0 Users and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
It’s no longer a secret that the history of Russia is distorted. This especially applies to the great people of our country. Which are presented to us in the image of tyrants, crazy or weak-willed people. One of the most slandered rulers is Nicholas II.
However, if we look at the numbers, we will be convinced that much of what we know about the last king is a lie.
In 1894, at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia had 122 million inhabitants. 20 years later, on the eve of the 1st World War, its population increased by more than 50 million; Thus, in Tsarist Russia the population increased by 2,400,000 per year. If the revolution had not happened in 1917, by 1959 its population would have reached 275,000,000.
Unlike modern democracies, Imperial Russia based its policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of significant accumulation of gold reserves. Despite this, state revenues grew steadily from 1,410,000,000 rubles in 1897, without the slightest increase in the tax burden, while state expenditures remained more or less at the same level.
Over the last 10 years before the First World War, the excess of state revenues over expenses amounted to 2,400,000,000 rubles. This figure seems all the more impressive since during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, railway tariffs were lowered and redemption payments for lands transferred to the peasants from their former landowners in 1861 were abolished, and in 1914, with the outbreak of the war, all types of drinking taxes were abolished.
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia, and the State Bank was authorized to issue 300,000,000 rubles in credit notes not backed by gold reserves. But the government not only never took advantage of this right, but, on the contrary, ensured paper circulation of gold cash by more than 100%, namely: by the end of July 1914, bank notes were in circulation in the amount of 1,633,000,000 rubles, while the gold reserve in Russia it was equal to 1,604,000,000 rubles, and in foreign banks 141,000,000 rubles.
The stability of monetary circulation was such that even during the Russo-Japanese War, which was accompanied by widespread revolutionary unrest within the country, the exchange of banknotes for gold was not suspended.
In Russia, taxes, before the First World War, were the lowest in the whole world.
The burden of direct taxes in Russia was almost four times less than in France, more than 4 times less than in Germany and 8.5 times less than in England. The burden of indirect taxes in Russia was on average half as much as in Austria, France, Germany and England.
The total amount of taxes per capita in Russia was more than half as much as in Austria, France and Germany and more than four times less than in England.
Between 1890 and 1913 Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. Its income not only almost equaled the income received from agriculture, but goods covered almost 4/5 of the domestic demand for manufactured goods.
Over the last four years before the First World War, the number of newly founded joint-stock companies increased by 132%, and the capital invested in them almost quadrupled.
In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits worth 2,236,000,000 rubles.
The amount of deposits and equity capital in small credit institutions (on a cooperative basis) was about 70,000,000 rubles in 1894; in 1913 - about 620,000,000 rubles (an increase of 800%), and by January 1, 1917 - 1,200,000,000 rubles.
On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. During the two decades preceding the 1914-18 war, the grain harvest doubled. In 1913, the harvest of major cereals in Russia was 1/3 higher than that of Argentina, Canada and the United States. States combined.
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main breadwinner of Western Europe.
Russia supplied 50% of the world's egg imports.
During the same period of time, sugar consumption per inhabitant increased from 4 to 9 kg. in year.
On the eve of World War I, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.
Thanks to extensive irrigation work in Turkestan, undertaken during the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the cotton harvest in 1913 covered all the annual needs of the Russian textile industry. The latter doubled its production between 1894 and 1911.
The railway network in Russia covered 74,000 versts (one verst equals 1,067 km), of which the Great Siberian Road (8,000 versts) was the longest in the world.
In 1916, i.e. at the height of the war, more than 2,000 miles of railways were built, which connected the Arctic Ocean (port of Romanovsk) with the center of Russia.
In Tsarist Russia in the period from 1880 to 1917, i.e. in 37 years, 58,251 km were built. For 38 years of Soviet power, i.e. by the end of 1956, only 36,250 km had been built. expensive
On the eve of the war of 1914-18. the net income of the state railways covered 83% of the annual interest and amortization of the public debt. In other words, the payment of debts, both internal and external, was ensured in a proportion of more than 4/5 by the income alone that the Russian state received from the operation of its railways.
It should be added that Russian railways, compared to others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.
Industrial development in the Russian Empire was naturally accompanied by a significant increase in the number of factory workers, whose economic well-being, as well as the protection of their lives and health, were the subject of special concerns of the Imperial Government.
It should be noted that it was in Imperial Russia, and moreover in the 18th century, during the reign of Empress Catherine II (1762-1796), for the first time in the whole world, laws were issued regarding working conditions: the work of women and children in factories was prohibited a 10-hour working day was established, etc. It is characteristic that the code of Empress Catherine, which regulated child and female labor, printed in French and Latin, was prohibited from publication in France and England as “seditious.”
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, before the convening of the 1st State Duma, special laws were issued to ensure the safety of workers in the mining industry, on railways and in enterprises that were especially dangerous to the life and health of workers.
Child labor under 12 years of age was prohibited, and minors and females could not be hired for factory work between 9 pm and 5 am.
The amount of penalty deductions could not exceed one third of wages, and each fine had to be approved by a factory inspector. The fine money went into a special fund intended to meet the needs of the workers themselves.
In 1882, a special law regulated the work of children from 12 to 15 years old. In 1903, worker elders were introduced, elected by factory workers of the relevant workshops. The existence of workers' unions was recognized by law in 1906.
At that time, Imperial social legislation was undoubtedly the most progressive in the world. This forced Taft, then President of the Union. States, two years before the 1st World War, publicly declare, in the presence of several Russian dignitaries: “Your Emperor created such perfect labor legislation that no democratic state can boast of.”
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education achieved extraordinary development. In less than 20 years, loans allocated to the Ministry of Public Education, from 25.2 mil. rubles increased to 161.2 mil. This did not include the budgets of schools that received their loans from other sources (military, technical schools), or those maintained by local self-government bodies (zemstvos, cities), whose loans for public education increased from 70,000,000 rubles. in 1894 up to 300,000,000 rubles. in 1913
At the beginning of 1913, the total budget for public education in Russia reached a colossal figure at that time, namely 1/2 billion rubles in gold.
Initial training was free by law, and from 1908 it became compulsory. Since this year, about 10,000 schools have been opened annually. In 1913 their number exceeded 130,000.
In the 20th century, Russia ranked first in Europe, if not in the whole world, in terms of the number of women studying in higher educational institutions.
The reign of Nicholas II was a period of the highest rates of economic growth in Russian history. For 1880-1910 The growth rate of Russian industrial output exceeded 9% per year. According to this indicator, Russia has taken first place in the world, ahead of even the rapidly developing United States of America (although it should be noted that on this issue different economists give different estimates, some put the Russian Empire in first place, others - the United States, but the fact that the pace growth were comparable - an indisputable fact). Russia has taken first place in the world in the production of the main agricultural crops, growing more than half of the world's rye, more than a quarter of wheat, oats and barley, and more than a third of potatoes. Russia has become the main exporter of agricultural products, the first “breadbasket of Europe”. Its share accounted for 2/5 of all world exports of peasant products.
Successes in agricultural production were the result of historical events: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 by Alexander II and the Stolypin land reform during the reign of Nicholas II, as a result of which more than 80% of arable land ended up in the hands of peasants, and almost all of it in the Asian part. The area of landowners' lands was steadily declining. Granting peasants the right to freely dispose of their land and the abolition of communities had enormous national significance, the benefits of which, first of all, the peasants themselves were aware of.
The autocratic form of government did not impede Russia's economic progress. According to the manifesto of October 17, 1905, the population of Russia received the right to personal integrity, freedom of speech, press, assembly, and unions. Political parties grew in the country, and thousands of periodicals were published. Parliament was elected by free will - The State Duma. Russia was becoming a rule-of-law state—the judiciary was practically separated from the executive.
Rapid development of industrial and agricultural production levels and positive trade balance allowed Russia to have a stable gold convertible currency. The Emperor attached great importance to the development of railways. Even in his youth, he participated in the laying of the famous Siberian road.
During the reign of Nicholas II, the best labor legislation for those times was created in Russia, providing for the regulation of working hours, the choice of worker elders, remuneration for accidents at work, compulsory insurance of workers against illness, disability and old age. The Emperor actively promoted the development of Russian culture, art, science, and reforms of the army and navy.
All these achievements of the economic and social development of Russia are the result of the natural historical process of development of Russia and are objectively related to the 300th anniversary of the reign of the House of Romanov.
The French economist Théry wrote: “Not a single European nation has achieved such results.”
The myth is that workers lived very poorly.
1. Workers. The average salary of a worker in Russia was 37.5 rubles. Let us multiply this amount by 1282.29 (the ratio of the Tsarist ruble exchange rate to the modern one) and get an amount of 48,085 thousand rubles in modern terms.
2. Janitor 18 rubles or 23081 rubles. with modern money
3. Second Lieutenant ( modern analogue- lieutenant) 70 rub. or 89,760 rub. with modern money
4. Policeman (ordinary police officer) 20.5 rubles. or 26,287 rub. with modern money
5. Workers (St. Petersburg). It is interesting that the average salary in St. Petersburg was lower and by 1914 amounted to 22 rubles 53 kopecks. Let's multiply this amount by 1282.29 and get 28890 Russian rubles.
6. Cook 5 - 8 r. or 6.5.-10 thousand in modern money
7. Teacher primary school 25 rub. or 32050 rub. with modern money
8. Gymnasium teacher 85 rub. or 108970 rub. with modern money
9.. Senior janitor 40 rub. or 51,297 rub. with modern money
10..District warden (modern analogue - local police officer) 50 rub. or 64,115 in modern money
11. Paramedic 40 rub. or 51280 rub.
12. Colonel 325 rub. or 416,744 rub. with modern money
13. Collegiate assessor (middle class official) 62 rubles. or 79,502 rub. with modern money
14. Privy Councilor (high-class official) 500 or 641,145 in modern money. An army general received the same amount
How much, you ask, did the products cost back then? A pound of meat in 1914 cost 19 kopecks. The Russian pound weighed 0.40951241 grams. This means that a kilogram, if it were then a measure of weight, would cost 46.39 kopecks - 0.359 grams of gold, that is, in today's money, 551 rubles 14 kopecks. Thus, a worker could buy 48.6 kilograms of meat with his salary, if, of course, he wanted.
