The slandered king. Facts and figures

08.01.202427.05.2017

In 1894, at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia had 122 million inhabitants. 20 years later, on the eve of the 1st World War, its population increased by more than 50 million; Thus, in Tsarist Russia the population increased by 2,400,000 per year. If the revolution had not happened in 1917, by 1959 its population would have reached 275,000,000.

Unlike modern democracies, Imperial Russia based its policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of significant accumulation of gold reserves. Despite this, state revenues grew steadily from 1,410,000,000 rubles in 1897, without the slightest increase in the tax burden, while state expenditures remained more or less at the same level.

Over the last 10 years before the First World War, the excess of state revenues over expenses amounted to 2,400,000,000 rubles. This figure seems all the more impressive since during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, railway tariffs were lowered and redemption payments for lands transferred to the peasants from their former landowners in 1861 were abolished, and in 1914, with the outbreak of the war, all types of drinking taxes were abolished.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia, and the State Bank was authorized to issue 300,000,000 rubles in credit notes not backed by gold reserves. But the government not only never took advantage of this right, but, on the contrary, ensured paper circulation of gold cash by more than 100%, namely: by the end of July 1914, bank notes were in circulation in the amount of 1,633,000,000 rubles, while the gold reserve in Russia it was equal to 1,604,000,000 rubles, and in foreign banks 141,000,000 rubles.

The stability of monetary circulation was such that even during the Russo-Japanese War, which was accompanied by widespread revolutionary unrest within the country, the exchange of banknotes for gold was not suspended.

In Russia, taxes, before the First World War, were the lowest in the whole world.

The burden of direct taxes in Russia was almost four times less than in France, more than 4 times less than in Germany and 8.5 times less than in England. The burden of indirect taxes in Russia was on average half as much as in Austria, France, Germany and England.

The total amount of taxes per capita in Russia was more than half as much as in Austria, France and Germany and more than four times less than in England.

Between 1890 and 1913 Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. Its income not only almost equaled the income received from agriculture, but goods covered almost 4/5 of the domestic demand for manufactured goods.

Over the last four years before the First World War, the number of newly founded joint-stock companies increased by 132%, and the capital invested in them almost quadrupled.

In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits worth 2,236,000,000 rubles.

The amount of deposits and equity capital in small credit institutions (on a cooperative basis) was about 70,000,000 rubles in 1894; in 1913 - about 620,000,000 rubles (an increase of 800%), and by January 1, 1917 - 1,200,000,000 rubles.

On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. During the two decades preceding the 1914-18 war, the grain harvest doubled. In 1913, the harvest of major cereals in Russia was 1/3 higher than that of Argentina, Canada and the United States. States combined.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main breadwinner of Western Europe.

Russia supplied 50% of the world's egg imports.

During the same period of time, sugar consumption per inhabitant increased from 4 to 9 kg. in year.

On the eve of World War I, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.

Thanks to extensive irrigation work in Turkestan, undertaken during the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the cotton harvest in 1913 covered all the annual needs of the Russian textile industry. The latter doubled its production between 1894 and 1911.

The railway network in Russia covered 74,000 versts (one verst equals 1,067 km), of which the Great Siberian Road (8,000 versts) was the longest in the world.

In 1916, i.e. at the height of the war, more than 2,000 miles of railways were built, which connected the Arctic Ocean (port of Romanovsk) with the center of Russia.

In Tsarist Russia in the period from 1880 to 1917, i.e. in 37 years, 58,251 km were built. For 38 years of Soviet power, i.e. by the end of 1956, only 36,250 km had been built. expensive

On the eve of the war of 1914-18. the net income of the state railways covered 83% of the annual interest and amortization of the public debt. In other words, the payment of debts, both internal and external, was ensured in a proportion of more than 4/5 by the income alone that the Russian state received from the operation of its railways.

It should be added that Russian railways, compared to others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.

Industrial development in the Russian Empire was naturally accompanied by a significant increase in the number of factory workers, whose economic well-being, as well as the protection of their lives and health, were the subject of special concerns of the Imperial Government.

It should be noted that it was in Imperial Russia, and moreover in the 18th century, during the reign of Empress Catherine II (1762-1796), for the first time in the whole world, laws were issued regarding working conditions: the work of women and children in factories was prohibited a 10-hour working day was established, etc. It is characteristic that the code of Empress Catherine, which regulated child and female labor, printed in French and Latin, was prohibited from publication in France and England as “seditious.”

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, before the convening of the 1st State Duma, special laws were issued to ensure the safety of workers in the mining industry, on railways and in enterprises that were especially dangerous to the life and health of workers.

Child labor under 12 years of age was prohibited, and minors and females could not be hired for factory work between 9 pm and 5 am.

The amount of penalty deductions could not exceed one third of wages, and each fine had to be approved by a factory inspector. The fine money went into a special fund intended to meet the needs of the workers themselves.

In 1882, a special law regulated the work of children from 12 to 15 years old. In 1903, worker elders were introduced, elected by factory workers of the relevant workshops. The existence of workers' unions was recognized by law in 1906.

At that time, Imperial social legislation was undoubtedly the most progressive in the world. This forced Taft, then President of the Union. States, two years before the 1st World War, publicly declare, in the presence of several Russian dignitaries: “Your Emperor created such perfect labor legislation that no democratic state can boast of.”

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education achieved extraordinary development. In less than 20 years, loans allocated to the Ministry of Public Education, from 25.2 mil. rubles increased to 161.2 million. This did not include the budgets of schools that received their loans from other sources (military, technical schools), or those maintained by local self-government bodies (zemstvos, cities), whose loans for public education increased from 70,000,000 rubles. in 1894 up to 300,000,000 rubles. in 1913

At the beginning of 1913, the total budget for public education in Russia reached a colossal figure for that time, namely 1/2 billion rubles in gold.

Initial training was free by law, and from 1908 it became compulsory. Since this year, about 10,000 schools have been opened annually. In 1913 their number exceeded 130,000.

In the 20th century, Russia ranked first in Europe, if not in the whole world, in terms of the number of women studying in higher educational institutions.

The reign of Nicholas II was a period of the highest rates of economic growth in Russian history. For 1880-1910 The growth rate of Russian industrial output exceeded 9% per year. According to this indicator, Russia has taken first place in the world, ahead of even the rapidly developing United States of America (although it should be noted that on this issue different economists give different estimates, some put the Russian Empire in first place, others - the United States, but the fact that the pace growth were comparable - an indisputable fact). Russia has taken first place in the world in the production of the main agricultural crops, growing more than half of the world's rye, more than a quarter of wheat, oats and barley, and more than a third of potatoes. Russia has become the main exporter of agricultural products, the first “granary of Europe”. Its share accounted for 2/5 of all world exports of peasant products.

Successes in agricultural production were the result of historical events: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 by Alexander II and the Stolypin land reform during the reign of Nicholas II, as a result of which more than 80% of arable land ended up in the hands of peasants, and almost all of it in the Asian part. The area of landowners' lands was steadily declining. Granting peasants the right to freely dispose of their land and the abolition of communities had enormous national significance, the benefits of which, first of all, the peasants themselves were aware of.

The autocratic form of government did not impede Russia's economic progress. According to the manifesto of October 17, 1905, the population of Russia received the right to personal integrity, freedom of speech, press, assembly, and unions. Political parties grew in the country, and thousands of periodicals were published. The Parliament - the State Duma - was elected by free will. Russia was becoming a rule of law state - the judiciary was practically separated from the executive.

The rapid development of the level of industrial and agricultural production and a positive trade balance allowed Russia to have a stable gold convertible currency. The Emperor attached great importance to the development of railways. Even in his youth, he participated in the laying of the famous Siberian road.

During the reign of Nicholas II, the best labor legislation for those times was created in Russia, providing for the regulation of working hours, the choice of worker elders, remuneration for accidents at work, compulsory insurance of workers against illness, disability and old age. The Emperor actively promoted the development of Russian culture, art, science, and reforms of the army and navy.

All these achievements of the economic and social development of Russia are the result of the natural historical process of development of Russia and are objectively related to the 300th anniversary of the reign of the House of Romanov.

The French economist Théry wrote: “Not a single European nation has achieved such results.”

The myth is that workers lived very poorly.

article 2014

since prices have doubled since then, the salary can be safely multiplied by 2

1. Workers. The average worker's salary in Russia was 37.5 rubles. Let's multiply this amount by 1282.29 (the ratio of the exchange rate of the Tsar's ruble to the modern one) and get an amount of 48,085 thousand rubles in modern terms.

2. Janitor 18 rubles or 23081 rubles. with modern money

3. Second lieutenant (modern equivalent - lieutenant) 70 rub. or 89,760 rub. with modern money

4. Policeman (ordinary police officer) 20.5 rubles. or 26,287 rub. with modern money

5. Workers (St. Petersburg). It is interesting that the average salary in St. Petersburg was lower and by 1914 amounted to 22 rubles 53 kopecks. Let's multiply this amount by 1282.29 and get 28890 Russian rubles.

6. Cook 5 - 8 r. or 6.5-10 thousand in modern money

7. Primary school teacher 25 rub. or 32050 rub. with modern money

8. Gymnasium teacher 85 rub. or 108970 rub. with modern money

9. Senior janitor 40 rub. or 51,297 rub. with modern money

10. District warden (modern analogue - local police officer) 50 rub. or 64,115 in modern money

11. Paramedic 40 rub. or 51280 rub.

12. Colonel 325 rub. or 416,744 rub. with modern money

13. Collegiate assessor (middle class official) 62 rub. or 79,502 rub. with modern money

14. Privy Councilor (high-class official) 500 or 641,145 in modern money. An army general received the same amount

How much, you ask, did the products cost back then? A pound of meat in 1914 cost 19 kopecks. The Russian pound weighed 0.40951241 grams. This means that a kilogram, if it were then a measure of weight, would cost 46.39 kopecks - 0.359 grams of gold, that is, in today's money, 551 rubles 14 kopecks. Thus, a worker could buy 48.6 kilograms of meat with his salary, if, of course, he wanted.

Wheat flour 0.08 rub. (8 kopecks) = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Rice pound 0.12 rubles = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Biscuit RUR 0.60 = 1 lb (0.4 kg)
Milk 0.08 rubles = 1 bottle
Tomatoes 0.22 rub. = 1 pound
Fish (pike perch) 0.25 rub. = 1 pound
Grapes (raisins) 0.16 rubles = 1 pound
Apples 0.03 rub. = 1 pound

A very worthy life!!!

Now let's see how much it cost to rent a house. Renting housing cost 25 in St. Petersburg, and 20 kopecks per square arshin per month in Moscow and Kyiv. These 20 kopecks today amount to 256 rubles, and a square arshin is 0.5058 m². That is, the monthly rent of one square meter cost in 1914 506 today's rubles. Our clerk would rent an apartment of one hundred square arshins in St. Petersburg for 25 rubles a month. But he did not rent such an apartment, but was content with a basement and attic closet, where the area was smaller and the rental rate was lower. Such an apartment was rented, as a rule, by titular advisers who received a salary at the level of an army captain. The bare salary of a titular adviser was 105 rubles per month (134 thousand 640 rubles) per month. Thus, a 50-meter apartment cost him less than a quarter of his salary.

