3. Ancient to pre-Soviet Russian History

The first Tsar's title, undermined the possible attempts of feudal princes to co-reign, and the building of state institutions.

In the XVII century, an acute socio-cultural crisis was expressed in the most acute social contradictions. Despite the national crisis, church and social schism, Russia, strengthened the autocratic state, and was on the path of some transformation in the country. By the end of the XVII century in Russian society was truly aware of the need for change. This was a difficult century, even threatening the existence of the state.

Table of Contents

(no page numbers here, but to get an idea.)

(1547 - 1584) Ivan IV (the Terrible) was proclaimed the first Russian tsar. ........................................................101

The term "Time of Troubles" began to be used during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich.....................................116

(1584 – 1598) Feodor to Godubov.................................118

Trends in socio-economic and the political ...............128

(1613 - 1648) Mikhail Romanov ...................................130

(1645 - 1676) Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov ...........133

(1682-1689) Tsarevna Sophia .......................................146

(1547 – 1584) Ivan IV (the Terrible) was proclaimed the first Russian tsar

However, only the coronation of Ivan IV (1547) created the necessary stable environment for major reforms.  The Tsar's title undermined the possible attempts of feudal princes to co-reign, the same title of the sovereign of Moscow was equated to the sovereigns of "great powers". Strengthening the authority of the central government contributed to its transformation into the center of consolidation of political forces.

Around the young Tsar was formed a circle of figures close to him - the so-called "Chosen Rada", informal government of the country. It included the nobleman A. F. Adashev, the court priest Silvester, Metropolitan Macarius, Prince A. M. Kurbsky. The elected Rada became the body which exercised direct executive power and formed a new apparatus of state administration. The new government was based on a compromise between the feudal aristocracy, the serving nobility and the tsar.

In 1549 the first Zemsky Sobor was convened, a class-representative institution designed to resolve the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy. The very appearance of such institutions was an indicator of the unification of Russian lands into a single state, the growth of the political importance of the nobility and the participation of the church in the system of public administration. Zemsky Sobors became (along with the Boyarsky Duma) the institutions of the estate-representative monarchy.

At the Zemsky Sobor of 1549, Ivan IV announced the need for domestic reforms aimed at further centralization of the state. Fifties of the XVI century became the time of active implementation of these reforms which entered the history as reforms of the Elected Rada.

The central reform was the abolition of zemstvo and establishment of principally new local authorities in 1555-1556. Zemstvo bodies were elected, and not appointed from the center. They were headed by the elected heads or starosts from local feudal lords. In their hands were concentrated the functions of managers and judges. The local governor's apparatus consisted of a clerk in charge of the office and tsevalniks from local peasants. The term "tsevalnik" came from the custom of kissing the cross while taking the oath. In towns were elected zemstvo heads, usually from the wealthy upper class, assisted by zemsky clerk and tsevalniks.

New authorities executed orders coming from the center, collected and sent to the capital taxes, they were also responsible for correct execution of imperial obligations (construction of cities, fortifications, roads, etc.). Zemstvo bodies had less power in the sphere of the court. Local authorities became more under the control of the center than the kormlenschiks. Revenues previously received by kormlenschiki began to go to the treasury.

In the 50-ies of the XVI century the central institutions began to be rebuilt. A clerical system of administration with permanent staff and a certain budget was formed. The most important prikazes were the following: Razryadnyi, in charge of state defense and official appointments; Posolskyi, in charge of foreign affairs, and Pomestnyi, whose competence included issues related to feudal land tenure. Several prikazes were in charge of collecting direct and indirect taxes (treasury, Grand Prikaz of the Great Parish). Razboyny Prikaz (Robbery Prikaz) was in charge of investigation and trial of cases of higher criminal jurisdiction, which was also the highest instance for all local courts. The number of prikazes reached twenty by the end of the 16th century. With the accession of new territories new territorial Prikaz (Kazan, Siberian) were created.

In the period of reforms completed the formation of the Russian armed forces. They were based on the local militia, which included all eligible nobles with a rationed number of combat smerds-servants. In the course of the military reform was adopted the Service Statute (1556), which defined the order of military service of landowners and lords, as well as the number of their servants, depending on the size of land holdings. Now every 150 dessiatinas, (1 dessiatina is 1.09% of a hectare), of arable land a feudal lord had to provide one fully equipped mounted soldier.

Already in the second half of the 16th century the Russian army included the Cossacks. The Cossack army was formed on the Don as a special military freeman, virtually independent from the Moscow government. Russia's active foreign policy steadily led to the convergence of power with the Cossacks, who gradually began to be used as a regular army for border service in the new southern cities. The Cossacks settled there in stanitsa units. All the changes were aimed at strengthening the power of the state.

The reform of the court was carried out. In 1550 was published the new Code of Laws. Compared with the Code of Law of 1497, the rules of law had been significantly amended and clarified, the importance of the central government strengthened. The Code of law of 1550 also reflected the process of enslavement of the peasantry. Now the right of free transition of peasants from one lord to another was limited only by one day a year (St. George's day in autumn, November 26), and the size of the fee was increasing.

The era of reforms also affected the old system of mestnichestvo. The decree of 1550 introduced some restrictions on it. It was recognized that young aristocrats, who began to serve at the age of 15-18 years, despite their origin and the high official position of their ancestors, could not be appointed governors.

The reforms of the 1550s did not leave the church in the lurch. In 1551 they held a church council, which approved the Stoglav - a collection of regulations on church ceremonialism (they were unified), the inner life of the church estate, its relations with society and the state.

According to some historians, the transformations of the Chosen Rada were complex and programmatic in nature. Others believe that the reformers acted without a clearly defined plan, serious changes were made in all major spheres of life of the state.

In historiography the reforms of Ivan IV are treated ambiguously. However, almost all researchers acknowledge that the reforms were pro-nobility, had a pronounced anti-boyar orientation. In general, the transformations of the 50-ies of the 16th century met the needs of the development of the state. They contributed to the centralization of the system of administration and brought it into conformity with new historical conditions. At the same time the reforms at all stages bore the stamp of half-heartedness and compromise. Up to the 17th century Russia remained an autocratic monarchy with the Boyar Duma and boyar aristocracy. This does not detract from the tremendous reformatory activities of the Chosen Rada, which for 13 years developed reforms and carried them out.

The activities of the Chosen Rada resulted in great military and foreign policy successes. In 1552 as a result of military campaign of Russian troops the Kazan Khanate was annexed to Russia. In 1556 Astrakhan Khanate was annexed and as a result the whole flow of the Volga became part of the Russian state and colonization of the Volga region began. The beginning of the war with the Livonian Order (1558) brought brilliant successes. But it was then that the tsar broke off with his main advisors. Disputes over the reorientation of the main direction of foreign policy from the East to the West (the desire to get access to the Baltic Sea) played a significant role in this breakup.

