It was not easy for the peasants to live during the time described by A. S. Pushkin in the story "Dubrovsky" - the time of serfdom. Very often the landowners treated them cruelly and unfairly.

It was especially difficult for serfs among such landowners as Troekurov. The wealth and noble family of Troekurov gave him great power over people and the ability to satisfy any desires. People for this spoiled and uneducated person were toys that had neither a soul nor their own will (and not only serfs). He kept under lock and key the maids who were supposed to do needlework, forcibly married them off at his own discretion. At the same time, the landowner's dogs fared better than people. Kirila Petrovich treated the peasants and courtyards “strictly and waywardly”, they were afraid of the master, but hoped for his patronage in relations with their neighbors.

Quite different relations developed with the serfs of Troekurov's neighbor Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. The peasants loved and respected their master, they sincerely experienced his illness and waited with hope for the arrival of Andrei Gavrilovich's son, young Vladimir Dubrovsky.

It so happened that a quarrel between former friends - Dubrovsky and Troekurov - led to the transfer of the property of the first (together with the house and serfs) to Troekurov. Ultimately, Andrei Gavrilovich, who had a hard time surviving the insult of his neighbor and the unfair decision of the court, dies.

The peasants of Dubrovsky are very attached to their masters and are determined not to allow themselves to be handed over to the power of the cruel Troekurov. The serfs are ready to defend their masters and, having learned about the decision of the court and the death of the old master, raise a rebellion. Dubrovsky interceded in time for the clerks who came to explain the state of affairs after the transfer of property. The peasants were already going to knit Shabashkin, police chief and deputy zemstvo court, shouting: “Guys! down with them!” when the young master stopped them, explaining that by their actions the peasants could harm both themselves and him.

The clerks made a mistake by staying overnight in Dubrovsky's house, because the people, although they calmed down, did not forgive the injustice. When the young gentleman went around the house at night, he met Arkhip with an ax, who at first explained that he “came ... to see if everyone was at home,” but afterward he honestly admitted his deepest desire: “would everyone be at once, and ends in the water.

Dubrovsky understands that things have gone too far, he himself is put in a hopeless situation, deprived of his estate and lost his father due to the tyranny of a neighbor, but he is also sure that "not the clerks are to blame."

Dubrovsky decided to burn down his house so that strangers would not get it, and orders to take his nanny and other people who remained in the house, except for the clerks, into the yard.

When the courtyards, on the orders of the master, set fire to the house. Vladimir was worried about the clerks: it seemed to him that he had locked the door to their room, and they would not be able to get out of the fire. He asks Arkhip to go and check if the door is open, with an order to unlock it if it is closed. However, Arkhip has his own opinion on this matter. He blames the events on the people who brought the evil news, and firmly locks the door. The clerks are doomed to death. This act can characterize the blacksmith Arkhip as a cruel and ruthless person, but it is he who, after a while, climbs onto the roof, not being afraid of fire, in order to save the cat distraught with fear. It is he who reproaches the boys, rejoicing in unexpected fun: "You are not afraid of God: God's creature is dying, and you are foolishly rejoicing."

Blacksmith Arkhip is a strong man, but he lacks the education to understand the full depth and seriousness of the current situation. material from the site

Not all serfs had the determination and courage to bring the work they started to the end. Only a few people disappeared from Kistenevka after the fire: the blacksmith Arkhip, the nanny Egorovna, the blacksmith Anton and the yard man Grigory. And, of course, Vladimir Dubrovsky, who wanted to restore justice and saw no other way out for himself.

In the vicinity, instilling fear in the landowners, robbers appeared who robbed the landowners' houses and burned them. Dubrovsky became the leader of the robbers, he "was famous for his intelligence, courage and some kind of generosity." The guilty peasants and serfs, tortured by the cruelty of their masters, fled into the forest and also joined the detachment of "people's avengers".

Thus, Troekurov's quarrel with old Dubrovsky served only as a match that managed to ignite the flame of popular discontent with the injustice and tyranny of the landowners, forcing the peasants to enter into an uncompromising struggle with their oppressors.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page, material on the topics:

• Dubrovsky's responsibility for serfs
• Relations between serfs and their masters-Dubrovsky
• characteristics of archip blacksmith
• Pushkin peasant riot in the work of Dubrovsky
• essay dubrovsky and serfs

Forty years after the abolition of serfdom, it took the peasants again to want land redistribution

Until 1917, the number of annual peasant uprisings was the best indicator of the political and social situation in the Russian Empire. At the beginning of the 19th century, there were an average of 26 of them every year. Single and collective performances fell under this category. This time was marked by the complete conservation of the situation in the countryside - not a single attempt at a large peasant reform was carried through by the authorities.

After the defeat in the Crimean War, on the eve of the abolition of serfdom, the peasants rebelled more and more often: in 1856 - 66 cases; in 1857 - 100; in 1858 - 378; in 1859 - 797. Later, historians will call this the main sign of the folding of a revolutionary situation in Russia at that time. The abolition of serfdom became an act of self-preservation of imperial power.

