CONTENT

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...3

2. Main part…………………………………………………………………….5

3. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...8

List of literature used………………………………………………….9

Appendix

INTRODUCTION

It is known that many rulers of Russia received nicknames during their lifetime for their temper, exploits, and reforms. For example, Prince Vladimir the Holy - "Red Sun", Prince Dmitry Ivanovich - "Donskoy", Prince Alexander Yaroslavich - "Nevsky", Prince Ivan I - "Kalita", Tsar Ivan IV - "Terrible", Tsar Alexander I - "Winner" , Tsar Alexander II - "The Liberator".

Have these folk nicknames always been true? In our work, we conducted a study enlightened by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, namely, the nickname “Quiet One” assigned to him.

More than thirty years of the reign of the second king of the Romanov family was marked by riots, wars and rebellions, because of which the entireXVIIcentury was called the "rebellious age." However, despite this, Alexei Mikhailovich was nicknamed "The Quietest". So who is he: the “quietest” tsar, striving for peace and justice, or a tyrant who continuously fought throughout his long reign - with Poles, Swedes, Little Russian hetmans, Crimean Tatars, Turks, Stenka Razin and even with the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery?

The existence of this problem determinesrelevance our research.

Our survey of schoolchildren in grades 5-7 showed that they all associate the nickname “Quiet One” either with the personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, or with the fact that there were no wars during his reign. Are they right? This becameobject this study.

Objective: on the basis of various sources about the personality, board and activities, find out why Alexei Mikhailovich is called Quiet.

Tasks:

1. To study and analyze Internet resources and literature about Alexei Mikhailovich.

2. Compare the assessments of contemporaries and historians about the personality of the king.

3. Find out what the nickname of Alexei Mikhailovich is connected with.

Hypothesis: if Alexei Mikhailovich is called "The Quietest", then is this due to his personal qualities.

To achieve the goal of the study, we used the followingmethods: study and analysis of literature and documents, generalization, comparison, survey.

MAIN PART

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich remained in history with the nickname "Quiet".

It is believed that Alexei Mikhailovich was nicknamed so for his gentle kindness. Indeed, the king was a good-natured man.In the study by S.M. Solovyov "History from ancient times" the tsar, from his point of view, was distinguished by "kindness" and "gentleness", like his father, Mikhail Fedorovich. A more detailed description of the king is given by V.O. Klyuchevsky: “I am ready to see in him the best person of Ancient Russia, at least I don’t know another ancient Russian person who would make a more pleasant impression - but not on the throne.” This “best” person, according to Klyuchevsky, was passive and unstable, incapable of “defending or pursuing anything”, “easily lost self-control and gave too much room to his tongue and hands” . K.F. Valishevsky writes that "despite his gentleness and good nature, ... Alexei loved bad jokes" , in addition, he punished "severely and mercilessly for innocent offenses", however, according to the author, "it is impossible not to pay attention to him as one of the most highly moral monarchs of all times and peoples."

In this way,Alexei Mikhailovich, according to historians, was not at all the "quietest" - neither by nature, nor by deeds.

As for business, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, there was the least peace and quiet. The king demanded from his henchmen to serve tirelessly. Remembering "his unceasing work," the boyar Artamon Matveev remarked that "this has never happened before." And when did Alexei Mikhailovich have a rest, if in his reign rebellion followed rebellion, war after war? The contemporaries themselves called the 17th century the “rebellious age”. In real life, the tsar was a man of the cruel 17th century. In matters of state administration, he was an autocratic monarch who did not recognize the limitations of his power. It was the Russian feudal tsar, it was under him that many riots flared up and were very brutally suppressed - Salt, Copper, Pskov, the grandiose uprising of Stepan Razin, the enslavement of the peasants ended under him, the process of subordinating the church to the state began.

However, in everyday life, in everyday terms, it was a completely different person. Rigid in power, in everyday life, Tsar Alexei appears as an educated, very emotional, very lively character and an inquisitive person, sometimes soft, even indecisive and timid. He loved all sorts of news and curiosities, was very warm and sincere to his friends and relatives. The tsar treated various foreign things either benevolently, or at least did not interfere with them, or even did not disdain to use them himself. At the same time, he was quick-tempered and quick to anger, despite outward good nature and real kindness. Alexei Mikhailovich often gave vent to his displeasure, got angry, scolded and even fought. Moreover, the boyars also got it. In one of the meetings of the Duma, the sovereign cursed, beat and kicked his father-in-law Miloslavsky out of the room. However, Alexei Mikhailovich quickly cooled down and never kept a grudge for a long time.

There are relatively many foreign testimonies that tell about Alexei Mikhailovich: there are notes, diaries, reports of people who have visited Russia, including as part of embassies, and there are stories of Europeans who came to Muscovy on the honorary rights of specialists in various fields. His contemporaries wrote about the king - Patrick Gordon, Balthazar Coyet, Adolf Lisek, Augustin Mayerberg, Andrey Rode, Johann de Rodes.Having considered in general terms the information of contemporaries about Alexei Mikhailovich, primarily foreigners, it is hardly possible to draw up an exhaustive image of the ruler. And yet their writings provide an opportunity to get acquainted with the outstanding personality of the Russian Tsar,

to see him as a real person with his interests and hobbies, with a certain worldview, lifestyle, attitude towards himself and towards people.

The epithet "the quietest" is not used by contemporaries as a characteristic of the king. We found this epithet only with Archpriest Avvakum, but not as a nickname, but as part of an unofficial title, which he considers inappropriate for the personal qualities of Alexei Mikhailovich. Habakkuk accuses: “And the enemy of God darkened the king, and besides, he magnifies, flattering, on the transfer:“ the most pious,the quietest , our most autocratic sovereign - more than all the saints from the age! - may the Lord God remember in his kingdom, always, and now, and forever, and forever and ever ...But it is precisely this statement that gives the key to the correct understanding of the nickname "The Quietest". Its origins lie in the ancient formula "peace and quiet", which symbolizes a well-organized and prosperous state. Alexei Mikhailovich precisely “calmed down” Russia, torn apart by riots and splits. In one document of that time it is said that after the death of Mikhail Fedorovich Monomakhov, the hat was put on by “his noble son, the most pious,quietest , the most autocratic great sovereign, tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich. Then, under his sovereign hand, piety was firmly observed throughout the kingdom, and all Orthodox Christianity shone with serene silence.

