Military Review

How suppressed the uprising Bolotnikov

35
The death of the False Dmitry did not stop the Troubles. The civil war continued, embracing new lands, new impostors appeared. In the very first month of his reign, Vasily Shuisky had to suppress several attempts at the performances of the Moscow urban lower classes. Moscow feared that the Polish king, Sigismund, would start the war for the overthrow of the impostor and the beating of the Poles. Therefore, of the several thousand Polish guests and mercenaries of the False Dmitry who survived the May uprising in Moscow, only common people were released, and noble people were left as hostages, giving good maintenance and distributing them under supervision in different cities. Shuisky violated diplomatic etiquette and even detained the Polish embassy of Gonosevsky, which was in Moscow.


However, these fears were in vain. Poland itself had to tight. The Poles began a war with Sweden and beat the city of Pernov (Parnu) from her in Livonia. In addition, the Zaporozhye Cossacks, led by Hetman Sagaidachny, carried out a series of successful raids and plundered Cafu and Varna. This angered the Ottomans and they declared war on the Commonwealth. True, the main forces of the Turkish army were connected with the war against Persia and the auxiliary troops were sent against Poland, and the Poles repelled the attack. In Poland itself, part of the magnates who were dissatisfied with the king’s policies raised the bug. The country was seized by civil war. Therefore, the Poles have not yet been to Moscow.

Thus, Moscow overlooked a more serious threat - an internal one. After all, the problems that caused the Troubles were not resolved. And the external threat played, though important, but not the main role. The province was outraged: the Boyar Duma elected the king without the necessary support of all the lands. It turned out that the boyars killed the "good king" and seized power, transferring the throne to the "boyar king". The province raged: the term of investigation of the fugitive was increased to 15 years; servicemen recalled the generous awards of the False Dmitry; residents of the south feared reprisals and terror (as under Godunov) for helping an impostor; Cossacks worried, actively supporting the liar; Shuisky got rid of supporters of the False Dmitry, sending them away from the capital, many were sent to the southern border.

In the summer of 1606, spontaneous uprisings swept the entire south of the country, which was agitated by rumors about the "salvation of the good Tsar Dmitry." The “capital” of the first impostor, Putivl, became the center of the struggle against the new king in the Northern Land. Here, the peasants who revolted the townspeople elected the peasants to be the “great governor” of Ivan Bolotnikov, who had arrived with a detachment. Ivan Bolotnikov, according to the most common version, was a serf of Prince Telyatevsky. As a young man, he fled from his master to the Cossacks in the steppe, here he was captured by the Tatars and sold into slavery by the Turks. For several years he spent in slavery, in galleys as a rower. After an unsuccessful sea battle for the Turks with the Christian ships, he was released and went to Venice, where he lived in a German trade center. From here, having heard the stories about the beginning of the Troubles in the Russian state, Bolotnikov moved through Germany and Poland to Russia. Rumors about the “miraculous rescue” of Tsar Dmitry of Moscow attracted Ivan to Sambir, where the Moscow fugitive Mikhail Molchanov, former associate of False Dmitry I. Molchanov stole some royal regalia, including the golden seal, which at that time replaced the royal signature, was hiding from the wife of Yuri Mnishek Yadvigi seemed to be king. This adventurer presented himself to Bolotnikov as king, who had escaped after the May coup in Moscow. The new impostor talked with Bolotnikov for a long time, and then supplied him with a letter to Prince Grigory Shakhovsky and sent him to Putyvl as his personal emissary and “great governor”.

In essence, the civil war has entered an active phase. In the army of Bolotnikov were the main classes and social groups of the Russian state: peasants and serfs, Seversk, Terek, Volga and Zaporozhye Cossacks, representatives of the nobility. In addition, representatives of the aristocracy supported the uprising, among them Prince Grigory Shakhovsky and Chernigov voivode Andrey Telyatevsky, the former owner of Bolotnikov.

