— 440 years ago Ivan IV died. In the literature one can find references to the fact that after his death the Russian state began to gradually slide towards the Time of Troubles. Are such statements true? What was the beginning of the Troubles connected with?
— There is a well-established idea among historians about the beginning of the Time of Troubles. He is associated with the murder of Boris Godunov’s son, Fedor, and the appearance of the first impostor. It cannot be said that immediately after the death of Ivan IV the country slipped into the Time of Troubles, although, of course, there were preconditions. Oprichnina caused a split in society. The period of achievements achieved by Ivan IV at the beginning of his reign, such as the annexation of Kazan and Astrakhan, gave way to stalling. The Livonian War ended unsuccessfully for the Russian state, and access to the Baltic Sea was lost. Social division, geopolitical failure - all these were prerequisites for the emergence of the future Troubles.
— When the direct branch of the Moscow Rurikovichs was interrupted by the son of Ivan IV Fyodor Ioannovich, the Godunovs came to power. How can you characterize the time of their reign, and why were they unable to stay in power, creating a new dynasty?
— It is necessary to clarify that Boris Godunov, being the brother-in-law of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, became the de facto ruler of the state during his lifetime. Fyodor had no sons, and his brother Dmitry died in childhood. Tsar Fedor could not rule independently for various reasons, including mental ones. At first, other clans also had a significant influence on state power, in particular the Romanovs - relatives of the tsar on the side of his mother, the first wife of Ivan the Terrible. But in the end, thanks to intrigues, Godunov became the only person who ruled the state on behalf of Fyodor Ivanovich. At the same time, he pursued a very cautious peace-loving policy, resolving foreign policy problems with Poland and Sweden. Under the leadership of Godunov, the active construction of Siberian cities and the massive construction of fortifications in the European part of the Russian state began.
Boris Godunov and Queen Martha, summoned to Moscow for questioning about Tsarevich Dmitry upon news of the appearance of an impostor. Nikolay Ge
© Public domain
Both during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich and at the beginning of the reign of Godunov himself, he succeeded in many things well. However, then evil fate overtook him. However, not just him, but the entire planet. A powerful volcanic eruption in South America led to the release of ash into the atmosphere and significant cooling on Earth. The Moscow state was covered by prolonged rains and frosts, crops were destroyed. The country in 1601-1603 was gripped by famine... The landowners dismissed the hungry peasants, who formed gangs and engaged in robbery. Powerful criminal groups were even approaching Moscow. Godunov’s government distributed bread from state reserves, but was unable to completely cope with the famine. People began to attach an eschatological character to troubles. Rumors spread that this was punishment for the death of Tsarevich Dmitry at the hands of Godunov, of which he, according to 90% of historians, was in fact innocent.
In 1605, Godunov died suddenly, as they said then, from a blow - most likely from a stroke. Power passed to his 16-year-old son Fyodor, so the Godunovs still managed to create a kind of mini-dynasty. But Fedor was killed when supporters of False Dmitry I burst into Moscow. We can say that the Godunovs were simply unlucky. If, for example, it were not for climate disasters, the attitude of subjects towards the dynasty could have been completely different. Moreover, Godunov was supported by the first Russian patriarch Job.
— After the Godunovs, False Dmitry I came to power in Russia, introducing himself as the son of Ivan IV. Later, after his fall, False Dmitry had imitators. What was the reason for the emergence of this historical phenomenon? Who were the False Dmitrys after all, and why was none of them able to stay on the Russian throne for a long time?
— In fact, there was nothing super-phenomenal about the appearance of impostors. The history of the late Middle Ages knows many similar examples. They appeared in England, France, and Portugal. In Russia during the Time of Troubles there were about 20 of them, and not all of them declared themselves Tsarevich Dmitry. And at a later time they appeared - those who pretended to be Peter III, the daughter of Empress Elizabeth, the daughters of Nicholas II.