So many wonderful books have been written about the holy Passion-Bearer Tsar Nicholas II, which leave no stone unturned from the false testimonies of Marxists. But these indignant voices, even after the canonization of the Royal Family, continue to sound, the chorus does not stop.

They say that a drop wears away a stone. I would like to contribute at least a little bit to this matter of restoring justice in connection with the memory of the Passion-Bearing Tsar. First of all, we need this. What will be written below can be described as my personal impressions, notes in the margins in the context of everything I have read and heard on this topic from researchers and memoirists. I present them in the hope of casting at least a drop of doubt into the peremptory attitude of those who, I am sure, for now, only for the time being, remain against it.

The discrediting of the tsar as a symbol of sacred statehood after his assassination proceeded through the fabrication of various myths that were introduced into the mass consciousness. I admit that I was once in the grip of these myths, and therefore I offer some of the facts and arguments I found that changed my position. This was facilitated by my communication with a brilliant specialist in the history of that period, S. F. Kolosovskaya, to whom I am sincerely grateful.

The most common myths, which I would like to refute at least to some extent, basically boil down to the following.

The myth that under the Tsar Russia was a backward country

Under Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented period of material prosperity. On the eve of the First World War its economy was thriving and from 1894 to 1914 grew at the fastest rate in the world.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the growth of the Russian national economy led to an increase in social wealth and well-being of the population.

During 1894-1914, the country's state budget increased by 5.5 times, and its gold reserves by 3.7 times. The Russian currency was one of the strongest in the world.

At the same time, government revenues grew without the slightest increase in the tax burden. Direct taxes in Russia were 4 times less than in France and Germany, and 8.5 times less than in England; indirect taxes are on average half as much as in Austria, Germany and England.

The increase in grain yield was 78%. The grain exported by Russia fed the whole of Europe. Coal production increased by 325%, copper - by 375%, iron ore - by 250%, oil - by 65%. The growth of railways was 103%, the merchant fleet - 39%.

The overall growth of the Russian economy, even during the difficult years of the First World War, was 21.5%.

Many domestic economists and politicians argued that maintaining the development trends that existed in 1900-1914 would inevitably, within 20-30 years, lead Russia to the place of a world leader, give it the opportunity to dominate Europe, and exceed the economic potential of all European powers combined.

French economist Théry wrote: “None of the European nations has achieved such results” .

Edinburgh University professor Charles Sarolea wrote in his work “The Truth about Tsarism”:

“One of the most frequent attacks against the Russian Monarchy was the assertion that it was reactionary and obscurantist, that it was an enemy of enlightenment and progress. In fact, it was, in all likelihood, the most progressive government in Europe... It is easy to refute the opinion that the Russian people rejected Tsarism and that the revolution found Russia in a state of decline, collapse and exhaustion... Having visited Russia in 1909, I expected to find traces of suffering everywhere after the Japanese War and the Troubles of 1905. Instead, I noticed a miraculous restoration, a gigantic land reform... a rapidly growing industry, an influx of capital into the country, etc.... Why did the catastrophe happen?.. Why did the Russian Monarchy fall almost without a fight?.. It did not fall because it had outlived its usefulness century She fell for purely random reasons..."

The myth that Nicholas II was a tyrant who destroyed the Russian people

The most important indicator of the effectiveness and morality of government and the well-being of the people is population growth. From 1897 to 1914, that is, in just 17 years, it amounted to a fantastic figure for us - 50.5 million people.

A very competent demographic and migration policy was carried out. Stolypin wrote about the tasks in this area: “So, our main task is to strengthen the lower classes. The whole strength of the country lies in them... The state will have health and strong roots, believe me, and the words of the Russian government will sound completely differently before Europe and before the whole world... Give the state 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today’s Russia!” “Our remote, harsh outskirts are at the same time rich... in vast expanses of land... If there is a densely populated state neighboring us, this outskirts will not remain deserted. A stranger will seep into it if a Russian doesn’t come there first... If we continue to sleep in a lethargic sleep, then this region will be saturated with foreign juices, and when we wake up, maybe it will turn out to be Russian only in name..."

In the post-perestroika years, we lost and continue to lose on average about 1 million per year in deaths, plus abortions and murdered children. According to 2005 data, their number was 1,611,000. As a result, losses reach more than two million per year.

Another important indicator is the number of suicides. So then it was equal to 2.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. And now we have 40. Between 1995 and 2003, 500,000 people died as a result of suicide. Moreover, according to statistics, only one attempt out of 20 ends in death. Therefore, including these “incomplete” suicide attempts, we get a figure 20 times larger, that is, 10 million.

The myth that workers lived very poorly

In 1913, a worker in Russia earned 20 gold rubles a month.

At the same time, bread cost 3-5 kopecks. A kilogram of beef – 30 kopecks. A kilogram of potatoes is 1.5 kopecks.

At the same time, the income tax was one ruble per year and was the lowest in the world.

Hence the opportunity to support a large family.

The contrast here is the characterization of the policies of the Russian leader, pleasing to the West, about whom Edward Pearce wrote in the article “In praise of Putin”, published in The Guardian: “Has there ever been a more contemptible figure than Boris Yeltsin? Always drunk and unable to lead the country, he allowed a pack of corrupt crooks to plunder the nation's wealth. He approved the end of subsidized food prices, which meant that ordinary people fell into poverty overnight. If we talk about Russia’s pride and self-esteem, it turns out that Yeltsin served as a collaborator, a policeman who enriched himself and found solace in alcohol... People picked up food from a landfill, but Boris Yeltsin was a Westerner, an excellent example, a clear example of the triumph of the West.” .

The myth that Russia was a dark country

From 1894 to 1914, the public education budget increased by 628%. The number of schools increased: higher – by 180%, secondary – by 227%, girls’ gymnasiums – by 420%, public schools – by 96%.

I. Ilyin in his work “On Russian Culture” writes that Russia was on the threshold of implementing universal public education with a network of schools within a radius of one kilometer.

In Russia, 10,000 schools were opened annually.

The Russian Empire was a reading country. During the reign of Nicholas II, more newspapers and magazines were published in Russia than in the USSR in 1988.

Russia was also experiencing a flourishing cultural life.

The myth of Rasputin

The sovereign’s close adjutant, Colonel A. Mordvinov, in his “Memoirs” (“Russian Chronicle” for 1923, vol. V) completely denies the influence of the Empress and anyone else on the sovereign’s decisions and gives convincing examples.

He also reveals the truth of the famous legend about Rasputin.

Mordvinov writes: “The Emperor was dissatisfied with some statesmen not because they did not sympathize with Rasputin, but because they allowed themselves to believe and spread this belief in some special power of Rasputin in state affairs. In the eyes of His Majesty, the mere possibility of such an assumption was insulting, degrading to his dignity.”

Mordvinov, who had been constantly visiting the palace since 1912 and always traveled with the Tsar during the war, had never seen Rasputin in five years, never heard of him in the family with whom he was very close.

Gilliard, the Tsarevich’s tutor, who lived at the Court, as well as life physician Botkin (who died in Yekaterinburg with his family), who visited the palace every day, testify that over the course of several years they saw Rasputin in the palace only once, and both associated Rasputin’s visit with ill health of the heir.

General Resin, without whom not a single soul could enter the palace, never saw Rasputin for seven months.

Alexander Eliseev in his article “Nicholas II as a strong-willed politician in troubled times” notes that even the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government was forced to admit that Rasputin did not have any influence on the state life of the country. This is despite the fact that it included experienced liberal lawyers who were sharply opposed to the Sovereign, the dynasty and the monarchy as such.

The Myth of the Tsar's Weakness of Character

French President Loubet said: “People usually see Emperor Nicholas II as a kind, generous, but weak man. This is a deep mistake. He always has long-thought-out plans, the implementation of which he slowly achieves. Beneath his apparent timidity, the king has a strong soul and a courageous heart, unshakably loyal. He knows where he's going and what he wants."

Tsar's service required strength of character, which Nicholas II possessed. During the Holy Coronation to the Russian Throne on May 27, 1895, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow in his address to the Sovereign said: “Just as there is no higher, so there is no more difficult on earth royal power, there is no burden heavier than royal service. Through visible anointing may invisible power from above be given to you, acting to exalt your royal virtues..."

A number of arguments refuting this myth are presented in the above-mentioned work by A. Eliseev.

Thus, in particular, S. Oldenburg wrote that the Tsar had an iron hand; many are only deceived by the velvet glove he wore.

The presence of a strong will in Nicholas II is brilliantly confirmed by the events of August 1915, when he assumed the responsibilities of Supreme Commander-in-Chief - against the wishes of the military elite, the Council of Ministers and all “public opinion”. And, I must say, he coped with these responsibilities brilliantly.

In general, the Emperor was a real warrior - both by “profession” and by spirit. He was raised as a warrior. Archpriest V. Asmus notes: “Alexander III raised children with great severity, for example, no more than 15 minutes were allotted for food. Children had to sit down at the table and get up from the table with their parents, and the children often remained hungry if they did not fit into these frameworks that were so strict for children.

We can say that Nicholas II received a real military upbringing and a real military education, Nicholas II felt like a military man all his life, this affected his psychology and many things in his life.”

Being the Heir to the Throne, Nikolai Alexandrovich studied military affairs with great enthusiasm. This is evidenced by his carefully compiled notes on military topography, tactics, artillery, navigational instruments, military criminal law, and strategy. The records on fortification, complete with drawings and drawings, are very impressive.

Practical training was not neglected either. Alexander III sent his heir to military training. For two years, Nikolai Alexandrovich served in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, where he served as a subaltern officer, and then as a company commander. For two whole seasons he served as a platoon commander in a hussar regiment, then was a squadron commander. The Heir spent one camp season in the ranks of the artillery.

The Emperor did a lot to improve the country's defense capability, having learned the hard lessons of the Russo-Japanese War. Perhaps his most significant act was the revival of the Russian fleet, which saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. It happened against the will of military officials. The Emperor was even forced to dismiss Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich. Military historian G. Nekrasov writes: “It must be noted that, despite its overwhelming superiority in forces in the Baltic Sea, the German fleet made no attempts to break into the Gulf of Finland in order to bring Russia to its knees with one blow. Theoretically, this was possible, since most of Russia's military industry was concentrated in St. Petersburg. But in the way of the German fleet stood the Baltic Fleet, ready to fight, with ready-made mine positions. The cost of a breakthrough for the German fleet was becoming unacceptably expensive. Thus, just by the fact that he achieved the reconstruction of the fleet, Emperor Nicholas II saved Russia from imminent defeat. This should not be forgotten!”

We especially note that the Emperor made absolutely all the important decisions contributing to victorious actions himself - without the influence of any “good geniuses”. The opinion that the Russian army was led by Alekseev, and the Tsar was in the post of Commander-in-Chief for the sake of formality, is completely unfounded. This false opinion is refuted by Alekseev’s own telegrams. For example, in one of them, in response to a request to send ammunition and weapons, Alekseev replies: “I cannot resolve this issue without the Highest permission.”