Ivan IV had all the members of the Elected Rada removed from office and subjected to repression. Political harmony and the balance of power in the ruling elite were eliminated. The easy fall of the reformers did not mean, however, the unsustainability of the completed reforms. The main institutions and institutions, the basic regulatory norms, the nature of the law survived Ivan IV himself and retained its positive meaning for a long time.

The period of reforms of the Elected Rada was replaced by a policy of extraordinary internal political measures of Ivan IV - the policy of oprichnina. The term "oprichnina" according to a long tradition referred to a special inheritance of the widows of fallen warriors of the nobility, after the main part of the land ownership passed back to the prince. Oprichnina Ivan IV called an appanage allocated to him in the state, which had a special army and administrative apparatus.

The beginning of the oprichnina policy is connected to the events of 1565, when the tsar renounced the throne, referring to the "treason" of the boyars. Political calculation of this step was that Ivan IV stipulated three conditions for his consent to return to the throne: the right to execute traitors at his discretion; introduction of oprichnina to ensure the royal household and security; payment of 100 thousand rubles to "raise" (for the initial arrangement) the rest of the country (zemshchina). - a huge amount by the standards of the time.

In his oprichnina the tsar took many counties in the west, southwest and center of the country, rich northern regions, part of the territory of Moscow. The oprichnitsa corps - a thousand specially selected nobles - received estates in the oprichnina counties, and all the zemstvos were evicted from them. The oprichnina created its own Duma, its own court, its own orders. The tsar concentrated in his hands the control of diplomacy and the most important affairs, he withdrew from the current administration, all the burdens of the Livonian war lay with the zemstvo. The oprichnogo corps had only two duties: to guard the tsar and the extermination of traitors.

The fight against the alleged treason was carried out through mass repressions: executions, relocations, confiscation of land and property. Soon terror engulfed the entire country, its victims were not only individual boyar or noble families, but entire cities. Mass executions took place in Novgorod (by the minimal calculations the victims were about 3 thousand people). Reason for it were suspicions of the tsar about traitorous relations of Novgorodians with the Polish king. Oprichny terror took terrifying scale, heads of oprichnogo army changed (A.Basmanov was executed, on his place Maljuta Skuratov has risen), but reprisals with "traitors" did not stop. Victims of repressions became both notable boyars and numerous people close to them, and the highest state officials, and absolutely not notable people and peasants. Oprichnina lasted 7 years - until 1572. Its abolition was associated with a complete economic decline of the country - the ruin of entire regions, with the defeats of the Russian army in the Livonian War, with the campaign of the Crimean Khan in Russia.

The history of oprichnina is still not entirely clear, there are several concepts that try to explain the meaning and causes of the policy of state terror of Ivan IV (nicknamed "The Terrible"). A number of historians see in oprichnina a super rigid way to centralization. In their view, Ivan the Terrible's refusal of reforms was dictated by the desire to accelerate the pace of centralization. Another concept relates the reasons for oprichnina to the tsar's desire for full state power. While the tsar was too young, he tolerated smart and authoritative advisers (Chosen Rada) by his side, and when he gained the necessary political experience, he dismissed them and began to rule alone. Some historians see in oprichnina a way of struggle against objective opponents of centralization (Novgorod separatism, church, etc.). There is a point of view on oprichnina as a result of mental disorders of the tsar, as a generation of his morbid suspicion and cruelty. His son, the heir to the throne Ivan, whom he mortally wounded, also became a victim of the tsar's unrestrained anger. Although factual knowledge about the events of the oprichnina has greatly expanded today, a consistent explanation of this event in Russian history is hardly possible.

But the results of the oprichnina and their influence on the further course of events are quite obvious. First of all, oprichnina led to a severe economic crisis. Villages were deserted, in Novgorod lands up to 90% of arable land was not cultivated. For the state, whose economy was based on the agricultural sector, it was a terrible blow.

A consequence of the oprichnina was also the fall of the fighting power of the Russian army. The impoverishment and ruin of the landlords, from whom the armed forces were formed, caused a crisis in the army. The Livonian war was lost.

Mass repressions during the oprichnina had serious demographic consequences. Approximate estimates of R.G. Skrynnikov determine the death toll at 10 - 15 thousand people. For Russia with its traditionally low population density these losses were enormous. The network of settlements was sharply reduced, the labor population decreased. At the same time, however, we should not forget that Ivan the Terrible's contemporaries - the Spanish Kings Charles V and Philip II, King Henry VIII of England and King Charles IX of France executed hundreds of thousands of people in the most brutal manner.

Another result of the oprichnina was a sharp increase in the unlimited power of the Tsar. The problem of the ratio of power (state) and society was resolved in favor of the former. The role of the Boyar Duma declined. Although the Duma remained as a tribute to tradition, it became more subordinate to the tsar.

From the point of view of historical-liberal approach oprichnina is a way of centralization, opposite to the way of successive structural reforms of the Elected Rada. It is viewed as a forced centralization of the state, undertaken without sufficient economic and social prerequisites, and therefore resulted in mass terror. On the whole, it was not an anti-boyar policy. Rather, it was a conflict within the ruling class, provoked by Ivan IV to strengthen his power. The destruction of the landed aristocracy in Russia led to the further strengthening of state despotism. The oprichnina eliminated property-owners independent of the government, who could have been the basis for the formation of a civil society in Russia. There was a governmentalization of society: all depended on the state and personally on the Tsar.

Terror led to the final establishment of a despotic regime in Russia. Even the feudal elite had no protection from the arbitrariness of the monarch, the Russian nobility (whose rights were significantly limited before the oprichnina) became "serfs of the autocracy.

In terms of modernization theory, these changes can be seen as an attempt by the authorities to move Russia along the eastern (Asian) path, which was characterized by unconditional subordination of the entire population to the authorities. This was the basis of the dynamic development and power of the Ottoman Empire at that time, which in turn led to the borrowing of its historical experience.

However, as noted by most historians, the difficult situation of the country after the abolition of oprichnina did not improve. Tax pressure of the state on the sharply reduced contingent of the propertied class did not weaken. The peasants responded by running away (including to the outskirts of the country), leaving for lands not subject to taxation. In such a situation the government in 1581 introduced the regime of "reserved years", when the right of peasant transition was abolished. This was a real step toward the establishment of serfdom.

