Pugachev uprising. Peasant War by Emelyan Pugacheva

Invariably called the golden age. An empress reigned on the throne, similar in her main aspirations to the great reformer Peter, who, like him, wanted to make Russia part of civilized Europe. The empire is growing stronger, new lands are annexed through powerful military force, and sciences and arts are developing under the supervision of an educated queen.

But there was also “the horror of the 18th century” - that’s what Catherine the Great called Pugachev’s uprising. Its results, as well as its causes and course, revealed acute contradictions hidden behind the luxurious façade of the golden age.

Causes of the uprising

Catherine's first decrees after the dismissal of Peter III were manifestos on the liberation of nobles from compulsory military service and civil service. Landowners were given the opportunity to engage in their own farming, and in relation to the peasants they became slave owners. Serfs received only unbearable duties, and even the right to complain about their owners was taken away from them. The fate and life of the serf was in the hands of the owner.

The share of those peasants who were assigned to factories turned out to be no better. The assigned workers were mercilessly exploited by the miners. In terrible conditions, they worked in difficult and dangerous industries, and they had neither the strength nor the time to work on their own plots.

It was not for nothing that Pugachev’s uprising flared in the Urals and Volga region. The results of the repressive policy of the Russian Empire in relation to the national outskirts are the appearance of hundreds of thousands of Bashkirs, Tatars, Udmurts, Kazakhs, Kalmyks, and Chuvashs in the rebel army. The state drove them away from their ancestral lands, building new factories there, implanting a new faith for them, banning the old gods.

On the Yaike River

The fuse that started the flame popular anger a huge space in the Urals and Volga, the Yaik Cossacks began to perform. They protested against the deprivation of their economic (state monopoly on salt) and political (concentration of power among elders and atamans supported by the authorities) freedoms and privileges. Their performances in 1771 were brutally suppressed, which forced the Cossacks to look for other methods of struggle and new leaders.

Some historians have expressed the version that Pugachev’s uprising, its causes, course, and results were largely determined by the top of the Yaik Cossacks. They managed to subjugate the charismatic Pugachev to their influence and make him their blind tool in achieving Cossack liberties. And when danger came, they betrayed him and tried to save their lives in exchange for his head.

The peasant "anpirator"

The tension in the socio-political atmosphere of that time was supported by rumors about the forcibly deposed royal wife of Catherine, Peter Fedorovich. It was said that Peter III prepared a decree “On Peasant Freedom,” but did not have time to proclaim it and was captured by the nobles - opponents of the emancipation of the peasants. He miraculously escaped and will soon appear before the people and raise them to fight for the return of the royal throne. The faith of ordinary people in the right king, who has special marks on his body, was often used in Rus' by various impostors to fight for power.

The miraculously saved Pyotr Fedorovich actually showed up. He showed obvious signs on his chest (which were traces of scrofula) and called the nobles the main enemies of the working people. He was strong and brave, had a clear mind and an iron will. His name at birth was

Don Cossack from the village of Zimoveyskaya

He was born in 1740 or 1742 in the same places where another legendary rebel, Stepan Razin, was born a hundred years before him. Pugachev’s uprising and the results of his campaigns along the Volga and Urals frightened the authorities so much that they tried to destroy the very memory of the “peasant king.” Very little reliable information has survived about his life.

From a young age, Emelyan Ivanovich Pugachev was distinguished by his lively mind and restless disposition. He took part in the war with Prussia and Turkey and received the rank of cornet. Due to illness, he returned to the Don, was unable to achieve official resignation from military service and began to hide from the authorities.

He visited Poland, the Kuban and the Caucasus. For some time he lived with the Old Believers on the banks of one of the tributaries of the Volga - There was an opinion that it was one of the prominent schismatics - Father Filaret - who gave Pugachev the idea of ​​​​being miraculously saved by the true emperor. This is how the “anpirator” Pyotr Fedorovich appeared among the freedom-loving Yaik Cossacks.

Revolt or peasant war?

Events that began as a struggle for the return of Cossack freedoms acquired all the features of a large-scale war against the oppressors of the peasantry and working people.

The manifestos and decrees proclaimed on behalf of Peter III contained ideas that had enormous attractive force for the majority of the population of the empire: the liberation of the peasantry from serfdom and excessive taxes, the provision of land to them, the elimination of the privileges of the nobility and officials, elements of self-government of the national outskirts, etc.

Such slogans on the banner of the rebel army ensured its rapid quantitative growth and had a decisive influence on the entire Pugachev uprising. The causes and results of the peasant war of 1773-75 were a direct result of these social problems.

The Yaik Cossacks, who became the core of the main military force of the uprising, were joined by workers and assigned peasants of the Ural factories, and landowner serfs. The cavalry of the rebel army consisted mainly of Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Kalmyks and other inhabitants of the steppes on the edge of the empire.

To control their motley army, the leaders of the Pugachev army formed a military collegium - the administrative and political center of the uprising. For the successful functioning of this rebel headquarters, there was not enough will and knowledge of the Pugachevo commanders, although the actions of the rebellious army sometimes surprised the career officers and generals who opposed them with their organization and common mind, although this was a rare occurrence.

Gradually, the confrontation acquired the features of a real civil war. But the beginnings of the ideological program, which could be seen in Emelyan’s “royal decrees,” could not withstand the predatory nature of his troops. The results of Pugachev’s uprising subsequently showed that robberies and unprecedented cruelty in reprisals against the oppressors turned the protest against state system oppression during that very senseless and merciless Russian rebellion.

Progress of the uprising

The fire of the uprising engulfed a gigantic space from the Volga to the Urals. At first, the performance of the Yaik Cossacks, led by their self-proclaimed husband, did not cause any concern to Catherine. Only when Pugachev’s army began to quickly replenish, when it became known that the “anpirator” was being greeted with bread and salt in small villages and large settlements, when many fortresses in the Orenburg steppes were captured - often without a fight - did the authorities become truly concerned. It was the unforgivable negligence of the authorities that Pushkin, who studied the results and significance of the uprising, explained the rapid increase in Cossack indignation. Pugachev led a powerful and dangerous army to the capital of the Urals - Orenburg, which defeated several regular military formations.

But the Pugachev freemen could not truly resist the punitive forces sent from the capital, and the first stage of the uprising ended with the victory of the tsarist troops at the Tatishchev Fortress in March 1774. It seemed that Pugachev’s uprising, the results of which was the flight of the impostor with a small detachment to the Urals, was suppressed. But this was only the first stage.

Kazan landowner

Just three months after the defeat near Orenburg, a 20,000-strong rebel army reached Kazan: the losses were made up for by an immediate influx of new forces from among those dissatisfied with their position. Hearing about the approach of “Emperor Peter III,” many peasants themselves dealt with their owners, greeted Pugachev with bread and salt and joined his army. Kazan almost submitted to the rebels. They were unable to storm only the Kremlin, where a small garrison remained.

Wanting to support the Volga nobility and landowners of the region affected by the uprising, the empress declared herself a “Kazan landowner” and sent a powerful military group to Kazan under the command of Colonel I. I. Mikhelson, who was ordered to finally suppress Pugachev’s uprising. The results of the Kazan battle were again unfavorable for the impostor, and he and the remnants of the army went to the right bank of the Volga.

The end of the Pugachev uprising

In the Volga region, which was a zone of complete serfdom, the fire of the uprising received new fuel - the peasants, freed from captivity by the manifesto of “Peter Fedorovich,” joined his army. Soon, in Moscow itself they began to prepare to repel the huge rebel army. But the results of Pugachev’s uprising in the Urals showed him that the peasant army could not resist trained and well-armed regular units. It was decided to move south and raise the Don Cossacks to fight; on their way there was a powerful fortress - Tsaritsyn.

