Foreign policy. Disciples and successors of Peter the Great

I. Complications in Persia and Crimea - Threat of European War. – Austrian Union – Russian Party and Germans. – Succession to the throne of Austria and Poland. – False negotiations with France. – Draft agreements with Prussia and Austria. – Attempts of the Saxon court. – Matrimonial plan of Augustus II. - Maiden Oginskaya. – Final agreement. – The fate of Poland. – II. Double election of Stanislaus and Augustus III. – War of succession to the Polish throne. - Capture of Danzig. – French prisoners in Russia. – Attempts at French diplomacy in St. Petersburg. - Bernardoni. – The Polish Confederation and its envoy in Paris. - Ozarovsky. - “Barbarians” on the Rhine. – World – III. War with Turkey. – Origin of the Eastern Question. – Historical interpretations. - “The System of Peter the Great.” - Disciples of the great man in Constantinople. - Neplyuev and Vishnyakov. -They demand war. – Osterman resistance. – The beginning of hostile actions in Crimea. - Minich's unsuccessful campaign. – Break with the Porte. – Inaction of Austria. - Critical situation. – Dear success near Ochakov. – Russia and Austria intend to conclude an agreement. - Nemirov Congress. – Termination of negotiations. - New failures. – Mediation of France – Villeneuve. – Victory of Minich near Stavuchany. - Too late! - Capitulation of Austria. – She is forcing Russia to conclude an unfavorable peace. – IV. Avoided break with Sweden. – Russian and French party in Stockholm. – Female influence. - “Caps” and “hats”. – Plans for an alliance between Sweden and Turkey. – Bestuzhev and Saint-Severin. - Murder of Saint Clair. – Stirring up public opinion in Sweden. – A triumph of Russian diplomacy. – V. Her success in Poland. – Formation of the Russian party. – Favorable resolution of the Courland issue for Russia. – New project confederation, encouraged by Prussia. – Death of Charles VI. – Danger of new complications. – La Shetardie in St. Petersburg. – VI. General overview – Policy to strengthen internal and external. - Annexation of Little Russia. – Peace achieved on the banks of the Urals. - Relations with China. – National desire for distribution and policy of the Germans.

Anna found foreign policy under favorable conditions, with the exception of Persia. The Austrian court regretted Peter II, but expressed its agreement to support the newly concluded alliance. The King of Prussia expressed great joy at the news of the restoration of autocracy, drained a huge goblet of wine for the health of the Empress and said: “Now Poland does not bother me in Courland affairs.” Even at Versailles they expressed hope that the new empress would be more “impartial” than her predecessor.

Things were taking a bad turn in Persia. Tahmasib, the legitimate Shah, prevailed over Eshref, the usurper with whom Russia entered into a treaty, and was then defeated by the Turks at Erivan. Double failure! Russia's main task was to block Turkey's access to the Caspian Sea. I had to enter into an agreement with Tahmasib, promising to return the conquests of Peter the Great to Persia. But in 1732, having in turn concluded peace with Turkey, Tahmasib was overthrown by Kuli Khan. The Crimean Khan Kaplan-Girey, as a vassal of the Porte, then went on the offensive and, having captured Kabarda, encroached on Russian possessions. Thus, a threat arose, a conflict arose, which would be difficult to fight in view of the obligations assumed in European politics. From minute to minute, Austria could demand against new enemies, except the Turks, the help of the promised thirty-thousandth corps, and would have to pay a ransom for new greatness, which the country’s forces did not yet correspond to.

In April 1730 there was already the first alarm. Refusing to meet the demands made by Spain and its allies, according to the Treaty of Seville, the Viennese court turned to the St. Petersburg court. “Of course we will fulfill our obligations,” Yaguzhinsky answered Count Vratislav; but before he had time to leave, he burst out laughing: “Do they really think we are fools?” This was the policy of the Russian party: “You should sit quietly at home and mock everyone in the world.” But Osterman had a different policy, and soon all of Europe was talking about thirty thousand new “barbarians” expected on the banks of the Rhine. And in Vienna they did not fail to use such a scarecrow. In June, Magnan was entrusted with the task of making serious representations to the vice-chancellor. If the news is confirmed, France cannot “conceal its displeasure.” Osterman listened silently to the French diplomat; but the latter noticed that his face “changed, like a man greatly agitated and overcome by a feeling of either inner anger or too deep shock. It was obviously anger. And this was confirmed by Magnan’s response to his speech: “I doubt that you received such orders, or thought about them enough before executing them.” Soon after, Weibach, accredited by Russia to the Polish Diet, announced the decision of his government to request a pass for an army of thirty thousand, while Biron received from Vienna the title of Count of the German Empire, a portrait and two hundred thousand thalers, with which he bought the Wartenberg estate in Silesia.

In France and Iceland they started talking about the corruption of temporary workers. It seems to me that in this case he forced himself to pay for services that he did not provide at all. Without his intervention, Osterman decided - of which his behavior with Magnan is sufficient proof - to fulfill obligations, the violation of which would in some way throw Russia beyond the borders of Europe and would completely ruin the future of its policy. It was not just about the system of interference in the affairs of Western Europe introduced by Peter the Great. The alarm of the Seville allies this time was in vain; the emperor softened due to the recognition of his “pragmatism” by Spain and England, and the Russian army did not have to go on a campaign. But already on the horizon there arose the double problem of succession to the throne in Austria and succession to the throne in Poland, the close solidarity of which connected these issues. France's desire was, of course, to have its own protege in Poland - if possible Leszczynski, as opposed to Austria, where the Prince of Lorraine was to ascend the throne. And here its interests clashed irreconcilably with the interests of Russia.

The diplomatic struggle resumed on this basis in 1732, when Osterman met an enemy, and France an equally unexpected ally. In April, Magnan had a meeting with Biron and was extremely surprised to hear speeches where Biron “seemed to chide him for his excessive timidity, which prevented them from seeing each other more often,” and expressed his desire “to be useful for France in some way.” After the audience, having carried the French ambassador into secluded peace, Minich, in turn, struck him even more powerfully. His words bordered on formal confessions: “Russia’s obligations regarding the emperor extended only in the event of war with the Turks and did not in any way impede the agreement with France.”

At this time, a struggle flared up between Biron and Osterman, and Minich agreed to temporarily take the side of the favorite, which was the reason for such outpourings before the French envoy. But it was difficult to convince France that anything serious could be gained from this. However, Magnan was instructed to continue the intrigue. Meetings between Magnan and Minikh became more frequent. They were scheduled between five and six o'clock in the morning to deceive Osterman's vigilance. In June the general vouched for success. Biron made a report to the empress and received the warmest sympathy from her. The following month, Magnan was sent from Versailles a draft treaty based on the agreement regarding the election of a Roman king. In return, France offered recognition of the imperial title for the reigning empress and “something for the Duke of Holstein.” Minich found this to be too little. To counterbalance the benefits of the Austrian alliance, he demanded nothing more or less than French pressure on Turkey to agree to return Azov in exchange for Derbent, promises of assistance in Poland during the upcoming elections - and subsidies. For this, the thirty-thousandth army promised to Austria, and even the fifty-thousandth, if necessary, is ready for the services of the king, and, in addition, if not “the fleet - you know that ours has rotted,” Minich added with a smile, “then a squadron of twelve or fifteen ships with a flotilla of one hundred galleys."

Only the question of subsidies aroused difficulty in France. Peter I did not demand them. Magnan had to hint to Minich that the initiators of the treaty would not be personally offended by the king’s generosity, and in September the matter almost came to the point of sealing signatures. The issue of “gratitude” that was to be given to the queen and her entourage was already discussed. Minich pretended to be a complete lack of money, demanding nothing for himself. One hundred thousand gold coins are enough for Biron and tapestries for the empress. “We agree” was the answer from Versailles. Thus, Fleury did not show such stinginess and such negligence as he was reproached. French diplomats are rarely prophets in their own country.

The real obstacle to the proposed alliance, apparently foreseen by the cardinal, who treated these negotiations so superficially, was revealed in November, when all that remained was to seal the agreement. Unexpectedly, Minich announced to Magnan that the issue was subject to discussion State Council.

– But in that case I have to deal with Osterman!

- Without a doubt; I'm not the foreign minister.

And at the same time, returning to the already settled dispute, the general again started talking about subsidies.

“After all, it has been decided that Biron will receive one hundred thousand chervonnies.”

- What do you mean by that? We don't take money here.

Fleury realized that his agent was being bullied. Osterman and Austria obviously had the upper hand. Indeed, at this very time Biron, feeling defeated, assured Mardefeld of his intention to “firmly adhere to the previous system.” He was offered huge sums to refuse her; but he did not need money at all, preferring a good horse to any treasures. Only Magnan was still in error for some time, poorly informed about the negotiations taking place simultaneously between St. Petersburg, Austria and Prussia. Already in September 1730, the latter accepted an obligation in a new treaty not to allow either Leszczynski or any of the Saxon princes as heir to the Polish crown.