This is the meaning our ancestors put into the epithet "the quietest" - it was the official title of the sovereign, which was related to the rank, and not to the character of the king. And such a “quietest” sovereign, by the way, was officially not only Alexei Mikhailovich, but also his sons, successors on the throne: first Fedor Alekseevich, then the brothers Ivan and Peter, and then for 30 years only Peter, who by no means is suspected of "quiet" behavior and excessive softness.

Opinions of historians about Alexei Mikhailovich -

CONCLUSION

In the course of the study, we got acquainted with the characteristics of the king, the documents of that era, his main acts, in order to agree or doubt the nickname “The Quietest” given to Tsar Alexei. Working on this topic, we came to the conclusion that Alexei Mikhailovich was not the quietest either by nature or by his affairs. He was quick-tempered, sometimes lost his temper and even gave free rein to his hands. He loved speed both in thoughts and in deeds, he loved energetic and active people. Why was he called the quietest, that is, humble and meek? The fact is that Alexei Mikhailovich was the giver of "silence", that is, he knew how to maintain order, there was no confusion with him, and the word "quietest" was one of the royal titles of that time. Thus, our hypothesis was not confirmed. The nickname "The Quietest" is only partly related to the personal qualities of Alexei Mikhailovich and to a greater extent refers to his unofficial title, which testifies to his state policy.

We hope that our research will help schoolchildren get rid of stereotypes and take a fresh look at the personality of Alexei Mikhailovich, think about his role in the history of Russia.

REFERENCES AND SOURCES

1. Valishevsky K. First Romanovs, Moscow, "Soviet Writer", 1990, p. 25, 116

2. History of Russia from ancient times to the endXVIIcentury / A.P. Novoseltsev, A.N. Sakharov, V.I. Buganov, K.F. Valishevsky 1990, p. 270-298

3. Klyuchevsky V.O. historical portraits. M., 1991, p. 151-170

4. Klyuchevsky V.O. On Russian history (Compiled by V.V. Artyomov), M., 1998

5. Ozersky V.V. Russian rulers. From Rurik to Putin. History in portraits. Rostov n\D: Phoenix, 2004.

6. Ryzhkov K.V. 100 great Russians - M .: Veche, 2008.- p.177-178

7. Encyclopedia "Avanta +" Great people of the world, M., 2005, p. 167-178

8. I get to know the world "History". (F. Platonov, V.O. Klyuchevsky). Author compiler N.V. Chudakov. Publishing house "AST" Moscow, 2001.

List of Internet resources used:

It would seem that the answer lies on the surface. It is generally believed that the second Romanov was so called for his gentle kindness. Indeed, the king was a good-natured man. However, he was by no means the "quietest" in this sense of the word - neither in his nature, nor in his deeds. Consider first his character.

If the second Romanov showed some "quietness", then only in the first years of his reign, when he was young. But his natural irascibility very quickly made itself felt. The king easily lost his temper and gave free rein to his tongue and hands. So, once, having quarreled with Patriarch Nikon, he publicly scolded him as a man and a son of a bitch. In general, Alexei Mikhailovich knew how to swear in a very inventive and sophisticated way, not like the current foul-mouthed with their miserable high school vocabulary. Here, for example, is the letter the tsar sent to the treasurer of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery, father Nikita, who, having drunk, fought with the archers stationed at the billet: “ From the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia to the enemy of God and the God-hating and Christ-seller and the destroyer of the miracle-working house and like-minded Satan, the enemy of the damned, unnecessary bastard and evil crafty villain Treasurer Mikita».

Such was the king's tongue. Let's talk about hands. Once the question of a war with Poland was discussed in the Duma, and the tsar's father-in-law, the boyar Miloslavsky, who had never been on campaigns, unexpectedly announced that if the sovereign appointed him governor, he would bring him the Polish king himself as a prisoner. This impudent boasting outraged the king so much that he gave the old man a slap in the face, pulled his beard and kicked him out of the ward. And this is the quietest king? Unlikely.

Archpriest Avvakum denounces: "... And the enemy of God has overshadowed the king, and, moreover, he magnifies, flattering, on the transfer: “the most pious, quietest, most autocratic sovereign of ours, such and such, great, - more than all the saints from the age! - may the Lord God remember in his kingdom, always, and now, and forever, and forever and ever».
But the king turned out to be different, not the quietest at all: " And the tsar, to sing, in those days one hopes and imagines that he really is such, there is no holier than him! And where is the greater pride of that!" etc.

As for business, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, there was the least peace and quiet. The king demanded from his henchmen to serve tirelessly. Remembering "their incessant work", the boyar Artamon Matveev noted that " this has never happened before". And according to the recall of Archpriest Avvakum, the king " he did a lot in this life, like a goat hopping over the hills and chasing the wind". Yes, and when was Alexei Mikhailovich to rest, if in his reign rebellion followed rebellion, war after war. The contemporaries themselves called the 17th century “the rebellious age”.

But it is precisely this last circumstance that provides the key to the correct understanding of the nickname "The Quietest". Its origins lie in the ancient formula "peace and quiet", which symbolized a well-organized and prosperous state. Prayer for "peace and silence", for "peace and silence, and prosperity" from the time of Boris Godunov into the "sovereign's cup" (a special verbal and musical genre). Pretenders and rebels, according to the terminology of the time, were "libertines of silence."

Alexei Mikhailovich precisely “calmed down” Russia, torn apart by riots and splits. In one document of that time it is said that after the death of Mikhail Fedorovich Monomakhov he put on a hat “ his noble son, the most pious, quietest, most autocratic great sovereign, tsar and grand duke Alexei Mikhailovich. Then, under his sovereign hand, in the whole kingdom, piety was firmly observed, and all Orthodox Christianity shone serenely with silence.».