It was on the approaches to it that Mikhelson inflicted the final defeat on the rebels. Pugachev tried to escape, but was betrayed by Cossack elders, captured and handed over to the authorities. A trial of Pugachev and his closest associates took place in Moscow; he was executed in January 1775, but spontaneous peasant uprisings continued for a long time.

Prerequisites, reasons, participants, course and results of Pugachev’s uprising

The table below briefly characterizes this historical event. It shows who participated in the uprising and for what purpose, and why it was defeated.

Mark on history

After the defeat of the Pugachev era, Catherine the Great tried to do everything so that the memory of the uprising would disappear forever. It was renamed Yaik, the Yaik Cossacks began to be called Ural Cossacks, the Don village of Zimoveyskaya - the homeland of Razin and Pugachev - became Potemkinskaya.

But the Pugachev turmoil was too great a shock for the empire to disappear into history without a trace. Almost every new generation evaluates the results of the uprising of Emelyan Pugachev in its own way, calling its leader either a hero or a bandit. This is how it happened in Rus' - to achieve a good goal by unjust methods, and to hang labels while at a safe temporary distance.

Pugachev uprising

Pugachev's rebellion (peasant war) 1773-1775. under the leadership of Emelyan Pugachev - an uprising of the Yaik Cossacks, which grew into a full-scale war.

Rationalism and disregard for tradition, so characteristic of the imperial regime, alienated the masses from it. Pugachev's uprising was the last and most serious in a long chain of uprisings that took place on the southeastern borders Russian state, in that open and difficult-to-define region where Old Believers and fugitives from the imperial authorities lived side by side with non-Russian steppe tribes and where the Cossacks who defended the royal fortresses still dreamed of the return of their former liberties.

Reasons for Pugachev's uprising

At the end of the 18th century, the control of official authorities in this area became more and more noticeable. In general, Pugachev's uprising can be seen as the last - but most powerful - desperate impulse of people whose way of life was incompatible with a clearly expressed and clearly defined state power. The nobles received land in the Volga and Trans-Volga regions, and for many peasants who had long lived there, this meant serfdom. Peasants from other regions of the country also settled there.

Landowners, wanting to increase income and trying to take advantage of emerging opportunities in trade, increased the quitrent or replaced it with corvée. Soon after Catherine’s accession to the throne, these duties, still unusual for many, were fixed during the census and land measurement. With the advent of market relations in the Volga territories, pressure on more traditional and less productive activities increased.

A special group of the population of this region were the odnodvortsy, descendants of peasant soldiers sent to the Volga borders in the 16th–17th centuries. Most of the odnodvortsy were Old Believers. While remaining theoretically free people, they suffered greatly from economic competition from the nobles and at the same time were afraid of losing their independence and falling into the taxable class of state peasants.

How it all began

The uprising began among the Yaik Cossacks, whose situation reflected the changes associated with increasingly intrusive state intervention. They had long enjoyed relative freedom, which gave them the opportunity to mind their own affairs, elect leaders, hunt, fish and raid the areas neighboring the lower Yaik (Ural) in exchange for recognizing the power of the tsar and providing certain services if necessary.

The change in the status of the Cossacks occurred in 1748, when the government ordered the creation of the Yaik Army from 7 defense regiments of the so-called Orenburg Line, which was built in order to separate the Kazakhs from the Bashkirs. Some of the Cossack elders favorably accepted the creation of the army, hoping to secure a solid status for themselves within the “Table of Ranks,” but for the most part, ordinary Cossacks opposed joining the Russian army, considering this decision a violation of freedom and a violation of Cossack democratic traditions.

The Cossacks were also alarmed that in the army they would become ordinary soldiers. Suspicion intensified when in 1769 it was proposed to form a certain “Moscow Legion” from small Cossack troops to fight the Turks. This meant wearing a military uniform, training and - worst of all - shaving beards, which caused deep rejection on the part of the Old Believers.

The appearance of Peter III (Pugachev)

Emelyan Pugachev stood at the head of the disgruntled Yaik Cossacks. A Don Cossack by birth, Pugachev deserted the Russian army and became a fugitive; He was caught several times, but Pugachev always managed to escape. Pugachev introduced himself as Emperor Peter III, who allegedly managed to escape; he spoke out in defense of the old faith. Perhaps Pugachev took such a trick at the prompting of one of the Yaik Cossacks, but he accepted the proposed role with conviction and panache, becoming a figure not subject to anyone’s manipulation.

The appearance of Peter III revived the hopes of peasants and religious dissidents, and some measures taken by Emelyan as tsar strengthened them. Emelyan Pugachev expropriated church lands, elevating monastic and church peasants to the more preferable rank of state peasants; prohibited the purchase of peasants by non-nobles and stopped the practice of assigning them to factories and mines. He also eased the persecution of Old Believers and granted forgiveness to schismatics who voluntarily returned from abroad. The liberation of nobles from compulsory public service, which did not bring direct benefits to the serfs, nevertheless raised expectations of a similar relief for them.

Be that as it may, regardless of politics, the unexpected removal of Peter III from the throne aroused strong suspicions among the peasants, especially since his successor was a German woman, who, moreover, was not Orthodox, as many thought. Pugachev was not the first to make a reputation for himself by assuming the identity of the injured and hiding Tsar Peter, ready to lead the people to restoration true faith and the return of traditional freedoms. From 1762 to 1774, about 10 such figures appeared. Pugachev became the most prominent personality, partly due to the widespread support he received, partly due to his abilities; besides, he was lucky.

Pugachev's popularity increased largely due to the fact that he appeared in the image of an innocent victim who humbly accepted removal from the throne and left the capital in order to wander among his people, experiencing their suffering and hardships. Pugachev stated that he had allegedly already visited Constantinople and Jerusalem, confirming his holiness and power with contacts with the “Second Rome” and the place of Christ’s death.

The circumstances under which Catherine came to power actually raised questions about her legitimacy. Dissatisfaction with the Empress increased even more when she canceled some of the popular decrees of her ex-husband, curtailing the freedoms of the Cossacks and further reducing the already meager rights of serfs, depriving them, for example, of the opportunity to submit petitions to the sovereign.

Progress of the uprising

Pugachev's uprising is usually divided into three stages.

The first stage lasted from the beginning of the uprising until the defeat at the Tatishcheva fortress and the lifting of the siege of Orenburg.

The second stage was marked by a campaign to the Urals, then to Kazan and the defeat there from Michelson’s army.

The beginning of the third stage is the crossing to the right bank of the Volga and the capture of many cities. The end of the stage is defeat at Cherny Yar.

First stage of the uprising

Pugachev's court. Painting by V.G. Perova

Pugachev approached the Yaitsky town with a detachment of 200 people; there were 923 regular troops in the fortress. The attempt to take the fortress by storm failed. Pugachev left the Yaitsky town and headed up the Yaitsky fortified line. The fortresses surrendered one by one. The advanced detachments of the Pugachevites appeared near Orenburg on October 3, 1773, but Governor Reinsdorp was ready for defense: the ramparts were repaired, the garrison of 2,900 people was put on combat readiness. One thing that the major general missed was that he did not provide the garrison and population of the city with food supplies.

A small detachment from the rear units under the command of Major General Kara was sent to suppress the uprising, while Pugachev had about 24,000 people with 20 guns near Orenburg. Kar wanted to take the Pugachevites into pincers and divided his already small detachment.

Pugachev defeated the punitive forces piece by piece. At first, the grenadier company, without offering resistance, joined the ranks of the rebels. Afterwards, on the night of November 9, Kar was attacked and fled 17 miles from the rebels. It all ended with the defeat of Colonel Chernyshev’s detachment. 32 officers led by a colonel were captured and executed.

