Ermak Timofeevich, performed a contract with the Stroganovs in the interests of Muscovy, or, as it was called in the west, Moscow Tartary, albeit indirectly. And it is necessary to clearly understand that at the time of the "conquest" of Siberia, there was simply no talk of any Russia or the Russian Empire. Such a statement is tantamount to the fact that the Cossacks conquered Siberia for the Soviet Union. And as I said above, most likely it was a geographic and archaeological expedition. Well, how can you talk about war if Yermak's Cossacks found time for excavations on Kysym Tour?
From the Paris edition of the second half of the 19th century. Perhaps this is the most unusual image of Yermak.
Obviously, Muscovy considered itself the legal successor of Great Tartary, which, I recall, included Anatolia, conquered by Tamerlane. There is reason to believe that the ruler of the Goths, the Vandals of the Svei and Normans, who is now retroactively called the King of Sweden, despite the fact that a state with that name did not yet exist at that time (it was territorially formed only by the beginning of the eighteenth century), also continued to remain loyal vassal of Muscovy. Well, the "Wild West" of North America, although it was without connection with the Karakurum, but in the conditions of autonomy continued to consider itself the outskirts of Great Tartary.
What do we have in this situation? And we have the growing outskirts of the empire against the background of the almost complete destruction of the metropolis. The remnants of Katay were disorganized, and concentrated in Turkestan, where they were mired in strife and incessant internecine wars. Each of the princes decided that in the absence of the Great Khan, he could now become a khan himself and have his own state, which does not pay tribute to anyone. Doesn't it look like anything? In my opinion, the situation repeated itself with amazing accuracy, even in detail, after the abolition of the Soviet Union. But this is not the only historical parallel that can be drawn between the events of the past and our present.
It is enough just to remember the events that followed the death of the strong sovereign Ioann Vasilyevich Ryurikov.
Smaragd Titus (John IV).
Ivan the Terrible had a special mission to stop the disintegration of Moscow Tartary, which was inevitable after the destruction of Katay and the "parade of sovereignties" caused by it. He was forced to return Kazan and Astrakhan in the east, Pleskov, Novgorod and Livonia in the west to Muscovy, and at the same time fight off the Crimean Khanate, which, sensing an easy prey, decided on the sly to become the sole heir of Great Tartary. But, the West did not doze, and actively began to conduct subversive work inside Muscovy, realizing that with the help of external aggression, he could not achieve his goals. And Grozny, as a great politician, was well aware of the danger of the emerging situation.
In order to exclude the possibility of riots and civil war inside the country, in the waves of which the invader will certainly try to enter the Kremlin, an oprichnina was introduced. And this is another similarity with the political situation in modern Russia. The main goal of the National Guard is to prevent a new civil war, which the West incites every time it seems to it that it is about to achieve its goal and will forever share the heritage of Great Tartary among the clans.
Promotional video:
And the behavior of the liberal stratum of society has never been original. That today, that four hundred years ago, the denunciators of the "bloody regime" strive to take the country apart into separate principalities, and sell it in parts in order to get the maximum profit at a higher price. One of the brightest episodes of the anti-state activities of the liberals is the disclosure and suppression of the separatist movement in Novgorod and Pskov. Today historians are shedding tears of crocodiles over the "innocently killed" citizens of these cities, who were "in a fit of madness", almost personally executed by the evil dictator.
What really happened? But in fact, there was a conspiracy, which was organized by the governor of the city of Yuryev (now Tartu, Estonia), Prince Andrei Kurbsky. Many Novgorod and Pskov boyars, and even the clergy, joined the conspiracy. So it is known for certain that the commandant of the Pechora fortress, the advance of the Russian army on the border with Livonia, and hegumen Korniliy, was one of the active leaders and sponsor of the conspiracy. And contrary to legends, the Terrible did not cut off Cornelius's head. He ordered an investigation that resulted in a prosecution and a fair trial. Everyone, whose guilt was proven in court, was publicly hanged, and the innocent were released.