The communist publicist M. Koltsov writes the following about the behavior of the Sovereign during the days of the February Troubles: “...The courtiers are completely in vain in portraying their leader in the last minutes of his reign as a sad cretin, a non-resistance who resignedly surrendered his regime at the first demand of the revolution.” Koltsov describes how the Emperor stubbornly resisted all the demands of the army conspirators (Alekseev, Ruzsky, etc.) to create a responsible ministry (that is, in essence, to transform the autocracy into a constitutional monarchy). His resistance was so strong that even Alexandra Feodorovna exclaimed in a letter: “You are alone, without an army behind you, caught like a mouse in a trap - what can you do?!” And the Tsar did everything he could - he even sent an expeditionary force to Petrograd led by General N.I. Ivanov. He fought the revolution alone (for the conspirators cut him off from communication with the outside world, from the loyal parts). And on this occasion Koltsov asks: “Where is the rag? Where is the weak-willed nonentity? In the frightened crowd of defenders of the throne, we see only one person true to himself - Nicholas himself.”

“The Sovereign Emperor did everything in his power. He managed to suppress the terrible revolution of 1905 and delay the triumph of the “demons” for 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Already a prisoner of the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve the Brest Peace Treaty and thereby save his life. He lived with dignity and accepted death with dignity.”

The myth that Russia was a prison of nations

Russia was a family of peoples thanks to the balanced and thoughtful policies of the Sovereign. The Russian Tsar-Father was considered the monarch of all peoples and tribes living on the territory of the Russian Empire.

He pursued a national policy based on respect for traditional religions - the historical subjects of state building in Russia. And this is not only Orthodoxy, but also Islam. So, in particular, the mullahs were supported by the Russian Empire and received a salary. Many Muslims fought for Russia.

The Russian Tsar honored the feat of all peoples who served the Fatherland. Here is the text of the telegram, which serves as clear confirmation of this:

TELEGRAM

The Ingush regiment fell on the German iron division like a mountain avalanche. He was immediately supported by the Chechen regiment.

In the history of the Russian Fatherland, including our Preobrazhensky Regiment, there was no case of a cavalry attack on an enemy heavy artillery unit.

4.5 thousand killed, 3.5 thousand captured, 2.5 thousand wounded. In less than 1.5 hours, the iron division, which the best military units of our allies, including those in the Russian army, were afraid to come into contact with, ceased to exist.

Convey on my behalf, on behalf of the royal court and on behalf of the Russian army fraternal heartfelt greetings to the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and brides of these brave eagles of the Caucasus, who with their immortal feat marked the beginning of the end of the German hordes.

Russia will never forget this feat. Honor and praise to them!

With fraternal greetings, Nicholas II.

In general, the sacred monarchy as a form of government had a great advantage in national issues over what K. Pobedonostsev calls “the evil of parliamentary government.” He points out that the elections do not select the best, but only “the most ambitious and impudent.” In his opinion, the electoral struggle in multi-tribal states is especially dangerous. Pointing out the advantages of the monarchical system for Russia, he writes: “An unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not by force alone, but by equalizing rights and relations under one authority. But democracy cannot cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corrosive element for it: each tribe sends out representatives from its area - not of the state and people's ideas, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation, tribal hatred ... "

The very title of the Russian Tsar reflects the saving gathering of lands and peoples behind the state Orthodox fence: “Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod; Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauride Chersonis, Tsar of Georgia and so on, so on, so on.”

If we talk about prisons in the literal sense of the word, the crime rate was so low that in 1913 there were less than 33,000 prisoners in prisons throughout the Russian Empire.

Now, on a territory much smaller than the Russian Empire, this figure exceeds 1.5 million people.

The myth that Russia under the Tsar was defeated in the First World War

S.S. Oldenburg, in his book “The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II,” wrote: “The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that, under incredibly difficult conditions, he brought Russia to the threshold of victory: his opponents did not allow her to cross this threshold.”

General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “...It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into the Poltava victors.

The last Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half. But his work was appreciated by his enemies, and between the Sovereign and his Army and victory “there was a revolution.”

A. Eliseev cites the following facts. The Sovereign's military talents were fully revealed at the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Already the very first decisions of the new commander-in-chief led to a significant improvement in the situation at the front. Thus, he organized the Vilna-Molodechno operation (September 3 – October 2, 1915). The Emperor managed to stop a major German offensive, as a result of which the city of Borisov was captured. He issued a timely directive ordering an end to panic and retreat. As a result, the onslaught of the 10th German Army was stopped, which was forced to retreat - in some places completely disorderly. The 26th Mogilev Infantry Regiment under Lieutenant Colonel Petrov (a total of 8 officers and 359 bayonets) made its way to the German rear and during a surprise attack captured 16 guns. In total, the Russians managed to capture 2,000 prisoners, 39 guns and 45 machine guns. “But most importantly,” notes historian P.V. Multatuli, “the troops regained confidence in their ability to beat the Germans.”

Russia definitely began to win the war. After the failures of 1915, the triumphant 1916 came - the year of the Brusilov breakthrough. During the fighting on the Southwestern Front, the enemy lost one and a half million people killed, wounded and captured. Austria-Hungary was on the verge of defeat.

It was the Emperor who supported Brusilov’s offensive plan, with which many military leaders did not agree. Thus, the plan of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief M.V. Alekseev provided for a powerful strike on the enemy by forces of all fronts, with the exception of the Brusilov Front.

The latter believed that his front was also quite capable of an offensive, with which other front commanders disagreed. However, Nicholas II decisively supported Brusilov, and without this support the famous breakthrough would simply have been impossible.

Historian A. Zayonchkovsky wrote that the Russian army achieved “in terms of its numbers and technical supply with everything necessary, the greatest development in the entire war.” More than two hundred combat-ready divisions confronted the enemy. Russia was preparing to crush the enemy. In January 1917, the Russian 12th Army launched an offensive from the Riga bridgehead and took the German 10th Army by surprise, which found itself in a catastrophic situation.

The chief of staff of the German army, General Ludendorff, who cannot be suspected of sympathizing with Nicholas II, wrote about the situation in Germany in 1916 and about the increase in the military power of Russia:

“Russia is expanding its military formations. The reorganization she has undertaken gives a great increase in strength. In its divisions it left only 12 battalions, and in its batteries only 6 guns, and from the battalions and guns liberated in this way it formed new combat units.

The battles of 1916 on the Eastern Front showed an increase in Russian military equipment and an increase in the number of firearms supplies. Russia has moved some of its factories to the Donetsk basin, greatly increasing their productivity.

We understood that the numerical and technical superiority of the Russians in 1917 would be felt even more acutely than in 1916.

Our situation was extremely difficult and there was almost no way out of it. There was no point in thinking about our own offensive - all reserves were needed for defense. Our defeat seemed inevitable... food supply was difficult. The rear was also seriously damaged.

The prospects for the future were extremely bleak."

Moreover, as Oldenburg writes, on the initiative of Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, in the summer of 1916, a commission was established to prepare a future peace conference in order to determine in advance what Russia’s wishes would be. Russia was to receive Constantinople and the straits, as well as Turkish Armenia.

Poland was to be reunited in a personal union with Russia. The Emperor declared (at the end of December) gr. Wielepolsky that he thinks of a free Poland as a state with a separate constitution, separate chambers and its own army (apparently, he meant something like the situation of the Kingdom of Poland under Alexander I).

Eastern Galicia, Northern Bukovina and Carpathian Rus' were to be included in Russia. The creation of a Czechoslovak kingdom was planned; regiments of captured Czechs and Slovaks were already being formed on Russian territory.

B. Brasol “The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in figures and facts”

to be continued...

VKontakte Facebook Odnoklassniki

Another article from the series “Pre-revolutionary Russia”

The next anniversary of the murder of the royal family is approaching. As part of the series of articles “Pre-revolutionary Russia”, we have already examined a whole series of events that ultimately led to the overthrow of the dynasty, the defeat of Russia in the First World War and the Civil War, famine, total destruction of the economy, and so on. Today we will focus on some important details that were not reflected in our previous materials.

As stated earlier, the overthrow of the Tsar was not a spontaneous manifestation of the will of the masses. The revolution was prepared for a long time and carefully; opponents of Nicholas II placed their people in key positions in advance, not disdaining the most vile methods. A striking example of their activities is the famous “Myasoedov case,” which will be discussed in this article. In it I will rely on the research of Russian historian Oleg Airapetov, “The Myasoedov Case.” The 20th century begins."

In March 1915, an event occurred that had a wide resonance in the Russian Empire: Colonel Myasoedov was executed on charges of espionage. To understand the details of the “Myasoedov case”, we must remember its background, since it contains many facts that are directly related to our topic.

A few years before the start of the First World War, the State Defense Commission was formed in the Duma. It was headed by our old friend - Guchkov. The consultants to this Commission were a group of senior military officers who formed an informal circle. This unofficial organization was ironically nicknamed the “Young Turks”, by analogy with the Turkish officers who carried out the revolution in 1908. However, the tsar was not in the mood for jokes, and War Minister Sukhomlinov took preventive measures by appointing members of this circle to various positions outside the capital, thereby complicating their interaction with each other. Sukhomlinov noted that after this his relationship with Guchkov deteriorated, and then a campaign to discredit the Minister of War began through the press controlled by Guchkov.

This is where we come across gendarme officer Sergei Myasoedov. By that time (1912), his reputation was already tarnished. Back in 1907, he found himself at the center of a spy scandal, which was based on a denunciation concocted by an agent of the Police Department, who accused Myasoedov of working for German intelligence.

A thorough check showed the complete groundlessness of these suspicions, but the hype around the incident forced Myasoedov to resign. However, in 1911, at the request of Sukhomlinov, he was returned to service and placed at the disposal of the Minister of War. And the next year, a new espionage scandal began to ripen around Myasoedov. The police department indicated that Myasoedov is familiar with a certain Freudberg, Freudberg himself communicates with some other person, and this person, in turn, has business relations with a secret employee at the German headquarters. Here is such an intricate chain, the last link of which is located quite far from Myasoedov.

However, hypervigilance in the pre-war era is not a vice, and the Police Department was created for this purpose, to monitor everything, even the weakest signs of espionage. The other bad thing is that these suspicions became known to the press. Apparently, the leak channel was Guchkov’s friend, General Polivanov, a future participant in the February Revolution, who, by the way, held on to a major post even under the Bolsheviks.

Guchkov immediately used his newspaper connections, and a fuss began, the leitmotif of which was attacks against Sukhomlinov, who allegedly patronized shady personalities. The funny thing is that the press also managed to accuse Sukhomlinov of instilling gendarmerie investigation in the army, that is, they criticized him for condoning spies and for fighting espionage at the same time!

The inconsistency of the attacks, initiated by the same person - Guchkov, once again shows that the campaign in the press had nothing to do with protecting state interests, but was built on the principle of “every bast in a line.” It came to a duel between Guchkov and Myasoedov. However, both remained alive, and in the meantime it was officially announced that the suspicions against Myasoedov were not confirmed by anything. A further investigation, during which Guchkov was summoned for questioning, showed that Guchkov had no evidence. The scandal continued for some time by inertia, but eventually died down. He was overshadowed by the outbreak of war.