This victory played a bad joke on Pugachev. On the one hand, he was able to strengthen his authority, and on the other, the authorities began to take him seriously and sent entire regiments to suppress the rebellion. Three regiments regular army under the leadership of Golitsyn, they fought a battle with the Pugachevites on March 22, 1774 in the Tatishcheva fortress. The assault lasted for six hours. Pugachev was defeated and fled to the Ural factories. On March 24, 1774, the rebel detachments that were besieging Ufa, near Chesnokovka, were defeated.

Second phase

The second stage was distinguished by some features. A significant part of the population did not support the rebels. The Pugachev detachments that arrived at the plant confiscated the factory treasury, robbed the factory population, destroyed the factory, and committed violence. The Bashkirs stood out in particular. Often factories resisted the rebels, organizing self-defense. 64 factories joined the Pugachevites, and 28 opposed him. In addition, the superiority of forces was on the side of the punitive forces.

1774, May 20 - the Pugachevites captured the Trinity fortress with 11-12,000 people and 30 cannons. The next day, General de Colong overtook Pugachev and won the battle. 4,000 were killed on the battlefield and 3,000 were captured. Pugachev himself with a small detachment headed to European Russia.

In the Kazan province he was greeted with the ringing of bells and bread and salt. The army of Emelyan Pugachev was replenished with new forces and near Kazan on July 11, 1774 it already numbered 20,000 people. Kazan was taken, only the Kremlin held out. Mikhelson hurried to the rescue of Kazan, who was able to defeat Pugachev once again. And again Pugachev fled. 1774, July 31 - his next manifesto was published. This document freed peasants from serfdom and various taxes. The peasants were called for the destruction of the landowners.

Third stage of the uprising

At the third stage, we can already talk about a peasant war that covered the vast territory of the Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod and Voronezh provinces. Of the 1,425 nobles who were in the Nizhny Novgorod province, 348 people were killed. It was suffered not only by nobles and officials, but also by the clergy. In Kurmysh district, out of 72 killed, 41 were representatives of the clergy. In Yadrinsky district, 38 representatives of the clergy were executed.

The cruelty of the Pugachevites should in fact be considered bloody and monstrous, but the cruelty of the punitive forces was no less monstrous. On August 1, Pugachev was in Penza, on August 6 he occupied Saratov, on August 21 he approached Tsaritsyn, but could not take it. Attempts to raise the Don Cossacks were unsuccessful. On August 24, the last battle took place, in which Mikhelson’s troops defeated Pugachev’s army. He himself fled across the Volga with 30 Cossacks. Meanwhile, A.V. arrived at Michelson’s headquarters. Suvorov, urgently recalled from the Turkish front.

Captivity of Pugachev

On September 15, his comrades handed Pugachev over to the authorities. In the Yaitsky town, captain-lieutenant Mavrin carried out the first interrogations of the impostor, the result of which was the statement that the uprising was caused not by the evil will of Pugachev and the riot of the mob, but by the difficult living conditions of the people. At one time, wonderful words were spoken by General A.I. Bibik, who fought against Pugachev: “It’s not Pugachev that is important, it’s the general indignation that is important.”

From the town of Yaitsky, Pugachev was taken to Simbirsk. The convoy was commanded by A.V. Suvorov. On October 1st we arrived in Simbirsk. Here on October 2 the investigation was continued by P.I. Panin and P.S. Potemkin. Investigators wanted to prove that Pugachev was bribed by foreigners or the noble opposition. Pugachev’s will could not be broken; the investigation in Simbirsk did not achieve its goal.

1774, November 4 - Pugachev was taken to Moscow. Here the investigation was led by S.I. Sheshkovsky. Pugachev persistently confirmed the idea of ​​​​people's suffering as the cause of the uprising. Empress Catherine did not like this very much. She was ready to admit external interference or the existence of a noble opposition, but she was not ready to admit the mediocrity of her rule of the state.

The rebels were accused of desecrating Orthodox churches, which did not happen. On December 13, the last interrogation of Pugachev was lifted. Court hearings took place in the Throne Hall of the Kremlin Palace on December 29-31. 1775, January 10 - Pugachev was executed on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow. The reaction of the common people to the execution of Pugachev is interesting: “Some Pugach was executed in Moscow, but Pyotr Fedorovich is alive.” Pugachev's relatives were placed in the Kexholm fortress. 1803 - freed prisoners from captivity. They all died in different years without offspring. The last to die was Pugachev's daughter Agrafena in 1833.

Consequences of Pugachev's uprising

Peasants' War 1773-1775 became the largest spontaneous popular uprising in Russia. Pugachev seriously scared the Russians ruling circles. Even during the uprising, by order of the government, the house in which Pugachev lived was burned, and later his native village of Zimoveyskaya was moved to another place and renamed Potemkinskaya. The Yaik River, the first center of disobedience and the epicenter of the rebels, was renamed the Ural, and the Yaik Cossacks began to be called the Ural Cossacks. The Cossack Army that supported Pugachev was disbanded and moved to the Terek. The restless Zaporozhye Sich, given its rebellious traditions, was liquidated in 1775, without waiting for the next uprising. Catherine II ordered that the Pugachev Rebellion be forgotten forever.

In the fall of 1773, Pugachev's uprising broke out. Before today the events of those years do not reveal all their secrets. What was it: a Cossack revolt, a peasant uprising or a civil war?

Peter III

History is written by the winners. The history of the Pugachev uprising is still considered a controversial moment in Russian history. According to the official version, Pugachev and Peter III are different people, they had neither physiognomic similarity nor similarity of characters, and their upbringing was also different. However, some historians are still trying to prove the version that Pugachev and Emperor Peter are the same person. The story of Emelka, a fugitive Cossack, was written by order of Catherine. This version, albeit fantastic, is confirmed by the fact that during the “investigation” of Pushkin, none of those whom he asked about Pugachev knew about him. People were absolutely convinced that the head of the army was the emperor himself, no more and no less. According to sources, the decision to call himself Peter III did not come to Pugachev by chance. In principle, he loved to mystify. Even in the army, for example, boasting about his saber, he claimed that Peter I had given it to him. It is not known for certain whose idea was to assign the name, but the fact that it was strategically advantageous is obvious. The people would not have followed the runaway Cossack, but they would have followed the Tsar. In addition, there were rumors among the people at that time that Peter wanted to give the peasants freedom, but “Katka ruined him.” The promise of freedom to the peasants, in the end, became the trump card of Pugachev’s propaganda.

Peasant war?

Was the war of 1773-1775 a peasant war? The question, again, is open. The main force of Pugachev’s troops were, of course, not the peasants, but the Yaik Cossacks. Once free, they suffered increasing oppression from the state and lost privileges. In 1754, by decree of Elizabeth, a monopoly on salt was introduced. This step dealt a severe blow to the economy of the Cossack army, which made money by selling salted fish. Even before the Pugachev uprising, the Cossacks staged uprisings, which over and over again became more massive and coordinated.

Pugachev's initiative fell on fertile ground. The peasants did take an active part in the campaigns of Pugachev’s army, but they defended their interests and solved their problems: they slaughtered landowners, burned estates, but, as a rule, they did not go further than their plots. The connection of the peasantry to their land is a very strong thing. After Pugachev read out a manifesto on freedom in Saransk, many peasants joined him, they turned Pugachev’s campaign across the Volga region into a triumphal procession, with bells ringing, the blessing of the village priest and bread and salt in every new village, village, town. But weakly armed, tied to their land, they could not ensure long-term triumph for the Pugachev uprising. In addition, it should be noted that Pugachev did not control his troops alone. He had a whole staff of specialists who were definitely not of peasant origin, and some were not even Russian, but this side of the issue is a separate conversation.