Cornelius Pskov-Pechersky (Cornelius Pskov; 1501, Pskov - 1570) - abbot of the Pskovo-Pechersky monastery (1529 - 1570). Canonized by the Orthodox Church in the face of the Monk Martyrs.
The question is, who needed the installation of the monument to Cornelius in Pechory? After all, he was a traitor, a traitor to the Motherland. The library of the Holy Dormition Pskov-Pechora Monastery contains the originals of handwritten books left by Cornelius, in which he openly calls not to obey Moscow and transfer the Pechora fortress under the control of the Livonian Order. And this man, by today's liberals, is canonized, and the annual "Korniliev Readings" are now held in the schools of the city. What do children learn from them? Trade homeland?
Note also that at the same time there was a "Russian-Swedish", which is also more like a civilian. After all, the "Swedes" at that time spoke Russian, and even the office work in the king's office was conducted in Russian, albeit in Latin letters. So, in fact, it was another hotbed of separatism, which grew from getting out of the influence of Muscovy to the idea of seizing Moscow itself.
But, despite such an extremely difficult political situation, in which Moscow Tartary had no allies except the army and the navy, Ivan the Terrible managed to save the state, albeit in a very truncated form. Part of the land in the Baltic region went to the king of the Svei, part to the Livs and Poles. Control over part of the southern provinces beyond the Dnieper, the Danube lowlands and over the Crimea was lost. Refused to submit to Anatolia (Ottoman port) and Turkestan.
But the saddest thing began after the death of the great Smaragd Titus the Terrible. The country was plunged into ruin … Yes, that is what contemporaries called this period. "Troubled times", it was called by modern historians, and the inhabitants of Muscovy at the beginning of the seventeenth century, called it ruin. And this is a much more accurate definition of what happened to the country.
What do historians say about the causes of the mess? Yes, in fact, the same thing that is now being said about the reasons for the termination of the existence of the USSR:
Moreover, each of these points today sounds like claims against the modern government in Russia. And this cannot but lead to reflection. If we do not learn the lessons from the past, then in the near future Russia may face another ruin. And what definition it will be awarded by the historians of the future will no longer matter to us.
But here's what else draws attention to itself: - a number of researchers, among the reasons that contributed to the onset of the ruin, call the event known as the "great famine", or as this event is also called, "Three-year winter." Almost everyone knows "Three years without summer" that happened in the nineteenth century (1817-1819), but few people know that a similar disaster befell Europe in the period from 1601 to 1603. This strange coincidence is just one of many that formed the version that the events of 1612 were just a "tracing paper", which served to write a false history of the early nineteenth century, when the "Patriotic War of 1812". disguised something very important, but has nothing to do with the textbooks.
So, according to the orthodox version, there was a great famine during the rule of Russia by Boris Godunov.
![Boris Fedorovich Godunov (1552 - 13 [23] April 1605) - boyar, brother-in-law of Tsar Fyodor I Ioannovich, in 1587 - 1598 the actual ruler of the state, from February 17 (27), 1598 - Russian tsar](https://i.greatplainsparanormal.com/images/005/image-13987-4-j.webp "Boris Fedorovich Godunov (1552 - 13 [23] April 1605) - boyar, brother-in-law of Tsar Fyodor I Ioannovich, in 1587 - 1598 the actual ruler of the state, from February 17 (27), 1598 - Russian tsar")
Boris Fedorovich Godunov (1552 - 13 [23] April 1605) - boyar, brother-in-law of Tsar Fyodor I Ioannovich, in 1587 - 1598 the actual ruler of the state, from February 17 (27), 1598 - Russian tsar.
Pay attention to the dress of the sovereign. Such is the "Orthodox" king.
At this time, there were frosts in the summer, and already in early September it was snowing. As a result of the poor harvest, a terrible famine broke out, which drove the peasants to Moscow, hoping to find food. And the landowners and boyars, who, according to the official version, could no longer feed their slaves, began to get rid of them en masse and expel them from the farmsteads. And these armies of beggars and disadvantaged, began to unite into organized criminal groups, which perpetrated criminal "lawlessness" in Russia. Probably, modern political strategists have decided that economic sanctions can replace the "three-year winter" for modern Russia. But this is my guess.