The central point of Russian foreign policy was the eastern direction. Kazan feudal lords constantly undertook raids on Russian lands. Their prey was the Slavs, who were turned into slaves.

In 1548 the Russian army undertook an attack on Kazan, but failed. In 1550. Ivan the Terrible personally led a military offensive against the Tatars, which lasted about two weeks. Ivan IV and military leaders began thorough preparations for the third campaign to Kazan. On the right bank of the Volga against Kazan was erected fortress of Sviyazh. In 1552 began a decisive attack on Kazan. Movement of the army was led by Ivan IV, voivodes A. B. Gorbaty, A. M. Kurbsky, M. I. Vorotynsky. At the end of August Russians encircled Kazan, and in October the capital of the Kazan Khanate fell.

After Kazan, Ivan IV moved troops on the Volga and defeated the Astrakhan Khanate, thereby ending three centuries of Tatar dominance in the Volga region. Russia had a limitless prospect of moving eastward. A vast territory from the North Caucasus to Siberia fell into the sphere of Russian influence. The rulers of the Siberian Khanate and the Great Nogai Horde recognized themselves as vassals of the Russian Tsar. The Bashkirs and Chuvash announced their voluntary accession to Russia.

After the conquest of Kazan Russia turned its eyes to the Baltic. It began to nurture plans for the conquest of Livonia and the establishment of its dominance in the Baltics. The long and difficult war was called the Livonian War. In the second half of January 1558 the Russian troops crossed the Livonian border near Pskov. Having entered a foreign territory, the Russian army found itself at war not only with Livonia, but also with its permanent allies - Lithuania and Poland. It did not portend easy victories, although at the beginning of the war the Livonian knights suffered one defeat after another. In the summer of 1558 the Russians reached the shores of the Baltic Sea. The attack on Revel and Riga developed successfully. Soon the Russian army reached the borders with East Prussia and Lithuania. Moscow celebrated the victory, but under the pressure of anti-war sentiment, Ivan IV agreed to a truce. This was not slow to take advantage of the supporters of the anti-Russian coalition. Tactical mistake cost Russia dearly, because the Livonian Order used the truce to gather military forces.

A month before the end of the truce Livonian troops unexpectedly appeared in the vicinity of Yuriev and defeated the Russians. Upon learning of this, Ivan the Terrible ordered the army to move immediately into Livonia. The autumn thaw had begun and the tsarist army was stuck on the roads between Moscow and Novgorod. The tsar sent Prince Kurbsky against the Livonians. Following him in the army went A. Adashev. The voivodes defeated the knight army by decisive force, but the offensive of the army stopped after the unsuccessful siege of the Paide castle.

At the beginning of February 1563 the Russian army begun to besiege Polotsk. Two weeks later the garrison of Polotsk surrendered. The victory over Polotsk was the high point of Russia's success in the Livonian War, after which began a decline, serious military setbacks and difficult negotiations. According to Moscow's designs, the army marching from Polotsk was to join with the army from Smolensk for a joint attack on Minsk. The Lithuanians attacked the Polotsk grouping before the armies joined and defeated it. The Smolensk army was forced to leave Lithuania in a hurry. These failures complicated the military situation in Russia. The war was taking a long time.

In 1566 Ivan IV presented the questions of war and peace to the Zemsky Sobor in Moskra. Council unanimously decided to continue the war. However, military successes were short-lived, they were interspersed with defeats. The forces for victory were clearly insufficient. Russia ceded to Poland all Livonia, Polotsk, Velizh on the border of Smolensk land. The Swedes got Northern Estonia, the Russian towns of Jan, Koporie, Ivangorod, and Narva. Russia lost almost all the coast of the Gulf of Finland.

The foreign policy of Russia on its eastern borders was more successful. After the crushing of the Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates, came the turn of the Siberian Khanate, the last fragment of the Golden Horde. The campaign of Ermak against the Siberian khan Kuchum marked the beginning of the development of Siberia by the Russians. In September 1581 Ermak left the Chusov towns and soon entered the capital of the Kuchum Khanate. Two major battles were won by the Cossacks on the banks of the Tobol and Irtysh Rivers. On October 26, 1581 Ermak solemnly entered Kashlyk, the capital of the Siberian khanate.

After the campaign of Ermak the development of this rich region began. Peaceful colonization was accompanied by the forcible subjugation of the local Siberian peoples. The annexation of Siberia to Russia opened up broad prospects for the development of the Russian state.

The 17th century, as aptly defined by N.M. Karamzin, opened for Russia with "an infernal game of domination, disasters of ferocious hunger and widespread robberies, hardening of hearts, depravity of the people - everything that precedes the subversion of states".

The term "Time of Troubles" began to be used during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich

N.M. Karamzin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.M. Solovyov, recreating the history of the Russian state, characterized the Time of Troubles as a time of great turmoil. S. F. Platonov distinguishes three periods in the development of the Troubles: the first - the struggle for the Moscow throne (Boyar Troubles); the second - the destruction of the state order (the beginning of a broad social struggle) and the third - attempts to restore order in the state and society.

The Troubles is a product of a complex social crisis, and the reason for it was the suppression of the Rurikovich dynasty. But the real causes, according to V.O. Kluchevsky, were in the unequal distribution of state duties, which gave rise to social discord.

Historians of the Soviet period, considered these events, and highlighted the factor of the class struggle. A number of contemporary researchers call the Troubles the first civil war in Russia. There is also another explanation of the content of the Troubles - it is a powerful crisis that covered the economic, socio-political sphere and morality. This is a period of virtual powerlessness, chaos, unprecedented social upheaval.

The beginning of the Troubles was largely due to the fact that the dynasty of Moscow Prince Ivan Kalita was interrupted, and the Russian throne became an arena of struggle for power of numerous legal and illegal applicants - for 15 years, there were more than 10 of them. Social and political, and then the civil war "depleted" the young, rapidly growing Russian state. The country was plunged into a series of bloody domestic turmoil, which almost drew a line under its existence. Society was divided into several warring factions, part of the Russian territories was captured by enemies, there was no central government, there was a real threat of loss of independence.

The preconditions for the Troubles originated during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, who, by sharply strengthening despotic omnipotence, laid the foundations of this crisis.

The situation was aggravated by the defeat in the Livonian War (1558-1583), which caused enormous human and material losses. These losses increased significantly after the defeat of Moscow by the Crimean Khan Devlet Giray in 1571.

Historians also cite the consequences of Ivan the Terrible's "tyrannical" rule as an important precondition leading to the Troubles. Oprichnina, repressions against the reformers shook the whole society, struck a blow to the country's economy and public morality.