Money issue

The Pugachev uprising became the most massive uprising in the entire history of Russia (not counting the 1917 revolution). Carrying out such a rebellion could not take place in a vacuum. Raising thousands and thousands of people into a long-term armed rebellion is not holding a rally; this requires resources, and considerable resources. The question is: where did the fugitive Pugachev and the Yaik Cossacks get these resources?

It has now been proven that Pugachev’s uprising had foreign funding. First of all - Ottoman Empire, with which Russia was at war at that time. Secondly, help to France; That historical period she acts as the main opponent of the growing Russian Empire. From the correspondence of the French residencies in Vienna and Constantinople, the figure of an experienced officer of the Navarre Regiment emerges, who had to be transported from Turkey to Russia as soon as possible with instructions for the “so-called Pugachev’s army.” Paris allocated 50 thousand francs for the next operation. Supporting Pugachev was beneficial to all forces for whom Russia and its growth posed a danger. There was a war with Turkey - forces were transferred from the fronts to fight Pugachev. As a result, Russia had to end the war on unfavorable terms. This is the “peasant war”...

To Moscow

After the triumph of Pugachev’s troops in Penza and Saransk, everyone was waiting for his “Moscow campaign”. They were waiting for him in Moscow. They waited and were afraid. Seven regiments were assembled in the old capital, Governor-General Volkonsky ordered cannons to be placed near his house, “cleansing operations” were carried out among the residents of Moscow, and all sympathizers of the rebellious Cossack were seized.

Finally, in August 1774, Lieutenant General Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov, at that time already one of the most successful Russian generals. Panin entrusted Suvorov with command of the troops that were supposed to defeat the main Pugachev army in the Volga region. Moscow “gave its breath”, Pugachev decided not to go there. The reasons are still not clear. It is believed that the main reason for this was Pugachev’s plans to attract the Volga and, especially, Don Cossacks into his ranks. The Yaik Cossacks, who had lost many of their atamans in battle, were tired and began to grumble. Pugachev’s “surrender” was brewing.

Salavat Yulaev

The memory of the Pugachev uprising is stored not only in the archives, but also in toponyms and in the memory of the people. To this day, Salavat Yulaev is considered the hero of Bashkiria. One of the strongest hockey teams in Russia bears the name of this extraordinary man. His story is amazing. Salavat became " right hand“Pugachev, when he was not 20 years old, took part in all the major battles of the uprising, Pugachev awarded his young assistant the rank of brigadier general. Salavat ended up in Pugachev’s army with his father. Together with his father, he was captured, sent to Moscow, and then into eternal exile in the Baltic city of Rogervik. Salavat lived here until his death in 1800. He was not only an extraordinary warrior, but also good poet, who left a solid literary legacy.

Suvorov

The danger that Pugachev’s uprising posed is evidenced by the fact that not just anyone, but Suvorov himself was brought in to pacify it. Catherine understood that delaying the suppression of the uprising could result in serious geopolitical problems. Suvorov's participation in suppressing the riot played into Pushkin's hands: when he was collecting material for his book about Pugachev, he said that he was looking for information about Suvorov. Alexander Vasilyevich personally escorted Pugachev. This suggests at least that Emelyan Ivanovich was not just an important person, but also highest degree important. Evaluate Pugachev uprising as another riot - highly unwise, it was a civil war, on the consequences of which the future of Russia depended.

A mystery shrouded in darkness

After suppressing the rebellion and executing the main participants in the uprising, Catherine ordered the destruction of all facts about the peasant war. The village in which Pugachev was born was moved and renamed, Yaik was renamed Ural. All documents that in one way or another could shed light on the course of those events were classified. There is a version that it was not Pugachev who was executed, but another person. Emelyan was “eliminated” while still in Butyrka prison. The authorities were afraid of provocations. Whether this is true or not can no longer be proven. Half a century after those events, Pushkin could not “find the ends”; we can only wait for new research.

Fragment from the book by Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky "Pugachev and Suvorov. The Mystery of Siberian-American History"

Let us pause for now from listing the various evidence from primary sources (which can be cited endlessly) and give brief explanations in the light of our general reconstruction of history. Let us emphasize that we're talking about about the deepest secret modern history- the existence of a huge Siberian-American state of the 17th–18th centuries under Russian-Horde rule. Today completely forgotten.

So, our reconstruction in brief is as follows. See details in our books “Biblical Rus'”, “Rus and Rome”.

The war of 1773–1775 was not a peasant uprising, but the largest war between Tobolsk and St. Petersburg, which ended in the defeat of the Siberian-American state of the 17th–18th centuries

In the 13th–16th centuries there was a Great Medieval Russian Empire, the capital of which was Moscow in the second half of the 16th century. In the West it was sometimes called the "Tatar Empire". This is not surprising, since the Tatar language, along with Russian, was one of the main spoken languages ​​of the Empire, and in those days Russian people also spoke Tatar. At the beginning of the 17th century, the Great Medieval Russian Empire disintegrated in the fire of the Great Troubles. Its capital region - Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' - is captured by rebels from Western Europe. Although in the XIV-XVI centuries Western Europe was just one of the Russian imperial provinces, after the collapse of the Empire, the center of world power moved there. But the eastern parts of the Empire, including the lower Volga, Siberia and most North America, did not submit to the rebellion and separated from their former capital, Moscow, which was captured by the rebels. It was they who formed the huge state of the 17th–18th centuries - “Great Tartaria”. The capital of the largest part of which - “Moscow Tartaria” - in the 18th century became the city of Tobolsk.

As we have already said, at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries, Tobolsk belonged to the Romanovs, and the capital of Moscow Tartary was, apparently, the city of Irkutsk. But in the first quarter of the 18th century, Moscow Tartaria greatly advanced its border to the west, captured Tobolsk and made it its capital.

During the war with “Pugachev” of 1773–1775, Moscow Tartary with its capital in Tobolsk was defeated and ceased to exist. At the same time, Chinese Tartary was captured. Another fragment of the former Empire - Free (or independent) Tataria with its capital in Samarkand was conquered by Romanov Russia later, in 1864–1876. The American lands of Moscow Tartary became part of the United States - a state that was essentially formed only after the collapse of Moscow Tartary, on its ruins.

Only after winning the war with Pugachev did the Romanovs - and with them the whole of Western Europe - GET ACCESS TO SIBERIA FOR THE FIRST TIME. Which was previously closed to them.

The Romanovs' victory over Tobolsk changed the entire course of world history. It also allowed historians to complete a distorted picture of the past. Because only after this victory did historians finally have a free hand, and they were able to begin a complete “cleansing” of ancient and medieval history. It is not without reason that it is believed that by the beginning of the 19th century, history “was cleared of the incorrect views of the 18th century” and history textbooks acquired their familiar form today. In particular, only at the end of the 18th century were such famous historical names like Perm, Vyatka, Yugra, etc. In fact, these were the names of completely different regions, mainly Western European ones. Medieval Perm, for example, is Germany, medieval Vyatka is Italy, medieval Ugra is Hungary. In the 16th century, all these names were modestly present on the Russian royal coat of arms as names of subordinate provinces. However, in the 17th century, after the collapse Great Empire, the history of the Middle Ages was rewritten in a false key. The old names on the Russian coat of arms began to interfere, giving off a fake. It was necessary to move them (on paper) from Western Europe somewhere to Russia, further away, into the wilderness. Which is what was done. Moreover, IMMEDIATELY after the victory over Pugachev. At the same time, the coats of arms of many Russian cities and regions were significantly changed. All this “work” was basically completed in 1781, six years after the victory over Pugachev. See details in our book “New Chronology of Rus'”.