Portrait of False Dmitry I, Shimon Bogushovich, c. 1606
© Public domain
If we return to the events of the early 17th century, the appearance of impostors was associated with a situation convenient for them. Although, as we have already said, most historians today believe that Godunov did not kill Tsarevich Dmitry. But at that time the earth was full of rumors, and many accused Tsar Boris of a crime. And then the same people were ready to believe in the “replacement of the boy,” the “double,” and the “illegitimacy of the Godunovs.” This is what today is called an information war. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty who False Dmitry I was, but most historians are inclined to believe that Grigory Otrepiev, a former monk of the Chudov Monastery, located in the Moscow Kremlin, acted under the guise of Tsarevich Dmitry. The Otrepyev family was connected with the Romanov clan, and Grigory was privy to many palace secrets.
Who was False Dmitry II, aka the “Tushinsky thief”, historians still cannot really say. He was a very strange character, presumably from the Belarusian city of Shklov. False Dmitry III, who is also called the “Thief of Pskov,” played a purely regional role, and his power never extended to Moscow. Such a small-town little impostor. But there were other impostors. Some pretended to be the never-existent son of Tsar Fedor.
It must be said that at first the position of False Dmitry I was quite strong. Many boyars swore allegiance to him, he was “recognized” by the last wife of Ivan the Terrible - the mother of Tsarevich Dmitry Maria Nagaya. He was recognized by Vasily Shuisky, who headed the commission of inquiry to investigate the circumstances of Dmitry’s death. Even the future heroes of overcoming the Time of Troubles (princes Skopin-Shuisky and Pozharsky) were present at his wedding. But then he was finally exposed. Most likely, he was identified by someone - many knew Grigory Otrepyev personally. Rumors spread and a secret conspiracy arose. The impudence with which the Poles who arrived in Moscow for False Dmitry’s wedding behaved also played a role. They bullied the locals and didn’t want to pay for anything in the taverns. There was a reason for a commotion and clashes began. The conspirators burst into the chambers and dealt with the first impostor.
— After the fall of False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky was elected tsar. He is often called the “last Rurikovich” to reign in Russia. What did his reign bring to the country? Why couldn't he keep the kingdom in his hands?
— Shuisky was the last Rurikovich, he simply came from another branch of the dynasty. Under him, a real civil war began in the country. He could not win it, for which he was largely to blame. An army of rebels marched towards Moscow under the leadership of Ivan Bolotnikov, who declared himself the governor of the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. But he was thrown back by a very talented commander, a distant relative of the Tsar, Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky. However, then a new problem arose - False Dmitry II, who was a puppet under the Polish aristocrats. Detachments of Polish-Lithuanian mercenaries and Cossacks moved into the Russian state.
The King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not intervene in the conflict until a certain point - he still officially had a truce with Moscow. But adventurers of all sorts and even Russian thieves flocked to the camp of False Dmitry II, who besieged Moscow and fortified himself in Tushino. He distributed ranks, lands, and created his own boyar duma. His army was expanding, but he did not have the strength to take Moscow. And Vasily Shuisky sent his relative Skopin-Shuisky to negotiate with Sweden on the allocation of an expeditionary force, essentially mercenaries, to lift the siege of Moscow. An agreement was reached. This, on the one hand, freed the hands of the Polish king, since Sweden was an enemy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Poles, already at the state level, were able to withdraw from the truce with Moscow and move to Smolensk. But on the other hand, Skopin-Shuisky, relying on Swedish legionnaires, liberated many cities. False Dmitry II fled from his camp in panic.
After this, Skopin-Shuisky returned to Moscow, where he was soon poisoned. Vasily Shuisky clearly had a hand in this, who saw a political rival in his relative. These were the most terrible moments of the Time of Troubles: civil war, dual power, treachery.
“Bolotnikov confesses to Tsar Vasily Shuisky.” Unknown artist
© Public domain
— The Polish nobility actively contributed to the rise to power of False Dmitry I, then the king intervened in the confrontation. What were Poland's interests in Russia at that time?
