Throughout the XVIII century. there was a tightening of serf oppression. Already in 1736, the landlords received the right to determine the punishment for serfs for escaping, and in 1760, the right to exile them to a settlement in Siberia.
By the 30s of the 18th century, the duties of the peasants increased sharply. Compared with the middle of the previous century, the number of corvée estates has tripled, and the number of quitrents has halved. The lord's smell has also grown. Scientists believe that the exploitation of peasants in corvee estates has reached the maximum level, after which the ruin and death of the peasant economy sets in.
In the middle of the 18th century, serfdom increasingly resembled slavery. The sale of peasants without land and one by one, including with the separation of families, spread. Given to the undivided power of the master, the peasants were often subjected to cruel bullying. It was especially hard for the servants - the courtyards.
Sometimes bullying reached such a degree that the authorities were forced to intervene. This happened in the case of the young landowner Daria Saltykova. The investigation showed that more than 100 people were killed and tortured to death by her own hand or by her order. In the end, "Saltychikha" was deprived of her nobility and imprisoned in a monastery prison. The point, however, was not the cruelty of this or that gentleman, but the law, which made a person completely dependent on the good or bad character of another person.
· Of particular note is the pro-nobility nature of all domestic, including economic, policy in Russia.
· Speaking about the development of the economy, especially industry, it is necessary to pay attention to the transition of the initiative in the development of the economy from the hands of the state to private hands and the predominant role of the merchants, while noble entrepreneurship, as a rule, was not successful.
It is interesting to dwell on the fact that in the XVIII century. Russia, whose economy developed on a feudal basis, still competed relatively successfully with more developed countries. The backlog began in connection with the industrial revolution in the West.
· In the financial area, the most important feature of the era is the transition to indirect taxation.
· In the field of agriculture, it is necessary to note its predominantly extensive nature.
· Speaking of the nobility, it is important to dwell on their stubborn desire to be freed from the duty of indefinite service, which since the time of Peter I has become excessively difficult and ruinous for the owners of estates.
· Speaking of serfdom, it should be shown that it reached its maximum development, after which disintegration and degradation would inevitably begin.
1 The industrial revolution refers to the transition from manual to machine labor and, accordingly, from manufactory to factory. The industrial revolution requires a developed market for free labor power, and therefore it cannot take place completely in a feudal country.
| TOPIC 37. | FOREIGN POLICY OF RUSSIA IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 18TH CENTURY |
The international position of Russia after the death of Peter I
Peter the Great turned Russia into a great European power. However, relations with the largest states of Europe The Black Sea problem was not resolved.
In 1733-1734. Russia participated in the war "for the Polish inheritance", supporting the son of Augustus II - Augustus III, who claimed the Polish throne. When the Sejm elected Stanislav Leshchinsky as king, relying on French support, Russian troops invaded Poland. Leshchinsky was forced to flee to France. Augustus III established himself on the Polish throne.
Russian-Turkish and Russian-Swedish wars
In 1735, seeking to gain access to the Black Sea, Russia launched a war against Turkey. In order to attract Iran to its side, Russia returned to the shah the Caspian territories conquered by Peter I. In 1736, Field Marshal Munnich, who commanded the Russian troops, captured Perekop and, entering the Crimea, captured its capital, Bakhchisarai. In 1736-1738. the territory of the Crimea was subjected to a terrible devastation.
In 1737-1739. Russian troops took the Turkish fortresses of Ochakov and Khotyn. But the losses of the Russian army were enormous and there was no strength left to continue the war. In 1739 the Belgrade peace was signed. Russia received Azov, but its fortifications were destroyed. The rest of the captured fortresses had to be returned to Turkey.
In 1741-1743. Russia fought with Sweden, which hoped to take revenge for the defeat in the Northern War and retake the Baltic states. However, the fighting was unsuccessful for the Swedes. Russian troops captured almost all of Finland. In 1743 peace was concluded in Abo. Sweden finally abandoned the dream of revenge.
Seven Years' War
International relations in Europe have long developed under the sign of the struggle for predominance between France and the German (Austrian) Empire.
Russia's foreign policy at that time was built on the basis of an alliance with the maritime powers (England and Holland) and Austria. Russia's opponents were France and Prussia.
But in the early 50s. the growth of Prussia's aggressiveness forced Austria to abandon its enmity with France and conclude an anti-Prussian alliance with it. England, interested in diverting French forces from the colonies, supported Prussia.
The conclusion of the Anglo-Prussian treaty in St. Petersburg was regarded as a step hostile to the interests of Russia. This led to the break of Russia with England and the conclusion of an alliance with France. The Russo-Franco-Austrian alliance was now opposed to the Anglo-Prussian one. In 1756 Russia entered the war against Prussia.
The combat training of the Russian army has deteriorated since the death of Peter I. But the Russian army was the largest in Europe. Only in the field troops there were 172 thousand people. On the eve of the war, the Russian government underestimated the Prussian army. Russia had no plans for a serious war. Meanwhile, Frederick II by the mid-50s. had a well-trained army of 145,000.
In May 1757, the Russian army under the command of Field Marshal S.F. Apraksina went on a campaign. She moved slowly. Apraksin slowed down the movement, fearing that if the seriously ill Elizabeth died, her nephew Peter III, known for his sympathy for Frederick II, would take the throne.
On August 19, 1757, Russian troops moving towards Koenigsberg stumbled upon the enemy near the village of Gross-Egersdorf. Despite the significant numerical superiority of the Russians (70 thousand against 25 thousand), the Prussians attacked Apraksin's sprawling army. The situation was saved by General P.A. Rumyantsev. He swiftly led his brigade not through the roads clogged with convoys, but through the forest and hit the Prussians in the flank. They could not withstand the attack of fresh forces and retreated.
The Russians won a complete victory. However, Apraksin did not use it. He not only did not organize the persecution, but also refused to take Koenigsberg. The army retreated to Memel. Outraged by the inactivity of Field Marshal Elizabeth, she removed him.
