Military Review

Mikhail Romanov: tsar- "parsley"

64
Mikhail Romanov: tsar- "parsley" 420 years ago, 22 July 1596, was born Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, the first Russian tsar of the Romanov dynasty. Boyar clans chose a young, obedient and inexperienced Michael to rule in 1613 in order to easily carry out their decisions behind his back. His rise to power was to complete the long period of the Troubles in the Russian kingdom. Michael rules up to 1645.

Milestones

The son of boyar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, Metropolitan (later Patriarch Philaret), and Ksenia Ivanovna Shestova (later nun Martha), he lived in Moscow for the first years. In 1601, together with his parents, he was subjected to the disgrace of Tsar Boris Godunov, being the nephew of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. He lived in exile, with 1608, he returned to Moscow, where he was captured by the Poles, who seized the Kremlin. In November, 1612, freed by the militia of D. Pozharsky and K. Minin, went to Kostroma.

21 February 1613 in Moscow after the expulsion of the Poles, the Zemsky Sobor was held, which elected a new king. Among the applicants were the Polish prince Wladyslaw, the Swedish Prince Carl-Philip and others. The candidacy of Michael arose because of his kinship in the female line with the Rurik dynasty, the Romanovs were one of the most distinguished families. She suited the serving nobility, who sought to end the unrest and did not want the monarchy on the Polish model and the boyar oligarchy, which was going to use the youth and weakness of the new king. “Misha de young, his mind has not reached yet and we will be in charge,” said the Duma, hoping that all questions would be solved “on the advice” with the Duma. The moral character of Michael as the son of a metropolitan and a young man, not noted in the atrocities, was in the interests of the church and popular ideas about the king. He was to become a symbol of the return to order, peace and antiquity.

Thus, the king chose the young and painful Romanov, in order to save power and wealth behind him, and not the warrior king, who was needed to fight internal and external enemies.

11 June 1613 Propulsion Mikhail Fyodorovich in Moscow was crowned king in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. Celebrations lasted three days. The king gave, according to the testimony of a number of contemporaries, a cross-notational record that he undertakes not to rule without the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma (like Vasily Shuisky). According to other sources, Michael did not give such a record.

In the first years after the election of Michael as king, the main task was the completion of unrest in the Russian kingdom itself and the end of the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden. In 1617, the Stolbovsky Peace was signed with Sweden, which received the Korela fortress and the coast of the Gulf of Finland. In 1618, the Deulinsky truce was concluded with Poland: Russia ceded Smolensk, Chernihiv and a number of other cities to it. From the subordination of Moscow came the Nogai Horde. In addition, the tsarist government sent expensive gifts to Bakhchisarai every year, but the Crimean Tatars continued their robber raids.

The big problem was the lack of money. The first concern of the new government was to collect the treasury. The Tsar and the Zemsky Sobor everywhere sent out certificates with orders to collect taxes and state revenues, with requests for a loan for the treasury of money and everything that can be collected by things. They tried to extract money by all means, even borrowed money from the British, giving them the right to duty-free trade. Serving people who lived in the suburbs, besieged general posadsky. Customs and pub collections began to give at the mercy, tried to make people drink more, increasing the income of the treasury. In addition to customs duties, all kinds of trade, even daily activities (taken for washing clothes, drinking water for cattle, etc.), were subject to a variety of requisitions (polavochnoe, myto, etc.).

The Russian state was in political isolation at the end of the 1610s. To get out of it, the Moscow government made an unsuccessful attempt to marry the young king, first on the Danish princess, then on the Swedish one. Having received refusals in both cases, the mother with the boyars married Mikhail to Maria Dolgorukova, but the marriage turned out to be childless. The second marriage with Evdokia Streshneva brought Michael 7 daughters (Irina, Pelageya, Anna, Martha, Sophia, Tatyana, Evdokia) and 2 sons, the elder Alexei Mikhailovich (the future king) and the youngest, who died in infancy Vasily.

The most important national task of Moscow was the struggle for the reunification of the West Russian and South Russian (Little Russian) lands in a single Russian state. The first attempt to solve this problem during the war for Smolensk (1632-1634), which began after the death of the Polish king Sigismund in connection with the claims of his son Vladislav to the Russian throne, was unsuccessful. After it, on the orders of Mikhail in Russia, the construction of the Great Passage line, the fortresses of the Belgorod and Simbirsk lines began. When 1637-1637 Don Cossacks took Azov, most of the members of the Zemsky Sobor decided to speak out for war with the Turks, the government decided not to take Azov under its own arm and not to start a war.

The government of Mikhail continued the policy of enslaving the peasantry (the main part of the population). The government of Michael introduced a period of catching runaway peasants up to 1637 years in 9, increased it by another year in 1641, and exported by other owners were allowed to search up to 15 years. The Moscow government, preparing for war with the Commonwealth, conducted a series of military reforms. The formation of the "new regiments" based on the Western model began, the rank and file of which were "eager free people" and boyar boyless children, the officers were foreign military specialists. Towards the end of the reign of Michael, cavalry dragoon regiments were formed.

Tsar Michael from birth did not differ in good health. He strongly "grieved with his legs" and by the end of the board he could not walk, he was taken in a cart. From the "many sittings" the king's body weakened, contemporaries noted in it "melancholy, that is to say, kruchin". 13 died February 1645 in Moscow.

"King-parsley"

Tsar Michael was not an outstanding statesman. The young and inexperienced Michael was chosen for the kingdom in 1613, so that behind his back it is easy to carry out his decisions. At first, his mother ruled for him - “the great sovereign,” the great old woman Martha (in the world of Ksenia Ivanovna Romanova, before Shestov's marriage) and her relatives. Then the father of the tsar, Patriarch Filaret (in the world of Fyodor Nikitich Romanov), returned from the Polish captivity to 1619. As the parent of the sovereign, Filaret until the end of his life (1633) was officially his co-ruler. He used the title "Great Sovereign" and in fact led the Moscow policy.

The beginning of the reign of the first Romanov was extremely difficult times for the Russian people of the country. Contrary to popular belief, the Troubles did not end with the liberation of Moscow from the Poles and their election to the kingdom of Michael. Six years after the liberation of the Kremlin, the people's militia in Russia was a bloody war. The gangs of Lisovsky, Zarutsky, and others quietly moved from one end of the Russian land to another, robbed and raped, finally ravaging the Russian kingdom. The lands of western, southern and southwestern Russia were burned literally right up to Moscow. Moscow itself was also severely destroyed and ravaged. Detachments of interventionists and various thieves bastards ravaged and eastern cities and lands. So, a detachment of Poles in 1616 year ruined Moore. Various gangs devastated the land up to Vologda, Ustyug and Kargopol. And this is after the victory of 1612, which was just one of the stages of the continuing Troubles. In fact, the Moscow government initially controlled only Moscow and several cities, sitting outside the walls. Throughout the rest of the country, Polish and Swedish invaders ruled, all sorts of adventurers, thieves' bands and gangs. Separate successful military operations of the Moscow government could not change the overall situation.

Zarutsky's gangs in the southeast of the country were able to do away in the summer of 1614, in the fall they defeated the gang of ataman Balovnya in the headwaters of the Volga. The most dangerous detachment of Lisovsky was able to be broken only to 1616. Sweden and Poland were the most dangerous enemies. The Swedes captured Novgorod and Vodskaya Pyatina, planning to join them to Sweden, and also demanded that Russia recognize Prince Philip, who Novgorod had already sworn, as their king. The fighting of the Russian troops under Prince D. Trubetskoy was unsuccessful. The situation was saved only by the fact that the Swedes were more interested in preventing the Russians from coming to the Baltic and did not develop the offensive. In the end, they agreed to the mediation of England and the Netherlands in the conclusion of peace.

