Great, but unknown. Ivan IV the Terrible

90
Great, but unknown. Ivan IV the Terrible


Forbidden victory

Four hundred and thirty years ago, 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 You can bring 20 bombardment caliber from 60 to 90 centimeters and weighing 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 the 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. And the aforementioned bombers were made in those very years when Nikollo Macciavely diligently wrote out the following words in his treatise "The Emperor": "It is better to let the enemy dazzle himself rather than look for him without seeing anything due to powder smoke", denying any benefit from using 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.

Ivan 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 ruled by 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 understood perfectly well 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 could hardly have withstood even a few years, the Turkish onslaught would 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.
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +28
    18 February 2015 06: 49
    Having conquered Kazan, Astrakhan, finished with the freemen of Veliky Novgorod and his "younger brother" Pskov, finished with the separatism of the great boyars, annexing Siberia. Russia already at that time became larger than all of Europe taken together, having turned from the Grand Duchy of Moscow into the Russian kingdom. Ioann Vasilievich prepared the ground for a breakthrough, which was already accomplished by Peter I. And the picture of the artist Vasnetsov is his artistic fiction. A more accurate image was given by Gerasimov's reconstruction.
    1. -2
      18 February 2015 08: 53
      Russia was rapidly sliding into an era of degradation.
      What are you doing? And who gave you the territory on which you live? And who created the Army that defeated the most powerful armies in the world? And who created the fleet !? And Suvorov, Ushakov, Rumyantsev ?! Joining the Crimea? But who fought 12 with the same Turks? And who was in Paris? And who was in Berlin ?! And who was in Rome ?!
      rapidly slipping into an era of degradation
      country? Do not carry nonsense! And the article strongly idealized the Turks. Those Turks were tolerant and tolerant ?! And recall the Armenian Genocide ?! And the Janissaries voluntarily became such ?! They were forced to convert to Islam by force and sent to fight against their own peoples. Is this tolerance?! Yes, such cenicism also needs to be searched! And the author did not mention that Ivan the Terrible had, it seems, the largest library in which there were manuscripts from the burned Alexandria library. This library of Ivan the Terrible is still being sought. Another interesting fact is that the grandmother of Ivan the Terrible was Sofia Paleolog who came from the imperial dynasty of Paleologists.
      1. +17
        18 February 2015 10: 33
        Quote: Max111
        Russia was rapidly sliding into an era of degradation.
        What are you doing? And who gave you the territory on which you live? And who created the Army that defeated the most powerful armies in the world? And who created the fleet !? And Suvorov, Ushakov, Rumyantsev ?! Joining the Crimea? But who fought 12 with the same Turks? And who was in Paris? And who was in Berlin ?! And who was in Rome ?!
        rapidly slipping into an era of degradation
        country? Do not carry nonsense! And the article strongly idealized the Turks. Those Turks were tolerant and tolerant ?! And recall the Armenian Genocide ?! And the Janissaries voluntarily became such ?! They were forced to convert to Islam by force and sent to fight against their own peoples. Is this tolerance?! Yes, such cenicism also needs to be searched! And the author did not mention that Ivan the Terrible had, it seems, the largest library in which there were manuscripts from the burned Alexandria library. This library of Ivan the Terrible is still being sought. Another interesting fact is that the grandmother of Ivan the Terrible was Sofia Paleolog who came from the imperial dynasty of Paleologists.

        So Prozorov means the time of the first Romanovs. And what you write about refers to the time of Peter, who raised the country. Ivan the Terrible carried out many political, economic and military reforms, which were then ruined. But "Russia gave birth" to Peter and he revived the strength and glory of Russia. Peter did not accept the country, but the "appanage principality", which was called Muscovy in the west. And the Peter's directions for the uplift of Russia did not change; they were inhibited, but always moved forward. And then 1917 happened.
        1. +2
          18 February 2015 13: 54
          And the mentioned bombards were made in those very years when Nikollo Machiaveli carefully wrote out the following words in his treatise The Sovereign: “It is better to let the enemy blind himself than to search for him, not seeing anything because of the powder smoke,” denying all the benefits of using guns in military campaigns.
          Machiavelli never categorically denied the benefits of guns. The treatise is not distinguished by a large number of pages, you can re-read it and see for yourself. He underestimated the use of guns in the ground forces during field battles, but in those days he had every right to do so.
      2. +22
        18 February 2015 11: 28
        Quote: Max111
        What are you doing?

        You are very emotional, but that does not mean that you are right.
        Quote: Max111
        And who gave you the territory on which you live?

        Just the territorial affiliations Ivan the Terrible and then put his hand. The territory of Russia has increased either 10 or 14 times (forgot the exact number). Joining Western Siberia. Then there were no serious opponents in the east and the expansion went relatively peacefully - well, they fought with the 150 Chukchi for years (as it’s not funny).
        And further down your text ... The author did not say that the entire Romanov dynasty did not bring any benefit and there was no greatness afterwards. He specifically spoke on the first Romanovs. For example, Peter is greatly extolled. But his reforms in many ways came out very sideways: for example, they ruined (according to various estimates) from a quarter to a third of the country's population. How do you rate this?
        How do you feel about the introduction of serfdom? And much more.

        About the Turks.
        1. The Ottoman Empire from the time of Ivan the Terrible and the Ottoman Empire from the time of the Armenian Genocide are two completely different countries in mentality (which does not remove their responsibility for the genocide). Our mentality has also changed quite a bit. For example, the Russians of the time of Ivan the Terrible considered Europeans to be rogues and gobbles, but the same Russians in the aftermath of Peter the Great began to align themselves with the Europeans and consider them role models, with all the ensuing consequences - such as undisguised contempt for their own country and the Russian language. Let me remind you that the nobility switched to French, and many spoke Russian with difficulty.

