Military Review

Terrible king. The black myth of the "bloody tyrant" Ivan IV

31
Terrible king. The black myth of the "bloody tyrant" Ivan IV

430 years ago, on March 18, 1584, Tsar Ivan the Terrible died. For quite a long time, a wall of "black myths" towered around this formidable king. The Russian Tsar was accused of excessive cruelty, despotism and even insanity. However modern historical science increasingly refutes the accusations made against it as unreliable and falsified. It was Ivan Vasilyevich who, as a result of several victorious wars and campaigns, doubled the territory of the state, having annexed the Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates, part of the North Caucasus and Western Siberia to the Russian kingdom. Thus, it was Ivan IV who laid the foundations of the Russian empire, its power and wealth.


Another interesting fact is that Tsar Ivan the Terrible is one of the few sovereigns who entered people's memory. The people retained the fond memory of Ivan Vasilyevich as the king-father, protector of Light Russia, and from external enemies, and from internal ones - boyars-traitors, thieves and oppressors. Terrible people even revered as a venerable saint. Several ancient icons with Ivan the Terrible reached the present, where he is depicted with a halo. In 1621, the feast of the “finding of the telescope of Tsar John” (10 of June according to the Julian calendar) was established, and Ivan IV is mentioned as a great martyr in the remaining holy calendar of Koryazhemsky monastery. Thus, even then the Church confirmed the fact of the sovereign's murder. This was done by Patriarch Filaret (Romanov), who was the father of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich.

The first began to invent horrible tales about the great king of foreigners, many of whom themselves served Russia, but abroad were connected to the information war, which began during the Livonian War. Many among them were diplomats, ambassadors who visited Moscow. A sample of such a campaign, given the greatly increased opportunities for brainwashing, we are currently seeing. Any attempt by Russia to resolve issues on the world stage in the interests of national security causes a wave of hysteria and panic in the West. “Russians are coming” is not a modern invention. It was the attempt of Ivan the Terrible to return to the Russian kingdom the previously lost north-western regions and access to the Baltic (Varangian) sea led to the first large-scale information war against Russia and its leader. The “fifth column” also took part in this war - like Prince Andrei Kurbsky. The terrible and righteous king was accused of all sins - from mass terror to the murder of a personal son and orgies. So in the West, they created the image of a “bloody king-demon”, practically the vicar of dark forces on earth.

The official veneration of the great king tried to stop Patriarch Nikon, who “became famous” for splitting the Church and “modernizing” it according to European (Greek) standards, deadening the spirit of asceticism and righteousness from it. In fact, Nikon became the liquidator who destroyed the principles that Sergius of Radonezh introduced. The authority of Ivan the Terrible did not suit Nikon, since he wanted to put his status above the royal one, becoming the "Orthodox Pope."

However, then these attempts were unsuccessful. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich deeply revered Ivan the Terrible, besides Nikon’s activities led to confusion and he was unable to complete his subversive work. Just in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, by his direct order, icon painter Simon Ushakov renewed the icon of the “pious and Christ-loving, God-crowned great sovereign tsar and grand duke Ioann Vasilyevich” in the Faceted Chamber. This image was created during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich.

Tsar Peter I praised Ivan the Terrible, considered himself his follower. Petr Alekseevich said: “This sovereign is my predecessor and example. I always took him for a model in prudence and courage, but I could not even match him. ” Positively evaluated the reign of Ivan IV and Catherine the Great. She defended the memory of the great king from attack.

In addition to external enemies, Ivan the Terrible had internal enemies who were ideological heirs of traitors and thieves, with whom the great sovereign fought mercilessly. "Strong", ambitions and appetites, which shortened Ivan Vasilyevich, had heirs.

When Russia under Peter I again launched an offensive in Europe, trying to regain access to the Baltic and Black Seas, a new wave of information war broke out in the West. In the West, immediately inflated the campaign about the "Russian threat". And to consolidate the image of the "terrible Russian barbarians" who want to enslave the whole of Europe, they dug out of the archives and the old slander about Ivan the Terrible, refreshed her.

The next peak of interest in the "bloody tsar" came in the French Revolution. This interest looks somewhat strange. French revolutionaries literally drowned the country in blood. Could only in a few days of "national terror" in Paris, to slaughter and devour thousands of people. People were beheaded on guillotines, drowned alive on barges, hung up and shot with a canister. At the same time, myths about Ivan the Terrible were inflated and outraged by his cruelty. Apparently, the Russian tsar “p-revolutionaries” did not like something, many of which surfaced from secret lodges and were Satanists.

