Military Review

Grand Duke of All Russia from the Chingizid family

117
Grand Duke of All Russia from the Chingizid family 400 years ago, 5 January 1616 g., Died Kasimov khan and Grand Prince of All Russia Simeon II Bekbulatovich. Not everyone now remembers such a Russian autocrat, and if his reign is mentioned, it is only as a strange episode of the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. However, contemporaries were extremely serious about the royal dignity of Simeon. No wonder he was repressed first by Boris Godunov, and then by Lzhedmitry.


In 1575, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich “abdicated” the throne and raised the Tatar prince, a direct descendant of the khans of the Golden Horde Simeon Bekbulatovich, to him. In the fall, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, Simeon was put on the kingdom by Ivan the Terrible: “... he planted Simeon Bekbulatovich as king in Moscow and crowned him with the royal crown, but he himself became Ivan Moscow and left the city, lived on Petrovka; The Tsar gave all his rank to Simeon, and he just went, like a boyar, in shafts ... ”Simeon Bekbulatovich (Semyon Kasimovskiy) stayed the Grand Duke of All Russia 11 months. In August, the city of Ivan the Terrible 1576 officially returned to the throne, and Tsar Simeon complained to the Grand Duchy of Tver with the title of Grand Duke of Tver. Simeon had his grand-ducal court — his orders, his boyars and stolniki, the palace in Tver, and his permanent residence in the village of Kushalino. The lands given to him were disposed of almost arbitrarily, and had a special right to judge and complain about his people.

Simeon Bekbulatovich was a royal blood baptized Tatar, the former king of the Kasimov kingdom Sain-Bulat. His father, Bek-Bulat, was the grandson of Khan Akhmat, who ruled the Golden Horde and the Astrakhan prince. In the genealogical book about him it appeared: "Of a kind of great Hordes of kings." In 1558, Ivan IV invited him from the Nogai Horde to his service. Thus, Sain-Bulat (Simeon Bekbulatovich) was Chingizid, a descendant of Genghis Khan.

As a result, the Kassimov tsar occupied the highest place on the social ladder of the Russian state, second only to the ruling dynasty. Earlier, the kings of the Horde were the actual rulers of Russia, and many aristocratic families were descended from the Tatar khans who were considered people of the “royal root” who had entered the Russian service. In addition, he was a relative of Rurik. In 1573, at the insistence of the king, Sain-Bulat was baptized, taking the name Simeon (Semyon), and at the same time married Princess Anastasia Mstislavsky, daughter I. F. Mstislavsky (his mother was the niece of Grand Duke Vasily III) and I.A. Shuiskaya, marrying thus with the offspring of Ivan III. Mstislavskys were relatives of Tsar Ivan IV, and his relative and Simeon Bekbulatovich became his relatives. In addition, the Mstislavl occurred Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas. So, the marriage of Mstislavskaya representative of the royal family of Chingizidov intermarried with Rurikovich and Gediminovich.

Thus, Simeon was an ideal candidate for the role of Grand Duke of All Russia. He was not associated with the traditional boyar clans that Ivan the Terrible fought against and organized genealogically and in other respects boyars and high-ranking officials, since according to the notions of the time, Simeon was considered a man of very noble birth (of royal blood).

Sain-Bulat was appointed Tsar Kasimov no later than 1570. The Kasimov "kingdom" was a special area of ​​the Russian state. Specific possession of the Tatar khans, who went to the service of the Russian rulers, with the center in the city of Kasimov. It originated in the middle of the XV century and existed for more than 200 years. It was ruled by Tatar "kings" or princes (khans) appointed by the Russian government. The first Khan was Kasim-Tregub (the son of Khan Ulu-Mohammed, expelled from the Golden Horde), to whom the Grand Duke of Moscow Basil II the Dark, for military services rendered to him by the Kazan prince, gave to Gorodets Meshchersky with the parish. The “kingdom” was created in opposition to the Kazan Khanate that appeared at that time, which was rapidly gaining strength and threatening the south-eastern border of the Russian state. It is worth noting that the Tatars actively went to the service of Moscow and played a large role in the subsequent wars of the Russian state. The Kasimov khans did not have political independence; in fact, the governors appointed from the Ambassadorial Order actually controlled all the affairs of the “kingdom”. “Tsars” and princes received a salary from the Moscow government, and the local Mordovian and Meshcher population paid them tribute, they also received dues and various fees.

Sain-Bulat took an active part in the Livonian war at the head of his court of Kasimov Tatars. He proved himself a good commander and faithful companion of the king. Approximately September 1 1575 Ivan IV proclaimed him the Grand Duke of All Russia. Simeon was crowned in the Assumption Cathedral and became known as the “Grand Prince of All Russia,” and the Tsar — ​​Prince Ivan Vasilievich of Moscow. Simeon lived with his family in Moscow, in wealth and lush surroundings, and Ivan the Terrible settled in Petrovka in a modest setting. Ivan Grozny addressed his nominee with an emphatically respectful, bowed low, wrote to him: “Sovereign Grand Prince of All Russia Simeon Bekbulatovich Ivanets Vasilyev with his children Ivants and the Fedorets beat them with the brow”. At the Duma meeting, Tsar Ivan began to sit far from the throne, along with the boyars.

Formally, the state was divided into "sovereign inheritance" and a special "inheritance of Ivan," but in fact, Ivan IV the Terrible remained the ruler of Russia. Having asked for “permission” from Simeon, Ivan “sifted through” the boyars' children in his inheritance, left someone, relocated someone. The rest made up a personal regiment of Ivan the Terrible, but, unlike the oprichniki, they did not receive any special rights.

During his reign on the Russian throne, Simeon chaired the Boyar Duma and issued government decrees on his own behalf. But in essence, he had no political weight and was the formal ruler of the Russian state. Ivan IV continued to retain all the power in his hands. Even letters and documents signed by Simeon and sealed by the state seal were ignored by clerks, only the orders of Ivan the Terrible were executed. Ivan IV received foreign ambassadors, they did not show Simeon Bekbulatovich. Ivan the Terrible led the army in the summer campaign 1576

In August, 1576, Mr .. Ivan Vasilyevich returned to the throne, and Tsar Simeon complained of the Grand Duchy of Tver with the title of Grand Duke of Tver, and Ivan the Terrible again reigned. Simeon retained his grand-ducal courtyard, reigned to go as an autocrat. However, in the year 1584, with the death of Ivan the Terrible, everything changed. With the weak Tsar Fedor Ioannovich, power was in the hands of the royal brother-in-law Boris Godunov. Then black days came for the "king" Simeon. Godunov was suspicious of all rivals - obvious and possible. From the beginning, Simeon's father-in-law, Mstislavsky, who, according to the will of Ivan the Terrible, was a member of the Regency Council under Fyodor Ivanovich, was accused of plotting against Boris Godunov. He was exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, and was tonsured as a monk with the name of Jonah.

After the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich and the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor in Russia, Russia faced the necessity of choosing a new autocrat. Godunov began to fear that Simeon would challenge him (although the descendant of Genghis Khan apparently did not have political ambitions) and his opponents would unite around him. And such an opportunity was, if Simeon showed political will, he was Chingizid and a relative of Rurik. His wife was a relative of the royal family, with Sofia Sophia Palaeologus running in her veins. In the marriage they had six children and these were the last descendants of Ivan III and Sophia Paleolog, known from written sources. Therefore, Godunov took measures: kissing the cross to the new tsar, each boyar had to promise "Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich and his children and no one else in the Moscow kingdom want to see ...". Simeon was deprived of his inheritance and reduced to one Tversky patrimony - exiled to live in the Tver village of Kushalino.

In 1605, those sworn to the son of Godunov, Fyodor II, gave the same commitment. Simeon was poorer and blind. Apparently, he was blinded at the direction of Boris Godunov, the Nikon Chronicle reports: “Put Boris into your heart and from him (Simeon) to be terrified ... and led him to blindness.” The blinded king became a zealous Christian and spent his wealth on the construction of temples and contributions to monasteries, he sent particularly rich contributions to Solovki. However, he was still feared. So, the False Dmitry I tonsured Simeon in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in the monks under the name of the elder Stephen, and then ordered him to be exiled to Solovki. In 1612, he was returned to Kirillov, since he was no longer a threat. Out of life 5 January 1616 year.

The researchers do not have a single point of view on this event. Since Ivan the Terrible, in the view of many of his detractors, was a “bloody tyrant”, most versions have a negative connotation. Some researchers believe that superstitious Ivan IV wanted to save his life so much because the wise men predicted the imminent death of the Moscow tsar, others wanted to untie their hands to fight for the Polish throne, still others that Grozny restored the oprichnina canceled in 1572. etc. So, historian R. G. Skrynnikov believed that the renunciation of Grozny was connected with a serious internal crisis: “Apparently, the tsar and his entourage long puzzled over how to restore the oprichnichnaya regime and at the same time preserve the appearance of legality in Russian state, while the tendency to joke and hoaxes did not tell the king the right decision. ”

It is possible that in this way Ivan the Terrible reacted to the next boyars plot, trying to confuse opponents by directing the discontent of the enemies to the formal king. So, in 1575, another conspiracy against the king was revealed. There is little information about him. It is known that the conspirators wanted to kill the king and his sons. But it is not known what plans they hatched, whom they wanted to enthrone, how they were revealed. Judging by the number of repressed, the conspiracy was narrow. In August, one of the tsar's entourage, Boris Tulupov, with several accomplices was executed, and later, in the autumn, several more people were executed. Among them were representatives of the highest circles of the Russian nobility - the boyar Peter Kurakin, the okolnichie Buturlin, Borozdin, four representatives of the clergy, headed by the archbishop of Novgorod Leonid. Total punished about 20 people.

In addition, the decision of Ivan Vasilyevich can be explained by two more reasons. First, Ivan the Terrible was truly a believer. Even small repressions, in comparison with the Western rulers, tormented his conscience. As the modern historian V. Shambarov writes: “The appointment of Simeon Bekbulatovich was a form of penance for the king. Ivan Vasilievich humbled his pride and pride. ” Ivan determined himself to sit down in the last places, to accept and bow down - just as they turned to him.

Secondly, Ivan the Terrible was a wise man. After many attempts, Ivan Vasilyevich thought about the future of the state. What will happen if he can still be killed, like his sons? Distemper will begin. A possible successor was needed. A man of high clan (Chingizid and a relative of Rurikovich, Gediminovich) and a good manager. Simeon Bekbulatovich possessed all the necessary qualities: in him and his children there was the blood of three great dynasties of Eurasia (the sacredness of power), was faithful, fought bravely for the motherland. The king weighed it all and gave him the right to the throne! The throne itself gave way formally, but the rights were quite real. The whole ruling class, all of Russia, was shown a possible future king. At the same time, Ivan the Terrible showed potential conspirators that even if his family was destroyed (as it eventually happened, Ivan the Terrible was poisoned, his capable son was killed), you still will not be. The heir to Ivan Vasilyevich will reign. To secure such rights for Simeon, the king restored the long-abolished title of the Grand Duke of Tver. And he gave him a large inheritance - although he had previously destroyed all of them.

