Popular movement led by S. Razin
5. The uprising led by Stepan Razin
The culmination of popular performances in the XVII century. there was an uprising of Cossacks and peasants led by S. T. Razin. This movement originated in the villages of the Don Cossacks. The Don freemen have always attracted fugitives from the southern and central regions of the Russian state. Here they were protected by an unwritten law - "there is no extradition from the Don." The government, needing the services of the Cossacks for the defense of the southern borders, paid them a salary and put up with the self-government that existed there.
Stepan Timofeevich Razin, a native of the village of Zimoveyskaya, belonged to the homely Cossacks, enjoyed great prestige. In 1667 he led a detachment of a thousand people, who went on a campaign "for zipuns" to the Volga, and then to the river. Yaik, where the Yaitsky town was occupied with a fight. In the summer of 1668 already almost 2,000 Razin's army successfully operated in the possessions of Persia (Iran) on the Caspian coast. The captured valuables were exchanged by the Razintsy for Russian prisoners who replenished their ranks. In the summer of 1669 the Cossacks defeated the fleet near Pig Island, equipped against them by the Persian Shah. This greatly complicated Russian-Iranian relations and aggravated the government's position towards the Cossacks.
In early October, Razin returned to the Don via Astrakhan, where he was greeted with triumph. Inspired by good luck, he began to prepare a new campaign, this time "for the good king" against the "traitor-boyars". The next campaign of the Cossacks along the Volga to the north resulted in peasant unrest. The Cossacks remained the military core, and with the influx into the detachment of a huge number of fugitive peasants, the peoples of the Volga region - Mordovians, Tatars, Chuvashs - the social orientation of the movement changed dramatically. May 1670. The 7,000-strong detachment of S. T. Razin captured the city of Tsaritsyn, at the same time, detachments of archers sent from Moscow and Astrakhan were defeated. Having approved the Cossack administration in Tsaritsyn and Astrakhan, Razin moved north - Saratov and Samara voluntarily went over to his side. Razin turned to the population of the Volga region with "charming letters", in which he called for joining the uprising and harassing "traitors", that is, boyars, nobles, governors, and orderly people. The uprising covered a vast territory, on which numerous detachments were operating, led by atamans M. Osipov, M. Kharitonov, V. Fedorov, nun Alena, and others.
In September 1670 Razin's army approached Simbirsk, and stubbornly besieged it for a month. The frightened government announced mobilization - in August 1670. The 60,000th tsarist army went to the Middle Volga region. In early October, a government detachment under the command of Yu. Baryatinsky defeated the main forces of Razin and joined the Simbirsk garrison under the command of the governor, Prince I. Miloslavsky. Razin with a small detachment went to the Don, where he hoped to recruit a new army, but was betrayed by the top of the Cossacks and handed over to the government. June 4, 1671 he was taken to Moscow and executed on Red Square two days later. In November 1671 fell Astrakhan - the last stronghold of the rebels. Participants in the uprising were subjected to severe repression. In Arzamas alone, over 11,000 people were executed.
6. Reunification of Ukraine with Russia
In the 17th century Ukrainian lands were under the rule of the Commonwealth. According to the Union of Lublin in 1569, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which included Ukrainian lands, united with Poland. After the union, Polish magnates and gentry began to settle on Ukrainian lands. Feudal oppression intensified in Ukraine. Ukrainian peasants and urban artisans were ruined by growing taxes and duties. The regime of severe oppression in Ukraine was also aggravated by the fact that back in 1557 the pans received from the royal power the right to the death penalty in relation to their serfs. Along with the strengthening of feudal oppression, the population of Ukraine experienced national and religious oppression.
The strengthening of feudal, national and religious oppression in Ukraine by the Commonwealth was the reason for the rise of the national liberation movement. Its first wave came in the 20-30s. XVII century, but was brutally suppressed by the Polish pans. A new stage of the national liberation movement took place in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Its center was the Zaporizhzhya Sich, where the free Cossacks were formed. The struggle of the Ukrainian people was led by the outstanding statesman and commander Bogdan Khmelnytsky. His will, mind, courage, military talent, devotion to Ukraine, created for him a huge authority in the broad strata of the Ukrainian population and, above all, the Cossacks. The driving forces of the national liberation movement in Ukraine were the peasantry, the Cossacks, the philistines (city dwellers), the small and medium Ukrainian gentry.
The uprising in Ukraine began in the spring of 1648. The rebels this year inflicted a defeat on the Poles near Zhovti Vody, Korsun and Pilyavtsy. At the same time, Khmelnytsky turned to Russia with a request to take Ukraine "under the hand of Moscow" and jointly fight against Poland. The government of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich could not satisfy his request. Russia was not ready for war with Poland: popular uprisings raged in the country. Russia, closely following the course of events in Ukraine, provided it with diplomatic, economic and military support.
After the battle near Zbarazh, in the summer of 1649, where the rebels won, Poland and Ukraine began negotiations for peace. On August 8, 1649, the Treaty of Zborowski was signed. According to its terms, Bogdan Khmelnitsky was recognized by the Commonwealth as a hetman, the number of registered Cossacks (who received a salary) was determined at 40 thousand. The Polish government recognized the self-government of the Cossack army, which was assigned to the Kiev, Chernigov and Bratslav provinces. The presence of Polish troops and Jesuits on their territory was prohibited, while Polish feudal lords could return to their possessions in these voivodeships. In Poland, this peace was regarded as a concession to the rebels and caused discontent among the magnates and gentry. Ukrainian peasants met with hostility the return of Polish feudal lords to their possessions. Further continuation of the struggle in Ukraine was inevitable.
Hostilities resumed in the spring of 1650. The decisive battle took place in June 1651. near Berestechko. Bribed by the Poles, an ally of the Ukrainians, Khan Islam-Giray, led away his cavalry, which largely predetermined the defeat of the rebels and the offensive of the troops of the Commonwealth to Ukraine. He was stopped only in September 1651 near Belaya Tserkov, where peace was concluded. His conditions were difficult. The register of Cossacks was reduced to 20 thousand. In the Cossack self-government, only the Kiev province was left. The hetman was deprived of the right to independent external relations. The Polish lords were given full power over the dependent population. The answer to this was new performances in the Dnieper region. In 1652, near Batog, the rebels defeated the Polish army. However, the Commonwealth, having gathered an army of 50 thousand, launched an offensive against Ukraine, whose position was becoming more and more dangerous. In April 1653, Khmelnitsky again turned to Russia with a request to accept Ukraine into its composition.
May 10, 1653 The Zemsky Sobor in Moscow decided to admit Ukraine to Russia. Buturlin's Russian embassy went there. January 8, 1654 The big Rada of Ukraine in Pereyaslavl decided to reunite Ukraine with Russia, which became part of it with broad autonomous rights. In Ukraine, the hetman was elected. Recognized local government, class rights of the nobility and the Cossack officers. Hetman had the right to external relations with all countries except Poland and Turkey. The Cossack registry was set at 60,000.
