XVI - XVII centuries - this is the period of formation and strengthening of the unified Russian state, the formation of a single national economic mechanism and a special look at the market aspects of life. With the advent of centralization aspirations, new and at the same time traditional views on the supreme power and economy of the state came. Russian sovereigns begin to consider their activities, their tasks and their very position in the state in a special way.

During this period, stories appear statesmen wide scope, reformers of political, economic and social life Russia. Under the influence of urgent economic needs, the old order in public administration and in everyday life, in the religious institutions of local church organizations and in cultural life are beginning to break.

The unification processes strengthened the autocracy. Further centralization of state power lowered the social and, consequently, the political significance of higher Russian class(aristocracy).

The intensifying class struggle and the confrontation within the feudal class between the old boyars and the rising nobility demanded the strengthening of the centralized government controlled. After the introduction of citizenship relations into the law, all estates were equalized in the face of state power. Wherein, economic basis tributary relations was the predominance of state ownership of land. In Russia, V.O. Klyuchevsky noted, the tsar was a kind of patrimony. The whole country for him is property with which he acts as a full owner. The number of princes, boyars and other estates was constantly decreasing: Ivan IV reduced their share in economic relations in the country to a minimum. The decisive blow to private ownership of land was dealt by the institution of the oprichnina. From an economic point of view, the oprichnina was characterized by the allocation of significant territories in the west, north and south of the country as a special sovereign inheritance. These territories were declared the personal possessions of the king. And this means that all private owners in the oprichnina lands had to either recognize the supreme rights of the king or were subject to liquidation, and their property was confiscated. Large patrimonies of princes, boyars were divided into small estates and were distributed to the nobles for the sovereign's service in hereditary possession, but not in property. Thus, the power of specific princes and boyars was destroyed, the position of service landowners - nobles under the authority of the autocrat tsar - was strengthened.

The territory on which the Russian centralized state was formed was mainly located in the zone of the world's largest forests, wetlands with relatively small thermal resources, podzolic and soddy-podzolic soils. The country's climate is predominantly continental, with a sharp drop in temperature as you move east. characteristic feature climate, there has always been a lack of rainfall, falling mainly for two to three months, which in the grain-growing regions led to a drought that hit the country about once every three years. Early frosts and snow cover significantly narrowed the period suitable for agricultural work. The Russian peasant had at his disposal no more than 130 working days during the year, and 30 of them were spent on haymaking. favorable conditions, it was hard to even imagine. In practice, this meant that the Russian peasant had to work almost without sleep and rest, day and night, using the labor of all family members - children, the elderly, women in men's jobs, etc. A peasant in Western Europe, neither in the Middle Ages, nor in modern times, such a strain of strength was required. The period convenient for agricultural work lasts 8–9 months there. Relatively low, for the Slavs, productivity ( under arable farming system) was also associated with the poor quality of land fertilization, which was determined by the weak base of cattle breeding in the main territory of Russia. Due to the lack of fodder and the shortage of hay, the Russian peasant had small, weak and unproductive cattle, and his death was also great. The peasant economy was extremely limited opportunities for the production of commercial agricultural products, and the need for the constant participation in agricultural production of almost all the working hands of the peasant family led to the narrowness of the labor market, the seasonal nature of the activities of numerous industrial establishments, their location closer to labor resources, as well as the specifics of production.

Great importance had a handicraft industry, since 60% of its products were exported. But neither exports nor production for the local market provided opportunities for rapid capital accumulation. Hence the slow development of industrial capitalism and the roots of the traditional intervention of the Russian state in the organization of the economy. Since all this required funds, with the help of the state mechanism, a certain share of the total surplus product was constantly withdrawn.

Relatively low productivity, the limited size of the peasant plowing had the most significant impact on the formation of a certain type of statehood, the development of the economy, culture, and social relations. A relatively short summer, a short vegetation period, the possibility of hail and other adverse natural phenomena required an overconcentration of efforts in a certain period, while in late autumn and winter the pace of work slowed down. V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “The Russian man knew that nature gave him little convenient time for agricultural work and that the short Great Russian summer could be shortened by unexpected bad weather. This forced the Great Russian peasant to hurry, to work hard in order to do a lot in a short time and to get out of the field just in time, and then to remain idle through the autumn and winter. So the Great Russian got used to the excessive short-term exertion of his forces, got used to work quickly, feverishly and quickly, and then to rest during the forced autumn and winter idleness. Not a single people in Europe is capable of such a strain of work for a short time that a Great Russian can develop: but nowhere in Europe, it seems, we find such a habit of even, moderate and measured, constant work. ”Russian labor habits differ from labor habits of Asian peoples: rice growing, in particular, requires regularity and scrupulousness. The harsh climate is conducive to collective farming. Strong communal traditions have developed in Russia, which have become an obstacle to the development of private ownership of land by peasants even after the abolition of serfdom. Naturally, over the centuries, ideas have developed about the community as highest value . The traditional way of life and the ritual of seasonal work was saving for most of the peasants; acceptable and customary.

In the 16th century, Moscow became the center of the ruble issue, the center of the Russian money world. In Moscow, money received the status of a state idea, became an instrument of ideology (they were used to solve political and geopolitical problems). The ruble was trusted in Russian society, and this meant trust in the authorities. When collecting land, the ruble was one of the main and most effective tools for building a single state. The Moscow coin included 80-90 silver spools. It contained 220 money or 30g kuna. One ruble 14th century early 15th century = 500 rubles in 1913. The right to purchase currency was exclusively for the Moscow government, which allowed foreign coins to circulate in the country, but they did not become the leading ones, as in Novgorod (1410). The system of economic development of the state was formed on the basis of the domestic market and, accordingly, not without the Russian ruble. An effective method for this was the reorientation in foreign trade and fiscal policy of the Moscow government, which made trade with the East the main direction. The balance of eastern trade (different from western) was not active; but the effect was different... The Russians sold their products to the East and bought consumer goods and useful materials for the manufacturing sector. That's why eastbound did not harm the financial independence of the state. The consequence of friendship with the East was the transition to the Eastern (Greek) chronology (end of the 14th beginning of the 15th century). Tax reform has changed in Russia. Direct tax - the Moscow plow was more objective and sparing. The size of the plow depended on the quality of the object and subject. In the 16th century Russia has switched to household taxation. And the Moscow plow began to be subdivided into small salary units (howl, share), between which a salary was distributed, falling on a whole plow (Klyuchevsky: very favorable taxation) Moreover, on the Tsylmi River, a tributary of the Pechora, in 1391 seberyan placers were discovered!!! 16th century ruble = 16 shillings and 16 pence. And it was already 94 times more expensive than a ruble in 1913 (a house in the 16th century, for example, cost 3 rubles). The state's income was 1.5 million rubles (Fletcher's data).

Welfare example: owning obzhey, that is, the space of land that one person could cultivate with the help of one horse, the peasant sowed from 2.5 to 3.5 quarters of rye and the same amount of oats. With a good harvest, he received an income of 3 to 5 rubles a year. Taxes in monetary terms since 1555: from 75 kopecks to 1 ruble. The richest people in Russia are the Stroganovs, a fortune of 300 thousand rubles without land holdings. They had 10,000 hired workers. From 40 to 200 thousand rubles were paid to the treasury in the form of tax deductions (14-17 centuries).

About literacy...The level of literacy among the population varied. Elementary literacy was widespread among the townspeople and peasants. The latter had a literacy rate of 15-35%. Literacy was higher among the clergy, merchants, and nobility. Literacy was taught in private schools, which were usually run by people of clergy. For the passage of the course they paid "porridge and hryvnia money." In a number of schools, in addition to teaching literacy and reading directly, they studied grammar and arithmetic. In this regard, the first textbooks on grammar ("A Conversation on the Teaching of Literacy") and arithmetic ("Numeral Accounting Wisdom") appear. On the development of education in the 16th century. The fact of the creation of libraries at large monasteries also testifies. A large library (not found until now) was in the royal palace. Handwritten books belonged to private individuals of various categories, including ordinary townspeople and peasants.

About the sovereign... The most beloved and respected sovereign among the people was Ivan Vasilievich (Grozny). The Chronicle says: people wept at his death". "He was strict but fair." He had the full support of the middle and lower classes of Russian society. During the reign of the Terrible Tsar, the population growth of the country amounted to 30-50%! (About 3,000 thousand people were sentenced to death during the same time (for 50 years). In many ways, this is his merit in the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus'. (under his son Fyodor Ioannovich on January 26, 1589).

In the 16th century, Ivan Vasilyevich attempted to solve the problem of centralization by force ... As a result, the Russian tsar introduced autocratic rule in Russia with the unlimited power of the monarch, relying, at the same time, on the local nobility and people. The entire subsequent period, right up to the absolutism of Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov, the progressive development of Russian statehood was determined by the search for ways to strengthen a strong royal power capable of maintaining the unity of the state and ensuring its stable development. Here is the formula for this period of time: The State is a people's union, controlled by the supreme power (the idea and development - Metropolitan Macarius 1482-1563). Support for everything was a social contract based on the principle of compulsory service. Its essence was that the treasury assumed the obligation to provide the estates with everything "needed" for life and service ... The object of the contract was the land ... Therefore, state ownership of land and its subsoil was placed at the head of all traditional norms and orders. Thus, state property became the basis and support of autocratic orders. Cathedrals are a truly popular, special form of government in Russia. The main task of the Councils was the possibility of establishing popular support for the tsarist government and its leaders...

The ideology of the Russian Middle Ages, Russian antiquity is completed by the ideological postulates of the autocrats of the Romanov dynasty (17th century).