After the Great Reforms of Alexander II, the number of performances began to wane. In the 1870s, at the height of the Narodniks, the peasants rebelled with much less desire than in previous decades - an average of 36 cases a year. In the 1880s - the time of the counter-reforms of Alexander III - an average of 73 annual performances were recorded, and in the 1890s the number of uprisings increased to 57 per year.

The relatively low level of social unrest among the peasants continued to convince the monarch and supporters of the autocracy that the peasantry, according to the theory of official nationality, remained the backbone of the throne. At the same time, no one could offer options for the main, every year increasing problem of the post-reform village - the peasant lack of land. In fact, the situation of the first half of the 19th century was repeated, when everyone understood the need to abolish serfdom, but no one wanted to take responsibility for this decision. The revolutionary situation in Russia again began to mature precisely in the countryside.

And the whole of Russia is not enough

In 1861, about 23 million people were liberated from serfdom in Russia, of which 22 million lived in the European part of the empire on the lands of present-day Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. This number did not include another 18 million state peasants who were finally emancipated five years later, in 1866. At the end of the 19th century, the peasantry consisted of about 100 million people throughout the Russian Empire. In the forty years that have passed since the peasant reform, the country's rural population has more than doubled.

"Liberation of the Peasants (Reading the Manifesto)" by Boris Kustodiev

The state faced the problem of peasant shortage of land. If immediately after the reform per capita of the rural population there was an average of about 3.3 acres of land, then by the beginning of the 20th century, due to population growth, one peasant was sometimes content with less than one acre (1 acre - 1.01 ha), which inevitably led to to a decrease in the living standards of farmers, and the pace of modernization of the village.

The solution to the problem of land shortage was hampered not only by the indecision of the authorities, but also by the inertness of the peasant communities. They were governed by village assemblies, which elected the headman. The gatherings were in charge of the redistribution of land among members of the community and the payment of taxes to the state. The official history of this institute at the beginning of the 20th century did not even last a hundred years. The community was made the main instrument for regulating peasant life only in the time of Nicholas I, but in a short time it turned into one of the most important phenomena of Russian life. The community members, existing on the principle of mutual responsibility (common responsibility), were not interested in the departure of their members, and the state did not contribute to community reform.

At the same time, the peasants knew where to get land without leaving the community - from the landowners. Despite the general decline in post-reform Russia of "noble nests", landownership continued to be significant. Although the landowners owned only 13% of land suitable for agriculture, as well as a certain amount of forest and water lands.

Some of the landowners were able after the 1860s to turn their estate into an agricultural enterprise using the services of hired workers, and someone took the path of least resistance and leased land to peasants who had to not only pay for the use of arable land, but also , for example, to pay for the right to pick mushrooms and berries in the landowner's forests. Some small-land peasants were very happy with the possibility of renting land: the wealthy who were able to pay for it turned into kulaks. But there were a lot of those for whom the rent did not become a salvation from a difficult financial situation.

The socio-economic stratification in the countryside grew. The journalism about the situation in the countryside at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries included previously non-existent terms that reflected this process: kulak, middle peasant and poor peasant. At the same time, the majority of the peasants remained in solidarity with the fact that landownership should be liquidated, the land should be owned by the one who cultivates it.

"Distribution of bread to hungry children by priest Moderatov", 1891-1892. Photo: Maxim Dmitriev

The state, however, was in no hurry with the next round of peasant reform. The landlords, especially those who had become accustomed to the new capitalist realities, stood up for the preservation and increase of large land ownership. The peasants grumbled. After several decades, the populists were awakening - Russian agrarian socialists who staked on the peasantry as a revolutionary class.

At the beginning of the 20th century, it was time to paraphrase the first chief of the gendarmes, Count Alexander Benckendorff, who in the late 1830s called serfdom a powder keg under the state. Now such a “barrel” was the lack of land inherited from serfdom. And the explosion was not long in coming.

"No bread! No land! If you don't give, we'll take anyway!

The first year of the 20th century in Russia turned out to be lean. Its consequences did not lead to large-scale famine, but forced the peasants in the European part of the empire to tighten their belts.

By the spring of 1902, the few products left by the peasants began to run out - the seeds stored for sowing went into action. Many provinces were seriously threatened by the threat of mass starvation.

The situation was especially difficult in Kharkov and Poltava provinces. The rich black earth lands after the arrival of the Russian Empire became a place for the active development of landownership. After 1861, the landowners here continued to retain most of the land, while reducing peasant allotments. In a situation of the threat of famine and the impoverishment of many families at the beginning of 1902, social tension in the village began to grow.

Unrest began to flare up. At first, the authorities did not pay close attention to them, considering them ordinary, which had happened more than once before. But this time they were wrong.

