Bolotnikov's rebellion (1606--1607)

In the summer of 1606, one of the largest peasant uprisings began in Ukraine feudal Rus'. The main force of the uprising were enslaved peasants and slaves, Cossacks, townspeople and archers of border cities.

It was no coincidence that the uprising began in the southwest of the Russian state. Here, in large number Runaway peasants and serfs gathered, and the surviving participants of the Cotton uprising sought refuge. The population of this area had already opposed Boris Godunov and supported False Dmitry I. Boris Godunov responded to this by completely ruining the volost. Together with the Russian peasantry, the Mari, Mordovians, Chuvashs, and Tatars opposed the feudal order.

Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov was the military slave of Prince Telyatevsky, which helped him acquire professional skills and knowledge of military affairs. In his youth, Bolotnikov fled from Telyatevsky to the steppe to the Cossacks. He was captured in the Wild Field by the Tatars, who sold him into slavery in Turkey, where Bolotnikov became a slave on a galley. He was freed from slavery during the defeat of the Turks in a naval battle and brought to Venice. From here, through Germany and Poland, he returned to his homeland. In the summer of 1606, he appeared on the “Moscow border” at a time when the popular movement of which he became the leader was rapidly growing in Seversk Ukraine.

The uprising, which began in the summer of 1606, quickly spread to new areas. The population of cities and villages on the southern outskirts of the Russian state joined the rebels. In July 1606, Bolotnikov began a campaign against Moscow from Putivl through the Komaritsa volost. In August, near Kromy, the rebels defeated Shuisky’s troops; she opened the road to Oryol. Another center of the unfolding military operations was Yelets, which had important strategic importance, which joined the rebels. The attempt of the tsarist troops besieging Yelets to take the city ended in failure. The victory of the rebels at Yelets and Kromy ends the first stage of the campaign against Moscow. On September 23, 1606, Bolotnikov won a victory near Kaluga, where the main forces of Shuisky’s army were concentrated. This event opened the way to Moscow for the rebels, caused the uprising to spread to new areas, and drew new layers of the population into the uprising.

In the autumn, service landowners joined Bolotnikov’s troops advancing towards the capital. The increase in Bolotnikov's army at the expense of the noble squads played a negative role. The nobles joined Bolotnikov only out of a desire to use the peasant movement as a means to fight the government of Tsar Vasily Shuisky. The social interests of the nobility were opposed to the interests of the bulk of the rebels.

The main goal of the uprising was the destruction of serfdom, the elimination of feudal exploitation and oppression. The political goal of Bolotnikov’s uprising was the proclamation of “Tsar Dmitry” as tsar. Faith in him was inherent not only to ordinary participants in the uprising, but also to Bolotnikov himself, who called himself only the “great commander” of “Tsar Dmitry.” This slogan represented a kind of peasant utopia.

During the campaign against Moscow, new cities and regions joined the rebels - Seversky, Polish and Ukrainian cities (located on the southwestern border of the Russian state), Ryazan and coastal cities (covering Moscow from the south), cities lying near the Lithuanian border - - Dorogobuzh, Vyazma, Roslavl, Tver suburbs, Zaoksk cities - Kaluga and others, lower cities - Murom, Arzamas, etc. By the time Bolotnikov’s army arrived in Moscow, the uprising had engulfed over 70 cities.

Simultaneously with Bolotnikov’s uprising, a struggle was unfolding in the northeast in the cities of the Vyatka-Perm region, in the northwest in Pskov and in the southeast in Astrakhan. A common feature events in the cities of all three districts there was a struggle between the higher and lower strata of the settlement, which was the result of social contradictions within the urban population. The most intense and vivid struggle was in Pskov. Here it unfolded between “big” and “smaller” people.

One of the major centers of struggle during the Bolotnikov uprising was Astrakhan. The government managed to suppress this movement only in 1614, but the beginning of open struggle in Astrakhan dates back to last year reign of Godunov. The uprising in the city was directed against nobles and merchants. Driving force The Astrakhan uprising was the poorest part of the urban population (slaves, ryazhki, working people), in addition, archers and Cossacks played an active role in the uprising. The “princes” nominated by the Astrakhan lower classes (one a slave, the other a tilled peasant) were radically different from such impostors as False Dmitry I and False Dmitry II.

The lack of communication between the rebel population of individual cities emphasizes the spontaneous nature of Bolotnikov’s uprising.

Advancing from Kaluga, the rebels defeated the troops of Vasily Shuisky near the village of Troitsky and in October approached Moscow. The siege of Moscow was the culmination of the uprising. The situation in the besieged capital was extremely tense due to the aggravation of contradictions among the population of Moscow. The government, fearing the masses, locked itself in the Kremlin. The siege worsened the situation. However, already during this period they affected weak sides uprisings, which then led to its decline and suppression.

Bolotnikov’s detachments were not homogeneous in their composition, unified in their organization. Their main core consisted of peasants, serfs and Cossacks, who subsequently remained loyal to Bolotnikov. The nobles who joined Bolotnikov as he advanced towards Moscow changed to at a certain stage uprising, and went over to the side of the government of Vasily Shuisky.

Bolotnikov’s army besieging Moscow numbered about 100 thousand people. It broke up into independent detachments, headed by their governors. Ivan Bolotnikov was the “great voivode” who exercised supreme command.

Shuisky's government took a number of measures to disintegrate Bolotnikov's army. As a result of this, Bolotnikov was betrayed by noble and landowner elements - the Ryazan people led by Lyapunov and Sumbulov, Istoma Pashkov and others. This was a major success for Vasily Shuisky in the fight against Bolotnikov’s uprising.

On November 27, Vasily Shuisky managed to defeat Bolotnikov, and on December 2 he won decisive battle near the village of Kotly. Bolotnikov's defeat near Moscow occurred as a result of a change in the balance of forces of the fighting parties. At the end of November, Shuisky received large reinforcements: Smolensk, Rzhev and other regiments came to his aid. Changes also occurred in Bolotnikov’s army that weakened it. Bolotnikov's defeat on December 2 radically changed the situation in the country: it meant the lifting of the siege of Moscow and the transfer of the initiative into the hands of governor Shuisky. The Tsar brutally dealt with the captured participants in the uprising. However, the struggle of the rebel peasants and slaves did not stop.