(1584 – 1598) Feodor to Godubov

The death of Ivan IV in 1584 exposed the crisis of the ruling dynasty. Power was inherited by Ivan the Terrible's second son, Feodor, whose inferiority was obvious. Ivan IV's third son, Tsarevich Dmitry, died as a child in Uglich. Sick and morally broken monarch withdrew from the government and entrusted it to his brother-in-law - Boris Godunov. Tsar Feodor died childless in 1598, and power passed to Godunov. Ivan IV's successors inherited great power from him, but they consolidated it not through terror, which was compromised. They relied on the stability of the central and local government apparatus that had been formed during the reforms of the Elected Rada.

Historical literature notes that from 1588 B. F. Godunov became the real ruler of the country. He managed to strengthen his position at the court of Ivan IV by marrying the daughter of the tsar's favorite oprichnik - Malyuta Skuratov. He became even more firmly established in Moscow when Tsar Feodor married his sister Irina. It was during this period of time that the official decision of the Boyar Duma gave him the right to receive foreign sovereigns independently. In this activity he proved himself to be a far-sighted and experienced politician.

In 1598 Tsar Feodor died. With his death the Rurik dynasty on the throne of Moscow ceased. The state became a nobody's land, since there were no heirs to the tsarist dynasty. Under these circumstances the upper Moscow aristocracy resumes the struggle for power.

Three periods are distinguished in the development of the Troubles:

1) the dynastic period of the struggle for the throne;

2) Social - a period, which is characterized by internecine struggle of various segments of Russian society and the intervention of interventionists in this struggle;

3) national - a period during which the people's struggle against foreign domination unfolded, a period which ended with the establishment of a national government headed by M.F. Romanov.

According to the definition of S.G. Pushkarev, the struggle for power, which began in 1598, resulted in the complete collapse of the state order, to the internecine struggle "all against all".

In the beginning of 1598 the Zemsky Sobor elected B. F. Godunov (1598-1605) the tsar. He was the first elected tsar in the history of Russia. Historians assess differently Boris Godunov and the period of his tsarist reign. VN Tatishchev called Godunov the creator of serfdom in Russia. N.M. Karamzin believed that Boris Godunov could have earned the glory of one of the best rulers in the world if he had been the rightful tsar. V.O. Klyuchevsky noted the considerable intelligence, talent of B.F. Godunov, although he suspected him of duplicity and perfidy.

In modern historiography these opposing views on Boris Godunov have survived. Some historians portray him as a temporary worker, a politician, unsure of himself and afraid of open action. Other researchers, on the contrary, depict Boris Godunov as a very wise sovereign. R.G. Skrynnikov wrote that B.F. Godunov had many great plans, but unfavorable circumstances prevented him from carrying them out.

In the early seventeenth century, Russia was hit by natural disasters, and then the civil war began. In 1601 - 1603 the entire country was gripped by a terrible famine. Heavy rains and early frosts wiped out all the peasants' crops. The reserves of bread quickly ran out. According to written sources, within three years one third of the kingdom of Moscow died out. During the years of famine Godunov twice (in 1601 and 1602) issued decrees on the temporary resumption of the peasants' work on Yuriev day. This way he wanted to ease the discontent of the people. Although the effect of the decrees did not apply to peasants from the boyar and church lands, they aroused strong resistance from the feudal elite. Under their pressure, the tsar refused to renew Yuriev Day in 1603.

A difficult situation arose in the country, which was taken advantage of by the Polish nobility. In 1604 began the invasion of the Russian state by an army of False Dmitry I - a man who claimed to be Tsarevich Dmitry (the last son of Ivan IV). False Dmitry I received the military support of the Polish feudal lords, who sought to seize Smolensk and Chernigov lands. Polish intervention unfolded under the pretext of restoring to the Russian throne the rightful tsar - Dmitry.

On August 15, 1604, having gathered a motley army of several thousand Polish adventurers and two thousand Russian Cossacks, False Dmitry I began a campaign against Russia. At the beginning of 1605 his army entered Moscow with appeals to overthrow Boris Godunov. The tsar sent a large army against the impostor, which acted quite indecisively. At this time, on April 13, 1605, Tsar Boris died suddenly in Moscow (apparently from a heart attack).

The death of Boris Godunov gave rise to the further development of the Troubles in the Russian state. A grandiose civil war began, which shook the country to its foundations.

In June 1605, a new Tsar - Dmitry I appeared on the Russian throne. He acted as an energetic ruler, trying to create an alliance of European countries to fight against Turkey. But his domestic policy was not all good. Dmitry did not follow old Russian customs and traditions; the Poles who came with him behaved arrogantly, offending the Moscow nobility. After Dmitry married his Catholic bride, Marina Mniszek, who had come from Poland, and crowned her as tsarina, the boyars, led by Vasily Shuisky, raised the people against him. False Demetrius I was killed.

Vasily Shuisky (1606 - 1610) ascended the Russian throne. Relying on the high Moscow nobility, he became the first tsar in Russian history, who, on coming to the throne, swore to limit his autocracy. A cunning politician, Vasily Shuisky promised his subjects to rule by law, to retain all boyar privileges, and to pass sentences only after a thorough investigation. This was the first treaty of the Russian tsar with his subjects. V.O. Kluchevsky wrote that Vasily Shuisky was transforming from a sovereign of serfs into a rightful tsar of his subjects, ruling by law. It was a timid attempt to create a state of law in Russia.

But no attempt to come to terms with the people was successful, nor did it pacify Russian society. The social stage of the Troubles began. In the spring of 1606 there was an event known as the Bolotnikov Rebellion. These events were considered by V.O. Klyuchevsky and S.F. Platonov as a social struggle of the masses against the advance of serfdom. Soviet historians, emphasizing the social essence of these events, used such terms as "peasant revolution", "Cossack revolution", "peasant war". In recent years, domestic historiography has included such an assessment of the peasant war as part of the concept of "the first civil war in Russia".

The social base of I. Bolotnikov's rebellion was very mixed: the destitute, runaway serfs, peasants, Cossacks and even the boyars. According to the sources, the rebels had two armies: one led by I. Bolotnikov with Princes A. Shakhovsky and B. Telyatevsky, the other - landowner from Tula I. Pashkov, later joined by nobleman P. Lyapunov. Both rebel armies and their leaders did not differ much from each other in character, social composition and methods of struggle.

The reasons for this rebellion are quite complex. On the one hand, a deep social crisis and the strengthening of serfdom worsened the situation of the people and contributed to the growth of local unrest. On the other hand, the rebellious serfs were joined by Cossacks, and nobles. The calls of the leaders of the uprising did not contain slogans for changing the social order. Moreover, Bolotnikov distributed to his comrades-in-arms the confiscated lands, and they became landlords. Therefore, this rebellion as a whole cannot be treated as anti-feudal.