Only two shameful worlds saved Russia from the aggression of Sweden and the Commonwealth. Stolbovsky world 1617, led to the fact that Russia ceded Ivangorod Sweden, Yam, Koporye, Oreshek, Korela. Moscow refused claims to Livonia and Karelian land. As a result, Russia lost access to the Baltic Sea, which was returned only under Peter Alekseevich. And Russia was able to completely return the lost lands in the Baltic only under Peter I, after a long and bloody Northern War. In addition, Moscow had to pay Sweden a contribution in 20 thousand rubles, a large amount for those times (20 000 silver rubles were equal to 980 kg of silver). At the same time, the Swedes, the Dutch and the British procured for themselves important trade privileges in Russia.

No wonder the Swedish king Gustav Adolf believed that Sweden won historical victory over the Russian state: “One of the greatest blessings granted by the God of Sweden is that the Russians, with whom we have long been in doubtful relations, must now abandon the backwoods from which we were often bothered. Russia is a dangerous neighbor. Her possessions stretch to the seas of the North and Caspian, from the south it borders almost on the Black Sea. In Russia, a strong nobility, many peasants, populated cities and large troops. Now, without our permission, the Russians cannot send a single boat to the Baltic Sea. Large lakes Ladoga Lake and Peypus, Narva Glade, swamps 30 versts wide and solid fortresses separate us from them. Now the Russians have been taken away access to the Baltic Sea, and, I hope, it will not be so easy for them to step over this brook. ”

In December 1618, the Deulin Truce was signed. The truce was signed in the village of Deulino near the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, near Moscow. It housed the camp of the Polish prince Vladislav. And during the 1618 campaign of the year, the Poles stormed Moscow, albeit unsuccessfully. According to the truce for 14 years, the Russian state yielded to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the cities of Smolensk, Roslavl, Dorogobuzh, Belaya, Serpeysk, Putivl, Trubchevsk, Novgorod-Seversky, Chernihiv, Monastyrsky with the surrounding lands. This agreement was a great victory for the Commonwealth. The border between the two states moved far to the east, almost returning to the borders of the times of Ivan III. At the same time, the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania still retained the formal right to the Russian throne.

It is also worth noting that Moscow was lucky at that time - a fierce Thirty Years War broke out in Europe in 1618, which some researchers consider to be a “world war”, as its significance was enormous. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden mated with each other and distracted from Russian affairs. The Russian kingdom at once got rid of two formidable enemies who threatened its existence, was able to take a break.

If you remove the propaganda of the times of the Romanov rule and the current one about the revival of “spiritual bonds”, it turns out that far from the best people turned out to be at the head of the Russian kingdom. Mikhail Romanov himself didn’t have any state experience, didn’t have great abilities, was sick (he had difficulty walking in 30 years), so his parents and other relatives managed him. Obviously, the new king of Russia could be chosen better. For example, Dmitry Pozharsky. It is obvious that the boyar oligarchy, which actually organized the Troubles, needed a weak and incapable king.

The king’s father, Patriarch Filaret, judging by the truth, has a very dubious reputation. Boyarin, son of the influential Nikita Zakharyin-Yuriev, nephew of Queen Anastasia, the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, he was considered a possible rival of Boris Godunov in the struggle for power after the death of Fyodor Ivanovich. Boyar Fedor Nikitich Romanov under Boris Godunov on charges of treason, apparently (especially in his future behavior and life path), not without reason, was exiled and tonsured as a monk. When the first impostor False Dmitriy (Gregory Otrepievo) was released and elevated to the rank of Metropolitan of Rostov. Fyodor Romanov remained in opposition to the ousted False Dmitry Vasily Shuisky, and from 1608 he played the role of the “appointed patriarch” in the Tushino camp of the new impostor, False Dmitry II. In 1610, the "patriarch" became one of the main participants in the conspiracy against Tsar Vasily Shuisky and an active supporter of the Seven Boyars, the boyars government, which betrayed national interests. Filaret headed the embassy in Poland with the aim of building on the throne of the Polish prince Vladislav. Unlike Patriarch Hermogenes, in principle he did not object to the election of Vladislav Sigismundovich to the Russian Tsar. However, he did not agree with the Poles in the final version of the treaty and was arrested. Filaret was able to return from Polish captivity only after an armistice, in 1619.

It is also worth noting that the main figures of the Seven Boyars, who “committed an act of high treason” when on the night of September 9 21 secretly let Polish troops into Moscow, almost fully entered the government of Mikhail and played leading roles in the Russian state for a long time. And one of the first decisions of the Seven Boyars was a decree not to elect the representatives of the Russian clans to be the king. The boyar government called on the son of the Polish king Sigismund III, Vladislav, to the throne and, fearing the resistance of ordinary Russian people and not trusting Russian troops, let foreign troops into the capital.

All the living figures of this “government”, which changed Russian civilization, were not only not executed or at least subjected to disgrace, but continued to occupy high posts in the Russian kingdom. The head of the boyar government, Prince Fedor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, was one of the claimants to the throne at the 1613 Council of the year, and remained a prominent nobleman until his death in the 1622 year. Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky also claimed the throne in 1613, served as commander in Kazan, was the first ambassador at a congress with Polish ambassadors in Smolensk. In 1620 and 1621, in the absence of Mikhail Fedorovich, in the rank of the first governor he ruled Moscow. Prince Boris Mikhailovich Lykov-Obolensky, the son-in-law of Patriarch Philaret, under Michael Romanov, rose even more. He headed the Rogue Order, was a voivod in Kazan, headed a number of important orders (Sysknoy, Kazan Palace, Siberian, etc.). Boyar Ivan Nikitich Romanov, Philaret's younger brother and uncle of the first king, at the Council of the Year 1613 (like much of the boyars) supported the candidature of the Swedish Prince Karl Philip. Under Tsar Mikhail Romanov, he was in charge of foreign policy. Boyar Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetev, who, together with the Polish troops, withstood the siege and left Moscow only after its release by Dmitry Pozharsky, in the most active way contributed to the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom. Sheremetev participated in all the important events of the reign of Mikhail Fyodorovich, before Filaret arrived in 1619, led the Moscow government, then was the head of the government after Filaret's death - 1633-1646, resigned due to old age. Only two - Prince A. V. Golitsyn and A. V. Trubetskoy, died in 1611.

Thus, a very sad story is obtained. Traitors-boyars betray the Russian people, Russia, admit enemies to the capital, agree to elect the Polish prince to the Russian throne. Honest Russian people are not sparing their stomach fight with enemies, liberate Moscow. And traitors, instead of answering for black betrayal on their own, almost all enter the new government and elect a king who is advantageous for himself, young, meek, without abilities and sick.

So it turns out that in the course of the Great Troubles power was seized by those who started this unrest, fueled and supported! According to many researchers of the Time of Troubles, the Romanovs and Cherkassky were behind the False Dmitriy (I. B. Cherkassky was married to his sister Filaret). The Romanovs, Cherkasskys, Shuiskys and other boyars staged a Distemper, in which tens of thousands of people died and the majority of the Russian state became empty. Thus, in many counties of the historical center of the state, the size of arable land has decreased by 20 times, and the number of peasants by 4 times. In a number of areas and by the 20 — 40 years of the XVII century, the population was still below the level of the XVI century. The military-strategic, demographic and economic consequences of the Distemper, which staged the boyars clans in the struggle for power, affected for decades. The lost lands in the west and north-west and north were recovered after decades and at the cost of great blood, the mobilization efforts of the entire Russian civilization. Russian Baltic States were able to fully release only with Tsar Peter.

Virtually the only success of the new government of Mikhail Romanov is the end of the inner turmoil. Moscow in a few years managed to put an end to anarchy and permissiveness (according to the principle - “who has more sabers, he is right”). In addition, it is worth considering that the main boyar clans were satisfied with the situation, they were tired of the war and stopped supporting distemper. A few years later, the new government was able to crush the thieves' rampant, destroy the gangs, who lost the support of the "elite". And the folk heroes, having received their portion of glory, were pushed aside into the shadows.