General V.V. became the new commander-in-chief. Fermor. In January 1758 he occupied Koenigsberg. But in general, hostilities developed unsuccessfully for the allies. In November 1757, Frederick II defeated the French and then the Austrians.
In the summer of 1758, Fermor's army moved towards Berlin. Upon learning of this, Frederick II hastened from Silesia to meet the Russian troops. The general battle took place near the village of Zorndorf in 1758. The Russian troops numbered 42 thousand people, the Prussians - 32 thousand people.
Frederick II used a special tactic - "oblique attack". It consisted in the concentration of overwhelming forces and a massive offensive against one of the enemy's flanks with its subsequent encirclement. The "oblique attack" was effective if the troops using it were superior to the enemy in maneuverability. Under Zorndorf, it failed. The Russian counterattack overturned the Prussian vanguard.
By evening the battle had ceased. The Russians lost 22.6 thousand people, the Prussians - 11 thousand people. The battle ended almost in a draw.
As at Gross-Jegersdorf, in the battle of Zorndorf, the Russian soldier showed exceptional stamina. But the Russian command, unlike the Prussian king, practically did not direct the actions of the troops.
In the campaign of 1759 great changes took place in the army. New cannons appeared - "unicorns", lighter, more maneuverable and faster-firing. General-in-chief P.S. was appointed commander-in-chief. Saltykov.
On August 1, 1759, 40 thousand Russians and 19 thousand Austrians entered the battle with the 48 thousandth army of Frederick II near the village of Kunersdorf. The Russian army took up positions on the heights dominating the area. Frederick was expected from the side of the Oder, but the king bypassed the Russians and attacked from the opposite side, cutting off their retreat. Prussian troops captured the positions of the Russian left flank and began shelling along the front. Saltykov had to deploy troops across the front and repel the Prussians attacking through the ravine. However, the Russian troops located in the center of the positions, attacked from several sides, survived. The Prussian cavalry, storming the fortified positions, came under fire from Russian artillery and retreated with heavy losses. Following that, the Russian-Austrian troops went on the offensive. The Prussian army was defeated and fled, losing 17 thousand people. The Allies captured 5,000 prisoners and 172 guns.
Frederick II was in a panic. He wrote: "I have no more means, and, to tell the truth, I consider everything lost." However, Saltykov did not dare to go to Berlin due to the fact that the army suffered heavy losses (13 thousand people) and did not receive sufficient assistance from Austria. The third campaign in a row failed to complete the defeat of the Prussian army, despite the significant numerical superiority of the allies over the troops of Frederick II.
In 1760, a detachment of generals Totleben and Chernyshev quickly and unexpectedly approached Berlin and captured it. Having destroyed military warehouses and enterprises, the Russian troops retreated as the main Prussian army approached.
In December 1761, the corps of P.A. Rumyantsev, who captured the fortress of Kolberg on the coast of the Baltic Sea. The position of Frederick II was becoming hopeless.
The main role in the defeat of Prussia was played by the Russian army. Russia, which at first was assigned a supporting role in the war, announced its intention to annex East Prussia, which had been occupied since 1758.
However, on December 25, 1761, Elizaveta Petrovna died and Peter III, who idolized Frederick, took the throne. The new emperor immediately broke with the allies and entered into an alliance with Frederick, returning to Prussia all the territories taken from her. The Russian army was preparing to enter the war on the side of yesterday's enemy. Only the overthrow of Peter III prevented such a continuation of the war. However, Catherine II, having ascended the throne, did not resume the war with Prussia either.
During the Seven Years' War, the Russian army gained vast experience. It was she who became the main force of the anti-Prussian coalition. However, Russia failed to use the fruits of military victories. After Russia's withdrawal from the war, her allies were also forced to make peace with Prussia, which retained its gains. An ally of Prussia - England - finally took possession of a number of French colonies, including Canada.
What to look for when answering:
At the very beginning of the answer, it should be noted that the main directions of Russia's foreign policy in the XVIII century. were the southern (the struggle for access to the Black Sea) and the western (the desire to establish their control over Poland).
Speaking about the causes of the Seven Years' War, it should be noted that Russia was involved in this war, mainly due to fear of the growing power of Prussia and its allied obligations. This war did not promise Russia immediate benefits.
In connection with the accession of Peter III, the Seven Years' War turned out to be completely fruitless for Russia. However, she played a big role in the development of the Russian army.
1 At this time, England and France were fighting for the possession of India and Canada.
Deterioration of the position of serfs and workers. In the second half of the XVIII century. feudal exploitation of the working people sharply increased. The landowners, factory owners, and the feudal state increased taxes and duties, and pushed the enslavement of peasants and factory workers to the limit. Serfdom, according to the definition of V. I. Lenin, then "was no different from slavery."
The most oppressed and disenfranchised part of the population of the Orenburg Territory were serfs, landlords and factory peasants. The landowners sought to increase the profitability of the estates. They widely traded in bread, were engaged in distillation, cloth-making. All this caused an increase in the exploitation of the peasants.
In the sparsely populated Orenburg Territory, the landowners, as a rule, had a lot of land, but few serfs. Therefore, in order to bring their vast land holdings into economic circulation and receive more income, the owners almost universally applied the corvée system of exploitation. There were very few quitrent peasants in the province. Experiencing an acute shortage of serf workers, the landowners increased the size of the duties of the peasants to the limit. Peasants worked on corvee 3, and in many estates - 4, 5, and even 6 days a week. Quite payments of peasants for the second half of the 18th century. increased by 2-3 times. The increase in corvée and dues led to the ruin of peasant farms.
Unrestrained arbitrariness and bullying of the feudal lords reigned in the landowners' estates of the region. General's wife Ettinger spotted a courtyard man to death. The Buguruslan landowner Kuroyedov was distinguished by extreme cruelty. The writer S. T. Aksakov in the "Family Chronicle" truthfully described his atrocities. To beat the peasants, the landowner used special belt whips - “cats” with knots at the ends. During the torture, he "from time to time joked with the unfortunate victim, while she could still hear."