Summer 1606 30-thousand. Army Bolotnikova moved to Moscow. The fortresses of Kromy and Yelets were captured, the rich arsenals of which replenished the reserves of the rebels. Government troops under the leadership of the governor of the princes Vorotynsky and Trubetskoy were defeated at Kromy and Yelets. Many soldiers of the royal troops went over to the rebels. Using the mistakes of the royal governors, the rebels were rapidly moving towards Moscow. More and more detachments of rebel peasants poured into the army of Bolotnikov. Moreover, on the way to Moscow, Bolotnikov was joined by large detachments of service nobles, who opposed the boyar tsar Shuisky. The senior Ryazan voivode Prokopy Lyapunov and the younger, Grigory Sumbulov, led the Ryazan militia, the archer centurion Eastoma Pashkov - a large detachment of service people. Rebelled Tula, Kashira, Kaluga, Mozhaisk, Vyazma, Vladimir and Astrakhan. On the Volga Mordovians and Mari (Cheremis) rebelled, they besieged Nizhny Novgorod.

The rebels on the way to Moscow approached Kolomna. In October, the posad of Kolomna’s 1606 was taken by them, but the Kremlin continued to resist. Leaving a small part of his forces in Kolomna, Bolotnikov headed down the Kolomna road to Moscow. In the village of Troitskoye, Kolomna district, he managed to smash government troops. October 22 Bolotnikov army located in the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow. Here he built a fortress (fortress), and began to send letters to Moscow and various cities, calling for the support of the legitimate sovereign Dmitry Ivanovich and arousing the disadvantaged and the poor against the rich. “All of you, boyars serfs, beat your boyars, take your wives and all their wealth, estates and patrimonies! You'll be noble people, and you, who were called shpyny and nameless, kill guests and merchants, share their bellies between themselves! You were the last - now get boyars, neighborhoods, voivodship! Kiss the whole cross to the rightful sovereign, Dmitri Ivanovich! ”Therefore, the path of Bolotnikov’s troops was accompanied by terrible pogroms, people responded with terror to terror, fought as if aliens were circulating (the royal troops acted in a similar way).

The militia of Bolotnikov continued to grow, separate detachments stood out from it, mainly from slaves, who with their raids and robberies kept the capital in a state of siege. In November, the Cossacks Elika Muromets joined Bolotnikov. He was another impostor, posing as Tsarevich Peter Fedorovich, in reality the never-existing son of Tsar Fedor I Ivanovich. Muscovites were ready to submit to Bolotnikov, asking only to show them to Tsarevich Dmitry, and even began negotiations with him. Delighted Bolotnikov sent messengers to Putivl. Like, let the "king" come soon, victory is near. But Dmitry did not appear. Many began to express doubts about the existence of Dmitry and went over to the side of Shuisky.

Meanwhile, Shuisky was not sitting on the spot and was actively preparing for a counterattack. The outskirts and suburbs of Moscow were fortified. Troops of the governor of Skopin-Shuisky, Golitsyn and Tatev were stationed at the Serpukhov gates, from where they watched the enemy camp. Between Moscow and the surrounding cities was established message, the troops guarded the road. In November, reinforcements came from Tver and Smolensk, which in large part were made up of noblemen and the townspeople. At the same time, Shuisky actively bargained with the noble part of the rebellious camp. Lyapunovs and Pashkov hated Shuisky, but they were afraid of the “mob” rebellion.

The army of Bolotnikov grew to 100 thousand people (his troops acted on a vast territory), but his fighting qualities fell. Among the rebels there were many slaves, vagrants, peasants who had no military experience, were poorly armed and organized. Cossacks and nobles - two military core troops, they were despised. However, they confronted each other. As a result, there was a split in the very army of Bolotnikov: one camp was made up of noblemen and boyar children, the other - slaves, Cossacks and other people. The latter in the leaders were Ivan Bolotnikov, in the first - Istoma Pashkov and the Lyapunov brothers. Differences arose between the leaders, as a result, first the Lyapunovs and then the Ishtom Pashkovs went over to the side of Shuisky. Shuisky, meanwhile, thoroughly strengthened Moscow, formed a new army from the militia of other cities. In addition, Shuisky lured away many noblemen from the Bolotnikov camp, promising them rewards and orders.