After the defeat near Moscow, Kaluga and Tula became the main areas of the uprising. The area covered by the uprising not only did not shrink, but, on the contrary, expanded, including the cities of the Volga region. In the Volga region, the Tatars, Mordovians, Mari and other peoples opposed the serfs.

The situation was especially acute in the Ryazan-Bryansk region and in the Middle Volga region, and the struggle did not subside in the Novgorod-Pskov region, in the North and in Astrakhan. In addition, the movement that arose on the Terek, led by the impostor “Tsarevich” Peter, the imaginary son of Fyodor Ivanovich, by the beginning of 1607 outgrew the scope of the Cossack uprising and merged with the Bolotnikov uprising. Shuisky's government sought to suppress all centers and hotbeds of the uprising. Bolotnikov was besieged in Kaluga by Shuisky's troops. The unsuccessful siege of Kaluga lasted from December 1606 to early May 1607. “Tsarevich” Peter was in the second most important center of the uprising - Tula.

The failure of Vasily Shuisky’s attempt to complete the defeat of Bolotnikov’s uprising with one blow showed that, despite the defeat near Moscow, the forces of the rebels were not broken. Therefore, while continuing the fight against Bolotnikov’s main forces near Kaluga, Shuisky’s government is simultaneously taking measures to suppress the uprising in other areas.

The fight near Kaluga ended in May 1607 with the battle on the river. Pchelnya, where Shuisky’s troops were defeated and fled. The defeat of Shuisky's troops and the lifting of the siege of Kaluga meant the success of Bolotnikov's uprising. This led to an acute conflict between the tsar and the boyars, who demanded the abdication of Vasily Shuisky.

After the defeat of Shuisky’s troops at Pchelnya and the lifting of the siege from Kaluga, Bolotnikov moved to Tula and united there with “Tsarevich” Peter.

During this time, Shuisky managed to gather new forces and reach a temporary agreement between the main groups of boyars and nobles.

Shuisky received the support of the nobility through a number of events. One of the most important among them was legislation on the peasant question. The Code of March 9, 1607, which was the main legislative act Shuisky's government on the issue of peasants, had as its goal the suppression of peasant transitions from one landowner to another. The Code established a 15-year period for searching for fugitive peasants. The publication of this law met the demands of landowners and, first of all, landowners. It should have entailed the cessation of the bitter struggle over runaway peasants between separate groups landowners, and unite them to fight Bolotnikov. Shuisky's legislation, while strengthening serfdom, worsened the situation of the peasants. Shuisky's policy towards peasants and slaves was subordinated to the goals of suppressing Bolotnikov's uprising.

May 21, 1607 Vasily Shuisky began new trip against Bolotnikov and “Tsarevich” Peter, who were entrenched in Tula. Troops intended for the siege of Tula were concentrated in Serpukhov, headed by the tsar himself. The first meeting of the tsarist troops with Bolotnikov’s troops took place on the river. Eight and ended in the defeat of the rebels. The battle on the river was also unsuccessful for Bolotnikov. Voronya. Shuisky began the siege of Tula, the defense of which was the final stage in the history of the Bolotnikov uprising.

Despite the numerical superiority of Shuisky's troops, the besieged courageously defended Tula, repelling all assaults. In the fall, the besiegers built a dam on the Upa River, which caused a flood. Water flooded the ammunition cellar in Tula and ruined grain and salt reserves. But the position of Vasily Shuisky near Tula was difficult. There was an ongoing struggle between peasants and slaves in the country. A new impostor appeared, declaring himself “Tsar Dmitry” in the city of Starodub-Seversky. This adventurer, put forward by Polish feudal lords hostile to the Russian state, made extensive use of social demagoguery, promising peasants and serfs “liberty.” In September 1607, False Dmitry II began a campaign from Starodub to Bryansk.

Under these conditions, Shuisky negotiated with the defenders of Tula about surrender, promising to preserve the lives of the besieged. The exhausted garrison of Tula surrendered on October 10, 1607, believing the tsar’s promises. The fall of Tula was the end of Bolotnikov's uprising. Bolotnikov and “Tsarevich” Peter, clad in iron, were taken to Moscow.

Immediately upon Vasily Shuisky’s return to Moscow, “Tsarevich” Peter was hanged. Shuisky decided to deal with Ivan Bolotnikov six months after the capture of Tula. Ivan Bolotnikov was sent to Kargopol and there, in 1608, he was blinded and then drowned.

The Bolotnikov uprising, which covered a vast territory, is the first peasant war in Russia. Serfs constituted the main driving force of the uprising. The reasons that caused it were rooted in the relations that existed between the peasantry and the feudal landowners. Bolotnikov's uprising dates back to the time of a sharp increase in the serf exploitation of the peasantry and the legal formalization of serfdom. The implementation of the goals of the peasants and lower classes who rebelled under the leadership of Bolotnikov could lead to significant social changes in the life of the country, to the elimination of the serfdom system.

Wide social movement in support of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich (False Dmitry), peasant war early XVII centuries there were many signs of a civil war breaking out in Russia. This is clearly stated social composition participants in the uprising: peasants, serfs, service people (nobles), Cossacks, individual boyars, princes Shakhovsky, Telyatevsky, Mossalsky - almost all social strata of Russian society.

The course of the uprising can be divided into the following stages:

Stage 1 - August–December 1606- victory at Kromy, capture of Tula, Kaluga, Yelets, Kashira. The march on Moscow and its siege. December 2, 1607 defeat in the battle of Kolomenskoye. Retreat to Kaluga and then to Tula.

2nd stage – January–May 1607- siege of Kaluga by government troops and Bolotnikov’s retreat to Tula.

Stage 3 – June–October 1607– Siege and capture of Tula by the troops of Vasily Shuisky. Capture of Bolotnikov and his execution in Kargopol.

Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov, a military slave of Prince Telyatevsky, fled to the Don, was captured by the Crimean Tatars and sold into slavery as an oarsman on a Turkish galley. After the defeat of the Turkish fleet by the Venetians, he fled. Through Venice and Germany he arrived in the city of Putivl. In Putivl I received a certificate with a large state seal, from the enemy of Vasily Shuisky, the governor of Putivl, Prince Shakhovsky, about his appointment as chief governor of False Dmitry. (Shakhovsky, according to some sources, stole the state seal during the uprising against False Dmitry I), (according to other sources, Bolotnikov received the letter in Sandomierz, during a meeting with Pavel Molchanov, who appointed him chief governor, presented him with a fur coat, a saber and 60 ducats).

Having settled in the Komaritsa volost, Bolotnikov went to the town of Kromy and took it. After victories over government troops near Yelets, Kaluga, Tula and Serpukhov, Bolotnikov’s detachments, which were joined by many of Shuisky’s opponents, went to Moscow. Bolotnikov was joined by noble detachments led by Prokopiy Lyapunov, Istoma Pashkov and G. Sumbulov. With Bolotnikov there were Cossack detachments, detachments of peasants and village residents. Princes Shakhovsky and Telyatevsky submitted to the Tsar's governor. Hatred towards Vasily Shuisky overpowered corporate ethics. Up to 70 cities went over to the side of the governor Tsarevich Dmitry. Events in Russia increasingly took on the characteristics of a civil war.

Bolotnikov’s troops failed to take Moscow right away. Settled in the village of Kolomenskoye, Bolotnikov began the siege of Moscow in October 1606. Negotiations with representatives of the capital's residents ended without results. Muscovites refused to believe that Bolotnikov was the governor of Tsarevich Dmitry, and demanded that he provide proof that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive. Despite the fact that Muscovites took part in the uprising on May 17, 1606, when the prince was killed, they also remembered that the face of the impostor, who hung in the square for three days, was covered with a mask. People always want to believe in miracles. The most significant evidence of the miracle of the next rescue of Tsarevich Dmitry could be the participation of the Tsarevich in the negotiations.

Bolotnikov demanded to find Tsarevich Dmitry, who was found by the Cossack ataman Zarutsky in Mogilev in the person of a wandering teacher.

In turn, Vasily Shuisky managed to come to an agreement with the leaders of the noble detachments. The contradictions between the boyar government and the nobles were great, but the leaders of the noble detachments understood that they were completely at odds with the rebel peasants.

As a result of the transition of noble detachments, led by Prokopiy Lyapunov, to the side of the government, Bolotnikov in December 1606 was defeated in the battle near the village Êîòëû , and retreated to Kaluga.

With the help of the rebel army of “Tsarevich Peter” (the fugitive slave Ilya Gorchakov (Ileyka Muromets), posing as the son of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, who came from the Terek River), Bolotnikov defeated the Tsar’s troops near Kaluga.

In this stalemate, Vasily Shuisky made a number of concessions to the nobles. He borrowed money from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (18 thousand rubles) and began paying a salary to military people and food money for the bankrupt nobles and family members who had accumulated in Moscow. Wanting to achieve the support of the nobility, the boyar tsar in March 1607 accepted "Code on Peasants" and introduced a 15-year period for searching for fugitive peasants. Having assembled and personally led the army, Vasily Shuisky went on the offensive.

In May 1607 near Kashira Bolotnikov's detachments were defeated. Bolotnikov retreated to Tula and took refuge behind the city walls. The siege of Tula lasted four months. Appearance in the summer of 1607 in Poland new impostor forced the king to hurry

Vasily Shuisky ordered to block the river Upu, which overflowed and flooded part of the city. Famine began in Tula. There was nowhere to wait for help for the rebels.

October 10, 1607 Ivan. Bolotnikov surrendered, believing the tsar’s promise to save his life. However, the current situation in Russia, in the opinion of the tsar, did not imply mercy. The Rokosh (uprising) of part of the Polish magnates against King Sigismund III Vasa gave Vasily Shuisky a chance to pacify the country without fear of interference from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Vasily Shuisky brutally dealt with the rebels. About 6 thousand participants in the uprising were executed. Bolotnikov was taken to Kargopol, where he was blinded and drowned in an ice hole. His supporter “Tsarevich Peter” was also hanged (an impostor who declared himself the son of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, although according to some data the son was older than his father).

The triumph of victory was overshadowed by the entry of the troops of False Dmitry II into Russian territory. Troubles in Russian state continued. In the person of the new impostor, a center of power was identified in Russia, around which all opponents of the boyar Tsar Vasily Shuisky rallied. At the same time, the foreign policy situation became more complicated. Thanks to the intervention of the Jesuits, who reconciled the Polish nobility with the king, Sigismund III Vasa managed to overcome the political crisis in Poland. The Pope did not give up attempts to introduce Catholicism in Russia with the help of Poland.

False Dmitry II (1607-1610)

In July 1607, in the city of Starodub, Pavel Molchanov, with the support of Polish troops (hetmans Lisovsky, Ruzhitsky and Sapieha) and Cossacks led by I. Zarutsky, declared himself “Tsarevich Dmitry”, who miraculously escaped during the uprising in Moscow.

Some of Bolotnikov’s troops went over to the side of the new impostor. At the end of the summer of 1607, his troops went to help Bolotnikov, but did not have time. Bolotnikov capitulated in Tula.

In the summer of 1608, after unsuccessful trip to Moscow, False Dmitry II settled in Tushino (17 km from Moscow), where Polish troops arrived and Marina Mnishek, who recognized him (for a good reward) as her husband, Tsarevich Dmitry.

A kind of dual power was established in the country. Tushino in 1608-1609 became the second capital of Russia, where everyone dissatisfied with Vasily Shuisky began to arrive. It formed its own Boyar Duma. The captured Rostov Metropolitan Filaret was declared patriarch. The so-called Tushino flights began, when the boyars and servicemen, having received awards from the impostor in Tushino, returned to Vasily Shuisky for their next awards. Betrayal, duplicity, and hypocrisy became commonplace among the nobility. In pursuit of increasing the number of their supporters, neither False Dmitry II nor Vasily Shuisky spared any expense. (subsequently, the first Romanovs will approve all these awards, not wanting to split again Russian society)

"Tushinsky thief" as False Dmitry II began to be called, he managed to bring the North-West and North of the country under his control. At first, the number of the Tushino army reached up to 100 thousand people, but robberies and violence on the part of detachments of Poles and Cossacks rushing around the country in search of prey began to lead to opposition from the people. Militia began to be created everywhere, which drove the Poles out of Kostroma and Galich and did not allow them to capture Yaroslavl. The center of resistance became the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, which withstood a 16-month siege by Tushin troops.

