Military Review

Wand or poison? Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan in November 1581 of the year

40
In Chingiz Aitmatov’s novel “The Snow-storming Station” there is an image of a mankurt - a slave deprived of the memory of the past. But in the same way, any people without historical memory, turns into a collective "mankurt". This is exactly what they are trying to do today with the Russian and other indigenous peoples of Russia.


Wand or poison? Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan in November 1581 of the year

Ivan the Terrible. Hood Victor Vasnetsov. Xnumx

One of the ways to oppose this process is to counter the falsification of the history of our Fatherland, to preserve the historical truth about our statesmen. Among them, Ivan the Terrible, the first Russian tsar, laid the foundations of the modern multinational and multi-religious Russian state. That is why he was appointed by the enemies of Russia the role of the bloodiest tyrant in the history of mankind.

But the significance of historical figures must be judged by the results of their rule. If you look at the results of the reign of Ivan IV, we will see that he ruled 43 of the year, and during this time the territory of the state increased almost 2 times, the population grew by about 30%, administrative, judicial and military reforms were carried out, a network of primary schools was created and the postal service, organized printing, founded 155 new cities and fortresses, built more than a hundred churches and monasteries. The tsar laid the foundation for the convocation of the Zemstvo councils, introduced the election of the local administration, which helped the peoples of the Russian state to overcome the Troubles of the early 17th century. The king himself wrote church hymns and became the founder of Russian journalism.

As for his alleged “tyranny”, during the years of his rule no more than 5000 people, including criminals, were executed. For comparison: during the reign of, for example, the contemporary of Ivan IV, the French king Charles IX, during the night of St. Bartholomew, Catholics killed around 30 000 Protestants. In the 16th century, when Ivan the Terrible was ruling, 70 000 people were hanged in England for vagrancy. These figures prove that the special “bloodthirstiness” of the Terrible-king is a lie.

There are one among the falsified "victims" of Ivan IV, about which everyone has heard.

Here is how Nikolai Karamzin described this event:

“In his eldest son, John, the tsar was preparing Russia for his second self: doing important things together with him ... along with him, voluptuous and ruining people ... But, expressing the bitterness of the heart and the unrest in lustfulness in a young man, [the prince] showed the mind deeds and sensitivity to fame or at least to the dishonor of the fatherland. During peace talks, suffering for Russia, reading sorrow and on the faces of the boyars, hearing, maybe (hereinafter highlighted by me. - VM), and the general grumbling, the prince was filled with noble jealousy, came to his father and demanded that he sent him with an army to expel the enemy, to liberate Pskov, to restore the honor of Russia. John shouted in agitation of anger: “Rebel! You and the boyars want to overthrow me from the throne! ”- and raised his hand. Boris Godunov wanted to hold her, the king gave him several wounds with his sharp wand and hit the prince hard in the head. This unhappy fell, drenched in blood. Here the fury of John disappeared. Pale with horror, in trembling, in a frenzy, he exclaimed: “I killed my son!” - and rushed to embrace, kiss him; holding the blood flowing from a deep ulcer; crying, sobbing, calling the healers; begged God for mercy, son for forgiveness. But the judgment of heaven is accomplished. The prince, kissing the hands of his father, gently showed him love and compassion; persuaded him not to indulge in despair; he said that he was dying a faithful son and subjects ... All mourned the fate of the sovereign young man who could live for happiness and virtue. ”

The only credible fact in all this sentimental history is that the prince died in November 1581 of the year. Doctor of Historical Sciences Vladimir Kobrin notes that "the death of the heir to the throne caused puzzled discord among contemporaries and controversy among historians." There were many versions of the death of the prince, but in each of them the main evidence was the words "maybe", "most likely", "probably" and "presumably."


