People of the Time of Troubles: a collective portrait against the backdrop of disaster. Time of Troubles One representative of the Time of Troubles description of his activities

BARDS OF TROUBLED TIMES

"Cops" of troubled times

“Cops” of troubled times After the collapse of the USSR, the new authorities, who were in team with organized crime, were interested in weakening the country’s law enforcement system. To achieve this, Yeltsin deliberately attacked both the KGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The pseudonym under which the politician Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov writes. ... In 1907 he was unsuccessful as a candidate for the 2nd State Duma In Petersburg.

Alyabyev, Alexander Alexandrovich, Russian amateur composer. ... A.'s romances reflected the spirit of the times. As then-Russian literature, they are sentimental, sometimes corny. Most of them are written in a minor key. They are almost no different from Glinka’s first romances, but the latter has stepped far forward, while A. remained in place and is now outdated.

Nasty Idolische (Odolische) - epic hero…

Pedrillo (Pietro-Mira Pedrillo) is a famous jester, a Neapolitan, who at the beginning of the reign of Anna Ioannovna arrived in St. Petersburg to sing the roles of buffa and play the violin in the Italian court opera.

Dahl, Vladimir Ivanovich
His numerous stories suffer from a lack of real artistic creativity, deep feeling and a broad view of the people and life. Dahl did not go further than everyday pictures, anecdotes caught on the fly, told in a unique language, smartly, vividly, with a certain humor, sometimes falling into mannerism and jokeiness.

Varlamov, Alexander Egorovich
Varlamov, apparently, did not work at all on the theory of musical composition and was left with the meager knowledge that he could have learned from the chapel, which in those days did not at all care about the general musical development of its students.

Nekrasov Nikolay Alekseevich
None of our great poets has so many poems that are downright bad from all points of view; He himself bequeathed many poems not to be included in the collected works. Nekrasov is not consistent even in his masterpieces: and suddenly prosaic, listless verse hurts the ear.

Gorky, Maxim
By his origin, Gorky by no means belongs to those dregs of society, of which he appeared as a singer in literature.

Zhikharev Stepan Petrovich
His tragedy “Artaban” did not see either print or stage, since, in the opinion of Prince Shakhovsky and the frank review of the author himself, it was a mixture of nonsense and nonsense.

Sherwood-Verny Ivan Vasilievich
“Sherwood,” writes one contemporary, “in society, even in St. Petersburg, was not called anything other than bad Sherwood... comrades in military service They shunned him and called him by his dog name “Fidelka”.

Obolyaninov Petr Khrisanfovich
...Field Marshal Kamensky publicly called him “a state thief, a bribe-taker, a complete fool.”

Popular biographies

Peter I Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich Catherine II Romanovs Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich Lomonosov Mikhail Vasilievich Alexander III Suvorov Alexander Vasilievich

The wives of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  The reign of Boris Godunov was accompanied by great upheavals for Russia. In 1601-1603, the country was struck by a severe famine due to a three-year crop failure. Due to the eruption of the Huaynaputina volcano, the summer of 1601 was exceptionally wet. It rained so often that, according to the monk-writer Abraham Palitsyn, all “people fell into horror.” In mid-August there was a sharp cold snap, which destroyed all the vegetation. The old reserves of grain were only enough for meager food until spring and for new sowing. But the seeds did not sprout, drenched in heavy rains. A new crop failure brought “a great famine... people are dying, just as in the plague, there is no dying...” Tsar Boris Godunov took a number of measures to reduce hunger. He issued a decree that set the maximum price for selling grain, and ordered the district governors to issue grain to poor people from city siege reserves. Hungry people flocked to the district towns. But there was not enough bread for everyone. Especially many walkers flocked to the capital for bread. Tsar Boris ordered that hungry people be given “money” a day, with which one could buy a third of a pound of bread in Moscow. But even in Moscow there was not enough bread for all those who arrived. Hundreds of bodies of those who died of starvation were strewn in the streets. Over two years and four months, 127,000 dead were buried in Moscow.