This is our reconstruction in brief. Below we will discuss it in more detail.

Menshikov in Berezovo. Who is Peter III?

The independence of Siberia from St. Petersburg until the victory over Pugachev in 1774 changes our view of some others important events Russian history.

It is believed, for example, that Menshikov, removed from power in 1727, was exiled to the city of Berezov near Tobolsk, article "Berezov". There are even famous picture Vasily Surikov “Menshikov in Berezovo”, depicting a disgraced prince sitting sadly with his daughters in a simple, dark hut, fig. 65.

Rice. 65. Painting by Vasily Surikov “Menshikov in Berezovo”, 1883. Moscow, Tretyakov Gallery

However, the city of Berezov is located relatively close to Tobolsk, on the left bank of the lower reaches of the Ob, see Fig. 52 above. As we said above, in 1727 these places most likely no longer belonged to the Romanovs, but were part of Moscow Tartaria. Consequently, Menshikov could not have been sent there. In order to settle in Berezovo, he had to RUN to Siberia, under the protection of a neighboring state.

Let us now remember that His Serene Highness Prince Menshikov, before he was removed from power, was the guardian of the young Emperor Peter II Alekseevich, the son of the executed Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich. That is, the grandson of the REAL, and not the fake Peter I, see our book “Ivan the Terrible and Peter I: a fictitious tsar and a fake tsar.” It is believed that on January 18, 1730 - three years after the fall of Menshikov - young Peter II unexpectedly dies of smallpox at the age of 15 and the direct line of heirs of Peter I is interrupted, article “Peter II Alekseevich”.

And 43 years later, in 1773, an “impostor” appears in Russia - Emperor Peter III Fedorovich.

It is believed that the real Peter III Fedorovich was a pure German, the son of the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp Karl Friedrich. His name was Ulrich, but after his ascension to the Russian throne he was christened “Peter Fedorovich.” It is believed that he was emperor for only a few months - from the death of Elizabeth Petrovna on December 25, 1761 until the proclamation of Catherine II as Empress on June 28, 1762, article “Peter III Fedorovich.” It is further believed that it was allegedly the name of this man that the simple Cossack Emelyan Pugachev named himself in 1773 in order, they say, to take advantage of “the confidence of the Russian people that Peter III is alive,” article “Pugachev.” Which immediately caused a strong response in the hearts of the Russian people. Thus began the largest “peasant uprising of Pugachev” in Russian history. The people, it turns out, loved and revered Emperor Peter Fedorovich so much that for several years they could not calm down and kept fighting against the legitimate government. This is the opinion of historians.

But now we can look at all these events with completely different eyes. As we already wrote in the book “Ivan the Terrible and Peter I: a fictitious tsar and a false tsar,” Peter I was replaced and a completely different person ruled on his behalf. The impostor was a German, and his entourage consisted almost entirely of Germans. The son of the real Peter I, Tsarevich Peter Alekseevich, was captured and executed. Naturally, these people could not allow the young Tsarevich Peter II, the grandson of the real Peter and the son of the executed Tsarevich Alexei, to grow up and gain a foothold on the throne. Otherwise, he most likely would have started pursuing the killers of his grandfather and father. Therefore, most likely, the coup of 1727 was directed not so much against Menshikov as against the rising Emperor Peter II. But if Menshikov managed to escape to Berezov, then it is possible that he was able to take Peter II himself with him. Although in St. Petersburg they pretended that Peter II died of smallpox in 1730, in fact he could be alive and hiding in Moscow Tartaria. In other words, the Siberian state could shelter the LEGAL HEIR TO THE RUSSIAN THRONE.

Then the aggravation of relations between Tobolsk and St. Petersburg in mid-18th century century. Peter II - or perhaps his son or grandson Peter III - having matured, could enter into the struggle for the paternal throne. Relying on the Siberian and Ural troops of Moscow Tartaria. If so, then rumors about the surviving prince should have circulated among the population of Russia. Many were waiting for him to come from Siberia to win his throne in order to stand under his banner. After all, it is known that even after the victory over “Pugachev”, many Russian people were still confident that he was the REAL, LEGITIMATE EMPEROR.

By the way, on the surviving seals of “Pugachev” we see the image young man, beardless, with long curly hair, maybe even wearing a wig, fig. 66. He looks more like the French kings of that time than a simple Cossack, as Romanov historians depict Pugachev, fig. 67.

Rice. 66. “Print of E.I. Pugacheva. August 1774." The inscription on the seal: “PETER: III: BY GOD: BY THE GRACE OF: THE EMPEROR: NARUVI:.” The word "NARUVI" is not clear. Perhaps Romanov’s editors worked on the seal, and initially it read “IN RUSI” or “ALL Rus'”. Taken from, inserted between pages 288 and 289

Rice. 67. A textbook image of Pugachev sitting on a chain. 18th century engraving. It is believed that this is supposedly “authentic lifetime portrait Pugacheva". But, most likely, this is just Romanov’s “propaganda”, which has nothing to do with reality. A commoner in a sheepskin coat is emphatically depicted, clearly not looking like the emperor. Taken from, inserted between pages 128 and 129

In Fig. 68 we present another Pugachev seal, allegedly belonging to “Chika-Zarubin, an associate of Pugachev.” However, we were unable to make out what exactly was written on it. In the center of the seal, apparently, there is a crescent moon inside which is a human hand (probably with two fingers).

Rice. 68. Another Pugachev seal is believed to be “the seal of Chika-Zarubin, Pugachev’s comrades-in-arms.” We were unable to make out what was written on this seal. Only the word “RUSIA” is readable at the top. In the center is a human hand, probably with two fingers. Possibly a crescent moon is also depicted. Taken from, inserted between pages 288 and 289

In Fig. 69 shows the seal of Pugachev’s military board. It depicts an imperial double-headed eagle. The inscription around it reads: “MILITARY COLLEGES PRINT,” that is, “military college seal.” So, it turns out that Pugachev had his own military board.

Rice. 69. Seal of Pugachev’s military board. An imperial double-headed eagle is depicted. The inscription around: “MILITARY COLLEAGUES PRINT.” It turns out that Pugachev had his own military board. Taken from, inserted between pages 288 and 289

In Fig. 70 we present a very interesting image of Pugachev’s seal. In the center of the seal is a beardless young man wearing a royal crown with a cross. Around the inscription: “B. G.P.P.T. IMP. ISEMODERZH. ALL-ROS. 1774". That is: “B[lover] G[sovereign] PETER PETROVICH (! - Auto.) THIRD EMPEROR AND AUTOCRATIC ALL-RUSSIAN. 1774". The most interesting thing here is that the fourth letter, denoting the first letter of the emperor’s patronymic and depicted here quite clearly, is “P” and not “F” or fita! That is, the emperor’s name was Pyotr Petrovich, not Pyotr Fedorovich! This means that the patronymic “Fedorovich” is most likely a Romanov invention. In fact, it was apparently Pyotr PETROVICH, the son of Peter II, who fought for the throne, and not Pyotr Fedorovich, who could only be the grandson of Peter II, on the assumption that he had a son, Fyodor. But the grandson of Peter II would most likely have been too young in 1773 during the Pugachev War. Therefore, most likely, it was his son Pyotr Petrovich, who, given that Peter II was born in 1715, could have been from 20 to 40 years old during the war of 1773–1775.