But Austria was not satisfied with this. If France really decides to see off Leszczynski, then, in Vienna’s opinion, his only serious competitor could be the Prince of Saxony. And from December of the same year, Russia gradually began to lean towards the same point of view. But in Berlin, Friedrich Wilhelm remained adamant. In vain they offered him Elbing. “My faithful Ilgen told me,” he repeated, “that even if Poland cedes Warmia and Pomerania, Danzig and Marienwerder to me, this will not compensate for the accession of the Saxon dynasty in Warsaw. Poland must remain a republic." In 1732, Karl Levenvold was sent to him from St. Petersburg, who made every effort to “unite the three black eagles,” which he actually achieved in December, proposing a draft reconciliation agreement, according to which Leshchinsky and the Prince of Saxony were excluded, and the candidate was recognized Don Emmanuel of Portugal; Friedrich Wilhelm secured the promise of Courland for his son, and Biron a gift of two hundred thousand thalers. In Berlin they believed that the matter was in the bag, but St. Petersburg and Vienna refused to ratify the signatures made, and the King of Prussia “sat between two stools,” in his own words. He was indignant, rushing around with broad plans to occupy Poland and play the role of Charles XII there, annexing Polish Prussia, entering into an agreement with France, thanks to the cession of the counties of Jülich and Berg. But for the rest of his life he had to confine himself to a restless and grumpy neutrality, to be constantly on the alert, constantly expecting to get something from someone, flirting with la Chetardie, offering Stanislav hospitality in Konigsberg after Danzig and achieving only the loss of all sympathy for himself. The Saxon court also lost no time. Augustus II was an inventive man. In June 1731, Mardefeld stopped, apparently, on the most unexpected plan, announcing the arrival in Moscow of the maiden Oginskaya, the daughter of a Polish governor. Anna knew her back in Mitau and felt such sympathy for her that, it seems, she even slept in the same bed with her. And then, in a conversation with her favorite, she allegedly admitted that if a second marriage was necessary, she would like to have the King of Poland as her husband. She patronized the Saxons! Did Augustus really think of using these words? Mardefeld was convinced of this. The Oginskaya girl had to assure the empress that this unexpected groom looked no more than forty years old, although in reality he was over sixty. The king was ready to come to Moscow at the first call; Yaguzhinsky approved this plan, and the wife of the Saxon envoy, Lefort, with the help of the Italian singer Ludovika, close to the empress, undertook to carry it out. Friedrich Wilhelm was frightened, and Lieutenant General von Grumbkow, hastily sent to Dresden to find out about the king’s intentions, sent news of little reassurance. Skillfully induced to have a frank conversation after a hearty dinner, Augustus only half renounced the matrimonial attempts attributed to him. “Heh! heh! If only I were ten years younger.” But for Anna Ioannovna the time of love was already marked on the clock, the hands of which were watched by Biron. He always arranged to be the third to be present when the girl Oginskaya had conversations with her friend, and the plan failed.

Saxon diplomacy was more successful in Vienna, achieving there at the last minute the rejection of the Portuguese candidate, which was greatly facilitated by the Portuguese king himself, who proposed to replace Don Emmanuel with his younger brother, Don Antonio. The continuation of Polish anarchy under the control of the Saxon dynasty caused a new turn of affairs, to which Russia hastened to join.

Only Poland, while its fate was being decided, lived, apparently not at all caring about the future. The people, having become rulers, acquire a tendency to have fun. In this way the events of 1733 were prepared: the double election of Stanislaus and Augustus III (September 12 and October 5), the flight of the French candidate to Danzig and strange war, when France, who fought for Leszczynski, won, secured the throne for his rival. All these events are too well known, and therefore I will limit myself here to only pointing out the general meaning of Russian politics, among the dangerous adventures into which it was drawn.

Led by Osterman, despite Biron and contrary to him, this policy was fully consistent with the traditions of Peter I. In July 1733, the ambassador of the Poles - supporters of Leshchinsky, Rudomina, met in St. Petersburg with a hostile embassy of "well-meaning Poles", whose aristocratic names became known only later , when Russian troops spared the estates of the Branicki, Lubomirsky, Radziwill, Sangushko and Sapieha. Rudomina, who brought a letter from the Marquis de Monti, the French envoy in Warsaw, to Magnan, did not find the latter at his post. They decided to recall him. The French consul Villardot had meetings with the Pole in the Franciscan church, but admitted that he had not received any instructions. French diplomacy had its last word; it was time for gunpowder.

In August 1733, Friedrich Levenvold concluded a double convention in Warsaw: with the Saxon ministers regarding the passage of Russian troops and with the governor of Krakow, and Theodore Lubomirski, who was himself a contender for the crown, regarding the election of Frederick Augustus. The Polish kinglet received the promise of the hetman's staff, and in the end was satisfied with a pension of fifteen thousand rubles. Since there were many similar candidates for royal dignity, they were inexpensive. Polish supporters of Leszczynski, having elected him according to the ritual in the fortified fence of Vola, only managed to destroy the fortifications and burn the wooden barn, under the shadow of which the Senate huddled. The twelve thousand strong Russian occupation army under the command of Lesya circumvented this difficulty by proclaiming the election of their candidate in the nearby Kamiensky church. During the prayer service, the cannons, placed as a precaution nearby, thundered with such force that the floor of the church collapsed, dragging those present into the basement. A tragically symbolic fall! Leshchinsky, who hid in Danzig, wrote to his daughter: “If the (French) king does not occupy Saxony, I can only return to my lease.” Osterman and Biron, temporarily reconciled, hurried Minich, rejoicing at the opportunity to get rid of him in St. Petersburg, to quickly take possession of Danzig and his guest. Minich, having lost four thousand people without any benefit during the siege of Hagelberg, since then nicknamed the “cemetery of the Russians,” took the city thanks to ten thousand Saxons arrived in time under the command of Prince Sachs-Weisnfeld, missed the king and, completely in the spirit of Peter the Great, would not have condemned his hecatombs as well human lives, promising Lammoth and his French companions “ships in sufficient numbers to deliver them along with the baggage train to Copenhagen” and violated the terms of surrender by holding captive the surviving members of the valiant phalanx. The officers brought to St. Petersburg in July 1734 were treated with honor, almost insulting. They were forced to attend balls. But ordinary soldiers imprisoned in the Koporye camp experienced all the hardships of the most severe captivity. In August 1734, an official agent, Fonton de L'Estang, arrived from Paris in St. Petersburg to secure the release of prisoners, while a secret agent of the French government, Bernardon, whose identity remains rather mysterious, offered Osterman a draft treaty. Its first point stipulated Russia's recognition of Stanislav in exchange for a guarantee provided by France to all Russian possessions, and assistance of thirty thousand people promised by France and Poland in the event of war with Turkey. At one time, Bernardoni counted on success. Anna expressed some displeasure at the words attributed to the French envoy in Sweden: “This woman has raised her nose too high, she needs to reduce her arrogance. It won’t cost my lord the king more than a hundred chervonets to poison her, because the Russians are capable of killing their own father for a hundred rubles.” And L’Estan had to write to Biron to refute the rumor. But the temporary worker, on the same page as Levenvold, seemed to be in a very favorable mood. And Osterman himself only pointed out the difficulty ahead of him “to present such a rapid change to society.” It seems to me that Fleurat appreciated this apparently benevolent attitude, writing in December to L’Estang that his colleague was simply being “played with,” and he himself, no doubt, had only a diplomatic maneuver in mind. But in the same way they “amused themselves” with L’Estan, and they had so much fun that in January 1735, hoping to achieve at least the freedom of de Monty, who was also captured near Danzig, he wrote to Chauvelin: “I return to you M. de Monti, bring me back to you. Without the prudence of the Count (Biron), I would have become a toy in the hands of the madmen of this court. One of them got himself a dress on Sunday to dress up as a petit meter, imitating me... At another time, I would have been the first to laugh, but not now. Count Biron found out about this and threatened him with sticks if he showed his face.”

Monty stayed in St. Petersburg until peace was concluded, and in the meantime an ingenious means was invented there to regulate the situation of the remaining prisoners. In July 1734, the naval captain, Polyansky, who owned French, was sent to the Comoros camp with instructions to convince Lieutenant Colonel Lopukhin, who was guarding the camp, to reduce his vigilance and facilitate escapes - in order to catch the prisoners who took advantage of this along the way and send them to St. Petersburg, since among them they expected to find a fair number of skilled masters Under such circumstances, even the world was unable to restore proper diplomatic relations between both countries. They resumed only in 1738 when Prince Cantemir was sent to Paris and the Marquis de la Chetardie to St. Petersburg.

The French defenders of Stanislav flashed at Danzig only with their heroism, which was completely wasted; its Polish defenders lacked even courage. Dzikow's Confederates (November 1735) did respond to the call of the fugitive king, who reappeared in Königsberg, but they fought poorly and negotiated even worse. Their envoy in Paris, Ozarovsky, wrote: “They don’t talk to me about anything, and I consider it an honor for myself.” This already reflected the spirit of future Polish emigrants and their manner of dressing in proud modesty. Finally, Chauvelin informed this most extraordinary envoy that the fate of the confederation and its king would be decided in Vienna.

The signing of a general peace treaty was preceded and, in part, facilitated, this time by the actual appearance of “barbarians” on the banks of the Rhine. In September 1735, Lesi led ten thousand of them to these historical battlefields, losing the remaining fifteen thousand along the way. There were many deserters. Those who reached their destination did not have to fire a single shot; but the effect was enormous and very noticeable. The cherished dream of Peter the Great was realized in this military demonstration, when Russian colors developed in the heart of Europe, while in Warsaw Stanislav's happy rival reigned under the shadow of Russian bayonets.