In this situation, the government of Vasily Shuisky went to sign in Vyborg in February 1609 treaty with Sweden, according to which it renounced its claims to the Baltic coast, gave the city of Karel in response to military assistance against False Dmitry II. Detachments of Swedish mercenaries entered Russian territory.

Russian-Swedish troops led by the Tsar’s nephews M.V. Skopin-Shuisky began successful military operations against the Tushins. The siege was lifted from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Having defeated the Tushins near Tver, Skopin-Shuisky’s troops entered Moscow.

The talented commander began to prepare for a campaign to Smolensk to lift the Polish siege. However, in April 1610, Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky dies under mysterious circumstances. (the wife of Dmitry, Vasily Shuisky’s brother, who claimed to inherit the throne after the death of the childless tsar, is accused of poisoning him). The appearance of Swedish troops on Russian territory was used by King Sigismund III to declare war on Russia. In September 1609

In 1920, Polish troops invaded Russian territory and began a 21-month siege of Smolensk. The defense of Smolensk was led by governor Mikhail Shein. Sigismund III demanded that the commanders of the Polish detachments leave Tushino and come to him near Smolensk. Some Polish commanders carried out the king's order. Without the support of the Poles, the Tushino camp began to fall apart. In December 1609

False Dmitry II flees to Kaluga, disguised as a peasant. After the defeat of the tsarist troops, led by Vasily Shuisky’s brother Dmitry near Klushino (Mozhaisk) Hetman Zholkevsky, False Dmitry’s troops became the only military force in the country. False Dmitry went to Moscow and settled in the village of Kolomenskoye. However, he failed to become the head of the popular resistance.

On December 11, 1610, during a hunt near Kaluga, he was killed by the head of his personal guard, Prince P. Urusov.

Marina Mnishek, who recognized him as her husband, soon gave birth to a son, popularly nicknamed the crow. (later the boy, one of the contenders for the Russian throne, will be executed)

Seven Boyars (1610-1612) Having defeated the tsarist troops near Klushino, Hetman Zholkiewski led his troops to Moscow. On July 17, 1610, Vasily Shuisky was forcibly tonsured a monk. (later Vasily and Dmitry Shuisky will be transported to Poland, where they will live for several more years, being subjected to bullying by the Polish authorities). The Seven Boyars came to power, led by F.I.Mstislavsky . The Seven Boyars included: I.M.Vorotynsky, A.V.Trubetskoy, A.V.Golitsyn, B.M.Lykov, I.N.Romanov, F.I.Sheremetev

In August 1610, the boyar government entered into an agreement with Hetman Zolkiewski to invite Prince Vladislav, son of Sigismund III Vasa, to the Russian throne. The boyars and some of the residents of Moscow swore allegiance to Vladislav on August 27, 1610, on the Devichye Pole, the other part went to Kaluga to False Dmitry II. Patriarch Hermogenes resolutely and sharply opposed this direct betrayal of national interests.

An uprising was brewing in Moscow and the boyars, in order to prevent this, in September 1610 Poles were allowed into the Kremlin. In fact, the capital was in the hands of the enemy. The country faced the threat of losing its independence.

At the insistence of Hetman Zholkiewski, the Seven Boyars agreed to send an embassy to Sigismund III, who at that time was besieging Smolensk

In October 1610, an embassy led by Tushino Patriarch Filaret (Fyodor Romanov - father of Mikhail Romanov) arrived to the king. Sigismund III demanded the surrender of Smolensk. He declared his claims to the Russian throne. He decisively rejected the main condition that the Tsar of Russia should convert to Orthodoxy. Russia will be included in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,” King Sigismund III arrogantly declared. The negotiations dragged on. Mikhail Shein continued to resist with his last strength and did not surrender Smolensk. Patriarch Hermogenes refused to send a message to Smolensk demanding the surrender of the city to the Poles.

In March 1611, the ambassadors were taken into custody and sent to Poland. (Patriarch Filaret would remain in Polish captivity until 1619.) In June 1611, after a 21-month siege, Smolensk fell (in June only 200 defenders remained alive). (the Russian-Polish war ended in 1618 with the Deulin Truce)

In 1611 the situation became even more complicated. Sweden intervened in the war. In 1611, the Swedes, with the help of traitorous boyars, captured Novgorod and demanded that the Swedish Crown Prince Carl Philip be recognized as Russian Tsar. In England, a plan was developed to capture the Russian North. In Pskov, a certain Sidorka declared himself Tsar Dmitry (False Dmitry III).

Russia's situation seemed hopeless. There was no government. The capital was in the hands of enemies. Polish troops gradually captured new lands and cities in Russia. In the occupied territories, detachments of Poles and Cossacks committed atrocities. The Swedes captured the northwestern territories of Russia and Novgorod. In the south, relations with the Crimean Khanate became complicated.

The loss of statehood led to apathy and a state of hopelessness for a significant number of the Russian boyars and nobility, who had lost political guidelines and a sense of national pride. However, the Russian people were not going to surrender to the enemy. Patriarch Hermogenes made a call to fight the invaders, for which he was captured by the Poles and put under arrest. The national liberation movement against the interventionists began to develop in Russia.

If by the summer of 1606 Vasily Shuisky managed to strengthen power in Moscow, then on the outskirts the people continued to seethe. The political conflict associated with the struggle for the throne grew into a social one. Having lost all hope of improving their lives, the people again opposed the authorities. This time the performance took on the character of a Peasant War. The leader of the peasant uprising (1606-1607) was.