The first riots began in the village of Popovka in the Konstantinograd (now Krasnograd) district of the Poltava province on March 9, according to the old style. Local peasants attacked the economy (farm. - RP) of the Dukes of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Having expelled the guards, the attackers took out potatoes and hay, which were especially lacking in the district.

A few weeks later, the estate of the landowner Rogovsky caught fire. Again, the main goal of the rebellious peasants was the landowners' barns: food and feed were exported. By the end of March, new estates were already burning every day in the Poltava province. Another conflict quickly came out because of the social stratification in the village - now, along with the landlords, kulaks were also attacked.

In early April, following the Poltava province, peasant revolts swept over Kharkov. On April 1 alone, there were 22 simultaneous attacks on landowners' farms. Witnesses of the uprising noted with surprise that the peasants sought to immediately sow the seized landed estates, hoping that they would not be taken away later.

Ukrainian village, early 20th century. Photo: Culture Club / Getty Images / Fotobank.ru

The investigative materials describe the reasons that prompted the peasants to revolt as follows: “When the victim Fesenko turned to the crowd that came to rob him, asking why they want to ruin him, the accused Zaitsev said: “You alone have 100 acres, and we have one each. a tithe for a family. You could try to live on one tithe of land ... ".

One of the peasants complained to the investigator: “Let me tell you about our masculine, unhappy life. I have a father and six minor children without a mother, and I have to live with an estate of 3/4 tithes and 1/4 tithes of field land. We pay 12 rubles for grazing a cow, and for a tithe for bread we have to work three tithes of harvesting (that is, work off the landowner. - RP). We cannot live like this. We are in a loop. What do we do? We, peasants, turned everywhere ... they don’t accept us anywhere, we don’t get help anywhere. ”

Later, investigators noted that the uprising took place under the general slogan “No bread! No land! If you don't give, we'll take anyway! In total, about 40 thousand peasants from 337 villages took part in it.

The dry statistics on the situation of the peasants in the Poltava and Kharkov provinces say the following. In the Constantinograd district of the Poltava province, for 250 thousand peasants living there, there were only 225 thousand acres of land. In the Valkovsky district of the Kharkov province, 100 thousand peasants were content with only 60 thousand acres. A similar situation was in other counties covered by the uprising.

Only three weeks later in St. Petersburg they realized the gravity of the situation. By this time, 105 noble estates and farms had been destroyed in the Poltava and Kharkov provinces. The troops began a retaliatory punitive operation. Nine infantry battalions and 10 Cossack hundreds were involved in it.

The police and the army usually surrounded the rebellious villages, after which the primary execution began in them, which reduced to whipping and the seizure of the loot. In the village of Kovalevka in the Poltava district, a crowd of gathered peasants was shot for their resistance: two were killed and seven wounded. It should be noted that during the Poltava-Kharkov uprising, not a single landowner died at the hands of the peasants.

An investigation has begun. About a thousand people were brought to trial. In December, about 800 people were sentenced to prison terms of up to four and a half years, of which 761 were pardoned. Instead of a prison term, Nicholas II imposed on the peasants the obligation to pay the affected landowners a total of 800 thousand rubles. Only 123 people were fully justified.

Russian revolution began in Ukraine

The Poltava-Kharkov uprising of the Ukrainian peasants dragged along a whole chain of revolts. Only in 1902 they broke out in the Kyiv, Oryol, Chernigov, Kursk, Saratov, Penza, Ryazan provinces. In these regions, they developed according to the scenario of the spring uprising: a rebellion and plunder of the landowners' economy in one village led to a chain reaction - noble estates caught fire in neighboring settlements. Common in these regions was the presence of a high concentration of landownership, and consequently, a high level of peasant land shortages.

Since the time of the Pugachev uprising (1773-1775), the imperial authorities have lost the habit of large-scale peasant riots. Throughout the 19th century, unrest covered only one settlement - neighbors rarely decided to support. In 1902, a peasant uprising and further unrest began to take place according to a network, viral principle: unrest in one village spread to neighboring ones, gradually capturing new territories. In total, in 1901-1904 there were twice as many of them as in 1897-1900 - 577 against 232 cases.

The new nature of the peasant uprisings meant that profound social changes had taken place in the countryside. The peasants gradually began to realize themselves as a class with common goals: first of all, this is the division of the land on fair, as they understood them, conditions.

A policeman forbids a peasant to plow his landowner's land, 1906. Photo: Slava Katamidze Collection / Getty Images

Over the years since the abolition of serfdom, the Russian intelligentsia managed to form the image of a peasant as a long-bearer and a martyr who preferred to suffer rather than fight for his rights. The defeat of populism in the 1870s and 1880s was largely due to the peasants' resistance to political propaganda. But, as time has shown, during the time of Alexander II, the necessary conditions for revolutionary agitation had not yet developed in the village.

In the party of neo-populists, who at the beginning of the 20th century took the name of Socialist Revolutionaries (Socialist-Revolutionaries), there were long disputes that the peasant is now of no interest for revolutionary agitation and that it is necessary to focus on the working class and intelligentsia. The events of the first years of the 20th century forced the Social Revolutionaries to return to their roots again - to work among the peasants.