  The memorable famine of 1601-1603 among the Russian people did not pass without leaving its mark on the people's consciousness. “There will be trouble,” people said. And she came. In 1603, an uprising of the poor broke out near Moscow, led by Kholopko. Godunov's troops barely managed to suppress him

  Fedor II Godunov

  Fedor's reign is the second shortest in Russian history. After the death of his father, Boris Godunov, he continued the war with False Dmitry I and relied on the Basmanov family, but could not stop the impostor. Soon the people of False Dmitry entered Moscow and killed Fedor and his mother.

  During his reign he created the first map of Russia.

  Impostor (Dmitry)

  At the end of 1604, a contender for the royal throne appeared in Rus' - the Pretender, a former monk of the Chudov Monastery in Moscow, Grigory Otrepiev. Having declared himself to be the saved Tsarevich Dmitry, he, with the assistance of the Polish king Sigismund III, entered Russian land. False Dmitry I with a support detachment easily reached Novgorod Seversky, but was stopped by the troops of Tsar Boris under the command of princes Trubetskoy and Peter Basmanov. On January 21, 1605, a bloody battle took place and the Pretender’s detachment was defeated, and he himself went to Putivl, which took his side.

  On April 13, 1605, Boris Godunov died, and Moscow swore allegiance to his son Fedor. Many Russian cities followed her example. But Pyotr Basmanov and his like-minded people took the path of treason and, arriving in Putivl, swore allegiance to False Dmitry I, calling him tsar. Feeling such powerful support, the Pretender sent a letter to the residents of Moscow in which he assured them of his mercy. Moscow, and with it other cities, recognized Grigory Otrepyev as the son of Ivan the Terrible and swore allegiance to the new tsar. At the same time, the Moscow mob invaded the Godunovs' palace and killed Fyodor Godunov and his mother, Maria Grigorievna. Boris Godunov's daughter, Ksenia, was forced by the boyars to go to a monastery. The body of Boris Godunov was removed from the grave in the Church of St. Michael and buried along with the bodies of his wife and son in the monastery of St. Barsanuphius on Sretenka (now Sretensky Monastery).

  Seven Boyars

  The Polish king Sigismund III decided to change the tactics of capturing Moscow and Russia. In the spring of 1610, he sent hetmans Zholkiewski and Sapieha with troops to Moscow, which they surrounded. Skopin-Shuisky could not prevent them, as he was poisoned in April 1610 at a feast by his envious people. The Swedes had previously abandoned the Russian troops and, having robbed Ladoga, went to Sweden. The hetmans secretly sent a letter to the Moscow boyars, in which they wrote that they had come with the intention of stopping the needless bloodshed. And they suggested that the boyars, instead of Tsar Shuisky, elect the son of Sigismund III, Prince Vladislav, to the Russian throne, who, according to them, would willingly accept the Orthodox faith. King Sigismund III sent the same letter to the boyars. Most of the Moscow boyars and some Muscovites wavered in their loyalty to Tsar Shuisky, and in July 1610 he was deposed, forcibly tonsured a monk and sent to the Chudov Monastery.

  In September 1610, Muscovites sent the army of Hetman Zholkiewski into the capital, who, having established his power in Moscow in the form of the Seven Boyars, took possession of the Moscow treasury and royal treasures. After the deposition of Tsar Shuisky, several contenders had their sights on the Russian throne: False Dmitry II, who, although he lost many of his supporters, did not lose hope for the throne; Polish prince Vladislav, called to the kingdom by the Boyar Duma and part of the Muscovites; Polish king Sigismund III, who had the secret idea of ​​becoming the Russian Tsar himself.

