How the Romanovs became a royal dynasty. Romanov dynasty - chronology of reign
For more than 300 years, the Romanov dynasty was in power in Russia. There are several versions of the origin of the Romanov family. According to one of them, the Romanovs came from Novgorod. The family legend says that the origins of the family should be sought in Prussia, from where the ancestors of the Romanovs moved to Russia at the beginning of the 14th century. The first reliably established ancestor of the family is the Moscow boyar Ivan Kobyla.
The beginning of the ruling Romanov dynasty was laid by the great-nephew of Ivan the Terrible’s wife, Mikhail Fedorovich. He was elected to reign by the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, after the suppression of the Moscow branch of the Rurikovichs.
Since the 18th century, the Romanovs stopped calling themselves tsars. On November 2, 1721, Peter I was declared Emperor of All Russia. He became the first emperor in the dynasty.
The reign of the dynasty ended in 1917, when Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne as a result of the February Revolution. In July 1918, he was shot by the Bolsheviks along with his family (including five children) and associates in Tobolsk.
Numerous descendants of the Romanovs now live abroad. However, none of them, from the point of view of the Russian law on succession to the throne, has the right to the Russian throne.
Below is a chronology of the reign of the Romanov family with the dating of the reign.
Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. Reign: 1613-1645
He laid the foundation for a new dynasty, being elected at the age of 16 to reign by the Zemsky Sobor in 1613. He belonged to an ancient boyar family. He restored the functioning of the economy and trade in the country, which he had inherited in a depressing state after the Time of Troubles. Concluded “perpetual peace” with Sweden (1617). At the same time, I lost access to Baltic Sea, but returned vast Russian territories previously conquered by Sweden. Concluded an “eternal peace” with Poland (1618), while losing Smolensk and the Seversk land. Annexed the lands along the Yaik, Baikal region, Yakutia, access to the Pacific Ocean.
Alexey Mikhailovich Romanov (Quiet). Reign: 1645-1676
He ascended the throne at the age of 16. He was a gentle, good-natured and very religious person. He continued the army reform begun by his father. Attracted at the same time large number foreign military specialists left idle after graduation Thirty Years' War. It was held in his presence church reform Nikon, which affected the main church rituals and books. He returned Smolensk and Seversk land. Annexed Ukraine to Russia (1654). Suppressed the uprising of Stepan Razin (1667-1671)
Fedor Alekseevich Romanov. Reign: 1676-1682
The short reign of the extremely painful tsar was marked by a war with Turkey and the Crimean Khanate and the further conclusion of the Bakhchisarai Peace Treaty (1681), according to which Turkey recognized Left Bank Ukraine and Kyiv for Russia. A general census of the population was carried out (1678). The fight against the Old Believers took a new turn - Archpriest Avvakum was burned. He died at the age of twenty.
Peter I Alekseevich Romanov (the Great). Reigned: 1682-1725 (ruled independently from 1689)
The previous tsar (Fyodor Alekseevich) died without making orders regarding the succession to the throne. As a result, two tsars were crowned on the throne at the same time - Fyodor Alekseevich’s young brothers Ivan and Peter during their regency older sister Sophia Alekseevna (until 1689 - regency of Sophia, until 1696 - formal co-rule with Ivan V). Since 1721, the first All-Russian Emperor.
He was an ardent supporter of the Western way of life. For all its ambiguity, it is recognized by both adherents and critics as “The Great Sovereign”.
His colorful reign was marked Azov campaigns(1695 and 1696) against the Turks, which resulted in the capture of the Azov fortress. The result of the campaigns was, among other things, the tsar’s awareness of the need for army reform. The old army was disbanded - the army began to be created according to a new model. From 1700 to 1721 - participation in the most difficult conflict with Sweden, the result of which was the defeat of the hitherto invincible Charles XII and Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea.
In 1722-1724, the largest foreign policy event of Peter the Great after the Northern War was the Caspian (Persian) campaign, which ended with the capture of Derbent, Baku and other cities by Russia.
During his reign, Peter founded St. Petersburg (1703), established the Senate (1711) and the Collegium (1718), and introduced the “Table of Ranks” (1722).
Catherine I. Years of reign: 1725-1727
Second wife of Peter I. A former servant named Martha Kruse, captured during the Northern War. Nationality is unknown. She was the mistress of Field Marshal Sheremetev. Later, Prince Menshikov took her to his place. In 1703, she fell in love with Peter, who made her his mistress, and later his wife. She was baptized into Orthodoxy, changing her name to Ekaterina Alekseevna Mikhailova.
Under her, the Supreme Privy Council was created (1726) and an alliance was concluded with Austria (1726).
Peter II Alekseevich Romanov. Reign: 1727-1730
Grandson of Peter I, son of Tsarevich Alexei. The last representative of the Romanov family in the direct male line. He ascended the throne at the age of 11. He died at the age of 14 from smallpox. In fact, the government of the state was carried out by the Supreme Privy Council. According to the recollections of contemporaries, the young emperor was distinguished by his willfulness and adored entertainment. It was entertainment, fun and hunting that the young emperor devoted all his time to. Under him, Menshikov was overthrown (1727), and the capital was returned to Moscow (1728).
Anna Ioannovna Romanova. Reign: 1730-1740
Daughter of Ivan V, granddaughter of Alexei Mikhailovich. She was invited to the Russian throne in 1730 by the Supreme Privy Council, which she subsequently successfully dissolved. Instead of the Supreme Council, a cabinet of ministers was created (1730). The capital was returned to St. Petersburg (1732). 1735-1739 were marked by the Russian-Turkish war, which ended with a peace treaty in Belgrade. Under the terms of the Russian treaty, Azov was ceded to Russia, but it was forbidden to have a fleet in the Black Sea. The years of her reign are characterized in literature as “the era of German dominance at court,” or as “Bironovism” (after the name of her favorite).
Ivan VI Antonovich Romanov. Reign: 1740-1741
Great-grandson of Ivan V. Was proclaimed emperor at the age of two months. The baby was proclaimed emperor during the regency of the Duke of Courland Biron, but two weeks later the guards removed the duke from power. The emperor's mother, Anna Leopoldovna, became the new regent. At the age of two he was overthrown. His short reign was subject to a law condemning the name - all his portraits were removed from circulation, all his portraits were confiscated (or destroyed) and all documents containing the name of the emperor were confiscated (or destroyed). He spent until he was 23 years old in solitary confinement, where (already half-crazed) he was stabbed to death by the guards.
Elizaveta I Petrovna Romanova. Reign: 1741-1761
Daughter of Peter I and Catherine I. Under her, the death penalty was abolished for the first time in Russia. A university was opened in Moscow (1755). In 1756-1762 Russia took part in the largest military conflict of the 18th century - the Seven Years' War. As a result of the fighting, Russian troops captured all of East Prussia and even briefly took Berlin. However, the fleeting death of the empress and the rise to power of the pro-Prussian Peter III nullified all military achievements - the conquered lands were returned to Prussia, and peace was concluded.
Peter III Fedorovich Romanov. Reign: 1761-1762
Nephew of Elizaveta Petrovna, grandson of Peter I - son of his daughter Anna. Reigned for 186 days. A lover of everything Prussian, he stopped the war with Sweden immediately after coming to power on conditions that were extremely unfavorable for Russia. I had difficulty speaking Russian. During his reign, the manifesto “On the Freedom of the Nobility”, the union of Prussia and Russia, and a decree on freedom of religion were issued (all in 1762). Stopped the persecution of Old Believers. He was overthrown by his wife and died a week later (according to the official version - from fever).
Already during the reign of Catherine II, the leader of the peasant war, Emelyan Pugachev, in 1773 pretended to be the “miracle survivor” of Peter III.
Catherine II Alekseevna Romanova (Great). Reign: 1762-1796
Wife of Peter III. It enslaved the peasants as much as possible, expanding the powers of the nobility. Significantly expanded the territory of the Empire during the Russian-Turkish wars (1768-1774 and 1787-1791) and the partition of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795). The reign was marked by the largest peasant uprising of Emelyan Pugachev, posing as Peter III (1773-1775). A provincial reform was carried out (1775).
Pavel I Petrovich Romanov: 1796-1801
Son of Catherine II and Peter III, 72nd Grand Master of the Order of Malta. He ascended the throne at the age of 42. Introduced compulsory succession to the throne only through the male line (1797). Significantly eased the situation of the peasants (decree on three-day corvee, ban on selling serfs without land (1797)). From foreign policy, the war with France (1798-1799) and the Italian and Swiss campaigns of Suvorov (1799) are worthy of mention. Killed by guards (not without the knowledge of his son Alexander) in his own bedroom (strangled). The official version is a stroke.
Alexander I Pavlovich Romanov. Reign: 1801-1825
Son of Paul I. During the reign of Paul I, Russia defeated French troops during Patriotic War 1812. The result of the war was a new European order, consolidated by the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815. During numerous wars, he significantly expanded the territory of Russia - he annexed Eastern and Western Georgia, Mingrelia, Imereti, Guria, Finland, Bessarabia, and most of Poland. He died suddenly in 1825 in Taganrog from fever. among the people for a long time There was a legend that the emperor, tormented by conscience for the death of his father, did not die, but continued to live under the name of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich.
