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

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

In the same historical era, the "civilized" rulers of European countries - Spanish kings Charles V and Philip II, King Henry VIII of England and King Charles IX of France executed hundreds of thousands of people in the most brutal manner. So, for example, only in the Netherlands, which were 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 who died under torture, where there was Grozny with 3 thousand executed during the reign.

At the same time, the murderers-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 evidenced by the fact that most of the victims were burned alive in front of a huge crowd (people went to watch the execution as a theatrical performance) and, as a rule, in the presence of the kings themselves.

Another fairly well-known fact. During the so-called St. 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, about as many people were killed as during the entire time of the terror of Ivan the Terrible. We add that then throughout France, about 30 thousand Protestants died within two weeks.

Son of the Grand Duke Basil III and Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, Ivan the Terrible was one of the most educated people of his time, had a phenomenal memory, theological erudition. In January 1547, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, a solemn wedding to the reign of Grand Duke Ivan IV took place. Signs of royal dignity were placed on him: the cross of the Life-giving Tree, barmas and the cap of Monomakh. The royal title made it possible 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 thus stood on a par with the only emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in Europe.

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

Since 1549, Ivan IV carried out a series 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 own name and intercede (protect) from all sides and put his tribute on them and send his man to whom to collect tribute ".

The campaign in 1556 was associated with the fact that Dervish-Ali Khan went over to the side Crimean Khanate and 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. January 20, 1556 20-25 thousandth Russian army defeated the Swedes at Kivinebba and laid siege to 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, Saray-Batu, was destroyed.

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

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

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

By the way, Ivan the Terrible, after the death of his son, spent several days in despair at the tsarevich's coffin. It seems that events developed as follows. About ten days before the death of the Tsarevich, 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 in front of strangers when she was wearing at least three shirts). But it is likely that the main reason for the tsar's anger was his unwillingness to have a descendant from Sheremeteva. That same night, Elena gave birth to a stillborn child.

When the prince became aware of 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. Note that Ivan IV did not expect such a development of events. The death of the direct heir almost deprived him of his mind, thoroughly undermining his psyche and health. Ivan the Terrible himself died two years later.

The information war has been going on against Russia for a long time, just from the time of Ivan the Terrible, who laid the foundation for our state as we know it. Europeans were very much 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 region of the Don army, Bashkiria, and the lands of the Nogai Horde were annexed. Thus, under Ivan IV, the increase in the territory of Russia amounted to almost 100%, from 2.8 million km² to 5.4 million km², by the end of his reign Russian state has become the size of the rest of Europe. Here is an incomplete list of the cities laid down under him: Sviyazhsk, Cheboksary, Belgorod, Voronezh, Ufa ... And many more were laid down in the next few years after his death - following the plans of the tsar who had already passed away.

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

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 a whole epoch in the history of Russia is associated with the name of this man - an epoch, alas, utterly 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 devout man, little prepared for public administration... He was on the throne by chance - three years before that, he died prematurely (and was not killed by his father at all, as our scholars rewrite the lies of foreigners) the eldest son of Ivan the Terrible, the heir to the throne. By the way, there is a proof version that both Ivan, father and son, were poisoned.

Perhaps the main thing that Fyodor knew and what he held firmly 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 Fyodor was the personification of the high spiritual and moral level of the supreme power. At the helm of the state, he put his maternal uncle Nikita Romanovich Yuriev (the progenitor of the future Romanov dynasty) and 32-year-old boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov - the closest people of Grozny recent years... A year later, his uncle died, and soon Godunov became the sole helmsman - the head of government, according to modern concepts.

He got the country, extremely weakened by the protracted Livonian War, which, unfortunately, did not achieve the main geopolitical goal - to create an outlet to the Baltic Sea. The government had three tasks: to ensure external world, provide internal order and ensure the growth of the economy and the well-being of the people. Godunov coped with all these tasks brilliantly.

Under him, Russia reached an unprecedented prosperity, power and international prestige. 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 miners, were invited to work in the country. The Russian cities of Yam, Koporye, Ivangorod, Oreshek, captured by Sweden during the Livonian War, have been returned. The strengthening of the central government continued, and without the usual executions for that cruel century.

But, perhaps, the highest political success of the "prime minister" was the establishment in 1589 of the patriarchate, which immediately elevated Russia throughout the Christian world. Since the fall of Byzantium (1453), there was a collision that was painful for Russia - on the one hand, it was the only independent Orthodox state, and besides, 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 chairs were located on the lands occupied by the Turks, were quite satisfied with this situation - they had the opportunity to regularly travel to Moscow for alms (very, very considerable!). As a result of Godunov's delicate diplomacy, the issue was successfully resolved during the next visit to Moscow of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

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

It is quite natural that after the death of the childless Fedor 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 misfortune came: for three years in a row (1601-1603), due to summer (!) Frosts, "naked" winters and incessant rains, there was a terrible crop failure, famine struck the country. The tsar took desperate measures, distributed free bread from state stocks, punished speculators and second-hand dealers, but he could not overcome hunger: popular unrest began in the country.

It was then that 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 bribery of the Zemsky Sobor delegates. These gossips and rumors were readily recorded by foreigners who were then in Russia, as well as supporters of the envious boyars.