In the first half of the 17th century, the supreme power "separates and shares its understanding of the sovereign and zemstvo affairs from their zemstvo council ..." cathedrals (for the authorities and the whole people). From the 30s of the 17th century, they (cathedrals) become, in fact, meetings of the government with their own agents. From now on, not representatives of the land (society), but carriers of the service sit in them ... The Russian authorities got rid of guardianship ... For example, in the 40s of the 17th century, the royal office was created ... everyone began to obey it, behind the scenes orders ... According to the apt expression of Academician M.M. Bogoslovsky, Russian autocracy evolved from zemstvo to bureaucratic (From the history of supreme power in Russia. Petrograd, 1918.). A movement towards absolutism begins ... From the second half of the 17th century, a state vertical of control was formed (2 orders of supreme control: personal and bureaucratic). This meant the exclusion of elected officials in local government... The personal-bureaucratic government was much more maneuverable and versatile... Moreover, it was more effective. For example, the Counting Order, for the first time, united the financial management of the country ... His decrees had the force of law ... Thus, the task of the supreme authority is to guardianship over people's life and creative influence on it. The goal is to create an all-Russian (imperial) monarchy. The Code of 1649 introduced the concept of state interest, to which all private and public interests must be subordinated.

For pure absolutism, to which Russia rushed, a new conceptual position of power was established (which provided for the rejection of the old, church concept, since the church ceased to be an arbiter in Russian society - the "resignation" of church ideology). And so, the Tsar, was not supposed to stand at the head of the government administration, but outside it and above it ... as God's anointed one - the source of all life in Russia. Royal power should be over everything and everyone!!! Signs of autocracy: in the system of power there was no clear correlation between law, legality and autocracy. The concept of autocracy was precisely based on the fact that the separation of powers was never clearly established. From the second half of the 17th century, the noble bureaucracy and the institution of serfdom became the main support of the supreme power ... The Duma lost its former significance ... The Church became a "tool" in the hands of the autocracy ... There is an opinion that the church schism (1650-1660s gg) was artificially caused by the authorities: the tsar set the Boyar Duma on the church ... By the way, the idea of ​​the Russian Empire belonged to Patriarch Nikon ... The split could be a kind of overcoming the crisis of the national-state idea ....... After the death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1676) the principle of serving the autocratic sovereign was revived, received a new acceleration and development ... In general, the Russian state was a system of political balance (an example for all of Europe). The Russian authorities, in the course of a massive offensive, solved the problem of the political centralization of state life. At the same time, our ancestors achieved goals in creative and economic activities to improve the people's well-being (political unification was economically secured ...)

main sources new concept were the successful implementation of the government course on the development of administrative service techniques and theories of state and National economy, the creation of large-scale production (in particular, heavy industry) based on state orders, state subsidies, profitable concessions provided with labor ... The political and economic development of Russia in the 17th century was ensured by the rapid expansion of the borders of the state and the country's population (it became part of Russia the continental part of Asia, bounded in the North by the Arctic Ocean, and in the East by the Pacific...

Thoughts and opinions.

Ancient Rus'(Dnieper State)

Ticket 123. The concept of globalization, state and law. Russia's place in the globalizing world.

Biological and socio-demographic foundations of health. Lecture 3 The influence of environmental factors on human health (2 hours)

The 16th century in Russia is the time of the formation of a centralized one. It was during this period that feudal fragmentation was overcome - a process that characterizes the natural development of feudalism. Cities are growing, the population is increasing, trade and foreign policy ties are developing. Changes in the socio-economic nature lead to the inevitable intensive exploitation of the peasants and their subsequent enslavement.

The 16-17th century is not easy - this is the period of the formation of statehood, the formation of the foundations. Bloody events, wars, attempts to protect themselves from the echoes of the Golden Horde and the Time of Troubles that followed them demanded a tough hand of government, uniting the people.

Formation of a centralized state

The prerequisites for the unification of Rus' and overcoming feudal fragmentation were outlined as early as the 13th century. This was especially noticeable in the Vladimir principality, located in the northeast. The development was interrupted by the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols, who not only slowed down the process of unification, but also caused significant damage to the Russian people. The revival began only in the 14th century: the restoration of agriculture, the construction of cities, the establishment of economic ties. The principality of Moscow and Moscow gained more and more weight, the territory of which gradually grew. The development of Russia in the 16th century followed the path of strengthening class contradictions. In order to subdue the peasants, the feudal lords had to act in unison, use new forms of political ties, and strengthen the central apparatus.

The second factor that contributed to the unification of the principalities and the centralization of power was a vulnerable foreign policy position. To fight against foreign invaders and the Golden Horde, it was necessary for everyone to rally. Only in this way were the Russians able to win on the Kulikovo field and at the end of the 15th century. finally throw off the Tatar-Mongol oppression, which lasted more than two hundred years.

The process of formation of a single state was expressed primarily in the unification of the territories of previously independent states into one great Moscow principality and in a change in the political organization of society, the nature of statehood. From a geographical point of view, the process was completed by the beginning of the 16th century, but the political apparatus took shape only by the second half of it.

Vasily III

We can say that the 16th century in the history of Russia began with the reign of Vasily III, who ascended the throne in 1505 at the age of 26. He was the second son of Ivan III the Great. The Sovereign of All Rus' was married twice. For the first time on the representative of the old boyar family Solomonia Saburova (in the photo below - facial reconstruction from the skull). The wedding took place on 09/04/1505, however, for 20 years of marriage, she never bore him an heir. The worried prince demanded a divorce. He quickly received the consent of the church and the boyar duma. Such a case of an official divorce with the subsequent exile of the wife to a monastery is unprecedented in the history of Russia.

The second wife of the sovereign was Elena Glinskaya, descended from an old Lithuanian family. She bore him two sons. Having been widowed in 1533, she literally made a coup at the court, and in the 16th century Russia for the first time received a ruler, however, not very popular with the boyars and the people.

In fact, it was a natural continuation of his father's actions, which were entirely aimed at centralizing power and strengthening the authority of the church.

Domestic politics

Vasily III advocated the unlimited power of the sovereign. In the fight against the feudal fragmentation of Rus' and its supporters, he actively enjoyed the support of the church. With those who were objectionable, he easily dealt with, sending him into exile or inflicting execution. The despotic character, noticeable even in the years of youth, was fully manifested. During the years of his reign, the significance of the boyars at the court falls significantly, but the landed nobility increases. In the implementation of church policy, he gave preference to the Josephites.

In 1497, Vasily III adopted a new Sudebnik, based on the Russian Truth, Statutory and Judicial letters, court decisions on certain categories of issues. It was a set of laws and was created with the aim of systematizing and streamlining the existing rules of law at that time and was an important measure on the way to the centralization of power. The sovereign actively supported the construction, during the years of his reign the Archangel Cathedral, the Church of the Ascension of the Lord in Kolomenskoye, new settlements, fortresses and prisons were erected. In addition, he actively, like his father, continued to "collect" Russian lands, annexing the Pskov Republic, Ryazan.

Relations with the Kazan Khanate under Vasily III

In the 16th century, or rather, in its first half, it is in many ways a reflection of the internal. The sovereign sought to unite as many lands as possible, to subordinate them to the central authority, which, in fact, can be considered as the conquest of new territories. Having done away with the Golden Horde, Russia almost immediately went on the offensive against the khanates formed as a result of its collapse. Turkey and the Crimean Khanate showed interest in Kazan, which was of great importance for Rus' due to the fertility of the lands and their favorable strategic location, as well as because of the constant threat of raids. In anticipation of the death of Ivan III in 1505, the Kazan Khan suddenly launched a war that lasted until 1507. After several defeats, the Russians were forced to retreat and then make peace. History repeated itself in 1522-1523, and then in 1530-1531. The Kazan Khanate did not surrender until Ivan the Terrible came to the throne.

Russo-Lithuanian War

The main reason for the military conflict is the desire of the Moscow prince to conquer and take control of all Russian lands, as well as Lithuania's attempt to take revenge for the past defeat in 1500-1503, which cost it the loss of 1-3 parts of all territories. Russia in the 16th century, after Vasily III came to power, was in a rather difficult foreign policy situation. Suffering defeat from the Kazan Khanate, she was forced to confront the Lithuanian principality, which signed an anti-Russian agreement with the Crimean Khan.

The war began as a result of the refusal of Vasily III to fulfill the ultimatum (return of lands) in the summer of 1507 after an attack on the Chernigov and Bryansk lands of the Lithuanian army and on the Verkhovsky principalities - Crimean Tatars. In 1508, the rulers began negotiations and concluded a peace agreement, according to which Lublich with its surroundings was returned to the Lithuanian principality.

War of 1512-1522 became a natural continuation of previous conflicts over territory. Despite the peace, relations between the parties were extremely tense, looting and clashes at the borders continued. Death triggered action Grand Duchess Lithuanian and sister of Vasily III Elena Ivanovna. The Lithuanian principality concluded another alliance with the Crimean Khanate, after which the latter began to make numerous raids in 1512. The Russian prince declared war on Sigismund I and advanced his main forces to Smolensk. In subsequent years, a number of campaigns were made with varying success. One of the largest battles took place near Orsha on September 8, 1514. In 1521, both sides had other foreign policy problems, and they were forced to make peace for 5 years. According to the agreement, in the 16th century Russia received Smolensk lands, but at the same time refused Vitebsk, Polotsk and Kyiv, as well as the return of prisoners of war.

Ivan IV (the Terrible)

Vasily III died of illness when his eldest son was only 3 years old. Anticipating his imminent death and the subsequent struggle for the throne (at that time the sovereign had two younger brothers Andrei Staritsky and Yuri Dmitrovsky), he formed a "seventh" commission of boyars. It was they who were supposed to save Ivan until his 15th birthday. In fact, the board of trustees was in power for about a year, and then began to fall apart. Russia in the 16th century (1545) received a full-fledged ruler and the first tsar in its history in the person of Ivan IV, known to the whole world under the name of Ivan the Terrible. In the photo above - a reconstruction of the appearance in the form of a skull.

