Military Review

Chronicler Ruins

20
Thirty difficult years. The period from 1657 to 1687 year received in the Ukrainian stories the name "Ruin". The country fell apart only because our ancestors did not know how to negotiate with each other.


Chronicler Ruins

Map of the German master Gomann. Reflects the situation of the beginning of the XVIII century, formed as a result of the Ruins and Cossack civil strife, when the country was divided.


The poem was kept in the papers of hetman Mazepa, from which two lines became widely known: “Prez vg all disappeared, they called themselves” ... Some researchers believe that Mazepa himself was the author. Others claim that he simply rewrote for memory the words of some anonymous adder verses. Be that as it may, the hetman, according to Vasily Kochubey, read this verse to the foreman at closed meetings in Baturin, trying to tune his inner circle to like-mindedness.

The famous poem described that era in the history of Ukraine, which was later called the Ruin:

All peace ischi pragnut
But not in єden the tug of war;
That to the right, that is necessary.
And vi brattya: that is a miracle!
Not mash love, not mash zgodi;
From Zhovto you take the Water
Prez negodu vse lost
Sami called themselves! ..
Sorry, God, Ukraine,
Scho is not a lot of blue!
Єden lives in trash,
Klumet: “Go thou behold!
Іdіm uterus ratuvati,
Do not daimo "die."
Another man for a penny to serve,
According to the interior and the toy ...
Third Moscow Mosque
І Ій вірне service.
That on uterus narikakt
I don’t curse me:
“It’s not maternity,
nezhli in such bіdah life! "

The author of the verse offered to rely on weapon - on the sword, through which, in his opinion, comes the right to liberty. The only problem was that there were much more militarily strong states around Ukraine - Turkey, Poland and Russia. Each of them claimed the steppe country. Therefore, the Cossacks, realizing the limitations of their strength, and dragged them alternately to their aid. It turned out a vicious circle - wherever you throw yourself, on whom you rely on, and everywhere - either death, or loss of freedom.

But if we discard these geopolitical difficulties, the Cossacks were hardest hit not by their neighbors, but by their own discord. People who were self-willed, strolled, valued their own opinions and didn’t give a fool were going to Ukraine. The Polish nobleman, deprived of his rights for murder or robbery, fled to the Sich and became a Cossack. Tatarin, who did not get along with the khan, left his usual life in the Crimea and rushed to seek happiness in a violent Cossack republic. Muscovite, who was fed up with the royal service, joined their company. The Jew, having decided to get the initial capital for his further trading operations, also went to Zaporizhia to join the pirate campaign or raid. And, of course, the Rusins ​​- Orthodox peasants who were threatened with enslavement and work in the field on the pan.


Ivan Vyhovsky found a common language easier with Poland and the Crimea than with his twin Pushkar.


The names of Cossack officers speak best of the origin of their owners. Of the associates of Khmelnitsky, Colonel Dzhedzhaliy was a Tatar, and Krechovsky was a Pole. And this is no exception. Just look at the list of famous foremen of childbirth. Kochubey - Turks. Gercikas, Markoviches and Crossings - baptized Jews. Dragomir - Serbs. The habit of changing the old name with the nickname when entering into the Sich makes it difficult to establish the roots of many Cossacks. But now and then the former genealogical links pop up from under the military "pseudonyms". The surname Litvin testifies that the ancestors of its carriers came from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and were, most likely, Byelorussians, and the distribution among the current Ukrainians Moskaley and Moskalenkov does not even need comments.

A life full of dangers on the borderland made people hide both thoughts and the past. Therefore, it is so difficult to achieve the truth in Ukraine. Even the name of the most famous historian of the Ruin era is hidden under a pseudonym. Historians know him as a Self-Seer. Who was he? Cossack? Nobility? Representative of the clergy? It is not known for certain. One can only assume, judging by his knowledge and literacy, that the Samovidet served in the hetman's office. Constantly dealing with office papers and the news, he secretly kept a record from everyone. The time was turbulent. There were enough events, as today. So one of the most terrible eras in the history of Ukraine - Ruin - gave rise to one of the most interesting Cossack chronicles - “The Chronicle of the Self-Seer”. Unlike the ceremonial, “correct” works of modern historians, people in it behave like living ones.