Rice. 70. Image of Pugachev’s seal. Caption: "B. G.P.P.T. IMP. ISEMODERZH. ALL RUSSIA 1774". That is: “B[lover] GOVERNOR] PETER PETROVICH (! - Author) THIRD EMPEROR AND AUTOCRAT OF ALL-RUSSIAN. 1774". Taken from, inserted between pages 128 and 129

In Fig. 71 shows a page of Pugachev’s instructions on military recruitment, written in the Tatar language in Arabic letters. We know that in the Russian-Horde Empire the Tatar language was widely used, including by Russian people. See our books “New Chronology of Rus'”, “Rus and the Horde”, “Rus and Rome”.

Rice. 71. Pugachev’s order on military recruitment, written in Arabic in the Tatar language. Taken from, inserted between pages 288 and 289

And finally, in Fig. 72 we present a very interesting photograph from V. Buganov’s book “Pugachev”, which depicts the medal of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna “To the Victor over the Prussians. Summer 1759". It is believed that it was this medal that Pugachev used to reward his soldiers. However, it is completely unclear why he had to award his comrades with a medal with a clearly alien image of the WOMAN Empress? What did he mean by this?

Rice. 72. Medal of Elizabeth Petrovna “To the winner over the Prussians. 1759". Allegedly, it was THIS medal that Pugachev awarded his troops. Which would be stupid - after all, the medal clearly depicts not him, but the female empress. More likely. Peter III awarded his comrades with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT medal for the victory OVER THE PRUSSIANS, emphasizing that the people who seized the Russian throne were Prussians, that is, foreigners. Taken from, inserted between pages 288 and 289

Most likely, here we again come across a trace of crude Romanov falsification. Probably, after the Pugachev War, many still remembered well that Emperor Peter III awarded his troops with medals for the victory over the PRUSSIANS. Thus emphasizing that the illegal rulers who settled in St. Petersburg, with whom he fought, ARE NOT RUSSIANS, BUT PRUSSIANS. That is, foreigners. And this, as we know, was the pure truth. However, Romanov’s falsifiers cleverly distorted it, declaring that Pugachev, they say, due to the lack of his own medals, naively decided to award his people with outdated medals of Elizaveta Petrovna. Which he accidentally got hold of somewhere and put it to use, without even attaching, they say, significance to the fact that “Victor over the Prussians” was stamped on these medals. All the same, they say, all of Pugachev’s associates - like himself - were illiterate. Therefore, they simply could not read what was written on the medal. Therefore, they say, it turned out that Pugachev’s troops, who smashed the Romanov troops, received medals “for the victory over the Prussians.” Pure coincidence and nothing more. There is no need to attach any importance to it. This is how Russian history was distorted.

Romanov's version of the Pugachev war. Participation of A.S. Pushkin in the development of this version

Let's now see how the war with Pugachev is presented in the generally accepted version of Russian history today. We call this version “Romanov” because it was created during the reign of the Romanovs and by their order.

Let's start with the fact that the case of Emelyan Pugachev, according to the testimony of A.S. Pushkin, was considered an IMPORTANT STATE SECRET. During Pushkin’s time, in 1833, when he wrote about it, it was never printed, p. 661. It is appropriate to recall here that A.S. Pushkin wrote “The History of Pugachev,” which, in his words, “collected everything that was published by the government regarding Pugachev, and what seemed to me reliable in foreign writers who spoke about him,” p. 661. However, NOT EVERYTHING was “promulgated by the government.” Pushkin himself apparently realized that his work was very incomplete. He wrote: “The future historian, who WILL BE ALLOWED TO PRINT THE CASE ABOUT PUGACHEV, will easily correct and supplement my work,” p. 661.

The general impression from the Romanov version of the history of the “Pugachev rebellion” and, in particular, from Pushkin’s “The History of Pugachev” is as follows.

They say that the government troops of Catherine II allegedly, without much effort, repeatedly defeated the disorderly gangs of “thief Pugachev.” Defeated by them, Pugachev constantly rushed into panic flight. But for some reason this “flight” was strangely directed FORWARD, TOWARDS MOSCOW.

They write this: “Only Mikhelson actively acted against the rebels. He rushed against the Pugachevites into the mountains and defeated them,” vol. 3, p. 125. After this “defeat” Pugachev TAKES KAZAN. Further: “Mikhelson was approaching Kazan. Pugachev went to meet him, but FAILED and retreated to Kazan. Here a new battle took place, in which the rebels suffered COMPLETE DEFEAT,” vol. 3, p. 125. What does the “completely broken” Pugachev do after this? Here’s what: “Pugachev crossed the Volga and went to Nizhny Novgorod, intending to move on to Moscow in the future. The movement of the rebels in this direction TERRIFIED not only Nizhny, but also Moscow. THE EMPRESS HERSELF DECIDED TO STAND AT THE HEAD OF THE TROOPS TO SAVE MOSCOW AND RUSSIA. The empress was dissuaded from this decision... By this time the war with Turkey was over, SUVOROV ARRIVED from the front and was appointed CHIEF OF ALL TROOPS against the rebels,” vol. 3, p. 125.

Thus, even from the distorted and cleaned up Romanov’s version of Russian history, it is clear that significant forces of the regular army were sent to counter the “rebellion.” Led not by anyone, but personally by A.V. SUVOROV, the most famous commander of that era. We will talk about this in detail below in Chapter 3.

It is known that Ural factories worked for Pugachev. THEY CASTED GUNS FOR HIM. Romanov’s version of history convinces us that the Ural workers “revolted” and sided with Pugachev, vol. 3, p. 125. But most likely, this was not the case at all. The Ural factories at that time simply belonged to Moscow Tartary, whose troops were led by Pugachev. That's why weapons factories worked for him.

In the Romanov version of history, we are asked to believe that Pugachev illegally CALLED HIMSELF TSAR Peter Fedorovich, that is, Peter III Romanov, vol. 3, p. 126; , With. 687. Entering the cities, Pugachev published ROYAL MANIFESTOS, vol. 3, p. 126. It is very significant that when Pugachev took the cities, he was joyfully greeted not only simple people, but the CLERGY AND MERCHANTS. For example, “On July 27, Pugachev entered Saransk. He was greeted not only by the black people, but by the clergy and merchants... Pugachev approached Penza... Residents came out to meet him with icons and bread and fell on their knees before him,” p. 690. Further: “In Saransk, ARCHIMANDRITE ALEXANDER RECEIVED PUGACHEV WITH THE CROSS AND THE GOSPEL, and during the prayer service for the litany he mentioned THE EMPRESS USTINA PETROVNA,” p. 690. That is, the archimandrite named the name of ANOTHER QUEEN, not Catherine II! Apparently, they were talking about the queen of Moscow Tartary.

Based on his research, A.S. Pushkin draws the following conclusion: “ALL THE BLACK PEOPLE WAS FOR PUGACHEV; THE CLERGY WERE WELLWISHED BY HIM, NOT ONLY THE PRIESTS AND MONKS, BUT ALSO ARCHIMANDRITS AND BISHOPS,” p. 697.

Most likely, today we do not know the true name of the Tobolsk king of that time and the true name of the leader of his troops. The name Pugachev was probably simply invented by Romanov historians. Or they picked up a simple Cossack with such a meaningful name. After all, “Pugachev” comes from the word “pugach”, “scarecrow”. In exactly the same way, Romanov historians chose a name for Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich early XVII century. Allegedly also an “impostor”, as they tried to portray, see our books “New Chronology of Rus'”, “Rus and Rome”, “The Great Troubles”. Tsar Dmitry was given the “surname” OTREPYEV, from the word TRASH. Like, this is a bad person who attempted to attack the royal power. Thief, scum, scarecrow. The goal is completely clear. By wisely choosing a fake name, develop a negative attitude towards a person. Emphasize the “obviousness” of his “imposture.” An understandable technique from experienced propagandists.