In early December 1904, the director of the Police Department Alexei Lopukhin wrote a memorandum to Emperor Nicholas II on the results of the investigation and analysis of the causes of the Poltava-Kharkov uprising. Lopukhin emphasized in the document that everything in the village was already ready for even greater performances. “These riots, truly worthy of the name of a rebellion, were so terrible that, assessing them now, almost three years later, one cannot help but shudder from the consciousness, based on observation of them, of the unexpected simplicity with which a popular uprising can flare up in Russia and grow. If the moment comes when the peasants become unbearable to live in a significant number of provinces of the empire, and if in one of these provinces there is any external impetus for unrest, they may grow into such an unbridled movement, the waves of which will cover a territory so vast that it is impossible to deal with them. will cope without massacre, ”Lopukhin wrote to the tsar.

Both the minute and the massacre were not long in coming - a month later, "Bloody Sunday" happened in St. Petersburg, from which the First Russian Revolution began. During the years 1905-1907, while it lasted, 7165 peasant uprisings took place in the Russian Empire.

The Minister of Agriculture Alexei Yermolov later specifically emphasized in a letter to Nicholas II: "The slogan of the rebels was the idea that all the land belonged to the peasants."

Invariably called the golden age. The empress reigned on the throne, similar in her main aspirations to the great reformer Peter, just like him, who wants to make Russia a part of civilized Europe. The empire grows stronger, new lands are annexed by means of a powerful military force, sciences and arts develop under the supervision of an educated queen.

But there was also the "horror of the 18th century" - this is how Catherine the Great called the Pugachev uprising. Its results, as well as the causes and the course, revealed sharp contradictions hidden behind the luxurious facade of the golden age.

Causes of the uprising

The first decrees of Catherine after the removal of Peter III were manifestos on the release of the nobles from compulsory military and public service. The landlords got the opportunity to engage in their own economy, and in relation to the peasants they became slave owners. The serfs received only unbearable duties, and even the right to complain about the owners was taken away from them. In the hands of the owner was the fate and life of the serf.

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

No wonder it was in the Urals and in the Volga region that the Pugachev uprising flared up. The results of the repressive policy of the Russian Empire in relation to the national outskirts - the appearance in the rebel army of hundreds of thousands of Bashkirs, Tatars, Udmurts, Kazakhs, Kalmyks, Chuvashs. The state drove them from their ancestral lands, building new factories there, planted a new faith for them, forbidding the old gods.

On the Yaik River

The fuse, from which the huge space in the Urals and the Volga was engulfed in the flames of popular anger, was the performance of the Yaik Cossacks. They protested against the deprivation of their economic (state monopoly on salt) and political (the concentration of power in the 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 express the version that the Pugachev uprising, its causes, course, 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 instrument in achieving Cossack liberties. And when danger came, they betrayed him and tried to save their lives in exchange for his head.

Peasant "anpirator"

The tension in the socio-political atmosphere of that time was supported by rumors about the forcibly overthrown royal wife of Catherine, Pyotr Fedorovich. It was said that Peter III prepared a decree "On the freedom of the peasants", 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 the common people in the right king, the anointed of God, who has special marks on his body, was often used in Russia by various impostors to fight for power.

Pyotr Fyodorovich, miraculously saved, really showed up. He showed obvious signs on his chest (which were traces of transferred 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 birth name 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, the results of his campaigns along the Volga and the Urals, so frightened the authorities that they tried to destroy the very memory of the "peasant king." There is very little reliable information about his life.

Emelyan Ivanovich Pugachev from his youth was distinguished by a lively mind and restless disposition. He participated in the war with Prussia and Turkey, received the title of cornet. Due to illness, he returned to the Don, was unable to obtain an 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 to say that he was miraculously saved by the true emperor. Thus, among the freedom-loving Yaik Cossacks, the "anpirator" Pyotr Fedorovich appeared.

Revolt or peasant war?

The 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.

Proclaimed on behalf of Peter III, the manifestos and decrees contained ideas that had a tremendous attraction for the majority of the population of the empire: the liberation of the peasantry from serfdom and unbearable taxes, the granting of land, the elimination of the privileges of the nobility and bureaucracy, elements of self-government of the national outskirts, etc.

Such slogans on the banner of the army of the rebels 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 product of these social problems.

The Yaik Cossacks, who became the core of the main military force of the uprising, were joined by workers and ascribed peasants of the Ural factories, landlord serfs. The cavalry of the rebel army was mainly 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 insurgent headquarters, the will and knowledge of the Pugachev commanders were not enough, although the actions of the rebellious army sometimes aroused surprise among the regular 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 an ideological program, which could be seen in the "royal decrees" of Yemelyan, could not resist the predatory nature of his troops. The results of the Pugachev uprising subsequently showed that the robberies and unprecedented cruelty in the reprisals against the oppressors turned the rebellion against the state system of oppression into that same - senseless and merciless - Russian revolt.