Not to mention his family. Historians differ in numbers, naming the names of 6 or 7 women who were considered the wives of the king. Some were dying mysterious death others were exiled to a monastery. Ivan the Terrible had three children. The elders (Ivan and Fedor) were born from the first wife, and the youngest (Dmitry Uglitsky) from the last - M.F. Nagoi, who played a big role in the history of the country during the troubled times.

Reforms of Ivan the Terrible

The domestic policy of Russia in the 16th century under Ivan the Terrible was still aimed at centralizing power, as well as building important state institutions. To this end, together with the Chosen Rada, the tsar carried out a number of reforms. The most significant are the following.

• Organization of the Zemsky Sobor in 1549 as the highest estate-representative institution. It represented all estates with the exception of the peasantry.
• The adoption of a new code of laws in 1550, which continued the policy of the previous legal act, and also for the first time legalized a single unit of tax measurement for all.
• Lip and zemstvo reforms in the early 50s of the 16th century.
• Formation of a system of orders, including Petition, Streletsky, Printed, etc.

Russia's foreign policy during the reign of Ivan the Terrible developed in three directions: the south - the fight against the Crimean Khanate, the east - the expansion of the state's borders and the west - the struggle for access to the Baltic Sea.

in the east

After the collapse of the Golden Horde, the Astrakhan and Kazan khanates created a constant threat to the Russian lands, the Volga trade route was concentrated in their hands. In total, Ivan the Terrible undertook three campaigns against Kazan, as a result of the last one it was taken by storm (1552). After 4 years, Astrakhan was annexed, in 1557 most of Bashkiria and Chuvashia voluntarily joined the Russian state, and then the Nogai Horde recognized its dependence. Thus ended the bloody story. Russia at the end of the 16th century opened its way to Siberia. Wealthy industrialists, who received letters from the tsar for possession of lands along the Tobol River, equipped a detachment of free Cossacks at their own expense, headed by Yermak.

In the West

In an attempt to gain access to the Baltic Sea for 25 years (1558-1583), Ivan IV waged a grueling Livonian war. Its beginning was accompanied by successful campaigns for the Russians, 20 cities were taken, including Narva and Dorpat, the troops were approaching Tallinn and Riga. The Livonian Order was defeated, but the war became protracted, as several European states were drawn into it. The unification of Lithuania and Poland into the Rzeczpospolita played a great role. The situation turned into reverse side and after a long confrontation in 1582 a truce was concluded for 10 years. A year later, it was concluded that Russia lost Livonia, but returned all the captured cities except Polotsk.

On South

In the south, the Crimean Khanate, formed after the collapse of the Golden Horde, still haunted. The main task of the state in this direction was to strengthen the borders from the raids of the Crimean Tatars. For these purposes, actions were taken to develop the Wild Field. The first serif lines began to appear, i.e., defensive lines from the rubble of the forest, in between which there were wooden fortresses (fortresses), in particular, Tula and Belgorod.

Tsar Fedor I

Ivan the Terrible died on March 18, 1584. The circumstances of the royal illness are being questioned by historians to this day. His son ascended the throne, having received this right after the death of the eldest offspring Ivan. According to Grozny himself, he was rather a hermit and faster, more suitable for church service than for reigning. Historians are generally inclined to believe that he was weak in health and mind. The new tsar participated little in the administration of the state. He was under the tutelage of first boyars and nobles, and then his enterprising brother-in-law Boris Godunov. The first reigned, and the second ruled, and everyone knew it. Fedor I died on January 7, 1598, leaving no offspring and thereby interrupting the Moscow dynasty of Rurikovich.

Russia at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries was experiencing a deep socio-economic and political crisis, the growth of which was facilitated by the protracted Livonian War, the oprichnina and the Tatar invasion. All these circumstances ultimately led to the Time of Troubles, which began with the struggle for the empty royal throne.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Federal Agency for Education

South Russian State

Technical University (NPI)

Shakhty Institute (branch)

By discipline: "History of Russia"

"The Muscovite state in the XVI - 1st half. 17th century Formation and development of the estate-representative monarchy»