In an extremely oppressed and disenfranchised position were factory workers and ascribed peasants. They worked 12-14 hours a day "in heavy factory work", receiving a negligible wage. Factory workers and clerks, as noted in the complaint of the Demidov peasants, "mercilessly beat with batozh and whips, many peasants were mortally mutilated."
oppression of non-Russian peoples. Among the non-Russian peoples, feudal oppression also increased. The position of the Bashkirs and other non-Russian peoples of the region was sharply worsened by feudal landlord and factory colonization. It was accompanied by the plunder of the Bashkir lands, the growth of taxes and duties. Bashkirs were forced to perform construction, underwater, construction, road and other duties, and were also involved in military service on the border line. The arbitrariness of the authorities, bribery, illegal requisitions ruined the working people, caused endless complaints about "extreme exhaustion, ruin and death." Widespread discontent and protest grew, and the national liberation movement intensified.
In Bashkiria, after the performance of 1735-1740. an uprising broke out in 1755 under the leadership of Batyrsha. In the early 70s, a new mass action of the working population of Bashkiria was ripe.
Yaik Cossacks on the eve of the Peasant War. In the second half of the XVIII century. worsened the situation and the ordinary Cossacks. The Yaitsky military ataman and foreman forced the Cossacks to work on fishing and made up to 20 thousand rubles annually. Dissatisfied Cossacks, by order of the chieftain, were punished with whips, exiled to Siberia.
In January 1772, unrest began among the Yaik Cossacks. The Cossacks sent a complaint to the government that for five years they had not been given money and grain salaries. They asked to restore the former Cossack liberties. Those who complained were severely punished. Then the Cossacks rose up with weapons in their hands, defeated the punitive detachment of General Traubenberg. The general, the military ataman of the Tambovites and the most hated foremen were killed. Soon the uprising was brutally suppressed by the government troops of General Freiman. The Cossack circle, the elective post of ataman and the military office were abolished. The Yaik army was completely subordinated to the power of the Orenburg governor. The participants in the uprising were severely punished with a whip and exiled to Siberian penal servitude. But even after the uprising on Yaik it was restless. An even more powerful popular movement was brewing.
Pushkin ridiculed Radishchev's words about the slavery of Russian peasants and wrote that the Russian serf was much more intelligent, talented and free than the English peasants. In support of his opinion, he cited the words of an English acquaintance:
“In general, duties in Russia are not very burdensome for the people: head taxes are paid in peace, quitrent is not ruinous (except in the vicinity of Moscow and St. Petersburg, where the variety of revolutions of the industrialist multiplies the greed of the owners). Throughout Russia, the landowner, having imposed quitrent, leaves it to the will of his peasant to get it, how and where he wants. The peasant does what he pleases and sometimes travels 2,000 miles away to earn money for himself. And you call this slavery? I do not know of a people in all of Europe who would have been given more room to act. …
Your peasant goes to the bathhouse every Saturday; he washes his face every morning, moreover, he washes his hands several times a day. There is nothing to say about his intelligence: travelers travel from region to region across Russia, not knowing a single word of your language, and everywhere they are understood, fulfill their requirements, conclude conditions; ... I never noticed in them either rude surprise or ignorant contempt for someone else's. Everyone knows their receptivity; agility and dexterity are amazing... Look at him: what could be freer than his treatment of you? Is there even a shadow of slavish humiliation in his steps and speech?
Have you been to England? … That's it! You have not seen the shades of meanness that distinguishes one class from another among us ... ".
These words of Pushkin's companion, sympathetically cited by the great Russian poet, should be read and memorized by anyone who rants about the Russians as a nation of slaves, which serfdom allegedly made them into.
Moreover, the Englishman knew what he was talking about when he pointed out the slavish state of the common people of the West. Indeed, in the West in the same era, slavery officially existed and flourished (in Great Britain slavery was abolished only in 1807, and in North America in 1863). During the reign of Tsar Ivan the Terrible in Russia, in Great Britain, peasants who were driven from their lands during the fences easily turned into slaves in workhouses and even in galleys. Their situation was much more difficult than that of their contemporaries - Russian peasants, who, by law, could count on help during a famine and were protected by law from the willfulness of the landowner (not to mention the position of state or church serfs). In the era of the formation of capitalism in England, the poor and their children were locked up in workhouses for poverty, and the workers in the factories were in such a state that even the slaves would not envy them.
By the way, the position of serfs in Muscovite Russia from their subjective point of view was even easier because the nobles were also in a kind of not even serf, but personal dependence. Being feudal lords in relation to the peasants, the nobles were in the "fortress" of the king. At the same time, their service to the state was much more difficult and dangerous than the peasant one: the nobles had to participate in wars, risk their lives and health, they often died in public service or became disabled.
Conscription did not extend to the peasants, they were charged only with physical labor for the maintenance of the service class. The life of a peasant was protected by law (the landowner could neither kill him nor even let him die of starvation, as he was obliged to feed him and his family in famine years, supply grain, wood for building a house, etc.). Moreover, the serf even had the opportunity to get rich - and some became rich and became the owners of their own serfs and even serfs (such serfs of serfs were called "zahrebetniks" in Russia). As for the fact that under a bad landowner who violated the laws, the peasants suffered humiliation and suffering from him, then the nobleman was not protected by anything from the willfulness of the tsar and the tsar's dignitaries.