We have already talked about the first operations of 1914 in previous articles, and we also touched on the so-called Great Retreat. However, then we ignored the situation on the internal front, and, as history has shown, it was there that the fate of the Russian army and the entire state was decided. Now is the time to highlight these issues.

At the beginning of 1915, the Russian army suffered a sensitive defeat. The Germans planned to encircle the 10th Russian Army, and although they failed to do this, our 20th Corps ceased to exist as a result of heavy fighting. For Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who was then the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, this turned out to be a strong blow to his prestige. He devoted his life to military service, considered himself a major military leader and took defeats especially painfully. The Grand Duke began to look for those to blame, and, of course, anyone was to blame, but not himself.

At first they tried to judge General Epanchin, but they found nothing reprehensible in his actions. General Sievers was removed from his post as commander of the 10th Army. In addition, purely theoretically, the investigation could have focused on General Budberg, but he just proved himself to be an astute military leader. During the battles, he correctly assessed the situation and put forward a number of sound proposals, which were ignored by his superiors. So here, too, Nikolai Nikolaevich would have faced a fiasco. However, to the happiness of the Grand Duke and to his own misfortune, Myasoedov ended up at the headquarters of the 10th Army. In light of the events of his past, he was perfectly suited to the role of a spy who must answer for everything.

When the war began, Myasoedov was eager to go to the front. They didn’t take him, remembering the trail of scandals that followed this man. He asked Sukhomlinov to send him to the army, but the Minister of War did not help him, although he emphasized that he had nothing against it. Then Myasoedov tried to enlist the support of General Kurlov, but did not receive help here either. Nevertheless, in the fall of 1914, General Budberg took him to headquarters as a translator, as well as to carry out intelligence activities. At the front, Myasoedov showed his best side, organized raids on the Germans for “tongues,” and participated in them himself. His personal bravery earned high praise from his command. And at this time, a certain Kulakovsky (Kolakovsky) arrived in Russia from Sweden, who stated that he had been recruited by the Germans while in captivity. He was transported to Russia via Stockholm, entrusted with a number of special tasks.

During interrogations, Kulakovsky gushes with stories that could form the basis of a low-grade adventure novel. According to him, he had to convince the commandant of Novogeorgievsk to surrender the fortress, incite anti-Russian sentiments in Poland and Ukraine, and most importantly, kill... Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich! And all this had to be done by one person! Meanwhile, German sources say that Kulakovsky was ordered simply to collect information about the mood in Petrograd and establish contact with the revolutionaries, and then return back. This seems to be true, and it is characteristic that during the first interrogations Kulakovsky did not even mention Myasoedov. However, after some time, he stated that the Germans told him the name of their contact in Russia. This, according to Kulakovsky, was Myasoedov.

The absurdity of the testimony immediately catches the eye: Kulakovsky did not know that his “connector” was at the front, and the Germans did not tell him where he even lived. German intelligence has interesting methods: send one agent to a meeting with another agent, but do not provide the first with information about the whereabouts of the second!

Soon Kulakovsky refused to testify regarding the assassination attempt on Nikolai Nikolaevich. The case was clearly done with white thread, but on March 3, 1915, Myasoedov was arrested in Kovno. Then a flurry of searches began at Myasoedov’s relatives and friends, and information about this instantly hit the press. No evidence was found, and further investigation in this regard also did not produce results.

In the end, the case was transferred to a military court, which, by the way, was a violation of the Military Court Regulations. Thus, Myasoedov could not count on a lawyer; Moreover, out of ten witnesses, only four were called to the trial. The decision of such a clownish “court” was no longer in doubt: on the night of March 19 (April 1), Myasoedov was executed by hanging. Soon there was an official announcement about this, which was immediately circulated by the press.

Guchkov could triumph: all his pre-war accusations and suspicions were “confirmed.” From a slanderer and an empty intriguer, he turned into a perspicacious statesman who warned in advance about the “nest of espionage” in the Russian army, but the “rotten regime” did not listen to him in time.

They immediately remembered that Myasoedov had once been on friendly terms with Minister of War Sukhomlinov, who became the next target of the attack. Polivanov, a close friend of Guchkov, set his sights on his place. Of course, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who even before the war had a sharply negative attitude towards Sukhomlinov, also benefited greatly and now had the opportunity to hang all the dogs on him.

Soon, in the spring of 1915, Germany and Austria-Hungary launched a powerful offensive on the Eastern Front. The so-called Great Retreat of the Russian army took place. Nothing catastrophic happened and the situation stabilized already in September, but the very fact of the withdrawal of our army had a stunning impact on the public’s mentality. For Polivanov and Guchkov, their finest hour had come. Failures at the front were explained by the actions of War Minister Sukhomlinov, who was “guilty” of the unsatisfactory supply of the army. They immediately remembered that at one time it was he who petitioned for the return to service of Myasoedov, now a “proven German spy.” This was a serious blow to Sukhomlinov’s reputation. In the summer of 1915 he was dismissed, and Polivanov became the new Minister of War.

This is how the intrigue around Myasoedov ultimately contributed to the fall of Sukhomlinov (apparently a supporter of Nicholas II) and the coming to his place of General Polivanov (an opponent of the legitimate government).

As soon as he accepted his new appointment, General Polivanov spoke at a meeting of the Council of Ministers with his famous speech “The Fatherland is in Danger.” He attacked the former military leadership, including Headquarters, with derogatory criticism, painting pictures of the collapse of the army, personnel confusion and arbitrariness of the chief of staff Yanushkevich. Moreover, according to him, at the headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the generals lost their heads.

It is unlikely that the hysteria thrown by Polivanov was dictated by his real perception of the situation at the fronts. On the one hand, he used the standard bureaucratic technique of all times: throw mud at his predecessor in order to look better against his background, and in case of his own failures, refer to the procedures established by the previous bosses. On the other hand, we should not forget that Polivanov worked in close cooperation with Guchkov, who benefited from any criticism of the authorities.

Be that as it may, Nicholas II faced another problem. There really were failures at the front. At the head of the army was Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, an extremely ambitious man and, as subsequent events showed, not at all alien to the idea of ascending the throne himself. He had already managed to place his people in many major posts, and now the king had an opportunity to relegate the Grand Duke to secondary roles. However, the question arises: who to replace Nikolai Nikolaevich? A world war is a most serious test for the country, and at this time a number of representatives of the state apparatus and social forces are playing their own selfish game, which has little to do with achieving victory. It would seem that the answer is obvious: Nicholas must personally lead the army. But in this case, every defeat will directly affect his reputation.

The situation at the front remained tense, but Nicholas sent the Grand Duke to the Caucasus, and he himself nevertheless decided to take the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. General Alekseev, a man with an excellent track record, becomes his chief of staff. A participant in the Russian-Turkish and Russian-Japanese wars, well educated, with military awards and, finally, in 1915, who carried out a chain of maneuvers that allowed our army to avoid defeat, Alekseev seemed an ideal candidate for the post of chief of staff. Who could have thought then that he would get involved with revolutionary forces and become one of the main gravediggers of the empire?..

Having learned about the king's decision, the ministers rushed to dissuade him. Separately and all together, during an audience with Nicholas on August 20, 1915, the ministers tried to put pressure on the monarch. The king remained adamant. The next day, the ministers wrote him a collective letter, in which they continued to ask the Tsar to abandon his intention to lead the army. But even here Nikolai did not yield. How this contrasts with the popular idea of the “lack of will” of the monarch! In fact, in difficult times for the country, the tsar did not flee from power, but stood firmly at the military helm to lead Russia to victory.

In the fall of 1915, the situation on the fronts stabilized, and the supply of the army began to improve before our eyes. Russia entered the next military campaign having recovered from the summer blow of 1915 and no longer retreated under enemy pressure. On the contrary, the strategic initiative on the Eastern Front passed to our army. Throughout 1916, the enemy with great difficulty held back the offensives undertaken by Russia and eventually wavered.

Of course, Nicholas's opponents tried to present this as a mere coincidence. They say that the king was simply lucky and the natural course of events led to victories at the front. But we are well aware of this old PR trick: criticize the highest authorities for every failure, and regard all successes as achieved “in spite of the regime.”

Moreover, there is still a widespread opinion about the tsar’s weak military training. Some hotheads agree that Nikolai was generally a poorly educated person. Moreover, none other than Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich had a hand in the emergence of this myth. This is how he describes the level of education of Nicholas II in his memoirs:

“On the eve of finishing his education, before joining the Life Hussar Regiment, the future Emperor Nicholas II could mislead any Oxford professor who would have mistaken him for a real Englishman based on his knowledge of English. Nikolai Alexandrovich knew French and German in the same way.

The rest of his knowledge was limited to scattered information on various industries, but without any possibility of applying it in practical life. The teacher, the general, inspired that the miraculous power of the sacrament of anointing during the Holy Coronation was capable of granting the future Russian Autocrat all the necessary knowledge.”

This doesn't fit into any corners anymore. We are asked to believe that Emperor Alexander III did not take care of teachers for his son, the future tsar, and as a result, Nicholas turned into a dropout who picked up scattered facts and learned well only foreign languages!

All this, of course, is nonsense. In fact, from early childhood, Nikolai was taught at the level of the best universities in the world. His teacher was General Danilovich. Among the people who lectured Nikolai were world-class specialists. Chemistry was taught by the great Beketov, political economy by Professor Bunge, law by Pobedonostsev, military statistics by General Obruchev, combat training of troops by General Dragomirov, strategy by General Leer, artillery sciences by General Demyanenkov, military administration by General Lobko. The best professionals of the empire taught Nicholas military tactics, fortification, geodesy, topography, and political history. The young heir to the throne conducted camp training in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, in the Guards Artillery, and served in the Hussar Life Guards.

The future king was seriously prepared to rule the state. For example, he participated in classes of the Council of Ministers, the State Council, chaired the committee to provide assistance to provinces affected by crop failure... In general, the stages of training could be listed for a long time, and it is obvious that Nikolai was ready to govern the state. Therefore, it is not surprising that when the time came, Nicholas led the army. Another thing is surprising: how does the most ridiculous lie about the tsar remain tenacious even now, when everyone can easily find a lot of information about the real level of development and education of Nicholas II?

It is often said that the king ascended the throne as a very young man - at 26 years old, and this immaturity did not allow him to be a strong monarch. Yes, 26 years doesn’t seem like much, but, for example, Nicholas I became Tsar at 29 years old. Is the difference really that big? By the way, Peter I freed himself from Sophia’s regency at the age of 17, and the full power finally passed into his hands when he was 22 years old... So idle talk about the youth of Nicholas II should be taken with a great deal of skepticism.

Nicholas's role as Supreme Commander-in-Chief is underestimated. Even the emigrant historian Katkov, who has a favorable view of the monarch, says that his positive impact on the army came down to the fact that the tsar simply did not interfere with Alekseev. Without claiming the laurels of a great commander, he allegedly played the role of a decorative figure under the chief of staff. But here is what General Spiridovich writes about the famous Vilna-Molodechno operation of 1915, which ended in victory for the Russian army (quoted from the book “The Great War and the February Revolution of 1914-1917”):

“An impartial military historian will have to point out how big a role the Sovereign Emperor personally played in the success of that operation, helping General Alekseev with his calmness, and when necessary, with a firm and authoritative word. Even so recently confused (in the role of Commander-in-Chief of the Northern Western Front), General Alekseev seemed to be reborn, found himself, mastered his mind and talent. Such was the influence of the calm and thoughtful Emperor on him. This happy combination of people as different in character as the Emperor and Alekseev saved in those days the Russian army from disaster, and the Motherland from shame and death.”

