Essay: "time of troubles, contradiction and reality". The Crisis of Russian Statehood during the Time of Troubles at the Beginning of the 17th Century
The most severe economic crisis was called "the ruins of the 70-80s of the 16th century." The most economically developed center (Moscow) and north-west (Novgorod and Pskov) of the country have become deserted. Part of the population fled, the other - died during the years of the oprichnina and the Livonian War. More than 50% of arable land (and in some places up to 90%) remained uncultivated. The tax burden increased sharply, prices rose 4 times. In 1570-1571. plague swept across the country. Peasant farming lost stability, famine began in the country. Under these conditions, the landlords could not fulfill their obligations to the state, and the latter did not have enough funds to wage war and govern the state.
The central government took the path of attaching the main producer - the peasantry - to the land of feudal landowners. At the end of the XVI century. in Russia, in fact, a system of serfdom was established on a state scale.
The actual enslavement of the peasantry at the end of the XVI century. Serfdom is the highest form of incomplete ownership of the feudal lord over the peasant, based on attaching him to the land of the feudal lord (boyar, landowner, monastery, etc.) or the feudal state (in the absence of a private owner of the land, when peasant communities bear duties in favor of the state). The aggravation of social relations is one of the causes of troubled times.
Oprichnina did not completely resolve the differences within the ruling class. She strengthened the personal power of the king, but there was still a fairly strong boyars. The ruling class has not yet reached a firm consolidation. The contradictions escalated in connection with the termination of the legitimate dynasty, which kept score from the legendary Rurik, and the accession to the throne of Boris Godunov
Political motives of the Time of Troubles:
- 1. The contradictions caused by the struggle for power in the elite of Moscow society escalated (during the period when the composition of the Regency Council under Fedor was unclear).
- 2. By 1587, the court struggle revealed the undisputed winner - Boris Godunov became the de facto ruler of the state (tsar in 1598). This is about "the beginning of the belittling of the co-ruling role of the Boyar Duma and could not but give rise to deep contradictions in the upper layers of the" sovereign's court ".
- 3. The boyars, intimidated and devastated by the oprichnina, were dissatisfied with the fact that after the suppression of the Rurik dynasty, the throne went to the thin-born Boris Godunov, who, moreover, tried to rule autocratically (E.A. Shaskolskaya).
- 4. The death of Dmitry in 1591 and the childless death of Fedor in 1598 meant the end of the hereditary dynasty of Rurikovich.
Economic motives of the Time of Troubles:
The consequences of the oprichnina led to the devastation and ruin of the lands and the further consolidation of the peasantry.
In 1601-1603. crop failures and famine hit the country (three consecutive lean years; only the southern border counties were not affected).
Inside the estate motifs of the Troubles:
There was an increase in the crisis of the feudal class, which was expressed in an increase in the number of service people and a reduction in the fund of manorial lands during the "great ruin" of the 70-80s. 16th century
The crisis also intensified within the feudal class. The petty feudal lords found themselves in a difficult situation, remaining in depopulated estates. The process of enticing peasants from smaller ones by large feudal lords became a natural phenomenon.
Social motives of Troubles:
- 1. The dissatisfaction of the draft population, which had suffered from wars and crop failures, was growing, and was distrustful of the new tsar Boris Godunov, elected to the kingdom by the Zemsky Sobor.
- 2. The Cossacks, which had become a social force by the beginning of the century, resisted the government's attempts to subdue the Cossack lands (E.A. Shaskolskaya).
Thus, the Time of Troubles of the late 16th - early 17th centuries is a period of deep socio-economic, political and spiritual crisis in Russian society.
State Institution of Higher Professional Education
Ural State Economic Institute
Department of Economics. Department of Labor and Personnel Management
Group UP-15-1
In the discipline "History" On the topic: "Time of Troubles as a manifestation of the crisis of Russian statehood"
Completed by: Agranat. K. V
Head: Stozhko. D.K
Yekaterinburg, 2015
Content Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Prerequisites and causes of Troubles……………… ………………………………………………4 Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich……………………………………………………………………….5 Boris Godunov……………………………………………………………………………......6 The first period of the Time of Troubles………………………… ……………………………………………7 The Second Period of the Time of Troubles………………………………………………..10 The Third Period of the Time of Troubles…………………… ………………………………..12 The end of the Troubles and the election of a new king……………………………………………….16 Conclusion…………………… ……………………………………………………………………..eighteen
Introduction The deepest crisis that engulfed all spheres of life in Russian society at the beginning of the 17th century. and resulted in a period of bloody conflicts, the struggle for national independence and national survival was called "Troubles" by contemporaries. At the same time, first of all, "confusion of minds" was meant, i.e. a sharp change in moral and behavioral stereotypes, accompanied by an unprincipled and bloody struggle for power, a surge of violence, the movement of various sections of society, foreign intervention, etc., which brought Russia to the brink of a national catastrophe.
Events in the early seventeenth century in fact, they were a civil war, in which one part of society, rather heterogeneous in its social composition (service people "according to the fatherland" and "according to the instrument" of the southern and southwestern regions, townspeople, Cossacks, fugitive serfs, peasants and even representatives of the boyars) , opposed another, no less socially diverse, inhabiting the central and northern counties. At the same time, there was no impassable line between them, and even a kind of exchange of "cadres" took place. A significant part of the population, primarily the peasantry, acted as a passive mass, suffering from the actions of both groups.
Scientists have explained the causes and nature of these tragic events in different ways. N. M. Karamzin drew attention to the political crisis caused by the suppression of the dynasty at the end of the 16th century. and the weakening of the monarchy. S. M. Solovyov saw the main content of The Troubles in the struggle between the state and anarchy represented by the Cossacks. A more comprehensive approach was inherent in S.F. Platonov, who defined it as a complex interweaving of actions and aspirations of various political forces, social groups, as well as personal interests and passions, complicated by the intervention of external forces.
In Soviet historical science, the concept of "Trouble" was rejected, and the events of the early seventeenth century. were characterized as "the first peasant war, having an anti-serfdom orientation, complicated by the internal political struggle of feudal groups for power and the Polish-Swedish intervention.
3 Background and causes of the Troubles. Events at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. called the Time of Troubles.
This term quite accurately reflects the historical reality of this period, which was characterized by a sharp aggravation of social, class, dynastic, international relations at the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible and his successors.
The main prerequisite for the Time of Troubles was a severe economic crisis that engulfed the country as a result of the huge costs of the Livonian War and the ruin of the country during the establishment of authoritarian power during the oprichnina period.
Peasant economy has lost stability. This weakened the control of the country by state power. To overcome this situation, the state took the path of further strengthening the feudal dependence of the peasants. But the introduction of the state system of serfdom led to a sharp aggravation of social contradictions in the country and created the basis for mass popular unrest. The aggravation of social relations became one of the reasons for the "Time of Troubles".
With the death of Tsar Fyodor, the legitimate dynasty, coming from the Ruriks, ceased. This led to a dynastic crisis, which became another cause of the Time of Troubles. The ruling class has not yet achieved complete unity. Sharp contradictions remained within it, which intensified in connection with the accession to the throne of B. Godunov. His death only exacerbated dynastic disputes, which weakened states.
The interweaving of economic, social and political contradictions has brought the country to the brink of disaster. It was about the very existence of the country. The situation was also complicated by the fact that not only opposing internal forces, but also foreign conquerors were involved in solving problems about the future of the Russian state.
During the Time of Troubles, the country faced widespread social discontent among the masses, expressed in uprisings led by Khlopok (1603–1604), I. I. Bolotnikov (1606–1607), and a number of other speeches.
Instability in the country and social conflicts of that time were perceived as God's punishment for the unrighteous actions of B. Godunov.
In such an environment, the struggle for power in the country between various political groups intensified.
It was also complicated by the fact that during this period the activity of self-proclaimed pretenders to the Russian throne, the False Dmitrys, supported by foreign interventionists, intensified.
Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich.
After the death of Ivan the Terrible on March 18, 1584, the middle son of Ivan the Terrible, twenty-seven-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598), ascended the throne. The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich was a time of political caution and calming down the people after the oprichnina. Gentle by nature, the new king did not have the ability to govern the state. Realizing that the throne passes to the blessed Fedor, Ivan the Terrible created a kind of regency council under his son. Thus, it turned out that behind the back of the dependent Fyodor was his brother-in-law, the boyar Boris Godunov, performing regency functions and actually ruling the state.
