One of the most difficult periods in the history of the state is the Time of Troubles. It lasted from 1598 to 1613. It was at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. there is a severe economic and political crisis. Oprichnina, the Tatar invasion, the Livonian war - all this led to the maximum growth of negative phenomena and increased public indignation.

In contact with

Reasons for the beginning of the Time of Troubles

Ivan the Terrible had three sons. He killed his eldest son in a fit of rage, the youngest was only two years old, and the middle one, Fedor, was 27. Thus, after the death of the tsar, it was Fedor who had to take power into his own hands. But the heir is a soft person and did not fit the role of a ruler at all. Even during his lifetime, Ivan IV created a regency council under Fedor, which included Boris Godunov, Shuisky and other boyars.

Ivan the Terrible died in 1584. Fedor became the official ruler, but in fact - Godunov. A few years later, in 1591, Dmitry (the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible) dies. A number of versions of the boy's death are put forward. The main version is that the boy himself accidentally ran into a knife when he was playing. Some claimed that they knew who killed the prince. Another version - he was killed by Godunov's henchmen. A few years later, Fedor dies (1598), leaving no children behind.

In this way, historians identify the following main causes and factors for the beginning of the Time of Troubles:

1. Interruption of the Rurik dynasty.
2. The desire of the boyars to increase their role and power in the state, to limit the power of the king. The claims of the boyars developed into an open struggle with the top of power. Their intrigues had a negative impact on the position of royal power in the state.
3. The economic situation was critical. The conquests of the tsar demanded the activation of all forces, including production ones. In 1601-1603 - a period of famine, as a result - the impoverishment of large and small farms.
4. Serious social conflict. The current system tore away not only numerous fugitive peasants, serfs, townspeople, city Cossacks, but also some parts of the service people.
5. Domestic policy of Ivan the Terrible. The consequences and result of the oprichnina increased distrust, undermined respect for law and authority.

Events of unrest

The Time of Troubles was a huge shock for the state, which affected the foundations of power and the state system. Historians distinguish three periods of unrest:

1. Dynastic. The period when the struggle for the Moscow throne took place, and it lasted until the reign of Vasily Shuisky.
2. Social. The time of civil strife among the popular classes and the invasion of foreign troops.
3. National. The period of struggle and expulsion of the interventionists. It lasted until the election of a new king.

The first stage of confusion

Taking advantage of the instability and discord in Russia, False Dmitry crossed the Dnieper with a small army. He managed to convince the Russian people that he was Dmitry - the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible.

A huge mass of the population reached out for him. Cities opened their gates, townspeople and peasants joined his detachments. In 1605, after the death of Godunov, the governors sided with him, and after a while, all of Moscow.

The support of the boyars was necessary for False Dmitry. So, on June 1, on Red Square, he proclaimed Boris Godunov a traitor, and also promised privileges to boyars, clerks and nobles, unimaginable benefits to merchants, and peace and tranquility to peasants. An alarming moment came when the peasants asked Shuisky if Tsarevich Dmitry was buried in Uglich (it was Shuisky who headed the commission investigating the death of the prince and confirmed his death). But the boyar already claimed that Dmitry was alive. After these stories, an angry mob broke into the houses of Boris Godunov and his relatives, destroying everything. So, on June 20, False Dmitry entered Moscow with honors.

It turned out to be much easier to sit on the throne than to stay on it. To assert his power, the impostor consolidated serfdom, which led to the discontent of the peasants.

False Dmitry also did not live up to the expectations of the boyars. In May 1606, the gates of the Kremlin were opened to the peasants, False Dmitry was killed. The throne was taken by Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. The main condition for his reign was the limitation of power. He vowed that he would not make any decisions on his own. Formally, there was a restriction of state power. But the situation in the state did not improve.

The second stage of confusion

This period is characterized not only by the struggle for power of the upper classes, but also by free and large-scale peasant uprisings.