Conclusion
These features of the class struggle develop and acquire a new quality in the 17th-18th centuries. It was the era of grandiose peasant wars and powerful urban uprisings. Then the regime of oppression and exploitation of the lower classes reached its climax, and the power of the punitive organs of the state rose to an unprecedented height. But it was precisely this period of late feudalism that gave rise to previously unprecedented social cataclysms, enormous in scale and intensity, the fierceness of the struggle, and the pressure on the class enemy. They covered the entire country, from the western borders to Eastern Siberia.
Despite the defeat of countless peasant uprisings, unrest, and wars, their participants advanced the struggle against the exploiters. From century to century, the scale of the mass participation of the lower ranks in direct historical action increased immeasurably. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. for the first time in the history of the class struggle, its participants organize themselves into insurrectionary armies, give battles to government troops, win victories, storm and take cities, besiege the capital of Russia or approach it. The elements of organization and consciousness are growing, the experience of the struggle is enriched, the baton of which is passed from one generation to another.
With all this, the popular uprisings of the period of feudalism remained on the whole spontaneous, poorly organized, and not illuminated by a clear political consciousness. The rebels did not have a clear program for the reorganization of society.
List of used literature
1. V.I. Buganov, "Essays on the history of the class struggle in Russia in the 11th - 18th centuries", - M: Enlightenment, 1986.
2. Pushkarev S.G., "Overview of Russian history", - Stavropol: Caucasian region, 1993.
3. Platonov S.F. "Collected Works on Russian History", Vol. 1, - St. Petersburg, 1993.
4. S. V. Novikova, History of the Fatherland. Student's handbook. M., philological society "Slovo", 1996.
Is in bloom. However, after the death of Ivan IV, in the absence of a strong ruler, the monolith of the state was covered with cracks and then it fell apart. LECTURE 3. XVIII century: PEOPLE AND TIME Troubles: social catastrophe and the time of alternatives So, in the XVI century. Russia has come close in its public organization to the Eastern despotism. The relations of allegiance were established; as in the East: the sole power of the king, ...
The country that led to the "Europeanization" of Russia during the reforms of Peter I. The value system of medieval Russia. Spiritual culture After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow became the center of Orthodoxy. At the beginning of the 16th century, the idea of Moscow as the "third Rome" took shape. This idea was formulated by the abbot of the Pskov Eleazarov Monastery Filofei in his letters to Grand Duke Vasily III. ...
Cotton Clubfoot. It was brutally suppressed, and Khlopok was executed in Moscow. Many historians consider this uprising the first stage of the Peasants' War of the early 17th century. In the neighboring Commonwealth, they were only waiting for a reason to intervene in the internal affairs of a weakened Russia. In 1602, a man appeared on the estate of Prince Adam Vishnevetsky, posing as the son of Ivan IV, Tsarevich Dmitry, who had miraculously survived, ...
And the transformations in other spheres of life, the church reform of the 17th century, were distinguished by inconsistency, ill-conceivedness and led to unexpected and contradictory results. 3. Russia's foreign policy in the 17th century Tasks of foreign policy. By the middle of the 17th century, Russia, having restored the economy, could focus on solving the problems of foreign policy. In the Northwest, the primary concern...
The fleeting Copper Riot was another evidence of the country's crisis state. The pinnacle of his expression was the movement led by the Don Cossack S. T. Razin. Since that time, representatives of the Don Cossacks acted as leaders of large movements.
The Don freemen have long attracted fugitives from the southern and central districts of the Russian state. The government, in need of the services of the Don Cossacks, avoided conflicts with them and put up with the unwritten law: "There is no extradition from the Don", i.e. fugitive peasants were not returned to their owners. The government also put up with the right of the Don Cossacks to have external relations with their closest neighbors - the Crimeans and Kalmyks. The government was forced to put up with the campaigns of the Cossacks for the "zipuns", which complicated Russia's relations with the Crimeans and the Ottoman Empire.
Thus, the Cossacks differed from the peasants both in terms of occupation, and in that they did not bear duties in favor of the landowner and the state, but, on the contrary, received a salary from the latter, and, finally, in that they were soldiers.
In the second half of the XVII century. there were significantly fewer opportunities for a campaign "for zipuns": after the Cossacks left Azov, which they owned for five years (1637-1642), the Ottomans fortified it so much that they practically deprived them of access to the Azov and Black Seas.
Having failed in an attempt to break into the Sea of Azov through the Ottoman barrier in Azov, Razin in May 1667, at the head of a detachment of a thousand people, went to the Volga, where he first attacked caravans of ships, and then in June, passing Astrakhan, went to sea, rose along the river Yaik to the Yaitsky town and took possession of it. After wintering there, the differences, taking artillery with them, moved on plows to the western shores of the Caspian Sea, where they made successful raids on the possessions of the Iranian Shah.
Winter 1668-1669 Razintsy spent on Pig Island near Gilan. Here they defeated the fleet equipped against them by the Iranian Shah, but had to leave the island and keep on their way to their native shores. In August 1669, Razin landed in Astrakhan with the Cossacks.
The appearance of the Razintsy in Astrakhan made an indelible impression on its inhabitants. Razin himself appeared as a successful ataman who arrived with rich booty. Ordinary Cossacks flaunted around the city in velvet, silk clothes, plows were equipped with ropes twisted from silk and silk sails. Razin generously distributed gold coins to the population.
September 4, 1669 Razin went to the Don, where he was greeted with triumph. Here he set about preparing a new campaign, this time not for the zipuns, but against the "traitors of the boyars." The path of a hundred was also to pass along the Volga, but not to the south, but to the north. In the campaign of Razin in 1670, along with the Cossacks, Russian peasants, the peoples of the Volga region participated: Mordvins, Tatars, Chuvashs, etc.
During their stay in Tsaritsyn, the differences won two important victories that raised their prestige: first over the archers sent by the government from Moscow, and then over the archers moving under the command of Prince Semyon Lvov from Astrakhan. Astrakhan archers went over to Razin.
Razin continued to move towards Astrakhan and on June 22 launched an attack. The powerful walls of the Kremlin with 400 cannons placed on them could have been impregnable, but the Astrakhan people opened the gates. Only a small group of initial people, led by the voivode Prince Ivan Prozorovsky, took refuge in the cathedral, resisted, but was killed.
From Astrakhan, a huge army of Razin again arrived in Paritsyn, where it was decided to move up the Volga. Saratov and Samara voluntarily went over to the side of the rebels. Razin addressed the population of the Volga region with "charming letters", in which he called for joining the uprising and "bringing out" the traitors, i.e. boyars, nobles, governor and clerks. On September 4, Razin approached Simbirsk and stubbornly besieged it for almost a month.
The raging drunken crowds of raziptsy led a wild life, accompanied by abundant shedding of blood: they took the lives of governors, service people in the fatherland, clerks, archers' heads, as well as archers who did not want to join the movement. The government troops did not show mercy either - they put to death all those who survived on the battlefield; the same fate befell almost all Razintsy who were captured: they were hanged without trial, chopped with sabers. Mutual cruelty, the manifestation of bestial instincts, abuse of wives and daughters undermined the moral foundations of society, violated the main Christian commandment - do not kill. An example of a ferocious reprisal against the vanquished is the burning of the old woman Alena at the stake.