In the era of Ivan the Terrible, these steps were obvious to all. No wonder this will take into account such a flexible politician as Boris Godunov. He will take action: the boyars will give an appropriate oath, Simeon will be deprived of his lot and vision. A False Dmitry I will send Simeon to Solovki.
Author:
117 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Korsar4
    Korsar4 15 January 2016 06: 08 New
    +4
    It happens. They put on the throne of the locum tenens.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 15 January 2016 06: 58 New
      28
      Like this?
      1. Megatron
        Megatron 15 January 2016 08: 31 New
        +4
        Straight thought stole, thought so - Putin and the bear.
        1. moskowit
          moskowit 16 January 2016 09: 49 New
          0
          Not stolen, not stolen. And ahead of his comments. It’s just that many people attend the same thoughts ...
      2. Pomeranian
        Pomeranian 15 January 2016 13: 40 New
        +6
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Like this?

        This is an attack on the Russian land.
    2. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 15 January 2016 08: 54 New
      +9
      It is not clear why the author calls the representatives of the Nogai Horde Tatars, while they were Nogai, including Simeon Bekbulatovich. It is clear that Europeans and Russians, including simplistically, called all the steppe inhabitants the Tatars, which is incorrect. The Nogai Horde at that time had a strong influence on the region, on all khanates (Astrakhan, Kazan, Crimean, Siberian) and Ivan the Terrible, having planted Simeon Bekbulatovich for a while, he secured Russia.
      1. Mangel olys
        Mangel olys 15 January 2016 09: 55 New
        17
        "Let us explain that the" Nogai Tatars "are Tatars who lived at a certain period in the territories that, during the long strife in the Golden Horde, were controlled by Murza Nogai, the enemy of Tokty Khan and, accordingly, most of them were called" Nogai "as supporters of Nogai, so and his subjects - the Tatars. So the name "Nogai", "Nogai" (Nogai Tatars) was assigned to a part of the Tatars who lived mainly in the territories from the Azov to the Volga, including the Don steppes. The Tatars - Nogais and on the lower Volga, Yaik, And later the name "Nogai" (Nogai Tatars) gave the name to one of the "fragments" of the Golden Horde - the Nogai Horde ... Over time, Western historians announced the term "Nogai" as "the name of another people different from the Tatars." nogai "(nugai) were not Tatars" "
        Source: G. Enikeev, "The Great Horde: Friends, Enemies and Heirs", Moscow, Algorithm, 2013. p. 90.
        1. ShturmKGB
          ShturmKGB 15 January 2016 10: 09 New
          -1
          Quote: Mangel Alys
          "Let us explain that the" Nogai Tatars "are Tatars who lived at a certain period in the territories that, during the long strife in the Golden Horde, were controlled by Murza Nogai, the enemy of Tokty Khan and, accordingly, most of them were called" Nogai "as supporters of Nogai, so and his subjects - the Tatars. So the name "Nogai", "Nogai" (Nogai Tatars) was assigned to a part of the Tatars who lived mainly in the territories from the Azov to the Volga, including the Don steppes. The Tatars - Nogais and on the lower Volga, Yaik, And later the name "Nogai" (Nogai Tatars) gave the name to one of the "fragments" of the Golden Horde - the Nogai Horde ... Over time, Western historians announced the term "Nogai" as "the name of another people different from the Tatars." nogai "(nugai) were not Tatars" "
          Source: G. Enikeev, "The Great Horde: Friends, Enemies and Heirs", Moscow, Algorithm, 2013. p. 90.

          Give a quote from the book of the Tatar author? This is not an objective source.
          1. Mangel olys
            Mangel olys 15 January 2016 10: 35 New
            +1
            I understand you, but if you delve into other sources seriously, it seems to me that you will come to the same opinion.
          2. Nagaibak
            Nagaibak 15 January 2016 10: 37 New
            +1
            ShturmKGB "Give a quote from the book of the Tatar author? This is not an objective source."
            It seems to me the surname Enikeev is Tatar.
            1. Lord of Wrath
              Lord of Wrath 15 January 2016 13: 02 New
              +2
              Quote: Nagaibak
              It seems to me the surname Enikeev is Tatar.

              Oh well) Enikeev- Any key
              1. Sirocco
                Sirocco 15 January 2016 15: 55 New
                +3
                Quote: Lord of Wrath
                Oh well) Enikeev- Any key

                Yeah)))) there is still one of this tribe)))) Anakin Skywalker
                By and large, this rewriting of history is already embarrassing, in one place one thing, in another edition another, in the third and third. So what is the history of the Russian land?
                1. Sirocco
                  Sirocco 15 January 2016 17: 33 New
                  +7
                  I look, here we have a historical mess, called "shit."
                  I want to say that the people who have, and know the history of their state (homeland) can be proud of it. And in connection with the latest know-how, from outside historians who are engaged in rewriting history, we are led to the fact that we will not know our history, and therefore we will have nothing to be proud of. Well, since there is nothing to be proud of, then there is no need to defend the homeland, and there is nobody.
                  That's what all this husk with historical facts is about.
                  1. Pomeranian
                    Pomeranian 15 January 2016 17: 42 New
                    0
                    Quote: Sirocco
                    Well, since there is nothing to be proud of, then there is no need to defend the homeland, and there is nobody.

                    Bravo. You can’t say better!
                    1. Talgat
                      Talgat 15 January 2016 18: 49 New
                      +7
                      Many people write that there are 2 directions - schools in the history of Russia

                      1. Academician Likhachev - St. Petersburg school - Westernizers - Russia is Europe. Russian Europeans, yes. there was a Tatar Mongol yoke - it threw Russia back many centuries - otherwise there would have already been a complete "crunch of a French roll"
                      The followers of this school are basically all liberals and Westerners - but she managed to plant many moments in the USSR

                      2. Kazan University and Eurasians - Russia is Eurasia - te alloy of Orthodox Russia and the Great Steppe
                      Russians are an integral part of the Eurasian world (by the way, English geopolitics and so on agree with this - McKinder - Russia and the territory of Kazakhstan - this is the Heartland, the heart of the world, etc.)
                      There was no Mongol yoke - there was a symbiosis and joint development of Eurasia - internecine wars involved both Russian princes and Tatar mixed up, etc.
                      Russia will be great only as a Eurasian power - uniting Russians and the entire steppe, etc. Mongol, Kazakh. or drill Russian closer than a Pole, etc.

                      In Kazakhstan, by the way, one of the country's main universities in Astana is named after LN Gumilyov. Well, me. as a Kazakh and a descendant of the steppe people, a supporter of the second idea. Somehow I would not want Russia to "flee to Europe" again, as in the 90s, "throwing off the yoke of Central Asia."
                      1. Talgat
                        Talgat 15 January 2016 18: 54 New
                        +7
                        I remembered from the book of Natalia Narochnitskaya

                        She represented Russia on some kind of European venue - either a pass or an osce something like that

                        The Georgian representative spoke (and it was after 2008) - and he proved it clearly with illustrations. that Russians are not Europeans

                        As Narochnitskaya recalls, she calmly listened to all the "accusations" - and in response did not begin to justify herself and prove the opposite. She just said, "So what?"
                      2. moskowit
                        moskowit 16 January 2016 10: 23 New
                        +2
                        Everything is correct. We are Russians! And in this ethnic group, the consolidation and blood of many peoples. Have you seen the appearance of Andrei Bogolyubsky, reconstructed by academician Gerasimov?
                      3. Sweles
                        Sweles 16 January 2016 11: 15 New
                        -1
                        Quote: moskowit
                        Everything is correct. We are Russians! And in this ethnic group, the consolidation and blood of many peoples. Have you seen the appearance of Andrei Bogolyubsky, reconstructed by academician Gerasimov?


                        the face is not Russian, definitely ...
                      4. AK64
                        AK64 16 January 2016 12: 06 New
                        +1
                        There is good reason to believe that this particular reconstruction is very wrong. I don’t remember the details of the objection, but a very reasonable opinion was expressed that Gerasimov greatly overdid it with Mongoloidism.
                  2. Mangel olys
                    Mangel olys 15 January 2016 19: 02 New
                    +2
                    Well done, Talgat. good
                  3. V.ic
                    V.ic 15 January 2016 19: 28 New
                    0
                    Quote: Talgat
                    I don’t want Russia again, like in the 90s "fled to Europe" "throwing off the yoke of Central Asia."

                    Dear, this is not Russian then shouted: "Russians - to Ryazan, Tatars - to Kazan". There were screamers from your kind-tribe!
                  4. Talgat
                    Talgat 15 January 2016 19: 46 New
                    +6
                    Well, in the first place there were screamers here and there - but thank God now they have become an absolute minority (both here and there)

                    But anyway. the collapse of the USSR and the European vector of the Russian Federation in 90 is not an initiative of Kazakhstan

                    The collapse is Gorbach and his accomplices Yakovlev and others with the Central Committee and the Politburo. Then the Bialowieza Forest with 3 traitors - all three are not Mongoloid.
                    Then Eltsin and Semibankirshchina, Kazakhstan’s hijack with currency, and Nazarbayev’s integration proposals are completely ignored

                    All the same, I must admit. that Russia in the 90s was "sick" with a European disease. But fortunately, she was cured and returned to her roots. And they are in the steppe.
                2. Mr. Pip
                  Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 20: 00 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Talgat
                  Russia is Eurasia - the fusion of Orthodox Russia and the Great Steppe

                  Russia is Russia!
                  Russia arose at the "merger" of the Byzantine and Mongolian Empires, further developed "step by step" with European Culture, partly borrowing from it and partly complementing it.
                  And all these "role-playing games" in Eurasia and the "great steppe" are all from the loss of self-identification in the surrounding complex world and the subsequent inferiority complex with an attempt to "hide" behind something more and more important.
                  We don’t need it! hi
                  Quote: Talgat
                  Somehow I would not want Russia to "flee to Europe" again, as in the 90s, "throwing off the yoke of Central Asia."

                  And where did you have to "run"? To afghanistan-pakistan-mongolia back to the past? request
                  Russia did not become Great Russia because every Russian could become a "Mongol", but because every "Mongol" could "be baptized-study" and become a "Russian" hi
                3. AK64
                  AK64 15 January 2016 22: 32 New
                  +5
                  Russia is Russia!
                  Russia arose at the "merger" of the Byzantine and Mongolian Empires, further developed "step by step" with European Culture, partly borrowing from it and partly complementing it.
                  And all these "role-playing games" in Eurasia and the "great steppe" are all from the loss of self-identification in the surrounding complex world and the subsequent inferiority complex with an attempt to "hide" behind something more and more important.
                  We don’t need it!


                  So I would strongly recommend that you read Nikolai Trubetskoy, Pyotr Savitsky .... They, very European-educated people, arrived in the early 1920s in Europe and .... and made sure that they were not Europeans. And that Kazakhs are closer to them, very educated people, than burghers.
                  Read Nabokov: he has it too ...

                  Why climb into friends with those who will NEVER consider you equal?