Wheat flour 0.08 rub. (8 kopecks) = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Rice pound 0.12 rubles = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Biscuit RUR 0.60 = 1 lb (0.4 kg)
Milk 0.08 rubles = 1 bottle
Tomatoes 0.22 rub. = 1 pound
Fish (pike perch) 0.25 rub. = 1 pound
Grapes (raisins) 0.16 rubles = 1 pound
Apples 0.03 rub. = 1 pound
A very worthy life!!!
Hence the opportunity to support a large family.
Now let's see how much it cost to rent a house. Renting housing cost 25 in St. Petersburg, and 20 kopecks per square arshin per month in Moscow and Kyiv. These 20 kopecks today amount to 256 rubles, and a square arshin is 0.5058 m?. That is, the monthly rent of one square meter cost in 1914 506 today's rubles. Our clerk would rent an apartment of one hundred square arshins in St. Petersburg for 25 rubles a month. But he did not rent such an apartment, but was content with a basement and attic closet, where the area was smaller and the rental rate was lower. Such an apartment was rented, as a rule, by titular advisers who received a salary at the level of an army captain. The bare salary of a titular adviser was 105 rubles per month (134 thousand 640 rubles) per month. Thus, a 50-meter apartment cost him less than a quarter of his salary.
The myth about the weakness of the king's character.
French President Loubet said: “People usually see Emperor Nicholas II as a kind, generous, but weak man. This is a deep mistake. He always has long-thought-out plans, the implementation of which he slowly achieves. Beneath his apparent timidity, the king has a strong soul and a courageous heart, unshakably loyal. He knows where he's going and what he wants."
Tsar's service required strength of character, which Nicholas II possessed. During the Holy Coronation to the Russian Throne on May 27, 1895, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow in his address to the Sovereign said: “As there is no higher, so there is no more difficult on earth royal power, there is no heavier burden royal service. Through visible anointing may invisible power from above be given to you, acting to exalt your royal virtues..."
A number of arguments refuting this myth are presented in the above-mentioned work by A. Eliseev.
Thus, in particular, S. Oldenburg wrote that the Tsar had an iron hand; many are only deceived by the velvet glove he wore.
The presence of a strong will in Nicholas II is brilliantly confirmed by the events of August 1915, when he assumed the responsibilities of Supreme Commander-in-Chief - against the wishes of the military elite, the Council of Ministers and all “public opinion”. And, I must say, he coped with these responsibilities brilliantly.
The Emperor did a lot to improve the country's defense capability, having learned the hard lessons of the Russo-Japanese War. Perhaps his most significant act was the revival of the Russian fleet, which saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. It happened against the will of military officials. The Emperor was even forced to dismiss Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich. Military historian G. Nekrasov writes: “It must be noted that, despite its overwhelming superiority in forces in the Baltic Sea, the German fleet made no attempts to break into the Gulf of Finland in order to bring Russia to its knees with one blow. Theoretically, this was possible, since most of Russia's military industry was concentrated in St. Petersburg. But in the way of the German fleet stood the Baltic Fleet, ready to fight, with ready-made mine positions. The cost of a breakthrough for the German fleet was becoming unacceptably expensive. Thus, only by the fact that he achieved the reconstruction of the fleet, Emperor Nicholas II saved Russia from imminent defeat. This should not be forgotten!”
We especially note that the Emperor made absolutely all the important decisions contributing to victorious actions himself - without the influence of any “good geniuses”. The opinion that the Russian army was led by Alekseev, and the Tsar was in the post of Commander-in-Chief for the sake of formality, is completely unfounded. This false opinion is refuted by Alekseev’s own telegrams. For example, in one of them, in response to a request to send ammunition and weapons, Alekseev replies: “I cannot resolve this issue without the Highest permission.”
The myth that Russia was a prison of nations.
Russia was a family of peoples thanks to the balanced and thoughtful policies of the Sovereign. The Russian Tsar-Father was considered the monarch of all peoples and tribes living on the territory of the Russian Empire.
He pursued a national policy based on respect for traditional religions - the historical subjects of state building in Russia. And this is not only Orthodoxy, but also Islam. So, in particular, the mullahs were supported by the Russian Empire and received a salary. Many Muslims fought for Russia.
The Russian Tsar honored the feat of all peoples who served the Fatherland. Here is the text of the telegram, which serves as clear confirmation of this:
TELEGRAM
The Ingush regiment fell on the German iron division like a mountain avalanche. He was immediately supported by the Chechen regiment.
In the history of the Russian Fatherland, including our Preobrazhensky Regiment, there was no case of a cavalry attack on an enemy heavy artillery unit.
4.5 thousand killed, 3.5 thousand captured, 2.5 thousand wounded. In less than 1.5 hours, the iron division, which the best military units of our allies, including those in the Russian army, were afraid to come into contact with, ceased to exist.
Convey on my behalf, on behalf of the royal court and on behalf of the Russian army fraternal heartfelt greetings to the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and brides of these brave eagles of the Caucasus, who with their immortal feat marked the beginning of the end of the German hordes.
Russia will never forget this feat. Honor and praise to them!
With fraternal greetings, Nicholas II.
The myth that Russia under the Tsar was defeated in the First World War.
S.S. Oldenburg, in his book “The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II,” wrote: “The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that he, at an incredible harsh conditions brought Russia to the threshold of victory: his opponents did not allow her to cross this threshold.”
General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “...It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into the Poltava victors.
The last Supreme Commander of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half. But his work was appreciated by his enemies, and between the Sovereign and his Army and victory “there was a revolution.”
A. Eliseev cites the following facts. The Sovereign's military talents were fully revealed at the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Already the very first decisions of the new commander-in-chief led to a significant improvement in the situation at the front. Thus, he organized the Vilna-Molodechno operation (September 3 – October 2, 1915). The Emperor managed to stop a major German offensive, as a result of which the city of Borisov was captured. He issued a timely directive ordering an end to panic and retreat. As a result, the onslaught of the 10th German Army was stopped, which was forced to retreat - in some places completely disorderly. The 26th Mogilev Infantry Regiment under Lieutenant Colonel Petrov (a total of 8 officers and 359 bayonets) made its way to the German rear and during a surprise attack captured 16 guns. In total, the Russians managed to capture 2,000 prisoners, 39 guns and 45 machine guns. “But most importantly,” notes historian P.V. Multatuli, “the troops regained confidence in their ability to beat the Germans.”
Russia definitely began to win the war. After the failures of 1915, the triumphant 1916 came - the year of the Brusilov breakthrough. During the fighting on the Southwestern Front, the enemy lost one and a half million people killed, wounded and captured. Austria-Hungary was on the verge of defeat.
It was the Emperor who supported Brusilov’s offensive plan, with which many military leaders did not agree. Thus, the plan of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief M.V. Alekseev provided for a powerful strike on the enemy by forces of all fronts, with the exception of the Brusilov Front.
The latter believed that his front was also quite capable of an offensive, with which other front commanders disagreed. However, Nicholas II decisively supported Brusilov, and without this support the famous breakthrough would simply have been impossible.
Historian A. Zayonchkovsky wrote that the Russian army achieved “in terms of its numbers and technical supply with everything necessary, the greatest development in the entire war.” More than two hundred combat-ready divisions confronted the enemy. Russia was preparing to crush the enemy. In January 1917, the Russian 12th Army launched an offensive from the Riga bridgehead and took the German 10th Army by surprise, which found itself in a catastrophic situation.
The chief of staff of the German army, General Ludendorff, who cannot be suspected of sympathizing with Nicholas II, wrote about the situation in Germany in 1916 and about the increase in the military power of Russia:
“Russia is expanding its military formations. The reorganization she has undertaken gives a great increase in strength. In its divisions it left only 12 battalions, and in its batteries only 6 guns, and from the battalions and guns liberated in this way it formed new combat units.
The battles of 1916 on the Eastern Front showed an increase in Russian military equipment and an increase in the number of firearms supplies. Russia has moved some of its factories to the Donetsk basin, greatly increasing their productivity.
We understood that the numerical and technical superiority of the Russians in 1917 would be felt even more acutely than in 1916.
Our situation was extremely difficult and there was almost no way out of it. There was no point in thinking about our own offensive - all reserves were needed for defense. Our defeat seemed inevitable... food supply was difficult. The rear was also seriously damaged.
The prospects for the future were extremely bleak."
Moreover, as Oldenburg writes, on the initiative of Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, in the summer of 1916, a commission was established to prepare a future peace conference in order to determine in advance what Russia’s wishes would be. Russia was to receive Constantinople and the straits, as well as Turkish Armenia.
Poland was to be reunited in a personal union with Russia. The Emperor declared (at the end of December) gr. Wielepolsky that he thinks of a free Poland as a state with a separate constitution, separate chambers and its own army (apparently, he meant something like the situation of the Kingdom of Poland under Alexander I).
Eastern Galicia, Northern Bukovina and Carpathian Rus' were to be included in Russia. The creation of a Czechoslovak kingdom was planned; regiments of captured Czechs and Slovaks were already being formed on Russian territory.
B. Brasol “The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in figures and facts”
There are several rulers whose negative myths have overshadowed the true essence of their reign, all their achievements and victories. One of the slandered sovereigns is Ivan the Terrible. Since childhood, we have all been instilled with the idea of Ivan the Terrible as an extremely cruel and almost insane ruler, whose actions are difficult to explain from a reasonable point of view. What do we remember about the era of Ivan the Terrible? Oprichnina? Murder of the prince? How were the king's opponents boiled in oil? For some reason, this is precisely what the emphasis is on when describing the era of the reign of John IV. Much less time is devoted to the expansion of the Russian state, not to mention cultural and economic achievements, which are practically ignored. But the king is not as formidable as he is portrayed.