Alas, the entire Godunov period of Karamzin's History is based on these sources, and not on scientific analysis. On the basis of the false Karamzin "History" A.S. Pushkin wrote his brilliant drama, and on the basis of the historically false Pushkin's drama he wrote his brilliant opera M.P. Mussorgsky. This chain stretched through the entire 19th century. Only in the XX century there were objective historians (the first of them S.F. Platonov), who with logic, documents and facts proved that the murder of the tsarevich (if at all) was least of all beneficial to Boris. That rumors about bribery of the Zemsky Sobor delegates appeared not earlier than 1603. That all the earlier records testify to the sincere and unconditional election of the tsar. Soviet historians (R.G. Skrynnikov and others) finally confirmed that the conclusions of the commission of inquiry were true: the prince himself ran into a knife as a result of a sudden attack of epilepsy.

To top off the famine, a new misfortune pellet: Boris's enemies began to spread rumors that the prince miraculously survived and was going to fight for power. This is how the first False Dmitry appeared, who from the Polish diaspora 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 they betrayed him too - they provoked (not without the participation of Polish agents) the Moscow mob to murder the new tsar along with his mother, Boris's widow.

The regicide was not in vain - the Great Troubles began, costing Russia colossal sacrifices, terrible devastation, loss of a large part of the territory and throwing it back decades. Troubles in general are costly for Russia - either in 1605, in 1917, or in 1991.

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

Other ways to help

Comments 23

Comments (1)

23. s : Answer to 22., Elena Sergeeva:
2017-05-14 at 19:21

In one of the programs-conversations between the director and producer Kirill Mozgalevsky and the editor-in-chief of ANNA-NEWS Marat Musin, Kirill M. spoke about his work in the Vatican archives. There he came across a folder - the correspondence of the Vatican with their envoys to Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The agent writes: the son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible died ... In response, the Vatican says: 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 the archives of the Vatican, read the reports already corrected by the "well-wishers" of Russia.

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

22. Elena Sergeeva : Agree with p. 20 - lucia
2017-05-14 at 19:03

In one of the programs-conversations between the director and producer Kirill Mozgalevsky and the editor-in-chief of ANNA-NEWS Marat Musin, Kirill M. spoke about his work in the Vatican archives. There he came across a folder - the correspondence of the Vatican with their envoys to Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The agent writes: the son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible has died ... In response, the Vatican says: 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 the archives of the Vatican, read the reports already corrected by the "well-wishers" of Russia.

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

but historians. I do not believe that Karamzin wrote to the tsarist order. And in general, the whole history is a dark forest. And no matter what Filaret did, you should not represent the Romanovs so that they all three hundred years were engaged in historical juggling. Karamzin lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, so describing the era of Grozny and Godunov, he relied on 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 sources, for there were no other alternative sources left. So it 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 abuse of the words "great", "insignificant" and so on.

19. Russian Stalinist : Answer 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

but historians. I do not 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, you should not represent the Romanovs in such a way that they have been engaged in historical falsifications for all 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 the subsequent generations of the Romanovs and Russian historians, of course, relied on the Filaret sources, for there were no other, alternative ones left.
So it’s not their fault, they used what was available.

17. Russian Stalinist : Answer 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 an illness, however, it has not been thoroughly proven ... And, by the way, the Troubles began under Godunov, and not after ...

And today in Russia there are people who bear the name of the Godunovs.
Tsarevich Demetrius was killed by the enemies of Russia and the enemies of Godunov, read at least "The Autocracy of the Spirit" by the ever-memorable Vladyka 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 legitimate heir to the throne, was too young and inexperienced, which was taken advantage of by the traitors and traitors.

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

but historians.

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

And no matter what Filaret does, you should not represent the Romanovs in such a way that they have been engaged in historical falsifications for all three hundred years.

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

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

14. Ivan the Icebreaker :
2017-05-13 at 09:46

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 an illness, however, it has not been thoroughly proven ... And, by the way, the Troubles began under Godunov, and not after ...

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

And it's not me who say that Filaret rewrote history, but historians.
From 1613 to 1619, i.e. during the period of Michael's sole reign until his father Filaret returned from Polish captivity, in official documents Godunov was called the last legitimate Tsar before the Troubles, was awarded 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 18-19 centuries Godunov was one of the main antiheroes of the official imperial historiography, it was also not my idea.
Let's leave Karamzin alone for a minute, open the history of Russia for the children of Ishimova, the same one that Pushkin read before the fatal duel in the morning ("This is how to write! ..")
The description of Godunov in it is no different from the description of Karamzin, the same set of stamps.
And on the monument "Millennium of Russia" Godunov did not find a place, as well as Grozny.
This is also a fact, anyone can go to Velikiy Novgorod and see it with your own eyes.

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

let’s official Romanov historiography without distortions. But it turns out. that you can praise someone, you immediately need to condemn someone. Whatever Godunov was in personal or state terms. he was not a Rurikovich. And there were a lot of them. And if Filaret was the initiator of such rumors, then he should have tried to slander Pozharsky in every way. But Pozharsky was simply sent away. And I do not 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 Theodor Nikitich, albeit for the cause - for a conspiracy against the Tsar. Than this Pozharsky was not noticed, did not fight for the throne, did not offend the Romanovs. I'm not really talking about that. You say that Filaret arched historiography and his followers did too. Then it would be profitable for them to somehow slander not so much Godunov as Pozharsky. because his image looks absolutely irresistible and it is clear to everyone that he was supposed to be the king, and not Mikhail Romanov.

Why on earth was Pozharsky supposed to be king?
He had no rights to the throne, the Muscovy that survived the Troubles, this is not Byzantium with its principle of "personal merit", where any successful commander could lay claim to the throne and to the red shoes of the basileus.
Although the Godunovs and Romanovs were not Rurikovichs, they became related to royal dynasty: Grozny married a representative of the Romanov family, and Godunov's own sister Irina married Feodor Ioannovich.
This is what predetermined the outcome of the Zemsky Sobors of 1598 and 1613.
They chose the one who is on this moment was closest to the extinct dynasty.