Both armies of the rebels reached Moscow, where I. Bolotnikov's army was defeated in the spring of 1607. This event further complicated the situation: looting, criminality spread, and False Dmitry II appeared. The identity of the man who claimed to be Tsar Dmitry, who miraculously escaped the Boyars' conspiracy in Moscow, has not yet been reliably established. Under his banner gathered oppressed peoples, Cossacks, some servicemen, detachments of Polish and Lithuanian adventurers. False Dmitry II relied on the forces of the Polish feudal lords and Cossack detachments. According to V.B. Kobrin, the impostor inherited the adventurism of his predecessor, but not his talents. With an army of almost 100 thousand, he was not able to bring order to its ranks, to knock out Vasily Shuisky of Moscow. False Demetrius II in July 1608 set up camp near the capital. For a year and a half Russia had two equal capitals - Moscow and Tushino, each with its own king, Duma and patriarch. The country was divided: some were for Tsar Vasily II, others for False Dimitry II. The struggle between the Tsar and the impostor went on with varying success, until a third force emerged - the son of Polish King Sigismund III, Vladislav.

The fact is that in 1609. V. Shuisky summoned the Swedish army to his aid. At the beginning the Russian-Swedish armies successfully fought against the Polish, but soon the Swedes began to seize the lands of Novgorod. As a result the intervention expanded. The presence of Swedish troops in Russia aroused the anger of the Polish king Sigismund III, as he was at enmity with Sweden. In September 1609 he and his army crossed the border and besieged Smolensk. At that time, sensible people from different camps came to a compromise: they offered the Russian throne to Vladislav, the son of the Polish king. The Tushin camp fell apart. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where he was killed at the end of 1610. Tsar Vasily was overthrown in the summer of 1610 and forcibly tonsured. The power was a group of seven boyars - "semiboyarshchina". At this point, Sigismund suddenly decided to take the throne from his son. All the plans of the supporters of conflict resolution collapsed. The throne in Moscow was once again empty.

The growth of the Polish-Swedish intervention in Russian territory led to the beginning of the third - national stage of the Troubles. At this extremely difficult time for the country its patriotic forces managed to unite and repulse the invaders' claims. In 1611, the Zemsky Novgorod headman Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky united the people in a militia and managed to liberate Russian lands from the invaders. It was the beginning of the struggle for the rebirth of the Russian state.

Consequences of the Troubles for several decades have defined the development of Russian society. We shall highlight the most important of them.

In economic terms, the Troubles left a disastrous imprint. Not without reason contemporaries called it "the great Moscow devastation. Central and western parts of Russia were depopulated, the arable land in some districts decreased tenfold, and the low-powered peasant economy was incapable even of simple self-reproduction. The state experienced serious financial difficulties.

In social terms, the end of the Time of Troubles did not mean a complete overcoming of the crisis of Russian society at the turn of the XVI - XVII centuries. On the contrary, the devastation and financial problems entailed an increase in tax pressure, an increase in the duration of the terms of "urokih years" to the full enslavement of the peasant and posadast population, which, in turn, exacerbated social contradictions. It is no coincidence that XVII century went down in history as a "rebellious age": 1648 - Salt riots in Moscow, 1650 - uprisings in Novgorod and Pskov. - There were uprisings in Novgorod and Pskov, in 1654 - the Plague Riot in Moscow, in 1662 - the Copper Riot and, at last, in 1670 - 1671 the Peasants' Revolt - The Peasant War led by S. T. Razin. And this is not a complete list.

Politically, the Troubles marked a further weakening of the position of the nobility and brought the nobility to the forefront of political life. A significant political consequence of the Time of Troubles was also the activation of class-representative bodies of power. In the most important issues - war and peace, financial - the ruling circles relied on the Zemstvo councils, which at first acted almost continuously.

The main directions of Russia's foreign policy of the 17th century were also largely predetermined by the results of the Troubles. Under the Stolbovsky Treaty of 1617. the coast of the Gulf of Finland and Karelian Sea were ceded to Sweden and Russia was deprived of access to the Baltic. Even more difficult were the conditions of the Truce of Deulin in 1618: Smolensk, Chernigov and northern territories went to Poland. The return of the lands which had been ceded to Poland, as well as the Ukraine, was at the core of the Russian state's foreign-policy efforts.

In cultural and civilizational terms, the results of the Troubles are ambiguous: on the one hand, a growth of national patriotic feelings and sentiments; on the other hand, an increase in the isolation of the country. One of the essential manifestations of this process were religious disputes, the struggle for the purity of Russian Orthodoxy.

Trends in socio-economic and the political

The beginning of the 17th century in Russia is associated with overcoming the "great Moscow devastation". During the first 10-12 years of this century huge expanses of uncultivated land reappeared. The process of restoration of the economy took thirty years - from 20s to 50s of the XVII century.

The level of agricultural development in the 17th century remained low. Primitive tools and farming systems were still used. Agriculture was following the extensive way of development, and more and more land was put into circulation. The serfdom of the peasants did not inspire interest in the results of their labor. At the end of the 17th century out of 812,000 haul yards only about 10% belonged to the free serfs and chernosososhnykh peasants.

The bulk of the landowners' and peasants' farms were of subsistence nature. However, there were farms, formed on other principles. Developed all kinds of trades - seasonal and year-round.

The most important achievement of industry in the XVII century was the emergence of manufactories - large industrial enterprises based on the use of hired and division of manual labor. The first manufactories appeared in the metallurgical industry.

Social changes entailed changes in the economic structure of the economy. Developed in the cities crafts ceased to commodity production. This contributed to the further deepening of economic specialization of the districts. An all-Russian market began to be formed in the country. The development of interregional relations was promoted by fairs of all-Russian significance: Makarievskaya (near Nizhny Novgorod), Irbitskaya, Svenskaya (near Bryansk), etc. Some major Russian cities became trade centers: Moscow, Arkhangelsk, Novgorod, Astrakhan, etc.

Not only domestic but also foreign trade was expanding. Russia traded with England, Holland, Sweden, Poland, Persia and other countries.

The process of development of entrepreneurship was slow. In the 17th century merchants were not yet a distinct category of the population or estate. Nevertheless the tsarist government began to take care of trade and industrial entrepreneurship. According to the Decree of the Sobor (1649), posadskie people received a monopoly right to engage in trade and industry. The Trade Charter (1653), the Charter of the customs (1654), the New Trade Charter (1667) established differentiated duties for foreign merchants which created more favorable conditions for Russian trade people and simultaneously increased the amount of currency revenues to the state treasury. Thus, in the 17th century the most important changes in the feudal-agrarian economy of Russia took place, which created the prerequisites for major economic changes...