                  And where did you have to "run"? To afghanistan-pakistan-mongolia back to the past?

                  You don’t have to run anywhere - you have to be yourself. Well, they fled in the 90s --- and how far did they run away?
                4. Mr. Pip
                  Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 23: 39 New
                  0
                  Quote: AK64
                  They, very European-educated people, came, in the early 1920s, to Europe and .... and made sure that they were not Europeans.

                  And I will not argue with this, you just misunderstood me - I do not think that Russia is Europe hi
                  And I will not deny the influence of the Mongol Empire either - a colossal influence on us and with the Eastern peoples we are even more "accommodating" than with some Slavs - also true request
                  BUT take the last couple of centuries for example - reforms, education, army, architecture and so on, it's all "in a European way" request
                  Therefore, I also cannot fully agree with the theory of "Eurasianism" - I do not consider "Asia" as the dominant feature in our history, and that's it - I think that the worldview of the first "Eurasians" was influenced not so much by an objective analysis as by a subjective disappointment in life in emigration. After all, a huge number of our citizens are settling in the West and assimilating later ... in South America they did not assimilate, but in the USA they assimilated - why? request
                5. Mr. Pip
                  Mr. Pip 16 January 2016 00: 28 New
                  -1
                  PS And I’ll add: Arnold Toynbee wrote on this subject that in any backward society that needs to confront a stronger militarily and economically opposing enemy, two trends arise: “Herodianism” - advocating for copying foreign public institutions, and “Zealotism” - calling for isolation in order to preserve the traditional way of life. According to Toynbee, neither of these trends can lead society to success, because both of them are devoid of creativity.
                6. AK64
                  AK64 16 January 2016 04: 01 New
                  +1
                  Arnold Toynbee wrote ....


                  I share the opinion that Toynbee is a sabotage, "ideas for the natives" smile
                  Like the Chicago libertian economy
                  smile
                7. V.ic
                  V.ic 16 January 2016 15: 37 New
                  0
                  Quote: AK64
                  I share the opinion that Toynbee is a sabotage, "ideas for the natives"

                  I have a couple of his books: "Civilization before the Court of History" and "Comprehension of History". I read them. Conclusion: the ruminations of the English sir, no more! LN Gumilev in comparison with him as "Pentium 4" in comparison with the adding machine "Felix".
            2. AK64
              AK64 16 January 2016 03: 56 New
              +2
              BUT take the last couple of centuries for example - reforms, education, army, architecture and so on, it's all "in a European way"

              So China, remaining the most perfect Asia, quietly adopts technology and the education system. Northern Europe in technology has overtaken the rest of the world, so why not adopt it? Even the attitude to life, people and liberalism could be adopted

              Therefore, I also cannot fully agree with the theory of "Eurasianism" - I do not consider "Asia" as the dominant feature in our history, and that's it - I think that the worldview of the first "Eurasians" was influenced not so much by an objective analysis as by a subjective disappointment in life in emigration. after all, a huge number of our citizens settle in the west and then assimilate ...

              So these ones were assimilated quite completely. It is, as I understand it, that in some respects, Russia / Kazakhstan / Mongolia is much closer to each other than China (Asia), Arabs (also Asia) or Germany. And that Russia / Kazakhstan / Mongolia forms its own special civilization; not in terms of technology (and in Japan, European technology) but probably in terms of ethnic psychology.

              they didn’t assimilate in South America, but why assimilate in the USA?

              It surprises me no less that someone was able to assimilate in France winked
      2. AK64
        AK64 15 January 2016 22: 25 New
        +1
        Talgat, I strongly recommend that you read Nicola Trubetskova, Pyotr Savitsky: it was precisely these (living in Europe) citizens who were at the forefront of Eurasian theory.
  2. UralMan
    UralMan 22 February 2017 20: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Sirocco
    That's what all this husk with historical facts is about.

    ---------
    yeah ... in that said ...
    nothing to protect?
    Homeland ... Protect
    Read less and listen to nonsense ..
    and don’t say more about it here
  • Monarchist
    Monarchist 2 November 2016 16: 11 New
    0
    I agree: the story should be unified, but if you submit an author with a Tatar surname, another with a Bashkir, etc. Where will we come then?
  • UralMan
    UralMan 22 February 2017 19: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Sirocco
    So what is the history of the Russian land?

    ------------
    That's right .... zadolbali
    And you take a closer look and it will be clear .... history is politics, of every era and every ruling elite ... the result was written for yourself ... a lot of money is made on it ... history is who pays more ... it's a corrupt, bought woman ... those who pay are her ... and you and I are those who are just spies and participate in it with their blood ... like that ...
    Are you confused or just wanted to be noted here and that’s the truth ... You are here and this is also a story ... the site is cried by someone ... and you and I are participants in it
  • UralMan
    UralMan 22 February 2017 19: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Nagaibak
    ShturmKGB "Give a quote from the book of the Tatar author? This is not an objective source."
    It seems to me the surname Enikeev is Tatar.

    ---------------
    You are right nagaibak (kym sin? ... kaydan? Sin bulysyn?) ...
    Enikeyevs (Tat. Yenikievlər, Enikievlәr) are two Tatar Murzin clans. The first family, princely (Prince Enikeev), comes from Temnikovsky Prince Enikei, Prince Tenishev. The second - from Temnikovsky Enikei Murza Kuldyashev.
  • Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 15 January 2016 19: 11 New
    +7
    ShturmKGB
    Give a quote from the book of the Tatar author? This is not an objective source.

    This is not objective and offensive for a certain category of Russian citizens.

    And meanwhile:

    When two Turkish battleships about 80 and 100 guns caught up with the brig of Captain Lieutenant A.I. Kazarsky, armed with 18 short carronades and 2 linear guns, at the military council, it was decided to fight to the last opportunity.
    .
    But the last non-wounded officer was supposed to blow up the brig.
    For this, special pistols were equipped and put on a spire not far from the kruyt-camera.

    But in the heat of battle, pistols could fall, discharge ...
    To prevent this from happening, they put a sailor on guard.

    The guard was Tatar Fayzuil Zyabirev.
    According to legend, he was supposed to blow up a brig. when the officers will be killed ...

    The reason is simple - the Turks of prisoners from those whom they considered theirs, but who served Russia, did not forgive.
    If Fayzuil Zyabirev had been captured, they would not even have been allowed to die quickly, the usual practice of that time was to strip skin from a living person ...

    So do not offend the Tatars indiscriminately. Many of them honestly served and serve Russia.
    And not only the Tatars.
  • RUSS
    RUSS 15 January 2016 21: 52 New
    +1
    ShturmKGB
    Give a quote from the book of the Tatar author? This is not an objective source.

    Historians traditionally connect the origin of Nogai with the name of the Golden Horde temnik Nogai. Nogai made trips to European states, the possessions of Byzantium, Serbia and Bulgaria recognized vassal dependence on him. Temnik Nogai was so influential that he claimed and overthrew the khans in the Golden Horde, being its actual ruler. In his direct possession was his ulus located from the Danube to the Don, which he isolated from the Golden Horde. Some historians are inclined to believe that it was the Nogai ulus that gave rise to the Nogai horde in the interfluve of the rivers Emba and the Urals. Also, the foundation of the Nogai Horde as a state is associated with the name of the tempest of the Golden Horde Edige, and without a doubt he played a huge role in the formation of the Nogai state, being also considered the mythological father-ancestor of the Nogai people
  • shoemaker
    shoemaker 15 January 2016 14: 35 New
    -1
    So the name "Nogai", "Nogais" (Nogai Tatars) was assigned to a part of the Tatars, who lived mainly in the territories from Azov to the Volga, including the Don steppes. The Tatars - Nogais lived in the same way on the lower Volga, Yaik, in the Urals. And later the name "Nogai" (Nogai Tatars) gave the name to one of the "fragments" of the Golden Horde - the Nogai Horde ..
    You read and wonder. Nogai people lived, and then disappeared one day, and this whole territory suddenly became the territory of the Cossacks. And here are the women, children, the household, the elderly: Where is all to be done? Grozny himself was a Genghiside, blood takes its toll, he was not afraid. Interestingly, it turns out that the idea of ​​a horde is a mixture of peoples into one nation. But it turned out! Now the RF is not much smaller than the former Tatars empire. By the way: in this case, I use the word Tatar as it was in those days, that is, the Soldier. It turns out that the Horde state was a purely militaristic state subordinate to its special tasks. Most likely: protecting the silk road. It's funny, but for so many centuries nothing has changed ..
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 16: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: zapatero
      Grozny himself was a Genghiside, blood takes its toll, he was not afraid.

      Firstly - he was not a "Chingizid", although it was believed that he was descended from Mamai on the maternal side - but this is not known for sure and was presumably "PR" by the Glinskys themselves.
      Secondly - what does "blood take its toll" mean ?????? Here is a reconstruction based on the skull of Ivan 4's mother - between her and the alleged Mamai 200 years of "mixing with the Slavic population"!
      Thirdly - what exactly was Ivan 4 “not afraid” of all this and did not understand? recourse
      Quote: zapatero
      the very idea of ​​a horde is a mixture of peoples into one nation.

      Is it true ?! belay
      Quote: zapatero
      But it turned out!

      Where? IN USA?!
      Quote: zapatero
      Now the RF is not much smaller than the former Tatars empire.

      Well, like that wassat Empire of MONGOLS (MONGOLS !!!) was only 2 times more than the current Russian Federation fellow
      Quote: zapatero
      in this case, I use the word Tatar as it was in those days, that is, the Soldier.

      Is it at Chudinov or Fomenko ?! request
      Quote: zapatero
      Horde state was a purely militaristic state

      The "Horde" was not a state at all in the modern sense of it - it was rather a "supranational dynasty".
      Quote: zapatero
      Most likely: protecting the silk road.

      Yeah - the "roof" was called, that's why they burned "a couple" of cities this very way "protecting" fellow
      Quote: zapatero
      Funny

      Yes - not the right word! drinks
      1. AK64
        AK64 15 January 2016 16: 32 New
        +2
        By the way, comrades, it’s enough to put down the disadvantages: it’s silly: impolite and generally even somehow disgusting.

        If you have something to argue on the topic - well, then argue! And when there is nothing to say, but I do not like what was said - so why put the cons? What a childhood ?!

        Mr. PIP, I have again been forced to return 0 ....
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 18: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: AK64
          By the way, comrades, it’s enough to put down the disadvantages: it’s silly: impolite and generally even somehow disgusting.

          Get used to it, dear, here it is considered by some to be "normal behavior" - I mutually return you to 0 hi ))))
          1. RUSS
            RUSS 15 January 2016 21: 59 New
            0
            Quote: Mr PIP
            Quote: AK64
            By the way, comrades, it’s enough to put down the disadvantages: it’s silly: impolite and generally even somehow disgusting.

            Get used to it, dear, here it is considered by some to be "normal behavior" - I mutually return you to 0 hi ))))

            You are on the site for a month and a half, and already such conclusions.
        2. RUSS
          RUSS 15 January 2016 21: 59 New
          0
          Quote: AK64
          Mr. PIP, I’m already forced to return 0 times ...

