Ivan IV's father died when his son was only three years old, in order to maintain power for his son, Vasily III creates a Regency Council to govern the country. Making this government agency was necessary not only for governance, but also to maintain power in the hands of their descendants.
The council itself did not last long in its initial composition. As a result of boyar intrigues, by the end of the summer of 1534, those undesirable were removed from it. “Power was concentrated in the hands of Ivan’s mother Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, who turned out to be a power-hungry and energetic woman.”
From the end of the 40s, Ivan IV began to rule independently; this period began with his coronation and marriage; When the heir comes of age, the Glinskys remain in power, and at this time he indulges in “disgraces and executions,” which aroused the indignation of the population. Unmotivated disgraces and executions of 1545-1546 (and, as a rule, extrajudicial), open manifestations dissatisfaction with the burdensome townspeople.
As a result of the controversial activities of the sovereign, the authority of the grand ducal power declines. Therefore, with the support of the boyars, Ivan the Terrible takes the title of Tsar. The coronation took place in the Assumption Cathedral on January 16, 1547.
The change in the rank of the Moscow monarch undoubtedly had a twofold direction: internal and external.
In foreign policy this title played important role, because Grand Duke was equated to a prince or duke, and a king to an emperor.
Need for reforms
Major milestone political development was the uprising in Moscow, which occurred shortly after the coronation of Ivan the Terrible. In 1547 there was an unusually dry summer. Fires have become more frequent in Moscow. The largest of them destroyed most wooden city. Several thousand residents died in the fire, tens of thousands were left homeless and foodless. Rumors arose that the fires were caused by arson and witchcraft. The authorities took the most savage measures against the “lighters”: they were tortured and during torture they talked about themselves, after which they were executed. On the second day after the “great fire,” a boyar commission was formed to punish those responsible for the disaster. On June 26, the boyars gathered people in front of the Assumption Cathedral and found out who was setting Moscow on fire. The mob accused Anna Glinskaya of arson. The people came out of obedience and carried out reprisals against the boyar Yu. V. Glinsky. On June 29, the mob moved to Vorobyovo, demanding that the Tsar’s grandmother Anna Glinskaya be handed over for execution. But the uprising was dispersed and its instigators were punished.
In 1547-1550, unrest occurred in other cities. The situation of its people worsened further due to the poor harvest of 1548-1549.
“Popular uprisings showed that the country needs reforms. Further development of the country required the strengthening of statehood and centralization of power.”
Moscow completed the unification of Russian lands at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. It turned out to be impossible to manage a vast state with the help of archaic institutions and institutions that developed in small principalities during the period of fragmentation. The All-Russian Code of Law of 1497 is hopelessly outdated. Source constant discontent children of the boyars there was a boyar court, famous for its abuses. Only with the help of noble detachments could popular unrest be stopped. These facts also tell us about the need for Russian reforms.
Thus, it is clear that in mid-16th century century, Russia needed to strengthen statehood and centralize power. The need for reforms in governing the country was obvious.
P.A. RUZIN
THE CONDITIONS OF CLAUDIUS'S COMING TO POWER AND THE PREREQUISITES FOR SOME DIRECTIONS OF HIS POLICY
Speaking about the conditions for Emperor Claudius coming to power, we can highlight following features: 1) Claudius was not the heir of his predecessor, and his rise to power became possible as a result of a conspiracy that led to the murder of Guy; 2) Claudius came to power in the face of opposition from outside large group in the Senate and only thanks to the support of the praetorian cohorts.
Further, it is worth dwelling in more detail on individual aspects related to the events of January 24-25, 1941, which largely determined further development Principate for many years to come. The circumstances surrounding the rise of Claudius received an extremely ambiguous interpretation both in ancient sources and in modern literature, leaving researchers with a number of debatable questions.
One of these aspects seems to be the individual components of the conspiracy against Caligula: the composition of the participants, ultimate goals conspirators and possible participation in the conspiracy of Claudius. Ancient authors, especially representatives of the Roman tradition Dio Cassius and Suetonius, left us quite brief information on the composition of the group of conspirators: only those members of the active wing of the conspirators - officers - who were punished can be openly named praetorian guard Cassius Chaerea, Cornelius Sabinus and their closest associates. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the conspiracy against Guy was widespread: many senators and equestrians were no longer able to endure his tyrannical form of government; The palace freedmen, who had amassed considerable fortunes, could not feel safe either. The last group included the most influential of Gaius's freedmen, Callistus.
