The history of Russia before the beginning of the 17th century, i.e. before the new dynasty of the Yuryev-Zakharyin boyars came to power in 1613, who took the surname “Romanovs”, it began to be written only in the second half of the 18th century. However, the now generally accepted historical tradition was laid not by the Russian Lomonosov and Tatishchev, but by foreigners: Miller, who “collected in Siberia (!) A collection of copies of documents on Russian history,” and his followers Schletzer and Bayer, admitted to the state archives. Foreigners also edited the works of Russian historiographers of the 18th century. Tatishchev, Shcherbatov and Boltnev. No one has seen the originals of the “copies of documents” that made up Miller’s portfolios, as well as the original of Tatishchev’s work, which also came to Miller. It was this historical tradition that formed the basis of the first encyclopedia of the history of Russia, written by N. M. Karamzin,and finally published only at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I.
This version of the history of Russia, naturally, was written by order of the "Romanovs" and, so to speak, "under the Romanovs." The circumstances of the end of the old royal dynasty “Rurikovich” and the coming to power of a new boyar dynasty in it remain very vague, although they are presented by historians of the Romanov period in the most favorable light for the Romanovs.
And here the first question immediately arises, which should arise for an attentive reader: why the first century and a half of the Romanovs reign, the history of the pre-Romanov period in Russia was not written at all? Traditional history does not give an intelligible answer to this question.
Indeed, the surrogate “Romanov” scheme of Russian history looks like this: the legendary “Ancient Rus”, then the Horde and the semi-legendary medieval “Rurikovichs”, whose reign actually ended with the death of the “cruel tyrant” Ivan the Terrible, then the vile child-killer and usurper Boris Godunov, “False Dmitriy”, turmoil - and the noble election of the minor boyar Misha Romanov to the kingdom, from whom the three-hundred-year prosperity of Russia began under the rule of the Romanov sovereigns.
At the same time, the period of the reign of the first Romanovs in Russia "pre-Petrine times" of the 17th century. characterized by something like this: under the pious tsars "mournful feet" Mikhail Fedorovich and the "quietest" Alexei Mikhailovich. Note that no one calls them Michael I and Alexei I, unlike Peter I and beyond. They are called by name and patronymic, as the boyars should have been called, but not kings, and this is far from accidental. For example, N. I. Kostomarov [1] and V. I. Buganov [2] give evidence that until the end of the 17th century the boyars of the Romanovs were far from being recognized as tsars everywhere - neither in Europe, nor in Russia itself, with the exception of the territories of the regions, directly adjoining Moscow.
And the semi-detective, half-parish story with the “grand embassy” of young Peter Alekseev to Holland and England, when all of Europe allegedly “pretended not to recognize the Russian tsar” is only suitable for works of art. Europe did not “not recognize”, but finally did not recognize the legitimacy of the rights of Peter Alekseevich Romanovan to the Russian throne up to his resounding victories over his neighbors - Swedes and Turks. He simply forced Europe to recognize itself not only as Tsar, but also as Emperor Peter I.
Moreover, Catholic Europe did not like this very much, so at first she tried to recruit Tsarevich Alexei, Peter's heir, and then simply destroyed him by the hands of Peter himself. Strictly speaking, Peter I was the only real Tsar of Russia Romanov, who was recognized by everyone, since after him the male dynastic line of the Romanovs was interrupted.
Meanwhile, even the official biography of the founder of the dynasty, boyar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov (aka Patriarch Filaret), very eloquently testifies to the real history of the Romanovs coming to power in Russia. In the history of Russia, and in general European history, the role of this major politician at the beginning of the 17th century is still insufficiently covered.
Promotional video:
FN Romanov was born about 1555 in the family of the boyar NR Yuriev. He was the nephew of the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia Zakharyina, and, accordingly, the cousin of the last Rurikovich Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich in the female line. Fyodor Romanov was married, had a son (1597) and a daughter. After being tonsured a monk in 1601, he took the name Filaret.
This is the only patriarch in the history of Russia who had children, which today is unthinkable according to the church charter. This is the only patriarch who was proclaimed (not elected!) Twice: in 1608 and 1619. This man was able not only to organize the election of his minor son Mikhail as Tsar of All Russia, he himself was “elected the Great Sovereign”, that is, Tsar, while remaining the Patriarch, and ruled Muscovy alone until his death in 1633.
This man sharply competed with his peer Boris Godunov and tried to poison him back in 1601, for which Godunov was exiled and then tonsured a monk. And a century and a half later, in the “Romanov” story, it was confirmed that Godunov was guilty not only of “killing the legitimate heir of the Rurikovichs” Tsarevich Dmitry, but also of fabricating a conspiracy case and “undeserved persecutions” of the conspirators-Romanovs.
At the same time, Filaret was by no means a Russian patriot, like Dmitry Pozharsky, Kozma Minin or Patriarch Germogen, who was starved to death in prison in 1611.