The course 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 a self-proclaimed spouse, did not cause concern to Catherine. Only when Pugachev's army began to replenish rapidly, when it became known that the "anpirator" was met with bread and salt in small villages and large settlements, when many fortresses in the Orenburg steppes were captured - more often without a fight - did the authorities really care. Pushkin, who studied the results and significance of the uprising, explained the rapid intensification of Cossack indignation precisely by the inexcusable negligence of the authorities. Pugachev led to the capital of the Urals - Orenburg - a powerful and dangerous army, which defeated several regular military formations.

But the Pugachev freemen could not really 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 the Pugachev uprising, the results of which consisted in the flight of an impostor with a small detachment to the Urals, was suppressed. But that was only the first stage.

Kazan landowner

Already three months after the defeat near Orenburg, a 20,000-strong rebel army came to Kazan: the losses were made up for by an instant influx of new forces from among those dissatisfied with their position. Hearing about the approach of "Emperor Peter III", many peasants themselves dealt with the owners, met Pugachev with bread and salt and joined his army. Kazan almost submitted to the rebels. They could not take by storm only the Kremlin, where a small garrison remained.

Wishing to support the Volga nobility and the landowners of the region covered 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 the Pugachev uprising. The results of the Kazan battle were again unfavorable for the impostor, and he with 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 continuous serfdom, the fire of the uprising received new fuel - the peasants, freed from captivity by the manifesto of "Peter Fedorovich", poured into his army. Soon, in Moscow itself, they began to prepare to repel a huge rebel army. But the results of Pugachev's uprising in the Urals showed him that the peasant army could not resist the 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 outskirts of it that Michelson inflicted a final defeat on the rebels. Pugachev tried to hide, but was betrayed by the Cossack foremen, captured and handed over to the authorities. In Moscow, a trial took place over Pugachev and his closest associates, in January 1775 he was executed, but spontaneous peasant uprisings continued for a long time.

Prerequisites, causes, participants, course and results of the Pugachev uprising

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

Mark on history

After the defeat of the Pugachev region, Catherine the Great tried to do everything to make the memory of the uprising disappear forever. It was renamed Yaik, the Yaik Cossacks began to be called Ural Cossacks, the Don village of Zimoveyskaya - the birthplace 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 Yemelyan Pugachev in its own way, calling its leader either a hero or a bandit. It just so happened in Russia - to achieve a good goal by unrighteous methods, and hang labels while being at a safe temporary distance.

One of the first peasant uprisings in Russia, which went down in history and made the authorities think about how to regulate this social class. This movement arose in 1606 in the southern regions of Russia. It was led by Ivan Bolotnikov.

The uprising began against the backdrop of serfdom finally formed in the country. The peasants were very dissatisfied with the increase in oppression. At the very beginning of the 17th century, mass escapes to the southern regions of the country were periodically made. In addition, the supreme power in Russia was unstable. False Dmitry I was killed in Moscow, but evil tongues claimed that in reality someone else became the victim. All this made Shuisky's position very precarious.

There were many dissatisfied with his rule. The famine made the situation unstable, which for several years did not allow the peasants to harvest a rich harvest.

All this led to the peasant uprising of Bolotnikov. It began in the town of Putivl, where the local voivode Shakhovsky helped organize the troops, and some historians call him one of the organizers of the uprising. In addition to the peasants, many noble families were also dissatisfied with Shuisky, who did not like the fact that the boyars came to power. The leader of the peasant uprising, Bolotnikov, called himself the governor of Tsarevich Dmitry, claiming that he remained alive.

"October 10, 1607 Bolotnikov before Tsar Vasily Shuisky in the camp near Tula." Original drawing by Alexander Petrovich Safonov (1852-1913), engraved by Puts

Peasant uprisings in Russia were often massive. Almost always their main goal was the capital. In this case, about 30,000 rebels took part in the campaign against Moscow.

Shuisky sends troops to fight the rebels, led by governors Trubetskoy and Vorotynsky. In August, Trubetskoy was defeated, and already in the Moscow region, Vorotynsky was also defeated. Bolotnikov is successfully moving forward, defeating the main forces of Shuisky's army near Kaluga.

In October 1606, the outskirts of Kolomna were taken under control. A few days later, Bolotnikov's army laid siege to Moscow. Soon the Cossacks join him, but the Ryazan detachments of Lyapunov, who also acted on the side of the rebels, go over to the side of Shuisky. On November 22, Bolotnikov's army suffers its first tangible defeat and is forced to retreat to Kaluga and Tula. Bolotnikov himself now finds himself in a blockade in Kaluga, but thanks to the help of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, he manages to break through and connect with the remaining units in Tula.

In the summer of 1607, the tsarist troops begin the siege of Tula. By October, the Tula Kremlin had fallen. During the siege, Shuisky caused a flood in the city, damming the river that flowed through the city.