The tomb of Ivan the Terrible and his sons in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin

In the scientific commentaries to the above quotation from Karamzin it is written: “Ivan the Terrible killed his son in other circumstances. Once the king went to his son's chambers and saw his pregnant wife dressed not according to the rules: it was hot, and instead of three shirts she put on only one. The king began to beat the daughter-in-law, and the son - to protect her. Then the Terrible and struck his son a fatal blow to the head. "

A similar version was followed by Kazimir Walishevsky:

“Ivan allegedly met his daughter-in-law in the inner chambers of the palace and noticed that her costume did not fully meet the requirements of decency. It is possible that in her position she did not wear a belt over her chemise. Offended by this, the hegumen-king struck her with such force that the next night she was first relieved of the burden. Naturally, the prince did not refrain from reproaching the king. Grozny flared up and swung his staff. Mortal blow was struck the prince in the temple. "

Kobrin recognizes this story as the most "plausible": "Looks like the truth, but it cannot be checked or proved another version: the prince interceded with his father for his pregnant wife, who the father-in-law" taught "with a stick ...". However, since when can a person be found guilty of murder on the basis of a version that cannot be "neither verified nor proven," even if it is "similar to the truth"?

Already in this "consumer" version, you can see a number of inconsistencies. They write that the princess put on one dress of the three due to the heat. Is it in November, then? Another author points to the absence of a belt that allegedly infuriated Tsar Ivan, who accidentally met his daughter-in-law in the "inner chambers of the palace." This version is completely unreliable: the king was difficult to meet the princess "dressed not according to the statute", and even in the inner chambers.


Ivan the Terrible at the body of the son he murdered. Hood Vyacheslav Schwartz. Xnumx

Each member of the royal family had separate mansions, connected with other parts of the palace by cold transitions in winter. The family of the prince lived in such a separate tower. His wife was on the female half of the chamber, the entrance to which was always locked, and the key was in her husband's pocket. She could get out of there only with the permission of her spouse and accompanied by servants and maids who would take care of her decent clothes. In addition, the princess was pregnant, and she would not be allowed to walk in the cold halls "in one shirt". Metropolitan John (Snychev) is right in pointing out that the absurdity of this version is so obvious that historians needed to find a more credible motive for the “crime”.

Thus, another tale appeared in the presentation of Karamzin - the version of “political sonicide”: quarrels over negotiations with the Poles. “They say that the king was afraid of the young energy of his son, envied him, was suspicious of the prince’s aspiration to lead the troops in the war against the Commonwealth ... Alas, all these versions are based only on dark and contradictory rumors,” Professor Kobrin echoed Vladyka John.

Indeed, there are no fewer contradictions in this version than in the “household” one. The entire episode in Karamzin is based on the discontent of the prince, "reading on the faces" (!) Of the boyars and hearing "universal grumbling" "during peace talks." That is, according to Karamzin, the prince expresses discontent with the course of the Russian-Polish negotiations. But the prince died in November 1581 of the year, and negotiations with Poland began on December 13 of 1581, almost a month after his death. How can you be dissatisfied with the course of negotiations, which have not yet begun, historians are silent.

There is such a version of “sonicide”. In the 1580 year (another date —1578), foreign speculation in alcohol in the German Quarter was suppressed. Tsarevich allegedly defended underground vodka merchants: “The Tsar became infuriated with ... Tsarevich Ivan, because he showed compassion for this unfortunate ... In rage, he struck him with a rod ... in the ear and so dearly (sweet European irony! - VM) that he fell ill with a fever and died on the third day ... The state lost hope of having a sovereign of a wise and meek prince, a hero with a spirit and beautiful appearance, 23 years old (27 years. - V.M.) loved and mourned by everyone ”(Jerome Horsey). And in another translation from English of this place in the writings of Gorsey, the blow with a rod is described as ... just a slap in the face!

This version of events is no less far-fetched than all the others. The acuteness of a quarrel does not correspond to its limitations: from a year to three years have passed. However, the most interesting thing is that at first its authors argue that the prince is a likeness of his father. “Ivan ... physically and morally reminded him of his father, who shared classes and fun with him” (Valishevsky). According to the "testimony" of Oderborn, the father and son "changed their mistresses." Together, they "voluntarily loved and destroyed people" (Karamzin). As Kobrin summarized, the prince was a worthy heir to his father.

All the false abominations that were said about the father are repeated against the son. And suddenly, after his death, everything changes. Karamzin paints an image of a dearly loving son who, dying, "kisses the hands of his father ... all mourn the fate of the sovereign youth ..." (27 years? You would have written a boy. - VM). At Gorsey, the prince became "wise and gentle, a hero and a handsome man beloved by all." Valishevsky writes that the prince was very popular and his death became a national disaster.