Boris Godunov.
After the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich (in January 1598), there were no legitimate heirs to the throne. The Zemsky Sobor elected Godunov to the kingdom, whose popularity was fragile for a number of reasons: 1) he was Tatar origin; 2) son-in-law of Malyuta Skuratov; 3) was accused of murdering the last direct heir to the throne, Tsarevich Dmitry, who died in Uglich in 1591 under unclear circumstances, allegedly having run into a knife in a fit of epilepsy; 4) illegally ascended the throne.
But, in turn, Godunov tried to take measures to ease discontent, as he constantly felt the precariousness of his position. On the whole he was an energetic, ambitious, capable statesman. In difficult conditions - economic ruin, difficult international situation - he was able to continue the policy of Ivan the Terrible, but with less cruel measures.
The beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov brought many good hopes to the people. Domestic policy was aimed at social stabilization in the country, overcoming economic ruin. The colonization of new lands and the construction of cities in the Volga region and in the Urals were encouraged.
A number of contemporary publications attempt to present Godunov as a reformer on the sole ground that he was an elected ruler. It is difficult to agree with this, since it was during the reign of Boris Godunov that serfdom appeared in Russia. Tsar Boris strengthened the privileges of the boyars, although one cannot help but see such a motive in attaching the peasants to the land as the desire on the part of the state authorities to prevent the desolation of the central districts of the country as a result of expanding colonization and the outflow of the population to the outskirts. In general, the introduction of serfdom, of course, increased social tension in the country. It - along with the aggravation of the dynastic problem, the strengthening of boyar self-will, foreign interference in Russian affairs - contributed to the decay of morality, the collapse of traditional relations.
5 In 1598, Godunov abolished arrears in taxes and taxes, gave some privileges to servicemen and townspeople in the performance of state duties. But a crop failure in the country in 1601-1602 led to famine and increased social tension. And in this environment of chaos, Godunov tried to prevent a popular uprising. He set the maximum price for bread, in November 1601 he allowed the peasants to move (on St. George's Day, the only day of the year when peasants could freely move from one owner to another), began distributing bread from state barns, intensified the repression of robbery cases and allowed to leave the serfs from their masters if they could not feed them. However, these measures were not successful. The people were in poverty, and the nobility arranged the division of wealth and privileges, viciously competing in search of personal well-being. Stocks of grain, hidden by many boyars, would be enough for the entire population for several years. Among the poor, there were cases of cannibalism, and speculators withheld bread, anticipating a rise in prices for it. The essence of what was happening was well understood by the people and was defined by the word "theft", but no one could offer quick and easy ways out of the crisis. Feeling of belonging to public issues each individual person turned out to be insufficiently developed. In addition, considerable masses of ordinary people were infected with cynicism, self-interest, oblivion of traditions and shrines. The decomposition came from above - from the boyar elite, which had lost all authority, but threatened to overwhelm the lower classes as well.
In 1589, the patriarchate was introduced, which increased the rank and prestige of the Russian Church, it became completely equal in relation to other Christian churches. The first patriarch was Job, a man close to Godunov. Boris Godunov somewhat strengthened the country's international position. After the war with Sweden in 1590, the lands at the mouth of the Neva, lost by Russia after the Livonian War, were returned. In 1600 Godunov signed a truce with Poland for 20 years. The attack of the Crimean Tatars on Moscow was prevented. In 1598, Godunov, with a 40,000-strong noble militia, opposed Khan Kazy-Girey, and he retreated. But basically the situation in Russia was disastrous. The magnates and the gentry wanted to seize the Smolensk and Seversk lands, which a hundred years ago were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
The situation was also worsened by the dissatisfaction of the broad masses of the people, caused by the further enslavement of the peasantry, who associated the worsening of their position with the name of Boris. They claimed that they were enslaved under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich at the instigation of the boyar Boris Fyodorovich Godunov.
As a result, an uprising (1603-1604) of serfs led by Khlopko Kosolap broke out in the center of the country. It was brutally suppressed, and Khlopok was executed in Moscow. The Time of Troubles was full of all sorts of conflicts and unpredictability of events. 6
The first period of the Time of Troubles. The death of Ivan the Terrible (March 18, 1584) immediately opened the field for confusion. There was no power that could stop, contain the impending disaster. The heir of John IV, Theodore Ioannovich, was incapable of affairs of government; Tsarevich Dmitry was still in his infancy. The board was to fall into the hands of the boyars. Secondary boyars - the Yuryevs, Godunovs - were put forward on the stage, but there are still remnants of the boyar princes (Prince Mstislavsky, Shuisky, Vorotynsky, etc.). Around Dmitry Tsarevich gathered Nagy, his relatives on the mother's side, and Belsky. Immediately after the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich, Dmitry Tsarevich was sent to Uglich, in all likelihood, fearing the possibility of unrest. At the head of the board was N. R. Yuriev, but he soon died. There was a clash between the Godunovs and the rest. First, Mstislavsky, the Vorotynskys, the Golovins suffered, and then the Shuiskys. Palace turmoil led Godunov to the regency for which he aspired. He had no rivals after the fall of the Shuiskys. When the news of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry came to Moscow, rumors spread around the city that Dmitry had been killed on the orders of Godunov. These rumors were written down first of all by some foreigners, and then they got into the legends, compiled much later than the event. Most historians believed the legends, and the opinion about the murder of Dmitry Godunov became generally accepted. But in recent times this view has been greatly undermined, and there is hardly any modern historian who would decisively lean on the side of legends. In any case, the role that fell to Godunov's lot was very difficult: it was necessary to pacify the earth, it was necessary to fight the crisis indicated above. There is no doubt that Boris managed to alleviate the difficult situation of the country at least for a while. But, of course, Godunov could not resolve the contradictions to which the entire course of previous history had led Russia. He could not and did not want to be the calmer of the nobility in a political crisis: it was not in his interests. In the economic crisis, Godunov took the side of the service class, which, as it turned out during further development Troubles, was one of the most numerous and strongest in the Muscovite state. In general, the position of drafters and walking people under Godunov was difficult. Godunov wanted to rely on the middle class of society - the service people and the townspeople. Indeed, he managed to get up with their help, but could not resist. In 1594, Princess Theodosia, the daughter of Theodore, died. The king himself was not far from death. There are indications that as early as 1593, Moscow nobles were discussing candidates for the Moscow throne and even outlined the Austrian Archduke Maximilian. This indication is very valuable, as it depicts the mood of the boyars. In 1598, Fedor died without appointing an heir. The entire state recognized the power of his widow Irina, but she renounced the throne and took her hair. Interregnum opened. There were 4 candidates for the throne: F. N. Romanov, Godunov, Prince. F. I. Mstislavsky and B. Ya. Belsky. The Shuiskys at that time occupied a lowered position and could not be candidates. The most serious contender, according to Sapieha, was Romanov, the most impudent - Belsky. There was a lively struggle between the contenders. In February 1598 a council was convened. In its composition and character, it did not differ in any way from other former cathedrals, and no fraud on the part of Godunov can be suspected; on the contrary, in terms of its composition, the cathedral was rather unfavorable for Boris, since the main support of Godunov - simple service nobles - was few in it, and Moscow was best and most fully represented, that is, those layers of the aristocratic nobility of Moscow, which were not particularly favored to Godunov. 