Seeing that the situation is deteriorating and the forces of Shuisky are growing, Bolotnikov decided to attack. 26 November, he tried to take the Simonov monastery, but was defeated by the royal troops under the command of a young and talented commander, the thoroughbred of Tsar Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky. At the decisive moment of the battle, the Pashkov noble squad left the camp of the rebels, this decided the outcome of the battle in favor of the tsarist army. The troops Bolotnikov entrenched in the Kolomna camp. Skopin-Shuisky besieged Bolotnikov, began shelling. Tsar Vasily tried to negotiate with Bolotnikov himself, promised a high rank, but the leader of the rebels refused to go to the world. After a three-day artillery bombardment, Bolotnikov’s motley army broke down and ran. Part of the Cossacks entrenched near the village of Zaborje, where on December 2 the rebels were again defeated. The Cossacks Ataman Bezzubtsev went over to Skopin-Shuisky. Their king Basil forgiven. The rest of the prisoners taken in battle or during the flight were hanged or stunned with clubs, drowned. Bolotnikov fled to Serpukhov, and then Kaluga, Elika Muromets retired to Tula.

Thus, the rebels were not able to take the capital. In the decisive battle, the Bolotnikovs were defeated by the royal voivods, aided by the betrayal of the noble units that had gone over to the side of Tsar Vasily Shuisky.

How suppressed the uprising Bolotnikov


In Kaluga, Bolotnikov gathered about 10 thousand people. Tsarist troops laid siege to him. However, the chief commander was the talentless brother of Tsar Ivan Shuisky. As a result, the siege of Kaluga dragged on from December 1606 to May 1607. The rebels defended themselves skillfully and desperately, repelled attacks, made daring forays, causing great damage to the royal troops. The royal governors decided to burn down the wooden fortress and, mobilizing the surrounding peasants, began to transport firewood, which they laid over the walls. However, the rebels unraveled this plan and blew up the “sweeping”, killing and crippling a large number of royal warriors. At this time, other rebels tried to unlock Kaluga, but were defeated. Thus, the Mezetsky detachment, sent from Putivl Shakhovsky to the rescue of Bolotnikov, was defeated by the army of Ivan Romanov on the r. Vyrke

Later, troops from Telyatevsky and Lzhepetra tried to break through to Bolotnikov. 1 May 1607 The Don and Ukrainian Cossacks defeated the Tsar's troops on the Pchelné River. Taking advantage of the confusion among the siege troops, Bolotnikov made a sortie and defeated the royal governors, who retreated, leaving behind artillery and a wagon train. Part of the royal troops went over to the rebels. Only the regiment of Skopin-Shuisky departed in perfect order. After that, Bolotnikov moved to Tula, where there was a more powerful stone fortress, and joined up with other insurgent detachments.

Then Bolotnikov began the 2 th campaign against Moscow. However, Tsar Vasily did not sit with folded arms. The mobilization of “dutch” people was announced (“datochnykh” - warriors, called upon from the townspeople and peasant communities) throughout the country, and personally led a large army, which was formed in Serpukhov. The centers of the uprising gradually crushed. The rioters rejected from Nizhny Novgorod. A. Golitsyn near Kashira broke Telyatevsky. The appearance instead of the expected "good tsar" Dmitry of some unknown Peter, who unleashed terror against his opponents, was chilled by many, the rebellious cities calmed down, brought guilt. In May, the royal army moved towards the rebels. The tsar himself took part in the campaign, and Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, Peter Urusov, Ivan Shuisky, Mikhail Turenin, Andrei Golitsyn, Prokopy Lyapunov and Fyodor Bulgakov commanded separate regiments.

The Bolotnikovtsy attempted to bypass the main forces of the tsarist army and go to Moscow, but bypassing Kashira, the rebels met the flank of the tsarist troops by the river Vosma. 5-7 June, 1607 was a battle. Bolotniki had the advantage in strength - 30-38 thous. Warriors. However, the Tula voivode betrayed Bolotnikov with the 4-thousand. detachment went over to the side of the royal troops. And the Ryazan Lyapunov detachments entered the rear of the Bolotnikov army. This caused a panic in Bolotnikov and they retreated. Part of Bolotnikov's troops was cut off and captured, prisoners executed. After the Battle of Vosem, the army of Bolotnikov was driven back to Tula.