Razin's campaigns for zipuns, his robbery of the population of the coast of the Caspian Sea, undoubtedly, were of a robbery nature and had nothing to do with social protest. It was the movement of the Cossack freemen. At the next stage, perhaps not very clearly, but still, the social aspect of the movement is traced, although its robbery character has not disappeared: the Razintsy robbed nobles, governors and primary people, merchant and government caravans that followed the Volga, the treasury of monasteries, landowners estates and even peasant households. Robbery caused enormous damage to the economy of the country, the confrontation claimed tens of thousands of human lives.
For the sake of what did all this happen, what goals did the peasants and peoples of the Middle Volga region who participated in the movement pursue? They, of course, had grounds for speeches - serfdom, the power of the landowner and government administration intensified in the country. But the surviving documents do not give a proper answer to the question posed above, just as neither Razin nor his associates answer it.
The frightened government announced the mobilization of the metropolitan and provincial nobility. On August 28, 1670, the tsar admonished 60,000 servicemen around the fatherland, who were on their way to the Middle Volga region.
Meanwhile, military men, led by the voevoda Prince Ivan Miloslavsky, settled in the Simbirsk Kremlin and withstood four assaults by the rebels. On October 3, government troops under the command of Yuri Baryatinsky approached Simbirsk from Kazan and, after the defeat inflicted on Razin, joined forces with Miloslavsky's military men. Razin went to the Don to gather a new army, but was captured by the homely Cossacks and handed over to the government.
The ultimate goal of Razin's campaign was to capture Moscow, where the Razintsy intended to beat the boyars, nobles and boyar children. What's next? Judging by the practical actions, Razin and his associates considered the establishment of the Cossack way of life ideal. But it was a utopia, because who was supposed to cultivate the arable land, provide the Cossacks with grain and cash salaries, who was supposed to compensate for the income received by the Cossacks from campaigns for zipuns? The same peasants. Therefore, Razin's movement could have ended not with a change in social relations, but with a change of faces in the privileged stratum of society, its composition.
The uprising failed. The reason for this was the spontaneity and poor organization of the movement, the lack of clear goals of the struggle. Crowds of poorly armed people could not withstand military-trained government troops.
The movement had a tsarist character - in the eyes of the rebels, the "good" tsar was associated not with the name of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, but with his son Alexei, who had died shortly before. This did not prevent them from having two plows in their flotilla: in one of them, upholstered in red velvet, as if there was Tsarevich Alexei Alekseevich, and in the other, upholstered in black velvet, the former Patriarch Nikon, who was in exile.
On June 4, 1671, Razin was taken to Moscow and two days later he was executed on Red Square. The church anathematized him. The government triumphed. At the same time, the name of the successful ataman Razin turned into a legend - the people's memory preserved many songs and epics about him.
17. Church reforms of the middle of the 17th century and the “case of Nikon”. Church schism and its social content.
Even during the development of the reform, a circle of its most active supporters formed around Nikon. Arseniy Grek, a well-known adventurer in the East, acquired great influence on the cause of the future reform. He received his theological education at the Uniate College of St. Athanasius. Upon arrival in Greece, he was ordained a priest and began to seek the episcopal rank. After a series of failures, Arseniy the Greek agrees to be circumcised and converts to Islam. Having moved to Wallachia, he again goes into Uniatism. When Arseny appeared in Moscow, he was sent to the Solovetsky Monastery as a dangerous heretic. From here, Nikon took him to himself, making him in 1652 the head of the Greek-Latin school and the director of the Printing Yard. It is noteworthy that after Arseny completed the "correction" of the Russian liturgical books, he was again sent to prison in Solovki. Another close associate of Nikon was a Kyiv monk, a graduate of the Jesuit College, Epiphanius Slavinetsky. One of the favorite activities of the "graceful didascal" was the invention of new words. With them he tried to fill both his writings and liturgical books. However, the Eastern Patriarch Athanasius Patelarius acted as the main inspirer of the beginning reform. In his numerous letters, he convinced Nikon that the Russian Church, having become independent and independent from the Greeks, had lost piety. Modern historians have established that Athanasius was a clear protégé of the Vatican. He was dethroned three times from the throne of Constantinople and three times with the help of money and intrigues he regained this post. In the East, Afanachy Patelarius was well known as "a good Catholic, favored by the Propaganda."
Relying on such assistants and inspirers, taking advantage of the royal friendship, Nikon set about the church reform decisively and boldly.
He began by strengthening his own power. While still a simple monk, he could not get along in any monastery. The period of his stay in the Anzersky Skete of the Solovetsky Archipelago is well known. There he was known as a self-willed and rude monk. The rector of the skete, the Monk Eleazar of Anzersk, foresightedly predicted Nikon's future fate: “Oh, what a troublemaker and rebel Russia harbors in itself. This will confuse that limits and fill many shakings and troubles. Angry at the saint, Nikon left Solovki. High conceit and pride had sad consequences for the future patriarch. Lacking developed spiritual gifts, he quickly became a victim of a spiritual illness known in patristic literature as "charm". In one of his letters to the king, he reported that God had given him an invisible golden crown: "I saw the royal golden crown in the air ... From that time on, I began to expect myself to be visited." "Visions" haunted Nikon until the end of his life.
Becoming a patriarch, Nikon believed even more in his exclusivity and hardened. According to contemporaries, Nikon had a cruel and stubborn character, kept himself proud and inaccessible, calling himself, following the example of the Pope, "extreme saint", was titled "great sovereign". From the first days of his archpastoral career, Nikon began to use anathemas, beatings, torture and imprisonment. According to N. Kapterev, "Nikon's actions completely lacked the spirit of true Christian archpastorship." Among other things, the new patriarch was distinguished by greed. In terms of income, Nikon could argue with the autocrat himself. Every year the patriarchal treasury increased by 700,000 rubles. He treated the bishops arrogantly, did not want to call them his brothers, humiliated and persecuted the rest of the clergy in every possible way. Historian V.O. Klyuchevsky called Nikon a church dictator.
The reform undertaken by the patriarch affected all aspects of church life. Its main directions were the "correction" of books, the abolition of ancient forms of worship, liturgical and canonical innovations. The reform began with the so-called "book right". The vast experience accumulated by the Church in publishing and correcting liturgical books was not used in the course of this "right". Thousands of ancient manuscripts collected in Russian and Greek monasteries turned out to be unclaimed. Instead, at the direction of Arseniy Grek, books from the Western, mostly Uniate, press were purchased. One of the main books on the right, the Greek Euchologion of the Venetian edition, is known to many researchers and was kept in the Moscow Synodal Library before the revolution. Feeling what was going on, the Orthodox workers of the Printing House began to slowly disperse. The learned monks Joseph and Savvaty flatly refused to continue their work. Faced with church rejection of their plans, Arseniy Grek and Epiphanius Slavinetsky decided to falsify. In the prefaces of the new books, they reported that the texts were "corrected according to the patterns of the old and charitable Slavic and Greek." The result of the "right" was a real damage to Russian liturgical books. They abounded with insertions from Catholic prayer books, theological errors and grammatical errors. Moreover, the "corrected" editions not only contradicted the ancient books, but also had no agreement among themselves. Professor A. Dmitrievsky, who thoroughly studied the “book right” of Patriarch Nikon, declares: “All these editions are textually very different from each other, and we observe differences between editions not only in a few lines, but sometimes in a page, two or more ".