7 At the council, however, Boris was elected king; but soon after the election, the boyars started an intrigue. From the report of the Polish ambassador Sapieha, it can be seen that most of the Moscow boyars and princes, with F. N. Romanov and Belsky at the head, planned to put Simeon Bekbulatovich on the throne. This explains why in the "undersigned entry" given by the boyars after the wedding of Godunov to the kingdom, it is said that they should not want Simeon to reign. The first three years of Godunov's reign passed quietly, but from 1601 setbacks began. A terrible famine set in, which lasted until 1604, during which many people died. The mass of the hungry population dispersed along the roads and began to rob. Rumors began to circulate that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive. All historians agree that the main role in the appearance of the impostor belonged to the Moscow boyars. Perhaps, in connection with the appearance of rumors about an impostor, there is a disgrace that befell first Belsky, and then the Romanovs, of whom Fyodor Nikitich was the most popular. In 1601 they were all sent into exile, Fyodor Nikitich was tonsured under the name Filaret. Together with the Romanovs, their relatives were exiled: Prince. Cherkassky, Sitsky, Shestunov, Karpov, Repin. Following the exile of the Romanovs, disgrace and executions began to rage. Godunov, obviously, was looking for the threads of the conspiracy, but found nothing. In the meantime, anger against him intensified. The old boyars (boyars-princes) gradually recovered from the persecution of Grozny and became hostile to the unborn tsar. When the impostor (see False Dmitry I) crossed the Dnieper, the mood of the Seversk Ukraine and the south in general was most favorable to his intentions. The above-mentioned economic crisis drove crowds of fugitives to the borders of the Muscovite state; they were caught and unwittingly recorded in the sovereign's service; they had to submit, but retained dull irritation, especially since they were oppressed by service and tithe arable land for the state. There were wandering gangs of Cossacks around, who were constantly replenished with people from the center and service fugitives. Finally, a three-year famine, just before the appearance of the impostor within Russian borders, accumulated many "villainous reptiles" who roamed everywhere and with whom it was necessary to wage a real war. Thus, combustible material was ready. The service people recruited from the fugitives, and partly the boyar children of the Ukrainian strip, recognized the impostor. After the death of Boris, the princely boyars in Moscow became against the Godunovs and the latter perished. The impostor marched triumphantly towards Moscow. In Tula, he was met by the color of the Moscow boyars - princes Vasily, Dmitry and Ivan Shuisky, Prince. Mstislavsky, prince. Vorotynsky. Immediately in Tula, the impostor showed the boyars that they could not live with him: he received them very rudely, "punishing you and layash", and in everything he gave preference to the Cossacks and other small brothers. The impostor did not understand his position, did not understand the role of the boyars, and it immediately began to act against him. On June 20, the impostor arrived in Moscow, and already on June 30, the trial of the Shuiskys took place. Thus, less than 10 days had passed before the Shuiskys started a fight against the impostor. This time they hurried, but they soon found allies. The clergy were the first to join the boyars, followed by the merchant class. Preparations for the uprising began at the end of 1605 and dragged on for six months. On May 17, 1606, up to 200 boyars and nobles broke into the Kremlin and the impostor was killed. (Read also the articles Pretender of False Dmitry and The reign and murder of False Dmitry) 8 Now the old boyar party found itself at the head of the board, which chose V. Shuisky. "The boyar-princely reaction in Moscow" (the expression of S. F. Platonov), having mastered the political position, elevated his most noble leader to the kingdom. The election of V. Shuisky to the throne took place without the advice of the whole earth. The Shuisky brothers, V.V. Golitsyn with his brothers, Iv. S. Kurakin and I. M. Vorotynsky, having agreed among themselves, brought Prince Vasily Shuisky to the place of execution and from there proclaimed him king. It was natural to expect that the people would be against the "shouted out" tsar and that the minor boyars (Romanovs, Nagye, Belsky, M. G. Saltykov, and others) would also be against him, which gradually began to recover from the disgrace of Boris.
The second period of the Time of Troubles. The second period (1606-1610) is characterized by the internecine struggle of social classes and the intervention of foreign governments in this struggle. In 1606-1607. there is an uprising led by Ivan Bolotnikov.
In the meantime, in Starodub (in the Bryansk region) in the summer of 1607, a new impostor appeared, declaring himself "Tsar Dmitry" who had escaped. His personality is even more mysterious than his predecessor. Some consider False Dmitry II to be Russian by origin, a native of the church environment, others - a baptized Jew, a teacher from Shklov.
According to many historians, False Dmitry II was a protege of the Polish king Sigismund III, although not everyone supports this version. The bulk of the armed forces of False Dmitry II were Polish gentry and Cossacks - the remnants of P. Bolotnikov's army.
In January 1608 he moved to Moscow. Having defeated Shuisky's troops in several battles, by the beginning of June, False Dmitry II reached the village of Tushina near Moscow, where he settled in a camp. In fact, dual power set in in the country: Vasily Shuisky sent his decrees from Moscow, False Dmitry from Tushin. As for the boyars and nobles, many of them served both sovereigns: either they went to Tushino for ranks and lands, or they returned to Moscow, expecting awards from Shuisky.
The growing popularity of the Tushinsky Thief was facilitated by the recognition of her husband by the wife of False Dmitry I, Marina Mniszek, who, obviously, not without the influence of the Poles, took part in the adventure and arrived in Tushino.
In the camp of False Dmitry, as already noted, the Poles-mercenaries initially played a very large role. The impostor asked the Polish king for open help, but in the Commonwealth itself there were then internal troubles, and the king was afraid to start a frank big war with Russia. Covert interference in Russian affairs Sigismund III continued. In general, in the summer - autumn of 1608, the successes of the Tushino people were growing rapidly. Almost half of the country - from Vologda to Astrakhan, from Vladimir, Suzdal, Yaroslavl to Pskov - supported "Tsar Dmitry". But the atrocities of the Poles and the collection of "taxes" (it was necessary to support the army and, in general, the entire Tushino "court"), which were more like robberies, led to the enlightenment of the population and the beginning of a spontaneous struggle against the Tushino thief. At the end of 1608 - beginning of 1609. protests began against the impostor, initially in the northern lands, and then in almost all cities on the middle Volga. Shuisky, however, was afraid to rely on this patriotic movement. He sought help abroad. The second period of the Time of Troubles is associated with the split of the country in 1609: two tsars, two Boyar Dumas, two patriarchs, territories recognizing the authority of False Dmitry II, and territories remaining faithful to Shuisky were formed in Muscovy.
In February 1609, Shuisky's government concluded an agreement with Sweden, counting on help in the war against the "Tushino thief" and his Polish detachments. According to this agreement, Russia gave Sweden the Karelian volost in the North, which was a serious political mistake. The Swedish-Russian troops under the command of the tsar's nephew, Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuisky, inflicted a number of defeats on the Tushino people. ten
This gave Sigismund III an excuse to move to open intervention. The Commonwealth began hostilities against Russia. Taking advantage of the fact that the central government in Russia was virtually absent, the army did not exist, in September 1609, Polish troops besieged Smolensk. By order of the king, the Poles who fought under the banner of "Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich" were to arrive at the Smolensk camp, which accelerated the collapse of the Tushino camp. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where in December 1610 he was killed by his bodyguard.
Sigismund III, continuing the siege of Smolensk, moved part of his troops under the leadership of Hetman Zolkiewski to Moscow. Near Mozhaisk near the village. Klushino in June 1610, the Poles inflicted a crushing defeat on the tsarist troops, which completely undermined the prestige of Shuisky and led to his overthrow.
Meanwhile, the peasant war continued in the country, which was now being waged by numerous Cossack detachments. The Moscow boyars decided to turn to the Polish king Sigismund for help. An agreement was signed on calling Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. At the same time, the conditions of the "cross-kissing record" of V. Shuisky were confirmed and the preservation of the Russian order was guaranteed. Only the question of Vladislav's acceptance of Orthodoxy remained unresolved. In September 1610, Polish detachments led by the "viceroy of Tsar Vladislav" Gonsevsky entered Moscow.
Sweden also launched aggressive actions. Swedish troops occupied a significant part of the north of Russia and were preparing to capture Novgorod. In mid-July 1611, Swedish troops captured Novgorod, then laid siege to Pskov, where the power of their emissaries was established.
During the second period, the struggle for power continued, while external forces (Poland, Sweden) were included in it. In fact, the Russian state was divided into two camps, which were ruled by Vasily Shuisky and False Dmitry II. This period was marked by fairly large-scale military operations, as well as the loss of a large amount of land. All this took place against the backdrop of internal peasant wars, which further weakened the country and intensified the crisis.