11. s : Answer to 10., Russian Stalinist:
2017-05-12 at 21:58

let’s official Romanov historiography without distortions. But it turns out. that you can praise someone, you immediately need to condemn someone. Whatever Godunov was in personal or state terms. he was not a Rurikovich. And there were a lot of them. And if Filaret was the initiator of such rumors, then he should have tried to slander Pozharsky in every way. But Pozharsky was simply sent away. And I do not 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 Theodor Nikitich, albeit for the cause - for a conspiracy against the Tsar. Than this Pozharsky was not noticed, did not fight for the throne, did not offend the Romanovs.

I'm not really talking about that. You say that Filaret arched historiography and his followers did too. Then it would be profitable for them to somehow slander not so much Godunov as Pozharsky. because his image looks absolutely irresistible and it is clear to everyone that he was supposed to be the king, and not Mikhail Romanov.

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

let’s official Romanov historiography without distortions. But it turns out. that you can praise someone, you immediately need to condemn someone. Whatever Godunov was in personal or state terms. he was not a Rurikovich. And there were a lot of them. And if Filaret was the initiator of such rumors, then he should have tried to slander Pozharsky in every way. But Pozharsky was simply sent away.

And I do not 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, for a conspiracy against the Tsar.
Pozharsky was not noticed in anything like that, he did not fight for the throne, he did not offend the Romanovs.

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

6. Russian Stalinist : Re: Cheated 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 to write a new version of Russian history of the era of Godunov and the Time of Troubles, in which the main villain was Godunov.
If Karamzin or Pushkin had written about how good Godunov was, no one would have missed their work.
At the same time, when Karamzin visited the Sergius Lavra, standing in front of the tomb of the Godunovs, he exclaimed: "What if we slander a person ?!" But he couldn't write that.
Grozny and Godunov became the main antiheroes of the official Romanov historiography; it is not for nothing that they found no place on the Millennium of Russia monument.

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

This is all very nice. But he does not reveal the topic. Anyone who is attracted by the title of the article will wait for an answer to the question - how are the suspicions that were repeatedly expressed against Godunov refuted? Everyone knows and 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 on these topics, limiting himself to mentioning only the prince.

But he mentioned the historians who refuted this slander in their books - Platonov, Skrynnikov.
The personality of Boris Godunov and his era are also well written in the "Autocracy of the Spirit" of the ever-memorable Vladyka John.
Among modern historians I can name Bokhanov, who in his book "Boris Godunov" carefully researched and convincingly refuted all of the anti-Godunov myths listed above.
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, in which the answers to the questions are given.

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

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

Thanks to the author!
Boris Fyodorovich 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 inspect Moscow, and suddenly he began to bleed from his nose, mouth and ears.
In the same way, a few years later, the young hero of Russia Skopin-Shuisky, poisoned at a feast with his brother Vasily Shuisky, will die.

VKontakte Facebook Odnoklassniki

Another article from the cycle "Pre-revolutionary Russia"

Another murder anniversary is coming royal family... As part of the series of articles "Pre-revolutionary Russia", we have already analyzed a number of events that ultimately led to the overthrow of the dynasty, the defeat of Russia in the First World War and Civil wars, hunger, 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 mentioned earlier, the overthrow of the king was not a spontaneous manifestation of the will of the masses. The revolution was prepared for a long time and carefully, the opponents of Nicholas II placed their people in key posts 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 study of the Russian historian Oleg Airapetov "The Myasoedov Case". The 20th century begins. "

In March 1915, an event occurred that had Russian Empire a wide response: Colonel Myasoyedov was executed on charges of espionage. To understand the details of the "Myasoedov case", we must recall his background, since it contains many facts that are directly related to our topic.

A few years before the outbreak 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 personnel who formed an informal circle. This unofficial organization was ironically nicknamed "Young Turks", by analogy with the Turkish officers who made the revolution in 1908. However, the tsar had no time for jokes, and the Minister of War Sukhomlinov took preventive measures by appointing the members of this circle to various positions outside the capital, thereby complicating their interaction with each other. Sukhomlinov noted that after that his relationship with Guchkov deteriorated, and then, through the press controlled by Guchkov, a campaign began to discredit the Minister of War.

Here we go to the gendarme officer Sergei Myasoedov. By that time (1912) his reputation had already been tarnished. Back in 1907, he found himself at the center of an espionage scandal based on a denunciation concocted by an agent of the Police Department, which accused Myasoedov of working for German intelligence.

A thorough check showed the complete inconsistency of these suspicions, but the hype surrounding the incident forced Myasoedov to resign. However, in 1911, at the request of Sukhomlinov, he was returned to the service and sent to the order of the Minister of War. And the next year, a new spy scandal began to ripen around Myasoedov. The police department pointed out that Myasoedov is familiar with a certain Freidberg, Freidberg himself communicates with some other person, and this person, in turn, has a business relationship with a secret officer at the German headquarters. Here is such an intricate chain, the last link of which is quite far from Myasoedov.

However, hypervigilance in the pre-war era is not a vice, and the Police Department was created to monitor everything, even the slightest signs of espionage. Another bad thing is that these suspicions have become the property of the press. Apparently, the leakage 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 the hype began, the leitmotif of which was attacks on Sukhomlinov, who allegedly patronizes dark personalities. The funny thing is that the press also managed to accuse Sukhomlinov of imposing a gendarme investigation in the army, that is, they criticized him for conniving at spies and for fighting espionage at the same time!