Fate Ivan Bolotnikova was very dramatic. At first he was a military slave of Prince Telyatevsky, from whom he fled to the Don Cossacks, where he was captured by Crimean Tatars and then sold into slavery as an oarsman on a Turkish galley. When the German ships defeated the Turkish fleet, he ended up in Venice and from there, through Germany and Poland, he ends up in Putivl. But he ends up here not just as a former slave, but as a governor of Tsar Dmitry! In Sambir I met Mikhail Molchanov, who was similar to False Dmitry I, who supposedly miraculously escaped and fled from Moscow. From him Ivan Bolotnikov received a letter with the state seal, from which it followed that he was appointed governor of the tsar. The seal was stolen from Moscow by Molchanov. Along with the diploma he receives a fur coat, 60 ducats and a saber. With this parting word, he arrived in the Komaritsa volost, which became his support. Here, in the area of ​​​​the city of Kromy, there were many Cossacks who at one time supported False Dmitry I because he freed this region from taxes for 10 years.

From there, with his detachment, in the summer of 1606 he moved to Moscow. Along the way, he was joined by peasants, townspeople and even those dissatisfied with government policies nobles and Cossacks led by P. Lyapunov, G. Sumbulov and I. Pashkov. Associated with False Dmitry I, the governors of Putivl (Prince Shakhovsky) and Chernigov (Prince A. Telyatevsky) submitted to the “royal governor”. Small squad Ivan A Bolotnikov but turned into a huge army that defeated the government troops near Yelets and captured Kaluga, Serpukhov, and Tula.

In October 1606, the siege of Moscow began, which lasted two months. At this moment Ivan A Bolotnikov and 70 cities supported it. At the most decisive moment, the noble detachments went over to the side of the government troops of Vasily Shuisky, and the army of Ivan Bolotnikov was defeated. gained a foothold in Kaluga, which was besieged by the troops of Vasily Shuisky. Here, the troops of “Tsarevich Peter” - the slave Ilya Gorchakov or Ileika Muromets - came to his aid from the Terek along the Volga. This helped Bolotnikov break out of the siege and retreat to Tula. He led the three-month siege of Tula himself Vasily Shuisky gained a foothold in Kaluga, which was besieged by the troops of Vasily Shuisky. Here, the troops of “Tsarevich Peter” - the slave Ilya Gorchakov or Ileika Muromets - came to his aid from the Terek along the Volga. This helped Bolotnikov break out of the siege and retreat to Tula. He led the three-month siege of Tula himself. The Upa River was blocked by a dam, and the city was flooded.

promised to save the lives of the rebels, and they opened the gates of Tula. gained a foothold in Kaluga, which was besieged by the troops of Vasily Shuisky. Here, the troops of “Tsarevich Peter” - the slave Ilya Gorchakov or Ileika Muromets - came to his aid from the Terek along the Volga. This helped Bolotnikov break out of the siege and retreat to Tula. He led the three-month siege of Tula himself But

brutally dealt with the rebels. I.I. Bolotnikov was blinded and then drowned in an ice hole in the city of Kargopol. Ileika Muromets, an associate of Bolotnikov, was executed in Moscow. Ivan Bolotnikova Together with the Russians in the uprising

The peoples of the Volga region who became part of Russia took part. Ivan Bolotnikova“Lovely letters” (sheets) that were distributed from the camp tell about the demands of the rebels

. These are proclamations that called on the population to go over to the side of the rebels and “beat their boyars and their wives; seize their estates and estates." The sheets also promised the rebels boyar noble titles and other ranks. The rebels' demands were categorical, but, nevertheless, they were of a tsarist nature. Naive monarchism faith were in the “good” king distinctive features that ideal government system which the rebels saw. Such participants of the uprising as Cossacks

and the peasantry were for a return to the old, communal order. Experts have different assessments of the popular uprisings at the beginning of the 17th century: some believe that they delayed the legal registration of serfdom for 50 years, while others believe that, on the contrary, they only accelerated it. Legally serfdom

was formalized by the Code of Law of 1649.

Introduction

Bolotnikov uprising peasant Pugachev The 17th century in the history of our country is one of the turning points national history

. This is the time when the Middle Ages ends and the era of a new period, late feudalism, begins. Despite the keen interest in XVII century , his serious research in historical science

The well-known theory of enslavement and emancipation of classes in the 16th-19th centuries comes from the legal school: the state, with the help of laws, enslaved all classes and forced them to serve its interests. Then it gradually emancipated: first the nobles (1762 decree on noble freedom), then the merchants (1785 charter to the cities) and peasants (1861 decree on the abolition of serfdom). This scheme is very far from reality: feudal lords, as is known, have been Kievan Rus the ruling class, and the peasants were the exploited class, while the state acted as the defender of the interests of the feudal lords.

In accordance with the point of view of historians of the state school, the struggle of classes and estates was regarded as a manifestation of an anti-state, anarchic principle. Peasants are not the main thing driving force uprisings, but a passive mass, capable only of escaping from their masters or following the Cossacks during the years of numerous “unrest”, when the latter sought to plunder without submitting to an organized principle - the state.

The problem of social peace and social conflicts has always been and remains relevant for our country.

Soviet historians form the basis for studying the history of Russia in the 17th-18th centuries. put forward the idea of ​​the leading importance of two factors: economic development and class struggle. The development of the economy, the evolution of classes and estates, is significantly inhibited by the serfdom regime, which reached its apogee precisely in these centuries. The tightening of exploitation by feudal lords and state punitive bodies causes increased protest among the lower ranks. No wonder contemporaries called the 17th century “rebellious.”

History of class struggle in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries. is the subject of close attention, on which various opinions have been expressed. There is no unity among historians in assessing the first and second Peasant Wars - their chronological framework, stages, effectiveness, historical role, etc. For example, some researchers reduce the first of them to the uprising of I.I. Bolotnikov of 1606-1607, others include the Khlopk uprising of 1603, the “hunger riots” of 1601-1603, popular movements of the time of the first and second impostors, both militias, and so on, up to the peasant-Cossack uprisings of 1613-1614 and even 1617-1618. The Moscow uprisings of 1682 and 1698 are called by some authors “reactionary riots” directed against Peter’s reforms (although the latter had not yet begun); other historians consider these uprisings to be complex, contradictory, but generally anti-feudal actions.