In foreign policy, the government of Michael gave a number of important territories of Sweden and the Commonwealth. The struggle for the return of the West Russian lands did not lead to success. The statehood that was restored in 1613 was not resolved by any single internal national problem. Thus, the enslavement-enslavement of the peasantry, begun by Godunov during the reign of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, continued, it continued. The life of most people has deteriorated. This led to the fact that the people responded to social injustice with mass uprisings and the seventeenth century went down in history as the “rebellious age”.

Thus, in the historical sense, the rule of the Romanovs did not eradicate the main premise of the Troubles in Russian civilization — social injustice, when most of the Russian people were enslaved, and the “elite” was cut off from the people and headed for westernization (westernization). This ultimately led to the second Great Smooth - 1905-1917, when the Romanov Empire collapsed.

The answer of the Russian civilization and the Russian superethnos to social injustice is the Smoot, during which there is a chance to win a new, nationally oriented elite. As in 1917-1920, when the power was seized by the Bolsheviks, who created a social, inherently fair state (most clearly manifested in the Stalin period), so they received the support of most of the people. After 1991, the people split again, and its aggravation in our days, when we observe the emergence of a layer of "new nobility" in the Russian Federation, again puts on the agenda the possibility of new unrest. And this, in the conditions of a constant external threat from the West and the East and the beginning of the global redistribution of the Fourth World War, threatens the destruction of the entire Russian civilization. The only way out is a new Russian project based on the principle of social justice, ethics of conscience and the creation of a society of service and creation, which will again unite society and adopt the best elements of the Russian kingdom, the Russian Empire and the Red Empire.
Author:
64 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dimy4
    Dimy4 22 July 2016 06: 11
    +13
    Thus, a very sad story is obtained. Traitors-boyars betray the Russian people ...

    Has anything changed?
    1. Pitot
      Pitot 22 July 2016 07: 46
      +5
      On the contrary, it was confirmed. Hence the conclusion - we must ask - gentlemen from the thoughts of all levels - and who are you with? And so lead Mauser .....
    2. Beefeater
      Beefeater 22 July 2016 08: 36
      +6
      Quote: Dimy4
      Thus, a very sad story is obtained. Traitors-boyars betray the Russian people ...

      Has anything changed?

      Betray it which way to look. For the victorious political line, the losing party is always traitors.
      1. stas
        stas 22 July 2016 20: 47
        +3
        So far, bankers and elite thieves have won in Russia. EP covers them.
        They need people to work and once in 5 years for elections.
        Where do they think the voices, too, and how should they.
      2. edge
        edge 23 July 2016 14: 50
        +2
        Quote: Beefeater
        Thus, a very sad story is obtained. Traitors-boyars betray the Russian people ...

        But is it only boyars? After all, a whole cohort of mankurts has been brought up .... well, let's not forget about the church - somehow they quickly elevated Nikolasha (a bloody one) to the rank of saint, but in 1905 he shed a lot of Russian blood .... am
    3. Vend
      Vend 22 July 2016 09: 56
      +5
      Quote: Dimy4
      Thus, a very sad story is obtained. Traitors-boyars betray the Russian people ...

      Has anything changed?

      Yes, nothing has changed. Only the name of the country has changed.
    4. Lyubopyatov
      Lyubopyatov 22 July 2016 15: 41
      0
      Traitors-boyars - once; Trotskyite aliens are two! And where are those boyars now?
  2. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 22 July 2016 06: 16
    +7
    At least, the anointing of the reign of Mikhail Romanov united and reconciled Russia. And that was then the MOST IMPORTANT, after the then-hated Godunov people and a series of impostors.
    And the blood - it was fit. No wonder bоthe majority of his descendants only increased the greatness and power of our state for many centuries. And even the Tsar Rag, having surrendered the Empire, left it in quite good condition that even the Bolsheviks, relying on its heritage and resources, were able to pile literally all of Europe and America during their intervention.
    1. Pitot
      Pitot 22 July 2016 07: 51
      +17
      And where did you get the idea that Godunov was hated by the People? You understand that winners write History. Naturally Godunov is a horror straight, but the Romanov cuties .... ugh. Learn materiel from indirect sources .....
      1. avt
        avt 22 July 2016 08: 30
        +11
        Quote: Pitot
        And where did you get the idea that Godunov was hated by the People? You understand that winners write History.

        "You have no right, the elder ordered" wassat in the sense of Pushkin wrote! laughing
        Quote: Fei_Wong
        the reign of Mikhail Romanov united and reconciled Russia.

        Yes, it "reconciled" that already with his son, the "Quietest" was driven, a natural civil war broke out, better known as the rebellion of Stenka Razin, and the next Romanov "measure", which was supposed to become the final legitimization of power, was the split in the form "reforms" of old Nikon, whom "The Quietest" was right in an outburst of complacency and brotherly love at the church service in the church, called a bad son. bully A written testimony written in Arabic script, translated by the Angles into their MOV, and to this day kept by them in their Foreign Office, was left by the son of the Patriarch of Antioch, Father Pavel. The patriarch himself had to be asked TWO times to come to Russia (not just to Moscow, but precisely on a tour of Russia!) So that he personally ordained a number of high-ranking priests, thus legitimizing Nikon's reform. Well, how the fires of the Inquisition did not burn in Russia "Avvakum could have told, but he somehow" preferred to ask the king to burn him in the bathhouse " wassat Well, the son of Petsi # 1, the Old Believers somehow more and more engaged in self-immolation - Asians, s! What to take from them .... That’s what Romanov’s understanding of the blood measured
        Quote: Fei_Wong
        And the blood - it was fit.

        It had infiltrated so much - another state would have had enough population for a hundred years. But more and more Vanya # 4 of the Rurik dynasties prefer to expose as a bloodthirsty tyrant, in contrast to the "holy" "Romanov family, which in fact, after Anka Ioanovna, became simply the Hesse Hesse actually the last Nikolka # 2 with his own hand in the census questionnaire is so straightforward and wrote - the language they say of home communication is German
      2. Beefeater
        Beefeater 22 July 2016 08: 41
        +2
        Quote: Pitot
        And where did you get the idea that Godunov was hated by the People? You understand that winners write History. Naturally Godunov is a horror straight, but the Romanov cuties .... ugh. Learn materiel from indirect sources .....

        Godunov, and his adversary False Dmitry the First, were capable rulers and did not do outright stupidities.
        But on the Russian throne, Prince Vladislav could have appeared. Then a giant Russian-Polish-Lithuanian structure could have been organized one and a half hundred years before the Empire of Catherine.
        1. avt
          avt 22 July 2016 08: 48
          +6
          Quote: Beefeater
          But on the Russian throne, Prince Vladislav could have appeared.

          Is that ?? For an hour, not the one to whom the boyars, or rather the EMPTY throne, were INVASED ??? wassat Well, de jure it turned out, just that my dad didn't let him go to Moscow, but sent the PMC Lisovsky and others looking for the savages.
      3. edge
        edge 23 July 2016 15: 07
        0
        Quote: Pitot
        but the Romanov’s cuties .... pah. Learn materiel from indirect sources ....

        I completely agree with you - you just need to look at the activities of this family on the realities of the bloody Sunday and the actions during the Russo-Japanese war, pay attention to the first expeditionary force abandoned in France and sum up all this with a written abdication at the height of the war (in fact, the collapse bids of the Supreme High Command). And for all this, Nikolashka also became a saint.
    2. edge
      edge 23 July 2016 14: 56
      0
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      At least, the anointing of the reign of Mikhail Romanov united and reconciled Russia.