This is how the Samovid explains the ruins. In 1657, hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky died. The Cossacks, meeting in Chigirin for the rada, wanted to supply his son, Yuri, with a new hetman. But since he was small in age, they agreed with the opinion of the General Clerk of Vyhovsky, who offered himself to be the “Acting Hetman”. Vyhovsky took the military seal from Yuras for the time of the campaigns and signed the hetman of the Zaporozhian Forces at that time. According to Samovidts, "Vyhovsky spent the promise of the Kozaks: Pershaya, Zhebi was quiet, who was rozumil neobzlivyh sbi, wipe, the other, Zhebi tear off from the royal majesty, to please the King of Poland."

In other words, the acting hetman began a personnel purge, removing all those who treated him with hostility, and changed the foreign policy course - he decided to transfer Ukraine from Poland to the Polish one.

Probably, Vyhovsky had his own arguments for this. Before the Pereyaslav Rada, which by today's standards can be considered a “referendum”, it was precisely in Poland that Ukraine remained. He wanted to return "to Europe." And that Vyhovsky did not consult anyone, can also be explained. He was the most educated man among the Cossack officers - a former lawyer. And his opponents were, as they say, "from the plow." So he did not put up a difficult question to debate.

But among the Cossacks, an opposition to the new course immediately arose. It was headed by Poltava Colonel Pushkar. Seeing that Vyhovsky had taken the horsetail and the mace from the younger Khmelnytsky, Samovidist writes, he also began to hire the dragoons and Polish banners and that without any elections he began to sign the hetman of the Zaporozhsky Army, Pushkar rebelled. Regiments Nezhinsky and Starodubsky, sent to his pacification, did not begin to fight with their own and returned back. And the hired Polish khorugvi, with the help of which Vyhovsky once again tried to capture Poltava, Colonel Pushkar broke. At the same time, he wrote to Moscow that Vyhovsky "he was bringing together the hetman’s office," and asked the tsarist troops.


Chigirin. All that survived the capital of Bogdan Khmelnitsky. Wooden walls - reconstruction.


Moscow sent boyar Bogdan Khitrovo to Ukraine. Strangely enough, Vyhovsky very quickly found a common language with him - as the same Samovidset asserts, with the help of flattery and gifts, and convinced that he was not going to go to any Poland. In Pereyaslav, another happy one took place - far less well-known than the one that occurred in 1654. Only the “colonels of the centurions of opells mob” gathered at it. Vyhovsky, with the consent of the Moscow grandee, approved hetmanship. Pushkar tried to thwart this rad and rushed off to Pereslav. But the boyar Khitrovo came to him and “gave away the tutorship from the royal majesty”.

In other words, Moscow was looking for a compromise between the Cossack officers and tried to reconcile it among themselves. But she was so uncompromising in the struggle for power that it was simply impossible to pacify her. Colonel Pushkar and former clerk of Vyhovsky hated each other more than any external enemies. Taking the gifts, the Poltava colonel returned home and “did not want to booty, obedient to Hetman Vyhovsky and Zaporozhtsy, weaned from Hetman Vyhovsky, turned himself to him.”

Typically, the vicissitudes of this first squabble for the club carefully bypass. Vyhovsky is considered a pro-Western supporter. Pushkar - pro-Moscow. Depending on the change in the political situation, then one or the other of them was declared by historians to be "a real patriot of Ukraine."

But pay attention to the characteristic detail, carefully preserved by Samovidtse. Vyhovsky is approved by the hetman of Moscow, to Pushkar the same Moscow gives gifts, so that he agrees with this choice of the Kremlin. He takes the "compensation" and still trying to raise against the new hetman of the Cossacks, insisting on the "undemocratic" election. Like, why was the Sich suspended from the election? Why did the matter decided only by colonels and centurions behind the scenes? A situation is tied up, which will later lead to the tragedy of the Black Rada, in which the Cossacks will force the candidate Ivan Bryukhovetsky to come to power.

And people are all in arms! People are convinced that “the predestine is right,” as will be said in that verse, which the sergeant would quote half a century later, Mazepa, whose youth had just fallen on Ruin. Pushkar does not want to give up. And Vyhovsky does not want to give up. Each of them is stubborn. Can not agree among themselves. Boyar Khitrovo went to Moscow on his Moscow business. Vyhovsky feels unstable. And then he finds what seems to him a “way out” - he sends for help to the Crimean Khan against Pushkar. Khmelnitsky sent to the Crimea when he was going to rebel against the Poles? True, Pushkar is not a Pole. He is his own. But Vyhovsky is not confused.


Cossacks mid XVII. Drawing from the map of the French officer Guillaume Le Wasser de Boplan.