        2. You are trying with your modern mentality to approach those realities. This is fundamentally wrong. Boys were BUY and used. By the way, they trained and kept pretty well. Then it was considered NORMAL and many Janissaries sincerely loved their new country. Here is an example about Russians. In the time of Ivan the Terrible it was considered normal for the prince / boyar to leave the hands of his sovereign (in the absence of debts) and ask for the arm of another. For example, many boyars were seduced by the liberties of the Polish gentry and went under the arm of the Polish king and then boldly fought against Russia. But this did not stop in the years of peace coming to Russia to relatives and feasting peacefully.
        1. 0
          18 February 2015 13: 18
          Joining Western Siberia.
          You do not know that Ermak went on a campaign in Siberia at the behest of the Stroganovs, Ivan the Terrible, was against the campaign and threatened Strogonovym disgrace.
          1. 0
            20 February 2015 06: 18
            He threatened something in words, but in fact gave carte blanche. This is politics! And the army of Ermak was supplied not only with the forces of the merchants and industrialists of the Stroganovs, but also from the royal treasury. And Yermak himself got a full suit of armor as a gift from the tsar, including Mirror is an approximate analogue of the anatomical armor of Western European knights. The history of Ermak’s campaign, as well as other accomplishments of the Rurikovich era, was greatly misinterpreted under the Romanovs, who in fact were usurpers of the Russian throne, not only not having rights to it, but in terms of seniority their kind was very much inferior to many genera originating from the Rurikovich or Gediminovichi. Even the descendants of the Chingizids under the then laws had more rights to rule the Russian throne than the citizen Mikhail Romanov, who was shoved onto the royal throne by the boyar clique led by his father Filaret, who, due to forced tonsure, himself could not sit in the royal chair. As for the article, it is in many ways very interesting and informative, but with many facts in it one can argue - as always with Prozorov.
        2. -2
          18 February 2015 13: 23
          For example, Peter is greatly extolled. But his reforms in many ways came out very sideways: for example, they ruined (according to various estimates) from a quarter to a third of the country's population. How do you rate this?
          Secretary of the Prussian Embassy in Russia in 1717-1733, I.-G. Fokkerodt, at the request of Voltaire, who worked on the history of the reign of Peter, wrote memoirs of Russia under Peter. Fokkerodt tried to estimate the population of the Russian Empire by the end of the reign of Peter I. According to him, the number of people of the taxable estate was 5 million 198 thousand people, from which the number of peasants and townspeople, including women, was estimated at about 10 million. Many souls were concealed by the landowners, a second audit increased the number of taxable souls to almost 6 million people. Up to 500 thousand were considered Russian nobles with families; officials up to 200 thousand and clergy with families up to 300 thousand souls. [27]

          Residents of the conquered areas, not under the general tax, estimated from 500 to 600 thousand souls. Cossacks with families in Ukraine, the Don and Yaik and in border cities counted from 700 to 800 thousand souls. The number of Siberian peoples was unknown, but Fokkerodt put it up to a million people.

          Thus, the population of the Russian Empire amounted to 15 million subjects and was second only to France in Europe in terms of population (about 20 million).

          According to the calculations of the Soviet historian Yaroslav Vodarsky, the number of men and children of males increased from 1678 to 1719 from 5,6 to 7,8 million. Thus, taking the number of women approximately equal to the number of men, the total population of Russia over this period increased from 11.2 to 15.6 million

          So it’s a myth that under Peter the population decreased.
      3. 0
        18 February 2015 12: 46
        Quote: Max111
        Russia was rapidly sliding into an era of degradation.
        What are you doing? And who gave you the territory on which you live? And who created the Army that defeated the most powerful armies in the world? And who created the fleet !? And Suvorov, Ushakov, Rumyantsev ?! Joining the Crimea? But who fought 12 with the same Turks? And who was in Paris? And who was in Berlin ?! And who was in Rome ?!
        rapidly slipping into an era of degradation
        country? Do not carry nonsense! And the article strongly idealized the Turks. Those Turks were tolerant and tolerant ?! And recall the Armenian Genocide ?! And the Janissaries voluntarily became such ?! They were forced to convert to Islam by force and sent to fight against their own peoples. Is this tolerance?! Yes, such cenicism also needs to be searched! And the author did not mention that Ivan the Terrible had, it seems, the largest library in which there were manuscripts from the burned Alexandria library. This library of Ivan the Terrible is still being sought. Another interesting fact is that the grandmother of Ivan the Terrible was Sofia Paleolog who came from the imperial dynasty of Paleologists.

        The territory was given by Ivan the Great, and the Armenian Genocide was already in the 4th century.
        And do you believe that traders from Byzantium gave away something valuable to some barbarians?
        And Russian weapons were considered the best.
      4. +2
        18 February 2015 19: 57
        My dear man, what can you not read? Russia degraded during the first Romanovs; later it was necessary to conquer its own again. And in the article, everything is correct both about the Turks and about the gay people. And as far as the first were civilized, so the second were savages.
    2. +13
      18 February 2015 13: 40
      Quote: Dimy4
      Having conquered Kazan, Astrakhan, finished with the freemen of Veliky Novgorod and his "younger brother" Pskov, finished with the separatism of the great boyars, annexing Siberia.


      Under Grozny, the territory of Russia only increased. Under him there was no serfdom ... He won serious wars.
      In general, he was a talented and advanced ruler.

      The main thing now under our government and the capitalist oligarchs would not suit us with any veiled, yet another slavery.
      Factories unfairly privatized (hacked by money bags) in private ownership. The lands will soon be bought by them.
      In general, if you do not change the system, (I expect the rulers to turn to face the people), then there is a chance that they will impose (with the help of deputies many of whom are far from the common people) some sort of serfdom ... God forbid I was wrong.
      Waiting for cons from pro-government sixes ...
  2. +10
    18 February 2015 07: 06
    ... the Englishman Jerome Gorsey, his "Notes on Russia", which states that in the winter of 1570 the guardsmen killed 700 (seven hundred thousand) inhabitants in Novgorod ...