The first mass peasant uprising in Russia ended in defeat. Its leader Bolotnikov was blinded and drowned. Voivode Shakhovsky, who helped him, was forcibly tonsured a monk.

Representatives of different segments of the population participated in this uprising, so it can be called a full-scale Civil War, but this was one of the reasons for the defeat. Each had its own goals, there was no single ideology.

It is the Peasant War, or the uprising of Stepan Razin, that is called the confrontation between the peasants and the Cossacks and the tsarist troops, which began in 1667.

Speaking about its causes, it should be noted that at that time the final enslavement of the peasants took place. The search for fugitives became indefinite, duties and taxes for the poorest strata turned out to be unbearably large, the desire of the authorities to control and limit the Cossack freemen to the maximum grew. Massive famine and pestilence, as well as the general crisis in the economy, which happened as a result of the protracted war for Ukraine, played their role.

It is believed that the first stage of the uprising of Stepan Razin was the so-called "campaign for zipuns", which lasted from 1667 to 1669. Then the detachments of Razin managed to block the important economic artery of Russia - the Volga, to capture many Persian and Russian ships of merchants. Razin reached the Yaitsky town, where he settled and began to gather troops. It was there that he announced the impending campaign against the capital.

The main stage of the famous peasant uprising of the 17th century began in 1670. The rebels took Tsaritsyn, Astrakhan surrendered without a fight. The governor and the nobles who remained in the city were executed. An important role during the peasant uprising of Stepan Razin was played by the battle for Kamyshin. Several dozen Cossacks disguised themselves as merchants and entered the city. They killed the guards near the city gates, letting in the main forces, which captured the city. The inhabitants were told to leave, Kamyshin was looted and burned.

When the leader of the peasant uprising - Razin - took Astrakhan, most of the population of the Middle Volga region, as well as representatives of the nationalities living in those places - Tatars, Chuvashs, Mordovians, went over to his side. It was bribed that Razin declared everyone who came under his banner a free man.

Government troops moved to Razin under the leadership of Prince Dolgorukov. The rebels by that time besieged Simbirsk, but could not take it. After a month-long siege, the tsarist army nevertheless defeated the rebel detachments, Razin was seriously wounded, and his comrades-in-arms took him to the Don.

But he was betrayed by the Cossack elite, who decided to extradite the leader of the uprising to the official authorities. In the summer of 1671 he was quartered in Moscow.

At the same time, the rebel troops resisted until the end of 1670. On the territory of modern Mordovia, the largest battle took place, in which about 20,000 rebels participated. They were defeated by the royal troops.

At the same time, the Razintsy continued to resist even after the execution of their leader, holding Astrakhan until the end of 1671.

The result of Razin's peasant uprising cannot be called comforting. To achieve their goal - the overthrow of the nobility and the abolition of serfdom - its participants failed. The uprising demonstrated a split in Russian society. The massacre was full scale. In Arzamas alone, 11,000 people were executed.

Why is the uprising of Stepan Razin called the Peasant War? Answering this question, it should be noted that it was directed against the existing state system, which was perceived as the main oppressor of the peasantry.

The Pugachev rebellion was the largest uprising of the 18th century. Starting as an uprising of the Cossacks on Yaik, it grew into a full-scale war of the Cossacks, peasants and peoples living in the Volga region and the Urals against the government of Catherine II.

The uprising of the Cossacks in the Yaik town broke out in 1772. He was quickly suppressed, but the Cossacks were not going to give up. They had a reason when a fugitive Cossack from the Don, Emelyan Pugachev, came to Yaik, who declared himself Emperor Peter III.

In 1773, the Cossacks again opposed the government troops. The uprising quickly swept almost the entire Urals, the Orenburg Territory, the Middle Volga region and Western Siberia. Participation in it was taken in the Kama region and Bashkiria. Very quickly, the rebellion of the Cossacks turned into a peasant uprising by Pugachev. Its leaders carried out competent agitation, promising the oppressed sections of society the solution to the most pressing problems.

As a result, the Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Chuvashs, Kalmyks, Ural peasants went over to the side of Pugachev. Until March 1774, Pugachev's army won victory after victory. The rebel detachments were led by experienced Cossacks, and they were opposed by a few and sometimes demoralized government troops. Ufa and Orenburg were besieged, a large number of small fortresses, cities and factories were captured.

Only realizing the seriousness of the situation, the government began to pull the main troops from the outskirts of the empire in order to suppress the peasant uprising of Pugachev. General-in-chief Bibikov took over the leadership of the army.

In March 1774, government troops managed to win several important victories, some of Pugachev's associates were killed or captured. But in April Bibikov himself dies, and the Pugachev movement flares up with renewed vigor.

The leader manages to unite the detachments scattered throughout the Urals and by the middle of summer take Kazan - one of the largest cities of the empire at that time. There are many peasants on Pugachev's side, but in military terms, his army is significantly inferior to government troops.