Firstly, John IV can be called the real creator of the Russian state. Formally, this outstanding man occupied the throne for fifty years - from 1533 to 1584, ascending to it at the age of three. However, John IV, later nicknamed “The Terrible,” was crowned king in 1547. The seventeen-year-old sovereign, despite his young age, very quickly became familiar with issues of public administration and began to reform it. During the years of Ivan the Terrible's reign, a management system was created that at that time best met the needs of the growing Russian state.
The transformation of Russia into an estate-representative monarchy is also the merit of Ivan the Terrible. Already in 1549, on the initiative of the 19-year-old sovereign, a Zemsky Sobor was convened, in which representatives of all Russian classes except the peasantry participated. Subsequently, part of the powers of local authorities was redistributed in favor of representatives of the nobility and the black-growing peasantry. By the way, it was Ivan the Terrible who began to form the conditions for the further development of the Russian nobility, which he considered as a counterbalance to the boyars and their influence. The nobles began to be generously endowed with estates. So, already in 1550, a thousand Moscow nobles received estates, after which the Streltsy army was formed, which for a long time became the support of the Russian sovereigns.
But the main merit of Ivan the Terrible in terms of state building was the territorial expansion of the Russian state. It was under Ivan the Terrible that the territory of Muscovite Rus' increased by almost 100% and surpassed the entire Europe in area. Thanks to the military victories of Ivan the Terrible and his commanders, Rus' included the lands of fragments of the Golden Horde - the Kazan Khanate, the Astrakhan Khanate, the Great Nogai Horde, as well as the Bashkir lands. The Siberian Khanate became a vassal of Rus', which after Ivan the Terrible finally became part of the Russian state. In addition, Russian troops during the reign of Ivan the Terrible repeatedly made campaigns against the Crimean Khanate, invading the territory of the Crimean Peninsula. The formation of the Russian state took place in endless wars with neighboring states and political entities, which were initially very aggressive towards Rus'. Who knows whether the Russian state would have been able to secure its borders and increase in size if it had been ruled at that time by a less tough and purposeful sovereign?
If no one argues with the military successes of Ivan the Terrible, then his internal policies have always caused a lot of discussion, and in historical literature in general, a critical line regarding the tsar’s policies prevailed. Thus, the introduction of the oprichnina was interpreted as nothing other than the creation of a harsh dictatorship with reprisals against dissidents. In fact, in that difficult political situation The introduction of the oprichnina was a brilliant political move by Ivan the Terrible. Let us recall that Rus', like other states, was at that time corroded by feudal fragmentation. The introduction of the oprichnina was an excellent way, if not to completely defeat, then to at least significantly minimize the level of feudal fragmentation in the Russian state. Oprichnina played into the hands not only of Ivan the Terrible, but also of the interests of unification and centralization of the state. The organization of the oprichnina army as a paramilitary monastic order was also a brilliant idea, which gave religious legitimation to the oprichniki’s activities. The tsar himself became abbot of the oprichnina army, Afanasy Vyazemsky became a cellarer, and Malyuta Skuratov became a sexton. The guardsmen's lifestyle resembled a monastic one, and this showed that worldly, personal interests were alien to them.
For a long time, historical literature, following the official course, interpreted the oprichnina as a “black page” in national history, and the guardsmen - as cruel executioners, capable of the most notorious atrocities. In pre-revolutionary historiography, the oprichnina was generally viewed solely as a consequence of the tsar’s mental insanity, saying that Ivan the Terrible went crazy and that is why he created the oprichnina. However, then a more objective point of view triumphed, viewing the oprichnina through the prism of the confrontation between the tsar, who sought to strengthen his sole power, and the boyars, who did not want to part with their opportunities and privileges.
Such a tendentious interpretation missed the real need of the Russian state for such an institution during its formation and accelerated development. Another thing is that the guardsmen actually committed many atrocities; many prominent government and religious figures died at their hands, not to mention ordinary people. At some point, Ivan the Terrible could no longer fully control the flywheel of the repressive mechanism he had launched.
However, it is worth remembering that many people wanted the removal of Ivan the Terrible over the long half-century of his reign. Conspiracies against the king were drawn up regularly. Ivan the Terrible lived in a state of total danger, when it was completely unclear when, where and from whom to expect the next attack attempt. So, in 1563, John IV learned about the conspiracy of his cousin Prince Vladimir Staritsky and his mother Princess Euphrosyne. As a result of the investigation, the involvement of his friend Andrei Kurbsky in Staritsky’s intrigues was established. After Yuri Vasilyevich, John’s brother, died, the tsar was forced to alienate all people close to Vladimir Staritsky from the throne, since it was Vladimir Staritsky who came close to the throne. The tsar transferred Staritsky from chairman to ordinary members of the guardianship council in his will. Can this be called repression? Despite the fact that in 1566 Ivan the Terrible, famous for his hot-tempered but easy-going disposition, forgave Vladimir Staritsky and allowed him to begin construction of his palace on the territory of the Kremlin.
But already in 1567, the landowner Peter Volynsky informed Ivan the Terrible about a new conspiracy. According to Vladimir Staritsky’s plan, the cook was supposed to poison the tsar with poison, and the prince himself, at the head of military formations loyal to him, would destroy the oprichnina army and, with the help of his Moscow comrades, take power in the capital. If this conspiracy were successful, the Russian state would be under the rule of Vladimir Staritsky in the status of a tsar, and Pskov and Novgorod would be transferred to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Many noble Novgorodians agreed with the latter circumstance, to whom Vladimir Staritsky promised the rights and privileges of the Polish-Lithuanian nobility. As you can see, the plan was quite serious and very frightened Ivan the Terrible himself. At the end of September 1569, Vladimir Staritsky, who arrived to visit Ivan the Terrible, was poisoned at a gala reception with the Tsar and died the day after the feast. That is, for six years Ivan the Terrible was under the threat of imminent death if the conspirators won, and all this time the tsar did not kill Staritsky, hoping that his cousin would come to his senses and abandon his regicidal plans.
The “Novgorod pogrom”, which is considered one of the bloodiest crimes of Ivan the Terrible, is also correlated with the liquidation of Vladimir Staritsky. In fact, it should be understood that after the death of Staritsky, the conspiracy of the boyar elite against the tsar was not eliminated. It was headed by Novgorod Archbishop Pimen. It was to neutralize the conspiracy that Ivan the Terrible undertook a campaign to Novgorod, where he arrested a number of noble people of the city, primarily those who entered into an agreement with Sigismund and were going to participate in the overthrow of the tsar and the dismemberment of the Russian state. According to some reports, as a result of the investigation into the conspiracy of Staritsky and his followers, 1,505 people were executed. Not so much for that time, considering, for example, the scale of executions in Western European countries, where the Inquisition was raging and bloody religious wars were fought.
His own son, Ivan Ivanovich (1554-1581), is often included among the “victims of the cruel tsar.” The whole world knows the painting by Ilya Efimovich Repin “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan November 16, 1581.” According to a widespread myth, Ivan Ivanovich was mortally wounded by his own distraught father, Ivan the Terrible, during a quarrel in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda in November 1581 and died five days after the wound - on November 19. However, this version is still considered unproven. There is not a single factual evidence in favor of her being right. Moreover, there is no evidence of the generally violent nature of Ivan Ivanovich’s death. Although 27 years old, and Ivan Ivanovich reached exactly this age in 1581, is early even by medieval standards, we should not forget about diseases and the lack of medicine in those distant centuries.
Of course, in relations with his son, Ivan the Terrible often went too far. So, Ivan Ivanovich already had three marriages during his young years - the union with Evdokia Saburova lasted a year, with Feodosia Solova - four years, and Ivan Ivanovich’s last wife was Elena Sheremeteva, with whom he married in the year of his death. This number of marriages was explained by dissatisfaction with the son’s wives on the part of the “cool” father and father-in-law. Ivan the Terrible did not like all the prince's wives. Therefore, they ended the same way - by becoming a nun. The tsar’s hatred of Elena Sheremeteva allegedly led to a quarrel between father and son. The version that the king killed his son was also supported by the papal legate Antonio Possevino. He said that the sovereign allegedly beat Elena Sheremeteva to such an extent that she lost her child. When Ivan Ivanovich intervened in the situation, Grozny hit him in the head with his staff, causing the prince a mortal wound. The king himself was then very sad, called the best doctors, but nothing could be done, and the heir to the throne was buried with the highest honors.
In 1963, almost four centuries after those dramatic events, in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, experts opened the graves of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich. Medical-chemical and medical-forensic examinations were carried out, which established that the permissible content of mercury in the prince’s remains was 32 times higher than the permissible content of mercury, and the permissible content of lead and arsenic was several times higher. But centuries later no one could establish what this could be connected with. It is likely that the prince could have been poisoned. But then this version does not at all correlate with the violent death at the hands of his own father, which was reported by the papal legate.
A number of researchers consider the version of the murder of the prince by his own father to be a complete hoax, a component of the “information war” that has been waged by the West against Russia and Russian history for centuries. Already in those days, the enemies of the Russian state did a lot to discredit it, and for the papal legate to expose one of the most significant Russian sovereigns, the collector of Russian lands, Ivan the Terrible, as a mentally ill child killer, was an excellent way to denigrate the Tsar and Rus'.
Ivan the Terrible died two years after the death of his son Ivan Ivanovich - March 18 (28), 1584. Despite the fact that the king was a relatively old man, for several years before his death he felt bad and his condition only worsened. Even the papal legate Possevino reported back in 1582 that “the king did not have long to live.” Ivan the Terrible looked bad, could not move independently and the servants carried him on a stretcher. The reason for this state of the king was found out only centuries later, during the study of his remains. Ivan the Terrible developed osteophytes that prevented him from moving freely. The scientists who conducted the study claimed that even very old people had not encountered such deposits. Immobility, living under stress and nervous shocks made the king's life much shorter than it could have been.