That's it. It was the tsar who saved the country and the army in 1915, and saved it in 1914, making sure that the main blow of the Germans fell on France.

Let me remind you that under Alexander III, General Obruchev proposed concentrating significant forces in border areas in peacetime. This made it possible to strike the enemy as quickly as possible, without wasting time on pulling up forces from relatively distant regions. However, the German commanders perfectly understood the essence of Obruchev’s idea, so they decided in the event of war to limit themselves to defense against France, and to deliver the main blow to the Russian armies in the Vistula basin. At the same time, the simultaneous offensive of Austria-Hungary from Galicia, and Germany from Prussia led to the fact that the Russian armies in Poland fell into the pincers of encirclement. World War I participant General Svechin, who subsequently analyzed Obruchev’s plan, caustically called it a “thunderdrive.”

So, it was under Nicholas that Russia refused to be a lightning rod for Germany and draw off the main forces in the interests of France. According to the new Russian plan, our army was withdrawn to some distance from the border, which significantly reduced the risk of encirclement and thereby prompted Germany to change the direction of its main attack from Russia to France. In other words, Nicholas made sure that the main front of the First World War became the Western, and not our Eastern. This step of his was completely disadvantageous to France, but no one could force the king to change his decision.

The change in the Russian deployment plan irrefutably proves that Russia was not dependent on France, as long as it made decisions unfavorable to Paris, based only on its own goals. And the great, later slandered monarch Nicholas II stood guard over the interests of the country. But even he could not save Russia forever.

In 1917, our victory in the war became obvious: at the allied conference in Petrograd in the winter of 1917, representatives of the Entente were already discussing the details of the final, decisive blow to Germany. At this point, internal and external enemies realized that they could not delay. Internal enemies knew that in the wake of victory no one would ever believe their tales about “rotten power” and a “mediocre king,” and external enemies saw that our country was rising to the highest positions in the world hierarchy. To prevent this, the February Revolution was initiated. We discussed its progress in previous articles, the results of the “democratic revolution” are also known, and now there is no point in repeating ourselves. Therefore, on the anniversary of the murder of the royal family, it is better to think about who, how and why they created the shameful lie about Nicholas. And also about why he still remains the most slandered ruler of Russia.

465 years ago, in 1552, the future Tsar Boris Fedorovich Godunov was born. His reign was short-lived, just over 7 years (1598 - 1605), but an entire era in the history of Russia is associated with the name of this man - an era, alas, completely distorted by a number of authoritative historians, starting with N.M. Karamzin.

In 1584, after the death of Ivan the Terrible, his middle son Fyodor Ioannovich ascended the throne. He was a quiet, kind and very pious man, with little preparation for government. He ended up on the throne by chance - three years earlier, the eldest son of Ivan the Terrible, heir to the throne, Ivan, died untimely (and was not at all killed by his father, as our pundits rewrite the lies of foreigners). There is, by the way, an evidentiary version that both Ivans, father and son, were poisoned.

Perhaps the most important thing that Fyodor knew and what he held firmly to while on the throne was that power was given to the tsar by God, which means that the tsar must dispose of it in a Divine manner. Indeed, the whole life of Tsar Fedor was the personification of the high spiritual and moral level of the supreme power. At the helm of state, he placed his elderly maternal uncle Nikita Romanovich Yuryev (the progenitor of the future Romanov dynasty) and the 32-year-old boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov - the closest people of Grozny in recent years. A year later, the uncle died, and soon Godunov became the sole helmsman - the head of the government, in modern terms.

He inherited a country extremely weakened by the protracted Livonian War, which, unfortunately, did not achieve its main geopolitical goal - creating access to the Baltic Sea. The government had three tasks: to ensure external peace, to ensure internal order and to ensure the growth of the economy and the well-being of the people. Godunov coped brilliantly with all these tasks.

Under him, Russia achieved unprecedented prosperity, power and international authority. Numerous fortresses and temples were built. New cities were founded - Tyumen, Tobolsk, Berezovo, Surgut and Tara in Siberia, Voronezh, Ufa, Samara, Tsaritsyn and many others. The army was strengthened. Trade grew rapidly - an indicator of the growth of industry and agriculture. Foreign specialists, mainly ore miners, were invited to work in the country. The Russian cities of Yam, Koporye, Ivangorod, and Oreshek, captured by Sweden during the Livonian War, were returned. The strengthening of central power continued, and without the usual executions for that cruel century.

But, perhaps, the highest political success of the “prime minister” was the establishment of the patriarchate in 1589, which immediately elevated Russia throughout the Christian world. Since the fall of Byzantium (1453), there has been a painful conflict for Russia - on the one hand, it was the only independent Orthodox state, and also very powerful, and on the other, the Russian Church, which did not have its own patriarch, occupied a subordinate position in relation to to the Eastern patriarchs. The Eastern Patriarchs, whose departments were located in the lands occupied by the Turks, were quite happy with this situation - they had the opportunity to regularly travel to Moscow for alms (very, very considerable!). As a result of Godunov’s subtle diplomacy, the issue was successfully resolved during the next visit of the Patriarch of Constantinople to Moscow.

Godunov's contemporaries, even those who envied his high position, characterized the ruler in the best light, noting his great intelligence, education, eloquence, mercy and kindness. And in his personal life - a faithful husband and caring father - he was an example of high morality. These same contemporaries highly appreciated the results of his reign.

It is quite natural that after the death of the childless Fyodor in 1598 and the end of the Rurik dynasty, Boris was elected to the royal throne. He was elected not by the Boyar Duma, but by the Zemsky Sobor, which represented different social strata and different lands of the state. It seemed that Boris's reign would be as prosperous and long as his reign under the late tsar. But an unexpected disaster came: for three years in a row (1601-1603), due to summer (!) frosts, “naked” winters and incessant rains, there was a terrible crop failure, and famine struck the country. The tsar took desperate measures, distributed free bread from government reserves, punished speculators and resellers, but could not overcome the famine: popular unrest began in the country.

That’s when the envious boyars began to spread the dirtiest rumors and gossip about Boris (as they say now, “black PR”). The death in 1591 of the 8-year-old Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest son of Grozny, was attributed to Godunov. The election of Godunov to the throne was explained by bribing the delegates of the Zemsky Sobor. These gossip and rumors were willingly recorded by foreigners who were then in Russia, as well as by supporters of envious boyars.

Alas, the entire Godunov period of Karamzin’s “History” was built on these sources, and not on scientific analysis. On the basis of Karamzin’s false “History” A.S. Pushkin wrote his brilliant drama, and on the basis of Pushkin’s historically false drama M.P. Mussorgsky wrote his brilliant opera. This chain stretched throughout the entire 19th century. Only in the 20th century were there objective historians (the first of them S.F. Platonov) who, using logic, documents and facts, proved that the murder of the prince (if it happened at all) was least of all beneficial to Boris. That rumors about the bribery of delegates of the Zemsky Sobor appeared no earlier than 1603. That all earlier records indicate a sincere and unconditional election of the tsar. Soviet historians (R.G. Skrynnikov and others) finally confirmed that the conclusions of the investigative commission corresponded to reality: the prince himself ran into a knife as a result of a sudden attack of epilepsy.

To top off the famine, there was a new misfortune: Boris’s enemies began to spread rumors that the prince miraculously remained alive and was going to fight for power. This is how the first False Dmitry appeared, who from the Polish abroad in the fall of 1604 moved to Moscow, acquiring numerous supporters along the way. This was the beginning of a civil war, the stress of which Boris’s body could no longer withstand - in April 1605 he died of hemorrhage. The boyars swore allegiance to his 16-year-old son Fedor, but soon betrayed him too - they provoked (not without the participation of Polish agents) the Moscow mob to kill the new tsar along with his mother, Boris's widow.

The regicide was not in vain - the Great Troubles began, which cost Russia colossal victims, terrible devastation, loss of a large part of the territory and threw it back decades. Troubles in general cost Russia dearly - in 1605, 1917, and 1991.

Payment instructions (opens in a new window) Yandex.Money donation form:

Other ways to help

Comments 23

Comments

23. h : Reply to 22., Elena Sergeeva:
2017-05-14 at 19:21

In one of the conversation programs between director and producer Kirill Mozgalevsky and ANNA-NEWS editor-in-chief Marat Musin, Kirill M. spoke about his work in the Vatican archives. There he came across a folder - correspondence between the Vatican and their envoys to Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The agent writes: Tsar Ivan the Terrible’s son has died... In response from the Vatican, an instruction follows: in the official report on the state of affairs in Russia, one should write: “Ivan the Terrible killed his son”... As stated in this program, the historian Karamzin, who worked in archives of the Vatican, read reports already corrected by “well-wishers” of Russia.

Very interesting. But who corrected the Norman theory in his head?

22. Elena Sergeeva : I agree with point 20 -- lucia
2017-05-14 at 19:03

In one of the conversation programs between director and producer Kirill Mozgalevsky and ANNA-NEWS editor-in-chief Marat Musin, Kirill M. spoke about his work in the Vatican archives. There he came across a folder - correspondence between the Vatican and their envoys to Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The agent writes: Tsar Ivan the Terrible’s son has died... In response, an instruction follows from the Vatican: in the official report on the state of affairs in Russia it should be written: “Ivan the Terrible killed his son”...
As stated in this program, the historian Karamzin, who worked in the Vatican archives, read reports already corrected by Russia’s “well-wishers.”

20. h : Reply to 18., Russian Stalinist:
2017-05-13 at 19:05

and historians. I don’t believe that Karamzin wrote on the tsar’s order. And in general, the whole story is a dark forest. And no matter what Filaret did, one should not imagine the Romanovs as if they were engaged in historical manipulation for three hundred years. Karamzin lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, so when describing the era of Grozny and Godunov, he relied on historical documents, and they were rewritten and forwarded under Filaret, when he was the de facto ruler of the Kingdom. And subsequent generations of the Romanovs and Russian historians, of course, relied on Filaret’s sources, because there were no other, alternative ones left. So this is not their fault , they used what was available.

There are other ways to restore the truth. Hope. gradually all this work will be done.

I also hope that the result will be a coherent and truthful picture, without the abuse of the words “great”, “insignificant” and so on.

19. Russian Stalinist : Reply to 14., Ivan Ledorub:
2017-05-13 at 18:08

By the way, do you respect Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin?
By the way, he once said: “Ivan the Terrible, Boris Godunov and Peter the Great created Russia. Insignificant petty envious people slandered them. Our task is to restore their good name.”

18. Russian Stalinist : Reply to 16., Lucia:
2017-05-13 at 17:48

Karamzin lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, so when describing the era of Ivan the Terrible and Godunov, he relied on historical documents, and they were rewritten and forwarded under Filaret, when he was the de facto ruler of the Kingdom.
And subsequent generations of the Romanovs and Russian historians, of course, relied on Filaret’s sources, because there were no other, alternative ones left.
So it’s not their fault; they used what was available.