          Do you play tug of war?
          1. AK64
            AK64 15 January 2016 22: 38 New
            +2
            I just don’t understand the logic of minus.
            Plus = "agree with what was said", or "thank you, liked it"
            And minus what? Someone disagree? So let him say where, in his opinion, it’s wrong --- is it not for the discussion to say?
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 15 January 2016 21: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: zapatero
      You read and wonder. Nogai people lived, and then disappeared one day, and this whole territory suddenly became the territory of the Cossacks

      After the Crimean War of 1853-56, the Nogais were again accused of sympathizing with Turkey, and the campaign for their eviction from Russia resumed. The Nogais remaining in the Northern Black Sea Region joined the Crimean Tatars, and the bulk of the deportees were assimilated by the Turkish population of Anatolia. From 1860 to 1862, from the Melitopol district 50 thousand Nogais (almost all) emigrated to Turkey
      Zakuban Nogai emigrated to Turkey in connection with the Caucasian war. Mass emigration began in 1857: “The Zakubansky highlanders were not able to resist our strong detachments, but were still gaining ground in their ruined country; only the Nogais living between the Kuban and Laba did not stay in their places and, not wanting to remain dependent on Russia, almost all polls left for Turkey; other Circassians of small tribes also went there from that locality.
      So they disappeared ...
    3. Aposlya
      Aposlya 16 January 2016 07: 32 New
      +3
      That the Kazakhs, that the legs consist of the same tribal clans: both there are tribal clans Naiman, Merkit, Dulat, Jalair, Argyn, Kipchak, etc. In principle, this is one people divided geographically and in time ...
      1. AK64
        AK64 16 January 2016 12: 10 New
        0
        It seems to me that This is a very simplistic view.
        Nogai in the narrow sense, those that lived near the Sea of ​​Azov, are in fact slightly molgonized Kypchaks. And their closest relatives (this is where "one people" is) are the Crimean Tatars.

        Among the Kazakhs, the share of the Kypchatsky genotype is not even the main one. And the language is very different (albeit from the Turkic group).

        Nagai is still in Russia; according to anthropological type, they are more likely Caucasians today, with a slight addition of Mongoloidity. (But the mentality of the Caucasians differ markedly)
        1. Aposlya
          Aposlya 17 January 2016 09: 41 New
          +1
          Well then, let's understand thoroughly, so to speak ...
          The Confederation of Kipchak tribes consisted of 4 main tribes: Kara Kipchak, Katay Kipchak, Kulan Kipchak and Sary Kipchak. Other tribes also entered the confederation or Kipchak Khanate, for example Bersh (Sultan Beybars was a Kipchak from the Bersh tribe). During the time of Genghis Khan, Kulan and Sary Kipchaks were destroyed and dispersed, the rest were attached to the ulus of Genghis Khan and Jochi Khan.
          About the language ... The Kazakh dialect of the Turkic language is called the Kipchak dialect. Those. the dialect in which the Kipchaks spoke, as well as all the other tribes of the Türks, which were part of the Kazakhs and Nogais. Both Kazakhs and Nogais consist of the same tribal clans. The only difference between them is that the ancestors of the Nogais went on a Western campaign and settled in Ukraine, where the first split of the Golden Horde took place - they became the first separatists, they took the ethnic name of their Murza Nogai.
          Crimean Tatars are a hodgepodge in general: Kazakh-Nogai clans, Turks, descendants of the Oghuz-Pechenegs ...
          1. AK64
            AK64 17 January 2016 10: 49 New
            +1
            I fully and immediately agree with what was said about the nagai.

            But with the Kazakhs it is more difficult, and the ethnogenesis there is difficult: There is obviously a very strong mixture of several ethnic groups. For example, some clans generally trace their ancestry from the Türks (real Türks, those from Altai). After all, not only the Kypchaks lived in the Kypchat steppe. And at the same time, all the inhabitants of Desht and Kipchak were called "Kypchaks" in a broad sense.

            However, there are, as I understand it, Kazakhs here: I think so, let them tell
            1. Aposlya
              Aposlya 18 January 2016 20: 51 New
              0
              There are no "not real Türks", there are either Türks or "otürks". Kazakhs refer specifically to the Türks, to the descendants of the "Kok Türks" of the times of the Türkic Kaganate. The same tribe Bersh was still known at the time of the Türkic Kaganate about which there is a runic record on the steles of the Kagan. Well Uysuni, as an example, is also a very ancient tribe from which many tribes of the Elder Zhuz among the Kazakhs actually came, such as Uysuns themselves, Zhalair, Dulaty, Albany, Ysty, Shaprashty, Uaki, etc. By the way, the Uysun state existed even before the Turkic Kaganate, approximately in the 2nd century BC.
              As for the Kipchaks ... the Kipchaks called the Turkic tribes who founded the Kipchak Khanate, I listed the main ones. The rest who lived there did not belong to the Kipchaks, at least there are no facts to talk about it. After all, no one will call a person from the Erzya tribe living in the territory of Deshpt-i-Kipchak Kipchak? That would not be right. After all, here is the main belonging to his tribe. Other non-Turkic tribes among the Kazakhs did not exist. Of course, the influx of foreign blood was possible in the form of wives: Chinese women, Mongolians (Kalmyks), Slavs, etc. I read an article about the family of one guy - he has great-great-grandmother ... a grandmother in general, a Frenchwoman - an ancestor brought from Paris after the Napoleonic Wars. There are also women in great-grandmothers from Lithuanian and Latvian noblewomen who were kept here in the zones after the Baltic Limitrophs were infused into the USSR - by the way, they shot a film about it, there a veteran took one countess from the Kazakhs ... From Kazakhs, the ROD is transmitted from the father, so in principle, it’s not so important what kind of people the wife will be from ...
              Regarding the "turned-downs", we can include, for example, the Uighurs and Uzbeks - both of them are not Turks, but Sarts, the turned-down descendants of the Persians. Until 1921, they were called East Turkestan and Fergana Sarts and bore shtetl names such as Taranchi, Kashgarli, etc., although, by the way, they still call themselves that way in the same XUAR. And only after the Tashkent Congress of the Sart peoples in 1920-21 they took new ethnonyms ... Bartold swore heavily on this score ...
    4. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 18 January 2016 18: 02 New
      0

      it is clear that you were not at all interested in the history of the Nogai and why the steppes "suddenly" became empty and settled with Cossacks ... many facts are simply kept silent. Read Suvorov's relationship with the Nogais, it will be interesting ...
  • Arbogast
    Arbogast 15 January 2016 19: 04 New
    +5
    Quote: Mangel Olys
    They say "nogai" (nugai) were not Tatars
    The Kazakhs used to call the Kazan Tatars so - "nougat". The mother told, when in childhood a Tatar-traveling salesman came to their aul, they rushed home with all their might to report:" Nogai-shal "keldi .. (Nogai-old man came / arrived)

    In this case, of course, it is necessary to distinguish between themselves nogail (Nogais) with the modern Tatars of Tatarstan (Kazanlak, Bulgar). Well, this is a note to Russian. Turkic-speaking people know about this.

    By the way, from a poem by Abay Kunanbaev:
    I heard a poisonous laugh in childhood -
    In the village, a Kazakh Uzbek ridiculed:
    "Cowardly Sart" called at all,
    And the Uzbek’s speech called “rattle”.
    Another Kazakh joked when with him
    Nogai Tatar settled horse.
    Every house laughed at the alien
    And their jokes amused me.
    When the Kazakhs, gathering in a circle,
    Cheered up until morning
    I heard that Russian is not my friend either -
    After all, friendship with the redhead is not good.
    How beautiful and beautiful my people are! -
    I exclaimed in prayer in the morning.
    How pathetic strangers a strange look!
    And I praised Allah with ecstasy.
    But years went by. And my childhood delight
    It was replaced by a string of stubborn thoughts:
    And experience helped to evaluate the right
    Uzbeks piety and mind.
    I was horrified by my speculation
    When parted with them by chance:
    After all, who else is under the blue sky
    Hardworking, hardy as kicking?
    I send, brethren, a bow to you
    For knowing this world with you.
    And in old age I’m ridiculous to myself
    For the fact that Russian in childhood ridiculed.
    1. Talgat
      Talgat 16 January 2016 20: 52 New
      0
      Good poem Arbogast! I have not read before. Well, then Abai and the great - everything is right
  • Weyland
    Weyland 26 January 2017 22: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Mangel Olys
    "Nogai Tatars" are Tatars who lived for a certain period in territories that were controlled by Murza Nogay during a prolonged strife in the Golden Horde


    Yes, we have only Tatars who were not called! Buryats are “fraternal Tatars”, Shors are “Kuznetsk Tatars”, and even Azerbaijanis are “Baku, Shemakha, etc. Tatars!” wink
  • Sweles
    Sweles 15 January 2016 13: 16 New
    0
    ShturmKGB
    It is not clear why the author calls the representatives of the Nogai Horde Tatars, while it was the Nogais, including Simeon Bekbulatovich


    In general, in the history of Russia, several concepts are connected with the name Nagy
    -the Nagih family is a boyar clan
    Cossack whip
    -Nogai Horde or Nogai country existed during the time of Peter
  • Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 15 January 2016 18: 47 New
    0
    ShturmKGB
    Ivan the Terrible, having planted Simeon Bekbulatovich for a time, secured Russia.

    Strange logic ...

    What. if now V.V. Putin will put in the Kremlin some Western immigrant like a minor Gaidar, will this protect Russia from sasha?

    I am sure that Ivan Vasilyevich had a completely different idea.
    With Simeon, they agreed on something and kept in touch.
    But the close ones at Simeon blossomed and showed themselves as something unusual.
    I was not specifically interested in this, but I think Ivan Vasilievich taught some of these things, punished him,
    1. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 15 January 2016 21: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: Sergey S.
      What. if now V.V. Putin will put in the Kremlin some Western immigrant like a minor Gaidar, will this protect Russia from sasha?

      So it was, he threw the bone to the liberoids, planting in his place the "lord of time."
      1. Sergey S.
        Sergey S. 15 January 2016 23: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Pomoryanin
        So it was, he threw the bone to the liberoids, planting in his place the "lord of time."

        The fact was.
        But the motivation, I am sure, was different.
        And liberoids have nothing to do with it.
        It’s not a good thing for kings of slaves to be afraid.

        But to show the slaves that the clown-Simeon can lead them, it turned out ...
        I think that in this way having humiliated the ancient clans, Ivan Vasilievich castrated the royal ambitions of the very persistent ...
        And this, perhaps, prevented a conspiracy or confusion, saved many lives.
        1. Weyland
          Weyland 26 January 2017 22: 14 New
          0
          Quote: Sergey S.
          to show the slaves that the clown-Simeon can lead them, it turned out ...

          why would Boris Godunov blind him, and False Dmitry I sent to Solovki (despite the fact that False Dmitry I was anyone, but not a tyrant and tyrant)? "
          Do not forget - and Fyodor (seemingly legal heir!), And Boris himself, and Vasily Shuisky, and Mikhil Romanov elected Zemsky Cathedrals!
          It turns out that Boris had serious fears that the “lackeys” at the next cathedral would choose the “clown” Simeon as king!
          No, it’s true, the article says that Genghisides were quoted at the same level as the Rurikovich and the Gediminids!
  • avt
    avt 15 January 2016 10: 08 New
    +5
    Quote: Korsar4
    It happens. They put on the throne of the locum tenens.