Turning a “bloodthirsty monster” into a “beloved nation” says that either the first or the second is a lie. Let everyone decide for himself where the truth is, the author joins the opinion of Metropolitan John (Snychev) about the unfoundedness of all versions of the murder of his son by the king.

It really is. In the Moscow chronicler, under the 7090, we read the year (the chronicles are quoted on the PSRL): “Prince Ivan Ivanovich ceases to live”; in Piskaryovskiy: “On 12, the night of summer on 7090 [1581] November on 17 is the day ... the death of Prince Ivan Ivanovich”; in the Novgorod IV Chronicle: “The same [7090] year, the reign of Ivan Ivanovich on the matins in Sloboda ...”; in Morozovskaya: "Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich was not."

In the given annals there is not a word about the murder.

The quarrel and the death of the prince are not connected with each other, as indicated by the entry in the Second Archival List of the Pskov III Annals. Here, under the summer, 7089 (from 01.09.1580 to 01.09.1581) recorded a quarrel (as a rumor): “Netsyi say, like the son of his prince Ivan, for the sake of his visitation, he taught us about the rescue of the city of Pskov”. And under the summer of 7090 (from 01.09.1581 to 01.09.1582), the prince’s death is said: “Prince Ivan Ivanovich died in the December suburb in the same year [December was mistakenly indicated. - vm] on xnumx day. " If you believe this message, the difference between the quarrel and the death of the prince is at least more than two months (14 year when the quarrel occurred, ended August 7089 31 year, and the death of the prince occurred in November 1581 year, that is, in November 7090 year, because the new year then began on September 1581).

It is possible to point out the message of Jacques Margeret: “It is rumored that the eldest [son] he [the king] killed with his own hand, what happened differently, because, although he hit his end with a rod ... and he was hit by a blow, he did not from this, and some time later, on a pilgrimage journey. "
So the version of the murder of his son by the king is unreliable and has no documentary evidence. But if the father did not kill the prince, how did he die? Regarding the Tsarevich’s illness, it is possible to say definitely: it was poisoning with mercuric chloride (HgCl2 mercury chloride).


Ivan the Terrible at the body of the son he murdered. Hood Nikolay Shustov. 1860's

In 1963, the tombs of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Ivan, Tsar Theodore Ivanovich and Prince Skopin-Shuisky were uncovered in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Scientists have found that in the bones of Tsar Ivan IV and Tsarevich Ivan, the presence of mercury is much higher than the allowable rate (for both, about 1,3 mg, more than 30 times the maximum allowable level in 0,04 mg). In addition, the remains of an arsenic prince were almost twice as large as their father’s - 0,26 mg with the maximum allowable level in 0,08 mg (according to the information of the chief archaeologist of the Moscow Kremlin Museum-Reserve, doctor of historical sciences Tatiana Panova. See: Babichenko D. Unpredictable past // Results. - 17.09.2002).

Some have tried to argue that this is not a poisoning, but a consequence of the treatment of syphilis with mercury ointments. However, as noted by ETC. Panova, “M.M. Gerasimov, the conclusion of some too zealous authors that Ivan IV from about 1565 (about twenty years) had syphilis. The same illness (and since the same time!) Allegedly suffered his eldest son Ivan. The authors of this idea did not even stop the age of the boy - he was only 10 years old then! There are no traces of venereal diseases on the bones of the skeleton, or on the skull of Ivan Vasilyevich and his son, but they should have been if they really had syphilis ”(Panova T. Time, time, poison was given ... // Knowledge is power. - №12. - 2000).

After in the 1990-ies conducted a study of the graves of grand duchess and queens, the fact of poisoning by the same merciless mother of Ivan IV Elena Glinsky (1538) and his first wife Anastasia Romanova (1560) was revealed. This indicates that the royal family, including the king himself, for decades was the victim of poisoners from close entourage.

The data from these studies suggested that Prince Ivan Ivanovich was poisoned. Thus, modern historical science refutes the version of the murder of his son by Tsar John Vasilyevich.

But who could be his killer?