Serfdom in Moscow Russia
State duties in the Moscow kingdom were divided into two types - service and tax, respectively, the estates were divided into service and draft. servants, as the name implies, served the sovereign, that is, they were at his disposal as soldiers and officers of an army built in the manner of a militia or as government officials collecting taxes, keeping order, etc. Such were the boyars and nobles. draft estates were exempted from the state service (primarily from military service), but they paid tax- tax in cash or in kind in favor of the state. These were merchants, artisans and peasants. Representatives of the draft estates were personally free people and in no way were they similar to serfs. On slaves, as already mentioned, the obligation to pay tax did not spread.
originally peasant tax did not imply the assignment of peasants to rural communities and landowners. Peasants in the Moscow kingdom were personally free. Until the 17th century, they rented land either from its owner (individual or rural society), while they took a loan from the owner - grain, implements, draft animals, outbuildings, etc. In order to pay the loan, they paid the owner a special additional tax in kind (corvée), but having worked out or returned the loan in money, they again received complete freedom and could go anywhere (and even during the period of working off the peasants remained personally free, nothing but money or the owner could not demand a tax in kind from them). The transitions of peasants to other classes were not prohibited either, for example, a peasant who had no debts could move to the city and engage in crafts or trade there.
However, already in the middle of the 17th century, the state issued a series of decrees that attached peasants to a certain piece of land (estate) and its owner (not as a person, but as a replaceable representative of the state), as well as to a cash estate (that is, they forbade the transfer of peasants to other classes). In fact, this was enslavement peasants. At the same time, for many peasants, enslavement was not a turning into slaves, but, on the contrary, a salvation from the prospect of turning into a slave. As V.O. Klyuchevsky noted, before the introduction of serfdom, peasants who were unable to repay the loan turned into bonded serfs, that is, debt slaves of landowners, but now they were forbidden to be transferred to the class of serfs. Of course, the state was guided not by humanistic principles, but by economic benefits, serfs, according to the law, did not pay taxes to the state, and an increase in their number was undesirable.
The serfdom of the peasants was finally approved by the conciliar code of 1649 under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The situation of the peasants began to be characterized as a peasant eternal hopelessness, that is, the impossibility of leaving one's estate. The peasants were obliged to stay on the land of a certain landowner for life and give him part of the results of their labor. The same applied to the members of their families - wives and children.
However, it would be wrong to say that with the establishment of serfdom of the peasants, they turned into serfs of their landowner, that is, into slaves belonging to him. As already mentioned, the peasants were not and could not even be considered landlord serfs, if only because they had to pay tax(from which the serfs were released). The serfs did not belong to the landowner as a certain person, but to the state, and were attached not to him personally, but to the land that he disposed of. The landowner could use only a part of the results of their labor, and then not because he was their owner, but because he was a representative of the state.
So, the serfs in pre-Petrine Russia did not belong at all to a nobleman-landowner or patrimony, but to the state. Klyuchevsky calls the serfs just that - "eternally obligated state taxpayers." The main task of the peasants was not to work for the landowner, but to work for the state, to fulfill the state tax. The landowner could dispose of the peasants only to the extent that it helped them to fulfill the state tax. If, on the contrary, it interfered, he had no rights to them. Thus, the power of the landowner over the peasants was limited by law, and according to the law, he was charged with obligations to his serfs. For example, the landowners were obliged to supply the peasants of their estate with implements, grain for sowing, and feed them in case of crop shortages and famine.
The concern for feeding the poorest peasants fell on the landowner even in good years, so that economically the landowner was not interested in the poverty of the peasants entrusted to him. The law clearly opposed the willfulness of the landlord in relation to the peasants: the landowner did not have the right to turn the peasants into serfs, that is, into personal servants, slaves, to kill and maim the peasants (although he had the right to punish them for laziness and mismanagement). Moreover, for the murder of peasants, the landowner was also punished by death. The point, of course, was not at all in the "humanism" of the state. The landowner, who turned the peasants into serfs, stole income from the state, because the serf was not taxed; the landowner who killed the peasants destroyed state property. The landowner did not have the right to punish the peasants for criminal offenses, he was obliged in this case to provide them to the court, an attempt at lynching was punished by deprivation of the estate. The peasants could complain about their landowner - about the cruel treatment of them, about their willfulness, and the landowner could be deprived of the estate by the court and transferred to another.
Even more prosperous was the situation of the state peasants, who belonged directly to the state and were not attached to a particular landowner (they were called black-sleepers). They were also considered serfs, because they did not have the right to move from their place of permanent residence, they were attached to the land (although they could temporarily leave their permanent place of residence, going to work) and to the rural community living on this land and could not move to other estates. But at the same time, they were personally free, possessed property, themselves acted as witnesses in courts (their landowner acted for the possessing serfs in court) and even elected representatives to estate government bodies (for example, to the Zemsky Sobor). All their duties were reduced to the payment of taxes in favor of the state.
FREEDOM OF NOBLE AND FREEDOM OF PEASANTS
There was a certain pattern between the degree of Westernization of one or another Russian emperor and the position of the serfs. Under emperors and empresses who were reputed to be admirers of the West and its ways (like Catherine, who even corresponded with Diderot), the serfs became real slaves - powerless and downtrodden. Under the emperors, who were focused on preserving Russian identity in state affairs, on the contrary, the fate of the serfs improved, but certain duties fell on the nobles. So, Nicholas the First, whom we never got tired of stigmatizing as a reactionary and a serf-owner, issued a number of decrees that significantly softened the position of serfs: in 1833 it was forbidden to sell people separately from their families, in 1841 - to buy serfs without land to all who do not have populated estates, in 1843 - it is forbidden to buy peasants by landless nobles.
Nicholas I forbade the landlords to exile the peasants to hard labor, allowed the peasants to redeem themselves from the estates being sold. He stopped the practice of distributing serf souls to the nobles for their services to the sovereign; for the first time in the history of Russia, serf landowners began to form a minority. Nikolai Pavlovich implemented the reform developed by Count Kiselev regarding state serfs: all state peasants were allocated their own plots of land and forest plots, and auxiliary cash desks and bread shops were established everywhere, which provided assistance to the peasants with cash loans and grain in case of crop failure. On the contrary, the landowners under Nicholas I again began to be prosecuted if they mistreated the serfs: by the end of Nicholas's reign, about 200 estates were arrested and taken from the landlords on the complaints of the peasants. Klyuchevsky wrote that under Nicholas I the peasants ceased to be the property of the landowner and again became subjects of the state. In other words, Nicholas again enslaved the peasants, which means, to a certain extent, freed them from the willfulness of the nobles.
