                    shasherin_pavel 17 December 2013 18: 50
                    +2
                    In fact, there was a "stone tax", when cobblestones were thrown into a common heap from each cart or sleigh on the border of the city, and they were already going to construction.
              4. 4952915
                4952915 15 December 2013 03: 35
                +9
                Historians' assessments vary, and the most loyal to Peter simply shy away from this question. In general, they write that Russia has lost from 25 to 50% of the population. Not only direct repressions, wars, famine, "great construction sites of absolutism", but also emigration - people simply fled wherever they looked from the "Moscow dragon". Among the people, unlike the nobility, no one considered Peter great, they did not rejoice in the monarch's western clothes, they called him simply and briefly - "Antichrist". With all due respect to his excellent foreign policy, to successful wars, to the strengthening of the army and navy, his domestic policy was absolutely incompetent and often downright idiotic. This is probably why Putin V.V. hanging a portrait of Peter 1)))) In this they are similar - a realistic and successful foreign policy and a stupid internal policy))) Of course, the scales are different, now the chimney is lower and the smoke is thinner.
                1. stroporez
                  stroporez 15 December 2013 16: 27
                  0
                  Quote: 4952915
                  . With all due respect to his excellent foreign policy,
                  -------- Nothing reminds ???? laughing
                2. shasherin_pavel
                  shasherin_pavel 17 December 2013 18: 58
                  +4
                  A gross mistake created on the basis of what was previously read that Peter brought tobacco to Russia. Already under Ivan the Terrible, nostrils were torn for smoking tobacco. Princes Volkonsky, as a child Petrov, wore European caftans and subscribed to European newspapers, shaved their beards. Peter only allowed smoking, wearing, and imposing taxes on beards, which made the boyars shave. Believe it or not, but in 1900 the dictionary of Archpriest Dyachenko was published, and in it I did not find the words "Terrible" or "Threatening", there are no such words, but there is the word "Grozdun" = a bunch of grapes, a lot, an increase, accession. So you wonder how do we understand history? I almost forgot: the nostrils were torn for smoking tobacco only for those who sat down to smoke, like drug addicts now, and stopped working through it.
              5. stroporez
                stroporez 15 December 2013 16: 24
                0
                somewhere I came across that in the first year of the construction of St. Petersburg, more than 60000 people were put into the swamp .......
              6. Shotskiy
                Shotskiy 15 December 2013 22: 42
                +4
                Tsar Peter thought little about his people. The people for Peter was only a source from which he scooped funds for the maintenance of two of his favorite brainchildren - the army and the navy, and later the third brainchild - Petersburg, which was also built by the people, with public money, yes also on the bones of the same people. After all, Peter robbed the whole country to the bone, in a literal sense. Remember only taxes and taxes: besides the main ones, there are still a lot - bordering on idiocy - on beards, on salt, on windows, few people know, But there was even a tax on fishing rods. Why do the people need such reforms? And the settlement of Siberia began, by and large, from the fact that people fled from the banal robbery of the "reformers" ... Read the capital historian of the 19th century Solovyov "Lectures on Peter the Great".
                1. shasherin_pavel
                  shasherin_pavel 17 December 2013 19: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: Shotskiy
                  The people for Peter was only the source from which he drew

                  Remember how Peter died. He saved the fishermen by pulling them out of ice water ...
                  1. Kir
                    Kir 17 December 2013 19: 16
                    0
                    Well, it’s not a fact that it was so, but he died of a cold that turned into a severe form of pneumonia? the same is not a fact, but about the salvation of fishermen ....., I'm sorry, but without exception Any Dynasties Love to Exalt themselves, including those that show and tell about their Fatherly Love for the People. so .........., as indeed (I have already said) the other opponents also love to exaggerate the hardships and hardships that are allegedly occurring entirely from mediocre and terrible rule, so ......
                2. Pilat2009
                  Pilat2009 19 December 2013 17: 56
                  -1
                  Quote: Shotskiy
                  Why do people need such reforms?

                  The people clearly don’t need such reforms — he would have to sit on the stove and husk seeds. But if Peter did not collect taxes, there would be no army — Karl would eat Russia and the Turks would kick him.
                  1. Kir
                    Kir 19 December 2013 18: 03
                    0
                    You dear People do not touch! Yes, we wake up for a long time, but the main thing is that we do it, with regards to the reforms, well, it’s actually a washed and washed up topic and not only here. But with regards to everything else, We had Emperor Pavel, they did not allow me to translate what I had planned into the idea that they did not support the nobles and so on, and the nobles supported Peter, since they had claims to the boyar’s places, so don’t have to exalt so much, He didn’t do it alone Great Russia!
                    1. Pilat2009
                      Pilat2009 19 December 2013 21: 50
                      0
                      Quote: Kir
                      Yes, we wake up for a long time, but the main thing is that we do

                      So I say, dear, that the people could sleep and scratch for a long time until a white fluffy animal came.
                      1. Kir
                        Kir 19 December 2013 22: 59
                        0
                        Well, the everlasting song of our elite
                        We were not lucky with the People, but maybe on the contrary We are often unlucky with them
                        You did not try to consider the problem from this angle?
                      2. Pilat2009
                        Pilat2009 20 December 2013 19: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Kir
                        No luck with the people

                        I would not say this, but the eternal dream of any person is to sit warm and eat the gifts of their own garden.
                        But one must understand that sooner or later someone will come to the smell of food. As it was during the Tatar-Mongol invasion
            2. Andrew 447
              Andrew 447 17 December 2013 13: 38
              0
              Probably if you consider Peter in absolute terms, it will probably be softer, if in percentage to the country's population then Peter will be a satrap.
              1. Kir
                Kir 17 December 2013 17: 47
                0
                Allow me. how can an emperor be a satrap? Satrap is the ruler of satrapy, a kind of region in Persia.
          2. Karlsonn
            Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 19
            +1
            Quote: nnz226
            but they are silent about Peter for a simple reason: Ivan and Stalin chased and poured blood from the elite of the time, and Peter shed folk blood !!!


            today is EXPERT day from history? belay
          3. stroporez
            stroporez 15 December 2013 16: 22
            10
            Quote: nnz226
            : Ivan and Stalin drove and poured blood from the elite of that time,

            in in. look who mostly flipped sneakers at 37-38? nomenklatura. here are their whelps and howling about repressions 37 years old ... I have a great-uncle, under Stalin, for a drunken anecdote, for a total of 18 years, under Tobolsk taiga, they think in the family that you can't " to follow the blue "bazaar" - not to plump. and again --- a relative of the convicts, did not prevent his brother from becoming a Hero of the Soviet Union ..........
            1. shasherin_pavel
              shasherin_pavel 17 December 2013 19: 06
              0
              Zeka did not cut the forest. Prisoner Canal Army. Zeka built canals. The forest fell "Urka" and "Enemy of the People". Looks like they fed well if they cut the forest for 18 years, for 18 years without holidays and now a free person in the north will lose health.
        2. IIIIvanov
          IIIIvanov 13 December 2013 15: 49
          -4
          Nonsense, you probably don’t know the history of your country at all if you have no other facts to compare.
        3. Dart2027
          Dart2027 13 December 2013 17: 52
          12
          I recommend reading how much blood was shed "there". The world is not perfect, and in it the ruler needs to be able to be cruel.
        4. Gunsmith
          Gunsmith 16 December 2013 10: 38
          +1
          Well, yes, Leonid Ilyich did not sign a single death sentence. So what? In fact, the country ended on it. Then, after him, they survived, lived and shared the legacy of the once great Empire. Just because the humane L.I. Br. created a system of government that allowed everyone to live well and calmly. The price was just too big.
      2. 123dv
        123dv 13 December 2013 16: 48
        -25 qualifying.
        Do you want to read an article about the battle, and you’re starting to hang all kinds of crap, and crap, and crap ...
        The bait is tasty and attractive, but under it is a cold hook under the rib!
        All we are not tired of washing our brains with all kinds of slop.
        1. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 28
          +7
          Quote: 123dv
          Do you want to read an article about the battle, and you’re starting to hang all kinds of crap, and crap, and crap ...


          maybe you geyropu? is it time what since the history of native aspens causes such malice?

          Quote: 123dv
          All we are not tired of washing our brains with all kinds of slop.


          History of the native country - slops?
        2. Tanysh
          Tanysh 19 December 2013 09: 12
          +1
          The story is just about the battle! Like a great power gathered bit by bit. It is profitable to keep us for Ivanovs who do not remember kinship, the only way it is grown. Great Russia is inhabited by people, their ancestors lived before them, and if we cannot save, then our ancestors collected a penny for us.
      3. Lestat
        Lestat 13 December 2013 18: 27
        13
        Guys, we are talking about the Middle Ages by and large, everything was built there, managed and done on blood! It is impossible to judge the rulers of those times by our moral principles. What is now considered bloody lawlessness was soaked up with mother’s milk, and between the Russian princes during the time of strife there were such bloody showdowns that the Ottomans could not even dream of, in those days we really were more savages than Turks.
        1. aleksandrs95
          aleksandrs95 13 December 2013 22: 41
          +1
          the methods were the same then, only the victims were different.
        2. Felix200970
          Felix200970 15 December 2013 20: 26
          +3
          Quote: Lestat
          Guys, we are talking about the Middle Ages by and large, everything was built there, managed and done on blood!

          Is this so? Or put the question differently. What has changed since then? If you read the statistics of those killed in road accidents, ... "bloody gebnya" nervously smokes on the sidelines. So after 200 years, some master from history will read, he will not understand what an accident is, and he will hang all the "innocent victims" as usual on anyone recourse am
      4. Karlsonn
        Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 17
        +1
        Quote: vezunchik
        Already Peter shed so much blood that Ivan the Terrible never dreamed of.




        Kamrad you teach a story wink .

        Quote: vezunchik
        He dragged the Germans, who began to rewrite Russian history.


        Comrade "German settlement" rebuilt under Ivan the Terrible! And be so kind as to write proper names (of Russian tsars) with a capital letter.

        Quote: vezunchik
        The truth is the Lord and punished him


        Well, yes, in comparison with you - Peter the Great --- nobody, and God punished him for that. laughing


        Quote: vezunchik
        starting with Peter 3 went purebred Holsteiners. And the subsequent Romanovs only had a surname ...


        Let's estimate the purity of blood of all the other royal courts of Europe? winked
        1. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 17 December 2013 19: 10
          +1
          The word "God" as a proper name is always written with a capital letter, like the Lord. And never in the plural if you are a Christian.
      5. shevron
        shevron 14 December 2013 03: 53
        0
        I’ll add And with my son, Alexei was also unlucky ...
      6. Beck
        Beck 15 December 2013 15: 10
        +4
        Quote: vezunchik
        Already Peter shed so much blood that Ivan the Terrible never dreamed of. And he began to plant booze with smoking and debauchery. He dragged the Germans, who began to rewrite Russian history. The truth of the Lord also punished him - the family stopped his daughter Elizabeth, starting with Peter 3 the purebred Holsteins went. And subsequent Romanovs only had a surname.


        It is quite possible only the name, but they were RUSSIAN tsars and promoted to the forefront in civilization is precisely the Russian state. If you are to dance from yours, then you must reject from Russian history, not Russian by blood, but Russian by Spirit - Kruzenshtern, Bering, Barclay de Toli, Kutuzov, Karamzin, Derzhavin (the ancestors of the last three Golden Horde) and many others.

        In my opinion, there were three Great Tsars in Russia. And how would they promote Russia without borrowing from world civilization. What was developed in Russia under Peter and Catherine under mathematics, physics, chemistry ... who would teach the sciences of boyar children as uninvited, learned men of Europe. Who would put, state-of-the-art government agencies at that time as non-European officials. Of course, you could do without them, but then Russia did not reach the heights it has reached. Who would need a homebuilding today?

        As you know, nature, genetics, resting on children. What did Elizabeth do for Russia. If after her there were such kings as she, Russia would remain the middle country of Eastern Europe.

        Ivan the Terrible gathered the state, Peter I strengthened it and led it through the "window" to Europe. Catherine made Russia a Great Power. It is not for nothing that history has assigned her the adjective Great. Here are the three Great Kings. And what to divide between them, they promoted and cared about one thing - the prosperity of Russia.
        1. Beck
          Beck 15 December 2013 15: 19
          +2
          Quote: Beck
          And what to divide between them, they promoted and cared about one thing - the prosperity of Russia.


          I will add. And the emperors of Rome, especially in the era of "soldier emperors" who were not only the Thracians, and the Syrians, and God knows who else. And the Caesars of Byzantium were both the Armenians and the Arabs and God knows who. But all of them were EXACTLY Roman and Byzantine rulers.
        2. Svidetel 45
          Svidetel 45 13 September 2018 00: 48
          0
          It was not history that gave Catherine II the name "great", but historians who carried out someone's order, just as other historians, on another order, created an image of a bloody villain from Ivan the Terrible. And the achievements of Russia during the period of her reign are rather the result of the country's transformations by Peter, continuing in time by inertia, the result of her reign has manifested itself since the beginning of the 19th century - a hard victory over Napoleon, the war with which was provoked by the short-sighted Russian government, indulging the geopolitical interests of the Anglo-Saxons , defeat in the Crimean war, the rapid lag of Russia in economic development from the West. Likewise, despite the insignificant rulers of the USSR who came to power after Stalin's death, the country for almost two decades had outstanding achievements in many areas thanks to the impulse it received during his reign.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  2. creak
    creak 13 December 2013 10: 06
    -16 qualifying.
    In addition, along with the merits of the Tsar, for the sake of objectivity, one should also mention the uniform defeat with numerous cruel executions to which his oprichniks subjected the prosperous Veliky Novgorod and Pskov. These cities were at that time our windows to Europe, which established long-standing and strong trade economic relations with the countries of the Baltic region ... Therefore, Peter I, at the cost of great sacrifices, had to cut through the window again ...
    And the Molodinsky battle, of course, is undeservedly forgotten ...
    1. GDP
      GDP 13 December 2013 10: 24
      40
      The defeat of Novgorod was a necessary measure. This state was too strong, independent and largely oriented to the West, moreover, with dangerous freedom-loving ideas. Having such an independent neighbor at hand, it was impossible to build an absolute monarchy and unite Russia.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 13 December 2013 10: 35
        +8
        Quote: GDP
        The defeat of Novgorod was a necessary measure. This state was too strong

        Vladimir, Novgorod lost its independence under Ivan III. There was no longer the Novgorod Republic.
        1. GDP
          GDP 13 December 2013 10: 50
          +5
          Yes, I agree, I spoke generally about the reason for the conquest of Novgorod. In the time of Grozny, Novgorod had one more fault - too much money, while the rest of Russia had already suffered from hunger and crop failure for two years.
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 13 December 2013 10: 56
            -4
            Quote: GDP
            Novgorod had one more fault - too much money, while the rest of Russia had been suffering from hunger and crop failures for two years now.

            And this was an occasion to organize a pogrom? Or maybe the tsar should just turn to Novgorod to transfer funds to provide assistance?
            1. GDP
              GDP 13 December 2013 11: 05
              -17 qualifying.
              Most likely that was exactly what had to be done, plus scare the army. But Grozny was a very bad diplomat. Below I mentioned that his cruelty forced to turn away from Russia all of Western Russia and the Lithuanians in addition. In fear of the terrible king, they turned to the west, creating a powerful alliance against Muscovy, and Lithuania eventually became Catholic from the Orthodox ...
              Now, thanks to the intransigence and cruelty of Grozny, we have what we have now - a split in Eastern Europe, in many ways, the author of this split was Grozny, although of course he is not alone ...
              1. smile
                smile 13 December 2013 15: 38
                21
                GDP
                Just don’t have to shed tears about the Lithuanians ... by that time the gentry of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was completely polonized, and for more than two centuries the princedom had been considering Russia mainly in gastronomic quality for something to chop off, regardless of who led Russia .
                Thanks to the intransigence and rigidity of Grozny, we have our own state, and do not consider ourselves Poles. And the fact that Poland crushed the ON by that time and tried to seize the rest of the Russian lands of Grozny has nothing to do with it at all.
              2. Alexander 1958
                Alexander 1958 13 December 2013 20: 06
                17
                Your phrase .. his cruelty forced to turn away from Russia all of Western Russia and the Lithuanians in addition ...-
                did you get comparative data on the number of those executed during the reign of Ivan the Terrible and Western Europe, for you Ivan the Terrible is still a bloody tyrant? Then you are at odds with logic or a prisoner of myths imposed on you!
              3. KCC
                KCC 13 December 2013 23: 42
                +7
                Well, yes, we and our rulers are to blame for everything, and in the West everything and everything is so good, it was and is.
              4. KCC
                KCC 13 December 2013 23: 42
                0
                Well, yes, we and our rulers are to blame for everything, and in the West everything and everything is so good, it was and is.
              5. Karlsonn
                Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 37
                +5
                Quote: GDP
                But Grozny was a very bad diplomat.


                Well, of course laughing


                Quote: GDP
                Below I mentioned that his cruelty forced to turn away from Russia the whole of Western Russia and the Lithuanians in addition


                pours beer, cleans the ram

                tell me more ...
              6. nerd.su
                nerd.su 14 December 2013 12: 13
                +2
                Quote: GDP
                Below I mentioned that his cruelty forced to turn away from Russia the whole of Western Russia and the Lithuanians in addition. In fear of the terrible king, they turned to the west, creating a powerful alliance against Muscovy,

                Here Grozny clearly overdid it, zapadentsy, Poles and Balts still smell of fear so in our direction that periodically there is a need to go to them and make their liquid verbal chair fall asleep with chlorine and bury it laughing
            2. core
              core 13 December 2013 14: 07
              11
              a lot of modern oligarchs help people? Novgorod it was an oligarchic republic.
              1. Prometey
                Prometey 13 December 2013 17: 56
                -2
                Quote: core
                Novgorod it was an oligarchic republic.

                Name at least one Novgorod oligarch of the 16th century. Merchants, if you rank them as such, are clearly not drawn to this role.
                1. Rattenfanger
                  Rattenfanger 13 December 2013 20: 39
                  +9
                  Quote: Prometey
                  Merchants, if you rank them as such, are clearly not drawn to this role.

                  Uchi Hospadi!))) One of the richest cities in Northern Europe, stands on the way from the Varangians to the Greeks (i.e. connects all of Europe and the East to each other) -and VERY rich people are not?)
                  The Novgorod pogrom was caused by the passionate desire of the city’s financial aces to hand over the Novgorod land to the Lithuanian (according to other Swedish sources) king.
                  After these sad events, the freemen of Veliky Novgorod was, in fact, finished forever.
                  1. Prometey
                    Prometey 13 December 2013 22: 58
                    -1
                    Quote: Rattenfanger
                    One of the richest cities in Northern Europe, stands in the way from the Varangians to the Greeks (i.e. connects all of Europe and the East with each other) - and VERY rich people are not?)