Other ecclesiastical innovations followed the change in the books. The most notable of these were:
¾ instead of the two-fingered sign of the cross, which was adopted in Russia from the Byzantine Orthodox Church along with Christianity and which is part of the Holy Apostolic tradition, a three-fingered sign of Latin origin was introduced;
¾ in old books, in accordance with the grammar of the Slavic language, the name of the Savior "Jesus" was always written and pronounced; in the new books, this name was changed to the Greek "Jesus";
¾ in old books it is established during baptism, wedding and consecration of the temple to make a walk around the sun as a sign that we are following the Sun-Christ. In the new books, circumambulation against the sun is introduced;
¾ in old books in the Creed (8th member) it reads: “And in the Holy Spirit of the True and Life-Giving Lord”; after corrections, the word "True" was excluded;
¾ instead of pure, i.e. the double alleluia, which the Russian Church has been creating since ancient times, the trilabial (that is, triple) alleluia was introduced;
¾ instead of the monodic znamenny church singing, at the personal request of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, a polyphonic Polish part was introduced.
Three-fourths of Catholics who had poured false baptism began to be accepted into the bosom of the Church without baptism.
Nikon and his assistants boldly encroached on changing the church institutions, customs, and even the apostolic traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted at the Baptism of Russia.
The church reform of Patriarch Nikon undermined the inviolability of Orthodox forms of worship, devalued the hitherto indisputable authority of Christian antiquity, discredited the history of Russian Orthodoxy, opened the way for further church modernization and secularization of religious consciousness. Departing from the solid ground of the Orthodox confession, the dominant church subsequently continued to drift towards Western dogma and ritualism.
The introduction of new rites and worship according to the corrected books was perceived by many as the introduction of a new religious faith, different from the former, "truly Orthodox." A movement of supporters of the old faith arose - a split, the founders of which were provincial zealots of piety. They became the ideologists of this movement, the membership of which was heterogeneous. Among them were many low-income ministers of the church. Speaking for the "old faith", they expressed dissatisfaction with the increased oppression by the church authorities. Most of the supporters of the "old faith" were townspeople and peasants, dissatisfied with the strengthening of the feudal-serf regime and the deterioration of their position, which they associated with innovations, including in the religious and church sphere. Nikon's reform was not accepted by individual secular feudal lords, bishops and monks. Nikon's departure gave rise to the hopes of the adherents of the "old faith" that they would abandon innovations and return to the old church rites and rites. The investigations of the schismatics, carried out by the tsarist authorities, showed that already in the late 50s and early 60s of the 17th century. in some localities this movement has acquired a mass character. At the same time, among the found schismatics, along with supporters of the "old faith", there were many followers of the teachings of the monk Kapiton, that is, people who denied the need for professional clergy and church authorities. Under these conditions, the tsarist authorities became the head of the Orthodox Church in Russia, which after 1658 focused on solving two main tasks - consolidating the results of church reform and overcoming the crisis in church administration caused by Nikon leaving the patriarchal cathedra. The investigations of schismatics, the return from exile of Archpriest Avvakum, Daniil and other clergymen, ideologists of the schism, and the attempts of the government to persuade them to reconcile with the official church (Ivan Neronov reconciled with it back in 1656) were called upon to contribute to this. The solution of these problems dragged on for almost eight years, mainly due to Nikon's opposition.
The church council elected Archimandrite Joasaph of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery as the new patriarch. At the request of the eastern patriarchs, the convened council condemned the old rites and canceled the decision of the Stoglavy Council of 1551 on these rites as unfounded. Believers who adhered to and defended the old rites were condemned as heretics; it was ordered to excommunicate them from the church, and secular authorities - to judge them in a civil court as opponents of the church. The decisions of the council on the old rites contributed to the formalization and consolidation of the split of the Russian Orthodox Church into the official, dominating in society, church and the Old Believers. The latter in those conditions was hostile not only to the official church, but also to the state closely associated with it.
In the 1650s and 1660s, a movement of supporters of the "old faith" and a schism arose in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Entertaining artistic narratives, hysterical essays, including criticism of church orders, were in great demand.
Struggling with the desire for a secular education, the clergy insisted that only through the study of the Holy Scriptures and theological literature, believers can achieve true enlightenment, purification of the soul from sins and spiritual salvation - the main goal of a person's earthly life. They regarded Western influence as a source of penetration into Russia of harmful foreign customs, innovations and views of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism hostile to Orthodoxy. Therefore, they were supporters of the national isolation of Russia and opponents of its rapprochement with Western states.
Patriarch Joachim from 1674 to 1690 was a consistent spokesman and conductor of the policy of hostility and intolerance towards the Old Believers and other church opponents, heterodoxy, foreigners, their faith and customs, to secular knowledge. Opponents of the desire for secular knowledge, rapprochement with the West and the spread of foreign culture and customs were also the leaders of the schism, including Archpriest Avvakum, and those that developed in the last third of the 17th century. Old Believer religious communities.
The tsarist government actively supported the church in the fight against schism and heterodoxy and used the full power of the state apparatus in this. She also initiated new measures aimed at improving the church organization and its further centralization.
The split of the last third of the XVII century. is a complex socio-religious movement. It was attended by supporters of the "old faith" (they made up the majority of the participants in the movement), members of various sects and heretical movements who did not recognize the official church, hostile to it and the state, which is closely associated with this church. The hostility of the schism between the official church and the state was by no means determined by differences of a religious and ritual nature. It was determined by the progressive aspects of the ideology of this movement, its social composition and character. The ideology of the split reflected the aspirations of the peasantry and partly of the township class, and therefore it had both conservative and progressive features. The former include the idealization and defense of antiquity, isolation, and propaganda for the adoption of a martyr's crown in the name of the "old faith" as the only way to save the soul. These ideas left their mark on the schism movement, giving rise to conservative religious aspirations and the practice of "fire baptisms" (self-immolations). The progressive sides of the ideology of the schism include consecration, that is, the religious justification of various forms of resistance to the power of the official church and the feudal serf state, the struggle for the democratization of the church.
The complexity and inconsistency of the schism movement manifested itself in the uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery of 1668-1676, which began as an uprising of supporters of the "old faith". The aristocratic elite of the “elders” opposed Nikon’s church reform, the ordinary mass of monks - moreover, for the democratization of the church, and the “Balti”, that is, novices and monastic workers, opposed feudal oppression, and in particular against feudal orders in the monastery itself.