The contradictory nature of the attacks, initiated by one and the same person - Guchkov, once again shows that the press campaign had nothing to do with the protection of 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 survived, and in the meantime it was officially announced that the suspicions about Myasoedov were not confirmed by anything. Further investigation, within the framework of which Guchkov was summoned for interrogation, showed that Guchkov had no evidence. The scandal continued for some time by inertia, but eventually subsided. It was overshadowed by the outbreak of the war.

We have already spoken about the first operations of 1914 in previous articles, and touched upon 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 painful 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 the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who was then the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, this turned out to be a strong blow to prestige. He devoted his life to military service, considered himself a major military leader and perceived defeat especially painfully. The Grand Duke undertook to look for the guilty, and, of course, anyone was guilty, but not himself.

At first they tried to judge General Yepanchin, but they did not find anything 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 dealt with General Budberg, but he just proved to be an astute military leader. During the fighting, he correctly assessed the situation and put forward a number of sensible proposals that were ignored by the authorities. So here, too, Nikolai Nikolaevich would have faced a fiasco. However, luckily for the Grand Duke and his own misfortune, Myasoedov ended up at the headquarters of the 10th Army. In the light of the events of his past, he was the best suited for the role of a spy, who should be responsible for everything.

When the war began, Myasoedov was eager to go to the front. They did not take him, remembering the train of scandals following this man. He asked Sukhomlinov to send him to the army, but the Minister of War did not help him, although he stressed that he had nothing against it. Then Myasoedov tried to enlist the support of General Kurlov, but he received no help here either. Nevertheless, in the fall of 1914, General Budberg took him to the headquarters as a translator, as well as to carry out intelligence activities. At the front, Myasoedov showed himself from the best side, organized raids to the Germans for "languages", and he participated in them himself. His personal bravery was highly commended by the command. At that time, a certain Kulakovsky (Kolakovsky) arrived in Russia from Sweden, who declared that he had been recruited by the Germans in captivity. He was transported to Russia via Stockholm, entrusted with the execution of a number of special assignments.

During interrogations, Kulakovsky gushed with stories that could form the basis of a low-standard adventure novel. According to him, he had to convince the commandant of Novogeorgievsk to surrender the fortress, inflame 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 only 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 a while, he said that the Germans had told him the name of a contact in Russia. According to Kulakovsky, this was Myasoedov.

The absurdity of the testimony immediately catches the eye: Kulakovsky did not know that his "messenger" was at the front, and the Germans did not tell him where he lived at all. Interesting methods from German intelligence: send their agent to a meeting with another agent, but not provide the first with information about finding the second!

Soon Kulakovsky retracted his testimony regarding the attempt on Nikolai Nikolaevich's life. The case was obviously sewn with white thread, but on March 3, 1915, Myasoedov was arrested in Kovno. Then a flurry of searches began at the relatives and friends of Myasoedov, and information about this instantly hit the press. No evidence was found, further investigation in this sense also did not give results.

In the end, the case was transferred to the court-martial, which, incidentally, was a violation of the Military Judicial Charter. Thus, Myasoedov could not count on a lawyer; moreover, out of ten witnesses, only four were summoned. 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 this was followed by an official message, which was immediately replicated by the press.

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

They immediately recalled that Myasoyedov had once been on friendly terms with the Minister of War Sukhomlinov, who was the next target of the attack. Polivanov, a close friend of Guchkov, set his sights on his place. Of course, it turned out to be a big winner and Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who even before the war was sharply negative towards Sukhomlinov and now got 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 already in September the situation stabilized, but the very fact of the withdrawal of our army had an overwhelming effect on the mindset of the public. The finest hour has come for Polivanov and Guchkov. Failures at the front were attributed to the actions of the Minister of War 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 the 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 in the end contributed to the fall of Sukhomlinov (apparently, a supporter of Nicholas II), and the coming to his place of General Polivanov (the enemy of the legitimate government).

Hardly accepting his new appointment, General Polivanov spoke at a meeting of the Council of Ministers with the famous speech "The Fatherland is in Danger." He attacked the previous military leadership, including Headquarters, with pejorative criticism, painting pictures of the disintegration 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 arranged by Polivanov was dictated by his real perception of the situation at the front. On the one hand, he applied the standard bureaucratic technique of all times and peoples: sling mud at his predecessor to look better against his background, and in case of your own failures, refer to the rules established by the past bosses. On the other hand, one should not forget that Polivanov worked closely with Guchkov, who played into his hands with any criticism of the authorities.

Be that as it may, Nicholas II faced another problem. Failures at the front did take place. At the head of the army was the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, an extremely ambitious man and, as subsequent events showed, by no means alien to the idea of ​​ascending the throne himself. He had already managed to place his people in many major posts, and now the tsar had a convenient opportunity to push the Grand Duke to secondary roles. However, the question arises: who to replace Nikolai Nikolaevich? World War- the most serious test for the country, and at this time a number of representatives of the state apparatus and social forces are playing their egoistic game, which has little to do with achieving victory. It would seem that the answer is obvious: Nikolai must personally lead the army. But in this case, each defeat will directly affect his reputation.

The situation at the front remained tense, but Nicholas sent the Grand Duke to the Caucasus, and he 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. Member of the Russian-Turkish and Russo-Japanese wars Well-educated, with military awards and, finally, in 1915, carried out a chain of maneuvers that allowed our army to avoid defeat, Alekseev seemed an ideal candidate for the post of head of staff. Who could have thought then that he would contact the revolutionary forces and become one of the main gravediggers of the empire? ..