In the seventeenth century, our state, in the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky, was an "armed Velikorossiya". It was surrounded by enemies and fought on three fronts: eastern, southern and western. As a consequence, the state had to be in a state of full combat readiness. Hence the main task of the Moscow ruler was to organize the armed forces of the country. A powerful external threat created the preconditions for an even greater strengthening of central, i.e. tsarist, power. The legislative, executive and judicial powers were now concentrated in the hands of the tsar. All government actions were carried out on behalf of the sovereign and by his decree.

(1613 - 1648) Mikhail Romanov

There was a need for a strong central government. At the very beginning of 1613 convened the Zemsky Sobor for the election of a new Tsar. He was elected as the son of a noble boyar - Mikhail Romanov (1613 - 1648). His reputation was clean, the Romanov family was not involved in any adventures of the Time of Troubles. Although M.F. Romanov was only 16 years old and had no experience, his influential father, Metropolitan Philaret, stood behind him.

The young tsar's government was faced with very difficult tasks: 1) to reconcile the warring factions; 2) to repel the attacks of the interventionists; 3) to return some native Russian lands; 4) to conclude peace treaties with neighboring countries; 5) to establish economic life in the country. In a relatively short period, these difficult tasks were solved.

Mikhail Romanov (1613 - 1645) was the third elected tsar in the history of Russia, but the circumstances of his accession to power were much more complicated than that of B. Godunov and V. Shuisky. He got a completely ruined country, surrounded by enemies and riven by internal strife. As he came to the throne, Mikhail kept all the officials in their places, without sending anyone into disgrace, which contributed to a general reconciliation. The government of the new tsar was quite representative. It included I. B. Cherkassky, B. M. Lykov-Obolensky, D. M. Pozharsky, I. F. Troekurov and others. In the difficult situation in which the reign of Mikhail Romanov began, it was impossible to rule the country alone, authoritarian power was doomed to failure, so the young sovereign actively involves the Boyar Duma and zemstvo councils to address important state affairs. Some researchers (V.N. Tatishchev, G.K. Kotoshihin) think that these measures of the tsar are a manifestation of the weakness of his power; other historians (V.O. Klyuchevsky, L.E. Morozova), on the contrary, believe that it reflects Mikhail's understanding of the new situation in the country.

The Boyar Duma was the circle of the closest advisers to the king, which included the most prominent and representative boyars of the time and "okolnichie", who received the title of boyar from the king. The number of members of the Boyar Duma was small: it rarely exceeded 50 people. The powers of this body were not determined by any special laws, and were limited to the old traditions, customs or the will of the Tsar. V.O. Kluchevsky wrote that "the Duma was in charge of a very wide range of judicial and administrative issues. This is confirmed by the Sobor Code of 1649, which states that the Duma is the highest judicial instance. During the XVII century the following special commissions were separated from the Boyar Duma as the need arose: the Decree, the Court, the Reconciliation Commission, the Responsibility Commission and others.

Thus, in the period under review the Boyarsky Duma was a permanent government body, which had advisory functions.

Zemsky Sobors were another body of the political system of that period. The composition of the councils included representatives of four categories of society: clergy, nobility, nobility, the top of the suburban population. Usually the staff numbered 300 to 400 people.

Zemsky Sobors in XVII century convened irregularly. In the first decades after the Troubles their role was great, they met almost continuously, changing the composition of the participants. As the tsarist power strengthened, their role in resolving issues of foreign, financial and tax policy constantly decreased. They became more and more informational meetings. Mikhail Romanov's government needed information about the economic situation, the country's financial capacity in the event of war, information about the situation in the provinces. For the last time a full assembly of the Zemsky Sobor met in 1653.

(1645 - 1676) Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov

Since the second half of the 17th century another function of zemsky sobors appeared. Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov (1645 - 1676) began to use them as a tool of domestic policy in the form of a declarative meeting. This was the time in the history of our state, when the first signs of absolutism appeared, so zemskie sobors served the government mainly as a place for declarations.

By the end of the XVII century zemskie sobor were no longer convened. The main reason for this phenomenon was the absence of the third estate. Throughout the XVII century there was a process of steady development of commodity-money relations, strengthening of cities, the gradual emergence of the All-Russian market. But at the same time strengthened the tradition of alliance between the tsarist power and the nobility, which was built on the further ruin of the population. Under these conditions, the central government rather unceremoniously treated the merchant class, which had never been a full-fledged private property owner, occupying a degraded position. This situation was changed by the town rebellions in the middle of the 17th century, but the alliance of the tsar's power with the nobility was again fixed in the Sobornoye Ulozheniye (Code of Laws) of 1649, which imposed even more stringent tax and legislative oppression on the cities; at the same time the nobles' estates and nobles' fiefdoms were brought closer together.

Thus, the XVII century is connected with the strengthening of private property in its feudal form, which was one of the reasons for the decline of the role of zemsky sobor.

The organs of central administration in the Moscow state were prikazes. The first prikazes were created as early as the 16th century, and in the 17th century they became even more widespread. As it is noted in historical literature orders arose gradually as administrative tasks became more complicated, i.e. they were not created according to a single plan, so the distribution of functions between them was complex and confusing. Some prikazes dealt with affairs throughout the country, others - only in certain regions, some - in the palace economy, others - in small businesses. The number of employees in the prikazhs grew steadily, and eventually they turned into a broad bureaucratic system of administration.

Local administration in Russia in the 15th - first half of the 16th century was, as already mentioned, in the hands of viceroys and volosts, whose posts were called "kormeniya" and they - "kormlenchikami". In order to protect the population from arbitrariness and abuse in this area, the new government in the XVII century introduced voevodskoe board. Viceroys were replaced by elected zemstvo authorities. In the cities appeared the positions of voivodes, who concentrated in their hands the civil and military authority. They were subordinated to the prikazes.

Voivode board significantly reduced abuses in the collection of taxes, and most importantly, further centralized the management of the country.

Analysis of governing bodies at this stage of the country's development allows us to conclude that in the first half of the 17th century the Moscow state continued to be autocratic (as it was in the second half of the 16th century). The power of the Russian tsar was by no means always unlimited. Besides even having lost its purely aristocratic nature the Boyarskaya Duma defended its rights and the tsar had to reckon with it.