The reason why we do not know the names of many of the participants in the conspiracy, especially from the representatives of the aristocracy, may be that, having come to power, Claudius decided to “consign to oblivion those two days when the strength of the government structure". Many senators who participated in the conspiracy against Guy and sat on the Capitol in the Temple of Jupiter the Victorious were granted amnesty. Levick believes that Vinicianus could have been openly named by Josius Flavius as one of the conspirators in connection with his subsequent participation in the conspiracy of Camillus Scribonian in 42. Guy Aspren, who was killed by German bodyguards and convinced Caligula to leave the theater, could also be openly named. Among other conspirators, Josephus names Emilius Regulus. The dialogue in the theater between the ex-praetor Vatinius and the consular Cluvius, as reported by Josephus once again indicates that many prominent senators either took part in the conspiracy or knew about the impending assassination attempt. Despite the fact that all the conspirators were united by the desire to get rid of the tyrant, different groups pursued their goals. It was largely thanks to disagreements in the camp of the aristocracy that Claudius’ rapid and bloodless elevation to the position of princeps took place. Senators failed
rally around a single candidate, and original plans to restore the republic turned out to be only a utopia: neither the people nor the soldiers supported such a decision, fearing new oppression from the nobility and deprivation of many privileges in the form of free games and distributions of money and grain. Among the senators who applied for the position of princeps, sources point to the husband of Caligula's sister Julia Livilla Marcus Vinicius, the noble Gallic aristocrat Valerius Asiaticus and Annius Vinicianus. However, the main group of senators, guided either by personal sympathies or political reality, still chose to support Claudius, acting in his interests or simply withdrawing themselves from further developments. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that only about a hundred senators took part in the second meeting of the Senate in the Temple of Jupiter the Victorious. Levickus includes Aspren, the son of Lucius Nonius Aspren, in the first group, who in 20 asked before the entire Senate to include Claudius in the list of persons who retaliated for the death of Germanicus.
Division also occurred among the highest management team Praetorian Guard: the murder of Guy's daughter and wife indicated that Chaerea and Sabinus were planning to exterminate the entire Julio-Claudian clan, and Claudius could well have become their next victim if he had not at the right moment found himself under the reliable protection of Praetorian soldiers subordinate to the person or persons , who belonged to the highest command ranks and were able to control a significant sector of officers and soldiers. This person could well have been M. Arrecinus Clement, one of the two praetorian prefects. The sources also indicate to us that there was a split among the praetorian prefects: the second prefect, whose name the sources do not tell us, was removed from his post by Claudius even before the Senate recognized his powers as princeps, and was replaced by Pollio; Clement retained his post, probably because he acted in the interests of Claudius.
The main hypothesis regarding the conspiracy against Guy, which is dominant in modern literature, is that the conspiracy was initiated by Cassius Chaerea and his fellow officers, received support from a number of senators led by Vinician, who hoped to turn its results in favor of their class or an individual candidate they had chosen, and was used by a third party acting in the interests of Claudius. Last group included Callistus, Clement and a number of senators, among whom, probably, was Aspren. We will stick to this version.
The question of the participation of Claudius himself in the conspiracy still remains open. Antique tradition completely excludes any degree of participation of Claudius in the conspiracy: according to the most common version, Claudius comes to power thanks to chance and against his will. Elston also believes that Claudius accepted power reluctantly and forcedly due to the lack of an alternative, yielding in the face of several thousand soldiers. He is characterized by extremely limited experience in political affairs And complete absence experience in military affairs. He could not count on support from the senators, many of whom had suffered at the hands of Guy and could hardly have had much respect for a man who was an object of ridicule even in own family. This point view is debatable. Claudius's refusal of power could have been of the same nature as
and attempts to renounce the powers of princeps Tiberius in 14. Having outlived three previous emperors and having witnessed how easily his predecessors dealt with potential rivals, Claudius could not help but realize that if he gave up power now, the republican government or the new princeps would be unlikely to leave him alive.