Upon learning of the king's decision, the ministers rushed to dissuade him. Individually and collectively, 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 king to abandon his intention to lead the army. But here, too, Nikolai did not yield. How this contrasts with the popular notion of the "lack of will" of the monarch! In fact, in difficult times for the country, the tsar did not flee from power, but firmly stood at the helm of the military in order 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 very eyes. Russia entered the next military campaign after recovering 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 restrained the offensive undertaken by Russia and finally wavered.

Of course, opponents of Nicholas tried to present this as a mere coincidence. They say that the tsar was just lucky and the natural course of events led to victories at the front. But this old PR trick is well known to us: criticize the higher authorities for every failure, and regard all successes as achieved "in spite of the regime."

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

“On the eve of graduation, before entering the Life-Hussar regiment, the future Emperor Nicholas II could mislead any Oxford professor who would accept him by knowledge of English language for a real Englishman, Nikolai Alexandrovich knew French and German in the same way.

The rest of his knowledge was reduced to scattered information on different industries, but without any opportunity to apply them in practical life... The general educator suggested that the miraculous power of the sacrament of chrismation during the Holy Coronation was capable of granting the future Russian Autocrat all the necessary knowledge. "

This already does not climb into any gate. We are offered 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 only foreign languages ​​well!

All this, of course, is nonsense. In fact, from early childhood, Nikolai was taught at the level of the best universities in the world. General Danilovich was his tutor. Among the people who gave lectures to Nikolai were world-class specialists. Chemistry was taught by the great Beketov, political economy - Professor Bunge, law - Pobedonostsev, military statistics - General Obruchev, combat training of troops - General Dragomirov, strategy - General Leer, artillery sciences - General Demyanenkov, military administration - General Lobko. The best professionals of the empire taught Nicholas military tactics, fortification, geodesy, topography, political history. The young heir to the throne spent camp gatherings in the Preobrazhensky regiment, in the guards artillery, served in the hussar life guard.

The future tsar was seriously prepared to rule the state. For example, he took part in the sessions of the Council of Ministers, the State Council, chaired the committee for assisting provinces affected by crop failure ... In general, it is possible to list the stages of training for a long time, and it is obvious that Nikolai was ready to run the state. Therefore, it is not surprising that when the time came, Nicholas led the army. Another thing is surprising: how the most ridiculous lie about the tsar remains 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, being a very young man - at the age of 26, and this immaturity did not allow him to be a strong monarch. Yes, 26 years old - it seems to be a little, 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 the regency of Sophia at the age of 17, and finally the fullness of power 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.

Nikolai's role as Supreme Commander-in-Chief is underestimated. Even the emigrant historian Katkov, who treats the monarch favorably, says that his positive impact on the army boiled down to the fact that the tsar simply did not interfere with Alekseev. Without claiming the laurels of the 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 the victory of the Russian army (quoted from the book “ Great War and the February Revolution of 1914-1917 "):

“An impartial military historian will have to point out how great a role the Emperor personally played in the success of that operation, helping General Alekseev with his calmness, and when necessary, with a firm and imperious word. Still so recently bewildered (in the role of Commander-in-Chief of the North-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 so different in character as the Tsar and Alekseev saved the Russian army in those days from catastrophe, 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 it so that the main blow of the Germans fell on France.

Let me remind you that under Alexander III, General Obruchev proposed in peacetime to concentrate significant forces in the border areas. This made it possible to strike the enemy as quickly as possible, without wasting time pulling up forces from relatively distant regions. However, the German commanders perfectly understood the essence of Obruchev's idea, therefore, in the event of a war, they decided to limit themselves to defense against France, and strike the main blow at 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. A participant in the First World War, General Svechin, who later analyzed Obruchev's plan, caustically called it a "thunder drive."

So, it was under Nicholas that Russia refused to be a thunder-drive for Germany and to pull off the main forces in the interests of France. According to the new Russian plan, our army was withdrawn some distance from the border, which significantly reduced the risk of encirclement and thereby pushed Germany to change the direction of its main attack from Russia to France. In other words, Nicholas made it so that the main front of the First World War was the Western, and not ours, the Eastern. This step was completely unprofitable for France, but no one was able to force the king to change his mind.

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

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 last, decisive strike against Germany. Here internal and external enemies realized that they should not hesitate. Internal enemies knew that on the wave of victory no one would believe their tales of "rotten power" and "mediocre tsar" anymore, while 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 course in previous articles, the results of the "democratic revolution" are also known, and now there is no point in repeating it. Therefore, on the anniversary of the murder of the royal family, it is better to think about who, how and why blinded the shameful lie about Nicholas. And also about why he still remains the most slandered ruler of Russia.

Ivan the Terrible was unfairly slandered. Destroying myths

Ivan the Terrible - the first tsar of all Russia, known for his barbaric and incredibly harsh methods of government - liberal historians lie, repeating the propaganda of Catholic and Lutheran envoys who fled conspirators ...

Ivan the Terrible was one of the most humane rulers in Europe.
Debunking the myths

The myth is a weapon. The ancient Chinese commander, the philosopher of war Sun Tzu said: "He who wins without a battle knows how to fight. He who captures fortresses without a siege knows how to fight. He who crushes the state without an army knows how to fight" - he spoke about the power of Myth. The history of any nation, its spiritual health, its belief in itself and its strength is always based on certain myths, and it is these myths that become the living flesh and blood of this people, its assessment of the place in the universe. Today our consciousness has become a battleground for the ideas of two myths, Black Myth about Russia and Light Myth about the West.