      The Duma boyars correctly calculated that the family was bad ...... but the choice was not the best, which history proved
  3. 505506
    505506 22 July 2016 06: 25
    +3
    Is it possible that the main aspirations then were the cessation of many years of anarchy and the desire for peace? It is unlikely that the peasants in the community knew about the clan (family, family) struggle for power in the Kremlin, and in many respects perceived only external attributes (satiety, calm, and peace). And, I think, having received this, those whom you call the people hardly felt betrayed.
  4. Maegrom
    Maegrom 22 July 2016 06: 56
    0
    Firstly, those who took power in the 17th also had a direct relationship to the death of the previous government - not to take it away.
    Secondly, punishment is not an end in itself in government. The goal of government is to protect the people, strengthen the state. The Tsar dealt with this — it is enough to compare the state at the beginning and end of the reign, and he himself or helped — there is no difference. Not always an extremely fair ruler can be beneficial, sometimes he will only squander the scarce resources of a weakened state and lead to his death.
    PS A Song of Ice and Fire has a great model for that.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 22 July 2016 07: 25
    +7
    Dear author, they give you a minus for the last paragraph .. Ideologically not sustained. Do not take into account the political situation, it is impossible to draw such parallels ... smile ..And in general, the article is correct and the conclusions are correct .. during the Great Troubles, power was seized by those who started this troubles, started, incited and supported!... After the death of the last Rurikovich, the Romanovs sought power and nevertheless achieved ... in fact, the cunning family of boyar warriors .. all pushed both the Rurikovich and the Gediminids ..
    1. venaya
      venaya 22 July 2016 08: 31
      0
      Quote: parusnik
      minus for the last paragraph put .. Ideologically not sustained. Do not take into account the political situation, it is impossible to draw such parallels ...

      The article is undoubted (+), the article is even, it is sustained in assessments at the level of knowledge to date. A note about "ideological intemperance" and "political conjuncture"and the impossibility of carrying out parallels is too vague. One can decipher such an amazing remark - what exactly are the claims to the author of the article, otherwise the claims seem too tendentious.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 22 July 2016 10: 11
        +2
        venaya The remark about the "ideological inconsistency" as well as the "political conjuncture" and the impossibility of conducting parallels are too vague... The Bolsheviks are not in fashion now ... now the trend is Balls, beauties, footmen, cadets, and Schubert waltzes and a crunch of French rolls ...
    2. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 22 July 2016 08: 54
      0
      I support, the last paragraph of the author is not at all what is needed after a good article ... the author looks a little one-sidedly at the story of the ascension to the throne of the first of the Romanovs, and after all many boyars and others wanted to see both the Polish and Swedish princes as king, because there were already many courtyards were in kinship .... however, they were afraid of the people and the patriotic governor with the warriors and, as they say, chose the least of two evils .... as they believed at that time
  6. tehnokrat
    tehnokrat 22 July 2016 07: 26
    +4
    Quote: Fei_Wong
    At least, the anointing of the reign of Mikhail Romanov united and reconciled Russia.

    I support, colleague! "+"!
    A minus to the author of the article! To publish on such major historical topics, it would be nice to hone the syllable, otherwise it turns out that Mishka Romanov was already born a king, or at least an heir.
    The refrain sounds in the article that he is young, weak and painful. But would the boyar clans fighting for power choose a strong one? Yes, and they already chose Boris Godunov, and what happened well?
    In general, are there many good kings in history?
    And here it is: "tsar-parsley". Whom is the author citing? I have never heard or read anything like it.
  7. akyb1975
    akyb1975 22 July 2016 07: 35
    -2
    Yes lomanosov believed that the Romanov Prussians themselves are
  8. igordok
    igordok 22 July 2016 07: 39
    +6
    Only two shameful worlds saved Russia from the aggression of Sweden and the Commonwealth. The Stolbovsky world of 1617 of the year led to the fact that Russia lost Sweden to Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye, Oreshek, Korel. Moscow refused claims to Livonia and Karelian land.

    Pillar world of 1617 could have been even more shameful, if not for the "Pskov sitting" 1615. 2,5 months defense of Pskov from the troops of Gustav II Adolf.
    Another bright page in the military history of Pskov is the defense of Pskov from the troops of the Swedish king Gustav Adolf - this is the event when the future hero of the 30 summer war in Europe left Pskov "with the studio and the shame." Shortly before that, during the Time of Troubles, the era of impostors, Russia as an independent state stood on the edge of the abyss, was ravaged and torn by civil strife. Inside the state it was restless, and at the same time, external enemies threatened war. In 1612, Mr. Gustav-Adolf proposed to elect him to be the Tsar of Moscow, later on he offers his brother Karl-Phillip for this role. Even after the accession of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the state and social system for a long time could not return to normal. External enemies of Russia took advantage of this: Poles and Swedes. Poland wanted to take away the Orthodox faith from us, Sweden wanted to take the shores of the Baltic Sea, and besides, they constantly wanted to acquire Pskov for the external fence from Russia itself. At that time, not peace, but war became commonplace, a common occurrence, and the invasion of Gustavus-Adolf became for Pskov “the last moment of this terrible era”.
  9. bober1982
    bober1982 22 July 2016 07: 45
    +9
    The article is very weak, from a series of agitprop (by the way, the wedding to the kingdom was in July, and not in June, but this is apparently an annoying typo)
    Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, as a ruler, was an intelligent and prudent sovereign. The beginning of his reign turned out to be difficult, including due to the intervention of numerous relatives. But gradually the tsarist government became more and more firmly-he began to establish elementary order without outside help.
    1. Cat
      Cat 22 July 2016 10: 59
      +4
      Harder? !!! With the arrival from the Polish captivity of the folder of the autocrat Patriarch Filaret, who until 1633 actually ruled the country. After the death of the patriarch, a series of serious political mistakes follow, which Mikhail never managed to correct until the end of his life. In addition, I want to draw attention to the fact that in connection with the return of Filaret, the Moscow state made large territorial and political concessions to Poland.
    2. Cat
      Cat 22 July 2016 11: 02
      +1
      Harder? !!! With the arrival from the Polish captivity of the folder of the autocrat Patriarch Filaret, who until 1633 actually ruled the country. After the death of the patriarch, a series of serious political mistakes follow, which Mikhail never managed to correct until the end of his life. In addition, I want to draw attention to the fact that in connection with the return of Filaret, the Moscow state made large territorial and political concessions to Poland.
  10. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 22 July 2016 07: 52
    +5
    Although this Troubles was organized artificially, from the territory of Catholic Poland with the support of the pro-Western party of the boyars "from within", when, after preliminary long and massive propaganda against the Russian government of Godunov, campaigns of False Dmitry began with the support of the Pope and with the participation of Polish troops. And the Poles, in alliance with the usurper troops, occupied Moscow as a result. This eventually led to the power of Mikhail Romanov, the son of a Westerner Fedor Romanov (Filaret), before the Time of Troubles and during her "intriguing against Boris Godunov."
  11. Nehist
    Nehist 22 July 2016 08: 13
    -3
    Minus article !!! The Romanovs were one of the first to swear allegiance to the Polish prince Vladislav !!! So he wasn’t in any kind of captivity in the Kremlin ... And in general the time is vague, by and large his father metro used the gigantic resources of the church and simply bought everyone and everything
    1. Beefeater
      Beefeater 22 July 2016 08: 51
      -5
      Quote: Nehist
      Minus article !!! The Romanovs were one of the first to swear allegiance to the Polish prince Vladislav !!! So he wasn’t in any kind of captivity in the Kremlin ... And in general the time is vague, by and large his father metro used the gigantic resources of the church and simply bought everyone and everything

      Vladislav had all rights to the Russian throne. In addition, the Commonwealth at that time was half populated by Russians. Why Vladislav is worse than Shuisky, Godunov or False Dmitry is personally not clear to me.
      The unification of Russia Lithuania and Poland would give a giant leap in development.
      1. venaya
        venaya 22 July 2016 09: 23
        +2
        Quote: Beefeater
        ... The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at that time was half populated by Russians

        And who, then, made up the other half of the population? Let me remind you: Poland - Polonia (full - production, goods) - in maiden style - "Voleva Rus" (like a free port in Russia), Lithuania - "Black Rus", Galicia - "Chervona Rus", present-day Belarus - "Belaya Rus" , present-day Ukraine - in Byzantine - Malorosiya, Muscovy or Muscovite Rus - in Byzantine - Great Russia. Question: Who else besides the Russians (not even Russians but exactly rusich) lived in this territory? What kind of clans, peoples did your second half of the population consist of?
        1. 97110
          97110 22 July 2016 11: 52
          0
          Quote: venaya
          And who in that case was the second half of the population?