1. Uprising led by Ivan Bolotnikov (1606-1607)

Historians associate the main reason for Ivan Bolotnikov’s movement with the severity of the situation of the peasants, who were ready at the first call to rise up to fight the tsar and the boyars. In addition, the system of succession to the throne, as well as the absence of a legitimate ruler, also caused dissatisfaction. In 1598, with the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the Rurik dynasty ended. Boris Godunov became king; after Boris’s death, his son and heir Fyodor was killed by the associates of False Dmitry. Which took his place. False Dmitry was killed on May 17, 1606 as a result of a conspiracy led by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, who became king during the Bolotnikov uprising.

This period time went down in history as the “Time of Troubles.” All this time, popular unrest was taking place in the country. The reasons for Bolotnikov's movement were that the people were expecting changes for the better and were hopefully grasping at the illusion that Tsarevich Dmitry had survived. Bolotnikov declared the goal of his uprising to be the restoration to the throne of the rightful Tsar False Dmitry II, an adventurer whose face was very similar to the murdered Tsar False Dmitry I.

The most important features characterizing the position of the Russian state during the years of Bolotnikov’s uprising were two points: a long and acute crisis within the ruling class, which weakened and undermined the foundations of state power in the country, as well as the Polish intervention of 1604-1606, which further deepened and aggravated crisis experienced by the Russian state, and which caused a popular uprising on May 17, 1606 in Moscow against False Dmitry I and the Polish interventionists.

Serfdom was a heterogeneous social stratum. The top serfs, close to their owners, occupied a fairly high position. It is no coincidence that many provincial nobles willingly changed their status to serfs. I. Bolotnikov, apparently, belonged to their number. He was a military slave of A. Telyatevsky and, most likely, a nobleman by origin. However, one should not attach too much importance to this of great importance: the social orientation of a person’s views was determined not only by origin. Bolotnikov’s “nobility” can explain his military talents and qualities of a seasoned warrior.

There is information about Bolotnikov’s time in Crimean and Turkish captivity, as a rower on a galley captured by the “Germans”. There is an assumption that, returning from captivity through Italy, Germany, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Bolotnikov managed to fight on the side of the Austrian emperor as the leader of a mercenary Cossack detachment against the Turks. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why exactly he received the powers of the “great governor” from a man posing as Tsar Dmitry.

The center of the uprising was the city of Putivl, located in Northern Ukraine, where many associates of False Dmitry I were located. The rebels, who gathered under the banner of “Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich,” represented a complex conglomerate of forces . Here there were not only people from the lower classes, but also service people in the service and country. They were united in their rejection of the newly elected king, but different in their social aspirations. After the successful battle of Kromy in August 1606, the rebels occupied Yelets, Tula, Kaluga, Kashira and by the end of the year approached Moscow. Strength for complete blockade the capital was not enough, and this gave Tsar Shuisky the opportunity to mobilize all his resources. By this time, a split had occurred in the camp of the rebels and the detachments of Lyapunov (November) and Pashkov (early December) went over to Shuisky’s side.

The battle of Moscow on December 2, 1606 ended in the defeat of Bolotnikov. The latter, after a series of battles, retreated to Tula, under the protection of the stone walls of the city. V. Shuisky himself opposed the rebels and in June 1607 approached Tula. For several months, the tsarist troops unsuccessfully tried to take the city, until they blocked the Upa River and flooded the fortress. Bolotnikov’s comrades, relying on Shuisky’s gracious word, opened the gates. However, the king did not miss the opportunity to deal with the leaders of the movement. Bolotnikov was sent to a monastery, where he was blinded and killed.

.1 Historical assessment Bolotnikov's movements

It is quite difficult to assess the nature of Bolotnikov’s uprising. It seems one-sided to view movement solely as highest stage peasant war. However, this view exists, and supporters of this view assess the movement as the first Peasant War.

Some of them believe that she delayed the legal registration of serfdom for 50 years, others believe that she, on the contrary, accelerated the process of legal registration of serfdom, which ended in 1649.

Supporters of the view of the peasant wars as an anti-serfdom popular movement also believe that the significance of the peasant wars cannot be reduced only to their immediate results. During the peasant wars masses learned to fight for land and freedom. The peasant wars were one of the factors that prepared the formation of revolutionary ideology. Ultimately, they were preparing a transition to a new method of production.

Some historians express a different view of the events described above. In their opinion, the “program of the movement” remains unknown to us: all surviving documents by which one can judge the demands of the rebels belong to the government camp. In Shuisky’s interpretation, the rebels called on Muscovites to destroy “the nobles and the strong” and divide their property. Patriarch Hermogenes announced that “Bolotnikov’s followers are ordering the boyar slaves to beat their boyars, and they are promising their wives and estates, and estates,” promising to “give boyars, and voivodship, and okolnichestvo, and dyacism.” There are known cases of so-called “thieves' dachas”, when the estates of supporters of Tsar Vasily were transferred to supporters of the “legitimate sovereign Dmitry Ivanovich”. Thus, the struggle was aimed not so much at destroying the existing social system, but at changing individuals and entire social groups within it. The participants in the performance, former peasants and serfs, sought to be constituted in the new social status of service people, “free Cossacks.” The nobility, dissatisfied with Shuisky’s accession, also sought to improve their status. There was an acute, rather complex and contradictory social struggle that went beyond the framework outlined by the concept of the peasant war. This struggle naturally complemented the struggle for power - after all, only the victory of one of the contenders ensured the consolidation of the rights of his supporters. This confrontation itself resulted in an armed struggle, with entire armies.

The lower classes of society also took part in the social confrontation. However, the anti-serfdom fervor found its expression, first of all, in the weakening, and subsequently in the progressive destruction of statehood. In the conditions of crisis of all power structures, it was increasingly difficult to keep the peasants from leaving. In an effort to enlist the support of the nobility, on March 9, 1607, Shuisky issued extensive serfdom legislation, which provided for a significant increase in the term of fixed-term years. The search for fugitives became the official responsibility of the local administration, which from now on had to ask every arriving person “whose he is, where he came from, and when he fled.” For the first time, monetary sanctions were introduced for accepting a fugitive. However, the Code of 1607 was rather declarative in nature. In the context of the events, the problem that became urgent for the peasantry was not a way out, restored by appearance, but a search for an owner and a place of new residence that would ensure stability of life.