The overwhelming majority of historians, publicists, writers, etc., consider Ivan the Terrible as a deliberately "unprecedented", in essence, a pathological tyrant, despot, and executioner.

It would be absurd to dispute that Ivan IV was tough ruler... The historian Skrynnikov, who has devoted several decades to the study of his era, proves that under Ivan IV the Terrible, a "mass terror" was carried out in Russia, during which about 3-4 thousand people were killed.

But let's ask a question: how many people were sent to the other world by Western European contemporaries Ivan the Terrible: Spanish Kings Charles V and Philip II, King Henry VIII of England and Charles IX of France? It turns out that they executed hundreds of thousands of people in the most brutal way. So, for example, it was during the time synchronous with the reign of Ivan the Terrible - from 1547 to 1584, in the Netherlands alone, under the rule of Charles V and Philip II, “the number of victims ... reached up to 100 thousand". Of these it was" burned alive 28 540 people". The French king Charles IX on August 23, 1572 took an active" personal "participation in the so-called St. Bartholomew's night, during which it was brutally killed "more 3 thousand Huguenots"only because they belonged to Protestantism and not to Catholicism; thus, overnight about the same number of people were killed as for all the time of the terror of Ivan the Terrible! "Night" was continued, and "in general, about 30 thousand Protestants perished in France within two weeks." In England, Henry VIII was hanged only for "vagrancy" along the highways. 72 thousand vagabonds and beggars. "In Germany, when the peasant uprising of 1525 was suppressed, more than 100,000 people.

And yet, strange as it may seem and even astonishing, both in Russian and equally in Western consciousness, Ivan the Terrible appears as an incomparable, unique tyrant and executioner.

Something similar happens with other examples of Ivan's cruelty, which must be considered without the usual bias and relying on documentary evidence and just logic.

Myth 1. Unreasonable terror

This is probably the most important argument against Ivan. Like, just for fun the formidable tsar slaughtered the innocent boyars. Although the periodic occurrence of widely branched conspiracies in the boyar environment not a single self-respecting historian denies, if only because conspiracies are a common thing in any royal court. Memoirs of that era are full of stories of countless intrigues and betrayals. Facts and documents are stubborn things, and they testify that several dangerous conspiracies that followed one after another were drawn up against Grozny, uniting numerous participants from the tsar's entourage.

So in 1566-1567. the tsar intercepted letters from the Polish king and from the Lithuanian hetman to many of John's noble subjects. Among them was the former equerry Chelyadnin-Fedorov, whose rank made him the de facto leader of the Boyar Duma and gave him the right of a decisive vote in the election of a new sovereign. Together with him, letters from Poland were received by Prince Ivan Kurakin-Bulgachov, three princes of Rostov, Prince Belsky and some other boyars. Of these, only Belsky did not enter into an independent correspondence with Sigismund and gave John a letter in which the Polish king offered the prince vast lands in Lithuania for treason to the Russian sovereign. The rest of Sigismund's addressees continued their written relations with Poland and conspired to put Prince Vladimir Staritsky on the Russian throne.

In the fall of 1567, when John led campaign against Lithuania, new evidence of treason fell into his hands. The tsar had to urgently return to Moscow not only to investigate this case, but also to save his own life: the conspirators planned to surround the tsar's headquarters with the military detachments loyal to them, to interrupt the guards and to hand over Grozny to the Poles. At the head of the rebels was Chelyadnin-Fedorov. There is a record of this conspiracy of the political agent of the Polish crown Schlichting, in which he informs Sigismund: "Many noble persons, about 30 people ... pledged in writing that they would betray the Grand Duke together with his guardsmen into the hands of Your Royal Majesty, if only Your The Royal Majesty has moved into the country. "

The trial of the Boyar Duma took place. The evidence was irrefutable: the traitors' agreement with their signatures was in the hands of John. Both the boyars and Prince Vladimir Staritsky, who tried to distance themselves from the conspiracy, found the rebels guilty. Historians, based on the notes of the German spy Staden, report the execution of Chelyadnin-Fedorov, Ivan Kurakin-Bulgachov and the princes of Rostov. All of them were allegedly brutally tortured and executed. But, it is reliably known that Prince Ivan Kurakin, the second most important participant in the conspiracy, remained alive and, moreover, 10 years later, he held the post of governor of the city of Venden. Besieged by the Poles, he drank, abandoning the command of the garrison. The city was lost to Russia, and the drunken prince was for it executed... You can't say that you were punished for nothing.

And with many of the executed boyars, a similar red tape happened, not to mention the fact that several boyars, like the Vorotynsky brothers, were killed exclusively historians, not Grozny. Researchers-historians had a lot of fun, finding documents about the life of many boyars, as if nothing had happened continued even after they were supposedly beheaded or impaled.

Myth 2. The defeat of Novgorod

In 1563, John learns from the clerk Savluk, who served in Staritsa, about the "great treasonous deeds" of his cousin Prince Vladimir Staritsky and his mother, Princess Euphrosyne. The king began an investigation and shortly thereafter Andrei Kurbsky fled to Lithuania, a close friend of the Staritsky family and an active participant in all its intrigues. At the same time, John's brother, Yuri Vasilievich, dies. This brings Vladimir Staritsky close to the throne. Grozny is forced to take a number of measures to ensure its own security. The tsar replaces all the close people of Vladimir Andreyevich with his confidants, exchanges his inheritance for another and deprives his cousin of the right to live in the Kremlin. John draws up a new will, according to which Vladimir Andreevich, although he remains on the board of trustees, is already an ordinary member, and not the chairman, as before. All these measures cannot even be called harsh, they were just adequate response to danger... Already in 1566, the easygoing tsar forgave his brother and granted him new possessions and a place in the Kremlin to build a palace. When in 1567 Vladimir, together with the Boyar Duma, sentenced Fedorov-Chelyadnin and the rest of his secret accomplices, John's confidence in him increased even more.