Nicholas I Pavlovich Romanov. Reign: 1825-1855
The third son of Paul I. The beginning of his reign was marked by the Decembrist uprising of 1825. The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was created (1833), monetary reform was carried out, and reform was carried out in the state village. The Crimean War (1853-1856) began, the emperor did not live to see its devastating end. In addition, Russia took part in the Caucasian War (1817-1864), the Russian-Persian War (1826-1828), the Russian-Turkish War (1828-1829), and the Crimean War (1853-1856).
Alexander II Nikolaevich Romanov (Liberator). Reign: 1855-1881
Son of Nicholas I. During his reign, the Crimean War was ended by the Paris Peace Treaty (1856), humiliating for Russia. In 1861, serfdom was abolished. In 1864, zemstvo and judicial reforms were carried out. Alaska was sold to the United States (1867). The financial system, education, city government, and the army were subject to reform. In 1870, the restrictive articles of the Peace of Paris were repealed. As a result Russian-Turkish war 1877–1878 returned Bessarabia, lost during the Crimean War. Died as a result terrorist attack, committed Narodnaya Volya.
Alexander III Alexandrovich Romanov (Tsar the Peacemaker). Reign: 1881-1894
Son of Alexander II. During his reign, Russia did not wage a single war. His reign is characterized as conservative and counter-reformist. A manifesto on the inviolability of autocracy, the Regulations on Strengthening Emergency Security (1881), was adopted. He pursued an active policy of Russification of the outskirts of the empire. A military-political Franco-Russian alliance was concluded with France, which laid the foundation for the foreign policy of the two states until 1917. This alliance preceded the creation of the Triple Entente.
Nicholas II Alexandrovich Romanov. Reign: 1894-1917
Son of Alexander III. The Last Emperor of All Russia. A difficult and controversial period for Russia, accompanied by serious upheavals for the empire. Russo-Japanese War(1904-1905) turned into a severe defeat for the country and the almost complete destruction of the Russian fleet. The defeat in the war was followed by the First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907. In 1914, Russia entered the First World War (1914-1918). The emperor was not destined to live to see the end of the war - in 1917 he abdicated the throne as a result, and in 1918 he was shot with his entire family by the Bolsheviks.
In October 1612 Moscow became free. However, as a result of the Polish-Swedish intervention, the country was in a state of severe economic decline. In place of hundreds of villages and hamlets in the territory subject to occupation, in the central part of the country, as well as on the western and southwestern outskirts, only ruins remained. In the surviving settlements, most of the courtyards stood empty, their owners were killed or scattered. The area of cultivated fields has decreased significantly. The number of low-cultivation or no-cultivation households on landowners' lands reached 70%.
The most important task was the restoration of state power and the liberation of areas still occupied by the interventionists. The restoration of state power was envisioned by the leaders of the militia in the form of a monarchy, which was familiar at that time. This task was to be carried out by the Zemsky Sobor, which was to elect a king.
The first letters calling for the election of deputies to the Zemsky Sobor were sent to cities soon after the cleansing of the capital. The dates of the Council have been postponed more than once. But in the first ten days of January 1613, before the arrival of deputies from a number of cities, the meetings of the Council opened in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. The norms for representation from cities and population groups were previously determined. Compared to the Soviet, the second militia was not particularly new. There were supposed to be 10 people from the city, while maintaining the list of classes according to which the militia was called to the Council, including black-growing peasants. The traditional and leading curia of the Cathedral - the Consecrated Cathedral, the Duma, the Moscow courtyard ranks (including clerks), retained their role. The meetings of the cathedral, one of the largest and most complete in terms of the number of participants, opened in January 1613. Unlike other zemstvo cathedrals of the 16th–17th centuries. the nobility was poorly represented in it, the main role was played by the nobility and clergy, townspeople, Cossacks, archers, and possibly black-growing peasants were represented.
First of all, the council decided to determine who cannot be a candidate: “The King of Lithuania and Sweden and their children, for their many untruths, and some other lands of people in Moscow State don’t rob, and don’t want Marinka and her son.” The documents that registered the disputes at the council have not survived. But the decision to exclude Vladislav (officially still considered the king), Sigismund and
Swedish Prince Philip testified that they had supporters. Prince Pozharsky is credited with supporting Philip. The Cossacks, represented very strongly, did not stop dreaming of the privileges they received from the impostors.
After deciding on the undesirable candidates, discussions began on the desirable ones. There were few candidates. Prince Vasily Golitsyn, who was suitable in terms of nobility and abilities, was in Polish captivity. Prince Mstislavsky refused. Vasily Klyuchevsky mercilessly states: “The Moscow state emerged from the terrible turmoil without heroes; it was brought out of trouble by kind but mediocre people.” On February 7, the council made a decision: Mikhail Romanov, the son of Filaret, was elected tsar. The announcement of the name of the new king was postponed for two weeks: the Council did not want to make a mistake. But this was only a preliminary election that identified a conciliar candidate. Final decision given to the entire land. They secretly sent loyal people around the cities to find out the people’s opinion on who they wanted to become the Muscovite kingdom. The people turned out to be quite prepared. The messengers returned with a report: everyone, young and old, wants Mikhail Romanov for the kingdom, but “besides him, there is no way to want anyone for the state.” In fact, this was one of the first (if not the first) sociological survey in Rus'.
The candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov did not raise any objections. On February 21, 1613, Mikhail Romanov was proclaimed Tsar in the large Moscow Palace, not yet rebuilt after two years of Polish occupation. A new dynasty took the throne. The Troubles are officially over.
For the Russian people, who had unsuccessfully chosen new tsars so many times during the Time of Troubles, the election of only one who was at least somehow connected with the former royal house seemed durable; the old familiar idea of a “natural king” triumphed. The boyars looked at Mikhail Romanov differently. Trying to “choose not the most capable, but the most convenient,” they hoped that under him the trials experienced by the boyars during the reign of Ivan the Terrible and Godunov would not be repeated.
The candidacy of Mikhail Romanov suited different strata of society. The new Moscow government, in which the Tsar’s father, Patriarch Filaret, played a primary role, restoring the state after the turmoil, was guided by the principle: everything should be as of old. To calm society and overcome devastation, a conservative policy was necessary, but the Troubles introduced many such changes into public life that, in fact, government policy turned out to be reformist.
Often in the description of the Troubles they put an end to the fact of Michael’s election. However, it should be noted that without an international settlement the civil war could not be considered over. Only by the end of 1618 was the territory of the Russian state liberated from the invaders, with the exception of the lands that went to Sweden under the Stolbovo Peace Treaty and remained under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth under the Deulin Truce.
The phenomenon of impostor.
The appearance of an impostor.
In 1598, the Zemsky Sobor unanimously elected Boris Godunov as Tsar. For the first time in history, it was not a “natural” sovereign who ascended the throne, but a chosen person.
Despite all Godunov’s attempts to lead the country out of the political and economic crisis, this was not possible. The accession of Godunov did not lead to the end of the Time of Troubles, but only to its beginning. Boris's personality aroused hostility, especially among the boyars. Although Godunov did not use physical methods in the fight against his political opponents, he encouraged denunciation, so a “political” regime was introduced in the country.
The events of 1601-1603, associated with lean years and mass famine, played a fatal role in the fate of the king. All of Godunov’s attempts to overcome the obstacles of crop failure: distributing money to the poor, free distribution of bread from state storage facilities, organizing paid construction work - were unsuccessful. Bread prices have risen approximately 100 times. On the wave of mass discontent, peasant uprisings began. Dissatisfaction with the authorities persisted, and in many ways it paved the way for the emergence of an impostor.
In 1604, a person appeared in Poland who declared himself to be the saved Tsarevich Dmitry...
False Dmitry was considered an adventurer, an impostor, posing as Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, the miraculously saved son of Ivan IV the Terrible.
There are many versions about the origin of False Dmitry. According to one of them, he is Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, who miraculously escaped from assassins sent, according to one version, by Boris Godunov. He was allegedly hidden and secretly transported to Poland. Sometimes a version is put forward that Grigory Otrepiev was one of the illegitimate sons of Grozny, given to be raised by the Otrepiev family. There is no definitive answer to the question of the identity of the first impostor.
According to the most common version, False Dmitry I was the son of the Galician nobleman Bogdan Otrepiev. Yushka (Yuri) belonged to the noble but impoverished Nelidov family, immigrants from Lithuania. Born in Galich (Kostroma volost). After serving in one of the Moscow orders, in 1600 Yuri Otrepyev became a monk under the name of Gregory. It is believed that Yuri was 1-2 years older than the prince.
In 1601, False Dmitry settled in the Moscow Miracle Monastery, soon received the rank of deacon, and was a member of Patriarch Job “for book writing.” In 1602, he fled to Poland, called himself the name of the son of Ivan IV the Terrible - Dmitry, and secretly converted to Catholicism.
In March 1604, King Sigismund III promised support to False Dmitry for his assistance in the war with Sweden and participation in the anti-Turkish alliance. In the event of his accession, he undertook to marry the daughter of the governor Mniszek Marina, transfer Novgorod and Pskov to her and pay Mniszek 1 million zlotys.