This double event was the source of inspiration for a curious eulogy - a Czech poet named Kraus, who wrote in bad German verse. But there was a price to pay for such triumphs. It was the war with Turkey.

In Russia there is a historical interpretation that traces back only to Peter the Great the offensive policy of this power regarding the Ottoman Porte. Previously, relations between both countries were quite friendly. According to other writers, the mission Russia ascribes to itself—the liberation of Slavic peoples from the Muslim yoke—is nothing more than a random fiction, depending on completely new circumstances. This view, which has met with heated objections, seems to be indeed contradicted by the facts. In any case, whether one agrees with the majority of Russian historians, including Solovyov, who see Eastern question only an episode of the great struggle of Europe with Asia - or with Slavophile writers, who see in this only a clash of the Romano-Germanic element with the Greco-Slavic element, and with such an interpretation, reducing the role of Turkey to the protection of the Balkan nationalities from the first of these warring influences, up to era of Russian intervention, one way or another, the antagonism between the eagle and the crescent dates back many centuries in the past. The natural development of Russia on a vast plain bordered by the White, Baltic, Black and Caspian seas, mountain ranges The Urals, the Caucasus and the Carpathians, rivers flowing into the seas in two different directions, were from the very beginning predetermined by the famous route of the Varangians “from Scandinavia to the Greek countries.” First, Asia sent out the Tatars. Having shaken off their yoke and barely begun its striving forward, Russia encountered the Turks on the way, firmly established on the Balkan Peninsula. And already the capture of Constantinople separated Rus' from its spiritual capital, the sacred metropolis, where since the tenth century its pilgrims flocked in droves to enjoy the sight of the splendor of the temples, the first source of their civilization. Under the influence of such circumstances, the idea of ​​Moscow gradually arose as the spiritual successor of ancient Byzantium and the “third Rome.” In this sense, some sayings of Leo the Wise and the Patriarchs Methodius and Gennady, as well as the inscription on the tomb of Constantine, were interpreted. The marriage of John III to Sophia Palaeologus (1742) helped to strengthen such feelings and ideas that stemmed from here. Peter I received only a ready-made legacy. Before him, just the question of Little Russia led to a bloody clash with the Porte. During the reign of Feodor Alekseevich (1676–1682), this war dragged on, ensuring Russia’s possession of eastern Ukraine. Having first followed in the footsteps of Prince Golitsyn and renewed unsuccessful trip This commander to the Crimea, Peter was then distracted by the Northern War, and the Porte, going on the offensive, inflicted defeat on Russia at the Prut (July 1711). This ill-fated war, however, contributed to the first rapprochement between Russia and the peoples oppressed by the victors. Great king died dreaming of retribution and preparing the Austrian alliance, necessary, in his opinion, for the success of the action - an alliance carried out by his heirs in 1726, lasting until the accession of Peter III, and called the “system of Peter the Great.”

The tsar, defeated in 1711, tried to approach the solution of the problem from the other side: through Georgia and Armenia. According to him, it was “the same path.” Under his immediate successors, peace-loving inclinations prevailed. Osterman found that Russia was unable to adhere to its traditional program. But the events of 1733–1735 prompted Turkey itself to resume hostile actions. Constantinople could not be indifferent to the strengthening of the Russian protectorate on the banks of the Vistula. And the French envoy, the Marquis de Villeneuve, who made every effort to arouse suspicion and inflame natural hatred, met an indirect ally in the person of the Russian envoy Neplyuev. The latter was a student of Peter I, more ardent than his teacher and more optimistic than Osterman. He saw the weakening of Turkey, thanks to defeats in Persia, revealed the plans of Villeneuve, who was trying to cause an internal revolution in Russia, and repeated tirelessly: “War is on the threshold, do not expect an attack, warn him!” At the beginning of 1735, he fell ill, but he had an assistant, Veshnyakov, who exactly echoed him. In vain Osterman persisted: “It’s too early; don't insist"! During the year, Villeneuve managed to achieve the fall of the peace-loving vizier Ali Pasha, and, fearing the speeches of his successor Ishmael, for whose intention Veshnyakov vouched, in St. Petersburg they decided to “prevent the attack.”

This decision was greatly facilitated by the desire to remove Minich, who returned from Danzig “crowned with laurels and thorns” and became even more intolerable from this.

Osterman still did not agree to openly declare war. The army of eighty thousand was initially sent on a campaign only against the Tatars, who had seized Russian possessions in Kabarda and other places. Veshnyakov was satisfied with this. “At the first defeat of its Crimean tributaries, the Porte,” he assured, “will ask for peace.” But the success he expected did not follow. The Russian army melted away on the way. Minich's officers brought no more than forty thousand to the fortifications of Perekop, who retreated for the same reasons as Golitsyn's troops: lack of provisions, rare weather changes and quarrels among the generals. Lesi, referring to his rank of field marshal, and the Prince of Hesse of Homburg - to his title of highness - refused to obey the commander-in-chief. Thirty thousand people were incapacitated by hunger and heat! And, instead of crying for peace, the Porte gathered troops.

In March 1736, Minikh made an attempt to take Azov, but demanded 53,263 workers for siege work. Prince Shakhovskoy, the governor of Little Russia, whose responsibility it was to satisfy this request, made it clear in St. Petersburg that it was inappropriate. In May 1736, the winner of Danzig finally captured the fortifications of Perekop, where the Tatars offered very little resistance, reached Bakhchisarai and burned the city along with the Khan's palace and the Jesuit monastery, which contained an excellent library. This German had the blood of a vandal flowing in his veins. In Kyiv in 1732, having begun to strengthen the ancient city, he ordered to blow up part of the famous “Golden Gate”, erected by Grand Duke Yaroslav at the beginning of the 11th century. And following this success, the army still had to retreat, despite the simultaneous capture of Azov and Kinburn through the efforts of Lesya and Leontyev. Minich accused Lesy that he did not send him provisions and was in no hurry to catch up with him with his twenty-thousand-strong corps; Lesy argued that the commander-in-chief retreated too early.

Complete despondency reigned in St. Petersburg. Austria responded to requests for help with nothing but promises, and Anna imagined with horror what would happen to her troops when, in addition to the Tatars, they would have to deal with the Turks. “Help me,” she wrote to Osterman, “and I will shower you and your family with good deeds.” Cursing Minikh, Veshnyakov and his own weakness, which allowed for a dangerous enterprise, the vice-chancellor hoped to have time to avoid war with the Ottoman Empire. There was no official breakup yet; Veshnyakov remained in Constantinople, and, despite the efforts of Villeneuve, supported by Bonneville, the Porte was inclined to peace. The Russian envoy frightened her with his boasting. He assured at this very time that, while walking around Pera, he noticed how all the people made way for him with extraordinary respect. And he repeated his military cry: “Forward. You will reach Constantinople without a fight!” He behaved in such a threatening and defiant manner that in October 1736 the Turks, like people throwing themselves into water to avoid the rain, decided to send him away.

Now an inevitable war threatened, and meanwhile completely disappointing news came to St. Petersburg from Persia. Kuli Khan expressed his readiness to fight Turkey, but “had no intention of making a trip to the Crimea,” he added. Austria also had more and more reasons to postpone sending auxiliary troops. Anna's envoy in Vienna, Lanchinsky, succeeded in the greatest work to obtain permission to bring back at least a ten-thousand-strong detachment, currently completely redundant on the Rhine and stationed in Bohemia. They unceremoniously objected to him that Austria itself might need him against the Turks!

In such a critical state of affairs, the campaign of 1737 began, when Minich’s courage, perseverance and lucky star finally triumphed. At Ochakov, as before at Hagelberg, without supplies, without siege artillery, without a campaign plan, without even an explanation of why he had gathered his entire seventy-thousand-strong army here, which risked starving to death, he ordered the fortress to be taken by storm, sent the leading columns to the slaughter, threw his sword in the midst of battle and exclaimed: “Everything is lost!” But at that very moment, a fire that broke out in the city and the explosion of two powder magazines forced the Turks to surrender (July 2, 1727). Thanks to the lucky star of the German condottiere and Russia, at the same time the Austrians, deciding to fulfill this promise, diverted the best forces of the Porte and its generals to themselves. Thus, the “system of Peter the Great” and his imperious behest triumphed: “Don’t spare either people or money in achieving the intended goal; count limitlessly on the wealth of the country, on the obedience and dedication of its sons.” Minikh did not even bother to study the fortress; he did not know about the existence of a deep ditch filled with thousands of soldiers’ bodies. They served as a bridge for the others.

Victory was late. Already in March, Russia and Austria, by mutual agreement, decided to make peace and sent deputies to Nemirov. The Turkish envoys were able to take excellent advantage of the sacrifices, at the cost of which they achieved victory at Ochakov. Minich took the city, but lost his army. In addition, in Bosnia, affairs of the Austrians took a very bad turn. Osterman sent his commissioners an order to seek separate peace terms, “because the ally was defeated.” But quite rightly, and quite rightly, the Turks did not agree to separate those who were bound by the war when concluding peace, and in October 1737 the negotiations were stopped. A month later, in Vienna, as in St. Petersburg, they decided to resort to the last resort - the intervention of France.