To suppress the movement, various means were used, including ideological ones, in particular, anti-schismatic polemical writings were published (“Rod of Government” by Simeon of Polotsk in 1667, “Spiritual Covenant” by Patriarch Joachim in 1682, etc.), and in order to increase the "education" of church services, the publication of books containing sermons began (for example, "The Lunch of the Soul" and "The Supper of the Soul" by Simeon of Polotsk).
But the main ones were the violent means of fighting the schism, which, at the request of the church leadership, were used by the secular authorities. A period of repression began with the exile of the ideologues of the schism, who refused to reconcile with the official church at a church council in April 1666; of these, Archpriests Avvakum and Lazar, deacon Fyodor, and the former monk Epiphanius were exiled and kept in the Pustozersk prison. The links were followed by a mass execution of the surviving participants in the Solovetsky uprising (more than 50 people were executed). Patriarch Joachim insisted on such a severe punishment. Cruel punishments, including executions, were practiced more often under Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682). This caused a new performance of the schismatics in the days of the Moscow uprising of 1682. The failure of the "mutiny" of the adherents of the old faith led to the execution of their leaders. The hatred of the ruling class and the official church for schism and schismatics was expressed in legislation. According to the decree of 1684, schismatics were to be tortured and further, if they did not submit to the official church, they were to be executed. Those of the schismatics who, wanting to be saved, submit to the church, and then return to schism again, were to be "executed by death without trial." This marked the beginning of mass persecution.
©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2017-06-11
In the 60-70s. 18th century a wave of anti-feudal uprisings of peasants, Cossacks, ascribed and working people swept across the country. The main reason for the speeches was the growing dissatisfaction of the people with the activities of the supreme power. A series of decrees in the 60s turned the peasants into slaves without rights. The consequence of the process of decomposition of the feudal-serf system of management was an increase in the exploitation of the peasantry: the strengthening of corvée, the growth of monetary quitrents. The duties of the assigned state peasants who worked in factories and manufactories increased, the rights of the Cossacks were infringed.
In August 1773, the Don Cossack Pugachev announced to the leaders of the Yaik Cossacks that he was the surviving Emperor Peter III. On September 17, 1773, he published a manifesto granting the Cossacks lands, meadows, duty-free fishing, money, etc. This date is considered the beginning of the uprising.
At the first stage (September 1773 - March 1774), the Cossack uprising turned into a peasant war: a detachment of 200 people became an army of 30-50 thousand with artillery. At this stage, more than 20 fortresses went over to the side of the rebels. Particular scope was given to the uprising by the participation in it of serfs, artisans, working people and ascribed peasants of the Urals, as well as Bashkirs, Mari, Tatars, Udmurts and other peoples of the Volga region. In early October, a 6-month siege of Orenburg began. Troops were drawn to the area of the uprising, and in the decisive battle near the Tatishchev fortress on March 22, 1774, the rebels were defeated. The siege of Orenburg was lifted.
April - July 1774 is the second stage of the peasant war, when, after a series of battles in the Middle Urals, the main forces of the rebels moved along the Kama to Kazan. In early July 1774, Pugachev's army approached Kazan and captured it. But in the midst of the battle, government troops approached the city. The battle ended with the defeat of the rebels.
The third period began after the defeat near Kazan and the crossing of the Volga (July 1774 - 1775). The war engulfed the entire Volga region and threatened to spread to the central regions of the country. Selected army troops were moved against Pugachev. Under pressure from government troops, Pugachev withdrew to the south. The rebels were defeated near Tsaritsyn, their leader tried to break through to Yaik, but was captured by the Yaik Cossacks and handed over to the authorities. January 10, 1775 E.I. Pugachev was executed on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow. By this time, scattered centers of the uprising had been suppressed.
Peasant war led by E.I. Pugachev ended in defeat for the same reasons as other major uprisings of the masses. The Peasant War forced Catherine II to carry out a series of reforms to centralize and unify governments in the center and locally, and to legislate the class rights of the population. The purpose of these reforms: to strengthen absolutism in Russia. The Cabinet of Ministers was created, the number of provinces increased sharply. A charter was given to the nobility. According to it, the nobility is considered a privileged class, the support of the throne. The economic support of the throne was fixed - serfdom. A letter of commendation was given to the cities. All citizens are divided into 6 categories. The most privileged are wealthy merchants and householders, revered foreigners, and the lowest rank are vile people.
These reforms strengthened absolutism in Russia.
NOU VPO Far East Institute of International Business
Faculty "Management of the organization"
TEST
In the discipline "National history"
TOPIC: " Peasant war led by E. Pugachev»
Completed by: student gr. 319-M
Panorevinko Yu.S.
Code 09-m-07
Checked by: Ph.D., Associate Professor
Gridunova A.N.
Khabarovsk 2010
Introduction…………………………………………….………………………3
1. Decrees of Catherine II on the peasant issue in the 60s……….5
2. Causes, driving forces, features of the peasant war led by E. Pugachev, its results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Conclusion………………………………………………………………13
4. References…………………………………………………...14
INTRODUCTION
Peasant War 1773-1775 under the leadership of E. I. Pugachev, it was the most powerful armed uprising of the working masses of feudal Russia against the regime of feudal exploitation and political lawlessness. It covered a vast territory in the southeast of the country (Orenburg, Siberian, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh, Astrakhan provinces), where 2 million 900 thousand male inhabitants lived, in their mass consisting of peasants of various categories and nationalities. The uprising was the result of deepening crises in the socio-economic life of the country, accompanied by the intensification of feudal and national oppression of the working masses and the aggravation of class relations.
The deep antagonism between the oppressed population of the country and the ruling elite manifested itself in various forms of class uprisings. The culmination of the people's struggle was the performance of Pugachev, which quickly grew into a broad peasant war. Its main events unfolded in the Southern Urals. The reasons for this should be sought in the socio-economic and political history of the region.
Objectively, the uprising was directed against Russian statehood. The ideal was seen in the Cossack-peasant, "free" state with its peasant tsar, to make everyone eternal Cossacks, to grant the land, freedom, land, forest, hay, fish lands. As the saying goes, “grant a cross and a beard”, exemption from recruitment sets and extortions, execute nobles, landowners and unrighteous judges.
This topic has been sufficiently studied and covered by such historians as Yuri Aleksandrovich Limonov, Vladimir Vasilyevich Mavrodin, Viktor Ivanovich Buganov.
Nevertheless, the topic that I chose for the test has not lost its relevance even after 230 years have passed since the beginning of the uprising. Even now, in our time, problems do not cease to arise related to the correctness of leadership, the meaningfulness of the actions of our government, which leads to protests, rallies, demonstrations in defense of their rights, freedoms and interests. Probably, there will never be such a government that would satisfy the interests of all sections of the population. Especially in Russia, where the tax burden often exceeds the wealth of the bulk of the population living below the poverty line.
An attempt to understand what were the prerequisites that prompted such a large, geographically dispersed number of people, different in their class composition and interests, will be my term paper, in which, after considering all the facts and events in stages, we can conclude what caused and why the uprising did not lead to victory rebels.