This is the meaning our ancestors put into the epithet "the quietest" - it was the official title of the sovereign, which was related to the rank, and not to the character of the king. It is also found in the mourning inscription " the last voice of the most pious, quietest, most luminous Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, who sanctified in the Lord in the Lord".

And such a “quietest” sovereign, by the way, was not officially Aleksey Mikhailovich alone, but also his sons, successors on the throne: first Fedor Alekseevich, then the brothers Ivan and Peter, and then for 30 years one Peter, whom you can’t suspect of “ quiet" behavior and excessive softness.

On June 18, 1676, on the day of the wedding to the kingdom of Fedor Alekseevich, Simeon Polotsky brought him "Gusl good-voiced" - a book dedicated to " to the newly reigning most pious, quietest, most luminous Great Sovereign".
In 1701, the professor of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, the Chudov monk Job, who compiled the Primer, Rekshe Socrates of the Christian Teaching, indicated in the preface that he worked for glory " the clearest and most sovereign ... Pyotr Alekseevich". Simply "the quietest" Peter is called in the inscription of Stefan Yavorsky's "Rhetorical Hand" - more precisely, in its Russian translation, owned by Feofan Prokopovich. In the "Trilingual Lexicon" he translated "the quietest" as serenissimus, which epithet was used in the title of Roman emperors. And this finally debunks the myth that Alexei Mikhailovich earned the nickname "the quietest" among his contemporaries due to his meekness and humility.

References:
Klyuchevsky V.O. Alexei Mikhailovich (in the course of "Lectures on Russian history").
Panchenko A. About Russian history and culture. SPb., 2000. S. 17-21.

- the second Tsar of Moscow from the house of the Romanovs, the son of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and his second wife Evdokia Lukyanovna (Streshneva). Alexei Mikhailovich was born in 1629 and from the age of three was brought up under the guidance of the boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov, an intelligent and educated man for that time, slightly inclined towards "new" (Western) customs, but cunning and self-serving. Being with Tsarevich Alexei without a break for 13 years, Morozov acquired a very strong influence on his pet, who was distinguished by complacency and affection.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Late 1670s

On July 13, 1645, 16-year-old Alexei Mikhailovich inherited the throne of his father, and, as can be seen from the testimony Kotoshikhina, indirectly confirmed by some other indications (for example, Olearia), followed by the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor, which sanctioned the accession of the new sovereign - a sign that, according to the views of the people of the 17th century, the suffrage of the land, expressed in the act of electing Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom in 1613, did not stop with the death of the first tsar from the new Romanov dynasty. According to Kotoshikhin, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, like his father, was elected to the kingdom by people of all ranks of the Muscovite state, however, without restriction (vowel or secret) of his royal power due to a purely subjective reason - the personal character of the young tsar, who was reputed to be "much quiet" and who retained for himself not only in the mouths of his contemporaries, but also in history the nickname "the quietest."

Consequently, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ruled more autocratically than his father. Inherited from the Time of Troubles, the habit and need to seek assistance from the zemstvo weakened under him. Zemstvo sobors, especially full ones, are still convened, but much less frequently, especially in the later years of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, and the command principle in state life gradually takes precedence over the zemstvo one under him. The king finally becomes the embodiment of the nation, the center from which everything emanates and to which everything returns. This development of the autocratic principle corresponds to the external situation of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich: an unheard-of development of court splendor and etiquette, which, however, did not eliminate the simple-minded, patriarchal treatment of the tsar with his entourage.

Not immediately, however, Alexei Mikhailovich could put his power to an unattainable height: the first years of his reign are reminiscent of the events of the youth of Ivan the Terrible or the difficulties that Tsar Mikhail had to deal with at the beginning. After the death of his mother (August 18 of the same 1645), Alexei Mikhailovich completely submitted to the influence of Morozov, who no longer had rivals. The latter, in order to strengthen his position, managed to resolve the issue of the tsar's marriage in the sense he desired by arranging his marriage with the daughter of his faithful assistant, Maria Ilyinichnaya Miloslavskaya. This marriage was concluded on January 16, 1648, after the bride, originally chosen by Alexei Mikhailovich (Vsevolozhskaya) himself, was eliminated under the pretext of epilepsy. Morozov himself married the sister of the new queen.

The royal father-in-law Miloslavsky and Morozov, taking advantage of their position, began to nominate their relatives and friends, who did not miss an opportunity to profit. While the young Alexei Mikhailovich, relying in everything on his beloved and revered “second father”, did not delve into matters personally, discontent accumulated among the people: on the one hand, the lack of justice, extortion, the severity of taxes, the salt duty introduced in 1646 (cancelled at the beginning of 1648), in conjunction with crop failure and bestial mortality, and on the other hand, the ruler's goodwill towards foreigners (proximity to Morozov and the influential position of the breeder Vinius) and foreign customs (permission to consume tobacco, made the subject of state monopoly), - all this in May 1648 led to a bloody catastrophe - " salt riot".

The direct appeal of the crowd in the street to Alexei Mikhailovich himself, to whom complaints did not reach in any other way due to the rude intervention of Morozov's minions, broke out into a mutiny that lasted several days, complicated by a strong fire, which, however, served to stop further unrest. Morozov managed to be saved from the fury of the crowd and sheltered in the St. Cyril Belozersky Monastery, but his accomplices paid even more: the Duma clerk Nazar Chisty, who was killed by the rebels, and the hated heads of the Zemstvo and Pushkar orders, Pleshcheev and Trakhaniotov, who had to be sacrificed, extraditing them for execution, moreover the first was even torn from the hands of the executioner and barbarously killed by the crowd itself. When the excitement subsided, Alexei Mikhailovich personally addressed the people on the appointed day and touched them with the sincerity of his promises so much that the main culprit of what happened, Morozov, for whom the tsar asked, could soon return to Moscow; but his dominion is over forever.