    And what the Western press writes now about Putin and Russia. Wait soon they will write that Ukrainian babies are brought to Russia to organs.
  3. +17
    18 February 2015 07: 15
    The author writes that the story of Ivan the Terrible is distorted! But it seems that the whole history of Russia is one lie!
    Even to take not such distant years - the October Jewish Revolution of 1917 (for example), but what image did Stalin make?
    1. 0
      19 February 2015 13: 42
      Yes, I would very much like to take a normal source and read everything from the beginning. That's just the source of the problem
  4. +19
    18 February 2015 07: 21
    Thank you very informative! But honestly, I never treated Grozny as a bloodthirsty king
  5. +17
    18 February 2015 07: 39
    The guy was tough and it was unfortunate that his name was poured with so much dirt and even more unfortunate that he did not find an adequate immediate heir, which led to turmoil and terrible misfortunes for Russia.
    1. +8
      18 February 2015 08: 36
      That was the heir. His son Fedor ruled 14 years. After the victories of Ivan the Terrible, it was the calmest time in Russia. Everyone around raked and digested a new alignment of forces. Problems began after, when Fedor died without leaving an heir, because he could not conceive children.
    2. +5
      18 February 2015 21: 22
      In my opinion, all of Grozny’s fault (as well as Stalin’s) is that he wooled tops and not ordinary people. Because our intellectuals don’t like them
    3. The comment was deleted.
  6. +24
    18 February 2015 07: 53
    Great article! The historical discrediting of Grozny was carried out consciously. An example of today is how they distort the events of the Great Patriotic War. Who needs this and why everyone needs to know. Therefore, we need more of these topics.
    1. +8
      18 February 2015 07: 58
      And the answer is simple. Who wrote the history of Russia in the 18th century - the Germans! And they just had to show the Russians slaughtered cattle, which alone can not do anything.
      1. +6
        18 February 2015 09: 50
        I’ll add with humor ... And who coached the women's biathlon team ??? The Germans ... Therefore, the sadness with the women's biathlon ... You can’t believe the Germans. Merkel including
      2. +4
        18 February 2015 16: 10
        At the beginning of the 19th century, Karamzin wrote the history of Russia (Russia of the times of John the 4th), all knowledgeable people were amazed at the content of this opus. But WISHED BY THE HIGHEST PARTICULARS (ALEXANDER PAVLOVICH) FOR SIMILAR EXPLANATION .........
        ps on the monument of 1000 Russia BAS-RELIEF IVAN THE 4TH NO .....
  7. +7
    18 February 2015 07: 57
    quote:
    The sultan did not have time to digest this pill - and they already tell him about the accession to Moscow of another khanate, Astrakhan. It turns out that after the fall of Kazan, Khan Yamgurchi decided to declare war on Russia in a fit of anger ... Sounds cool! Guys, does this not remind you of the situation with the Crimea? How the US missed a spit ...
    I read about this battle a few years ago, and was very surprised, because really it wasn’t written anywhere in the textbooks.
  8. +9
    18 February 2015 08: 02
    Ivan the Terrible is undoubtedly the great king. Defender of the Russian land from invaders from the East.
    However, surprisingly .. Byzantium fell also thanks to "help" from the West.
    And the tsar knew it perfectly. For his grandmother was Sophia Paleolog. The last imperial dynasty.
    To beat both the West and the East at the same time, Russia simply did not have the strength.
    And thanks to this overstrain of forces, endless wars, oprichnina, Russia almost became an easy prey for "help" from the West.
    After Ivan the Terrible.
    And history is a science ... it’s not just before.
    But what happened immediately AFTER.
  9. +13
    18 February 2015 08: 05
    Very good article. The author is a huge PLUS. Thanks. Well, for all those interested in those times, I advise you to read "War and Peace of Ivan the Terrible". A good book written by a knowledgeable patriot. And at the end of the article, we can add that thanks to the Romanovs in Pskov, there was no place for Grozny on the monument to the 1000th anniversary of Russia.
    1. +6
      18 February 2015 08: 39
      A wonderful excursion into the history of Russia.
    2. +3
      18 February 2015 14: 22
      But Ivan IV found a place on the icons.
  10. +6
    18 February 2015 08: 16
    Thank you so much, very informative article!
  11. +9
    18 February 2015 08: 27
    One of the most important and main figures in the history of the Russian people is Ivan the Terrible.
  12. -4
    18 February 2015 08: 34
    John Kerry was a descendant of Ivan the Terrible belay
    http://lenta.ru/world/2004/08/17/kerry/
    1. +9
      18 February 2015 08: 52
      Quote: Lexi2
      John Kerry was a descendant of Ivan the Terrible belay
      http://lenta.ru/world/2004/08/17/kerry/


      I did not read more nonsense. The value is 5 Psakov information. And the Jews in the family and our kings. But the fact that the Orthodox (especially in Tsarist times) with the Jews didn’t even get along in the article did not take into account? Jews could not even settle officially on the territory of the Russian Empire, because for religious reasons, the Orthodox could not live together with people worshiping Judas, who sold Christ. An exception was made under Catherine - they were allowed to settle in New Russia. Therefore, for example, there are many of them in Odessa. In general, Russian relations with Jews were far from easy. Then later, during the revolution, it backfired. It turned out to be many Jews in the Cheka and the shooting threes - then they also did not spare Russian blood for their grievances. That later they were remembered when the power in the Cheka changed. In general, the question of the Jewish people in Russia is an extremely difficult, controversial and bloody question. Therefore, they are trying to put him in every possible way into the far corner, away from prying eyes.
    2. +2
      18 February 2015 14: 22
      yes, tell me more Jim Carrey)))
  13. +19
    18 February 2015 08: 35
    and he did:
    - compulsory primary education,
    - sanitary cordons and camps on the border,
    - legally issued our army,
    - introduced the concept of "military uniform" and "type of troops",
    - engaged in strengthening borders,
    - put things in order among the "nobility" and put foreign spies in their place

    And after that I respect him!
  14. +5
    18 February 2015 08: 37
    In the morning I read the article and doubted what year it was.
    Exactly four hundred and thirty years ago, the greatest battle of Christian civilization took place.
    in 1572 ???
    Correct.
    1. +3
      18 February 2015 08: 50
      I saw the discrepancy right away. Just an article by 2012 of the year. I did not dare to correct the author, I just posted it here.
  15. +14
    18 February 2015 08: 44
    By the way, the Tatars' forays into Russia were largely due to the Poles. The weights did not care who to rob, Russia or Ukraine. Both Ivan IV and King Sigismund paid tribute to the khans. The bulk of the Russian treasury went to the protracted Livonian War. And Kurbsky, a fighter against tyranny who fled to Lithuania, constantly asked Sigismund to pay the khan more and more so that he would punish his former patron. The fact that ordinary people will suffer in the first place was purple to him. If the king did not have enough money, he was willingly provided financial assistance in the Vatican, to fight the "schismatics". So the Crimean hordes went to Russia for European gold. More than 4 centuries have passed, but the situation is the same. And probably the first economic sanctions against Russia were introduced at the same time. Warships from Gdansk intercepted merchants who went to Narva with goods for Russia. Ivan the Terrible acted simply - he issued a letter of marque to the Dane Karsten Rode. And he began robbing merchants from countries that supported the sanctions. then all of Europe howled.
    1. +1
      18 February 2015 11: 01
      There was no mention of Ukraine then.
    2. +2
      18 February 2015 20: 56
      Quote: hunn
      Ivan the Terrible did just that - he issued a privateer certificate to the Danish Karsten Rode. And he began to rob rob robbers from countries that supported the sanctions. then all of Europe howled.


      "Ivan the Terrible entered simple - issued a privateer certificate to the Danish Carsten Rode. And he began to rob rob merchants from countries that supported the sanctions. then all of Europe howled".
      A historical recipe from history for Putin.
      Thanks to articles like this, I got stuck on VO.
  16. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      18 February 2015 09: 00
      I did not read more nonsense. The value is information 5 psakov.

      Yes, in fact, I also do not trust the British British scientists.
      But as they say, nevertheless, someone needs to stir up the water with the history of Russia. Here they stir up.
      And to the article: What do you think?
      Could Russia at the same time bear such a burden of war? Both with the East and with the West?
      It’s just amazing that the Janissaries forgot in the Moscow forests? Europe was a more valuable prize. Maybe because the Turks knew whose grandson was sitting on the throne in Moscow?
      1. +3
        18 February 2015 09: 29
        Quote: Lexi2
        Could Russia at the same time bear such a burden of war? Both with the East and with the West?