The third stage of the Time of Troubles. The third period of the Time of Troubles (1610-1613) is, first of all, the time of the struggle of Moscow people with foreign domination before the creation of a national government headed by M.F. Romanov. On July 17, 1610, Vasily Shuisky was deposed from the throne, and on July 19 he was forcibly tonsured a monk. Prior to the election of a new tsar, a government of "Prince F.I. Mstislavsky and his comrades" was established in Moscow from 7 boyars (the so-called "Seven Boyars"). The boyars, led by Fedor Mstislavsky, began to rule Russia, but they did not have the people's trust and could not decide which of them would rule. As a result, the Polish prince Vladislav, the son of Sigismund III, was called to the throne. Vladislav needed to convert to Orthodoxy, but he was a Catholic and was not going to change his faith. The boyars begged him to come "look", but he was accompanied by the Polish army, which captured Moscow. It was possible to preserve the independence of the Russian state only by relying on the people. In the autumn of 1611, the first people's militia was formed in Ryazan, headed by Prokopiy Lyapunov. But he failed to negotiate with the Cossacks and he was killed in the Cossack circle. Tushino Cossacks again laid siege to Moscow. Anarchy frightened all the boyars. On August 17, 1610, the Russian boyars concluded an agreement on calling Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. A great embassy was sent to King Sigismund III near Smolensk, headed by Metropolitan Filaret and Prince Vasily Golitsyn. During the period of the so-called interregnum (1610-1613), the position of the Muscovite state seemed completely hopeless.
From October 1610 Moscow was under martial law. The Russian embassy near Smolensk was taken into custody. On November 30, 1610, Patriarch Hermogenes called for a fight against the interventionists. The idea of convening a national militia for the liberation of Moscow and Russia is maturing in the country.
Russia faced a direct threat of loss of independence. The catastrophic situation that developed at the end of 1610 stirred up patriotic sentiments and religious feelings, forced many Russian people to rise above social contradictions, political differences and personal ambitions. The fatigue of all strata of society from civil war, a thirst for order, which they perceived as the restoration of traditional foundations. As a result, this predetermined the revival of tsarist power in its autocratic and Orthodox form, the rejection of all innovations aimed at transforming it, and the victory of conservative traditionalist forces. But only on this basis, it was possible to rally society, get out of the crisis and achieve the expulsion of the occupiers.
State educational institution
Samara State University
Department of Documentation
The crisis of Russian statehood
during the "Troubles"XVIIcentury
1st year student(s), gr. 21101
Supervisor:
Ph.D., Associate Professor
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...P. 3
Chapter II. Causes and prerequisites of the Troubles in Russia………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
1.1. The Personal Factor as the Cause of Troubles…………………………………..S. 6
1.2. Socio-economic causes of the Troubles…………………………….P. eight
1.3. Political Causes of Troubles……………..……………………………S. 12
Chapter III. The main events of the Time of Troubles……….……………………....S. fourteen
2.1. Beginning of Troubles. Board of Boris Godunov……………………………S. fourteen
2.2. Civil War of the Time of Troubles. Pretenders…………S. 17
2.3. People's militias of 1611 and 1612……………………………………S. 20
Chapter II. Consequences of the Time of Troubles…………………………………………………….S. 25
3.1. Socio-economic, political and international
Consequences…………………………………………………………………….С. 25
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...С. 32
List of sources and literature………………………………………………..P. 34
Introduction
The subject of this report is the crisis of Russian statehood during the Time of Troubles. Dramatic events that began a little before the death of the last representative of the ruling Rurik dynasty on the Russian throne, Tsar Fedor Ivanovich (1598) and ended only 15 years later, with the election of the new Tsar Mikhail Romanov at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, received in Russian historical literature an apt name for the Time of Troubles. The very term "Time of Troubles" was first heard on the pages of the book "On Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich" by a talented Russian writer and publicist of the 17th century Grigory Kotoshikhin.
The history of the Time of Troubles closely intertwined various phenomena: the crisis of power and foreign intervention, the struggle between the boyar clans and the growth of national consciousness. And yet the main content of the Time of Troubles is the violation of the internal balance of Russian society due to the loss of one of the most important parts of its structure - a legitimate (legally legal) monarchy. Attempts by various individuals and the social groups that supported them to restore the lost stability were unsuccessful for a long time, since the combinations of social forces that arose did not bring the desired result. The situation was aggravated by the destabilizing influence of new factors that broke into the public life of Russia - intervention, the actions of the Cossacks, the appearance of impostors.
The events that took place in the first two decades of the 17th century were forever engraved in her historical memory. It was a series of unseen and unthinkable before. Never before has the political struggle for power in the state become a common thing for ordinary nobles, and even more so for the lower social classes. Never before has the fierce struggle for the leading positions in society reached the point of systematic persecution, and at times, the extermination of the upper classes by the lower classes. Never before had a fugitive defamationist from an ordinary noble family, a former serf from Eastern Belarus, encroached on the royal throne. Never before has a hereditary autocratic monarchy turned into an elective monarchy, and never before have several centers existed in parallel in the country, headed by imaginary or real monarchs who claimed state power. Never before has there been such a real threat of Russia's loss of state independence, the dismemberment of its territory between neighboring countries.
The classical time of situations that were completely unbelievable before: in one battle, in one fight, neighbors and siblings, fathers and children turned out to be mortal enemies. The logic of irreconcilable rivalry bred individuals into different armed camps, whose corporate and tribal solidarity had not previously raised even a shadow of a doubt. The principles of faithful service under oath collapsed. It happened that representatives of the same surname served two or even three sovereigns at the same time, mutually insuring "political risks", their own and relatives. Such an all-encompassing split in society had roots in all spheres of the country's life.
Based on this, it is necessary to determine the purpose of the report. The purpose of the report is a comprehensive and comprehensive study of the historical phenomenon called "Time of Troubles".
To achieve the goal, it is necessary to solve the following research questions. tasks:
- to characterize the main causes and preconditions of the Time of Troubles;
- to analyze the features of the main events of the Time of Troubles;
- to determine the consequences of the Time of Troubles for the Russian state.
The theme of the Time of Troubles has always aroused great interest among historians. At different times they explained the causes of the Troubles in different ways. In pre-revolutionary official historiography, much attention was paid to the suppression of the ruling dynasty and the "usurpation" of power by Boris Godunov. At the same time, many historians have sought to identify various factors that caused the Troubles, to show their relationship. Almost all the most famous Russian historians of the 19th century wrote about the Time of Troubles in this vein. This is and, and, and, and.
Speaking about the causes of the Time of Troubles, these historians emphasize, first of all, the contradictions in the social and economic policy of the government, the clash of interests of various classes. There is an integrated approach to the analysis of the factors that gave rise to the Troubles.
During the Soviet period, the concept of "Trouble" was considered scientifically untenable for a long time, in most works devoted to the beginning of the 17th century, it was mainly about the peasant movement or foreign intervention.
Recently, in a number of works, primarily in the works, a comprehensive approach to the study of the Time of Troubles has been renewed as a complex and multifaceted socio-economic and political process. draws attention to the general evolution of the system of state bodies of the country during this period.
The new tsar was the son of Metropolitan Filaret, a subtle diplomat who was able to get along with False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky, and the “Tushins”. The representatives of the opposing factions were also satisfied with the youth of the new king - in the year of his election he was only 17 years old. They hoped to win him over to their side. An important circumstance was the connection of the Romanovs with the old dynasty, through the first wife of Ivan IV. The new tsar stayed on the throne only thanks to the support of the Zemsky Sobors, which at that time sat almost continuously. Thus ended the period of the Time of Troubles in Russia.
ChapterIII. Consequences of the Troubles
3.1. Socio-economic, political and international implications
To say that the consequences of the Time of Troubles were the most difficult for the progressive development of the country would, perhaps, be weak. Here are other definitions - catastrophic among them.
In economic terms, the Time of Troubles was a long-term, powerful rollback both in the countryside and in the city. The abomination of desolation - this phrase was literally applicable to vast areas of the country. The minimum necessary funds were extracted from the taxable people (and not only from him) by the hardest extraordinary payments. A number of fees began to be paid in kind. What happened with taxes, with revenues to the treasury, with the economy in general in the middle of the 16th century, could be considered an unattainable ideal at the end of the Time of Troubles. In general, a more or less real restoration of agricultural production took place in the middle - third quarter of the 17th century.
In the whirlwind of the civil war, in the thickness of social conflicts and political contradictions, the contours of phenomena that correlate with the trend of non-serf development are guessed. Free Cossacks as a military estate with traditional support in the form of feeding officers is a phenomenon that does not need a serf regime. And vice versa, the beginning of the transformation of the verstan Cossacks into landowners is the path to development with a feudal orientation. The actual abolition of any prohibitions on the transition of peasants is the reality of the social unrest of the Time of Troubles. But when the first and most difficult economic consequences of it began to be overcome, the first thing the government seized on in the 1920s was the restoration of the terms for detecting peasants and the fundamental prohibition of the right to transfer them.