To put it metaphorically, the freedom of the nobles and the freedom of the peasants were like water levels in two arms of communicating vessels: an increase in the freedom of the nobles led to the enslavement of the peasants, the subordination of the nobles to the law softened the fate of the peasants. The complete freedom of both was simply a utopia. The liberation of the peasants in the period from 1861 to 1906 (and after all, under the reform of Alexander the Second, the peasants freed themselves only from dependence on the landowner, but not from dependence on the peasant community, only the Stolypin reform freed them from the latter) led to the marginalization of both the nobility and the peasantry. The nobles, going bankrupt, began to dissolve in the philistine class, the peasants, having received the opportunity to free themselves from the power of the landowner and the community, became proletarianized. How it all ended is not necessary to remind.
The modern historian Boris Mironov makes, in our opinion, a fair assessment of serfdom. He writes: “The ability of serfdom to provide for the minimum needs of the population was an important condition for its long existence. This is not an apology for serfdom, but only a confirmation of the fact that all social institutions are based not so much on arbitrariness and violence, but on functional expediency ... serfdom was a reaction to economic backwardness, Russia's response to the challenge of the environment and the difficult circumstances in which the the life of the people. All interested parties - the state, the peasantry and the nobility - received certain benefits from this institution.
The state used it as a tool for solving pressing problems (meaning defense, finance, keeping the population in places of permanent residence, maintaining public order), thanks to it it received funds for the maintenance of the army, the bureaucracy, as well as several tens of thousands of free policemen represented by landlords . The peasants received a modest but stable means of subsistence, protection and the opportunity to arrange their lives on the basis of folk and communal traditions. For the nobles, both those who had serfs and those who did not possess them, but lived in public service, serfdom was a source of material benefits for living according to European standards. Here is a calm, balanced, objective view of a true scientist, so pleasantly different from the hysterical hysterics of liberals.
Serfdom in Russia is associated with a number of historical, economic, geopolitical circumstances. It still arises as soon as the state tries to rise up, start the necessary large-scale transformations, and organize the mobilization of the population. During Stalin's modernization, a fortress was also imposed on peasant collective farmers and factory workers in the form of a registry to a certain settlement, a certain collective farm and factory, and a number of clearly defined duties, the fulfillment of which granted certain rights (for example, workers had the right to receive additional rations in special distributors by coupons, collective farmers - to own their own garden and livestock and to sell the surplus).
This material is self-published in our community by the user Ufadex based on the current version of the User Agreement. If you believe that such a publication violates your copyright and / or related rights, you need to inform the site administration by EMAIL indicating the address (URL) of the page containing the disputed material. The violation will be eliminated as soon as possible, the perpetrators will be punished.
You may also like...
12 comments
look at the years of life ... when it was. right after the "reforms" of Peter the Great. who was the first to cut through the windows in Europe and impose their laws and who, in fact, drove the peasants into slavery, he, he, he !!!
ahh, and that after his reforms, who remembers? well, except for the shortage of iron in an iron-producing country? Let me remind you, 200 years of unrest and peasant uprisings.
Yes, Peter is an ambiguous figure. Especially considering the fact that the city at the place where the window was cut was already long before Peter.
Do you believe in this idea that there was a city there, on these stinking swamps (still walking around St. Petersburg - and you smell the stench ... to drain the swamps, they built the city, but the stench remains), to Peter? Nobody can really prove it.
Around 1700 there was a flood that flooded St. Petersburg (or whatever it was called). Until that time, there were no swamps there. Alternatively, the flood was in 1709.
Historical documents - in the studio.
Historical documents, as I believe, are not freely available. These are my observations. In the Caucasus, in the Crimea, in Altai, in the same St. Petersburg. The absence of Italian and Greek colonies, the dried-up Aral and the drying up Caspian. Western coast of Novaya Zemlya islands and hydrogen sulfide of the Black Sea.
Well, dear colleague, just the absence of Italian and Greek colonies in the north of present-day Russia (to which St. Petersburg can still be attributed) is very simply explained. Not by any flood, and even more so, not by “the construction of a new city on top of the old city of St. Petersburg, with which Peter I threw dust in the eyes of the whole world that he reclaimed the new capital.” In my own words, I write here what is written on this topic on various sites.
This is explained by the fact that for all sorts of Italians, Greeks and other thalassocrats in such latitudes it was unusually cold. If, for example, the Romans reached present-day Moldavia, left Trajan's Wall and so on, and ... went home without even burying themselves on the ground ... They were cold, the wine had the wrong taste, the vegetables were not the same, and so on. And this is Moldova, which is a blooming land from spring to mid-autumn! What to say about Peter?
Moreover, there is only hydrogen sulfide of the Black Sea, somehow it is not clear. Slightly off topic, please explain.
The aforementioned cataclysm was worldwide. In addition to the flood, geological processes took place.
Greek and Italian colonies were along the coast of the Black and Mediterranean Seas. They did not have access to the Atlantic Ocean due to the impassability of Gibraltar. However, the Spaniards, French and other Dutch mastered the shores of Africa and America quite well. The cataclysm changed the landscape and made it possible for ships to pass through Gibraltar. And the impudent Saxons at the same time captured part of the land adjacent to the strait. At the same time, the Caucasian mountains were “broken”. If you look at the arrangement of the layers of sedimentary rocks, they are located anywhere but horizontally. The water flow washed away most of the buildings from the European plain into the Black Sea. It is enough to look at the old channel of the Kuban River to understand that the flow was very powerful. After that, the sea, called Russian, was renamed Black. Hydrogen sulfide was formed as a result of the decomposition of organisms washed away during the flood.Those people who survived the cataclysm built dolmens in the Caucasus and the underground cities of Chufut-Kale, Tepe-Kermen, Eski-Kermen, Mangup-Kale and others in the Crimea. Then people of a rival civilization came to these places and tried to erase all mention of their predecessors.