          Polish Jews. They then finished Bandera.
      2. Maegrom
        Maegrom 22 July 2016 10: 56
        +2
        Why on earth? The unification in development would be a jump for Warsaw if it held back of course. But Moscow is not Gaul under Rome, so that provincialism, and even under the conditions of the dominance of another religion in the state, is to the benefit of development.
      3. 97110
        97110 22 July 2016 11: 49
        +2
        Quote: Beefeater
        The unification of Russia Lithuania and Poland would give a giant leap in development.
        Yeah, we would share the united Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with the Austrians. Russia would not exist, and the zhek’s ambition would have arrived yet. Giant leap: the local gentry in Veliky Ustyug on a seymic is saber-cutting on the question of who the Stroganovs are and what they are doing in Solvychegodsk?
      4. avt
        avt 22 July 2016 15: 55
        +2
        Quote: Beefeater
        Why Vladislav is worse than Shuisky, Godunov or False Dmitry is not clear to me personally.

        This is a disaster! request Here again, study, study and LEARN STILL. And then, when a sufficient portion of knowledge is received in the brain, analyze the question - Why did ALL imported queens accept Orthodoxy? And the people re-e-euosno monitored the fulfillment of church canons by the tsars? Here Mnishek hissed at Marinka, well, seeing how she was applying to the icon, in indignation - “Theotokos kisses the mouth! Unclean! "Again, look for and find that the Czech on the Polish throne Stepa Batory practically went on a crusade to Russia Vanya No. 4 with the blessing of the Pope" of Rome ", when Vanya went to Livonia for the tribute that the Great Muscovites were paid, and then .. . forgotten, went and what is interesting - at the first stage, especially there, no one in a military formation on Vanya did not rock the boat! On the contrary, they swore allegiance quite calmly.
        Quote: Beefeater
        The unification of Russia Lithuania and Poland would give a giant leap in development.

        Again, having received the amount of knowledge, reflect on the simple fact that your dream with the entrance to the Kremlin of an impostor to the kingdom of Dima No. 1 with Queen Marinka Mnishekova has practically come true. BUT For some reason, there is confirmation of his contemporaries, Dimon scored on Eurointegration according to the Polish version, which caused the displeasure of the Poles and the Catholic clergy, and in writing. So I don't advise you to impose fantasy a la Game of Thrones on reality - it will jam your brain from breaking the template when meeting with the texture of the past tense.
    2. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 22 July 2016 17: 16
      +4
      The word METROPOLIT is written through AND, from the word MITRA, not Metro!
  12. Basil50
    Basil50 22 July 2016 08: 46
    +2
    The fact that the author * galloped * over historical events and relied on the * official * version of events ordered by the Romanovs and executed by * official * historians is normal. The conclusion is more interesting, it is a pity that he will not * be heard * and recognized by the modern * elite *. After all, the last Romanov ended badly, along with him the family died and many more * were pulled * by themselves. So, after all, foreign * stash * all, without exception, were captured.
  13. Beefeater
    Beefeater 22 July 2016 08: 47
    +1
    A king’s weakness or lack of preparedness is not always a negative factor. Under such a ruler, talented and energetic advisers like Louis Richelieu are often nominated.
    1. Alex
      Alex 22 July 2016 11: 18
      +5
      Quote: Beefeater
      A king’s weakness or lack of preparedness is not always a negative factor. Under such a ruler, talented and energetic advisers like Louis Richelieu are often nominated.

      And who, in your opinion, was such Richelieu under Mikhail Romanov? His daddy?
  14. Aleksander
    Aleksander 22 July 2016 09: 02
    0
    Russia. traitors, instead of answering for black betrayal on their own, almost all enter the new government and elect a king who is advantageous for himself, young, meek, without abilities and sick.

    Who then didn’t cheat on anyone? All Seversky cities, yes and the rest several times perked up to the False Dmitry, then to the kings, then back ....

    He chose Tsar Michael Great Zemsky Cathedral , not a bunch of "traitors":
    from Moscow it was ordered to send from all cities "elected, best, strong and reasonable people
    for the Zemstvo Council and for the Tsar’s election. ” So gathered in Moscow at the very beginning of the 1613 year
    The Great Zemsky Sobor, which was to elect the sovereign. At this cathedral were
    elected representatives from all classes of the Russian people, including from peasant and from
    Cossack. This Zemsky Cathedral first of all decided not to choose Vorenko -
    Marina’s son - or some foreign prince, and choose from the Russian great
    boyar birth. Then all the inhabitants of Moscow and all elected from other cities, different ranks of people
    after a long discussion, February 7, unanimously decided to be a Russian cousin
    the nephew of the last sovereign from the house of Rurik Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov.

    Pozharsky himself offered .... the Swedish prince Philip.
    In foreign policy, the government of Michael gave away a number of important territories Sweden and the Commonwealth

    belay
    What nonsense: these important territories have given away BEFORE Mikhail Romanov, he managed to stop further aggression, also stopped Tatar aggression, managed to take control of the Don and Yaik Cossacks.
    Almost the only success of the new government of Mikhail Romanov is the end of the internal Troubles

    Yeah yeah DEVELOPMENT OF SIBERIA (east of the Yenisei) to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk Is that so, little things?
    in the 1632 year, Yakutsk was built, in the 1635 year of Olekminsk, in the 1638 year of Verkhoyansk, already far east of Lena, in the 1644 year of Nizhnekolymsk near Kamchatka, BAIKAL was mastered. Or are such CITIES and lakes unfamiliar to the author?
    For 32 of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, Russian possessions in Siberia, tripledembracing
    area over 4 000 000 sq. versts

    The article is a minus for the dull, stupid, false propaganda.
    1. Cat
      Cat 22 July 2016 11: 17
      +6
      Yes, yes, and the DEVELOPMENT of SIBERIA (east of the Yenisei) to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is this so, little things?
      Yakutsk was built in 1632, Olekminsk in 1635, Verkhoyansk in 1638, already far east of Lena, in 1644, Baikal was mastered in Nizhnekolymsk near Kamchatka itself. Or are such CITIES and lakes unfamiliar to the author?
      For 32 years of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, Russian possessions in Siberia tripled, embracing
      And here is Mikhail Romanov. Simple Russian people mastered Siberia, sometimes with the opposition of the authorities and the tsarist administration. A narrow Cossack and a Russian peasant, later schismatics and Old Believers, the true conquered Siberia.
      Should I praise Romanov and his governor and the boyars for their indefatigable greed for Yasik.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 22 July 2016 15: 40
        -1
        Quote: Kotischa
        Mastered Siberia ordinary russian people, sometimes with opposition from the authorities and the tsarist administration. A narrow Cossack and a Russian peasant, later schismatics and Old Believers, the true conquered Siberia.