Levik admits the possibility of Claudius's participation in the conspiracy, but notes that in others crisis situations we do not see in him any manifestations of determination and strong will. It can be assumed that once the members of the faction supporting Claudius realized the danger looming over them in light of the impending assassination attempt on Gaius, they laid out the facts to Claudius, indicating that only the principate could save him from death, and Claudius made it clear to them that they must act in their common interests. This hypothesis seems plausible, but cannot be supported by any evidence from the sources.
After coming to power, the primary goal that stood before Claudius was to strengthen his authority and position, and stabilize the political situation in the empire. As rightly noted by A.B. Egorov, actions after the death of Caligula were supposed to symbolize the elimination of both excesses - the reign of Guy and the Senate attempt to eliminate the principate - to return Rome to the mainstream of the Augustan system. The brilliant way Claudius coped with the task allows us, at a minimum, to question the stereotype that tradition has awarded him.
Cross out individual negative aspects political course of his predecessor, Caligula before Claudius and Nero after him tried to express respect and loyalty to the Senate, carry out a number of measures popular among the people and emphasize the dynastic tradition immediately after taking office as princeps, but neither one nor the other had to challenge the right to the Principate, restore the reputation of its system itself, confirm the legitimacy of its claims to this post and almost completely reorient the political vector of its predecessor. Both, rather, due to their youth and lack of experience in political affairs, sought to add to their authority, political weight and popularity among the people.
The conditions for Claudius’s rise to power determined not only individual measures in initial period his reign, but also a number of domestic and foreign policy aspects of his course as a whole. Yes, many modern researchers They agree that the main motive that prompted Claudius to launch a British military campaign was nothing more than the desire of the princeps, whose power was based primarily on the support of the military forces of the empire, to gain great fame as a victorious commander, thus strengthening his position and authority. We should not forget that the events of the British expedition a year earlier were preceded by an attempt by Furius Camillus Scribonian, with the support of a number of influential senators, to organize an armed uprising, using legions in Dalmatia for this purpose. Although this attempt was not crowned with success, Claudius undoubtedly wanted to completely exclude the possibility of a repetition of such a development of events in the future. Located outside the continent and having a reputation as the end of the earth among many inhabitants of the empire, Britain, which had never submitted to Julius Caesar, was an ideal target for acquiring military glory. The enormous significance of this expedition for Claudius is also illustrated by the fact that he considered it necessary to accept
himself in personal command of the troops for a key period of the campaign, exposing himself to serious political risks, leaving Rome for quite a long period and putting his life and reputation at risk.
Levick questions the story as told by Dio Cassius, according to which the arrival of Claudius with reinforcements was dictated by military necessity. It was extremely important for the princeps to personally command the capture of Colchester, to accept the surrender of several British tribes, so that, having been proclaimed emperor by his troops, he would return to Rome as a full-fledged triumphant. It is the desire and need to achieve military success in order to strengthen his own position that Scullard explains the beginning of the British campaign, noting that other less significant motives only strengthened Claudius in this decision. Elston practically agrees with him on this issue, adding that with this campaign Claudius may have sought to show that he is the true successor of Caesar. Absolutely the opposite point Scramuzza expresses his opinion on this matter. The researcher believes that the British campaign was dictated primarily by state necessity: the declaration of Britain as Roman territory on the part of Guy thus gave rise to certain obligations; in addition, Claudius felt the need to strengthen the prestige of Roman weapons by expanding the borders of the empire. Scramuzza believes that the primary reason for the invasion was real danger for an empire that came from an anti-Roman coalition of tribes created by Cunobellinus and his successors.
Analyzing in this way these two trends accepted in modern literature, we can come to the conclusion that representatives of both points of view quite rightly identified the main reasons for the start of the British campaign, but at the same time completely in vain excluded another explanation for this historical fact. IN in this case one should adhere to some intermediate point of view: the personal goals of Claudius and the interests of the empire intersected in the most favorable way and in equally determined the decision of the princeps. Having defended the interests of Rome, Claudius himself took full advantage of the fruits of this victory: the military successes of the princeps made a strong impression in all corners of the empire. The conquest of Britain was emphasized by Claudius throughout his reign: celebrations were held when news of the victory reached Rome; then a few months later, when Claudius returned in triumph; then the victory was reminded of the ovation given to Aulus Plautius in 47, and the expansion of the borders of the Pomerium by Claudius as a sign of annexation new territory to Rome in 49; in 51, a procession took place through the streets of Rome of the captive Caratacus.