Mines 2010

For many centuries, Russia rested on three fundamental foundations: community (peace), autocracy and Orthodoxy. The absolute leader in this triad in relation to Russian history of the 16th century should be considered autocracy national characteristics and patterns of folding. In the system of ideas about monarchical power in Russia, the question of its origin and the conditions for its formation is essential, but much more doubts and disputes among historians are caused by an additional element of the political system of Russia in the 16th century - the institution of zemstvo estate representation and other state authorities of the Russian centralized state. The purpose of this work is to characterize the form of government that had developed in Russia by the middle of the 16th century, in particular as a result of public administration reforms carried out under Ivan the Terrible. Can Russia be called a class-representative monarchy? Did estates develop in Russia during the period under study and what were the reforms of public administration? We will try to elucidate these questions, taking into account, as far as possible, those historical research that have emerged in recent years. Political history of the 16th century. attracts the attention of many researchers, but there is no consensus among them on the form of government that has developed in Russia in the process of eliminating feudal fragmentation. Pre-revolutionary historians, as a rule, denied the existence of estate-representative statehood in our country in the 16th century. The opinions of historians of the Soviet period on this issue differ, and there is a noticeable tendency - from a skeptical attitude towards the recognition of Russian estate representation in pre-revolutionary Russia - to cautious statements about it in the period of 30-40 years, then - through the absolute recognition of the unconditional presence in Russia of estate-representative management, similar to similar bodies in Western European countries - to the complete denial of such in recent years. Some of Soviet historians the form of Russian statehood during the time of Ivan the Terrible is defined as autocracy with a boyar duma and a boyar aristocracy. It was this concept in the 30-40s. proposed Smirnov I.I. principles” and based on the local nobility - “the main pillar of power”. According to another Soviet historian - N.E. Nosov - any positive role zemstvo estate bodies, and even more so the boyar duma, with such a formulation of the question, is completely excluded. Other researchers believe that the Russian state of the XVI century. It was an autocratic monarchy with an aristocratic boyar Duma only up to a certain time - in particular, until the Zemsky Sobor in 1566, and then followed the path of becoming a class-representative monarchy. According to A.A. Zimin, for example, Russia in the first half of the 16th century was a class monarchy, and since 1549, when the so-called “reconciliation council” was convened, it turned into a class-representative monarchy. According to the concept of N.E. Nosov, in the 50s of the 16th century - during the period of the elected Rada - the foundations of a class-representative monarchy were formed in Russia, and during the years of the oprichnina, a regime of military-feudal dictatorship of feudal nobles was established in the country. S.O. Schmidt believes that the first estate institutions in Russia in the 16th century. (Zemsky Sobors) are formed at the same time when the first signs of absolutism become noticeable. In such a course of events, he sees an analogy with the history of Western European countries, where the strengthening of absolutist principles in the state system was accompanied by the development of parliamentarism. At the same time, Schmidt notes the strength of the traditions of “estate representation in Russia,” a distant predecessor of which he considers the ancient Russian princely “snem.” A supporter of the theory of the formation of a class-representative monarchy in Russia is also L.V. Cherepnin, who also believes that the process of forming a class-representative monarchy begins long before the middle of the 16th century, when the first cathedrals appeared. He has been conducting this process since the end of the 15th century, pointing to the genetic connection of the Zemsky Sobors with the institutions of the previous time. There are also very different opinions among historians regarding the timing of the formation of the monarchical system in Russia. Some researchers associate its origin with the personality of Ivan III (and most of them are), others have been conducting monarchical beginnings in Rus' since the time of Rurik, still others - from his descendants, in particular - from Dmitry Donskoy, fourth - from the time of Ivan IV, when “instead of fragmented masses ”a single “state body” was created. In more detail, the positions of Russian historians - both of the Soviet period and modern ones - will be considered directly in the text of the work. The status of the monarch: The strengthening of princely power and the transformation of the Moscow prince into the sovereign of “All Rus'” is a long process. It was started by Dmitry Donskoy, who completed the elimination of social and veche institutions that opposed the unifying tendencies of the Moscow rulers. Already Dmitry's successor on the throne of Moscow, Prince Vasily, tried to link his power with "God's mercy", however, this formula acquires a special political sound only in the title of Ivan III - after the overthrow Tatar yoke . As Froyanov I.Ya. notes, the term “autocracy” in the meaning of the prerogatives of royal power appeared in the language of the times of Vasily the Dark. As for Ivan III, his title contains the definitions of “sovereign”, “autocrat”, “king”. The power of the Moscow Grand Duke was significantly strengthened under Ivan III. By the second marriage, he married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Palaiologos, thereby emphasizing the independence of his power from the Moscow boyars. At the same time, the main attributes of royal power were formed: the Byzantine coat of arms - the double-headed eagle - became the emblem of Muscovite Rus'. On solemn occasions, Ivan III put on the Monomakh's hat and mantles (barmas). His line of strengthening the power of the Grand Duke was then continued by Vasily III and Ivan IV (the Terrible). In January 1547, using his coming of age as a pretext, Ivan IV officially "married the kingdom." Ivan IV received the Cap of Monomakh and other regalia of royal power from the hands of the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius, who was, if not the initiator, then the leader of this event. The Church thereby, as it were, affirmed the divine origin of royal power, while strengthening its own authority. Since that time, the Grand Duke of Moscow officially began to be called the king. In the time of Ivan IV, of course, the “autocrat” was understood as a monarch with unlimited power. Ivan IV himself hardly doubted this. At the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. the titles “autocrat”, “sovereign” and “tsar” really meant the monarch who independently “held” the Russian land and owned it solely, who had in his hands the fullness of state power. According to the observations of historians of the Russian state and law, the use of the word "sovereign" means the establishment of unlimited power. That is why the Novgorodians at one time long and stubbornly resisted calling Ivan III by this title instead of “master”: they knew that with the recognition of sovereign power over Novgorod, expressed in the new title, they would have to say goodbye to the democratic traditions of veche independence from the center. In the historical conditions of the late XV - early XVI centuries. such power, according to Froyanov, could only be despotic, that is, not limited by the power of the monarch. Boyar Duma: During the period of the formation of the centralized Russian state, as well as during times of interregnums and internal strife, the Boyar Duma played the role of a legislative and advisory body under the Grand Duke, and later under the Tsar. It included noble Moscow boyars, as well as specific princes with some of their boyars. Meetings of the Boyar Duma took place, as a rule, in the Faceted Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. According to L.V. Cherepnin, with the formation of a single state, the Duma - the council under the Moscow Grand Duke - becomes a national body. He connects the process of separating the institute of the boyar duma with the decline of the institute of the princely-boyar arbitration court - the system for resolving princely disputes from times of fragmentation by submitting them to a judge chosen by both parties: the metropolitan, the prince, the boyars. The disappearance of the institution of the princely-boyar court, according to the researcher, led to the strengthening of the autocracy of the Grand Duke (Tsar), who was at the head of the state. By the way, with this statement Cherepnin undermines his own conclusions about the existence in Russia of bodies of class representation, which really limited the power of the tsar. (This will be discussed below.) Members of the boyar duma were appointed by the Grand Duke (“introduced”). However, according to N.E. Nosov, this fact does not deprive this body of a class-representative character, since the local principle was strictly observed when appointing to the Duma. Grand Duke he could disgrace, even execute his boyar, but he could not bring into the Duma a person who did not have the right to do so due to his low birthright and the merits of his ancestors in the Moscow service. In our opinion, there are contradictions in this statement. As the same author writes further, the boyar estate, which took part in the Duma, was formed as a result of the merger of the Russian nobility who had gathered in Moscow and in this sense, as it were, consolidated the “government position” of the boyars in the new state order and played important role in limiting the Moscow autocracy. Apparently, in this view, the boyar duma can in no way be called a representative body, since the more it approaches the royal power, the more it becomes dependent on it, which was proved during the period of the oprichnina. In accordance with the Sudebnik of 1497 (Article 1), the boyars and okolnichy, as members of the boyar duma, were entrusted with the supreme court, and, consequently, judicial and administrative supervision over the activities of the entire system of central and local legal proceedings. On this basis, Nosov concludes that already at the end of the 15th century, the Duma acts as a rather constructive supreme council under the Grand Duke, sharing legislative and judicial power with him. However, in our opinion, the sources of the XVI century. do not allow to talk about any serious limitation of the power of the sovereign. Boyars under Ivan III or Basil III did not form any independent public institution; there is no information about the meeting of the Duma in in full force at the time, as well as the decisions she made. The boyars, by tradition, were only advisers to the sovereign (that is how they are called in a number of sources), and he himself decided who to invite to the meeting. In particular, article 98 of the Sudebnik of 1550 refers to the procedure for adopting laws - “from the sovereign’s report and from all the boars to a sentence.” However, the law does not say that decisions can only be made in this way: naturally, as before, the sovereign could decide any matter without consulting the boyars. In principle, almost all the laws of the second half of the XVI century. were drawn up either as royal decrees, or as a sentence of the king with the boyars - there was no strict system. The appearance of the term “boyar sentence”, which came into use in the 40s of the 16th century, according to the Russian historian M. Krom, testifies not to the boyars’ encroachment on the prerogatives of the monarchical power, but to the transformation of the Duma into a central government agency that coordinated the work of the state apparatus. These functions were taken over by the Duma during the early years of Ivan IV, when the monarch was, in fact, incompetent. But the boyar duma retained the same functions later, throughout the second half of the 16th century, because the management of a vast country required the creation of such a supreme body that would control the activities of central institutions. Consequently, when the noble "Muscovites" called themselves the serfs of the sovereign, it was not an exaggeration like the European "your obedient servant." The boyars, with all their property and families, were entirely in royal power. Having liquidated or subjugated the local political elite, as happened in Novgorod, Moscow could do whatever it liked with the conquered region: resettle its inhabitants, impose any taxes and duties, reshape land holdings. If only on this basis, the boyar duma cannot be identified, as some Soviet historians do with the parliament in Great Britain or with the States General in France: no forms of self-organization of the boyars in the individual lands of Rus' during the formation of a centralized state no longer existed. The significance of the boyar duma in the time of Ivan IV began to decline precisely because the Russian nobility was not united in any corporations, and individually the boyars and princes were powerless before the supreme power. Zemsky Sobor: A new level of political organization of the country, established by the middle of the 15th century. - a single state, new social institutions had to correspond - estates and representative institutions that defended the interests large areas. O.I. Chistyakov writes that Zemsky Sobors were the characteristic body of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia. Zemsky Sobors met irregularly. The first of them, convened in 1549 and sitting until 1550, adopted the “Sudebnik” of 1550 and formed a program of reforms in the middle of the 16th century. The last zemsky sobor was held in 1653 in connection with the solution of the issue of incorporating Ukraine into Russia. The Zemsky Sobor included, first of all, the boyar duma - the boyars and specific princes, and the Illuminated Cathedral - the highest strata of the clergy. Many meetings of Zemsky Sobors were also attended by representatives of the nobility and the top tenants. Schematically, the system of government and administration in Russia in the mid-16th century can be represented as follows: In the history of the development of zemstvo cathedrals, as a whole, cathedrals can be distinguished into 3 groups: 1) elective; 2) cathedrals recent years Troubles and 1648; 3) all others. At the same time, the first councils can be ignored, since they were convened mainly for “hearing government declarations” (for example, the council of 1549) and sanctioning legislative and other measures (the council of 1551). During the election of the first Romanov in 1613, the cathedrals also did not play a significant role, since all influential boyars decided. And after the Time of Troubles, autocracy was restored in its full meaning, that is, a monarchy without any restrictions. IN mid-seventeenth century, when the first signs of absolutism began to appear, cathedrals served the government mainly as a place for making statements, including internal political ones. The councils of 1611-1613 and 1648, in contrast to all the others, actually made at least some decisions: in particular, the councils of 1648 managed to predetermine the Code of 1649. As Torke notes, the influence of the population on legislation is felt here much more than the influence of even the French States-General in the 15th and 16th centuries, but this was due, rather, to periods of “anarchy” and “militia” in Russia than to the actual system of legislative representative power. The episodic manifestations of the active work of Zemstvo assemblies in Russia passed very quickly. As mentioned above, the assessment of the role and political influence of Zemsky Sobors in the historical literature is extremely ambiguous. But before dwelling on it, one should recall the origin of the phrase “Zemsky Sobor” itself. It was first introduced by K.S. Aksakov in 1850 by analogy with the expression “zemstvo duma” used by N.M. Karamzin. Later, S.M. Soloviev introduced this term into his “History of Russia”, and since then the “Zemsky Sobor” has become firmly established in the scientific language. The Russian Slavophils saw in him a sign of the “strength of the people” opposed to the tsar; in accordance with the really existing expression “the cathedral of all the earth”, “land” meant for them the whole people, although, as is known, the peasants, who made up almost 90% of the population of Rus', did not participate in the work of the cathedrals, with isolated exceptions. According to the definition of L.V. Cherepnin, the Zemsky Sobor was a class-representative body of a single state; meeting of the government of united Rus' with class representatives, created in opposition to the arbitrariness of feudal law. The opposite view is expressed by some modern historians. The German scientist Torke H.-J., for example, considers the essence of the zemstvo councils from the point of view of the etymology of the word “zemstvo”. "Zemsky affairs" - in his understanding - these are the tasks and needs of local self-government, created under Ivan IV, in contrast to the central, governmental, i.e. - "state affairs". “Zemsky people” or “land”, in contrast to service people, are elected local officials belonging (with the exception of, for example, noble labial elders) to the townspeople. On this basis, Torke concludes that the expression "zemstvo sobor" cannot mean an institution as a whole, which included the tsar, the consecrated cathedral, the thought, service people, and, finally, the zemstvo people. Cherepnin interprets the term “zemstvo” in a completely different way, who believes that the zemstvo in relation to the 16th century. - this is precisely “the whole earth”, the state: “zemstvo affairs” - state affairs, “zemstvo dispensation” - state building, organization. Apparently, those historians who believe that the local elected administration and its representatives in Moscow are not the same as the estate: townspeople are right, although they had to choose only the “best” (i.e., the rich ) people who did not have the qualities of a citizen in the Western European sense - their dependence on the government and political lack of rights were too great. In the midst of the oprichnina, the participants in the council of 1566 begged the tsar to stop the repressions: for such impudence, the petitioners lost their languages. Torke, for example, discussing the essence of the estate, points to two meanings of this concept: professional and territorial. In his opinion, when it comes to estate representation, one should take into account not so much the social or professional significance of the estates as the composition of the territories they represent. This “territorial dependence” was not revealed by the Russian townspeople and merchants; in Russia in this period of time there was still no institution of citizenship - the main prerequisite for the creation of estate representation. The Western estates were a political force, because they drew it from local interests - in provincial separatism (for example, the sejmiks in Poland or the Landtags in Germany). Class assemblies in Western countries, if they did not make laws, then at least ruled at the local level. This was not the case in Russia. The Russian nobility could not develop a real estate consciousness, not only because of the lack of historical prerequisites, but also because it was obliged to serve, that is, until 1762 the nobility was not free in relation to the sovereign. On the whole, it should be noted that in Western literature there is an opinion that there was no developed feudalism in Russia, if by it we understand not only the nature of the relationship between feudal lords and serfs, but also, first of all, participation in government power. Estates that arose in different countries and at different times, had a different influence on the management of public affairs. According to Torke, in relation to the middle of the 16th century, only in England, Sweden, Poland and Hungary were estates on the outskirts of “legislative authority”. In support of this point of view, one can cite the statement of A.M. Sakharov, who noted: “It should be borne in mind that the estate-representative organization in Russia did not receive such great development as in some countries of Western Europe, and autocratic power did not experience any serious restrictions on the part of estate representation. Zemsky Sobors increasingly became an advisory body, without certain functions, permanent representation, norms and terms for electing representatives. Thus, we can conclude that the system of “Zemsky Sobors” that has developed in Russia can only be considered a political representation capable of really influencing the government, only with a very big stretch. Orders in Russia:

Even before the reforms of the middle of the 16th century, certain branches of state administration and the management of certain territories of the country began to be entrusted (“ordered”) to the boyars. This is how the first orders appeared - institutions that were in charge of branches of government or individual regions of the country. According to some assumptions, the first orders began to take shape as early as 1511, and in the middle of the 16th century there were already several dozen of them. However, according to the Soviet historian A.K. Leontiev, orders began to stand out from other departments only in the second half of the 16th century. From the very beginning, the orders acquired the character of permanent institutions that had a permanent staff and area of ​​​​management. Military affairs - the local army - were led by the Discharge Order, artillery - Pushkarsky, archers - Streletsky, the arsenal - the Armory. There were also the Ambassadorial Prikaz, which was in charge of foreign affairs, and the Prikaz of the Great Treasury, which managed public finances. The local order dealt with issues of state lands, from which the nobility was endowed with serfs - the Kholopy order. Even a special order was provided for resolving the problems of popular uprisings (Rogue order), as well as orders that were in charge of individual territories - the Siberian order, the order of the Kazan Palace. At the head of orders, the terms of reference of which extended to administration, tax collection and courts, were the boyars or clerks - large state officials. As Leontiev notes, one of the distinguishing features of this body of power was that, as a rule, they were headed by several judges, and not one, although there were exceptions. Collegial management in those conditions meant the obligatory discussion of cases to be considered by all judges of the order, and the consent of all was considered a necessary “sentence” passed on the case under consideration. With the complication of the public administration system, the number of orders grew. By the time of Peter's reforms at the beginning of the 18th century, there were more than 50 of them. The folding of the prikaz system, according to Soviet historians, was a further improvement of the feudal superstructure. As A.K.Leontiev writes, “the appearance of orders marked the transfer of most of the cases from the jurisdiction of the boyar duma and palace bodies to institutions that should become exclusively executive bodies.” Church Reform The Church also succeeded, which at that time (the metropolitan, bishops and monasteries) owned a third of the entire non-state land fund. Defending the foundations of Orthodoxy as a symbol of national unity, the Church tried to take a leading place in the process of unification of the country, and at the same time - to strengthen and expand its material well-being through new land acquisitions, and political and ideological weight - through its influence on the new state and social order. The fact that the Church played not only a spiritual role in the construction of the Russian centralized state is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that since the beginning of the 16th century extended meetings of the boyar duma with church councils were widely practiced. One of the attempts to regulate the relationship between the Church and the state in the middle of the 16th century was made at the Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551, at which the militant churchmen - the "Josephites" - managed to defend their huge land wealth from the secularization aspirations of Tsar Ivan IV. The monarch wanted to get the sanction of the church for state reforms and at the same time take measures to subjugate the Church and limit her privileges. The work of the council proceeded mainly as follows: the tsar asked questions prepared in advance by his entourage, the council, headed by Metropolitan Macarius, gave answers to them. The questions of Ivan IV belonged to a purely ecclesiastical area. The council was to discuss in general measures to strengthen discipline among the clergy, the unification of rites, the moral state of the ministers of the church, and the position of the lower clergy. As a result, a certain compromise was nevertheless reached: the growth of church landholdings was limited, the provisions of the tsar's Sudebnik extended to the “hierarch's” court, the monasteries were deprived of the award from the tsar's treasury - “rugi”, however, the main positions of the Russian clergy remained unshakable. According to N.E. Nosov, in Russia, as well as in Germany or Spain in the 15th-16th centuries, the Church was a great power in the state. The weakness of the Russian city, and with it the emerging Russian bourgeoisie, according to Nosov, did not create the necessary social ground for anti-clericalism and reformist ideas, the main stronghold of which in the West was precisely the urban community. The statement about the power and influence of the Church in the Russian state of the 16th century is beyond doubt, but the above justification for this conclusion seems to be very controversial. First, it is hardly possible to speak of the real existence of the “Russian bourgeoisie” in the 16th century, when even feudal relations in Russia had not yet been finally formalized. Secondly, and more late period already established bourgeois relations, Russian social thought did not allow any significant attacks in the direction of Orthodoxy. The undeveloped civic consciousness, which distinguished Russian society both in the 16th and later centuries, in itself cannot serve as a justification for the strength and power of the church organization. Reforms of local self-government: lip and zemstvo reforms The first major step in the creation of class-representative institutions in the field was the lip reform of the late 30-40s. XVI century., Conducted by the Moscow boyar government. Prior to this, on the ground unified system there was no management. Before the reforms of the middle of the XVI century. the collection of local taxes was entrusted to the boyars-feeders, who were actually the rulers of individual lands. They had at their disposal all the funds collected over necessary taxes to the treasury, that is, due to the uncontrolled management of lands, they "fed". The reforms abolished “feeding”. The collection of taxes, taxes, and local courts were transferred to the hands of “labial elders”, who were elected from local nobles (in the countryside) and “favorite heads” (in the cities). According to N.E. Nosov, the reforms of local self-government were carried out under the influence of Novgorod-Pskov, and possibly Polish-Lithuanian orders of “gentry and city self-government”. According to him, the term “lip” itself is of Western Russian origin, it is borrowed from the Pskov territorial and administrative terminology and designates according to the Pskov scribe books of the 16th century. “rural districts stretching towards the city”. The news about the introduction of labial institutions was preserved by the Pskov chronicle, dated 1540-1541. The election of labial organs was carried out at the general district congresses of princes, children of boyar and volost judges (tax peaces). Elections were held strictly according to class curiae and were sealed by handwritten records of electors. The swearing-in (kissing the cross) of the labial elders was carried out in Moscow - in the Robbery Order. The main duty of the labial elders was to detect and punish thieves and robbers - “led dashing people". Accordingly, the power of governors and volostels was limited: they were left only with the court and the collection of court fees in cases of murder. The order established as a result of local self-government reforms was guarded very cruelly: the means of inquiry - torture and general search, the punishment for robbery - the death penalty (gallows), for the first theft - beating with a whip, for the second - cutting off a hand, for the third - execution. Based on all of the above, N.E. Nosov concludes that the lip reform was aimed at protecting the interests of feudal lords, merchants and the most prosperous strata of the urban and volost population from attempts on their lives and private property. He draws an analogy between the Russian “bloody legislation” of the 16th century. and similar phenomena in European countries, characteristic of the period of primitive accumulation, undermining the feudal foundations. Later - in the second half of the XVI century. - labial appearances, as well as the obligatory secular guarantee accompanying them, became one of the means of detecting and capturing fugitive serfs and serfs. Conclusion Thus, we can conclude that the definition of the Russian state in the second half of the 16th century, established in the scientific and educational literature, as a class-representative monarchy, is very conditional. Firstly, estates had not yet formed in Russia by this time. Secondly, zemstvo assemblies were nothing more than “informational and declarative meetings, and in extreme cases - representation of interests that sometimes coincided with the interests of the government.” It cannot be said that zemstvo sobors really represented the interests of the territories; they were not elected according to any principle by the population, they did not have certain powers. It is possible to talk about the final formation of estates in Russia no earlier than the 17th century, when various social groups begin to realize their special interests and fight for their implementation. However, even then, a somewhat complete system of representation did not take shape, the councils were predominantly dominated by Moscow ranks, but most importantly, they did not become a legislative body, did not share power with the tsar, and did not even try to do this: during the Time of Troubles, when real power was taken over by took the “Council of All the Earth”, representatives of the zemstvos, as if weighed down by government duties, hastened to elect a king in order to transfer the burden of power to him. This self-elimination of the zemshchina became the main reason for the restoration of autocracy after the turmoil. At the same time, in relation to XVI century it can be said that, although there were no estates similar to Western ones in Muscovite Rus', individual ranks contained those estate qualities that later - in the 18th century. - manifested themselves, finally revealing themselves under Catherine II. This at least applies to the nobility, who received legislative confirmation of their class privileges.

Ivan IV focused his foreign policy activities on solving two major tasks:

1) In the west, he intended to establish himself on the shores of the Baltic Sea in order to provide direct sea communication with the countries of Western Europe.

2) In the east, the tsar wanted to unite the fragments of the disintegrated Golden Horde around Moscow.

Since 1545, the last stage of the military and political rivalry between the Moscow kingdom and the Kazan Khanate begins. Several trips to Kazan ended in failure. But in 1552, a huge Moscow army led by the tsar himself, supported by detachments of Mordovians and Chuvashs, besieged and stormed Kazan. In 1556, the Astrakhan Khanate was relatively easily conquered. Merchants from Central Asia. The most important water artery, the Volga, became Russian throughout its entire length. Having achieved success in the east, Ivan IV turned to the west. Here the way to the Baltic was controlled by the Levon Order. It was weakened by internal sections, and Ivan IV decided to take advantage of this. In 1558, the Russian army entered the borders of Livonia. The Levon War began. At the beginning fighting were successful - the Russian army captured more than 20 cities. But the Levonians recognized the patronage of Lithuania and Sweden. However long war with two strongest states, Russia, weakened by the oprichnina, could not stand it. The dispute over the lands of the disintegrated Levonian Order was lost. In 1583 the war ended. Russia has lost fortresses in the Baltic. Arkhangelsk on the White Sea became the most important seaport for communication with Europe. Starting the Levonian War, Russia, with its developing trade and economy, needed sea routes to the West. Folding of the territory of the Russian state in the XVI-XVII centuries.