        The trouble is that Russia was not particularly asked. The neighbors were hostile and did not want much peace.
        Quote: Lexi2
        Is it just amazing that the Janissaries forgot in the Moscow forests?

        Nobody forgot what you got from.
        Quote: Lexi2
        Europe was a more valuable prize.

        Why on earth? Compared to Russia, Europe was the poorest territory.
        Quote: Lexi2
        Maybe because the Turks knew whose grandson was sitting on the throne in Moscow?

        Not. The Turks went to war because the Russians, Tatars, Chuvashs and Cheremis (during the capture of Kazan the army of Ivan the Terrible only half consisted of Russians) took Kazan - an ally of the Turks.
        1. -2
          18 February 2015 10: 25
          The trouble is that Russia was not particularly asked. The neighbors were hostile and did not want much peace.

          Conspiracy theory? The "neighbors" were not allies. Although they interacted, it was a fact.
          Why on earth? Compared to Russia, Europe was the poorest territory.

          This is of course an interesting topic. What do you prove?
          In real terms of the life of the farmstead of the peasants?
          But with the results of trade, exchange? I doubt it.
          Not. The Turks went to war because the Russians, Tatars, Chuvashs and Cheremis (during the capture of Kazan the army of Ivan the Terrible only half consisted of Russians) took Kazan - an ally of the Turks.

          Right.
          And if there was a total raid — greatly weakening one side, everything would have been possible otherwise.
          For this is precisely what RUSSIA has been weakening from century to century!
          It was necessary to answer in the same way, and not to "attach".
          1. +3
            18 February 2015 11: 44
            Quote: Lexi2
            Conspiracy theory? The "neighbors" were not allies. Although they interacted, it was a fact.

            There is no conspiracy theory. Simple questions of economics and religion.
            Khanates (Kazan, Crimean and Astrakhan) lived according to their own laws. Men were considered warriors; it was considered shameful to engage in agriculture or crafts. Therefore, slaves were needed. Work in the vineyards (in the Crimea), rowers in galleys and so on and so forth. In order for there to be slaves, they had to go hiking for them. And if the Wild Field and serif strips were fenced off from the Crimean Russians (though they were far from always rescuing, the Kazan went across the Sura River and went to our villages to collect slaves - there wasn’t much more for them. Also, slaves were sold to the Turks.

            Poles were Catholics. The Pope blogged more than one campaign against us infidels. So in their understanding, they carried us the right faith on their swords.

            Quote: Lexi2
            This is of course an interesting topic. What do you prove?
            In real terms of the life of the farmstead of the peasants?
            But with the results of trade, exchange? I doubt it.

            When they go to rob, they think that it is possible to capture, not the volume of trade.
            Quote: Lexi2
            And if there was a total raid — greatly weakening one side, everything would have been possible otherwise.
            For this is precisely what RUSSIA has been weakening from century to century!
            It was necessary to answer in the same way, and not to "attach".

            The meaning of your words eludes me. Expand the meaning. I do not see a rational grain.
            1. -1
              18 February 2015 17: 49
              There is no conspiracy theory. Simple questions of economics and religion.

              When they go to rob, they think that it is possible to capture, not the volume of trade.

              Somehow you contradict yourself.
              When robbery is brought to the state level, so to speak, it is precisely the trade routes and the volume of trade along these very routes that are taken into account.
              And hell and LEON's salary to pay the Janissaries excuse was not supposed.
              There were so many slaves in the Ottoman Empire. Rather, slaves from Russia were a kind of economic SUPPORT for their vassals.
              In general, the vassals of the Turks served as chain dogs, which constantly thrust their fangs into Russia. To cut and weaken is the goal of the Ottomans vassals.
              The main goal of the Turks was EUROPE !!!! FACT!
              Naturally, when one vassal (the Kazan Khanate) was destroyed, a money hole appeared. The war from Turkey with Europe was expensive.
              The meaning of your words eludes me. Expand the meaning. I do not see a rational grain.

              The destruction of the Kazan Khanate was premature and dangerous at that time. It was much better to pay tribute with "raids" reducing their power to 0.
              Without violating the economic interests of the Ottoman Empire itself.
              I think after the capture of Kazan it was necessary to "compensate" the damage to the rulers of the Ottomans ... with help in campaigns in Europe. laughing Scratch Poland so to speak laughing find Russian there.
              And the empty Kazan Khanate, return to the owner.
              Well, there were no economic reasons for the Turkish campaign to Moscow!
              Exceptionally reputable reasons. The image of the Ottomans suffered.
              Yes .. and you did not answer my question
              WHAT IS THE REASON FOR RUSSIAN TROUBLE?
              If you do not want to answer, then you just have nothing to say.
              That's it.
        2. 0
          18 February 2015 10: 46
          Quote: Xoxo4un
          Why on earth? Compared to Russia, Europe was the poorest territory.

          If so, then why did the Turks climb into Europe? Indeed, only in the first half of the 16th century, only with Austria were 4 or 5 wars, active operations in the Mediterranean - the capture of Rhodes, Cyprus, Crete, the landing in Malta. The actions of Crimeans and Turks against the Russian state are raiding punitive campaigns, without trying to gain a foothold in these territories. But the Turks tried to take control of Europe precisely, bend it and settle there. The explanation is visible in the climate, we are still colder.
          And Ivan the Terrible did not think that everything is so bad in Europe, otherwise why did he wed to the Queen of England, so he considered her equal and did not see anything shameful in this.
          1. +2
            18 February 2015 11: 53
            Quote: Mummy
            If so, then why did the Turks climb into Europe?

            1. Because they bordered on them. It is impossible to join the territory, which is separated from you by several states - an extension of logic.
            2. Because continental Europe was weak, i.e. there was an opportunity to expand their living space.

            Quote: Mummy
            The actions of Crimeans and Turks against the Russian state are raiding punitive campaigns, without trying to gain a foothold in these territories.

            You have read the article inattentively. Under Ivan the Terrible, it was they who were going to capture and annex. They even painted the posts of murz.
            Quote: Mummy
            The explanation is visible in the climate, we are still colder.

            Do you really think that the climate in Moscow and Kazan is so different that the Tatars decided that they needed Kazan, but Moscow did not?
            Quote: Mummy
            And Ivan the Terrible did not think that everything is so bad in Europe, otherwise why did he wed to the Queen of England, so he considered her equal and did not see anything shameful in this.

            Kings get married or marry their daughters based on many factors:
            1. Benefit to the state. It is like an allied relationship for a generation. England at that time was already significantly different from continental Europe in strength - hence the choice of Ivan the Terrible.
            2. Religion.
            3. Other reasons.
          2. 0
            18 February 2015 21: 17
            Quote: Mummy
            If so, then why did the Turks climb into Europe?