Events of the beginning of the 17th century. a number of historians interpret it as a civil war in Russia. However, not all researchers share this point of view. Emphasizing the absence of clear boundaries of social and political confrontation, they view all events within the framework outlined by their contemporaries themselves - as turmoil - Time of Troubles.

2. The uprising of Emelyan Pugachev (1773-1775)

Second half of the 18th century. is distinguished by a sharp increase in the social activity of the working population: landowners, monastic and assigned peasants, working people of manufactories, peoples of the Volga region, Bashkiria, Yaik Cossacks. It reached its apogee in the peasant war under the leadership of E.I. Pugacheva.

On Yaik, where an impostor posing as Peter III appeared in September 1773, favorable conditions developed for his calls to find a response first among the Cossacks, and then among peasants, working people, Bashkirs and the peoples of the Volga region.

The tsarist government on Yaik, as elsewhere, where it ceased to need the services of the Cossacks for the defense of the border territory, began to pursue a policy of limiting its privileges: back in the 40s. The election of military atamans was abolished, and Cossacks began to be recruited to serve far from their homes. The economic interests of the Cossacks were also infringed - at the mouth of the river. The Yaik government built uchugs (barriers) that prevented the movement of fish from the Caspian Sea to the upper reaches of the river.

The infringement of privileges caused the division of the Cossacks into two camps. The so-called “obedient” side was ready to agree to the loss of previous liberties in order to preserve some of the privileges. The bulk was the “disobedient side,” which constantly sent walkers to the empress with complaints about the oppression of the “obedient” Cossacks, in whose hands were all command positions.

In January 1772, the “disobedient” Cossacks went with banners and icons to the tsarist general who had arrived in Yaitsky town with a request to remove the military chieftain and elders. The general ordered to shoot at the peaceful procession. The Cossacks responded with an uprising, which the government sent a corps of troops to suppress.

After the events of January 13, the Cossack circle was banned and the military chancellery was liquidated; the Cossacks were controlled by an appointed commandant, subordinate to the Orenburg governor. At this time Pugachev appeared.

None of his impostor predecessors possessed the qualities of a leader capable of leading the masses of the dispossessed. Pugachev’s success, in addition, was facilitated by a favorable environment and those people to whom he turned for help to restore his allegedly violated rights: on Yaik, excitement from the recent uprising and the government’s response measures did not subside; Cossacks owned weapons and represented the most militarily organized part of the Russian population. Various layers of the then Russian population took part in the peasant war under the leadership of Pugachev: serfs, Cossacks, various non-Russian nationalities.

.1 Progress of the uprising led by E. Pugachev

The uprising began on September 17, 1773. In front of 80 Cossacks, initiated into the “secret” of saving Peter III, the manifesto was read out, and the detachment set off. The manifesto satisfied the aspirations of the Cossacks: the tsar granted them a river, herbs, lead, gunpowder, provisions, and a salary. This manifesto has not yet taken into account peasant interests. But the promise was enough that the next day the detachment already numbered 200 people, and new additions were added to its composition every hour. Pugachev's almost three-week triumphal procession began. On October 5, 1773, he approached the provincial city of Orenburg - a well-defended fortress with a garrison of three thousand. The assault on the city was unsuccessful, and a six-month siege began.

The government sent troops under the command of Major General Kara to Orenburg. However, the rebel troops completely defeated the 1.5 thousand-strong Kara detachment. The same fate befell the detachment of Colonel Chernyshov. These victories over regular troops made a huge impression. The Bashkirs led by Salavat Yulaev, mining workers, and peasants assigned to the factories joined the uprising - some voluntarily, others under duress. At the same time, the appearance of Kara in Kazan, who shamefully fled from the battlefield, sowed panic among the local nobility. Anxiety gripped the capital of the empire.

In connection with the siege of Orenburg and the long standing of troops at the walls of the fortress, the number of which in other months reached 30 thousand people, the leaders of the movement faced tasks that were not known to the practice of previous movements: it was necessary to organize the supply of food and weapons to the rebel army, to recruit regiments, counteract government propaganda with the popularization of the movement's slogans.

In Berda, the headquarters of “Emperor Peter III”, located 5 versts from blockaded Orenburg, its own court etiquette is formed, its own guard appears, the emperor acquires a seal with the inscription “Great State Seal of Peter III, Emperor and Autocrat of All-Russian”, from the young Cossack woman Ustinya Kuznetsova , whom Pugachev married, maids of honor appeared. At headquarters, a body of military, judicial and administrative power is created - Military Collegium, which was in charge of the distribution of property seized from nobles, officials and clergy, the recruitment of regiments, and the distribution of weapons.

In a familiar form, borrowed from government practice. other social content was invested. The “tsar” did not grant colonels to nobles, but to representatives of the people. Former craftsman Afanasy Sokolov, better known by the nickname Khlopusha, became one of the outstanding leaders of the rebel army operating in the region of the factories of the Southern Urals. The rebel camp also had its own counts. The first of them was Chika-Zarubin, who acted under the name of “Count Ivan Nikiforovich Chernyshev.”

The proclamation of Pugachev as emperor, the formation of the Military Collegium, the introduction of count dignity, testifies to the inability of the peasantry and Cossacks to replace the old social order new - it was about changing faces.

In the months when Pugachev was busy besieging Orenburg, the government camp was intensively preparing to fight the rebels. Troops quickly converged on the area of ​​the uprising; instead of the removed Kara, General Bibikov was appointed commander-in-chief. To inspire the nobles and express her solidarity to them, Catherine declared herself a Kazan landowner.

First major battle the Pugachevites with the punitive army took place on March 22, 1774 near the Tatishchev Fortress, it lasted six hours and ended in the complete victory of government troops. But the nature of the peasant war was such that the losses were quickly made up.