                    Well, how many fables can I compose? There was no way from the Vikings to the Greeks
                    Quote: Rattenfanger
                    The Novgorod pogrom was caused by the passionate desire of the city’s financial aces to hand over the Novgorod land to the Lithuanian (according to other Swedish sources) king.

                    There is no evidence for this.
                    1. 573385
                      573385 13 December 2013 23: 30
                      +1
                      There is!!! It is necessary to read not only "The history of the 4th \ now I do not know what \ class". Start, at least, with Karamzin.
                    2. Prometey
                      Prometey 14 December 2013 18: 04
                      -1
                      Quote: 573385
                      Start at least with Karamzin.

                      Since when did fabulists become historians?
                    3. 11111mail.ru
                      11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 11: 03
                      +2
                      Quote: Prometey
                      Since when did fabulists become historians?

                      Did you go to the doctor? Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin Krylov Ivan Andreevich was never! Within the boundaries established by him, he worked, systematized and presented historical materials as of the first quarter of the XNUMXth century and even from the sun of Russian poetry A.S. Pushkin.
                      "Dragging the truth to the block,
                      He proved to us without addiction
                      Executioner need
                      And the beauty of autocracy. "
                      Dear vu, dear, go to the doctor, the doctor will prescribe the powder, take it with some water, drink it and make it easier for you!
                    4. Kir
                      Kir 17 December 2013 17: 57
                      0
                      Well, let’s put all the historians caressed by the power of There were, There Will Be Fabulists, such is the essence of the courtiers, by the way those on the other side will also say that they don’t say 100% truth, I will even say more.
                    5. Genur
                      Genur 18 December 2013 20: 47
                      0
                      The word is silver, and silence is gold ...
                2. Rattenfanger
                  Rattenfanger 14 December 2013 09: 55
                  +3
                  Quote: Prometey
                  Well, how many fables can I compose? There was no way from the Vikings to the Greeks

                  Bgggg)))) Yeah, the Northern Sea Route and Fly Emirates airplanes maintained communication between Northern Europe (the Hanseatic League at least) and the same Mediterranean.))))
                  Quote: Prometey
                  There is no evidence for this.

                  What evidence is needed? Confession Turnout?
                3. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 14 December 2013 12: 19
                  +4
                  Quote: Prometey
                  Well, how many fables can I compose? There was no way from the Vikings to the Greeks

                  Hello, come! Swedes, Norwegians and Danes traded only through Gibraltar with Constantinople (Istanbul)?
                4. 11111mail.ru
                  11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 10: 40
                  +1
                  Dear, do the words "Hanseatic League" remind you of anything? Subtracted back in 1983. in V.A. Chivilikhin's "Memory" (novel-essay) that supposedly the British of those times used the word sable to denote shades of black. Where did the "soft gold" come from in the Western European market? It's not a cheap product even now! And the sovereign of All Russia had to close his eyes such a "leak" of funds past the treasury? With Khodorkovsky, too, is it unclean in the financial question?
                  Quote: Prometey
                  No evidence of this

                  "Is fecit cui prodest" (Latin) - Made by the one who benefits.
              2. Andrew 447
                Andrew 447 17 December 2013 13: 52
                0
                Inspired. Ukraine 2013. FTA EU. Yanukovych, Akhmetov, Poroshenko, etc. Just do not want the same way to resolve the issue.
            3. core
              core 13 December 2013 21: 12
              10
              what average businessman now has ships and yachts, there are no such debts and dust in his eyes, on the edge of a boat on a lake that proudly TURNS OUT THE YACHT. And Novgorod noble people had whole fleets of merchant ships, and these are not oligarchs?
        2. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 35
          +1
          Quote: Prometey
          And this was an occasion to organize a pogrom?


          Yes it was!

        3. Genur
          Genur 18 December 2013 20: 33
          0
          Late invented mutual assistance cash registers ... laughing
      2. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 10: 20
        0
        Quote: GDP
        while the rest of Russia suffered from hunger and crop failure for two years.

        And in Lord Veliky Novgorod, did you eat bread at the same time? Potatoes were not grown then, and you will not be full of turnips. Bread GVN (what a glorious abbreviation it turned out!) I bought for money from Muscovy, which means that the residents of Novgorod themselves were malnourished. Just John Vasilievich, following the example of his grandfather Ivan III, continued the family business - the eradication of "sedition". And most likely, foreigners once again hanged all the dogs on the grandson for what his grandfather had done. Not only Fomenko and Nosovsky have doubts about this dark question.
    2. core
      core 13 December 2013 14: 06
      +4
      only the Poles and Swedes did not know this. and if radical measures had not been taken, then Russia would not have been Pskov not Novgorod.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 13 December 2013 17: 58
        +4
        Quote: core
        only the Poles and Swedes did not know this. and if radical measures had not been taken, then Russia would not have been Pskov not Novgorod.

        It’s a pity you didn’t live there. Pskov, in spite of everything, when Batoria’s troops overlaid him, he besieged and didn’t open the gates to the enemies, having remained faithful to Moscow by the time Grozny lost the battle.
        1. core
          core 13 December 2013 21: 06
          +2
          Well, yes, women and men stood on the walls, and did not let the 100-strong army of the bathhouse go, but there were no Moscow militias, there were no service people, no one was there. like V.O.V. won against STALIN. DO NOT write nonsense.
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 13 December 2013 23: 01
            +2
            Quote: core
            Well, yes, women and men stood on the walls, and did not let the 100th army of the bathor

            The Pskovites formed a militia and stood on the walls along with the archers. Why do you even have such hatred for your own people?
            1. core
              core 14 December 2013 12: 46
              0
              you are shortsighted if you see in my words hatred of the people, where is it written?
          2. poquello
            poquello 13 December 2013 23: 11
            +3
            Quote: core
            Well, yes, women and men stood on the walls, and did not let the 100-strong army of the bathhouse go, but there were no Moscow militias, there were no service people, no one was there. like V.O.V. won against STALIN. DO NOT write nonsense.

            All clear. The fascists suffocated from tobacco pipes of the Generalissimo, and the inhabitants of Pskov are not heroes at all.
            1. core
              core 14 December 2013 12: 49
              +3
              no, not from smoke, but probably they died of fear when they saw the Tukhachevsky armored tractor, they plowed in peacetime, and like war, we’ll fight too.
              Stalin did not fight with a rifle in his hands, but made vital decisions that did not allow the state to die. (many before the start of hostilities)
              1. poquello
                poquello 14 December 2013 13: 42
                +1
                Quote: core
                no, not from smoke, but probably they died of fear when they saw the Tukhachevsky armored tractor, they plowed in peacetime, and like war, we’ll fight too.
                Stalin did not fight with a rifle in his hands, but made vital decisions that did not allow the state to die. (many before the start of hostilities)

                This is bad luck. Not once Russia fought and won, but how WWII is so vital decisions of Stalin.
                1. 11111mail.ru
                  11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 11: 33
                  +2
                  Quote: poquello
                  but how WWII is so vital decisions of Stalin.

                  Well, why are you so restless! Again Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill bound to be quoted? You are welcome:
                  http://m3ra.ru/2008/03/14/cherchill-o-staline-k-pervoistochnikam/
                  "The British Encyclopedia of the 1964 edition, volume 5, page 250, information about Stalin:
                  From a speech by W. Churchill in the House of Lords on December 21, 1959, on the occasion of the 80 anniversary of the birth of I.V. Stalin:
                  “It was great happiness for Russia that during the years of difficult trials, Russia was headed by the genius and unshakable commander I.V. Stalin. He was an outstanding person who impressed the cruel time of the period in which his whole life passed ...

                  Then you can read it yourself, if you disagree with Churchill, write your work on the topic "Stalin and the victory of the USSR in the Second World War."
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. poquello
                  poquello 15 December 2013 14: 25
                  +1
                  Do you know what Russian women dig a hole? An anti-tank moat is being made at the turn of the defense, instead of passing Molotov and Stalin defense lines with lightning speed.


                  photo from the book
                  A.V. Isaev
                  "Boilers of the 41st. The history of the Second World War, which we did not know"

                  The main mistake of the Nazis in underestimating the power and potential of the USSR and its people. Do not belittle the role of the USSR and the Soviet people in front of the genius of Stalin. You doubt it - analyze the options - Stalin as the leader of France during the years of the Second World War, Poland and so on.
                4. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 15 December 2013 15: 12
                  +1
                  But the role of Stalin is not necessary to belittle. In general, when discussing an article about the events of the times of Ivan the Terrible, it is better to refrain from mentioning Stalin.
                  By the way, if Stalin had been the leader of France since the 20s of the 20th century, then for certain the ESSR would have appeared first and there would have been a completely different story ...
                5. poquello
                  poquello 15 December 2013 16: 22
                  +1
                  Quote: bot.su
                  But the role of Stalin is not necessary to belittle. In general, when discussing an article about the events of the times of Ivan the Terrible, it is better to refrain from mentioning Stalin.

                  agree finish
                  Quote: bot.su

                  By the way, if Stalin had been the leader of France since the 20s of the 20th century, then for certain the ESSR would have appeared first and there would have been a completely different story ...

                  export revolution failed
                6. The comment was deleted.
          3. Kir
            Kir 17 December 2013 18: 03
            0
            Perhaps I will only remember one example when the adversary was defeated with the monarch, so beloved by liberties, that is 1812 !, and more often with the Persons !!!
  • 11111mail.ru
    11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 11: 18
    0
    Quote: core
    only the Poles and Swedes did not know this. and if radical measures had not been taken, then Russia would not have been Pskov not Novgorod.

    Something your memory has become a little short! Throughout the first ten days of November of this year, the Polish invaders were muttered on the same "topvar" on the occasion of the "Day of Reconciliation and Accord" and the 401 year of their exile from the Moscow Kremlin. Now about the Swedes - read about the Storbovskaya world yourself. Also read about the 30 year war in Europe. The old woman suddenly felt no time for us, so the Romanovs had time to strengthen themselves.
  • Karlsonn
    Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 33
    +5
    Quote: Prometey
    Vladimir, Novgorod lost its independence under Ivan III. There was no longer the Novgorod Republic.


    I don’t understand one thing? on a fig on the border of the Russian kingdom, Russian independent states? belay

    Quote: Prometey
    There was no longer the Novgorod Republic.


    and Glory to the Buddha !!!
  • nnz226
    nnz226 13 December 2013 15: 45
    12
    I wonder what ANY ruler would do in his place if he was told that the top of a rich border city was being demolished abroad in order to cross over to this very abroad, and swear allegiance (in the case of Ivan the Terrible) to the Polish king ?! The top - on the block, but within reasonable limits, the rest were relocated to the outskirts of Moscow, as in one film they said: "You will be hanged, but you do not rebel!"
  • CALL.
    CALL. 13 December 2013 16: 08
    +4
    During the capture of Novgorod, about 950 people were executed. Above it is written, the story about the devastation of Novgorod is insolently written off from the assault and devastation of Liege by the Burgundians of Charles the Bold in 1468. Moreover, the plagiarists were even too lazy to make an amendment for the Russian winter, as a result of which the mythical oprichniks had to ride boats along the Volkhov, which that year, according to the chronicles, was frozen to the very bottom. Ivan went to Novgorod to suppress the "revolt of the Judaizers". I once read about it. Now I don't remember the details, can anyone remember, please clarify.
  • Lukich
    Lukich 13 December 2013 22: 13
    -1
    plus or minus
  • Karlsonn
    Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 31
    +4
    Quote: ranger
    along with the merits of the Tsar, for the sake of objectivity, one should also mention the uniform defeat with numerous cruel executions


    4 000 (I met the figure - 5 000) victims, the true bloody king; one thing is not clear what how did it happen that they called Ivan Vasilyevich - Grozny, and Nikolai Khrustovich as the saint of France - Bloody?

    Quote: ranger
    to which his oprichniks subjected the prosperous Veliky Novgorod and Pskov.


    facts and figures in the studio!
  • GDP
    GDP 13 December 2013 10: 08
    19
    The essence of the article is correct. The Battle of Molody decided the fate of not only all of Russia, but also of Europe. However, the victory in this battle was far from as simple as described, Ivan the Terrible himself fled to Novgorod during this invasion. The true winner - Prince Vorotynsky who defeated such a horde with a small army thanks to his incredible stamina, bravery of soldiers and sophisticated tactics of the commanders, was regarded by Grozny as a dangerous rival and was eliminated in the future, it seems to me that the tsar had the first hand in ensuring that this victory was forgotten. The victory itself was a miracle, the Russian army was on the verge of destruction ...
    In general, Ivan the Terrible was indeed a great ruler, but not everything in his reign was so clearly black or white.
    For example, during his reign, Lithuania (and then it was practically all western Russia) could voluntarily become part of Russia, it was enough for him to show a little flexibility, but the tsar’s cruelty and self-confidence led to the exclusion of these lands from Russia and the formation of the Commonwealth. It was then that Lithuania and western Russia began to turn to face the west and their backs to the east.
    If he had not made a fatal mistake, there would have been neither Lithuania, nor Belarus, nor Ukraine, there would have been a great Russia. The Baltic countries would be Orthodox ...
    1. CTEPX
      CTEPX 13 December 2013 11: 36
      +3
      Quote: GDP
      Lithuania (and then it was virtually all of western Russia) could voluntarily become part of Russia, it was enough for him to show a little flexibility

      It is written directly about the "freedom market" in Ukraine)). If the cruel and self-confident Putin showed a little flexibility ...
      Quote: GDP
      The Baltic countries would be Orthodox ...
      But they were Catholics at that time!
      There is a version that Mohammedans, Orthodox Christians and Catholics are the representatives of the single Christian religion of the disintegrated Great Mughal Empire)). True, only Orthodox Russia could act as the legitimate representative (of the Soviet Union) of the Great Mughal Empire.
      1. GDP
        GDP 13 December 2013 12: 11
        0
        Lithuania (and then it was virtually all of western Russia) could voluntarily become part of Russia, it was enough for him to show a little flexibility

        It is written directly about the "freedom market" in Ukraine)). If the cruel and self-confident Putin showed a little flexibility ...


        In fact, it is .. Poles, for example, acted more cunningly, at first they promised the Lithuanians and Russian principalities three boxes, and then they began to tighten the screws and turn Lithuania and western Russia (putting Ukraine and Belarus) into their province, which have almost no rights. ..

        Quote: GDP
        The Baltic countries would be Orthodox ...
        But they were Catholics at that time!

        2. Linguistically, the Baltic language is the closest to the Slavic language and once we had a common language. Balts were not Catholics in the Middle Ages - they were pagans and subjects of the Russian principalities until they began their expansion into western Russia. As a result, Lithuanian culture and religion was largely absorbed and mixed with Russian, which were much more than conquerors. By the end of the Middle Ages, the main religions were paganism and Orthodoxy, with the exception of some coastal cities, occupied by the Germans. They began to convert to Catholicism only after the defeat of Muscovy in the Livonian War and the creation of a Commonwealth speech, and that was not all, but only to know, the common people finally converted to the Latin faith only by the 18 century.
        1. CTEPX
          CTEPX 13 December 2013 12: 36
          +2
          Quote: GDP
          They began to convert to Catholicism only after the defeat of Muscovy in the Livonian war and the creation of a Commonwealth speech.

          "On August 14, 1385, the Kreva union was concluded between Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which marked the beginning of the formation of the Lithuanian-Polish state. The agreements provided for the marriage of the Polish princess Jadwiga and Jagiello, the coronation of Jagaila by the king of Poland and the baptism of Jagailo and the Lithuanians into the Catholic faith. 15 February 1386 Jagiello was baptized in Krakow under the name Vladislav. Following the king, his relatives and most of the court were baptized. " (from wikipedia)
          Wiki, of course, such a wiki)).
          But the meaning of my previous post is not in who used to become a Catholic, but in the fact that the results of the actions of the then Ivan the Terrible in Lithuania, as well as the current Putin in Ukraine, depend not only on their self-confidence and cruelty)).
          1. GDP
            GDP 13 December 2013 13: 04
            +7
            But what happened on the eve of Krevsk Union -
            In the 1384 year, Jagiello, Skirgailo and Dmitry Koribut concluded two preliminary agreements with Dmitry Moscow and his cousin Vladimir Serpukhovsky, which included, inter alia, the marriage of Jagiel and his daughter Dmitry Donskoy subject to the subordination of the Lithuanian prince to the supreme authority of the prince of Moscow and the recognition of Orthodoxy as the state religion Grand Duchy of Lithuania

            Unfortunately failed. The Poles jumped us then ...

            But the meaning of my previous post is not in who used to become a Catholic, but in the fact that the results of the actions of the then Ivan the Terrible in Lithuania, as well as the current Putin in Ukraine, depend not only on their self-confidence and cruelty)).


            I completely agree on all 100%. Ivan the Terrible simply gave the Poles a good opportunity to drag Lithuania to their side. The fault of Grozny was that he was not a cunning and skillful diplomat, relying on strength where it was possible to engage more subtle levers.

            The same thing is happening now, so that Putin does not do it, the West will interpret it in the way that suits him ... Economic pressure on Ukraine will expose him like Ivan the Terrible. No one will understand the essence of the matter.

            In matters of information war, Russia has always been in the role of making excuses ... A kind of war with a shield, but without a sword.
            1. Pablo_K
              Pablo_K 13 December 2013 17: 25
              0
              core rights do not confuse Ivan3 and Ivan4
        2. core
          core 13 December 2013 15: 13
          +9
          Lithuania was then a vassal state of speech of the Commonwealth, and no matter where it could no longer enter, the top of the Russian-Lithuanian principality first betrayed the faith of their ancestors (Orthodoxy) and then even the people who for the most part remained Orthodox. and Ivan the Terrible here absolutely nothing to do with, do not confuse the era.
          And just the logic of thinking in the people's memory, he remained like Ivan the Terrible, and not the bloodthirsty or Ivan the killer or the willow evil. DIFFICULT AND JUST IN OUR LANGUAGE SYNONYMS.
        3. smile
          smile 13 December 2013 16: 10
          +4
          GDP
          You are very wrong. It is linguistically that the Liot language even belongs to a different language group. These are absolutely alien and unrelated languages. But they have many Russianisms in view of the fact that for several hundred years the Lithuanians were originally the aristocracy of the principality, over time mixed with the Russian aristocracy from the annexed and captured Russian lands, and most of the subjects were Russians.
          Believe me, as a person who knows the Lithuanian language, has studied it and its history.
          The Lithuanian elite began to convert to Catholicism already in the 15th century, soon the field of Poles, which was greatly facilitated by the orientation of Lithuania to Poland. So. that by the time of Grozny, the Lithuanian aristocracy called itself a gentry, spoke Polish and was mainly catholic.
    2. Sibiriya
      Sibiriya 13 December 2013 11: 52
      +2
      Like right now with Ukraine and the EU? You are a naive person.
    3. IIIIvanov
      IIIIvanov 13 December 2013 15: 53
      -4
      Another connoisseur of the king and history, what you have just written is only the side that you were shown. And what and why, and whether it was, you do not know this, and unfortunately you cannot know. But reasoning for some reason, you do not want to allow the existence of other grounds or reasons at that time for the King to make decisions. Choosing only the most unattractive or stupid.
      This indicates the limitations of your horizons and no more.
    4. smile
      smile 13 December 2013 15: 59
      18
      GDP
      By the 16th century, the entire gentry ON was ALREADY completely polonized and catholic. You can only tear away what belongs to you. How could Grozny tear away the lands of the GDL by his bad behavior if his gentry did not want to be subjects of a single Orthodox state? Well, they were not satisfied with their single monolithic state with a strong ruler - they were more satisfied with the Polish mess and lawlessness. In addition, how then to seize the Russian lands, if you become a subject of Russia? But they precisely had the goal of expanding their territories at the expense of ours.