1. Decrees of Catherine II on the peasant question in the 60s.
In the early 60s of the eighteenth century. The situation in the country was due to several main factors. First of all, among them it is worth noting the growth of peasant unrest. Catherine II was forced to admit that at the time of her coming to power, up to one and a half thousand landlord and monastic peasants “departed from obedience” (“factory and monastic peasants were almost all in obvious disobedience to the authorities and landlords began to join them in places”). And all of them, in the words of the empress, "should have been put to death." Among the peasants, various kinds of forged manifestos and decrees were especially widespread, by virtue of which the peasants refused to work for their former masters.
The policy of "enlightened absolutism" did not help to improve the situation of numerous state peasants. The ferocious laws that brought the whip and whip, prison and exile, hard labor and recruitment to the people, constituted the most characteristic shadow side of this policy. All this could not but cause a constant protest of the oppressed masses, the end result of which was open armed uprisings of the peasants.
Serfdom already at the beginning of the reign reached its apogee. In the 60s, a series of decrees were issued that deprived the peasants of any minimum rights: they were forbidden to own real estate, take contracts and farms, act as guarantors, trade without special permission, leave their place of residence without written permission. In 1765, the landowners received the right to exile the peasants to hard labor, and the peasants were forbidden to complain about the landowners, their complaints were considered a false denunciation, and the one who filed it was subject to severe punishment.
2. Causes, driving forces, features of the peasant war led by E. Pugachev, its results.
The continuous strengthening of serfdom and the growth of duties during the first half of the 18th century provoked fierce resistance from the peasants. Flight was its main form. The fugitives went to the Cossack regions, to the Urals, to Siberia, to Ukraine, to the northern forests.
Often they created "robber gangs", which not only robbed on the roads, but also smashed the landowners' estates, and destroyed documents for the ownership of land and serfs.
More than once the peasants openly revolted, seized the landowners' property, beat and even killed their masters, and resisted the troops that pacified them. Often the rebels demanded that they be transferred to the category of palace or state peasants.
Unrest of working people became more frequent, striving to return from factories to their native villages, and, on the other hand, seeking better working conditions and higher salaries.
The frequent repetition of popular demonstrations, the bitterness of the rebels testified to the trouble in the country, to the impending danger.
The same was said about the spread of imposture. Applicants to the throne declared themselves either the son of Tsar Ivan, then Tsarevich Alexei, or Peter II. There were especially many "Peters III" - six before 1773. This was due to the fact that Peter III eased the position of the Old Believers, tried to transfer the monastic peasants to the state, and also to the fact that he was overthrown by the nobles. (The peasants believed that the emperor suffered for caring for the common people). However, only one of the many impostors managed to seriously shake the empire.
In 1773, another "Peter III" appeared in the Yaitsky (Ural) Cossack army. The Don Cossack Emelyan Ivanovich Pugachev declared himself to be them.
E. Pugachev's uprising was the largest in Russian history. In the domestic historiography of the Soviet period, it was called the Peasant War. The Peasant War was understood as a major uprising of the peasantry and other lower strata of the population, covering a significant territory, leading to the actual split of the country into a part controlled by the government and a part controlled by the rebels, threatening the very existence of the feudal-serfdom system. During the Peasant War, rebel armies are created, leading a long struggle with government troops. In recent years, the term "Peasant War" has been used relatively rarely; researchers prefer to write about the Cossack-peasant uprising led by E.I. Pugachev. However, most experts agree that of all the peasant uprisings in Russia, it is the Pugachev uprising that can most justifiably claim the name "Peasant War".
What were the reasons for the uprising, the war?
o Dissatisfaction of the Yaik Cossacks with government measures aimed at eliminating their privileges. In 1771, the Cossacks lost their autonomy, lost their right to traditional trades (fishing, salt extraction). In addition, discord grew between the rich Cossack " senior and the rest of the "army".
o Strengthening the personal dependence of peasants on landowners, the growth of state taxes and property duties, caused by the beginning of the development of market relations and serf legislation of the 60s.
o Difficult living and working conditions for working people, as well as bonded peasants in the factories of the Urals.
o Inflexible national government policy in the Middle Volga region.
o The socio-psychological atmosphere in the country, heated up under the influence of the hopes of the peasantry that, after the liberation of the nobles from compulsory service to the state, their emancipation will begin. These aspirations gave rise to rumors that the “manifesto on the freedom of the peasants” had already been prepared by the tsar, but the “evil nobles” decided to hide it and made an attempt on the life of the emperor. However, he miraculously escaped and is only waiting for the moment to appear before the people and lead them to fight for Truth and return the throne. It was in this atmosphere that impostors appeared, posing as Peter III.
o Deterioration of the economic situation in the country due to the Russian-Turkish war.
In 1772, there was an uprising on Yaik with the aim of removing the ataman and a number of foremen. The Cossacks resisted the punitive troops. After the rebellion was suppressed, the instigators were exiled to Siberia, and the military circle was destroyed. The situation on Yaik escalated to the limit. Therefore, the Cossacks enthusiastically greeted the "emperor" Pugachev, who promised to favor them with "rivers, seas and herbs, monetary salaries, lead and gunpowder and all liberty." On September 18, 1773, with a detachment of 200 Cossacks, Pugachev set out for the capital of the army - the Yaitsky town. The military teams sent against him, almost in full force, went over to the side of the rebels. And yet, having about 500 people, Pugachev did not dare to storm the fortified fortress with a garrison of 1000 people. Bypassing it, he moved up the Yaik, capturing the small fortresses lying on the way, the garrisons of which poured into his army. Massacres were carried out on the nobles and officers.
October 5, 1773 Pugachev approached Orenburg - a well-fortified provincial city with a garrison of 3.5 thousand people with 70 guns. The rebels had 3 thousand people and 20 guns. The assault on the city was unsuccessful, the Pugachevites began the siege. Governor I.A. Reinsdorp did not dare to attack the rebels, not relying on his soldiers.
A detachment of General V.A. was sent to help Orenburg. Kara numbering 1.5 thousand people and 1200 Bashkirs, led by Salavat Yulaev. However, the rebels defeated Kara, and S. Yulaev went over to the side of the impostor. Pugachev was joined by 1200 soldiers, Cossacks and Kalmyks from the detachment of Colonel Chernyshev (the colonel himself was captured and hanged). Only Brigadier Corfu managed to safely escort 2,500 soldiers to Orenburg. Reinforcements were constantly coming to Pugachev, who had set up his headquarters in Berd, five miles from Orenburg: Kalmyks, Bashkirs, mining workers from the Urals, ascribed peasants. The number of his troops exceeded 20 thousand people. True, most of them were armed only with edged weapons, and even spears. The level of combat training of this heterogeneous crowd was also low. However, Pugachev sought to give his army a semblance of organization. He established the "Military Collegium", surrounded himself with guards. He assigned ranks and titles to his associates. Ural craftsmen Ivan Beloborodov and Afanasy Sokolov (Khlopusha) became colonels, and the Cossack Chika-Zarubin turned into "Count Chernyshev".