        Yes, yes, they built (for whose, interestingly, the bill?) Countless jails, set up garrisons (from whom, by the way?), Paid them a salary (who paid?), And supplied them with fire and food supplies. yes
        Sable walked in sovereign treasury. In 1638, the Yakutsk voivodship was founded with the voivode Golovin (not the king appointed them, yeah, Cossacks lol)
        From the first year of their administration, the governors began equip parties to the Tunguska Lake (Sea of ​​Okhotsk). The parties were sent strong enough and supplied if possible by the government with everything necessary.
        Parties were managed by appointment governor chiefs (from experienced people who were already on campaigns), Cossacks, Pentecostals, and boyar children.
        In Moscow ordered to establish Amur Voivodeship and sent the governor there.

        And it's all WITHOUT the state, yeah lol
        1. Rastas
          Rastas 22 July 2016 21: 47
          0
          And that the organization of voivodships is the development of Siberia? Forgive me, but today in Russia there are a bunch of committees and departments that master (steal) the budget, but for some reason you cannot say about them that they are developing something. The Cossacks, merchants, and free peasants had enough funds to develop settlements and fortresses in Siberia without the help of the authorities, the same psychology among Siberians and the Far East people today, they do not hope for a good father-tsar, but for themselves. And the governors sat on the feeding of the locals, collected taxes and taxes, supervised the local population. I. Goncharov in "Pallas Frigate" at the end of the work, where he travels through Russia to St. Petersburg, describes the life of the local population in Siberia. And this was already the middle of the 19th century.
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 23 July 2016 08: 35
            0
            Quote: Rastas
            But what organization of voivodship is the development of Siberia?

            Of course. Voivodeship is an administrative unit state organizing life on its territory. Naturally, scouts came ahead, founded prison camps, negotiated with local tribes, but then the state came into force, which preserved these lands in Russia. It was the Oaths to the Russian STATE and Tsar Mikhail that the Cossacks brought the local tribes.

            I repeat once again: From the first year of their administration, the Yakut governors began to equip parties to the Tunguska Lake (Sea of ​​Okhotsk). The parties went strong enough and supplied by the government with everything necessary.

            И Khabarov also turned to Yakut governor Frantsbekov with a request for the direction of the detachment in Daurian landsFranzbekov agreed and equipped him with weapons and supplies.

            In August 1653 of the year on Amur arrived Moscow nobleman Dmitry Ivanovich Zinoviev with the royal decree "to inspect all Daurian land and him, Khabarov, to know."
    2. Rastas
      Rastas 22 July 2016 11: 25
      +4
      The Great Zemsky Sobor - this was just a handful compared to the rest of Russia, in addition, many of them were implicated in cooperation with the occupiers. Meetings of the cathedral began on December 6, 1612, although by that time only a few elected ones had arrived in Moscow. Moreover, it is not known for certain what exactly was happening at this Council, what disputes there were, on what conditions the king was elected, what kind of organization of power was to be. Under the Romanovs, the story was carefully edited, all uncomfortable spots were painted over so that everything looked luboko beautiful. Tsarist historians described the oily story as the whole cathedral, while touching, elected Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom, another version could not exist.
    3. Rastas
      Rastas 22 July 2016 11: 29
      +3
      Then the Romanovs had little merit in the development of Siberia and the Far East with America, since the most difficult work was done by free people, Cossacks, merchants who moved to new lands, founded settlements, then they grew up in cities. Only under Alexander II, after the loss of Alaska, it became clear that a very serious state participation was needed to keep Siberia, the state began investing. money in the development of Siberia.
    4. avt
      avt 22 July 2016 17: 22
      +1
      Quote: Aleksander
      Tsar Mikhail was elected by the Great Zemsky Sobor, and not by a bunch of "traitors":

      Yeah, but the pope, concurrently the patriarch, anointed him, who was appointed as such by False Dmitry No. 2, also known as "Tushinsky thief". laughing
      Quote: Aleksander
      . This Zemsky Cathedral first of all decided not to choose Vorenko -
      Marina's son

      Which, almost a baby, was hanged in public.
      Quote: Aleksander
      elected representatives from all classes of the Russian people, including the peasant and
      Cossack.

      Yeah - the Cossacks of Dad's accomplice, the patriarch in the camp of the Tushinsky thief Trubetskoy. laughing Such ponimash elective Cossacks are nowhere to be branded, BUT - really the ONLY serious military formation at that time in Moscow in the "elections", well, while Minin and Pozharsky were driving the Poles somewhere. It was very successful, "unexpectedly," in vain Misha's granddaughter - Fedya on the throne, having entered the burned-out books, like an anachronism! Oh, not in vain! Grandpa could not, papa could not, but Yong was honored and EVERYONE who received the nobility / boyars for the "flights" from the Tushino thief instantly became "ancient clans" laughing True, the nobles themselves remembered, but Petyunya No. 1 finished it off completely and diluted it again with the titled ones.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander 22 July 2016 18: 00
        0
        Quote: avt
        Yeah, but anointed dad part-time patriarch,


        This is the one that came back from captivity through 7 years after the election of Michael ?! belay fool lol Crowned Michael in the kingdom of Kazan, Metropolitan Ephraim.
        Quote: avt
        whom False Dmitry No. 2, also known as, Tushinsky thief, appointed as such with himself. Aha - Cossacks of Dad's accomplice, the patriarch in the camp of Tushinsky thief Trubetskoy

        Yes, yes, and now the opinion of Patriarch Germogen (more authoritative than um ...): “And which captured, like Filaret Metropolitan and the rest, not by their own will, but by want, and they do not stand on Christian law, and they do not shed the blood of the Orthodox brethren ... such we do not blamebut we also pray God for them, great strength, so that the Lord would turn away righteous anger from them and from us, and would usefully give them and us by His great mercy ”

        That's... AHA laughing lol
        1. avt
          avt 22 July 2016 18: 25
          0
          Quote: Aleksander
          This is the one who returned from captivity 7 years after the election of Michael ?!

          laughing fool From the Tushinsky thief
          Quote: Aleksander
          Yes, yes, and now the opinion of Patriarch Germogen (more authoritative than um ...): “And those who are captured, like Filaret, Metropolitan and others, are not of their own free will, but they are not in need, and Christian law is not, and they don’t shed the blood of the Orthodox brethren ... we don’t blame them,

          Only Germogen actually accepted a martyr’s death, and tonsured a Romanov’s monk, he jumped from the metropolitans to the patriarchs by the grace of False Dmitry # 2.
          Quote: Aleksander
          So ... AHA

          Yes, at least USU - teach materiel. Again, who and how leads himself in captivity - the history of many examples gives. Even according to Romanov's interpretation, Filaret lived in captivity in Sapieha's house and if Germogen was starved to death, the other did not lose weight - health in the order was complete, right up to 1633 he lived.
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 22 July 2016 20: 04
            0
            Quote: avt
            This is the one who returned from captivity 7 years after the election of Mikhail ?! From the Tushinsky thief


            If you don't understand and don't know, ONCE AGAIN: Filaret returned from Polish captivity in 1619 year (after 7 years of the election of Michael), in which was 9 years and NO anointing of his son could not (as you claimed), this was done by Metropolitan Ephraim.
            Quote: avt
            Only Germogen actually accepted a martyr’s death, and tonsured a Romanov’s monk, he jumped from the metropolitans to the patriarchs by the grace of False Dmitry # 2.

            Hermogenes did NOT condemn Filaret and considered him a prisoner (see above) And his opinion is much more valuable than yours (for me). He did not jump, but was "APPOINTED" by the Patriarch and did NOT insist on his rank.
            But only 24 16919 Junehis rank intronization the deliveries of the first Moscow Patriarch were made by the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophanes, former in Moscow III. That's when he became the Patriarch
            Quote: avt
            Yes, at least USU - learn the materiel

            Well, get started from myselfso as not to say awkward
            а anointed dad
            lol

            1. avt
              avt 22 July 2016 21: 44
              0
              Quote: Aleksander
              Hermogenes did NOT condemn Filaret and considered him a prisoner (see above)

              And for his convictions in part of the STATE structure he accepted a martyr's death - the Poles and their henchmen were starved to death. And Filaret in "captivity" calmly eats up see.
              Quote: avt
              Even according to Romanov's interpretation, Filaret lived in captivity in the house of Sapieha, and if Germogen was starved to death, the other did not lose weight - his health was in full order, until 1633 he lived.