In the fall of 1604, at the head of a three-thousand-strong detachment of Polish “knighthood,” False Dmitry entered Russia. On January 21, 1605, False Dmitry I was defeated near the village of Dobrynichi, Komaritsa volost, but fortified himself in the south, in Putivl.
In May 1605, the tsar died and part of the army led by Basmanov sided with the impostor. On June 1, 1605, an uprising broke out in Moscow, which overthrew the Godunov government. Fyodor Godunov (son of Boris) and his mother were killed by order of False Dmitry, and he made his sister Ksenia a concubine. But later, at the urgent request of Mnishek’s relatives, Ksenia was tonsured.
On July 17, 1605, to prove the “royal” origin, a staged recognition of False Dmitry by Dmitry’s mother, Maria Nagaya - the nun Martha, was staged.
False Dmitry tried to accomplish the impossible, showing great political flair, intelligence, resourcefulness and courage. First of all, he regulated relations with the Boyar Duma, confirming its powers and promising the boyars to preserve their estates. He returned to Moscow many of the boyars and clerks disgraced under Godunov and, first of all, the surviving Romanovs. Filaret Romanov was awarded the rank of metropolitan.
During the multi-day celebration of the wedding of False Dmitry and Marina Mnishek, the visiting Poles in a drunken stupor broke into Moscow houses and robbed passers-by. This was the impetus for the beginning of the boyar conspiracy led by Prince Vasily Shuisky. Vasily Shuisky did not hide his true thoughts, directly expressing to the conspirators that Dmitry was “placed on the throne” for one purpose - to overthrow the Godunovs, and now the time had come to overthrow him himself.
At dawn on May 17, 1606, an armed detachment led by Shuisky entered the Kremlin. With a cry of "Zrada!" (“Treason!”) False Dmitry tried to escape, but was brutally killed. According to one version, his corpse was subjected to trade execution, sprinkled with sand, and smeared with tar. Among the residents of Moscow, the regicide caused a mixed reaction; many cried looking at the desecration. He was first buried in the so-called “wretched house,” a cemetery for the frozen or drunk, behind the Serpukhov Gate. But after a series of magical incidents, the body of False Dmitry was dug up and burned. Another source says that False Dmitry, trying to escape, jumped out of the window, but in doing so sprained his leg and broke his chest. When he fell into the hands of the conspirators, he was immediately hacked to death with swords. For three days, the body of False Dmitry lay for public viewing on Red Square. Then the corpse was burned, the ashes were loaded into a cannon and fired in the direction from which the impostor came - towards Poland.
Despite such a dual fate as a ruler, False Dmitry, in accordance with all modern reviews, was distinguished by enormous energy, great abilities, and broad reform plans.
The reign of Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610) "Tushinsky thief."
Shuisky tried to strengthen the army after the humiliating defeats inflicted tsarist army supporters of False Dmitry. Under him, a new military manual appeared in Russia. At the same time, centrifugal tendencies intensified, the most noticeable manifestation of which was the Bolotnikov uprising, suppressed only in October 1607.
In August 1607, Bolotnikov was replaced by a new contender for the throne - False Dmitry II. An impostor who pretended to be the Russian Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich (more precisely, False Dmitry I), who allegedly escaped during the uprising on May 17, 1606. The origins of the impostor are unclear.
The basis of his troops were the Polish detachments of Prince A. Vishnevetsky and Prince R. Ruzhinsky. Part of the South Russian nobility, Cossacks, and the remnants of I.I.’s defeated troops joined him. Bolotnikova. From Starodub, False Dmitry II in July 1607 undertook a campaign against Bryansk and Tula.
Having broken in May 1608 near Volkhov, the troops of Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, he approached Moscow and created a camp in the village of Tushino, where a government was formed (princes Trubetskoy, A.Yu. Sitsky, Filaret Romanov, M.G. Saltykov). In December 1608, power formally passed to ten elected representatives of Polish mercenaries. In August 1608, a Polish delegation led by Mniszko arrived in Tushino, whose daughter Marina, under pressure from the Poles and at great expense, recognized her murdered husband as False Dmitry II. They got married secretly. (The nineteen-year-old adventurer still dreamed of the Russian crown.)
The beginning of the open intervention of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (summer 1609) completed the collapse of the Tushino camp. The Poles, most of the Russian boyars and nobles went to Sigismund III. In December 1609, the impostor fled from Tushin to Kaluga. Taking advantage of the defeat of Shuisky's troops near Klushino (June 1610), False Dmitry II again approached Moscow in July, but in August he was forced to flee again to Kaluga, where he was killed. In Russian official historiography, False Dmitry II was called the “Tushino thief.”
Gradually, the power of False Dmitry II spread over a significant territory. In fact, a kind of dual power was established in the country, when neither side had the strength to achieve a decisive advantage. For two years, “parallel” systems of power existed: two capitals - Moscow and Tushino, two sovereigns - Tsars Vasily Ivanovich and Dmitry Ivanovich, two patriarchs. There were two systems of orders and two Dumas, and in Tushino there were many noble people. This was the time of the so-called “flights” - a visible manifestation of the moral impoverishment of society, when the nobles moved several times from one camp to another in order to receive awards and retain their possessions no matter the outcome.
In 1609, he concluded an agreement with Sweden, according to which, in exchange for the ceded Korelia volost, the Swedes provided military assistance to the Moscow sovereign. In practice, the tsar’s diplomatic action brought him more disadvantages than advantages: the agreement violated the previous agreement with the Poles and gave Sigismund III a reason for open interference in Moscow affairs and overcoming the internal opposition that opposed the war in the East.
In the autumn of 1609, Polish troops besieged Smolensk. Sigismund III hoped that in the conditions of general “shakyness” he would not encounter strong resistance: it was announced that he had come to the Moscow state to end the Troubles and civil strife. However, the residents of the city, led by the governor, boyar M.B. Shein, offered stubborn resistance for 21 months. The heroic defense of Smolensk, having shackled the king and inspired the Russian people, had a great influence on the course of the Time of Troubles.
In conditions of open intervention of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Tushinsky thief was no longer needed by the Poles. Some of them moved from Tushino to Smolensk, others continued to act independently, completely disregarding the impostor. A crisis was brewing in the circle of False Dmitry II. In December 1609, the impostor fled to Kaluga. This accelerated the collapse of the Tushino camp. Some of the Russian Tushino residents, who did not want any agreement with Shuisky, began to look for a way out of the political and dynastic crisis in rapprochement with the Polish king.
In February 1610, the Russians of Tushino, led by M. G. Saltykov, concluded an agreement near Smolensk with Sigismund III on the calling of his son, Prince Vladislav, to the throne. The authors of the agreement sought to preserve the foundations of the Russian system of life: Vladislav had to maintain Orthodoxy, the previous administrative order and class structure. The power of the prince was limited to the Boyar Duma and even the Zemsky Sobor.
On July 17, 1610, following the petition of all people, he abdicated the throne and was forcibly tonsured a monk.
However, the robberies and violence committed by Polish-Lithuanian troops in Russian cities, as well as inter-religious contradictions between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, caused rejection of Polish rule - in the north-west and in the east a number of Russian cities “sat under siege” and refused to swear allegiance to Vladislav. The actual management at this time was carried out by the so-called Seven Boyars - a council of seven boyars.
intervention
The turning point in the history of the Troubles was the murder in December 1610 of False Dmitry II, who fled from Tushino to Kaluga. Tired of endless civil strife, the population of Russia dreamed of firm power. The idea of convening a national militia became increasingly stronger in society. Ryazan land becomes one of its centers. The people's militia was headed by the nobleman Lyapunov and the Cossack Zarutsky, but it disintegrated without completing its mission.
Nizhny Novgorod becomes the center of the new militia. It was headed by the zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky. More than half of the Russian population united around the militia. In Yaroslavl, a Zemsky Sobor (or “Council of the Whole Earth”) was organized by representatives from the localities. He becomes the temporary supreme authority in the country. In August 1612, the militia approached Moscow. In October the capital was liberated from the Poles. Afterwards, letters were sent throughout the country convening a Zemsky Sobor to elect a new king. It took place in January 1613.
The final choice was made in favor of 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, the son of Metropolitan Philaret, a relative of the first wife of Ivan the Terrible. The tsarist government again became autocratic. On February 21, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov as Tsar. A new ruling dynasty was established.
Conclusion: Time of Troubles in Russia: weakening of state principles.
Each of the numerous explanations of the causes of the Time of Troubles (there are many explanations, because historians were very interested in the tragic era, full of storm and thunder, highlighting one of the facets) contains a grain of truth.
The results of the Time of Troubles are ambiguous. Firstly, the way out of the Time of Troubles and the restoration of statehood was ensured by popular self-organization. And, secondly, the social catastrophe again put the medieval Russian society before choosing a method of government: constitutional monarchy or unlimited autocracy.