As for the internal political aspects of Claudius’s policy, largely determined by the conditions of his rise to power, here it is first of all worth noting the reliance on his own freedmen, made by the princeps when filling key positions within the bureaucratic apparatus of the empire he organized. We have already noted the fact that Claudius came to power in the face of opposition from the Senate, and therefore he could hardly count on the absolute support of the most important political institution in carrying out his intended course. Several attempts at conspiracy on the part of individual senators in the early years of his principate only increased Claudius's mistrust. He entrusted key positions in his apparatus to those in
due to his position, he did not pose a political threat and preferred to look after only the interests of the princeps and his own own interests, - to his palace surroundings. However, the fate of his predecessor, political situation and his own convictions forced Claudius to use a rather cautious and flexible strategy in relation to the Senate. The offices, although they played a vital role in the mechanism of the empire, never received official status. Formally, the Senate continued to remain dominant political institution, and Claudius pointedly asked for his permission regarding certain measures and sought to compromise, encountering opposition to certain transformations. However, despite this, Claudius strictly followed the course of centralization: all the most important levers for managing the affairs of the empire almost completely came under his control.
Literature
1. Egorov A.B. Rome on the brink of eras. Problems of the birth and formation of the principate / A.B. Egorov. L.: Publishing house Leningr. Univ., 1985. 223 p.
2. Josephus Flavius. Jewish War. Per. with him. Ya.L. Devil / Flavius Joseph. St. Petersburg, 1900. Re-ed. from previous K. Revyako, V. Fedosika. Minsk, 1991. 512 p.
3. Josephus Flavius. Jewish antiquities: trans. from Greek G.G. Henkel / Flavius Joseph. Minsk, 1994. 606 p.
4. Suetonius Tranquillus Gaius. The Life of the Twelve Caesars: trans. M.L. Gasparova / Tranquill Gaius Suetonius. M., 1993. 368 p. Verified by edition: C. Suetonii Tranquilli, opera ex rec. M Ihm. V.I: de vita Caesarum libri VIII Lps., 1907 (de vita divi Claudii - liber V).
5. Alston R. Aspects of Roman History, AD 14-117 / R. Alston. Routledge, 1998. 332 p.
6. Cassius Dio. Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary / Dio Cassius. Loeb Classical Library, 1917. 9 volumes.
7. Levick B. Claudius / B. Levick. Yale University Press. New Haven, 1990. 247 p.
8. Scramuzza V. The Emperor Claudius / V. Scramuzza. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, 1940. 315 p.
9. Scullard H. From the Gracchi to Nero / H. Scullard. London, 1982. 445 p.
RUZIN PAVEL ARKADIEVICH was born in 1982. Graduated from Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University. Postgraduate student of the Department of Cultural Studies and History of Ancient Languages of Nizhny Novgorod linguistic university. Region scientific interests- history of Ancient Rome.
The Bolsheviks not only dragged Russia into chaos and civil strife, but also contributed to positive changes in all spheres of life. Thanks to Soviet power the population received rights and opportunities unimaginable in tsarist times.
Stopped the war
On October 26, 1917, after Lenin’s report, the Bolsheviks adopted the “Decree on Peace,” which invited “all warring peoples and their governments to immediately begin negotiations for a just, democratic peace” without annexations and indemnities. In the document, the new authorities announced their rejection of the principles of secret diplomacy and gave the green light to the publication of secret treaties concluded by the tsarist and Provisional governments.
Peace negotiations began on December 22, 1917. After three days of discussion, the countries of the German bloc agreed to Soviet initiatives, but subject to the preservation of annexations and indemnities. The separate peace signed between Soviet Russia and the Central Powers on March 3, 1918 marked not only the end of the war, but also Russia's admission of defeat.
The Brest-Litovsk Treaty, according to which Russia lost significant territories, caused sharp criticism both from the internal party opposition and from almost everyone political forces countries. But it also had its advantages.
British historian Richard Pipes noted that by shrewdly accepting a humiliating peace, Lenin won required time and was able to earn the widespread trust of the Bolsheviks. Further actions of the Soviet government, in fact, provoked Germany to break Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, after which she capitulated to the Western allies.
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with all its contradictions, ultimately negated the role of Germany in the foreign policy environment of the Soviet power, but most importantly, it stopped the long-term war, which was exhausting for the people, and allowed Russia to save significant forces and resources, which in the future played almost decisive role in reflecting the intervention.