_______________
And in St. Petersburg they “put on a horse” Peter the Great in a Roman toga and sandals with a cylindrical object resembling a spear.Was there really so many organisms that such an amount of hydrogen sulfide was formed that there is still no biosphere in the Black Sea at a depth below tens of meters? .. How much was washed away ...
the whole European plain. To this we must add the dead biosphere of the Black Sea itself. This is, of course, a version, but as far as I know, quite a lot of people think the same way.
The childhood of Avdotya Grigorieva
I, Avdotya Grigorieva, a native of the Kaluga province, was born in 1786. Until the age of ten, I lived in my own peasant family, happy, carefree, running down the street barefoot, in one shirt. One day our whole large family gathered in the hut for dinner. The father, a respectable old man, and the children, surrounding him, fervently prayed to God and sat down at the table. Mother was busy at the stove. Suddenly the door opens and the headman enters. After praying for the icons, he bows to the hosts and, scratching his head, says: “Well, Uncle Gregory, I brought you bad news. Now I have received an order from the master: to immediately bring your Dunyashka to him. There, listen, they say that he lost her at cards to another gentleman. For a moment, everyone looks at him with their mouths open. Then a bitter cry rises, the whole village comes running, and they begin to lament over me as over a dead woman. Fate immediately made me understand that I was not a father or mother, but a master and that our master, living hundreds of miles away from us, remembers all his serfs, not excluding the children. But the master's will cannot be resisted, there is nowhere to run and hide from the masters, and therefore, having equipped the poor me, they handed me over to the headman. They torn me away from my parents and forcibly took me into captivity. On the way I cried, and those who met us were very indignant at the masters.
Arriving in Yaroslavl, we found out that I lost to Mr. Shestakov, Gavriil Danilovich, who lived on Dukhovskaya Street in his own house. Here I stand before the terrible master; the headman pushes me in the side, saying: “Bow at the feet of the gentlemen and kiss their hands.” The master, pointing to the young woman, says: “Here, Dunyashka, your mistress; listen to her." My lady's name was Feofaniya Fedorovna. She ordered me to follow her into her room and seated me on a stool at her feet. I glare at her in fear. She either pats me on the head, or suddenly jumps up from her chair and quickly walks around the room, scolding her husband. Food was brought to her in her room, and she gave the rest of the dinner to me. I was on her side. The master hardly visited us, only occasionally at night he ordered to bring his pillows from the study, and then I left the room, my mistress was kind; however, I was afraid of her and was constantly worried in order to immediately catch and execute the order if she did it. Even my dreams were filled with the same concern. I realized that I had no rights, and my whole position depended on the will of the mistress, and in order to earn her mercy, I tried to be attentive, efficient and meek, but at the same time I lost my desire for fun forever and became, as it were, an adult. I had no news of my parents, due to their illiteracy and lack of money to send letters: in those days, even gentlemen wrote and received letters twice a year or less.
One day they call me to the yard, saying that an unfamiliar woman is asking me there. And what was my joy when I saw my mother before me! We froze in our arms, pouring tears on each other. My mother's heart could not stand the uncertainty about my life: she asked her husband and the headman for time off and went on foot to visit me. With the permission of my masters, she temporarily settled in our servants' room, but saw me only in fits and starts, as we were both busy. She voluntarily helped our servants in the work in order to avoid reproach for parasites and show herself to be an excellent worker, in the hope of thereby tempting my masters to buy her and her family. When the mistress was informed about her labor exploits and meek disposition, she expressed just such a desire; but, unfortunately, our master asked for such a huge price that we had to give up the hope of reuniting our family under one authority. When this hope that briefly flashed to us did not come true, my mother said goodbye to me forever, reassured by the certainty that I live with good people.
http://dugward.ru/library/nikolay1/hrucheva_a_g.html
The war caused a significant increase in the state duties of peasants and townspeople. In addition to the yam, streltsy and polonyanichny money levied in the 17th century, the population had to pay new taxes on ship repairs, salaries to military people, recruits, fees were set from baths, beehives, lifting, from fishing catches, from transportation, etc. Government-encouraged inventors of new taxes - profit-makers excelled in search of new sources of income. At the suggestion of the profitmaker Kurbatov, eagle (stamp) paper was introduced in Russia. Even oak coffins were taxed.
No less burdensome for the laboring masses were recruitment, underwater and lodging duties. Thousands of people were annually called up for lifelong service in the army and navy. In addition, from 1699 to 1709, about 17 thousand peasants and townspeople were employed annually in the construction of fortresses and harbors. If in the 17th century While the underwater duty of the population was episodic, in connection with the Northern War it became permanent. Food, fodder, weapons, equipment, ammunition, and sometimes recruits were delivered to the theater of operations on peasant carts. The obligation to provide quarters for the troops during their formation, marches and placement in winter quarters also ruined the peasants and townspeople. For the maintenance of the army, the population was charged with biscuits, flour, cereals, oats, or instead of all this, it contributed money. There is no exact information on how much the tax burden has increased, but, for example, the serfs of the Vorotynsky district in 1708 paid four times more taxes than in 1700. arrears and levied illegal fees in their favor.
In addition to taxes, the government used another source of increasing government revenue. Since 1700, it began to carry out a monetary reform, accompanied by a decrease in the amount of silver in the coin. In just three years (1701-1703), during which the minting of the new coin was carried out most intensively, the treasury received a net profit of over 1.9 million rubles.
rubles. The damage to the coin caused the depreciation of the ruble by almost half, and prices for goods rose accordingly.
In close connection with the search for new sources of income is the partial secularization of church property. The patrimonies of the spiritual feudal lords were divided into “certain”, that is, those from which the campaign came to the needs of the monastery, and “indefinite”, transferring income to the Monastic order, organized in 1701 The monastic order was not a spiritual, but a secular institution: state officials sat in it. From 1701 to 1711 the state received more than 1 million rubles of income from the monastic estates.