The expansion of the uprising seriously worried the government. General-in-chief A.I. is appointed commander of the troops sent against Pugachev. Bibikov. Under his command were 16 thousand soldiers and 40 guns. At the beginning of 1774, Bibikov's troops launched an offensive. In March, Pugachev was defeated near the Tatishchev fortress, and Lieutenant Colonel Mikhelson defeated the troops of Chika-Zarubin near Ufa. The main army of Pugachev was practically destroyed: about 2 thousand rebels were killed, more than 4 thousand were wounded or taken prisoner. The government announced the suppression of the rebellion.
However, Pugachev, who had no more than 400 people left, did not lay down his arms, but went to Bashkiria. Now the Bashkirs and mining workers became the main support of the movement. At the same time, many Cossacks moved away from Pugachev as he moved away from their native places.
Despite failures in clashes with government troops, the ranks of the rebels grew. In July, Pugachev brought a 20,000-strong army near Kazan. After the capture of Kazan, Pugachev intended to move on Moscow. On July 12, the rebels managed to take the city, but they failed to capture the Kazan Kremlin. In the evening, Michelson's troops pursuing Pugachev came to the aid of the besieged. In a fierce battle, Pugachev was again defeated. Of the 20 thousand of his supporters, 2 thousand were killed, 10 thousand were captured, about 6 thousand fled. With 2,000 survivors, Pugachev crossed over to the right bank of the Volga and turned south, hoping to revolt the Don.
“Pugachev fled, but his flight seemed like an invasion,” wrote A.S. Pushkin. Having crossed the Volga, Pugachev found himself in the areas of landownership, where he was supported by a mass of serfs. It was now that the uprising took on the character of a genuine peasant war. Throughout the Volga region, noble estates were on fire. Approaching Saratov, Pugachev again had 20 thousand people.
Panic broke out in the capital. In the Moscow province, they announced a meeting of the militia against the impostor. The Empress announced that she intended to stand at the head of the troops heading against Pugachev. General-in-chief P.I. Panin was appointed to replace the deceased Bibikov, giving him the widest powers. A.V. was called from the army. Suvorov.
Meanwhile, the rebel troops were far from being as powerful as a year ago. They now consisted of peasants who did not know military affairs. In addition, their detachments acted more and more fragmented. Having dealt with the master, the peasant considered the task completed and was in a hurry to manage the land. Therefore, the composition of Pugachev's army changed all the time. In its wake, government troops relentlessly followed. In August, Pugachev besieged Tsaritsyn, but was overtaken and defeated by Michelson, losing 2 thousand people killed and 6 thousand prisoners. With the remnants of his adherents, Pugachev crossed the Volga, deciding to return to Yaik. However, the Yaik Cossacks who accompanied him, realizing the inevitability of defeat, handed him over to the authorities.
Escorted by Suvorov to Moscow, Pugachev was interrogated and tortured for two months, and on January 10, 1775, he was executed along with four associates on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow. The uprising was put down.
The peasant war led by Emelyan Pugachev ended in the defeat of the rebels. It suffered from all the weaknesses inherent in peasant uprisings: vagueness of goals, spontaneity, fragmentation of the movement, the absence of a truly organized, disciplined and trained military force.
The spontaneity manifested itself primarily in the absence of a well-thought-out program. Not to mention the rank and file of the rebels, even the leaders, not excluding Pugachev himself, did not clearly and definitely imagine the order that would be established if they won.
But, despite the naive monarchism of the peasants, the anti-serfdom orientation of the Peasant War is clear. The slogans of the rebels are much clearer than in previous peasant wars and uprisings.
The leaders of the uprising did not have a unified plan of action, which was clearly reflected during the second offensive of government troops in January-March 1774. The rebel detachments were scattered over a vast territory and often acted completely independently, isolated from each other. Therefore, despite the heroism shown, they were individually defeated by government troops.
However, this does not detract from the enormous progressive significance of the uprising. The Peasant War of 1773-1775 dealt a serious blow to the feudal serf system, it undermined its foundations, shook the age-old foundations and contributed to the development of progressive ideas among the Russian intelligentsia. Which subsequently led to the liberation of the peasants in 1861.
The peasant war, in principle, could win, but could not create a new just system, which its participants dreamed of. After all, the rebels did not represent him otherwise than in the form of a Cossack freemen, impossible on the scale of the country.
Pugachev's victory would mean the extermination of the only educated stratum - the nobility. This would cause irreparable damage to culture, would undermine the state system of Russia, would create a threat to its territorial integrity. On the other hand, the Peasants' War forced the landlords and the government, having dealt with the insurgents, to moderate the degree of exploitation. So, wages were significantly increased at the Ural factories. But the unrestrained growth of duties could lead to the massive ruin of the peasant economy, and after it - to the general collapse of the country's economy. The bitterness and mass nature of the uprising clearly showed the ruling circles that the situation in the country required changes. The result of the peasant war was new reforms. Thus, popular indignation led to the strengthening of the system against which it was directed.
The memory of the "Pugachevism" firmly entered the consciousness of both the lower classes and the ruling strata. The Pugachevs tried to avoid the Decembrists in 1825. The associates of Alexander II also remembered her when, in 1861, they made a historic decision to abolish serfdom.
CONCLUSION.
The Peasant War suffered a defeat, inevitable for the actions of the peasantry in the era of feudalism, but it dealt a blow to the foundations of serfdom. The reasons for the defeat of the Peasants' War were rooted in the spontaneity and fragmentation of the movement, in the absence of a clearly conscious program of struggle for a new social system. Pugachev and his Military Collegium were unable to organize an army to successfully fight the government forces. The ruling class and the state opposed the spontaneous action of the people with the regular army, the administrative and police apparatus, finances, and the church; they also received significant support from the nascent Russian bourgeoisie (factories, manufacturers, merchants). After the Peasant War, the government of Catherine II, in order to prevent new peasant uprisings, strengthened the local state apparatus, strengthening its punitive capabilities. To ease the acuteness of the peasant question, separate measures were taken in the field of economic policy. The regime of aristocratic reaction that was established after the Peasant War, however, could not suppress the peasant movement in the country, which especially intensified at the end of the 18th century. Under the influence of the Peasant War, the formation of an anti-serfdom ideology in Russia took place.
The uprising prompted the government to improve the system of government, completely eliminate the autonomy of the Cossack troops. The Yaik River was renamed to r. Ural. It showed the illusory nature of ideas about the advantages of patriarchal peasant self-government, since. spontaneous peasant uprisings took place under the leadership of the community. The performance of the peasants influenced the development of Russian social thought and the spiritual life of the country. The memory of the "Pugachevism" and the desire to avoid it became one of the factors in the government's policy and, as a result, pushed him later to mitigate and abolish serfdom.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. Buganov V.I., Pugachev. - M .: Moscow worker, 1983 / Buganov V.I., Pugachev.