By the end of the XVI century. Russia's territory has almost doubled in comparison with the middle of the century. It included the lands of the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian Khanates, Bashkiria. There was a development of fertile lands in the south of the country - the Wild Field (south of the Oka River). Attempts were made to access the Baltic Sea. Compared with the middle of the fifteenth century. the territory of Russia during the reign of Ivan 1U increased by more than 10 times. With the entry of the lands of the Volga region, the Urals, Western Siberia, the multinational composition of the country was further strengthened.

The Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms constantly threatened the Russian lands. They held the Volga trade route in their hands. These lands were fertile, the Russian nobility dreamed of them. The peoples of the Volga region - the Mari, Mordovians, Chuvashs sought to free themselves from the Khan's dependence. After a series of unsuccessful diplomatic and military attempts to subdue the Kazan kingdom, 150,000. Russian army besieged Kazan. Kazan was taken by storm on October 1, 1552.

After 4 years, in 1556 Astrakhan was annexed, in 1557 - Chuvashia and most of Bashkiria. Dependence on Russia was recognized by the Nogai Horde (the state of nomads who lived on the territory from the Volga to the Irtysh). Those. Russia included new fertile lands and the entire Volga trade route. Relations with the peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia have expanded.

The annexation of Kazan and Astrakhan opened the way to Siberia. Wealthy merchants-industrialists, the Stroganovs, received letters from the tsar to own land along the Tobol River. A detachment was formed, headed by Ermak Timofeevich. In 1558, Yermak penetrated the territory of the Siberian Khanate and defeated Khan Kuchum. In the 11th century the development of the territory of the Wild Field (fertile lands south of Tula) began. Russian state began to strengthen the southern borders from the raids of the Crimean Khan. State interests Russia demanded close ties with Western Europe, which were easiest to achieve through the seas, as well as providing defense western borders Russia, where the Levonian Order acted as its opponent. And in case of success, the possibility of acquiring new developed lands opened up. The Levonian war lasted 25 years and at the beginning was accompanied by the victories of the Russian troops. A total of 20 cities were taken. The Order has collapsed. His lands passed to Poland, Denmark and Sweden. The failure of the Levon War was a consequence of the economic backwardness of Russia. A truce was signed

In the seventeenth century the territory of Russia expanded due to the inclusion of new lands of Siberia, the Southern Urals and the Left-Bank Ukraine, and the further development of the Wild Field. The borders of Russia - from the Dnieper to Pacific Ocean and from the White Sea to the possessions of the Crimean Khan, North Caucasus and Kazakh steppes. Geographic discoveries Russian researchers also expanded the borders of Russia. In 1643-45. Poyarkov went down the Amur River to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. In 1648 Dezhnev discovered the strait between Alaska and Chukotka. In the middle of the century, Khabarov subjugated the lands along the Amur River to Russia. Many Siberian cities were founded: Yeniseisk, Krasnoyarsk, Bratsk, Yakutsk, Irkutsk.

The term "Time of Troubles" (1598-1613) was adopted by historians of the 18th-19th centuries. In the Soviet period, historians rejected it as "noble-bourgeois", suggesting instead "peasant war and foreign intervention", which, of course, does not fully correspond to the definition of this period. Now the concept of "Troubles" is returning, and at the same time it is proposed to call the events of the beginning of the 17th century. in Russia, a civil war, because almost all social groups and strata were involved in them.

The era of Troubles was accompanied by popular uprisings and rebellions; boards of impostors (False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II), Polish and Swedish interventions, the destruction of state power and the ruin of the country.

The prerequisite for the crisis of Russian statehood - the Time of Troubles was the instability of power, generated by the Oprichnina and the Livonian War. Destabilization at the end of the sixteenth century. - the beginning of the seventeenth century. contributed to such facts as the reign of Fedor, his death and others.

The impetus for the beginning of the Troubles was a dynastic crisis: the dynasty of Ivan Kalita ended.

In 1598, after the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the last Rurikovich - the son of Ivan IV, the question arose of a successor to the Moscow throne. The Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov, brother of Tsar Fyodor's wife Irina, to the kingdom. Not being the most distinguished, Godunov could not claim the throne. But even during the life of Fyodor Ivanovich, he was able to concentrate all power in his hands.

The rise of Godunov is the fruit of a historical accident and at the same time a manifestation of the general pattern of self-development of Russian society. So Boris would have remained in history one of the many Godunovs, if on November 9, 1581, the tsar had not had a quarrel with his son Ivan in the Alexander Sloboda. Grozny hit him with his staff and hit him in the temple, and ten days later (November 19) the prince died. With the death of Ivan Ivanovich, Fedor became the heir to the throne. The new king was unable to govern the country and needed an intelligent adviser. A sharp struggle flared up for the right to be the spokesman for the interests of the new monarch, and Boris emerged victorious from it. Fedor occupied the throne for 14 years; at least 13 of them Godunov was the de facto ruler.

The activities of the Godunov government were aimed at the comprehensive strengthening of statehood. Thanks to his efforts, in 1588 the first Russian patriarch was elected, which was Metropolitan Job. The establishment of the patriarchate testified to the increased prestige of Russia.

In domestic politics Godunov's government was dominated by common sense and prudence. Unprecedented construction of cities and fortifications unfolded. Church building was also carried out on a grand scale. Godunov sought to alleviate the situation of the townspeople. Previously, big service people kept merchants and artisans in their "white settlements", exempted from paying state taxes. Now, everyone who was engaged in trade and crafts had to become part of the township communities and participate in the payment of duties to the treasury - “pull the tax”. Thus the number of taxable people has increased, and the severity of the charges from each payer has decreased, since the total amount has remained unchanged.

The economic crisis of the 1570s - early 1580s. forced to go to the establishment of serfdom. In 1597, a decree was issued on "lesson years", according to which the peasants who fled from the masters "before this ... year in five years" were subject to investigation, trial and return "back to where someone lived." The decree did not apply to those who fled six years ago and earlier, they were not returned to their former owners.

Despite reasonable measures in the social sphere and a cautious peace-loving foreign policy, Boris Godunov still failed to avert the crisis. Broke out in 1601 - 1602. a terrible famine led to an explosion of social discontent and a fall in Godunov's prestige. In 1603, a powerful uprising of serfs began, which engulfed the central districts. The uprising was put down. But the situation in the country has not stabilized.

Back in 1601, a fugitive monk Grigory Otrepiev appeared in the Commonwealth, a former serf of the Romanov boyars, posing as a miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. By converting to Catholicism and promising the Polish king Sigismund III Smolensk and Chernigov-Seversk land, and the voivode Yu. Mnishek (whose daughter Marina Otrepyev fell in love with) - Pskov and Novgorod, he managed to get the right to recruit volunteers in Poland for a campaign against Moscow. In 1604, False Dmitry crossed the Dnieper with 400,000 Poles, Russian emigrant nobles, Zaporozhian and Don Cossacks. He chose a detour to Moscow, since a powerful peasant movement began on the southwestern outskirts of the state (in the terminology of Soviet historiography - “ peasant war"). Here False Dmitry received the necessary reinforcements and supplies. The peasantry, confident that a “good king” had finally appeared, supported the impostor. After the sudden death of Godunov in April 1605, Moscow governors also began to go over to the side of False Dmitry. On June 20, 1605, the impostor solemnly entered Moscow and became Tsar of Russia.

However, despite some strong personal qualities and a certain popularity among the troops and the population, False Dmitry failed to gain a foothold on the throne. He failed to enlist the support of any of the real socio-political forces. The impostor did not fulfill his promises to the Poles (promises to give Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk). Having adopted Catholicism in Poland, he did not allow the construction of Catholic churches in Rus'. Wishing to attract the Russian nobility to his side, False Dmitry generously distributed land and money, but their reserves were not unlimited. He did not dare to restore St. George's Day, which the peasants were waiting for. Orthodox Church treated the Catholic king wary, refusing to give him a credit of trust. The atrocities of the Poles in Moscow caused acute dissatisfaction among the townspeople and service people. As a result of a boyar conspiracy and an uprising of Muscovites on May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was killed.

The improvised Zemsky Sobor, hastily assembled by the boyars, chose Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610), an experienced intriguer and courtier, as king. Assuming the throne, he was the first of the Russian rulers to give a "cross-kissing note", swore an oath "to the whole earth": not to execute anyone without trial, not to take property from the relatives of the convicted and not to listen to false denunciations. However, the tsar often ignored this fundamentally important treaty. Political squabbles in the Russian "top" also did not contribute to the normalization of the situation.

The peasantry continued to actively protest against serfdom and the deterioration of their position. Some of the feudal lords who supported False Dmitry I were dissatisfied with the election of Shuisky to the kingdom, fearing reprisals. The population of the southwestern outskirts, exempted by the impostor from taxes for 10 years, protested against their restoration. In the summer of 1606, at the head peasant uprising I. Bolotnikov stood up, calling himself "the governor of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich." In the autumn of 1606, Bolotnikov's troops besieged Moscow and tried to take it for more than a month. However, in November, the noble detachments led by P. Lyapunov and I. Pashkov, who joined the rebels, went over to the side of Shuisky, and in the fall of 1607 the tsarist troops managed to defeat Bolotnikov.