The father of the myth of “sonicide” was a Jesuit and papal legate Antonio Possevino, who avenged the king for refusing to negotiate a union with Rome. It was he who spread rumors about this "crime" of Ivan IV in Europe. Possevino knew in advance about the death of the king himself: two years before his death, the Jesuit reported her to the Venetian government. Possevino came to Moscow shortly before the death of the prince, who was against peace with Batory, and could disrupt the plans of the legate who wanted to exchange aid in peace with Poland to an agreement on religious union of Moscow and Rome.
For Possevino, it was not difficult to reach an agreement with opposition-minded boyars, and the prince fell silent forever. And then Posevino composed the myth of suicide.

The king also died very timely for Rome and Poland: at the beginning of 1584, Batory began preparing for a new war with Moscow with the blessing of the Pope. A “shuttle” diplomacy of papal legates began near the Russian borders. And after a couple of months, Ivan IV was gone. The chronicler reported that "the people were poisoned by the king." Deacon Ivan Timofeev said that Godunov and Belsky "prematurely stopped the life of the king." Dutchman Isaac Massa claimed that Belsky had put poison in the royal medicine. Horsey wrote about the secret designs of the Godunovs against Ivan the Terrible.
Everything converges: and who could, and who benefits.

And finally, the ultima ratio in favor of the above version is the Jesuit motto: “The end justifies the means”.
Author:
Originator:
http://историк.рф/special_posts/жезл-или-яд-иван-грозный-и-его-сын-иван/
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 18 October 2015 09: 33 New
    +10
    Everything converges: and who could, and who benefits...the purpose of lime is the genus of Rurikovich .. Rurikovich, were real applicants for the crown ON ..
    1. Rivares
      Rivares 18 October 2015 18: 16 New
      +9
      Godunov, by the way, was also Rurikovich's father. It was then the Westerners of the Romanovs who began Godunov (surname by mother) to advertise as a regicide and an impostor, so that their seizure of power would look like the overthrow of the usurper, and they as “heroes” would overthrow him and begin to reign ...
      That is why they made the famous production of Boris Godunov famous, which is why so many famous paintings of Grozny kill “their son”. And by the way, there is not a single famous painting Peter-1 sends his son to be executed ...
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 18 October 2015 18: 37 New
        +4
        In the case of the Romanovs, the wife killed her husband, and the son killed his father. Moreover, not at all conspiracy theology, but a completely reinforced concrete fact. And nothing, Catherine the Great, Alexander the Blessed smile
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 19 October 2015 12: 34 New
          0
          The heresy in Pskov was ... they are usually killed by families, including the royal.
  2. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 18 October 2015 10: 17 New
    -20
    another interpretation of History, another historian. request
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 18 October 2015 16: 27 New
      -2
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      another interpretation of History, another historian. request

      of 6 (at this moment) minusers, not one! didn't bring counter arguments. why sculpt minus? out of love for art? wassat
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 18 October 2015 17: 55 New
        +9
        We read the article:

        In 1963, the tombs of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Ivan, Tsar Theodore Ivanovich and Prince Skopin-Shuisky were uncovered in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Scientists have found that in the bones of Tsar Ivan IV and Tsarevich Ivan, the presence of mercury is much higher than the allowable rate (for both, about 1,3 mg, more than 30 times the maximum allowable level in 0,04 mg). In addition, the remains of an arsenic prince were almost twice as large as their father’s - 0,26 mg with the maximum allowable level in 0,08 mg (according to the information of the chief archaeologist of the Moscow Kremlin Museum-Reserve, doctor of historical sciences Tatiana Panova. See: Babichenko D. Unpredictable past // Results. - 17.09.2002).
    2. parusnik
      parusnik 18 October 2015 17: 44 New
      +14
      Andrei Yuryevich ... I didn’t minus you, for example .. But the poisoning of Ivan the Terrible and his son is quite real .. If you were aware, Ivan the Terrible was standing for the throne of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and you had every right, the Moscow Rurikovich dynasty was connected by dynastic by ties with the dynasty of the Great Lithuanian Princes Olgerdovich .. Previously, Ivan the Terrible’s father, Vasily ran for the indicated throne .. but didn’t pass .. And if he did? .. Imagine .. what would happen .. Danger for the Roman church .. Well, the version Posevino .. It's like that in the Donbass militia firing they make themselves .. The author did not indicate one moment that when examining the remains of Tsarevich Ivan, no bone injuries were found .. Yes, and another aspect, carefully re-read the History of Karamzin, in it the Rurikovichs, especially those who created and expanded the Moscow State look unsightly .. Here's how the future Decembrist Mikhail Orlov writes about Karamzin’s History:Why, then, in his classic book does he not show that attachment to the fatherland, which he glorifies in others? Why does he want to be an impartial cosmopolitan and not a citizen? Why is he looking for one dry truth of traditions, and does not incline all traditions to our former greatness
      Fatherland ..
  3. Basil50
    Basil50 18 October 2015 10: 29 New
    +11
    Only the means and technique of spreading rumors are different from modern ones, and almost everything is as it is today. Even the initiators are almost the same, well, the quality of the rumors is not better. It is outrageous that the figures of * culture * are very willing to respond to customer requests to shit RUSSIA, and they will not die of shame. For frank lies, they also receive bonuses. Everything is rotten, it is who you need to be to lie about your ancestors knowing that you're lying. Impunity has corrupted, and even excuses do not come up with the full confidence of their * right * to * a new vision *, and * the rest * are obliged to be enthusiastic and pay.
    1. jPilot
      jPilot 19 October 2015 02: 59 New
      0
      I completely agree, it’s especially enraging that it’s my own people who are the most angry and tearing up, and such Judas came out with the coming to power of EBEn and his liberal thieves’ government.
      And there are more such articles, and especially about the reign of Nikolashka the Bloody, real historical facts.
  4. strelets
    strelets 18 October 2015 10: 35 New
    +10
    And the most annoying thing is that these gossip are now given out as gold coins in the textbooks of our children. Where does the minobr look?
    1. venaya
      venaya 18 October 2015 10: 44 New
      +7
      Quote: strelets
      And the most annoying thing is that these gossip are now given out as gold coins in the textbooks of our children. Where does the minobr look?

      Apparently in your pocket, there is no other explanation.
    2. Vend
      Vend 18 October 2015 10: 53 New
      +8
      Quote: strelets
      And the most annoying thing is that these gossip are now given out as gold coins in the textbooks of our children. Where does the minobr look?

      These gossip have been passed off as truth for a long time, they do not want to notice the achievements of Ivan the Terrible. Of course, I don’t want to draw parallels, but look at how Putin’s mud is now being doused. Over the centuries, the Western approach to the strong leaders of Russia has not changed. Slander and falsehood. Extinguish strong leaders from the history of Russia, so there was no one to be proud of.
  5. provincial
    provincial 18 October 2015 10: 49 New
    -9
    I wonder if Russian modern justice existed then, Ivan the Terrible would be imprisoned, and if so, how much? And would they release him on parole? Would he be under house arrest? etc. etc. After all, he is the king, not Vasiliev.
    1. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul 18 October 2015 10: 58 New
      +10
      I wonder if Russian modern justice existed then, Ivan the Terrible would be imprisoned, and if so, how much? And would they release him on parole? Would he be under house arrest? etc. etc. After all, he is the king, not Vasiliev.
      Neither in those days nor in today's rulers are planted. They are usually killed if they do not have time to escape outside the borders of their state, into a friendly country. From recent examples:
      Saddam Hussein - hanged by court order;
      Muammar Gaddafi - killed before the trial;
      Viktor Yanukovych - managed to escape from the country thanks to Russia.
      hi
    2. provincial
      provincial 18 October 2015 11: 57 New
      -8
      I feel the smartest minus set. Calm down, I do not pretend to your anger. I am writing about the reality of our justice. There is still a trip of Ferari on the Crimean bridge and Georgian aggression, let's see how to resolve this. I wrote earlier, a man who did not substantiate his minus is a dummy for me. So there is no opinion.
      1. Gomunkul
        Gomunkul 18 October 2015 12: 13 New
        +1
        I feel the smartest negative set. Calm down, I do not pretend to your anger.
        Without good reason, I’m not negative. And without me, there are enough people who want to get out. You asked, I expressed my opinion. (And I don’t put a minus to your comment) laughing
      2. Akuzenka
        Akuzenka 18 October 2015 20: 52 New
        +3
        I don’t understand one thing. How can one level a guardian for a power and a son from the "golden youth"? Call him dad, mom and ask officially. Write a statement to the prosecutor’s office, create a movement against such officials .... And what about Ivan the Terrible? Ahhh, I guessed, toss the guano at him. Throw your guano at yourself. Justified its minus.
  6. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 18 October 2015 10: 50 New
    +9
    In Chingiz Aitmatov's novel Buranny Pustanok, there is an image of a mancourt — a slave who has no memory of the past. But just the same, any nation, devoid of historical memory, turns into a collective "mankurt". This is what they are trying to do today with the Russian and other indigenous peoples of Russia.
    The article is certainly informative, but in my opinion it is necessary to make a series of articles about Ioann Vasilyevich Grozny and his time for a deeper understanding of the processes that took place in those years inside the country and abroad. I wish the author not to stop halfway. Probably the time has come to restore justice and return the honest name to a great man whose name the enemies of Russia have trailed for many years. hi
    1. skullcap
      skullcap 18 October 2015 11: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: Gomunkul
      The article is certainly informative, but in my opinion it is necessary to make a cycle of articles about Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and his time for a deeper understanding of the processes that took place in those years inside and outside the country.