      Sorry, but your statement that it was then that Lithuania began to turn to face the West does not stand up to criticism. I repeat, the entire gentry of Lithuania was totally catholicized and polonized. And yet, to remind you how many unions have been concluded before? Good. hold:
      1385 - Krevsky Union.
      1401 - Union of Vilno-Radom.
      1413 - The Union of Township extended the rights of the Polish gentry to the Catholic nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
      1432 - Grodno Union
      1499 - Cracow-Vilnius Union.
      1501 - Mill Union
      1569 - Union of Lublin.

      Can Grozny be to blame for the six unions concluded before his birth? Yes. The burning of the Commonwealth was created on the latter - when Lithuania realized that, due to our strengthening, it could not conquer lands in the east, and bad Russians could take back the lands captured by the principality and it joined powerful Poland (the population was several times larger than ours) which and did not hide the goal-the seizure of Russian lands .....

      So what does Ivan have to do with it? All his fault is only that he strengthened our country - that’s all.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 December 2013 01: 55
        +1
        they were more comfortable with the Polish mess and lawlessness


        So, therefore, Poland is now nobody, but they tell jokes about Poles in the USA.
    5. Alexander 1958
      Alexander 1958 13 December 2013 20: 44
      +4
      Your phrase .. If he had not made a fatal mistake, there would have been neither Lithuania, Belarus, nor Ukraine, there would have been a big Russia. The Baltic countries would be Orthodox ...
      Your statements about Grozny are strikingly reminiscent of criticism of Stalin by the liberals. Now, if not for his repression, then we would now drink Bavarian (beer) ..
      1. Kir
        Kir 17 December 2013 18: 28
        0
        No, there is no liberal. Stalin hindered them all further1, and not just repressions, I think they just don’t negotiate, I fully guess it should sound something like this
        Oh, if only Kerensky and temporarily government, etc.
        or
        Ah, if only the brightest bracket and its associates (the creepiest bracket? And its clique) would take power then ....., but then Earth-Russian would be watered with a myriad of blood of the Indigenous Peoples !, and enti would eat and drink
    6. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 December 2013 01: 50
      +1
      They began to Catholicize Lithuania from the 1385 year, do not carry nonsense.
    7. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 15 December 2013 11: 39
      0
      Quote: GDP
      but the cruelty and self-confidence of the tsar led to the exclusion of these lands from Russia and the formation of the state of the Commonwealth.

      What feudal lord would like it when they try to "build" him? Essentially, he will go over to "Rzhech Pospolita", change his faith to "more correct". Feudal lords, they understand the democrats of that time, well, like the oligarchs we have today.
  • Andrey57
    Andrey57 13 December 2013 12: 18
    24
    Some kind of inappropriate comparison. For an attack on the Crimea needed a bridgehead. Without the accession of Ukraine (or union with it), this task was impossible.

    Actually, there was no Ukraine at that time, this was firstly, and secondly, the attack on Crimea in those days meant an attack on the Ottoman Empire, since Crimea was just an Ottoman province.

    Only for some reason the author kept silent about what happened to the victor at Molodi, Prince Vorotynsky. "The greatest king" rewarded him in a royal way - he killed him from the world.

    Under Ivan the Great, all death sentences were imposed by jury trials and not a single one by order of the king. And about the jury trials of that time, the unwashed lousy Europe was unheard of, and Sudebnik, the code of laws, was also the most progressive at that time. And the fact that the Romanovs pissed off all those achievements of Ivan the Great is no reason to belittle the great achievements of the great tsar, the last of the Rurikovich.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 13 December 2013 12: 36
      0
      Quote: Andrey57
      Actually, there was no Ukraine at that time

      I had in mind a purely geographical name in the modern sense of the word, and not political.
      Quote: Andrey57
      the attack on Crimea in those days meant an attack on the Ottoman Empire, since Crimea was just a province of the Ottomans.

      And what of this next? Then it was necessary to capitulate to Devlet Giray in 1572, because the Turks could hide for them?
      Quote: Andrey57
      Under Ivan the Great, all death sentences were imposed by jury trials and not one by decree of the king

      What are these jury trials in the 16th century? By the way, there were courts in Europe too, but like in Russia they depended on the will of the monarch.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 13 December 2013 17: 59
        +3
        Quote: Prometey
        Then it was necessary to capitulate to Devlet Giray in 1572, because the Turks could hide for them?

        Protecting one’s land is one thing and another attempt at conquest. Russia could have won and won defensively, but had it tried to advance - and this would have ended in disaster.
        Quote: Prometey
        What are these jury trials in the 16th century?

        Elected judges, who in modern language can be called jurors.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 14 December 2013 01: 58
          +2
          Russia defeated the Crimean Khanate only under Catherine the Great. Let us not exaggerate the success of the Young, he is nothing more than a respite for 20 years. And the Ottoman Empire collapsed only after the WWII.
      2. Vasek
        Vasek 13 December 2013 20: 32
        +3
        I agree with everything except:

        Quote: Prometey
        And what of this next? Then it was necessary to capitulate to Devlet Giray in 1572, because the Turks could hide for them?


        Everything has its time.
        At that moment, it seems a successful decision to launch them into their territory and, with lesser strength, to defeat them technically.
        And invade the Crimea and completely close the problem of the Crimean Khanate will come later.
        In any case, one of the conclusions of the article that the battle of Molodi inflicted irreparable damage to the militancy of Crimea and created the prerequisites for its future conquest is logical.
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 14 December 2013 08: 42
          0
          Quote: Vasek
          At that moment, it seems a successful decision to launch them into their territory and, with lesser strength, to defeat them technically.

          Letting the enemy into their territory can never be successful. Another thing is that they could not prevent the penetration of mobile units of the Crimean units. In 1571, Devlet Giray devastated Moscow's surroundings - apparently this was also a good strategy?
          Quote: Vasek
          In any case, one of the conclusions of the article that the battle of Molodi inflicted irreparable damage to the militancy of Crimea and created the prerequisites for its future conquest is logical.

          Not at all logical. The battle of Kontop in 1659 was the defeat of the Russian army in Ukraine, where the main striking force was played by the Crimean cavalry.
          Another thing is that after Molodie, the Crimean Tatars did not go so far deep into Russia. And the raids continued after the Young.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 December 2013 01: 57
      0
      Ukraine Little Russian. Es-but near Poland. But Ukrainians do not know this.
  • user
    user 13 December 2013 13: 23
    13
    Now it is difficult to restore the chronicle of events motives and consequences of that time.
    M.I. Vorotynsky was taken into custody and sent to Moscow, where he was executed along with the first governor of the regiment of the right hand of Prince. N.R. Odoevsky and the second governor of the large regiment M.Ya. Morozov.
    Those. executed the three largest military commanders of that time, and the Romanovs diligently spoiled the last of the Rurikovich for 300 years.
    It’s like the legend of the Red Marshal Tukhachevsky right now, and when you start to figure it out, there are even more questions than answers, for every taste.
    Over the past 350 years, only a few times Ivan the Terrible tried to show more or less as a person adequate at the direction of V. I. Stalin in the film Ivan the Terrible. I don’t recall any more positive or neutral views. There is more and more discussion at the level of the type - "Ivan the Terrible is killing his son"
    1. Kir
      Kir 17 December 2013 18: 12
      0
      But there was only one misfortune of the Rurekovichs, Rurik was, but he had no children! By the way, ask Yar he studied this question quite vividly. With regards to the Romanovs, the dynasty will say so with history and not the best, about Tukhachevsky and others, a separate so beloved by individual .... song. with regards to the Odoevsky, so onet and in 1825 lit up, see the hereditary. But the Morozovs made the Glory of Russia, and if it had not been for the church reform, it would not be known what would have happened. maybe Kuptsov and Manufacturers would not have had the Glorious, and so under the rule of something.
  • Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 13 December 2013 15: 14
    13
    I can’t say anything about Tsar Ivan the Terrible, whether he was bad or good, did not live in his time smile

    but about victory in the battle I’ll say that, well, it’s just a masterpiece! how successful it was, shine! It’s necessary to think of a walk-city, how it was invented and implemented, and so effectively, I just wonder, brilliantly! I honestly did not know that such a structure existed, I no longer heard that it was still used anywhere.

    Well, Russian fellows! wit you can’t take away! given in the face of the Tatars and Turks, even in the days of their greatness. I think this was really a crucial moment in the history of Russia.

    As for the rulers, no matter what kind of blood, nationalities he was, it is important that he did good for the country, like a true patriot.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 00
      +3
      Hussites used the Wagenburg for the 150 years before Molody.
    2. Alexander 1958
      Alexander 1958 14 December 2013 14: 08
      +1
      Your phrase .. I honestly did not know that such a structure existed, I no longer heard that it was still used somewhere ..
      Similar designs were used by the Hussites (Czech Republic) in the war against the Knights, and American settlers used similar tactics in the fight against the Indians
  • IIIIvanov
    IIIIvanov 13 December 2013 15: 46
    +1
    Prometey:
    Apparently squeezed for a reason. For someone today, kissing the cross is not an oath, and the oath-breaker is not a criminal, and it doesn’t matter that kissing then meant the oath too. And for the violation of the oath, even now responsibility is spelled out.
    So what happened there, it’s not exactly given to us to know, unfortunately, history could not preserve the true reasons.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 00
      0
      And you read the modern oath, if you served in Soviet times, roll with laughter.
  • carver
    carver 13 December 2013 16: 04
    +4
    Quote: Prometey
    Some kind of inappropriate comparison. For an attack on the Crimea needed a bridgehead. Without the accession of Ukraine (or union with it), this task was impossible.


    Which Ukraine? what are you talking about there was no Ukraine were the principalities entering Lithuania. Ukraine is generally officially formed by Lenin.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 13 December 2013 18: 01
      0
      Quote: carver
      Which Ukraine? what are you talking about there was no Ukraine were the principalities entering Lithuania.

      Why stupid? I explained that I had a purely geographical definition.
    2. Yura
      Yura 13 December 2013 19: 58
      +2
      Quote: carver
      Which Ukraine? what are you talking about there was no Ukraine were the principalities entering Lithuania. Ukraine is generally officially formed by Lenin.

      Here you are absolutely right. In front of me is a book of the 1981 edition "CORRESPONDENCE OF IVAN THE GROZNY WITH ANDREY KURBSKY", the second letter or they called them messages, in this work these letters are presented in three forms: the first is actually a photograph of the letters themselves, the second is in style and edition at the time of writing the letter, the third in the modern edition, and so at the beginning of the letter, introducing himself, he writes: "The almighty and all-powerful right hand to the hand of the end of the Lord God that contains all the earth and the salvation of our Jesus Christ, like the Father and the Holy Spirit, is worshiped and glorified in unity, by our grace, we will keep the scfetters of the Russian kingdom as a humble and unworthy servant, and from his all-powerful right hand we, the great sovereign, the tsar and the grand duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, Vladimerski, Moscow, Nougorodsky, the king of Kazan and the king of Astorohansky, the sovereign of Pskov and the Grand Duke of Smolensk, Tver, Yugorsk, Perm, Vyattsky, others and the Grand Duke of Novgorod Nizovsky lands, Chernigov, Rezansky, Polotsky, Rostovsky, Yaroslavsky, Beloozersky and the sovereign of the motherland and the owner of the land of the Liflyan Nemetzsky rank, Udora, Obdorsky, Kondinsky and all Siberian lands and Northern countries, the sovereign - in our former boyar and prince Andrey Mikhailovich Kurbsky ", well, further in the text, at the end of the letter there is such a date: the summer of 7086, the state of our 43rd, and our kingdoms: Rosiyskago on the 31st, Kazanskovo on the 25th, Astorohanskovo on the 24th. So here is no mention of Ukraine.
      1. LINX
        LINX 14 December 2013 03: 34
        0
        With what joy in the signature of the king should there be a mention of Ukraine. 80% of the territory of Ukraine were included in the ON. The state of Ukraine was not until the 20th century, but in the geographical and national context it was used long before Ivan.

        look for example

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9N6ZaeOl75I
        1. Yura
          Yura 14 December 2013 10: 23
          0
          Quote: LINX
          With what joy in the signature of the king should there be a mention of Ukraine. 80% of the territory of Ukraine were included in the ON. The state of Ukraine was not until the 20th century, but in the geographical and national context it was used long before Ivan.

          Well, my previous comment about what? The given example shows that at the time there were no territories of modern Ukraine in the Russian state. Well, and the signature, as you put it at that time, for a dignity of this rank, the action is almost protocol and if the transfer began, then everything would be listed.
        2. carver
          carver 13 January 2014 17: 22
          0
          Quote: LINX
          With what joy in the signature of the king should there be a mention of Ukraine. 80% of the territory of Ukraine were included in the ON. The state of Ukraine was not until the 20th century, but in the geographical and national context it was used long before Ivan.

          look for example

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9N6ZaeOl75I


          Shiryaev Evgeny Vladimirovich. Professor, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Academician. Moscow.

          AAA Well, yes, he knows more than historians. In general, this booby refers to the German atlas of the History of Poland, editions of 1848 and the Russian atlas of history, the Historical atlas, editions of 1873 and to a map that is not dated to 1224, but is called Rus for 1224 and was clearly drawn up in those times and these are, as it were, completely different things.
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 13 December 2013 17: 51
    +2
    The source of the legend of the death of Prince Vorotynsky is the records of Prince Kurbsky, which cannot be considered an independent source. He was not included in the synodic of the disgraced, and it would be difficult to simply forget such a person.
  • Sandov
    Sandov 13 December 2013 19: 27
    +2
    I love the story. The arrival of the Romanovs for Russia is a disaster of the time.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 02
      0
      Just the Romanovs and somehow established a new order after the psheks sat in Moscow. For almost 30 years, the country has lived in turmoil.
  • Curculum
    Curculum 13 December 2013 20: 37
    +1
    Quote: Prometey
    Without the accession of Ukraine (or union with it), this task was impossible.

    "Accession or alliance with Ukraine" in 1572 is very original. bully
    And why not an alliance with Australia at that time? wassat
  • Vlaleks48
    Vlaleks48 13 December 2013 21: 16
    0
    Some kind of inappropriate comparison. For an attack on the Crimea needed a bridgehead. Without the accession of Ukraine (or union with it), this task was impossible.
    There was no such state formation. And it is a sin for the Orthodox to rewrite history according to the "Lungin".
  • Motors1991
    Motors1991 13 December 2013 21: 47
    +3
    In 1556, the Russian government organized the first campaign to the Crimea. For this purpose, the Pselsky town was built at the confluence of the Dnieper and the Psel River. In the same year, Russian troops descended down the Dnieper and, together with Dmitry Vishnevetsky’s Cossacks, sacked Kermen’s Islam and Ochakov’s neighborhood, from that moment on. Zaporizhzhya Sich takes its beginnings, organized by D.I.Vishnevetsky with the money of Ivan the Terrible. So there was a bridgehead and the Russians at that time had already begun to drive the Crimeans to the peninsula, but for some reason Ivan Vasilyevich deployed his armies to Livonia, thereby the Russian the state got a war on two fronts: in the West against Livonians, Poles, Lithuanians, Swedes and in the South against Crimeans supported by the Turks. Naturally, this war could not end in defeat, and the battle at Molody is one of the glimpses of this war.
  • Pushkar
    Pushkar 13 December 2013 23: 08
    0
    Quote: Prometey

    Some kind of inappropriate comparison. For an attack on the Crimea needed a bridgehead. Without joining Ukraine (or union with her) this task was impossible.
    And then did this very Ukraine exist? Or all the same - Wild Field?
  • Karlsonn
    Karlsonn 14 December 2013 00: 10
    +2
    Quote: Prometey
    Some kind of inappropriate comparison. For an attack on the Crimea needed a bridgehead. Without the accession of Ukraine (or union with it), this task was impossible.


    and what is wrong?

    Quote: Prometey
    Only for some reason the author kept silent about what happened to the victor at Molodi, Prince Vorotynsky. "The greatest king" rewarded him in a royal way - he killed him from the world.


    about the fate of Prince Vorotynsky, we know from the "History" of Prince Andrei Kurbsky, who in turn is the essence of rezuns. hi
  • Tatarus
    Tatarus 15 December 2013 08: 35
    0
    Quote: Prometey
    Some kind of inappropriate comparison. For an attack on the Crimea needed a bridgehead. Without the accession of Ukraine (or union with it), this task was impossible.