The era of the XVI-XVII centuries. was a turning point for Russia. Here the process of the formation of a single state was completed and its type was determined as a multinational centralized state. Has developed government system serfdom. At the same time, the trend towards decomposition of the natural economy has intensified in Russia, and the formation of a single all-Russian market begins. The state is expanding its territory, actively participating in geographical discoveries and becoming increasingly involved in the orbit of pan-European politics and trade. Same as in countries Western Europe, in Russia during this era there was a tendency to weaken the church and promote government structure from class-representative monarchy to absolutism.
Conclusion: The phenomenon of impostor.
Imposture is not a purely Russian phenomenon, but in no other country has this phenomenon been so frequent and played such a significant role in the history of the people and the state. The history of Russia cannot be written without avoiding the problem of impostor: according to Klyuchevsky, “in our country, with the light hand of the first False Dmitry, imposture became a chronic disease of the state: from then on, almost until the end of the 18th century, a rare reign passed without an impostor.” From the beginning of the 17th to the middle of the 19th century. one can hardly find two or three decades that were not marked by the appearance of a new impostor in Rus'; in some periods, impostors number in the dozens.
Thus, imposture and impostors played a big role in the history of Russia. But despite this, the roots of this phenomenon remain not fully understood. Understanding the political, historical and sociocultural foundations of impostor opens up new possibilities for explaining its uniqueness. Research that was carried out after this phenomenon revealed that impostor manifests itself in connection with political culture and complements the holistic vision of the content of the processes political power V Russian society. In this sense, impostor is a phenomenon that reveals the essence of the process of political power and is considered as a motivated political action due to a crisis of power.
List of used literature:
1. Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day / comp. A.S. Orlov et al. – M. – 2000
2. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State, vol. 8
3. Klyuchevsky V. Course of Russian history. T. 3. – “The Word”. – 2004
4. Koretsky V.I. History of Rus': Chronicles of the 2nd half. XVI – early XVII. M. – 1986
5. Kostomarov N.I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. – M., 1994
6. Skrynnikov R.G. Boris Godunov. M. – 1992
7. Grosul V.Ya. The origins of three Russian revolutions // Domestic history. – M., 1997. – N 6. – P. 34-54
8. Tsar and impostor: impostor in Russia as a cultural and historical phenomenon. //"The artistic language of the Middle Ages." M. - 1982
The Romanov dynasty is a Russian boyar family that has bore the surname Romanov since the end of the 16th century. 1613 - dynasty of Russian tsars, reigning for more than three hundred years. 1917, March - abdicated the throne.
Background
Ivan IV the Terrible, by killing his eldest son, Ivan, interrupted the male line of the Rurik dynasty. Fedor, his middle son, was handicapped. Mysterious death in Uglich, the youngest son Dimitri (he was found stabbed to death in the courtyard of the tower), and then the death of the last of the Rurikovichs, Theodore Ioannovich, interrupted their dynasty. Boris Fedorovich Godunov, brother of Theodore's wife, came to the kingdom as a member of the Regency Council of 5 boyars. At the Zemsky Sobor of 1598, Boris Godunov was elected Tsar.
1604 - the Polish army under the command of False Dmitry 1 (Grigory Otrepyev) set out from Lvov to the Russian borders.
1605 - Boris Godunov dies, and the Throne is transferred to his son Theodore and the widow queen. An uprising breaks out in Moscow, as a result of which Theodore and his mother were strangled. The new tsar, False Dmitry 1, enters the capital accompanied by the Polish army. However, his reign was short-lived: 1606 - Moscow rebelled, and False Dmitry was killed. Vasily Shuisky becomes Tsar.
The impending crisis was bringing the state closer to a state of anarchy. After Bolotnikov's uprising and the 2-month siege of Moscow, the troops of False Dmitry 2 moved from Poland to Russia. 1610 - Shuisky's troops were defeated, the tsar was overthrown and tonsured a monk.
The government of the state passed into the hands of the Boyar Duma: the period of the “Seven Boyars” began. After the Duma signed an agreement with Poland, Polish troops were secretly brought into Moscow. The son of the Tsar of Poland Sigismund III, Vladislav, became the Russian Tsar. And only in 1612 the militia of Minin and Pozharsky managed to liberate the capital.
And just at this time Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov entered the arena of History. In addition to him, the Polish prince Vladislav, the Swedish prince Karl-Philip and the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry 2 Ivan, representatives of the boyar families - the Trubetskoys and the Romanovs, laid claim to the Throne. However, Mikhail Romanov was still elected. Why?
How Mikhail Fedorovich was suited to the kingdom
Mikhail Romanov was 16 years old, he was the grandson of the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia Romanova, and the son of Metropolitan Philaret. Mikhail's candidacy satisfied representatives of all classes and political forces: the aristocracy was pleased that the new tsar would be a representative of the ancient Romanov family.
Supporters of the legitimate monarchy were pleased that Mikhail Romanov was related to Ivan IV, and those who suffered from the terror and chaos of the “troubles” were pleased that Romanov was not involved in the oprichnina, while the Cossacks were pleased that the father of the new tsar was Metropolitan Filaret.
The age of young Romanov also played into his hands. People in the 17th century did not live long, dying from diseases. Young age the king could provide certain guarantees of stability for a long time. In addition, the boyar groups, looking at the age of the sovereign, intended to make him a puppet in their hands, thinking - “Mikhail Romanov is young, not smart enough, and will be loved by us.”
V. Kobrin writes about this: “The Romanovs suited everyone. This is the nature of mediocrity." In fact, to consolidate the state and restore social order, it was not bright personalities that were needed, but people who were able to calmly and persistently pursue conservative policies. “...It was necessary to restore everything, almost to build the state all over again - its mechanism was so broken,” wrote V. Klyuchevsky.
This is what Mikhail Romanov was. His reign was a time of lively legislative activity of the government, which concerned the most diverse aspects of Russian state life.
Reign of the first of the Romanov dynasty
Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was crowned king on July 11, 1613. When accepting the wedding, he promised not to make decisions without the consent of the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor.
This is how it was at the initial stage of his reign: on every important issue, Romanov turned to the Zemsky Sobors. But the tsar’s sole power gradually began to strengthen: governors subordinate to the center began to govern locally. For example, in 1642, when the meeting overwhelmingly voted for the final annexation of Azov, which the Cossacks had conquered from the Tatars, the tsar made the opposite decision.
The most important task during this period was the restoration of state unity of the Russian lands, part of which after the “...time of troubles...” remained under the ownership of Poland and Sweden. 1632 - after King Sigismund III died in Poland, Russia began a war with Poland, as a result - the new king Vladislav renounced his claims to the Moscow throne and recognized Mikhail Fedorovich as the Moscow Tsar.
Foreign and domestic policy
The most important innovation in industry of that era was the emergence of manufactories. The further development of crafts, an increase in agricultural and fishing production, and the deepening of the social division of labor led to the beginning of the formation of an all-Russian market. In addition, diplomatic and trade ties between Russia and the West were established. Large centers Russian steel trade: Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Bryansk. Sea trade with Europe passed through the only port of Arkhangelsk; Most goods traveled by dry route. Thus, by actively trading with Western European states, Russia was able to achieve an independent foreign policy.
Agriculture also began to improve. Agriculture began to develop on fertile lands south of the Oka, as well as in Siberia. This was facilitated by the fact that the rural population of Rus' was divided into two categories: landowners and black-growing peasants. The latter made up 89.6% of the rural population. According to the law, they, sitting on state land, had the right to alienate it: sale, mortgage, inheritance.
As a result of reasonable domestic policy The lives of ordinary people have improved dramatically. So, if during the period of “turmoil” the population in the capital itself decreased by more than 3 times - townspeople fled from their destroyed homes, then after the “restoration” of the economy, according to K. Valishevsky, “... a chicken in Russia cost two kopecks, a dozen eggs - a penny. Arriving in Moscow for Easter, he was an eyewitness to the pious and merciful deeds of the Tsar, who visited prisons before Matins and distributed colored eggs and sheepskin coats to prisoners.
“There has been progress in the field of culture. According to S. Solovyov, “... Moscow amazed with its splendor and beauty, especially in the summer, when the greenery of numerous gardens and vegetable gardens joined the beautiful variety of churches.” The first Greek-Latin school in Russia was opened in the Chudov Monastery. The only Moscow printing house, destroyed during the Polish occupation, was restored.
Unfortunately, the development of culture of that era was influenced by the fact that Mikhail Fedorovich himself was an exclusively religious person. Therefore, the most prominent scientists of that time were considered the correctors and compilers of sacred books, which, of course, greatly hampered progress.
Results
The main reason that Mikhail Fedorovich managed to create a “viable” Romanov dynasty was his carefully weighed, with a large “margin of safety”, internal and foreign policy, as a result of which Russia, albeit not completely, was able to solve the problem of the reunification of Russian lands, internal contradictions were resolved, industry and agriculture developed, the sole power of the sovereign was strengthened, ties with Europe were established, etc.
Meanwhile, indeed, the reign of the first Romanov cannot be ranked among the brilliant eras in the history of the Russian nation, and his personality does not appear in it with special brilliance. And yet, this reign marks a period of renaissance.