Fifty-year-old Ivan the Terrible not only looked, but also felt like a very old man. His condition began to deteriorate rapidly at the end of the winter of 1584. If in February 1584 Ivan the Terrible still tried to show interest in state affairs, then at the beginning of March 1584 he became very ill. The ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who was on his way to Moscow to receive the tsar, was stopped on March 10 precisely because the tsar was feeling unwell, and was no longer able to hold audiences. On March 16, 1584, the king fell into a state of unconsciousness. However, the next day there was some improvement associated with taking hot baths recommended by doctors. But they did not prolong the king’s life for long. On March 18, 1584, around noon, one of the greatest sovereigns in the entire history of the Russian state died at the age of 54.
Regarding the unimaginable number of his wives - here we must immediately clarify - a wife is a woman who has undergone an officially recognized marriage ceremony. In the 16th century it was a wedding. So it is impossible to call women with whom the king did not marry wives. There are many terms to designate them, legal and colloquial, but certainly not “wife.”
In the women's Ascension Monastery, the tomb of the Moscow Grand Duchesses and Queens, there are burials of four wives of John IV: Anastasia Romanova, Maria Temryukovna, Martha Sobakina and Maria Nagaya, so we can only talk about four wives, and the fourth marriage was performed by the decision of the Consecrated Council of Russia Orthodox Church, and the tsar humbly bore the penance imposed on him. The fourth marriage was allowed because the previous marriage, with Marfa Sobakina, was purely nominal - the queen died without entering into an actual marriage. And that's it! He had no more wives!
But, nevertheless, in the museum of Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda in one of the chambers on the wall there was a description of the wedding ceremony with an unknown wife. When the writer Vyacheslav Manyagin asked to make a copy for him of this document, the head of the museum literally said the following: “You see, very few written sources have survived from the 16th century. So we took a description of a 17th century marriage ceremony and used it. After all, the ritual has not changed in a hundred years...” But the accompanying tablet indicated that this was a description of the wedding of Ivan the Terrible, and even indicated who exactly!
I wonder if this “another proof of the king’s “polygamy” has now been removed”?
So were not the king's wives Anna Kolotovskaya, Anna Vasilchikova, Vasilisa Melentyevna, Natalya Bulgakova, Avdotya Romanovna, Marfa Romanovna, Mamelfa Timofeevna and Fetma Timofeevna.
AND there was no murder of his son.
What happened? The kingdoms of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, the Nogai Horde, part of the territory were annexed North Caucasus(Pyatigorye). And at the same time, Ivan the Terrible wrote to the conqueror of Siberia Ermak: “Timoshka, do not force the local peoples with the Orthodox faith. There may be trouble in Rus'." The population growth was about 50%.
This time is marked by a decrease in the population of the Russian North, which is traditionally attributed to the consequences of the oprichnina - they say, as a result of the bloody policies of the cruel tsar, cities and villages were depopulated. Only most of those who left their homes did not go to the grave.
You are not easy, dear path,
When ashes fly to shells
If the princes threw hail,
And the slaves left their homes...
(Vladislav Kokorin)
“The scribal books of Kazan and Sviyazhsk of the 60s celebrate displaced people from other areas - from the upper Volga region cities of Nizhny Novgorod, Kostroma, Yaroslavl, then from Vologda, Vyatka, Pskov.” (I. Kulisher. “History of the Russian National Economy”). They settled in Kazan along entire streets - for example, Pskovskaya and Tulskaya. Among the Kazan homeowners are the descendants of many appanage princes: Yaroslavl, Rostov, Starodub, Suzdal... (10 families in total).
New cities were established in the Kazan region - Sviyazhsk, (1551), Laishev, (1557), Mokshansk, Tetyushi (1571). On the Volga between Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan, Kozmodemyansk, Cheboksary, Kokshaysk were built. Downstream from Kazan, in order to secure the path to Astrakhan, Samara (1586), Saratov (1590), Tsaritsyn (1589) were set up, and Ufa was built in 1586 to monitor the Bashkirs. Belgorod (1593), Voronezh (1586), Oskol (1593), Livny (1571), Kromy were established, as well as the previously founded Kursk - “...inhabited by different people, Cossacks and Streltsy, and inhabited by many people.” (“New Chronicler”, 17th century.)
I do not give this list in full to save space (only under Ivan the Terrible 155 cities and fortresses founded!), but it is clear that the reduction in the population of Rus', which is blamed on Ivan the Terrible, is in fact simply a consequence of the colonization of lands along the Volga and Don. There are not fewer people, but more land! During the 51 years of his reign The territory of Rus' has doubled, with 2.8 million sq. km to 5.4 million sq. km. Russia has become larger than the rest of Europe.
This is also the time of a sharp increase in the number of Cossacks. In 1521, the Don was deserted; after only 50 years, these lands were occupied by the Cossacks. In 1574, there were already so many Cossacks that they were able to take the Azov fortress. And at times it is difficult to make out where the free Cossacks are and where the sovereign’s people are. According to the “painting”, the charter of Ivan the Terrible on the protection of the south-eastern outskirts of the state, the guard posts were ordered “not to settle down”, it was forbidden to “cook porridge” twice in one place, “in which place someone spent the afternoon, and in that place Don’t spend the night.” To protect the near and far approaches, observation posts - “watchmen” and patrols - “stanitsa” were put forward.
· In Rus', universal election of local administration was introduced at the request of the population.
· A judicial reform was carried out - urban and rural communities were given the right to find thieves and robbers themselves, try them and execute them.
· Types of troops appear - cavalry, infantry, outfit (artillery).
· A state post office was created, about 300 postal stations were founded.
· The first pharmacy and pharmacy order were created.
· Industry was created, international trade developed: with England, Persia, Central Asia.
· In 1549, an extremely important event took place - the Ambassadorial Prikaz was established.
Essentially, this is the first specialized institution in Rus' dealing with foreign policy, and, as is still common among diplomats, with foreign intelligence: before traveling abroad, the Ambassadorial Prikaz developed detailed instructions for the head of the mission, including those of an intelligence nature. It was the Ambassadorial Order that explained to each clerk included in the diplomatic mission his tasks, secret and overt, his behavior and place in the hierarchy of the group traveling abroad.
The order was responsible for all issues related to the reception of foreign representatives in Rus', including basic surveillance, drawing up reports on meetings of foreigners with other foreign guests, and even more so, meetings with Russians were carefully monitored. The first head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz was a clerk Ivan Viskovaty; We will meet this name again when we deal directly with the library of Ivan the Terrible.
In 1557, by order of Ivan the Terrible, on the right bank of the Narova River in the Baltic, Russian engineer Ivan Vyrodkov (who had previously erected the Sviyazhsk fortress near Kazan) built “a city for the bead (ship) arrival of overseas people.” So who built the first Russian port on the Baltic? Ivan groznyj or Peter the Great? That's it...
In Rus', the authorities did not bother building prison castles. Most of those accused of crimes until the completion of the case were on bail from society or from private individuals, who were responsible for them with their heads. And if anyone did not have guarantors, they were shackled or in stocks and kept in deep cellars and pits. And who banned underground prisons in 1560? That's right, the cruel tyrant, Ivan the Terrible.
It was under Ivan the Terrible that the ransom of Russian people captured by the Tatars was legalized. Before this, such captives were ransomed by the Greeks, Armenians, and Turks and brought them to the borders of the Moscow kingdom, offering to ransom them, but if there were no takers, they were taken back. Ivan the Terrible ordered the ransom of prisoners from the treasury, spreading the costs over the entire people.
“No one should be excused from such a duty, because this is common Christian alms...”
But this was a partial solution to the problem - it was necessary to fight the cause, not the effect. “The Kazans had so many Russian captives that they were sold in huge crowds, like cattle, to various eastern merchants who deliberately came to Kazan for this purpose” (N.I. Kostomarov).
Kazan, as contemporaries put it, “molested Rus' worse than Batu’s ruin; Batu crossed the Russian land only once, like a burning brand, and the Kazan people constantly attacked Russian lands, killed and dragged Russian people into captivity ... "
From childhood it was drilled into our heads that the Russian tsars only thought about how to enslave the common man more tightly and seize more land peace-loving neighbors, but at the same time, the democratic boyars wished liberties for the common man, and the patriotic neighboring khans only wanted peace between peoples, and then Ivan the Terrible came and mercilessly executed them.
According to a modern British historian Geoffrey Hosking: “Muscovy began its imperial career by first conquering and annexing an independent non-Russian state, the Khanate of Kazan... Rus' embarked on more than three centuries of conquest and expansion that would lead to the creation of the largest and most diverse empire in the world.” And many other historians view the capture of Kazan as a manifestation of the imperial ambitions of the Russians, seizing new territories and enslaving peoples.
But if you look closely at the facts, it turns out that the battle for Kazan was not between Russian invaders and free, peace-loving people, but between the troops of Ivan the Terrible and the army brought from Astrakhan by the “Krymchak” Ediger. But even if we consider Ediger’s army to be disinterested and noble defenders of the Kazan Khanate, then what about the arithmetic?
Under the banner of Ivan the Terrible there was 60 thousand Moscow and Kasimov Tatars, and at Ediger in the decisive battle - 10 thousand warriors
The “Kazan Chronicler” describes in detail how Ivan the Terrible placed his military leaders: “In the first regiment, the initial governors set over their strength - the Tatar Crimean prince Taktamysh and the Shiban prince Kudait... In the right hand of the initial governors set: the Kasimov king Shigaley.. In the left hand are the initial commanders: Astorozan prince Kaibula... In the guard regiment are the initial commanders: Prince Derbysh-Aleyo.”
It was the Tatars who were the first to make a breakthrough, into the breach of the Kazan wall, and it was they who were particularly cruel when they took the city. The Russians fully supported them only after they came across several thousand tortured Russian slaves...
On just one day, August 16, 1552, and only at the Khan’s court, 2,700 Russian slaves were freed. With his characteristic cruelty, the utter monster Ivan the Terrible gave an order according to which - “... if anyone is found to have a Christian captive, he will be punished with death,” and he was released 60 thousand slaves.
To go and deal concretely with the scumbags who are really sick of lawlessness - in the language of Western historians this is called “imperial ambitions” and “enslavement of peoples.”