Salt Riot in Moscow 1648. Painting by E. Lissner, 1938

The Moscow rebellion responded in the same year with similar outbreaks in remote Solvychegodsk and Ustyug; in January 1649, new attempts of indignation, again suppressed against Morozov and Miloslavsky, were discovered in Moscow itself. Much more serious were the rebellions that broke out in 1650 in Novgorod and Pskov, where at the beginning of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, bread was bought to pay the Swedes a part of the agreed amount for defectors from the regions that had ceded to Sweden under the Stolbovsky Peace of 1617. The rise in the price of grain exported abroad caused rumors about the betrayal of the boyars, who run everything without the knowledge of the tsar, who are friends with foreigners and, together with them, are plotting to starve out the Russian land. To pacify the riots, it was necessary to resort to exhortations, and to explanations, and to military force, especially with regard to Pskov, where the unrest stubbornly continued for several months.

However, in the midst of these unrest and turmoil, the government of Alexei Mikhailovich managed to complete legislative work of very great importance - the codification of the Cathedral Code of 1649. According to the long-standing desire of Russian trading people, in 1649 the English company was deprived of its privileges, the reason for which, in addition to various abuses, was the execution of King Charles I: from now on, English merchants were allowed to trade only in Arkhangelsk and with the payment of the usual fee. The reaction against the beginning rapprochement with foreigners and the assimilation of foreign customs was reflected in the renewal of the ban on the tobacco trade. Despite the efforts of the British government after the restoration of the Stuarts, the former benefits to the British were not renewed.

But the restriction of foreign trade within the state led in the subsequent years of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, when the wars with Poland and Sweden required an extreme strain of payment forces, unforeseen consequences: the treasury had to be pulled into the treasury as large as possible stocks of silver coins, and meanwhile a strong reduction in the import of silver was discovered. , previously supplied by English merchants in bullion and in specie, which was then re-coined. Since 1655, the government of Alexei Mikhailovich resorted to issuing copper money, which was supposed to go on an equal footing and at the same price with silver, which, however, soon turned out to be impossible, since, paying salaries with copper, the treasury demanded payment of fees and arrears without fail in silver, and excessive issues of copper coins and without that, making the exchange a fiction, led to a rapid depreciation. Finally, the production of counterfeit money, which also developed on an enormous scale, completely undermined the confidence in the new means of payment, and an extreme depreciation of copper followed, and, consequently, an exorbitant rise in the price of all purchased items. In 1662, the financial crisis broke out in a new rebellion in Moscow (“Copper Riot”), from where the crowd rushed to the village of Kolomenskoye, Alexei Mikhailovich’s favorite summer residence, demanding the extradition of the boyars, who were considered guilty of abuses and general disaster. This time the unrest was pacified by armed force, and the rebels suffered severe retribution. But copper money, which was still in circulation for a whole year and fell in price 15 times against its normal value, was then destroyed.

Copper Riot. Painting by E. Lissner, 1938

The state experienced an even more severe shock in 1670-71, when it had to endure a life-and-death struggle with the Cossack freemen, who found a leader in the person of Stenka Razin and carried away the masses of the black people and the Volga non-Russian population. The government of Alexei Mikhailovich, however, turned out to be strong enough to overcome the aspirations hostile to him and to withstand the dangerous struggle of a social nature.

Stepan Razin. Painting by S. Kirillov, 1985-1988

Finally, the era of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov also includes a serious crisis in the church life of the Russian people, the beginning of a centuries-old bifurcation caused by Nikon's "innovations", but rooted in the very depths of the people's worldview. The church schism openly expressed the adherence of the Russian people to their own national principles. The mass of the Russian population began a desperate struggle to preserve their shrine, against the influx of new, Ukrainian and Greek influences, which, as the end of the 17th century approached, was felt more and more closely. The harsh repressive measures of Nikon, persecution and exile, which resulted in an extreme aggravation of religious passions, exalted martyrdom mercilessly persecuted for adherence to Russian customs of "schismatics", to which they responded with voluntary self-immolations or self-burials - such is, in general terms, the picture of the situation created by the ambition of the patriarch, who started his reform most of all for the purpose of personal self-exaltation. Nikon hoped that the glory of the purifier of the Russian church from imaginary heresy would help him advance to the role heads of the entire Orthodox world , to rise above his other patriarchs and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself. Nikon's unheard-of power-hungry encroachments led to a sharp clash between him and the complacent tsar. The patriarch, who in one of the periods of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich had unlimited influence on the tsar and the entire course of state affairs, the second "great sovereign", the closest (after the removal of Morozov) friend and adviser to the monarch, quarreled with him and left his throne. The unfortunate conflict ended with the conciliar court of 1666-1667, which deprived the patriarch of his holy dignity and condemned him to imprisonment in a monastery. But the same council of 1666-1667 confirmed Nikon's main cause and, having imposed an irrevocable anathema on his opponents, finally destroyed the possibility of reconciliation and declared decisive war on the schism. It was accepted: for 8 years (1668 - 1676), the royal governors had to besiege the Solovetsky Monastery, one of the most revered popular shrines, which has now become a stronghold of national antiquity, take it by storm and hang the captured rebels.