From France, slander began to reach Russia. The first to criticize Ivan the Terrible was the freemason Radishchev. Gradually, the position of the Westerners in Russia strengthened. And a great admirer of the French revolution, Karamzin, took up the history of Russia. Karamzin’s achievements were picked up by a galaxy of liberal historians, publicists, writers and writers. They so successfully formed public opinion in the Russian Empire that in the 1862 year, when creating the epoch-making monument “Millennium of Rus” in Veliky Novgorod, the figures of Ivan Vasilievich did not appear on it. Did not deserve! The man who annexed the Volga Way to Russia, solved the problem of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, turned our country into a great power (empire), is missing from the monument. Although there are third-level figures on it like Anastasia Romanova (the first wife of Ivan the Terrible) and the traitor Marfa Boretskaya, who represented the party, ready to annex Novgorod to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The Russian aristocracy and the liberal intelligentsia at that time acted on one front, not accepting the merits of the formidable king. And the Communists like Marx and Engels experienced a great antipathy towards Ivan the Terrible. This is not surprising. Engels and Marx were uniform Russophobes.

Some enlightenment regarding the figure of Ivan Vasilyevich appeared in the years of Alexander III. At this time in the Russian Empire, the course was taken to strengthen patriotic values, the Russification policy was purposefully pursued. A number of works appeared that rejected the slander of the liberal intelligentsia.

In 1920, a critical point of view prevailed on the personality of Ivan the Terrible. Only in the 1930-s, when the process of reviving the great power and cleansing the country from the “fifth column” began, Ivan Vasilyevich was rehabilitated. After the end of the Stalin era, a wave of revelations of the “horrors” of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the “oprichnaya terror”, began again. In the years of perestroika and the victory of capitalism, Ivan the Terrible also aroused hatred in his activities. Sovereigns and fighters against thieves and traitors were not in vogue. Only in the last decade has there been a tendency to restore the role of the great tsar in the history of Russia.

The myth of the oprichnich terror

In the West, a “black myth” was created about the “oprichnich terror” during the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich. He was actively supported by supporters of liberal values ​​in Russia itself. Allegedly, an insane king created a terrorist organization that flooded the entire Russian kingdom with blood and destroyed thousands, tens of thousands of innocent people. Was created just a demonic figure of the Russian tsar. Although serious people conducted a thorough study and, relying on documentary sources, reported 3-4 thousand executed during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. And Ivan Vasilyevich ruled for a very long time - from 1533 (he was crowned kingdom in 1547 year) to 1584. On the "mass terror" is not pulling.

In the same historical era, the "enlightened" rulers of the Western powers and the "merciful" Vatican most cruelly killed hundreds of thousands and even millions of people. Moreover, they exterminated both strangers and their own population. Spanish conquistadors destroyed unique Indian civilizations in Central and South America. Their achievements were looted and burned. Thousands of Indians were destroyed and turned into slaves. Huge territories were “cleared” from the native population.

In the same spirit, the Spaniards "cleaned" the Philippines. Then the Philippines stood at the level of the cultures of Indochina. The rich and beautiful cities flourished. Many nations had their own writing. Even women were literate, that is, Filipino natives were much higher than Europeans in terms of education and culture. There were huge libraries (books here were made from palm leaves and a tree). There was a developed trade with China. The Philippines maintained contact with the Arab world and Turkey. True, the islands were divided into Hindu and Muslim principalities, which were at enmity with each other. This helped the Spaniards to seize the island. In 1567, a squadron of Miguel de Legaspi sailed from Mexico, a total of 380 soldiers. The Spaniards entrenched on the island of Cebu. They pulled up reinforcements and moved the main base to Manila. Within a few years, the Spaniards established complete domination over the Philippine Islands. The most important role in the seizure was played by Christian missionaries, who played the role of intelligence officers, propagandists, broke the will of local leaders to resist, established outposts, which soon turned into fortresses. The Chinese were kicked out. Ancient and developed culture was destroyed. Most local residents gradually even lost their native languages ​​by switching to the language of the invaders. The archipelago and its peoples forgot their native names.

Actually, the same fate was prepared for the ancient Japanese civilization. Christian missionaries and merchants have already prepared the ground for occupation. The country is mired in civil strife. There was a "fifth column" in the face of the Japanese Christians. Japan was saved by Prince Oda Nobunaga, who devoted his whole life to the unification of the country. Relying on the outstanding commanders Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, he led the struggle for the unification of the country. These talented leaders were able to rein in major feudal lords, eliminated the "fifth column", banned Christianity and isolated the country from the entry of foreigners. As a result, Japan retained its independence, and we can now admire its unique culture.