              Quote: Aleksander
              And only on June 24, 16919 his intronization on the order of delivery of the first Moscow Patriarch was made by the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophan III, former in Moscow. That's when he became the Patriarch

              Well, even before the end of the Romanov version, write, namely
              Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Filaret. Therefore, immediately after returning from captivity, he was elected against his will and put on the patriarchs.
              laughing The Romanovs had such a problem at that time - well, everything was done against their will, but they were not aisles, like one somewhere in the Ipatiev Monastery with maman, who, well, was against Misha's appointment as tsar, so against, so against, and dad in ,, captivity "ate up at Sapieha and also all against. About his exploits in, captivity" and hooking up with the Tushinsky thief don't want to look for anything? About ,, Pereletchikov "from Moscow from the Poles to Tushino and back to Moscow did not hear anything, as well as the fact that there was a“ full yard ”with a“ patriarch ”on a campaign too ??? intronized, so legitimized - a fact. Exactly the same trick was done by the granddaughter, when the authority of the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius legitimized the bishops ordained by Nikon. But in general, such a revelation for you that the rulers up to the level of the metropolitan, inclusive in Russia, were appointed by the Grand Dukes from the Mongol yoke ? And what then did they sort it out with the same Patriarch of Constantinople? Well, look for a little more Wikipedia, read and analyze different things. By the way, Patriarch Job was generally intronized - the letter was sent from Constantinople, where the patriarchate was approved in the presence of the Russian ambassador.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Aleksander
                Aleksander 22 July 2016 22: 52
                0
                What are you talking about?
                You stated that "papa" Filaret anointed his son Mikhail, you were told that it was complete nonsense .
                And Filaret returned not from the Tushino thief, but from captivity, 7 years after the election of the tsar — ​​and this is also a fact.
                As well as the fact of support and non-condemnation by Germogen Filaret.
                And who ate what, where he flew and where- we did not touch, and the truth is true, all this - no one knows.
                Quote: avt
                . In general, for you such a revelation is that the lords to the level of Metropolitan


                What is this? belay WHEN I touched this, what are you talking about?
                Strange ... request
          2. The comment was deleted.
  15. Black cat
    Black cat 22 July 2016 11: 05
    +5
    Thanks for the article, now you rarely see an adequate attitude towards the Romanovs. Although it is difficult to call the Tsars after Peter II the Romanovs, in fact Peter III - Romanov is only on the female side (after all, the surname of the Russians was transmitted by the father), and it’s not the fact that he is the father of Paul I (I don’t remember making an examination, yes and not the fact that she will give something, since kings, kings and emperors have long had complete incest). Special thanks to the author for the conclusions.
  16. Zulu_S
    Zulu_S 22 July 2016 11: 18
    +2
    Frankly weak article. The feeling that it was all written for the last paragraph.
    Quote:
    "The only way out is a new Russian project based on the principle of social justice, ethics of conscience and the creation of a society of service and creation, which will again unite society and adopt the best elements of the Russian Empire, the Russian Empire and the Red Empire."
    Was it worth the fence because of this?
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 22 July 2016 11: 35
      +3
      Was it worth the fence because of this? The new Russian project always ends with shooting on the street, they are looking for social justice.
  17. Alex
    Alex 22 July 2016 11: 21
    +3
    So it turns out that in the course of the Great Troubles power was seized by those who started this unrest, fueled and supported!
    The policy of controlled chaos. There is nothing new under the sun...
  18. Cat
    Cat 22 July 2016 12: 35
    0
    Chaos! Yes, probably just-a Russian mess.
    If you read the essays and documents of the period under review, the conclusion suggests itself by itself, "a stigma in the cannon" was among all representatives of the Moscow boyars. The door of intrigue since the death of Ivan IV has pinched the tail of the entire boyar elite. Someone caved in at the time of the False Dmitrys, someone during the reign of Godunov and Shuisky, and who lit up when calling the Poles or in loyalty to the Swedes. And the Romanovs were no different from their fellows in the workshop. In this connection, the choice of a young "obedient" fellow, whose father was in captivity, was an obvious and natural choice.
    At the expense of the constituent council, I bet that it did not represent the interests of the people, but of the Moscow clique which the people released during the second militia under the leadership of Minin and Pozharsky.
    I repeat history has no syllable declension and the events of half a century ago we will not change.
    But the fact that the initiators, instead of the convenient Mikhail, received his dad Filaret as informal rulers, is another story. But I would like to briefly note that many of the initiators "went" to the monasteries, and who to the remote voivodeship - this is also a fact.
    In the end, without 'Misha', we did not get that story "our history" in which we live, with a plead of bright rulers, although we must admit that they were also ambiguous, incl. like Peter I, Elizabeth, Alexander I, II and III. And how not happy and Catherine the Great.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 22 July 2016 12: 46
      +1
      You have a generally good comment, but why do you say so ..... In the end, without Misha, we did not get that story ....
      A garage neighbor can be called that, or a drinking companion, a relative.
      1. Cat
        Cat 22 July 2016 15: 12
        0
        For your own sake, Mikhail Romanov will personally correct myself.
        When writing, the memory post recalled the attitude of contemporaries and eyewitnesses of those events, unfortunately the Russian sources were supposedly corrected at a later time, and foreign one-sided ones were incomplete.
        Objectively, you are right who cares what king he is, first of all he is our king. The founder of the dynasty that ruled Russia for 300 years.
        Subjectively, I feel sorry for the bitterness of the heart, those territories that we lost during his reign, both at the beginning of his reign, and in the 40s of the XNUMXth century.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 22 July 2016 17: 00
      +1
      Why is Catherine paradoxically? She is truly a great empress.
  19. wax
    wax 22 July 2016 14: 16
    +1
    Samsonov Alexander clearly thinks and writes himself what he thinks. Compared to the first publications, it has clearly grown. Parallels are not far-fetched - the way it is. Capitalism is always a squabble of poisonous spiders in the management of both a separate state and at the interstate level, so that one trouble is in a hurry to change another trouble, and war is war. And there is no end to this story, because justice in it and democracy are just a PR-reception of unprincipled magicians-plutocrats. Gorby and EBN turned the history of Russia back; their remains should not have a place inside the fences of Orthodox churches.
    1. Cat
      Cat 22 July 2016 15: 20
      +1
      With all due respect and dislike for the third parties you mentioned, let them lie or lie down in accordance with their creed and tradition. There is no need to become like them. History will put everything in its place.
  20. morozik
    morozik 22 July 2016 15: 15
    +2
    quote:
    "The arrival of the Romanovs
    In 1613, Mikhail Romanov came to power.
    This happened as a result of the conspiracy of Filaret with Sigismund and the British.
    Patriarch Filaret (Fedor Romanov) Mikhail's father was arrested by the Poles in 1611 and returned to Russia in 1619.
    Koestler:
    “This man was able not only to organize the election of his minor son Mikhail Tsar of All Russia, he himself was“ elected the Great Sovereign, ”that is, the Tsar, while remaining the Patriarch, and single-handedly ruled Muscovy until his death in 1633.”
    Obviously, the accession of the Romanov dynasty in Muscovy was the result of a pan-European political agreement. The actual founder of the new Russian dynasty, Filaret, probably bargained for future autocracy from Catholic Europe, that is, Muscovy’s political and religious independence in exchange for replacing the "corrupted creed" with the "correct" Catholic one.
    Filaret, being in captivity, was forced to agree with the requirements of the Catholics, provided that his claims to the Russian throne would be supported by the West.
    He immediately began his activity with the correction of religious books and actually created an Orthodox church, which was later renamed Orthodox.
    This aroused the resistance of society, and therefore, Filaret was not remotely to fully achieve the goals set by the Vatican.
    Koestler:
    “The fact that there was no modern Christianity in Russia before the Romanovs, is evidenced by the fact that the first city in Russian history that received the name of a saint is the city of St. Michael the Archangel, now Arkhangelsk, founded in 1613 in honor of the accession of Mikhail Romanov, and before that it was called New Kholmogory (founded in 1597). (For comparison: the names of Catholic cities in honor of various saints with the prefixes San, Santa, and Saint appear only from the second half of the XNUMXth century. ”)
    It is known that Mikhail Fedorovich, in order to pay off the mercenaries for his coming to power, took a loan of 20 thousand rubles from the English king James I Stuart.
    Filaret begins to fight Arianism through typography.
    Kartashev A. V. reports that “... more printed books were published from the Moscow printing house during the time of Patriarch Filaret than during the entire period of Russian printing from its beginning under Grozny. The Gospel, the Psalter, the Apostle, etc. The king and the patriarch, taking care of the completeness of the service, and of bringing it to uniformity, generously distributed books on churches without commercial profit, at cost, and even to far Siberia completely free of charge. ”
    A number of old books were taken from all churches and burned publicly.
    Further relations with the Catholics were interrupted, apparently in order to calm the society.
    These relations resumed “in the early 70s. XVII century. After Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) personally approached the Pope with a proposal to wage a joint struggle against the Ottoman Empire, papal ambassadors were sent to Moscow. "
    1. Cat
      Cat 22 July 2016 15: 50
      +2
      I’ll add on my own that Patriarch Filaret continued ... what his father, uncles and brothers tried to achieve since the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich.
      The Koshkin-Zakharyev-Romanovs House participated in all the intrigues and troubles of the troubled times. Starting with the struggle for power with Godunov ending with the call to the throne of Prince Vladislav.
      Many modern historians place the blame with Grishka Otrepiev directly on the Romanov clan.
      But in fairness it should be noted that they were not the only ones who hatched the ideas rise, the competition was quite fierce.
  21. Selevc
    Selevc 22 July 2016 17: 50
    +4
    essentially fair state (this was most clearly manifested in the Stalin period)