The suppression of the peasant uprising did not change the situation in the country. The Shuisky government tried to maneuver, on the one hand, improving the situation of the serfs, on the other hand, setting a 15-year term for the investigation of fugitive peasants. The maneuvers of the "tops" led to the fact that both the landlords and the peasants became dissatisfied with them. In such a situation, in 1607, a young man appeared in the Bryansk region, declaring himself the escaped Tsar Dmitry. Unlike the first impostor, from the very beginning False Dmitry II was a protege of the Polish feudal lords. Not having time to connect with Bolotnikov, he nevertheless managed to gain strength both in Poland and in Russia, and in 1608 moved to the capital.

Having reached Moscow, the impostor did not dare to immediately take it, but settled in Tushino, where his own Boyar Duma and his own "patriarch" - Rostov Metropolitan Filaret (Fyodor Romanov) began to operate. The main role in the Tushino camp was played by detachments of gentry from the Commonwealth (Lisovsky, Rizhinsky, Sapezh), who were engaged in robbery and robbery throughout the country. They tried unsuccessfully for 16 months to capture a strong fortress - the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.

In February 1609, the Shuisky government concluded an alliance agreement with Sweden, hoping for her help in the fight against the Tushins. However, the Swedes immediately tried to capture Novgorod. At the same time, this treaty gave Poland a pretext for open intervention. On July 17, 1610, the boyars demanded that Shuisky abdicate the throne. The participants in the conspiracy promised to choose a tsar later, but for now, 7 boyars began to rule in Moscow - the “seven boyars”. Frightened by the scale of the peasant movement and the growth of anarchy in the country, the Moscow boyars, despite the protests of Patriarch Hermogenes, concluded an agreement with the Polish prince Vladislav "on recognizing him as king." The agreement repeated Shuisky's oath, but the question of Vladislav's conversion to Orthodoxy remained unclear. On the basis of the concluded agreement, Polish troops entered Moscow, and the governor of Vladislav (who was only 15 years old) A. Gonsevsky began to rule in the country.

Foreign oppression did not suit either the peasantry, or the townspeople, or the nobility. The idea of ​​a national militia to save Russia was ripening in the country.

By February-March 1611, the first militia was formed. Its leader was the Ryazan governor Prokopiy Lyapunov. Soon the militia besieged Moscow, and on March 19 a decisive battle took place, in which the rebellious Muscovites took part. It was not possible to liberate the city. Remaining at the city walls, the militia created the highest authority - the Council of All the Earth. On June 30, 1611, the “Sentence of the whole earth” was adopted, which provided for the future structure of Russia, but infringed on the rights of the Cossacks and, moreover, had a feudal character. After the murder of Lyapunov by the Cossacks, the first militia disintegrated. By this time, the Swedes captured Novgorod, and the Poles, after a months-long siege, captured Smolensk.

The second militia began to be created in one of largest cities country - Nizhny Novgorod. It was headed by Nizhny Novgorod headman Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. Material resources were raised with the help of the population of many cities. In the spring of 1612, the militia moved to Yaroslavl, where the government and orders were being created. In August, the militias entered Moscow. After the elimination of attempts by the Polish detachment of Khodkevich to penetrate the Kremlin to help the Polish garrison stationed there, he surrendered. October 26, 1612 Moscow was liberated. “Despite all the consequences of the oprichnina,” notes the modern historian N.N. Pokrovsky, “the significance of the Zemstvo, which saved the fatherland from foreign robbery, was confirmed on a national scale.”

In January 1613, a crowded (about 700 people) Zemsky Sobor gathered in Moscow, which was attended by elected from the boyars, nobles, clergy, townspeople, Cossacks, archers and, apparently, black-haired peasants. The most acceptable candidate for election as tsar was the candidacy of 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613-1645), the son of Metropolitan Filaret.

The government of the new Russian Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich in January 1616 in the village of Dederino began negotiations with the Swedes on the conclusion of a peace treaty. The Russian delegation at the talks was headed by Prince D. I. Mezetsky, the Swedish one - by the commander of the Swedish troops in Russia, Count Jacob Delagardie.

The final round of negotiations took place from December 1616 in the village of Stolbovo near Tikhvin. On February 27, 1617, the parties accepted the final peace terms. Sweden returned to Russia the Novgorod, Starorussky, Porkhov, Ladoga, Gdovsky counties and the Sumersky volost, but retained the Izhora land with the cities of Koporye, Oreshek, Yam, Ivangorod, as well as the city of Korela (Kexholm) with the county. Russia was cut off from the Baltic Sea. In addition, the Swedes received an indemnity of 20 thousand rubles.

The Russian population of the lands ceded to Sweden (with the exception of peasants and parish clergy) received the right to travel to Russia within two weeks. The Stolbovsky peace recognized the right of free trade for the merchants of both countries both in Sweden and in Russia, but forbade the passage of Swedish merchants with goods through Russia to the East and Russian merchants through Swedish possessions to Western Europe. The borders established by the Treaty of Stolbovsky remained until the Northern War of 1700-1721.

It turned out to be more difficult to achieve peace with the Commonwealth. Having fended off weak attempts by Mikhail Fedorovich to return Smolensk in 1615, Polish troops under the nominal command of Prince Vladislav went on the offensive in 1617-1618. However, they failed to take the capital by storm. Being limited in funds and bound by the Diet with a promise to stop hostilities in 1618, Sigismund III Vasa agreed to negotiations.

The truce was concluded on December 1, 1618 in the village of Deulino (near the Trinity-Sergius Lavra) for a period of 14.5 years. The Russian delegation included the boyars F. I. Sheremetev, D. I. Mezetsky, and the roundabout A. V. Izmailov. The Polish embassy was headed by A. Novodvorsky, L. Sapieha, Ya. Gonsevsky. Russia, weakened during the Time of Troubles, was forced to cede Smolensk (with the exception of Vyazma), Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversk lands to the Commonwealth - a total of 29 cities. Despite the conclusion of a truce, Prince Vladislav did not renounce his claims to the Russian throne. After the Deulino truce, an exchange of prisoners was carried out, and Filaret, the father of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, who was in Polish captivity, returned to his homeland.

The consequences of the Troubles were the most difficult for the progressive development of the country: a long-term, powerful rollback back to economic development; territorial losses (Russia lost access to the Baltic Sea - the Neva River, Izhora land, the cities of Karela, Oreshek, etc. moved to Sweden. Poland retained the Smolensk and Seversk lands). The split in society opened the way for social upheavals.

At the same time, the most important outcome of this difficult period was the restoration of political independence. After the expulsion of foreigners and the end of the Time of Troubles, the most pressing issue for the Russian people was the restoration of their statehood - the election of a new tsar.

Overcoming the consequences of the turmoil in the economy, domestic development, foreign policy took the lives of two or three generations.

Literature

History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. / Ed. A.N. Sakharova, A.P. Novoseltsev. - M., 1997. Ch. 16, 18, 19.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Works: In 9 volumes - M., 1988. T. 2, 3.

Kobrin V.B. Ivan groznyj. - M., 1989.

Skrynnikov R.G. Russia at the beginning of the 17th century Trouble. - M., 1991.

Skrynnikov R.G. reign of terror. - St. Petersburg, 1992.

Platonov S.F. Essays on the Troubles in the Muscovite State in the 16th-17th Centuries. - M., 1995.

Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian state of the XVI-XVII centuries. - M., 1978.

Similar Documents

Features of the socio-economic and political development Russia in the middle of the XVI century. Prerequisites for the formation of a class-representative monarchy in Russia. Bodies of power and administration of a class-representative monarchy. Origin of Zemsky Sobors.

term paper, added 08/10/2011


Socio-economic and political prerequisites for the formation of a class-representative monarchy in Russia, its social base and features. The power of the king; the competence and composition of the boyar duma, its role in the system of authorities. Local government system.

term paper, added 08/13/2011


Positive and negative aspects of the formation of a class-representative monarchy in Russia in the 16th century. Analysis of the personality of Ivan IV and alternatives to reforming the country. Goals, main priorities and main directions foreign policy Ivan the Terrible.

abstract, added 08/26/2011


Events of the Time of Troubles. Causes of unrest at the beginning of the XVII century. The phenomenon of imposture. Polish-Lithuanian intervention. The rise of the liberation movement. Uprising I.I. Bolotnikov. Restoration of the estate-representative monarchy. Beginning of the Romanov dynasty.

abstract, added 05/16/2008


State system of the Novgorod feudal republic. Scheme of authorities, administration of Kievan Rus. The social structure of the estate-representative monarchy. Sources of legislative acts medieval Rus'. Trial according to the Sudebnik of 1497.

test, added 04/16/2015


Trends in the socio-economic and political development of Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries. Changes in social order, the emergence of the boyar-princely aristocracy and the deprivation of the peasants of freedom. Transition to a class-representative monarchy, the reforms of Ivan the Terrible.

test, added 03/29/2012


The development of a class-representative monarchy into an absolute one in Russia. Main characteristics absolute monarchy. Functions of the Senate, collegiums and their activities. Reasons for strengthening the bodies and means of state control during the reign of Peter I.

abstract, added 12/26/2010


The study of the reforms of the middle of the XVI century, the stages of the formation of a class-representative monarchy. Features of the foreign policy of Ivan the Terrible. Characteristics of the military, church, judicial reform Peter I. Analysis of the policy of enlightened absolutism of Catherine II.

test, added 03/28/2010


Transition to a class-representative monarchy, higher and central institutions. Transition to the prikaz-voivodship administration, negative traits reforms. The ratio of autocracy and self-government during the creation of the Moscow centralized state.

abstract, added 10/25/2011


The crisis of Russian statehood that occurred in the first half of the 17th century as a result of severe economic, political and social upheavals. Serious territorial losses suffered by the Russian state during the Time of Troubles.