The 1738 campaign was unsuccessful even for the Russians. Unable to cross the Dniester, Minich consoled Anna, assuring her that the plague would continue to rage. But he had to admit that, retreating, he had to abandon all the heavy artillery, and the same plague served as a pretext for the evacuation of Ochakov, which he had acquired so dearly. The Austrian captain Paradis, seconded to the person of the commander-in-chief to monitor his actions, attributed his failures to the overloaded convoys with which the army was burdened. Simple guard sergeants pulled up to sixteen carts behind them. The favorite's brother was followed by up to three hundred horses or oxen, seven donkeys, and three camels! The troops were able to set off no sooner than two, three, and sometimes four hours after sunrise, and the rearguard reached the camp only at dawn. Encouraged and supported by the blows of the Russian whip and the German spitzrutens, the dedication and obedience of the soldiers did not prevent desertion. For Russian people, heroism to this day goes hand in hand with a highly developed common sense. People died resignedly when necessary, but they also fled at the first opportunity. Old warriors and young recruits deserted at once. The Austrians, in turn, after a brilliant start, surrendered Orsov to the Turks, who threatened even Belgrade.

In May 1738, Osterman wrote to Villeneuve that the empress, together with the emperor, authorized him to conclude a preliminary agreement, while refusing to recognize the mediation of the sea powers accepted by Austria. At the same time, exchanging letters with Fleury - sweet and sour on the cardinal's part - the vice-chancellor agreed to recognize France's right as the offended party, sending, first, an envoy to Paris. Fleury advised him to elect Villeneuve as the only parliamentarian - without saying that in the negotiations already begun to save Belgrade, the emperor did the same, removing the participation of England and Holland, who protested against such an insult. France became the sole manager of the negotiations. But Porta turned out to be very intractable. In vain they offered her a concession from Ochakov and Kinburn. Returning to the ancient political theory: “desert-stronghold”, it also demanded the destruction of Azov. Behind Villeneuve's back, she tried to come to terms with Russia through the prince of Moldova, Gika, but she put forward even more significant demands.

In 1739 in St. Petersburg they decided to act on a breakthrough. Since Austria, in turn, urgently demanded help, the question was raised about allowing the requested military detachment to pass through Poland. Thus, the idea was born to use the same path, much more profitable, for the whole army, and this marked the beginning of a new order of things, which turned the territory of the Republics into an arena for the struggle of its neighbors. In July 1739, Minich took advantage of it to cross the Dniester without interference, enter Moldavia and threaten Khotin. Seraksir Veli Pasha blocked his way near Stavuchany with thirty thousand people entrenched in a favorable position, and the position of the Russian army seemed hopeless again. Had she remained in place, she would have been threatened with famine in the future, and for an assault her formation in a square with a convoy, supplies and artillery commissar in the center was apparently unsuitable. Minich nevertheless carried out an attack (August 17, 1739). This was the first clash between Russians and Turks in an open field, and it revealed a relationship between forces that Peter the Great had not suspected. It took the participation of a German to open the eyes of his successors! Deceived by a false maneuver on the left flank, the Turks opened their right flank and fled at the first onslaught. Two days later Khotin surrendered. The victorious army crossed the Prut on September 12 in Iasi, where Sobieski was ahead of it, and celebrated the annexation of Moldova to Russia. But on the same day Minin received news of the conclusion of peace between the Porte and Austria. On July 10, the Austrian general Wallis was completely defeated at the Danube, having lost twenty thousand people, and Neiperg, who took his place with the broadest powers to begin negotiations, hastened to exercise his right, ceding imperial Wallachia with Orsova and Serbia with Belgrade. It’s not me, it’s Neiperg, Charles VI wrote to Anna, asking her not to violate the previous alliance and expressing the hope that after Khotin she would be able to conclude a peace different from the one he concluded.

Neuperg and Wallis were put on trial, and the former, in Vienna, was accused of exceeding his powers. Minich insisted on continuing the campaign, but Osterman considered Russia's cause lost. The exhaustion of the country has reached extreme limits. The Vice-Chancellor fought for some time to preserve Azov. Announcing that he placed all his hopes only in Villeneuve, he in turn tried to enter into secret negotiations through “the means of the Italian adventurer Canioni, then he submitted. Azov was subject to destruction, and Anna did not even achieve recognition of the imperial title. Russia lost a hundred thousand people and a lot of money completely uselessly. Minich called Villeneuve a “traitor”; but the more cautious Veshnyakov said: “This is a kind man, not too high of mind, but sensible; we cannot demand that the French envoy be more disposed towards us and more sincere with us than with the Turks; this would not be in the interests of his homeland.

The Russian historian who most thoroughly studied this era, M. Kochubinsky, does not hesitate to place all the blame and all the heavy responsibility on Neplyuev and Veshnyakov, who created the war, the consequences of which were foreseen by Osterman, “more Russian in spirit,” in his opinion, and undoubtedly more prudent. His rival, the German Minich, at least did not disgrace Russian weapons and covered them with glory on the battlefield, the fruits of which were reaped by Catherine II in the near future. Thus, two foreign associates of Peter the Great in every sense eclipsed his domestic disciples.

Anna and her ministers could only congratulate themselves on their deliverance from the new danger that this ill-fated war threatened them with. In August 1735, Bestuzhev, their representative in Stockholm, managed, despite the efforts of the French ambassador Castage, to “conclude a defensive alliance with Sweden. Casteja was recalled, but left a fairly strong party, mainly in the ranks of the youth,” “intoxicated with French wine,” as Horn, a representative of the Russian party, put it, “and also among the ladies. Countess Lieven, Countess de la Gardie and Baroness Buddenbrook were distinguished by the passion of their French sympathies, while in the opposite camp almost only Countess Bond carried away her admirers. At the table, supporters of France and supporters of Russia expressed their sympathies with toasts in the form of riddles:

“Was wir lieben” meant war with Russia, and “Ich denke mir’s” meant peace and friendly relations with this power. There were no quarrels and duels. The young men presented the ladies with scarves that served as hats, snuff boxes and pincushions of the same shape, personifying courageous courage, after the Countess de la Gardie declared an alliance with Russia to the champion: “You and your friends are nightcaps”! At the end of 1736, the “party of hats” became worried about the proposals of Turkey, which promised extensive subsidies and promised that the war would not stop until Sweden received back all its possessions. Count Horn, generously awarded by Bestuzhev, managed to avert the storm. But in 1738 the Sejm opened under circumstances unfavorable for Russia. The candidate of this power for the presidency of the Diet, Palmfeld, received only one hundred and forty heads, and the candidate of France, Tessen, passed with an overwhelming majority. In a secret commission of fifty members, Bestuzhev could only count on the loyalty of five or six people. The new French envoy, the Comte de Saint-Severin, clearly had the upper hand. In June, the vizier and Bonneval approached with new proposals for an alliance, and Bestuzhev advised Osterman to intercept Major Saint-Clair, authorized by the commission of which he was a member, to deliver a response - favorable, according to the suspicions of the Russian ambassador. He assured that the Swedish king and his ministers would react favorably to such a bold step.

In reality, Saint-Clair was carrying only duplicates of dispatches sent via Marseilles and containing only congratulations, but with instructions to Swedish agents to persuade the Porte to continue the war.

In October, Saint-Severin offered a subsidy of three hundred thousand crowns annually, on the sole condition that for ten years Sweden would not enter into an alliance with any other power without the consent of France. This was almost a victory for Russia, and a murmur of displeasure was heard in the French party, burning with militant fervor, and the Russian party reproached England for not reflecting the generosity of the Versailles cabinet. In St. Petersburg they were not satisfied with such half-success, and Cantemir was entrusted with the task of convincing France to abandon the encouragement of Swedish intrigues in Constantinople, making an official declaration in this sense. “So you want Villeneuve to be imprisoned in the Seven Tower Castle!” objected Fleury: “We do not interfere in the affairs of Sweden in Constantinople, but you will have to be satisfied with our words in this regard.” “Kantemir did not insist; but in St. Petersburg it became known that France was sending a squadron to the Baltic Sea, and Bestuzhev! – noted the alarming weapons of Sweden. These circumstances decided the fate of the unfortunate Saint-Clair, who was returning from Constantinople through Poland and Saxony at that time.

The reasons that caused this famous crime of the 18th century still remain unclear. The Swedish ministers, warned by Bestuzhev, knew well that the officer would be arrested, but they did not foresee that death awaited him. The news of the murder, which spread in Stockholm in July 1739, caused general indignation there, and Chancellor Gyllenborg, although at that time belonging to the party of peace and alliance with Russia, found that the matter was handled very awkwardly. The murderers, Captain Kuttler and Major Levitsky, had a formal assignment from Minich, a passport from the Emperor's resident in Warsaw, Küner, and an arrest order issued from the Oberamt of Upper and Lower Silesia. Minister Augustus III in Dresden Brühl and the Russian envoy in Paris Keyserling had negotiations on this matter, with the latter assuring the former that the empress would be grateful for the assistance of the enterprise. Of course, everyone later abdicated responsibility for the incident. Osterman pretended to be terribly amazed and full of sincere indignation, calling the act inhumane and demanding that the killers be put on the wheel. Brühl pretended to be completely unaware of anything and assured of the complete innocence of Keyserling, “who had such an aversion to such atrocities that he was now sick from grief.” In fact, neither in the correspondence of both diplomats, nor in other similar documents, at least those known to us, are there any indications of the alleged murder. It was decided only to arrest Saint-Clair and take away his papers, and since, apparently, there was no resistance on his part, the murder is incomprehensible. On the other hand, Kuttler and Levitsky cannot be allowed to act independently, especially since upon returning to St. Petersburg, at least the latter (we do not know the fate of the former) not only was not on the wheel, but lived peacefully, receiving a good pension. In St. Petersburg and Dresden they decided to place all the blame on Minich; in any case, we must not forget that original plan was of Russian origin, coming from Bestuzhev.