            Unfortunately, the history of mankind is a history of robbery and violence by the stronger and more fortunate, the weaker and more defenseless, both states and individuals. Regardless of the "excuses" and no matter how they embellish it.
            Modernity is not an exception. The history of modern Ukraine confirms this. It is enough to try to answer the question: "Why did the West climb into (in) Ukraine?"
            PS And what a womanizer he was !!! wink
  17. +8
    18 February 2015 09: 00
    "... Devlet-Girey ... Near Senkin ford, he easily dispersed a detachment of 200 boyars ..."


    It’s also interesting here.

    The crossing point (Senkin ford) was guarded by a small guard regiment of “children of the boyars”, which consisted of only 200 warriors. The 20 thousandth Nogai vanguard of the Crimean-Turkish army under the command of the Tereberday-Murza fell upon him.

    The detachment entered into an unequal battle, but was dispersed, however, having managed to inflict great damage to the Crimeans and warn the main forces of the Russian army about the place where the Ottomans crossed.

    As S. B. Veselovsky established, referring to the discharge record of the Sinbirsky Collection, Prince Nikita Romanovich Odoevsky accepted the battle with his regiment. His comrade Fedor Vasilyevich Sheremetev “ran away and the saadyk threw himself off; and it was Prince Nikita’s business alone, but the business was big. ”

    For this case, Romanovich Odoevsky received boyars.
    1. +6
      18 February 2015 10: 48
      By the way, about the "boyar children".
      The author of the article constantly calls them "boyars", apparently, for him they are one and the same, although they are two completely different estates, occupying different social positions. The boyars are the nobility, the aristocracy, and the boyar children are the service class, together with the nobles they form the basis of the local army. Confusing boyars with boyar children is like confusing lieutenant generals with lieutenants, and accordingly the phrase "Near Senkin ford he easily dispersed a detachment of 200 boyars" is equivalent to "Near Senkin ford he easily dispersed a detachment of 200 generals."
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +2
      18 February 2015 18: 48
      Quote: Yoon Klob
      As S. B. Veselovsky established, referring to the discharge record of the Sinbirsky Collection, Prince Nikita Romanovich Odoevsky accepted the battle with his regiment.

      In the same record, the injuries and injuries sustained in battle were listed by name .......
  18. +7
    18 February 2015 09: 33
    If there were more such kings, you look, and in the country of order there has become more!
    1. +3
      18 February 2015 09: 59
      Quote: YaMZ-238
      If there were more such kings, you look, and in the country of order there has become more!

      In order to become so, one must go his own way. The path of deprivation, resentment and danger. Even betrayal. And in order to be remembered in just such a way, one must conquer one's whole life, not spare oneself, nor enemies, nor friends. And be sure that you will transfer the country to worthy descendants, worthy in every sense.
  19. +8
    18 February 2015 10: 02
    The article is interesting, thanks to the author for it, I have not met all the details of this battle before, and it’s not at all clear why historians make Tsar John4 a bloody sovereign, by the way John4 was the first to calibrate artillery at that time in Europe, this is told to visitors in the Museum of Artillery.
  20. 0
    18 February 2015 10: 48
    > Secondly, the Turks were true Muslims - that is, people who were initially confident in their spiritual superiority, and therefore extremely tolerant.

    no need to tell the Armenians about the tolerance of the Turks and their humanity. If not for such nonsense, the article would be even interesting
    1. +2
      18 February 2015 12: 03
      Peoples, mentality, and ways of acting change greatly over time. The author described the situation in the middle to the end of the 16th century, the Armenian genocide occurred in 20. This is a big difference. So with the word "delirium" you got very excited.
      1. +1
        18 February 2015 21: 13
        > So with the word "bred" you got very excited.

        I know the history of my people, and I know how much of this story is connected with the Turks - Seljuks and Ottomans.
  21. termit73
    +4
    18 February 2015 10: 48
    Ivan the Terrible and not Peter 1 created a regular army that had standardized weapons and a single uniform -In Europe, the first regular connections appeared much later
  22. +1
    18 February 2015 11: 04
    Great article. I found many interesting and unknown things. Many thanks to the author. Editors - "respect and respect" for the placement.
    I want to add that in the history of Russia for the elementary grades of school, Tsar Ivan the Terrible is presented as a "bad tsar". Unfortunately, I cannot give details. My children are already adults. All hearsay
  23. +3
    18 February 2015 11: 06
    Many thanks to the author (and everyone who shared his point of view)! From time immemorial, the "kind and how civilized" West did everything in its power to erase Russia or to subjugate it and use it as a striking force in its own interests, but it did not grow together - there is no such force on Earth that can subdue the "Russian Spirit"! Now, ever and ever! Amen!
  24. +4
    18 February 2015 11: 06
    Interesting, informative! And makes you think. Why is a sovereign caring for the good of the country represented as a bloodthirsty tyrant, even Ivan, even Joseph. Victims are exaggerated, and successes are hushed up. But the pro-Western Peter, who personally chopped the heads of the archers, was called great. Why should we Russians respect those who care about the image for the West and spit on the people?
    1. +5
      18 February 2015 12: 35
      Quote: Gardamir
      Why is a sovereign caring for the good of the country represented as a bloodthirsty tyrant, even Ivan, even Joseph. Victims are exaggerated, and successes are hushed up. But the pro-Western Peter, who personally chopped the heads of the archers, was called great. Why should we Russians respect those who care about the image for the West and spit on the people?

      Because the one who writes history forms the future and explains the present. Unfortunately, we used this logic very often.

      1. Dynasties were changing. The Romanovs replaced the Rurikovichs, which means they should have emphasized their exclusive right to the throne.
      2. Political systems were changing. Monarchy for communism. We grew up in Soviet textbooks, where tsarism is depicted as a rotten system. Especially in recent years. You will not find in the Soviet history textbook information about the heroic defense and resilience of Russian soldiers in the defense of the OSOVETS fortress. Where did the expressions "Russians not give up" come from? What went down in the history of Europe as an "attack of the dead". You will not find there information on how to annex the Caucasus. How small detachments of Russian soldiers smashed thousands of troops of the Persians.
      3. In the post-Petrine times, foreigners wrote to us. From there, for example, it came to us that Rurik was a non-Russian, Varangian. Consequently, a rationale has been made that the Russians cannot effectively control their country. This should be done by foreigners. Even the Germans under Hitler used these myths when they went to conquer the non-Aryan peoples.
      4. Many of our teachings have been offset by rewriting and distorting our history. The same Lomonosov beat with a stick at the Empress foreigners who rewrite our history.