      It definitely does not hurt.
      But those who find this interesting, without waiting for the articles, can read V. Shambarov’s book “The King of Terrible Russia”. In it, the author very competently examines all the nuances of the then external and internal situation and strips off layers of slander both on Russia as a whole and on Ivan the Terrible.
      In my opinion - this is the best historical work about the period under consideration. And written, by the way, in an intelligible, normal, untwisted language.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 21 October 2015 17: 14 New
        -1
        But how is it with the source base? Normal language is not a sign of authenticity. There are primary and secondary sources. How much and what were the basis of this work and in what publication was it published, who are the reviewers?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 21 October 2015 23: 42 New
          0
          So they asked, or do you want to close the publishing house and withdraw / buy the circulation?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  7. skullcap
    skullcap 18 October 2015 11: 17 New
    +9
    PS
    "There are one among the falsified" victims "of Ivan IV, about which everyone has heard.

    This is how Nikolai Karamzin described this event ... "
    This Karamzin, by the way, was a freemason, of which the progressive intelligentsia is modestly silent; but this is what explains a lot.
  8. moskowit
    moskowit 18 October 2015 12: 33 New
    +3
    The Great Citizen and Historian N. Karamzin 200 years ago wrote his work. Naturally, some kind of opportunistic moments took place. But we must not forget that over the 200 years, the documentary and source study of documents has expanded significantly. The views of that time are now archaic. Everyone, more or less interested in history, should take the works of the Great Historians not as a POSTULATE, but as a starting point for expanding their own knowledge and the opportunity to learn more with the help of modern works by historians and archaeologists, adding with their works and works new knowledge to the history of our Motherland .
  9. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 18 October 2015 13: 21 New
    +4
    Ivan the Terrible, the first Russian Tsar, who laid the foundations of the modern multinational and multi-religious Russian state. That is why he was appointed by the enemies of Russia the role of the bloodiest tyrant in the history of mankind.