Spain "distinguished" another massacre - already in Western Europe itself. She rose her rich province - the Netherlands. The Spaniards unleashed a bloody terror, trying to drown the rebellion in the blood. However, neighboring countries, like England, were interested in secession of the Netherlands from Spain, so the rebels eventually achieved partial success. The war was extremely cruel. The rebels were hanged, burned and cut. All residents of the Netherlands have been called "unfinished heretics." At the same time, civilians were also hit. So, in November 1572, the Spanish army destroyed all the citizens of the city of Zutphen, and in December, the Spanish soldiers massacred almost all the inhabitants of Nardin. In 1573, the same fate befell Harlem. We killed 20 thousand people, some of them drowned in the river. I must say that the "Spanish" army was only in name. There were detachments from Italy, German and Albanian mercenaries, and so on. The rebels also waged terror against officials, supporters of the king. Therefore, extreme cruelty and ruthlessness were characteristic then of all the inhabitants of "civilized" Europe.

Germany in this period only moved away from a split into Catholics and Reformats (Protestants), when they enthusiastically cut each other. From the terrible Peasant War 1524 — 1526, when the mob cut and tore up the nobles and the rich, and hired soldiers “cleaned” entire areas and regions from people. But, apparently, Europeans were boring to live without executions and massacres, so a witch hunt took place in Germany. The “big hunt” began in the middle of the XVI century and lasted for about two centuries. Tens of thousands of people were brutally murdered. At the same time, Eastern Europe almost did not experience this terrible process. Magical hysteria practically did not touch the Orthodox Russian kingdom. The woman in Russia was not considered as a sinful creature from the beginning. In Western Europe, a woman had enough of something to stand out from the crowd - beauty, red hair, a birthmark and. etc. to get to the fire. It is clear that such processes opened the door for sadists, who could show their qualities “officially”. Blamed and those who had wealth. So scammers, judges and executioners received additional income. The “enlightened” Europeans went to cruel executions as if they were on a holiday with their families and children.

In France there was a cruel, uncompromising religious war. Only during the so-called. St. Bartholomew's Night (on the night of August 24 1572) several thousand people were killed in Paris alone. More killed in the country this and the following days. A wave of violence in the capital led to a bloody massacre across the country. Thus, in Paris, more people were brutally killed in one day than in the whole reign of Ivan the Terrible.

While in the Russian kingdom of Ivan Vasilyevich, thousands of people were executed by 3-4, in the main powers of Western Europe (Spain, France, the Netherlands and England), at the same time, about 300-400 thousand people were killed. Moreover, under Ivan the Terrible, thieves, traitors, criminals were executed, and in Western Europe, the overwhelming majority of the dead were innocent victims. Therefore, the “bloody tyrant” Ivan IV, in comparison with the monstrous Philip II, Henry VIII and Charles IX - is just righteous. However, in the West, they do not regard their rulers as criminals; moreover, they are listed there as great statesmen and are an example to follow. An obvious example of “double standards” of Western propaganda!

At the same time, Ivan the Terrible was clearly a man of fine mental organization. The king himself accused "of filth, of murder ... of hatred, of all evil," that he was "an unclean and nasty murderer." He gave a lot of money to “remember the souls” of those executed. Subsequently, this self-criticism was used by critics of the great sovereign as an argument of his "bloody". Like, if he himself acknowledges a murderer, it means that he is. It would never have occurred to any ruler in Western Europe to repent. They slept well. This is an excellent example of the difference in the spiritual development of Russian and Western civilizations.
Author:
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sirocco
    Sirocco 18 March 2014 08: 08
    +11
    History, history, all around one lie, where is the truth and where is the lie, you still cannot tell. In the mid-2000s, I was traveling in a compartment with officers, talking about history, and specifically about the Mongol yoke. So, one officer said, if you want to know the truth about the history of Russia, do not read the "remake" but go to the library and pick up old manuscripts and books, study, read. The man was well-read, literate, appealed with facts and logic.
    1. Ded_smerch
      Ded_smerch 18 March 2014 08: 33
      +12
      in the history of Russia there has always been a remake - we recall the picture where Ivan 4 with a dead son and a crazy look, there is pure lies. When he was killed (a study of the remains in the 80s of him and his son showed that the concentration of mercury was higher than the permissible), the boyars (then oligarchs) did everything to extinct the name of the last king Rurik.
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco 18 March 2014 08: 48
        +1
        Hello Kostya, you have come to the wrong address))))
        1. Ded_smerch
          Ded_smerch 18 March 2014 09: 24
          +2
          Vladimir, we kind of discuss here and express our opinion;)
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco 18 March 2014 14: 36
            0
            Kostya, discussions, discussions, but somehow the message for the moderator, you wrote me in a personal. This is the post which you minusanuli above.
            1. Ded_smerch
              Ded_smerch 18 March 2014 19: 34
              0
              Vladimir, am I minus
    2. igorra
      igorra 18 March 2014 08: 46
      +3
      What does it mean to read old books, manuscripts, in my opinion there just goes the blackening and perversion of Russian history. Just a remake makes us wonder if everything is so correctly described in them about our ancestors and their glorious deeds. Maybe after the Romanov-German and Marxist presentation of our history, we, without any pressure from outside, will begin to study it ourselves. Note: why liberalists flatly refuse, not only to accept a new concept of history, but even to take some part in the discussion.
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco 18 March 2014 08: 53
        +4
        Quote: igorra
        What does it mean to read old books, manuscripts, in my opinion there just goes the blackening and perversion of Russian history.