The latter had to repent about this in Stockholm. Guard officers threatened him with bloody retribution. He burned his archive of bribery records, surrounded his house with guards, addressed the Swedish government with an official declaration in the spirit of the assurances expressed by Osterman, and still was forced to send a notice that without a decisive victory on the part of Munnich, war was inevitable. The Battle of Stavucani and the treaties of Belgrade and Constantinople calmed his anxiety. The war party accused France of treason, and Russian diplomacy could rightfully celebrate a new victory, cheaply buying unappreciated neutrality.

This text is an introductory fragment. From the book Betrayed Russia. Our “allies” from Boris Godunov to Nicholas II author Starikov Nikolay Viktorovich

Chapter 8. From Peter the Great to Peter the Ridiculous The ship of state is the only one that leaks at the very top. James Reston Peter I died on January 28, 1725. The reasons for his death are not fully understood. Historians write about extremely painful urination,

From the book History of Russia. XVII-XVIII centuries. 7th grade author Kiselev Alexander Fedotovich

Chapter 3 THE ERA OF PETER THE GREAT

From the book Russian History. 800 rare illustrations author

author Platonov Sergey Fedorovich

PART THREE Views of science and Russian society on Peter the Great. – The situation of Moscow politics and life at the end of the 17th century. – The time of Peter the Great. – Time from the death of Peter the Great to the accession to the throne of Elizabeth. – The time of Elizaveta Petrovna. – Peter III and the coup of 1762

From book Full course lectures on Russian history author Platonov Sergey Fedorovich

Peter's foreign policy since 1700 Since 1700, Peter began the Swedish War (the main issue of his foreign policy). Since 1700, Peter has been a fully mature reformer ruler. A chronological overview of his life, aimed at tracing the development of the personality and views of Peter and

From the book Under Monomakh's Cap author Platonov Sergey Fedorovich

Chapter two Journalistic and philosophical assessments of Peter the Great in the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century. Contemporaries of Peter. – The Age of Catherine II. - Karamzin. – Slavophiles and Westerners People of all generations, until the very end of the 19th century, in their assessments of the personality and activities of Peter

From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. author Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich

Foreign policy of Peter I. Peter I inherited two very complex problems from the 17th century: Turkish and Swedish. Permission to both meant access to the sea, in the first case - to the Black Sea, in the second - to the Baltic. The first years of Peter's reign were devoted entirely to

From the book History of Russia author Ivanushkina V V

12. Grand Embassy. Foreign policy during the reign of Peter I The Great Embassy was formed by Peter I in 1697. The embassy was headed by Admiral F. Ya. Leforta. The official purpose of the embassy was to confirm the alliance directed against Turkey and Crimea. Tsar and embassy

From the book Russian Ukraines. Conquests Great Empire author Chernikov Ivan Ivanovich

Chapter 1. Reforms of Peter the Great During the time of Peter I (1689–1725), a new type of sovereign came to the fore - easy-going, working tirelessly. The king demanded from his officials speed of thought and action and service without fatigue. Peter's reforms broke Lifestyle,

From the book Russian History. 800 rare illustrations [no illustrations] author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

FOREIGN POLICY AND REFORM OF PETER THE GREAT Foreign policy. To what extent Peter's reform was thought out in advance, planned and to what extent it was carried out according to the intended plan - these are the questions that greet us on the threshold of the history of Peter the Great. There is a tendency or habit to think

From the book Satirical History from Rurik to the Revolution author Orsher Joseph Lvovich

Successors of Peter Before Catherine II, successors of Peter were partly similar to newspaper editors under the tsarist regime. One editor signed and another edited. After Peter, Catherine the First was proclaimed empress. Menshikov reigned. After Catherine

From book Short story intelligence services author Zayakin Boris Nikolaevich

Chapter 25. Scouts of Peter the Great At the beginning of the 18th century, the Russian throne was occupied by one of the outstanding rulers of our country - Peter the Great. Based on the achievements of socio-economic development of Russia to XVIII century Peter began large-scale reforms.

From book National history. Crib author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna

23 GREAT EMBASSY. FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE REIGN OF PETER I From the moment of his establishment on the Russian throne, Peter I had to lead fighting with Crimea. The purpose of the fighting was to consolidate Russian positions in the Azov and Black Seas. First attempts

author Bezobrazov Cassian

From the book Russian History author Platonov Sergey Fedorovich

Peter's foreign policy It was said above that Peter's travels abroad showed the impossibility of a coalition against the Turks and the need for a coalition against the Swedes. Before the trip, he was very preoccupied with the thought of expelling the Turks from Europe (this dream could have been nurtured in

From the book Christ and the First Christian Generation author Cassian Bishop

Disciples and the External Environment From the very beginning of Christ's public ministry, synoptic tradition notes the attraction of the masses to the Lord. The first mention refers to Capernaum: “they marveled at His teaching, for His word was with authority” (Luke 4:32). Parallel passage in Mark (1:22)

Peter I died on January 28, 1725. In 1722, in connection with the case of Tsarevich Alexei and the early death of Peter’s sons from his marriage to Catherine, he issued a decree according to which the throne was to be inherited by the person specified in the emperor’s will. Peter did not leave such a will. From this moment on, the throne became the object of a struggle among various court factions, in which the guard played a huge role. The history of Russia from 1725 to 1762 was marked by a number of palace coups. They were carried out with extraordinary ease, since they did not change the nature of autocracy. It was about the transfer of power from one noble group to another. The struggle for power did not change the basis of the organization political life society.

Thus, during the reign of Catherine I (1725-1727) and the first months of the reign of Peter II (1727-1730), Menshikov was actually at the head of government administration. From the end of 1727 to February 1730, power was held by representatives of the noble aristocracy, who headed the Supreme Privy Council, which replaced the Senate (Golitsyn, Dolgorukovs).

The reign of Anna Ioanovna (1730-1740) and Ioan Antonovich (1740-1741), who ruled under the regency of his mother Anna Leopoldovna, was characterized by the dominance of all kinds of foreign adventurers. For example, Anna's reign is called Bironovism, named after Duke Biron, who was the de facto ruler of Russia under her.

When Elizaveta Petrovna came to power as a result of a coup in November 1741, the advantage at court again leaned toward the Russian nobles. Among them, the most prominent role was played by the favorites of the Empress, the Razumovskys and Shuvalovs.

Elizabeth's heir was her nephew, the son of the Duke of Holstein, Peter III Fedorovich (1761-1762). He was the grandson of Peter I and Charles XII. From the first days, Peter III began to pursue policies alien to the Russian nobility. This threatened a new Bironovism. Therefore, in June 1762, the guard carried out another coup and elevated the wife of Peter III, Catherine II, to the throne.

In the conditions of frequent palace coups and changes of persons at the head of government, of course, there could be no talk of continuing the major reforms carried out during the reign of Peter I. Such reforms would be carried out only by Catherine P. The successive governments limited their activities to the decision current issues. The leading place in politics was taken by the implementation of a number of measures aimed at expanding the rights and privileges of the nobility. The chief magistrate is destroyed, and the provincial and city magistrates are subordinate to the governors. The service of the nobles is made easier, they are allowed to start factories.

1. Russia in the second half of the 18th century. The policy of "enlightened absolutism".

THE POLITICS OF “ENLIGHTENED ABSOLUTISM”

The 18th century went down in history as the century of enlightened absolutism. The policy of absolutism in a number of European countries, expressed in the destruction “from above” and the transformation of the most outdated feudal institutions.

The essence of the policy of enlightened absolutism was that, without essentially changing state forms absolute monarchy, within the framework of these forms, to carry out reforms from above in the economic, political, cultural fields, aimed at modernizing outdated phenomena of the feudal order.

The implementation of the policy of enlightened absolutism was to a certain extent a reflection of the ideas of the Enlightenment. Taking advantage of the popularity of their ideas, they portrayed their activities as “a union of philosophers and sovereigns.” But the main motivation was the monarchy’s awareness of the growing weakness of their support - landowners and the strengthening of the position of the third estate in the person of the bourgeoisie.

in Europe, the 18th century became an intermediate century, preparation for the historical processes that unfolded in the subsequent period. The struggle between the bourgeoisie and the landowners was not over; it was completed by the next generation.

The Enlightenment politicized public consciousness and contributed to the growth of revolutionary sentiments in society.

Often, the reforms of an enlightened monarch conveyed the ideas of the Age of Reason to broad sections of society more clearly and quickly than philosophical treatises, awakening people to thought and action. But at the same time, a historical paradox arose: in an effort to strengthen and improve the absolutist order, the enlightened monarch undermined them, because through reforms he confirmed the need to change them. This meant that from the second half of the 18th century, absolutism as such had exhausted its capabilities and began to enter a period of crisis. If until the middle of the 18th century absolutism served the interests of the majority society, then from the middle of the 18th century he no longer satisfied society as a whole. Therefore, Enlightened Absolutism was both an attempt to mitigate this crisis and a manifestation of the crisis itself, and therefore a deepening of it.