The most curious thing is the explanation of historians of the reasons for which the disaster happened. They seriously believe that a temporary cold snap in the northern hemisphere caused the eruption of a volcano with the symbolic name "Wye on Putin" in Peru on February 19, 1600. Historians in the nineteenth century did not yet know that air masses from the southern hemisphere, in which Waynaputina is located, did not penetrate into the northern hemisphere. Therefore, the explanation of the reasons looks, to put it mildly, unconvincing. So there was a different reason. Which one?
I do not presume to assert that - either, but it is obvious that this reason is directly related to some event that happened on the spot, i.e. in Eurasia. And since historians do not report anything that can shed light on this issue, we have no choice but to suspect scientists of concealing the true causes of the disaster and the consequences that followed.
Whatever the cause, the consequences were disastrous for Moscow Tartary. As long as Boris Godunov was alive, the country still had at least some chance, but after his death as a result of poisoning organized by Prince Romanov (April 13, 1605), the country plunged into chaos. An endless series of palace coups, and the atrocities of embedded agents of the West, starting with False Dmitry I, who in exchange for the Moscow throne promised the Poles Pskov and Novgorod, turned into a real bloody hell. This was also facilitated by a series of betrayals of the internal liberal stratum of the nobility, who believed that "the West will help."
Squares and streets in Russia are still named after the traitors. Basmanov, Shuisky, Belsky, Kurakin, Golitsyn had contacts with the conspirators, who were obsessed with the idea of adopting European values and inflicted much more damage on their homeland than the notorious “Mongol-Tatar yoke”. And the subsequent merits of themselves and their descendants, in later times, do not abolish responsibility for their crimes, which led to the events that went down in history as the "Rebellion of Ivan Bolotnikov."
Another unfortunate man who believed that “the West would help” took on faith the letter (“filkin”) presented by the Poles, from which it was clear that Bolotnikov was now “the Minister of Defense of Muscovy”. Then he went to Kolomenskoye, from where he was forced to flee under the pressure of the archers and gunners of Shuisky to Tula and Kaluga. Rivers of Russian blood were spilled in this senseless slaughter. And only on October 10, 1607, when the last fortress of the "Minister of Defense" - Tula, fell, the next round of bloody farce began, called by historians "False Dmitry II".
In the summer of 1607, a new impostor appeared in Starodub, who went down in history as False Dmitry II or "Tushinsky thief" (after the name of the village of Tushino, where the impostor camped when he approached Moscow) (1607-1610). Today, even representatives of academic science, under the pressure of facts, increasingly make reservations that, most likely, False Dmitry II, and False Dmitry I, were in fact the same person.
What does it have to do with not Grigory Otrepiev, but the real Tsarevich Dmitry, the son of Smaragd and Martha. Not Dmitry was hanged at the gates of the Spasskaya Tower, but his son. And Dmitry himself, in order to prove that he was not Otrepiev, took the latter with him, and speaking before the people demonstrated him, they say, Otrepiev, and here I am, the legitimate heir of Tsar Dmitry. Boyars and ordinary people recognized their sovereign in "False Dmitry" not under hypnosis, but most likely he was in fact the son of the Terrible.
That is why later, when the Romanovs established themselves on the throne, they invented a fairy tale that the body of "False Dmitry I" was burned. It should be understood that in those days in Muscovy, no one burned their bodies or their enemies for a long time. This means that it is highly likely that Dmitry was not killed, but someone else was burned. Therefore, Marina Mnishek recognized her husband, "False Dmitry I" in "False Dmitry II". And they even had a son. The Romanovs understood that this was a threat to their aspirations to usurp power. That is why they hanged the "vorenka" on the gates of the Kremlin, in order to interrupt once and for all the Rurik dynasty.
Here is the answer to the question, why, suddenly, such cruelty towards a child. This is not a manifestation of sadism. This was a necessary measure. Going to which, attention (!!!), the Romanovs themselves unconditionally confirmed the fact that Dmitry and his son from Marina Yurievna Mnishek were the true heirs to the throne of Great Tartary - the Rurikovichs.