Returned the land
In order to enlist the support of the largest class in the country - the peasantry - Lenin submitted for approval to his party comrades the “Decree on Land”, the idea of which was borrowed from the Socialist Revolutionaries. The decree was adopted at the Second All-Russian Congress Soviets November 8, 1917.
The document provided for the transfer of landowners' and other lands to the disposal of peasant committees and district Soviets until final decision all land issues by the Constituent Assembly. Interestingly, according to the People's Commissariat of Agriculture, 15% of the landowners' land had already been seized by peasants before October 1917.
The Decree also included the “Order on Land”, drawn up back in August, according to which private property land was abolished, and land was declared “national property” and was subject to equal division among peasants according to the labor consumption norm.
The decree stated: “Landownership of land is abolished immediately without any redemption. Those affected by the property revolution are recognized only as having the right to public support for the time necessary to adapt to new conditions of existence.”
According to Central Administration Land management by the end of 1920 in 36 provinces of the European part of Russia, out of 22,847,916 dessiatines of unearned land, 21,407,152 dessiatines came to the disposal of the peasantry, which increased the area of peasant land from 80 to 99.8%.
Property nationalized
To avoid the subversive activities of “bourgeois elements” and to fulfill their promises to the working people Soviet state carried out nationalization through the forced and complete confiscation of fixed assets of production and banks belonging to large capital.
From December 1917 to February 1918, Russia was nationalized a large number of industrial enterprises, whose owners were engaged in sabotage and organizing counter-revolutionary conspiracies, as well as enterprises owned by capitalists who emigrated abroad.
At the end of 1917, the Bolsheviks nationalized banks that were found to be financing the counter-revolution and that were violating the control established over them by the working class. On April 22, 1918 it was nationalized international trade, and on June 28 the time has come for large enterprises in all industries.
Under the conditions of nationalization, Lenin attached great importance to training workers in managing the affairs of society and production. “You can confiscate with sheer “determination” without the ability to correctly take into account and distribute correctly, but socialization cannot be achieved without such skill,” stated the leader of the proletariat.
Gave rights
On November 2, 1917, another document was added to the first decrees of Soviet power, strengthening the influence of the Bolsheviks in the national outskirts - the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia.” It proclaimed the abolition of all national and religious privileges and restrictions, as well as the rights of the nations that were part of Russian Empire to “self-determination up to and including secession and the formation of an independent state.”
The presence of such rights, which undoubtedly threatened the integrity of Russia, nevertheless made it possible to hope for the success of Soviet power in vast regions of the country where the proletariat had not yet formed.
The declaration signed by Lenin and Stalin, in particular, said: “The peasants are liberated from the power of the landowners, because there is no longer landlord ownership of land - it has been abolished, soldiers and sailors are liberated from the power of autocratic generals, for the generals will henceforth be elected and replaceable. The workers are liberated from the whims and tyranny of the capitalists, for from now on the control of the workers will be established over the waters and factories. Everything living and viable is liberated from the hated shackles.”
Provided social guarantees
On November 11, 1917, the Bolsheviks fulfilled what they had long promised the workers - they adopted the Decree “On the Eight-Hour Working Day.” According to the Decree work time, determined by the internal rules of the enterprise, should not exceed 8 working hours per day and 48 hours per week, including the time spent on cleaning machines and putting the work area in order.
Others were gradually provided social guarantees: decreased work week, annual paid leaves were introduced, including - maternity leave and parental leave, as well as old-age and disability pensions, mechanisms for free and accessible medical care were created.
To the extent possible, the authorities solved housing problems. From workers' barracks, often with bunks several stories high, and shelters, workers were first moved to communal apartments and dormitories with amenities, then it became possible to provide free, albeit small, separate apartments with inexpensive utilities.
Conducted electrification
In 1920, at the height of Civil War The Soviet government, on the initiative and under the leadership of Lenin, developed long-term plan electrification of the country - the famous GOELRO. The plan provided for the transformation of not only the energy sector, but also the entire economy of the country. Those involved in the economic activity territories.
In implementing plans for the electrification of the country, the Soviet government strongly encouraged the initiatives of private owners, who could count on tax breaks and loans from the state.