Afanasyeva Alina Georgievna
City ( locality):
Yumanai village, Shumerlinsky district Chuvash Republic
Methodological development historical and literary classes based on case study.
"The Beginning of the Romanov Dynasty"
Lesson type: learning new material.
Lesson form: group work.
Innovative technologies: Technology for the development of critical thinking, case technology.
Lesson objectives:
1. Educational - find out what significance the fact of the accession of the Romanov dynasty played for the further development of the country.
2. Developmental – development of students’ cognitive activity, development of skills in working with historical sources, the ability to draw diagrams, draw conclusions, and give a historical assessment.
3. Educational - instilling a sense of patriotism, respect for the history of ancestors.
Tasks:
1. Find out whether there was a consanguineous relationship between the Rurik and Romanov dynasties.
2. Highlight the positive and negative traits in the activities of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov and Patriarch Filaret. What united them?
3.Suggest what historical path Russia would have taken. If events had developed according to a different scenario.
To enter the era of the beginning of the 17th century, a five-minute lexical lesson was held. The main facts of the era of the period under study were summarized in a diagram and in a table in which comparison categories are highlighted. The development of speech activity took place through individual performances of the children.
Equipment:
1.Computers. (In the absence of technical capabilities - whatman paper, stationery.)
2.Visibility: posters, portraits.
3.Workbook.
4.Historical sources:
a) textbook,
b) the plot “The Beginning of the Romanov Dynasty” (other materials at the discretion of the teacher), video material: a fragment of the film “The Romanovs - the Beginning of the Dynasty.”
Lesson progress
I. Introductory and motivational stage
1. Updating previously acquired knowledge: frontal survey.
2. Setting the goal of the lesson: to find out what significance the fact of the accession of the Romanov dynasty played for the further development of the country (5 min.).
II. Organization educational activities
- 1. Collaboration (10 min.).
- Beginning of the Romanov dynasty
PLOT
- “At the very beginning of 1613, elected officials from all over the Russian land began to come to Moscow. This was the first indisputably all-class zemstvo council with the participation of townspeople and even rural inhabitants.
- Choosing your king was not easy. Some suggested one thing, others another, they went through great families, but could not agree on anyone and thus lost many days. Many candidates tried to bribe voters, sending them to them with gifts and promises.
- The most likely candidates for election were: princes Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky, Trubetskoy, Galitsky, 16-year-old boy Mikhail Romanov, whose father Philaret was a protege of both impostors, received the rank of metropolitan from the first and was proclaimed patriarch by the second.
- On February 21, 1613, the final elections were held. Each participant in the council submitted a written opinion, and in all opinions there was one name – Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov.”
- 1. Problem situation: Election of a new real king.
- Contradiction in the plot:
- 1. Why did Filaret, having been a protege of both impostors in the past, actually end up on the Russian throne?
- 2. Composition of candidates for the throne.
- 2. Possible wording of the problem:
- -Why did the historical choice fall on the Romanov family?
- -Where did they come from and what were they like by the time they came to power?
- -Lack of unity in the choice of the king.
- 3.Hypothetical solution to the problem:
- 1. Introductory word from the teacher:
- In Russia, the change of dynasties was caused by the suppression of the ruling branch of the Rurikovichs in the descendants of Ivan the Terrible. Problems of succession to the throne gave rise to a deep socio-political crisis, accompanied by the intervention of foreigners. Never in Russia have the supreme rulers changed so often, each time bringing a new dynasty to the throne. Among the contenders for the throne were representatives from different social strata, and there were also foreign candidates from among the “natural” dynasties. The kings became either the descendants of the Rurikovichs (Vasily Shuisky, 1606-1610), or those from among the untitled boyars (Boris Godunov, 1598-1605), or impostors (False Dmitry I, 1605-1606; False Dmitry II, 1607-1610 .). No one managed to gain a foothold on the Russian throne until 1613, when Mikhail Romanov was elected to the throne, and in his person a new ruling dynasty was finally established.
- - Why did the historical choice fall on the Romanov family? Where did they come from and what were they like by the time they came to power?
- -To answer these questions and come to certain conclusions, I suggest working in groups.
1 group:Students solve the problem:
Was there a consanguineous connection between the Rurik and Romanov dynasties? Sources of information: video materials (fragment of the film “The Romanovs - the beginning of the dynasty”).
The information received is entered into a given diagram on computers (or in notebooks) and then displayed on the board.
Information: The founder of the Romanov branch was the third son of Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin - Nikita Romanovich (d. 1586), the brother of Queen Anastasia. His descendants were already called Romanovs. Nikita Romanovich was a Moscow boyar from 1562, an active participant in the Livonian War and diplomatic negotiations, after the death of Ivan IV he headed the regency council (until the end of 1584). One of the few Moscow boyars of the 16th century who left a good memory among the people: name preserved by a folk epic depicting him as a good-natured mediator between the people and the formidable Tsar Ivan.
Of the six sons of Nikita Romanovich, the eldest was especially outstanding - Fyodor Nikitich (later Patriarch Filaret, the unofficial co-ruler of the first Russian Tsar of the Romanov family) and Ivan Nikitich, who was part of the Seven Boyars. The popularity of the Romanovs, acquired by their personal qualities, intensified from the persecution to which they were subjected by Boris Godunov, who saw in them potential rivals in the struggle for the royal throne.
ZEMSKY CATHEDRAL OF 1613 AND THE ELECTION OF A NEW TSAR
Before the start of the Zemsky Sobor, a 3-day strict fast was announced everywhere. Many prayer services were held in churches so that God would enlighten the elected people, and the matter of election to the kingdom would be accomplished not by human desire, but by the will of God.
On January 6 (19), 1613, the Zemsky Sobor began in Moscow, at which the issue of electing a Russian Tsar was decided. This was the first indisputably all-class Zemsky Sobor with the participation of townspeople and even rural representatives. All segments of the population were represented, with the exception of slaves and serfs. The number of “council people” gathered in Moscow exceeded 800 people, representing at least 58 cities.
Zemsky Sobor
The conciliar meetings took place in an atmosphere of fierce rivalry between various political groups that had taken shape in Russian society during the ten-year Troubles and sought to strengthen their position by electing their contender to the royal throne. The Council participants nominated more than ten candidates for the throne.
At first, the Polish prince Vladislav and the Swedish prince Karl Philip were named as contenders for the throne. However, these candidates met with opposition from the vast majority of the Council. The Zemsky Sobor annulled the decision of the Seven Boyars to elect Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne and decreed: “Foreign princes and Tatar princes should not be invited to the Russian throne.”
Candidates from old princely families also did not receive support. Various sources name Fyodor Mstislavsky, Ivan Vorotynsky, Fyodor Sheremetev, Dmitry Trubetskoy, Dmitry Mamstrukovich and Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky, Ivan Golitsyn, Ivan Nikitich and Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov and Pyotr Pronsky among the candidates. Dmitry Pozharsky was also proposed as king. But he decisively rejected his candidacy and was one of the first to point out ancient family Romanov boyars. Pozharsky said: “ Based on the nobility of the family, and the number of services to the fatherland, Metropolitan Filaret from the Romanov family would have been suitable for king. But this good servant of God is now in Polish captivity and cannot become king. But he has a sixteen-year-old son, and he, by the right of the antiquity of his family and by the right of his pious upbringing by his nun mother, should become king" (In the world, Metropolitan Filaret was a boyar - Fyodor Nikitich Romanov. Boris Godunov forced him to become a monk, fearing that he might displace Godunov and sit on the royal throne.)
Moscow nobles, supported by the townspeople, proposed to elevate 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the son of Patriarch Filaret, to the throne. According to a number of historians, the decisive role in the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom was played by the Cossacks, who during this period became an influential social force. A movement arose among service people and Cossacks, the center of which was the Moscow courtyard of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and its active inspirer was the cellarer of this monastery, Avraamy Palitsyn, a very influential person among both the militias and Muscovites. At meetings with the participation of cellarer Abraham, it was decided to proclaim Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov Yuryev, the son of Rostov Metropolitan Filaret, captured by the Poles. The main argument of Mikhail Romanov’s supporters was that, unlike elected tsars, he was elected not by people, but by God, since he comes from a noble royal root. Not kinship with Rurik, but closeness and kinship with the dynasty of Ivan IV gave the right to occupy his throne. Many boyars joined the Romanov party, and he was also supported by the highest Orthodox clergy - the Consecrated Cathedral.
On February 21 (March 3), 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom, laying the foundation for a new dynasty.
In 1613, the Zemsky Sobor swore allegiance to 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich.
Letters were sent to the cities and districts of the country with the news of the election of a king and the oath of allegiance to the new dynasty.
Conclusion: 1.16-year-old Mikhail Romanov from a long-standing boyar, but untitled family had little chance of winning, but the interests of the nobility and the Cossacks, who played a certain role during the Time of Troubles, converged on his candidacy.
2. The boyars hoped for his inexperience and expected to maintain their political positions, strengthened during the years of the Seven Boyars
3. Political past of the Romanov family.
4. The outcome of the case was decided by a note from an unknown ataman, who stated that Mikhail Romanov was closest in kinship to the previous dynasty and could be considered a “natural” Russian tsar.