The peculiarity of Russian trade during this period was that, on the one hand, the state had huge reserves of raw materials, on the other hand, there was even a meager industry.

The main circumstance that determined the development of the customs system during this period was the formation of a single Russian (Moscow) state with its extensive state economy, an intricate financial system that included many different taxes and fees, cash and in kind, external and internal, from goods sold or only from imported goods.

With the creation and strengthening of the Muscovite state, with the expansion of the territory, broader opportunities opened up for the development of trade relations with the West and East.

The peculiarity of Russian trade during this period was that, on the one hand, the state had huge reserves of raw materials, on the other hand, there was even a meager industry. The road network was poorly developed in the country, there were few people experienced in conducting trade, that is, merchants.

However, the Moscow government conducted extensive foreign trade operations. An important subject of this trade was, in particular, Siberian furs, which were collected in huge quantities in the form of taxes from Siberian foreigners, then sorted and sold abroad. Other items of state trade were in different time bread, fish, salt, resin, flax, hemp. Moreover, sometimes trade in one or another product was declared a state monopoly.

With the formation of the Russian centralized state and the development of its economy, the customs guard was strengthened, the main task of which was to collect duties and replenish the state treasury. In the 17th century, there were customs in all cities and towns, and in big cities there were several of them. So, for example, in Moscow there was a Big Customs House, a Pomernaya hut, where duties were levied on grain goods, Mytnaya hut, in which duties were paid on timber, firewood, and livestock.

In addition, customs duties were collected at rural markets and fairs. For this, customs heads and their assistants, kissers, were sent there.

Customs heads were elected for terms of one year. At large customs offices, "comrades" were appointed - deputies of the head. The largest customs offices were headed by representatives of the merchant class. The appointment of a customs head was formalized by royal decree. Based on the results of the year, if the amounts of duties exceeded the previously planned amount, customs heads were encouraged. Awards, and these were, as a rule, valuable gifts, were presented in the presence of the king.

In 1636, the Kazan customs exceeded the collection of duties of the previous year by 4271 rubles, and the Astrakhan customs by 4462 rubles. Customs heads received a silver ladle of scales for a shooting range of a dime, 10 arshins of atlas and 40 sables worth 60 rubles. The work of the Moscow Great Customs can also serve as an example of large fees. In 1640, the profit here amounted to 8314 rubles. Awards were given not only to customs heads, but also to kissers.

However, the time for deep reforms in the field of customs has not yet come. Only in some customs, customs fees were directly collected in favor of the treasury. In most cases, they were farmed out. The essence of the ransom was that the person concerned (farmer) contributed to the state treasury a certain amount of money, no less than the average collection of customs duties for last year, and collected fees in their favor. At the beginning of the 17th century, many customs were at the mercy of: in Kursk, Belgorod, Putivl, Orel, Ryazan, etc. The farms were preserved not only in the 17th century, but also in the 18th century and were canceled by the Highest Decree only in 1807.

Speaking about the foreign trade of Russia in the 16th-17th centuries, one should especially emphasize the importance of the city of Arkhangelsk, where fairs were held that had the character of all-Russian ones. By a certain date, so many merchants gathered here that the activity of the trading life of Moscow itself weakened for a while. Not only private merchants, but also the tsar himself sent to Arkhangelsk a huge amount of furs, soap, hemp, linen, which were exchanged there for silk fabrics, brocades, satins, velvets, cloth and other goods.

The main part of Russia's imports at that time consisted of such goods: cloth, yahont, turquoise, emery, pearls, spices (anise, rhubarb, cloves, cardamom, pepper, saffron, nutmeg, incense, cumin), vitriol, arsenic, ammonia, metals ( copper, iron, lead), salt, paint, paper, soap, thread, lace, wine, as well as lemons, prunes, walnuts. As you can see, most of these goods consist of luxury goods, except for metals, salt and paints. Soap and writing paper were considered luxury goods in those days.

Russian exports consisted of leather, lard, furs (these goods accounted for 61% of exports), as well as bread, flaxseed, meat, caviar, pork bristles, wax, fish, fish oil, tar, resin. Thus, raw materials prevailed in the structure of exports. Finished products: shoe nails, coulter iron, ropes and mittens made up an insignificant part of it.

The main countries with which Russia traded at that time were Holland, England, France and Sweden, goods from which were delivered to Russia on ships through Arkhangelsk and purchased Russian goods were exported from there.

By the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries, the customs system in the Russian state met the needs of foreign trade and the solution of tax policy problems. A centralized body was formed, which received customs fees - the Order of the Great Treasury. There were various customs structures in the trading cities. However, the process of improving the customs business was slow due to the economic backwardness of the country, the imperfection of the monetary system and the poorly developed foreign trade.

A single Russian state was formed by the end of the 15th century, simultaneously with England and France. If in the West the formation of the state proceeded simultaneously with the formation of the market and the separation of powers, in Russia this was dictated solely by external factors: the Horde, the development of trade, and so on.

Ivan the Terrible believed that all his subjects were serfs, considering only the Turkish sultan as an equal. Ivan the Terrible considered European tsars to be officers. Russia is the biggest patrimony of the tsar.

Ivan the Terrible in his reign relied on a group of nobles and governors.

In the 50s of the 16th century, Ivan the Terrible tried to introduce local government bodies, at the head of which he put zemstvo elders. At the same time branch bodies were established in the center. But since there was no experience of self-government, the ventures failed.

Ivan the Terrible suspected that he would be reduced to the rank English queen. The essence of despotism and the appearance of the Oprichnina is the self-promotion of a dictator.

Ref.* In Russia, there were 3 nobles for one boyar, the same number of officials and 10-15 commoners. *

Under Ivan the Terrible, Tver and Novgorod were destroyed.

As a result of the Oprichnina, the most active part of the country was destroyed. The terrible consequences of the Oprichnina are the joining of many to the guardsmen. Due to the weakening of the country's forces due to the Oprichnina, Russia lost the Levonian War in 1549. In 1551 raid of the Crimean Khan.

Autocracy was the only structure of the country.

In 1598 after the death of the son of Ivan the Terrible, the disintegration of the country begins. Boris Godunov tried to stop this process.

In 1601-604, there was famine in Russia due to crop failures due to continuous rains; these disasters marked the beginning of the Time of Troubles. After the death of Boris Godunov in 1605. embarrassment intensifies.

In 1610 Polish prince Vladislav was called to the kingdom, but he refused to accept Christianity.

in 1612 2 militia was created and the interventionists were expelled from Moscow. At the same time, Mikhail Romanov would have been elected to the kingdom, which marked the beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty on the Russian throne.

In 1550 carried out military reform. In Russia, the control system of all armed forces was centralized. Locality was limited. Streltsy troops were created. The Cossack units that had formed on the Don were to submit to the supreme authority. In Russia, the Cossacks were legally free to make decisions, but in fact they were dependent on Moscow.

Under the young tsar, a circle of especially close associates (the Chosen Rada) formed. For 13 years, the Elected Rada ruled the country. The elected council testified to a compromise between the layers of the state.

1 Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1549. The fact of the convocation testified that Russia was turning from an early feudal monarchy into a class-representative one. Ivan the Terrible needed the support of various classes, especially in the fight against boyar arbitrariness. The Zemsky Sobor helped to maneuver state power between the nobility and the boyars. The Zemsky Sobor was convened as needed by the tsar and did not limit his power.

Many of the king's enterprises provoked resistance from the big nobility. It was on the big nobility that the first blow of the king fell. To defeat the opposition, Ivan the Terrible in 1564. left Moscow for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, where he began to create Oprichnina (oprich (Old Russian) - in addition).

In January 1565 two tsarist messengers arrived in Moscow, who read out two of his decrees. In the first, Ivan the Terrible accused the boyars of treason; he is loyal to the townspeople. As a result of the intrigues of enemies, Ivan the Terrible removes the authorities from himself, as stated in the document.

Moscow residents demanded that the boyars and the clergy persuade the tsar to return to the throne. A little later, the Moscow delegation arrived in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. Ivan the Terrible set a condition: he would execute the traitors at his own discretion. Russia will be divided into two parts: Oprichnina (the personal territory of Ivan the Terrible) and Zemstvo parts.

Everyone who lived on the territory of the Oprichnina, but were not guardsmen, was evicted.

In 1570 Novgorod, which became a victim of terror, suffered.

Oprichnina brought serfdom closer.

Many of the guardsmen, who received enormous wealth, began to be weary of the policies of Ivan the Terrible, but the detective and denunciation apparatus did its job - many guardsmen were also executed. During the Oprichnina, according to researchers, 2000-3000 people were killed. Oprichniki, who had been robbing their own people for several years, could not protect them from the raid of Khan Davlet Giray in 1571, who burned Moscow.

Ivan the Terrible urgently fortified the southern borders with zemstvo troops, who in 1572. defeated the troops of Davlet Giray, who outnumbered them, who made a second attempt to raid Russian lands. In 1552 conquered the Kazan Khanate, and in 1556. - Astrakhan. Voluntarily in those years became part of the Russian state. Also voluntarily entered the territory of the North. Caucasus.

In 1558 the Levonian war began for access to the Baltic Sea (was fought for 25 years, being lost by Russia). Only the heroic defense of Pskov, which fettered and inflicted huge losses on the Polish troops, led to a softening of the military treaty. During the defense, 30,000 Pskov residents opposed 150,000 Polish army.

Since 1582 the conquest of Siberia begins, starting with the campaign of Yermak, which lasted 70 years. If the Americans, when expanding the territory of their country, destroyed the indigenous population of America - the Indians, then the Russian conquerors of Siberia, apart from a few skirmishes, peacefully coexisted with the indigenous inhabitants of Siberia, passing on their knowledge, including the culture of agriculture, since they still lived in a primitive system.