17. Russian Stalinist : Reply to 14., Ivan Ledorub:
2017-05-13 at 17:41

It is deeply symbolic that after the death of Tsar Boris and his children, the Lord did not leave a single representative of the Godunov family on earth. And the murdered Tsarevich Dimitri is revered, by definition, as a martyr, and, of course, not because of illness, which, however, has not been thoroughly proven... And, by the way, the Troubles began precisely under Godunov, and not after...

And today there are people living in Russia who bear the name Godunov.
Tsarevich Dimitri was killed by the enemies of Russia and the enemies of Godunov; read at least “The Autocracy of the Spirit” by the ever-memorable Bishop John (Snychev).
While the legitimate Russian Tsar was alive, the impostor had no chance of success, which is why Godunov was poisoned, and his son, the legal heir to the throne, was too young and inexperienced, which the traitors and traitors took advantage of.

16. h : Reply to 13., Russian Stalinist:
2017-05-13 at 12:24

and historians.

I don’t believe that Karamzin wrote on the tsar’s order. And in general the whole story is a dark forest.

And no matter what Filaret does, one should not imagine the Romanovs as if they had been engaged in historical fraud for three hundred years.

15. M. Yablokov : Reply to 14., Ivan Ledorub:
2017-05-13 at 11:17

It has already been proven that there was no point in killing Tsarevich Dimitry Godunov. And unmotivated murder is more likely for our contemporaries))

14. Ivan Ice pick :
2017-05-13 at 09:46

13. Russian Stalinist : Reply to 11., Lucia:
2017-05-12 at 23:52

And it’s not me who says that Filaret rewrote history, but historians.
From 1613 to 1619, i.e. During the period of Michael’s sole rule until the return of his father Filaret from Polish captivity, in official documents Godunov was called the last legitimate Tsar before the Time of Troubles, received the highest ratings, and after 1619 he became the same villain as False Dmitry.
Who could force you to make such a sharp turn?
The answer is obvious.
And the fact that in the 18th and 19th centuries Godunov was one of the main anti-heroes of official imperial historiography was not my idea either.
Let's leave Karamzin alone for a moment, let's open the history of Russia for Ishimova's children, the same one that Pushkin read in the morning before the fatal duel ("This is how you should write!..")
The description of Godunov in it is no different from the description of Karamzin, the same set of cliches.
And on the monument “Millennium of Russia” there was no place for Godunov, nor for Grozny.
This is also a fact; anyone can go to Veliky Novgorod and see this with their own eyes.

12. Russian Stalinist : Reply to 11., Lucia:
2017-05-12 at 23:31

Let’s not distort the official Romanov historiography. Otherwise it will work out. that you can praise someone, you immediately need to condemn someone. Whatever Godunov was in personal or state terms. he was not Rurikovich. And there were many of them. And if Filaret was the initiator of such rumors, then he should have tried to slander Pozharsky by all means. But Pozharsky was simply sent away. And I don’t blame anyone, Filaret can be understood, he had personal and long-standing scores with Godunov. Godunov was the Tsar who exiled the Romanovs and forcibly tonsured Theodore Nikitich, albeit for the cause of a conspiracy against the Tsar. Neither Pozharsky was not noticed in any way, did not fight for the throne, did not offend the Romanovs. That's not exactly what I mean. You say that Filaret bent historiography and his followers too. Then it would be beneficial for them to somehow slander not so much Godunov as Pozharsky. because his image looks completely irresistible and it is clear to everyone that he should have been the tsar, and not Mikhail Romanov.

Why on earth did Pozharsky have to be a king?
He had no rights to the throne; the Moscow Kingdom, which survived the Troubles, is not Byzantium with its principle of “personal merit,” where every successful commander could lay claim to the throne and the red shoes of the basileus.
Although the Godunovs and Romanovs were not Rurikovichs, they became related to the royal dynasty: Grozny married a representative of the Romanov family, and Godunov’s sister Irina married Feodor Ioannovich.
This is what predetermined the outcome of the Zemsky Councils of 1598 and 1613.
They chose the one who was currently closest to the extinct dynasty.

11. h : Reply to 10., Russian Stalinist:
2017-05-12 at 21:58

That's not exactly what I mean. You say that Filaret bent historiography and his followers too. Then it would be beneficial for them to somehow slander not so much Godunov as Pozharsky. because his image looks completely irresistible and it is clear to everyone that he should have been the tsar, and not Mikhail Romanov.

10. Russian Stalinist : Reply to 7., Lucia:
2017-05-12 at 20:02

And I don’t blame anyone, Filaret can be understood; he had personal and long-standing scores to settle with Godunov.
Godunov was the Tsar who exiled the Romanovs and forcibly tonsured Theodore Nikitich, albeit for a cause - for a conspiracy against the Tsar.
Pozharsky was not seen in anything like that, did not fight for the throne, and did not offend the Romanovs.

let's do it without distortion.
but it works out. that you can praise someone, you immediately need to condemn someone.
Whatever Godunov was in personal or state terms. he was not Rurikovich. And there were many of them.
And if Filaret was the initiator of such rumors, then he should have tried to slander Pozharsky by all means. But Pozharsky was simply sent away.

6. Russian Stalinist : Re: Slandered Tsar Boris Godunov
2017-05-12 at 16:45

Let's not forget that there was censorship in the Empire, the official view of Godunov as a murderer and criminal was established in 1619, when Filaret returned from Polish captivity and ordered the writing of a new version of Russian history of the era of Godunov and the Time of Troubles, in which the main villain was precisely Godunov.
If Karamzin or Pushkin had written about how good Godunov was, no one would have missed their works.
At the same time, Karamzin, when visiting the Sergius Lavra, standing in front of the Godunovs’ tomb, exclaimed: “What if we slander a person?!” But he couldn't write something like that.
Grozny and Godunov became the main anti-heroes of official Romanov historiography; it is not for nothing that they did not find a place on the “Millennium of Russia” monument.

5. Russian Stalinist : Reply to 2., Lucia:
2017-05-12 at 16:11

This is all very nice. But it doesn't reveal the topic. Anyone who is attracted by the title of the article will be waiting for an answer to the question - how are the suspicions that have been repeatedly expressed against Godunov refuted? Everyone knows and has heard them - he is credited with the poisoning of the Terrible Tsar, the poisoning of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry, intrigues to obtain the throne. Unfortunately, the author did not touch upon these topics, limiting himself to mentioning only the prince.

But he mentioned historians who in their books refuted this slander - Platonov, Skrynnikov.
The personality of Boris Godunov and his era are also well written in “The Autocracy of the Spirit” by the ever-memorable Bishop John.
Among modern historians I can name Bokhanov, who in his book “Boris Godunov” carefully examined and convincingly refuted all the listed anti-Godunov myths.
The article is intended to attract the attention of people so that, after reading it, they become interested in the topic and read the relevant historical works, which provide answers to the questions.

4. Observer. : Reply to 2., Lucia: what about the Bolsheviks?
2017-05-12 at 15:53

Everyone knows and has heard them - he is credited with the poisoning of the Terrible Tsar, the poisoning of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry...

Thanks to the author!
Boris Feodorovich Godunov is one of the greatest figures in our history, slandered by the enemies of Russia and the Russian people.
But there are big doubts from what he died.
According to eyewitnesses, on April 13, the Tsar had lunch, climbed the tower from which he loved to explore Moscow, and suddenly began bleeding from his nose, mouth and ears.
In the same way, a few years later the young hero of Russia Skopin-Shuisky will die, poisoned at a feast with his brother Vasily Shuisky.

Ivan the Terrible, the first Russian Tsar (1547-1584) under whom the territory of the state doubled and many cities were founded

Ivan IV was slandered by his contemporaries and many, completely unaware of his lifetime deeds, consider him a tyrant. All this speaks of gaps in education and inadequacy in terms of knowledge of the real history of his life. The biggest misconception is that he killed his son - this did not happen. However, some quite deliberately continue to denigrate him, pursuing the goal of harming as much Russia as possible and the correct, unbiased perception of the events taking place at that time.

During the same historical era, the “civilized” rulers of European countries - the Spanish kings Charles V and Philip II, the English king Henry VIII and the French king Charles IX - executed hundreds of thousands of people in the most brutal manner. So, for example, in the Netherlands alone, which was under the rule of Charles V and Philip II, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible (from 1547 to 1584), there were about 100 thousand “heretics” executed or died under torture, where did Ivan the Terrible and 3 thousand executed during the reign.

At the same time, the murderous monarchs from Europe are presented as beacons of democracy, and they turn a blind eye to all their monstrous crimes. The morals of “civilized” Europe are well demonstrated by the fact that most of the victims were burned alive in front of a huge crowd (people went to watch the execution as if it were a theatrical performance) and, as a rule, in the presence of the kings themselves.

Another fairly well-known fact. During the so-called Bartholomew's Night (note that the King of France, Charles IX, actively participated in it), on August 23, 1572, more than 3 thousand Huguenots (Protestants) were brutally killed just because they dared to choose a slightly different religious path. It turns out that in just one night in the most civilized European country, approximately the same number of people were killed as during the entire period of Ivan the Terrible’s reign of terror. Let us add that then about 30 thousand Protestants died throughout France within two weeks.

The son of Grand Duke Vasily III and Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, Ivan the Terrible was one of the most educated people of his time, possessed a phenomenal memory and theological erudition. In January 1547, the solemn crowning of Grand Duke Ivan IV took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Signs of royal dignity were placed on him: the cross of the Life-Giving Tree, barmas and the cap of Monomakh. The royal title allowed him to take a significantly different position in diplomatic relations with Western Europe. The grand ducal title was translated as “prince” or “grand duke.” The title “king” was either not translated at all, or translated as “emperor”. The Russian autocrat thereby stood on a par with the only Holy Roman Emperor in Europe.

The Tsar contributed to the organization of book printing in Moscow and the construction of St. Basil's Cathedral on Red Square.

Since 1549, Ivan IV carried out a number of reforms aimed at centralizing the state.

During the third campaign, Kazan was taken (1552). Immediately after the capture of Kazan, in January 1555, the ambassadors of the Siberian Khan Ediger asked the tsar to “take the whole Siberian land under his name and stand up (defend) from everyone and put his tribute on them and send his man to whom to collect the tribute.” "

The campaign of 1556 was due to the fact that Khan Dervish-Ali went over to the side of the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire. The Don Cossacks defeated the Khan's army near Astrakhan, after which in July Astrakhan was again taken without a fight. As a result of this campaign, the Astrakhan Khanate was subordinated to the Russian kingdom.

Sweden started the war in 1555. Swedish admiral Jacob Bagge with a 10,000-strong army besieged Oreshek. On January 20, 1556, a Russian army of 20-25 thousand defeated the Swedes at Kivinebb and besieged Vyborg, but could not take it. In July 1556, Gustav I made a proposal for peace, which was accepted by Ivan IV.

In 1556, the capital of the Golden Horde, Sarai-Batu, was destroyed.

In 1558, Grozny began the Livonian War for the capture of the Baltic Sea coast. By 1560, the army of the Livonian Order was completely defeated, and the Order itself ceased to exist.