In the decisive battle near Kazan, which lasts three days, Pugachev is defeated. He moves to the right bank of the Volga, where he is again supported by numerous serfs.

In July, Catherine II sends new troops to suppress the uprising, which had just been released after the war with Turkey ended. Pugachev on the Lower Volga does not receive support from the Don Cossacks, his army is defeated at Cherny Yar. Despite the defeat of the main forces, the resistance of individual detachments continued until the middle of 1775.

Pugachev himself and his closest associates were executed in Moscow in January 1775.

The peasant uprising in the Volga region covered several provinces in March 1919. This becomes one of the most massive peasant uprisings against the Bolsheviks, also known as the Chapan uprising. This unusual name is associated with a winter coat made of sheepskin, which was called a chapan. It was a very popular clothing among the peasants of the region during the cold weather.

The reason for this uprising was the policy of the Bolshevik government. The peasants were dissatisfied with the food and political dictatorship, the plundering of villages, and the surplus appropriation.

By the beginning of 1919, about 3.5 thousand workers were sent to the Simbirsk province to procure bread. By February, more than 3 million poods of grain were confiscated from local peasants, and at the same time they began to collect an emergency tax, which the government introduced in December last year. Many peasants sincerely believed that they were doomed to starvation.

You will learn the dates of the peasant uprising in the Volga region from this article. It began on March 3 in the village of Novodevichy. The last straw was the rude actions of the tax collectors, who came to the village, demanding to give cattle and grain in favor of the state. The peasants gathered near the church and sounded the alarm, this was the signal for the start of the uprising. Communists and members of the executive committee were arrested, a detachment of Red Army soldiers was disarmed.

The Red Army soldiers, however, themselves went over to the side of the peasants, therefore, when a detachment of Chekists from the county arrived in Novodevichy, they were resisted. Villages located in the district began to join the uprising.

The peasant uprising rapidly spread throughout the Samara and Simbirsk provinces. In villages and cities, the Bolsheviks were overthrown, cracking down on communists and Chekists. At the same time, the rebels had practically no weapons, so they had to use pitchforks, pikes and axes.

The peasants moved to Stavropol, taking the city without a fight. The plans of the rebels were to capture Samara and Syzran and unite with Kolchak's army, which was advancing from the east. The total number of rebels ranged from 100 to 150 thousand people.

The Soviet troops decided to concentrate on attacking the main enemy forces located in Stavropol.

The uprising reached its peak on March 10. By this time, the Bolsheviks had already pulled up units of the Red Army, which had artillery and machine guns. Scattered and poorly equipped peasant detachments could not offer them adequate resistance, but fought for every village that the Red Army had to take by storm.

By the morning of March 14, Stavropol was captured. The last major battle took place on March 17, when a peasant detachment of 2000 people was defeated near the city of Karsun. Frunze, who commanded the suppression of the uprising, reported that at least a thousand rebels were killed, and about 600 more people were shot.

Having defeated the main forces, the Bolsheviks began mass repressions against the inhabitants of the rebellious villages and villages. They were sent to concentration camps, drowned, hanged, shot, the villages themselves were burned. At the same time, individual detachments continued to resist until April 1919.

Another major uprising during the Civil War took place in the Tambov province, it is also called the Antonov rebellion, since the actual leader of the rebels was the Social Revolutionary, Chief of Staff of the 2nd Insurgent Army Alexander Antonov.

The peasant uprising in the Tambov province of 1920-1921 began on August 15 in the village of Khitrovo. The food detachment was disarmed there. The reasons for discontent were similar to those that had provoked a riot in the Volga region a year earlier.

The peasants began to massively refuse to hand over their bread, to destroy the communists and security officers, in which partisan detachments helped them. The uprising spread rapidly, covering part of the Voronezh and Saratov provinces.

On August 31, a punitive detachment was formed, which was supposed to suppress the rebels, but was defeated. At the same time, by mid-November, the rebels managed to create the United Partisan Army of the Tambov Territory. They based their program on democratic freedoms, called for the overthrow of the Bolshevik dictatorship and the convening of a Constituent Assembly.

In early 1921, the number of rebels amounted to 50 thousand people. Almost the entire Tambov province was under their control, railway traffic was paralyzed, and Soviet troops suffered heavy losses.

Then the Soviets take extreme measures - cancel the surplus appropriation, announce a complete amnesty for ordinary participants in the uprising. The turning point comes after the Red Army gets the opportunity to transfer additional forces released after the defeat of Wrangel and the end of the war with Poland. The number of Red Army soldiers by the summer of 1921 reaches 43,000 people.

Meanwhile, the rebels are organizing a Provisional Democratic Republic, headed by partisan leader Shendyapin. Kotovsky arrives in the Tambov province, who, at the head of a cavalry brigade, defeats two rebel regiments under the leadership of Selyansky. Selyansky himself is mortally wounded.