If in the process of the civil war some tendencies and phenomena of a non-serf nature manifested themselves more sharply and stronger, then the economic and social results of the Time of Troubles strengthened the factors of a feudal order. Only two groups of events were not burdened, perhaps, with an intense feudal orientation. The turmoil prompted the processes of external colonization, especially commercial. In the overall balance, there is undoubtedly an increase in the economic and social significance of the black-moss north; but he was simply not up to any advanced forms of serfdom.
Never before and never later, until 1861, when serfdom was abolished, did Russia experience such a surge in the activities of institutions of representation from estate groups. Almost constantly functioning Zemsky Sobors (including councils of militias), with a sharply expanded membership, with a strengthening of the principle real elections and markedly increased prerogatives, including a number of executive functions. For almost ten years, Zemsky Sobors actually ensured and controlled the receipt of extraordinary fees (“fifth money”).
Finally, the regional (city) institutions of representation of local class groups in this form were generally news. It is still largely a mystery why the local estates decided that participation in such bodies is a new, burdensome service for them, and not the satisfaction of their group and corporate interests. And why, accordingly, the activity of these representative institutions in the center and in the regions in the 17th century dies down.
Undoubtedly, the Time of Troubles sharpened the patriotic awareness of the independent historical fate of Russia by all classes. Even in extreme periods of social chaos and political collapse, the natural desire to restore state independence and unity turned out to be stronger than the tendencies towards the disintegration of society in all classes, in all regions of the country. True, and the price for this was paid great. The end of the civil war did not completely remove the potential split in society from the agenda - the social upheavals of the 17th century. testify to this unambiguously. Overcoming the consequences of the Time of Troubles in the economy, internal development, foreign policy, in the progress of civilization took the lives of two or three generations.
The open aggression of the Commonwealth against Russia continued from 1609 to 1613, and then in the years. Sweden began to seize Russian lands in 1611. If the actions on the Karelian Isthmus, in Novgorod land were successful for the Swedes, then their attempts to capture the Kola Peninsula, Zaonezhsky graveyards and the southern White Sea ended in failure. The attack on Tikhvin had the same result. In 1615, Gustav-Adolf himself undertook the siege of Pskov, which turned out to be unsuccessful. The rapid approach of a pan-European conflict forced him to seek peace on the eastern border.
The completely conscious and interested mediation of Holland and England quickly brought to a result. Sweden retained the Izhora land, Karel with the district, all the conditions of the Tyavzinsky peace were preserved, guaranteeing full control over Russian trade in the Baltic. But the Novgorod land was returned to Russia, and Karl-Philip completely renounced any claims to the Russian throne. Those were the main terms of the extensive agreement between Russia and Sweden, known as the Stolbovsky peace. It was concluded in February 1617.
Of the events that influenced the Swedish determination for peace with Russia, one should point to the ever-increasing political rapprochement of the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs with Sigismund III - for him, comparison with Philip II was perhaps the most expensive compliment. And in parallel - the formation of the opposite coalition (the Franco-Anglo-Dutch alliance of 1610 and the Swedish-Dutch alliance of 1612), along with the intensified split along the confessional lines of the German states (the creation of the Catholic Union - in 1609).
After the Time of Troubles, Russia's place in the system of European political and economic relations became different in many respects. The geopolitical foundations were preserved, but the forces and military potential of the country were completely different. The southern border, for example, was simply wide open. It is worth considering this circumstance: the long years of violence and robberies, personified in many ways with the actions of foreign troops, could not help but increase xenophobia in Russian society.
If objective development intensified Russia's relations with European states, then the bitter experience of the Time of Troubles largely influenced the methods and forms of contacts. Isolation on confessional grounds also intensified and, moreover, very sensitively. In relations with a number of states (primarily with the Empire and its allies), there was a generally long break. In Europe, which had split into two camps on the eve of the Thirty Years' War, Russia, by the natural course of events, was drawn into the anti-Habsburg coalition. But within the framework of this camp, she found herself on its periphery. It took half a century to overcome the most negative consequences of the Time of Troubles in the international position of Russia, but only under Peter I was the Baltic issue resolved.
3.2. The consequences of the Troubles for the state apparatus
The Time of Troubles was a severe shock for the Russian statehood. It was a period of acute political and social crisis, complicated by foreign intervention, a crisis in which class, national, intra-class and inter-class contradictions intertwined. Tsars changed, different parts of the country and even neighboring cities simultaneously recognized the power of different sovereigns, peasant unrest and uprisings took place. The struggle of pretenders for the royal throne, broad popular movements, the refusal of a number of regions to obey the central government - all this in itself required the state to exert maximum resources to stabilize the situation.
The situation was aggravated by the fact that almost from the very beginning of the Time of Troubles, foreign powers openly interfered in the internal affairs of Russia. The political and national independence of the Russian people was called into question. Between 1600 and 1620 Russia lost about half of its population. The population of Moscow has decreased by 33%. Nevertheless, this disease of the state body ended in recovery.
One of the most notable episodes in the history of the Time of Troubles, associated with some changes in the state apparatus, was the time of the Seven Boyars.
On July 17, 1610, the boyars and nobles under the leadership of Zakhary Lyapunov, the leader of the Ryazan nobility, deposed Tsar Vasily Shuisky and established a provisional government of 7 boyars - the Seven Boyars. Fearing the expansion of the newly flared peasant unrest and the Cossack detachments freely roaming the roads, the Moscow aristocracy, despite the protests of the church, on August 17 concluded an agreement on the calling of Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. The royal troops entered Moscow, and Alexander Gonsevsky became the viceroy of the Polish crown in Russia, who received the right to freely dispose of the country. The deposed tsar and his brothers were interned in Poland.
Sweden also launched aggressive actions. The overthrow of Vasily Shuisky freed her from allied obligations under the 1609 treaty. Swedish troops occupied a significant part of the north of Russia.
The country faced a direct threat of loss of sovereignty, which was eliminated during the first and second popular militias.
Immediately after the liberation of Moscow from the Poles, preparations began to convene the Zemsky Sobor (the last Zemsky Sobor in Russian history) to select a new tsar. A similar decision was reflected in documents from different cities. The contenders for the throne were the Polish prince Vladislav, the son of Sigismund III, the son of the Swedish king Karl Philip, Ivan - the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II, representatives of noble boyar families; Tsar: "according to the whole peaceful allied general council" Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was elected (). This happened on February 21, 1613.
The new tsar was the son of Metropolitan Philaret, a subtle diplomat who was able to get along with False Dmitry I, and with Vasily Shuisky, and with the “Tushins”. Representatives of the opposing factions were also satisfied with the youth of the new king - in the year of his election he was only 17 years old. They hoped to win him over to their side. An important circumstance was the connection of the Romanovs with the old dynasty, through the first wife of Ivan IV. The new tsar stayed on the throne only thanks to the support of the Zemsky Sobors, which at that time sat almost continuously.
So, in 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne, thereby establishing a new dynasty of Russian sovereigns. The former Rurik dynasty, which had ruled the country since the beginning of the 10th century, came to an end after Ivan IV killed his son Ivan in 1581 and the tragic death in Uglich in 1591 of the young Tsarevich Dmitry, the last son of Ivan IV.
Russia defended its independence, but suffered serious territorial losses. After the signing of the Deulensky truce with the Commonwealth in 1618 and the exchange of prisoners, the Muscovite state emerged from a long-term foreign policy crisis and began the struggle to regain the territories lost during the Time of Troubles.
The next step was the restoration of the economy and the state apparatus. In the years increased tax pressure. The Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor passed a law on the introduction of an emergency tax (20% of income and a tax on land property). The famous merchants and salt producers Stroganovs, for example, had to pay a huge amount for those times - 56 thousand rubles. In 1619, the next Zemsky Sobor made a number of important decisions: to make an inventory of the lands subject to taxation; promote the voluntary return of peasants; create a special chamber to appeal against the actions of officials who abuse their power; develop a draft reform of local administration, giving preference to meetings of elected representatives, and approve the new budget of the country.
After the Troubles, the structure of the restored state power remained the same. It is important to emphasize that the samples of state administration of the previous period served as the basis for the resurgent Russia, which testifies to the deep and original roots of Russian statehood.