However, at the end of the summer of the same year, a Novgorod landowner close to Staritsky Dvor Petr Ivanovich Volynsky informs the tsar of a new conspiracy of such magnitude that John, in fear, turned to Elizabeth of England with a request to provide him, as a last resort, shelters on the banks of the Thames.

As for the true causes of the event, the death of the heir to the throne caused bewildered discord among contemporaries and controversy among historians. There were enough versions of the death of the tsarevich, but in each of them the words "maybe", "most likely", "probably" and "supposedly" served as the main proof.

But the traditional version reads as follows: once the king entered the chambers of his son and saw his pregnant wife not dressed according to the statute: it was hot, and instead of three shirts she put on only one. The king began to beat his daughter-in-law, and the son - to protect her. Then Grozny struck his son a fatal blow to the head. But in this version, you can see a number of inconsistencies. The "witnesses" are confused. Some say that the princess wore only one dress out of three due to the heat. Is this in November? Moreover, a woman at that time had every right to be in her chambers only in one shirt, which served as a home dress. Another author points out the absence of a belt, which allegedly infuriated John, who accidentally met his daughter-in-law in the "inner chambers of the palace." This version is completely unreliable, if only because it would have been very difficult for the tsar to meet the princess "not dressed according to the charter," and even in the inner chambers. And in the rest of the palace chambers, even the fully dressed ladies of the then Moscow high society did not walk freely.

For each member of the royal family, separate mansions were built, connected to other parts of the palace by rather cool transitions in winter. The family of the tsarevich lived in such a separate mansion. The order of life of Princess Helena was the same as that of other noble ladies of that century: after the morning service, she went to her chambers and sat down at needlework with her servants. Noble women lived locked up... Spending their days in their little chambers, they did not dare to appear in public and, even having become a wife, could not go anywhere without the permission of their husband, including to the church, and their every step was watched by the relentless servant-guards. The noble woman's room was in the back of the house, where a special entrance led, the key to which was always in her husband's pocket. No man could enter the female half of the tower, even if he was the closest relative.

Thus, Princess Elena was in the female half of a separate tower, the entrance to which is always locked, and the key is in her husband's pocket. She can leave there only with the permission of her husband and accompanied by numerous servants and maids, who would surely take care of decent clothes. Besides, Elena was pregnant and would hardly have been left unattended... It turns out that the only opportunity for the tsar to meet his daughter-in-law in a half-dressed form was to break down the locked door of the maiden's and disperse the hawthorn and hay girls. But history did not record such a fact in the life of John, full of adventures.

But if there was no murder , then from what did the prince die? Tsarevich Ivan died of illness, and some documentary evidence has survived. Jacques Margeret wrote: "There is a rumor that he (the king) killed the eldest (son) with his own hand, which happened differently, because, although he struck him with the end of the rod ... and he was wounded by a blow, he did not die from this, and some time later, on a pilgrimage journey. " Using this phrase as an example, we can see how a false version popular among foreigners with the "light" hand of Possevin, intertwined with the truth about the death of the prince from illness during a pilgrimage trip. In addition, the duration of the illness was 10 days, from November 9 to 19, 1581. But what kind of illness was it?

The Frenchman Jacques Margeret, who lived in Russia for many years, describes this event in a completely different way: “The Livonians who were captured and taken to Moscow, professing the Lutheran faith, having received two churches inside the city of Moscow, sent public services there; but in the end , because of their pride and vanity said temples ... were destroyed and all their houses were destroyed. And, although in the winter they were expelled naked, for which their mother had given birth, they could not blame anyone but themselves for this, for ... they behaved so arrogantly, their manners were so arrogant, and their clothes were so luxurious that they were all could be mistaken for princes and princesses ... The main profit they were given the right to sell vodka, honey and other drinks, on which they make not 10%, but a hundred, which seems incredible, but it is true. " a merchant from the city of Lubeck, not just an eyewitness, but also a participant in the events.He reports that although the order was only to confiscate the property, the performers still used a whip, so he got it.However, like Margeret, a merchant does not talk about murder, or rape, or torture... But what is the fault of the Livonians, who lost their estates and profits overnight?

German Heinrich Staden, who has no love for Russia, reports that the Russians it is forbidden to sell vodka, and this trade is considered a great disgrace among them, while the tsar allows foreigners to keep a tavern in the courtyard of his house and sell alcohol, since "foreign soldiers - Poles, Germans, Lithuanians ... by their nature love to drink". This phrase can be supplemented with the words of a Jesuit and a member of the papal embassy Paolo Kompani: "The law prohibits the sale of vodka in public in taverns, as this would contribute to the spread of drunkenness." Thus, it becomes clear that the Livonian immigrants, having acquired the right to produce and sell vodka to their compatriots, have abused their privileges and " began to corrupt in their Russian taverns. "

No matter how indignant the paid agitators of Stefan Batory and their modern adherents may be, the fact remains: the Livonians violated Moscow law and incurred the punishment due to the law. Michalon Litvin wrote that " in Muscovy there are no shinks anywhere, and if some householder is found at least a drop of wine, then his whole house is ruined, the estate is confiscated, the servants and neighbors living on the same street are punished, and the owner himself is forever imprisoned ... Since Muscovites abstain from drunkenness , then their cities abound with craftsmen diligent in different kinds, who, sending us wooden bowls ... saddles, spears, jewelry and various weapons, rob our gold. "

Of course, the king was alarmed when he learned that in German settlement solder his subjects. But there was no lawlessness, the punishment corresponded to the law, the main provisions of which are given by Michal Litvin: the houses of the criminals were destroyed; property was confiscated; servants and neighbors were whipped; and even leniency was rendered - the Livonians were not imprisoned for life, as was required by law, but only they were evicted out of town and allowed to build houses and a church there.