So, in the summer of 1606, the peasant masses had a head - Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov. Peasants, Cossacks, serfs, townspeople, large and small feudal lords, and servicemen gathered under one banner. In 1606, Bolotnikov's army moved to Moscow. The battle for Moscow was lost, they had to retreat to Tula. Already there, a three-month siege of the city began. The result of the unfinished campaign against Moscow is the capitulation and execution of Bolotnikov. Since that time, peasant uprisings have declined..

The Shuisky government sought to normalize the situation in the country, but the peasants and servicemen were still dissatisfied. The nobles doubted the ability of the authorities to stop the peasant uprisings, and the peasants did not want to accept the feudal policy. At this moment of misunderstanding, another impostor appeared in the Bryansk lands, who called himself False Dmitry II. Many historians claim that he was sent to rule the Polish king Sigismund III. Most of his detachments were Polish Cossacks and gentry. In the winter of 1608, False Dmitry II moved with an armed army to Moscow.

By June, the impostor reached the village of Tushino, where he camped. He was sworn allegiance to such large cities as Vladimir, Rostov, Murom, Suzdal, Yaroslavl. In fact, there were two capitals. The boyars swore allegiance either to Shuisky or to the impostor and managed to receive salaries from both sides.

For the expulsion of False Dmitry II, the Shuisky government concluded an agreement with Sweden. According to this agreement, Russia gave the Karelian volost to Sweden. Taking advantage of this mistake, Sigismund III switched to open intervention. The Commonwealth went to war against Russia. The Polish units abandoned the impostor. False Dmitry II is forced to flee to Kaluga, where he ingloriously ended his "reign".

Letters of Sigismund II were delivered to Moscow and Smolensk, in which he claimed that, as a relative of the Russian rulers and at the request of the Russian people, he was going to save the dying state and the Orthodox faith.

Frightened, the Moscow boyars recognized Prince Vladislav as the Russian Tsar. In 1610, an agreement was concluded in which the main plan for the state structure of Russia was stipulated:

• the inviolability of the Orthodox faith;
• restriction of freedom;
• the division of power of the sovereign with the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor.

The oath of Moscow to Vladislav took place on August 17, 1610. A month before the events, Shuisky was forcibly tonsured a monk and exiled to the Chudov Monastery. To manage the boyars, a commission of seven boyars was assembled - Seven Boyars. And already on September 20, the Poles entered Moscow without hindrance.

At this time, Sweden openly demonstrates military aggression. Swedish detachments occupied most of Russia and were already ready to attack Novgorod. Russia was on the verge of the final loss of independence. The aggressive plans of the enemies aroused great indignation among the people.

The third stage of turmoil

The death of False Dmitry II greatly influenced the situation. The pretext (the fight against the impostor) to rule Russia by Sigismund disappeared. Thus, the Polish troops turned into occupying ones. Russian people unite for resistance, the war began to acquire national proportions.

The third stage of turmoil begins. At the call of the patriarch, detachments come to Moscow from the northern regions. Cossack troops led by Zarutsky and Grand Duke Trubetskoy. Thus, the first militia was created. In the spring of 1611, Russian troops launched an assault on Moscow, which was unsuccessful.

In the autumn of 1611, in Novgorod, Kuzma Minin addressed the people with an appeal to fight against foreign invaders. A militia was created, headed by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.

In August 1612, the army of Pozharsky and Minin reached Moscow, on October 26 the Polish garrison surrendered. Moscow was completely liberated. The Time of Troubles, which lasted almost 10 years, is over.

In these difficult conditions, the state needed a government that would reconcile people from different political parties, but could also find a class compromise. In this regard, the candidacy of Romanov suited everyone..

After the grandiose liberation of the capital, letters of convocation of the Zemsky Sobor were scattered throughout the country. The council took place in January 1613 and was the most representative in the entire medieval history of Russia. Of course, a struggle broke out for the future tsar, but as a result they agreed on the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (a relative of the first wife of Ivan IV). Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar on February 21, 1613.

From this time begins the history of the reign of the Romanov dynasty, which was on the throne for more than 300 years (until February 1917).