2. Muratov Kh. I. Peasant war under the leadership of E. I. Pugachev. - M. / Buganov V.I., Politizdat, 1970
3. Eidelman N. Ya. Your eighteenth century. - M. / Eidelman N. Ya. Artist. Lit., 1991
In the early 70s of the XVII century. a major uprising took place in the southern regions of Russia, where the lands along the Don were inhabited by Cossacks. The peculiarities of their position (the defense of the border lands from the Crimeans and Nogais) determined their relationship with the center, which provided them with a grain salary, and also did not require the extradition of fugitive peasants. Quite often, the Cossacks had to gather campaigns "for zipuns" to replenish their property status. However, in the 60s, the government began to oppose them, then unrest began.
Stepan Razin, a well-to-do Don Cossack, was at the head of the rebels. His first campaigns "for zipuns" across the Caspian Sea to the Volga and Yaik in 1667, and then to Persia (1668-1669) did not differ from others, the purpose of which was to rob government and merchant caravans and Iranian possessions. Razin's new campaign, which began in 1670, turned into a peasant war, in which, along with the Cossacks and Russian peasants, the peoples of the Volga region participated; Mordovians, Tatars, Chuvashs, and others. In the spring, detachments of the rebels captured Tsaritsyn, and in early summer, Astrakhan. Then it was decided to move north - up the Volga. The uprising covered a significant territory of the Volga region. But after an unsuccessful siege in September 1670 of Simbirsk, the rebels were defeated by government troops. Razin went to the Don, where in February 1671 he was captured by wealthy Cossacks and handed over to the government. After his execution (June), the uprising waned. The reasons for the defeat were the spontaneity and poor organization of the movement, the lack of clear goals of the struggle and its tsarist character.
Background and driving forces of the liberation war of the Ukrainian people in 1648-1654.
One of the conditions of the Union of Lublin in 1569 - one of the key events in the history of Eastern Europe in the XVI-XVII centuries. was the accession of Ukrainian lands directly to Poland. Polish feudal lords poured into the fertile lands of Ukraine, farmsteads - lordly estates - began to grow like mushrooms. The process of enslavement of the peasantry developed steadily, gradually acquiring especially sophisticated and rigid forms on the territory of Ukraine. The landowners received the right to judge and punish the peasants, up to the deprivation of life, and the peasant, in fact, was even deprived of the right to complain about his master. Worldly-wise foreign travelers did not cease to be amazed at the severity of the situation and the lack of rights of the Ukrainian "clap". The position of the peasantry was also aggravated by religious oppression. After the union of 1569, the onslaught of the Catholic Church intensified, which itself received extensive land holdings in Ukraine. Representatives of the Jesuit order appear in the lands of Ukraine and Belarus, contributing to the spread of Catholicism. The introduction of Catholicism was also facilitated by the Uniate Church - created at the cathedral in Brest in October 1596. All this created a very peculiar situation: the pans belonged to one faith, and the "claps" to another. Needless to say, how dire the consequences this had for the latter. It is clear that "clapping" could become one of the driving forces of the future war of liberation against the Polish lords.
In a very difficult situation were the inhabitants of the cities - the townspeople. From the middle of the XVI century. there is a certain rise in urban life, old cities develop, new ones appear. The craft developed rapidly, acquiring guild forms. Polish feudal lords became an obstacle to city life. In the lands of Ukraine and Belarus, there was a phenomenon unknown to the Muscovite state: along with state cities, which were administrative centers and most often ruled on the basis of Magdeburg law, there were many cities that belonged to magnates. But the development of cities was hindered not only by this, but also by the presence of numerous "juridics" - land holdings of secular and spiritual feudal lords on the territory of royal cities. They did not obey the city courts and administration, they brought confusion and confusion into the life of cities. The townspeople begin to fight against the dominance of the Polish "possessors", unite around Orthodox cathedrals, create "brotherhoods" - associations of the Orthodox population. Initially, these organizations set educational tasks for themselves and sought to preserve and support Orthodoxy.
There were many reasons for dissatisfaction among the Orthodox gentry, those who did not become Polish and did not accept Catholicism. The Poles pushed her away from the occupation of "orders" (state officials), subjected her to persecution for Orthodoxy.
The Orthodox clergy found themselves in a similar position. Orthodox priests were expelled from churches, they were forbidden to conduct services in their native language. It is no coincidence that many leaders of the struggle against the Poles came from the ranks of the clergy.
All segments of the population of Ukraine were ready to unite in the struggle for their freedom. There was also a force capable of leading the movement militarily. The Cossacks became such a force. Since ancient times, in the boundless floodplains of the mouths of the Dnieper, Dniester and Bug rivers, some kind of people wandered, including elements of different ethnicities, experiencing the powerful influence of the neighboring Turkic-speaking steppe (it is no coincidence that the very name "Cossack" came from the Turkic language). With the development of social antagonisms, the strengthening of foreign oppression, the number of such people constantly increased. At the end of the XV century. for the winter they grouped around the southern cities: Vinnitsa, Cherkassy, etc., and in the summer they went to their "fishing". Behind the famous Dnieper rapids, the Cossacks create their own fortifications - over time, the Zaporizhzhya Sich arises - a Cossack republic that inherited democratic traditions from the times of Kievan Rus. The main body of power here was the Cossack circle - the Rada, which elected the foreman, headed by the ataman. The position of the Cossack republic, its relations with Poland were very peculiar. The Polish government, not without reason, saw a threat in the Sich, but needed the Cossacks, since they shielded from the Crimean Tatars, behind whom the powerful Ottoman Empire loomed. That is why, quite early, the Polish government tried to lure a part of the Cossacks into its service, to include it in the so-called register (that is, the list). The Cossacks included in the list received a salary and thus acquired, as it were, an official status. But the government was afraid to significantly increase the number of registered ones.
It was the Cossacks who led a kind of military preparation for the liberation war of the middle of the 17th century. The end of the 16th - the beginning of the 17th centuries was marked by numerous Cossack uprisings. Talented leaders emerged from among the Cossacks (Kryshtof Kosinsky, Severin Nalivaiko). The uprisings continued into the 1920s and 1930s. Pavel But, Teterya - these are the names of the Cossack leaders of this time. The Cossacks, however, at that time put forward "economic" demands: an increase in salaries, the inclusion of a significantly larger number of Cossacks in the register, etc. But it is important to note that in the course of the uprisings, relations between the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks and the government of the Russian state were established, and the Cossacks increasingly began to see him as a support for themselves in the struggle.
Over time, "brotherhoods" also begin to establish connections with the Russian government. It is necessary to distinguish between the consciousness of the Ukrainian and Belarusian populations of the unity of the destinies of their lands with Great Russia and direct political contacts with the Russian government, which began to be established only in the first quarter of the 17th century. The "Brotherhoods" are conducting a kind of ideological preparation for a liberation war. From among the fraternal authors comes the so-called "polemical" literature, which was directed against Jesuit Catholics, where enlightened authors turned to the history and culture of the East Slavic peoples, proved the commonality of their destinies, the need for a joint struggle with the conquerors.