  Militia

  Initially, Patriarch Hermogenes himself was inclined to agree to the election of Vladislav as Tsar of Moscow, provided that the prince accepted the Orthodox faith and observed all Russian customs. However, having discovered the plans of Sigismund and seeing in this the danger of the enslavement of Russia and the destruction of the Orthodox faith, Hermogenes, not heeding either the convictions of the boyar Duma or the threats of the Poles, freed the Muscovites from their oath to Vladislav and cursed him and the king. From that time on, he began to write and make appeals to the faithful sons of Russia, calling on them to stand up for Orthodoxy and the Fatherland.

  the second people's militia to liberate it from foreign invaders; convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1612-1613. and the enormous organizational work of Prince Pozharsky carried out on it to select the new Russian Tsar.

  According to the 19th century historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, the Time of Troubles made it possible to identify two fundamental shortcomings that plagued the Moscow state order. Firstly, a discrepancy between the political aspirations and claims of the Moscow boyars and the nature of the supreme power and the people's view of it was revealed. The boyars wanted to limit the supreme power, but according to the popular view it should have been unlimited. Secondly, a difficult and uneven distribution of state responsibilities between classes of society was revealed, which left no room for either personal or class rights and sacrificed all private interests to the state.

  Under the influence of these shortcomings, the unrest in its development from the solution of the dynastic issue turned into a socio-political struggle of the lower classes of society against the upper ones. However, this socio-political struggle did not lead to the disintegration of society even in the conditions of the country’s intervention by foreign invaders and the Cossack “freemen” who joined them. The invasion of Polish-Lithuanian and Cossack hordes awakened a sense of national and religious unity in all social strata of society. The Time of Troubles ended with the struggle and victory of the entire Russian zemstvo community over foreign invaders and their champions.

  Notes

  Sources

  • Chronicle of many revolts. Second edition. - M.: 1788.
  • Malinovsky A.F. Biographical information about Prince Pozharsky. - M.: 1817.
  • Glukharev I. N. Prince Pozharsky and Nizhny Novgorod citizen Minin, or the liberation of Moscow in 1612. Historical tale of the 17th century. - M.: 1848.
  • Smirnov S.K. Biography of Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky. - M.: 1852.
  • Zabelin I. E. Minin and Pozharsky. Straight lines and curves in the Time of Troubles. - M.: 1883.
  • Klyuchevsky V. O. A short guide to Russian history. - M.: 1906.
  • Shmatov V. E. PUREKH. Historical and local history research. - Kirov: 2004.

  The Time of Troubles in Russia is one of the key pages of our history. In essence, this was an introduction to the 17th century, which went down in history as “Rebellious.” And the Time of Troubles, no matter how much we were told about its short historical period, was not suppressed and it “emerged” from Russia throughout the 17th century. It was actually completed only after the creation of the regime of Peter 1. It was he who finally strangled the process that was rotting the entire 17th century.

  The Time of Troubles is an era of social, political, economic, dynastic and spiritual crisis. It was accompanied by popular uprisings, class and inter-class struggle, impostors, Polish and Swedish intervention and the almost complete ruin of the country.

  Historical reference book

  Concepts of the Troubles

  In Russian historiography there were 2 schemes of the Troubles: Klyuchevsky and Platonov. This is what Klyuchevsky wrote: “In the Troubles, all classes of Russian society consistently appear and they appear in the very order in which they lay in the then composition of Russian society, as they were placed on the social ladder. At the top of this ladder stood the boyars, and they began the unrest. Therefore, the first phase is boyar, then noble and then national.”

  By the way, the Troubles of the early 20th century, which led to the fall of the Empire, developed absolutely according to the same pattern. The Time of Troubles also began, the first phase of which was Perestroika. That is, the first phase of all three Russian Troubles is the boyar phase, when the elite begins to share power.