    What is FIG Ukraine? There was no such state then. Maidanit or something you
  • Andrew 447
    Andrew 447 17 December 2013 13: 34
    +1
    For an attack on the Crimea needed a bridgehead. Without the accession of Ukraine (or union with it), this task was impossible. Let me curiosity, but where did you find at that time Ukraine?
  • Letnab
    Letnab 13 December 2013 08: 37
    14
    As a child, I read a book about Ivan Gozny, I don’t remember the author, and I could not understand why this book does not match the data of the history textbook ...
    I learned about the battle of Molodi several years ago, as a result of which I read a little and about the reign of Ivan the Terrible, it turned out to be very interesting, added pride in the history of the country, and questions arose who are interested in turning our past against ourselves. Ivan the Terrible, Pavel 1, Stalin, all about.
    1. mountain
      mountain 13 December 2013 13: 48
      +6
      They will not run in when the monuments, monuments will stand, from their ancestors. The child saw such a monument and asked or read. Interest in their history will be.
      And do not break, as in UK ... and do not remove, as in Mos ... and Pete.
    2. A. Yaga
      A. Yaga 14 December 2013 14: 13
      +3
      I don't really know our history (and how should I know?), But reading this article (Forbidden Victory), one gets the feeling that I knew all this for sure, maybe I saw it with my own eyes (pictures appear from memory), but I FORGOTTEN. By the way I live on the former "cordon" from the Turks, the former wild steppe, now the Belgorod region. and forest-steppe. All forests of the Belgorod and Kharkov regions are man-made. Huge areas of forests were planted by our ancestors!
      1. tolan_petrovich
        tolan_petrovich 16 December 2013 10: 45
        +1
        There is a GENERAL MEMORY! Always tell my children, sit, think, REMEMBER!
    3. stroporez
      stroporez 15 December 2013 17: 17
      +4
      Quote: Letnab
      and questions arose to whom it would be profitable to turn our past against ourselves.

      probably to those who derive the concept of "Slavs" from slave - slave ........
  • Sterlya
    Sterlya 13 December 2013 08: 43
    14
    Why is the "wrong" king? He was a king. for Democrats it is not correct. because this is the correct type for them. EBN go.
    in the article, of course, many disagree with what. about the same manic interest in firearms for example.
    for me, this means that he was a very progressive person. and in time caught the trend of the future development of weapons. and in all territorial issues made optimal decisions based on the situation
  • drop
    drop 13 December 2013 08: 58
    25
    These are the articles and it is necessary to print, and not all nonsense. Thanks to the author. When I wrote an article for "VO" about the Solovetsky Monastery, I also tried to pay tribute to our Tsar Ivan IV. It was he who began to expand the territory of the state and strengthen the power of the country, I have the honor
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 13 December 2013 10: 00
      -12 qualifying.
      Yes, Ivan the Terrible did a lot for Russia. But would those who deify him think much of Russia when their wife would be torn to pieces by the guardsmen, and they themselves would be put to death just for fun? But all this was! So Ivan the Terrible - the great king and the great paranoid scum!
      1. stroporez
        stroporez 15 December 2013 17: 23
        +2
        Quote: Prokhor
        when their wife would be torn to pieces by the guardsmen, and they themselves would be put on the count just for fun? But all this was!
        ---- I think the same crap, as in the case of Vladislav III (Dracula). reliable testimony of witnesses pzhlst ..
  • ParapaPanda
    ParapaPanda 13 December 2013 09: 00
    -12 qualifying.
    The article is controversial. Nobody begs for the merits of Ivan the Terrible, but what kind of "run over" to the Romanovs at the end? What a horror, fu.fu.fu.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 13 December 2013 09: 46
      +7
      Well, yes, the criticism is well-founded, but it’s also not worthwhile to portray the Romanov’s board in black colors.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 13 December 2013 15: 06
        +4
        Quote: Basileus
        Well, yes, the criticism is well-founded, but it’s also not worthwhile to portray the Romanov’s board in black colors.

        Even as it stands. The history of the confrontation between the Rurtkovichs and the Romanovs was rewritten by the Romanovs. Moreover, the Romanovs won with massive support from the West. As they came to power by killing, they lost power through death, to the dog - dog death.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 13 December 2013 16: 53
        0
        In the article "horses, people mixed in a heap" and "a mountain of bloody bodies prevented the nuclei from flying." Sensible ideas coexist with fictions, and the real facts of official historical science are mixed with "tearing off the veils."
        Everything is set out too freely, albeit beautifully and patriotically. Serious material is not served. Even taking into account popularization.
        Verdict: sluggish benign Fomenkovism.
        Commenting all this line by line makes no sense.
        After reading more on the topic, the author learns a lot of new and interesting things that will not erase his current views expressed in the article, but will significantly restore order in his head and put emphasis.
  • Predator-74
    Predator-74 13 December 2013 09: 10
    17
    Eternal glory to the Russian soldiers who defended our independence at all times !!!
  • lukke
    lukke 13 December 2013 09: 40
    +8
    Russia is far from European civilization
    And thank God!
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 13 December 2013 09: 41
    -10 qualifying.
    You can’t deal with history in the fantasy style, so damn those that can be piled up. In the interval between the tumens of Genghis Khan and the "big battalions" of Napoleon, 100 thousand armies could not form any state, this has long been proven.
    1. GDP
      GDP 13 December 2013 10: 31
      13
      This is not so. Similar armies were also in the east. This is for the West 100 000-I army fantasy. The same Russia always had a rather large, even huge army by European standards, the size of our country compared to European states was not comparable. But only a small part of it could send Russia on a campaign, since the bulk of them sat along the fortresses, it would be suicide to withdraw all the troops for our country with its vast distances and a bunch of aggressive neighbors.
      Nomads, unlike sedentary peoples, sometimes moved by almost the entire male population, they were not used to moving from place to place immediately by the whole people, and from here the enormous size of their armies.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 13 December 2013 10: 43
        0
        Quote: GDP
        The same Russia has always had a fairly large, even huge army by European standards

        Only towards the end of the 18th century. Even in the 16th century, we could not set up an army that exceeded the strength of the Commonwealth.
        1. GDP
          GDP 13 December 2013 11: 26
          +3
          They could not exhibit, but they had it ... When the Commonwealth was created - the union of Poland, Lithuania and western Russia. Russia has grown in huge hostile territories that had to be mastered and held by force of arms - the Kazan Khanate, the Astrakhan Khanate, the Siberian Khanate, new territories in the Baltic and northern Russia, new territories in the south bordering the Crimean Khanate, Nogai hordes and other nomads, territories in Caucasus, those 5 territories in the west of the country, which passed from hand to hand, etc ... Everywhere there were governors with armies and squads. Therefore, in the battle of Molody Muscovy, for example, only a third of the armies concentrated in the south to defend the borders were set up ...
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 13 December 2013 12: 49
            +1
            Quote: GDP
            Everywhere there were governors with armies and squads. Therefore, in the battle of Molody Muscovy, for example, only a third of the armies concentrated in the south to defend the borders were set up ...

            The entire available army was concentrated in the west and engaged in a war with Poland. In the Caucasus, Terek town was built with a small garrison - it was all the forces in the south. Therefore, when the Ottomans demanded that he be removed so as not to annoy them, they did.
            In the 17th century, Siberia was covered by an army of only 2000 archers.
        2. smile
          smile 13 December 2013 16: 20
          0
          GDP
          In the 16th century, the population of Poland exceeded ours by about three times. How could we put up more troops? By the way, the quartz (crown) army of Poland was relatively small.
          1. Bagatur
            Bagatur 13 December 2013 17: 22
            0
            [b] In the 16th century, the population of Poland exceeded ours by about three times.

            Truth? Poland of the 16th century looks very different but ... is there such a difference in population?
            1. smile
              smile 13 December 2013 19: 40
              0
               
              Bagatur
              Hello again!

              At the beginning of the 7,5th century, about 10 million people lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, up to 1582 million in 11 and almost 1650 million in XNUMX. 

              In Russia, in the middle of the 16th century, approximately 3,5 million people lived.

              And the difference is - In the composition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania alone (Without Poland) at the beginning of the 15th century there were 190 cities, and in Russia - only 83. And imagine what happened when Poland united with the ON.
              We had a very low population density.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 08
              +2
              And then Poland had all of Little Russia, maybe half of the non-Polish population was there, and he did not really like living under the Poles.
              1. smile
                smile 14 December 2013 03: 06
                0
                EvilLion
                Clear business ... but these are resources and ... warriors. The local gentry was obliged to exhibit a certain number of soldiers ... and exhibited ...
        3. Horde
          Horde 13 December 2013 20: 25
          +1
          Quote: Prometey
          Only towards the end of the 18th century. Even in the 16th century, we could not set up an army that exceeded the strength of the Commonwealth.


          1654 First Northern War, does anyone know anything about this? Tsar Alexei, with the help of his royal commanders, BUTURLIN AND BOGDAN KHMELNYTSKY, defeated a coalition of Swedes, Poles, and Litvinians, so that LITHUANIA ceased to exist. Here is an excerpt from the son of the Patriarch of Antioch, PAVLA ALEPSKI former, just at that time with a visit to MOSCOW.
          Here is how the contemporary of events, Pavel Aleppsky, describes the military conquests: “They (voivode Buturlin and Bogdan Khmelnitsky) took twenty-eight fortresses and cities from the Poles, including a city named Lublin, which in their language means“ a city of assembly ”, for Poles in the era of their power gathered in it for meetings. They defeated the great hetman Lyakhov Pavel Pototsky "(1). The acquisitions touched precisely the Polish lands, Bogdan Khmelnitsky fought along with the royal governor Buturlin, because initially he represented not the Zaporozhye robbers, but the famous Russian army.


          this is the general !!! and they hang noodles on our ears, saying that they say Alexey Mikhalych - the SILENT mole.
      2. Bagatur
        Bagatur 13 December 2013 17: 17
        0
        100 000 Enichar UTB .... nonsense! This is primarily elite, at the end of the XVII century. there were about 57 of them, and this is the largest number in the history of the Enichar corps! And the mentioned that the army otoman reached 000, even a comment is not needed ... such an army even China did not have ..
        1. stroporez
          stroporez 15 December 2013 17: 30
          -1
          I agree!!!!! useful thing calculator .........
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 06
        0
        Do not carry nonsense. The armed forces of the Roman Empire never 180k people did not exceed, 200k in Russia is EMNIP only at the end of the reign of Peter and then in Poltava 40k nashkh fought against 30k Swedes.
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 13 December 2013 10: 42
      +4
      The Ottoman Empire could very well.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 13 December 2013 10: 46
        +5
        Quote: fzr1000
        The Ottoman Empire could very well.

        Temporarily on a specific trip. More than one state could not afford to maintain an army of 100 thousand mouths on an ongoing basis until the 18th century.
        1. Moore
          Moore 13 December 2013 11: 27
          +4
          Well, on an ongoing basis, this was not required.
          Sagittarius lived in settlements (salary + subsistence farming) and were considered in the service, and the local cavalry (boyars + their fighting slaves) were killed "horses, people, bread and arms" as needed.
          With such a system, it was possible to set one hundred thousand for a period of 3-4 months, perhaps not only with Ottoman capabilities.
        2. GDP
          GDP 13 December 2013 11: 30
          +2
          So large armies gathered temporarily, in case of emergency ...
        3. Nayhas
          Nayhas 13 December 2013 11: 59
          +4
          Quote: Prometey
          Temporarily on a specific trip. More than one state could not afford to maintain an army of 100 thousand mouths on an ongoing basis until the 18th century.

          Often people dealing with the history of wars have no idea what a 100 thousand army might look like. This is the "magic" of numbers. For them, that 50 thousand, that 70 thousand plus or minus within the margin of error. What difference would it seem? In fact, there are 10 thousand warriors, this is a huge mass of people, horses and wagons. The issue of supplying "only" 10 thousand soldiers is not an easy task, food, fodder, and there was no canned food, no potatoes, no pasta either. One warrior is at least 10 kg. one combat equipment that must be transported, because a warrior wears armor only before a battle, a horse is needed to transport his belongings, provisions and fodder for horses, a horse is needed to move to the battlefield, and if it is a mounted warrior, then a war horse is also needed (it walks light so that it is always rested). We multiply all this by 10 thousand and we get a horde that eats up everything that it finds on its way. And 100 thousand is already an unthinkable mass of people and horses with carts of which it is simply necessary to move separately, because no road can pass such a mass.
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 13 December 2013 12: 08
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            Often people involved in the history of wars have no idea how 100 thousand troops might look like.

            I understand this very well, therefore, I say that for the Middle Ages, even the late, 100 thousand army is just a huge figure.
          2. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 13 December 2013 17: 27
            +2
            It is worth adding that when talking about belongings, one should not forget the level of technological effectiveness of all things of that time. For example, a tent for 2-3 people is never a 2-3-kilogram modern tent. And so about all things, from household, to clothes and weapons.
            I will correct it. Combat equipment from ~ 20 kg: protective (from 10 kg chain mail + helmet), cold (1-3 kg pole-saber-broads-maces, berdysh-axes, etc. + reserve), firearm with supplies for firing (up to 10 kg peepers-guns + gunpowder-bullets)
            And all this was transported not on 20-40 ton modern trucks.
            As you rightly said, canned goods have not yet been invented at that time.
          3. smile
            smile 13 December 2013 19: 46
            +1
            Nayhas
            That's right ... but tell me, how did Napoleon invade us with an invasion army of 650? I agree that the horses became different, but they remained horses, and the equipment did not decrease, but the carts also increased, and yet ...
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 13 December 2013 20: 29
              0
              Quote: smile
              That's right ... but tell me, how did Napoleon invade us with an invasion army of 650?

              So how did Napoleon’s army end? Horses were eaten, the army died without supplies. But the level of logistics under Napoleon was two orders of magnitude higher than under Daria.
              1. smile
                smile 13 December 2013 20: 42
                +3
                Setrac
                Well, do not you think that the invading army died and ate horses because it was so big? But did Napoleon doom an unprecedented army to destruction by stupidity by making it too big?
                I remember that he wanted to leave Moscow by another route - undisturbed, and had every chance ... but we didn’t give it ... and frolic into his frolics ....

                And for that matter, then Napoleon was invaded by the Allied armies with a total number of even more ... and nothing, no one ate horses and the logistics could do it ...

                In the end, remember the number of troops that came together at the Battle of the Peoples at Leipzig - they didn’t come there by train, but by legs, legs and horses .... something like Roman legionnaires. :))) there were only more luggage and there was a share of cavalry above ... well, or as Mamai came to us, he also had plenty of infantry ...
                1. Motors1991
                  Motors1991 13 December 2013 21: 18
                  +2
                  Napoleon’s army died for the simple reason that it turned into a gang of marauders, with all the ensuing consequences, when the little gold in your satchel becomes more expensive and stronger than any orders, when there is one goal to carry the loot quickly and away. All corps that operated separately from the Great The armies and combat readiness were preserved, in spite of the severe frosts, which also did not pass them by.
                  1. smile
                    smile 13 December 2013 22: 34
                    +1
                    Motors1991
                    Not without it, but you will probably agree. that besides self-decomposition and logistics flaws, there was another factor ... such a small one ... the Russian army is called, as well as the fact that we cut communications with it.
                2. Setrac
                  Setrac 13 December 2013 22: 30
                  0
                  Quote: smile
                  In the end, remember the number of troops that came together at the Battle of the Peoples at Leipzig

                  Leipzig is not Smolensk and the possibilities of Napoleon and his opponents are not comparable.
                  Quote: smile
                  Well, do not you think that the invading army died and ate horses because it was so big?

                  I think that Napoleon could not establish the supply of his army to the required extent. And his army perished in battles with the Russians.
                  1. smile
                    smile 14 December 2013 03: 13
                    +1
                    Setrac
                    That's right .... but the monstrous armies of the allies also walked on foot and on horseback ... like the ancient Romans ... :))) and the logistics were no different ... except that in the 19th century the carts were still bigger ....
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 14 December 2013 22: 39
                      0
                      Quote: smile
                      but the monstrous armies of the allies also walked on foot and on horseback ... like the ancient Romans ... :))) and the logistics were no different ... except that in the 19th century the carts were still bigger ....

                      However, people and horses were just like that.
                      With a vehicle of the "cart" type, the depth of operations is possible no more than 100-150 km. That is, having such a transport, the army cannot move further from its warehouses, ports or railway stations further than 100-150 km.
                      In addition, before the advent of railways, ships were the only type of strategic transport. And if at the time of Napoleon water transport was already relatively reliable, then at the time of Darius this mode of transport was VERY unreliable, not to mention the fact that the Greek fleet "in theory" dominated the sea. Most likely, this was the main reason for the defeat of the Persians.
                      1. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 16 December 2013 10: 39
                        +1
                        Most likely this was the main reason for the defeat of the Persians.

                        The main reason for the defeat of the Persians was not logistics. The resources of the Persian power were immeasurably greater than that of Alexander.
                        Management was also advanced. There were state roads. You can also recall, for example, that the ancient Persians created the regular state postal service. In a newer time, Russia inherited from its Tatar-Mongol yoke its full analogue, the Yamsky service.
                        So, the problem of the Persians was an incompetent leadership. Not even mediocre. This would cope with the problem purely at the expense of resources, taking it into thin air. Namely mediocre. Starting from Darius III himself and including most of his entourage.
                      2. Setrac
                        Setrac 16 December 2013 12: 32
                        0
                        Quote: abrakadabre
                        There were state roads.

                        Only there were no cars. How did he deliver these very resources? The cart, alas, is not a perpetual motion machine and also consumes resources, and at long distances (more than 150 km), transport such as a cart carries "resources" for itself, without doing any useful work.
                      3. Ratibor
                        Ratibor 16 December 2013 13: 27
                        +1
                        What a damned yoke dear
              2. stroporez
                stroporez 15 December 2013 17: 43
                +2
                Quote: smile
                And for that matter, then Napoleon was invaded by the Allied armies with a total number of even more ... and nothing, no one ate horses and the logistics could do it ...
                in in. in Spain, still remember the British looters ...... raged worse than the French
          4. Horde
            Horde 13 December 2013 20: 32
            -2
            Quote: smile
            That's right ... but tell me, how did Napoleon invade us with an invasion army of 650?


            How did the figure of 650000 soldiers form? Well, as usual ON PAPER! Let me remind you that until 1850, almost 100% of academicians from the time of Peter the Great were in the Russian Academy of Sciences.

            here you have a con that marvel ...
            Thoughtfully reading a set of shameless tales called "The History of Russia", in some cases you want to shout "The Author!", And in others - just look at him.

            Fortunately, reliable information about storytellers has been preserved.
            Now we will consistently list ALL HISTORIAN ACADEMICIANS of the Russian Academy of Sciences, both foreigners and domestic, from its founding in 1724 until 1918.

            For each academician, the year of election is indicated.