From the second half of the XVII century the nature of the state becomes autocratic-bureaucratic. It was a period of decline of zemstvo elements, increased bureaucratization in the bodies of central and local government. In the mid 50-ies of the 17th century, autocracy was formally restored: Alexei Mikhailovich took the title of the "Tsar, Sovereign, Grand Duke, Grand of Little and White Russia". At the same time he sharply commented on the red tape in the clerical system, tried to restore order by suppressing bribery, and self-interest.

Alexei Mikhailovich relied on smart, reliable people, so during his reign a galaxy of talented statesmen came forward: F.M. Rtischev, A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin, A.S. Matveev, L.D. Lopukhin and others.

In addition, Tsar Alexei tried to solve many problems bypassing the clerical system. He received an enormous number of complaints about red tape and unfair trials, so the tsar established the Privy Prikaz, with significant functions and broad powers. The Privy Prikaz acted on behalf of the tsar and was not constrained by any laws. Its activities allowed the tsar to concentrate in his hands the main strands of government. According to A.E. Presnyakov, Alexei Mikhailovich's Secret Order played the same role as that of His Majesty's Cabinet in the 18th century.

The new social role of Alexei Mikhailovich, caused by the beginning of the transition to absolute monarchy, was connected with the desire to concentrate in his hands the main levers of governance. In historical literature it is noted that the tsar Alexei with his reforms and deeds has prepared and laid the foundation for future transformations of Peter I.

So, in the XVII century the first Romanovs formed the main features of the state and social structure, which prevailed in Russia with minor changes to the bourgeois reforms of 60 - 70 years of the XIX century.

What was autocracy in the 17th century and how did it differ from Western absolutism?

The main peculiarity of Russian autocracy is the complete unity of church and state. Unlike Western Europe, the Orthodox Church not only laid the foundation of Russian culture, but also played a major role in the formation of Russian statehood. Belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church and the fulfillment of its precepts was mandatory for the tsar. The tsar himself, according to Byzantine tradition, was also a spiritual person. He is the supreme ruler of church and state. From the confluence of church and state stemmed the main function of the tsar's power, which was to maintain internal order in the country, administer justice, and protect the country from foreign enemies.

Another distinguishing feature of autocracy in Russia is universal government conscription of all classes and classes of Russian society, which led to the enslavement of society, and this enslavement began not from below, but from above. Having enslaved the top of society, the tsarist government enslaved the peasants. The complete dependence of the Russian nobility on the autocratic power distinguished it from the nobility of Western Europe.

From the universal conscription and enslavement of society stemmed and the third important feature of the autocratic system - the general unanimity in the sphere of social consciousness and political culture. Closely related to the political and ideological consensus was steadfast traditionalism (adherence to tradition). It was the main obstacle to progressive transformations.

What was Russia like at the end of the 17th century, on the eve of Peter's reforms, and how necessary were they?

In the seventeenth century, Moscow Russia was the largest state in the world. As a result of constant colonization, its borders stretched from the Arctic Ocean to the Caspian Sea, from the Dnieper to the upper reaches of the Amur River and the shores of the Sea of Okhotsk in the Far East. But only 13 million people lived in this vast territory. (in France, for example, 18 million), and the population was concentrated mainly in Northern and Central Russia.

By the end of the seventeenth century, Moscow Russia became a multinational state. It was in the 17th century that the very name of the country, Russia, was finally confirmed and it was defined as a Euro-Asian power. In this sense, the Russian state emblem, the double-headed eagle, acquired a new meaning, emphasizing not only Asian, but also European essence of the country. Russia consisted of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tatars, Bashkirs, and the peoples of the Volga region, the Urals, and Siberia. The population of Russia practiced different religions - Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Russia's Eurasian essence defined all of its subsequent history.

Despite its large territory, Russia experienced difficulties in its economic development. It had no access to the seas through which to trade with Europe, since the only port it had was Arkhangelsk. There was not even a direct river route between Moscow and Arkhangelsk. Access to the Baltic Sea was controlled by Sweden, which owned the territory of modern Latvia, Estonia, part of Karelia and Finland, as well as the mouth of the Neva. Access to the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea was blocked by Turkey and the Crimean Khanate. Ivan the Terrible's conquest of the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan in the mid-16th century opened the way to the Caspian Sea, through which trade with the East was established. But this did not solve all its problems.

At this time in Western Europe there was a process of emancipation of the peasantry. In Russia, on the contrary, the remaining free peasants were enslaved. The final legal registration of serfdom took place in 1649 in the Sobor Edict of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. According to this document the landowning nobles were given the right to own the peasants living on these lands. In the attachment of the peasants not to the land, but to the landowner is the fundamental difference between the agrarian system of Russia and Western Europe. In France, Italy, and Germany the peasants were limited to paying the landlord a tribute, usually in cash. The dependence of the peasant was formal, he could even be personally free and, therefore, interested in the results of his labor, which was an incentive for the producer. This determined the process of Western European farming, and the yield of grain here was 1.5 - 2 times higher than in Russia, where there was serfdom and barchan land tenure.

The process of enslavement cannot be assessed unequivocally. On the one hand, it is assessed as adequate to the needs of the country's development and strengthening of its power, on the other hand, one cannot but see that it caused the subsequent lagging behind the European states in the future. Proponents of the historical-materialistic approach see a class content in the process of enslavement, the desire of feudal lords to strengthen their position by increasing the exploitation of serfs. Gradual destruction of the subsistence economy and the development of commodity-money relations in the 17th century forced the landlord to sell more and more agricultural products on the market. To produce more produce under such conditions was possible only by peasants being attached to the arable land. This was the main reason for the emergence of serfdom.

But the peasants themselves had to agree to be attached to the landowner because they owed him money and could not run their own farm. Losing the patronage of the feudal lord, the peasant became defenseless against all arbitrariness. The Russian peasant therefore had little interest in the good results of his labor. The situation was aggravated by Russia's harsh natural and climatic conditions. All this led to a growing lagging behind Western Europe.

Gradually, but slowly, economic progress still made its way. How did this manifest itself?

1) the foundations of a closed subsistence economy were undermined, crafts and small-scale commodity production were developing;

2) inter-regional specialization in the production of various goods: iron and iron products, leather, salt, etc., individual regions began to produce bread for sale

3) the formation of the All-Russian market;

4) industry was developing, although it was represented mainly by cottage industries; crafts were acquiring the features of small commodity production, which focused on the market. Thus, in the XVII century. in Tula and Kashira appeared the first metallurgical plants, in the 30s - the first manufactories.

Representatives of the historical-liberal approach bring to the fore the idea that the process of enslavement ensured the interests of the whole state, and despotism was the traditional Russian method of solving this problem. The difference in the direction of civilizational development of Russia and Europe is emphasized: when serfdom was established in Russia, the bourgeois revolution was taking place in England.