  The second scheme of the Time of Troubles in Russia belongs to the historian Platonov, who distinguished three periods in the history of the Troubles: dynastic, noble and socio-religious. But in essence, this is the same as Klyuchevsky’s:

  1. Dynastic. Boyars and nobles fight for power.
  2. Noble. Less rich and influential people are joining in these squabbles.
  3. National-religious. The people are included in the Troubles

  The main reasons for the Time of Troubles in Russia can be expressed as follows:

  • Economic reasons. As a result of weather conditions, a famine occurred in 1601-1603. The population was dying en masse. Trust in the current government was falling.
  • Dynastic crisis. After the deaths of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich and Fyodor Ivanovich in Moscow, the Rurik dynasty was interrupted.
  • Social crisis. Almost all segments of the Russian population of the late 16th and early 17th centuries were dissatisfied with their situation.
  • Political crisis. In Russia there was an active struggle for power between boyar groups.
  • Poland and Sweden grew stronger and actively showed their claims to Russian lands and the throne.

  More detailed causes of the Troubles are given in the following diagram:

  The beginning of the Troubles in Rus'

  The Time of Troubles in Russia actually began with the death of Ivan the Terrible. In 1598, Fyodor died and events took place that can be called the “Latent Stage of the Troubles.” The fact is that Fyodor did not leave a will, and formally Irina should have sat on the throne. But at this time she clears the way for her brother Boris Godunov and voluntarily goes to the monastery. As a result, the Boyar Duma splits. The Romanovs attacked Boris, and as a result he stopped going to the Duma.

  Ultimately, the Zemsky Sobor elected Godunov to reign, but the Boyar Duma opposed this. There was a split. This is a classic feature of the Time of Troubles in Russia - dual power. Zemsky Sobor against the Boyar Duma. Dual power would arise later after the February coup of 1917. It will be the “Provisional Government” against the “Petrosoviet” or the “Reds” against the “Whites”. The dual power at the end of the 20th century will be as follows - first Gorbachev against Yeltsin. Then Yeltsin against the Supreme Council. That is, Troubles always splits power into 2 opposing camps.

  Ultimately, Boris Godunov outmaneuvered the Boyar Duma and became king. Read more about how this happened.

  Driving elements of the Time of Troubles

  You need to understand that the Time of Troubles is a mass phenomenon in which almost all segments of the population took part and social groups. Nevertheless, there were three major classes that played an exceptional role in those events, and which need to be discussed separately. These are the following groups:

  1. Sagittarius.
  2. Cossacks.
  3. "Combat slaves."

  Let's look at each of these groups in detail.

  Battle serfs

  The problem in Russia after the famine of 1601-1603 was that the growth in the number of service people outpaced the growth of the land fund. The country (it’s even strange to say this about Russia) did not have the resources to provide all the children of the nobility with land. As a result, a layer of “Combat Slaves” began to emerge in Rus'.

  These were those nobles who did not have land, but who had weapons (little is said about this, but Ivan Bolotnikov was one of the Battle Slaves), and who went into service as a military service to some boyar or rich nobleman. The percentage of fighting slaves in Rus' at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century was +/-10%. Now think about this... Events of the 90s (collapse of the USSR). Then those who serve in various private and security companies, in the army, and all armed people in the country are exactly that same 10%. That is, it is social dynamite that can explode at any moment.

  What were fighting serfs at the beginning of the 16th century? For every 25 thousand nobles in the militia, there were up to 5 thousand fighting slaves.

  For example, after the shelling of Ivangorod in 1590, the governors led 350 archers, 400 Cossacks and 2,382 fighting serfs to storm. That is, there were a lot of combat slaves, and their proportion in the army changed its structure for the use of these people. And these people were extremely dissatisfied with their situation.

  It was from the fighting serfs that the leader of the largest uprising of the lower classes in 1602-1603, Cotton Kosolap, came from. In 1603, he approached Moscow, and a regular army had to be sent to defeat him.

  Sagittarius

  The Streltsy, as a military unit, was created in the mid-16th century. The undoubted advantage of its creation was that it was thanks to the Streltsy army that Kazan was taken. There were 10 thousand archers in Moscow (that is, a fairly large social stratum). In other large cities there are up to 1 thousand people. The salary of archers ranged from 7 rubles in Moscow to 0.5 rubles in the outskirts. They also received a grain salary.