Consequences of the Time of Troubles

Unfortunately, the Time of Troubles ended badly for Russia. Territorial losses were suffered:

• loss of Smolensk for a long period;
• loss of access to the Gulf of Finland;
• eastern and western Karelia captured by the Swedes.

The Orthodox population did not accept the oppression of the Swedes and left their territories. Only in 1617, the Swedes left Novgorod. The city was completely devastated, there were several hundred citizens left in it.

Time of Troubles led to economic and economic recession. The size of arable land fell 20 times, the number of peasants decreased 4 times. Land cultivation was reduced, the monastic yards were devastated by the invaders.

The death toll during the war is approximately equal to one third of the population of the country.. In a number of regions of the country, the population fell below the level of the 16th century.

In 1617-1618, Poland once again wanted to capture Moscow and elevate Prince Vladislav to the throne. But the attempt failed. As a result, the signing of a truce with Russia for 14 years, which marked the refusal of Vladislav's claims to the Russian throne. Poland remained Northern and Smolensk lands. Despite the difficult conditions of peace with Poland and Sweden, the end of the war and a welcome respite came for the Russian state. The Russian people unitedly defended the independence of Russia.

The Time of Troubles in Russian history is a period of civil war, an aggressive struggle for power in the Muscovite kingdom, and natural disasters. It lasted only fifteen years - from 1598 to 1613.

But the inhabitants of Russia at that time, these fifteen years seemed like an eternity. Figuratively speaking, in such a period, the gates to another world seem to be wide open. And crowds of people go there, not having time to really say goodbye to their comrades. Tsars are replaced in the Time of Troubles at the speed of light: no sooner has the next candidate ascended the throne than a noose is thrown around his neck. Who's next in line for the throne?

The hero of my essay about the historical figure of the Time of Troubles is Ivan Bolotnikov, the leader of the popular uprising against Tsar Vasily Shuisky. I chose him because this person was actually used in someone else's struggle, in someone else's interests. Such a fate is indicative.

Bolotnikov raised the uprising, defending the interests of Tsarevich False Dmitry the First. The famine in Russia, the exactions of the boyars, the devastation of the lands by the military clique attracted ordinary Cossacks to him. The idea of ​​an uprising is good, and Ivan himself was seduced by the appointment of a governor in the prince's army. Ivan, according to rumors, believed that False Dmitry was the “true tsar”, that he really was the son of Ivan the Terrible.

Bolotnikov's troops eventually succumbed to Shuisky's troops, he himself was executed. The lack of experience of Bolotnikov also affected - he was a serf, a mercenary, a slave, therefore he did not know how to negotiate with the nobles. Part of the nobles that supported him at first, went over to Shuisky. The excess of impostors and adventurers in Bolotnikov's comrades also played a role - the people stopped believing in him. To further strengthen the troops, Bolotnikov attracted Polish troops - and the Russian people turned away from him even more.

I consider Ivan Bolotnikov a good example of an unsuccessful commander, an unlucky rebel and a fighter for power and justice. In his actions there was no vision of the full picture of what was happening, his troops, despite considerable forces, were unorganized. Cossacks and nobles, Russians and Poles did not find a common language.

Apparently, Bolotnikov also lacked the idea of ​​creation, peacefulness, inner strength to hold the state torn apart by wars and famine together. To topple Tsar Vasily Shuisky was quite simple - no one loved him among the people, because Shuisky himself came to power by a coup.

Three years later, Shuisky will be swept away from the throne. Three years later, the Time of Troubles, where there was a bloody struggle for the throne, will end with the election of the young Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom. What the rebels and interventionists, princes and boyars fought for, tearing pieces out of each other's throats, came to the young guy without any effort. The long-awaited peace with foreign states has come.

Option 2

The hero of my essay is Prince Vasily Shuisky. He paid with his life for the fight for the Moscow throne. With the help of a conspiracy and a violent coup, Shuisky managed to become the Tsar of Moscow, even holding him for four years. On the one hand, he removed from the throne the impostor False Dmitry, who came to Russia with the Polish army, ruining many lands. This act showed the courage and fearlessness of Shuisky.