    For pro-Western Russian libes..alov of past centuries and the present has always been the main thing that they say in the West about Russia!
    They appointed Ivan the Terrible a bloodthirsty tyrant - the murderer of his own son, which means that it is! It cannot be otherwise in a country inhabited by Russian barbarians who do not bow to the enlightened West and do not recognize its values! And even the evidence-based research conducted in 1963 for these henchmen of the Western world does NOT mean ANYTHING: as Russia and the Russian people have continued, they continue to discuss, especially since the counteraction to this in Russia is WEAK! such powerful educational, propaganda weapons as cinema, television. It would be possible, for example, to make such films on the history of Russia based on real events, but where there - they won’t give Oscars for them, but it’s quite possible to get a prize (or a Nobel Prize, like I received just that the Belarusian "pysatelnitsa")!
  10. kvs207
    kvs207 18 October 2015 15: 37 New
    +3
    Ivan the Terrible, of course, began to demonize with the arrival of the Romanovs. As already noted, in order to exalt oneself, one must humiliate the predecessor
  11. Pissarro
    Pissarro 18 October 2015 16: 05 New
    +5
    If you give a person a stick on the head, then there will be traces of blood on the hair that cannot be washed off completely. Poison in the son of Grozny was found in the remains, but there were no traces of blood on the hair. Singing inconsistency.
    Second, there is not a single Russian source opmsyvaya event, all that there are slanderous outright enemies and traitors, messing paper from behind a hill, versions of which do not converge
    Another nuance, the Romanovs frankly did not like Grozny, they were just upstarts against the background of the ancient dynasty, they didn’t turn on the monument to the millennium of Russia, the tsar, who essentially founded the empire, but even they and their entourage were outraged by the Repin, the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod and the teacher of the two Tsars of Pobedonostsev called this creation a blatant lie, it was forbidden to exhibit the painting, they generally wanted to destroy it, but Tretyakov saved it, exposing it secretly
  12. Dimy4
    Dimy4 18 October 2015 16: 36 New
    +1
    ... now I am king, and the reason that they threaten me with a stab in the back,
    and poison in a goblet for wine ...
    The history of kings involuntarily leaving the throne is usually very sad and fraught with either the loss of one of the vital organs (usually the head) or a sharp interception of the rope on which this head rests. But if the ruler allowed this, then he did not know how to use this head, in the sense of thinking, and not just eating and drinking.
  13. Denimax
    Denimax 18 October 2015 17: 02 New
    +3
    An interesting article with a detective bias.
  14. istoler
    istoler 18 October 2015 18: 12 New
    +4
    The ruler must be judged by the results of his affairs and the costs of these cases. Ivan IV the Terrible is clearly one of the five most successful leaders in Russia.
    Together with his grandfather Ivan III, he revived the East Roman project and retained and expanded the influence of the Orthodox Church, so he became an eternal enemy for all Westerners. From time to time, Westerners come to power in our country and clearly again denigrates Ivan IV.
    1. alebor
      alebor 19 October 2015 10: 54 New
      -2
      I do not consider myself a great connoisseur of history and understand that my opinion can be very controversial, but in my amateurish opinion, Ivan the Terrible, on the contrary, was very unsuccessful as a ruler. He did not fulfill the main historical mission that confronted him - collecting Russian lands. If his grandfather and father successfully increased the territory and population of their state, annexing both the East Russian principalities (Tver, Ryazan, Novgorod, Pskov, etc.), and the Russian lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Novgorod-Seversky, Putivl, Chernihiv, Smolensk, etc.), Grozny did not advance west by a millimeter and even suffered losses as a result of the lost Livonian war, which, in my opinion, was the largest geopolitical defeat of Russia at that time. Russia, having successfully gathered all the Russian lands, would have become a powerful European power, capable of moving further with much greater success both east to the Volga and beyond the Urals, and defending its interests in the western and southern directions due to, above all, such an important resource as a dramatically increasing population, homogeneous ethnically and religiously. (Whereas the creation of an empire through the accession of ethnically and religiously alien territories requires much greater efforts to maintain and “digest” them, which distracts the significant resources of the state from solving other problems. Grozny has taken this path).
      1. istoler
        istoler 19 October 2015 12: 03 New
        +3
        The fact is that during his reign Ivan IV took up several projects of major geopolitical importance at once.
        Now judge for yourself:
        Livonian war lost, but not devastating, but partially.
        Attached two large khanates, Kazan and Astrakhan, and took control of the largest waterway in Eurasia (!)
        It marked the beginning of the annexation of Siberia and very much ahead of England and Holland, who had already begun to swim to the Ob at that time and trade with local residents.
        He developed a defensive-offensive system of the system of serif features in the south, which advanced much later deep into the steppe and predetermined the brilliant victories of the 18th century.
        He gained a foothold in the North, preventing England and Holland from gaining a foothold there.
        And this is only a foreign policy, and there was also an internal one where there were great achievements.
        1. Bruss
          Bruss 28 October 2015 16: 24 New
          -1
          And the battle of Molodi?
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 23 November 2015 12: 11 New
          0
          they couldn’t swim to the Ob ... their embassy in Arkhangelsk miraculously sailed and didn’t swim back.
          and then after Krymskaya, of course, they would have "fixed".
  15. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 18 October 2015 18: 12 New
    +4
    Quote: Vasily50
    Only the means and technique of spreading rumors are different from modern ones, and almost everything is as it is today. Even the initiators are almost the same, well, the quality of the rumors is not better. It is outrageous that the figures of * culture * are very willing to respond to customer requests to shit RUSSIA, and they will not die of shame. For frank lies, they also receive bonuses. Everything is rotten, it is who you need to be to lie about your ancestors knowing that you're lying. Impunity has corrupted, and even excuses do not come up with the full confidence of their * right * to * a new vision *, and * the rest * are obliged to be enthusiastic and pay.