        Have you read the modern history textbooks, even Russia, even the countries of the former USSR.? Read, be surprised at many points, especially concerning the Second World War. And the fact that in those years attempts were made to falsify history is not a secret. Lomonosov for the struggle with such historians and suffered.
    3. Tron
      Tron 18 March 2014 11: 26
      +2
      Quote: Sirocco
      go to the library

      One of the few places where you can get to the bottom of the truth is the Vatican library, but only a select few are allowed there. Having the most valuable primary sources, they skillfully manipulate people, dumping masses of misinformation on us, using it in their vile interests
    4. Ivan Petrovich
      Ivan Petrovich 18 March 2014 21: 22
      +2
      but not a word about Comrade Stalin, this is the only reason the article is not complete, and therefore a little deceitful. "Teacher, teacher, teacher ..." Stalin left this note on the margins of the book, referring to Ivan Vasilyevich ...
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Alexgs
    Alexgs 18 March 2014 08: 37
    +5
    The whole history of Russia was written in the 17-18th centuries. Unfortunately, we will never know the truth.
    1. Ded_smerch
      Ded_smerch 18 March 2014 09: 05
      +2
      Well, why, a bunch of indirect data (for example, notes of Western spies for internal use clearly describe the characteristics of Ivan Vasilyevich). Also according to church data there is information about how the son died. There is a lot of data, the problem is that no one is trying to structure these data on the state. level, power satisfies the image of Russia that is.
    2. avt
      avt 18 March 2014 09: 43
      +6
      Quote: AlexGS
      The whole history of Russia was written in the 17-18th centuries
      This is yes! On Van IV, they were notably diminished, starting with what German historians called him "Terrible", although that was the name of his predecessor's contemporaries. Well, then it started - what is only the number of victims of the "campaign on Novgorod", where the "learned men" on paper, Vanya's hands killed an order of magnitude more people than in general in the city. And nothing - until now, "historical academicians" like Pivovarov and various "historical chronicles" refer to these scribbles and sniff about a "non-tolerant tyrant".
      Quote: Ded_smerch
      Well, why, a bunch of indirect data (for example, notes of Western spies for internal use clearly describe the characteristics of Ivan Vasilyevich). Also according to church data there is information about how the son died. There is a lot of data, the problem is that no one is trying to structure these data on the state. level, power satisfies the image of Russia that is.

      good Quite right !!! It's like with the "yoke" - you read the intelligence report of Wilhelm d Robruk, where he describes how to know at the table uses a knife and a fork, and the main diet of a simple "nomadic Mongol" people in Ordesh is cereal laughing and compare with the opus of a Parisian monk about "unclean" eaters of foxes, washing them down with water from a puddle
  4. Moore
    Moore 18 March 2014 09: 52
    +4
    I seem to know who I learned from Talking with European politicians Sami Kakto.
    This is how the Western Europeans were trolled by Grozny - for example, Ferdinand I unsubscribed: like, the tsar expresses confidence that after his explanation the Catholic Emperor will not only refuse to support the Livonians, but he will turn his "disfavor and anger" on them. The fact is that the Livonians committed the greatest crime: they "transgressed the commandment of God" and "fell into the Lutherian teachings."
    This, of course, is the reason for the Livonian war: the tsar only started it because he lost hope that the Livonians would turn to “justice and the old law”.
  5. CIANIT
    CIANIT 18 March 2014 10: 01
    +6
    In Europe, all beautiful women were burned as witches. Now almost all the terrible women remained. laughing
  6. dmb
    dmb 18 March 2014 10: 41
    +1
    Lord, fellow citizens. At least you yourself followed your own calls. To study history by Samsonov and the Internet is all the same. what to go on a free excursion to the madhouse. He just writes agitation, which has nothing to do with history. All his historical assessments boil down to one thing: "Sam d..k". Grozny was cruel to the same degree as any of his contemporary rulers, even in the West, even in the East. At that time, nobody accepted the Declaration of Human Rights, and it was not considered a sin to impale it, taking property. Only a person who has not opened a history textbook can consider Kurbsky a traitor. Feudalism was then in Russia the most terry, feudalism, and the rulers were changed quite often. It is worth remembering how many noble Tatar families left the Horde for Moscow. Well, the phrase: "The Russian aristocracy and the liberal intelligentsia at that time acted as one front, not accepting the merits of the formidable tsar," - vividly testifies only to the spring aggravation of the author.
    1. avt
      avt 18 March 2014 11: 04
      +2
      Quote: dmb
      Only a person who has not opened a history textbook can consider Kurbsky as a traitor.