Meanwhile, A.S. Pushkin reports that the Yaik Cossacks, who fought on Pugachev’s side, said “that there really was a certain Pugachev among them, but that he HAD NOTHING IN COMMON with Emperor Peter III, who led them,” p. 694. In other words, the Yaik Cossacks did not at all believe that Pugachev, executed by the Romanovs, was their leader.

By the way, Pugachev himself, according to A.S. Pushkin, to Panin’s question, how dare he call himself a sovereign? - answered evasively in the sense that THIS IS NOT HIM, s. 694. It is clear what happened. In order to prove to the whole world that the war with Moscow Tartaria was simply the suppression of a “peasant revolt,” a simple Cossack was executed in Moscow, calling him an impostor king. So that it becomes obvious to everyone that this simple Cossack “of course is not a king.”

It is also worth paying attention to the following circumstance. Since 1826, it is believed that between A.S. Pushkin and Emperor Nicholas I concluded a certain agreement on censorship. As modern commentators write, “it was an agreement not to speak out against the government, for which Pushkin was given freedom and the right to publish UNDER THE PERSONAL CENSORSHIP OF NICHOLAS I,” vol. 1, p. 15. Contemporaries’ memories of the conversation between Nicholas I and Pushkin regarding the emperor’s personal censorship have been preserved. The following is known: “Part of the conversation, WHICH CONCERNED CENSORSHIP, was preserved in the memory of A.O. Rosseta: “Nikolai, having asked Pushkin what he was writing now, and having received the answer: “Almost nothing, your Majesty, the censorship is very strict.”... “WELL, SO I MYSELF WILL BE YOUR CENSORS,” THE LORD SAID, SEND ME EVERYTHING THAT YOU WILL WRITE ““ (Y.K. Grot, p. 288)”, volume 1, p. 462.

All this happened on September 8, 1826, that is, even BEFORE A.S.’S TRIP. Pushkin to the Urals, vol. 1, p. 461. So, most likely, Pushkin’s “History of Pugachev” underwent strict censorship by the tsar himself.

Historian H.I. Muratov reports: “THE GOVERNMENT FORBIDDEN EVEN MENTIONING PUGACHEV’S NAME. The Zimoveyskaya village, where he was born, was RENAMED to Potemkinskaya, the YAIK RIVER - TO THE URAL. THE YAIC COSSACKS BECAME CALLED THE URAL COSSACKS. THE VOLGA COSSACK ARMY WAS DISFORMED. THE ZAPOROZHIE SECTION WAS LIQUIDATED. BY ORDER OF THE EMPRESS, ALL EVENTS OF THE PEASANT WAR WERE CONTRADITED TO “ETERNAL OBSERVATION AND DEEP SILENCE””, p. 172.

The order to “forget about Pugachev forever” was implemented very harshly by the Romanov administration in the Urals and Siberia. After Pugachev’s defeat, a wave of persecution and executions swept across the occupied lands of Moscow Tartaria. During a visit to A.T. Fomenko and T.N. Fomenko of the Ural cities of Miass and Zlatoust in August 1999, employees of the local history museum of the city of Zlatoust said that according to the memories and materials still preserved in these places, MOST OF THE RESIDENTS OF Zlatoust WERE EXECUTED by the Romanov troops (hanged), since the military factories of Zlatoust, as well as , and generally speaking Southern Urals, poured guns for Pugachev’s army. In addition, the Romanov winners recalled that “the craftsmen of the Zlatoust plant went under the banner of Emelyan Pugachev ALMOST ALL”, p. 104. Near the Kargalinskaya settlement (now Tatarskaya Kargala) and the Sakmara town (now the village of Sakmara) there are mountains that still bear the eloquent names HANGED and RUBLEVAYA, from the word CUT. “The names of which,” as local historians report, “correlate with the MASSACRE OVER THE REBELLION, when in the spring of 1774 the tsarist troops defeated Pugachev here, and he was forced to flee to Bashkiria,” p. 97.

Apparently, Pugachev’s original documents have not survived. Today we are shown, for example, a copy of “Pugachev’s decree,” p. 171. See fig. 73. But has the original decree survived? Most likely no. The “copy” offered to us today is probably a Romanov fake made by the winners. At the top left there is a clumsy drawing of what looks like Pugachev’s seal. But the drawing is clearly conventional and made frankly carelessly.

Rice. 73. “Decree of Pugachev. Copy. Fragment", p. 171.

In Fig. 74 shows an old engraving from the 18th century “The Execution of Pugachev”. The mass execution of the Cossacks is depicted.

Rice. 74. 18th century engraving depicting the execution of the Pugachevites. Taken from, p. 171

In Fig. 75 shows a rare old portrait of Pugachev, painted over the portrait of Catherine II. In Fig. 76 shows the iron cage in which Pugachev was kept in Moscow

Rice. 75. Portrait of Pugachev, painted in the 18th century, over a portrait of Empress Catherine II. The artist's name is unknown. Stored in the State Historical Museum Moscow. Taken from, vol. 1, p. 351

Rice. 76. The iron cage in which Pugachev was in Moscow from November 4, 1774 until January 10, 1775 - the day of execution. State Historical Museum, Moscow. Photo taken by A.T. Fomenko in 2008

Why Peter I moved the capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg

As evidenced by maps of the 18th century, the border of Moscow Tartary passed very close to Moscow. It is not surprising that such a dangerous neighborhood greatly worried the Romanovs. This is probably why Peter I made the only right decision in such a situation - to move the capital further away, to the marshy shores of the Gulf of Finland. Here, by his order, a new capital was built - St. Petersburg. This location was convenient for the Romanovs in several respects. Firstly, now the capital was far from the Horde's Moscow Tartaria, and it was more difficult to get here. In addition, if the Siberian-American Horde attacks, then it is much easier to escape from St. Petersburg to the West than from Moscow. (Note that for some reason the Romanovs were not afraid of attacks by sea FROM THE WEST.) In St. Petersburg, it is enough to board a ship standing at the threshold of the royal palace and quickly sail to Western Europe. That is, to our own people, to the historical homeland of the pro-Western house of the Romanovs.
The official Romanov explanation of the motives for moving the capital of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg is not very convincing. They say that Peter I “cut a window to Europe,” and it’s easier to trade from here. But, in the end, it was possible to trade from the shores of the Gulf of Finland without moving the capital there. They would simply build a large commercial port, and with it a city. But why make it the capital of the state?! The inspired thesis about “cutting through a window” is now becoming clear to us. As we have already said, the Romanovs, having seized power in Russia, “opened a window to Europe” in order to preserve their former strong ancestral ties with the West. And, we repeat, in case of a possible escape from the weakened, but still very dangerous for the Romanovs, Moscow Tartary. Formerly, let us remember, until the 18th century, THE BIGGEST STATE IN THE WORLD. What the Encyclopedia Britannica 1771 simply tells us, vol. 2, p. 682–684. Thus, the Romanovs’ transfer of the capital from warm continental Moscow to cold St. Petersburg on the marshy coastal swamps now becomes more understandable. Moreover, from time to time it was inundated by severe floods.