    Quote: Mera Joota
    Like this?

    If ! Everything is much simpler and ..... more confusing .. Vanya, upon entering power, personally took on the title of king. But here's what is interesting - for some reason the Kazan and Tatars in general were a little agitated! And Kazan didn’t just have to take it, but in general take competitors straight away according to Genghis’s precept - everyone who hasn’t reached the cart check, and see the princess siganula type from the pirmidnaya tower .... well, there’s something to go upstairs on top of, or that would be two swinging thrown. As a result, even a military victory did not give Vanya the expected result, No. 4, well, he couldn’t immediately break the tradition that not all Russians accepted request So he found a way out
    In 1575, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich “abdicated” the throne and elevated the Tatar prince, a direct descendant of the khans of the Golden Horde Simeon Bekbulatovich. In autumn, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, Simeon was seated by Ivan the Terrible in the kingdom: “... he planted Simeon Bekbulatovich as a king in Moscow and crowned him with a royal crown, and he called himself Ivan of Moscow and left the city, lived on Petrovka; the tsar’s allotment was given to Simeon, and he traveled simply, like a boyar, in shafts ... ”Simeon Bekbulatovich (Semyon Kasimovsky) spent 11 months by the Grand Duke of All Russia. In August 1576, Ivan the Terrible officially returned to the throne, and bestowed Tsar Simeon by the Grand Duchy of Tver with the title of Grand Duke of Tver.
    Which suited everyone! Later, historians "threw up a full-time version - Vanya joked, BUT THE AUTHORITIES DO NOT Joke! Especially in those days and with that attitude in the religious sense, such jokes for a joker end at once and always badly.
    At the same time, Ivan the Terrible showed potential conspirators that even if his family was destroyed (as a result, Ivan the Terrible was poisoned, his capable son was killed), in your opinion, there will be no way. The heir to Ivan Vasilievich will reign. To ensure such rights for Simeon, the king restored the long-abolished title of Grand Duke of Tver. And he gave him a great inheritance - although he had previously destroyed all the inheritances.
    Vanya understood and appreciated Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich. And the fact that the authorities are not joking and Simeon was a REAL contender for the Moscow throne, and not some kind of "Tatar prince" and part-time clown, Boris proved, but not Yeltsin. wassat
    No wonder this will take into account such a flexible politician as Boris Godunov. He will take measures: the boyars will take the appropriate oath, Simeon will be deprived of his inheritance and sight. And False Dmitry I will send Simeon to Solovki.
    So Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich will be called up to the throne to Moscow exactly after the liquidation of Dima! And who knows - if not for advanced years and the continuation of Romanov scams .... how to know ...
  • Weyland
    Weyland 26 January 2017 22: 01 New
    0
    He doesn’t channel - why then “it will take into account such a flexible politician as Boris Godunov. He will take measures: the boyars will take an oath, Simeon will be deprived of his inheritance and sight. And False Dmitry I will send Simeon to Solovki.”
    Do not forget - and Fedor (lawful, it would seem, an heir!), And Boris, and Shuisky, and Romanov elected Zemsky Cathedrals! It turns out that Boris had serious fears that the next cathedral would choose Simeon as king!
  • ovod84
    ovod84 15 January 2016 06: 42 New
    +3
    Hmm I'm shocked, as it does not fit with Ivan 4, thanks for the article.
  • ism_ek
    ism_ek 15 January 2016 07: 21 New
    -32
    It’s hard to understand Ivan IV. Petty tyrant. Seven wives, lovers. Either he smashes all enemies, then he creeps before the Poles.
    Muscovy until Peter I remained a fragment of the Golden Horde and lived according to Mongol laws, according to which only a descendant of Genghis Khan could be king. After "standing on the Ugra River," the Crimean khans became the formal supreme rulers. Lavish commemorations were sent to them annually. Attempts to free oneself from this dependence ended in destructive campaigns by the Crimean Khan against Moscow.
    Ivan IV concocted forged documents and declared himself a descendant of the Byzantine emperor. This infuriated Crimea and Porto. In 1971, they burned Moscow, the next year they were defeated, but still inflicted great material damage on the state. New campaigns were planned. Cheremis began another rebellion. Siberian Khan refused to pay tribute, etc. The attempt to introduce himself as a descendant of Caesar failed and Ivan IV uses the favorite tactics of the Mongol rulers and sits the kingdom of the locum tenens.
    1. alexej123
      alexej123 15 January 2016 08: 10 New
      +4
      1971 burned Moscow. Mistake? 1571?
    2. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 09: 20 New
      18
      Quote: ism_ek
      It’s hard to understand Ivan IV. Petty tyrant.

      Read the story more to understand the essence of that time, if Ivan Vasilyevich was a "tyrant" - then clearly not in comparison with his foreign "colleagues" - on the whole it was a difficult time, and he, as strange as it may seem to you, was generally good diplomat of those years.
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 15 January 2016 10: 18 New
        -1
        The diplomat was Ivan III. He laid the foundations of statehood, along with the Crimea destroyed the Golden Horde, began to advance east, settled in Perm. Subordinated to Kazan and Astrakhan. Subordinated to Novgorod, Tver, Ryazan, Pskov. He founded Ivan the city and began active trade through the Baltic Sea.
        And all this without terrible executions of companions, guardsmen, and ravages of their own cities.
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 10: 56 New
          +9
          Quote: ism_ek
          The diplomat was Ivan III.

          Exactly? laughing
          Quote: ism_ek
          together with Crimea destroyed the Golden Horde ..... Subjugated Kazan and Astrakhan

          Oh well, even with the Crimea, and even the whole Horde ?! But what about the subsequent Kazan and Astrakhan campaigns of Ivan the Terrible? And where did Yermak go ?! fellow
          Quote: ism_ek
          got used to Perm

          Initially, Vasily 2 began to master there.
          Quote: ism_ek
          And all this without terrible executions of companions, guardsmen, and ravages of their own cities.

          All the same, everything is confused, everything is confused - the reformer was Ivan 4 - the reformer!
          Many reforms concerning the DOMESTIC policy were carried out, because the "foundations" of Ivan 3 turned out to be insufficient for the normal functioning and development of the State. And all this was, by the way, without any special "executions and repressions" - do not repeat Western myths about the bloodthirstiness of the Russian tsar!
          1. ism_ek
            ism_ek 15 January 2016 11: 16 New
            0
            Quote: Mr. PIP
            But what about the subsequent Kazan and Astrakhan campaigns of Ivan the Terrible?
            Kazan captured Ivan III and put his governor there. Ivan the Terrible and went to Novgorod and Pskov on a campaign and burned everything to the ground :( All this tyranny and inability to rule the state.
            Perm in the Principality of Moscow was joined by Ivan III after the famous Cherdynsky campaign.
            Ermak went to Siberia against the Will of the sovereign. Terrible in those years was already no. The development of Siberia was done by Boris Godunov.
            1. AK64
              AK64 15 January 2016 12: 14 New
              +6
              You, it seems to me, very strongly idealize Ivan the 3rd.

              About the "burning" of Novgorod and Pskov --- well, tell us what was burned there to the ground? After all, you invented "burning to the ground", didn't you? There were no mass executions in Pskov either. The number of those executed in Novgorod is also unknown: this is of course a massive atrocity, but on the other hand, Novgorod separatism is also not the best

              Well, what difference does it make who Ivan III planted in Kazan, if after that the rulers there changed like socks, and it was still necessary to take Kazan? Yes, in that Kazan regularly planted "their people" - well, what's the point? And the severity of the siege and capture of Kazan by Ivan the 3th is explained very simply: 4 thousand nagays entered the city, and these are soldiers of a completely different quality.
            2. Mr. Pip
              Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 12: 24 New
              +1
              Quote: ism_ek
              Kazan captured Ivan III and put his governor there

              So what? And the Kazan nobility took and elected their laughing
              You are familiar with such concepts as "conquest", "separatism", "centralization" - well, without them, it’s just apparently difficult to understand how Ivan 3 differs from Ivan 4, because the history of the State is not only military campaigns and burnings, it’s a whole bunch of everyone else. " boring "orders and judicial codes.
              Quote: ism_ek
              Ivan the Terrible and went to Novgorod and Pskov on a campaign and burned everything to the ground there

              So he burned or tortured everyone, or first tortured, drowned, and then burned, which popped up - can you decide? laughing
              And in general, what’s wrong with that - the 16th century stood in the yard - then it was fashionable to burn and torture - the main thing was what hi
              Quote: ism_ek
              Ermak went to Siberia against the Will of the sovereign.

              Not "AGAINST WILL" - but simply deserted, but was forgiven.
              Quote: ism_ek
              The development of Siberia was done by Boris Godunov.

              We are still engaged in "mastering Siberia", we cannot master everything.
              Quote: ism_ek
              All this tyranny and inability to rule the state.

              This is all nothing more than a "cliché" and a reluctance to understand that the main activity and characteristics of the Sovereign are not only military campaigns - but this is an INTERNAL policy too hi
            3. Weyland
              Weyland 26 January 2017 22: 19 New
              0
              Quote: ism_ek
              Kazan captured Ivan III and put his governor there.

              Yeah ... so, after all, Siberia was also conquered by Prince Kurbsky, governor of Ivan III.
              It’s important not just to capture, but permanently to seize! In Kazan, many times we placed our Kasimov khans on the throne - but only before Grozny they were regularly thrown off!
              And after Grozny, both Kazan and Siberia always were ours!
              1. ism_ek
                ism_ek 27 January 2017 08: 27 New
                0
                Quote: Weyland
                And after Grozny, both Kazan and Siberia were always ours!

                Nonsense is all that. Ivan the Terrible spent three fierce Cheremis wars and never reached submission to the Kazan Khanate. Only the policy of Boris Godunov led to the pacification of the Volga peoples through diplomacy and the construction of new cities brought the result.

                I’m generally silent about Siberia. At the time of Ivan the Terrible's death, only a detachment of 20 Cossacks was in all Siberia.
          2. Oprychnik
            Oprychnik 15 January 2016 11: 42 New
            +4
            IvanIII was a skilled diplomat, chuckling in vain. With the help of the pro-Moscow party in Kazan in 1487, Kazan was taken by his troops and Mohamed-Emin, actually brought up in Moscow, was seated on the throne by Ivan.
            The Moscow governor under him was Dmitry Vasilyevich Shein.
            “The victory won by Moscow over Kazan was of great importance.
            It was not possible to finally conquer the Tatar state in 1487, but for many years it
            fell into close dependence on Russian politics. However, the Moscow government is not
            then put forward to Kazan neither territorial nor special political demands,
            limiting oneself to the obligations received from the new Kazan “king” not to fight
            against Russia, do not choose a new khan without the consent of the Grand Duke, guarantees
            ensure the security of Russian trade. Muhammad Emin enjoyed full
            trust and support of the Russian government, right up to the crisis of 1495-1496, when
            Kazan was captured by the troops of the Siberian tsarevich Mamuk. "

            "Wars and Troops of the Moscow State" V. Volkov
            1. Mr. Pip
              Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 12: 27 New
              +2
              Quote: Oprychnik
              IvanIII was a skilled diplomat, chuckling in vain.