2nd group receives the task:
Highlight the positive and negative character traits and activities of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov and Patriarch Filaret. Find out what united them.
To do this you need to fill out the table
Sources of information:
Textbook, message from group members.
| Patriarch Filaret | Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov |
|
| 1. Father (in the world Fedor Nikitich). | 1. Son. |
|
| 1. Smart, gifted. Good education, well-read, cheerful disposition, popularity, fame, opposed violence and bribery, moral laxity and freethinking, was honest, not a lover of money. | 1. Piety, meekness, strict morals, mercy, made annual pilgrimages to monasteries, gave alms. When he needed to be demanding and strict, he learned to humble the boyars. Modesty - the Kremlin Terem Palace consisted of four small chambers. |
|
| Bossy, hot-tempered | Poor health, timid (malleable), did not have outstanding abilities |
3rd group (Analysts) receives the task:
Guess what historical path Russia would have taken if events had developed according to a different scenario.
To do this, students must fill out the first part of the diagram by answering 10 questions:
1.What would the Poles have done with Mikhail Romanov?
2.Who would become the Russian Tsar?
3.Would the Troubles end?
4.What would happen to people devoted to the Motherland, to patriots?
5. How would traitors live in Rus'?
6.What would happen to the national culture, traditions, language?
7.What would happen to the Orthodox faith?
8.Which path would Russia's development take?
9.What would happen to Russia's natural resources?
10.What would happen to Russia in general?
III. Control and correction stage
1. Conclusions ( 12 min.)
- 1.There was a blood relationship between the Rurik and Romanov dynasties.
- 2. Mikhail Romanov was the legitimate clan tsar, which in itself was a factor that stabilized the situation in the country.
- 3.16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, from a long-standing boyar, but untitled family, had little chance of winning, but the interests of the nobility and the Cossacks, who played a certain role during the Time of Troubles, converged on his candidacy.
- 4. The boyars hoped for his inexperience and intended to maintain their political positions, strengthened during the years of the Seven Boyars
- 5. Political past of the Romanov family.
- 6. The outcome of the case was decided by a note from an unknown ataman, who stated that Mikhail Romanov was closest in kinship to the previous dynasty and could be considered a “natural” Russian tsar.
Plan
Introduction
Chapter 1. Zemsky Sobors
1 Background. The end of the Rurik dynasty. Boyar kings and impostors
2 Seven Boyars and occupation
3 Convocation of the Council
Chapter 2. Accession of the Romanov dynasty
1 Candidates for the throne
2 Versions about the motives for the election
3 Progress of the meetings
4 Cossack intervention
5 Embassy in Kostroma
Conclusion
References
Introduction
The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was a constitutional meeting of representatives of various lands and classes of the Moscow kingdom, formed to elect a new king to the throne. Opened on January 7, 1613 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. On February 21 (March 3), 1613, the council elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne, marking the beginning of a new dynasty.
In history, it is customary to end the period of the so-called Time of Troubles in the Russian state with the election of M. F. Romanov to the kingdom.
The Time of Troubles is one of the most difficult and complex eras in the history of our country. During these turbulent years of class and intra-class battles, political crises, international conflicts Social activity of all strata of society increased sharply. All social forces of the country took part in rapidly changing events. The struggle for power was especially intense. During the Time of Troubles, 14 people laid claim to the Russian throne, 8 of them ruled the country.
The fact that M. F. Romanov was elected to the throne causes some disagreement among historians. A. I. Herzen claims that the election of Mikhail to the throne was carried out contrary to all legality and without the consent of the people, who were excluded by the boyars and landowners from participating in the political destinies of the country. V. A. Nikolsky believes that it was the presence of Cossacks in the crowd of Muscovites that decided the election of Romanov. S. F. Platonov and Yu. V. Gauthier agree that the Cossacks played a huge role in this matter, but it cannot be said that it was decisive. Michael was elected unanimously by his future subjects. The Romanovs were a popular boyar family. The memory of Nikita Romanovich, who softened more than one cruelty of Ivan the Terrible, was still alive among the people; his sister Anastasia enjoyed a good reputation among the people. For the Moscow boyars, Mikhail was also the most acceptable candidate; they needed a young, inexperienced tsar to retain their power. L. E. Morozova also explains the election of Romanov by the fact that he was the nephew of Tsar Fedor, thereby preserving the principle of transferring the throne by inheritance.
The topic is relevant not only for Russian history, but also politically topical. Despite the fact that many scientists studied it, a single point of view on the events taking place at that time was not formed.
In addition, since 2005, Russia has celebrated the national holiday Day national unity. The attitude towards the holiday itself in Russian society is skeptical; most do not understand the meaning of its introduction. However, linking the holiday of National Unity Day to the Time of Troubles is not accidental, but has certain goals, in particular, it is aimed at raising a patriotic mood in society, because the events of those times were connected with events that influenced the entire history of the Russian state, and are connected they were also associated with the heroic deeds of Russians, which means they are still socially significant and modern.
Target: analyze how a very young man, Mikhail Romanov, who did not have the merits of a statesman and did not take any part in the zemstvo liberation movement, ended up on the Russian throne.
Tasks: during an acquaintance with historical research on the issue of the accession of the Romanov dynasty, identify existing points of view on the following issues:
Understanding the role and concept of “Zemsky Sobor”
On what basis and by what principle were contenders for the royal throne put forward?
What groups opposed each other at the meetings of the Council.
The problem of the existence of a restrictive record of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov.
Chapter 1. Zemsky Sobors
Zemstvo councils were convened in Russia repeatedly over a century and a half - from the mid-16th to the end of the 17th century (finally abolished by Peter I). However, in all other cases, they played the role of an advisory body under the current monarch and, in fact, did not limit his absolute power. The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened in conditions of a dynastic crisis. His main task was to elect and legitimize a new dynasty on the Russian throne.
1.1 Background. End of the Rurik dynasty
The main cause of the unrest was the end of the dynasty. The dynasty ended with the death of three sons of Ivan the Terrible: Ivan, Dmitry and Fedor. The eldest of them, Ivan, was already an adult when he died, according to one version, from beatings from his father. After the death of Ivan the Terrible himself, two sons remained alive: Fyodor and, another child, Dmitry, born in the seventh marriage of the Terrible with Maria Naga.
In 1584, Fyodor was crowned king. Unable to rule, he carried out the decisions made by the boyars of the regency council. The composition of the regency council is not completely clear, but the winner of the court struggle is Boris Godunov, who by 1587 became the de facto ruler of the state.
In 1591, in Uglich, a terrible event occurred: seven-year-old Tsarevich Dmitry was stabbed to death. The investigators conducted the case poorly and, upon returning, reported to the Tsar and the Boyar Duma that the Tsarevich was not killed at all, but that he himself, in an epileptic fit, came across a knife. However, the people could not believe the naive explanation of the Moscow investigators and said that the prince had been killed; and many added that he was killed at the request of Boris Godunov
Seven years later, on Epiphany Eve 1598, Fyodor died, leaving no heirs. At the time of his death, Fedor remained only son Tsar Ivan the Terrible. He didn't have any children of his own. With Fedor, the royal family of Rurikovich, which ruled Russia for more than 700 years, ended.
After his death, the throne passed to the Tsar's wife, Irina, then to her brother Boris Godunov. According to N.M. Karamzin, the Time of Troubles begins precisely with the accession of Boris Godunov, who seized the throne by killing the rightful heir Dmitry. But S. F. Platonov suggests that the accusation of murder against Boris could well have been slander, since under Fyodor Boris had to act among boyars hostile to him, who hated him and at the same time feared him. The boyars could start a rumor about the murder for their own purposes.
False Dmitry I
L. E. Morozova believes that although there were other contenders for the throne after Fedor’s death (Romanovs, Shuiskys, Mstislavskys), by the time of Fedor’s death in January 1598, only Boris Godunov could really take power, since he had already long time was the king's co-ruler. And on February 17, 1598, the Zemsky Sobor, in full agreement with the law, elected Boris as the new tsar.
Historians consider one of the most striking events during the reign of Boris to be the appearance of an impostor posing as Tsarevich Dmitry. Their opinions differ on the question of where the idea of the impostor originated. On the one hand, it is believed that the boyars needed False Dmitry 1 to overthrow Godunov, and then the boyars overthrew him, opening the way to the throne for one of their own. On the other hand, False Dmitry 1 is considered an agent of the Polish king, or Polish magnates played a role in his preparation. On the question of the identity of the first impostor, most researchers agree that it was the monk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev. In his struggle for power, False Dmitry 1 did not try to limit himself to supporting any one class; he tried to “please” all of Russia: he doubled the salaries of dignitaries and the army, abolished trade duties, and declared free servants deprived of their will by violence.
After the death of Boris in 1605, they ruled successively:
· Boris's son, Fyodor Godunov
False Dmitry I
· Vasily Shuisky
The turning point of the Troubles is considered to be the election of Vasily Shuisky to the kingdom. Few people were happy with Vasily, and the main reasons for discontent were the incorrect path to the throne and dependence on the circle of boyars who elected Vasily and played with him. Shuisky, realizing that not all of the boyars considered him worthy of the throne, refused to convene the Zemsky Sobor and was “shouted out” by the tsar from a small circle of his supporters. But, being a prince of the blood, Shuisky had undoubted rights to the throne and, in order to strengthen himself, began to popularize them among the people.