From the point of view of the modernization approach, serfdom was the basis of Russia's traditional development. While European states lacked free space for economic activity and were forced to seek ways to intensify, Russia, with its huge land fund could for a long time preserve the found methods of economic development, among which the main role played by serfdom.

At the end of the 17th century a socio-cultural crisis began in Russia, expressed in a church split between Nikon and the Old Believers, who declared themselves the only advocates of Orthodoxy, rejecting the state power, which, in their opinion, had changed Orthodoxy.

The prehistory of this schism is as follows. The strengthening of the autocratic Russian state led to changes in traditional church ideology and in the feudal-hierarchical organization of the church. In the preceding period the church had gradually built up a strong economic base. By the end of the seventeenth century the Russian church owned 37,000 households, which included 440,000 souls of the draught population. In all the most important events of public life the church took an active part. Its importance was based on several factors:

1) The religious worldview dominated undividedly;

2) Orthodoxy played a progressive role, being for the Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians a form of awareness of their unity, spiritual kinship;

3) The entire ruling class supported the church in every way, the church was the guardian of the spiritual life of society and the people.

In the 17th century the disagreements between the secular power and the church reached the stage when the conflict had to be resolved immediately. In these same years the clergy were deprived of many judicial and administrative rights. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the secular authorities helped the patriarch carry out a church reform. The state was primarily interested in this, because the strengthening of the country's international position was impossible without establishing ties with the Christian world; it was necessary to strengthen the priority of secular power and ensure the unity of the country's Orthodox population.

In 1652, the Church Council elected Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod to the patriarchal throne at the request of the tsar. From the first days of Nikon's coming to rule the Russian church, a strengthening of the Patriarchal power and an increase in its authority, not only in spiritual but also in national life, and a desire to reform the Church were noticed. Concrete expression of ecclesiastical innovations manifested itself in the unification of rites, rites and liturgical books with Greek ones.

Schism refers to a mass religious and social movement in opposition to the ruling church and the autocratic state. At first the word "schismatics" was used in reference to ordinary people who rejected the authority of the spiritual fathers. By the beginning of the 60s a prophet of the movement, Protopopop Avvakum, appeared who rejected Nikon's reforms. The most active resistance to the reforms manifested itself among the dissenters in acts of self-immolation. By the end of the 17th century the number of the burned reached 3 thousand people. For prevention of mass suicides the government had to equip searchers and military detachments. But these measures were not successful, self-immolations continued. This spontaneous movement was no less a threat to the state than open armed struggle.

In May 1666 the church council unanimously condemned Nikon, deprived him of the title of patriarch and sent him to the Belozersky monastery to resign. Nikon's reform split society into two numerous parts and created the basis for the development of mass sectarian currents against the official church, which developed in the 17th century in a situation of aggravation of class contradictions. Under the guise of religion, the church and the state struggled as a single ideological and socio-political force at the same time. The rise of the popular movement occurred in the 60 - 70 years of the 17th century, when there was ground for action not only against the upper class, but also against the serfdom course of domestic policy of the Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

An indicator of socio-cultural crisis were also broad social protests, which culminated in the peasant war led by Stepan Razin (1670 - 1671).

The expansion of the Moscow state and the development of its expansion into non-Russian lands resulted in the loss of the former national and religious homogeneity of Russia. The accession of the Ukraine, which brought Russia closer to the West, should be especially singled out. Western influence spread through Ukraine, and Moscow's elite became more and more familiar with the achievements of European culture. Western influence penetrated even into church life. In the inner circle of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were people who fully realized the need to converge with the West. Among them was A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin. He became famous not only for his diplomatic successes, but also for his bold reform projects. Being well acquainted with the achievements of Western social thought, he tried to introduce in Russia the elements of self-government in accordance with European standards; he refused to monitor certain fees, which were used to replenish the state treasury; he considered it necessary to develop private initiative in the development of economy, etc.

(1682-1689) Tsarevna Sophia

Despite the fact that the Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich favored A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin, he failed to implement many of his plans. V. V. Golitsyn (1643-1714), another reformer-Westerner, who became the de facto ruler of the state during the regency of Tsarevna Sophia (1682-1689), daughter of Alexei Mikhailovich, had more opportunities to realize his projects. The main elements of his plans were connected to development of education, spread of knowledge and literacy, encouragement of trade, crafts; easing of laws, refusal of medieval punishments. V. Golitsyn viewed peasant unfreedom as an obstacle to social development. Like A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin, he believed that it was necessary to abandon the ineffective noble militia, inclined toward the concept of a hired army.

Thus, Russia, having experienced in the XVII century, an acute socio-cultural crisis, expressed in the most acute social contradictions. Despite the national crisis, church and social schism, Russia, had strengthened the autocratic state, and was on the path of transformation in the country. By the end of the XVII century in Russian society was not only aware of the need for change, but also developed some clear ideas about the program of reforms.

Some Questions:

Russia at the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The need for:

The empire of the nobility in the second quarter - the middle of the 18th century.

Establishment of absolutism in Russia.

Peter I's reforms and their importance for the country.

Russia at the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries. The need to modernize Russian society.

Tests . (for students)

1. What exactly was the decisive factor that the Assembly of the Land in 1613 chose M.F.Romanov to be the tsar?

a) The presence of a lot of experience in the Boyar Duma;

b) the presence of an influential father behind his back – Metropolitan - Metropolitan Philaret;

c) the active work in organizing the repulse to the Polish and Swedish invaders;

d) military merits.

2. Name the most powerful social movement of the "rebellious" century.

a) The Salt Revolt of 1648;

b) the Copper Revolt in 1662;

c) a rebellion led by S. T. Razin (1667-1671);

d) "bread revolt".

3. 3. What kind of questions were discussed by the Assembly of the Land in the first half of the 17th century?

a) related only to the government's foreign policy actions;

b) related only to the problems of the internal life of the country

c) issues related to foreign policy and inner life of the country;

d) related only to financial issues.

4. Which of the orders founded by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich exercised control over the activities of the other orders?

a) The Treasury Prikaz (office of the treasury);

b) The order of secret affairs;

c) Razryadny Prikaz (editors-in-chief);

d) Patriarchal Prikaz (office of the Patriarch).

5. What legal act finally formalized the serf system in Russia?

a) The tsar's decree on "reserved years";

b) The Sobor Legal Code of 1649;

c) The tsar's decree on "uroychye let";

d) the Judicial Code of 1550. (by the decree of the tsar in 1550).

See Part four for:

Topic IV. Russia in the 18th century

.