It should be noted that the Romanov dynasty did not have its own real material, power means and mechanisms for asserting power, gaining legitimacy and strength. As already mentioned, the Time of Troubles was not just a threat to independence, the loss of territorial integrity, but also the loss of the Orthodox self-identification of the Russian people. Therefore, the revival of autocracy and the restoration of statehood took place and could only take place on foundations close to the canonical ideas about the state as a “symphony of authorities”, the dual unity of secular and spiritual authorities, autonomously existing, but equally ensuring the protection and triumph of Orthodoxy by their own means.
Conclusion
So, the reasons for the Time of Troubles was the moment that at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Muscovite state was going through a severe and complex crisis, socio-economic and political.
With the opening for Russian colonization of the vast southeastern spaces of the middle and lower Volga region, a wide stream of peasants rushed here from the central regions of the state, seeking to get away from the sovereign and the landlord "tax", and this drain of labor led to a shortage of workers and to a severe economic crisis. within the state. The more people left the center, the harder the state and landowner tax burdened those who remained. The growth of landownership placed an increasing number of peasants under the rule of the landowners, and the lack of workers forced the landowners to increase peasant taxes and duties and strive by all means to secure the existing peasant population of their estates.
In the second half of the XVI century. a number of circumstances, external and internal, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent among the masses. The severe Livonian war (which lasted 25 years and ended in complete failure) demanded huge sacrifices from the population in people and material resources. The Tatar invasion and the defeat of Moscow in 1571 significantly increased casualties and losses. The oprichnina of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, which shook and shook the old way of life and habitual relations (especially in the "oprichnina" regions), increased the general discord and demoralization.
Finally, the termination of the legitimate Rurik dynasty on the Russian throne influenced the aggravation of the crisis. The consequences of the Time of Troubles for Russia were as follows. Russia defended its independence, but suffered serious territorial losses. The consequence of the intervention and the peasant war of the beginning of the 17th century was a severe economic devastation. Contemporaries called it "the great Moscow ruin." According to researchers, at least half of the arable land was abandoned at that time. Therefore, the history of Russia in the first two thirds of the 17th century is the history of the slow and difficult restoration of the country's economy, which became the main content of the reigns of the first two tsars from the Romanov dynasty - Mikhail and Alexei.
To improve the work of government bodies and create a more equitable taxation system, a population census was conducted by decree of Mikhail Romanov, and land cadastres were compiled.
The consequences for the international position of Russia were as follows. The Swedes, who ruled in the north, failed near Pskov and in 1617 concluded the Stolbovsky Peace, which ensured the return of Novgorod, but Russia lost the entire coast of the Gulf of Finland and access to the Baltic Sea. The situation changed only after almost a hundred years, at the beginning of the 18th century, already under Peter I. The Commonwealth could not come to terms with the expulsion from Russia. In 1618, the Poles again invaded Russia, but were defeated. The Polish adventure ended with a truce in the village of Deulino in the same year. However, Russia lost Smolensk and the cities of Seversk, which it was able to return only in the middle of the 17th century.
In the fiercest and most severe struggle, Russia defended its independence and entered a new stage of its development. In fact, this is where its medieval history ends.
The main content of the period of the Time of Troubles was that Russia was able to withstand the split of the country into several warring camps, in the absence of a strong legitimate central government, in the conditions of foreign intervention only thanks to the efforts of the Russian people themselves, who, having risen with weapons in their hands against the enemy saved his country.
Bibliography
Sources
Special literature
1., Mironov of the Russian State: Historical and Bibliographic Essays. M., 1991. Book. one.
2. Klyuchevsky of Russian history // Works. In 9 t. M., 1989. T 3.
3. Kostomarov history in the biographies of its main figures. In 2 vol. M., 1998. T. 1.
4. About Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich // Reader on ancient Russian literature. M., 1952.
5. Kulyugin of Russia. Cheboksary, 1994.
6. Platonov on Russian history. Petrozavodsk, 1996.
7. Pushkarev of Russian history. M., 1991.
8. Skrynnikov: Moscow in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 1988.
9. Skrynnikov in the 17th century. Trouble. M., 1988.
10. Skrynnikov in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Grigory Otrepiev. Novosibirsk, 1987.
11. About the history of ancient Russia. M., 1993.
12. Tikhomirov statehood. M., 1998.
About Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich // Reader on ancient Russian literature. M., 1952. S. 372.
Klyuchevsky of Russian history // Works. In 9 t. M., 1989. T 3.
On the history of ancient Russia. M., 1993.
Kostomarov history in the biographies of its main figures. In 2 vol. M., 1998. T. 1.
Presnyakov of the Time of Troubles. SPb., 1905.
Skrynnikov: Moscow in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 1988; He is. Russia in the 17th century Trouble. M., 1988; He is. Pretenders in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Grigory Otrepiev. Novosibirsk, 1987.
Tikhomirov statehood. M., 1998.
Skrynnikov: Moscow in the XVI-XVII centuries. S. 44.
Platonov on the history of the Troubles. SPb., 1901.
Skrynnikov: Moscow in the XVI-XVII centuries. S. 38.
Skrynnikov in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Grigory Otrepiev. S. 33
Skrynnikov: Moscow in the XVI-XVII centuries. S. 45.
Skrynnikov in the 17th century. Trouble. S. 41.
Tikhomirov statehood. S. 262.
Platonov course of lectures on Russian history. Petrozavodsk, 1996, p. 270.
Skrynnikov in the 17th century. Trouble. S. 46.
Kulyugin of Russia. Cheboksary, 1994, p. 197.
Platonov course of lectures on Russian history. S. 272.
Skrynnikov in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Grigory Otrepiev. S. 123.
Skrynnikov in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Grigory Otrepiev. pp. 178-180.
Pushkarev of Russian history. S. 154.
Skrynnikov in the 17th century. Trouble. S. 149.
Skrynnikov in the 17th century. Trouble. S. 184.
Pushkarev of Russian history. S. 156.
Platonov course of lectures on Russian history. S. 285.
Mironov of the Russian State: Historical and Bibliographic Essays. M., 1991. Book. 1. S. 327.
Skrynnikov in the 17th century. Trouble. S. 203.
Skrynnikov in the 17th century. Trouble. S. 211.
Tikhomirov statehood. S. 338.
Skrynnikov in the 17th century. Trouble. S. 255.
Mironov of the Russian State: Historical and Bibliographic Essays. S. 339.
Question to point II No. 1. How can you explain the success of False Dmitry I?
Reasons for success:
The people were already convinced of the untruth of the ruling tsar, because for the first time in history he was elected by the Zemsky Sobor, and the famine of 1601-1603 was God's obvious wrath;
The boyars remained dissatisfied with the rule of the "upstart", who was not even a boyar from birth;
Various segments of the population suffered from the ongoing crisis and placed their hopes in the true king;
The peasants suffered from the developing serfdom and pinned their hopes on the true king;
Boris Godunov limited the Don trade, which the Cossacks were greatly outraged by;
Boris Godunov tried to prevent the flight of people to the southern Cossack lands, which the Cossacks were greatly outraged by;
The timely death of Boris Godunov, who called himself a prince, helped a lot;
Maria Nagaya (mother of Tsarevich Dmitry) recognized her son as a pretender to the throne.
Question to point II #2. Why was False Dmitry I unable to retain power?
The new tsar frankly neglected the ancient customs: he did not sleep after dinner, walked quickly, himself received petitions, etc.;
In Moscow, immigrants from the Commonwealth who came with the new tsar were in charge, while in non-Orthodox foreigners people were already accustomed to seeing immigrants from the kingdom of the Antichrist;
The new tsar married a Catholic woman and generally showed pro-Catholic sympathies;
The new king did not make up "his team" - a group of the most trusted adherents who could be trusted with all the most important posts and assignments;
The new tsar was in no hurry to fulfill the promises given before the campaign in Russia, therefore he was losing allies;
The new tsar was in no hurry to alleviate the fate of the peasants or the Cossacks, therefore he lost the support of the people;
Despite the fact that the new tsar brought people from the Commonwealth closer to himself, he did not remove the boyars from the capital (one of whom led the conspiracy).
Question for point III. How do you see the unusual fact of the king's oath to his subjects? What new trend in the relationship between the monarch and the political elite is this episode talking about?