  The problem was that they only received full money during hostilities. In addition, the archers received money with a long delay, since those who distributed money, according to Russian tradition, stole. Therefore, the archers who lived in the settlements kept vegetable gardens, were engaged in trade, and some even engaged in banditry. Therefore, they felt a social kinship with the townspeople, because their lifestyle and priorities were identical.

  Cossacks during the Time of Troubles

  Another group that played an extremely important role in the Time of Troubles in Russia, and which was also dissatisfied with the authorities, was the Cossacks. The total number of Cossacks at the end of the 16th century from the Dnieper to the Yaik River (the modern Ural River) is estimated at 11-14 thousand people. The Cossack organization was as follows: In Russia it was a village, in Ukraine it was a hundred. The free villages were not part of the government troops, but actually served as border guards.

  After impoverishment, military slaves fled to the Don, the government demanded that they be taken out, but there was a rule - “There is no extradition from the Don!” Hence the anti-Cossack measures of Godunov, who tried to return the fighting slaves, since the rich nobility put pressure on him. Naturally, this caused discontent among the Cossacks. As a result, Godunov found himself in a situation where whatever he did did not solve the problem, but only aggravated it.

  The Cossacks were associated with the southern counties, in which social contradictions were already acute, because those who were offended by the authorities fled to the southern counties. That is, the Cossacks are such a separate layer that has always considered itself superior to the rest.

  The beginning of the open stage of the Troubles

  Thus, we can say that at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries an explosive situation developed in Russia:

  1. Almost all possible contradictions between and within classes intensified.
  2. Confrontations within the country intensified - “South” against “Center”.

  A lot of “social dynamite” had been produced and all that remained was for interested parties to light the fuse. And it was lit simultaneously in Russia and Poland. At the beginning of the 17th century, a situation arose in Russia that contributed to the transition of the Time of Troubles from a latent (hidden) state to an open state.

  
  

  First stage of the Troubles

  A man appeared in Poland who called himself Tsarevich Dmitry, a survivor of Uglich. Of course, he declared his rights to the throne and began to gather an army in Poland to go and take back “his” throne by force. I will not now dwell in detail on this man and the elements of his attempt (and a successful one) to seize power. We have a whole article on our website where all the events of this stage are discussed in detail. You can read it at this link.

  I will only say that at this stage Poland did not support False Dmitry. He recruited an army of mercenaries there, but the Polish king Sigismund III distanced himself from this campaign. Moreover, he even warned Godunov that a man was coming “for his soul.”

  At this stage:

  1. There was a dynastic struggle for power.
  2. False Dmitry 1 appeared.
  3. The scale of the Time of Troubles was still small. In fact, only the elite were involved in them so far.
  4. Murder of False Dmitry 1.

  Second stage of the Troubles

  After the overthrow of False Dmitry, Vasily Shuisky became king. By the way, the future king himself played not the least role in the murder of the impostor. Most historians agree that it was his plot, which he brilliantly implemented. The accession of Shuisky, as the historian Platonov believed, was the beginning of the entry of the Time of Troubles into the second period (nobility), marked not only by a dynastic struggle for power, but also by deep social conflicts. Although Shuisky’s reign began very well, with the suppression of Bolotnikov’s uprising. In general, the Bolotnik uprising is extremely important thing to understand the essence of the Troubles in Russia. Again, we will not consider this issue in detail in this topic, since this topic has already been discussed by us. Here is a link for reference.

  It is important to understand that Bolotnikov’s uprising is not a peasant war, as they often try to present it to us, but a struggle for power in the conditions of the Troubles. Bolotnikov was a man of False Dmitry 1, always acted on his behalf and pursued a specific goal - power.

  The Time of Troubles in Russia was characterized by the following phenomenon. The free Cossacks, especially at the final stage of the Time of Troubles, claimed to replace the nobility in its function of military defense of the country. That is, the Time of Troubles had many dimensions, but a very important dimension was the struggle between the nobility and the Cossacks over who would become the main military class of the country. The Cossacks did not fight for freedom. It is they who will fight for freedom later, under Razin, 50 years after the end of the Time of Troubles. Here they fought to take the place of the nobility. This became possible due to the fact that the Oprichnina, having shaken up the situation in the country, left some voids.