On the other hand, Shuisky sought to take the throne at any cost, even at the cost of violence. His victory over False Dmitry was dictated not by love for justice and honesty, but by nobility - alas, Vasily himself was not distinguished by either mercy or straightforwardness.

At the cost of constant wars, at the cost of a mass of human lives, Shuisky held out on the throne for four years. From the very first day of Shuisky's accession to the throne, there were those who were dissatisfied with the way in which Vasily "grabbed" his royal crown. Many Muscovites cried when they learned how cruelly False Dmitry was killed by supporters of Shuisky. They saw in this a desecration of the very state order, disrespect for power as such. But any display of sympathy for the impostor was now punishable by death.

The four years of Vasily's reign are a continuous stream of blood: the defeat of the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov, the war with the Polish interventionists, supporters of False Dmitry, then False Dmitry II, false promises, deceptions, murders of those opponents who voluntarily surrendered to captivity ...

All that Vasily managed to do creatively, taught by the bitter experience of the war with the Poles, is to strengthen the army somewhat, to introduce healing discipline. Soon Moscow raises an uprising against Shuisky as well. Alas, Vasily Shuisky, who shared the fate of his victim False Dmitry (Shuisky died in prison, having suffered a defeat from the troops of the Polish king Sigismund), did not enter history as the liberator of Russia. His image is included in the list of losers of the Time of Troubles, those who strove for power, who did not disdain anything for the sake of power, who failed to realize any idea of ​​development for society.

PERSONS AND EPISODES OF THE TIME OF TROUBLES

In the light of the events taking place in Russia in the last two decades, the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century attracted special attention of those trying to identify the general patterns of such phenomena. However, even serious researchers were significantly influenced by the ideological pressure from the West, which stubbornly and skillfully implanted the consciousness of Soviet intellectuals with mythologemes such as "The USSR is an evil empire", "Stalin is a villain and a tyrant". This was superimposed on the historical clichés that were approved by the democrats of the 19th century: “The Russian Empire is an Eastern despotism”, “Ivan the Terrible is a villain and a tyrant”.

Some clever political scientists began to blame the dismemberment of the USSR and the socio-economic decline of modern Russia ... the same Stalin! Similarly, one of the decisive causes of the Time of Troubles, historians often call the policy of Ivan the Terrible. And in addition, Stalin and Grozny began to be presented as maniacs, paranoids, mentally deranged people.

The famous historian R.G. Skrynnikov said in an interview: “The most terrible and bloody terror took place at a time when Grozny was still healthy. Mental disorder really came towards the end of life. But it was in the last decade that there were no executions.”

A curious psychological nuance: calling the terror of the Terrible Tsar “creepy and bloody”, the same author rightly notes: “The terror of Grozny claimed, as I was able to prove, about 4 thousand lives, four with a little, and the civil war of the beginning of the 17th century was not thousands, not tens thousands, and many, many hundreds of thousands ... With a very small population of that time (about 5-7 million), this, of course, was a colossal shock that threw Russia, the Russian state far, weakened it for many decades.

So what period should be called creepy and bloody then?! The same applies to the 20th century. Pay attention to this comparison. From 1926 to 1940, the population of the Soviet Union increased by natural increase from 147 million to 171 million people, and, taking into account the annexed western territories, to 191 million people. The population growth rate in the USSR was higher than in the United States and large states of Western Europe. During the same period, mortality (we emphasize once again - mortality!) Decreased from 2.5 to 1.9%. And the country not only revived after the devastation of the Civil War, but also became a superpower!

What happened in the last decade of the 20th century, during Yeltsin's rule? Everything is exactly the opposite. The country has turned from a superpower into a third-rate economically dependent state, burdened with debts. Mortality increased from 1 to 1.9% (and this is taking into account the achievements of medicine over the past half century!), And the population of Russia began to die out (!), so that the decline was about 5 million.