On June 28, 1762, Catherine II ascended the Russian throne as a result of a palace coup, ruling for 34 years. She was a well-educated, intelligent, businesslike, energetic, ambitious and hypocritical woman. All her life she was burned by the lust for power, and, having achieved power, she tried to retain it by any means. “Nothing can be more annoying to her,” wrote the representative of the family noble aristocracy, Prince M.M. Shcherbatov, about the empress’s passion for power, “as when, reporting to her on some matters, the laws put in resistance to her will and an immediate response from it flies out: can’t I, regardless of the laws, do this?

Having ascended the throne, Catherine II repeatedly declared herself the successor of Peter I. And she immediately demonstrated that her reign would be autocratic. She was faced with the task of carrying out reform of central government bodies. First of all, she divided the Senate into 6 departments, supposedly to streamline work. But in doing so, she weakened the Senate as a legislative body, making it simply a “repository of laws.” Catherine II did not want to tolerate a body that had the prerogatives of the legislative branch next to her. The Senate became an administrative body, deprived of legislative rights. Thus, already at the beginning of her reign, the empress concentrated in her hands all the legislative and most of the administrative power. She carried it out through the Prosecutor General and her own office.

In 1764, Catherine II secularized church lands, depriving the church of economic power. A million former monastic peasants were transferred to the jurisdiction of the College of Economy, and the income from them replenished the empty state treasury. The hetmanate in Ukraine was abolished.

In the first years of the reign, the rights and privileges of the nobles were strengthened and expanded. They received the right not to serve (Manifesto on the freedom of the nobility 1762, published by Peter III), if this was not desired; monopoly right to own land (General Survey of 1765), serf labor (1762); right to distill (1765). During the reign of Catherine II, serfdom reached its apogee.

Enlightened absolutism. Stacked commission

Like any absolute monarch, Catherine believed that the welfare of the people was ensured by the laws issued by the monarch. Each year of her reign she issued an average of 12 legislative acts per month. The highest period of her legislative activity occurred in the first five years of her reign, when an average of 22 pieces of legislation were issued per month.

However, following Peter I, Catherine II at the same time understood that it was no longer possible to rule openly autocratically, like Peter I. The empress began to pursue her pro-noble, serf-owning policy in the form of enlightened absolutism. This policy was typical for countries with a relatively slow development of capitalist relations, where the nobility retained its political rights and economic privileges. Enlightened absolutism carried out events in which the nobles and the absolutist state itself were interested, but which at the same time contributed to the development of the capitalist structure. An important feature of the policy of enlightened absolutism was the desire, if possible, to ease the severity of social contradictions by issuing laws and improving the political superstructure.

The largest event of enlightened absolutism was the convening in 1767 of the Commission on the drafting of a new code (Laid Commission). After five years of reign, the empress decided to convene elected representatives from various classes to develop a common law that would satisfy the interests of all subjects. The convening of the commission was preceded by the preparation by Catherine II of a manual for deputies, called the “Order of Empress Catherine II”. The order was of a compilative nature, as stated by the empress herself. Indeed, of the 507 articles of the “Order”, 408 were borrowed verbatim from European thinkers Montesquieu and Beccaria , Bielfeld, Justi. At least 45% of the deputies were hereditary or personal nobles, which determined the noble nature of the commission's activities. The work of the Legislative Commission continued intermittently until December 1768, when, under the pretext of the war with Turkey, it actually ceased its activities. The debates of the commission were different extraordinary sharpness. Catherine II saw that the nobles were unshakably guarding their rights and privileges. The struggle with the nobility could end in the loss of the crown. Catherine II could not allow this. The established commission was dissolved.

Many pressing issues, primarily about the position of serfs, discussed in the Legislative Commission, went beyond its walls and became the subject of controversy in society. Catherine, who always strived to achieve “universal obedience” from her subjects, decided after the dissolution of the Statutory Commission to lead public opinion with the help of the satirical magazine “All sorts of things” published by her since 1769 and written by her in the 60-70s. comedies. In them, she sought to prove that the vices and shortcomings in the life of society and the country are in no way connected with the existence of autocracy and serfdom. Their cause, according to the empress, was ordinary human weaknesses and shortcomings.

The outstanding Russian educator N.I. Novikov entered into a merciless polemic with Catherine II. In his satirical magazines "Drone" and "Painter" he sharply criticized the situation of the peasants, the greed of the landowners, and the immorality of serfdom, which corrupted both nobles and peasants. Novikov argued that the presence of vices in the country

associated not only with human weaknesses, but also with the serfdom system. In this polemic, Catherine was defeated and stopped publishing “All sorts of things,” and on the eve of the Peasant War, under the leadership of E.I. Pugachev, censorship and other repressions put an end to the publication of Novikov’s magazines.

Popular movements. Peasant War led by Pugachev (1773-1775)

Increased exploitation and serfdom led to the fact that in the 60-70s. A wave of anti-feudal protests by peasants, Cossacks, and working people swept across Russia. The protests of peasants in Tver, Klin, and Moscow districts acquired particular scope. Military teams with artillery were sent to suppress them. The uprisings in the 1750s and 1760s also became no less widespread. assigned peasants and working people in the factories of the Urals and Karelia, suppressed by military force. In 1768, an uprising of Ukrainian peasants broke out in Ukraine - Koliivshchyna, which was also brutally suppressed. In 1771, amid a terrible plague epidemic, an uprising occurred in Moscow (Plague Riot). In the same 1771, unrest swept the lands of the Yaik Cossacks. The government began to introduce army regulations in the Cossack regiments. Cossack self-government was limited. The Yaik Cossacks were deprived of the privileges of duty-free fishing and salt production. The unrest of the Yaik Cossacks was also brutally suppressed. All these performances were the threshold of the most powerful peasant war in Russia under the leadership of E.I. Pugachev.

Serfs, Cossacks, assigned peasants, working people, Bashkirs, Kalmyks, and peoples of the Volga region took part in this movement. E.I. Pugachev impersonated Emperor Peter III. On July 31, 1774, Pugachev announced a manifesto in which he granted the serfs free will, lands, forest and hay lands, fish and salt lakes, exempted them from conscription and state taxes, and ordered the capture and execution of nobles and “bribery judges.” This manifesto reflected the specific interests of the peasants and all other participants in the movement. Objectively, the peasants, in their demands, advocated the creation of conditions in which peasant farming could develop as the main unit of agricultural production.

The first stage of the war began in September 1773 in the lands of the Yaik Cossacks. After the failure near the Yaitsky town, the rebels moved towards Orenburg. More than 20 fortresses on the way to it surrendered to the rebels and went over to their side. At the beginning of October, Orenburg was besieged. The rebel army numbered from 30 to 50 thousand people (its composition was constantly changing) with 100 guns. During the siege of Orenburg, the Military Collegium was created - the highest body of power, court and leadership in the territory captured by the rebels. The government brought military units led by A.I. Bibikov to Orenburg, which defeated Pugachev in the battle near Tatishchev Fortress in March 1774. Under Ufa On March 24, the troops of Chiki-Zarubin and Salavat Yulaev were defeated. On April 1, 1774, near the city of Samara, Pugachev suffered a new defeat. The losses were huge, the guns went to the enemy. With a detachment of 500 people, Pugachev retreated to the mining areas, where he was joined by assigned peasants, working people of the Ural factories, and Bashkirs.

For April-June 1774, This marks the second stage of the peasant war. After a series of battles in the Middle Urals, the main forces of the rebels moved along the Kama to Kazan.

At the beginning of July 1774, Pugachev with a 20,000-strong army approached Kazan and captured it. The third stage of the peasant war began. The troops of Colonel Mikhelson approached Kazan. In a fierce battle, the rebels suffered a crushing defeat. A significant part of the Bashkirs went to Bashkiria. With a detachment of 500 people, Pugachev crossed to the right bank of the Volga and began a retreat to the south. It was at this time that the war reached its greatest extent and acquired a pronounced anti-serfdom character. The war engulfed the entire Volga region and threatened to spread to the central regions of the country. Selected army units were sent against Pugachev. The spontaneity and locality inherent in peasant wars made it easier to fight the rebels. Under the blows of government troops, Pugachev retreated to the south, trying to break into the Cossack regions of the Don and Yaik. Near Tsaritsyn, on the way to Black Yar, the Pugachevites were defeated. With a small detachment, Pugachev rushed to Yaik, but halfway there he was arrested by homely Cossacks and handed over to the authorities. The most severe bloody massacre with the rebels. E.I. Pugachev was executed on January 10, 1775 on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow.

The most powerful in Russian history peasant war was defeated. The reasons for its defeat were the tsarist character, spontaneity, locality, disorganization, poor weapons, disunity of the movement, since various categories of the oppressed population participated in it, each of which sought to achieve its own goals.

Internal and foreign policy successors of Peter I (1725 - 1762)

After the death of Peter I, Russia plunged into a period of so-called “palace coups”; during this period, the throne of Russia was occupied by six monarchs, and the tenure of most of them did not exceed three years.

Not possessing sufficient courage to, following the example of Peter, single-handedly make decisions related to the conduct of domestic policy, its successors create a number of institutions that help them in this.

So, during the reign of Catherine, the Secret The Supreme Council, whose members had influence on the course of government affairs. Anna Ioannovna established the Cabinet of Ministers, which controlled areas of public life, as well as the Office of Secret Affairs, a body that investigated political crimes.

During this period, the nobility significantly strengthened its position. As a token of gratitude for their support in carrying out palace coups, the rulers idolized noble families, who defended their candidacies with monetary rewards and liberties.