Even from his official biography, written during the reign of his grandson Alexei Mikhailovich, it is clear that, before becoming Patriarch, Filaret was immediately after Godunov's death in 1605 appointed Metropolitan of Rostov. At the same time, he was appointed by none other than the Polish protege “False Dmitry I”, ie, according to the same Romanov version, it was him, Fyodor Romanov, a former employee Grigory Otrepiev. And for the first time he appointed “False Dmitry II” as Patriarch Filaret, and 1608-1610. Filaret spent with him, in his Tushino camp.
Filaret was behind practically all conspiracies at the Russian court, including the “unexpected” death of Godunov, which bore clear signs of poisoning, and the subsequent rapid coup d'etat and the destruction of the Godunov family. (Note. The fact that Godunov was really poisoned can be read from IE Zabelin [3].) Another victim of poisoning in 1610 was the talented commander M. Skopin-Shuisky, who successfully led the fight against the Poles. On the conscience of the Romanov clan is the martyrdom of the nun Martha, the widow of Ivan the Terrible, Maria Nagoy in 1612 (Note: And possibly her son, Tsarevich Dmitry, and even the grandson, nicknamed by the Romanovs as "varenok" - see the original version of these events in the book A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky [4].)
But the boyar clan Nagikh was a dynastic European clan descended from the Hungarian king Lajos the Great (Louis I the Great of Hungary, in Hungarian Laios Nagy, king of Hungary from 1342), aka Ludwig (LudwigI), king of Poland from 1370, he, apparently, and Louis the Great (Louis Valois - Valois), in the "Romanov" history later reflected and as Khan Nogai. So the Romanov boyars exterminated the Nagikh royal family.
All the time when the struggle against the Polish intervention was going on in Russia, Filaret was in the camp of the enemy - with King Sigismund III. The official history of the Romanov dynasty speaks of this evasively: “together with V. Golitsyn, he headed the great embassy to Poland in 1610 and was detained in captivity,” while keeping silent that the official goal of the “grand embassy” was to invite the Polish prince Vladislav to the kingdom.
Filaret skillfully played on the vanity of both Golitsyn and Sigismund. The latter, in 1611, even wished to take the Russian throne himself, but was afraid of the Pope's anger, since Filaret made it a condition to accept the Orthodox faith. At the same time, Filaret, of course, concealed his claims to the throne, and emphasized that the main Russian contender, Prince Golitsyn, was right there, held hostage. Vasily Golitsyn himself was tied with the Romanovs in blood - in 1605 Golitsyn personally participated in strangling the widow Godunov and his son Fyodor, already proclaimed tsar.
It was Filaret who actually supervised the convocation and holding of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, at which, as a result, his son Mikhail was elected to the kingdom. In 1619, Filaret returned from Poland to Moscow with colossal triumph, and V. Golitsyn, “the main contender for the throne,” died.
Until his death in 1633, Filaret was the first real autocrat of Russia. Thus, as a politician, Filaret outplayed both Russian and foreign contenders for the Russian throne and in the end turned out to be the owner of the inheritance of Ivan the Terrible, the struggle for which had been fought since 1584. Cardinal Richelieu is a pale copy compared to Filaret.
It is obvious that the accession of the Romanov dynasty in Muscovy was the result of a common European political bargaining. The actual founder of the new European dynasty, Filaret, in fact, bargained for autocracy from Catholic Europe, i.e. political and religious independence of Russia in exchange for non-interference in the affairs of Catholic Europe, and personally for myself - dynastic right.
After the death of Filaret and his feeble son Mikhail (in 1645), his grandson, "the quietest" Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, ruled. It was this "quietest" who introduced serfdom in Russia. It was during his reign that large-scale books were destroyed that reflected the real history of Russian families. It was he who encouraged Patriarch Nikon to beat up the “Old Believers”, because they still had old books and the correct idea of the events associated with the seizure of power in Russia by Filaret. It was Aleksey Mikhailovich who arranged the demonstration execution of Stepan Razin on Red Square in Moscow in 1671.
But Stepan Razin was not some kind of rootless “robber”, but a commander of a European scale, the governor and guardian of the young prince Andrei Cherkassky (the grandson of Pshimakh, that is, Přemyslovich, a representative of the Old European Slavic dynasty). He directly called the Romanovs "a bunch of boyars-thieves who seized power in Moscow."
On the French map of the 18th (!) Century, the country in the area between the Volga and Don rivers, which is by no means inferior in size to the Muscovy of the Romanovs, is designated as Cherkassia (Circassie). (Note: In the 19th century, this is the Region of the Don Army of the Russian Empire.)
On the modern map, we see Cherkassk region in the north-west of this Cherkassia, in the north-east - the Kharkov region of Ukraine, in the south-west - the city of Kerch, and in the southeast - the city of Cherkessk (the Karachay-Cherkess Republic in modern Russia).
Official history says that Kharkov was founded as a fortress in the second half of the 17th century. And it was founded on the site of Sharukani, supposedly the capital of the legendary Pechenegs. Sharukan itself (otherwise Sarukhan, Saryn), and in Russian Tsar-Han, was completely demolished before the foundation of the fortress. Perhaps she was the then capital of Cherkassia, and by no means "Kagalnitsky corner". Pre-revolutionary Russian historians do not deny that this area is historical Cossack lands, but at the same time they call it Wild Field, that is, the territory not controlled by the Romanovs. This territory was also not subject to either Turkey, or the Crimean Khanate, or Poland.