    After Lenin, Stalin accepted a state destroyed by the Civil War, which was in full or almost complete international isolation ... Stalin twice restored the USSR from ruins, conducted industrialization, won the worst war in human history (in which, among other things, two of his sons fought - and one died the death of the hero - it is interesting to compare their fate with the fate of the children of other Soviet politicians). And Stalin left the country surrounded by a chain of allied countries, a country that has made a unique economic, scientific and technological breakthrough in just a few decades ...
    All this was done with great sacrifices and a lot of blood - all sorts of dissident ghoul squeals like - "Let's condemn ...", "Let's curse ...", "Let's collectively trample ..." - so they are at war with the dead !!! It is not necessary to do this with a special mind because the dead do not respond to screams !!! But one but specific question arises - DISSIDENT WRITERS WHAT YOU DID FOR YOUR COUNTRY EXCEPT THAT YOU MUCH FRIENDLY PAYING ON ITS HISTORY?
    Stomp, smear for decades of Stalin-but he still shines !!! What kind of man !!!
    the best elements of the Russian Empire, the Russian Empire and the Red Empire.

    The USSR honestly say empire to call the language never turned - empires parasitize on other countries and peoples - on the contrary, the UNION on the contrary set up and donated so much for free - which is hard to figure out !!! That's just - thanks are still waiting !!!
    That's who the empire is the USA. They have a lot in the state structure taken from ancient Rome - eagles, capitol, legions around the world ... They always admired and admire Antique Rome - and by the way conduct politics based on Roman experience and traditions - that is, they are absolutely aggressive, unprincipled, absolutely insidious and many faces - as they say nothing personal only political business - divide and conquer !!! And talk about all kinds of democracy and freedom there is all husk !!! Politics is not chatter - politics is action ...
  22. Cartalon
    Cartalon 22 July 2016 19: 38
    0
    it’s a stupid article, it’s ridiculous to judge people who lived 400 years ago from the perspective of the current ideology, these boyars had no idea about any Russian superethnos, they could be true or not true to the tsar and that’s all. They cheated on the kings because they did not consider them legal, they were faithful to Mikhail, so they considered him legal.
  23. antivirus
    antivirus 22 July 2016 21: 16
    0
    Quote: Cartalon
    it’s a stupid article, it’s ridiculous to judge people who lived 400 years ago from the perspective of the current ideology, these boyars had no idea about any Russian superethnos, they could be true or not true to the tsar and that’s all. They cheated on the kings because they did not consider them legal, they were faithful to Mikhail, so they considered him legal.

    until the end of the 14th century there was a mixture-assimilation of the Slavs with the Fin-Ugric tribes and steppes and then with the inhabitants of the new possessions.
    the boiler of the "Russian superethnos" not only boiled, but also flew and darted on the traction of superheated steam around the world. There was no single people.
    To the Great Patriotic War, the Central Federal District (now) and the Donbass (according to his father) were devotees, who died silently in 41
  24. Cat
    Cat 23 July 2016 07: 31
    -1
    Do you believe that the first 100 surnames were true to Mikhail Romanov? I do not believe! I dare to assume that they were true to their interests, which they considered to be unambiguously more important not only the king, but sometimes the fatherland. Almost 20 years of turmoil and confusion convinced the top of the Moscow boyars that they were "the navel of the Russian land." And only the complete failure of the vocation of good Poles and Swedes shook the top a little. This is where one of the pre-election slogans comes from to choose a tsar from among his own. Yes, there were no direct descendants of the Ruriks of the Moscow ruling house, but there were descendants of Rurik of other princely houses, incl. and Pozharsky, there were Gedeminovichs and Chingizids. But the constituent assembly, which was ruled by the Moscow boyars, chose the young and docile Mikhail Romanov. The only thing that the boyars miscalculated was that 4 years later, Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, appeared on the scene, who took the reins into his own hands. So he recalled his grievances to many, putting his tail down to many noble names.
    But once again, but even the first attempts to strengthen the state were made not in the interests of the country, but in the interests of their home. It’s just that the nature of the Russian Tsar was current that the supreme ruler and state were united and inseparable. For which we must thank the Ivanoanov the Terrible III and IV.
  25. Ivan Tartugai
    Ivan Tartugai 24 July 2016 19: 01
    0
    Quote from the article:
    The young and inexperienced Michael was chosen to the kingdom in 1613, so that behind his back it is easy to carry out his decisions.


    The new king, king, khan, etc. usually always young and inexperienced. Dmitry Donskoy became the Grand Duke of Moscow and even much younger at nine. More mature and more experienced candidates for the throne during the Time of Troubles were smashed to the top of the shit of betrayal, lit up in full and throughout the country, before the whole world as double-dealing. Michael, by virtue of a young age, did not have time to mess up in full and turned out to be the most acceptable candidate, like like a clean, innocent boy.
    Kings to the throne are planted by a team, party, clan. Alone, no where and no one became a king, king, khan. And naturally, through the king, the team that set him up will carry out their decisions. If he does not live up to the clan's hopes, he will be eliminated. There are a lot of ways to eliminate, for example, I tried salty mushrooms and turned blue, and then was replaced by another more docile representative of the same clan who won in the fight against other clans. Without a command, the ruler does not last long.
  26. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 1 August 2016 12: 37
    0
    Right, Ivan Vasilievich chopped heads, right