            1) Kohl Peter or Johann Peter (Kohl Johann Peter), 1725,
            2) Miller or Muller Fedor Ivanovich or Gerard Friedrich (Mu »ller Gerard Friedrich), 1725,
            3) Bayer Gottlieb or Theophil Siegfried (Bayer Gottlieb or Theophil Siegfried), 1725,
            4) Fischer Johann Eberhard (Fischer Johann Eberhard), 1732,
            5) Cramer Adolf Bernhard, 1732,
            6) Lotter Johann Georg (Lotter Johann Georg), 1733,
            7) Leroy Louis or Pierre-Louis (Le Roy Pierre-Louis), 1735,
            8) Merling Georg (Moerling or Mo »rling Georg), 1736,
            9) Brem or Brahme Johann Friedrich (Brehm or Brehme Johann Friedrich), 1737,
            10) Taubert Ivan Ivanovich or Johann Caspar (Taubert Johann Caspar), 1738,
            11) Crusius Christian Gottfried, 1740,
            * 12) Lomonosov Mikhail Vasilievich, 1742,
            13) Moderach Karl Friedrich (Moderach Karl Friedrich), 1749,
            14) Schlozer August Ludwig (Schlo »zer Auguste Ludwig), 1762,
            15) Stritter or Stritter Ivan Mikhailovich or Johann Gotthilf (Stritter Johann Gotthilf), 1779,
            16) Hackmann Johann Friedrich (Hackmann Johann Friedrich), 1782,
            17) Busse Fomich or Johann Heinrich (Busse Johann Heinrich), 1795,
            18) Vauvilliers Jean-Francois, 1798,
            19) Klaprot Heinrich Julius or Julius (Klaproth Heinrich Julius), 1804,
            20) Herman Karl Fedorovich or Karl Gotlob Melchior or Karl Theodore (Hermann Karl Gottlob Melchior or Karl Theodore), 1805,
            21) Circle Philip Ivanovich or Johann Philipp (Krug Johann Philipp), 1805,
            22) Lerberg August or Aaron Christian (Lehrberg August Christian), 1807,
            23) Köhler Egor Egorovich or Heinrich Karl Ernst (Ko »ler Heinrich Karl Ernst), 1817,
            24) Fren Christian Danilovich or Christian Martin (Fra »hn Christian Martin), 1817,
            * 25) Yartsov Yanuari Osipovich, 1818,
            26) Grefe Fyodor Bogdanovich or Christian Friedrich (Gra »fe Christian Friedrich), 1820,
            27) Schmidt Jacob Ivanovich or Isaac Jacob (Schmidt Isaac Jacob), 1829,
            28) Schengen Andrei Mikhailovich or Johann Andreas (Sjo »rgen Johann Andreas), 1829,
            29) Sharmua Franz Frantsevich or Francois-Bernard (Charmoy Francois-Bernard), 1832,
            30) Fleischer Heinrich Lebrecht (Fleischer Heinrich Lebrecht), 1835,
            31) Lenz Robert Christianovich (Lenz Robert Christian), 1835,
            32) Brosset Mari Ivanovich or Marie-Felicite (Brosset Marie-Felicite '), 1836,
            * 33) Ustryalov Nikolay Gerasimovich, 1837,
            34) Dorn Boris Andreevich or Johann Albrecht Bernhard (Dorn Johann Albrecht Bernhard), 1839.
          5. Horde
            Horde 13 December 2013 20: 34
            +1
            and continued

            Then the crucial elections of 1841 take place, starting from which at last domestic academic historians began to appear in a noticeable amount (but it was already too late):
            * 35) Arsenyev Konstantin Ivanovich, 1841,
            * 36) Berednikov Yakov Ivanovich, 1841,
            * 37) Borisov Ivan Alekseevich (Archbishop Innocent), 1841,
            * 38) Butkov Petr Grigorievich, 1841,
            * 39) Kachenovsky Mikhail Trofimovich, 1841,
            * 40) Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich, 1841,
            * 41) Stroyev Pavel Mikhailovich, 1841,
            42) Betlingk Otton or Otto Nikolaevich von (Bo »ehtlingk Otto von), 1842,
            43) Kunik Arist Aristovich or Ernst Eduard (Kunik Ernst Eduard), 1844,
            * 44) Korkunov Mikhail Andreevich, 1847,
            * 45) Kovalevsky Joseph or Osip Mikhailovich, 1847,
            46) Stephani Ludolph Eduardovich (Stephani Ludolph Eduard), 1850,
            47) Schifner Anton Antonovich or Franz Anton (Schiefner Franz Anton), 1852,
            48) Krehl Ludolf Adolf Christoph Erenfeld, 1855,
            * 49) Velyaminov-Zernov Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1858,
            50) Science August Karlovich or Johann August (Nauk Johann August), 1858,
            * 51) Pekarsky Petr Petrovich, 1863,
            * 52) Bychkov Afanasy Fedorovich, 1866,
            * 53) Soloviev Sergey Mikhailovich, 1872,
            * 54) Sukhomlinov Mikhail Ivanovich, 1872,
            55) Rosen Victor Romanovich, 1879,
            * 56) Kachalov Nikolay Vasilievich, 1883,
            * 57) Vasilyev Vasily Pavlovich, 1886,
            58) Zeleman Karl Germanovich or Carl Gustav Hermann (Salemann Carl Gustav Hermann), 1886,
            * 59) Dubrovin Nikolay Fedorovich, 1887,
            * 60) Nikitin Pyotr Vasilyevich, 1888,
            * 61) Maykov Leonid Nikolaevich, 1889,
            * 62) Vasilevsky Vasily Grigorievich, 1890,
            * 63) Bestuzhev-Ryumin Konstantin Nikolaevich, 1890,
            * 64) Tikhonravov Nikolay Savvich, 1890,
            65) Ernstedt Victor Karlovich, 1893,
            * 66) Latyshev Vasily Vasilyevich, 1893,
            * 67) Shakhmatov Alexey Alexandrovich, 1894,
            * 68) Yanzhul Ivan Ivanovich, 1895,
            * 60) Kondakov Nikodim Pavlovich, 1898,
            * 61) Zhdanov Ivan Nikolaevich, 1899,
            * 62) Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich, 1899,
            63) Lamansky Vladimir Ivanovich, 1900,
            * 64) Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich, 1900,
            * 65) Assumption Fedor Ivanovich, 1900,
            * 66) Golubinsky Evgeny Evstigneevich, 1903,
            * 67) Dyakonov Mikhail Alexandrovich, 1905,
            * 68) Dashkevich Nikolay Pavlovich, 1907,
            * 69) Istrin Vasily Mikhailovich, 1907,
            * 70) Kotlyarevsky Nestor Alexandrovich, 1909,
            * 71) Vinogradov Pavel Gavrilovich, 1914,
            * 72) Ikonnikov Vladimir Stepanovich, 1914,
            * 73) Peretz Vladimir Nikolaevich, 1914,
            * 74) Kovalevsky Maxim Maksimovich, 1914,
            * 75) Nikolsky Nikolai Konstantinovich, 1916,
            * 76) Palmov Ivan Savich, 1916,
            * 77) Rostovtsev Mikhail Ivanovich, 1917.
          6. Horde
            Horde 13 December 2013 20: 36
            +5
            and further

            This is followed by the post-revolutionary elections of 1918, in which we interrupt this list of academic historians.


            CONCLUSIONS.

            FOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS, THE NUMBER OF HISTORIANS OF FOREIGNERS ALMOST DOES NOT DIFFERENCE FROM A 100 PERCENT VALUE. For 117 years (more than a century!) In the Russian Academy of Sciences, from its founding in 1724 to 1841, THREE FOUR HISTORICAL ACADEMICIANS HAVE ALL THOUGHT THREE RUSSIAN ACADEMICIANS.

            This is M.V. Lomonosov, Ya.O. Yartsov and N.G. Ustryalov. ALL THE OTHER THIRTY ONE ACADEMICIANS WERE FOREIGNERS.

            Thus, up to the middle of the XNUMXth century, the share of foreign historians exceeded NINety percent in the Russian Academy!

            It turns out that for over a hundred years, foreigners have completely controlled the entire process of writing Russian history. It was the foreigners who uncontrollably decided which old Russian documents should be destroyed, which ones to rewrite, which ones to keep, which ones to falsify.

            As we can see, domestic historians were roughly exposed at the door, completely removed from the domestic archives and primary sources.

            Do you still believe that we have a true story ???
            Post has been editedHrolv Ganger: Today, 14:59
            The world belongs to
            who is braver and stronger
            http://istclub.ru/topic/1470-%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0

            %B8-%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0

            %B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%

            B8-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA/

            well said, HISTORICAL TRUTH IS NOT AND CAN'T BE ...
            1. smile
              smile 13 December 2013 22: 27
              +2
              Horde
              Thank you for not too lazy to write so much and the information for consideration has been accepted ... in general, the situation is familiar, but did not know the details ... And yet, even according to French data, the invasion army is really -600 -650 thousand (according to various sources). Of these, a little more than a quarter of the French. So you are wasting a stick on our Germans for nothing. :))) They did not come up with anything in this particular case. As for the pre-Christian period and the history of the Romanovs, this is another matter, yes there, they frolic with might and main.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 15
                +1
                And Borodino is about 150k on 150k with about 25-35% of those killed.
          7. Bagatur
            Bagatur 13 December 2013 22: 27
            +3
            In the 16th century there is no general military service, there is not even a recruit ... The most important thing is that the state is not capable of equipping and supporting such huge armies. For Napoleon the occupied Europe, for the Turks their empire but ... don’t have to forget that in the army there went only a muslimman.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 25
              +2
              But as for Muslims, I doubt very much that military service is the norm for vassals, that is, they all sent people. In general, history repeats itself, if during a certain period a Great Empire is formed, it can concentrate resources for huge armies and wage wars for years, the Great Empire collapses and constant wars of small armies begin around. After the collapse of the Union, this process is also visible, a lot of local wars, but there are no strong armies in the world except the United States. In Bulgaria you had an army of about 1% of the population, now there are half as much left. The Bundeswehr is now a natural kindergarten, and some in Europe already have no tanks.
              1. Bagatur
                Bagatur 15 December 2013 17: 38
                0
                In the XNUMXth century, one Horde was a full-fledged Vasal giving military contingents! In the Balkans, all Christians-paradise, they were not taken, the war is the privilege of the musulman! Byly so-called. warriors-Christians serving in the wagon train and all!
            2. smile
              smile 14 December 2013 02: 50
              +2
              Bagatur
              That's right, it is. BUT...
              The population of the Ottoman Empire by the middle of the 16th century was 15 million people ..... what do you think, how much could they put up soldiers? It is clear that, in contrast to the end of the 19th and 20th centuries, not everyone was taken into the war .... not 20 percent of the population (as during mobilization in the 20th century), but even one percent of the Ottoman Empire’s population was 150 thousand people ... and if they could call for short-term war 5 percent?

              And about Yeni Chery, you are right, there weren’t so many of them ... for such an empire .... but, nevertheless, it really was at that time one of the most combat-ready warriors in the world ..... .and the Anatolian cavalry, the author also not in vain mentioned, it was a very serious opponent ....

              By the way, when Napoleon attacked us, the population of France alone was over 35 million people ... .... we were about 24 million ... and we still fought with Persia and just ended the next war with Turkey .... Consider yourself ... who and where was more ... by the way, at that time we did not call on Muslims either - all recruits beat only Russians - we did not call up the rest until the beginning of the 20th century ... but we accepted Muslims into police volunteer groups ... and they walked the same .... :))))
              1. Bagatur
                Bagatur 15 December 2013 17: 34
                +4
                I gave a few examples ... Mohach 1526-Madar 30, Osman-000, siege of Malta-80 Turks, siege of Vienna 000-40 (this is the largest number we know) ... Poles here are very bragging Vedas Sobiesi has only 000, but the Allies do not always write about another 1683. The fact that there is one potential, but not always possible, puts all men under arms. The Vedas, the empire is huge, we must think about other things. The colossal part of the Ottoman archive is in our place in Sofia! And there it is clearly visible that every year the spaghetti was changed .. I did not always go to war every time. There is something else, not all Musulman fell under military duty in the 250th-000th centuries. Only after the destruction of the Enichari corps did military reform Sultan Mahmud II in 27 create a regular army of the European standard! This is 000 years before the reform of Milyutin and that is why the war for us in 50-000 was so difficult for Russia!
          8. EvilLion
            EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 11
            0
            And so it went, devouring everything, it was good that summer was there, recently there was an article here, how the Napoleonic wars ended, so that only a mass of soldiers who need to annoy less French bread and girls.
        4. stroporez
          stroporez 15 December 2013 17: 38
          0
          even at the present time, providing 10 grouping is far from an easy intendan task. plus logistics issues. Again - okay people, these shoo will "zhaomyachat". horses are another matter entirely. you can't slip them bullshit. so when you read modern "issledovyuk" about 000 horse hordes, one gets the impression that they saw the current in the picture ..........
  • user
    user 13 December 2013 13: 33
    0
    Jurkovs (1) RU Today, 09:41 AM

    You can’t deal with history in the fantasy style, so damn those that can be piled up. In the interval between the tumens of Genghis Khan and the "big battalions" of Napoleon, 100 thousand armies could not form any state, this has long been proven.

    Well this is not entirely true.
    Remember the battle of Alexander the Great with Darius. What size was the army of the Persians?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 13 December 2013 15: 14
      +2
      Quote: user
      Remember the battle of Alexander the Great with Darius. What size was the army of the Persians?

      Well, if you accept the assumption that this is not an invention of historians, then still the power of the Persian army is exaggerated by ten, but most likely by a hundred times.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 13 December 2013 17: 36
      0
      In the interim between the tumens of Genghis Khan and the "big battalions" of Napoleon, 100 thousand armies could not form a single state, it has long been proven.

      Well this is not entirely true.
      Remember the battle of Alexander the Great with Darius. What size was the army of the Persians?

      How did the statements in two adjacent paragraphs coexist?
      I can tell you that:
      1. The newsreels of that time did not survive, as did the roll-call lists of the personnel of the army of Darius. Therefore, it is not worth being overly carried away by the strength of his army. Logistics, both under Napoleon and under Daria, was a problem.
      2. Persia at that time was a very large and developed state.
      3. Unlike the Macedonian, Napoleon and Genghis Khan, she fought on her territory with an established rear behind her, not ruined.
      4. The exceptional non-ordinary power of this army did not arouse and does not raise doubts among any of the historians, as did the complete commander’s mediocrity and personal cowardice of Darius III
  • Kolovrat77
    Kolovrat77 13 December 2013 09: 49
    +9
    The main feature of Ivan the Terrible is his manic passion for firearms. For the first time in the Russian army, detachments armed with peelers appear - archers, which gradually become the backbone of the army, taking away this rank from local cavalry. Cannon courtyards appear all over the country, on which more and more new barrels are cast, fortresses are being rebuilt for a fiery battle - they straighten the walls, set mattresses and large-caliber food in the towers. The king, in all ways, stockpiles gunpowder: he buys and places powder mills; he has besieged cities and monasteries with salt work. Sometimes this leads to awesome fires, but Ivan IV is inexorable: gunpowder, gunpowder as much as possible!

    This is an investment in the military-industrial complex.
    1. Motors1991
      Motors1991 13 December 2013 21: 11
      +1
      Until the time of Peter the Great, the shock of the Russian army was the noble cavalry, although its role was reduced during the 16-17th centuries. The Strelets army could not maneuver on the battlefield, i.e. it held the position and held it, creating the preconditions for a cavalry strike. Ivan the Third created the Russian artillery, it was he who invited Fiorovanti from Italy, who actually organized the casting of guns in Moscow, and before that the first-class artillery was in the Tver Principality, under Mikhail the Terrible Eyes.
    2. stroporez
      stroporez 15 December 2013 17: 54
      0
      I read that at the time of Ivan Vasilyevich, the Russian artillery park was the most powerful and high-quality in the world, and about the "Aspid" -type guns - in Europe, legends were made ..........
  • maratenok
    maratenok 13 December 2013 09: 54
    +8
    very interesting and informative article
  • Altona
    Altona 13 December 2013 09: 57
    13
    It was written interestingly, the main thing is that it was written truthfully about the Ottoman Empire, and many believe that the Turks were backward, and they were, on the contrary, largely advanced for that time ...
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 13 December 2013 10: 14
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      many believe that the Turks were backward, and they were, on the contrary, largely advanced for that time ...

      16th century - the heyday of the power of the Ottoman Empire. I have never met to be called backward.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 30
        0
        And in the 18 century, they were all mostly beaten.
    2. vezunchik
      vezunchik 13 December 2013 10: 20
      +4
      therefore, they dominated the world at that time. it’s only bad that modern descendants wanted to repeat the success of their ancestors, forgetting that they are very far from them. Turkey has risen over the past 20 years only thanks to our tourists and shuttles ...
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Prohor
    Prohor 13 December 2013 10: 06
    +7
    Quote: Basileus
    Well, yes, the criticism is well-founded, but it’s also not worthwhile to portray the Romanov’s board in black colors.

    You, dear, maybe you will be from counts and princes, and here we are from peasants, alas ... And my ancestors were sold like cattle, you know, under the Romanovs, and you will not cover up this blatantly vile fact with any white paint.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 13 December 2013 12: 40
      +2
      I still remember that during the reign of Ivan the Terrible in the Code of Laws, a special article confirmed the "rule of St. George's Day"
    2. Basileus
      Basileus 13 December 2013 14: 51
      +1
      No, of the same.

      There are interests of people and interests of the state. In our country, the second has always been above the first, and this would not depend on the ruling dynasty. But this does not mean that the country under the Romanovs lost everything and gained nothing. If you think so, then lie to yourself.
  • 3935333
    3935333 13 December 2013 10: 21
    +5
    Great King! Great Country!
  • Prometey
    Prometey 13 December 2013 10: 27
    -8
    Firstly, the Turks were not "dirty." Unlike Europeans, in those days unfamiliar even with the basics of personal hygiene
    By the way, I did not immediately pay attention. Gentlemen, are you tired of grinding the same myth of unscrupulous Europe? Well, medieval people could not take a shower every day as we are now, there was simply no physical opportunity. And there were no toothpastes and deodorants. But they washed and washed clothes. A man cannot not wash himself - this is unnatural for him (well, they come across now, but they are few). Public baths began to open in European cities as early as the 14th century. And sorry, for the details, women could always find 2 buckets of water for personal hygiene winked
    1. GDP
      GDP 13 December 2013 10: 40
      12
      But this is not true. Of course they could find a bucket of water. But firewood in Europe was much more expensive than in Russia. That is why in Europe, wooden houses - cheap and easy to build were so rare. In addition, it was simply not accepted there to wash so often as in Russia or Muslim countries. Information about unsanitary conditions in Europe in the Middle Ages is confirmed by many historical documents.
      Even now, the average European is washing much less often than the average Russian - a very high cost for water and gas.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 13 December 2013 10: 53
        -10 qualifying.
        Quote: GDP
        Information about unsanitary conditions in Europe in the Middle Ages is confirmed by many historical documents.

        It is not confirmed, only by fragmentary information, that this or that ruler was unscrupulous. And his habits are carried over to the entire population.
        Quote: GDP
        In addition, it was simply not accepted there to wash so often as in Russia

        How often is it? Do you have any specific information?
        Quote: GDP
        Even now, the average European is washing much less frequently than the average Russian

        The fact that they save on washing dishes is a fact, but hygiene is a fantasy.
        1. GDP
          GDP 13 December 2013 11: 43
          14
          Quote: GDP
          Information about unsanitary conditions in Europe in the Middle Ages is confirmed by many historical documents.

          It is not confirmed, only by fragmentary information, that this or that ruler was unscrupulous. And his habits are carried over to the entire population.
          Quote: GDP
          In addition, it was simply not accepted there to wash so often as in Russia

          How often is it? Do you have any specific information?
          Quote: GDP
          Even now, the average European is washing much less frequently than the average Russian

          The fact that they save on washing dishes is a fact, but hygiene is a fantasy.