  Tushins and their role in the Time of Troubles

  Dual power remained in Russia for a long time. On the one hand there was the legitimate Tsar Vasily Shuisky in Moscow, and on the other hand there was False Dmitry 2 with the Tushino camp. In fact, this camp became a hotbed of banditry and all kinds of wickedness that plundered the country. It is no coincidence that people later called this man “Tushino thief.” But such a situation was possible only as long as the forces were equal. As soon as Shuisky received Swedish troops for help, and the Polish king Sigismund 3 began a campaign against Smolensk, the Tushino camp automatically disintegrated. The intervention of the Polish king and the collapse of the Tushino camp became an important stage in the development of all the events of the Time of Troubles.

  At this stage what happened:

  • Victory of the tsarist troops over Bolotnikov.
  • The appearance of False Dmitry 2.
  • Troubles are becoming widespread. All larger number people become involved in events.
  • Formation of the Tushino camp as an alternative to the current government.
  • Lack of intervention elements.

  The third stage of the Time of Troubles in Russia

  The death of the Tushino thief and the beginning of the Poles' rule in Moscow became the beginning of the 3rd phase of the Time of Troubles in Russia - national-religious or general social. The situation has been simplified as much as possible. If before 1610 the situation was very difficult, because some Russian forces called foreigners to their side, other Russians called other foreigners, i.e. such a mixed situation. Now the situation has become very simple: the Poles are Catholics, but the Russians are Orthodox. That is, the struggle became national-religious. And the striking force of this national struggle was the Zemstvo militia.

  The final heroes of these events were Minin and Pozharsky, who drove the Poles out of the country. But again, we should not idealize the images of these people, since we know little reliably about them. It is only known that Pozharsky was a descendant of Vsevolod the Big Nest, and his campaign against Moscow was the family coat of arms, which directly indicates his attempt to seize power. But that is another story. You can read in this article about the events of those years.

  At this stage:

  • Polish and Swedish intervention in Russia began.
  • Murder of False Dmitry 2.
  • The beginning of the Zemstvo militias.
  • Capture of Moscow by Minin and Pozharsky. Liberation of the city from Polish invaders.
  • The convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 and the accession of a new ruling dynasty - the Romanovs.

  The end of the Time of Troubles

  
  

  Formally, the Time of Troubles in Russia ended in 1613-1614, with the beginning of the reign of Mikhail Romanov. But in fact, at that moment, only the following was done - the Poles were thrown out of Moscow and... And that’s all! Finally decide Polish question succeeded only in 1618. After all, Sigismund and Vladislav actively laid claim to the Russian throne, realizing that the local government there was extremely weak. But in the end, the Deulin Truce was signed, according to which Russia recognized all the gains of Poland during the Time of Troubles, and peace was established between the countries for 14.5 years.

  But there was also Sweden, which Shuisky called upon. Few people talk about it, but Sweden owned almost all the northern lands, including Novgorod. In 1617, Russia and Sweden signed the Treaty of Stolbovo, according to which the Swedes returned Novgorod, but retained the entire Baltic coast.

  Consequences of the Time of Troubles for Russia

  Time of Troubles is always a difficult phase, which hits the country very hard, and from which it then takes a very long time to get out. This was the case in Russia as well. The Troubles formally ended with the accession of the Romanovs, but in fact this was not the case. For many years, the Russian tsars actively fought against the passive, but still elements of the Troubles, in the country.