Under Elizaveta Petrovna, favoritism enters the Russian monarchy. The Empress generously rewarded her favorites not only with privileges, but also titles of nobility. Naturally, the strengthening of the nobility as the upper class entailed a tightening of policies regarding serfs.

Landowners were allowed to send their peasants to hard labor and increase taxes at their discretion. The number of people who were enslaved by serfdom increased steadily during this period.

Manufactures practically ceased to exist, since there simply was not enough free labor for their full-fledged activities.

Catherine I (1725-1727)

To support the empress, a new supreme governing body of the country was formed - the Supreme Privy Council, which included seven associates of the late tsar, headed by Menshikov.

The poll tax was reduced, a ban was imposed on the use of army units to collect tax arrears, service was made easier for the nobles, and the issue of reducing spending on the army and navy was discussed. Because of Menshikov's personal ambitions, Russia intervened in the conflict over Courland. Careless policies in the south almost led to war with Turkey.

In the first months of the reign of the boy tsar, Menshikov became virtually the sole regent, moved the tsar to his palace, betrothed his daughter to Peter II, her name began to be mentioned in churches along with the names of royal persons.

Peter II soon announced that he no longer needed assistants and would lead the country himself. He moved from Peter II Menshikov's house to Peterhof and announced his intention to marry Ivan Dolgoruky's sister Catherine. Increasingly, the transformations of Peter I were ridiculed.

Peter II announced the cessation of shipbuilding in the Baltic. Under the new government, headed by Dolgoruky and Osterman, steps were taken to improve the damaged economy: some monopolies, including those on the sale of salt, were abolished. Russia sought to avoid being drawn into military conflicts. Peace contributed to the revival National economy. However, a few days before the wedding, the 14-year-old emperor caught a cold and soon died.

Anna Ioannovna (1730--1740)

The Empress did not have the right to declare war and make peace, to burden her subjects with new taxes, to introduce military ranks above the rank of colonel. The Guard and other army units came under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Privy Council. Without a trial, the ruler did not dare to take away estates and property from the nobles and, of her own free will, provide them with estates and lands inhabited by peasants. Anna Ioannovna was obliged not to elevate nobles to court ranks without the knowledge of the Council. In addition, the leaders wanted to put the country's budget under their control.

Anna Ioannovna destroyed the Supreme Privy Council. Instead, a Cabinet consisting of three people appeared. Was recreated and Secret Chancery. Anna Ioannovna's right hand was her favorite Ernst Johann Biron.

To strengthen her position, Anna Ioannovna held a number of events. The service life of nobles was set at 25 years. The law on single inheritance was repealed, now estates could be divided between sons; estates were finally equalized with estates and were to be called estates - estates. Was created Cadet Corps, from where noble children immediately became officers and did not have to pull the soldier's burden. All this reconciled the nobility with the authorities. The scope of serf labor in the economy expanded.

In the mid-1730s, trying to satisfy the ambitions of Anna Ioannovna, her favorite and her inner circle, Russia got involved in wars with Poland and Turkey,

At the end of November 1741, another palace coup took place, which brought the youngest daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, to power.

Elizaveta Petrovna (1741-1761)

Elizabeth Petrovna began her reign with a slight reduction in the poll tax. At the same time, the serfs were not allowed to swear allegiance to the new empress. The gentlemen took the oath for them. This clearly indicated the domestic political orientation of the new government. Elizabeth announced the liquidation of the Cabinet and the establishment of the Imperial Council, as well as the abolition of the death penalty in Russia. And indeed, during her reign she did not sign a single death warrant.

The Senate again became the Governing (main after the Empress) body of power in the country; it was replenished with Russian nobles. Elizaveta Petrovna restored some of Peter's collegiums and the Chief Magistrate. Elizabeth encouraged the construction of new ships in the Baltic, restored quantitative composition Russian army. The government apparatus was partially reduced, the principle of unity of command was strengthened, and prosecutorial supervision was restored to its previous extent.

Among other noble privileges and benefits, the transfer of state-owned factories (in particular, Ural ones) to the nobles appeared. A monopoly of the nobles on distillation was introduced,

Through the efforts of Elizabeth's associates, internal customs were abolished. The internal apparatus of customs, where corruption flourished, was eliminated.

By the middle of the 18th century. Dozens of new metallurgical plants emerged, and the number of cloth, sail-linen, paper and textile factories grew. The process of forming a national bourgeoisie was underway.

Feudal labor remained the basis of large-scale production. Foreign trade was actively developing. Internal trade moved forward through the efforts of merchants and peasants. The principle of free competition made its way.

Lutheran churches were turned into Orthodox churches, severe repressions against Old Believers began, and bearded men were again subject to taxes. Twice Elizabeth, by her decrees, announced the expulsion from the empire of Jews who did not convert to Christianity.

In 1756, Russia entered the Seven Years' War with Prussia, which strengthened Russia's international authority and raised the military glory of the Russian soldier. During this war, new military talents shined.

Peter III (1761-1762)

During the few months that Peter III was in power, he made many tragic mistakes that led to his death. At the same time, Peter III carried out several important government reforms that advanced Russian civilization.

A decree was prepared to destroy the Secret Chancellery. Thus, the emperor was ready to strike at one of the most terrible medieval search systems in Europe. Another decree of Peter III deprived industrialists of the right to buy serfs for manufactories. A ban was introduced on the oppression of Old Believers. Peter III proclaimed the principle of religious tolerance in Russia. His government prepared a project for the secularization (transferring into the hands of the state) of church lands. This meant that the clergy no longer dared to establish their own rules in their domains. Under Peter III, this emperor created an imperial council.

Peter III set as his goal the promotion of the development of the urban class in the Western spirit. He wanted to attract Western entrepreneurs to Russia and generally build life in the country in a European manner.

In 1762, the Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility was carried out, according to which the nobility was exempted from the compulsory 25-year service.

Peter left Russia a difficult legacy. Endless wars for access to the Baltic and Caspian seas plunged the country into ruin. Hundreds of thousands of men were diverted from the national economy to military service. Financial system could not withstand military expenses, the accelerated development of industry, the construction of St. Petersburg and other things. Tax arrears grew. The soldiers who were left to knock them out grumbled. IN last years The king's life was plagued by crop failures and, as a consequence, famine. In the autumn of 1724, St. Petersburg experienced severe flooding, which cost the country considerable financial losses. The peasantry and townspeople expressed dissatisfaction with the government's policies. The flight of serfs from villages and hamlets, as well as from factories, became widespread.

The nobles demanded that the government tighten the search for fugitives and showed dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs. Obliged to perform lifelong sovereign service, they were separated from their farms for a long time, their estates fell into disarray.

The old nobility (Golitsyns, Sheremetevs, Dolgorukies, etc.), pushed away from the throne, united with the relatives of the first queen, Lopukhina, who was tonsured a nun. The position of this group strengthened because the only legal heir to the throne remained the grandson of Peter I and the son of Tsarevich Alexei - Pyotr Alekseevich.

But perhaps the most difficult legacy of Peter the Great was the creation of a system of absolutism in the country. Peter's companions, both the guard and the nobility, became a huge force. Executors of the royal will, they carried within themselves the power of the absolute power of the king. Over time, this force believed in its omnipotence. Absolutism gave rise to permissiveness among the favorites and the guard.

All this came to light in the very first minutes after the king’s death. His body had not yet cooled down when the first one in the 18th century occurred in the next room. a palace coup, the meaning of which was that the guard, relying on the force of bayonets, made its choice of ruler. The Guard supported the chicks of Petrov's nest (in the words of A.S. Pushkin), primarily Menshikov. Guards regiments surrounded the palace, blocking access to supporters of Pyotr Alekseevich. Representatives of the old nobility hatched a plan to imprison Catherine and her daughters in a monastery and rule the country together with Peter II. But the guards proclaimed Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna, who went down in Russian history under the name of Catherine I, as the ruler of Russia.

So in 1725, the former laundress became a powerful empress Russian Empire. Together with her, the associates of Peter I, led by Catherine’s favorite Menshikov, came to power. By this time, enormous power was concentrated in his hands. He was president of the Military Collegium, governor-general of St. Petersburg, field marshal general, vice admiral, and lieutenant colonel of the Preobrazhensky regiment. The semi-sovereign ruler (as defined by A.S. Pushkin) became a full ruler.

To support the empress, a new supreme governing body of the country was formed - the Supreme Privy Council, which included seven associates of the late tsar, headed by Menshikov. Without the approval of the Council, not a single decree could be adopted; the collegiums were subordinate to it.

Menshikov and other “top leaders,” as they began to be called in ruling circles, had to face difficult problems.

Formally, the transformations of Peter I continued. But the late monarch’s associates increasingly revised his policies. The poll tax was reduced, a ban was imposed on the use of army units to collect tax arrears, service was made easier for the nobles, and the issue of reducing spending on the army and navy was discussed.

In foreign policy, Peter's balanced decisions were replaced by ill-considered actions that harmed Russia. Catherine's government brought the country to the brink of war with Denmark for the sake of the interests of the Duchy of Holstein, where the Empress's daughter Anna Petrovna was married. Because of Menshikov's personal ambitions, Russia intervened in the conflict over Courland. Careless policies in the south almost led to war with Turkey.