          1. Queen of Spain Isabella of Castile (end of the 15th century) admitted that she only washed twice in her entire life - at birth and on the day of the wedding.
          The daughter of one of the French kings died from lice. Pope Clement V dies from dysentery, and Pope Clement VII painfully dies from scabies (like King Philip II). The Duke of Norfolk refused to wash himself out of religious conviction. His body was covered with ulcers. Then the servants waited for his lordship to get drunk dead drunk, and barely washed it.

          Russian ambassadors at the court of the French king Louis XIV wrote that their majesty "stinks like a wild beast."
          The Russians themselves throughout Europe were considered perverts because they went to the bathhouse once a month or more - ugly often ...

          If in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries wealthy citizens washed themselves at least once every six months, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they generally stopped taking a bath. True, sometimes I had to use it - but only for medicinal purposes. They carefully prepared for the procedure and put an enema on the eve. The French king Louis XIV washed only twice in his life - and then on the advice of doctors. The washing made the monarch so terrified that he had sworn never to accept water procedures.

          In those troubled Christian times, body care was considered a sin.
          Christian preachers urged people to walk literally in rags and never wash themselves, since this was the way in which spiritual purification could be achieved.
          One could not wash oneself also because in this way it was possible to wash off the "holy" water that he touched during baptism.

          2. In the tale of bygone years (1110-s), a story about the Slavic bath is enclosed in the mouth of the Apostle Andrew:

          And he came to the Slavs, where Novgorod now stands, and saw the people living there - what was their custom and how they were washed and whipped, and he was surprised by them. And he went to the country of the Varangians, and came to Rome, and told how he taught and what he saw, and said: “I saw marvelous in the Slavic land on my way here. I saw wooden baths, and they would be heated deeply, and they would undress and be naked, and they would pour over kvass with tannins, and take brooms and begin to tail themselves, and before that they would finish themselves up so that they could barely crawl out, a little alive, and pour water with gelatin, and only so they would come to life . And they do it all the time, but they’re not tormented by anyone, but they torture themselves, and they do their own washing, and not torment. ” Those who heard about it were surprised.

          3. When my friend, by the way, a purebred German came to live with relatives in Germany and began to take regular showers, as he used to do in Stavropol, relatives made a tantrum ...
          We have not adopted Henry! You know how much water costs in Germany, all the more hot! I heard similar stories from many of my friends who moved to Germany.
          They also don’t allow him to wash dishes
          - why do you leave the tap open, it must be closed all the time! do not pour so much water on the plates, just wipe them!
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 13 December 2013 12: 23
            -2
            Quote: GDP
            Queen of Spain Isabella of Castile (end of the XNUMXth century) admitted that she only washed twice in her entire life - at birth and on the day of the wedding.

            The same thing is written about the English Queen Elizabeth Tudor. So who is the truth about?
            All these stories have taken place. But they did not wash in the modern sense of the word. Elementary body hygiene was respected anyway. Louis XIV suffered from gingivitis, which is why he stole so.
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 13 December 2013 17: 54
              +5
              Funnily enough, your opponent is right. The situation in Europe slipped into this disgrace gradually. Europe inherited a developed bathing and hygienic culture from the Roman Empire. But the Catholic paranoia about sinfulness and the prodigal seduction, multiplied by the total decline of general education after the era of Charlemagne, led to the above.
              Read why the nobles of Europe of the late Middle Ages and the beginning of the New Age:
              - flea trap;
              - excessive use of cosmetics;
              - perfume ...
              And this is the upper class. The poor could not afford even that.
              According to Indian sources, the first Europeans who arrived in India and got to official receptions with local rulers made an impression on the eastern courtyards of withered, smelly ragged men.
            2. Motors1991
              Motors1991 13 December 2013 20: 59
              +2
              You can add to this list Elizabeth Petrovna, she washed twice a year.
          2. aleksandrs95
            aleksandrs95 13 December 2013 22: 47
            0
            you need to save water by buying expensive plumbing. Counters and the like are normal. They take showers for reasons of economy comparing with the bath. Wash dishes in a dishwasher, it also saves. Water is a little expensive unfortunately. I’m from Latvia.
          3. poquello
            poquello 14 December 2013 00: 19
            +3
            Quote: GDP

            3. When my friend, by the way, a purebred German came to live with relatives in Germany and began to take regular showers, as he used to do in Stavropol, relatives made a tantrum ...
            We have not adopted Henry! You know how much water costs in Germany, all the more hot! I heard similar stories from many of my friends who moved to Germany.
            They also don’t allow him to wash dishes
            - why do you leave the tap open, it must be closed all the time! do not pour so much water on the plates, just wipe them!

            The gags in the shells are wild. Civilization, damn it! Chur Russia from this!
          4. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 19 December 2013 18: 00
            0
            Quote: GDP
            do not pour so much water on the plates, just wipe them!

            It seems the Germans do not know that there are dishwashers. And there are also wells
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 32
          0
          Well, if the king is lousy, then what should I expect from the peasants?
      2. CALL.
        CALL. 13 December 2013 17: 20
        +2
        It is even confirmed by paintings by artists. Sometimes the ladies were portrayed with lively dogs, sometimes with ermines. The ladies kept them so that they could catch fleas.
      3. Motors1991
        Motors1991 13 December 2013 21: 01
        0
        The Electors of Brandenburg (I don’t know for the rest) forbade building wooden houses on the site of the burned-out houses, only stone ones. Not everything is so intended.
    2. 416sd
      416sd 13 December 2013 11: 01
      +3
      Not tired, read the entries of European travelers of that period, comparing Europe with the Middle East.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 13 December 2013 17: 39
        +4
        Versailles moved many times because of the rush for curtains, which stink. It was normal for them to relieve themselves behind the curtain, and stomp on.
    3. mnn_13
      mnn_13 14 December 2013 02: 44
      0
      Do you know what was the average length of life in those days? Not more than 25 years old. Do you know what problems mass epidemics were in Europe and why? Read more before writing ...
  • DAGESTAN333
    DAGESTAN333 13 December 2013 10: 51
    +6
    God often swaps the oppressor nation and the oppressed nation. If some, for centuries burn others and take away women from them, then let them in the next centuries, prepare themselves for the same.
    1. Anatolich
      Anatolich 13 December 2013 14: 58
      0
      Magomed, whom do you mean? who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?
      1. DAGESTAN333
        DAGESTAN333 13 December 2013 16: 40
        +1
        Well, in this case, I meant the oppression of the Slavic tribes, with the subsequent revival. And so, it concerns all of course.
  • kair_kz
    kair_kz 13 December 2013 11: 27
    +1
    really learned a lot. more about such "forgotten pages of history"
  • Letterksi
    Letterksi 13 December 2013 11: 55
    +6
    It is written in the style of Medina. But that the whole Eurocentric story needs to be rewritten, that's for sure
  • Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 13 December 2013 12: 00
    +6
    I have known about this victory of Russian weapons for a long time. It has always been a mystery to me why a lot is written about the burning of Moscow Devlet Giray, and practically nothing is said about this victory.

    Thanks to the author of the article!

    Yes, I rephrase the words of the article:

    Victory was won by the right people, the right ruler.
  • Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 13 December 2013 12: 03
    +7
    By the way, Europeans believe that only Jan Sobesski with his hussars near Vienna stopped the Turkish threat.

    God be their judge.

    PS A wish to gayropean historians: so that their Turkish migrant workers in the gateway are "fried" by the crowd)))
  • Beck
    Beck 13 December 2013 12: 07
    +3
    Yes.

    The article is interesting, for the most part not biased, but in places falling to emotions. For example - bandits of Crimea. Military actions of that time like raids, raids, campaigns were the norm of behavior of those times and were not considered bandit. So we can call the capture of Kazan, and the Astrakhan campaign of the troops of Ivan the Terrible gangster. I think modern authors who describe history cannot be clothed with their personal emotional experiences in the form of a historical fact.

    Maybe someone will be interested, I will try to supplement the topic of the article with my modest knowledge.

    "Secondly, the Turks were true Muslims - that is, people who were initially confident in their spiritual superiority, and therefore extremely tolerant."

    The true Muslim of the Middle Ages was not extremely tolerant. Tolerance of the Turks comes from the customs and mentality of the Turks, and not from their religiosity. The Turks of Anatolia are descendants of the Seljuk Turks assimilated with the local population who came to Anatolia in the 10th century from their homeland - the south of Kazakhstan and the north of Uzbekistan, from the lower and middle reaches of the Syr and Amu-Darya. The Türks who initially worshiped the Eternal Blue Sky - Tengri were always tolerant, which was also reflected in Yasa, who worshiped Tengri, Genghis Khan. Yasa has a section dealing with crimes against religion. Such are recognized - Oppression of ANY OF THE CHURCHES AND Clergy EXISTING IN THE WORLD, INSURANCE OF THE RITUALISTIC CHARACTER. This is the basis of the tolerance of the Turks. And the word Turk itself is a Europeanized pronunciation of the word Turk. It was because of this section of Yasy that the Russian people retained their Orthodoxy, and the monastic lands were exempted from taxes, and Orthodox ministers received personal inviolability. And even when the khan of the Golden Horde, Uzbekistan adopted Islam in the state, it concerned only the nomadic population of the state, it did not concern Russian farmers of Christians.

    Now I would like to say a few words about the origin of Ivan the Terrible.
    1. Beck
      Beck 13 December 2013 13: 14
      10
      Quote: Beck
      Now I would like to say a few words about the origin of Ivan the Terrible.


      There is no doubt that Ivan the Terrible is a descendant of the glorious family of the Rurikovich. But there is one nuance that not all historians want to remember and definitely not all the patriots will accept.

      The pedigree of the Turks and many peoples of the world goes along the male line. But in modern times, we know that in any paternal son, half of the blood is maternal. And for modern genetics, both male and female lines are equally taken into account in origin.

      Beklyarbek Mamai, who fought for the Khan’s throne in the Golden Horde, had only an indirect right to occupy him. He was not a Chinggisid, but was married to the sister of Khan Berdibek and the daughter of Khan Dzhanibek. That is, both Berdibek and his sister were children of Janibek. And this means that the blood of the great Genghis Khan flowed in the veins of his wife Mamaia. When Mamai was defeated and was killed in the Cafe, his sons moved somewhere in the territory of modern north-western Ukraine.

      In 1399, the largest battle of the Middle Ages took place on the Vorskla River. Prince of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Vytautas claimed hegemony in Eastern Europe. By this time, he influenced the West Russian lands, Ukraine, Belarus. Now he demanded Temir-Kutlug Muscovy from the Khan of the Golden Horde. And it would not be known whether Russia would remain Orthodox or become the Catholic concession of Temir-Kutlug to Vitovt's demand. Temir-Kutlug refused. The Lithuanian prince led Lithuanian, Western Russian troops with the participation of the cavalry of the Polish gentry, the heavy infantry of the Teutonic Order, the soldiers of the Principality of Moldova, the nukers of the disgraced Khan Tokhtamysh, went on a campaign. On the River Worksle, on August 12, Temir-Kutlug and Amir Edigey met him with his Golden Horde army. Vytautas army was crushed to pieces. About 50 Lithuanian-Western-Russian princes died. Among them, the hero of the Battle of Kulikovo, Prince Bobrok of Volyn.

      Vitovt himself fleeing alone in a dense forest. And here he met the younger Mamai, the son of the beclarbek Mamai. Vytautas asked to be taken out of the forest, promising for this a princely title. Mom satisfied the request. Vytautas kept his word. He gave Mamai the Glinnoe patrimony and awarded Mamai the title of Prince Glinsky. In the Cell Book and the Synodal List, the Glinsky family is traced from the temnik of Mamai, whose son left the Crimea after the murder of his father. Much later, the Glinsky family moved to Moscow.

      In 1526, the young princess Elena Glinskaya became the second wife of the Moscow Prince Vasily. And in 1530 gives birth to the prince the son of John 4, and Russia and history gives the first Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

      Thus, in Ivan the Terrible, the blood of two great dynasties of Eurasia was mixed. The blood of Prince Rurik and the blood of the shock of the universe, Genghis Khan.

      YES. WHICH ONLY ZIGZAGI DOESN'T PERFORM HISTORY.
      1. atalef
        atalef 13 December 2013 13: 24
        +5
        Quote: Beck
        Thus, in Ivan the Terrible, the blood of two great dynasties of Eurasia was mixed. The blood of Prince Rurik and the blood of the shock of the universe, Genghis Khan.

        YES. WHICH ONLY ZIGZAGI DOESN'T PERFORM HISTORY.

        Thanks so much for the material. hi
        1. Beck
          Beck 13 December 2013 13: 40
          +3
          Quote: atalef
          Thanks so much for the material.


          Appreciate thanks and thank you. hi
          1. Kolovrat77
            Kolovrat77 13 December 2013 14: 20
            +1
            Three in it was the blood of three great genera.
      2. Anatolich
        Anatolich 13 December 2013 15: 07
        +2
        I’m wondering where did you get the information, and then it turns out that Alexander the Great was also the ancestor of Grozny
        1. Beck
          Beck 13 December 2013 17: 58
          +5
          Quote: Anatolich
          I’m wondering where did you get the information, and then it turns out that Alexander the Great was also the ancestor of Grozny


          If this is for me, then do not be ironic. Or do you think that I myself composed these fragments of history and date?

          I can’t answer in the modern way. That is, provide a link. I am an old man and all these Internet bells and whistles are not for me. And I took information from various historical sources, read at different times, then when the Internet was not there. And I can’t remember exactly the names of historical works and the names of historians now. But the basis was the work of Gumilyov.

          If, what, you can take dates, event names, names from my comments and drive them into wikis or other sites. I assure you, my komenty will not contradict historical facts. I simply summarized these facts and drew my conclusions.
          1. Kir
            Kir 17 December 2013 18: 44
            0
            That's just Gumilyov Not a historian. and with regards to the Internet, with all my respect for you, 100% hit, lies only multiply from year to year. And yet historians themselves recognize the fact that until the 18th century, history as a science in the modern sense of the word, as well as philosophy, didn’t exist.
            1. Beck
              Beck 17 December 2013 20: 39
              0
              Somehow everything is vague and indefinite.

              Quote: Kir
              That's just Gumilyov Not a historian.


              Well, this is personally your emotional statement. As in the heat of the moment, you can tell a pilot - you are not a pilot, a doctor - you are not a doctor, etc. Gumilyov is an ethnologist-historian, orientalist, doctor of historical and geographical sciences.

              Quote: Kir
              And yet, historians themselves recognize the fact that until the 18th century, history as a science in the modern sense of the word, as well as philosophy, didn’t exist.


              And what to do with the father of the history of Herodotus. And the founders of the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Again your emotions.

              Course history and philosophy in modern sense in ancient and middle ages was not. As it was not in modern sense earlier medicine, engineering, geography. So there is no stagnation in science, everything is developing. And tomorrow science will not be like it is today.
              1. Kir
                Kir 17 December 2013 21: 21
                0
                With regards to Gumilev and so on, not from me, so these questions are to those who said this, this is one other thing. You probably know that then under Herodotus and later, it was not considered shameful if it was appropriate to add a phrase, etc. , see "The History of Rome from the Founding of the City" by Titus Livy, in the same place it is clearly indicated by those who prepared the publication.
                About philosophy, this means what is called the Classical founders of which the Germans were, that's all.
      3. smile
        smile 13 December 2013 20: 23
        +2
        Beck
        Do not slander the cheers-patriots. :)))) The fact that Mamai’s blood was flowing in the veins of Grozny was normal and I did not doubt it - in fact, no one hid it. I did not know only about the details.
        The only thing is that the story seems too beautiful - in the spirit of knightly ballads of that time. Maybe everything was simpler? I doubt that the descendants of Mamaia were peasants or hunted in the forest. The aristocrat is an aristocrat - and it doesn’t matter, the Horde or the European.
        I suppose they just provided some help, for example, during the flight of Vytautas .... but not so that by chance in the woods a lonely wandering Vytautas met Mamaisky hermits .... such people rarely run alone ... And then the chroniclers created a beautiful story based on real events.
        1. Beck
          Beck 13 December 2013 21: 00
          +3
          Quote: smile
          Do not slander patriots .:


          And what I was saying, I told the truth, as evidenced by the 6 pointless minuses of my two comments. Well, after all, the Great Tsar of Russia and with Basurman blood. And they don’t understand that the mixture of Rurik and Chinggis’s blood only magnifies Ivan the Terrible.

          Quote: smile
          The fact that the blood of Mamai flowed in the veins of Grozny I knew


          You are absolutely not everything. You are absolutely not the majority. You are not even a minority. You are among the few. And I suspect that you knew that Mamai’s blood was flowing in Ivan’s veins, but I suppose you didn’t know who his wife was and whose blood was flowing in her veins, which she had passed on to Ivan the Terrible through generations.

          Quote: smile
          The only thing is that the story seems too beautiful - in the spirit of knightly ballads of that time


          About the forest, about the meeting is the plot of Gumilyov. I have no reason not to trust him. But even if there was no forest. There was a battle at Worksle. There was an escape of Vytautas, and in this escape and subsequent salvation, some role was played by the son of Mamaia. Otherwise, why should Vitovt give Mamaia a patrimony and assign him a princely title. According to Gumilyov, the Mamaia family just at that time existed by hunting. From Kafa they fled under the threat of death, which they could take with them.

          Quote: smile
          so that by chance in the forest a lonely wandering Vytautas met Mamaic hermits .... such people rarely run alone.


          Vytautas army was crushed to pieces. The scattered troops of the Golden Horde pursued and beat for 200 miles. I would stay here myself. Maybe there was a guard near Vytautas, but all were killed while pursuing, defending the prince. What such an option is not possible?
          1. smile
            smile 13 December 2013 23: 01
            0
            Beck
            Or maybe on the contrary, minus all the pros .... ntsy? :))) Yes, and if you add up - it turns out only 3 people ... :))))

            You said about me, "you didn't know who his wife is and whose blood flows in her veins, which she passed on to Ivan the Terrible through generations" - absolutely right - I didn't know.
            A knowledgeable men on the site is full. Often, it would seem that a completely stupid person knows something more than an order of magnitude more than you and me together. :)))

            Well, I completely agree with the rest - and indeed, I just suggested that I myself don’t know a damn thing about it. :)))
            1. Beck
              Beck 14 December 2013 10: 55
              +2
              Quote: smile
              Well, I completely agree with the rest - and indeed, I just suggested that I myself don’t know a damn thing about it.


              Well, then I will expand my comments a little. I wrote the upper ones concisely, you know, about the limitation of the volume of one comment.

              Towards the end of the 14th century, the Golden Horde fell into decay. In Eastern Europe, the ON became the hegemon, and by the end of the 14th century there was a peak in the political and territorial incitement of the ON. For complete dominance in Eastern Europe, Vytautas needed Muscovy, he already crushed the West-Russian lands for himself. Catholic Vytautas also enlisted the support of Catholicism - by this time a papal bull was issued against the Basurman-Golden Horde. Which in its essence was directed against the Orthodoxy of Muscovy. It was according to this bull that the gentry cavalry headed by Pan Shurkovsky and the heavy infantry of the Teutonic Order of the Grand Master Konrad von Yuningen joined Vitovt.