              I don’t laugh, it’s just that Ivan 4 stayed on the throne the longest, and it was he who strengthened the “foundations” of Ivan 3 and continued it - in internal politics, Ivan 4 is probably 4 heads higher than Ivan 4, at least in the number and duration of actions request
          3. ism_ek
            ism_ek 15 January 2016 16: 19 New
            -2
            Quote: Mr. PIP
            All the same, everything is confused, everything is confused - the reformer was Ivan 4 - the reformer!
            What did Ivan IV reform? Zemsky Cathedral established, which was not clear which kings to choose?
            What cities did he establish during his reign?
            Which heir left?
            What did you build? St. Basil's Cathedral? Have you been there at least once?
            1. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 15 January 2016 17: 51 New
              +2
              Nothing that I will enter into your scientific debate. He seemed curious to me.
              Quote: ism_ek
              What did Ivan IV reform? Zemsky Cathedral established, which was not clear which kings to choose?
              What cities did he establish during his reign?
              Which heir left?
              What did you build? St. Basil's Cathedral? Have you been there at least once?

              1. Well, yes, Zemsky self-government has reformed so much that when the central government collapsed, some Zemsky elder Kuzka Minin dared to appeal to the people for the salvation of the country. Yes, if you are an agent of the State Department, then the clear failure of Ivan 4’s policy
              2. Old man, list all or the most important? Well, here: Voronezh, Yelets, Oskol. Few? Base more.
              3.Left left a legacy - a viable state that even managed to survive and revive in turmoil. Thanks to the same Zemstvo arrangement and, do not laugh, oprichnina.
              4. No, it wasn’t, but St. Basil’s Cathedral is called differently: Church of the Protection of the Holy Virgin. So called the temples in Russia in gratitude for the help in overcoming the enemy. For example, the Church of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the Nerl, built for helping to defeat the ancestors of the inhabitants of present Tatarstan.
              5. do you yourself draw conclusions or help ??
              1. ism_ek
                ism_ek 15 January 2016 18: 27 New
                -2
                Quote: Pomoryanin
                2. Old man, list all or the most important? Well here: Voronezh, Yelets, Oskol.

                Yelets still existed under Tamerlan.
                And Voronezh and Oskol ... Organizing a military camp does not mean building a city. Cities were built later. Built by Ivan the Terrible, at least, something that can compare with the Moscow Kremlin?
                Quote: Pomoryanin
                Zemsky self-government was so reformed that when the central government collapsed, some Zemsky elder Kuzka Minin dared to appeal to the people for the salvation of the country.

                Rural elders were even before the Tatars. About them in Russian Truth is written.
                Quote: Pomoryanin
                No wasn `t,
                And they probably didn’t read Karmazin ... Solovyov ... Do you study Wikipedia history?
                Take a walk to St. Basil's Cathedral. Compare with the Assumption Cathedral and reflect on the facets of the frenzy of Ivan IV.
                1. Mr. Pip
                  Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 19: 02 New
                  +2
                  Quote: ism_ek
                  Rural elders were even before the Tatars. About them in Russian Truth is written.

                  True? And in which particular Pravda? Or maybe there is also written about "zemstvo self-government"? belay
                  Quote: ism_ek
                  And Karmazin probably did not read ... Soloviev

                  So read Soloviev.
                  S. M. Solovyov saw the main regularity of the activity of Grozny in the transition from "patrimonial" relations to "state" relations, which the oprichnina completed - you can’t say better!
                  Quote: ism_ek
                  Take a walk to St. Basil's Cathedral. Compare with the Assumption Cathedral and reflect on the facets of the frenzy of Ivan IV.

                  Better calm down already - the Assumption Cathedral was built by Ridolfo Aristotle Fioravanti, and St. Basil's Cathedral was built by Postnik Yakovlev. He also built (attention!) The Kazan Kremlin including the Spasskaya Tower (previously destroyed during the capture) and the Annunciation Cathedral in the same place.
                  And in spite of your "Ivan's madness" - that "St. Basil's Cathedral", that the Kazan Kremlin are UNESCO World Heritage Sites hi
                  1. Pomeranian
                    Pomeranian 15 January 2016 21: 35 New
                    0
                    And I’ll put a cross to you, you reasonably and carefully brought up the arguments. With one clarification, I suppose. that our esteemed interlocutor is talking about the church in Vladimir, and I said in the posts published above about the churches of the Protection of the Holy Virgin on Red Square and on the Nerl River.
                2. Pomeranian
                  Pomeranian 15 January 2016 21: 32 New
                  +1
                  Quote: ism_ek
                  Cities were built later. Built by Ivan the Terrible, at least, something that can compare with the Moscow Kremlin?

                  well yes. Even cooler than the Kremlin. The state of Russia. Not enough for you?
                  Quote: ism_ek
                  Rural elders were even before the Tatars. About them in Russian Truth is written.

                  Eh? And what did these village elders do from Russian Truth for the Fatherland? It seems to me that these are the same "volunteers" as the current heads of rural settlements: no money, no real power, kicked by everyone. And after Ivan's reforms; -go - the real owners in their district: zealous and smart, because it was difficult to choose a fool: for an independent choice, society paid a lot of tax to the treasury.
                  Quote: ism_ek
                  . Do you study Wikipedia history?

                  No, I write Wikipedia myself. According to my works, they study history on Wikipedia.
                  Quote: ism_ek
                  Take a walk to St. Basil's Cathedral. Compare with the Assumption Cathedral and reflect on the facets of the frenzy of Ivan IV.

                  At this, I don’t know how to say softer, I don’t even want to answer. What do you dislike about the Church of the Protection of the Holy Virgin on Red Square?
              2. Mangel olys
                Mangel olys 15 January 2016 18: 57 New
                0
                Quote: Pomoryanin
                4. No, it wasn’t, but St. Basil’s Cathedral is called differently: Church of the Protection of the Holy Virgin. So called the temples in Russia in gratitude for the help in overcoming the enemy. For example, the Church of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the Nerl, built for helping to defeat the ancestors of the inhabitants of present Tatarstan.

                Well, there is a lot to tell about St. Basil's Cathedral. Because what lies in plain sight (with a beautiful inscription "in honor of victory!") Does not mean what is inside.
                1. Pomeranian
                  Pomeranian 15 January 2016 21: 36 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Mangel Olys
                  Well, there is a lot to tell about St. Basil's Cathedral. Because what lies in plain sight (with a beautiful inscription "in honor of victory!") Does not mean what is inside.

                  And what is so terrible inside him? Arabic script on the iconostasis?
              3. Weyland
                Weyland 26 January 2017 22: 22 New
                0
                Quote: Pomoryanin
                Voronezh, Yelets, Oskol


                As for Yelets, you were mistaken: he is much older, Timur still ruined him. But the Eagle just founded Ivan the Terrible, a monument there to him just because recently put up!
            2. Mr. Pip
              Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 18: 09 New
              +1
              Quote: ism_ek
              What did Ivan IV reform?

              In short and by analogy with the present:
              Elected Council - Politburo.
              Zemsky Cathedral - Parliament.
              Orders - Ministries.
              So the reforms are quite "at the level" of 1917 and 1991 for those years.
              Quote: ism_ek
              Zemsky Cathedral established, which was not clear which kings to choose?

              But who he chose there after the death of Ivan 4 is "not his problem" fellow
              Quote: ism_ek
              What cities did he establish during his reign?

              Increased the size of the state by almost 2 times.
              Do you want to list all the "walk-cities" or will we differentiate the achievements?
              Quote: ism_ek
              What did you build? St. Basil's Cathedral?

              Well, for example, "side by side" Moscow Printing House - the first printing house in Russia, by the way.
              Quote: ism_ek
              Have you been there at least once?

              And the most interesting is not where I was, but probably not less than half of the acts of Ivan 4, and in particular the reform of the command and the local system is a continuation of the affairs of your beloved Ivan 3! So why do you love one and not the other ?! request
              1. Oprychnik
                Oprychnik 15 January 2016 18: 26 New
                +2
                "So why do you love one and not the other ?!"
                You are talking about the same thing, but do not find common ground ...))) Ivan Vasilyevich brilliantly continued the actions of Ivan III. Moreover, he surpassed his predecessor in all respects.
                Indeed, under it, the territory of Muscovy increased by 2 times, and the population by 1,5. At least according to TI. It is difficult to find a more successful tsar in the history of Russia than Ivan IV the Terrible, undeservedly spat upon by all Western historiography, together with the freemason Karamzin, who specifically wrote a custom story. I want to note that Ivan III laid the foundation for the deeds of Ivan Vasilyevich. The tradition then was, however.)))
            3. Cap.Morgan
              Cap.Morgan 15 January 2016 19: 45 New
              +5
              Siberia joined.
              Kazan. Astrakhan
              Arkhangelsk built.
              He began to create lines of defense, building fortresses, moving south.
              1. RUSS
                RUSS 15 January 2016 22: 05 New
                +1
                Quote: Cap.Morgan
                Siberia joined.
                Kazan. Astrakhan
                Arkhangelsk built.
                He began to create lines of defense, building fortresses, moving south.

                Ivan the Terrible was crowned just like the Tsar of Russia, before him there were only Princes of Moscow.
        2. Sergey S.
          Sergey S. 15 January 2016 19: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: ism_ek
          He founded Ivan the city and began active trade through the Baltic Sea.

          He founded the city of Ivan, but active trade did not work ...
          The Germans (Hanseatic) refused to come to captured Narva.

          Introduced sanctions ...

          But the borders of the Russian state, Ivan Vasilyevich pushed very significantly. And dreamed of even more.
          1. Pomeranian
            Pomeranian 15 January 2016 21: 39 New
            0
            Quote: Sergey S.
            The Germans (Hanseatic) refused to come to captured Narva.

            Sergey, under Ivan 4, the main flow of trade was redirected to the North of Russia - to Arkhangelsk. And in the Baltic, due to the Livonian War, the really comrade ended.
    3. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 15 January 2016 10: 40 New
      +3
      ism_ek "It is difficult to understand Ivan IV. A tyrant. Seven wives, mistresses. Now he crushes all enemies, then he grovels in front of the Poles.
      Muscovy until Peter I remained a fragment of the Golden Horde and lived according to the Mongol laws, according to which only a descendant of Genghis Khan could be king. "
      The Kalinov Bridge group has a theme called "Rush at Noon".
      It seems to me that same drive.)))
    4. shoemaker
      shoemaker 15 January 2016 15: 03 New
      +1
      I'll tell you a little. Genghisides were Tengriists, and took the religion that is in the territory where they rule. That is, they were not interested in whether Christianity / Islam / Judaism is or not, and still they remain blood Tengriists. The super survival code was on top. Why am I writing this to you? It becomes clear why there are so many wives and concubines, why the Tatar is in power, etc. .. after all, Ivan himself was a Genghisid.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 16: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: zapatero
        Why am I writing this to you?