In 1727, Catherine I died, naming her successor the only surviving male Romanov, 11-year-old Peter Alekseevich, who ascended the throne under the name Peter II. Until he came of age, he was supposed to be under the control of a collective regent - the Supreme Privy Council.

In the first months of the reign of the Boy Tsar, Menshikov's influence reached its peak. He became virtually the sole regent, moved the tsar to his palace, betrothed his daughter to Peter II, and her name began to be mentioned in churches along with the names of royal persons. Menshikov received the ranks of generalissimo and full admiral. He tried to protect himself from members of the Supreme Privy Council and other influential persons who had become his opponents. P.A. were sent into exile. Tolstoy and the commander of the Semenovsky regiment I. Buturlin, with whose help the fate of the throne was decided on the night of the death of Peter I.

Having lost his sense of danger, Menshikov appointed his, as it seemed to him, faithful ally, Baron A.I., as tutor to Peter II. Osterman. Osterman immediately came into contact with Menshikov’s opponents and began to instill in Peter the idea that Menshikov would usurp his power. Peter II was greatly influenced by his friend, the young prince Ivan Dolgoruky.

By the age of 13-14, Peter II was a tall, handsome man, about whom they said that he had a hard heart, a mediocre mind and a huge lust for power. Peter's true passion was hunting, in which he sometimes disappeared for three to four months at a time. Dolgoruky and Osterman skillfully took advantage of these absences, wanting to remove the tsar from under the influence of Menshikov.

Peter II soon announced that he no longer needed assistants and would lead the country himself. He moved from Menshikov's house to Peterhof and announced his intention to marry Ivan Dolgoruky's sister Catherine. Later, at his insistence, the court moved to Moscow. Next to the tsar appeared his grandmother, nun Elena (the exiled first wife of Peter I, Evdokia Lopukhina). Increasingly, the transformations of Peter I were ridiculed. The Old Moscow nobility rallied more and more closely around the young tsar.

The building that Menshikov had been building for so long fell apart like a house of cards. The fall of His Serene Highness was rapid. He was deprived of ranks and titles, Russian and foreign orders, including for the Poltava victory, and his property was confiscated.

The investigation into the Menshikov case dragged on for several months. The sentence was harsh - exile with his family to Siberia, to the village of Berezovo. On the way, his wife died, then his daughter Maria. Soon he himself died of tuberculosis.

Russia was moving further and further away from the achievements and plans of Peter I. Peter II announced the cessation of shipbuilding in the Baltic: “When need requires the use of ships, I will go to sea, but I do not intend to walk along it like my grandfather.”

Under the new government, headed by Dolgoruky and Osterman, steps were taken to improve the damaged economy: some monopolies, including those on the sale of salt, were abolished. Russia sought to avoid being drawn into military conflicts. Peace contributed to the revival of the national economy.

In 1730, preparations for the Tsar’s wedding were in full swing in Moscow. However, a few days before the wedding, the 14-year-old emperor caught a cold and soon died.

The leaders take power. Since there was no direct heir in the male line, the conversation turned to inheritance through the female line. Peter I's daughters Anna (and, therefore, her son Peter) and Elizabeth were immediately rejected: according to the nobility, their mother, Empress Catherine I, was of vile origin. The Russian noble aristocracy did not forgive Peter I for his choice; now they dictated their will to the country.

The rulers chose the 37-year-old Dowager Duchess of Courland Anna Ioannovna, the daughter of Peter’s co-ruler Ivan Alekseevich who died in 1698, who was completely dependent on the political and material support of Russia. “We need...to improve ourselves,” said Prince Golitsyn. - So take it easy. to give yourself more will.

Golitsyn formulated a program for the political reorganization of Russia, its transition from an autocratic form of government to an oligarchic one. For Russia, this would be a step forward along the path of civilizational development.

The supreme leaders agreed with this program and immediately began to develop the conditions (conditions) for Anna Ioannovna to be invited to the Russian throne.

They demanded that the ruler not enter into marriage and not appoint a successor for herself. This would mean that the hereditary monarchy would cease to exist in Russia. The ruler should not have made decisions on key issues without the consent of the Supreme Privy Council. Autocratic power was thus limited. The Empress did not have the right to declare war and make peace, burden her subjects with new taxes, or promote them to military ranks above the rank of colonel. The Guard and other army units came under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Privy Council. Without a trial, the ruler did not dare to take away estates and property from the nobles and, of her own free will, provide them with estates and lands inhabited by peasants. Anna Ioannovna was obliged not to elevate nobles to court ranks without the knowledge of the Council. In addition, the leaders wanted to put the country's budget under their control. The condition ended with the phrase: “If I don’t fulfill this promise and don’t keep it, then I will be deprived of the Russian crown.”

Anna Ioannovna signed the conditions and began to get ready for Moscow. It seemed that another palace coup had been a success and Russia had embarked on a new path of development, having received in the form of a Constitution regulating relations between the monarch and the country.

However, Russia was not ready for such a turn of events. The project of the supreme leaders excited the entire noble class. The nobles who gathered in Moscow for the wedding of Peter II put forward counter projects for the reorganization of the country. They proposed expanding the composition of the Supreme Privy Council, enhancing the role of the Senate, and giving society the opportunity to elect the country's governing institutions and leading officials, in particular the presidents of the colleges. At the same time, the nobles demanded the abolition of the law on single inheritance and a limitation of service life.

The leaders were confused and tried to maneuver in order to maintain the power they had seized. They tried to find a compromise between standards and noble projects. And at this time, a new formidable force was growing in the political life of Russia. Among the nobility, the autocratic party became increasingly stronger. Its mainspring was the guard regiments, the government bureaucracy, and part of the nobility, which hated presumptuous nobles. In this environment, my project began to be developed government structure Russia: the destruction of the Supreme Privy Council, the elimination of conditions, the restoration of unlimited autocracy, the revival of the power of the Senate as it was under Peter I. For this group of people, Peter’s absolutism was an ideal model for governing the country.

Anna Ioannovna had complete information about all this. When approaching Moscow, she stopped for several days in one of the villages, where a deputation from the Preobrazhensky regiment and cavalry guards vigorously welcomed her and demanded the restoration of autocracy.

Already in Moscow, Anna Ioannovna received a new petition, in which the nobles asked her to accept autocracy and destroy the standards.

Anna Ioannovna demanded to bring the conditioners and tore them up in front of the audience. Thus ended the attempt to limit autocracy in Russia.

From the second quarter XVIII V. (from 1725 - from the death of Peter I) an era began in Russia, called palace coups.

This period was characterized by:

• 1)a fierce struggle between different political forces in the country;
• 2) the guard played a large role in the palace coups. During this period, it was almost the decisive political force in the country;
• 3) development of favoritism.

Reign of Catherine I and Peter II.

Peter died after a long illness on January 28, 1725. After his death, people from his inner circle elevated the wife of Peter the Great to the Russian throne - Catherine I. Had a great influence on the empress HELL. Menshikov, who actually ruled the country. In 1727, Catherine I died, and her successor was the 12-year-old Tsarevich Peter, the son of the deceased Tsarevich Alexei.

The reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740). Bironovschina.

Soon, in 1730, Peter II suddenly died from smallpox. By decision of the Supreme Privy Council, the Duchess of Courland was elevated to the Russian throne Anna Ioannovna. Inviting Anna Ioannovna to the Russian throne, D.M. Golitsyn and V.L. Dolgoruky drew up special conditions, condition, on the basis of which Anna was supposed to rule the country.

According to the conditions:

• 1) Anna was supposed to rule the country together with the Supreme Privy Council;
• 2) not make laws;
• 3) not manage the treasury;
• 4) not to get married;
• 5) not to appoint an heir, etc. But 2 weeks after arriving in Moscow, Anna Ioannovna broke the rules and announced the restoration of autocracy, then abolished the Privy Council. The Duke of Courland E. Biron played a major role in the empress’s entourage. He actually managed the affairs of the state. That is why the reign of Anna Ioannovna is often called the Bironovschina. Bironovism became the personification of the dominance of foreigners in governing the country. This situation caused discontent in the circles of the Russian nobility. Reign of Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761) Anna Ioannovna died in 1740. During the next palace coup, the daughter of Peter I was elevated to the Russian throne (thanks to the help of the guard). Elizaveta Petrovna. During her reign, Russia returned to the policies of Peter I. The role of the Senate was restored, the rights of the nobles were expanded, and the merchants received new privileges. Under Elizabeth, a university was opened in Moscow (1755).

Almost the entire period of Elizabeth Petrovna’s reign was peaceful, the country did not wage wars.

Reign of Peter III.

Elizaveta Petrovna died in 1761. Peter III, the grandson of Peter I, became the new emperor of Russia. Researchers have personality and politics Peter III cause mixed reviews. Peter III issued decrees that continued the line of his predecessors. For example, a Decree was published (1762), which exempted nobles from mandatory state and military service, thus the nobility turned from a servant into a privileged class. The Secret Chancellery was liquidated, etc.

At the same time, the actions of Peter III were unprincipled and chaotic.

He was rude to his family and loved ones, and spent a lot of time on carousing. IN Seven Years' War(1756-1763) the Prussian army suffered defeats and was almost doomed. But in 1761 Peter III became Emperor of Russia, he made peace with Prussia and returned to it the territories conquered by Russia. In 1762, with the help of the guard, another coup was carried out. His wife, Catherine II, was proclaimed empress. Peter III was killed.