    TV "History" or, "365" was an article or a lecture on sheets printed and distributed free of charge in Europe, where they talked about the atrocities of the Russian Tsar, i.e. newspapers! Here's an advertisement. Also specially trained people talked about this.
  16. bubla5
    bubla5 18 October 2015 19: 42 New
    +3
    It’s not for nothing that Ivan the Terrible’s library disappeared, which means that it’s unprofitable for the descendants of the time to get descendants
    1. Rivares
      Rivares 18 October 2015 22: 27 New
      +1
      She is not lost. Burned out. Immediately after the accession of Grozny to the kingdom. Christian source))
      "1555. Immediately after the wedding to the kingdom, there was a terrible fire in Mo-
      square. Everything burned, including the famous "dowry" of Sofia Paleolog -
      collection of ancient manuscripts in ancient languages ​​inaccessible to
      reading (the so-called Liberia, the library of Ivan the Terrible,
      whether her then the main treasury. The bed treasury was called the court
      library open and readable). It was a meeting in
      mostly pagan black book, pagan literature and philosophical
      fie. All this anti-Christian "treasure" was stored in Moscow more
      half a century, they didn’t destroy, apparently, due to human weakness - it was
      the meeting is obviously fabulously expensive. The problem was resolved
      Shim Moscow fire "
      Those. here it is argued that before Christianity in Russia there was writing, literature and philosophy. Burned, as recently the most complete collection of texts on Old Russian
      stories.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 18 October 2015 23: 25 New
        0
        The fact that you cited only claims that manuscripts in ancient languages, ancient literature and philosophy were brought by Sofia Poleolog as a dowry. Before Christianity, there were ancient languages, literature and philosophy in general, no one doubts
  17. mich
    mich 18 October 2015 21: 42 New
    -2
    Interesting article
    I recommend A.K. Tolstoy - a terrific book
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 18 October 2015 22: 11 New
      +2
      Only everything in the book is reversed, the goal of the policy of Grozny and the instrument of this policy of defensive principle was to create a centralized state without specific noble princes Serebryany, whose task, like any large feudal lords, was to maximize independence from the center and glorified feudal fragmentation, constantly searching for a counterweight to the sovereign policy of external forces (sedition boyars), etc.
      Malyuta Suratov, the evil hero of this book, just laid his head in the battle to protect Russia from an external enemy in real life. And the princes, like Kurbsky, fled to the enemy, and not lay their heads for the Motherland like Prince Silver from the book.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 18 October 2015 22: 47 New
      +2
      As a work of art, yes, but from the point of view of history, is nonsense.
  18. alebor
    alebor 19 October 2015 11: 15 New
    +1
    It is good that the author gives different evidence, allowing readers to get acquainted with different versions of events.
    The article did not like only one thing - the modern politically correct husk, not related to the XVI century. If Ivan the Terrible knew that it turns out he’s “the first Russian tsar who laid the foundations of the modern multinational and multi-religious Russian state”, he, an ardent defender of Orthodoxy, “the ruler of the Third Rome and the heir to the fallen Second Rome - Orthodox Byzantium,” would have turned over from the grave indignation. bully
  19. andrew42
    andrew42 19 October 2015 13: 18 New
    +1
    Believe Karamzin's word - do not respect yourself. Big was a lover of retelling "German" tales. Of course, I am not a supporter of the Nosovsky-Fomenko theory, raking all eras into one short "listing" of events. But, in the particular case of the reign of Ivan IV, Nosovsky and Fomenko absolutely rightly grabbed a fake historical “bookmark”. After actually poisoning the king and his eldest son, the question "Who plays the role of the late demoniac John" is more acute than ever. The fact that with such accumulated doses of mercury and arsenic, the ruler could not rule for more than 1-2 years, this is obvious. Well, 3 years maximum, although it is almost unrealistic. "Feeding" poisons of the Byzantine emperors confirm this historically unambiguously. Karamzin's bleating in the form was a young progressive tsar, but furious and hardened - well, sheer lies. For very stupid. So who was sitting on the throne in the guise of a "crazy tyrant"? That is the question. And who then executed the guardsmen is a question number two.