It seems quite obvious that Cherkassia is a Cossack republic that survived until the middle of the 17th century, the same as the Zaporizhzhya Sich, liquidated along with the rest of the Cossack republics only by Catherine II in 1775 after the Pugachev war.
Note at the same time that in Latin Stepan Razin is Stephan Ra (gu) sin, which means Stephan Raguzhsky, i.e. Austrian. (Note: The Latin “g” was pronounced in the manner of the Ukrainian “g” and was often vocalized between the vowels, that is, it was not pronounced - for example, the signature of Anna, Queen of France, daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, is known: “Anna Reina” instead of the classic “Anna Regina (ie Queen)”).
The Slavic name for Austria, for example, the Czech Rakousko, clearly indicates modern Austria as a former province of the medieval Slavic Dubrovnik (Raguga) republic, the capital of which was Dubrovnik (now part of Croatia). The “Latin” name of Dubrovnik is Ragusa, which means “cattail” in Serbo-Croatian language. reed, in Czech rakos. This republic was independent until 1526, and then it was a vassal of Turkey until 1806, when Napoleon conquered it and liquidated it in 1808. Austria began to call most of this former Slavic land only under the Catholic Emperors of the Habsburgs, who replaced the Czech dynasty of the Přemyslids (t e. the Wise, the descendants of Yaroslav the Wise), and not earlier than the XVI century.
Hence, it is quite obvious: what was Austria for Western Europe, i.e. Eastern Country (in German Oesterreich), then for the Slavs - the Rogozh Republic, which we may well call Kamyshin in Russian - after all, the ancient Russian city of Kamyshin on the Volga is well known in Russia. So Aleksey Mikhailovich fought not with the "robber Stenka Razin", but with the Cherkassy army of the representative of the Old Dynasty, that is, a serious contender for the Russian throne.
Hence the fear that the Romanovs experienced during the “uprising of Stepan Razin,” or rather, the Moscow-Cherkassk War. It is well known that it was in the second half of the 17th century that a defensive Zemlyanoy Val was hastily built in Moscow, especially fortified from the Nizhny Novgorod side by three outposts at once: Peasant, Nizhny Novgorod (now Abelmanovskaya) and Rogozhskaya. This testifies to the existing real danger of the seizure of Moscow by the troops of Stepan Razin, advancing from Nizhny Novgorod. The famous Razin "Saryn to the chick!" (namely, this is how they pronounced the last word in the south of Russia) not some unintelligible cry of the Volga rivermen who rebelled against the "owners of the ships" (??), but the battle slogan of the Cherkasy troops distorted in the "Romanov" history:.e. to Moscow!”. After the treacherous capture and execution of Razin, the Romanovs calmed down,the need for the Earthen Shaft disappeared, and soon it was ripped off.
After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, the “purge of history” continued under his son Fedor and daughter of the regent Sofia. But then, the inquiring mind and natural intuition of Peter I did not allow him to come to terms with the obvious gaps and ambiguities in the history of Russia, and in general European history. That is why Peter ordered in 1722 to translate from Italian into Russian the book of the Raguga Archimandrite Mavro Orbini “The Slavs and Their Empire”, written in 1606, which did not agree with the “official” history of not only the Romanovs, but also Europe generally. And in this book, by the way, it directly speaks of the great Slavic-Horde European Empire of Ivan III.
Peter I was convinced from his own experience that Europe recognizes only strength. He himself and far from accidentally chose the name Catherine for his Empress (Martha Skavronskaya), who came from the customs (= publican) class. Before Peter, the name “Catherine” practically did not occur among Russian dynastic or boyar names.
Peter's motives, in the light of what has been said, are quite understandable, and are addressed to dynastic Europe and, above all, to Louis XIV: “I (the great-grandson of Philaret, the usurper of the Old Dynasty in Russia) will marry not a princess, but a“customs officer”Catherine in exactly the same way, As King Henry II of Valois, he married Catherine de Medici (i.e. from the clan of Mytars). And the power of the Old Dynasty in France was also usurped by your grandfather Henry of Navarre (Bourbon) after the death of both Catherine de Medici and her last son Henry III of Valois in 1589” The “old dynasty” related the Rurikovichs in Russia and Valois in France to relatives - it is no coincidence that the descendants of Valois have always found refuge in Russia, and are in it now. And what about Louis XIV, this “Sun King”, who, according to legend, loved to say “The State is Me!”? Under Peter I, he was silent.
After the death of Peter I, the composition of the "Romanov" history of Russia began. Ironically, it was after the death of this last real Romanov that their dynasty was passed on exclusively through the female line five times. from the Romanovs themselves, practically nothing remained in it.
As for the pictorial beginning of the real history of the Romanov dynasty, in spite of all the later plastering, the mysterious image of its founder - the great politician Filaret - appears more and more clearly.