              In 1399, Vitovt presented the Khan Temir-Kutlug ultimaum - Give Muscovy to me, the Crimea Tokhtamyshu, you have enough of the Volga and the Caucasus. It was precisely in order to impart any legitimacy to his actions that Vitovt kept the disgraced Khan Tokhtamysh near him. Young Temir-Kutlug seeing such a combined army, and even hesitated with artillery. But Amir Ediguy arrived in time and the fluctuations of the khan ceased.

              The battle began in Vorskla. The troops under the command of Temir-Kutlug, tactically, fought defensively and slowly, but steadily retreated. The Edighean corps made a long, deep detour and hit the rear of Vitovt's troops, and Temir-Kutlug from defense went on a decisive attack. Vytautas’s army trembled at first, then mixed up and finally turned to a stampede. The Golden Horde troops pursued and beat them for 200 miles. The young and hot Temir-Kutlug leading the attack was injured, but did not leave the battlefield.

              This further expansion of the ON ended. From that moment on, it gradually began to decline. The Golden Horde at the last gasp of its existence reflected the Catholic expansion to the East.
              1. Beck
                Beck 14 December 2013 11: 40
                +1
                Quote: Beck
                This further expansion of the ON ended. From that moment on, it gradually began to decline. The Golden Horde at the last gasp of its existence reflected the Catholic expansion to the East.


                I will add. The Battle of the Worksle River in 1399 is an even more forgotten battle than the Battle of the Oka in 1572. And the meaning for Russia, Orthodoxy, in my opinion, it had the same, if not more.

                And I’ll add about Gumilyov. In fact, he is also a genghiside. His mother, the great poetess of Russia, Anna Akhmatova, from a noble family of mechanical engineer Gorenko. Her mother Stogova, by her origin, dates back to Khan Akhmat. That is why the young, beginning poetess Anna Gorenko took the pseudonym Akhmatova.

                The Khan is no longer the Golden Horde, but the Great Horde Akhmat. It was he who refused to pay the tax Moscow Prince Ivan 111. It was Akhmat who went to Moscow in 1480. And on the Ugra River the famous Standing of the troops of Akhmat and the Moscow troops of Ivan 111 took place. And it is not known what would have ended if the southern yurts of the Big Horde had not attacked at that time, by then independent of the Big Horde and ally of Ivan 111, the Crimean Khan Mengli - Kettlebell. For two days, Akhmat thought which enemy was more dangerous, in the end he turned his horses in the direction of Mengli Giray.

                Thus ended the 300-year yoke. Thus ended the Golden Horde for Russia.
                1. poquello
                  poquello 14 December 2013 13: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: Beck
                  It was Akhmat who went to Moscow in 1480. And on the Ugra River the famous Standing of the troops of Akhmat and the Moscow troops of Ivan 111 took place. And it is not known what would have ended if the southern yurts of the Big Horde had not attacked at that time, by then independent of the Big Horde and ally of Ivan 111, the Crimean Khan Mengli - Kettlebell. For two days, Akhmat thought which enemy was more dangerous, in the end he turned his horses in the direction of Mengli Giray.

                  What nafig standing? Akhmat could not cross the Ugra, they did not. Mengli-Giray attacked Lithuania, an ally of Akhmat, and Zvenigorodites and the Crimean prince went to the Horde bypassing. Akhmat did not think anything - time worked against him.
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 14 December 2013 14: 35
                    0
                    Quote: poquello
                    and Zvenigorodites and the Crimean prince went to the Horde.


                    It could have been mistaken that it wasn’t Mengu-Giray, but there was an attack on the southern yurts.

                    Quote: poquello
                    Akhmat did not think anything - time worked against him.


                    D ... he had cancer and he didn’t have a head. He didn’t know the other crossings, he didn’t know distracting maneuvers. What to take from the shepherd. On the other side of the enemy, the troops are standing, but he did not even try to attack - d ... cancer. Says they say they do not give a ferry. Yes, on the fig, he generally went on a hike.

                    And then how to interpret standing, everyone interprets in their own way.
                    1. poquello
                      poquello 14 December 2013 15: 34
                      +3
                      Quote: Beck

                      Quote: poquello
                      Akhmat did not think anything - time worked against him.


                      D ... he had cancer and he didn’t have a head. He didn’t know the other crossings, he didn’t know distracting maneuvers. What to take from the shepherd. On the other side of the enemy, the troops are standing, but he did not even try to attack - d ... cancer. Says they say they do not give a ferry. Yes, on the fig, he generally went on a hike.

                      And then how to interpret standing, everyone interprets in their own way.

                      He tried to cross, and in several places, everywhere they waited. IMHO for 100 years the army has changed, guns and squeaks brought tactics closer to modern, they were stupidly shot.
                      1. Beck
                        Beck 14 December 2013 15: 45
                        +1
                        Quote: poquello
                        He tried to cross, and in several places, everywhere they waited. IMHO for 100 years the army has changed, guns and squeaks brought tactics closer to modern, they were stupidly shot.


                        May be. I do not insist that the version I have presented is the only one. As I read once, I’m selling it.
                      2. Kolovrat77
                        Kolovrat77 15 December 2013 12: 42
                        +3
                        Dear Beck, judging by your comments, you thought that I was ironic, you didn’t doubtlessly doubt the blood of Genghis Khan for nothing, I wanted to draw your attention to the blood of the Paleologists, and turn the blood of the Byzantine Emperors at that time was no less important than the blood of the Ruriks and Genghisides. Good luck.
                      3. Beck
                        Beck 15 December 2013 15: 15
                        0
                        Quote: Kolovrat77
                        to the blood of the Paleologists, and turn at that time the blood of the Byzantine Emperors was no less important than the blood of the Ruriks and Genghisides. Good luck.


                        Now I understand. I knew, but somehow did not relate to this topic. Then all the more there was no more noble monarch in all world history except Ivan the Terrible.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 36
    0
    And where does the Russian?
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 16 December 2013 10: 50
    +1
    Secondly, the Turks were true Muslims - that is, people who were initially confident in their spiritual superiority, and therefore extremely tolerant

    In this context, we can add that modern Wahhabis are initially confident in their spiritual superiority, that they are atrocious in Syria, Libya, etc.
    The fanatics from the "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" are also sure of this. A large part of the Israeli population is no less stubborn in this matter. Crusaders and conquistadors, Nazis of Germany and fascists of Italy can also be attributed here. And many others. But their opponents did not and do not share this point of view of exclusivity. So this statement is very slippery.
  • AntonR7
    AntonR7 13 December 2013 12: 18
    +3
    I agree with the benefits that Ivan the Terrible brought and the fact that he is not appreciated. BUT ABSOLUTELY I disagree with the fact that the era of degradation began with the Romanovs, so that you have to be insane, that serfdom came and there were a lot of injustices, and that there was no injustice under Ivan the Terrible? at the tips? Now? There will always be minuses, but the Romanovs also made a positive contribution, they not only increased Russia, but also brought it into the category of great powers, and serfdom is an inevitable economic model at that time as slavery in the ancient world or in the same Europe (with serfdom in interleaving).
    1. user
      user 13 December 2013 13: 44
      +4
      Well, probably the author has his own attitude to the Romanovs, this is not good and not bad, this is just a personal look.
      But nevertheless (I mean the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century) how much we write about the Rurikovichs, I'm not talking about Ivan the Terrible, it's decent to write MOVETON about him.
      The article is definitely PLUS.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • vostok1982
    vostok1982 13 December 2013 12: 21
    +1
    If you remove the last few paragraphs, it will be great.
  • Poruchik 90
    Poruchik 90 13 December 2013 12: 30
    +3
    The victory is great. The correct tactics and underestimation of the enemy by Turks and Tatars played a very huge role. In general, the stars formed correctly !!!
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 13 December 2013 12: 59
    +5
    Article + an interesting excursion into history.
  • speron
    speron 13 December 2013 13: 44
    +2
    Article plus, interesting and offensive that history textbooks do not. I remember all the dogs were hanged on Alexei Tolstoy for a novel about Ivan the Terrible, they say he was spread under Stalin. A couple of years ago, the film "Tsar".
    And about the untreated Europe, I visited briefly in England and in the house where the team lived there were wonderful traditional washbasins, on the sides there were two taps with cold and hot water, to drain the cork on the chain. Do not want to wash your face with cold water, begin to refine yourself.
  • Our
    Our 13 December 2013 14: 25
    +1
    Yes, warlike people give birth to Great Sons.
  • Red_storm_101
    Red_storm_101 13 December 2013 15: 54
    +1
    Author Alexander Prokhorov is a wonderful writer. He has a series of books called Prince describing these events. Very interesting and informatively written. Who cares, be sure to read.
  • s9883300
    s9883300 13 December 2013 16: 03
    +2
    Great informative article.
  • Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 13 December 2013 16: 13
    +8
    By the way, it is clear why the Romanovs did not like, to put it mildly, Tsar Ivan.

    Clearly after Beck's comment.

    Ivan the Terrible is not just Rurikovich, but also Genghisid by blood.

    Maybe for this reason he managed to annex the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian Khanates - fragments of the great Ulus. Not just won, but had the right!
    1. Beck
      Beck 13 December 2013 17: 33
      +6
      Quote: Enot-poloskun
      Maybe for this reason he managed to annex the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian Khanates - fragments of the great Ulus. Not just won, but had the right!


      But it’s precisely noticed, I knew this fragment of history for a long time, but somehow I did not think about it.

      If not in a direct male line, then in a truly female line Ivan the Terrible Genghiside. And he had the rights to the fragments of Ulug Ulus (Great ulus) incomparably more legitimate than in the past the same rights for Mamaia and other, remaining by the middle of the 16th century in health, smaller representatives of the Chinggis branch.
      1. Booby
        Booby 14 December 2013 02: 02
        +1
        Terrible maternal descendant of Mamai (and Mamai is not Genghiside), and father - a descendant of Dmitry Donskoy. His ancestors in the Kulikovo field fought against each other.
        It was from such an explosive mixture that Ivan the Terrible appeared ...
        1. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 14 December 2013 02: 09
          0
          Quote: Bukh
          Terrible maternal descendant of Mamaia


          you d.rak ???
  • Gregazov
    Gregazov 13 December 2013 16: 49
    +2
    I want to add a little bit. The marriage of Vasily Ivanovich with Glinskaya occurred as a result of the childlessness of the previous marriage (more than 20 years). In a new marriage, a child is also born not immediately. It took four years. After which the sovereign dies, but somehow strange. Arsenic was found in his remains. He appoints his brothers as princes of the princes Belsky and Shuiskys, as well as the metropolitan. The brothers do not really recognize kinship, they put each other in prison in the struggle for power, and they solder the young Ivan. The metropolitan gets involved in politics, gets stuck in it and loses everything. Involuntarily begs a comparison with Metropolitan Alexy, who managed to educate Dmitry Donskoy and prevent strife.
    The above facts cast doubt on the belonging of Ivan the Terrible to the Ruriks, nevertheless for the common people in Russia there were two beloved rulers: Vladimir clearly the sun and Ivan the Terrible. It is this popular love that the False Dmitriy mercilessly exploited.
  • klim44
    klim44 13 December 2013 16: 52
    +5
    The end of the article is full annealing. "After him, the Romanov dynasty came to the throne - and they did their best to belittle the significance of everything done by the previous dynasty and discredit the greatest of its representatives."
    Ivan died in 1584, the Romanovs sat on the throne in 1613. A quarter of a century what happened in the country?
    Godunov, Shuisky, seven-boyars, Poles in the Kremlin, is not this what led to the degradation of the country. Ivan killed the heir, we won’t talk about little Dmitry, as a result, the country almost fell apart, probably due to degradation. I do not condone the Romanov clan, but in a historical article not to take into account 25 years of the country's history - very good. weird.
  • Hfmg
    Hfmg 13 December 2013 17: 08
    +1
    “Chosen One”, and not whether it is our thought, it would be nice to have a dozen goals *******.
  • Free Island
    Free Island 13 December 2013 17: 29
    -1
    many thanks to the author for enlightenment. I’m sure to tell this story to my son when he grows up so that he tells it to my grandchildren.
  • Bosk
    Bosk 13 December 2013 17: 33
    +2
    Here is a movie you need to shoot!
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 15 December 2013 18: 29
      0
      and who will allow him to shoot? if Grozny is shown as a statesman, and not a ghoul, then two "popandos" are obtained at once. 1-liberals will become mad from barking. 2-which of the leaders next to Grozny can become , for example, the territory --- which of them has increased even by a tiny fraction ??? from and it turns out sho THIS film about Ivan Vasilievich - neither the one nor the other is needed ..........
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 13 December 2013 17: 34
    +1
    so it was or not, but even in the current state no one will break the RA alone in an open war, but for now we have the RA and Russia.
  • moremansf
    moremansf 13 December 2013 17: 44
    +2
    Thanks to the author for an interesting fact of our history !!!! How much more we do not know about our country !!!! How many more white spots ??? A big plus for the article !!!
  • sashka
    sashka 13 December 2013 17: 45
    +1
    About 10 years ago, in some History magazine, I read the Chronicle about the Battle of the Russians with the Mongol-Tatars. So there, just to see the enemy, you first had to climb a hill of corpses. And after the battle, many crazy people wandered around such a sight, but we won.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 13 December 2013 17: 52
      0
      Quote: Sasha
      I read the Chronicle about the Battle of the Russians with the Mongol-Tatars. So there, just to see the enemy, you first had to climb a hill of corpses

      I wonder how that author would describe the battle of Borodino or Stalingrad?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 51
        +1
        Already described.
        "And prevented the nuclei from flying
        mountain of bloody bodies "
        1. stroporez
          stroporez 15 December 2013 18: 31
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          "And prevented the nuclei from flying
          mountain of bloody bodies "

          and this is --- not an allegory .........
  • Black
    Black 13 December 2013 17: 52
    +6
    That's what here (or there) they would not talk about the personal qualities of Ivan iv, just as they would not judge, they would say about addictions, minuses and pluses. one must be a fool, so as not to see the main thing, this is the greatest STATE !!!, LAND GATHER !!
    The boyars, who were blushing under the soft dark, Principality, living like God would put their hearts on, Novgorod, like a corrupt girl shaking her hem, putting trading profit above the state, Kazan dirty tricks on her side, Perm in paganism, Vogul free tribes behind the Stone .... Lithuania, Crimea ... The article quite unfairly describes how the Trans-Ural people (pooled, threw themselves on the neck of Russia !!! No matter how wrong !!)
    And all this is subjugated, united, put under the service of the White Stone !!! in one life !!! That's who needs to put a 50-meter monument in Moscow!
    ps How similar are the destinies of the state after the departure of the greats, Ivan and Stalin ... there is no receiver, A HEAVY HEAD !!! - A CROSS IS HEAVY STRONG !!! Great jerk !!! and ... collapse, almost death.
    1. Yura
      Yura 14 December 2013 09: 57
      0
      Quote: Chen
      behind the stone

      Plus for "Stone".
  • CALL.
    CALL. 13 December 2013 17: 53
    +6
    The war against Russia has been going on for a very long time and is very, very successful. Of course, not on the battlefields, where we have always beaten and are very painful, but where the West has always won and continues to win, in information wars. The main goal is to prove to the inhabitants of our country that they are stupid brainless, not even second-rate, but somewhere in the 6-7th category, without past and future. And I have already practically proved that even the authors of many patriotic articles agree completely and completely with this approach. Examples? You are welcome:
    Example 1: Recently we celebrated the 1000th anniversary of Russia. And when did she really appear?
    The first capital (only the capital of a large country!), The city of Slovensk, was founded in 2409 BC (3099 from the creation of the world). The source of information is the annals of the Kholopy Monastery on the Mologa River, the chronograph of academician M. N. Tikhomirov, Notes on Muscovy by S. Gerberstein, The Legend of Sloven and Rus, which is widely used and recorded by many ethnographers. Since it is believed that Novgorod was built on the site of Slovensk, I pestered the archaeologists leading the excavations, as far as plausible. Literally they answered me like this: “But hell knows. We already got to the Paleolithic sites there. ”
    Example 2: It is generally accepted that somewhere in the eighth century, wild, brainless and worthless Slavs wandering in the herds in the forests, called the Viking Rurik to him and said: “Own us, O great European superman, otherwise we, ourselves we can’t do anything. ” (free presentation of a textbook on history).
    In fact: Rurik is the grandson of the Novgorod prince Gostomysl, the son of his daughter Umila and one of the neighboring princes of a smaller rank. He was called up with his brothers, since all 4 sons of Gostomysl died and died in wars. He was accepted by agreement with the elders, and worked hard to earn respect in Russia. Source: Joachim Chronicle, Russian history according to Tatishchev, Brockhaus and Efron, etc.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. nerd.su
      nerd.su 14 December 2013 19: 11
      +1
      Quote: Z.O.V.
      Example 1: Recently we celebrated the 1000th anniversary of Russia. And when did she really appear?

      To be precise, the 1000th baptism of Rus was celebrated. Agree, these are two very different events.
      The legend of Slovenia and Rus, means. But what if it is an art book that is not well understood? Or do you refuse Russian literary talent? smile


      Quote: Z.O.V.
      Example 2: It is generally accepted that somewhere in the eighth century, wild, brainless and worthless Slavs wandering in the herds in the forests, called the Viking Rurik to him and said: “Own us, O great European superman, otherwise we, ourselves we can’t do anything. ” (free presentation of a textbook on history).