.2 The second stage of the peasant war under the leadership of E. Pugachev

After this defeat, Pugachev was forced to lift the siege of Orenburg and, pursued by government troops, move east. From April to June, the main events of the peasant war unfolded on the territory of the mining Urals and Bashkiria. However, the burning of factories, confiscation of livestock and property from assigned peasants and working people, violence inflicted on the population of factory villages led to the fact that the factory owners managed to arm working people at their own expense, organize detachments from them and send them against Pugachev. This narrowed the base of the movement and disrupted the unity of the rebels. At the Trinity Fortress, Pugachev suffered another defeat, after which he rushed first to the northwest and then to the west. The ranks of the rebels were joined by the peoples of the Volga region: Udmurts, Maris, Chuvashs. When Pugachev approached Kazan on July 12, 1774, his army numbered 20 thousand people. He captured the city, but did not have time to the Kremlin, where the government troops were settled - Mikhelson arrived in time to help the besieged and inflicted another defeat on the rebels. On July 17, Pugachev, together with the remnants of the defeated army, crossed to the right bank of the Volga - to areas inhabited by serfs and state peasants.

.3 The third period of the peasant war under the leadership of E. Pugachev

Pugachev’s manifestos were of great importance in restoring the strength of the rebel army. Already in the manifestos published in November 1773, the peasants were called upon to kill “villains and opponents of my imperial will,” which meant landowners, “and take their houses and all their property as compensation.” The manifesto of July 31, 1774, which proclaimed the liberation of peasants from serfdom and taxes, most fully reflected the peasant aspirations. The nobles, as “disturbers of the empire and destroyers of the peasants,” were to be “caught, executed and hanged, and to do the same as they, not having Christianity in themselves, did to you, the peasants.”

On the right bank of the Volga, the peasant war flared up with renewed vigor - rebel groups were created everywhere, acting separately and out of communication with each other, which facilitated the punitive efforts of the government: Pugachev easily occupied the cities - Kurmysh, Temnikov, Insar, etc., but with the same ease and left them under pressure from superior government forces. He moved to the Lower Volga, where barge haulers, Don, Volga and Ukrainian Cossacks joined him. In August he approached Tsaritsyn, but did not take possession of the city. With a small detachment, Pugachev crossed to the left bank of the Volga, where the Yaik Cossacks who were with him captured him and handed him over to Michelson on September 12, 1774.

Peasants' War 1773-1775 was the most powerful, but nevertheless ended in defeat. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in it. The territory covered by it extended from the Voronezh-Tambov region in the West to Shadrinsk and Tyumen in the east, from the Caspian Sea in the south to Nizhny Novgorod and Perm in the north. This peasant war was characterized by a higher degree of organization of the rebels. They copied some organs government controlled Russia. Under the “emperor” there was a headquarters, a Military College with an office. The main army was divided into regiments, communication was maintained, including the sending of written orders, reports and other documents.

3. Participants in peasant movements, reasons for defeat

As described in the book “From Rus' to Russia” by L.N. Gumelev’s army of Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov: “When we say: “rebellious borderland,” we, of course, still mean the three already mentioned subethnic groups: Sevryuks, Donets and Ryazans. It was they who, dissatisfied with their subordination to Moscow, consistently supported the second impostor after the first one. This is the ethnic basis of the phenomenon called in historical literature the “peasant war of 1606-1607.” It is perhaps difficult to come up with another name that reflects the essence of the matter just as little. And that’s why... paradoxically, Moscow was defended from the “peasant” militia by the peasants who came at the tsar’s call, and in the “peasant” army the striking force was the noble border regiments.”

Under the leadership of Pugachev were “disobedient” Cossacks, serfs, mining workers, peasants assigned to factories, and various non-Russian nationalities who were dissatisfied with the forced annexation to Russia (Bashkirs, Tatars, etc.) also joined Pugachev.

The troops of both Bolotnikov and Pugachev were motley, poorly organized, poorly disciplined rebel armies. The closest associates of both leaders pursued their own selfish goals and joined the uprising only to realize their interests, without sharing the idea of ​​the uprising. When achieving their goals, associates easily betrayed the ideals of the uprising and separated, and some joined the enemy camp, such as the detachments of Lyapunov and Pashkov, who went over to the side of Tsar Shuisky in the Bolotnikov uprising. Pugachev, after a series of defeats, was handed over to the authorities by the Yaik Cossacks, who were at the origins of the rebellion.

Moreover, betrayal on the part of supporters is characteristic of many uprisings of troubled times.

Conclusion

The peasant wars in Russia created and developed traditions of struggle against lawlessness and oppression. They played a significant role in the history of political and social development of Russia.

Usually, when assessing these events, historians note that the peasant wars dealt a blow to the serfdom system and accelerated the triumph of new capitalist relations. At the same time, it is often forgotten that the wars that covered the vast expanses of Russia led to the destruction of masses of the population (and many peasants, a significant number of nobles), disrupted economic life in many regions and had a heavy impact on the development of productive forces.

Violence and cruelty, fully demonstrated by the warring parties, could not solve any of the pressing problems of socio-economic development. The entire history of the peasant wars and their consequences is the clearest confirmation of Pushkin’s brilliant assessment: “The condition of the entire region where the fire raged was terrible. God forbid we see a Russian rebellion - senseless and merciless. Those who are plotting impossible revolutions among us are either young and do not know our people, or they are hard-hearted people, for whom someone else’s head is half a piece, and their own neck is a penny.”

Were the peasant wars just peasant punishment for oppressors and serf owners, or a real civil war, during which Russians killed Russians? Historians have different opinions on this matter, and each time gives its own answers to these questions. It is absolutely obvious and proven by history that any violence can only give rise to violence, even more cruel and bloody. It is immoral to idealize revolts, peasant or Cossack uprisings(which, by the way, was done in our recent past), and also civil wars, since generated by untruths and extortion, injustice and an insatiable thirst for wealth, these uprisings, riots and wars themselves bring violence and injustice, grief and ruin, suffering and rivers of blood, shed, often and for the most part, by the innocent and weak in in all human relationships.

Bibliography

1.Limonov Yu.A. "Emelyan Pugachev and his associates"

2.Encyclopedia for children. T. 5. “From the ancient Slavs to Peter the Great”

.M.N Zuev. "Russian history". M., 1998.

.Encyclopedia "Avanta+". T. 5. “From the first Slavs to Peter the Great”, M., 2000.

.Gumilev L.N. “From Rus' to Russia” - M.: Iris-press, 2008.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.