About Great Tartaria and the Mongol Tatars Ancient maps

PEASANT WAR 1773-1775 UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF EL. PUGACHEV

The eve of the Peasant War. In 1771, an uprising of townspeople broke out in Moscow, called the “Plague Riot.” The plague, which began in the Russian-Turkish theater of war, despite strict quarantine, was brought to Moscow and killed up to a thousand people a day. The city authorities were at a loss in the extreme situation, which increased distrust in them. The reason for the uprising was an attempt by Moscow Archbishop Ambrose and Governor P.D. Eropkin, for hygienic reasons, to remove the miraculous icon of the Mother of God from the Varvarsky Gate of Kitay-Gorod (thousands of Muscovites venerated it). Ambrose was torn to pieces by a crowd in the Donskoy Monastery. For three days a riot raged in the city. From St. Petersburg, the Empress's favorite G. G. Orlov with a guards regiment was sent to suppress the uprising. Over a hundred people were killed, many were punished with whips, rods, and lashes. The decisive measures taken by Orlov led to a decline and gradual cessation of the epidemic.

In the decade preceding the Peasant War, historians count more than 40 speeches by serfs. In the 50-70s of the 18th century. The flight of desperate peasants from their masters reached great proportions. Forged decrees and manifestos containing rumors about the supposed imminent liberation of peasants from serfdom became widespread among the population. Imposture also took place: there is information about six cases of the appearance before the start of the Peasant War of “Petrov III” - doubles of the emperor who died in 1762. In such a situation, the Peasant War broke out under the leadership of E.I. Pugacheva.

Emelyan Ivanovich Pugachev was born in the Zimoveyskaya village on the Don (it was also the birthplace of S.T. Razin), in a family of poor Cossacks. From the age of 17, he took part in the wars with Prussia and Turkey, and received the junior officer rank of cornet for bravery in battle. E.I. Pugachev more than once acted as a petitioner from the peasants and ordinary Cossacks, for which he was arrested by the authorities. In 1773 E.I. Pugachev, who was then 31 years old, escaped from a Kazan prison. His path lay on Yaik, where he introduced himself to the local Cossacks as Emperor Peter III. With a detachment of 80 Cossacks, he moved to the Yaitsky town - the center of the local Cossack army. Two weeks later, the army of E.I. Pugacheva already numbered more than 2.5 thousand people and had 29 guns.

Participants in the Peasant War. The movement under the leadership of Pugachev began among the Cossacks. The uprising was given a special scope by the participation in it of serfs, artisans, working people and assigned peasants of the Urals, as well as Bashkirs, Mari, Tatars, Udmurts and other peoples of the Volga region. Like his predecessors, B.I. Pugachev was distinguished by religious tolerance. Orthodox Christians, Old Believers, Muslims, and pagans fought together under his banner. They were united by hatred of serfdom.

A.S. called them “amazing examples of folk eloquence.” Pushkin several manifestos and decrees of E.I. Pugachev, giving an idea of ​​the main slogans of the rebels. In form, these documents differed from the “charming letters” of I. I. Bolotnikov and S. T. Razin. In the conditions of the established administrative-bureaucratic apparatus of power, the leader of the rebels used forms of state acts characteristic of the new stage of the country's development - manifestos and decrees.

Historians called one of the most striking manifestos of E.I. “a charter to the peasantry.” Pugacheva. “All who were previously in the peasantry and under the citizenship of the landowners” he granted “liberty and freedom”, lands, hayfields, fishing and salt lakes "without purchase and without rent." The manifesto freed the country's population "from taxes and burdens" "inflicted by the villains of the nobles and city bribe-takers."

The course of the Peasant War. The peasant war began with the capture by a detachment of E.I. Pugachev of small towns on Yaik and the siege of Orenburg - the largest fortress in southeast Russia. Tsarist troops under the command of General V.A. Kara, sent to the rescue of Orenburg, were defeated. The Bashkirs, led by Salavat Yulaev, walking together with V.A. Karom, took the side of E.I. Pugacheva. The rebel army was organized on the model of the Cossack army. The headquarters of the rebels, the Military Collegium, was formed near Orenburg. Discipline and organization in the army E.I. Pugachev were relatively high, but in general the movement, as in previous peasant wars, remained spontaneous.

Separate detachments of rebels led by comrades-in-arms of E.I. Pugachev - Salavat Yulaev, working people of the Ural factories Khlopushi and Ivan Beloborodov, Cossack Ivan Chiki-Zarubin and others - captured Kungur, Krasnoufimsk, Samara, besieged Ufa, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk.

Frightened by the scale of the peasant movement, Catherine II placed the former head of the Code Commission, General A.I., at the head of the government troops. Bibikova. Catherine II herself declared herself a “Kazan landowner,” emphasizing the closeness of interests of the royal power and the nobility.

In March 1774 E.I. Pugachev was defeated at the Tatishchev Fortress in the Orenburg region. After the defeat at Tatishcheva, the second stage of the Peasant War began. The rebels retreated to the Urals, where their army was replenished by assigned peasants and factory miners. From there, from the Urals E.I. Pugachev moved towards Kazan and took it in July 1774. However, soon the main forces of the tsarist troops under the command of Colonel I.I. approached the city. Mikhelson. In the new battle E.I. Pugachev was defeated. With a detachment of 500 people, he moved to the right bank of the Volga.

The third has begun The final stage uprising “Pugachev fled; but his flight seemed like an invasion,” wrote A.S. Pushkin. The peasantry and peoples of the Volga region met E.I. Pugachev as a liberator from serfdom. At the head of government troops instead of the deceased A.I. Bibikova was directed by P.I. Panin. From the theater Russian-Turkish war was called by A.V. Suvorov. The detachment of E.I. himself Pugacheva moved down the Volga in order to subsequently break through to the Don, where he expected to receive the support of the Don Cossacks. During the movement to the south, the Pugachevites captured Alatyr, Saransk, Penza, Saratov.

The last defeat of E.I. Pugachev suffered after unsuccessful attempt take Tsaritsyn from the Salnikov plant. With a small number of people devoted to him, he tried to hide behind the Volga in order to subsequently continue the fight. A group of wealthy Cossacks, trying to earn the favor of the Empress through treachery, captured E.I. Pugacheva and handed him over to the authorities. In a wooden cage E.I. Pugachev was sent to Moscow. On January 10, 1775, Pugachev and his closest supporters were executed in Moscow on Bolotnaya Square. Tsarism dealt just as cruelly with ordinary participants in the uprising: rafts with gallows floated along the Volga and other rivers. The corpses of the hanged, swaying in the wind, were supposed, according to the punitive forces, to intimidate the population of the country and thereby prevent new uprisings.

Peasant war led by E.I. Pugacheva ended in defeat for the same reasons as other major uprisings of the masses: it was characterized by a spontaneous nature, locality of the movement, heterogeneity of its social composition, poor weapons, naive monarchism, lack of a clear program and goal of the struggle. The Peasant War forced Catherine II to carry out a series of reforms to centralize and unify government bodies in the center and locally and to legislate the class rights of the population.

Factors leading to the formation of nation states. Features of the formation of the Russian state.

The reign of Ivan III and Vasily III. Joining Moscow Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Rostov, Novgorod the Great, Vyatka land. Overthrow of the Horde yoke. Entry into the single state of Tver, Pskov, Smolensk, Ryazan.

Political system. Strengthening the power of the Moscow Grand Dukes. Code of Law of 1497 Changes in the structure of feudal land ownership. Boyar, church and local land ownership.

The beginning of the formation of central and local authorities. Reducing the number of appanages. Boyar Duma. Localism. Church and grand ducal power. The growth of the international authority of the Russian state.

Economic recovery and the rise of Russian culture after the Kulikovo victory. Moscow is the center of the emerging culture of the Great Russian people. Reflection of political trends in literature. Chronicle. "The Legend of the Princes of Vladimir." Historical stories. "Zadonshchina". "The Tale of Mamaev's massacre". Hagiographic literature. "Walking" by Afanasy Nikitin. Construction of the Moscow Kremlin. Theophanes the Greek. Andrei Rublev.