Tsar Vasily Shuisky sent several regiments for Bolotnikov led by Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky. On the outskirts of Tula, Bolotnikov decided to give battle on the Voronya River, the rebels closed with promises and for a long time fought off the onslaught of the royal cavalry. Both sides suffered serious losses. However, the archers made a bypass maneuver, the Bolotniki men fluttered and ran, many were killed during the chase. Bolotnikov lost half of the troops in these battles - about 20 thousand people. With the rest he locked himself in Tula. Thus, Bolotnikov suffered a decisive defeat and lost a strategic initiative.

June 30 to Tula approached and Tsar Vasily himself with the main army. Contemporaries reported that the royal army numbered 100-150 thousand people. Bolotnikov and “Tsarevich Peter” have no more than 20 thousand people left. Siege weapons began to fire on the city from both banks. However, Tula had powerful fortifications, and Bolotnikov was left with the most capable core of the rebels. Therefore, the besieged lasted until October 1607. At the early stage of the siege, the defenders of the city made forays and bravely defended. All attempts by the royal governors to take the city by storm were unsuccessful.

Then the tsarist troops, according to the idea of ​​the Murom son of boyar Ivan Krovkov, decided to block the Upa River below the city with a dam so that Tula would be flooded. On the right, marshy shore, a half-verm-sized dam was built, which during the autumn floods should not allow the river to spill over the lowland, but cause a sharp rise in the water level. Indeed, the autumn flood has completely cut off the city from the outside world, turning it into a marshy island in the middle of a plain completely flooded with water. Many ammunition, as well as grain and salt stocks stored in cellars, were damaged. Soon a terrible famine and epidemic began in Tula, which exacerbated the internal contradictions among the rebels. The rebels tried to blow up the dam, but the same Kravkov warned Shuisky, and the attempt failed.

During the siege, Bolotnikov sent messengers to Mikhail Molchanov and Grigory Shakhovsky more than once, but without success. And Tsar Vasily faced a new threat. A new imposter appeared - Lzhedmitry II, who had already managed to seize Severshchina, Bryansk and Verkhovskaya Land. Bolotnikov was proposed to negotiate the conditions for the surrender of the city. Shuisky promised to preserve the freedom of the leaders and participants of the uprising. The agreement reached was sealed with a solemn oath, and on October 10 1607, Tula opened its gates to the royal army.

Tsar Vasily deceived the leaders of the uprising. Shuisky hastened to announce that forgiveness applies only to ordinary "Tula sideltsev", and not to the leaders of the uprising. Tulyakov was truly pardoned, the rebellious nobles got off with links. Shakhovsky was tonsured as a monk. "Tsarevich Peter" was hanged. Bolotnikov was sent to Kargopol and secretly drowned. Many ordinary insurgents were sent to cities, and those who found themselves in Moscow, without noise and dust, were strangled.

Thus, the Moscow government extinguished the peasant war, mobilizing practically all the reserves and responding with terror on terror. However, Shuisky, having dismissed most of the army and thinking that the unrest was coming to an end, miscalculated. Everything was just beginning. A second False Dmitriy appeared, to whom the remnants of the Bolotnikovs joined. Poland has become active again.



To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Troubles

Folk hero Kuzma Minin and Smoot
How the False Dmitry I was killed
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. V.ic
    V.ic 1 June 2016 07: 07
    +7
    Soviet historians called this phase of Russian history "the peasant war led by Ivan Bolotnikov."
    The author of the article has some discrepancies in the text:
    Streletsky Istom Pashkov centurion - large detachment of service people.

    At the decisive moment of the battle, the large rebel camp left noble detachment Pashkova

    Sagittarius is a city army, not noblemen. Nobles, of course, "service people," but would they go to serve "under the arm" of a streltsy centurion? At that time, no one canceled localism.
    1. Rarog
      Rarog 1 June 2016 16: 16
      +9
      I will supplement your comment:

      May 1, 1607, the Don and Ukrainian Cossacks defeated the royal troops on the river Bee.


      It was still a long time before the appearance of the "Ukrainians". Probably the author meant the Zaporozhye Cossacks. Let's not play along with "ukram", which with their "independence" buzzed all ears.
    2. Lexa-149
      Lexa-149 3 June 2016 12: 58
      +1
      Soviet historians called this phase of Russian history "the peasant war led by Ivan Bolotnikov."