  If we talk about the consequences of the Time of Troubles in Russia, we can highlight the following main consequences:

  1. Russia retained its independence and the right to be a state.
  2. Creation of a new ruling dynasty of the Romanovs.
  3. Terrible economic ruin and exhaustion of the country. Ordinary people fled en masse to the outskirts.
  4. The decline of the authority of the church. People could not understand how the church could allow such passivity in the fight against the interventionists.
  5. There was a complete enslavement of the peasants, which had not happened before.
  6. Russia lost part of its territory (Smolensk, the Baltic (access to which Peter 1 would later so persistently strive for) and the Northern regions of the country).
  7. The country's military potential was virtually destroyed.

  These are the main consequences that were extremely important for the country, but most importantly, Russia retained its statehood and continued to develop. Attempts by Poland and Sweden to seize power in Russia ended in nothing.

  
  

  The difficulty of interpreting the Troubles

  The Time of Troubles was very inconvenient for Soviet historians. Pre-revolutionary historiography did not create a strict concept of the Troubles. There are schemes by Klyuchevsky and Platonov (we will talk about them later) - they empirically reflect reality very well, but they do not provide the concept of the Troubles. Because in order to develop the concept of the Time of Troubles in Russia, you must first develop the concept of Russian history and the concept of autocracy. But this was not the case. Soviet historians were doing very poorly with the concept of the Time of Troubles. Actually, Soviet historians did not study any Troubles. Example of Professor Andrey Fursov:

  when I took Russian history, or rather the history of the USSR, the questions “Time of Troubles” were not on the tickets. There were two absolutely on the tickets different questions: “The uprising under the leadership of Ivan Bolotnikov” and “Foreign intervention in the early 17th century.”

  Andrey Fursov, historian

  That is, the Troubles were dispelled as if it had never happened. And it’s clear why. The fact is that in the Time of Troubles, literally everything came into conflict for Soviet historians. From a class point of view, the Soviet historian had to side with Ivan Bolotnikov because he fought against the exploiters. But the fact is that Ivan Bolotnikov was a man of False Dmitry 1 (we will talk about this below), and False Dmitry was connected with the Poles and Swedes. And it turns out that Bolotnikov’s uprising is an element of False Dmitry’s activities to betray the country. That is, this is what hits the Russian government system. From a patriotic point of view, there was no way a Soviet historian could be on Bolotnikov’s side. So we decided to make it very simple. The Time of Troubles was integrally dissected: Bolotnikov’s uprising is one thing, and intervention is another. False Dmitry is generally the third. But it was a complete fake. Everything was much more complicated. And all this was very closely connected, and there would be no Bolotnikov without False Dmitry and the Time of Troubles.

  What actually was the Time of Troubles in the history of Russia

  The Troubles were certainly a revolutionary event. How is a revolution fundamentally different from an uprising? Who knows, by the way, when the term “revolution” appeared as a political one? Hint - is there any connection between the word "revolution" and "revolver"? Besides the fact that revolvers are used in revolutions... Is there any connection between the names “revolution” and “revolver”? The point is that the drum “spins”. The revolution first appeared in 1688 during the so-called “Glorious Revolution” in England, when everything seemed to return to normal. That is, initially a revolution was called a 360-degree turn. We made a turn and returned to our places with some changes. But since the French Revolution of 1789-1799, revolutions began to be called a turn not by 360 degrees, but by 180. That is, they turned, but did not return to the previous point.

  Any popular movement can be divided into 3 categories:

  1. palace coups. This is a showdown between the elite.
  2. uprisings and riots. The population takes an active part.
  3. revolution. When revolutions occur, what happens is that part of the elite enters into an alliance with part of the population, and throws it against another part of the elite. So at some point, the very top begins to express the interests of society, and not just their own. Therefore, for a short moment of revolution, unity occurs. Then, in most cases, the elite deceives society.

  And in the Time of Troubles of the early 17th century, some revolutionary features are certainly visible, especially since after the Time of Troubles the autocratic serfdom system, which had not existed in Rus' before, finally rose to its feet.

  

  

  The Time of Troubles occupies a serious place in the history of Russia. This is a time of historical alternatives. There are many nuances in this topic that are generally important for understanding and rapid assimilation. In this article we will look at some of them. Where to get the rest - see at the end of the article.