      Yoopt! So it’s exactly the same as euromaidan !!! Looking at modern Kiev - a very likely development of events! laughing
      Quote: Z.O.V.
      In fact: Rurik is the grandson of the Novgorod prince Gostomysl

      generally found out that Rurik is still muscall repeat

      I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t bother me at all that the history of Russia begins to be seen from the 9th century AD. It is clear that we did not come from nowhere. But to believe fairy tales invented on the knee - this is some kind of flaw.
    3. stroporez
      stroporez 15 December 2013 18: 36
      0
      I understand that Zadornov is not a historian, but he drew attention to an interesting detail ------ Rurik did not use interpreters. Chot to this fact Pts pay little attention, but it seems to me - this is very important ........
  • CALL.
    CALL. 13 December 2013 17: 54
    +6
    Example 3: The opinion is widely spread that the Roman Empire, a model of law and morality, was almost the only civilization of the past. In general, that the gladiatorial battles of Rome, that the modern indulgence of looters in Iraq - one field of berries. The moral of the Western world has not changed much and still causes disgust among “savages” like Russians, Chinese and Dagestanis. Official history: the great beautiful and powerful Roman civilization fell under the blows of stinky shaggy savages.
    In fact: geeks who had died out to everyone (like the Americans now) were sanitized by more respectable neighbors. Naked and bare-footed, poorly armed Roman infantry (open the textbook on the history of the ancient world and admire the legionnaires) was trampled in steel from the tops of the head to horse-drawn cataphractories. The main source of information is “CATAPHRACTARIES AND THEIR ROLE IN THE HISTORY OF MILITARY ARTS” A.M. Khazanova. (I don’t remember the rest, but those who wish can search by auto-search themselves. There is a lot of material - they just don’t let him go to schools. “Harmful.”)
    The most interesting - where did the Huns come from to “clean” Rome? Ob, Ugra, Volga, Urals, Priazovye ... Graves with partial armament of cataphracts were found in Dagestan.
    Have you been looking at the map for a long time, comrade patriots? So where did the Huns go to Rome? Why was “wild Russia” in Europe called Gardarik - the Country of Cities?
    Now it doesn’t matter - because we are celebrating 1000 years of Russia with joyful faces, we consider Rurik to be the boss who came from Norway, who founded Russia, and even seem to be proud of such a story.
    4 millennia were sent to the tail of the dog, impudently poached, as uninteresting - and not a single dog even blundered.
    1: 0 in favor of the West.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 December 2013 02: 55
      0
      Before the Western Roman Empire fell, it managed to bend down and kept at its maximum presence 25% of the population of the then world. And this maximum falls on the II century, that is, the state progressively progressed for about 1000 years.
    2. nerd.su
      nerd.su 14 December 2013 19: 55
      +1
      Quote: Z.O.V.
      Example 3: The opinion is widely spread that the Roman Empire, a model of law and morality, was almost the only civilization of the past.

      That you so simplistically understood the textbook of the history of the Ancient World. By the principle - the last of the read is most vividly remembered. Although the Roman Empire is indeed the lullaby of Western Europe. And Roman law underlies the legislation of half the world, if not most of it.
      Cataphractaria is a word of Greek origin. And here you have a simplified understanding. Heavy weapons do not yet make the rider cataphractic.

      Quote: Z.O.V.
      The most interesting - where did the Huns come from to “clean” Rome? Ob, Ugra, Volga region, Urals, Azov ...

      That is, you are not interested from where the Huns came to the Ob, the Volga region, the Urals, the Sea of ​​Azov? But in vain. After all, this is the same as declaring the Roman Empire as almost the only civilization. But as you know, in a stranger’s eye we’ll notice a speck, but in our own eyes we won’t even see the logs ...
      About your mistake with the 1000th baptism of Rus, I spoke above.

      Quote: Z.O.V.
      Millennia sent a dog down the drain, impudently poached, as uninteresting - and not a single dog even blundered.
      1: 0 in favor of the West.

      If you read a couple of books on very controversial issues of ancient history and they made a lasting impression on you, much more than a history textbook - this indicates your impressionability, poor ability to analyze and critical thinking. Read more, there are many more interesting books. But before you continue reading historical works, study the textbook on logic.
  • Rattenfanger
    Rattenfanger 13 December 2013 17: 54
    0
    The author delivered)))) Interesting thoughts are present, but in general, seams)
  • demotivator
    demotivator 13 December 2013 17: 55
    +7
    Back in March of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin approved the idea of ​​creating a textbook on the military history of Russia. It would seem that it is necessary to rejoice at the people dedicated, the people who possess information that is different from the one that you and I stuffed in schools and universities.
    However, this completely natural joy is immediately hindered by the realization that the very creation of such a textbook will again be in the hands of the retrogrades who regularly served and continue to serve the clerical versions of our past. In castrated history, there is no place not only for the Battle of Molodi. There are a lot of things that were not in the life of our country and our people. At school, they still tell how Russian blue-legged men cried and gave their girls into slavery - because, as they say, the herd is submissive. And you, their descendants, also penetrate this thought. Does anyone doubt the reality of the yoke? However, during the Tatar “yoke” the Russians went to the Tatars every 2-3 years, the shed was scorched dozens of times, the Tatars were sold to Europe in hundreds. What did the Tatars do in response? Wrote complaints! To Moscow, to Novgorod. Complaints preserved. The "enslavers" could not do anything else. A source of information on the mentioned trips - you will laugh, but this is a monograph of the Tatar historian Alfred Khasanovich Khalikov.
    In the 16th century, Ivan the Terrible came to power. During his reign in Russia. - A jury trial has been introduced. - Free primary education (church schools). - Medical quarantine at the borders. - Local elected self-government, instead of governor. - For the first time, a regular army appeared (and the first military uniform in the world - with archers). - Tatar raids stopped. - Equality is established between all segments of the population. Do you know that serfdom at that time in Russia did not exist at all? The peasant was obliged to sit on the ground until he paid for its rent, and nothing more. And his children were considered free from birth, in any case!
    - Slave labor is prohibited (source - Judicial Code of Ivan the Terrible). - The state monopoly on fur trade introduced by Grozny was canceled only 10 (ten!) Years ago.
    - The territory of the country is increased by 30 times! - the emigration of the population from Europe exceeded 30 families (those who settled along the Zasechnaya line were paid a surplus of 000 rubles per family. Account books were preserved).
    - The growth of the welfare of the population (and paid taxes) during the reign amounted to several thousand (!) Percent.
    - For the entire time of the reign there was not a single executed without trial and investigation, the total number of “repressed” ranged from three to four thousand. (And the times were dashing - remember the Bartholomew’s night in Europe).

    Now remember what you were told about Grozny at school? That he was a bloody tyrant and lost the Livonian war, and that Russia shook in horror?
    1. klim44
      klim44 13 December 2013 20: 04
      0
      One question. Why did all this splendor immediately sink into oblivion, as Ivan died?
      1. Horde
        Horde 13 December 2013 20: 44
        +3
        Quote: klim44
        One question. Why did all this splendor immediately sink into oblivion, as Ivan died?

        the story is false, therefore "everything sank when Ivan was gone" the question is not correct. EVERY CHANNEL, when the Romanovs came to power, they rewrote history, but most importantly, they REWRITTED THE CHRONOLOGY, so the correct answer is EVERYTHING CHANNEL with the arrival of PETER THE FIRST - FROM THE ROMANOVS, before him Russians lived well


        http://istclub.ru/
    2. stroporez
      stroporez 15 December 2013 18: 42
      0
      Quote: demotivator
      Putin approved the idea of ​​creating a textbook on the military history of Russia.
      Toko Chot even the layout of this textbook is not visible, not heard. Even information about how the creation is ....
  • CALL.
    CALL. 13 December 2013 17: 56
    +4
    . In the VIII century, one of the Russian princes pinned a shield to the gates of Constantinople, and to argue that Russia did not exist then is difficult. Therefore, in the coming centuries, long-term slavery was planned for Russia. The invasion of the Mongol-Tatars and three centuries of humility and humility. What marked this era in reality? We will not deny the Mongol yoke, but:
    As soon as it became known in Russia about the existence of the Golden Horde, young guys immediately went there to ... to rob the Mongols who came from rich China to Russia. The Russian raids of the XIV century are best described (if someone forgot - the period from the XIV to the XV century is considered to be a yoke). In 1360, the Novgorod lads fought along the Volga to the Kama estuary, and then stormed the large Tatar city of Zhukotin (Dzhuketau near the modern city of Chistopol). Having seized countless riches, the earmen returned and began to “drink zipuns” in the city of Kostroma.
    From 1360 to 1375, the Russians made eight large campaigns on the middle Volga, not counting small raids. In 1374, Novgorodians for the third time took the city of Bulgar (near Kazan), then went down and took Sarai itself - the capital of the Great Khan. In 1375, Smolensk children in seventy boats under the command of the governor Prokop and Smolyanin moved down the Volga. By tradition, they made a “visit” to the cities of Bulgar and Sarai. Moreover, the rulers of Bulgaria, taught by bitter experience, paid off with a big tribute, but the khan's capital of Sarai was stormed and plundered. In 1392, the ushkuiki again took Zhukotin and Kazan. In 1409, the governor Anfal led 2500 ears to the Volga and Kama. And in general, to beat the Tatars in Russia was considered not a feat, but a trade. During the Tatar “yoke”, Russians went to the Tatars every 2-3 years, the shed was scorched dozens of times, the Tatars were sold to Europe in hundreds. What did the Tatars do in response? Wrote complaints! To Moscow, to Novgorod. Complaints preserved. The "enslavers" could not do anything else.
    A source of information on the mentioned trips - you will laugh, but this is a monograph by the Tatar historian Alfred Khasanovich Khalikov. They still cannot forgive us these visits! And at school they still tell how Russian blue-legged men cried and gave their girls into slavery - therefore, as submissive. And you, their descendants, also penetrate this thought.
    Do we have any doubts about the reality of the yoke?
    1. Rattenfanger
      Rattenfanger 13 December 2013 19: 11
      +3
      Ololoshenki-ololo (((It's sad how ....
      Quote: Z.O.V.
      In the VIII century, one of the Russian princes pinned a shield to the gates of Constantinople, and to argue that Russia did not exist then is difficult.

      Yeah. RF existed then. Prince Oleg ("prophetic", not "one of") in the 911th year (this is the 10th, not the 8th century), having signed a treaty with the Eastern Roman Empire (hereinafter referred to as Byzantium), nailed, according to legend, a shield at the gates of Constantinople (hereinafter referred to as Constantinople, now the hero city of Istanbul).

      Quote: Z.O.V.
      As soon as in Russia it became known that the Golden Horde existed, young guys went there,

      Yeah. Bessssstryye essssststooooonsky paaaaarni.
      Gumilyov Jr. (the largest, along with Kobrin, perhaps a specialist on the topic "Mongols-Rus") in the next world enriches Dahl's dictionary with the speed of a Degtyarev machine gun ... "Golden Horde", nee-ulus Jochi, the eldest son of Temujin, is first mentioned apart from other uluses during the time of Ivan the Terrible. Choi, the guys started too late, don't you think?
      Quote: Z.O.V.
      to rob the Mongols who came from rich China to Russia. The Russian raids of the XIV century are best described (if someone forgot - the period from the XIV to the XV century is considered to be a yoke).

      Then I swore.
      "Igo" (incorrect from the standpoint of Russian historiography, the name of the partial economic and social dependence of the Russian principalities on the Horde) until today it was customary to date 1237 (the beginning of the Western campaign) -1480 (standing on the Ugra) years.
      Quote: Z.O.V.
      In 1375 .... the khan's capital of Sarai was stormed and plundered

      And after seven years, they seem to have taken Moscow and burned it? Khan Tokhtamysh from Smolensk will be?

      Once again, for the gifted: "Mongol yoke"(where does the Tatar historian?) is not an occupation and total rape (yeah, necrophiles came to Russia, harass the dead, as in Kozelsk), but a system of partial economic (tributary institution) and political dependence (khan's labels). Moreover, the khan's troops were often used "in the dark" by the Russian princes for internal squabbles.
      Read Gumilyov, Kobrin. Serious scientists, interesting work. Pity, please, the nerves of the graduate of the history faculty.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 13 December 2013 20: 37
        0
        Quote: Rattenfanger
        "Yoke"

        The very concept of "yoke" sets up a negative mood. Doesn't it look like anything?
        It reminds me of the screams of today's Young Europeans about the "Russian yoke". The Romanovs promoted the "Mongol-Tatar yoke", and in fact, a separate rejection from the metropolis.
      2. CALL.
        CALL. 14 December 2013 04: 29
        +1
        The first campaign on Constantinople, which was then the capital of the East Roman Empire, the Russians made back in 860. The reason for the raid is still not entirely clear. However, this impudent, unexpected attack is mentioned in many sources. Yes, there was a typo. Oleg took Constantinople in 890. This is the XNUMXth century. “And Oleg went ashore and began to fight, and he committed many murders in the vicinity of the city to the Greeks, and they set up many chambers and burned the churches. And those who were captured were excised, others were tortured, others were shot, and some were thrown into the sea, and many other evils were done by the Russians to the Greeks, as enemies usually do. ”
        Having destroyed and plundered the surrounding settlements, according to legend, Oleg put the ships on wheels and rushed towards Constantinople. The Greeks got scared and went out asking for peace. The Russian prince was supportive and agreed to peace. The Greeks brought Oleg wine and food, but he refused, because he considered the offering an attempt to poison him. Instead, the prince ordered him to pay tribute to the people: each 12 hryvnia. If you count, you get about 840 gold coins, each of which weighed almost 000 grams of gold! Presumably, the Emperor of Byzantium regretted that he agreed to such conditions, given the fact that the peace treaty did not end there. According to the Oleg contract, an indemnity was imposed on Byzantium, which the emperor had to pay to the main Russian cities. The prince also demanded a duty-free right for Russian merchants for a period of six months. Only on these conditions Oleg agreed to deploy the ships and leave Byzantium.
        And in order to perpetuate his campaign, Oleg personally "hung his shields in the gates, showing victory, and go to Constantinople," in other words, he nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople. "Tale of Bygone Years".
        1. CALL.
          CALL. 14 December 2013 04: 51
          0
          By the way, the Russians took Constantinople in 943. Prince Igor (after the first campaign in 941 when the Greeks burned his ships), already without ships, and with a huge number of horse and foot soldiers, moved again towards Constantinople, but the Byzantine emperor was already warned of the approaching army and sent ambassadors to the prince : “Don’t go, but take a tribute, Oleg already had it, I’ll also give it to that tribute!” This wording of Igor was quite satisfied, and the contract was concluded. And next year a new one was signed, regulating the economic relations of the Rus and the Greeks. the contract was valid for a long time. As long as a shield hung on the gates of Constantinople Oleg - Tales of Bygone Years. As for the graduates of the history faculty. They also teach history falsified in the 18th century with the supportive attitude of the Romanovs, the Germans Bayer, Miller and Shletser. These nimble Germans even managed to edit the historical works of Tatishchev and Lomonosov. Sorry graduates of history faculty did not want to offend anyone
          1. CALL.
            CALL. 14 December 2013 05: 14
            0
            In order and a forum that would exchange views and knowledge. It is impossible to know everything, but it is necessary to strive for this. A very good forum. I learned a lot of new things. Those who are interested in history gathered precisely. My respect.
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 14 December 2013 23: 04
          0
          Quote: Z.O.V.
          "Tale of Bygone Years".

          The original of this opus does not exist in nature, as well as other "ancient" treatises.
      3. poquello
        poquello 14 December 2013 16: 43
        +1
        Quote: Rattenfanger

        Quote: Z.O.V.
        In 1375 .... the khan's capital of Sarai was stormed and plundered

        And after seven years, they seem to have taken Moscow and burned it? Khan Tokhtamysh from Smolensk will be?

        Sucks with the logic of the graduates of the history department, if you bring such arguments. (Without assessing the reality of events), parties using raids could burn capitals at least every year. They ran, ran, ran away - look for him, fist him.
        Actually, what is noteworthy about the victory described in the article is the fact that the industrial army was stopped by a raid and was not allowed to leave painlessly.
        1. Rattenfanger
          Rattenfanger 14 December 2013 21: 12
          0
          Is the state (Horde) able to defend its capital despite the fact that they are capable of heavy forces (able to raid the enemy’s capital)?
          The Horde was far from the last state in the world at that time. Merchants, ambassadors, etc. were wiped out at the khan's court. audience from all over the Ecumene. Could such an event as the capture of the capital pass without a trace? Moreover, it is not clear who. Straight "a group of people of unknown nationality.")))
          Quote: poquello
          parties using raids could burn capitals at least every year. They ran, ran, ran away - look for him, fist him.

          If "look for him, fistulas", then they are nomads. They, in principle, have cities and even more so capitals cannot. What will they burn?
          So either this is tense with your logic, or you need to chew everything, like a two-school for children with deviant development.
          1. poquello
            poquello 14 December 2013 23: 26
            +1
            Quote: Rattenfanger
            Is the state (Horde) able to defend its capital despite the fact that they are capable of heavy forces (able to raid the enemy’s capital)?
            The Horde was far from the last state in the world at that time.

            Of your entire narrative, two objections to my post include: 1-the horde had a security garrison capable of fighting off a serious army,
            2 -patamuchta not a nomad sits the governor in the capital (city) after the raid and waits for the Lyuli from the superior army, eager to reckon.

            prove, chew
          2. The comment was deleted.
    2. nerd.su
      nerd.su 14 December 2013 20: 08
      +2
      Quote: Z.O.V.
      In 1360, the Novgorod lads fought along the Volga to the Kama estuary, and then stormed the large Tatar city of Zhukotin (Dzhuketau near the modern city of Chistopol). Having seized countless riches, the earmen returned and began to “drink zipuns” in the city of Kostroma.

      You are modestly silent about the fact that the Horde demanded to give uskushniki and the Kostroma prince did so. The act of the humble vassal. True, the Novgorodians did not forget this and the ear-looters robbed Kostroma with each subsequent campaign.
      Novgorodians traded not only the Tatars. They did not forget about Europe, especially Northern. And in the case of the Horde, Moscow often had to pout for the Novgorodians. So in this regard, Ivan the Terrible’s act is understandable - the obstinate Novgorodians have been in the liver for a long time, and here they also conceived treason. Well, raked to the fullest.
    3. Ratibor
      Ratibor 16 December 2013 14: 19
      0
      I think who should know that the "yoke" was not. To get acquainted with the works of Lomonosov.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Yarosvet
    Yarosvet 13 December 2013 18: 23
    0
    -----------------------------------------
  • Des10
    Des10 13 December 2013 18: 57
    0
    Thanks for the article and comments.
  • Motors1991
    Motors1991 13 December 2013 19: 06
    +4
    And then Ostap suffered. It would not hurt the author to read the story himself, at the same time to find out how dwarf France, Spain, England, the Holy Roman Empire were. There were very few Turks at the Battle of Molodi, the main forces consisted of Crimean and Nogai Tatars. For Russia, the weakened Livonian war was a fateful battle, but Europe and the Ottoman Empire depended on what side?
  • shtanko.49
    shtanko.49 13 December 2013 19: 32
    +1
    Quote: GDP
    Most likely that was exactly what had to be done, plus scare the army. But Grozny was a very bad diplomat. Below I mentioned that his cruelty forced to turn away from Russia all of Western Russia and the Lithuanians in addition. In fear of the terrible king, they turned to the west, creating a powerful alliance against Muscovy, and Lithuania eventually became Catholic from the Orthodox ...
    Now, thanks to the intransigence and cruelty of Grozny, we have what we have now - a split in Eastern Europe, in many ways, the author of this split was Grozny, although of course he is not alone ...

    And what we now have, not a single ruler has ruined Russia like Gorby and EBN, damned for centuries.
  • mnn_13
    mnn_13 13 December 2013 19: 47
    +4
    Very interesting article. It is proved once again that history is distorted in the interest of the ruling.
    And yet another proof that everyone who underestimated the Russian is doomed to pay a high price.