Soviet historiography interpreted the uprising led by Yemelyan Pugachev as a peasant war and inscribed it in the logic of the class struggle. Then the look at the events became more voluminous and ambiguous, and recently there are those who want to completely explain the uprising by the intrigues of special services unfriendly to Russia.
Broad masses of the people participate
One of the main arguments is that Pugachev called himself Peter III and someone advised him. Emelyan was not a dark, dense person. A professional soldier, he was in the army in the status of a junior commander. Yes, and in his memories he remained as an intelligent, extraordinary thinking person. And to understand that no one will go after the unknown Cossack, unlike the miraculously escaped emperor - a lot of intelligence is not needed. Throwing a challenge to Catherine II, it was necessary to oppose her with an appropriate level and a claim for legitimacy.
It is noted that the empress called Pugachev "marquis" and this, they say, was no accident. The title of nobility, and even French … Something is unclean here! It's just that Catherine II was an intellectual, sharp-tongued - hence the sarcastic nickname.
For a special operation, the uprising of Pugachev was too massive, tens of thousands of people and vast territories of the Volga and Urals were involved in it. Cossacks, peasants, petty nobles, artisans, Bashkirs and Tatars took the side of Yemelyan. Pugachev's army fought stubbornly, held on steadfastly - the hirelings don't fight like that - their life is more precious to them, because if you die, you won't be able to use the money received from the customer. The uprising raged for two years, 1773 - 1775, and was suppressed with difficulty only after a special reinforced contingent was sent against the rebels.
The execution of Pugachev in Moscow is viewed by conspiracy theorists as proof of the importance of the Pugachev persona. Here they are hardly mistaken. The execution of the rebel, about whom half of Russia knew, somewhere in the outskirts of the empire might not have the desired effect. The hour is uneven, the "miraculously saved Pugachev" would appear and everything would go to a new circle. A public execution in the capital removed these risks, but the location of the execution does not indicate a foreign conspiracy.
Promotional video:
Who had a hand?
At the same time, there are traces of participation in the uprising of the French and Ottoman special services. And this is not the presence of a few foreigners in the ranks of the rebels - you never know, what kind of wind brought all kinds of swindlers there?
First of all, money. Alexander Pushkin, in his study of the Pugachev riot, writes about 17 barrels of copper money with the profile "Peter III" and an inscription in Latin. It is unlikely that the rebels themselves could have minted such coins.
Indeed, France took a very active part in supporting the Pugachevism, as evidenced by the secret correspondence of the French envoy in St. Petersburg, Durand de Distrophe, with the French royal court. The documents are kept in the Archives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris. France viewed Russia and Catherine II personally as an enemy and was glad to annoy the geopolitical, as they would say now, rival.
The French fought on the side of the Polish confederates, took part in the war on the side of the Turks. At the same time, Versailles was in no hurry with help, carefully observing the development of events. And when the uprising gained strength, it was decided to support Pugachev. In particular, in March 1774, Prince Golitsyn sent Count Panin a message about the contents of a letter from Count de Saint-Prix to Prince de Rogan, which provided information that French officers in the Turkish army were ready to provide limited military support to "Peter III". Not without the financing of the rebels by the French side, at least, we are talking about 50 thousand francs. French newspapers called Pugachev nothing more than "Peter III".
Turkey was also interested. The troops connected by operations against Pugachev could not be transferred to the Russian-Turkish front. In addition, such a large-scale rebellion in the rear undermined the resources of the Russian Empire as a whole. A number of historians believe that it was precisely because of the uprising that Russia concluded a hasty peace with Turkey in 1774.
However, if you wish, you can find both Polish and Crimean Tatar traces in the Pugachev region. Not without the participation of Russian Old Believers. There were many of them in Pugachev's army.
It would be strange if all interested parties did not take advantage of such a large-scale event. But to look for the reasons for the Pugachev uprising is in the actions of Catherine II and the difficult situation of the most diverse strata of the population of the then Russia.
Konstantin Baranovsky