It should be noted that there were more people in places of detention under Yeltsin (per population) than under Stalin.

So when was the real terror turning into the genocide of the Russian people? The facts quite definitely testify: during the period of great unrest at the end of the 20th century and the reign of Yeltsin.

This does not mean that neither under Ivan the Terrible nor under Stalin there was no terror at all. It was, but only on a smaller scale, since it was directed mainly against the "elite" of society. Apparently, historians and political scientists, who consider themselves to be precisely among the elite of societies, are especially keenly experiencing such events. The people in this case acts as a faceless, wordless gray mass. But after all, it was Grozny and Stalin who turned to the people for support for their actions. This was emphasized, in particular, by Skrynnikov:

“The tsar did not just execute the boyars in secret from everyone, but, on the contrary, took the convicts to the square and asked the people if he was doing the right thing by executing his traitors. The people responded with cries of approval: “Live, most good king!” The boyars, as it were, became enemies of both the people and the tsar together ... Decades passed, and the memories of the bloody cruelties faded, but the brilliance and power of power were remembered ... "

Ivan the Terrible executed mainly boyars, oligarchs, and therefore the people were on his side. He personified legitimate authority.

The turmoil began in part, and precisely because there was no legitimate authority. It was not the heir to the throne that ascended the throne, but the brother-in-law and the first close associate of the king, while the heir died under suspicious circumstances. This alone has greatly shaken the confidence in the supreme power among the people.

In the book by V. Andriyanov and A. Chernyak "The Lonely Tsar in the Kremlin" (Moscow, 1999), Boris Yeltsin is compared with Tsar Boris Godunov. There are indeed some similarities. Godunov violated the legitimate dynastic tradition, was overcome by a thirst for power, managed to become almost the richest oligarch in Russia. However, in addition to the manic desire for power, seeking it by hook or by crook, and personal enrichment (in the case of Yeltsin, his vast and criminal Family literally got rich), not to mention the name, in the most important difference is colossal.

As almost all contemporaries emphasized, Godunov was an outstanding statesman. He adequately ruled the state already during the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich. Yeltsin, for all his lofty pretensions, turned out to be completely mediocre, powerless, unprincipled in everything that concerned the administration of the state. The talent of a demagogue allowed him to take a high post ...

However, as a demagogue, Boris Godunov was also outstanding. After the death of Fyodor Ioannovich (according to one of the unreliable versions, poisoned by Boris), he and his supporters organized processions of Moscow people demanding Godunov to reign.

As V. Andriyanov and A. Chernyak write about Yeltsin: “Figuratively speaking, he was brought to the Kremlin by a wave of popular recognition. It would seem that the time has come for a complete understanding between the people and the authorities. But, alas! Yeltsin's rule only exacerbated the contradictions between the authorities and the people. All strata and groups of the population turned their backs on him…”

However, to clarify: not all layers turned away from him. Yeltsin was still supported by those who were afraid of the restoration of the former power: oligarchs, private traders, criminal elements, a large part of the ideologically indoctrinated intelligentsia, employees, and most importantly, foreign anti-Soviet forces. But perhaps the most important thing is that a considerable part of the population, who at first believed Yeltsin's promises in their dreams of a bourgeois paradise, did not want to admit that they had been deceived in the most impudent and blatant way.

True, Godunov can also be remembered here. Crowned to the kingdom, he left the Assumption Cathedral and assured the people: “No one else will be poor and poor in my kingdom, and shaking the top of the shame and this last one, I will divide it.” Yeltsin, holding a voucher in each hand, announced on TV throughout Russia that this promises every "Russian" two brand new Volga. Naturally, both Boriss did not fulfill their promises. Although, to Godunov's credit, it must be said that during the famine he allocated his own funds to help the starving. Yeltsin and his entourage continued to enrich themselves at the expense of the already disadvantaged people.