Alexei Mikhailovich and Nikon at the tomb of Saint Metropolitan Philip. Painting by A. Litovchenko

Simultaneously with all these difficult internal events of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, from 1654 until the very end of his reign, external wars did not stop, the impetus for which was given by the events in Little Russia, where Bogdan Khmelnitsky raised the banner of religious-national struggle. Bound at first by the unfavorable Polyanovsky peace, concluded under his father, maintaining friendly relations with Poland in the early years (a plan of common action against the Crimea), Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov could not abandon the centuries-old traditions of Moscow, from its national tasks. After some hesitation, he had to act as a resolute intercessor for the Orthodox Russian southwest and take Hetman Bogdan with all of Ukraine under his hand, which meant war with Poland. It was difficult to decide on this step, but not to take advantage of the favorable opportunity to fulfill long-standing cherished aspirations, to push Little Russia away from itself with the risk that it would throw itself into the arms of Turkey, would mean renouncing its mission and committing political recklessness that is difficult to correct. The issue was resolved at the Zemsky Sobor of 1653, followed by the swearing of the oath to Tsar Alexei by the Ukrainians at the Rada in Pereyaslavl (January 8, 1654), and Little Russia officially passed under the power of the Moscow Tsar on conditions that ensured its autonomy. The immediately opened war, in which Alexei Mikhailovich took a personal part, was marked by the brilliant, hitherto unprecedented successes of Moscow weapons, the conquest of Smolensk, captured in the Time of Troubles and finally taken away in peace in 1654, all of Belarus, even native Lithuania with its capital Vilna ( -). The Muscovite sovereign adopted in his title the title of "All Great, Small and White Russia autocrat", as well as the Grand Duke of Lithuania.

Pereyaslav Rada 1654. Painting by M. Khmelko, 1951

The age-old dispute seemed close to being resolved; Poland, which had brought upon itself the still victorious Swedish invasion, was on the verge of destruction, but it was precisely the joint actions against it of two enemies who were by no means allies, but rather interfered with each other and claimed the same booty (Lithuania), served to save the Rech Commonwealth. The intervention of Austria, friendly and of the same faith to the Poles, interested in supporting Poland against an excessively strengthened Sweden, managed, with the help of the Allegretti embassy, ​​to persuade Alexei Mikhailovich to a truce with Poland in 1656, with the retention of the conquered and with a deceptive hope for the future election of him to the Polish throne. More importantly, the Austrians and Poles managed to induce the king to go to war with Sweden, as a much more dangerous enemy. This new war with the Swedes, in which Alexei Mikhailovich also personally participated (since 1656), was very untimely until the dispute with Poland was finally resolved. But it was difficult to avoid it for the reasons stated: believing that in the near future he would become the king of Poland, Alexei Mikhailovich even turned out to be personally interested in preserving it. Having started the war, Alexei Mikhailovich decided to try to carry out another long-standing and no less important historical task of Russia - to break through to the Baltic Sea, but the attempt was unsuccessful, it turned out to be premature. After initial successes (the capture of Dinaburg, Kokenhausen, Dorpat), they had to suffer a complete setback during the siege of Riga, as well as Noteburg (Nutlet) and Kexholm (Korela). The peace of Cardis in 1661 was a confirmation of Stolbovsky, that is, everything taken during the campaign of Alexei Mikhailovich was given back to the Swedes.

Such a concession was forced by the troubles that began in Little Russia after the death of Khmelnitsky (1657) and the renewed Polish war. The annexation of Little Russia was far from being lasting: displeasure and misunderstanding were not slow to arise between Russians and Ukrainians, in many respects very different from each other and still poorly acquainted with each other. The desire of the region, which voluntarily succumbed to Russia and Alexei Mikhailovich, to keep intact its administrative independence from it, met with the Moscow tendency to the possible unification of government and all external forms of life. The independence granted to the hetman not only in the internal affairs of Ukraine, but also in international relations, was hardly consistent with the autocratic power of the Russian tsar. The Cossack military aristocracy felt freer under the Polish order than under the Moscow one, and could not get along with the tsarist governors, whom, however, the common people, who were more attracted to the same faith tsarist Moscow than to gentry Poland, had more than once reason to complain. Already Bogdan had troubles with the government of Alexei Mikhailovich, could not get used to new relations, was very dissatisfied with the end of the Polish war and the start of the Swedish war. After his death, a struggle for hetmanship opened up, a long chain of intrigues and civil strife, vacillation from side to side, denunciations and accusations, in which it was difficult not to get confused by the government. Vygovsky, who seized the hetmanship from the too young and incapable Yuri Khmelnitsky, a gentry by birth and sympathies, secretly transferred to Poland on the most apparently tempting terms of the Gadyach Treaty (1658) and, with the help of the Crimean Tatars, inflicted a severe defeat on Prince Trubetskoy near Konotop (1659) . The case of Vyhovsky nevertheless failed due to the lack of sympathy for him among the ordinary Cossack masses, but the Little Russian troubles did not end there.

Hetman Ivan Vyhovsky

At the same time, the war with Poland resumed, having managed to get rid of the Swedes and now violated recent promises to elect Alexei Mikhailovich as their king in the hope of Ukrainian unrest. The election of Tsar Alexei to the Polish throne, which had previously been promised only in the form of a political maneuver, was no longer a question. After the first successes (the victory of Khovansky over Gonsevsky in the autumn of 1659), the war with Poland went far less successfully for Russia than in the first stage (the defeat of Khovansky by Charnetsky at Polonka, the betrayal of Yuri Khmelnitsky, the disaster at Chudnov, Sheremetev in the Crimean captivity - 1660 city; loss of Vilna, Grodno, Mogilev - 1661). The right bank of the Dnieper was almost lost: after the refusal of the hetmanship of Khmelnytsky, who took the monastic vows, Teterya, who swore allegiance to the Polish king, also turned out to be his successor. But on the left side, which remained behind Moscow, after some troubles, another hetman appeared - Bryukhovetsky: this was the beginning of the political division of Ukraine. In 1663 - 64 years. The Poles fought with success on the left side, but they could not take Glukhov and retreated with heavy losses behind the Desna. After long negotiations, both states, extremely tired of the war, finally concluded in 1667 for 13 and a half years the famous Andrusovo truce, which cut Little Russia in two. Alexei Mikhailovich received Smolensk and Seversk land lost by his father and acquired the left-bank Ukraine. However, only Kiev with its immediate environs remained on the right bank behind Russia (at first it was ceded by the Poles only temporarily, for two years, but then not given back by Russia).