      In summarizing, we can say that many of our rulers irresponsibly attributed the issue of transferring knowledge about our country and people to future generations, solving their short-term tasks.
  25. +1
    18 February 2015 11: 39
    Quote: Lexi2
    John Kerry was a descendant of Ivan the Terrible

    In the seventh generation, we are all related. And what difference does that make? "Every family has its black sheep."
    A cool article. I would like this information to be included in school textbooks. As for the Ottomans, there really was a great empire. With your cockroaches. And who does not have them? Well, Europe of those times is almost completely sucks.
  26. +1
    18 February 2015 12: 18
    Unfortunately, history is taught mainly from the works of the same Karamzin. Yes, interesting, but here's what's strange - more often than not, "everything is bad", "Ivan the Terrible" leaked everything "... but if he were so bad, would the Russian state have resisted during the Time of Troubles? no, but it not only survived, it, the state increased, and already in 1639 reached the Pacific Ocean.
  27. +1
    18 February 2015 12: 19
    A little clarification. The detachments of boyars are constantly mentioned in the article (it just hurts my eyes, Ivan the Terrible had only 48 boyars and these were nobles sitting in the Boyar Duma). It is not right. In Russia at that time, along with the nobles, there was an estate of children of the boyars.
    Quote from Wikipedia
    In the XNUMXth century and in the first half of the XNUMXth century in the Russian state, boyar children were considered to be higher than the title of nobility, and as descendants of the boyar clans they were recorded in the Boyar books, some of which were preserved in state archives and were not burned as a result of the struggle against localism. In the XNUMXth century, boyar children were divided into boyar yard children (part of the upper classes of the ruling class) and boyar city children (provincial nobles). Many did not remember or simply did not know about their noble origin.
    The estate was canceled by Peter1, uniting them with the nobility.
    1. +1
      18 February 2015 12: 53
      Quote: kagorta
      A little clarification. The detachments of boyars are constantly mentioned in the article (it just hurts my eyes, Ivan the Terrible had only 48 boyars and these were nobles sitting in the Boyar Duma). It is not right. In Russia at that time, along with the nobles, there was an estate of children of the boyars.

      I do not agree with everything. Clarification.
      1. The boyar was much larger. It’s just that not everyone was generous.
      2. "Boyar children" is a rather complicated term.
      A more complete explanation:
      BOYAR SON (BOYAR CHILDREN) - one of the categories of service people,
      appeared in the 15 century. These were the descendants of the junior ranks of princely squads
      (youths) or representatives of impoverished boyar clans. Getting from
      the owner’s estate (land, villages), the boyar children did not have the right
      "departure", departure from the "senior". In addition to the prince, the boyar children had large
      boyars, church. In the 16 century, the boyar children were divided into yard
      (palace), which were part of the ruling elite, and city
      (provincial) nobles - "junior officers".
  28. padonok.71
    +1
    18 February 2015 12: 33
    It is worth noting that before the accession of "Petrusha" the title of the Great was borne by Ivan Vasilievich IV, and only with the light hand of the German court historians-Germans, Ivan IV became "Terrible", for there can be no two Greats.
  29. +3
    18 February 2015 12: 34
    I read somewhere that Ivan the Terrible was very respected by Comrade Stalin.
    1. 0
      18 February 2015 12: 44
      Quote: Gun70
      I read somewhere that Ivan the Terrible was very respected by Comrade Stalin.

      And even ordered to make a film about him. But the figure of Ivan was too contradictory and multifaceted, that the film, even according to the recognition of Steel, failed. It was not possible to convey time, customs, internal struggle.
  30. +2
    18 February 2015 12: 49
    Already read this article before, but still re-read with great pleasure. Events and style of storytelling do not let go even for a minute.
  31. Dudu
    +4
    18 February 2015 13: 22
    “The most striking example of distinguishing Islamic pragmatism and religious tolerance from European savagery is the story of 100 Jews who were expelled from Spain in 000 and willingly accepted into citizenship by Sultan Bayezid. Catholics received moral satisfaction by dealing with the“ murderers of Christ ”, and Ottomans - significant receipts to the treasury from new, far from poor, immigrants. "
    A lie that is constantly spreading. After the defeat of Muslims in the Pyrenees, Judah's children became isolated and completely subordinated to the laws of the Spanish crown, which completely monopolized foreign trade. If earlier the Judas occupied a convenient trading place in the mediation between the entire Muslim world and Christian Europe, then in the new conditions they were simply kicked out of this pocket. They agreed with the Turks and moved under their wing. What, to whom and how much they promised - it is not given to know.
    But as soon as the news came that Colombo discovered the land with gold, they rushed back, converted to Christianity and became morals, secretly completely remaining Judas. They stole and bought genealogical books for a lot of money, destroyed them and rewrote them, bought noble ranks or killed nobles, stealing their titles and posing as murdered, etc. And when the Spaniards were again able to establish the bulk of the monopoly in the new lands, they moved to Holland and various Protestant revolutions began. So if you don’t know, then all sorts of sea gyoza there is a rabble hired by the moraines, who in the Netherlands created a naval bridgehead to conquer new overseas territories. That is why the Spaniards fought with such cruelty in Flanders and cut down the entire urban population - there was a struggle for world domination, and not for coastal swamps and the freedom of the local population, which did not understand anything.
    “Following the news about the devastation of Devlet-Giray, the news that there was one less khanate in the east flew to Istanbul. The sultan did not have time to digest this pill - and he was already told about the annexation of another khanate, Astrakhan, to Moscow. Khan Yamgurchi, in a fit of anger, decided to declare war on Russia ... "
    The violent fantasy of the author, who does not understand anything in the layout.
    After the capture of Kazan and Astrakhan, the New Russian Kingdom subjugated the TRANSCONTENITAL TRADE WAY (!!!) from Persia to Western Europe! The northern land branch of the eastern trade route from India and China, which existed before the fall of the Astrakhan Khanate, got out of control of the Ottomans, who supported the dependent khanates in order to preserve trade routes. Now Persia, hostile to the Ottomans and blocking the southern land branch of the road, had a direct trade route with Western Europe through the Moscow kingdom along the Volga river route, and the Ottomans had a fig and no income!
    That's why they moved a colossal army horseradish knows where, and not for Muslim insults ...
    1. 0
      18 February 2015 18: 57
      I put you a plus sign, I think that some distorted names and names are just a typo ...
  32. Igor 069
    0
    18 February 2015 13: 27
    Very informative! Thank! Thanks for the comments too, I read it with pleasure)!
  33. kolob
    0
    18 February 2015 14: 07
    Quote: smel
    Very good article. The author is a huge PLUS. Thanks. Well, for all those interested in those times, I advise you to read "War and Peace of Ivan the Terrible". A good book written by a knowledgeable patriot. And at the end of the article, we can add that thanks to the Romanovs in Pskov, there was no place for Grozny on the monument to the 1000th anniversary of Russia.
  34. 0
    18 February 2015 14: 10
    On this topic and not only, in my opinion, a very interesting book by Yuri Vorobyevsky "Judiada" - about treason and loyalty. Who is interested in the story, I recommend.
  35. Aspirin
    +2
    18 February 2015 14: 25
    Ivan the Terrible is one of the most slandered rulers of Russia. Suffice it to say that he created a successful empire surrounded by enemies much earlier than the Germans whom many admire.
  36. kolob
    +2
    18 February 2015 14: 29
    Quote: smel
    Very good article. The author is a huge PLUS. Thanks. Well, for all those interested in those times, I advise you to read "War and Peace of Ivan the Terrible". A good book written by a knowledgeable patriot. And at the end of the article, we can add that thanks to the Romanovs in Pskov, there was no place for Grozny on the monument to the 1000th anniversary of Russia.