Under the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the Grand Duke received a label from the Khan of the Golden Horde. After the overthrow of the yoke, he began to be considered the anointed of God. He never owed anything to his subjects, therefore the oath of Vasily Shuisky is an absolutely new phenomenon in the history of Muscovy. Not in the history of Russia as a whole - in Veliky Novgorod, for example, the prince not only took the oath, but also signed the contract. But Shuisky obviously did not rely on Novgorodian traditions. His oath showed a tendency to establish an oligarchy. Because in fact he did not swear allegiance to all subjects, namely the boyars. A significant part of his letter is devoted to guaranteeing the rights of the boyars. And the boyars were a relatively small and closed estate, their power would have become a classic oligarchy.
Question to point IV. What social groups were primarily protected by the treaty? Imagine how much the governance of Russia could change.
The boyars hoped that the treaty would strengthen their power, because the prince was a baby, and his father would hardly have left the Commonwealth for Moscow. In the Commonwealth, most likely, they hoped more for the return of the disputed lands - Smolensk and Novgorod-Seversky. That is, if successful, the treaty could lead to the fact that in a territorially curtailed Russia the boyar oligarchy would begin to rule.
Question to point V. Spend comparative analysis the first militia and movement under the leadership of Bolotnikov (according to the social composition, the goals of the struggle, etc.).
The social composition of both troops was similar: the backbone was made up of Cossacks and nobles, who were joined by peasants and townspeople. No wonder some of the leaders of the uprising, such as Prokopy Lyapunov, occupied a prominent place in the First Militia. However, the goals were different. The rebels were in favor of a specific contender for the throne, while the militia fought against a specific contender, but not for a specific candidate.
Question to the VI point No. 1. Which of the reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom seems to you the most significant and why?
The most significant reason was his family closeness to the descendants of Ivan Kalita. That is why he was supported by different classes, and it was him, and not other candidates with similar characteristics. There were quite a few rather young, unproven offspring of the boyar families (and even the descendants of Rurik). Mikhail was not a candidate exclusively for the boyars, because the petition of the Cossacks, which was crushed by the hilt of the Cossack saber as an unambiguous hint, became a weighty argument. So it was not the boyars' hopes for an obedient tsar that brought the Romanovs to the throne.
It turns out that after many bloody years of the Troubles, Russia received what it refused at its beginning in the person of the Godunovs - a dynasty elected by the Zemsky Sobor, related to the previous one in the female line. But it was after the Time of Troubles that such an option no longer seemed bad.
Question to the VI paragraph number 2. What do you know about the feat of the headman of the Romanov estate Ivan Susanin?
A detachment of troops from the Commonwealth came to Ivan Susanin with a demand to lead them through forest paths to the village of Domino in the Kostroma estate of the Romanovs in order to capture Mikhail and his mother, already elected tsar, who was there. Susanin verbally agreed, but led the enemies in the other direction to the village of Isupov. When the squad discovered the deception, they tortured the hero, but he still did not show the right direction.
Question for paragraph 1. Name the causes of the Time of Troubles. What was the scale and nature of the crisis in Russian society at the turn of the century?
Causes of Trouble:
The crisis in the economy that lasted from the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the resulting increase in enslavement;
Dynastic crisis;
The famine of 1601-1603, which convinced many of the untruth of the king;
The appearance at the right time of another contender for the throne, who declared himself the true king.
Thus, at the turn of the century, Russia was engulfed in a double crisis. First, it was a dynastic crisis. Secondly, it was an economic crisis, which caused an aggravation of social contradictions. The scale of these contradictions can be seen from the scale of the Troubles.
Question for paragraph 2. IN. Klyuchevsky noted that False Dmitry I "was only baked in a Polish oven, and fermented in Moscow." How do you understand this statement of the historian?
The historian apparently meant that the assistance provided to the pretender to the throne in the Commonwealth was only the last impetus for the beginning of the unrest. Its deepest causes lie in the contradictions within the very Russian society of the previous period.
Question for paragraph 3. “A true tsar is only natural and at the same time elected; only a natural tsar can be elected” (clerk Ivan Timofeev). What, in your opinion, should have been a true, “natural” tsar in the ideas of the inhabitants of Russia in the 17th century?
According to this statement, the people's choice should only help to reveal the true king, the main criterion in the election should be precisely the truth, and not the personal qualities of the candidate. It was on this principle, most likely, that Mikhail Romanov was elected - as the closest relative of the extinct dynasty.
Question for paragraph 4. What was the rise of the national self-consciousness of the Russian people at the beginning of the 17th century?
Prior to this, supporters of various pretenders to the throne, who were at war with each other, rallied against a common foreign enemy. But this was rather a manifestation of not national, but religious self-consciousness - they rebelled not just against foreigners, but against non-believers. It is not for nothing that one of the main claims against False Dmitry I was marriage with a Catholic, and the successful defense of the monastery (Trinity-Sergius) became a symbol of resistance.
Question for paragraph 5. Write a reasoned essay on the topic "Trouble - a clash of various contradictions."
A civil war is always a tangle of contradictions, even if it takes place between two parties. And the Time of Troubles was a war between many parties, especially at the final stage, when, in addition to the two False Dmitrys (III and IV), who simultaneously acted, many other contenders recruited troops, calling themselves the names of relatives of the last kings who never existed at all.
The reign of Ivan the Terrible was a real disaster for the boyars. Many of them were executed, the estate as a whole was seriously weakened, their influence on the government of the country weakened. The boyars wanted to regain their lost positions, that is, there was a contradiction between them and the tsarist government.
At the same time, the boyars were not homogeneous. There were still ancient families, but at the same time, the nominees of Ivan the Terrible, for example, from the times of the same oprichnina, were also boyars. Hatred for Boris Godunov (just one of these nominees) shows the depth of this contradiction as well. In addition, the struggle for leadership between boyar families, not even ancient and new, but between any boyar families, was indestructible. It manifested itself both in the years of Ivan IV's infancy, and during the Time of Troubles, and, perhaps, at all times from the period when the sources set out events in such detail as to trace it, until the liquidation of the boyars by Peter I - equating the nobility to him.
The reign of Ivan the Terrible is a time of ever-increasing taxes. And the economic crisis left by this king did not allow them to be reduced up to the Time of Troubles. Ordinary people were in poverty because of this, and yet the crisis, even without taking into account taxes, hit them the hardest. Because the townspeople were active participants in many armies during the Time of Troubles. The peasants also actively searched for the truth. The contradiction between them and the privileged classes was caused not only by taxes and requisitions, but also by the intensified serfdom.
Thus, the Time of Troubles was woven from the struggle of contradictions. But in the end, one thing prevailed over all of them - between the Orthodox and the Gentiles. This contradiction was cultivated by the official ideology long before the Troubles, unlike all the others, which remained hidden; because it turned out to be the most powerful in the end.
Question for paragraph 6. What were the consequences of the Time of Troubles and intervention for Russia? What do you see as the main lessons of this time?
Effects:
Many people were killed, lost relatives or simply property (this was the lesser of evils);
Many cities were seriously affected;
The economy as a whole was seriously affected;
Significant territories had to be ceded to the interventionists;
A new dynasty was established on the throne.
Today, they often try to show that the final stage of the Troubles is an example of national unity in the face of intervention, when the people forgot about class and other differences in the face of a common danger. But the contradictions between the estates remained, as can be seen from the heated disputes and precisely the estate parties at the Zemsky Sobor, which ultimately elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne. Unity was not on a national basis, but on a religious basis - in Russia long before that they were sure that their country was the only truly Christian (Orthodox state), and that the kingdom of the Antichrist surrounded it. Therefore, hatred of foreigners was not something new. The main lesson is elsewhere.
As a result of the Time of Troubles, the Russian people with great joy received what they refused in the person of the Godunovs - the dynasty elected by the Zemsky Sobor, related to the descendants of Ivan Kalita through the female line. Therefore, the main lesson of the Time of Troubles is not to immediately abandon what is in search of the best: it will probably only get worse. That is, according to the old proverb: a titmouse in the hands is better than a crane in the sky.
By the beginning of the 17th century, the process of the formation of Russian statehood was not complete, contradictions accumulated in it, resulting in a severe crisis that engulfed the economy, the socio-political sphere, and public morality, this crisis was called "Trouble". The Time of Troubles is a period of virtual anarchy, chaos and unprecedented social upheavals.