      In Kaluga there is even Bolotnikova street.
  2. qwert
    qwert 1 June 2016 07: 16
    +5
    Tsar Vasily, was an extremely negative figure. It's good that the rules are not very long
  3. iury.vorgul
    iury.vorgul 1 June 2016 08: 06
    +4
    Ivan Bolotnikov, according to the most common version, was a servant of Prince Telatevsky.
    Necessary clarification: Bolotnikov was not just a serf of Prince Telatevsky, but a BATTLE SLIP, that is, a professional warrior, a mercenary in a princely detachment.
    1. Leto
      Leto 1 June 2016 10: 55
      +2
      Quote: iury.vorgul
      Necessary clarification: Bolotnikov was not just a serf of Prince Telatevsky, but a BATTLE SLIP, that is, a professional warrior, a mercenary in a princely detachment.

      Indeed, it could be clarified in the article that the concept of COLOP is much broader than it is usually imagined.
      1. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 2 June 2016 07: 37
        +1
        Quote: Leto
        Indeed, it could be clarified in the article that the concept of COLOP is much broader than it is usually imagined.

        Nothing too broad. Serfdom is taking on any form of bondage, i.e. giving up personal rights and freedoms in exchange for "care" from someone who has money and power.

        The form of service - it could be any, the one to which the master sends. Including military service.

        Basically, slaves of the East Slavs became of their own free will - being sold in bondage in the era of economic crises.
      2. RUSS
        RUSS 2 June 2016 09: 35
        +2
        Quote: Leto
        Indeed, it could be explained in the article that the concept of COLOP is much broader

        I apologize that this is all of you - a serf and a serf! What serf am I to you? What is this word? Now the police will figure out which of us is a serf! laughing
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Buffet
      Buffet 1 June 2016 11: 55
      0
      Simply put, a gangster ...
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 June 2016 17: 28
      0
      "a professional warrior, a mercenary in a princely detachment." ////

      Of course. He had combat experience before the uprising (riot).
      Otherwise, he would never have won so many victories.
      in the battles.
  4. Kenneth
    Kenneth 1 June 2016 08: 50
    +4
    The Russian riot is terrible.
    1. Koshak
      Koshak 1 June 2016 09: 05
      +3
      "The Russian revolt is terrible."
      Like any other.
  5. mishastich
    mishastich 1 June 2016 09: 07
    +3
    The rising star of this period is Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky.
    1. sibiryak10
      sibiryak10 1 June 2016 11: 11
      +5
      And what is most indicative, their relatives, Shuiskys, poisoned him. Full of mediocrity, envious of his talent and increasing fame. And this is on the eve of the campaign on Smolensk besieged by the Poles, where the Smolensk heroically fought under the leadership of Shein! Truly, if God wants to destroy someone, he takes away the mind of man.
  6. sibiryak10
    sibiryak10 1 June 2016 09: 09
    +5
    Now the Fomenkovites will come running and quickly tell us how it really was wassat
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 1 June 2016 09: 28
      +5
      So maybe the administration will provide them with a separate aviary so that they frolic there and do not interfere with people? Or is it really time to read, it’s funny, but when they constantly drip on their brains
    2. Oldwiser
      Oldwiser 1 June 2016 09: 39
      +5
      Well yes, yes yes - Tsar Vasily Shuisky is the Roman emperor Vespasian, and his tribe is Skopin-Shuisky, you know the emperor Titus (whom Shakespeare portrayed in the play Titus Andronicus). laughing
    3. Oldwiser
      Oldwiser 1 June 2016 09: 39
      +1
      Well yes, yes yes - Tsar Vasily Shuisky is the Roman emperor Vespasian, and his tribe is Skopin-Shuisky, you know the emperor Titus (whom Shakespeare portrayed in the play Titus Andronicus). laughing
      1. sibiryak10
        sibiryak10 1 June 2016 10: 59
        +5
        If they have a Pugachev uprising, this is a war between St. Petersburg and Siberia, then a Bolotnikov uprising, probably a war between Moscow-Rome and the Hills of Atilla bully
    4. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 1 June 2016 17: 42
      +3
      sibiryak10 "Now the Fomenkovites will run up and quickly tell us how it really was."
      Yeah))) Macedonian + Caesar + Genghis Khan + Karl 12 + Napoleon + Hitler = Alexander Nevsky.)))) Something like that.)))
  7. Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 1 June 2016 11: 03
    +11
    It is very sad that the Author never responds to comments on his articles. But suddenly this time?