The GOELRO plan, designed for 10–15 years, covered eight main economic regions (Northern, Central Industrial, Southern, Volga, Ural, West Siberian, Caucasian and Turkestan), where the construction of 30 power stations with a total capacity of 1.75 million kW was envisaged . This grandiose project largely laid the foundations for the future industrialization of the country.
Science fiction writer who visited Soviet Russia H.G. Wells wrote about GOELRO: “Is it possible to imagine a more daring project in this huge flat, forested country, inhabited by illiterate peasants, devoid of sources water energy, without technically literate people, in which trade and industry have almost died out? I cannot see this Russia of the future, but the short man in the Kremlin has such a gift.”
Universal literacy introduced
Just the day before October revolution Lenin said a sacramental phrase: “Russia is too poor to pay honest workers.” public education, but Russia is too rich to waste millions and tens of millions on parasitic nobles.”
December 26, 1919 by the Council People's Commissars The historic Decree “On the Elimination of Illiteracy” was adopted. The document obliged the entire population Soviet Russia aged from 8 to 50 years, who could not read or write, learn to read and write in their native language or in Russian - at will.
The elimination of illiteracy was seen as an indispensable condition for ensuring the conscious participation of the entire population in political and economic life Russia. As the main initiator of the Decree, Lenin, wrote, “we need to ensure that the ability to read and write serves to improve culture, so that the peasant has the opportunity to use this ability to read and write to improve his economy and his state.”
It was extremely difficult to implement such a program in the conditions of the Civil War and intervention. However, the Soviet government allocated huge amounts of money to combat illiteracy. All supplying organizations were obliged to satisfy the needs of educational programs first and foremost.
By 1926, the USSR ranked only 19th in the world in terms of literacy, behind, for example, Portugal and Turkey. There were still significant differences between urban and rural population. Thus, in 1926, 80.9% of city residents and 50.6% of rural residents. Mass illiteracy was finally overcome by the end of the 1930s.
The rise to power of Ivan IV
Introduction
Introduction···························· ··························· 2
The rise to power of Ivan IV································ ······················3
The need for reforms···························· ······················3
The First Zemsky Sobor ······························4
Limiting feedings and changing controls······················6
Tax reform································ ································9
Military reform·································· ····································10
Conclusion················································· ········································· ·12
List of used literature··································· ········14
One of important issues the history of the Russian people is the question of Ivan the Terrible. Even to his contemporaries, Ivan the Terrible seemed a mysterious and terrible person. The same riddle entered Ivan IV and historical science. For most historians this was a psychological problem; I was also interested in the personality of Ivan the Terrible and the conditions in which it was created. Some historians even questioned whether Grozny was mentally normal.
In our history, the reign of Ivan the Terrible is half XVI century and is one of the most important and turning points of our state. It is important both for the expansion of territories and for large significant events and on changes in inner life countries. Much was accomplished in this half-century period, glorious, bright and great in its consequences, but even more gloomy, bloody and disgusting. It is clear that with such opposite qualities of many important phenomena, the character and actions of the main figure, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, seems mysterious. It was with this riddle that Ivan the Terrible entered history. This king was outstanding personality, was well educated, but not very handsome and, perhaps, suffered from some kind of mental illness, and Russia at that time needed a strong reformer tsar, the state got it. Sharp turn from boyar rule to reforms and the oprichnina terror that followed - these are the main milestones of the reign of this sovereign and they comprehensively characterize controversial personality Ivan the Terrible, which contained the features of an outstanding statesman, a diplomat that can withstand comparison with such large historical figures like Peter the Great.
Perhaps the bloody deeds hid the good deeds that he committed, but the reforms of this man played an important role in history, perhaps like no others, because John Vasilyevich laid a solid foundation for his followers-reformers. In many ways, the activities of Ivan IV were a step forward, towards victory ʼʼ state principlesʼʼ. They can be whitewashed as the utmost importance of overcoming this stage of history, in which there is much that is unclear, and many historians differ in their point of view on this period. But from the end of the 30s, the assessment of the activities of Ivan IV became unanimous; he was portrayed as a patriot of the Russian land, mercilessly but fairly dealing with traitorous boyars.
Ivan IV's father died when his son was only three years old, in order to maintain power for his son, Vasily III creates a Regency Council to govern the country. The creation of this government body was necessary not only for governance, but also to maintain power in the hands of its descendants.