      laughing Powerfully, however, pushed. It seems like not a traitor - a champion of "human rights" and a fighter against "tyranny" ?? Supporter of the "European choice of Russia"? Well, like Vlasov, or how those anti-war champions for freedom and human rights in Ukraine burn bonfires, buildings and the Berkut "on the Maidan, which was just hanging out at a rally in favor of Bandera in Moscow. And maybe all the same, everything is really simpler - the subject betrayed Vanyatka quite specifically in favor of another state, from which he then fed, but the reasons are the second thing.
      1. dmb
        dmb 18 March 2014 12: 37
        +1
        Well, what about the Buturlins, Tatars Urusovs, Varangians Aksakovs, who left Hungary, do we do, you do-gooder? Together we will enroll them in the "champions of human rights, such as Vlasov" or "fighters for the cause of world peace." Learn history from textbooks, not from Samsonov, and you will be happy.
      2. Vladimir73
        Vladimir73 19 March 2014 23: 17
        +1
        Powerfully, however, pushed. It seems like not a traitor - a champion of "human rights" and a fighter against "tyranny" ?? Supporter of the "European choice of Russia"? Well, like Vlasov, or how those anti-war champions for freedom and human rights in Ukraine burn bonfires, buildings and the Berkut "on the Maidan, which was just hanging out at a rally in favor of Bandera in Moscow. And maybe all the same, everything is really simpler - the subject betrayed Vanyatka quite specifically in favor of another state, from which he then fed, but the reasons are the second thing.

        "St. George's Day" was in the order of things among the peasants, and aristocrats quite often changed their sovereigns (in Europe) - feudalism !!! Betrayal then was if during the battle he stabbed in the back or ran away, if he raised a riot during the invasion of the enemies, broke the oath ... In Poland, the gentry had the right to "moosh" - rebellion against the sovereign for any reason. The huge influence of Polish mores (which was noted by many documents, including Western ones) on the then aristocracy of Muscovite Rus naturally influenced Kurbsky. The sovereign's disgrace due to libel, suspicion, or some other reason encouraged the best people to flee their state, and mind you, they are not considered traitors to their homeland - they are simply watered emigrants smile Kurbsky, on the other hand, went over to the side of the enemies with part of the army that followed him, the rest of the army, left without a commander, was defeated and retreated. Naturally, he is a traitor, although he is justified by the fact that he fled from the tyrant-king. Here, I think, the analogy with Vlasov is appropriate - very similar. On the other hand, why opal? Kurbsky (there is no analogy with Vlasov and there is no other) was the leader of a pro-Western party. Sources (reports of the Jesuits to the papal throne, letters from Western diplomats, etc. ...) describe him as a progressive-minded aristocrat, dressing according to Western (then Polish) fashion, literate. It was not for nothing that he was among the favorites of Ivan Vasilyevich, and not only because he saved the life of the sovereign. Loyal people have always been valued by sovereigns, and Grozny also had to maneuver between powerful boyar families who fought for influence over the sovereign. Kurbsky was considered by them to be an "upstart" and a literate slander killed many people (which happened during the oprichna, where there were a fairly large number of younger boyar children who tried to achieve wealth and influence at the expense of other boyar families). Survived themselves dodgy or very wise (from strong and influential families). Approaching the "events of bygone days ..." with modern standards, one can compose anything (which is done in most remakes), and it is necessary to comprehend the events of those times soberly and taking into account the situation of that time. This requires reliable facts, on which historians of the not so long-standing Soviet and Western past relied. The facts that were recognized by both sides, both the West and the USSR, were interpreted differently in accordance with the ideology (as a rule), but the facts are stubborn things. So it is required to comprehend these facts not biasedly, taking into account that situation, but to hang labels - that bad, that good ...