    Only a monument in Veliky Novgorod stands!
  37. +1
    18 February 2015 15: 07
    A very necessary article. Put a lot in place. And just evaluates the achievements of Ivan the Terrible. Showing him as a wise ruler and statesman, the real Sovereign of All Russia. Time will come and society will overestimate the activities of such great people as Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and ... Stalin. After Peter I, the army degrades, and only Paul begins work on the creation of the army.
  38. +1
    18 February 2015 15: 46
    Ivan the Terrible carried out two monetary reforms, introducing the same coins for the whole country. True, silver was all imported for coins.
    An interesting article, I have already read it and was called "The Battle of Molodi"
  39. Turret68
    0
    18 February 2015 15: 54
    Thank you, a very interesting article!
  40. +1
    18 February 2015 16: 08
    Somehow, all commentators went on the main article — Ivan the Terrible — a great, mighty one, and in general ... Somehow, they all forgot about the fact that apart from successes in the east with the subjugation of all these khanates and repulsing the raids (Girey’s campaign was a raid , whose purpose was to gain, rather than conquer, that is, establish its own administration in the conquered territories), the Livonian war was still mediocre, as a result of which Russia lost the original Russian lands of the Vodskaya Pyatina of Novgorod land and was completely cut off from the Baltic Sea.

    I agree that in modern historiography Ivan the Terrible never received an objective assessment, they talk more about his mental illnesses, tantrums, imbalance, etc., forgetting about the huge merits. But it should not be exalted to heaven either. He is far from the greatest of the Rurikovichs, in my opinion, Ivan the Great the Great or the same Yaroslav the Wise, Mstislav Vladimirovich the Great deserves such a definition rather, undeservedly, in my opinion, forgotten ...

    One can evaluate the oprichnina and other undertakings of Ivan the Terrible in different ways, but in this article I do not see objectivity, I do not even see attempts to evaluate something objectively. The author simply expounds a certain point of view, in my opinion, trying to make it as far as possible from the "canonical" knowledge.

    The article put a plus, but ... let's say this plus is far from unconditional.
    1. 0
      18 February 2015 16: 16
      Quote: Luga
      He is far from the greatest of the Rurikovichs, in my opinion, Ivan the Great the Great or the same Yaroslav the Wise, Mstislav Vladimirovich the Great deserves such a definition rather, undeservedly, in my opinion, forgotten ...

      There is already a moot point.
      Quote: Luga
      One can evaluate the oprichnina and other undertakings of Ivan the Terrible in different ways, but in this article I do not see objectivity, I do not even see attempts to evaluate something objectively. The author simply expounds a certain point of view, in my opinion, trying to make it as far as possible from the "canonical" knowledge.

      The author is rather hurt as Grozny was pushed into the back of history and slandered.
  41. 0
    18 February 2015 16: 18
    And Russia is already waking up from a false dream !!!! This article is like honey to my heart and soul! Our ancient past was lied to by the Western sycophants, of whom there have always been many in Russia! On this topic, I read Prozorov's book "Boyar Hundred", it is in several parts! Written in the style of "fantasy" and alternative history, but the historical facts that are revealed in this article have been observed. It was very interesting for me to read. The book begins quite interestingly: in our time, history buffs and members of historical clubs fall into the past in the days of the young Ivan IV "the Terrible" ......
    1. 0
      18 February 2015 16: 27
      Quote: Ivan Slav
      And Russia is already waking up from a false dream !!!! This article is like honey to my heart and soul! Our ancient past was lied to by the Western sycophants, of whom there have always been many in Russia! On this topic, I read Prozorov's book "Boyar Hundred", it is in several parts! Written in the style of "fantasy" and alternative history, but the historical facts that are revealed in this article have been observed. It was very interesting for me to read. The book begins quite interestingly: in our time, history buffs and members of historical clubs fall into the past in the days of the young Ivan IV "the Terrible" ......

      Prozorov also has a magnificent series of books "The Prince". Also about the time of Ivan the Terrible and also in the style of fantasy.
  42. 0
    18 February 2015 16: 21
    Oh yes, I forgot to say that the article plus the author thanks me! Good luck and success!
  43. 0
    18 February 2015 17: 00
    The author spoiled everything at the end of the article. He simply threw Peter I, Catherine II, Alexander I etc, into the garbage dump, together with the Cossacks and Bashkirs in Berlin, then in Paris, or in Stockholm. To understand the greatness of Ivan IV, it is enough to read Karamzin and not read school books. But to exalt one sovereign and smear Mr. all with the rest is a purely shoveling habit. It’s time to get rid of it.
    1. 0
      18 February 2015 17: 13
      in my opinion you are wrong, the idea is clearly traced here that the period has begun, and not constant degradation ... I would not have called the period of turmoil myself otherwise!
      Peter again began to raise everything that had been safely destroyed during this time, the progress of the people and the country had clearly begun ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        18 February 2015 18: 04
        Well, how wrong. Here is a paragraph about all the degradants of the Romanovs at once. There are no signs that "... without the will of Russia, not a single gun in Europe will fire ..."

        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).
        1. 0
          18 February 2015 18: 08
          And what about the Romanovs was only 4?
  44. 0
    18 February 2015 17: 43
    The Great Orthodox Sovereign. Rest in peace.
  45. +5
    18 February 2015 18: 35
    Personally, I liked the article, both as an easy syllable and as an argumentative position of the author. Ivan the Terrible, wait, the most controversial of the Russian rulers, in any case, this is how history presents him. The more publications on this subject, the more clearly his portrait will become.