In the spring of 1658, right after Easter, the Tatar army led by Karambey appeared near the hetman's capital Chigirin. Getman Vyhovsky and the leader of the horde gathered on horseback in the steppe for a secret conversation. The samovidet was clearly an eyewitness to this event. In his notes, he even noted that the conversation between the new hetman and the Tatar military commander lasted about two hours (“years of traffic”). Then Murz and the colonels were invited to the tent of Karambey, where they "committed to the city with the Horde."

Only after this, Vyhovsky made his appearance on the territory of the Poltava regiment controlled by Pushkar. Long before the words "Mazepins" and "Petliurists" on the pages of the Ukrainian chronicles the word "Pushkarovtsy" first appeared - to designate one of the opposing groups in the civil war of the 17th century. In addition to the Tatar troops, the hetman led the Prilutsky and Chernigovsky regiments.

First stormed Lubny - the former capital of Prince Vishnevetsky. Then Gadyach was besieged. Here "the kilka of the same Pushkarovites was vystilin". The main battle took place near Poltava. Resolute and hot Pushkar, without waiting for the attack of Vyhovsky, left the city with his Cossacks and Cossacks early in the morning at the Holy Trinity, hit the encampment of the besiegers and “harmata opanov”. But Vyhovsky jumped on his horse, rushed into the Tatar camp and, together with a horde, knocked the attacking Pushkarovites out of the camp, and then cut them off from the fortress. Pushkar died in battle. Most of his supporters laid down their heads. Poltava was taken and ravaged. It was from this sad moment that the era of the Ruins began in Ukraine.
After the victory over Pushkar, hetman Vygovskyy passed into the citizenship of Poland, concluding with her in the famous union taken from Pushkar Gadyach. It did not bring him happiness. Poland helped sluggishly. Moscow declared Vyhovsky a "traitor." Cossacks, dissatisfied with the policies of the hetman, revolted. He fled to Poland and was shot there - also on charges of ... treason! Only now Warsaw, not Moscow.


“Chronicle of Samovidts” - in fact, our first Ukrainian history, the key to understanding the present.


Further events rolled like a snowball. Hetmans replaced each other. On the right bank of the Dnieper sat the candidate of the West. On the left - the East. Often they changed orientation and became pro-Western from the provostochny. Or vice versa. Bryukhovetsky stayed in the kingdom, and then decided to choose Warsaw as a guide. Doroshenko became a Turkish citizen, but, tired of his many years of struggle for power, he surrendered to Russia and ended the days with a Moscow commander.

Ukraine and their own armies devastated Ukraine from edge to edge. Yes, soon no one could say exactly where "their". The Ukrainian Ruin, as senseless and merciless as the Russian revolt, took over the mind. This went on as much as three decades! 1657 th to 1687 year. Although it seems to me that the light of the Ruins is still smoldering in our hearts. I don’t know if anyone will understand this article. But so far I can not understand why it was easier for Vyhovsky to come to an agreement with the Crimean Khanate and Poland than with Pushkar? What a demon lured them?

PS The author of "The Annals of Samovidts" lived a long life. The latest entries in his chronicle date back to 1702. His unsophisticated narration, written in broken, not yet established Ukrainian language, with an admixture of a large number of Polonisms, is the key to understanding the mystery of our history.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.buzina.org
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avt
    avt 25 March 2014 09: 18
    +6
    request History again teaches that it does not teach negligent students anything. It would seem - well, study the history of the Ruins in 1991, or better from Daniils Galitsky. So no! With a mustache - we will write a new story from the Great Ukrov, under the supervision of the Washington Regional Committee and the Bandera people who settled there after the Patriotic War, in particular. And Moscow is to blame again, well, how, it took away the Crimea where the residents were so scared by the Bandera Sabbath and the treachery of the Berkutites that they stood for the independent under fire, and in the literal sense they were burning, that even the ukrarmia in Crimea refused to be punitive. Now again Ruin, I have already said and I will repeat - the plan to leave it through the federalization of the country and a certain constitutional assembly is correct. BUT! They will not go to him in Kiev, or rather in Washington, from where Vika Nuland appointed these Kiev sectarians to power. And this means that in two months, even the confederation will not save the project "Ukraine 1991" from the collapse that the newly-minted velikoukry are doing with their own hands. And Russia will again pull all this out of the pitsunda! then he probably has one way not to bring to a very big blood. To create a confederation of Novorossiya, Kievan Rus and Galicia with the simultaneous corral of especially violent Bandera velikoukrov into underground caches. Then how can you prevent it? a little bit and that's it, the Velikoukr new, ancient nation has been created. But where will they find such a leader in scale, well, not less than Hops ????
    1. vezunchik
      vezunchik 25 March 2014 13: 16
      +3
      greed is ruining! Seeing such an amount of dough, you don’t think about anything. Our hapali, and the west tore them up!
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 25 March 2014 09: 27
    +4
    Getmans traded Ukraine .. for all times .. calmed down for 200 years .. then on a new ..
  3. Small Saturn
    Small Saturn 25 March 2014 10: 57
    +1
    The feuds of the Middle Ages not only in the territory of modern Ukraine, but throughout Russia led to the collapse of the Slavic world. One has only to recall the advance of Moscow from oblivion and its constant wars with neighbors Tver and Ryazan, and the conquest of Veliky Novgorod ...
    Civil strife caused more harm than the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
    Now, perhaps, the Slavic world would have looked differently if the princes had created a "federation" back in the XII-XIII centuries.
    1. avt
      avt 25 March 2014 11: 07
      +1
      Quote: Little Saturn
      Civil strife caused more harm than the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