        And the article is a plus, although the image of Ivan Vasilievich turned out to be somewhat sugary.
  7. Vladycat
    Vladycat 18 March 2014 10: 48
    +2
    The experience of observing our history shows that we need to look closely at the politicians, whom this corrupt science in every possible way denigrates. As a rule, rulers worthy of the people and inconvenient for the elite find themselves there.
  8. zloi_dekabr
    zloi_dekabr 18 March 2014 10: 56
    +1
    Well, Zhezh is to blame for the West again))) The winners write history, and after Ivan Vasilich Godunov was in turmoil, and then the Romanovs shouted at the kingdom. And those, like Godunov and Grozny grief, grabbed at one time. So we have a classic case - Nikit Sergeyevich also exposed Stalinism))) And the West - so did they even say something good about us when? So here, and without the West, there was someone to throw mud at Ivan Vasilich, because kicking a dead lion is not so scary))
  9. avt
    avt 18 March 2014 11: 09
    +3
    Quote: zloi_dekabr
    The Romanovs shouted at the kingdom.

    Yeah, they shouted - the thieves' Cossacks Trubetskoy, friend of Pope Misha Romanov, whom Godunov tonsured into a monk, and made another False Dmitry as patriarch, which by the way did not prevent his son from “electing God” to the kingdom. an urgent need for the "god-bearing" Romanov dynasty. Especially in this, like it or not, it is a fact that "mother" Ekaterina succeeded. Not, of course, we can say that this is conspiracy theories and Fomenkovism and she is not German - a purebred Romanova and Lomonosova with Nartov to the nail with his history did not press, Tatishcheva, too, and the Germans did not write the history of Russia in the Academy - all this is intrigues and slander on "honest historians" laughing
  10. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 18 March 2014 11: 57
    +2
    <<< The people have preserved the bright memory of Ivan Vasilievich as the Tsar-Father, the defender of Light Russia both from external enemies and from internal ones - traitor boyars, thieves and oppressors. >>>
    The more we honor the Russian people, this or that head of the Russian state, the more WASHING, DIRT and accusations of all mortal sins are poured on him from the West and spread in Russia by his libesral agents! And the first in this row defamed - Tsar Ivan the Terrible!
  11. derik1970
    derik1970 18 March 2014 13: 16
    +1
    the article is one-sided ... it’s not so simple, you can’t make I. Grozny a sanctuary, he is a well-known person, they scared children at the time ... or for example Malyuta Skuratov strangled Patriarch Germogen on the orders of I. Grozny ... this story needs to be well get out ...
    1. khmer
      khmer 18 March 2014 15: 16
      +1
      not so much Patriarch Hermogenes as Metropolitan Philip, and even then - "according to some data", ie no one specifically saw, and it would be funny to strangle a person in front of witnesses
    2. avt
      avt 18 March 2014 18: 14
      +1
      Quote: derik1970
      . or for example Malyuta Skuratov strangled Patriarch Germogen on the orders of I. Grozny ..
      And the chapel of the "Caucasian captive" did not he destroyed for an hour !?
      laughing
      Quote: khmer
      not so much the patriarch of germogen, as metropolitan philip
      And then he prepared an assassination attempt on President Kennedy.
      Quote: derik1970
      . in this story you need to get a good grasp ...

      Or maybe at least "to read the classic history" to start with? Then it will be known exactly who "strangled" Hermogenes with hunger and for what.
  12. datur
    datur 18 March 2014 13: 33
    0
    when the sovereign appears. defending the interests of the RUSSIAN state, then all this dirty trick begins !! ---- conclusion THEY WENT TO /// !!! angry
  13. rezident
    rezident 18 March 2014 14: 57
    -3
    A muddy personality in general and very bloody. Although, in the transition from feudal fragmentation to an absolute monarchy, they could have acted by other methods.
  14. gavr002
    gavr002 18 March 2014 16: 18
    +1
    liberals and then sucked up cat naughty!
  15. valokordin
    valokordin 18 March 2014 16: 48
    +2
    Cyril 5 with pluses! Everything that is attributed to JONAN 4 the great, was also attributed to Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. They will also attribute to Putin. Although Putin is great in foreign policy, the oligarchs are held in high esteem and he does not touch them, but it would be a pity it would be fair to punish traitors and traitors.
  16. Motors1991
    Motors1991 18 March 2014 16: 56
    -3
    The article is brainless, so once again spit on the liberals, the author would still have to whiff about the Maidan in Novgorod, which Ivan Vasilich, unlike Viktor Fedorych, crushed with an iron hand. In fact, in my opinion, the main mistake of Ivan the Terrible is that he did not solve the southern issue with the Crimean Khanate, entered the war with Livonia, which grew into a war with a coalition consisting of Sweden, Lithuania, Poland and the Livonian Order itself, and in the south with the Crimean Khanate. A war on two fronts, as history shows , could not end in disaster and the ruin of the Russian state.
    1. avt
      avt 18 March 2014 18: 22
      0
      Quote: Motors1991
      , the author would have to vtyuhnut about Maidan in Novgorod