Such an outcome of the war could be considered successful by the government of Alexei Mikhailovich, but it was far from meeting the initial expectations (for example, regarding Lithuania). To a certain extent, satisfying the national pride of Moscow, the Treaty of Andrusov greatly disappointed and irritated the Little Russian patriots, whose fatherland was divided and more than half returned under the hated dominion, from which they tried to break out for so long and with such efforts (Kievshchina, Volyn, Podolia , Galicia, not to mention White Russia). However, the Ukrainians themselves contributed to this with their constant betrayals of the Russians and throwing in the war from side to side. The Little Russian unrest did not stop, but even became more complicated after the Andrusovo truce. The hetman of the right-bank Ukraine, Doroshenko, who did not want to obey Poland, who was ready to serve the government of Alexei Mikhailovich, but only under the condition of complete autonomy and the indispensable connection of the whole of Ukraine, decided, due to the impracticability of the latter condition, to go under the hand of Turkey in order to achieve the unification of Little Russia under her rule. The danger posed by Turkey to both Moscow and Poland prompted these former enemies, already at the end of 1667, to conclude an agreement on joint actions against the Turks. This treaty was then renewed with King Mikhail Vyshnevetsky in 1672, and in the same year the Sultan invaded the Ukraine. Mehmed IV, which was joined by the Crimean Khan and Doroshenko, the capture of Kamenets and the conclusion by the king of a humiliating peace with the Turks, who, however, did not stop the war. The troops of Alexei Mikhailovich and the left-bank Cossacks in 1673 - 1674 successfully operated on the right side of the Dnieper, and a significant part of the latter again submitted to Moscow. In 1674, right-bank Ukraine experienced the horrors of the Turkish-Tatar devastation for the second time, but the Sultan's hordes again withdrew without uniting Little Russia.

On January 29, 1676, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich died. His first wife died already on March 2, 1669, after which Alexei, who became extremely attached to his new favorite, the boyar Artamon Matveev, married a second time (January 22, 1671) to his distant relative Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina. Soon she gave birth to a son from Alexei Mikhailovich - the future Peter the Great. Already earlier, in the first years of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, European influences penetrated Moscow under the auspices of Morozov. Then the annexation of Little Russia with its schools gave a new strong impetus towards the West. It resulted in the appearance and activity of Kiev scientists in Moscow, the founding by Rtishchev of the Andreevsky Monastery with a learned brotherhood, the activities of Simeon of Polotsk, a tireless writer in verse and prose, a preacher and mentor of the elder royal sons, in general, the transfer of Latin-Polish and Greek-Slavic scholasticism to new soil . Further, the favorite of Alexei Mikhailovich Ordin-Nashchokin, the former head of the embassy order, is an "imitator of foreign customs", the founder of post offices for foreign correspondence and the founder of handwritten chimes (the first Russian newspapers); and the clerk of the same order, Kotoshikhin, who fled abroad, and the author of a well-known essay on contemporary Russia, also appears to be an undoubted and ardent Westernizer. In the era of Matveev's power, cultural borrowings become even more tangible: from 1672, foreigners appeared at the court of Alexei Mikhailovich, and then their own "comedians", the first theatrical "actions" begin to play out. The tsar and the boyars get European carriages, new furniture, in other cases foreign books, friendship with foreigners, knowledge of languages. Tobacco smoking is no longer prosecuted as before. The seclusion of women is coming to an end: the tsarina already rides in an open carriage, is present at theatrical performances, the daughters of Alexei Mikhailovich even learn from Simeon of Polotsk.

The proximity of the era of decisive transformations is clearly felt in all these facts, as well as in the beginning military reorganization in the appearance of regiments of the "foreign system", in the decline of obsolete localism, in an attempt to build a fleet (the shipyard in the village of Dednovo, the ship "Eagle", burned by Razin on the lower Volga; the idea of ​​​​farming Courland harbors for Russian ships), in the beginning of the construction of factories, in an effort to break through to the sea in the west. The diplomacy of Alexei Mikhailovich gradually spreads to all of Europe, including Spain, while in Siberia Russian dominion has already reached the Great Ocean, and the establishment on the Amur led to the first acquaintance and then a clash with China.

Yenisei Territory, Baikal and Transbaikalia in the era of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich

The reign of Alexei Mikhailovich represents an era of transition from old Russia to new Russia, a difficult era, when backwardness from Europe made itself felt at every step and failures in the war, and sharp turmoil within the state. The government of Alexei Mikhailovich was looking for ways to satisfy the increasingly complex tasks of domestic and foreign policy, was already aware of its backwardness in all spheres of life and the need to embark on a new road, but did not yet dare to declare war on the old isolation and tried to get by with the help of palliatives. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was a typical man of his era, who combined a strong attachment to the old tradition with a love for useful and pleasant innovations: standing still firmly on the old soil, being a model of ancient Russian piety and patriarchy, he already puts one foot on the other side. A man of a more lively and mobile temperament than his father (Alexei Mikhailovich’s personal participation in campaigns), inquisitive, affable, hospitable and cheerful, at the same time a zealous pilgrimage and fasting, an exemplary family man and a model of complacency (albeit with sometimes strong temper) - Alexei Mikhailovich was not a man of strong character, he was deprived of the qualities of a transformer, he was capable of innovations that did not require drastic measures, but he was not born to fight and break, like his son Peter I. His ability to become strongly attached to people (Morozov, Nikon, Matveev ) and his kindness could easily lead to evil, opening the way for all influences during his reign, creating omnipotent temporary workers and preparing future party struggles, intrigues and disasters like the events of 1648.

The favorite summer residence of Alexei Mikhailovich was the village of Kolomenskoye, where he built himself a palace; favorite pastime is falconry. Dying, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich left a large family: his second wife Natalia, three sisters, two sons (Fyodor and Ivan) and six daughters (see Tsarevna Sofya) from his first wife, son Peter (born May 30, 1672) and two daughters from the second wife. Two camps of his relatives through two different wives - the Miloslavskys and the Naryshkins - were not slow after his death to start a struggle among themselves, rich in historical consequences.