      Well, in general, "The Ruin of the Russian Land" tells not about the "invasion", but about quite itself ruin through the princely internecine wars. So it ends with the words - "and the death of the Russian land has come ..." and no Mongols - ,, of the unknown muavetes. "
  4. w.barc
    w.barc 25 March 2014 11: 24
    +3
    Quote: Little Saturn
    The feuds of the Middle Ages not only in the territory of modern Ukraine, but throughout Russia led to the collapse of the Slavic world. One has only to recall the advance of Moscow from oblivion and its constant wars with neighbors Tver and Ryazan, and the conquest of Veliky Novgorod ...
    Civil strife caused more harm than the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
    Now, perhaps, the Slavic world would have looked differently if the princes had created a "federation" back in the XII-XIII centuries.

    a federation is good for life in a "vacuum", but to survive in an aggressive world you need an empire)))))
    1. Wellych
      Wellych 26 March 2014 03: 55
      +1
      an empire is needed to survive in an aggressive world

      empires need expansion, and when there is nowhere to expand, it eats itself up, because it is built on the extensive use of the conquered, and everything in the empire by that time will be built around the army as the main institution (well, or the banking sector, as in America now, as the army other kind).

      An example of Switzerland shows that you can survive and prosper and not empire, if you know how to shoot and work.
  5. Cristall
    Cristall 25 March 2014 12: 09
    -1
    Yes, there was nothing there already "Ruynuvaty" ... Vizwolna viina (War of Independence) discouraged both Poland and the Hetmanate. Hops and Polish commanders and the king - brought both parts to the handle. Only on the territory of the Hetmanate were all slaughtered. The land was devastated and the Ruin already more signified anarchy and the inability to do through the fact that everything was depopulated.
    They killed a chicken, but did not lay an egg. In general, there were too few people - and strength.
    I do not consider the problem of Ruins as the pure fault of the Getmans and Cossacks. Hetman bordered on 3 large and powerful states (Commonwealth, the Kingdom of Moscow and the Crimean Khanate / Ottoman Empire)
    I wonder what education could do without the support of anyone? Nothing - 3 forces from outside are much stronger than one inside. Everything rested on the leader and his politics. This is hops. As soon as he left, all his contracts, all his politics - all to hell. Went wild redistribution / lawlessness. Only Tatars won. True, then, probably, they were hungry - everything was depopulated. There was no one even taken prisoner.
    So to consider that Ukrainians themselves historically destroyed themselves is fundamentally wrong. As usual, leaders of nations rarely visited our territory. They were there only two times and miscalculated. Sometimes besides Hop and no one to name. And he had to put almost the entire nation on the altar of politics and liberation from Poland.
    The guilt lies of equal value both on the proteges of the neighbors (almost always some kind of hetman was a protege or rushed about in search of him) and a hostage of those events in the world.
    Feudal fragmentation played a trick on us. If Germany was able to be fragmented for a long time and unite and become a great country. That we could not. We did not have Bismarck, there was not even the core of Prussia .. there was no Piedmont .. there was no center-forming state.
    To write that Ruin is what we always do is wrong. The proteges do. People never ask about it.
    1. Midshipman
      Midshipman 25 March 2014 13: 37
      +5
      So this is the classic Ukrainian national idea - they ate a mustache. That's because you think you have a permanent ruin. Russia - the empire, Turkey - the empire, Poland - with a claim to the empire, and Ukraine - roll the field, my hut from the edge, I will not answer for anything.
      1. foka-alf
        foka-alf 25 March 2014 16: 58
        +1
        I thought a lot about this question, why can we be an Empire and Ukraine is not, and did not find an answer.
        Regards from Khabarovsk
      2. foka-alf
        foka-alf 25 March 2014 16: 58
        0
        I thought a lot about this question, why can we be an Empire and Ukraine is not, and did not find an answer.
        Regards from Khabarovsk
        1. Rider
          Rider 25 March 2014 21: 14
          +2
          Quote: foka-alf
          I thought a lot about this question, why can we be an Empire and Ukraine is not, and did not find an answer.