The Russian-Crimean wars ended with the death of a selected Turkish army near Astrakhan in 1569 and the defeat of the Crimean horde near Moscow in 1572, at the Battle of Molodi, which put a limit to Turkish-Tatar expansion in Eastern Europe.

In 1565, the tsar announced the introduction of oprichnina in the country. This period in the history of Russia was marked by extreme repressions, confiscation of feudal property and lands in favor of the state, and the struggle of Ivan the Terrible against alleged treason among the boyar-princely nobility. What, in general, could very well have been, as it recently became known, that the tsar himself, like his son before that, was poisoned with mercury, traces of which were preserved in the bones... In his will of 1579, he repented of his sins, none of the European monarchs before I did not indulge in such sentimentality.

By the way, after the death of his son, Ivan the Terrible sat for several days in despair at the coffin of the prince. It seems that events developed as follows. About ten days before the death of the prince, Ivan the Terrible beat his pregnant daughter-in-law, Elena Sheremeteva, with a staff. The reason for this was that he found her undressed (in those days a woman could appear before a stranger when she was wearing at least three shirts). But it is likely that the main reason for the king’s anger was his reluctance to have a descendant from Sheremeteva. That same night, Elena gave birth to a stillborn child.

When the prince learned about this, he broke down, because he loved his wife. There was an attack of epilepsy, then a fever, and on November 19, 1581, the son of Ivan the Terrible died. Let us note that Ivan IV did not expect such a development of events. The death of his direct heir almost deprived him of his sanity, thoroughly damaging his psyche and health. Two years later, Ivan the Terrible himself died.

The information war has been going on against Russia for a long time, just since the time of Ivan the Terrible, who laid the foundation for our state as we know it. Europeans were very afraid of such a rapid rise of Russia, and since then the so-called information war began.

During his reign, the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates were conquered, Western Siberia, the Don Army Region, Bashkiria, and the lands of the Nogai Horde were annexed. Thus, under Ivan IV, the increase in the territory of Rus' was almost 100%, from 2.8 million km² to 5.4 million km²; by the end of his reign, the Russian state had become larger than the rest of Europe. Here is an incomplete list of cities founded under him: Sviyazhsk, Cheboksary, Belgorod, Voronezh, Ufa... And many more were founded in the next few years after his death - following the plans of the now deceased tsar.

Now do you understand why they are trying to denigrate him by any means?

Regarding the unimaginable number of his wives - here we must immediately clarify - a wife is a woman who has undergone an officially recognized marriage ceremony. In the 16th century it was a wedding. So it is impossible to call women with whom the king did not marry wives. There are many terms to designate them, legal and colloquial, but certainly not “wife.”

In the women's Ascension Monastery, the tomb of the Moscow Grand Duchesses and Queens, there are burials of four wives of John IV: Anastasia Romanova, Maria Temryukovna, Martha Sobakina and Maria Nagaya, so we can only talk about four wives, and the fourth marriage was performed by the decision of the Consecrated Council of Russia Orthodox Church, and the tsar humbly bore the penance imposed on him. The fourth marriage was allowed because the previous marriage, with Marfa Sobakina, was purely nominal - the queen died without entering into an actual marriage. And that's it! He had no more wives!

But, nevertheless, in the museum of Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda in one of the chambers on the wall there was a description of the wedding ceremony with an unknown wife. When the writer Vyacheslav Manyagin asked for a copy of this document to be made for him, the head of the museum literally said the following: “You see, very few written sources have survived from the 16th century. So we took a description of a 17th century marriage ceremony and used it. After all, the ritual has not changed in a hundred years...” But the accompanying tablet indicated that this was a description of the wedding of Ivan the Terrible, and even indicated who exactly!

I wonder if this “another proof of the king’s “polygamy” has now been removed”?

So were not the king's wives Anna Kolotovskaya, Anna Vasilchikova, Vasilisa Melentyevna, Natalya Bulgakova, Avdotya Romanovna, Marfa Romanovna, Mamelfa Timofeevna and Fetma Timofeevna.

AND there was no murder of his son.

What happened? The kingdoms of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, the Nogai Horde, and part of the territory of the North Caucasus (Pyatigorye) were annexed. And at the same time, Ivan the Terrible wrote to the conqueror of Siberia Ermak: “Timoshka, do not force the local peoples with the Orthodox faith. There may be trouble in Rus'." The population growth was about 50%.

This time is marked by a decrease in the population of the Russian North, which is traditionally attributed to the consequences of the oprichnina - they say, as a result of the bloody policies of the cruel tsar, cities and villages were depopulated. Only most of those who left their homes did not go to the grave.

You are not easy, dear path,

When ashes fly to shells

If the princes threw hail,

And the slaves left their homes...

(Vladislav Kokorin)

“The scribal books of Kazan and Sviyazhsk of the 60s celebrate displaced people from other areas - from the upper Volga region cities of Nizhny Novgorod, Kostroma, Yaroslavl, then from Vologda, Vyatka, Pskov.” (I. Kulisher. “History of the Russian National Economy”). They settled in Kazan along entire streets - for example, Pskovskaya and Tulskaya. Among the Kazan homeowners are the descendants of many appanage princes: Yaroslavl, Rostov, Starodub, Suzdal... (10 families in total).

New cities were established in the Kazan region - Sviyazhsk, (1551), Laishev, (1557), Mokshansk, Tetyushi (1571). On the Volga between Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan, Kozmodemyansk, Cheboksary, and Kokshaysk were built. Downstream from Kazan, in order to secure the path to Astrakhan, Samara (1586), Saratov (1590), Tsaritsyn (1589) were set up, and Ufa was built in 1586 to monitor the Bashkirs. Belgorod (1593), Voronezh (1586), Oskol (1593), Livny (1571), Kromy were established, as well as the previously founded Kursk - “...inhabited by different people, Cossacks and Streltsy, and inhabited by many people.” (“New Chronicler”, 17th century.)

I do not give this list in full to save space (only under Ivan the Terrible 155 cities and fortresses founded!), but it is clear that the reduction in the population of Rus', which is blamed on Ivan the Terrible, is in fact simply a consequence of the colonization of lands along the Volga and Don. There are not fewer people, but more land! During the 51 years of his reign The territory of Rus' has doubled, with 2.8 million sq. km to 5.4 million sq. km. Russia has become larger than the rest of Europe.

This is also the time of a sharp increase in the number of Cossacks. In 1521, the Don was deserted; after only 50 years, these lands were occupied by the Cossacks. In 1574, there were already so many Cossacks that they were able to take the Azov fortress. And at times it is difficult to make out where the free Cossacks are and where the sovereign’s people are. According to the “painting”, the charter of Ivan the Terrible on the protection of the south-eastern outskirts of the state, the guard posts were ordered “not to settle down”, it was forbidden to “cook porridge” twice in one place, “in which place someone spent the afternoon, and in that place Don’t spend the night.” To protect the near and far approaches, observation posts - “watchmen” and patrols - “stanitsa” were put forward.

· In Rus', universal election of local administration was introduced at the request of the population.

· A judicial reform was carried out - urban and rural communities were given the right to find thieves and robbers themselves, try them and execute them.

· Types of troops appear - cavalry, infantry, outfit (artillery).

· A state post office was created, about 300 postal stations were founded.

· The first pharmacy and pharmacy order were created.

· Industry was created, international trade developed: with England, Persia, Central Asia.

· In 1549, an extremely important event took place - the Ambassadorial Prikaz was established.

Essentially, this is the first specialized institution in Rus' dealing with foreign policy, and, as is still common among diplomats, with foreign intelligence: before traveling abroad, the Ambassadorial Prikaz developed detailed instructions for the head of the mission, including those of an intelligence nature. It was the Ambassadorial Order that explained to each clerk included in the diplomatic mission his tasks, secret and overt, his behavior and place in the hierarchy of the group traveling abroad.

The order was responsible for all issues related to the reception of foreign representatives in Rus', including basic surveillance, drawing up reports on meetings of foreigners with other foreign guests, and even more so, meetings with Russians were carefully monitored. The first head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz was a clerk Ivan Viskovaty; We will meet this name again when we deal directly with the library of Ivan the Terrible.

In 1557, by order of Ivan the Terrible, on the right bank of the Narova River in the Baltic, Russian engineer Ivan Vyrodkov (who had previously erected the Sviyazhsk fortress near Kazan) built “a city for the bead (ship) arrival of overseas people.” So who built the first Russian port on the Baltic? Ivan groznyj or Peter the Great? That's it...

In Rus', the authorities did not bother building prison castles. Most of those accused of crimes until the completion of the case were on bail from society or from private individuals, who were responsible for them with their heads. And if anyone did not have guarantors, they were shackled or in stocks and kept in deep cellars and pits. And who banned underground prisons in 1560? That's right, the cruel tyrant, Ivan the Terrible.

It was under Ivan the Terrible that the ransom of Russian people captured by the Tatars was legalized. Before this, such captives were ransomed by the Greeks, Armenians, and Turks and brought them to the borders of the Moscow kingdom, offering to ransom them, but if there were no takers, they were taken back. Ivan the Terrible ordered the ransom of prisoners from the treasury, spreading the costs over the entire people.

“No one should be excused from such a duty, because this is common Christian alms...”

But this was a partial solution to the problem - it was necessary to fight the cause, not the effect. “The Kazans had so many Russian captives that they were sold in huge crowds, like cattle, to various eastern merchants who deliberately came to Kazan for this purpose” (N.I. Kostomarov).

Kazan, as contemporaries put it, “molested Rus' worse than Batu’s ruin; Batu crossed the Russian land only once, like a burning brand, and the Kazan people constantly attacked Russian lands, killed and dragged Russian people into captivity ... "

From childhood, it was drummed into our heads that the Russian tsars only thought about how to enslave the common man more tightly, and grab more land from their peace-loving neighbors, but at the same time, the democratic boyars wanted liberties for the common man, and the patriotic neighboring khans only and they wanted there to be peace between the peoples, but then Ivan the Terrible came and mercilessly executed them.

According to a modern British historian Geoffrey Hosking: “Muscovy began its imperial career by first conquering and annexing an independent non-Russian state, the Khanate of Kazan... Rus' embarked on more than three centuries of conquest and expansion that would lead to the creation of the largest and most diverse empire in the world.” And many other historians view the capture of Kazan as a manifestation of the imperial ambitions of the Russians, seizing new territories and enslaving peoples.

But if you look closely at the facts, it turns out that the battle for Kazan was not between Russian invaders and free, peace-loving people, but between the troops of Ivan the Terrible and the army brought from Astrakhan by the “Krymchak” Ediger. But even if we consider Ediger’s army to be disinterested and noble defenders of the Kazan Khanate, then what about the arithmetic?

Under the banner of Ivan the Terrible there was 60 thousand Moscow and Kasimov Tatars, and at Ediger in the decisive battle - 10 thousand warriors

The “Kazan Chronicler” describes in detail how Ivan the Terrible placed his military leaders: “In the first regiment, the initial governors set over their strength - the Tatar Crimean prince Taktamysh and the Shiban prince Kudait... In the right hand of the initial governors set: the Kasimov king Shigaley.. In the left hand are the initial commanders: Astorozan prince Kaibula... In the guard regiment are the initial commanders: Prince Derbysh-Aleyo.”