  Causes of the Time of Troubles

  The first reason (and the main one) is the suppression of the dynasty of the descendants of Ivan Kalita, the ruling branch of the Rurikovichs. The last king of this dynasty - Fyodor Ioannovich, son - died in 1598, and from that same time the period of the Time of Troubles in the history of Russia began.

  The second reason - more the reason for intervention during this period - is that upon completion Livonian War The Moscow state did not conclude peace treaties, but only truces: Yam-Zapolskoye with Poland and Plyusskoye with Sweden. The difference between a truce and a peace treaty is that the former is only a break in the war, and not its end.

  

  Course of events

  As you can see, we are analyzing this event according to the scheme recommended by me and other colleagues, about which you can.

  The Time of Troubles began directly with the death of Fyodor Ioannovich. Because this is a period of “kinglessness,” of kinglessness, when impostors and generally random people ruled. However, in 1598, the Zemsky Sobor was convened and Boris Godunov, a man who had long and persistently walked to power, came to power.

  The reign of Boris Godunov lasted from 1598 to 1605. At this time the following events occurred:

  

  1. The terrible famine of 1601 - 1603, the consequence of which was the rebellion of Cotton Crookshanks, and the mass exodus of the population to the south. And also dissatisfaction with the authorities.
  2. Speech of False Dmitry the First: from the autumn of 1604 to June 1605.

  The reign of False Dmitry the First lasted one year: from June 1605 to May 1606. During his reign The following processes continued:

  

  False Dmitry the First (aka Grishka Otrepiev)

  The boyars grew dissatisfied with his rule, since False Dmitry did not respect Russian customs, married a Catholic, and began to distribute Russian lands as fiefs to the Polish nobility. In May 1606, the impostor was overthrown by the boyars led by Vasily Shuisky.

  The reign of Vasily Shuisky lasted from 1606 to 1610. Shuisky was not even elected at the Zemsky Sobor. His name was simply “shouted”, so he “enlisted” the support of the people. In addition, he gave the so-called cross-kissing oath that he would consult with the boyar duma in everything. During his reign the following events occurred:

  

  1. The peasant war led by Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov: from the spring of 1606 to the end of 1607. Ivan Bolotnikov acted as the governor of “Tsarevich Dmitry,” the Second False Dmitry.
  2. The campaign of False Dmitry II from the autumn of 1607 to 1609. During the campaign, the impostor was unable to take Moscow, so he sat down in Tushino. Dual power appeared in Russia. Neither side had the means to defeat the other side. Therefore, Vasily Shusky hired Swedish mercenaries.
  3. The defeat of the “Tushinsky Thief” by the troops of Swedish mercenaries led by Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky.
  4. Intervention of Poland and Sweden in 1610. Poland and Sweden were at war at this time. Since Swedish troops, albeit mercenaries, were in Moscow, Poland had the opportunity to begin an open intervention, considering Muscovy an ally of Sweden.
  5. The overthrow of Vasily Shuisky by the boyars, as a result of which the so-called “seven boyars” appeared. The boyars de facto recognized the power of the Polish king Sigismund in Moscow.

  Results of the Time of Troubles for the history of Russia

  The first result The Troubles began with the election of a new reigning Romanov dynasty, which ruled from 1613 to 1917, which began with Mikhail and ended with Mikhail.

  The second result the boyars began to die out. Throughout the 17th century, it lost its influence, and with it the old tribal principle.

  Third result— devastation, economic, economic, social. Its consequences were overcome only by the beginning of the reign of Peter the Great.

  Fourth result— instead of the boyars, the authorities relied on the nobility.

  PS.: Of course, everything you read here is available on a million other sites. But the purpose of this post is to briefly talk about the Troubles. Unfortunately, all this is not enough to complete the test. After all, there are many nuances left behind the scenes, without which it would be impossible to complete the second part of the test. That's why I invite you.

  Best regards, Andrey Puchkov