The fighting continues until June, the Red Army units crush the rebels under the command of Antonov, Boguslavsky's detachments evade a potential pitched battle. After that comes the final turning point, the initiative passes to the Bolsheviks.

Thus, about 55,000 Red Army soldiers are involved in the suppression of the uprising, a certain role is played by the repressive measures that the Bolsheviks take against the rebels themselves, as well as their families.

The researchers claim that in the suppression of this uprising, the authorities for the first time in history used chemical weapons against the population. A special brand of chlorine was used to force rebel units out of the Tambov forests.

Three facts of the use of chemical weapons are reliably known. Some historians note that chemical shells led to the death of not only the rebels, but also the civilian population, which was not involved in the uprising in any way.

In the summer of 1921, the main forces involved in the rebellion were defeated. The leadership issued an order to divide into small groups and switch to partisan operations. The rebels returned to the tactics of guerrilla combat. The fighting in the Tambov province continued until the summer of 1922.

In his novel "Dubrovsky" A. S. Pushkin described the life of serfs, the tyranny of the landowners. He talks about a quarrel between two neighbors, landowners Troekurov and Dubrovsky. Dubrovsky is a well-mannered, intelligent person who respects, first of all, a person, and not his titles and wealth, for him serfs are not slaves, not animals, but individuals. For Troekurov, serfs are of no value; he is rude, wayward, and sometimes cruel with them.
When the district court ruled that Dubrovsky's peasants would become Troekurov's property, it was natural that all of Dubrovsky's servants were indignant. People knew about Troekurov's arbitrariness and did not want to leave the former owner. Dubrovsky stopped his people when they wanted to deal with the clerks who brought the decision from the county court. The peasants obeyed the master, but some of them did not reconcile themselves, they understood that the decision would be fulfilled and it was in their power to change their fate.
At night, the young master Vladimir Dubrovsky set fire to his house, a riot was also ripening in it, and the peasants supported him. The house with the sleeping shop assistants was on fire, and the cat was rushing about on the roof of the barn. Blacksmith Arkhip, one of the most courageous rebels, risking his life, saved the animal. Why is cruelty and kindness so combined in people? I think because a person protests against violence, injustice, evil, and when humane arguments do not lead to a positive result, he understands that he cannot win without a cold and prudent struggle. And the innocent, the weak, the downtrodden, if you are stronger, you need to protect. Therefore, those who had a strongly developed sense of freedom and justice went with Dubrovsky into the forest.
After the fire, a group of robbers appeared in the vicinity, which robbed and burned the landowners' houses. At the head of this gang was Dubrovsky. Those who wanted freedom got it, those who wanted to fight for their rights became a forest robber

(No ratings yet)

Other writings:

1. It was not easy for the peasants to live during the time described by A. S. Pushkin in the story “Dubrovsky” - the time of serfdom. Very often the landowners treated them cruelly and unfairly. It was especially hard for serfs among such landowners as Troekurov. The wealth and noble family of Troekurov gave Read More ......
2. A. S. Pushkin, who all his life hated the injustice, emptiness and "savagery" of the nobility, in the novel "Dubrovsky" brought to the fore one of the representatives of the provincial nobility - an ambitious, noble rebel who suffered from his own estate, young Dubrovsky. Tyranny and despotism of the noble gentleman Troekurov Read More ......
3. A. S. Pushkin wrote the story "Dubrovsky". In it, the main character is Vladimir Dubrovsky. Dubrovsky was tall, handsome, and brave. He bore the rank of an officer. He loved his father very much, for whom he retired. Vladimir received a letter saying that Read More ......
4. AND INJUSTICES IN AS PUSHKIN'S STORY "DUBROVSKY"" (1) At all times there were people who resigned themselves to the force and inevitability of circumstances and were ready to accept fate as it is with their heads bowed. But at all times people lived, Read More ......
5. The novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment” was created in 1866. It was a time of reforms, to replace the old "masters of life" new ones began to come - bourgeois businessmen-entrepreneurs. And Dostoevsky, as a writer who subtly felt all the changes in society, in his novel Read More ......
6. Masha Description of the literary hero Masha Troekurova is a 17-year-old beauty, Dubrovsky's lover. Living in the family of the petty tyrant Troekurov, M. is internally lonely, secretive, and has a strong character. Her only consolation is a huge library of 18th-century French novels. As a child, the best friend of M. Read More ......
7. It is generally accepted that "Dubrovsky" is a novel, although in terms of volume "Dubrovsky" is rather a story. Much attention in the novel is given to the denunciation of the “wild nobility”. The image of the life and customs of the provincial nobility is associated primarily with the image of Troekurov. Troekurov's image is an image of a typical Read More ......
8. Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky and Kirila Petrovich Troekurov were once comrades in the service. Both of them married for love, but were widowed. Dubrovsky had a son, Vladimir, and Troekurov had a daughter, Masha. Troekurov and Dubrovsky were the same age. Kirila Petrovich was rich, had Read More ......

Peasant rebellion against injustice