          my personal opinion.
          being determines consciousness.
          the nature of the people is the surrounding nature and historical experience.
          Ukraine, rather the steppe than the forest.
          walk the field.
          Danila Galitsky is just from the forest areas.
          therefore, he resisted.
          in the event of an enemy attack, either run away or go over to his side (those who resisted the latter, were killed to the last)
          This is actually the paradigm of many steppe peoples.
          temporary and fleeting alliances, yesterday the enemy, today - an ally.
          among the Russians, the dense forests made it possible to hide and build up strength for revenge.
          hence the model of behavior.
          if you can’t win - back off, accumulate strength and forward.

          the steppe is too open, inconvenient for defense.
          therefore, the number of steppe peoples is small, the massacre between them is with each other - mom do not grieve.
          from which they began to increase in numbers, they began current a couple of centuries ago.

          the Russians could sit out on the supports, inevitably increasing in numbers.
          then the same inevitable expansion to the south and east. (people need to be put somewhere)
          mind you, they fought with the west of the current, because there was also a dofih of their people.

          how to bask - IMX
          (Well, like the truth in the last resort - I do not pretend)
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. kav669
    kav669 25 March 2014 12: 09
    +2
    Ukrainians really do not like (not beautiful moments) their history. And there are a lot of them. And there is less true historical territory, but you want "everything, a lot and at once"
  7. datur
    datur 25 March 2014 12: 57
    +2
    well !!! but the story is repeated !!!! only in worse performance !!!!
  8. nnz226
    nnz226 25 March 2014 13: 25
    +5
    As rohland leaves Russia, so immediately the Ruin begins. now in farce form - but - RUIN!
  9. VictorB
    VictorB 25 March 2014 17: 10
    +3
    There was no power in Ukraine then, nor now. History repeats itself.
  10. SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 25 March 2014 18: 26
    0
    What kind of card is this at the beginning? What is the Azov Ukrainian? belay Crimea, too, by the way? Was there a normal, not a fake card? negative
  11. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 25 March 2014 19: 31
    +2
    Otozh and Russia was still Kiev — constant hostility and dismantling of the princes. From that they bent under the Tatars easily. And as they moved away from those dying places, the stable state was born. Yes, not anyhow. Empire.
  12. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 25 March 2014 21: 51
    0
    Vygovsky is considered a supporter of the pro-Western course. Pushkar - pro-Moscow. Depending on the change in the political situation, one or the other of them, historians declared "a real patriot of Ukraine."


    It is similar to our Bulgaria. Apparently, the fate of the small buffer states between East and West has always been this.
  13. comrade Bitch
    comrade Bitch 25 March 2014 22: 36
    +1
    excess of ambitions of hetmans and magnates, thirst for profit is the main internal enemy of Ukrainians ... to this day
  14. Fanat1984
    Fanat1984 25 March 2014 23: 52
    0
    I’ve read to the end and I’m not going to, I’ll introduce the fact that this is all fiction and bullshit!
  15. Turkir
    Turkir 26 March 2014 12: 41
    +1
    Conclusion. Ukraine did not succeed in statehood, taking gentry thinking and a gentry model of electivity as a model. And, lost. To whom? To myself.
    The gentry mentality implies worship of power (saber), contempt for nakedness (own people), contempt for moral principles and, greed, manic greed for wealth. Worship of wealth and the sole purpose of life is to achieve wealth.
    If you put everything together, we get .. the bandit mentality.
    Bogdan Khmelko, when he needed the Tatars to defeat the Poles, without hesitation, he gave 5 thousand (!) Girls and guys (contempt for the people), into slavery, he simply sold to the Crimean Tatars.
    The disappointing conclusion and the amazing similarity of the worldviews of Poland, Ukraine and Georgia.