      In Novgorod, there were no Maidans, but Veche. But it was not Vanya IV who dispersed him, his predecessors tried to do it, Vanya III “the Terrible” with Vasya III and put the veche bell on the Valdai bells.
      1. Motors1991
        Motors1991 18 March 2014 19: 32
        +1
        I know this without you, I just had to, by the way, they too openly equate the era of Ivan the Terrible with the present, the difference is that Grozny tormented his oligarchs mercilessly, read the boyars and princes, then this is not especially noticeable to Putin. Moreover, the tsar’s logic was iron, the Moscow state waged continuous wars, which required a large number of soldiers. The basis of the Russian army of that time was the noble cavalry, which was formed from local nobles. Each nobleman had a plot of land and, upon request, the governor had to come to the army if the allotment allowed, the warrior had to bring with him a war slave, one or several, depending on the amount of land. Absenteeism was not allowed, the land was taken, and the guilty nobleman and his family were transferred to the peasant class. The army grew, the land allotments were always lacking . Boyars had estates, which were inherited and from the point of view of the tsarist government were used unproductively, according to since far fewer soldiers came from the estates than from the same number of noble allotments, moreover, in earlier times the estate was often transferred from one sovereign to another, as they said then — they moved away, because the tsars cut heads before Ivan the Terrible and often after , just in the era of Grozny, the purge reached its zenith, as the state waged a desperate struggle on two fronts and there were times when the country was on the verge of destruction.
      2. rezident
        rezident 18 March 2014 23: 14
        0
        There were such Svidomo that he did not crack envy. In its essence, the republic was ruled by several oligarchic families with constant graters among themselves. Well, as you know, when the pans are fighting at the lackeys, the forelocks are cracking, and therefore, the pre-period mochilovo between the townspeople for this or that side happened quite often. The losing side went to take healing baths in the Volkhov.
    2. rezident
      rezident 18 March 2014 23: 39
      0
      In general, with the Crimean Khanate, the problem was solved at the Battle of Molody. For the rest, I agree to break through the trade corridor that allows controlling the trade of the northern powers with Persians and Arabs. After a long and difficult war with Kazan, it seemed that it would not be difficult to overcome a feudal misunderstanding which the Livonian Order was, but the conflict resulted in a protracted and bloody war with dire consequences for Russia.
    3. Vladimir73
      Vladimir73 19 March 2014 23: 31
      0
      He made peace with the Crimea (and the Crimean Khanate was not up to him - they fought with Poland), the notches in the south were reliably covered from the "Wild Field". And in Livonia, everything was supposed to go quickly (as it had at first), but Lithuania intervened ... so everything was thought out and weighed. And Gustav picked everything up later, when Livonia could not defend itself, and Rzeczpospolita practically fell under him, becoming his granary ...
  17. avt
    avt 18 March 2014 21: 29
    +2
    Quote: Motors1991
    . Moreover, the king’s logic was iron,

    That's right . He knew what he wanted and sought quite specifically. By the way, this is the FIRST Tsar on Russian soil, before that there were only Grand Dukes. It is quite possible to assume that, as in his time transfer from Kiev to Vladimir by Andrey Bogolyubsky of the Grand Duke's table, the adoption of this title caused serious costs with the Volga khanates. Moreover, even with the elimination of applicants through mass massacre according to the Horde principle - all who did not reach the check trolley. "All the same, I had to share the kingdom with Tsarevich Simeon Bekbulatovich, and even the Grand Duke of Tverskoy granted to him, whom the" official "historians called Vania's jester and quirk, but for some reason his contemporaries did not think so and he, blinded, in the years on the eve of the Troubles time was called to the kingdom in Moscow.
    1. Motors1991
      Motors1991 18 March 2014 23: 41
      -1
      The problem is that we are used to eating what is served to us. If you return to Earth





      If you read history, then you will have a lot of discoveries, for example, the same temnik Mamai, or the iron lamer Tamerlan, they led the giant territories behind the descendants of the Genghisides, therefore your Bekbulatovichs are the same mockery of history as everyone else. From my point of view, you need to understand the logic movements, for Ivan the Terrible, all the boyars who were outside the oprichnina were enemies. Similarly, Putin will be the enemies of the Russian oligarchs tomorrow. Since at all times and times, in any state, the oligarchs have been enemies of these same states, the logic of the sovereign (emperor, king , Sultan) requires the destruction of these very oligarchs
      1. avt
        avt 19 March 2014 09: 05
        +1
        Quote: Motors1991
        Your Bekbulatovichi is the same mockery of history as everyone else. From my point of view, you need to understand the logic of movements, for Ivan the Terrible, all the boyars who were outside the oprichnina were enemies.