    Quote: Alexander Samsonov
    After all, the problems that caused the Troubles were not resolved. And the external threat played an important, but not the main role. The province was outraged: the Boyar Duma elected the king without the necessary support of all the lands. It turned out that the boyars killed the “good king” and seized power, transferring the throne to the “boyar king”.
    The topic of the terrible economic catastrophe into which the Muscovy Empire plunged, and to which a number of factors led, including the inept administration of the central government, has not been disclosed at all. It seems that the Author does not know about it at all, apparently relying on the data of Soviet historiography, which attached decisive importance to the "movement of the masses".

    Quote: Alexander Samsonov
    Even in his youth, he fled from his master to the steppes to the Cossacks, here he was captured by the Tatars and was sold into slavery to the Turks. He spent several years in slavery, in galleys as a rower. After an unsuccessful naval battle for the Turks with Christian ships, he was released and headed to Venice, where he lived in a German merchant compound. From here, having heard stories about the beginning of the Time of Troubles in the Russian state, Bolotnikov moved through Germany and Poland to Russia.
    This figure is both outstanding and mysterious, but strongly negative for our Motherland. The fact is that, yes, he was a "fighting slave", that is, a professional warrior, really survived the horrors of Ottoman captivity and was liberated by the Venetians.

    And then - everything is covered in darkness. It is not known who he met. At all. Either with the Venetians, or with the Poles, or with the emissaries of the Pope, or with someone else. In fact - instead of a poor captive - he suddenly, well-dressed and armed, with a bag of gold and a bunch of various goods (supposedly a merchant), and apparently a mission to raise an uprising in the Moscow state, travels through all of Europe, staying in good hotels. And with dignity and triumph - as freed from slavery, having become rich in Europe and becoming a merchant, he enters the borders of Russia.

    If it is not an agent of influence or an emissary sent for a specific purpose, then who?

    As many have noticed, I'm still more of a Europhile than a Europhobe, but "partners" are "beaten in mortal combat" for such tricks.

    Quote: Alexander Samsonov
    In addition, the uprising was supported by representatives of the aristocracy, among them Prince Grigory Shakhovsky and the Chernigov governor Andrei Telyatevsky, the former owner of Bolotnikov.
    Now this is the strange thing - how are the nobles, it would seem a pillar of statehood, and suddenly come out on the side of its enemies? Yes, and under the guidance of their own serf? Are there many examples in the history of Russia?

    Speak up a popular uprising?

    Here it is, Mikhalych! @
    1. sibiryak10
      sibiryak10 1 June 2016 13: 27
      +2
      Princes Shakhovsky and Telyatievsky are not quite noblemen, as we used to think now. The noblemen of that time, these are servants who were supposed to be the support of the sovereign. The princes of that time are still a completely different category. Both princes - Rurikovich, as well as "Tsar Vaska". Who knows, maybe they also hatched plans for the royal throne
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 June 2016 17: 36
      +5
      "The topic of the terrible economic catastrophe into which the Moscow kingdom plunged has not been disclosed at all" ////

      Perfect is true. At the beginning of the 17th century, Europe began
      cold snap, which hit before Russia.
      From 1601 to 1604 there were continuous crop failures. Started
      unprecedented hunger.
      Therefore, those who joined the riots and uprisings were
      absolutely nothing to lose. Weapons could even rob food
      and get your own food.
    3. gladcu2
      gladcu2 1 June 2016 20: 01
      0
      Mikhail Matyugin

      Thank you for making conclusions and describe the thread of thought.