The property duties of the peasants also increased, although not to the same extent as the state ones. The development of commodity-money relations expanded the ties between the landlord and peasant farms and the market and influenced their organization. Hence the further growth of two tendencies that expressed the adaptation of the serf economy to these relations: in the non-chernozem regions, where the soil was infertile and industries were developed, the importance of quitrent duties, natural and monetary, increased; in the south, the lordly plowing grew, the corvée service of the peasants prevailed. But in most cases, the duties were mixed, the landowner, as in the 17th century, combined corvée with dues.
In the 17th - 18th centuries. there were powerful popular uprisings that shook the social foundations of Russia to the ground. In the historical literature, they received the name "peasant wars", which is largely conditional. More correct in this case is the term "civil wars", because the peasants in them by no means always turned out to be the main acting force; broader and more complex were also the goals of the movements, reflecting the interests not only, but often not so much, of the peasants. At the same time, it is quite justified to single out from the multitude of social actions those for which the name “peasant wars” has stuck. They were the highest form of class struggle in feudal Russia and differed from other popular uprisings primarily in their scale: huge masses of people were involved in the struggle, it covered vast territories and was accompanied by fierce battles. The rebels formed their armies, local governments and, as a rule, sought to seize power throughout the country, creating a real threat to the prevailing order.
The first of these wars at the beginning of the 17th century. was a response to the feudal policy of the authorities at the end of the 16th century. and economic and political crisis in the country. The abolition of the right of peasants to “exit” on St. George’s Day, a multiple increase in taxes and duties, the massive transformation of free people into slaves for debts, the seizure of peasant lands and unlimited feudal arbitrariness during the years of the oprichnina, devastation during the Livonian War, devastating epidemics - all this created an explosive environment. The events connected with the change of the ruling dynasty (the accession of Boris Godunov, who was accused by popular rumor of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry, the last son of Ivan the Terrible), and the terrible famine of 1601-1603 aggravated it even more. The ferment intensified after the partial restoration of the right of the peasants to “exit” from the owners and decrees on the release of serfs, who were refused to be fed by their masters. Crowds of fugitives and all kinds of "walking" people rushed to the south of the country, robberies became more frequent, resulting in a major armed uprising led by Cotton in 1603. This was the first stage of the civil war, when former serfs played the leading role. Its next period is dated 1604 - 1606; its peculiarity is the participation in the struggle not only of serfs, but also of small servicemen, free Cossacks, peasants, townspeople, those who tied their hopes for a better life with the approval of the “good tsar” on the Russian throne - False Dmitry I (see Impostors in history Russia). After his short reign, which ended in an uprising in Moscow in May 1606, the third stage of the war began.
Ivan Bolotnikov stood at the head of a large rebel army, which moved in the summer of 1606 to Moscow from the south of Russia. He came from petty nobles ("children of the boyars"), and visited the serfs, and the Don Cossacks, and rowers on Turkish galleys. Calling himself "the governor of Tsar Dmitry", Bolotnikov united the widest sections of the population in the fight against the "boyar tsar" Vasily Shuisky, including the nobles of the southern Russian districts, who, however, turned out to be unreliable allies. At the decisive moment of the battle near Moscow in December 1606, their detachments went over to the side of the government, which led to the defeat of the uprising, despite the heroic resistance of its participants near Kaluga and Tula, which ended with the capture of Bolotnikov in October 1607 and his execution in Kargopol. The last stage of the civil war in Russia falls on 1608-1615. At this time, mass armed uprisings take place in the center of the country, in the North, in the Volga region. Adjoining False Dmitry II, the social classes hoped to receive relief from oppression from the "good king", the nobles - new lands and privileges. The free Cossacks became an increasingly formidable force, "it was actively formed not only on the outskirts, but also in the central regions of the country (from among the serfs, peasants, servicemen and townspeople) and openly claimed to replace the nobility in the Russian state. As the Polish-Swedish intervention intensified, the popular movement more and more often switched to the mainstream of the national liberation struggle. .
The Time of Troubles for half a century slowed down the formation of a nationwide system of serfdom, but by the middle of the century this system nevertheless took shape, having received legal embodiment in the Council Code of 1649. In addition, in the second half of the 17th century. the situation of the lower classes was aggravated by the growth of taxes, labor duties and emergency fees for state needs, the deterioration of the financial situation in the country due to the crisis of the monetary system caused by the introduction of copper money, etc. The answer to all this was the mass exodus of peasants and townspeople from the center of the country to the south, especially to the Don, where feudal orders have not yet been established. However, the overflow of the Cossack towns with bareness created a threat of starvation and increased tension in the Cossack environment itself. In 1667 the Don Cossacks united around Stepan Razin. Although he belonged to the "household" Cossacks, he knew the life of the poor people well and sympathized with him. Razin's army, numbering more than a thousand people, went to the Volga, where they began to rob river caravans, thus increasing not only food and equipment, but also their numbers - at the expense of workers and archers who accompanied the ships and went over to Razin's side. With fighting, the Cossacks broke through to the Caspian Sea. By cunning, they took the Yaitsky town, wintered in it, and in March 1668, once again defeating the royal warriors sent against them and accepting reinforcements from the Don, sailed to the western and southern coasts of the Caspian Sea. During the raids on the Persian possessions, the differences seized many expensive goods, destroyed the Shah's large fleet in a fierce battle, but in August 1669 they returned (to the mouth of the Volga. By agreement with the tsarist authorities, on the terms of "repentance" and partial disarmament, the Cossacks were allowed to enter the Don through Astrakhan The people greeted Razin and his “children” with jubilation, and they promised to soon free everyone from the boyar oppression.