        For example, I don’t understand why you write all this at all request
      2. Mangel olys
        Mangel olys 15 January 2016 19: 16 New
        +1
        Quote: zapatero
        Genghisides were Tengriists

        Tengrians, it’s more correct.
    5. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 15 January 2016 15: 36 New
      +3
      Quote: ism_ek
      In 1971, they burned Moscow

      And how did Leonid Ilyich allow them? .. belay
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. AK64
      AK64 15 January 2016 16: 36 New
      +3
      It’s hard to understand Ivan IV. Petty tyrant. Seven wives, lovers.


      And really: as you think how many problems he had with these women, you feel sorry for the poor fellow: seven wives, I gave half a salary to alimony ...
      And why didn’t he live calmly for himself alone?
      1. Oprychnik
        Oprychnik 15 January 2016 18: 43 New
        +2
        He, like Ilyich, hid from them in the library. And he went so deeply that it’s not like the wives then - the best detectives now cannot find that library.))) An outstanding, cunning intellect.)))
    8. sanitar80
      sanitar80 15 January 2016 18: 04 New
      +3
      Yes, yes, you’ve definitely said everything about Ivan. I remember from the history books several more of these characters. Samodur, a womanizer, is also such a loser with opponents, either winning the battle, losing the war, Napoleon seem to be called. The French consider the campaign a worthless ruler, just like you, our Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich.
    9. RUSS
      RUSS 15 January 2016 22: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: ism_ek
      It’s hard to understand Ivan IV. Petty tyrant. Seven wives, lovers.

      Oh, he does not hear you ...
  • parusnik
    parusnik 15 January 2016 07: 38 New
    +4
    After the election of Boris Godunov to the throne, the noble families claiming power decided to consolidate around Simeon against Boris Godunov. Godunov was forced to take action. Kissing the cross to the new Tsar Boris Godunov, every boyar had to promise "Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich and his children and no one else in the Muscovy would not want to see ...".
    1. Petrol
      Petrol 15 January 2016 12: 11 New
      0
      parusnik
      one grandfather told me that the territory of Russia was right up to the borders of India and there was no horde, like the era of antiquity, as well as chronicles about Kiev (where Tsarigrad conquered the supreme governor in 457 and not a woman) or, for example, Russia could to baptize if Jesus died already in 1185 .... as in my opinion, Pushkin may be right and live in a crystal tomb of illusions!
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 12: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Benzin
        how Russia, for example, could be baptized if Jesus died already in 1185

        And grandfather apparently read it from Fomenko? laughing
      2. avt
        avt 15 January 2016 13: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: Benzin
        one grandfather told me that the territory of Russia was right up to the borders of India and there was no horde,

        Until the Vorontsov Palace in Crimea until 1991, there was a collection of old maps, now I really don’t know her fate. So, not delving into ancient times - even before Peter and the adoption of the title of emperor, Western diplomats and Sigismund Herberstein among them drew up maps for their leadership, Russia and they simply signed it in the corner like that - the Empire, and its composition was very interesting, especially when you look at the dynamics. By the way - the polarity was sometimes indicated differently, well, they wrote -YUG towards Antarctica. And the Mediterranean Sea was on the old maps and the White.
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 13: 50 New
          +3
          Quote: avt
          BEFORE Peter and his adoption of the title of emperor, Western diplomats and Sigismund Herberstein among them drew up maps, for HIS leadership, Russia and signed it in the corner just like that - Empire

          Probably because the Emperor was given to Ivan 3, but he refused the foreign title for "patriotic reasons".
          Quote: avt
          and its composition was very interesting

          Yes, and the composition, too, especially since the head of the Empire is not necessarily the Emperor hi
      3. Pomeranian
        Pomeranian 15 January 2016 13: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: Benzin
        one grandfather told me

        Is it you who communicated with immortal Koshchei or what ??
        1. Petrol
          Petrol 15 January 2016 14: 37 New
          -3
          Koschey (Kaschei where ka is the soul) is not a grandfather, he has grandchildren and grandchildren,
          - it’s true that clearly! (Old people said that)
          his grandfather worked at TNU until he retired; by the way, he gave interesting comments about the noosphere of Vernadsky (in short) that almost all sciences must be combined into one.
          1. Pomeranian
            Pomeranian 15 January 2016 15: 01 New
            +2
            In fact, like Snake Tugarin, Koschey the Immortal is a real person. This is one of the rulers of the Gothic state that once existed on the territory of Russia and in the northern Black Sea coast, as I was called, I won’t say offhand, but the fact that he lived a little over 100 years is a reliable fact. With the life span of that time, he certainly seemed immortal to his contemporaries.
            1. Weyland
              Weyland 26 January 2017 22: 26 New
              0
              Quote: Pomoryanin
              I don’t say what they called offhand, but the fact that he lived a little more than 100 years is a reliable fact.

              Then this is for sure Germanarich (265-376). ICHSH, he didn’t die of old age - he committed suicide, unable to resist the Huns!
      4. parusnik
        parusnik 15 January 2016 14: 26 New
        0
        Gracious Petrol..Please explain how your comment relates to mine ...? .. With my comment, I added (quite a bit) to Samsonov’s article of Alexander ... If, in my comment, there are objections, write, with what specifically you do not agree ...
        Respectfully..
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 15 January 2016 08: 49 New
    +7
    It is interesting that after Ivan the Terrible handed over the reins of government to Sain - Bulat, the Astrakhan and Kazan tsarevich, he took for himself a second wife from the Cherkasy Tatars, Maria Aidarova. Which was from the Murzin (princely) family. Then B. Godunov - again a Tatar. In general, the period of Ivan the Terrible is very poorly covered, only eight documents have survived, and even then these are "lists". Interesting. I did not expect such an article from Alexander Samsonov. Thanks.
    1. AK64
      AK64 15 January 2016 10: 22 New
      +1
      It is interesting that after Ivan the Terrible handed over the reins to Sain - Bulat, the Astrakhan and Kazan princes, he took his second wife from the Cherkasy Tatars, Maria Aidarova. Which was from the Murzinsky (princely) family. Then B. Godunov is again a Tatar.

      Hehe ....
      And the mother of Tsar Ivan, Elena Glinskaya, the great-great-granddaughter of Mamaia. (Pr at least according to the official Glinsky family tree)
      1. Mangel olys
        Mangel olys 15 January 2016 10: 30 New
        0
        Absolutely agree with you.
      2. Nagaibak
        Nagaibak 15 January 2016 10: 53 New
        +2
        AK64 "And the mother of Tsar Ivan, Elena Glinskaya, great-great-granddaughter of Mamai. (At least according to the official Glinsky pedigree)"
        As I understand it, not the Mamaia whom we all know And from his descendant, the Cossack Mamaia.
        "The Glinskys descended from the" Cossack Mamai "- a descendant of the same Khan Mamai, with whom Dmitry Donskoy fought on the Kulikovo field. princes Glinsky. In the XNUMXth century, the Glinsky family was second only to the Rurikovich and Gediminovich. "
        Although the origin of Glinsky by some researchers is being questioned.
        1. AK64
          AK64 15 January 2016 11: 10 New
          +2
          As I understand it, not the Mamaia whom we all know And from his descendant, the Cossack Mamaia.

          The “descendant” Cossack Mamai was apparently (judging by the dates) a son. Well, as a last resort grandson.

          "The Glinsky descended from the" Cossack Mamai "- a descendant of the same Khan Mamai with whom Dmitry Donskoy fought on the Kulikovo field. Having passed to the service of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, he converted to Orthodoxy and for some merits, probably of no small importance, was granted princes Glinsky.

          Hehe ...
          It is believed that the tempest of Mamai was also Orthodox. And the Cossack was definitely Orthodox.

          And the "service" was simple: after the battle on Vorskla, Vitovt was left alone, without an army and retinue. Completely alone. But the Cossack Mamai was nearby and found. And the Cossack took him "to his" through the forests for more than a week, until Vitovt figured out the Cossack as a prince. Well, as the prince appointed - so immediately and the fast road was found.

          Morality: princes find roads faster than Cossacks.
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 15 January 2016 11: 21 New
            0
            Quote: AK64
            And the Cossack took him "to his" through the forests for more than a week, until Vitovt figured out the Cossack as a prince.

            Authorship actually should have been designated.
          2. Weyland
            Weyland 26 January 2017 22: 27 New
            0
            Quote: AK64
            The “descendant” Cossack Mamai was apparently (judging by the dates) a son. Well, as a last resort grandson.

            EMNIP, founder of the Glinsky clan - son Mamaia Mansour, in the baptism of Alexander
        2. Egoza
          Egoza 15 January 2016 11: 39 New
          +5
          Quote: Nagaibak
          “The Glinskys descended from the 'Cossack Mamai' - a descendant of the same Khan Mamai, with whom Dmitry Donskoy fought on the Kulikovo field.

          Oh! you just do not say this to Ukrainian historians. and then it will immediately - "once the Cossack Mamai, then Ukrainian. And even fought with the Russian prince ...." And a new chapter will begin in the history books, about that. that all the Russian tsars were Ukrainians, and they were illegally overthrown. laughing
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. alexej123
            alexej123 15 January 2016 17: 31 New
            0
            Directly removed from the tongue. Well done.
          3. Weyland
            Weyland 26 January 2017 22: 31 New
            0
            Quote: Egoza
            you just do not tell Ukrainian historians


            Do you think they are not in the know? "Cossack Mamai" is a character of a heap of songs, theatrical productions and popular prints!
            Read, at least on Wikipedia: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%
            D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9
        3. Aposlya
          Aposlya 16 January 2016 07: 45 New
          0
          The Glinsky trace their pedigree from the eldest son of the Beklyabek Horde Mamai from the Kiyat tribe, who laid the town of Glinsk, the very same Mamaia that Dmitry Donskoy and Khan Tokhtamysh fought with ...
  • Riv
    Riv 15 January 2016 09: 04 New
    12
    It's worth starting with the fact that in those days there were things that were not joked with. The royal title itself meant the lord of the secular and spiritual and placed its owner above any ruler of that time. The king in Europe, or the Byzantine basileus, were only worldly rulers. And for the Russian tsar, the metropolitan was first of all a subject, and only then the head of the church. The last one who would joke on this topic is the Russian tsar himself. God forbid you to consider Grozny a tyrant. Another four hundred years before Zadornov and the jokers were simply impaled. That is, one cannot take Simeon's short reign not seriously. He was a king. There are no “fake” kings.

    Now it’s worth recalling that in general, dynastic issues were also then taken extremely seriously. Ivan the Terrible with the then Swedish king communicated exclusively through the Novgorod envoy. The Swedish king, which is characteristic, endured it. The fact is that the Swedish dynasty at that time and fifty years did not turn out. And Grozny - Rurikovich. Antiquity of the genus, unmeasured show-offs and pathos. Compared to him, any European monarch of that time looked like a plebeian. Subsequently, when Peter the Great wanted to marry Elizabeth to the French prince, the French also twisted their noses. The Romanov dynasty also did not dry milk on the lips. Where, they say, climb into Europe?