      It is not possible to be a specialist in all areas. But a good specialist can save time by summing the right resume.
    4. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 June 2016 23: 25
      +3
      "It is very sad that the Author never responds to comments on his articles." ////

      Alexander Samsonov is a collective pseudonym for a group of authors. smile
      Moreover, authors with completely different political views.
      Because of this, sometimes the same episode of Russian history is described
      from different perspectives: sometimes a monarchist, sometimes a communist, sometimes - it is not clear who ...
      It annoyed me at first, but now it’s even interesting.
  8. PKK
    PKK 1 June 2016 19: 11
    +4
    In addition to Fomenkovtsev, there is also Grekovzi.
    So, the movements in those days were in canoes along rivers and perevolok. Any child knows about canoes, the movements are not real on dry land. In modern jeeps it is impossible to drive along those supposed roads. How long was the 100 thousand column. troops? Therefore, the map of the movement of troops is a fake. Army B., as a militia army in the Donbass, 100 thousand, worked wonders of heroism, performing marches in meter snow, in cold weather and any other, incl. the command of the troops was timely and expeditious, modern commanders with radio communications could envy this. The villages and towns in those days had if not a hundred inhabitants, but large several thousand. Where do you get hundreds of thousands of troops from on both sides? and, of course, supplying food, watering is desirable and treating. But that’s okay. It’s advisable to pay the troops or promising loot. But from those towns, you won’t gain a lot, everything is stolen before us. Actually, how much troops could I pay, honestly? Casual author he said about horses. Let’s say horses were, put 15 kg of oat to cattle a day and put it down. They didn’t go away for more than two days. Here the author needs to cover these questions, and not about the battles, which were usually for the possession of the dragging then. Good luck.
    1. sibiryak10
      sibiryak10 2 June 2016 06: 15
      +2
      Correct remark. Ivan the Terrible at the battle of Molody was able to put 20-25 thousand people against the Krymchaks, and he, with about the same army, was in Novgorod. So it was when the state worked as a single mechanism. It is unrealistic that during the Time of Troubles, the rebels were able to assemble an army 2 times larger.
  9. moskowit
    moskowit 1 June 2016 20: 17
    +1
    Very interesting is the opinion of Lev Gumilyov, set forth in his book "From Russia to Russia"

    "... When we say:" rebellious borderlands ", we, of course, still mean the three already mentioned subethnos: Sevryuk, Donets and Ryazanians. It was they who, dissatisfied with their subordination to Moscow, consistently supported the second impostor after the first impostor. This is the ethnic basis of the phenomenon called in the historical literature “the peasant war of 1606-1607.” Perhaps it is difficult to come up with another name that does not reflect the essence of the matter just as little.

    Rebellions of more energetic residents of the outskirts against the center, which has lost its passionarity, are constantly encountered in the course of ethnogenesis. Similarly, in France Gascony, Provence and Brittany rebelled against the rule of Paris, and in the Roman Empire provincials rose up against the principles. The passionate potential of Ryazan or the Seversk land at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. was much higher than in Moscow, since a larger number of passionate people survived the genocide of the late XNUMXth century. precisely on the outskirts of Russia. Indeed, in the Seversk land, "away from the authorities", one could live safely from the oprichnina. Only the Tatars posed a threat there, but was it really a threat compared to the guardsmen ?!

    So, the passionaries who survived in the south, led by the princes Shakhovsky and Telyatevsky, under the military leadership of Bolotnikov, moved to Moscow. The success of this army was by no means caused by the support of the peasants, rather the opposite. When Bolotnikov approached Tula, the tsar's army melted away: the nobles, having dispersed to their homes, left their governors. Following the Tula noble militia, Tula herself showed disobedience to the tsar: city residents "rebelled" against the government. But what was most important, the noble regiments moved into the camp of the rebels. The Ryazanites became the governors of the South Russian nobles: Colonels Grigory Sumbulov, Prokopy Lyapunov and centurion Istoma Pashkov. The Ryazan nobility, who guarded about half of the southeastern border, represented the elite of the government troops. It was with the help of these military professionals, and not at all peasants, that Bolotnikov reached Moscow, tried to surround it and storm it. The only in the history of the country the siege of the capital by the rebels began, which lasted five weeks ... "
  10. moskowit
    moskowit 1 June 2016 20: 21
    0
    continued ...

    "... The boyars and their slaves in Moscow were clearly not enough to defend the city. Realizing this, Tsar Vasily Shuisky recruited a significant army, consisting of servicemen and" tributary "people. What is very important, the troops were peasants who belonged to monasteries and other landowners.Consequently, paradoxically, peasants who appeared at the call of the tsar defended Moscow from the "peasant" militia, and the noble frontier regiments were the shock force in the "peasant" army.