Literature on the biography of Alexei Mikhailovich

S. M. Solovyov, “History of Russia since ancient times”, vol. X – XII;

N. I. Kostomarov, “Russian history in the biographies of its main figures”, vol. II, part 1: “Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich”;

V. O. Klyuchevsky, "Course of Russian History", part III;

”, however, this, when applied to Alexei, is a not weak lulz.

historical portrait

The friendly, affectionate Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich cherished the greatness of his royal power, his autocratic dignity: it captivated and satiated him. He was amused by his high-profile titles and was ready to shed blood for them. The slightest accidental failure to keep titles correct was considered an important criminal offence.

— Kostomarov. Russian history..., p.423. According to the 2004 edition.

To modern people, before whose eyes an unprecedented number of wars, revolutions, changes of power, genocides and other entertainments of Mother History have passed, the seventeenth century seems to be a quiet, peaceful and absolutely uninteresting time. Probably, most of the readers of this article, who were at least a little amused at school by studying the life of their own fatherland, happily skipped this period and hastily leafed through their textbook to the next paragraph, where Peter I and his violent undertakings were waiting for them.

In fact, the century in which the hero of our article happened to rule, despite its apparent inertia, was so rich. Russia was just beginning to recover from the mess of the Time of Troubles, the guns of the Polish gentry had not yet fallen silent, and new powerful states were rising in the north and south. At the same time, the people, who were between Scylla and Charybdis of devastation, taxes, and arbitrariness of governors, still remembered what “freedom” was, and often rebelled. The slightest mistake - and your state will collapse into hell, where both internal and external forces will help it go. We urgently needed a hand that could hit hard and at the same time stroke softly.
Alexei Mikhailovich became this hand.

He became king very early - at the age of 16. Of course, for that time the boy Alyosha was quite enlightened, he loved to read books, he was thoughtful and peaceful, he was well developed physically, which, compared with his weak-willed and almost holy fool father Mikhail Fedorovich, was an undoubted plus. But, of course, he could not govern the state alone. He was helped in this difficult task by his uncle, the boyar Boris Morozov, who initially ruled for him and even acted as a matchmaker, arranging an all-Russian beauty contest and personally choosing a good bride for the tsar. After a dirty story with salt, the help of a beloved uncle had to be abandoned, and Patriarch Nikon took his place. Initially, he and Alyosha were in the same bond, but soon the power-hungry patriarch began to pull the blanket over himself, arguing that “the priesthood is higher than the kingdom,” as it should have been canonically. By that time, the tsar had already grown up, got stronger, went on military campaigns, personally pacified uprisings, shot a billion Russian people. In general, he began to get used to holding the reins in his hands. He no longer needed any helpers, and soon Nikon went into exile. But you will read about all these ups and downs in much more detail below, but here we will tell you specifically about the king himself.

As already mentioned, Alexei Mikhailovich was a strong man. Particularly striking were the dimensions of his belly, which, however, according to the then standards of beauty, was considered very sexy for both men and women. His strength was also impressive - in his youth, the king alone went to a bear with a knife and a horn, and, moreover, successfully, although once the bear crushed him. In general, he loved hunting, and especially falconry, which, in his words, “rejoices the hearts of the sad and amuses with joyful fun.” He even wrote a collection of rules for falconry, in which the immortal “Time for business is an hour for fun” was listed.

Best of all, Alexei Mikhailovich is characterized by a portrait made by a visiting Dutch artist ... of his cat. Yes, yes, it's not a typo, it's a cat. It was just that the monarch himself was not very Christian to draw, so they portrayed him in the then fashion allegorically, in Aesopian language. One glance at the drawing is enough to understand that the king had a difficult character. The cat's face is stern and does not encourage cozy stroking, the sharpness of the mustache burns, the ears are like those of a bull enraged by a bullfight, ready to simply pierce the offender. Interestingly, his son Peter was also called a cat for his mustache. Moreover, the nickname of his great-grandfather was Koshkin. So it is quite possible that we could have a dynasty not of the Romanovs, but of the Koshkins.

In general, the image of Alexei Mikhailovich among the people remained quite positive. After all, it was with him that all the parables about the “Tsar-Father, Under Whom the Milk Rivers and Kiselnye Shores” were associated. How else, after all, despite all the repressions, the breakdown of consciousness, church schisms, and so on, he was the first to pursue a policy of paternalism (from Latin paternus - paternal), in which the king thinks for his subjects. And outwardly, he looked exactly like the one whom we call the King with a capital letter. Is not it?

What did you do?

In short, it is Alexei who is responsible for the heavy blame for turning Russia into a terrible, terrible super-centralized empire. In fact, absolutism was a natural historical stage of any European state.

But this, of course, was not within the competence of Mikhailovich. He knew his task quite well and was a completely Orthodox tyrant: all the years of his reign he was mainly engaged in anal domination of his subjects and expansion of borders. He even created the first real secret service in Russia - the Order of Secret Affairs, which was supposed to keep track of all sorts of unreliable boyars, warriors, officials, and conduct an investigation that was pleasing to the king in the affairs of the boyars. However, thanks to the love for the effects of his youngest son, who already sowed on plowed soil and eclipsed his father in the face of grateful descendants, the latter is now often remembered almost as a rag king. And in vain, because it was his doing ...

Sawing out democracy

Khmelnitsky did not have time to catch himself - he died. And the psheks hung on the Swedes and decided to figure out what they are doing there in the east. Khmelnytsky's successor Vyhovsky (whose legitimacy was strongly questioned) quickly realized that the Commonwealth could help him retain power (Moscow would not let him do this unambiguously), and decided to defect back, but no such luck - the Muscovites did not let him go, moving to pacify the Ukrainians, a decent army, which suffered one of the most serious defeats in the entire seventeenth century from the Ukrainian-Tatar-Pshek team, the color of the Russian nobility almost completely fell (here, from source to source, the number of participants in the event and losses differ tenfold). It was almost the only victory of the ukrov over Moscow, this victory is still mentioned by Svidomo with or without reason. But as a result, Ukrainian society was deeply split, the Psheks could not establish a vertical of power, the help of the Psheks did not really fit the hetman either, and he was slightly rebelled, a strong pro-Moscow force appeared. After that, the Ukrainians trolled the Muscovites with the help of the Poles in the Battle of Chudnov, where the Russian professional army died. However, the tsar quickly distributed life-giving cunts to the guilty and began to act more subtly: by bribery, promises, agitation. As a result, the ukrovs were torn apart by the epic, but little-known civil war Ruin, which lasted thirty years (1657-1687), where two (and sometimes even three) Ukrainian states fought, proving that only one of them was true, while the others were fucking traitors, and sawing each other under the supervision of the Poles, Turks and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. But the Crimean Tatars robbed and killed as much as they wanted, for them all this turned into fierce wine.