Or maybe it’s better to read what was written in 1564-1565. "History of the Kazan Kingdom"? It describes in detail the last period of the Kazan Khanate and the capture of Kazan by Russian troops. The nameless author of the story spent about 20 years in Tatar captivity and was released in 1552. Agree that the author, who was a slave of the Kazan Tatars for two decades, has some idea about enslavement...
The struggle for Kazan was between Moscow and Crimea, and behind Crimea stood Turkey, and the Janissaries took part in the campaigns of the Crimean Khan. It was a waste of time for the Crimean lads to engage in any productive work, and it was much more fun and profitable to carry out predatory campaigns into neighboring countries to seize booty and prisoners to sell into slavery and receive a ransom.
At this time, a saying developed that a Turk only speaks Turkish with his father and boss. He speaks to the mullah in Arabic, to his mother in Polish, to his grandmother in Ukrainian...
From the 15th to the 18th centuries inclusive, they were taken into Turkish captivity from Great and Little Rus' up to five million people. These are only those who crossed the Perekop Isthmus. And how many were killed, how many died on the road... The Krymchaks did not take adult men, they did not take old people and small children who would not have survived the long journey. “They didn’t take it” is a euphemism used by historians. Everyone who was not hijacked just cutting...
Five million! Yes, the entire population of Rus' during the time of Ivan the Terrible - approximately that much! All the servants of Constantinople, both among the Turks and local Christians, consisted of Russian slaves and slaves. Venice and France used Russian slaves on military galleys as oarsmen forever chained. They were bought in the markets of the Levant...
The Tatars appeared with raids under the walls of the White Stone capital so regularly that even now in Moscow two old streets in Zamoskvorechye are called Ordynki. Along them, the Crimean lads walked to the crossings across the Moscow River and to the Crimean Ford (now the Crimean Bridge here reminds of the bloody past). The steppe raised the question of a life-and-death struggle before the Russian people.
In 1571, the traitorous prince Miloslavsky sent his people to show the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey how to bypass the abatis line from the west, and the Tatars broke through to Moscow itself, took the city, plundered and burned (only the Kremlin survived), and, taking a huge number of prisoners, left for the Crimea. It seemed to the Crimeans that Russia was over.
Moscow burned to the ground, there were so many dead that it was impossible to bury them. The corpses were simply dumped into the river and pushed away from the banks with sticks so that they floated downstream, along the Volga, past Kazan and Astrakhan, into the Caspian Sea...
But it turned out that this was the last time the Crimeans burned Moscow. In 1572, the Horde again went to Rus', the Astrakhan and Kazan Tatars rebelled. Rus', weakened by a 20-year war, famine, plague and a terrible Tatar raid, was able to field only a 30,000-strong army against the 120,000-strong army of Devlet-Girey. But the reforms of Ivan the Terrible yielded results - the first regular army in Rus' completely defeated a superior enemy fifty miles from Moscow (Battle of Molodi). The Krymchaks have never suffered such a bloody defeat. For twenty years they did not dare to appear on the Oka...
Maybe in spiritual and cultural life Was there stagnation under Grozny?
No, on the contrary, his reign led to many useful innovations: they began to convene regularly Zemsky Sobors; The Council of the Hundred Heads was held, the Chetya-Minea of Metropolitan Macarius was created - the first spiritual, literary and historical encyclopedia in Rus', 19 huge volumes with a total number of pages 13,258, “Domostroy” by Seliverst.
And here we must especially note one very important facet of Ivan Vasilyevich’s personality - his literary talent. Ivan the Terrible was one of the most talented writers of that time, perhaps even the most talented in the 16th century, “... in verbal wisdom, a rhetorician, natural and quick-witted,” according to contemporaries. In literature, of course, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was an innovator.
Medieval writing, including Russian, was characterized by a special etiquette, since the class system of that time subjected the whole life to the requirements of etiquette. The man dressed, talked and walked exactly as his position on the social ladder required. Even the number of horses in a team depended not on a fat wallet, but on rank, place in the state hierarchy. And when noblewoman Morozova, accustomed to riding in a cart drawn by six or even twelve horses, accompanied by two or three hundred servants, was taken around Moscow in a simple sleigh drawn by one horse, this in itself was a very cruel punishment.
In the same way, in the literature of that time, everything was subject to strict rules that regulated what words and expressions should be written about one’s own and one’s enemies, about the humble monastic life and the valiant deeds of a warrior. A set of these rules determined where one could speak in “simple” language, and where solemnly and majestically. In the Middle Ages, colloquial and literary languages were very far apart from each other. Turns of living folk speech could only be found in business documents and recordings of testimony during investigations and trials. They were unacceptable for literary speech.
Ivan Vasilyevich was the first to include colloquial and vernacular expressions in his messages. Researchers explain this by saying that Ivan Vasilyevich did not write his messages with his own hand, but dictated them, since writing with his own hand was considered unworthy of a great sovereign. Even the name of the tsar was written on the document by the clerk, and the tsar only applied the seal.
Well, let’s say that this order was observed both before Ivan Vasilyevich and after him, but we don’t see such sparkling, rich language in the messages of other tsars. So the reasons for the uniqueness of Ivan the Terrible’s messages should be sought in the personal qualities of the tsar.
Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich stands out among his contemporaries for his broad erudition. Arguing his assertions, he easily and naturally cites examples not only from the history of ancient Judea as set out in the Bible, but also from the history of Byzantium. He knows perfectly well not only the Old and New Testament, but also the lives of saints, the works of Byzantine theologians. The works of the Bulgarian scientist I. Duychev established that Grozny was free to navigate the history and literature of Byzantium.
One can only be surprised at the kind of memory Ivan Vasilyevich possessed - he clearly cites lengthy excerpts from the Holy Scriptures in his writings by heart. We can say this with confidence because the quotes in Ivan the Terrible’s messages are given very close to the text of the source, but with characteristic discrepancies that arise when reproducing the text from memory. The sworn enemy of Ivan the Terrible, Prince Kurbsky, recognized Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich as a man of “skillful scripture.”
In his messages, Ivan Vasilyevich simply explodes the etiquette of written speech, but stylistically his innovations are certainly justified. It is written in embossed style: “The German cities do not wait for the battle, but by the appearance life-giving cross their heads worship.” And after this we see the grin of the Great Sovereign: “And where, by sin, by chance, the life-giving cross did not appear, here there was a battle. Many people have been released: ask them and find out.”
He also conducts diplomatic correspondence in the same unique style. So he writes indignantly to the Queen of England: “And we expected that you are the empress of your state and own it yourself... Even though you have people ruling over you, and not just people, but trading men, and about ours about the sovereign’s heads and They do not look at fortunes and lands for profit, but look for their own trade profits. And you remain in your maiden rank, like a vulgar girl...”
Let me clarify that the word “vulgar” in the language of that time meant “ordinary”, but, nevertheless, Ivan Vasilyevich treated the queen very well, calling the great queen an ordinary girl, and besides, she was painfully sensitive to hints of her prolonged virginity, about which the king, was undoubtedly known. So, in the development of Russian literature, Ivan Vasilyevich’s merits are undeniable - it was under him, and thanks, to a large extent, to him, that a new genre appeared in Rus' - journalism.
And the construction of St. Basil's Cathedral is, you see, not so much the stacking of stones in a certain order, but a triumph of the spirit; and it was not visiting architects who erected it, but their own men, Barma and Postnik (However, now there is a version that it was one person - Barma Postnik). “There is no doubt that the idea to build this cathedral in the form that exists belonged as much to the art of the builder and architect as to the thoughts of the tsar” (Ivan Zabelin. “History of the City of Moscow.”)
Through the efforts of Ivan the Terrible and his entourage, schools were created: “... In the reigning city of Moscow and throughout the city... elect good spiritual priests and deacons and clerks, married and pious... and be literate and honorable and write a lot. And among those priests and deacons and clerks, set up schools in the houses of the school, so that the priests and deacons and all the Orthodox peasants in each city would give their children to learn to read and write book writing and church petitions... and reading the prayer..." (Stoglav, ch. .26)
In Rus' at that time, every fiftieth person was literate, that is, two percent of the population; Under Catherine the Great, one in eight hundred people was literate. Difference! In addition, we, today, need to clearly understand that in the time of Ivan the Terrible, mastering literacy was very difficult. Ancient writing did not know the breakdown into words; the text came in a continuous array. There was no clear order of transfer, and due to the fact that 15-20 characters were placed on a line of handwritten text, transfer was carried out very often. Very often there was no difference between lowercase and capital letters, and, accordingly, between proper names and common nouns. To speed up writing, many words were written abbreviated, vowels were omitted when writing, and many superscripts were used - titles. In general, handwritten texts of that time were, in fact, more like ciphers, which were very difficult to decipher.
And the titanic barrier to literacy at that time was the writing and reading of sounds. Many of those sounds that we denote with one letter were at that time written with two, three, or even more characters! The sound that we now simply denote as “u” was especially difficult to write. It could be designated in five different ways! In addition to three special symbols, it could be written as the digraph “ou” or “o” with superscript(title). The "e" sound was written in four different ways. The sound "f" could be denoted by "fita" or "fert". And there were still unknown to us, who came from Greek language“psi” and “xi”, and the notorious “yat”...
In general, I personally have not fully mastered this literacy, and I do the same as my ancestors did - they used the services of literates who read books out loud when there was a crowd of people, but I read books that today’s literates rewrote according to the rules of the current grammar . By the way, people learned to read “to themselves” quite recently; as a boy I found times when in a Belarusian village they considered me illiterate because I did not pronounce what I was reading out loud...
Considering that people at that time simply did not know how to read “to themselves,” it is necessary to expand the circle of people who had access to book wisdom - in addition to writers and readers at that time, there were also listeners. “Literate peasants read the Gospel, the lives of saints and other spiritual literature aloud to their families, neighbors, and sometimes at meetings specially assembled for this purpose.” (“Russians. History and ethnography”). And there was something to read and listen to then.