On the issue of the peasant war led by Bolotnikov, there are points of view that present the war not only as a protest against serfdom, but also as a war for the overthrow of Shuisky and the proclamation of Dmitry as king, since “Tsar Dmitry” was the ideal of a good king, and the peasants and slaves were unable to formulate a new political system. V. A. Nikolsky believes that the uprising was raised by the nobles themselves, and Bolotnikov undertook to serve them. N.M. Karamzin directly calls Bolotnikov an agent of an impostor, and writes that he called himself a “royal commander,” that is, the uprising was a weapon in the struggle for the power of some impostor. R. G. Skrynnikov, on the other hand, thinks the opposite; in his opinion, False Dmitry II appeared on the initiative of the Russian rebel camp. Bolotnikov and other leaders believed that the return of "Dmitry" would bring them immediate victory, because he would bring strong reinforcements in the form of mercenary troops, and his appearance would convince Muscovites who did not believe in his salvation. In 1607, the movement against the existing government ended with Bolotnikov being drowned, and Shuisky “celebrating the victory.” Thus, the people were involved in the struggle, who began to put forward their own demands, and after the election of Shuisky, the oligarchs found themselves face to face with the masses pursuing their own goals.
So, we come to the question of the second impostor. Having defeated Shuisky’s troops in several battles, by the beginning of June False Dmitry II approached Moscow, but was unable to take it and founded a camp 17 km from Moscow near the village of Tushino (hence his nickname “Tushino Thief”). During the year of the existence of the Tushino camp, two authorities arose in the country: the government of Tsar V. Shuisky in Moscow and the government of False Dmitry II in Tushino, two Boyar Dumas, two patriarchs (Hermogenes in Moscow and Filaret in Tushino).
False Dmitry II
In February 1609, Shuisky’s government entered into an agreement with Sweden, counting on assistance in the war with the “Tushinsky thief” and his Polish troops. The Polish king sought to turn Russia into Poland's sphere of interests and did not want the spread of Swedish influence in Russia. In 1609, Poland began open intervention in Russia. Having given the Russian fortress of Korela to the Swedes, Vasily Shuisky received military assistance, and the Russian-Swedish army liberated a number of cities in the north of the country. This gave the Polish king Sigismund III a reason for intervention: in the fall of 1609, Polish troops besieged Smolensk and reached the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The Poles approached the Tushino camp. The unexpected ally, however, did not help False Dmitry II, as the Polish rebel officers began to swear allegiance to the Polish king. The Tushino camp collapsed, and False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where he was killed.
1.2 Seven Boyars and occupation
In 1610, the conspirators, dissatisfied with Shuisky’s failures, declared themselves the Zemsky Sobor and deposed Vasily from the throne, and then forcibly tonsured him as a monk of the Chudov Monastery. From 1610 to 1613, boyar rule began in Russia - the seven-boyars (Mstislavsky, Trubetskoy, Golitsyn, Obolensky, Romanov, Lykov, Sheremetev). One of the tasks of the new government was to prepare for the election of a new king. In order to avoid the struggle of boyar clans for power, it was decided not to elect representatives of Russian clans as tsar.
The Moscow government decided to turn to the Polish king with a request: to release his son, Prince Vladislav, to the Russian throne. On September 20 - 21, Polish troops entered the capital, led Muscovites to the oath of allegiance to Vladislav, and then sent “notification” letters throughout the country, demanding that all Rus' swear allegiance to the prince. Vladislav himself refused to go to Moscow, despite the fact that the Polish garrison was in the Kremlin. The betrayal of the state interests of Russia by the boyars exceeded all conceivable limits. The robberies and violence committed by Polish-Lithuanian troops in Russian cities, as well as inter-religious contradictions between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, caused rejection of Polish rule - in the northwest and in the east, a number of Russian cities “sat under siege” and refused to swear allegiance to Vladislav. An embassy was assembled in Poland to discuss the conditions for the election of Vladislav to the throne. Metropolitan Filaret was appointed head of the embassy. The Polish occupation of Moscow dragged on, Vladislav did not accept Orthodoxy.
The country was experiencing its highest moment of destruction. The Poles ruled in Moscow itself, the Swedes, emerging from the role of “allies,” ravaged the northwestern Russian lands. Popular uprisings did not stop. On March 17, 1611, the Poles, who mistook a dispute at the market for the beginning of an uprising, carried out a massacre in Moscow; 7 thousand Muscovites died in Kitay-Town alone. The rule of the Poles in Moscow aroused increasing discontent.
At this time, Patriarch Hermogenes became the head of the national-religious opposition. He firmly declares that if the prince does not accept Orthodoxy, and the “Lithuanian people” do not leave the Russian land, then Vladislav is not our sovereign. Hermogenes, who came into conflict with Polish troops, in December 1610 - January 1611 sends out letters calling for the liberation of the capital and renunciation of the oath, addresses the Russian people with direct calls for an uprising to defend the church and fatherland.
At his call, a militia of nobles and Tushins led by Prokopiy Lyapunov and Ataman Ivan Zarutsky is formed in Ryazan. However, due to disagreements between the leaders, the militia disintegrated. In August 1611, a second people's militia was formed in Nizhny Novgorod, led by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and merchant Kuzma Minin.
.3 Convocation of the Council
October 1612 in Moscow, deprived of support from the main forces of Hetman Khodkiewicz, the Polish garrison capitulated. After the liberation of the capital, the need arose to choose a new sovereign. The Provisional Government began preparations for the Zemsky Sobor, which was assembled in January 1613.
Letters were sent from Moscow to many cities in Russia on behalf of the liberators of Moscow - Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. Information has been received about documents sent to Sol Vychegodskaya, Pskov, Novgorod, Uglich. These letters, dated mid-November 1612, ordered representatives of each city to arrive in Moscow before December 6. However, the elected officials took a long time to come from the distant ends of still seething Russia. Some lands (for example, Tverskaya) were devastated and completely burned. Some sent 10-15 people, others only one representative. Opening date for meetings Zemsky Sobor was postponed from December 6 to January 6. In dilapidated Moscow, there was only one building left that could accommodate all the elected officials - the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The number of those gathered varies, according to various estimates, from 700 to 1,500 people.
Chapter 2. Accession of the Romanov dynasty
.1 Candidates for the throne
In 1613, in addition to Mikhail Romanov, both representatives of the local nobility and representatives of ruling dynasties neighboring countries. Among the latest candidates for the throne were:
· Polish prince Wladyslaw, son of Sigismund III
· Swedish prince Carl Philip, son of Charles IX
Among the representatives of the local nobility, the following names stood out. As can be seen from the above list, they all had serious shortcomings in the eyes of voters.
· Golitsyn. This family descended from Gediminas of Lithuania, however, the absence of V.V. Golitsyn (he was in Polish captivity) deprived this family of strong candidates.
· Mstislavsky and Kurakin. Representatives of these noble Russian families undermined their reputation by collaborating with the Poles.
· Vorotynsky. According to the official version, the most influential representative of this family, I.M. Vorotynsky, recused himself.
· Godunovs and Shuiskys. Both were relatives of previously reigning monarchs. The Shuisky family, in addition, descended from Rurik. However, kinship with the overthrown rulers was fraught with a certain danger: having ascended to the throne, the chosen ones could get carried away with settling political scores with their opponents.
· Dmitry Pozharsky and Dmitry Trubetskoy. They undoubtedly glorified their names during the storming of Moscow, but were not distinguished by nobility.
In addition, the candidacy of Marina Mnishek and her son from her marriage to False Dmitry II, nicknamed “Vorenko,” was considered.
2.2 Versions about the motives for election
According to the point of view officially recognized during the reign of the Romanovs (and later rooted in Soviet historiography), the council voluntarily, expressing the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of Russia, decided to elect Romanov, in agreement with the opinion of the majority. This position is adhered to, in particular, by the largest Russian historians of the 18th-20th centuries: N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, N.I. Kostomarov, V.N. Tatishchev and others.
According to some opinions, this concept is characterized by a denial of the Romanovs’ desire for power and an obvious negative assessment of the three previous rulers. Boris Godunov, False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky in the minds of the “novelists” look like negative heroes.
Some historians hold a different point of view. The most radical of them believe that in February 1613 there was a coup, seizure, usurpation of power. Others believe that we are talking about not completely fair elections, which brought victory not to the most worthy, but to the most cunning candidate. Both parts of the “anti-romanists” are unanimous in the opinion that the Romanovs did everything to achieve the throne, and the events of the early 17th century are viewed not as unrest that ended with the arrival of the Romanovs, but as a struggle for power that ended with the victory of one of the competitors. According to the “anti-novelists,” the council created only the appearance of a choice, but in fact this opinion was not the opinion of the majority; and that subsequently, as a result of deliberate distortions and falsifications, the Romanovs managed to create a “myth” about the election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne.