        No . The fact that Vanya was holding on, like everyone else at that time, and even now, but outwardly softer - they didn’t pull up on a rack on the square, on the strength in the constant struggle for it with the applicants is a fact. BUT they’re not joking with the authorities, never and nowhere, otherwise for the joker, as well as for those who believe that he specifically received power from God, it ends badly. Almost always, public deposition and death. Simeon was not a puppet about what a concrete fact has already led and the division of the kingdom into zemstvos and oprichnina, in general for a Christian person, is an act of suicide, and quite quick and no punitive force can be prevented. However, the Vanin system survived the most difficult years of military defeats and disappeared only after the Time of Troubles. So write off a misunderstanding of the realities of that time for jokes and stupidity, in fact, is stupidity. It is better to try to understand the decision-making process taking into account the realities of time.
        1. Motors1991
          Motors1991 19 March 2014 19: 48
          -1
          It either exists or is absent and “good-natured”, it cannot be. The cause for Grozny performed the role of a cobblestone or club, as you like, with which the boyar’s heads were broken, from that moment on, tsarist power became autocratic and its support was service nobility, not patrimonial nobility. The oprichnina existed for seven years from 1565 to 1572, after which she was eliminated as unnecessary, and the bloodiest oprichniks were eliminated at the same time. Roughly speaking, from the presidential-parliamentary state, Muscovy turned into a presidential, where the president He is the king, he resolved all issues, and the boyar’s thought turned from a legislative body into an advisory body, and here I agree with you, this system existed with slight variations until 1917.
          1. Vladimir73
            Vladimir73 19 March 2014 23: 45
            0
            What are you talking about !!!! Malyuta Skuratov - the bloodiest oprichnik of Tsar Ivan successfully existed under Godunov ((also by the way oprichnik) and unrest. Autocracy came under Peter I - that's where the boyar families were put on the same level with the nobles. And after the Romanovs only strengthened the idea of ​​absolute monarchy. Grozny only "knocked" the heads of those who too ascended in their pride - boasting about the antiquity and wealth of their families. ”True, under the guise of also settling scores among themselves, but how could it be without this ... Typical struggle for power.
            1. Motors1991
              Motors1991 20 March 2014 16: 37
              -1
              I don’t feel like digging, but if my memory serves me right, then Malyuta Skuratov could not exist safely under Godunov for the simple reason that he died during the siege of some fortress in Livonia, already in disgrace. The Moor did his job, the Moor can leave .
  18. Volgarr
    Volgarr 18 March 2014 23: 21
    0
    As then and now - Europeans are immoral and duplicitous! It is necessary to communicate with them making allowance for their inferiority !!!
    1. rezident
      rezident 19 March 2014 00: 03
      0
      It does not bother you to use their inventions, in particular the computer to which you sent this message.
      1. Vladimir73
        Vladimir73 19 March 2014 23: 57
        +1
        No, the computer product (by the way, the invention of the PC is ours, but then they relied on powerful computers - it was easier and faster to do for the Strategic Missile Forces) for the consumer, like jewelry, clothes, food, but the spiritual component (ideology, worldview) is is flawed. Agree that the idea of ​​racial superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race and culture over other (even more ancient) cultures, because they stand at a lower stage of evolutionary development, in itself flawed.
  19. allexx83
    allexx83 19 March 2014 00: 28
    +2
    The "enlightened" Europeans went on cruel executions as on a holiday, with families, children.
    And still surprised when they torn the poor fellow giraffe
  20. Peacemaker
    Peacemaker 19 March 2014 16: 34
    -1
    I agree that the article is very biased and one-sided ... You can’t measure everything with modern templates ... That time was very different from ours, mores and culture were different. What was good then is now not permissible and vice versa
  21. nod739
    nod739 20 March 2014 22: 06
    0
    I also read a long time ago, somewhere in the 90s I don’t remember that under Ivan Vasilievich they killed from the force up to 5 thousand people, for comparison, only in Paris alone on the Varfalameev night they sent several tens of thousands of Parisians to their forefathers !!!
  22. shasherin_pavel
    shasherin_pavel 22 March 2014 17: 59
    0
    Somehow it’s dashingly so: only 3 or 4 thousand killed ... just something. And if you count from 1533 to 1584. that's 6 people a day. Somehow I would not really like to live in such times, because to this we also need to add the population decline from wars and diseases. I would like to note: in the Dictionary of Archpriest Dyachenko there is no word "formidable" or "to threaten", but there is "Grozdun" = a bunch of grapes, a multitude, a union. Here's something to think about! Ivan 4 Uniting. And yet, I recently read that some of the musical psalms written by Ivan 4 the Unifying One are still being performed. I demand that historical justice be restored! Glory to Russia!
    1. Tommygun
      Tommygun 23 March 2014 18: 29
      0
      4000person / 50years / 365days = 0.21person / day, not 6.

      So "just" one a week