    Many thanks to the author, I got a real pleasure.
  46. +4
    18 February 2015 19: 17
    Under Tsar Ivan the Terrible, Russia grew not only in territories in all directions, but also strengthened. I would like to tell the readers of "VO" about the protection of our territories in the North. After the creation of the Solovetsky Monastery, the Swedes, Germans, and Finns rushed to the area to capture it. The Russians rose to fight them. In 1571, the abbot of the monastery asked for help from Ivan the Terrible for protection from enemies. This assistance was immediately provided. Voivode Mikhail Ozerov arrived at the monastery with a detachment of archers. But the enemy raids continued, although the Russian soldiers won victories in battles. There were reports on this in Moscow. Ivan the Terrible, after one of his reports, gave instructions to the voivode: "From now on, enemies attacking the Russian northern lands should not be taken prisoner. Those who were previously taken to execute, so that it would be discouraging for the enemies to destroy Russian settlements." This was done. The raids of the Swedes, Germans and Finns ceased. This is how order was established in the Russian lands under Ivan the Terrible. (an excerpt from my story "For the good of the Fatherland". "VO" from February 11, 2013). I have the honor.
  47. 0
    18 February 2015 19: 27
    In general, the nickname "formidable" Ivan 4 was "hitched" by historians! and in Russia he was called Ivan the Bloody and the Terrible was called his great grandfather - Ivan 3
    1. 0
      18 February 2015 20: 18
      Quote: Russian Uzbek
      In general, the nickname "formidable" Ivan 4 was "hitched" by historians! and in Russia he was called Ivan the Bloody and the Terrible was called his great grandfather - Ivan 3

      In fact, Ivan the Terrible’s grandfather was nicknamed the Great, because it was under him that the Moscow principality gained independence from the Golden Horde (1480). And Ivan 3 attached many lands to his native homeland.
    2. 0
      24 February 2015 17: 14
      This is Karamzin's version. He has Ivan IV - "The Tormentor", and Ivan III - "Terrible Eyes"
      But descendants give nicknames, not contemporaries. Therefore, the nicknames "great" kings received after death. Ivan III, Peter I, Catherine II.
  48. +1
    18 February 2015 19: 47
    I liked the article, the story is an interesting thing, they write it as someone benefits, we have rewritten it for a hundred years. So, to find out what happened 300-500 years ago or earlier is very difficult.
  49. +4
    18 February 2015 20: 13
    In general, the times of Ivan the Terrible are poorly understood - many written evidence died during the Time of Troubles. This is the majority of historians who believe in European sources, which, having spawned, did not write anything good about us. Among everything, such a thing as the library of Ivan the Terrible stands apart. Few people, for some reason, think of the thought of why it was named after him. It is possible that this library is the most valuable thing that we lost after the death of the last Rurikovich and still have not found!
    1. +2
      24 February 2015 16: 39
      In general, the absence of manuscripts of the XIV-XVI centuries in Russian monasteries is surprising.
      It seems that they were well cleaned. And it was during the time of the first Romanovs. After all, they had almost no more rights to the Russian throne than Godunov had. And among Shuisky, Miloslavsky, Dolgoruky and other descendants of Rurik, there are so much more!
      The Romanovs do not look like a Western project, most likely the last appointee of the West was Vladislav Sigismundovich. And the Romanovs turned out to be the compromise that arranged the Russian nobility of that time. How Brezhnev arranged the Politburo after Nikita Sergeevich.
  50. 0
    18 February 2015 21: 58
    No wonder Stalin appreciated Grozny, he was formidable and great, and now our president, according to Chuvakin, is better than Brezhnev, and Medvedev is probably better than N.I. Ryzhkova.
  51. 0
    18 February 2015 22: 59
    Comrade A. Prozorov is simply a storyteller. Ivan the Terrible at the time of the capture of Kazan was only 22 years old. Tatar Kazan was taken by other Tatars, and Ivan with an army consisting of 3/4 Tatars was obliged to be there by order of the Supreme Khan. Those who If in doubt, please search for historical literature yourself.
    After the so-called “capture” of Kazan, Ivan the Terrible continued to pay tribute to the Kasimov Khanate for many more years.
    Türkiye at that time was already a fragment of the Golden Horde, but a completely independent state.
    Authors: Vasiliev V.P.Bartold V.V.Vernadsky G.V.Enikeev G.R.Gumilev L.N and many others.
  52. 0
    18 February 2015 23: 13
    This is how they slandered Paul I, if he had lived another 10-15 years, there would have been very big changes in Russia. Thank God they simply forgot Ivan III, without complaining.
    By the way, the “hunchback” Richard III in England was also mixed with manure, although he was not a sadist and simply an intelligent person.
  53. 0
    18 February 2015 23: 21
    I read it with pleasure. I had never heard of such a battle. But she was, and there’s no point in breaking spears here. And the story... Which way to look at it.
  54. 0
    19 February 2015 02: 28
    In the 15th century, Afanasy Nikitin wrote the book “Walking across Three Seas” where the text easily and imperceptibly strayed from Russian to Tatar and back. One must think that both he and his readers were fluent in at least 2 languages; Russians and Tatars had no problems! On samples of Russian weapons and armor of that time, there is often Arabic script - the Russians also had no problems with the Turks, they were allies until then. During the Romanov era, a lot of history was distorted.
  55. 0
    19 February 2015 08: 37
    Here are the territorial acquisitions of Ivan 4 on the map.
    1. Anne
      0
      22 February 2015 10: 37
      hi another lie of the Romanovs. They lied throughout their entire reign.
  56. 0
    19 February 2015 09: 10
    In an article dated February 14, “Russian Metal” by Alexey Volynets it is said: “...Therefore, the “Livonian War” started by Ivan the Terrible was precisely a struggle for free access to the trade routes of the Baltic Sea, so that Rus' could export its furs to the West and freely buy not so metals that grabbed her."
    Aleksadr Prozorov says the opposite about metals, at the very end of the article “... the army created by Ivan IV and the industry that supplied weapons to the whole of Europe was destroyed (the Tula-Kamensk factories alone sold to the West up to 600 guns a year, tens of thousands of cores, thousands of grenades, muskets and swords)."
    It would be interesting to hear someone else's competent opinion on this matter.
  57. 0
    19 February 2015 16: 31
    Thanks a lot! Very interesting and educational material.
  58. Anne
    0
    20 February 2015 18: 50
    I DO NOT agree

    1. that Ivan 4 ruled for so many years. It has already been proven that FOUR kings ruled under the name of Ivan the Terrible.
    2. During the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the Ottoman Empire was a friendly state in relation to Russia. To this day they call themselves Ottomans.

    3. The Romanovs, in order to legitimize their power, distorted historical reality. As was said above, the Baltic states were given to Sweden, the lands of White Rus' and Polyana were turned into Lithuania (Latinia). Religious reform was carried out.

    Look at the cross of St. Basil's Cathedral. It's with a crescent moon. Does this tell you anything? But the crescent is a symbol of Islam.

    We have lived with Muslims for many centuries in peace and harmony, this only proves that Orthodoxy and Islam have common roots.
  59. Rurik
    0
    22 February 2015 02: 03
    It would be good to include this material in the compulsory school history curriculum.
  60. 0
    24 February 2015 16: 22
    The only thing I can’t understand is why Ivan IV is called the last tsar of the Rurik family. And his son Fedor I, what doesn’t count? And Vasily Shuisky was Rurikovich.