Another confirmation of this version is the fact that Marina did not leave Russia. If she did not feel the truth behind her, would she claim the throne? After all, otherwise, for her behavior there is no other word but “madness”. It remains only to admire the courage and stamina of this fragile, petite (about 150 cm tall) woman.
Little is known about the war between the Romanovs and the troops that supported Marina Mnishek, commanded by the Don chieftain Ivan Zarutsky, and the history of this war, in which the Romanovs won, was naturally written by the victors. Speech about the authenticity of the official interpretation of events cannot be here.
The same can be said about the so-called "Razin mutiny" of 1667-1671, despite the abundance of preserved documents of that time. The fact is that everything that we know about this event was taken from the office of the Romanovs. And those, as you know, did not differ in truthfulness and objectivity. Using proven templates, the war was called a "riot", and some impostors Alexei and Nikon were invented. What was really there, we most likely will never be able to find out. But it is highly likely that this is just another episode of the long war of the West against the fragments of Great Tartary. And this war was waged by the hands of the same traitors to the Romanovs who pushed the borders of Europe from the Don to the Urals.
Lifetime image of Stepan Timofeevich Razin from a German newspaper in 1671.
Note! Clearly, clearly, the ataman calls Alexei Grigorievich the Great Sovereign, and the Romanovs - traitors boyars. Now a question to fill in: - If the great Emperor Alexei Grigorievich fought against the traitor boyars who sold themselves to Europe, then why is the uprising called "Razinsky"? After all, in fact, it is tantamount to what we would call Hitler's troops "Paulus or Himmler's revolt." Absurd? Not that word! But the Romanovs had a “run-in” scenario, and they were in no hurry to retreat from it. Why, if it works great? Declare the leader an impostor, and the liberation movement a riot.
Well, the main question in this story. Now historians are trying to convince us that the stupid Cossacks believed in the good Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and went to Moscow to free him from the bad boyars. This statement is so firmly entrenched in the heads of generations that the concept of "good tsar and bad boyars" began to take on a life of its own. Now, when those who argue about the role of state power in Russia have no arguments left, they end the argument with peremptory sarcasm: “Well, well! How … You always have a good tsar, and bad boyars."
Thus, one of the disputants uses an unscrupulous technique that does not leave the opponent a chance to justify his position. A similar technique is used by some wives who are wrong in a dispute, but not wanting to admit that they are right, they say: “Oh, everything!”, Thereby leaving the last word for themselves, and making it clear to the interlocutor that no matter what he said there, she will always be right.
So with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, everything is clear, but historians have not been able to come up with a replacement for the real leader of the liberation war, the Great Tsar Alexei Grigorievich. It is clear that the role of Tsar Alexei was assigned to one of his generals - Stepan Razin, but who was Alexei Grigorievich, and what happened to him later? Science is silent!
The family coat of arms of the princes of Cherkassk.
The only thing that is known about him today is that the name of the Great Emperor was Cherkassky, nicknamed Lame. He was a Don Cossack from an ancient family, whose roots go back to the history of ancient Egypt. It is clear that such a person could not consider Tsar Michael the Quietest as an equal. For him, he was a tramp who stole the throne. Those. in all, it was the Romanovs who were thieves.
Not to be confused with kraduns who illegally appropriated other people's property! In the times described, the word "thief" had a narrow meaning, and was applied only to those who illegally appropriated the state throne. It is characteristic that for centuries the Romanovs declared everyone around them thieves, while they themselves were just them. In exact accordance with the Russian proverb: - "The thief shouts louder than anyone" Stop the thief!"