The concept of "Trouble" came into historiography from the popular lexicon, meaning, first of all, anarchy and extreme disorder. public life. Contemporaries of the Time of Troubles evaluated it as a punishment that befell people for their sins. Such an understanding of events was reflected in the position of S.M. Solovyov, who understood the crisis of the beginning of the 17th century as a general moral decay.
According to K.S. Aksakov and V.O. Klyuchevsky, in the center of events was the problem of the legality of the supreme power. N.I. Kostomarov reduced the essence of the crisis to the political intervention of Poland and intrigues catholic church. I.E. Zabelin viewed the Time of Troubles as a struggle between herd and national principles. The representative of the herd principle was the boyars, who sacrificed national interests for the sake of their own privileges.
A significant block in the historiography of the Time of Troubles is occupied by works where it is presented as a powerful social conflict. S.F. Platonov saw several levels of this conflict: between the boyars and the nobility, between the landlords and the peasantry, etc.
If in pre-revolutionary historiography the political, moral, ethical and social aspects of the Time of Troubles were presented as relatively equal, then Soviet historiography made a clear bias towards only social factors, as a rule, absolutizing them. Interpreting the events of the Time of Troubles solely as a "peasant revolution", Marxist historians rejected the term "Troubles" itself. The concept of "Trouble" was for a long time supplanted by the wording "peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov."
The one-sidedness of approaches and assessments was gradually eliminated. A large number of works were written by R.G. Skrynnikov, they provide extensive factual material, show the true role of the individuals who participated in the events, including Bolotnikov.
V.B. Kobrin defined the Time of Troubles as the most complex interweaving of various contradictions - class and national, intraclass and interclass. Rejecting stereotypes in assessments historical figures, Kobrin tried to interpret the role of both Boris Godunov and False Dmitry I in a new way, attributing to them a certain “reform potential”. Quite rightly, applying the criterion of popular perception to Bolotnikov, Kobrin "forgets" about Godunov's unpopularity among the people, and about the extreme rejection of the impostor - the conductor of Catholic interests. The surviving documents from the time of the Time of Troubles clearly indicate that the impostors were not just traitors to national interests, but direct henchmen of foreign powers and agents of an anti-Russian conspiracy.
The Troubles lasted for more than a quarter of a century - from the death of Ivan the Terrible to the election of Mikhail Fedorovich (1584 - 1613) to the kingdom.
The duration and intensity of the turmoil clearly indicate that it did not come from outside and it was not accidental that its roots were hidden deep in the state organism. But at the same time, the Time of Troubles strikes with its obscurity and uncertainty. This is not a political revolution, since it did not begin in the name of a new political ideal and did not lead to it, although the existence of political motives in turmoil cannot be denied; this is not a social upheaval, since, again, the turmoil did not arise from a social movement, although in its further development the aspirations of some sections of society for social change intertwined with it. Trouble is the fermentation of a diseased state organism, which sought to get out of those contradictions to which its previous course of history had led and which could not be resolved in a peaceful, ordinary way.
There were two main contradictions that caused the Time of Troubles.
The first of these was political, which can be defined in the words of Professor Klyuchevsky: “the Moscow sovereign, whom the course of history led to democratic sovereignty, had to act through a very aristocratic administration”; both of these forces, which grew up together thanks to the state unification of Russia and worked together on it, were imbued with mutual distrust and enmity.
The second contradiction can be called social: the Moscow government was forced to strain all its forces to best device the highest defense of the state and "under the pressure of these higher needs to sacrifice the interests of the industrial and landowning classes, whose labor served as the basis of the national economy, to the interests of service landowners", which resulted in a mass flight of the draft population from the center to the outskirts, which intensified with the expansion of the state territory, suitable for agriculture. The first contradiction was the result of the collection of appanages by Moscow. The annexation of appanages did not have the character of a violent, extermination war. The Moscow government left a lot in the management of its former prince and was content with the fact that the latter recognized the authority of the Moscow sovereign, became his servant. The power of the Moscow sovereign, in the words of Klyuchevsky, did not take the place of the specific princes, but above them; "The new state order lay on top of the previous one, without destroying it, but only imposing new duties on it, pointing out new tasks to it." The new princely boyars, pushing aside the old Moscow boyars, took the first places in terms of their genealogical seniority, accepting only very few of the Moscow boyars into their midst on an equal footing with themselves.
Thus, a vicious circle of boyar princes formed around the Moscow sovereign, who became the pinnacle of his administration, his main council in governing the country. The authorities used to rule the state one by one and in parts, but now they began to rule the whole earth, occupying a position according to the seniority of their kind. The Moscow government recognized this right for them, supported it, promoted its development in the form of parochialism, and thereby fell into the above-mentioned contradiction.
The power of the Moscow princes arose on the basis of patrimonial law.
The great Moscow prince was the patrimony of his inheritance; all the inhabitants of his territory were his "serfs". The whole preceding course of history has led to the development of this view of territory and population. By recognizing the rights of the boyars, the Grand Duke betrayed his ancient traditions, which in reality he could not replace by others.
The first to understand this contradiction was Ivan the Terrible. The Moscow boyars were strong mainly because of their land patrimonial possessions. Ivan the Terrible planned to carry out a complete mobilization of boyar land ownership, depriving the boyars of their habitable family nests, providing them with other lands in return in order to break their connection with the land, to deprive them of their former significance. The boyars were defeated; it was replaced by the lower court system. Simple boyar families, like the Godunovs and Zakharyins, seized the primacy at court. The surviving remnants of the boyars became embittered and prepared for turmoil.
On the other hand, the 16th century was an era of external wars, ending with the acquisition of vast expanses in the east, southeast and west.
To conquer them and to consolidate new acquisitions, a huge amount of military forces was required, which the government recruited from everywhere, in difficult cases not disdaining the services of serfs. The service class in the Muscovite state received land in the estate as a salary - and land without workers had no value. The land, which was far from the borders of military defense, also did not matter, since a serviceman could not serve from it. Therefore, the government was forced to transfer into service hands a huge amount of land in the central and southern parts of the state. The palace and black peasant volosts lost their independence and came under the control of service people. The former division into volosts inevitably had to collapse with a small room. The process of "reclaiming" the lands by the above mobilization of lands, which was the result of persecution against the boyars. Mass evictions ruined the service people, but ruined the taxpayers even more.
The mass resettlement of the peasantry to the outskirts begins. At the same time, a huge area of the Zaoksky black soil is opened up for resettlement to the peasantry. The government itself, taking care to strengthen the newly acquired borders, supported the resettlement to the outskirts.
As a result, by the end of the reign of Grozny, the eviction takes on the character of a general flight, intensified by crop shortages, epidemics, and Tatar raids. Most of the service land remains "waste"; a sharp economic crisis sets in... In this crisis, there is a struggle for workers. The stronger ones win - the boyars and the church. At the same time, the service class and the peasantry suffer, which not only lost the right to free land use, but with the help of bonded recording, loans and the newly emerged institution of old-time residence, begins to lose personal freedom, approaching the serf. In this struggle, enmity grows between separate classes - between the big landlords, the boyars, and the church, on the one hand, and the service class, on the other. The draft population harbored hatred for the classes that oppressed it and, irritated against state buildings, was ready for an open uprising; it runs to the Cossacks, who have long since separated their interests from the interests of the state. Only the north, where the land was preserved in the hands of the black volosts, remains calm during the coming state "devastation"
With the death of Ivan the Terrible (March 18, 1584), the field for turmoil immediately opened up. There was no power that could stop, contain the impending disaster. The heir of John IV, Fedor Ioannovich, was incapable of affairs of government; Tsarevich Dmitry was still in infancy. The board was to fall into the hands of the boyars. Secondary boyars - the Yuryevs, Godunovs - were put forward on the stage, but the remnants of the boyar princes (princes Mstislavsky, Shuisky, Vorotynsky, etc.) have survived.
The immediate impetus for the unrest was the suppression of the ruling Rurik dynasty, whose representatives were recognized by the mass consciousness as "natural sovereigns." The dynastic crisis caused confusion among the people, and in the upper layers of the nobility aroused predatory ambitions and a desire for power and privileges. The fight for the royal throne, begun by the Moscow boyars, led to the destruction of the state order, to social demoralization.