    To explain this social contradiction and in order to understand the events of the Time of Troubles, we must descend from the high levels of the ethnic hierarchy (superethnic and ethnic) to the subethnic level that determines the internal structure of the ethnos. There are subethnos in any ethnos. For example, the supporters of Bolotnikov in relation to the Poles, Tatars, Germans considered themselves Russians, but, not considering themselves Muscovites, they said: "No, we are not Muscovites, we are sevryuk!" The Ryazan and Don people stated the same. When the weakness of the central government was revealed, this naturally felt opposition was enough for the peripheral subethnos to begin claiming a leading position in the Russian ethnos and the Russian superethnos. It was the struggle for power between representatives of different subethnos of the north and south of the country, which is in the akmatic phase of ethnogenesis, that caused the first Russian Troubles.

    Great Russia won: Bolotnikov was thrown away from Moscow. After the defeat under the walls of the capital, a split occurred in his army. The Chernigov and Kursk nobility remained with Bolotnikov. Ryazan nobles and Cossacks broke away from him and behaved completely independently. Bolotnikov with the remnants of his supporters was blocked in Tula by troops from Tver, Veliky Ustyug, Kostroma, Yaroslavl peasants and small landowners. Ivan Isaevich capitulated only when the besiegers dammed the Tula river Upa and flooded half the city with water. The captive Bolotnikov behaved defiantly, shouted to the winners: "Wait, my time will come, I will put you in iron, sew you into bear skins and give you to the dogs!" People of the XNUMXth century. they did not tolerate insults and acted harshly: Bolotnikov was drowned .... "

    L.N.Gumilyov "From Russia to Russia"
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 1 June 2016 20: 59
      0
      moskowit

      I am not a specialist in history. So, grabbing superficially.

      I have a question for you.

      Your attitude L.N. Gumilyov. Where did he get the sources of information from? Is it possible to trust? There is a suspicion that L.N. can create a story content with logical sequence.

      Please, if not difficult.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 2 June 2016 08: 29
        +2
        I'm interfering, I'm sorry.

        Lev Gumilev is a genius, of course. Scrabble, phenomenal memory.
        My mother attended his lectures on "ethnogenesis and biosphere". She even asked questions.
        But he has a small sin: facts that do not fit into "passionarity" he
        he was silent (although he knew), but wrote about and wrote about what worked well.
        Human history probably does not fit into one theory: passionarity, or
        class, or monetary, or population explosions, or climate change,
        or "the women are to blame for everything." All together: "theories of all historians - unite!"
  11. moskowit
    moskowit 1 June 2016 21: 34
    0
    It will not be difficult ... I give you the address ... http: //gumilevica.kulichki.net/start.html ...

    Discover ... Read ... Reflect ... Match ...
    I assure you, you will learn and discover many new things for yourself ...
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 2 June 2016 13: 10
      0
      moskowit

      Still, your answer is not accepted. No one wants to speak subjectively. To take responsibility.
      But, your attitude is understandable, understood and accepted. As in any science, there is a dictatorship of opinion in history.
  12. Ivan Tartugai
    Ivan Tartugai 2 June 2016 06: 36
    +1
    Quote from the article:
    The new impostor talked with Bolotnikov for a long time, and then he supplied a letter to Prince Grigory Shakhovsky and sent him to Putivl as his personal emissary and "great governor."

    Prince Grigory Shakhovsky, actively participated in the uprising of Bolotnikov. He, even though he was Rurikovich, but along with the Gediminovichs - Romanovs, Golitsins, Mstislavsky, all the troubled times and indirectly, and directly in every way contributed to the Polish intervention.
    It is unlikely that Prince Grigory Shakhovskoy participated so actively in the peasant war on the side of Bolotnikov to alleviate the situation of the working peasantry of the Russian state. On the contrary, they artificially created conditions, raised a revolt, fanned the war to use both Russian peasants and small Russian nobles to finally overthrow the Russian Rurik dynasty and plant a dynasty more loyal, or rather a puppet dynasty, acceptable to the West.
    1. sibiryak10
      sibiryak10 2 June 2016 07: 59
      0
      The dynasty cannot be puppet or independent.
      These are the definitions of specific rulers.