According to Skrynnikov: “At the end of his years, Godunov fell into senile insanity, he invited astrologers, surrounded himself with fortune-tellers, that is, he lost faith in his strength, and this hastened the death of his dynasty.”

Here the reference to senile insanity in a strong fifty-three-year-old man looks strange. But astrologers, fortune-tellers and sorcerers, and during the reign of Yeltsin was expanse (and now they are in honor). It is difficult to say whether there was something similar in the Moscow Kremlin, among the representatives of the Family or at its head, but a significant part of Russians really “lost faith in their own strength”, and lost faith in the future.

By the way, an impostor also appeared: the so-called Romanov-Belsky, who pretended to be the son of the miraculously saved Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov.

Godunov had powerful opponents, and so did Yeltsin. It would seem that such a confrontation, with a general split in society, should have caused a no less cruel civil war at the end of the 20th century than at the beginning of the 17th century. Why didn't this happen? Hasn't it become obvious that Yeltsin and the oligarchs have brought the country and the people to a shameful state? Has the nation lost its self-respect and self-preservation instinct?

It is generally accepted that in the 20th century time-events pass with extraordinary acceleration, people live more intensively ... In fact, this applies, perhaps, to the field of modern mythology. In reality, even the most powerful socio-political and economic stresses did not cause any adequate reaction of the Russian people.

It looks very strange. As if over the past centuries since the Time of Troubles, despite the general secondary and widespread higher education, despite the dynamic 20th century and extraordinary technical achievements, the Russian people found themselves at a lower intellectual and spiritual level than in the distant past!

Again, references to the “totalitarian society” are possible, which suppressed the individual, turned people into a stupid obedient herd ... But the fact of the matter is that everything happened after several years of “perestroika” and rampant complete democracy (or demagoguery?), constant curses precisely against totalitarianism and Stalinism. These were already new generations, and not those who created (under "totalitarianism") a great power and defeated the most powerful fascist war machine.

It turns out that everything happened because the ideals of socialist civilization were betrayed and sold. The people lost their ideological core and spiritual unity. This was the result of “education” (the expression of A. Solzhenitsyn), and Western indoctrination, and the active actions of anti-Soviet forces (they are also anti-people) inside the country, and the betrayal of many partocrats.

Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky

In the Time of Troubles of the 17th century, some high-ranking figures also had little regard for the interests of the state. For example, the famous young commander M.V. Skopin-Shuisky.

In the winter of 1609, Tsar Vasily Shuisky sent his nephew, Prince Skopin-Shuisky, to negotiate with the Swedish government, who, in an effort to enlist the support of foreigners, made concessions at the Novgorod negotiations with the Swedes and undertook to transfer the Korela fortress with the county to them, concluding an unequal treaty. Despite this, the Swedish king did not send his regular army to Russia. He sent out recruiters who were guided by the principle of "more numbers, cheaper prices." Stockholm sent all this rabble to Russia, where Vasily Shuisky paid huge sums to mercenaries, because of which he was forced to impose additional taxes on the people.

In the spring, Skopin-Shuisky set out from Novgorod, having under his command 15 thousand mercenaries and only 3 thousand Russian warriors. But it was his compatriots who ensured his victory. The popular uprisings in the rear of the troops of the Tushino thief also helped.

In March 1610, Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky triumphantly entered the “Third Rome” he had liberated. Public sympathy was on his side. From Ryazan, the leader of the local nobility, Prokopy Lyapunov, who killed Bolotnikov with his betrayal, an ardent oppositionist to Vasily Shuisky, called Skopin to the kingdom. This call was supported by many Muscovites. The sudden death of this young talented commander is still shrouded in mystery.

But one can also recall his far from impeccable behavior during the time of the first impostor, with whom the young Skopin-Shuisky was a favorite and was considered his closest friend, and therefore was elevated to the rank of a great swordsman. However, on the night of the coup d'état, after another reception in the palace, the “great swordsman” took away the personal weapon of the king, who was soon killed ...