    In general, Simeon with his descent from Genghis Khan was also very quoted on the throne. Of course, in the antiquity of the family he was inferior to Grozny, but not so much. We conclude: if Grozny already gave him the royal title, then everything was serious. And the fact that Simeon then returned the title means justified trust. Nothing more.

    But why did Grozny need this? .. A mystery covered in darkness. There are many versions. Many are frankly clownish. There are probable. Many are confirmed by historical facts, but strongly contradict other historical facts. Most likely the ends were then carefully hidden in the water. I am inclined to think that Grozny urgently needed to go somewhere incognito. Around the same time, he was called to the Polish throne, perhaps everything is connected with this. Time corresponds: three months on the road, in winter to solve problems in Poland, in the spring to return to Russia and again take the throne. Instead, a double remained in Moscow.
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 09: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: Riv
      I am inclined to think that Grozny urgently needed to go somewhere incognito.

      Apparently maybe he really needed something and he left the deputy.
      Simeon was the "Grand Prince of All Russia", and Ivan was still the "Tsar of All Russia" - and, as it were, the main title of the Russian Monarch of those years was exactly the Tsar, not the prince - there were clearly no princes and grand dukes already then. request
      1. Riv
        Riv 15 January 2016 11: 30 New
        +5
        Princes in Russia were like dogs uncut. But only the ruler of an independent state was called the Grand Duke. Federal administrative unit, if you take the modern analogy. That is, you are doing what you want in your area, but if you break the laws of the federal center, you will hide from Moscow. Just the Principality of Tver was so. At the same time, the Moscow Tsar could be the Grand Duke of some other region. It does not interfere. Well, at least find the title of Peter the Great.

        And in Moscow, Simeon was just the king. Reread the beginning of the article. Actually, the first to accept the royal title was Ivan the Fourth.
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 13: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Riv
          And in Moscow, Simeon was just the king.

          Simeon was the "Grand Duke of All Russia" (1575-76) then the Grand Duke of Tver from 1576.
          And he was the Grand Duke because he was married to the great-granddaughter of Sofia Paleolog, who (just in case) Ivan 4 was a grandson.
          Quote: Riv
          Princes in Russia were like dogs uncut.

          Yes, great dukes in history were also "like dogs."
  • Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 15 January 2016 09: 16 New
    +1
    Quote: Riv
    Subsequently, when Peter the Great wanted to marry Elizabeth to the French prince, the French also twisted their noses. The Romanov dynasty also did not dry milk on the lips. Where, they say, climb into Europe?

    The point, it seems to me, is in their origin - the boyars of Zakharyin.
    1. Riv
      Riv 15 January 2016 11: 34 New
      +3
      Well, the thing is, let's say, not the last name. When Elizabeth ascended the throne, the French themselves had already offered one of their princesses to marry Peter the Third. After all, the Romanovs were sitting on the throne quite a while ago and such a marriage would not have become a mesalliance. Moreover, Peter wasn’t from a palm tree, he had enough of his titles. But Elizabeth did not forget anything, the refusal followed immediately.
  • Mr. Pip
    Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 09: 46 New
    +2
    Thus, Simeon was an ideal candidate for the role of the Grand Duke of All Russia.

    It is not entirely clear, according to the "norms of law" of those years, the title of the monarch of the Russian State was "Tsar of All Russia", aka "Sovereign of All Russia" - and there were many Princes and Grand Dukes - the Grand Duke is the title of the head of a specific principality, for example, or his challenger request
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 15 January 2016 10: 37 New
      +2
      In the era of Ivan the Terrible, the Grand Duke was the head of the Grand Duchy, which were the Principality of Moscow, the Principality of Lithuania, and others. The specific princes, Tver, Ryazan, etc. were subordinate to the Grand Duke of Moscow.

      Since the XVIII century, the titles "Grand Duke" and "Grand Duchess (Grand Duchess)" began to be assigned to the children (respectively, male and female) of the reigning monarch, which was officially enshrined in the "Institution of the Imperial Family" of Paul I of April 5, 1797. Thus Thus, the title began to approximately correspond to the European title “Prince of Blood”, although the correspondence here is incomplete.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 12: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: ism_ek
        In the era of Ivan the Terrible, the Grand Duke was the head of the Grand Duchy, which were the Principality of Moscow, the Principality of Lithuania, and others. The specific princes, Tver, Ryazan, etc. were subordinate to the Grand Duke of Moscow.

        Yes, a grand duke is a grand duchy, a prince is a specific principality.
        But the meaning does not change from this, the title of the Tsar was higher than the title of the Grand Duke.
  • siberalt
    siberalt 15 January 2016 10: 30 New
    -4
    Zadolbali Tatar tales about the Mongol horde.
    1. Extraneous
      Extraneous 15 January 2016 15: 10 New
      +1
      These tales are not Tatar, but German.
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 15 January 2016 19: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: siberalt
      Zadolbali Tatar tales about the Mongol horde.

      In vain you "snapped" ... An article specifically about "Muscovy" of the times of John IV. The article is interesting.
  • Glot
    Glot 15 January 2016 10: 31 New
    -6
    Simeon will be deprived of inheritance and vision. And False Dmitry I will send Simeon to Solovki.


    As my friend once said, regarding Simeon: A good man will not be gouged out.
    1. avt
      avt 15 January 2016 10: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: Glot
      As my friend once said, regarding Simeon: A good man will not be gouged out.

      Nonsense then why replicate ???? In Russia, the ruling elite did this to RELATIVES, OR EQUAL in the struggle for power and sending to the monastery.
      1. Glot
        Glot 15 January 2016 10: 50 New
        0
        Nonsense then why replicate ???? In Russia, the ruling elite did this to RELATIVES, OR EQUAL in the struggle for power and sending to the monastery.


        Relax, that was a joke. laughing
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • GUGA
    GUGA 15 January 2016 11: 10 New
    +2
    The portrait depicts Boris Godunov! This is a portrait of Boris of the late 17th - early. 18 centuries, stored in the Pushkin Reserve. Please correct.
  • Mr. Pip
    Mr. Pip 15 January 2016 13: 37 New
    0
    The author missed one important point. Anastasia Mstislavskaya - the wife of Simeon - was the great-granddaughter of Sophia Paleolog.
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 15 January 2016 13: 42 New
    +3
    Wonderful article. On my own behalf, I add that Simeon Bekbulatovich granted my ancestor land, about which there is a corresponding entry. Who knows, if this did not happen - would I be born into the world? So thank you Simeon, Orthodox Tsar!
  • chelovektapok
    chelovektapok 15 January 2016 15: 40 New
    -3
    "In the Caucasus, whoever has 10 rams is the" prince "(s). such "kings" - beggars and rogues. And no nobility! The Novgorod boyars will still catch up, they also had a lot of things, including territories at a time when in Moscow only a barn was fenced off. One know all around, where you do not spit! Or maybe mania! greatness, how is the diagnosis?
    1. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 15 January 2016 17: 58 New
      +3
      Quote: chelovektapok
      "In the Caucasus, whoever has 10 rams is the" prince "(c)

      If it is a stone in my garden, then stupidity was made frank. Streletsky ten's forecaster Semeyko Chernov did get exactly 5 kilometers from the place where I was born. In the neighboring village. And my ancestors lived on 4 000 kilometers north of the Caucasus. If you are not at all hopeless, welcome to the pedigree society of your city. They will help, tea is not doctors.
    2. Aposlya
      Aposlya 16 January 2016 07: 49 New
      +2
      10 uluses and rogue? !!!
      In fact, the whole Golden Horde was just one Ulus - the Jochi Ulus ...
  • Captain45
    Captain45 15 January 2016 20: 24 New
    +4
    Quote: Riv
    Ivan the Terrible with the then Swedish king communicated exclusively through the Novgorod envoy. The Swedish king, which is characteristic, endured it.

    Well, to ruin a serious historical argument, I’ll give an interesting comment (found on the Internet):
    Victor Ivanov, 11.10.2015 18: 16: 37

    It turns out that the Swedes have some reason to be offended by the Russians.

    Long before Peter the Great, Tsar Ivan the Terrible wrote to the Swedish king Johan III, who allowed some kind of tactlessness - "... And if you want to pour over, then find yourself the same slave as you are the slave, and overflow with him. you will not write barking, we will not give you an answer. "
    Johan III, who became a shaking hands, was greatly offended ... laughing

    To the Polish king Augustus-Sigismund in 1550, who demanded to allow Jewish merchants to Russia, Tsar Ivan also answered briefly but harshly - "... w / and / d / s of Russian people from Christianity were taken away and poisonous potions were brought and many of our people did dirty tricks. .. And you, our brother, would not write to us about Zhidekh in the future. "

    At that time it sounded quite offensive.
    About how to publicly kick Sigismund in the tailbone.

    Sigismund, too, was pretty angry ...

    To the English Queen Elizabeth I, the straightforward and honest tsar expressed his bewilderment at her unmarried status in the following words - "... And you are in the maiden rank. As a vulgar girl is."

    Naturally, Elizabeth was furious with us. laughing

    So we quarreled with all of Europe ... bully
  • yastr
    yastr 21 January 2016 18: 51 New
    0
    Comrades, I am not a supporter of Fomenko and Co., by no means, but his "version" regarding Simeon, Godunov, False Dmitrys, etc. (the purge of the Rurik dynasty) is much more logical. In modern history, when considering the reign of Ivan the Terrible, too much is attributed to the fact that he was a tyrant, blessed, etc. Well, there are no idiots at the very top, they do not stay there. And then again twenty-five, gave the throne for 11 months - why? Yes, so, I wanted, there were reasons (a bunch of versions that do not stand up to criticism) or blessed, not of this world.
    It was much more logical to assume that there was some kind of confusion with the dates of the reign, for example: to assume that after the death of Ivan the Terrible, Simeon (as a representative of the Rurikovechi), and then Boris Godunov, etc., managed to correct it. The most suspicious is that in a relatively short period of time a large number of Rurikovich died, which is very similar to stripping.
    The opinion of modern history at that time is very controversial and does not stand up to criticism due to many "if only, if only" and illogicality.
  • islavuta
    islavuta 9 September 2019 19: 52 New
    0
    "One thing gave him hope for success: the old obedience of the tsarist government, slavish fear and patience, which amazed all foreigners ... Peter understood this and said:" With other European nations, you can achieve your goal in human-loving ways, but with the Russians it is not like this: if I did not use harshness, then he would not have owned the Russian state for a long time and would never have made it as it is now. I do not deal with people, but with animals, which I want to transform into people. "He neglected not only religious prejudices, but also more essential moral concepts."
    ("Russian history in the biographies of its main figures" N. Kostomarov, Volume II, Domination of the House of Romanovs before the accession to the throne of Catherine II, St. Petersburg, 1886).