— The Poles had a minimum program and a maximum program. First, it is necessary to clarify that it was not Poland, in itself, but the state of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which laid claim to the Smolensk region and the Seversky lands, in particular, Chernigov. And the maximum task for the Poles was to plant their man in Moscow and Catholicize Rus'.
— Vasily Shuisky was removed from power by a group of conspirators, who subsequently established the regime of the so-called Seven Boyars in the country. What was it like as a form of government? How did it influence events in the country during the Time of Troubles?
— The situation with the Seven Boyars was somewhat confusing. Let's just say that it was a boyar government that swore allegiance to the Polish prince Vladislav. It included people who had previously actively fought impostors. They agreed to proclaim Vladislav king on the condition that he converted to Orthodoxy. Participants in the Seven Boyars saw in this at least some way out of the difficult situation in which the country found itself. And at least Vladislav was not an impostor.
I would not call the members of the Seven Boyars collaborators. They may have wanted the best, but they chose bad means to achieve it. In the end, what happened was what happened: Vladislav still did not go, and a Polish occupation garrison was brought into Moscow. The participants of the Seven Boyars were taken under control and actually turned into hostages. They themselves could no longer influence anything. Then some of them took part in overcoming the Troubles, and after the expulsion of the Poles, no one began to subject them to repression.
Overthrow of Vasily Shuisky. Nevrev N.V.
© Public domain
— At a certain stage, the Poles managed to achieve success in Russia and even occupy Moscow. What was the impetus for the Russian people to organize themselves and rise up to fight the occupiers? How were militias formed? What allowed them to defeat the Poles?
— It is very important to understand here that the militias of 1612 relied on the experience of their predecessors: for example, in the Tushino period, people’s militias were also formed and uprisings arose. In a situation where everything is confused, when dual power reigns in the country, people had to create self-government and take the situation into their own hands. They themselves overthrew the proteges of impostors on the ground, defended their cities, and formed city councils. It was a very valuable experience. It was then borrowed by Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky.
— The Poles were expelled from Moscow in 1612. When and how did the Time of Troubles end, and were its consequences overcome?
— Formally, the Troubles lasted until 1618-1619, when an exchange of prisoners took place with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and a new truce was signed. After the liberation of Moscow, fighting still broke out in different regions of the Russian state; Polish-Lithuanian field commanders, Swedish legionnaires and Cossack chieftains acted. Again, Prince Vladislav organized a campaign against Moscow, in which the Zaporozhye Cossacks helped him. However, despite all this, the consequences of the Troubles were overcome largely due to the fact that Mikhail Fedorovich was elected tsar as a compromise figure. His figure suited a variety of sides. The hero of the Second Militia, Dmitry Pozharsky, by the way, also put forward his candidacy at the Zemsky Sobor. But they didn’t want to choose him, because they were afraid that he would begin to settle scores that arose during the Time of Troubles: for example, with those who supported the Seven Boyars. And under Mikhail Fedorovich, no one repressed anyone, no one settled any scores. A bad peace turned out to be better than a good quarrel.
Liberation of Moscow by Prince Pozharsky and citizen Minin. From the collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums. Demidov V.K.
© Public domain
— Both historians and public figures often remember the period of the Troubles to this day. Why does he get so much attention? What impact did the Troubles have on the further development of events in the country?
“It was a special period in history, when everything was literally hanging by a thread, the country was on the verge of collapse, but survived. The state could have collapsed, the religion could have changed, but this did not happen. The country suffered enormous disasters, suffered colossal demographic losses, and many populated areas completely disappeared from the face of the earth. Of course, such events attract the attention of historians. At the same time, the experience of people's militias was later in demand in both 1812 and 1941. Well, besides, in this tragic situation there was an opportunity to accomplish feats and all kinds of adventures. And this gives writers and filmmakers room for creativity.