As can be seen from the above facts, the figure of Ivan the Terrible was pretty demonized, although, of course, during the reign of Grozny there were dark pages, but nothing that went beyond the political culture and customs of that time is difficult to find behind the tsar.

Moreover, behind the clearly distorted image of Grozny, many researchers do not notice positive aspects of the reign of Ivan Vasilievich... But there are also a lot of them.

Under Ivan, Rus rose from her knees and straightened her shoulders from the Baltic to Siberia. Upon accession to the throne, John inherited 2.8 million square meters. km, and as a result of his rule, the territory of the state has almost doubled - up to 5.4 million square meters. km - slightly more than the rest of Europe. During the same time the population grew by 30-50% and amounted to 10-12 million people... In 1547, Grozny was crowned king and assumed the title of tsar, equivalent to the imperial one. This state of affairs was legalized by the Ecumenical Patriarch and other hierarchs of the Eastern Church, who saw in John the only defender of the Orthodox faith. Under Ivan, the remnants were finally destroyed feudal fragmentation, and without this it is not known whether Russia would have survived Time of Troubles or not.

By order of Ivan the Terrible, over 40 stone churches decorated with golden domes were erected. The Tsar founded 60 monasteries, donating domes and decorations to them, as well as donating monetary contributions to them ..

Intelligence questioning: Klim Zhukov on the repressions of Ivan the Terrible

Slandered Tsar Ivan the Terrible (V. Manyagin, A. Fursov, I. Froyanov)

Ivan the Terrible. Portrait without retouching.
The name of Ivan the Terrible for many is associated with the words "despot", "tyrant". But is it? A number of historical documents testify otherwise. 1885 Exhibited in St. Petersburg new job Ilya Repin's "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan." The painting aroused extreme indignation among the Petersburg intelligentsia. Nobody disputed the skill of the artist. The very plot of the picture, where fiction was presented as a historical fact, was criticized. Ober-Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, church historian and member of the State Council Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev sent a letter to Emperor Alexander III: “The picture cannot be called historical, since this moment ... is fantastic. Ivan the Terrible did not kill his son. " This film is a historical investigation dedicated to the analysis of the activities of the Russian tsar.

This is a film about a man who, in the 16th century, first united our country and from separate disunited and self-serving principalities created a single powerful state, about a sovereign who first laid the crown of the Tsar of All Russia on himself, about one of the most complex, powerful and contradictory personalities - about Tsar Ivan Vasilievich, who went down in history under the name of the Terrible.

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

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

In the same historical era, the "civilized" rulers of European countries - the Spanish kings Charles V and Philip II, the king of England Henry VIII and the French king Charles IX - executed hundreds of thousands of people in the most brutal manner. So, for example, only in the Netherlands, which were 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 who died under torture, where there was Grozny with 3 thousand executed during the reign.

At the same time, the murderers-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 evidenced by the fact that most of the victims were burned alive in front of a huge crowd (people went to watch the execution as a theatrical performance) and, as a rule, in the presence of the kings themselves.

Another fairly well-known fact. During the so-called St. Bartholomew's Night (we 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, about as many people were killed as during the entire time of the terror of Ivan the Terrible. We add that then throughout France, about 30 thousand Protestants died 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, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, a solemn wedding to the reign of Grand Duke Ivan IV took place. Signs of royal dignity were placed on him: the cross of the Life-giving Tree, barmas and the cap of Monomakh. The royal title made it possible 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 thus stood on a par with the only emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in Europe.

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

Since 1549, Ivan IV carried out a series 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 own name and intercede (protect) from all sides and put his tribute on them and send his man to whom to collect tribute ".

The campaign in 1556 was associated with 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, the 20-25 thousandth Russian army defeated the Swedes at Kivinebba and laid siege to 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, Saray-Batu, was destroyed.

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

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

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

By the way, Ivan the Terrible, after the death of his son, spent several days in despair at the tsarevich's coffin. It seems that events developed as follows. About ten days before the death of the Tsarevich, 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 in front of strangers when she was wearing at least three shirts). But it is likely that the main reason for the tsar's anger was his unwillingness to have a descendant from Sheremeteva. That same night, Elena gave birth to a stillborn child.

When the prince became aware of 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. Note that Ivan IV did not expect such a development of events. The death of the direct heir almost deprived him of his mind, thoroughly undermining his psyche and health. Ivan the Terrible himself died two years later.

The information war has been going on against Russia for a long time, just from the time of Ivan the Terrible, who laid the foundation for our state as we know it. Europeans were very much 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 region of the Don army, 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 the cities laid down under him: Sviyazhsk, Cheboksary, Belgorod, Voronezh, Ufa ... And many more were laid down in the next few years after his death - following the plans of the tsar who had already passed away.

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