Curing the church

Death

The king died before reaching the age of 47, which was somewhat unexpected. Now interesting versions are being expressed about this, connected with the lead water supply in Moscow in the seventeenth century. Allegedly, Alexei and all his children, besides Petya, drank water from this water supply and therefore had serious health problems. Peter, exiled together with the Naryshkins outside Moscow from an early age, was spared this fate and retained good physical health (although this did not save him from a serious illness on his head).

the holivar between the Naryshkins and the Miloslavskys, which followed the death of Alexei, at first glance looked like loosening screws. But in fact, the System simply waited until it had a worthy main cog - and waited until Pyotr Alekseevich grew up. Then the loose nuts were tightened until the thread was broken.

Under him, the borders of Russia grew significantly due to the Ukraine, Eastern Siberia, the Far East and other territories that became part of it.

And why is the Quietest?

So smart as hell. This son could be swaggering to the fullest - moreover, they even expected it from him. Alexei, on the other hand, had to repeatedly break the resistance of various strata of society, and therefore it was vital for him to portray himself as a kind uncle at least in front of someone. And indeed, he tried not to repress “his own”, but at most he broke into their personal cunts with his hands and feet, which at that time could be called paternal affection. And then he made amends with gifts.

In addition, as already mentioned, outwardly the king showed fierce piety. This was also necessary in order to show oneself before the people not only as the Owner, but also as a real authority in matters of faith - in order to somehow reconcile with the fucked up committed over the apologists of this very faith.

It should be recognized that Alexei not only achieved his main goal - securing unlimited power for the Romanovs for two hundred years with dick and building a super-powerful empire - but also managed to fuck the brains of everyone in general.
Let's clap while standing.

(Romanov)
Years of life: 03/19/1629-01/29/1676
Reign: 1645-1676
10th Tsar of Russia (1645-1676).

The second representative of the Romanov dynasty on the Russian throne.

Nikon actively corrected liturgical books and rites and sought to bring Russian church practice into line with Greek. The king supported these initiatives, because. strengthening the centralization of church administration corresponded to the interests of the autocracy.

However, Alexei Mikhailovich and church leaders dissatisfied with Nikon assembled the Cathedral of 1666 and exiled it to the Ferapontov Monastery. However, at the same time, Nikon's innovations were approved and those who refused to accept them were anathematized. From this Council began the division of the Russian Orthodox Church into the Old Believer and the dominant (Nikonian).

.

reign time Alexei Mikhailovich Quiet characterized by the intensification of feudal exploitation and the growth of financial oppression. Such a policy caused a number of urban uprisings: in 1648 - in Moscow, Vychegorodskaya Salt, Tomsk, Veliky Ustyug, in 1650 - in Veliky Novgorod and Pskov. At the convened Zemsky Sobor in 1649, a new Code was adopted, which satisfied the basic requirements of the nobles (on an indefinite search for fugitive peasants, etc.). The people responded with an anti-feudal struggle that assumed wide proportions (the Moscow uprising of 1662, the Peasant War led by Stepan Razin, 1670-1671).

In the economic field, the Customs (1653) and Novotrade (1667) charters were adopted, which contributed to the development of foreign and domestic trade.

The biggest success Alexey Mikhailovich in foreign policy there was the reunification of Ukraine with Russia (1654) and the return of part of the original Russian lands - Smolensk, Seversk land with Starodub and Chernigov (1667). The advance to Siberia continued, where new cities were founded: Nerchinsk (1658), Irkutsk (1659), Selenginsk (1666).

At Alexei Mikhailovich Tishaish there was a folding in Russia of a feudal-absolutist (autocratic) state.

New central institutions were founded, orders were issued: Khlebny (1663), Reitarsky (1651), Accounting Affairs (1657), Little Russian (1649), Lithuanian (1656-1667), Monastic (1648- 1677).

In financial terms, several transformations were made: in 1646 and the following, a census of households with their adult and minor male population was carried out, an unsuccessful attempt was made to introduce a new salt duty.

Miscalculations in financial policy (the issue of copper money, which were equated to silver, which depreciated the ruble) caused discontent among the people, which grew into the "Copper Riot" in 1662. The rebellion, however, was suppressed by the archers, and copper money was canceled.

It was during the reign Alexey Mikhailovich Russia began to be considered a truly Orthodox kingdom, where Orthodox church relics saved from Muslims were brought from other lands.

Autocratic Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, judging by his letters, reviews of foreigners, he had a remarkably soft, good-natured character, knew how to respond to someone else's grief and joy. He read a lot, wrote letters, compiled the first guide for hunters in Russian history, The Code of the Falconer's Way, tried to write memoirs about the Polish war, and practiced versification.

Under him, a theater was created in the palace. Alexey Mikhailovich Quiet with his family often attended many hours of performances.

Alexey Mikhailovich died January 30, 1676 at the age of 47. According to testamentary documents, back in 1674, his eldest son Fedor became the heir to the throne. To my sons Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich inherited a powerful state recognized abroad. One of his sons - Peter I the Great - managed to continue the work of his father, completing the formation of an absolute monarchy and the creation of a great Russian empire.

Alexei Mikhailovich was the father of 16 children from 2 marriages.

one). Maria Ilyinichna Miloslavskaya (13 children):

2). Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina (3 children):