"Anti-Romanists" point to the following factors that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the new king:
· The problem of the legitimacy of the council itself. Convened in conditions of complete anarchy, the council did not represent the Russian lands and estates in any fair proportion.
· The problem of documenting the meetings of the council and voting results. The only official document describing the activities of the cathedral is the Approved Charter on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom, drawn up no earlier than April-May 1613.
· The problem of pressure on voters. According to a number of sources , outsiders had a great influence on the course of the discussion, in particular the Cossack army stationed in Moscow.
2.3 Proceedings of the meetings
The cathedral opened on January 7. The opening was preceded by a three-day fast, the purpose of which was cleansing from the sins of the turmoil. Moscow was almost completely destroyed and devastated, so people settled, regardless of origin, wherever they could. Everyone gathered in the Assumption Cathedral day after day. The interests of the Romanovs at the cathedral were defended by the boyar Fyodor Sheremetev. Being a relative of the Romanovs, he himself, however, could not lay claim to the throne, since, like some other candidates, he was part of the Seven Boyars.
One of the first decisions of the council was the refusal to consider the candidacies of Vladislav and Karl Philip, as well as Marina Mniszek.
But even after such a decision, the Romanovs were still confronted by many strong candidates. Of course, they all had certain shortcomings. However, the Romanovs also had an important drawback - in comparison with the ancient Russian families, they clearly did not shine in origin. The first historically reliable ancestor of the Romanovs is traditionally considered to be the Moscow boyar Andrei Kobyla, who came from a Prussian princely family.
According to the official version, the election of the Romanovs became possible due to the fact that the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov turned out to be a compromise in many respects:
· Having received a young, inexperienced monarch on the Moscow throne, the boyars could hope to put pressure on the tsar in resolving key issues.
· Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, was for some time in the camp of False Dmitry II. This gave hope to the defectors from the Tushino camp that Mikhail would not settle scores with them.
· Patriarch Filaret, in addition, enjoyed undoubted authority in the ranks of the clergy.
· The Romanov family was less tainted by its collaboration with the “unpatriotic” Polish government in 1610-1612. Although Ivan Nikitich Romanov was a member of the Seven Boyars, he was in opposition to the rest of his relatives (in particular, Patriarch Filaret and Mikhail Fedorovich) and did not support them at the council.
· The most liberal period of his reign was associated with Anastasia Zakharyina-Yuryeva, the first wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.
Lev Gumilyov sets out the reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom more consistently.
According to a number of historians, the decision of the council was not entirely voluntary. The first vote on Mikhail’s candidacy took place on February 4 (7?) The voting result disappointed Sheremetyev’s expectations:
Indeed, the decisive vote was scheduled for February 21 (March 3), 1613. The council, however, made another decision that Sheremetev did not like: it demanded that Mikhail Romanov, like all other candidates, immediately appear at the council. Sheremetev did his best to prevent the implementation of this decision, citing security reasons for his position. Indeed, some evidence indicates that the life of the pretender to the throne was at risk. According to legend, a special Polish detachment was sent to the village of Domnino, where Mikhail Fedorovich was hiding, to kill him, but the Domnino peasant Ivan Susanin led the Poles into impassable swamps and saved the life of the future tsar. Critics of the official version offer another explanation: “Deprived of any upbringing amid the turbulent events that surrounded his childhood and early youth, probably unable to read or write, Michael could have ruined everything by appearing in front of the Council” (K. Waliszewski)
The council continued to insist, but later (approximately February 17-18) changed its decision, allowing Mikhail Romanov to remain in Kostroma. And on February 21 (March 3), 1613, he elected Romanov to the throne.
.4 Intervention of the Cossacks
Some evidence points to possible reason such a change. On February 10, 1613, two merchants arrived in Novgorod and reported the following:
“The Russian Cossacks, who were in Moscow, wished for a boyar named Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to be the Grand Duke. But the boyars were completely against this and rejected it at the Council, which was recently convened in Moscow.” (L.V. Cherepnin)
And here is the testimony of the peasant Fyodor Bobyrkin, who also arrived in Novgorod, dated July 16, 1613 - five days after the coronation:
"Moscow ordinary people and Cossacks at will and without the general consent of other zemstvo officials, they chose Fedorov’s son, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who is now in Moscow, as Grand Duke. Zemstvo officials and boyars do not respect him.” (L.V. Cherepnin).
The Polish commander Lev Sapega reported the election results to the captive Filaret, the father of the newly elected monarch: “Only the Don Cossacks put your son in the Moscow state.” (S. F. Platonov).
Here is a story written by another eyewitness to the events.
“The boyars were stalling for time at the council, trying to resolve the issue of the tsar “in secret.” from the Cossacks and waiting for their departure from Moscow. But they not only did not leave, but became more active. One day, after consulting with the entire Cossack army , they sent up to five hundred people to the Krutitsa Metropolitan. They forcibly broke down the gate, burst into his yard and “rude words They demanded: “Give us, Metropolitan, the Tsar of Russia, whom we can bow down to and serve and ask for a salary, why die an easy death!” "(Romanovs, Historical Portraits, edited by E. V. Leonova)
The frightened Metropolitan fled to the boyars. They hastily called everyone to the council. The Cossack atamans repeated their demand. The boyars presented them with a list of eight boyars - the most worthy candidates, in their opinion. Romanov's name was not on the list! Then one of the Cossack atamans spoke:
“Princes and boyars and all Moscow nobles! Not by God's will, but by autocracy and by your own will, you choose an autocrat. But by God’s will and with the blessing of... Grand Duke Fyodor Ioannovich of All Rus', in his blessed memory, to whom he, sovereign, bless his royal staff and rule over Russia, Prince Fyodor Nikitich Romanov. And that one is now full in Lithuania. And from the good root and the good branch and the honor - his son, Prince Mikhailo Fedorovich. May it be fitting according to God's will in the reigning city of Moscow and all Rus', and may there be a king and sovereign Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich of all Rus'..."
.5 Embassy in Kostroma
A few days later, an embassy was sent to Kostroma, where Romanov and his mother lived, under the leadership of Archimandrite Theodoret Troitsky. The purpose of the embassy is to notify Michael of his election to the throne and present him with a conciliar oath. According to the official version, Mikhail got scared and flatly refused to reign, so the ambassadors had to show all their eloquence to convince the future tsar to accept the crown. Critics of the “Romanov” concept express doubts about the sincerity of the refusal and note that the conciliar oath has no historical value: “Strictly speaking, this document has no historical value. Intended to serve as a record of the great event, it consists in large part of a literal copy of Godunov's electoral charter; the very speech that Patriarch Job delivered to Boris is put here into the mouth of Archbishop Theodoret, addressing Michael” (K. Valishevsky)
One way or another, Mikhail agreed to accept the throne and left for Moscow, where he arrived on May 2, 1613. The coronation in Moscow took place on July 11, 1613.
Conclusion
The desire to have our own “national” tsar, which widely embraced all layers of Russian society, did not appear immediately. It was the culmination of a long and complex evolution through which the idea had passed royal power from the time the Rurik dynasty ended.
The election of the king meant the revival of the country, the protection of its sovereignty, independence and identity. With the election of the king, the turmoil ended, since now there was power that everyone recognized and could rely on. The healthy conservatism of the first Romanovs made it possible to gradually restore the economy and state power. Power has returned to form autocratic monarchy
References
Romanov Tsar Zemsky
1. Valishevsky K., “Time of Troubles”, Moscow, “IKPA”, 1989.
2. Vasilevsky I. M., “The Romanovs from Mikhail to Nikolai”, Rostov, “Maprekon”, 1993.
Grimberg F. L., “The Romanov Dynasty. Riddles. Versions. Problems", Moscow, "Moscow Lyceum", 1996.
Gumilyov L.N., “From Rus' to Russia”, St. Petersburg, “YUNA”, 1992.
Degtyarev A. Ya. (scientific review by R. G. Skrynnikov), “The Difficult Age of the Russian Tsardom”, Leningrad, “Children’s Literature”, 1988.
Karamzin N. M., “History of the Russian State,” in 12 volumes, in 3 books, Kaluga, “Golden Alley”, 1993.
Klyuchevsky V. O., “Russian history. Full course lectures in 3 books", Moscow, "Mysl", 1993.
Lurie F. M., “Russian and world history in tables”, St. Petersburg, “Iskusstvo-SPb”, 1997.
Pashkov B. G., “Rus. Russia. Russian Empire. Chronicle of reigns and events of 862-1917", Moscow, "TsentrKom", 1997.
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.
Related articles
The best amulets against the evil eye and damage Amulet against the evil eye with hands for children
How to read the Psalter correctly
Delicious dishes with sausages
A glimpse of Bella. Romantic chronicle. A glimpse of genius. Messerer about Akhmadulina Boris Messerer glimpse of Bella romantic chronicle
I dreamed that I was sailing on a boat on the river
How to cook beef entrecote in a frying pan
About the company Foreign language courses at Moscow State University
Which city and why became the main one in Ancient Mesopotamia?
Why Bukhsoft Online is better than a regular accounting program!
Which year is a leap year and how to calculate it