As already mentioned, the beginning of book printing was laid, two printing houses were created. Monasteries and bishops' houses, where there were large libraries, remained centers of book learning. Chronicle writing was given a state character, the “Facebook Vault” appeared, and, finally, a book treasury was collected, now known as "Library of Ivan the Terrible" or "Liberea".
In 1894, at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia had 122 million inhabitants. 20 years later, on the eve of the 1st World War, its population increased by more than 50 million; Thus, in Tsarist Russia the population increased by 2,400,000 per year. If the revolution had not happened in 1917, by 1959 its population would have reached 275,000,000.
Unlike modern democracies, Imperial Russia based its policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of significant accumulation of gold reserves. Despite this, state revenues grew steadily from 1,410,000,000 rubles in 1897, without the slightest increase in the tax burden, while state expenditures remained more or less at the same level.
Over the last 10 years before the First World War, the excess of state revenues over expenses amounted to 2,400,000,000 rubles. This figure seems all the more impressive since during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, railway tariffs were lowered and redemption payments for lands transferred to the peasants from their former landowners in 1861 were abolished, and in 1914, with the outbreak of the war, all types of drinking taxes were abolished.
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia, and the State Bank was authorized to issue 300,000,000 rubles in credit notes not backed by gold reserves. But the government not only never took advantage of this right, but, on the contrary, ensured paper circulation of gold cash by more than 100%, namely: by the end of July 1914, bank notes were in circulation in the amount of 1,633,000,000 rubles, while the gold reserve in Russia it was equal to 1,604,000,000 rubles, and in foreign banks 141,000,000 rubles.
The stability of monetary circulation was such that even during the Russo-Japanese War, which was accompanied by widespread revolutionary unrest within the country, the exchange of banknotes for gold was not suspended.
In Russia, taxes, before the First World War, were the lowest in the whole world.
The burden of direct taxes in Russia was almost four times less than in France, more than 4 times less than in Germany and 8.5 times less than in England. The burden of indirect taxes in Russia was on average half as much as in Austria, France, Germany and England.
The total amount of taxes per capita in Russia was more than half as much as in Austria, France and Germany and more than four times less than in England.
Between 1890 and 1913 Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. Its income not only almost equaled the income received from agriculture, but goods covered almost 4/5 of the domestic demand for manufactured goods.
Over the last four years before the First World War, the number of newly founded joint-stock companies increased by 132%, and the capital invested in them almost quadrupled.
In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits worth 2,236,000,000 rubles.
The amount of deposits and equity capital in small credit institutions (on a cooperative basis) was about 70,000,000 rubles in 1894; in 1913 - about 620,000,000 rubles (an increase of 800%), and by January 1, 1917 - 1,200,000,000 rubles.
On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. During the two decades preceding the 1914-18 war, the grain harvest doubled. In 1913, the harvest of major cereals in Russia was 1/3 higher than that of Argentina, Canada and the United States. States combined.
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main breadwinner of Western Europe.
Russia supplied 50% of the world's egg imports.
During the same period of time, sugar consumption per inhabitant increased from 4 to 9 kg. in year.
On the eve of World War I, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.
Thanks to extensive irrigation work in Turkestan, undertaken during the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the cotton harvest in 1913 covered all the annual needs of the Russian textile industry. The latter doubled its production between 1894 and 1911.
The railway network in Russia covered 74,000 versts (one verst equals 1,067 km), of which the Great Siberian Road (8,000 versts) was the longest in the world.
In 1916, i.e. at the height of the war, more than 2,000 miles of railways were built, which connected the Arctic Ocean (port of Romanovsk) with the center of Russia.
In Tsarist Russia in the period from 1880 to 1917, i.e. in 37 years, 58,251 km were built. For 38 years of Soviet power, i.e. by the end of 1956, only 36,250 km had been built. expensive
On the eve of the war of 1914-18. the net income of the state railways covered 83% of the annual interest and amortization of the public debt. In other words, the payment of debts, both internal and external, was ensured in a proportion of more than 4/5 by the income alone that the Russian state received from the operation of its railways.
It should be added that Russian railways, compared to others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.
Industrial development in the Russian Empire was naturally accompanied by a significant increase in the number of factory workers, whose economic well-being, as well as the protection of their lives and health, were the subject of special concerns of the Imperial Government.
It should be noted that it was in Imperial Russia, and moreover in the 18th century, during the reign of Empress Catherine II (1762-1796), for the first time in the whole world, laws were issued regarding working conditions: the work of women and children in factories was prohibited a 10-hour working day was established, etc. It is characteristic that the code of Empress Catherine, which regulated child and female labor, printed in French and Latin, was prohibited from publication in France and England as “seditious.”
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, before the convening of the 1st State Duma, special laws were issued to ensure the safety of workers in the mining industry, on railways and in enterprises that were especially dangerous to the life and health of workers.
Child labor under 12 years of age was prohibited, and minors and females could not be hired for factory work between 9 pm and 5 am.
The amount of penalty deductions could not exceed one third of wages, and each fine had to be approved by a factory inspector. The fine money went into a special fund intended to meet the needs of the workers themselves.
In 1882, a special law regulated the work of children from 12 to 15 years old. In 1903, worker elders were introduced, elected by factory workers of the relevant workshops. The existence of workers' unions was recognized by law in 1906.
At that time, Imperial social legislation was undoubtedly the most progressive in the world. This forced Taft, then President of the Union. States, two years before the 1st World War, publicly declare, in the presence of several Russian dignitaries: “Your Emperor created such perfect labor legislation that no democratic state can boast of.”
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education achieved extraordinary development. In less than 20 years, loans allocated to the Ministry of Public Education, from 25.2 mil. rubles increased to 161.2 million. This did not include the budgets of schools that received their loans from other sources (military, technical schools), or those maintained by local self-government bodies (zemstvos, cities), whose loans for public education increased from 70,000,000 rubles. in 1894 up to 300,000,000 rubles. in 1913
At the beginning of 1913, the total budget for public education in Russia reached a colossal figure for that time, namely 1/2 billion rubles in gold.
Initial training was free by law, and from 1908 it became compulsory. Since this year, about 10,000 schools have been opened annually. In 1913 their number exceeded 130,000.
In the 20th century, Russia ranked first in Europe, if not in the whole world, in terms of the number of women studying in higher educational institutions.
The reign of Nicholas II was a period of the highest rates of economic growth in Russian history. For 1880-1910 The growth rate of Russian industrial output exceeded 9% per year. According to this indicator, Russia has taken first place in the world, ahead of even the rapidly developing United States of America (although it should be noted that on this issue different economists give different estimates, some put the Russian Empire in first place, others - the United States, but the fact that the pace growth were comparable - an indisputable fact). Russia has taken first place in the world in the production of the main agricultural crops, growing more than half of the world's rye, more than a quarter of wheat, oats and barley, and more than a third of potatoes. Russia has become the main exporter of agricultural products, the first “granary of Europe”. Its share accounted for 2/5 of all world exports of peasant products.
Successes in agricultural production were the result of historical events: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 by Alexander II and the Stolypin land reform during the reign of Nicholas II, as a result of which more than 80% of arable land ended up in the hands of peasants, and almost all of it in the Asian part. The area of landowners' lands was steadily declining. Granting peasants the right to freely dispose of their land and the abolition of communities had enormous national significance, the benefits of which, first of all, the peasants themselves were aware of.
The autocratic form of government did not impede Russia's economic progress. According to the manifesto of October 17, 1905, the population of Russia received the right to personal integrity, freedom of speech, press, assembly, and unions. Political parties grew in the country, and thousands of periodicals were published. The Parliament - the State Duma - was elected by free will. Russia was becoming a rule of law state - the judiciary was practically separated from the executive.
The rapid development of the level of industrial and agricultural production and a positive trade balance allowed Russia to have a stable gold convertible currency. The Emperor attached great importance to the development of railways. Even in his youth, he participated in the laying of the famous Siberian road.
During the reign of Nicholas II, the best labor legislation for those times was created in Russia, providing for the regulation of working hours, the choice of worker elders, remuneration for accidents at work, compulsory insurance of workers against illness, disability and old age. The Emperor actively promoted the development of Russian culture, art, science, and reforms of the army and navy.
All these achievements of the economic and social development of Russia are the result of the natural historical process of development of Russia and are objectively related to the 300th anniversary of the reign of the House of Romanov.
The French economist Théry wrote: “Not a single European nation has achieved such results.”
The myth is that workers lived very poorly.
article 2014
since prices have doubled since then, the salary can be safely multiplied by 2
1. Workers. The average worker's salary in Russia was 37.5 rubles. Let's multiply this amount by 1282.29 (the ratio of the exchange rate of the Tsar's ruble to the modern one) and get an amount of 48,085 thousand rubles in modern terms.
2. Janitor 18 rubles or 23081 rubles. with modern money
3. Second lieutenant (modern equivalent - lieutenant) 70 rub. or 89,760 rub. with modern money
4. Policeman (ordinary police officer) 20.5 rubles. or 26,287 rub. with modern money
5. Workers (St. Petersburg). It is interesting that the average salary in St. Petersburg was lower and by 1914 amounted to 22 rubles 53 kopecks. Let's multiply this amount by 1282.29 and get 28890 Russian rubles.
6. Cook 5 - 8 r. or 6.5-10 thousand in modern money
7. Primary school teacher 25 rub. or 32050 rub. with modern money
8. Gymnasium teacher 85 rub. or 108970 rub. with modern money
9. Senior janitor 40 rub. or 51,297 rub. with modern money
10. District warden (modern analogue - local police officer) 50 rub. or 64,115 in modern money
11. Paramedic 40 rub. or 51280 rub.
12. Colonel 325 rub. or 416,744 rub. with modern money
13. Collegiate assessor (middle class official) 62 rub. or 79,502 rub. with modern money
14. Privy Councilor (high-class official) 500 or 641,145 in modern money. An army general received the same amount
How much, you ask, did the products cost back then? A pound of meat in 1914 cost 19 kopecks. The Russian pound weighed 0.40951241 grams. This means that a kilogram, if it were then a measure of weight, would cost 46.39 kopecks - 0.359 grams of gold, that is, in today's money, 551 rubles 14 kopecks. Thus, a worker could buy 48.6 kilograms of meat with his salary, if, of course, he wanted.