The council itself did not last long in its initial composition. As a result of boyar intrigues, by the end of the summer of 1534, those undesirable were removed from it. “Power was concentrated in the hands of Ivan’s mother Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, who turned out to be a power-hungry and energetic woman.”
From the late 40s, Ivan IV began to rule independently; this period began with his coronation and marriage; When the heir comes of age, the Glinskys remain in power, and at this time he indulges in “opals and executions,” which aroused the indignation of the population. Unmotivated disgraces and executions of 1545-1546 (moreover, as a rule, extrajudicial), open manifestations of discontent with tax-paying townspeople.
As a result of the controversial activities of the sovereign, the authority of the grand ducal power declines. Therefore, with the support of the boyars, Ivan the Terrible takes the title of Tsar. The coronation took place in the Assumption Cathedral on January 16, 1547.
The change in the rank of the Moscow monarch undoubtedly had a twofold direction: internal and external.
In foreign policy, this title played an important role, since the Grand Duke was equated to a prince or duke, and the Tsar to the Emperor.
The rise to power of Ivan IV - concept and types. Classification and features of the category “The Coming to Power of Ivan IV” 2017, 2018.
The beginnings of French Gothic sculpture were laid in Saint-Denis. The three portals of the western facade of the famous church were filled with sculptural images, in which for the first time the desire for a strictly thought-out iconographic program was manifested, a desire arose...
New cities during the period early Middle Ages were practically not built. Constant wars necessitated the construction of fortified settlements, especially in border areas. The center of early medieval material and spiritual culture were monasteries. They were being built... .
SPACE-PLAYING SOLUTIONS Common decision buildings and complexes In the composition of the higher educational institution in accordance with their architectural and planning structure, the following divisions are included: general institute and faculty departments with offices and laboratories; ... .
Monumental Gothic sculpture in Germany flourished in the second third of the 13th century. Its originality figurative structure was determined not only by the traditions of German plastic arts, but also by the situation in the political and spiritual life of the country, where during this period...
Ivan IV's rise to power. According to legends, even his birth itself was not ordinary. On August 25, 1530, on the birthday of Tsar Ivanushka, a terrible thunderstorm broke out in Moscow, as if foreshadowing the disasters that the future tsar would bring. According to rumors, the Kazan Khan then uttered the following phrase: “A two-toothed king was born to you, he will eat us with one tooth, and you with the other.” In my opinion, these legends appeared after it became clear what Tsar Ivan IV was like. In the fall of 1533, Ivanushka’s father Vasily fell seriously ill while hunting. Ivanovich III. Then, in some way, Vasily Ivanovich’s wife Elena Glinskaya comes to power.
According to one version, Vasily III himself transferred power to Glinskaya before his death, according to another Vasily III A guardian council of seven-boyars was appointed, against which Elena, in alliance with the boyar Duma, began to fight. Be that as it may, until her death in 1537, Elena Glinskaya ruled the country.
Power was seized by Ivan’s guardians, the main one among whom was Shuisky. He tried to raise Ivanushka in strictness, and in every possible way contributed to the education of the future king. In 1542, Shuisky died, which led to a power struggle in and around the guardianship council.
The boyars constantly sorted things out, including in Ivan’s bedroom, which undoubtedly affected his psyche. At the age of 12, Ivan loved to climb onto towers and throw animals off them; at the age of 14, he drove around Moscow, crushing people, smashing stalls in markets; at the age of 15, he ordered the tongue of the boyar Afanasy Buturlin, who allegedly spoke disrespectfully about the future tsar, to be cut off. On January 16, 1549, Ivan IV Vasilyevich was crowned king. For some time, Ivan IV ruled together with the Glinskys, but in the summer of 1547 there was a terrible fire in Moscow, for which the masses blamed the Glinskys.
Unrest began, which Ivan IV managed to suppress; the Glinskys, out of harm’s way, were sent to the outback. Ivan Vasilyevich, in fact, began to rule completely independently.
End of work -
This topic belongs to the section:
The role of Ivan the Terrible in the development of the Russian state
Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible is perhaps the most mysterious figure in the history of Russia. Opinions about nm differ radically. On the one hand, he was an unbalanced tyrant who terrified the entire country.. According to one version, Vasily III himself transferred power to Glinskaya before his death, according to another, Vasily III appointed a guardian..