Science is also silent about why the troops of Alexei Grigorievich were defeated by mercenaries from Europe. A paradoxical situation arises: - the integrity of the state, allegedly threatened by a bunch of troublemakers, and it is not the Russian infantry, not the Tatar cavalry, but foreign legions who are fighting with it. Why? I have only one explanation. The Russians did not want to fight with themselves. Probably, most of them themselves were glad to see in the Kremlin not the protégés of Europe - the Romanovs, but their own, from among the tartars. Of those whose symbols were a crescent moon and a six-pointed star. Just do not confuse them with the Jews, who appropriated this symbolism at the end of the nineteenth century.
Roughly the same situation now exists in several republics of the former USSR, where NATO troops have been deployed. The local population explains the intervention as protection from an allegedly aggressive Russia, but only a few understand that it is essentially a foreign punitive corps, whose main goal is to prevent the development of separatist sentiments within these republics themselves. After all, their own, the army and the police, should something happen, they will refuse to shoot at their people. And foreign legionnaires don't care. For them there are no people of their own, only the natives. Therefore, the Quietest and brought in foreign troops to fight with his own people.
It turns out that Prince Alexei Cherkassky, sovereign of the Astrakhan and Cherkassk hordes, fought with the impostor Alexei Romanov, who usurped the throne of the Moscow horde. And their governors were Razin and Dolgoruky. But with the support of the united forces of Europe, the impostor won victory in this bloody war, which lasted four whole years. But historians, like an incantation, repeat: - “The revolt of Stenka Razin. The revolt of Stenka Razin.
Someone will say that the "War with Razin" does not belong to the "Great Troubles" at all, because it ended half a century before the uprising, in 1613. But about the First and Second militias, about the "Seven Boyarshchina" and "Zemsky Sobor", as the most important events of the Time of Troubles, I did not mention at all.
To this I will answer as follows: Yes, the war with Cherkasy Tartary began after a considerable period of time following the main events, which, without any doubt, can be considered truly the first Russian revolution. Exactly. Neither more nor less, but in fact it was the first revolution, the result of which was the overthrow of the legitimate monarchy, the power of which, in the eyes of the subjects, was granted by God himself, and the accession of the nobles, who did not even have the right to touch the scepter and power. A series of subsequent tragic events stretched out in time for centuries. And the Uprising of Stepan Razin is only one of the major episodes of the war between Europe and Tartary.
Well, now, I will express my personal opinion about the true meaning of the date November 4, 1612 for us, and for our history. Why do you think this public holiday is not perceived by the peoples of Russia? Yes, because regardless of whether there is a gene memory, or does not exist, people intuitively feel forgery, and understand at the subconscious level that they are trying to make them celebrate defeat, not victory.
In fact, the glorification of the events of 1612. took place in 1812, when, allegedly, the Patriotic War with Napoleon was not at all accidental. It is completely absurd to defeat the troops of foreign invaders in a difficult war, and at the same time erect monuments not to the heroes of Borodino, which would be logical, but to Minin and Pozharsky, who disappeared two hundred years ago. And everything becomes clear when you realize the scale of the unprecedented work of the Romanov propaganda machine, which began during the invasion of Napoleon. The insignificant, and sometimes completely fictitious events of 1612 were taken out of the dusty chest of history, and inflated to incredible proportions in order to legitimize the Romanovs' throne and explain to the people what foreign troops are doing in Russia.
In fact, the campaign against Moscow and the capture of the Kremlin by the "people's militia" is just an episode in a protracted fight for the Moscow throne between the Shuiskys and the Romanovs. The main mistake of Vasily Shuisky was his open cooperation with the interventionists, whom the whole people hated. The Romanovs staked on this. They staged a provocation in Kitai-Gorod, when the Poles believed that an uprising had begun, and as a result of a police operation, they killed about seven thousand Muscovites. This became the boiling point for the Russians. In the wake of their righteous anger, the invaders were first expelled, and in the end, the Romanovs finally got what they had fought for for many years.
Today we no longer know what levers the Romanovs used at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, but they left no chances to the Princes Minin, Trubetskoy, Vorotynsky and the other four candidates. Most likely, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov received universal popular approval thanks to the competent pre-election campaign. Well, that's something, but propaganda and agitation were the "hobbyhorse" of all the Romanovs up to Alexander III.
Author: kadykchanskiy