Wheat flour 0.08 rub. (8 kopecks) = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Rice pound 0.12 rubles = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Biscuit RUR 0.60 = 1 lb (0.4 kg)
Milk 0.08 rubles = 1 bottle
Tomatoes 0.22 rub. = 1 pound
Fish (pike perch) 0.25 rub. = 1 pound
Grapes (raisins) 0.16 rubles = 1 pound
Apples 0.03 rub. = 1 pound
A very worthy life!!!
Now let's see how much it cost to rent a house. Renting housing cost 25 in St. Petersburg, and 20 kopecks per square arshin per month in Moscow and Kyiv. These 20 kopecks today amount to 256 rubles, and a square arshin is 0.5058 m². That is, the monthly rent of one square meter cost in 1914 506 today's rubles. Our clerk would rent an apartment of one hundred square arshins in St. Petersburg for 25 rubles a month. But he did not rent such an apartment, but was content with a basement and attic closet, where the area was smaller and the rental rate was lower. Such an apartment was rented, as a rule, by titular advisers who received a salary at the level of an army captain. The bare salary of a titular adviser was 105 rubles per month (134 thousand 640 rubles) per month. Thus, a 50-meter apartment cost him less than a quarter of his salary.
So many wonderful books have been written about the holy Passion-Bearer Tsar Nicholas II, which leave no stone unturned from the false testimonies of Marxists. But these indignant voices, even after canonization Royal family, continue to sound, the choir does not stop.
They say that a drop wears away a stone. I would like to contribute at least a little bit to this matter of restoring justice in connection with the memory of the Passion-Bearing Tsar. First of all, we need this. What will be written below can be described as my personal impressions, notes in the margins in the context of everything I have read and heard on this topic from researchers and memoirists. I present them in the hope of casting at least a drop of doubt into the peremptory attitude of those who, I am sure, for now, only for the time being, remain against it.
The discrediting of the tsar as a symbol of sacred statehood after his assassination proceeded through the fabrication of various myths that were introduced into the mass consciousness. I admit that I was once in the grip of these myths, and therefore I offer some of the facts and arguments I found that changed my position. This was facilitated by my communication with a brilliant specialist in the history of that period, S. F. Kolosovskaya, to whom I am sincerely grateful.
The most common myths, which I would like to refute at least to some extent, basically boil down to the following.
The myth that under the Tsar Russia was a backward country
Under Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented period of material prosperity. On the eve of the First World War its economy was thriving and from 1894 to 1914 grew at the fastest rate in the world.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the growth of the Russian national economy led to an increase in social wealth and well-being of the population.
During 1894-1914, the country's state budget increased by 5.5 times, and its gold reserves by 3.7 times. The Russian currency was one of the strongest in the world.
At the same time, government revenues grew without the slightest increase in the tax burden. Direct taxes in Russia were 4 times less than in France and Germany, and 8.5 times less than in England; indirect taxes are on average half as much as in Austria, Germany and England.
The increase in grain yield was 78%. The grain exported by Russia fed the whole of Europe. Coal production increased by 325%, copper - by 375%, iron ore - by 250%, oil - by 65%. The growth of railways was 103%, the merchant fleet - 39%.
The overall growth of the Russian economy, even during the difficult years of the First World War, was 21.5%.
Many domestic economists and politicians argued that maintaining the development trends that existed in 1900-1914 would inevitably, within 20-30 years, lead Russia to the place of a world leader, give it the opportunity to dominate Europe, and exceed the economic potential of all European powers combined.
French economist Théry wrote: “None of the European nations has achieved such results” .
Edinburgh University professor Charles Sarolea wrote in his work “The Truth about Tsarism”:
“One of the most frequent attacks against the Russian Monarchy was the assertion that it was reactionary and obscurantist, that it was an enemy of enlightenment and progress. In fact, it was, in all likelihood, the most progressive government in Europe... It is easy to refute the opinion that the Russian people rejected Tsarism and that the revolution found Russia in a state of decline, collapse and exhaustion... Having visited Russia in 1909, I expected to find traces of suffering everywhere after the Japanese War and the Troubles of 1905. Instead, I noticed a miraculous restoration, a gigantic land reform... a rapidly growing industry, an influx of capital into the country, etc.... Why did the catastrophe happen?.. Why did the Russian Monarchy fall almost without a fight?.. It did not fall because it had outlived its usefulness century She fell for purely random reasons..."
The myth that Nicholas II was a tyrant who destroyed the Russian people
The most important indicator of the effectiveness and morality of government and the well-being of the people is population growth. From 1897 to 1914, that is, in just 17 years, it amounted to a fantastic figure for us - 50.5 million people.
A very competent demographic and migration policy was carried out. Stolypin wrote about the tasks in this area: “So, our main task is to strengthen the lower classes. The whole strength of the country lies in them... The state will have health and strong roots, believe me, and the words of the Russian government will sound completely differently before Europe and before the whole world... Give the state 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today’s Russia!” “Our remote, harsh outskirts are at the same time rich... in vast expanses of land... If there is a densely populated state neighboring us, this outskirts will not remain deserted. A stranger will seep into it if a Russian doesn’t come there first... If we continue to sleep in a lethargic sleep, then this region will be saturated with foreign juices, and when we wake up, maybe it will turn out to be Russian only in name..."
In the post-perestroika years, we lost and continue to lose on average about 1 million per year in deaths, plus abortions and murdered children. According to 2005 data, their number was 1,611,000. As a result, losses reach more than two million per year.
Another important indicator is the number of suicides. So then it was equal to 2.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. And now we have 40. Between 1995 and 2003, 500,000 people died as a result of suicide. Moreover, according to statistics, only one attempt out of 20 ends in death. Therefore, including these “incomplete” suicide attempts, we get a figure 20 times larger, that is, 10 million.
The myth that workers lived very poorly
In 1913, a worker in Russia earned 20 gold rubles a month.
At the same time, bread cost 3-5 kopecks. A kilogram of beef – 30 kopecks. A kilogram of potatoes is 1.5 kopecks.
Wherein income tax was one ruble per year and was the lowest in the world.
Hence the opportunity to support a large family.
The contrast here is the characterization of the policies of the Russian leader, pleasing to the West, about whom Edward Pearce wrote in the article “In praise of Putin”, published in The Guardian: “Has there ever been a more contemptible figure than Boris Yeltsin? Always drunk and unable to lead the country, he allowed a pack of corrupt crooks to plunder the nation's wealth. He approved the abolition of food price subsidies, which meant that simple people fell into poverty overnight. Speaking of pride and feeling self-esteem Russia, it turns out that Yeltsin served as a collaborator, a policeman who enriched himself and found solace in alcohol... People picked up food from a landfill, but Boris Yeltsin was a Westerner, an excellent example, a clear example of the triumph of the West.”
The myth that Russia was a dark country
From 1894 to 1914, the public education budget increased by 628%. The number of schools increased: higher – by 180%, secondary – by 227%, girls’ gymnasiums – by 420%, public schools – by 96%.
I. Ilyin in his work “On Russian Culture” writes that Russia was on the threshold of implementing universal public education with a network of schools within a radius of one kilometer.
In Russia, 10,000 schools were opened annually.
The Russian Empire was a reading country. During the reign of Nicholas II, more newspapers and magazines were published in Russia than in the USSR in 1988.
Russia was also experiencing a flourishing cultural life.
The myth of Rasputin
The sovereign’s close adjutant, Colonel A. Mordvinov, in his “Memoirs” (“Russian Chronicle” for 1923, vol. V) completely denies the influence of the Empress and anyone else on the sovereign’s decisions and gives convincing examples.
He also reveals the truth of the famous legend about Rasputin.
Mordvinov writes: “The Emperor was dissatisfied with some statesmen not because they did not sympathize with Rasputin, but because they allowed themselves to believe and spread this belief in some special power of Rasputin in state affairs. In the eyes of His Majesty, the mere possibility of such an assumption was insulting, degrading to his dignity.”
Mordvinov, who had been constantly visiting the palace since 1912 and always traveled with the Tsar during the war, had never seen Rasputin in five years, never heard of him in the family with whom he was very close.
Gilliard, the Tsarevich’s tutor, who lived at the Court, as well as life physician Botkin (who died in Yekaterinburg with his family), who visited the palace every day, testify that over the course of several years they saw Rasputin in the palace only once, and both associated Rasputin’s visit with ill health of the heir.
General Resin, without whom not a single soul could enter the palace, never saw Rasputin for seven months.
Alexander Eliseev in his article “Nicholas II as a strong-willed politician in troubled times” notes that even the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government was forced to admit that Rasputin did not have any influence on the state life of the country. This is despite the fact that it included experienced liberal lawyers who were sharply opposed to the Sovereign, the dynasty and the monarchy as such.
The Myth of the Tsar's Weakness of Character
French President Loubet said: “People usually see Emperor Nicholas II as a kind, generous, but weak man. This is a deep mistake. He always has long-thought-out plans, the implementation of which he slowly achieves. Beneath his apparent timidity, the king has a strong soul and a courageous heart, unshakably loyal. He knows where he's going and what he wants."
Tsar's service required strength of character, which Nicholas II possessed. During the Holy Coronation to the Russian Throne on May 27, 1895, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow in his address to the Sovereign said: “Just as there is no higher, so there is no more difficult on earth royal power, there is no burden heavier than royal service. Through visible anointing may invisible power from above be given to you, acting to exalt your royal virtues..."
A number of arguments refuting this myth are presented in the above-mentioned work by A. Eliseev.
Thus, in particular, S. Oldenburg wrote that the Tsar had an iron hand; many are only deceived by the velvet glove he wore.
The presence of a strong will in Nicholas II is brilliantly confirmed by the events of August 1915, when he assumed the responsibilities of Supreme Commander-in-Chief - against the wishes of the military elite, the Council of Ministers and all “public opinion”. And, I must say, he coped with these responsibilities brilliantly.