In general, well-born boyars-oligarchs behaved in the Time of Troubles - for the most part - unworthily, pursuing almost exclusively personal or clan interests. However, not only the boyars.

The behavior of the same Prokopy Lyapunov in this respect is very revealing. Supporting Bolotnikov, he put Vasily Shuisky on the edge of the abyss. However, in the decisive battle he went over to the side of the king. But even in this camp, he did not stay long - he moved to False Dmitry II. From Tushin he left for Ryazan, where he wove intrigues against Shuisky. Lyapunov sent a messenger to Prince Ivan Shuisky with assurances of his support and with a proposal to hurry. This became the prologue to the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky.

A group of boyars staged something remotely reminiscent of the 1991 GKChP coup. The majority of the boyars and voivodes voted for the deposition of the sovereign. Shuisky was persuaded to abdicate, promising a rich specific principality for this. But Vasily Ivanovich rose to the pinnacle of power for too long and stubbornly to give it up. Then he was forced to move from the palace to his ancestral mansions.

These troubles wanted to take advantage of False Dmitry II, who demanded the capitulation of Moscow and recognition of himself as king. Patriarch Hermogenes addressed the people with an appeal, asking them to return Tsar Basil to the throne. The head of the streltsy order, Ivan Shuisky, tried to win over the palace archers. It seemed that the cause of the conspirators was lost ...

It wasn't there! The conspirators of 1610 were not as indecisive and inconsistent as the GKChPists of 1991. They acted thoughtfully, quickly and decisively. Gathering a crowd of Muscovites and a detachment of archers, they broke into Shuisky, taking with them a certain friar from the Kremlin Chudov Monastery. The king tried to resist, because the monastic schema meant political death for him. The rebels firmly held the autocrat who fought in their hands, one of the conspirators read the vows of “Monk Varlaam” for him, the monk performed the rite of tonsure ...

Filaret Romanov could now triumph over a rival who had been associated with him by many common crimes. In a few years, Filaret Nikitich Romanov, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the worldly co-ruler of his unremarkable son, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, will solemnly welcome the ashes of Vasily Shuisky, who died in Polish captivity, back to his homeland. Demonstration of cynicism and hypocrisy? Not only. The intelligent politician and statesman Filaret understood how important it was to maintain the authority and continuity of power (by the way, neither Khrushchev, nor Gorbachev, nor Yeltsin understood this).

The oligarchic rule - the Seven Boyars - was marked, as you know, by a direct betrayal of Russia's national interests. After all, the homeland for the oligarch is his possessions and capital.

As soon as there is a danger of losing them or giving them up in any way, he is ready to commit any betrayal (of course, this is not about all without exception, but about the majority).

To the credit of the then Russian Orthodox Church, it took a patriotic position and remained, one might say, on the side of the people (which, alas, cannot be said about those church hierarchs of the late 20th century who supported Yeltsin and blasphemed Soviet Russia, sowing discord among generations of Russians). of people). At the same time, Patriarch Hermogenes and his patriot supporters tried to prevent a popular uprising.

And so, when the Poles settled in Moscow, the “changeable” Prokopy Lyapunov again appeared on the shaky and changeable stage of the Time of Troubles. He began to create the first Zemstvo militia in the Ryazan land - to fight the interventionists.

However, the patriotic forces were split. Many "Tushins" led by the Cossack ataman Ivan Zarutsky were opposed to the Poles, but remained loyal to False Dmitry II. His position was difficult. A significant part of the population, especially the Cossacks, continued to see him as a "good king." It was the “third force”, even, perhaps, the “fourth”, if we count Tsar Vasily Shuisky with the Swedish king Gustav-Adolf, the false tsar Dmitry (Tushinsky thief), the Polish king Sigismund III and the patriotic zemstvo militia (at that time still the weakest of these "actors").