Razin returned to the Volga again in the spring of 1670, openly proclaiming the goal of the new campaign "to bring traitorous boyars and duma people out of the Muscovite state and in the cities of governors and clerks." Tsaritsyn surrendered to the rebels without a fight. With the support of local residents, Astrakhan was taken quite easily, and then Saratov and Samara. The struggle for Simbirsk dragged on, but with reaching this line, the peasant war acquired the most widespread and massive character. The rebels numbered about 200 thousand people in their ranks. Razin was joined mainly by peasants, including from the non-Russian peoples of the Volga region. Razin's appeals to "enslaved and disgraced", "to all the mob" with a call to "bring out worldly bloodsuckers" received a powerful response. The landowners' estates were on fire, the voevoda and other representatives of the tsarist administration, the nobles and other hostile rich people were executed, their property was divided among themselves, the documents were destroyed, and the system of government was introduced according to the Cossack model. Razin chieftains were active in Simbirsk, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Tambov, Penza, Arzamas and other counties, on Unzha and Vetluga, in the Middle Don and Sloboda Ukraine. The rebels were going to move to Moscow, where the "traitor-boyars" allegedly deprived the "great sovereign" of the opportunity to learn about the troubles of the common people and did all sorts of outrages on behalf of the tsar. In October 1670, the core of the rebel army was defeated by government troops near Simbirsk. The seriously wounded Razin was taken to the Don by his comrades-in-arms. There he was captured by the "household" Cossacks and handed over to the tsarist authorities. On June 6, 1671, he was executed on the chopping block in Moscow. However, this did not yet mean the end of the peasant war. The popular uprising continued, sometimes embracing even the central districts, and the last stronghold of the rebels - Astrakhan - fell only in November.
Historians often call the third peasant war the uprising led by Kondraty Bulavin in 1707-1708, although the Bulavin movement was mainly Cossack in composition of participants and did not pursue the goal of seizing power throughout the country. At the same time, the uprising of 1707-1708. was a direct response of the lower classes to the domestic policy of Peter I (see Peter I and the reforms of the first quarter of the 18th century). A sharp increase in tax oppression and bureaucratic arbitrariness at the beginning of the 18th century. caused a huge influx of people to the Don, and attempts to forcefully return the fugitives to their former place of residence and limit the rights of the Cossacks led to a social explosion that spilled over the Donskoy army. The peasants, townspeople and workers of Tambov, Kozlovsky, Voronezh, Penza, Belgorod and a number of other southern and central districts of Russia joined the struggle. The rebels sacked the noble estates, occupied Tsaritsyn, Unzhu, stormed Saratov and Azov. But there was no unity within the Cossacks. In July 1708, Bulavin was killed by conspirators from among the Don rich. The tsarist troops acted with extreme cruelty, destroying entire Cossack towns. However, they were able to cope with the Bulavins only in 1710. A large group of rebellious Cossacks, led by Ignat Nekrasov, did not submit to the authorities and, together with their families, went beyond Russian borders - to the Kuban.
The last and most powerful peasant war was started by the Yaik Cossacks (Yaik - the former name of the Ural River), on whose ancient rights and liberties the autocracy launched an offensive at the end of the 18th century. In September 1773, the fugitive Don Cossack Emelyan Pugachev stood at the head of the rebels. He had a rich combat experience of the Seven Years and Russian-Turkish wars, he knew well the needs and aspirations of the people during the years of wandering. Pugachev called himself Emperor Peter III, allegedly hiding from the persecution of the "boyars" and his wife Catherine. From Yaik, the rebellion quickly spread to neighboring regions. "Tsar Pyotr Fedorovich" was supported by the workers of the Ural factories, Bashkirs, landlord peasants, who dreamed of regaining their state status and fully understood Pugachev's calls to "exterminate all the nobles" and "take liberty throughout Russia." In total, hundreds of thousands of people participated in the uprising.
Its first stage was marked by a six-month siege of Orenburg and the defeat of government troops under the command of General Kara on the approaches to it. However, near Orenburg in the spring of 1774, Pugachev suffered a severe defeat, after which he went to the Urals, where the flames of the uprising flared up with renewed vigor. In July 1774, the peasant army approached Kazan and occupied the entire city, with the exception of the Kremlin. Panic gripped the nobles, who lived even in the center of the country. Hastily gathered troops defeated Pugachev, but he moved south along the right bank of the Volga, quickly gathered a new army from the peasants flocking to him. True, their fighting qualities, compared with the Yaik Cossacks, Bashkir horsemen and even Ural workers, were extremely low. Pugachev, having taken several cities, tried to pass to the Don. But the joining of the Don and Volga Cossacks, as well as the Kalmyks, to the rebels did not save the situation. Defeated at Cherny Yar, Pugachev fled to the left bank of the Volga with a small group of associates and was handed over to the authorities. In January 1775 he was executed in Moscow on Bolotnaya Square.
Each of the peasant (civil) wars in Russia in the 17th - 18th centuries. had its own characteristics. So, the movement of the beginning of the 17th century. is considered the most "immature", since the degree of social division among the rebels was the smallest: runaway serfs and their former owners often ended up in one anti-government camp. The social slogans of the rebels were also extremely vague. In the movement led by Razin, the number of noble "fellow travelers" turned out to be much smaller, while Pugachev practically did not have them at all. These movements also differed in the degree of organization. However, it was spontaneity that was still their main common feature. The rebel detachments acted, as a rule, fragmented and inconsistently. In organization and armament, government troops invariably outnumbered the rebels, which predetermined the military defeat of popular movements. And yet, despite the fact that the peasant wars in Russia were from the very beginning doomed to defeat, they played a profoundly progressive role in our history. A sharply expressed social protest forced the ruling class to limit its claims and not to increase the degree of exploitation of the peasants to a level beyond which a complete undermining of the country's productive forces would begin. The threat of a new "razinism" and "Pugachevism" ultimately forced the rulers of Russia in the middle of the 19th century. go for reforms that ensured the transition to a new socio-economic system (see Alexander II and the reforms of the 60s and 70s of the 19th century).