In general, the Emperor was a real warrior - both by “profession” and by spirit. He was raised as a warrior. Archpriest V. Asmus notes: “ Alexander III I raised my children very strictly; let’s say, no more than 15 minutes were allotted for meals. Children had to sit down at the table and get up from the table with their parents, and the children often remained hungry if they did not fit into these frameworks that were so strict for children.
We can say that Nicholas II received a real military upbringing and a real military education, Nicholas II felt like a military man all his life, this affected his psychology and many things in his life.”
Being the Heir to the Throne, Nikolai Alexandrovich studied military affairs with great enthusiasm. This is evidenced by his carefully compiled notes on military topography, tactics, artillery, navigational instruments, military criminal law, and strategy. The records on fortification, complete with drawings and drawings, are very impressive.
Practical training was not neglected either. Alexander III sent his heir to military training. For two years, Nikolai Alexandrovich served in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, where he served as a subaltern officer, and then as a company commander. For two whole seasons he served as a platoon commander in a hussar regiment, then was a squadron commander. The Heir spent one camp season in the ranks of the artillery.
The Emperor did a lot to improve the country's defense capability, having learned the hard lessons of the Russo-Japanese War. Perhaps his most significant act was the revival of the Russian fleet, which saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. It happened against the will of military officials. The Emperor was even forced to dismiss Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich. Military historian G. Nekrasov writes: “It must be noted that, despite its overwhelming superiority in forces in the Baltic Sea, the German fleet made no attempts to break into the Gulf of Finland in order to bring Russia to its knees with one blow. Theoretically, this was possible, since most of Russia's military industry was concentrated in St. Petersburg. But in the way of the German fleet stood the Baltic Fleet, ready to fight, with ready-made mine positions. The cost of a breakthrough for the German fleet was becoming unacceptably expensive. Thus, just by the fact that he achieved the reconstruction of the fleet, Emperor Nicholas II saved Russia from imminent defeat. This should not be forgotten!”
We especially note that the Emperor made absolutely all the important decisions contributing to victorious actions himself - without the influence of any “good geniuses”. The opinion that the Russian army was led by Alekseev, and the Tsar was in the post of Commander-in-Chief for the sake of formality, is completely unfounded. This false opinion is refuted by Alekseev’s own telegrams. For example, in one of them, in response to a request to send ammunition and weapons, Alekseev replies: “I cannot resolve this issue without the Highest permission.”
The communist publicist M. Koltsov writes the following about the behavior of the Sovereign during the days of the February Troubles: “...The courtiers are completely in vain in portraying their leader in the last minutes of his reign as a sad cretin, a non-resistance who resignedly surrendered his regime at the first demand of the revolution.” Koltsov describes how the Emperor stubbornly resisted all the demands of the army conspirators (Alekseev, Ruzsky, etc.) to create a responsible ministry (that is, in essence, to transform the autocracy into a constitutional monarchy). His resistance was so strong that even Alexandra Feodorovna exclaimed in a letter: “You are alone, without an army behind you, caught like a mouse in a trap - what can you do?!” And the Tsar did everything he could - he even sent an expeditionary force to Petrograd led by General N.I. Ivanov. He fought the revolution alone (for the conspirators cut him off from communication with the outside world, from the loyal parts). And on this occasion Koltsov asks: “Where is the rag? Where is the weak-willed nonentity? In the frightened crowd of defenders of the throne, we see only one person true to himself - Nicholas himself.”
“The Sovereign Emperor did everything in his power. He managed to suppress the terrible revolution of 1905 and delay the triumph of the “demons” for 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Already a prisoner of the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve the Brest Peace Treaty and thereby save his life. He lived with dignity and accepted death with dignity.”
The myth that Russia was a prison of nations
Russia was a family of peoples thanks to the balanced and thoughtful policies of the Sovereign. The Russian Tsar-Father was considered the monarch of all peoples and tribes living on the territory of the Russian Empire.
He pursued a national policy based on respect for traditional religions - the historical subjects of state building in Russia. And this is not only Orthodoxy, but also Islam. So, in particular, the mullahs were supported by the Russian Empire and received a salary. Many Muslims fought for Russia.
The Russian Tsar honored the feat of all peoples who served the Fatherland. Here is the text of the telegram, which serves as clear confirmation of this:
TELEGRAM
The Ingush regiment fell on the German iron division like a mountain avalanche. He was immediately supported by the Chechen regiment.
In the history of the Russian Fatherland, including our Preobrazhensky Regiment, there was no case of a cavalry attack on an enemy heavy artillery unit.
4.5 thousand killed, 3.5 thousand captured, 2.5 thousand wounded. In less than 1.5 hours, the iron division, which the best military units of our allies, including those in the Russian army, were afraid to come into contact with, ceased to exist.
Convey on my behalf, on behalf of the royal court and on behalf of the Russian army fraternal heartfelt greetings to the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and brides of these brave eagles of the Caucasus, who with their immortal feat marked the beginning of the end of the German hordes.
Russia will never forget this feat. Honor and praise to them!
With fraternal greetings, Nicholas II.
In general, holy monarchy as a form government system had a great advantage in national issues over what K. Pobedonostsev calls “the evil of parliamentary rule.” He points out that the elections do not select the best, but only “the most ambitious and impudent.” In his opinion, the electoral struggle in multi-tribal states is especially dangerous. Pointing out the advantages of the monarchical system for Russia, he writes: “An unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not by force alone, but by equalizing rights and relations under one authority. But democracy cannot cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corrosive element for it: each tribe sends out representatives from its area - not of the state and people's ideas, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation, tribal hatred ... "
The very title of the Russian Tsar reflects the saving gathering of lands and peoples behind the state Orthodox fence: “Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod; Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauride Chersonis, Tsar of Georgia and so on, so on, so on.”
If we talk about prisons in literally words, the crime rate was so low that in 1913 there were fewer than 33,000 prisoners in prisons throughout the Russian Empire.
Now, on a territory much smaller than the Russian Empire, this figure exceeds 1.5 million people.
The myth that Russia under the Tsar was defeated in the First World War
S.S. Oldenburg, in his book “The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II,” wrote: “The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that, under incredibly difficult conditions, he brought Russia to the threshold of victory: his opponents did not allow her to cross this threshold.”
General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “...It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into the Poltava victors.
The last Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half. But his work was appreciated by his enemies, and between the Sovereign and his Army and victory “there was a revolution.”
A. Eliseev cites the following facts. The Sovereign's military talents were fully revealed at the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Already the very first decisions of the new commander-in-chief led to a significant improvement in the situation at the front. Thus, he organized the Vilna-Molodechno operation (September 3 – October 2, 1915). The Emperor managed to stop a major German offensive, as a result of which the city of Borisov was captured. He issued a timely directive ordering an end to panic and retreat. As a result, the onslaught of the 10th German Army was stopped, which was forced to retreat - in some places completely disorderly. The 26th Mogilev Infantry Regiment under Lieutenant Colonel Petrov (a total of 8 officers and 359 bayonets) made its way to the German rear and during a surprise attack captured 16 guns. In total, the Russians managed to capture 2,000 prisoners, 39 guns and 45 machine guns. “But most importantly,” notes historian P.V. Multatuli, “the troops regained confidence in their ability to beat the Germans.”
Russia definitely began to win the war. After the failures of 1915, the triumphant 1916 came - the year of the Brusilov breakthrough. During the fighting on the Southwestern Front, the enemy lost one and a half million people killed, wounded and captured. Austria-Hungary was on the verge of defeat.
It was the Emperor who supported Brusilov’s offensive plan, with which many military leaders did not agree. Thus, the plan of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief M.V. Alekseev provided for a powerful strike on the enemy by forces of all fronts, with the exception of the Brusilov Front.
The latter believed that his front was also quite capable of an offensive, with which other front commanders disagreed. However, Nicholas II decisively supported Brusilov, and without this support the famous breakthrough would simply have been impossible.
Historian A. Zayonchkovsky wrote that the Russian army achieved “in terms of its numbers and technical supply with everything necessary, the greatest development in the entire war.” More than two hundred combat-ready divisions confronted the enemy. Russia was preparing to crush the enemy. In January 1917, the Russian 12th Army launched an offensive from the Riga bridgehead and took the German 10th Army by surprise, which found itself in a catastrophic situation.
The chief of staff of the German army, General Ludendorff, who cannot be suspected of sympathizing with Nicholas II, wrote about the situation in Germany in 1916 and about the increase in the military power of Russia:
“Russia is expanding its military formations. The reorganization she has undertaken gives a great increase in strength. In its divisions it left only 12 battalions, and in its batteries only 6 guns, and from the battalions and guns liberated in this way it formed new combat units.
The battles of 1916 on the Eastern Front showed an increase in Russian military equipment and an increase in the number of firearms supplies. Russia has moved some of its factories to the Donetsk basin, greatly increasing their productivity.
We understood that the numerical and technical superiority of the Russians in 1917 would be felt even more acutely than in 1916.
Our situation was extremely difficult and there was almost no way out of it. There was no point in thinking about our own offensive - all reserves were needed for defense. Our defeat seemed inevitable... food supply was difficult. The rear was also seriously damaged.
The prospects for the future were extremely bleak."
Moreover, as Oldenburg writes, on the initiative of Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, in the summer of 1916, a commission was established to prepare a future peace conference in order to determine in advance what Russia’s wishes would be. Russia was to receive Constantinople and the straits, as well as Turkish Armenia.
Poland was to be reunited in a personal union with Russia. The Emperor declared (at the end of December) gr. Wielepolsky that he thinks of a free Poland as a state with a separate constitution, separate chambers and its own army (apparently, he meant something like the situation of the Kingdom of Poland under Alexander I).
Eastern Galicia, Northern Bukovina and Carpathian Rus' were to be included in Russia. The creation of a Czechoslovak kingdom was planned; regiments of captured Czechs and Slovaks were already being formed on Russian territory.
B. Brasol “The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in figures and facts”
to be continued...
Loading...