False Dmitry II tried to beg for help from Sigismund III, promising him 300 thousand rubles in gold and "the whole land of Livonia", part of which belonged to Sweden. But the Polish king needed the Smolensk lands and - in the future - the royal crown. False Dmitry had too many enemies. It was decided to "remove" it. On December 11, 1610, he left on a sleigh for Kaluga, where his residence was, with a jester, two servants and guards, the head of which discharged a gun at him, and then cut off the dead head.

The death of the Tushinsky thief, as well as foreign intervention, turned out to be an event that prompted the patriotic forces to unite. The vanguard of the first militia under the command of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky in March 1611 entered Moscow, engulfed in an uprising. On the advice of Russian traitors, the Polish commandant of the capital Gonsevsky ordered the city to be set on fire. Amidst the blazing fires, street fighting broke out. The attack was repulsed.

When the main forces of the militia approached, Prokopy Lyapunov began the siege of Moscow. For all his political adventurism, he remained a patriot and supporter of changes in society (unlike the conservative Minin and Pozharsky). In the future, the state seemed to him to be a controlled autocrat, relying on the nobility, with the removal of the boyar oligarchy from power.

Prokopy Lyapunov was an outstanding noble figure of that era. His throwings reflected the fate of the petty and middle nobility of the Time of Troubles. Over time in my experience

Lyapunov was convinced that in the fight against the Seven Boyars and foreign invaders, the nobility could only win, relying on the support of the broad "lower" strata of the population. But this is what the oligarchs and interventionists were afraid of. In the summer of 1611, the Cossack camps, which were a very important part of the first militia, received a letter in which Lyapunov allegedly called for the mass destruction of the Cossacks. The indignant Cossacks called the voivode into a circle and showed him the letter. Lyapunov said: “It looks like my hand, only I didn’t write it.”

Passions were so heated that one of the Cossacks hit Lyapunov with a saber. He fell, covered in blood. Several noblemen who accompanied him fled. Only one of them, Rzhevsky, remained.

He was not a supporter of Lyapunov, but was indignant at the vile lynching and tried to stop the villains, shouting that the zemstvo governor was being killed unfairly, "for laughing"! The Cossacks cut down both him and Lyapunov. The corpses of the unfortunate were lying around for three days without burial. Later they were buried in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

For a long time, the cause of this event was shrouded in mystery. But then came the memoirs of the executioner of the Moscow uprising Gonsevsky, who admitted that, on his orders, the clerks and clerks of the Seven Boyars forged Lyapunov's handwriting in that provocative letter. The letter was delivered to the Cossack camp by a certain Sidorka Zavarzin.

The murder of Lyapunov made a painful impression on Russian society. The state of the country seemed hopeless.

After a heroic defense, Smolensk fell. Of the 80 thousand of its inhabitants, only a tenth remained. The last defenders of the city, not wanting to surrender, blew themselves up with barrels of gunpowder.

The Swedes captured Novgorod.

In Pskov, the impostor Matyushka appeared, who became False Dmitry III. He began military operations against the Zemstvo militia.

In occupied Moscow, the invaders arrested Patriarch Hermogenes and starved him to death.

What was there to hope for, to whom to cry for salvation? It seemed that the time had come for the dismemberment of Russia ...

Isn't it true that then the situation was incomparably more difficult than in 1991, comparable only to December 1941, when the Nazis came close to Moscow and occupied a significant part of European Russia (USSR), where about 40% (!) Of the country's population lived .

Then, back in the 17th century, the homeland was saved by the Russian people, led by Pozharsky and Minin-Sukhoruk. In the not very distant 1941, the Soviet people held out under the leadership of Joseph Stalin.

In 1991 and later one could hear (and even now they say t): they say, it wouldn’t be such a shaft in Russia and, nothing, it will cost, the power will rise, that is, progressive democratic Russia ... No, it didn’t rise - it collapsed and was dismembered, disgraced and humiliated before the whole world by the oligarchic-Yeltsin leadership. There were no Minins, no Pozharskys, and, moreover, no Stalins. Nor did it turn out to be the Russian people who were able to withstand periods of unrest and the most difficult trials.

However, we still have to discuss this topic in more detail.