It was the Tatars who were the first to make a breakthrough, into the breach of the Kazan wall, and it was they who were particularly cruel when they took the city. The Russians fully supported them only after they came across several thousand tortured Russian slaves...

On just one day, August 16, 1552, and only at the Khan’s court, 2,700 Russian slaves were freed. With his characteristic cruelty, the utter monster Ivan the Terrible gave an order according to which - “... if anyone is found to have a Christian captive, he will be punished with death,” and he was released 60 thousand slaves.

To go and deal concretely with the scumbags who are really sick of lawlessness - in the language of Western historians this is called “imperial ambitions” and “enslavement of peoples.”

Or maybe it’s better to read what was written in 1564-1565. "History of the Kazan Kingdom"? It describes in detail the last period of the Kazan Khanate and the capture of Kazan by Russian troops. The nameless author of the story spent about 20 years in Tatar captivity and was released in 1552. Agree that the author, who was a slave of the Kazan Tatars for two decades, has some idea about enslavement...

The struggle for Kazan was between Moscow and Crimea, and behind Crimea stood Turkey, and the Janissaries took part in the campaigns of the Crimean Khan. It was a waste of time for the Crimean lads to engage in any productive work, and it was much more fun and profitable to carry out predatory campaigns into neighboring countries to seize booty and prisoners to sell into slavery and receive a ransom.

At this time, a saying developed that a Turk only speaks Turkish with his father and boss. He speaks to the mullah in Arabic, to his mother in Polish, to his grandmother in Ukrainian...

From the 15th to the 18th centuries inclusive, they were taken into Turkish captivity from Great and Little Rus' up to five million people. These are only those who crossed the Perekop Isthmus. And how many were killed, how many died on the road... The Krymchaks did not take adult men, they did not take old people and small children who would not have survived the long journey. “They didn’t take it” is a euphemism used by historians. Everyone who was not hijacked just cutting...

Five million! Yes, the entire population of Rus' during the time of Ivan the Terrible - approximately that much! All the servants of Constantinople, both among the Turks and local Christians, consisted of Russian slaves and slaves. Venice and France used Russian slaves on military galleys as oarsmen forever chained. They were bought in the markets of the Levant...

The Tatars appeared with raids under the walls of the White Stone capital so regularly that even now in Moscow two old streets in Zamoskvorechye are called Ordynki. Along them, the Crimean lads walked to the crossings across the Moscow River and to the Crimean Ford (now the Crimean Bridge here reminds of the bloody past). The steppe raised the question of a life-and-death struggle before the Russian people.

In 1571, the traitorous prince Miloslavsky sent his people to show the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey how to bypass the abatis line from the west, and the Tatars broke through to Moscow itself, took the city, plundered and burned (only the Kremlin survived), and, taking a huge number of prisoners, left for the Crimea. It seemed to the Crimeans that Russia was over.

Moscow burned to the ground, there were so many dead that it was impossible to bury them. The corpses were simply dumped into the river and pushed away from the banks with sticks so that they floated downstream, along the Volga, past Kazan and Astrakhan, into the Caspian Sea...

But it turned out that this was the last time the Crimeans burned Moscow. In 1572, the Horde again went to Rus', the Astrakhan and Kazan Tatars rebelled. Rus', weakened by a 20-year war, famine, plague and a terrible Tatar raid, was able to field only a 30,000-strong army against the 120,000-strong army of Devlet-Girey. But the reforms of Ivan the Terrible yielded results - the first regular army in Rus' completely defeated a superior enemy fifty miles from Moscow (Battle of Molodi). The Krymchaks have never suffered such a bloody defeat. For twenty years they did not dare to appear on the Oka...

Perhaps there was stagnation in spiritual and cultural life under Grozny?

No, on the contrary, his reign led to many useful innovations: Zemsky Councils began to be convened regularly; The Council of the Hundred Heads was held, the Chetya-Minea of Metropolitan Macarius was created - the first spiritual, literary and historical encyclopedia in Rus', 19 huge volumes with a total number of pages 13,258, “Domostroy” by Seliverst.

And here we must especially note one very important facet of Ivan Vasilyevich’s personality - his literary talent. Ivan the Terrible was one of the most talented writers of that time, perhaps even the most talented in the 16th century, “... in verbal wisdom, a rhetorician, natural and quick-witted,” according to contemporaries. In literature, of course, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was an innovator.

Medieval writing, including Russian, was characterized by a special etiquette, since the class system of that time subjected the whole life to the requirements of etiquette. The man dressed, talked and walked exactly as his position on the social ladder required. Even the number of horses in a team depended not on a fat wallet, but on rank, place in the state hierarchy. And when noblewoman Morozova, accustomed to riding in a cart drawn by six or even twelve horses, accompanied by two or three hundred servants, was taken around Moscow in a simple sleigh drawn by one horse, this in itself was a very cruel punishment.

In the same way, in the literature of that time, everything was subject to strict rules that regulated what words and expressions should be written about one’s own and one’s enemies, about the humble monastic life and the valiant deeds of a warrior. A set of these rules determined where one could speak in “simple” language, and where solemnly and majestically. In the Middle Ages, spoken and literary languages were very far apart. Turns of living folk speech could only be found in business documents and recordings of testimony during investigations and trials. They were unacceptable for literary speech.

Ivan Vasilyevich was the first to include colloquial and vernacular expressions in his messages. Researchers explain this by saying that Ivan Vasilyevich did not write his messages with his own hand, but dictated them, since writing with his own hand was considered unworthy of a great sovereign. Even the name of the tsar was written on the document by the clerk, and the tsar only applied the seal.

Well, let’s say that this order was observed both before Ivan Vasilyevich and after him, but we don’t see such sparkling, rich language in the messages of other tsars. So the reasons for the uniqueness of Ivan the Terrible’s messages should be sought in the personal qualities of the tsar.

Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich stands out among his contemporaries for his broad erudition. Arguing his assertions, he easily and naturally cites examples not only from the history of ancient Judea as set out in the Bible, but also from the history of Byzantium. He knows very well not only the Old and New Testaments, but also the lives of saints and the works of Byzantine theologians. The works of the Bulgarian scientist I. Duychev established that Grozny was free to navigate the history and literature of Byzantium.

One can only be surprised at the kind of memory Ivan Vasilyevich possessed - he clearly cites lengthy excerpts from the Holy Scriptures in his writings by heart. We can say this with confidence because the quotes in Ivan the Terrible’s messages are given very close to the text of the source, but with characteristic discrepancies that arise when reproducing the text from memory. The sworn enemy of Ivan the Terrible, Prince Kurbsky, recognized Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich as a man of “skillful scripture.”

In his messages, Ivan Vasilyevich simply explodes the etiquette of written speech, but stylistically his innovations are certainly justified. It is written in embossed style: “The German cities do not wait for the battle of war, but with the appearance of the life-giving cross they worship their heads.” And after this we see the grin of the Great Sovereign: “And where, by sin, by chance, the life-giving cross did not appear, here there was a battle. Many people have been released: ask them and find out.”

He also conducts diplomatic correspondence in the same unique style. So he writes indignantly to the Queen of England: “And we expected that you are the empress of your state and own it yourself... Even though you have people ruling over you, and not just people, but trading men, and about ours about the sovereign’s heads and They do not look at fortunes and lands for profit, but look for their own trade profits. And you remain in your maiden rank, like a vulgar girl...”

Let me clarify that the word “vulgar” in the language of that time meant “ordinary”, but, nevertheless, Ivan Vasilyevich treated the queen very well, calling the great queen an ordinary girl, and besides, she was painfully sensitive to hints of her prolonged virginity, about which the king, was undoubtedly known. So, in the development of Russian literature, Ivan Vasilyevich’s merits are undeniable - it was under him, and thanks, to a large extent, to him, that a new genre appeared in Rus' - journalism.

And the construction of St. Basil's Cathedral is, you see, not so much the stacking of stones in a certain order, but a triumph of the spirit; and it was not visiting architects who erected it, but their own men, Barma and Postnik (However, now there is a version that it was one person - Barma Postnik). “There is no doubt that the idea to build this cathedral in the form that exists belonged as much to the art of the builder and architect as to the thoughts of the tsar” (Ivan Zabelin. “History of the City of Moscow.”)

Through the efforts of Ivan the Terrible and his entourage, schools were created: “... In the reigning city of Moscow and throughout the city... elect good spiritual priests and deacons and clerks, married and pious... and be literate and honorable and write a lot. And among those priests and deacons and clerks, set up schools in the houses of the school, so that the priests and deacons and all the Orthodox peasants in each city would give their children to learn to read and write book writing and church petitions... and reading the prayer..." (Stoglav, ch. .26)

In Rus' at that time, every fiftieth person was literate, that is, two percent of the population; Under Catherine the Great, one in eight hundred people was literate. Difference! In addition, we, today, need to clearly understand that in the time of Ivan the Terrible, mastering literacy was very difficult. Ancient writing did not know the breakdown into words; the text came in a continuous array. There was no clear order of transfer, and due to the fact that 15-20 characters were placed on a line of handwritten text, transfer was carried out very often. Very often there was no difference between lowercase and capital letters, and, accordingly, between proper names and common nouns. To speed up writing, many words were written abbreviated, vowels were omitted when writing, and many superscripts were used - titles. In general, handwritten texts of that time were, in fact, more like ciphers, which were very difficult to decipher.

And the titanic barrier to literacy at that time was the writing and reading of sounds. Many of those sounds that we denote with one letter were at that time written with two, three, or even more characters! The sound that we now simply denote as “u” was especially difficult to write. It could be designated in five different ways! In addition to three special characters, it could be written as a digraph “ou” or “o” with a superscript (title). The "e" sound was written in four different ways. The sound "f" could be denoted by "fita" or "fert". And there were also unknown to us, which came from the Greek language “psi” and “xi”, and the notorious “yat”...

In general, I personally have not fully mastered this literacy, and I do the same as my ancestors did - they used the services of literates who read books out loud when there was a crowd of people, but I read books that today’s literates rewrote according to the rules of the current grammar . By the way, people learned to read “to themselves” quite recently; as a boy I found times when in a Belarusian village they considered me illiterate because I did not pronounce what I was reading out loud...

Considering that people at that time simply did not know how to read “to themselves,” it is necessary to expand the circle of people who had access to book wisdom - in addition to writers and readers at that time, there were also listeners. “Literate peasants read the Gospel, the lives of saints and other spiritual literature aloud to their families, neighbors, and sometimes at meetings specially assembled for this purpose.” (“Russians. History and ethnography”). And there was something to read and listen to then.

As already mentioned, the beginning of book printing was laid, two printing houses were created. Monasteries and bishops' houses, where there were large libraries, remained centers of book learning. Chronicle writing was given a state character, the “Facebook Vault” appeared, and, finally, a book treasury was collected, now known as "Library of Ivan the Terrible" or "Liberea".

Comments

Traitor policemen during the Great Patriotic War

Ideology is the principle of organizing society

Pasta Casserole with Sausage and Cheese